The Post has a great editorial on the issue. They disagree with Greenspan's assertion that the tax cuts should be made permanent, but commend his efforts to bring the issue of social security's long-term solvency into the national discussion. They also scold the President and his opponents for blowing off Greenspan's concerns. The Post concludes: "But at least Mr. Greenspan -- unlike the president and his allies -- acknowledges the need for trade-offs. Mr. Bush won't admit that something's got to give; his Democratic rivals seem determined to compete in fiscal dishonesty. And they all pretend to offer leadership."
As to the prospects of Kerry and his Clintonistas fixing the deficit, I'm considerably less than optimistic. There were three basic reasons why Clinton was able to balance the budget. 1) A substantial tax hike (which Kerry won't do), 2) a substantial reduction in military spending (which Kerry won't do), 3) the dot-com boom (which won't happen again). I fail to see any way that Kerry can either cut spending or increase revenue enough to even dent the deficit.
Friday, February 27, 2004
Oh, the outrage...
Alan Greenspan testified on Wednesday before the Committee on the Budget of the House. He addressed the fiscal health of the nation, pointing out what seems to be obvious, but what most of our politicians do not want to address. Greenspan expressed concern over the rising budget deficits, particularly in the face of the looming crises in social security (SS) and medicare when the baby boomers begin to retire (only 4 years away, incidentally). As possible solutions, he proposed extending the current tax cuts to continue economic growth, also noting that it is easy to start government programs and nearly impossible to shrink or end them. He then goes on to say that corrective measures will be needed in social programs. Whereas much of the press seemed to immediately quote Greenspan as advocating a reduction in SS benefits, they might have done a better read of the transcript. Greenspan is actually proposing to stabilize the ratio of retirement-to-working. Because people continue to live (but not work) longer, the expenses of SS continually rise relative to revenue of working years. This is in addition to the problem of a rather large generation coming through the ranks.
Unless we are going to restructure the SS system (for instance creating personal accounts), this seems like a reasonable idea. Yet Greenspan was immediately rebuked across the board, most notably by Bush, Kerry, and Edwards (it reminds me of when Dean mentioned raising the retirement age - a similar result). Edwards stated that "it is an outrage for him to suggest that we should extend George Bush's tax cuts on unearned wealth while cutting Social Security benefits that working people earn." I would counter that it is an outrage that none of our representatives seems to have the will or the foresight to begin addressing problems that may devastate this country economically. They all rebuke Greenspan's ideas, and yet none of them has offered a plan to fix the budget deficit and these looming fiscal disasters.
The only disappointment I had in Greenspan's testimony was the scant mention of defense spending. This is an enormous chunk of our GDP. The fact that it is so much greater than any other nation suggests to me that our priorities are not well placed. Instead of talking about limiting retirement benefits or other social programs, why is there rarely mention of limiting the bloated Pentagon budget?
Clearly, difficult choices need to be made. Is anybody out there willing to make them?
Unless we are going to restructure the SS system (for instance creating personal accounts), this seems like a reasonable idea. Yet Greenspan was immediately rebuked across the board, most notably by Bush, Kerry, and Edwards (it reminds me of when Dean mentioned raising the retirement age - a similar result). Edwards stated that "it is an outrage for him to suggest that we should extend George Bush's tax cuts on unearned wealth while cutting Social Security benefits that working people earn." I would counter that it is an outrage that none of our representatives seems to have the will or the foresight to begin addressing problems that may devastate this country economically. They all rebuke Greenspan's ideas, and yet none of them has offered a plan to fix the budget deficit and these looming fiscal disasters.
The only disappointment I had in Greenspan's testimony was the scant mention of defense spending. This is an enormous chunk of our GDP. The fact that it is so much greater than any other nation suggests to me that our priorities are not well placed. Instead of talking about limiting retirement benefits or other social programs, why is there rarely mention of limiting the bloated Pentagon budget?
Clearly, difficult choices need to be made. Is anybody out there willing to make them?
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Deceit On the Campaign Trail
Two recent Washington Post columns Robert J. Samuelson addressed points I raised in my presidential candidates tirade regarding the complete lack of honesty in campaign discussions of budget policy and the economy.
