July 20, 2011

A Balanced Budget Amendment is a Horrible Idea – As Are Most Amendments

In the current debate over the debt ceiling House Republicans have unveiled their proposal for a balanced budget amendment.

Essentially this amendment would:

  • Require a balanced budget
  • Make it difficult to raise taxes
  • Cap spending below recent averages

All three of these are, in my opinion, horrible things to write into the Constitution.

First, there is the issue of requiring a balanced budget? Who in their right mind would be against that? And on paper it sounds pretty good. The problem with that is in times of economic struggle there is a greater need for government spending while at the same time raising revenue is more difficult. People have been unemployed for months or years. Revenues are down. Teachers, police, fire fighters, etc. all have jobs in jeopardy. This is actually a very good time for the government to borrow money. Doing so helps keep workers at their jobs, keeps the unemployed afloat until the economy improves, and allows for stimulus spending if the free market does not provide for work. This was true in the Great Depression – which was ended by the greatest public spending project in US history, the Second World War.

The converse is during good economic times it makes sense for the government to keep its spending low, balance the budget, and pay off the debt. This is something we were doing quite well in the late nineties. I believe one of the worst mistakes we made as a nation were the Bush tax cuts. They were initially made because of the budget surplus. We then cut taxes while going on a spending spree – a spending spree during times which, while not superb economically, were far less dire than today.

The other two points of this amendment I call out, that of making it difficult to raise taxes and capping spending, are also poor ideas. Moreover, they are political statements and objectives. One of the strengths of our Constitution is it is adaptable – it doesn’t dedicate much text to what should be done but rather how it should be done. The Bill of Rights and other Amendments covers such details such as guaranteeing the rights of the people and cleaning up/clarifying how business is done. But the Constitution has stayed clear of what should be done. It doesn’t tell lawmakers how to spend money, it doesn’t set foreign policy, it doesn’t set tax rules. Rather it provides the framework for individual Congresses and Presidents to do so. This keeps it flexible.

Beyond the fact that policy-wise I believe those are horrible ideas, they are also political statements. The debates on the merits of a balanced budget vs. deficit spending, on how to tax, on how much to spend – these are all things which need to be settled politically and settled again and again. And this is how it should be. History has shown an amendment is not required to balance the budget. Rather a budget which brings in more revenue than it spends will do so.

1 Comment

Filed under economics, politics

Tagged as , ,

July 20, 2011

Housekeeping

Every time I try to get out, they keep pulling me back in.

- Michael Corleone, The Godfather Part III

 

I’d thought about starting a new blog on blogger. First, choose an awkward name: “publiusalmanack”. Using an awkward spelling is not a good idea for generating traffic as it turns out. I then tried naming it “liberalgeek”, even registering a domain. As it turns out, there actually is another blog called that. And I hate stepping on people’s toes.

So I’ve taken that as a sign that my first blog is the one I should continue on. I’ve moved the posts I made there here and I have gone ahead and registered “publiusthegeek.com”.

Leave a Comment

Filed under housekeeping, Uncategorized

July 6, 2011

In Praise of the Jury System

Yesterday a Florida jury found Casey Anthony not guilty in the death of her two-year old daughter, Caylee Marie Anthony. To say this was an unpopular verdict would be an understatement. A number of my friends have been quite genuinely upset by this verdict. CNN broadcaster Nancy Grace declared “somewhere out there, the devil is dancing tonight” and “I’m not going to let some kooky jury stop justice”.

I will say that I am not someone who has carefully followed this case. I really don’t know if Casey Anthony killed her daughter or not. At best she seems to be a pretty horrible person and mother who would make false accusations against a babysitter and be indifferent to the death of her daughter. In other words, I’m not writing this blog post to praise her acquittal.

Rather, I am writing to discuss my faith in the much-maligned jury system. And to be honest I am not often waiting in eager anticipation of the nice letter from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts telling me the good news that I’ve been selected for jury duty – quite likely at some court far, far away… And through luck I’d made it many years until I somehow found myself on a jury. A lot of times getting notification I didn’t need to report or getting dismissed early until I was finally selected for a jury.

I don’t think we treat our jurors with the respect they deserve. Here in Massachusetts, for example, your parking expenses are not reimbursable. Which doesn’t sound too terrible until you realize that you might get called to jury duty in the Boston area where you can easily spend thirty to forty dollars a day on parking. Moreover, while your employer is required to pay you for your salary for the first three days of jury duty, after that there is no obligation. And if they don’t you get just fifty dollars a day for your jury duty. So try getting a three-month trial in Boston…

In any case, I was fortunate that my jury duty was in a suburban area with plenty of parking. And my trial lasted less than a full day. What impressed me was the people in our jury, from a variety of backgrounds, different races, ages, etc. all really took their job seriously. No one really wanted to be there but given that we were there we wanted to do the job to the best of our abilities.

