Consult in New Delhi, or "Three years from now..."

Below is a copy of the meeting minutes from this week's consultation in New Delhi, in which the Institute of Social Sciences and The Hunger Project hosted a roundtable of practitioners and academics committed to local governance issues and decentralization. See it here, and for more info check out our website at localdemocracy.net

MINUTES FROM THE INDIA CONSULTATION, 9 JANUARY 2013

/lolmyface

India is a geographically and socially diverse country with a federal governance system. India has a tradition of decentralized governance since the implementation of the Panchayati Raj local government system in 1992, though these constitutional provisions often confront persistent structural challenges and limited mobilization of resources that impede effective participation, local planning and action. Against this background and with the support of the UN Democracy Fund, The Hunger Project (THP) organized an expert consultation in New Delhi on January 9 as the next step in cultivating a global community of practice on capacity building for participatory local democracy.

THP greatly appreciates the generous and enthusiastic participation by committed individuals from the UN system, academia and civil society who provided great support, information and recommendations to the project. We greatly appreciate the leadership of Dr. George Mathew (chair) and Dr. Ash Narayan Roy (executive director) and all the staff of the Institute of Social Sciences for organizing and hosting the consultation.

The experts identified numerous challenges, the most significant being the widespread shortage of resources among panchayat institutions and the civil society organizations supporting them. Only about 3-5% of total public funds in India are in the hands of local governments. Chronic shortages of funds and limited access to information about mandates and politics rights restricts their ability to mobilize resources to address local needs, even when there is local political will.

Quote of the Day

A man in a hat sat to my right, discretely.

It was knit and plum-red, and wrapped under his old chin. The room was cold even in the light of the rising sun that shone through the windows. He was at the corner where two of the long tables met, and he didn't speak except for occasional hums and soft grunts of recognition as others made their own points loudly. But when he finally spoke, it was deliberate.

"I look across the table and I see the same faces that I saw twenty years ago. I come to these meetings all this time with the hope of things changing, real change, when the people at the bottom finally get to stand up. And I think now, we are at a time when that is finally about to happen, in part because the people are so frustrated by the terrible things in Delhi that they may be ready for action."

He went on with the rest of the room silent, but his last words stuck with me.

"Three years ago no one was talking about women in meetings, and now that's all anyone will talk about here in India. My hope is that in three years we will remember that: 'Three years ago no one was talking about Participatory Governance, and now that's all anyone will talk about here in India.'"

Reports of communazis 'skipping in the streets' in DC as Obama clinches second term

Woke up this morning after a great election night and realized that my class papers are still due this week. Welp...

There were a lot of developments in the federal elections yesterday. Republican had a bad night. Democrats in the Senate picked up an extra seat between Indiana and Mass., and Angus King added another seat for Independents in Maine. The Senate makeup also became more "liberal" with the election of rising stars in the progressive coalition like Liz Warren and the first openly gay senator Tammy Baldwin, defeating former Governor Tommy Thompson in the most expensive Senate race in state history.

Control of the House, of course, will remain with Republicans, though not without losing several seats. Eight of the 12 undecided seats are projected to go to Democrats as of this afternoon (AZ-9, AZ-1, CA-7, CA-36, CA-52, FL-18, NC-7, UT-4). LA Times is reporting that of the 87 Republican freshmen in that election, just nine have lost their bids for a second term at last count. There is a common perception that the freshman class was stocked with Tea Party-ers, but just 19 of 87 GOP freshmen joined the Tea Party Caucus after the 2010 landslide. Two freshmen Democrats, Reps. Mark Critz of Pennsylvania and Kathy Hochul of western New York, also lost last night.

Economic inequality and development, or "This is where Occupy should have started"

I have spent a lot of time graphing Lorenz curves. It's a requirement of getting my degree. I hated drawing distributions of income/land/wealth and working out the calculations and derivatives by hand, but in retrospect this practice seriously matured my academic understanding of the effects of economic inequality (especially radical inequality) on the overall well-being and economic efficiency of a society. Greater inequality reduces domestic consumption, decreases political participation and representation, increases statutory penalties and abuses of police power, inhibits the accumulation of human capital necessary for advanced production and services, etc etc. All of these things are clearly established correlations, and many of them have substantial data to support causal relationships.

You can maybe imagine then, how strange it is to turn this critical perspective back onto the United States. Instead of starting with "greater inequality reduces well-being and economic performance" and "what can we do about it", domestic political conversations have to begin with a tedious explanation of why treating "economic inequality" is not the same thing as "envy of the rich", "commi-socialism" and "class warfare".