Neither Bush nor Kerry intend to balance the budget by 2009, and both of their plans for not balancing the budget lack any grounding in reality. Take Kerry's plan as an example. He plans to undo the part of Bush's tax cut that applies to the highest tax bracket. As Samuelson points out, the CBO believes the tax cutting only accounts for about 30% of our current deficit. Ok, so let's say he's fixed 20% of the deficit, how about the other 80%? Kerry proposes massive increases in spending for college education, homeland security, $50b to provide economic assistance to states, a bank-breaking health care policy, all topped off by additional middle class tax cuts. This is supposed to reduce the deficit by 50%? Bullshit. Not a snowball's chance in hell. Bush's plan is no better. I believe this is one of the most critical issues in the election, and not only does neither candidate plan to fix it, neither of them can even be bothered to tell the truth about it.
Meanwhile I continue to believe that the state of the economy will be one of the most critical deciding factors in the November election, despite the fact that, as Samuelson rightly notes, there's really not much connection between the president and the economy. So here is a non-issue that due to the amount of bogus posturing and proclaiming coming from each camp (and the press) becomes a critical deciding issue.
I commend Samuelson for at least attempting to hold these guys to account. Too bad the rest of his colleagues are too busy worrying about the horse-race to bother worrying about the issues. If they did, who knows, we might even have a serious discussion of substantive issues during a presidential election. Imagine that..
Neither Bush nor Kerry intend to balance the budget by 2009, and both of their plans for not balancing the budget lack any grounding in reality. Take Kerry's plan as an example. He plans to undo the part of Bush's tax cut that applies to the highest tax bracket. As Samuelson points out, the CBO believes the tax cutting only accounts for about 30% of our current deficit. Ok, so let's say he's fixed 20% of the deficit, how about the other 80%? Kerry proposes massive increases in spending for college education, homeland security, $50b to provide economic assistance to states, a bank-breaking health care policy, all topped off by additional middle class tax cuts. This is supposed to reduce the deficit by 50%? Bullshit. Not a snowball's chance in hell. Bush's plan is no better. I believe this is one of the most critical issues in the election, and not only does neither candidate plan to fix it, neither of them can even be bothered to tell the truth about it.
Meanwhile I continue to believe that the state of the economy will be one of the most critical deciding factors in the November election, despite the fact that, as Samuelson rightly notes, there's really not much connection between the president and the economy. So here is a non-issue that due to the amount of bogus posturing and proclaiming coming from each camp (and the press) becomes a critical deciding issue.
I commend Samuelson for at least attempting to hold these guys to account. Too bad the rest of his colleagues are too busy worrying about the horse-race to bother worrying about the issues. If they did, who knows, we might even have a serious discussion of substantive issues during a presidential election. Imagine that..
Earning His "Vile Henchman" Boy Scout Badge
Wired News interviewed Georgetown law professor, assistant US attorney general, and co-author of the USA Patriot Act, Viet Dinh. The interview is a disappointingly softball affair. The questions consist of "some people think maybe this isn't the best" type critiques which Dinh happily glosses over. Maybe the author should have spent a few minutes at the ACLU's Patriot Act page to learn the relevant issues. Fortunately there is a slashdot discussion of the interview that provides some balance (in the form of about 600 posts ruthlessly bashing Dinh and his law).
Monday, February 23, 2004
Sunday, February 22, 2004
Saturday, February 21, 2004
Re: Here Comes Nader
Ryan is correct--I misread the Reuters article (maybe I was influenced in part by this Fox News story). The New York Times today in this article quoted a spokesperson for Nader as saying that "this is pure speculation." I guess we all must and see.
As for Ryan's means-ends argument, I agree that it is far better for deliberative democracy to have more issues on the table and that is the reason I would encourage Nader to jump in. When it comes to voting time, where there are more than two choices the decision comes down to whether you want to vote for the best candidate or ensure that the worst candidate doesn't win. We should never have to make that choice, and so long as voters make the latter choice things will never change. But this time around I care more about getting President Bush out than promoting institutional change. In my humble opinion, another Bush term would do more long-term damage than would propping up the horribly botched electoral system for another four years. But all the same I believe Nader's presence in the next several months will be for the good. Someone must push the debate forward or Edwards and Kerry will drift more and more toward the middle. And while that may make good strategic sense, it does not bode well for progress.
