Exorbitant

Book Review: The Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope

2008-12-24T13:37:00.000-08:00

I just finished reading Jonathan Alter's "The Defining Moment" about FDR and the creation of the New Deal. Alter spends about a third of the book covering FDR's early life, a third of the book covering his election for president, and the final third is about the construction of the New Deal during FDR's historic 1st Hundred Days in office. (And in truth most of the first two sections discuss how FDR's life may have set him on a course to create New Deal programs like the CCC and the WPA.)

I wanted to read this book for obvious reasons, our problems have the flavor of the early thirties. Thus as any self-respecting over educated person, I needed to read a few hundred pages on the subject. Alter's book fits the bill. Let me say clearly before the inevitable veer off the topic, this book is well written and worth reading. Yet while reading, I was continually recalling the saying (author unknown) "History doesn't actually repeat itself, but it almost always rhymes."

The goal of the New Deal was to attack the massive unemployment that existed in 1933. Through this and restored financial confidence from the Federal Deposit Insurance the U.S. GDP grew at more than twice the rate it had grown at in the 1920's. When FDR took office the unemployment rate was about 25-30%, if you also consider that women did not really work in the 30's this means that only about 30-40% of working age people had jobs during the depression. FDR's most important task was returning people to work. Thus the WPA and the CCC were created and put hundreds of thousands of people to work. After two years of New Deal program the number of unemployed Americans dropped tremendously (the best statistics I could find did not include WPA or farm work as "employed" but using this data we can put a lower limit: at a minimum the New Deal increased the number of working people by 20%). So if the Depression of the 30's is taken as a more extreme analogue of present economic conditions, the big take away is direct jobs programs certainly increases unemployment. Thus Obama's stimulus package is rightly going to concentrate on job creation as opposed to tax cuts and rebates.

Yet, the problem with the New Deal is the lack of sustainability. New Deal programs did not produce a good, and there's only so many roads to build or federal buildings to repair. So how did the U.S. go from the Great Depression in the 30's to the highest G.D.P. growth in history in the 50's? It was later the genius of FDR to see World War II as an opportunity to restructure the U.S. economy around manufacturing. During the late thirties and early forties the U.S. government built factories for tanks that 70 years later are still used to make cars. This is where history ceases to be repeating. In 1932, there was no future to turn to in the U.S. economy. The notion of reforming the U.S. economy around manufacturing had not yet been thought up. That is not the case now.

We do have an alternative waiting. We can completely restructure the way we interact with energy. In an "Energy-Climate Economy" (phrase coined by Tom Friedman) average people will by and sell electricity as a commodity. You as an average person will be able to purchase electricity when it cost less (in the middle of the night) and sell it when the price is high (at 2 pm on a hot day). A person will install a few solar panels on their roof, and hybrid electric cars (that charge batteries not just with gasoline but also dynamos attached to the axles) will feed electrons to the grid, earning an indivual a few extra dollars. The clean energy economy is what rhymes with WWII today. Construction of a Smart Grid is the first step. President Elect Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid have all said that building a smart grid is going to be part of the "infrastructure" aspects of the stimulus package. Let's hope they mean it.

This is the lesson to learn from the New Deal, that jobs programs and stimulus bills are useful. They are great tools for lowering unemployment. Yet, in 1932 the economy was essentially broken and needed to be restructured toward something new before it could truly recover. We have that new thing in front of us. Clean Energy Markets can run the American economy for a generation, and the current economic troubles are truly a reason to invest in energy infrastructure rather an obstacle to hinder progress.

Obama-core 2.0

2008-12-05T09:10:00.000-08:00

What should Obama do with the millions of people that participated in the Obama campaign? And a further question, is it automatically a good thing that the president has direct access to so many people? Isn't that why we have representatives?

One of the many huge stories of this election, and the way it is different than all preseidential elections before, is the unparalleled scope of the online activism. Many reporters talk about this in terms of money, Obama collected large amounts of money from donations made by small donors. Indeed, the Obama campaign raised more money than the Democratic and Republican parties combined. The Obama campaign effectively comprises the wealthiest political party in the United States. Yet if online money were all thats important we'd be talking about the end of an odd four years with President Howard Dean.

Even this underestimates the power of the on-line community. The Obama campaign had a brilliant realization, that there exist people who want to help, that may live in locations that do not have organized Democratic party headquarters. If some one in La Grange, TX wanted to help the Democratic candidate but they didn't have a lot of money to give, nor could the get off work to go to a swing state, historically the only option left was to vote. However, this year they could organize online. They could set up a call center in their living room, and invite 5 friends over to call people in Pennsylvania on their cell phones. They could find a ride with another supporter to go to the nearest swing state to volunteer for a Saturday. Now the Obama campaign is trying to remake that campaign force into an ongoing thing.

The Obama campaign has more the 2 million registered users of mybarackobama.com. Now first I ought to acknowledge that a presidential election is very different than governance. A presidential election is clearly goal oriented, and all of your teammates have exaclty the same goal as you. Yet issues are much more squishy; indeed, many people supposedly on the same side of an issue can have strong disagreements on how to execute that policy. Further, the news coverage of governing is not as exciting as the horse race for president. We won't be checking fivethirtyeight.com each day to see if House Resolutions A and B merged into a new omnibus bill. So I think its safe to assume that about half those users become ineffectual after the campaign. Nonetheless, 1 million activists is a lot.

So what should be done with this people? Anything? Thus far the Obama campaign has given them two outlets. The first is to solicit people, on the transition website change.gov, (have we ever had a "transition website" before) to write in what they want from a health-care policy, supposedly drawing from the principal of vox populi vox dei. I guess this is nice, but I wonder how much this actually changes anything. I think letting people comment on a site does more to let people feel like they have a voice, rather than actually using that for much good. Aside from the rare diamond in the rough comment, what will Daschle et al really learn from the comment board that they couldn't get from polliing, which has at least some semblance of a controlled sample.