New budget autonomy for DC in the work, or "Lieberman steps it up"

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) introduced legislation to the Senate last night that would grant the District of Columbia new budgetary autonomy. The initiative would severe the District's budget from the Congressional appropriations process, which currently exposes local administration to federal political infighting and often delays the District budgetary development by six to eight months. Lieberman was joined by Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Dan Akaka (D-Hawaii) as cosponsors. Lieberman’s newest move comes as support continues to build in the House, where Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the D.C.-focused Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has been recently spearheading the reform effort. Lieberman will be retiring at the end of his current term, and this latest bill is seen as part of an effort to button-down his legacy as a District-governance advocate.

The Give D.C. Local Budget Control Bill of 2012 would grant DC government the power to set its own fiscal year and develop a budget without interference from the Congress. The legislation does not entirely strip Congress from the equation, however; it will still have a period in which to review the budget and vote on a “statement of disapproval” that would also have to be signed into law by the president. While oversight of the District remains with Congress (as proscribed in the Constitution), this new arrangement would distance Congress from the formative budget process and require members to make and up-or-down vote on the final product.

Read the full story at Roll Call.

What Kind of Country, or "This American Life Presents..."

With the downturn of the global economy in 2007-2008, Americans were quickly faced with fiscal austerity decisions in their local and state governments. With less money on their books, cities like Trenton, NJ and Colorado Springs and, yes, even old homesteads like San Francisco and San Jose were forced to acknowledge  new realities that they could no longer afford the same kinds of services and benefits that were once routine. While cities, counties and states - and eventually even the federal government - grappled with technical tweaks to revenue streams and budgets cuts, residents began to confront expectations about what their governments could and should be doing. By the time we were fighting about healthcare reform in the US, it was apparent that these issues were digging at something deeper - questions like what is government, and what is the public community that we live in? Who belongs in it? What do we want from it? What does it want from us? We all began arguing about political philosophy (though not always well).

In a recent episode "What Kind of Country", Public Radio International's "This American Life" explored what these question mean to us through three stories from the across the US of how reforms have, and sometimes haven't, taken residents where they hoped.

District Government, or "Whaaaaaat?"

Every year the municipal government of the District of Columbia develops a draft budget and annual financial plan with the data that it receives from its agencies and departments, like all other local governments. Officials hold public hearings for review and input, finagle public opinion and internal politics, and eventually agree on a final working budget. The local council would then approve the budget plan, but when it comes to the District, the US Constitution says that the federal legislature gets a fair chance to ruin everything first.

Subjective Well-Being, or "Measuring Happiness and Opportunity as a Benchmark for Policy"

“When we think about policy then I think we need to make some normative choices about what versions of happiness societies care about… I certainly think that the US, which has the pursuit of happiness in the declaration, and has traditionally emphasized opportunities over outcomes, would opt for an Aristotelian definition [of life-fulfillment]. If we went as far as to say that happiness is a benchmark for policy and we have an Aristotelian definition allowing citizens to lead fulfilling lives, then promising happiness in that sense as a policy objective requires providing all citizens with the agency to pursue it.”

In recent years, a number of countries have begun to incorporate measures of subjective well-being – or “happiness” – into their benchmarks for development and national progress. Even in the United States, policymakers and academics are beginning to consider the merits of measuring happiness and its role in public discourse. This is great part because of the work of Carol Graham and her colleagues.

What a US default would mean, and why you really need to care

*I'm going to preface this with a request. If anyone reading this can provide me with a good explanation of the GOP perspective, I will be incredibly grateful.*


The general media has thrown around words like “apocalypse” and “destitution” and “bluff” in the face of federal default, while a minority of the GOP has seriously suggested that it could even be a good thing for the nation – an opportunity to sober up government and reduce unbalanced spending.

That sounds nice, but absolutely absurd. I don’t mean to be partisan most of the time, but with an honest look at our prospects in the wake of 4 failed negotiations this week, there isn't really an alternative. Yes the government spends A LOT of money, and Yes it needs reforms to reach sustainable limits, but the debt ceiling is now too serious a trigger to be used as a bargaining chip in budget negotiations.