As for Ryan's means-ends argument, I agree that it is far better for deliberative democracy to have more issues on the table and that is the reason I would encourage Nader to jump in. When it comes to voting time, where there are more than two choices the decision comes down to whether you want to vote for the best candidate or ensure that the worst candidate doesn't win. We should never have to make that choice, and so long as voters make the latter choice things will never change. But this time around I care more about getting President Bush out than promoting institutional change. In my humble opinion, another Bush term would do more long-term damage than would propping up the horribly botched electoral system for another four years. But all the same I believe Nader's presence in the next several months will be for the good. Someone must push the debate forward or Edwards and Kerry will drift more and more toward the middle. And while that may make good strategic sense, it does not bode well for progress.
Re: Here Comes Nader
First, a brief correction on a statement by Veritas. According to the Reuters article, Nader plans to announce his decision tomorrow on whether or not to run as opposed to announcing his candidacy. Our discussion will be a moot point if he chooses not to run.
Second, I believe that, in general, a greater selection of candidates will promote deliberative democracy in our election and perhaps even generate increased voter interest. Although most of us would not prefer the Bush administration for another 4 years, the enhancement of democracy should not be so quickly discounted. Dave would quickly counter here that 4 more years of Bush would destroy any gains in deliberative democracy generated by the election process, and he might have a point. This essentially comes down to an argument of whether the end justifies the means. Do we promote the restriction of candidates running for office in the hopes of getting the exact outcome we want? This is questionable in my mind. I would far prefer a process with greater options and deliberation that might enhance our democracy as a whole. A third candidate is likely to force issues the other two might otherwise neglect. If the two "major" candidates fail to address these issues and lose votes, so be it. That is how democracy should work.
Second, I believe that, in general, a greater selection of candidates will promote deliberative democracy in our election and perhaps even generate increased voter interest. Although most of us would not prefer the Bush administration for another 4 years, the enhancement of democracy should not be so quickly discounted. Dave would quickly counter here that 4 more years of Bush would destroy any gains in deliberative democracy generated by the election process, and he might have a point. This essentially comes down to an argument of whether the end justifies the means. Do we promote the restriction of candidates running for office in the hopes of getting the exact outcome we want? This is questionable in my mind. I would far prefer a process with greater options and deliberation that might enhance our democracy as a whole. A third candidate is likely to force issues the other two might otherwise neglect. If the two "major" candidates fail to address these issues and lose votes, so be it. That is how democracy should work.
Friday, February 20, 2004
Re: Here Comes Nader
I won't belabor this point, but the Nader thing has always been on the table. It was discussed as far back as last fall that Dean was keeping Nader out of the race and his supporters in the Democratic party. And he did it without having any ruinously radical policy positions. As Andrew Sullivan wrote a few weeks back: "In 2000 Al Gore lost in part because of the far-left Ralph Nader challenge. Dean has managed to bring these voters back into the fold — without making any drastic policy commitments that could come back to haunt him. Kerry in comparison? Gore redux." This was always on the table and was part of the choice voters made when they picked Kerry. Dean represented a compromise: the moderate, centrist policies of a mainline Dem, with the character and grassroots populist credentials to satisfy the Naderites. The mainline Dems rejected the compromise, and now lay in the bed they made themselves.
In any case I still have the feeling that current events regarding Iraq and the economy over the course of the summer and fall will likely trump all of this maneuvering, the results of the primary and Nader's presence. If things are rosy, Bush wins, if they're ugly he loses. Oh, and of course there is always the Osama trump card..
In any case I still have the feeling that current events regarding Iraq and the economy over the course of the summer and fall will likely trump all of this maneuvering, the results of the primary and Nader's presence. If things are rosy, Bush wins, if they're ugly he loses. Oh, and of course there is always the Osama trump card..
DNC Resorts to WTO-style Crowd Control
Well it seems the concept of "free speech zones" has crossed the aisle to the Democratic party. They plan to keep protestors out of sight and out of mind during the party convention. More fuel for Nader's fire?