There is another way the Obama campaign is using its troops, they are facilitating an organization. In one week, the Obama teams are suppose to meet to discuss what local issues they want to stress. The Obama campaign is essentially playing midwife to a generation of community organizers. Creating people who do not simply talk about politics, but also are engaged in the process and trained in proven methods to get results. I think this is on some level a great thing.

However, it has a twist. These "local" organizations will be linked nationally, and have a direct line to the executive branch. Let's say Obama wants some law passed, that is bad for a city locally, the cities representative ought to vote against it. So all the organizers in the city get a call to action. The local Obama-core then floods the representatives offices, and local newspapers with letters saying that if the representative doesn't vote for the bill, he will not be re-elected. the representative changes his vote. My worry is the extent to which these "local" groups become truly autonomous, or will this Obama-core become little more than a cult of personality? This is essentially how all the well known dictators rose to power.

Okay, okay, before I prove Godwin's law correct, let me say I do not think this is what will happen under Obama. I think he's a reasonable guy who, more importantly, understands the complexities of our system, and how those complexities are important for maintaining stability. Also, at this time in history we need some big changes, and we need them fast. This favors a more powerful executive. For example, right now we need big energy legislation, that may harm a district that contains a coal plant.

Let me say it this way, I think the Obama-core is a good thing, possibly a great thing, that may be one of the seeds that completely changes the way people interact with government. However, it may be Obama's version of court packing.

Restarting ...

2008-12-05T09:04:00.000-08:00

Yes I know I quit, and some of you know that I stopped doing this because it was taking up too much of my work time.... but I'm sorry politics is just too much fun these days.

Are We Ready To Do Anything About Gobal Warming

2007-03-10T13:22:00.001-08:00

Peter Schwartz wrote an interesting futurist essay on the impacts of climate change (get it here). He used a different approach than we are used to hearing. Normally, the affects of climate change are argued from a top down approach, beginning with the expected alterations to the climate, then trying to predict in what way that might affect an individual. Schwartz works from the opposite direction. He starts by considering systems already under stress, and shows how climate change would affect them.

He argues that this approach is more tractable to developing policy. For example, let's insert a large earth quake in California, this highly stresses insurance companies. Global warming has been shown to produce hurricanes with greater wind speed, and there is marginal evidence that global warming produces more hurricanes (see more here). Thus, if we have a large earthquake, then a month later a large hurricane the effect is to bankrupt several insurance companies. Thus leaving many people homeless.

It's an interesting approach and he mentions something that I thought is worth passing on. That is that the political situation in the U.S. (or the world) is not currently set up. To face global warming. The stressed system is the attitude toward statism in this country, and the necessity to use large federal programs to combat global warming.

Our disdain for socialism is borne out of the cold war, when the U.S. found itself at odds for 50 years with a heavily socialized country. This promoted an extremely pro-market attitude in this country, which isn't really all bad. However, it left many people believing that any non-market based fix to a problem is fundamentally flawed, this is not true. There exists many programs that operate under goals which do not reconcile appropriately with the market. For example the goals of education is to teach all people equally, a market driven approach would not adhere to this principle.

I contend that global warming is not fixable through the market. We must bolster more expensive alternative technologies (such as solar power, or hybrid cars), faster than the market is willing to work. Thus, we need to use regulation to limit those products that damage the environment, and provide incentives for those new climate friendly products. In the long run, yes the market should take over. However, it is the period of transition that will require large federal programs. There is no market that will react as quickly as necessity dictates. Take a look at the recent TXU agreement not build 8 of 11 new coal plants. Well 3 plants is certainly better than 11, however it's still not good enough. We will soon have 3 new coal plants in Texas, the northeast has many new power plants in the making. The people at Environment Defense did a great job at stopping those plants. They did as much as they could. But we need none, and we need that now. Only the federal government can work this efficiently, and the American population should warm to that idea.

So how does this fit into our current political landscape. The truth is we don't really know what political ideology is currently most popular among Americans. I think its fair to say that from 1980 to about 2004 it was a conservative leaning country, less willing to trust large governmental programs. However, in 2005 and 2006 many people started to see the negative impacts of an under funded, small government in the Katrina aftermath and the failings with in the Iraq war (it's a whole other essay to establish this last assumption). Such a change may be reflected in the 2006 election. The U.S. may be willing to accept big government again. Yet this would reflect a change from the past 25 years.

If we do not accept that change, we will fail at stemming the tide of global climate change. We need to stop believing that local problems require local solutions, this assumption is not valid when we consider global warming. Local politics would prefer drilling for oil in the Arctic Wildlife National Reserve, however this would likely cause a deleterious impact on the global environment. Logging of trees may create jobs locally in many places within the U.S. however, the reduction of forests reduces the planets capacity to reprocess carbon dioxide. The politics of the next 50 years will be those of national and global consequences, in which we are willing to trust large government programs. There is hope, but it is not clear to me that we are ready for this.

An Interesting Alliance, Eventually

2007-02-28T21:42:00.000-08:00

The Apollo Alliance just had their summit in Washington, D.C. The speakers included many congressman (including Sen. Clinton), governors, and the renown Roger Duncan of the Austin Energy company. They are a good organization, you should all go donate to them now. They merge labor unions with environmental groups. Their mantra is that the race for energy independence is also a race for economic stability. I understand why people say it, but it always makes me cringe a little. The problem is that the statement is only half true.

In the long run, yes production of those technologies which provide renewable energy will be a lucrative industry. This will give the U.S. economy lots of jobs, aside from simply being the right thing to do. However, it is not true to think that the transitory years will be economically stable. The majority of companies who currently provide energy will not survive the conversion to energy autonomy. These include some of the wealthiest companies in the market. Why? Energy companies offer the transition of power from a station to your home. Often they do not even produce the electricity themselves; they buy it from a power plant, and transmit it. They offer the infrastructure, which is a large task to monitor. They do not produce a thing, they provide a service.