BOND RATINGS (OH HOW EXCITING)

If the federal government fails to pay its dues and the US bond rating is reduced from AAA to B-plus, you can bet your ass we’ll have a fiscal crisis on our hands, as well as a tremendous shockwave throughout the entire national economy that would almost certainly cripple any recovery that we’ve managed to eek out so far.

Clearly the GOP/Tea Party Caucus has never taken a course in macroeconomics (which from me is saying something!) You see, it’s not just about a decreased bond rating from Moody’s – most people don’t even know what that means. Those that do increasingly counter that these large rating agencies gave companies like Leman Brothers high marks before their inevitable collapse, and so why should anyone trust their ratings now?

Digestible explanation of international austerity and debt, or "The myth of Austerity"

Okay, so this may not seem to have a lot to do with LOCAL politics - but trust me, it does. (And even if it didn't it's still worth your 5 minutes!)

Mark Blyth is a professor of International Political Economy at Brown University and faculty fellow at its Watson Institute for International Studies. He is writing "Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea," forthcoming from Oxford University Press in 2011.

Just to tie it together a little bit, local governments are ultimately the agents responsible for administering public and social services. When national governments - or in our case, federal or state governments - cut public services and funding for support programs, it is the local governments that are squeezed most. Many times the services they provide are even mandated by local rules or legislation (i.e. the "independent socialist republic of San Francisco"), and so the services just go unfunded or the localities have to raise finances on their own. In both cases, the public takes it our on the the city/county/district first. No fair!

Bad News Bears for State's corrections agency, or "MORE Bad News Bears for the State's corrections agency"

The California State Controller's Office this morning released its most recent audit of the CDCR, and it wasn't a pat on the back. The State's prison system has become one of the nation's most expensive and worst funded, and in recent months several internal investigations have been launched to root out misspending and abuses (both financial and physical, which is doubly sad).

In the midst of the State's Realignment, and in the wake of SCOTUS's scathing review and injunction last month, Sacramento is finally taking a critical look at prison-corrections costs and detention policies in an effort to (a) not get sued again and (b) save some much-needed $moolah$.

The report this morning points to "grossly inadequate procedures... for collecting overpayment of salaries and travel advances made through the agency’s office revolving fund", says State Controller Chiang. The audit also identifies several cases of mis-appropriation and abuse of public funds. No good, CDCR. No good.

Liu's 9th Circuit nomination blocked by GOP (again), withdraws

"Oh, come oooooonnn!"

In the latest round of GOP obstructionism, Republican representatives in the Senate have blocked through fillibuster the nomination of UC Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Liu was first nominated in February of 2010 by President Obama. He is a Rhodes Scholar and Supreme Court clerk, and he has received the highest rating possible from the American Bar Association.

Republicans protested his history with the American Constitutional Society, of which he served as Chairman. The ASC was first formed at the Georgetown Law Center in 2001 as a "liberal" research institute ('think tank'). It has pursued such crazy liberal issues as individual rights and liberties, access to legal resources, and structural inequalities in public institutions, and even publishes the Harvard Law & Policy Review (ew gross!). Liu has also spoken out on legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage and affirmative action, which he seems to support.

Republicans also voiced concern over his age and experience (ummm...). Liu is 39 years old, and would have been among the youngest appointees to the 9th Circuit. However, among the 18 youngest candidates nominated to the federal appellate courts since the Reagan administration, ALL OF THEM have been Republican nominees.

The vote to cut off debate through super majority was held last Thursday, but the final vote fell to 52-43. On Wednesday, Liu asked President Obama to withdraw his nomination in an effort to end the senseless controversy. Liu suggests that the recent fighting over his candidacy may be holding up other nominees from getting proper reviews. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals covers 9 western states and Guam (jurisdiction), and has been short-staffed with judges for several years running due to delayed reviews and protests over nominees. The problem is only getting worse.


Read more from the SF Chronicle on SFGate.

States uncertain of impact from looming federal shutdown

As the U.S. legislators fail to come to an agreement on the FY 2010-2011 federal budget, states begin to wonder what will happen to their own budget negotiations and services.

Legislators were unable to agree on a budget by Wednesday evening after a lengthy meeting between Senators Boehner, Reid and Schumer. Legislation must be proposed 72 hours before a final vote, which that a another continuing resolution to extend temporary funding beyond Friday night would had to come before Thursday.