Re: Here Comes Nader
Reuters claims here that Nader will announce his candidacy on Sunday's Meet the Press--so be sure to tune in.
I for one am glad he's running. The two viable Democrats (the media seems to have "misplaced" Kucinich and Sharpton, although it's hard to blame them as neither has accumulated a single delegate so far) are desparately looking for any disparity they can claim. For example, Edwards is making a big hub-bub over his opposition to free trade agreements with sub-Saharan Africa and the Carribbean (while at the same time hoping people will ignore his votes on China and South America). At least from the policies that each candidate is promoting from the pulpit, there is no meaningful difference. Except that each one boasts HE is the electable one and not the other.
Nader, on the other hand, promises to bring a host of issues into the fray that neither candidate is talking about. Rather than hoping that Nader sit this one out, I hope that Nader continues the push Dean started toward the issues that really matter. If the candidates incorporate some real issues in amongst the fluff, then maybe Nader won't pose a real threat. If they don't, well they deserve to reap whatever the result. But don't blame Nader for the Democratic Party losing its spine.
I for one am glad he's running. The two viable Democrats (the media seems to have "misplaced" Kucinich and Sharpton, although it's hard to blame them as neither has accumulated a single delegate so far) are desparately looking for any disparity they can claim. For example, Edwards is making a big hub-bub over his opposition to free trade agreements with sub-Saharan Africa and the Carribbean (while at the same time hoping people will ignore his votes on China and South America). At least from the policies that each candidate is promoting from the pulpit, there is no meaningful difference. Except that each one boasts HE is the electable one and not the other.
Nader, on the other hand, promises to bring a host of issues into the fray that neither candidate is talking about. Rather than hoping that Nader sit this one out, I hope that Nader continues the push Dean started toward the issues that really matter. If the candidates incorporate some real issues in amongst the fluff, then maybe Nader won't pose a real threat. If they don't, well they deserve to reap whatever the result. But don't blame Nader for the Democratic Party losing its spine.
Here Comes Nader
Fox News says that Nader's advisors are hinting that at his scheduled sunday press conference Ralph Nader will join the race for president as an independent. Coincidence that this comes the same week that Dean drops out?
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Thanking OPEC
This is a pretty random topic, but I was browsing through a Newsweek and thought this was an interesting take on a global trade topic rarely dealt with. Washington Post regular, RJ Samuelson (who I've been coming to like more and more) wrote a short piece on the stabilizing influence of OPEC on the oil trade.
Re: And Then There Were Two..
I rarely see NewsHour these days, but somebody at Dean For America pointed out these online segments about Wisconsin and Dean's concession. The last two in particular were pretty good, and, I think, offered some of the more cogent analysis of the whole situation that I've seen.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
And Then There Were Two..
Howard Dean announces through his blog (of course) that he is ending his candidacy today. Based on his comments I suspect he doesn't intend to drop out of the political scene..
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
10th Circuit Holds that Do-Not-Call Registry is Constitutional
A while back, Joe and I discussed a ruling from the District Court of Colorado that found the National Do-Not-Call Registry unconstitutional. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the registry to go forward, and has now issued its full opinion.
In brief, the 10th Circuit found that the regulation survives First Amendment scrutiny because it promotes a substantial interest (privacy and preventing fraud) in a way that is reasonably tailored to the goal. The court found that there was a legitimate basis in distinguishing commercial and noncommercial speech because commercial speech presents a bigger nuisance than non-commercial calls. And while the court recognized that non-commercial calls may also be a nuisance, "the First Amendment does not require that the government regulate all aspects of a problem before it can make progress on any front." (P. 22).
The 10th Circuit seemed motivated in part by the fact that the registry restricts "only calls that are targeted at unwilling recipients," and "speech restrictions based on private choice (i.e., an opt-in feature) are less restrictive than laws that prohibit speech directly." (P. 30). The court cited Rowan favorably, a case that Joe relied on in his arguments, and noted that "Congress has erected a well (or more accurately permits a citizen to erect a wall) that no advertiser may penetrate without his acquiescence. ... The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain." (P. 31). The court observed that "like the do-not-mail regulation approved in Rowan, the national do-not-call registry does not itself prohibit any speech. Instead, it merely permits a citizen to erect a wall ... that no advertiser may penetrate without his acquiescence." (P. 33).