The switch to renewable energy must include every roof being covered with solar tiles. There is no way around this. It is too easy not to do it. If we made a solar cell the size of California, we could fuel the world. Solar cells on the roof of every home will be a necessity by the year 2050. This will destroy the current energy industry. Energy companies do not have manufacturing or dissemination capabilities, thus they will neither make nor sell the new technology. Incidentally, this is the same reason that the market alone will never solve this problem. And of course we will get some of our power from solar and wind farms, or even nuclear power plants, but only a fraction.

In the meantime, what happens to our economy. Well far off in the future we will build some of the best solar cells in the world. But in the meantime, what happens to the 55 year old out of work oil well worker? Do you really expect him to get a job making hybrid engines? The meantime will be rough. It will be necessary, but it will also be hard. How do you expect to us to make the switch? California is already running programs that you can expect to see in the future. They add taxes to electricity use, those taxes then go to pay for home owners to put solar panels on their roof. You can expect your gas and electric bills to raise quite a bit in the future. And that's simply the way it will have to be done.

We are going to have to pay our way out of this problem. Further, it must be done by our generation. I think its wrong to give people the impression that this burgeoning industry will magically create a robust American market, with out finishing the line with "eventually."

P.S. (added 5-March) I just found an interesting blog post on TomPaine.com that is similar to this one, but from a completely different angle.

Can Bush Order Attacks In Iran?

2007-02-13T13:43:00.000-08:00

This past week, the Bush administration laid out evidence that Iran has been "meddling" in the Iraqi war. The Bush-Cheney administration is claiming that Iran has been manufacturing bombs, and then giving them to Iraqis to fight the current civil war. The argument is taking place behind closed doors, and is reliant on circumstantial evidence. There is grumbling in the intelligence community implying that policy makers, not intelligence experts, are running the show. This all bears a striking resemblance to the style of argument that lead the the U.S. into the Iraq War. So I ask, is President Bush trying to begin all out war with Iran?

A lot has changed since 2003. For example, we no longer trust the White House's ability to judge what a threat is. Nor does Congress. Currently, there is a well publicized debate about changing America's current role in Iraq to have a smaller presence. Rep. Reyes (chairman of the House intelligence committee) publicly questions, the administrations motives. Today on the House floor Rep. Pat Murphy (D-Pa) said, "We're against this escalation and Congress will no longer give the president a blank check." This is encouraging. Further, the president must ask Congress to go to war with any nation. So why am I worried that Pres. Bush might order attacks against Iran?

First, let's consider what the president is currently authorized to do. According to the Congressional resolution to use force in Iraq,

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;

This wording seems to say that we cannot go to war with another nation, only Iraq. That is how I read it. However, what if some one were to claim that since Iranians are supporting Iraq with weapons, the U.S. cannot defend itself against Iraq until it cuts off supplies from Iran. Do I agree with this? No. Do I think it could tie up lawyers while the Bush administration runs out the clock on the next two years, whilst drawing America deep into a war with Iran? Yes.

Further, we have to look at how the Bush administration would go about such an action. Troops would not be sent immediately. A series of air strikes, would be carried out. Bush could feasibly do this with out original congressional authority. The War Powers Act, that clarifies the procedure of declaring war, states that the President must submit to the Speaker of the House, and President pro tempore of the Senate notification of this action no later than 48 hours after the action has begun. The Congress can then decide whether or not to allow continuation of the action. This would be 47 hours after the bombs land in Iran. What happens next? It is easily imaginable that Iranian soldiers flood across the boarder into Iraq, putting the U.S. in direct (no longer indirect) conflict with Iranian army.

Anyway, that's why I'm worried.

But hope exists. There is precedent for Congressional action, namely that Congress can stipulate that no money goes to any mission supporting hostilities in Iran. We did that with Cambodia during the Vietnam war. This is why the Senate was right not to vote on the Warner-Levin Resolution which says "the Congress should not take any action ... including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field". If this were to pass, they could do nothing against the President's possible action in Iran, short of Impeachment, which again would take the rest of the president's term, and not solve the problem at hand

Who Is The Real Decider?

2007-02-02T11:55:00.000-08:00

U.S. Constitution Article I Section 8
“The Congress shall have power …Declare war … To raise and support armies ... To make rules for the government and regulation of land and naval forces;”

U.S. Constitution Article II Section 2
“The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states when called into actual service of the United States;”

Recently, a debate has risen about what exactly Congress can do regarding control over the war in Iraq. Does the Congress have the authority to limit with the use of troops in Iraq? The powers of war are purposely divided between the two branches of government. Yet, war powers are not completely separate, they are purposely blended. However, this mix does not preclude Congress from action.

The Constitution is quite clear that Congress declares war, and then the President executes that war. That execution must exist in the limit that Congress is willing to fund the war. Article II Section 8 of the constitution states that Congress (not the president) has the ability to raise and support armies. Essentially stating that Congress decides how much money to give to the military. It makes no special statement that Congress is verboten from interfering with a war.

The President is given control of the military action, as commander in chief. In Federalist No. 47, Hamilton states that the president’s capacity as commander in chief exists partly to create a unity of command. As well it is meant to establish civilian control of the military. The power of the executive, as commander in chief, is not created for any lack of trust in Congress, but rather because Congress is too slow to action for certain problems.

To what limit is Congress allowed to use legislation and funding to direct the actions of the executive? Currently we are faced with the dilemma in which the commander in chief wishes to use more troops to continue the war in Iraq, and it is possible that the congress may not wish to fund such action. Surely if the President wanted to move a few hundred specialists from Europe to Iraq, it would be micromanaging for Congress to require legislative approval, and this would likely be an infringement upon the president's power. However, in the event that a dramatic increase occurs, does Congress have the ability to legislate such and action? Further, who decides the difference between micromanaging and decisive leadership?