Our case was far from a murder case. It was a minor fender-bender where the person who had been rear-ended claimed the injury reactivated a bad back pain that he had finally been cured of. Unfortunately the surgery which had been claimed to have cured him less than 48 hours before the accident. And he had had numerous previous surgeries that had unsuccessfully tried to treat his back pain. To be honest, none of us particularly liked the defendant. He had this attitude which really rubbed most of us in the jury the wrong way. But we were determined to use the facts available to us. We poured through page after page of medical records looking for any conclusive – or even near-conclusive statement – that the accident caused the recent back pain. There was none. We didn’t particularly like finding for the defendant  but we didn’t find sufficient evidence to find for the plaintiff.

In a jury you find yourself with an awesome responsibility. You are part of our nation’s justice system, whether deciding on a minor personal injury case or a horrible murder. There may be no one else interested in the case you are deciding or it may be a media frenzy. Either way, it isn’t everyone else who has to make a decision on the verdict, it is you. You’re the one who has to sift through the evidence, the testimony, your own experiences and common sense, and apply them in reaching a verdict. I found it interesting that one of the jurors in the Casey trial indicated they were “sick to our stomachs” about voting not guilty. I get the impression they believed she was guilty but felt they were forced to find her not guilty based on the evidence presented to them.

Was this jury wrong? It’s certainly possible, either in whether Casey Anthony killed her daughter or in the way they interpreted the law. But I truly believe they did the best job they could do and did their job with honesty and integrity.

Is there a better system? I can’t think of one. Many countries don’t use juries. But I believe the jury system is a vital means of making our disputes – whether civil or criminal – judged not by the government but by our peers. Peers who typically live the same types of lives as the litigants. But at the same time, the vetting process is designed to make certain that while they are peers, they also don’t have a personal stake in the outcome. This lack of a stake is powerful. Yes, your case will be decided by people who are not out to get you. But they are also people who don’t care about you, don’t realize why you are so special. In truth they want to complete their service and get on with their lives.

Leave a Comment

Filed under judicial system, politics

Tagged as

July 4, 2011

Thoughts on the Declaration of Independence

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

- United States Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

Probably since the moment the ink dried on the United States Constitution there has been debate on the intent of the Founders. While it is the Constitution which forms the infrastructure upon which our nation is built upon, it is the Declaration of Independence that I feel gives us the why to the Constitution’s how.

One topic that I feel was well-discussed in PBS’s Liberty! series was the permissiveness of the Declaration of Independence. It doesn’t take very much research for it to be clear that the United States upon it’s founding did not certainly consider all men to be created equal. A nation built with the original sin of slavery is quite hypocritical in declaring its belief that all men are created equal. Nor were non-landowners and women really considered equal if we were to go by voting rights.

Yet that hypocrisy has provided the United States with the opportunity to better itself. It has provided the opportunity for the oppressed to call out the contradictions between their condition and the words of the Declaration of Independence.

Reading the Declaration of Independence also reminds us that the Founding Fathers did not object to a lawful government representing the governed. Their objection to the tax act, for example, was not so much to the tax itself (though I’m sure you could find some for whom this was not true) but rather due to fact that the colonists had no voice in the establishment and enforcement of these taxes. From where did Parliament get its authority to tax the American Colonies? Who among the Colonies represented them in Parliament, to take a stand against the Quartering Act?

I hear talk of 2nd Amendment Remedies to our nation’s problems, giving suggestions of an armed insurrection against our Federal government. Yet unless you live in Washington, D.C., it seems to me any grievances you might have fall rather short of the high threshold for altering and abolishing the current government that is outlined in the Declaration of Independence.

First and foremost we have our votes for our Representative in the House and our two Senators. Our preferred candidate may not win an election and even if he or she were to, there is still no guarantee of our desires being reflected by Congress. Regardless of this, we still have a voice in deciding who these people are and have the ability to vote them out of office. Similarly we have a voice in the selection of the President. And the Constitution, which was ratified by all of our states, provides for the President to choose members of the Supreme Court.

Our government may not do what we want all the time, but we nevertheless do have a defined voice in it.

Has our government become destructive towards its end of securing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for its people? That is a more difficult discussion to have, as there is room for debate as to what best secures these inalienable rights. But I would submit that this is why we have elected representatives and elections in the first place – to allow for different views to compete with each other. And there is a great difference between a government we played a role in creating vs. a foreign one in which we have no voice at all. The passing of a law we disagree with, indeed one which we think is terrible for our nation, yet which passes through both houses of Congress and is signed by the President is not a sign of any usurpation or ramming through. We should still fight for our views and, where appropriate, expose the flaws in countering view. Yet that is a far cry from a government that has become destructive towards its people.

