Daily News Roundup, 11/14/07: Justice Decides To Do Something

Newly confirmed U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey hasn't even been at the AG position long enough to have gotten his ceremonial swearing in, but already the Justice Department is looking much different than when Gonzales headed it up. Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility has received clearance to reopen the investigation on the administration's warrantless wiretap program.

Many of you will recall that when the investigation was abandoned over a year ago, Gonzales testified that the security clearance was refused at President Bush's order, overriding Gonzales' recommendation. So, understandably, there is a lot of speculation on exactly how the clearance was now granted.

If it seems like this came about just a bit too easily, well, I'm with you there. I can only speculate on how that happened, but seeing as everyone else is as well, why not? The way I figure it, there are a few possibilities here: it's possible that the Bush administration may have decided that keeping their nose out of the Justice Department's affairs, as most chief executives have tended to do, would save them from looking like they're still up to their old hijinx of gaming the system, and they might have had a quiet sit-down with Mukasey where they noted that granting the authorization would be a good-looking move to bolster the new AG's credibility after a contentious Senate appointment. Call me a cynic, but I can't buy that an appointed Attorney General, no matter how principled he may appear, would walk into the job and throw his new boss under the bus as his first act in office. Now, whether the investigation will end up with a "no blame" call for the Bush administration's wiretap program under Gonzales' old claims of constitutionality, or whether they'll simply drag out the investigation so Bush is out of office and safe from repercussions by the time it's completed is a whole other matter.

In other national news, I like it when Congress fights smart, and it looks like they've got a smart fight on their hands: the military budget is right on the heels of yesterday's veto of the Health and Human Services budget, and Congress is using the opportunity to tie a $50 billion war supplemental for Iraq to immediately beginning withdrawal and a December 2008 completion goal.

But that's not the news that raised my eyebrows. That would be from The Hill, which reports that Senate Democrats may force Republicans that threaten the 60-vote supermajority required in the Senate for cloture to put their money where their mouth is. Bills in the Senate usually require 60 votes to pass because, though a mere majority is needed for actual passage, 60 votes is required to force a close to debate — without which the minority party can filibuster the bill, leading to its slow death by attrition.

The threat of filibuster is usually sufficient to kill off a bill for all practical purposes, as there's no procedural way around it other than the 60-vote cloture motion. But Senate Democrats seem to be looking to make it a fight — forcing Republicans to actually carry out the filibuster, and therefore publicly holding them responsible for the inability to begin withdrawal from Iraq. That's some serious Senate hardball, and it's nice to see that we may finally start playing. Something like that may actually give me an excuse for my incessant watching of C-SPAN. I'm looking forward to it.

A few new online resources caught my eye today, and they may catch yours as well: Those of you that like to keep their eye on where taxpayer money goes should check out a Washington Post article on EarmarkWatch.org, and those looking for more general information on Congress will appreciate the Government Printing Office's new website on congressmen that pulls information from a number of congressional databases.

In local news, the University of Texas at Austin announced that tuition at the institution could increase for certain students by as much as 22 percent over the next two years. The university states that the increases are necessary due to insufficient funding from the state. Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst was quick to blame UT, citing a $2.5 billion increase in state higher education funding over the past two sessions. Then again, $2.5 billion, over four years, spread out over every public institution in Texas, doesn't sound like quite that much to me. Nor does it to UT:

UT officials say their increases in state money, which average 1.8 percent a year, don't keep up with their costs, which are rising about 5 percent a year.

And for our big finish today, it seems — surprise, surprise — that our electronic voting systems may have some serious problems with trust. A Harris County elections administrator, with several witnesses present, successfully modified vote totals on a local sales tax referendum to correct for certain cases where the issue wouldn't appear on their screens and the vote had to be recorded separately. The procedure was done on a Hart InterCivic eSlate system; both a Republican and a Democratic observer were present, to assure that the modification was on the up-and-up, but the ability of the official to do this in the first place shows a significant weakness in the system, which could allow for modification of votes on the precinct level. Make sure your county finds election judges for every precinct, folks. This electronic voting stuff isn't coming out pretty.