American democracy places sovereign power in the hands of the people. The people defer this power to their elected representatives directly and senators and the president indirectly. As outlined in Federalist No. 39, our form of representative democracy is meant to be a balance between national power in the House and federal power in the President; the Senate is a mixture of the two. We put the process of decision making in the hands of those who are closer to the people. The reason being that we can remove congressmen from office if we do not like their decisions (quite quickly in the case of the House of Representatives).

No power is given to the President to start war or fund the military. Treaties are only made with consent of two thirds of the Senate. The president cannot decide when to start a war, nor can the president decide to make peace on his own. It therefore seems plausible that the president has no special power to continue wars, without Congressional consent.

Those that say Congress has no authority to cut off funding for the war are simply wrong. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to “raise and support” the military, and thus Congress can decide to stop supporting the military. The president is to execute those laws passed by congress. In this case, the President is not the decider. Whether or not cutting funding is the right thing to do is up to the people to decide, by voting for or against their representatives in the next election. And in the interim before the next election, that power is entrusted to the Congress.

In fact, Congress has used this power in the past. Most notable is the case if Cambodia (1970), President Nixon successfully vetoed the legislation. It requires two-thirds plus one votes in the house to override a veto. The veto was successful with 41% of the House voting to sustain the veto. A U.S. federal court found that it was wrong for the president to continue action in Cambodia, because a majority of Congress did not approve of the action. The case did not reach higher courts, because the war ended first. Senator Feingold (D-Wi and polemicist) listed some instances in which Congress has put stipulations on the money they allow for funding, here’s the list from his website:

Cambodia – In late December 1970, Congress passes the Supplemental Foreign Assistance Appropriations Act prohibiting the use of funds to finance the introduction of United States ground combat troops into Cambodia or to provide U.S. advisors to or for Cambodian military forces in Cambodia.

Vietnam – In late June 1973, Congress passes the second Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY1973. This legislation contains language cutting off funds for combat activities in Vietnam after August 15, 1973.

Somalia – In November 1993, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act includes a provision that prohibits funding after March 31, 1994 for military operations in Somalia, except for a limited number of military personnel to protect American diplomatic personnel and American citizens, unless further authorized by Congress.

Bosnia – In 1998, Congress passes the Defense Authorization Bill, with a provision that prohibits funding for Bosnia after June 30, 1998, unless the President makes certain assurances.

You can read more about this in the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on the subject.

Starving The Beast Is Not The Answer

2007-01-25T18:16:00.000-08:00

In President Bush’s sixth state of the union (this past week) he made several statements that appear to be leaning across the isle, uniting rather than dividing. Pres. Bush’s call for a balanced budget and also his health care plan, both appear to reach out to progressive/liberal types. However, closer inspection reveals these plans for what they are, the usual fair from a “starve the beast” conservative. They are attempts to lower taxes and reduce the federal government’s ability at dealing with domestic problems. Starve the beast is a phrase used first by Reagan as a method of controlling the scope of government by removing available funding with lower taxes. Speaking to John Anderson in a 1980 presidential primary debate, he famously remarked,

"John tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

The basic tenant of governing for a conservative politician is that the government should be as small as possible. Reducing taxes is supposed to force government to spend less by cutting taxes. If you’re wondering where Bush stands on this, he made the following statement in 2001,

"so we have the tax relief plan, which is important for fiscal stimulus, coupled with Social Security being off limits except for -- except for emergency. That now provides a new kind -- a fiscal straight-jacket for Congress. And that's good for the taxpayers, and it's incredibly positive news if you're worried about a federal government that has been growing at a dramatic pace over the past eight years and it has been."

This past Tuesday, Bush proposed that we balance the budget. He then quickly followed by saying it should be done, “With out raising taxes.” As well, Pres. Bush has called on an attempt to make health care more affordable by lowering taxes. This will most likely have little effect on a large percentage of those who can’t afford health care, since they already pay little-to-no taxes. Yet it will keep that small amount of money out of the government's pocket.

There are several problems with this method of governance. The first being it is not certain that it even works at achieving its own goal. If we look at recent data (from 1990 to 2004) there is no correlation between tax revenues and spending. Over this period taxes were raised from 15% of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 1990 to 22% of the GDP in 2001. However, as you can see in the figure on the left, the government spending does not decrease with lower taxes. It’s interesting to note the history of this period. In 1990, the Congress was Democratic; then in 1994 the “Contract With America” was supposed to greatly reduce the size of government. However, if we measure the scope of government by spending, they affected very little change.

The real problem is that balancing the federal budget is a necessity for both short-term economic growth and the long-term economic stability. In the short-term, smaller budget deficits result in lower interest rates, and lower unemployment. In the long term, I’m sure you’ve all heard the gloom-and-doom scenario by now. If we change nothing, the prospects are that by 2050 the government will not be able to afford anything besides Medicare payments. Contrary to what you may have heard, Medicare's future provides the greatest problem to the U.S. budget, not Social Security. But don’t take my word for it, check out the GAO report on the The Federal Government's Longterm Fiscal Imbalance. It’s quite scary.

If “starve the beast” doesn’t affect spending, what then can help us balance the budget? If we look at the budget deficit over the same period of time (1990 to 2004), we see that increasing taxes actually does lower the budget deficit. (Shown in the figure on the left. Note that this is the deficit, so the negative numbers are a surplus.) The only time in recent history in which the budget was balanced corresponds to the highest taxation in recent history. Personally, I've never understood the astonishment that accompanies many people’s realization that liberals are the fiscally responsible group. Tax & Spend has always been a responsible method of governing. It begins by raising money for a program, and then continues by spending that money on those in need. Further, in the event that a crisis should occur, oh let’s say a huge unending war, a Tax & Spend policy may actually have money available for the expenditure.

Finally, their is the added advantage of honesty. If a Tax & Spender claims they want to pay for health care, they actually want to pay for health care. When the President Bush gets on national television and claims he wants to balance the budget or help the disenfranchised, but in reality only wants to reduce the size of government, I always cringe a little. It’s not his ultimate goal, and it would be nice if he could explain his real position to us.