Most expect that most services will not be interrupted by a short-term government shutdown, but state and local workers employed with federal dollars may have to be furloughed. A short-term shutdown of up to a couple of weeks would expectedly have minimal impacts on state governments without too much harm to their own operations or financial integrity. However, many counties have come to rely on frequent and rapid transfers of resources from the federal government in social services such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps. The increasing use of computerized data and electronic transfers in these programs since 1995 (the last shutdown) make it unclear what would happen, specifically.

Sen. Boehner and Sen. Reid are still optimistic that a deal can be reached before the Friday deadline, but others are less certain. The Democrats have now agreed to as much as $33 billion in cuts to the budget, while the Republicans have stood by their proposal of $61 billion in cuts. After weeks of stonewalling by the GOP, Boehner reportedly conceded to reduce the cuts to as low as $40 billion, but Democrats have complained that the terms of a compromise keep moving further back.

Read more from the NYTimes article States Fear Local Effects if Shutdown Cuts Off Cash.

ADENDUM: Well clearly federal legislators and Pres. Obama were able to come to an agreement before the deadline Friday night, a with a whole hour to spare! What they actually passed was sort of an emergency place-holder bill that allows the specific text of the fiscal bill to to sit for 3 days (as per rules) without shutting the government down. If any of you have finished a term paper the "morning-of", you know how this goes.

Why good evening, Madam! "9 Fellows Walk into a Bar... (Pt. 4)"

Ryan and Elaine love Corgis. Of course corgis are basically chubby foxes with tiny little legs and a forever-happy demeanor, so it’s easy to understand. But I mean they LOVE corgis, as in they send videos to us of baby corgis slipping on hardwood floors, and with their political slant they obviously share a particular fondness of the Governor’s own corgi named Sutter – who has an inexplicable cult following in San Francisco and a regular column in the Chronicle. Odd perhaps, but we really enjoy our up-to-date news on anything.

And so the story continues. On our late night stroll back to the hostel from Spin – which is a burger joint bar with street bikes wired to a computer and projector for the purpose of digital wind-sprint races – several of the Fellows and I suddenly stumbled upon an enormous, fanciful building (like a splice of museum, synagogue and 1780 colonial brick architecture) that we slowed down to inspect out of curiosity. It was incredible, but unexpectedly large buildings often seem incredible after 3 open-bar receptions and a night out with politicos.

As Chance would have it, a woman in a fine coat was taking a corgi out for a late-night walk along this building at the same time, and Ryan and Elaine noticed. “Oh my god a corgiiiiiiiieeeeeeiiieeiee!!” they screamed as we all pounced on the dog. The flurry of shouting and baby talk was actually met with a happy invitation to play with the excited dog. Of course we did, and the pup just ate it up.

“Oh look at you, you’re so cute! And such a little attention whore, aren’t you!” Ryan exclaimed at the corgi rolled around on its back, pretentiously.

“Oh, he is such an attention whore!” the woman laughed. “He does this all the time.”

Meg eventually looked to Elaine, smirking. “Wouldn’t it just be great if this were Sutter?” she said not-quite-quietly and everyone laughed. This was Elaine’s dream, of course. “He is so adorable. So what’s his name?” She asked.

“Sutter.”

“Wait…… like the governor’s dog Sutter?”

“Well, he IS the governor’s dog Sutter.”

@__@

"... ... ... OMG YOU’RE SUTTER!!!!!” Everyone went crazy, and I’m absolutely certain we looked nothing less than crazy to this poor woman standing next to us. It took a few moments for someone to ask the obvious question. “So why are you out this late walking the dog? Like, how do you know Jerry Brown?”

“Oh, I’m his wife.”

We stared at her. And then suddenly, a photo clipping of her face from an article I once read popped into my mind. Yep, it was her.

This was very exciting and all, but when you recognize the First Dog before the First Lady, and the First Lady is also effectively the Governor’s Chief of Staff, and it’s very late at night and you’re trying to get home, there’s not a lot you can do to recover a sense of professionalism. But fortunately, she thought our resulting shock and fumbling of gracious words were hilarious.

"So lemme guess, you're out here this late to avoid the paparazzi that love your dog?" Dani laughed.

"Well, yes. That was the idea."

"And then you ran in to us? Lucky you!"

"Oh, so it would seem...".

The Realignment, or "9 Fellows Walk Into a Bar... (Pt. 3)"

“Yes, you’re right to think this is a bunch of bullshit.”

Such was the political sentiment in Sacramento, a town that only exists because of indecisive planners, cheap land and shady 19^th century business deals.