While I entirely agree with the result, I think that by bringing in Rowan the 10th Circuit's holding obscures the point I was trying to make earlier (although the Court did not rely on Rowan to reach its result). While a citizen has a right to determine whose messages it allows into his or her domain, if the government provides selective restrictions it must explain why it chose to select some speech for restriction but not others. In this case, the registry does not simply empower citizens to erect a wall to prevent all calls from coming into his or her home as the opinion suggests. Rather, Congress permitted citizens to erect a wall that is impenetrable only to some (commercial speakers) but does not prevent others (non-commercial speakers) from breaching the wall--and that feature is what raises First Amendment concerns. That is content restriction, plain and simple.
I certainly agree with the 10th Circuit that people are kings of their own domain, but when government decides to empower citizens to be left alone in some ways but not others, there must be a strong reason for the distinction. In this case, the court found that the FTC and FCC amply explained how commercial speech is more harmful than non-commercial speech in this context, and recognized that a 40-60% reduction in overall unwanted calls demonstrates a substantial relationship between the stated goals and the government action. That's all that is necessary to survive First Amendment review under these circumstances.
In brief, the 10th Circuit found that the regulation survives First Amendment scrutiny because it promotes a substantial interest (privacy and preventing fraud) in a way that is reasonably tailored to the goal. The court found that there was a legitimate basis in distinguishing commercial and noncommercial speech because commercial speech presents a bigger nuisance than non-commercial calls. And while the court recognized that non-commercial calls may also be a nuisance, "the First Amendment does not require that the government regulate all aspects of a problem before it can make progress on any front." (P. 22).
The 10th Circuit seemed motivated in part by the fact that the registry restricts "only calls that are targeted at unwilling recipients," and "speech restrictions based on private choice (i.e., an opt-in feature) are less restrictive than laws that prohibit speech directly." (P. 30). The court cited Rowan favorably, a case that Joe relied on in his arguments, and noted that "Congress has erected a well (or more accurately permits a citizen to erect a wall) that no advertiser may penetrate without his acquiescence. ... The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain." (P. 31). The court observed that "like the do-not-mail regulation approved in Rowan, the national do-not-call registry does not itself prohibit any speech. Instead, it merely permits a citizen to erect a wall ... that no advertiser may penetrate without his acquiescence." (P. 33).
While I entirely agree with the result, I think that by bringing in Rowan the 10th Circuit's holding obscures the point I was trying to make earlier (although the Court did not rely on Rowan to reach its result). While a citizen has a right to determine whose messages it allows into his or her domain, if the government provides selective restrictions it must explain why it chose to select some speech for restriction but not others. In this case, the registry does not simply empower citizens to erect a wall to prevent all calls from coming into his or her home as the opinion suggests. Rather, Congress permitted citizens to erect a wall that is impenetrable only to some (commercial speakers) but does not prevent others (non-commercial speakers) from breaching the wall--and that feature is what raises First Amendment concerns. That is content restriction, plain and simple.
I certainly agree with the 10th Circuit that people are kings of their own domain, but when government decides to empower citizens to be left alone in some ways but not others, there must be a strong reason for the distinction. In this case, the court found that the FTC and FCC amply explained how commercial speech is more harmful than non-commercial speech in this context, and recognized that a 40-60% reduction in overall unwanted calls demonstrates a substantial relationship between the stated goals and the government action. That's all that is necessary to survive First Amendment review under these circumstances.
Trippi Moves On
I just noticed that Joe Trippi has started a blog. So far he has, not surprisingly, mostly written about the campaign and the things he tried to accomplish and lessons learned and such. It's interesting reading. It will be interesting to see where he goes from here..
Outsourcing Surgeons
Even some of the supposedly secure industries may not be as secure as we thought they were. Slashdot has a discussion of this topic. As for anecdotal evidence, Ceci has been relying on our trips to China to have her dental work done due to the cost savings (our insurance claims they are pre-existing conditions and won't pay for it)...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