Bill Of Rights... for some.

2007-01-23T10:03:00.000-08:00

I just got this from the WashingtonPost.com and thought I should share it. Basically the U.S. Attorney General is saying that he doesn't think the Constitution applies to all U.S. citizens.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has raised some eyebrows in legal circles because of the following exchange last Thursday with Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) at a meeting of the Judiciary Committee over the writ of habeas corpus. The Latin term, roughly interpreted as "you have the body," refers to the centuries-old right of prisoners to challenge their confinement.

Gonzales : The fact that the Constitution -- again, there is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution. There's a prohibition against taking it away. But it's never been the case. I'm not aware of a Supreme . . .

Specter : Wait a minute. Wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's an invasion or rebellion?

Gonzales : I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas. Doesn't say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except . . .

Specter : You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.

Six for '06

2007-01-18T18:55:00.000-08:00

The Democrats ran last year on a promise to expedite the passage of at least six bulls of legislation. They further vowed to use the first 100 hours (by their count) of House operations to pass these bills. They passed the 6th of those bills today with time to spare. Its important to remember two things. First, these are not laws yet. They have to pass the senate, in which they are certain to change. And then be signed into law by the president. He's threatened to veto at least one of them. I thought I would just take a moment to point you to the text of that legislation. Note that in many of the summaries I'm simply ripping of the CRS summary.

HR 1 : Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations. This is pretty self explanatory. It amends the Patriot Act to include many suggestion of the 9/11 commission. Largely it affects two things strengthening travel security, and promoting the ability of law enforcement agencies to work together. One notable item is the creation of an independent commission for the protection of civil liberties.

HR 2 : Fair Minimum Wage Act. This one is quite simple, and quite short. It amends the current minimum wage to increase in 3 increments to reach $7.25 in two years.

HR 3 : Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Another simple piece of legislation. This amends current law to onduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo.

HR 4 : Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act. Allows U.S. government to negotiate the price of prescription drugs with pharmaceutical manufacturers, for those people on medicare.

HR 5 : College Student Relief Act. Phases in cuts in college loan interest rates rate from 6.8% in July 2006 to 3.4% in July 2011.

HR 6 : Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act. A set of amendments to various parts of the U.S. code to enhance tax breaks for alternative energy, and reduce tax breaks on oil companies.

I tried to provide links to each of the bills individually, but the House web page doesn't work that easy. Anyway, you can see the text of the legislation by going to the House Clerk web page. The bills will be called HR then a number. Don't get discouraged by multiple versions, go to the one that passed. And don't get distracted by the H Res; those are mostly crap.

Presidential Signing Statements

2007-01-05T08:10:00.000-08:00

The president signed a bill into law recently, and in doing so supposedly supports the text of that law. You may already know that this seemingly logical, and obvious situation is not true. The president issued a signing statement "clarifying" how the law is to be executed, and in doing so stated that he plans to instruct the executive branch to act contradictory to the law.

Signing statements have a mostly short history and it is unclear what they mean in the scope of all U.S. law. I can point you to the report from a non-partisan commission of the American Bar Association claiming that the way President Bush uses the signing statements represents a violation of the system of checks and balances. In a nutshell, a president is an executer of the law, and in the U.S. is not allowed to legislate. President Bush appears to essentially be writing new text into those laws he has passed. Contrary to what some may say, the president is not allowed to disregard or change law. Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution clearly states that the president is to "faithfully execute the law" passed by congress and enacted by his signature.

This story has not been heavily reported (aside from the laudable effort of Charlie Savage); I think mainly because it does not lead to easily digestible punch-lines. Were congress to write a law claiming that the President is not allowed to reinterpret law, the president would either not sign the law, or make a signing statement claiming that he finds it unconstitutional and not adhere to it. It is not clear who has what powers in this somewhat fuzzy situation. It seems that the some legislators could sue the President, claiming that he is not abiding by his constitutional duty, but this seems unlikely even in the current Congress. What may happen is that between 2008 and 2010 a Democratic Congress and President (as is likely to occur) could pass a law defining exactly the roll of signing statements in such a way that is consistent with the separation of powers.

Anyway here's a point-by-point comparison of law text to signing statements for a few examples.

1. U.S. Code: No letter of such a class of domestic origin shall be opened except under authority of a search warrant authorized by law, or by an officer or employee of the Postal Service for the sole purpose of determining an address at which the letter can be delivered, or pursuant to the authorization of the addressee.

Bush Signing Statement: The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.

Basically, the signing statement says that despite what the law says, the President is allowed to look at any of your mail he wants to, and has not given a definite criteria as to what mail they might look at. The wording is purposefully non-specific, exactly what does "protect human life" mean? President Bush's signing statement is attempting to re-write legislation to meet his personal desires.

2. U.S. Code: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

This basically states that the executive branch can choose to ignore the request of the Congress for reports on the Justice department's un-warranted search and seizure of homes. Thus eliminating oversight.

3. U.S. Code: U.S. interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

The president claims that congress does not have the authority to instruct on how the military wages war. This is almost true, Congress is responsible for funding all federal endeavors (including military), and thus can stipulate that money will not be allocated if certain provisions are not met.

Tax & Spend

2007-01-02T07:30:00.000-08:00

This week I've been playing with the income distribution in the U.S. from last years tax data (available on the IRS page). The basic idea is to take a service and see what it would cost the average person to provide that service to all Americans. For example, if I want to give Jumbo Jacks (costing $1) to all U.S. citizens (roughly 300,000,000) we need to raise $300,000,000. This could be done by raising taxes by 0.5 % on the wealthiest 0.5 % of Americans.