The rest of our afternoon was filled by meetings with various bureaucrats and politicos including Assemblymembers Ma and Ammiano, Senator Leno and Senator Leland Yee’s Chief of Staff. As is often the case, our time with the staff was the most educational, as they were more familiar with the technical challenges of legislation and the Sacramento political process. Nonetheless, all of the reps were engaging and outspoken about otherwise sensitive political issues. Fiona Ma shared her perspectives on transitioning from San Francisco politics to Sacramento, which mostly boiled down to “omg there are real Republicans here” and that old adversaries from the City are now political allies. It turns out that outside of San Francisco our representatives don’t actually differ that much on wider issues, and indeed agree on 95% of all matters addressed by the state. Relativity. Huge surprise.

Perhaps the most interesting bunch that we met with on our trip to the capitol was a budget consultant group called Lynn Suter & Associates. Their relatively few staff members are experts on a plethora of state issues with no particular partisan alliances and no interest in running for office, and they're mostly from San Francisco. They are California’s technocrats.

League of Cities! or "9 Fellows... (Pt. 2)"

The bus was delayed. BART rail to Walnut Creek was delayed. The ride from Walnut to Creek to Sacramento SHOULD have been delayed, but somehow Marielle, Eliot, Whitney and I made it through any traffic and across the Central Valley in an hour 0_O thanks Rocco!

All of the fellows were booked for one room in a huge 1880’s Victorian home-turned-to-hostel just a few blocks from the Capital building. Way back in the day it was owned by a wealthy family making bank on the industries sprouting up around the Gold Rush, but it was later purchased by a hostel company and moved a few blocks down the road (yeah, that’s right. The whole thing.), perhaps because buying another building and simply keeping it on its foundation would have cost too much. Our check-in lasted about 5 minutes – hardly enough time for a superfast suit-up – and then we were off to the California League of Cities.

The League stands up to state government tyranny!

Defends the Integrity of Redevelopment Agencies!

Protects the way of the public sector lobbying institutions!

And fights for the good of all Cities! (except for Vernon. They actually want to dis-incorporate Vernon.) *(1)

The League today is essentially a government PAC. Ideally it consolidates the interests of over 480 member cities in California, and affects issues that impact those members through the state's legislative process and rule-making bodies. LoCAC also offers consultation and expertise to these institutions on matters affecting local government, as well as to each other. In reality Los Angeles, San Francisco and - oh, let's say El Cerrito - differ on a lot of issues. The 10 largest cities are permanent members of the Board, but each municipality gets one vote in their general Assembly. This makes for some good arguments about state priorities.

Our speaker laid out 3 critical areas of an effective organization in their field:

California CAT

I learned recently that Cap-and-Trade policy in California may not include rules for allocating emissions credits to new energy producers entering the market after initial distribution. As far as I can tell, they will have to buy them from other incumbent sources :/

I’m very curious about what this may do (?). Does this insulate the market from more competition? Would it be better to encourage the development of new companies in energy production, or would that only prop up small entities with too little capacity to adapt to fluctuating market forces and consumption demands?

Ideas are welcome.

New Mayor, New Lt.

San Francisco has a new mayor this week as Gavin Newsom finally accepts his populist promotion to Lieutenant Governor. The 6’3” political progressive (actually considered a “moderate” in the City’s own political culture) heads to Sacramento to catch up with Jerry Brown's administration after delaying his swearing in by a week in order to secure the support of a new Board of Supervisors. The incoming BoS is more conservative than its predecessor, which was for years dominated by a bloc of Progressive supervisors often at odds with Newsom on economic policies. Among other benefits, a more cooperative field of local legislators has allowed the outgoing executive to negotiate the appointment of an interim mayor that will serve through the rest of 2011 until scheduled elections are held this Fall.

There was an array of potential candidates being offered up for the position before this week’s resolution. At the top of the short list were SFPUC General Manager Ed Harrington (that’s right, Uncle Eddy), Sheriff Michael Hennessey, and City Administrator Ed Lee. All of the most serious candidates were touted as effective and generally a-political administrators that would expectedly focus more on operating the hybrid City-County and its financially troubled agencies well, without getting their hands into the cookie jar/bear trap that is the upcoming mayoral race.

Nearly a dozen notable figures have already declared or expressed an interest in the election this fall, including several of the incumbent members of the Board of Supervisors. And this is where the whole thing gets sticky.

