-
An End to Latino Immigration?
Tweet Share on Facebook January 23, 2009 Comment (55)In my Creators Syndicate column for the past week, I turned away from the then-impending Obama inauguration and looked at immigration. My thesis is that we may be seeing a sharp downturn in Latino immigration, which obviously has all sorts of implications—which I haven't fully thought through—for immigration policy. I note that some previous surges of migration stopped very suddenly, like the huge migration of blacks from South to North, which stopped abruptly in 1965.
-
The Barack Obama Inauguration Speech Sent the Wrong Message on Diversity
Tweet Share on Facebook January 21, 2009 Comment (37)By Michael Barone, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
Of course, you've all heard or read Barack Obama's inaugural speech. It's the subject of my forthcoming digital U.S. News column, in which I suggest that Obama may get the same kind of positive response from the public that John F. Kennedy did 48 years ago. Here, where I've got unlimited space, I'd like to make another point.
-
The Hero of US Airways 1549
Tweet Share on Facebook January 16, 2009 Comment (12) -
Migration Gives South and West Big Gains, Census Bureau Statistics Show
Tweet Share on Facebook January 16, 2009 Comment (3)By Michael Barone, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
The Census Bureau released last month its estimates for state populations as of July 1, 2008, and the "components of population change," which are natural increase (births minus deaths), net international migration (a good proxy for immigration), and net domestic migration. Natural increase was 1,888,567, net international migration was 888,825, and net domestic migration for the nation was, by definition, zero. I calculated the net migration, international and domestic, for 2007-08, as a percentage of 2007 population for each state. All the big gainers—those with net migration of more than 5.0 percent—were in the West and South:
-
Barack Obama Is Paying the Price for the Timothy Geithner Failure to Pay Taxes
Tweet Share on Facebook January 15, 2009 Comment (54)By Michael Barone, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
If I were a senator, I'd be inclined to vote for the nomination of Timothy Geithner to be treasury secretary, for reasons suggested by Nina Easton. By all accounts, he's very able and knowledgeable, and he's already been part of the nation's lead economic team as chairman of the New York Fed. And it's very important to have a treasury secretary in place these days. But I have to say that his failure to pay self-employment tax is troubling and could certainly provide a reasonable basis for a senator to vote no. I have income from which no taxes are deducted and I make sure to pay my taxes on it (today, by the way, is the deadline for filing your quarterly returns). I can't imagine what he was thinking when he didn't pay.
-
Low Voter Turnout in Virginia Special Election Could Signal a Worry for Democrats
Tweet Share on Facebook January 15, 2009 Comment (4)By Michael Barone, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
I'm not sure what to make of this, but in the special election Tuesday for the Virginia House of Delegates 46th District seat vacated by Democrat Brian Moran (who is running for governor), the Democratic candidate won by only 16 votes, out of only 2,679 cast. The district is the western end of the independent city of Alexandria, a solidly Democratic constituency. By way of comparison, the district went 93 percent Democratic in 2007 and 72 percent Democratic in 2005, the last time there was a Republican candidate. Interestingly, the district's population in 2000 was 24 percent black and 13 percent Hispanic.
-
Michael Barone Meets Barack Obama
Tweet Share on Facebook January 14, 2009 Comment (26)By Michael Barone, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
Yes, it's true that I attended a dinner party at George and Mari Will's house last night with other conservative writers and Barack Obama. No, I'm not going to write about any of the details here; it was off the record, as such gatherings must be, if people are to get above the level of frankness that obtains in public statements. But my observations will affect my writing in the weeks, months, and years ahead. A miffed talk-radio host notes that George W. Bush and previous Republican presidents did not dine with liberal journalists on coming to Washington. That's not entirely true: The late Katharine Graham invited the Reagans and the George H. W. Bushes to dinner and cultivated a friendship with Nancy Reagan. But evidently no liberal journalist thought to send an invitation to the now outgoing president. Perhaps one should have.
-
Recommended Readings From Michael Barone
Tweet Share on Facebook January 13, 2009 Comment (10)Some interesting reading materials on various subjects:
-
Bush and Obama's Presidential Meeting Is Unique in History
Tweet Share on Facebook January 8, 2009 Comment (9)By Michael Barone, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
History was made yesterday when all the living presidents of the United States—Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush—met for lunch in the White House with President-elect Barack Obama. As noted in this Washington Post article, this was the first meeting of all living presidents since October 1981, when Ronald Reagan hosted Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter as they were assembling to attend the funeral of Anwar Sadat in Egypt. And once Obama is inaugurated, we will be in a period when there are four living former presidents—a rare time in American history.
-
Who Knows, Maybe Burris Will Be an Outstanding Senator
Tweet Share on Facebook January 7, 2009 Comment (10)By Michael Barone, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
I wrote two days ago on the Senate's dilemma about whether to seat Roland Burris, whom Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich appointed to succeed Barack Obama. Now, Walter Dellinger, head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and acting solicitor general in the Clinton administration, weighs in on the question of whether or not Burris should be seated. His answer: yes. He notes that he clerked for Justice Hugo Black in 1969 when the Supreme Court decided Powell v. McCormack, which held that the House could not exclude Adam Clayton Powell Jr. after he was duly elected and met the constitutional requirements for office. Justice Black, he says, was troubled by the British House of Commons' practice of not seating members whom a majority opposed. I encountered this phenomenon in my research for Our First Revolution: The Remarkable British Upheaval That Inspired America's Founding Fathers. In the late 17th century and through most of the 18th century, many of those purportedly elected to the House of Commons were barred from taking office while their seats were contested, and it seems to have been common practice for the House's effective majority to decide those cases on partisan lines. A little like Minnesota, some might say. In any case, Dellinger concludes by noting wisely that there will be no legal controversy if the Senate seats Burris, but there likely will if it refuses.
