an unanticipated consequence of
Jack M. Balkin
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Bernard Harcourt harcourt at uchicago.edu
Scott Horton shorto at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at princeton.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Mike Konczal is one of the best finance bloggers, and has an unerring sense of the political realities behind fiscal reforms. He offers this perspective on the recent announcement of a federal pay freeze:
Ezra Klein has three ways of looking at the freeze. . . . . 1) This is more unwise, unilateral bipartisanship, 2) This is a smart way to protect the federal workforce, 3) This is bad economics and bad policy. I think we should discuss a fourth option: President Obama thinks this is a really good idea and wants to spend political capital and energy to carry it out.
Rather than a piece of strategy to force concessions from the other side, this is instead something he wants his administration associated with and wants to take the lead in making it reality. He’s asking for the middle-class to [suffer first], before bankers and before the richest, without asking for anything in return, in response to what he sees as a major short-term deficit problem. So much for Ed Kane’s vision of stronger financial market regulators, more talented and more public-minded. You simply won’t get that without being willing to invest in the people you hire. . . .
The [FCC's net neutrality] proposal does not meet Obama's campaign promises, or Obama's other agencies' actions, on net neutrality. It is "make-believe net neutrality." . . .It exempts wireless. . . .The proposal may not ban paid-priority. . . . Enforcement is unclear . . . [and] [t]here may no jurisdiction for any of this anyway.
Ammori has explained that the NTIA, not the FCC, has actually tried to articulate and implement President Obama's campaign promises about net neutrality. But one has to wonder whether its ideas will have traction in a policy environment where the New Democrat Coalition has become the center of political gravity in the Obama White House.
Cameron Nutt, a medical anthropology student at Dartmouth, says he backs President Obama “100 percent.” But, incensed over the president’s “failure to remain true” to a campaign promise to spend $50 billion over five years fighting the AIDS epidemic overseas, Mr. Nutt disrupted Mr. Obama this fall at a Boston rally.
His co-protesters included Luke Messac, a University of Pennsylvania medical student and a field organizer for Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign, and Krishna Prabhu, a Harvard University senior who caucused for Mr. Obama in Iowa in 2008 — and rescheduled his final exam in global health to attend the president’s inauguration. “The promise has not been fulfilled,” Mr. Prabhu said, sounding more disappointed than angry.