You see, in any other sane city, the responsibilities of the executive would normally fall to the Cit Administrator or City manager when the mayor leaves for a new job or otherwise resigns before the end of his/her term (assuming that those responsibilities do not already lie with said administrator – how does your City operate?) In many cities – especially smaller ones – these administrators are responsible for the successful day-to-day operations of the municipality, and the Mayor is instead a figurehead or part of the local legislature. This is called a Council-Manager form or mayoralty, and is the model de facto in places like Los Angeles and Phoenix.

This transfer of authority makes sense, right? The executive leaves and you as Urban Citizen X want someone to keep the lights on and the buses running until a new guy can come in to kick over the political ant hills. Well, as any Bay Area local can tell you, San Francisco is not like other cities. No, instead we have it written into our extensive City Charter that absent an appointment by a majority of the Board of Supervisors – at least six of the eleven (yes, we also have 11 supervisors for 49sq.miles of City/County) – the sitting President of the Board will inherit the mayoralty as “Acting Mayor”. Because legislators are great at public administration.

In this tale, however, the sitting President David Chiu clearly has an interest in being elected Real Mayor in the fall, and so do a few of the other Supervisors. Getting to play Interim Mayor leading into the elections would give Chiu and [“unfair”] advantage in the campaign, and so the Board was inclined to choose a neutral outsider to manage the position while they all fight for it with all-stars like City Attorney Herrera and ex-Mayor Willie Brown.

And so, after a cascade of increasingly bitter fights amongst the Board members over their preferred candidates – which culminated in Supervisor Daley going stark-mad Hulk status during a televised meeting (accusing Chiu of political sabotage) and proclaiming “It’s on like Donkey Kong!”, and several secretive meetings between Mayor Newsom and other Supes – the Board eventually agreed upon City administrator Ed Lee as the preferred interim mayor. Never mind that he was in Hong Kong at the time on vacation, or that he had just been reappointed for another 5 year term as C.A.; he is legitimately a very nice guy, a good administrator, and ultimately my boss at GSA. Go home team #2!

Lee is now the first Chinese American mayor that this city has ever seen, despite its long and colorful history of strong Chinese communities. Newsom joins Brown is Sac to face difficult challenges with our state budget and a failing legislative process (now over $25 billion in the red), though his job stats seem to have lightened dramatically (see comparison). With a new governor, a new mayor and a new boss at GSA, we may see something of a structural shuffle in the coming months, but we’ll just have to see. Fortunately, I’m on contract, so I can watch from a safe distance and enjoy the education :)

Lame Duck experiements with Four Loko

The Lame Duck Congress has transformed into an enormous Energizer bunny. In a period when politicians traditionally accomplish little to nothing at all, representatives in the House, Senate and White House have shown a strange and alien characteristic - the ability to cooperate (enough). Democrats have displayed a greater willingness to compromise (mixed feelings here) in the wake of the November elections in which Republicans took back majority control of the House and made significant gains in the Senate, and a handful of Republicans - many of them retiring or resentful of the Tea Party movement's belligerence - broke ranks and gave Democrats enough votes to pass some pretty significant legislation that had been stalling for months.

Just to emphasize the fact, this generally isn't supposed to happen. For nearly 70 years, the Lame Duck session has been a time when congressmen/women accomplish relatively little, or insert text into other legislation to get earmarks or local victories.

Let's take a look at some of the wins/losses from this LDS you should have heard about:

• Congress passes legislation to aid 9/11 rescuers and cleanup crews with ailments from their work on Ground Zero.

• Congress and the WH agree on compromise legislation that extends Bush-era tax cuts (for poor, middle class and phenomenally wealthy Americans :/ ) for another two years, at which point the cuts will undoubtedly become part of the 2012 campaign season.

• Congress (finally) passes a Defense Spending budget for next year. House Republicans had been blocking the legislation until the WH agreed to permanently extending the Bush-era tax cuts. (refer to previous bullet)

• The DREAM Act fails a vote in the Senate, but President Obama vows to renew the bill next year as part of comprehensive immigration reform.

• The military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy prohibiting gay men and women to serve openly in the armed forces was repealed this week (sort of suddenly) by the Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010. DADT was implemented as a military policy in 1993 as a compromise between President Clinton and a more Congress, but it's intent to protect gay men and women from prejudiced targeting was never fully realized.

• President Obama rallies enough Republican support to ratify the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with the Russian Federation. 13 Republican Senators crossed the isle for a 71-26 vote, and the Russian Duma is now expected to ratify the treaty by the end of the month. New START replaces the previous START that expired early this, and has be become a point of contention under President Bush when he moved forward with missile shield projects in Eastern Europe. It's better now.
  