Note, I assume a few things for all these calculations. There exists no tax gap on new taxes, meaning no one is capable of eluding these new taxes. Second, I do not consider the affect of buying in bulk, unless otherwise stated (I imagine Jack in the Box would give us a deal on 300,000,000 Jumbo Jacks). Finally, I also assume that all new programs are completely efficient. These numbers are meant to be rough estimates. The figure shows the U.S. income distribution based on tax returns. I do not show the highest income brackets, but they are included in all calculations. For reference, The U.S. median income is about $42,000; the wealthiest 10% makes nearly half of all the money in the U.S.; and the lowest half of the U.S. makes about 20% of the money in the U.S.

1. 1000 New Teachers: What would it cost to put 1000 new teachers in classrooms next year? We could put, federally funded, new teachers in underprivileged classrooms across the country. There are about 9000 school districts in the U.S. It would be easy to put a new teacher in all districts with more than 18 students per teacher (the highest 10% of student-to-teacher ratio), or 10 teachers at the 1% most overcrowded schools.

What would it cost? The average U.S. teacher salary is $31,000; thus it would cost $31,000,000. We could raise taxes by 4% on all people making more than $500,000 per year taxable income (the richest 1.5%), and get 1,130 new teachers.

2. Universal Health Care: We can use medicare as an example, which costs $420 a year. The question is then what would it cost to cover the currently uninsured people in America. There are 46.6 million people in the U.S. with out health insurance, fifteen percent of the U.S. population is uninsured.

What would it cost? We could raise taxes by $210 a year on the wealthiest 30% of Americans, basically all people making more than about $50,000 a year. This is less than an 0.5% tax increase.

3. Making College Tuition Free: Can we make all public universities free? No one should be denied an education because they cannot afford it, nor should people be condemned to many years of paying off college loans (especially not me). There are about 3.6 million students in public universities now, which is roughly 8% of the number of tax returns in the U.S. The average cost of school in the U.S. is about $5500.

What would it cost? If we enacted a $5500 tax on the top 8% (roughly those making more than $200,000) that would amount to an increase in taxes of less than 3%. This may be a bit pricey, especially on those earning at the low end of the top 8%. However, the point is that it can be done.

4. Completely Remove Tax Burden From Extreme Poor: I find it interesting to note that if we raised taxes by 0.5% on the wealthiest 1.5% of Americans the lowest 3% of Americans would not need to pay taxes.

Out Of Town

2006-12-27T13:27:00.000-08:00

So I've been visiting my family for the past week, thus unable to post anything. Sorry, but the 21st century hasn't quite reached that far out into the country, thus no internet.

For anyone interested I'll be in Austin tomorrow evening, and I'll be staying for a little over a week. I will return to Austin for two more weeks in mid-to-late January.

I'll post something this weekend. To keep you busy here's a reading list for airplanes and road trips.

Suggested Areas Of Oversight For The Next Congress by the Government Accountability office. text or pdf
Iraq Study Group Report
Democracy Journal is a new public policy journal, you can get free on-line (if you sign up).

Some Stats On The Minimum Wage

2006-12-16T09:18:00.000-08:00

The Democrats have proposed to raise the minimum wage in the next congressional session. This was a major part of their run to retake the congress. This will be the first time the minimum wage has been risen since 1997. We can look into the effectiveness of the minimum wage by comparing it to the standard of living in the U.S.

Here, I show the time evolution U.S. minimum wage scaled to the median hourly wage. This tells us a little different information than does simply the inflation adjusted minimum wage. The standard of living in the U.S. raises over time, faster than inflation. Thus I wish to measure the minimum wage against something that can track the standard of living. I chose the median income. Then I divide that income by the number of working hours in a year, hence median hourly wage. I also show, for perspective, the evolution of the wealthiest 5% of Americans over a similar time period (I couldn't get as much data on this). Again I show their income compared to the median U.S. income. Both figures are shown below.

What you can see is that the minimum wage has not kept up with the median standard of living in the U.S.; conversely, the wealthiest 5% have increased their income more than the median. The wealth in the U.S. is becoming greater, yet at the same time we are helping the least well payed less. We are currently at the lowest point of the effectiveness of the minimum wage.

Looking at the specific years, we can notice the shift to the current era of domestic policy. In the middle of the 20th century our domestic policy was ran by the idea of helping the less fortunate (e.g. New Deal and Great Society programs). However, the Reagan administration marked a change. Public policy shifted to freeing up the highest income brackets. This is evident in the sharp decline in the effectiveness of the minimum wage, and the symmetric rise in the wealth of the top 5%. Both of these phenomena begin in the early 1980's, in which America saw a dramatic decline in taxing of the the highest income. Effectively, those people earning the minimum wage in the U.S. have never been further from the median standard of living than today.

Now I wish to look into a few myths that I've heard regarding the minimum wage.

Myth: The minimum wage causes unemployment to rise.

Left, I compare the minimum wages (adjusted to 2006 dollars) and the unemployment rate of the corresponding year, for the past 45 years. There is no correlation between minimum wage and unemployment rate. In fact, the lowest unemployment was on the year with the highest minimum wage.

Myth: The minimum wage doesn't help anyone, besides teenagers.
The mean income of lowest 20% of wage earners (scaled by the U.S. median) strongly correlates with the minimum wage. Thus the two are linked. Further, an anecdotal argument that few people are affected by the minimum wage is simply not true. The bottom 20% of America is 60 million people who are helped by the minimum wage.

Myth: The federal minimum wage doesn't matter because many states have higher minimum wages.
In the 90's Clinton allowed states to raise their own minimum wage higher than the federal amount. Since this law 24 states have done so. Several of those states did a wise thing, and linked the minimum wage to the CPI, which measure inflation. However, 25 states have the federal minimum wage, and Kansas has a minimum wage that is lower than the federal minimum. (I'm not sure what that's all about.) Therefore, raising the minimum wage definitely affects the lives of many people. You can get a slightly out-of-date map of which states do what at here.

Data from this post comes from: The U.S. Census and The Economic Policy Institute.