Leave a Comment

Filed under history, politics

Tagged as

July 3, 2011

Taxes and Unemployment Rates

Listening to the economic debate going on right now I believe it is safe to say that supporters of conservative economic policy would treat as a solid truth that lower taxes leads to lower unemployment. To quote from the 2011 Republican economic plan:

We will set the top tax rates at no more than 25% for job creating businesses. This would level the playing field with our competitors and would help to generate investments and create American jobs allowing the U.S. to be more competitive in the global marketplace and attract business.

This is not a particularly new economic strategy. Ronald Reagan certainly championed it but supply-side economics has origins are older than his use of it.

How does that theory hold up? I did a little bit of digging. First I tried to map unemployment rate with the top marginal tax rate. This is a snapshot but not one that can be taken as absolute gospel, as the way the unemployment rate is calculated has changed over the years and the number of people falling in the top marginal rate is also not a fixed number. But, I believe, it is at least useful for spotting trends.

Unemployment vs. Top Marginal Tax Rate

(Be merciful on my chart, it’s my first time trying to use the Google API to produce a chart…)

So what does that chart tell us? To be honest, it’s not, in my opinion, as conclusive as one would like regardless of what one’s views are. Some data points of interest:

  • In the 1960s the top marginal rate went down sharply. Unemployment did go down around that time but then it began a gradual climb leading to the “malaise” of the 1970s.
  • The 1980s has two large tax cuts which seem to support the theory of tax cuts being good for unemployment. But again, by the early 90s we see unemployment spiking sharply. 
  • Further in the 90s there is a spike in top marginal tax rate which is followed by a lengthy period of unemployment decline.
  • In the 2000s there are two cuts in the top marginal rate. The first one took place under increasing unemployment and unemployment continued rising after this. The second cut seems is followed by  unemployment going down for a few years, followed by a very sharp rise in unemployment (which we are still in the midst of).
Conclusions? To be honest, as a layman, the best conclusion I can make is there isn’t a particularly strong direct link between unemployment and top marginal tax rate. It certainly doesn’t seem to be a strong enough link to make the argument that lower tax rates leads to lower unemployment is self-evident. 

Leave a Comment

Filed under politics, taxes

Tagged as ,

June 7, 2011

If You’re Poor and Need Help, Pee into this Cup

Florida has recently begun a program of requiring welfare recipients to be drug-tested as a precondition for receiving welfare. This would be paid for by the recipient and reimbursed if the recipient were tested clean.

I’ve been seeing a lot of conversation about this in social media sites like Facebook and in comments sections of blogs and news sites that report on this. The great bulk of the arguments seems to be along the lines of “about time” and “I’m so sick and tired of them popping out babies so they can take my hard earned money.”
To get my own prejudices on this in the open, I’m not a huge fan of drug testing in general as a precondition for employment save for cases of reasonable suspicion. Even in those I have concerns about safeguarding the accused rights. I did some googling in an attempt to get an idea as to the percentage of false positives in drug tests. There doesn’t seem to be as clear-cut an answer as I would like with a lot of the statistics being from sites with a clear bias such as legalization of certain drugs. A CBS News report gave an estimate of 5 to 10% for false positives and an even higher rate for false negatives. 
Both those rates seem inaccurate enough to make such drug testing seem to be of very limited value. From the employer perspective you aren’t certain you are eliminating those who are using illegal drugs. And from an employee perspective, you have an unacceptably high chance of testing incorrectly positive, quite likely resulting in a job offer being withdrawn or losing your current employment. (You may have some legal remedies but none seem likely to offer short-term relief.)
Beyond the problem of accuracy in testing welfare recipients, I feel targeting them is an example of taking on those least able to defend themselves. People on welfare are not the only people who receive government aid. Some of your tax money is almost certainly going to benefit college students, either directly or indirectly. And while I was pretty boring in terms of using illegal drugs (nothing stronger than alcohol) my recollection of college allows me to say with certainty that some of your tax money is going to students who use marijuana, ecstasy, etc. 
Let us not forget the recent government bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Ignoring rank and file employees, I imagine some of the executives at these companies are indulging in some illegal drugs and are nevertheless benefiting from your hard-earned money.
A quick point regarding denying welfare to those who fail drug tests. While I understand the disgust in taxpayer money going to support an illegal habit, I’m not convinced that simple denial of welfare is going to save taxpayer money. At best, the government will provide assistance to get the recipient off the drug habit. This will cost money and isn’t guaranteed to succeed. Or perhaps the recipient will immediately prosecuted for using illegal drugs. More likely would simply be not giving the welfare recipient any money, resulting in a drug user with no money which quite likely will result in a drug user who then steals to support his habit, adding to law enforcement costs and/or increasing the prison population, incurring a cost there. I’m not saying there is an easy solution here but none of these options seem likely to result in savings to the taxpayer which is often the reason given for these programs. (And I’m not including the infrastructure cost of these programs.)
My final argument is one based on dignity. I know for many that’s not the most important of arguments but a lifetime of being a Catholic (albeit a pretty liberal one) has always taught me of the need to respect the dignity of every human being. The Supreme Court has ruled that drug tests are not necessarily an undue invasion of privacy. However, it seems clear that they are being applied unequally among all those who receive government assistance, with the poorest of the poor being the target.