• The Food Safety Modernization Act passes the House and Senate, and is signed by President Obama. Several amendments are passes weeks later to fix unresolved gaps issues and fill gaps in the regulations.

For the Cherry on top, the EPA is releasing new regulations for energy production and oil refineries :D This shift is a welcome last-ditch effort to wrap up some priority legislation before the new Congress is sworn in next week, at which point it's likely that nothing enjoyable or productive will come out of the legislature for a good long while.

ADDENDUM: I recently learned (thanks to SFGSA-IT) of another odd but reasonable law that was passed during this session. SB.2847, or the Commercial Advertising Loudness Mitigation (that's right, CALM), forbids television ads from playing at a volume noticeably louder than the programs during which they air. You know when you're watching a rerun of Law and Order on TNT, and it skips to a commercial that is suddenly twice as loud as anything you'd previously seen on that channel? Well, they can't do that anymore.

Bluegrass Love, TARP and Archduke Ferdinand on Debt

This past weekend marked the 10th Annual Hardly Strictly Bluegrass Festival - or perhaps more accurately, this past weekend was engulfed by the 10th Annual Hardly Strictly Bluegrass Festival. I say that because I can't think of a better word to describe 800,000+ people pouring into Golden Gate Park, forming a fluid mass that swelled to fill every space within the fenced event zone that included 6 stages, expensive heart-congestive food, and Randy Newman on a baby grand.

Between the aforementioned stud, Joan Baez, Fountains of Wayne (who indeed sang "Stacey's Mom") and Elvis Costello - who broke it to the crowd that the Padres would not let the Giant's choke, no matter how hard they tried - it was a good weekend that only demanded an 8 minute walk from our apartment. But above all others, a short feisty soul-singer made quite the impression as thousands of us danced till darkness, despite the San Francisco Mist. Sharon Jones & the Dap Kings wrought their funk upon the masses for 1 1/2 hours without missing a beat - and oh my, that woman can sing. Somehow the program either acquired a permit or convinced the police that it was not worth their efforts to fight, but a few friends and I brought wine and champagne to drink out of plastic glasses on a picnic blanket and no one even blinked - mostly because they were too busy with the music and enjoying their own.

Endorsement #2 is going to Gaspare's Pizza House for their feta cheese & sun dried tomato pizza, the coffer of easy red wine and the 25cent-for-three-songs personal jukeboxes at every table.

Endorsement #3 is going to The Blarney Stone Irish pub on Geary St. with the free air hockey and shuffle board, whose barkeep cut all of their prices because of the Giants' victory ("obviously!" he says).


Besides the music, and besides the pizza and pressed grapefruit-vodka drink, I learned two very interesting pieces of political knowledge this weekend. Firstly, Germany just completed its last $92 million installment of its World War One reparations debt [1]. This was a little surprising to me, considering that I studied in Germany and still talk about German politics and their war guilt and such, but the fact that they still had tens of millions of $ in war 90 year old war debt – let alone that they were close to actually repaying it – was never really discussed. And for good reason perhaps, as the state is attempting to cut spending and every dollar is being watched. Nonetheless, according to my experience and the more reliable polling data in-country the German populous has almost entirely missed the memo, and most don’t know what the Treaty of Versailles was or demanded! (for the record, it demanded Germany pay around $400billion in today’s dollar value for “guilt”)

What this means for all of you history buffs out there who connect the first War with the Treaty, the near-failed German republic, the rise of Hitler, the second War, the end of Hitler, and everything stemming from the Marshall Plan, is that WWI ended yesterday.


Secondly, TARP worked?! The two year term for the controversial bailout/regulatory program (Troubled Asset Relief Program) officially came to a close this Sunday [2], and the initial performance review suggests that despite all of the absurd and often obscene rants – and the legitimate concerns – against the program, it seems to have been incredibly successful. Instead of the hundreds of billions of dollars so many thought it would cost, it may be closer to $50b-$70b with a possibility of making a return profit. That may still seem a little “out there”, but consider that there was no economic ruin, market collapse, 30% unemployment or returning of the Messiah before the Horsemen, and the market is actually recovering (though with hardly any of the jobs we had all hoped for…). It seems everyone is a little tongue-tied after railing against it for so long as the epitome of government failure.

Pretty neat weekend :)