Supreme Court Hears Racial Mixing Cases

2006-12-11T10:24:00.000-08:00

The supreme court, last week, heard arguments in two cases regarding the use of race in school placement. The idea is that students are placed in schools in such a way that maintains a minimum fraction of students of all races in each school, within a district. In each case they also take other factors into account (e.g. distance to a school), race is just one factor.

I might have written on this earlier, if the government's case (siding against the schools) were not so head spinningly difficult to understand. I'm pretty sure I still don't get it, but let me try anyway. The equal protection clause (EPC) of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution states "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The government argues that the EPC sets a requirement for children to have an equal education, however you cannot use race as a tool to ensure that every race receives an equal education. The schools' defense to this argument is that sorting is okay, because it benefits students of all races. Sorting helps students prepare to live in a diverse world.

I was a little disappointed to see the schools back away from making a statement on segregation. Justice Alito asked the attorney representing the Seattle school district if the schools are segregated, and he stammered around. I realize that they are trying to win a court case, and need to stick to the tenants of that case. Yet, my problem is that the system, unfortunately, is still not equal. We can see this in minority enrollment in universities.

I have collected data from the 15 largest universities in the U.S. and the corresponding states. I chose these because I assume that the largest institutions should be the most representative of the population in general. I plot the percentage of the total enrollment that for Black (blue circles) and Hispanic (red squares) people, and compare this to the percentage that the respective minorities are in the population of the corresponding state. The black line represents a one-to-one correlation. The results I do not think will shock anyone. Black and Hispanic minorities are unrepresented in all but one university. And the problem is worse in states that have a larger fraction of minority people. The typical large university is underrepresented by about a factor of two, but those states with large Hispanic populations are particularly underrepresented.

Education acts as the mechanism that bolsters us into higher income. Therefore, it is not only a rite in itself, but provides access to other rites. It is therefore crucial that education, especially be free of discrimination of any kind. The importance of education is easily seen. In 2004 only 21% of those U.S. households making higher than the national median ($46,000) are not college educated, and only 13% of those making above $80,000 are not college educated. Attending college is the key for economic success. However, the our education system does not afford the same probability of success to minority children as white children. The problem gets worse when we realize that currently, the majority of U.S. funding for schools comes from local sources. Therefore poor children go to less funded schools, making them less likely to attend college.

I'm not sure exactly how it will be fixed. I don't know whether sorting, changing the way we fund schools, raising teacher's salaries, or carefully placing schools is the best method. And it gets difficult very fast, because we can't tell wealthy families that they are not allowed to give their children a more expensive education (and supposedly better). However, both court cases are arguing that the system is absent discrimination. In general, this doesn't appear to be the case.

You can get the arguments for the supreme court cases: People vs Seattle ISD and People vs Jefferson Co. ISD.

I got a lot of these stats from The U.S. Census.

A New Cold War?

2006-12-06T11:40:00.000-08:00

Are we in the beginnings of a cold war with Iran?

What has lead me to this question is studying the analysis of the the recent war between Hezbollah in Lebanon and Israel. Hezbollah is funded largely by Iran, and Israel is considered by many (especially in the middle east) an American backed regime. Especially in Lebanon, this war was thought to be a proxy war between the U.S. and Iran. Whether we like it or not we give trade and are friendly to Isreal, and we do nothing about the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza. Lebanon, also, provides a front in such a cold war. They have a western backed government, that is not liked by large fractions of Lebanese people. It is a country with a history of long and violent civil wars, backed usually by the western forces on one side and Syria and Iran backing the opponent.

Now of course we must turn to Iraq, where the situation gets even more complicated. The U.S. is fighting two groups, one of which is the loose association of Shiite militia. The Mahdi army (one such militia) has received funding and weapons from Iran, and many of its soldiers were sent to Syria for training by Hezbollah. We are by caveat fighting Iranian groups.

What does this mean? Why does it make a difference? Typically when a country topples a regime, it takes a side and empowers it. Based on the historical method of regime change we would be backing the Shiite groups, but we are not. One of the many reasons it seems is our inability to take any side that Iran is on. This is why the cutting of the country into three separate states is not a viable solution. It will create one U.S. friendly country (Kurdistan), one Iran friendly Shiite state, and one most likely Al Qeada friendly Sunni state.

How can we avert a cold war? We don't want fifty years of nuclear standoffs, and skirmishes here and there. What are the other options? There is one method that has worked in the past, and may or may not work now... trade. For example, we will most likely never fight a war with China, due to trade relations. So I suggest that we begin trade with Iran. They have oil, we like oil, we could start there. We don't even have to trade with them, we just could vote for them to enter the WTO. This is the big advantage of trade:

Free trade ends wars (even possible cold ones).

I don't think this will solve all our problems in the middle east, or even all our problems with Iran. But trade provides something from which both countries benefit. It possibly softens the future water for real diplomatic relations. Trade with Iran could generate economic growth in the Middle East, which in the long run is good for everyone.

Worst President Ever

2006-12-03T11:11:00.000-08:00

Sorry, this post is a bit low on content, but it was just too fun for me to pass up. So I ask, do we have the worst president ever? Time will only tell. That said, the Washington Post has done a set of Op-Eds today by historians claiming that George W. Bush in fact is the worst president ever.

Most people usually consider Herbert Hoover to have done the worst job leading our country. He didn't cause the Great Depression, however, Hoover refused to do anything about it. He strongly held his view that government should not regulate business, nor should it help out the disenfranchised. Thus Hoover did nothing about the greatest humanitarian crisis in American history.

Hear I've listed out what will stick with Bush in the history books.

War in Iraq: If by some miracle Iraq becomes a functioning American friendly government in 10 years history could actually forgive him.
9/11 : Had we only gone into Afghanistan, had we captured bin Laden, had we kept international love...
Katrina : A Hooveresque inaction lead to a catastrophe, that could have been at least lessoned.
Patriot Act : Bush enacted a Nixonesque disdain for individual freedom.