Leave a Comment

Filed under politics

Tagged as ,

February 27, 2011

Book Review: Starship Troopers

In my sophomore year of college I made the transition from reading Star Trek novels to “serious” science fiction. After devouring the Frank Herbert’s Dune novels and Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series I encountered Heinlein’s Starship Troopers. 

Starship Troopers takes place in a future where citizenship on Earth and its colonies is earned by serving a term of Federal Service. The viewpoint character becomes a soldier in the Mobile Infantry. The novel doesn’t discuss non-military terms of Federal Service in any detail but it does indicate that any such term involves some amount of danger. When the protagonist, Johnny Rico enlists the recruiting sergeant talks about terms such as “playing a human guinea pig for new diseases”, being a “left-handed glass blower… at the bottom of the Pacific”, or field-testing survival equipment on Titan.

One criticism of Starship Troopers, and a valid one in my opinion, is, to quote Anthony Boucher, that Heinlein “forgotten to insert a story”.  I think that’s a pretty valid criticism – if you come to Starship Troopers for the story, you’ll be disappointed. It’s not that there is no story at all, but it is secondary. Much of the novel consists of classroom scenes where the instructor lectures about all that was wrong with the 20th century democracies – their tolerance for juvenile delinquents, the belief that all men are entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

So I think any examination of Starship Troopers has to focus on the politics. I believe that Heinlein’s point can be summarized when one of the instructors, Major Reid, states, “Under our system every voter and every officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage.” One of my problems with the novel is I’m not certain that this service, as presented  in the novel, is indicative of someone who places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage. I can see how such a person is capable of doing so. But people are complicated and contradictory beings. Take for example budget override votes, something that happen here in Massachusetts quite often. Typically there is a vote to increase town property taxes to build a new school or to hire more teachers (or avoid layoffs). You will often hear people state that their children are all grown or they have no children. I am certain that some of these people have performed such a difficult service – serving active duty in the military, working as a police officer, etc. (I am separating this from people who simply do not believe the expense is justified.)

In the novel I find that Johnny Rico is more than willing to die for his follow soldiers. Nor is he one who will question the orders he gets from on high. However, one senses he doesn’t give much thought to the civilians back home. He doesn’t dislike them, it’s just that they don’t seem to occupy much of his thoughts. I get the feeling that the group whose welfare he is willing to put ahead of his own is the group of those currently in or veterans of Federal Service.

That said, I think Heinlein is onto something when he posits that such a group of voters and officeholders would be a good thing. I think a lot of what is wrong with the way our system currently operates is that people tend to vote too parochially – what’s good for me and mine. And we’ve trained our politicians to operate that way. We want officeholders that tell us we can have everything without anyone (or at least me) needing to make any sacrifice. To be honest, I don’t have an answer on any test to determine a person who can go beyond their own interests. I’m not certain it would be a good idea to have such a test in any case. But I do believe it would be good to vote in such a matter – to vote for what we believe to be for the good of the group as a whole.

I don’t believe this would lead to everyone voting the same way. We each take our own life experiences when it comes to determining what is good for the group as a whole. I’ve had some debates with libertarians (I myself tilt liberal) and I believe they are being honest in their viewpoint while at the same time I am being honest with mine. Two people, both of them operating on a goal for what is best for the group as a whole, are still likely to have very different views on how to accomplish this goal. This is a good form of disagreement. Right now we have members of both political parties who will not ask any of their constituents to sacrifice anything – and their constituents have rewarded such behavior. I believe the instructors of History and Moral Philosophy from Starship Troopers would look on such people with contempt.

I think Starship Troopers succeeds not because it presents an easily realizable utopia – I don’t think it does. But it is an excellent starting point for conversation. Indeed, Joe Haldeman’s Forever War is viewed by many as a response to Starship Troopers.

Note – One thing I’ve neglected to mention – while you won’t go to Starship Troopers for a riveting plot, I will say that the powered armor the mobile infantry wears is quite cool and enjoyable to read about.

Leave a Comment

Filed under book review, politics

Tagged as