That was what I could come up with off the top of my head. I'm sure there's many more (I'd love some examples from the one person who reads this). I think its important to put circumstance into this. Bush could have been a one term do nothing. However, a Republican congress empowered him to basically do what ever he wanted.

You can read the articles yourself:

Douglas Brinkley claims that had we won Iraq, Bush would have been forgiven. However, the inevitable failure to win this war makes Bush the worst. Read the article

Historian/Bad-Ass Eric Foner gives and erudite smack down of the Bush presidency, comparing the last six years to the records of those presidents at the bottom of the list. Read the article.

Micheal Lind only ranks Bush as the 5th worst. Read the article.

And finally, Vincent Cannoto gives the prudent historian answer that we won't know the answer for some time to come. Read the article.

The Powell Doctrine

2006-12-01T13:09:00.000-08:00

In 1992 Colin Powell posed a series of questions in his article "US: Challenges Ahead" in Foreign Affairs magazine. It is quite likely that the Powell Doctrine will be the foreign policy of the next president. These questions are to be answered by policy makers before committing U.S. troops into a battle.

The questions posed are:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear, attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analysed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy?
6. Have the consequences been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Does the US have broad international support?

This method was used to decide to liberate Kuwait in 1992, as well as a saving Americans in the embassy in Somalia. Both successful, and short campaigns. Both were followed by later U.S. involvement that was neither successful or short.

These rules are almost straight from Von Clausewitz On War, who studied the military strategy of Napoleon, and those who where successful against Napoleon. Von Clausewitz was emphatic about the need for a clear political objective. A state can only commit resources to a military action to the extent that it is willing to achieve a political goal. That is to say we must carefully match the scope of military action to our political objectives. Therefore we must have well defined objectives that are achievable, since the public must pay for the war, whether in money or blood.

The current status of military action, the so called Bush Doctrine, is quite the opposite. It operates under the premise that military action should be used often, to suppress any rising threat. The Powell Doctrine is gaining popularity in the public policy sector, especially among left leaning pundits. Partly due to its reasoned and moderated approach, compared to the Bush Doctrine, and partly due to Powell's rise to demigod status since leaving the White house. Assuming that Sen. McCain is not the next president, we will likely see the Powell doctrine put to use in two years from now.

First Global Warming Case Heard By Supreme Court

2006-11-29T10:54:00.000-08:00

Twelve states are suing the federal government (the EPA to be exact) for failing to raise emission standards, and thus allowing the production of carbon dioxide. The EPA claims that it does not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and thus is not responsible for this.

Justice Scalia showed that he gets his global warming information from crappy movies by asking, ‘‘when is the predicted cataclysm?'' He goes on later to basically say that he doesn't understand how emission of carbon dioxide, and its subsequent entry to the troposphere (which he gets wrong, and has to be corrected), can cause people harm. Then says that this is why he doesn't want to hear this case, because he doesn't understand it. He, of course, questions man's involvement in global warming.

The difficulty is showing that the states bringing the case were directly harmed by the EPA's refusal to regulate emission standards. They argue that there is a slow harm, and cite the loss of coast land (those states bringing the case are mostly coastal states). New York for example is projected to have lost thousands of acres by 2020. They also argue that, you know, people can die from global warming, but this is trickier.

On the other side, it was nice to read Justice Stevens mention that the scientist who worked on the EPA report, claiming the uncertainty in global warming, feel that their work was omitted to increase the perception of uncertainty. He then goes onto to questions the validity of the EPA's findings.

The questions posed to the states bringing the case seemed to be born out of ignorance. They showed a lack of understanding on the Judges. However, the questioning of the EPA attorney seemed quite attacking. Souter and Breyer both point out that if harm exists due to global warming shouldn't the EPA do something to stop it. The EPA attorney got ran over in his arguements. I guess it will all depend on Justice Kennedy, once again. The outcome is expected in Summer 2007.

Anyway you can read the arguments and questioning for yourself, it’s about an hour of reading. You can the PDF from the Supreme Court website.

Iraqi Civil War

2006-11-27T12:30:00.000-08:00

Public policy professor Monica Hoft outlines the definition of a civil war with a series of questions. If we apply these to Iraq, the outcome is indeed civil war, despite what White House spokesman Tony Snow might tell you. The questions are as follows:

Q. Is the focus of the war control over which group governs the political unit?
In a civil war the main struggle is over who will govern the resultant country, this is exactly what the current Iraq conflict is about. All parties wish to expell America, and then control the resulting country.

Q. Are there at least two groups of organized combatants?
al Sadr's Shiite militia, al Qaeda in Iraq is a Sunni group, and the non-sectarian Iraqi army.

Q. Is the state one of the combatants?
Yes, the Iraqi army is sort of fighting. This is in fact that main point of contention. But, once the Iraqi coalition government formed, this has been a civil war.

Q. Are there at least 1,000 battle deaths per year on average?
Yes, although this number seems slightly arbitrary to me.

Q. Is the ratio of total deaths at least 95 percent to 5 percent? In other words, has the stronger side suffered at least 5 percent of the casualties?
Yes. I guess this is making the distinction between genocide and civil war.

Q. Is the war occurring within the boundaries of an internationally recognized state or entity?

Yes

If these are the only criterea then Iraq has been in a civil war since 2004. However, its possible that other factors might come in. A rather circular arguement against civil war could be that as long as the U.S. has troops in Iraq the war is against us and not civil. But we should call this conflict for what it is, a Civil War.

Beginning

2006-11-25T21:53:00.000-08:00

Hello and welcome. I have decided to start blogging again, this time the content will likely be much more of a political nature. What I hope to do with this blog is

-Firstly, present minature policy analysises. For example one soon to come is a study of the effects of budget deficits on economic wealth.

-Summaries of legislation, Supreme Court rulings, and government reports.

-And what would a blog be with out the occasional rant.

More to come...