Tag: Elevated

Posts to cross post at Politics Elevated

Public to Private is a One Way Economic Street

Post author By David
Post date December 31, 2009
1 Comment on Public to Private is a One Way Economic Street

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

photo credit: taberandrew

A post entitled The New Robber Barons got me thinking about what happens when public and private enterprises compete in a marketplace. Thinking about that led to some interesting observations. The first of which is that progressives are right in their assertion that public and private enterprises can compete without eradicating each other. The problem is that the progressives don’t seem to recognize that this only works in limited cases. They like to point to the post office as an example – let’s go explore that.

Tags connections, economics, Elevated, free markets, government, KVNU FTP, questions, thoughts

General

Your Employer: Competitor or Collaborator?

Post author By David
Post date December 15, 2009
3 Comments on Your Employer: Competitor or Collaborator?

photo credit: Trypode

This question is framed in terms of employer sponsored health care benefits, but it really applies to any employer/employee interaction. Are you working with your employer, or are you competing with your employer? To put it another way, is your employer working with you, or simply working you?

I ask this because in the health care debate there are two groups of people who have opposing views on this. One group argues that employer sponsored health care as the dominant source of health insurance coverage is destructive because it distorts the health insurance market by locking people into few if any options for insurance and locks them out of the economic decisions about what plans they want. They also argue that everything your employer spends sponsoring health care coverage is money out of the employees paycheck. The other group argues that employer sponsored health care is a good thing because that is the only way most people can afford coverage and if the employer were to drop coverage the money they save would not go back into paychecks, but would simply pad their bottom line.

The second group obviously views the employer and employee as competitors. These are the people who favor unions because the employee’s need to band together in order to stand up to their employers. This adversarial relationship dampens production and hampers progress. Before anyone gets too upset with this analysis let me just say that there have been situations where unions were necessary but they are no panacea.

Let me explain why I think the first perspective is more accurate based on my own experience.

Tags economics, Elevated, health care, KVNU FTP, thoughts, work

General

Too Rich to Go Bankrupt

photo credit: Stowe Boyd

By “too rich to go bankrupt” I don’t mean someone so rich that they never will go bankrupt. What I mean by that is someone so rich that them going bankrupt would destabilize our economy and thus they deserve a bailout if bankruptcy ever threatens them. (Think Bill Gates plus Warren Buffett plus everyone who gets a paycheck from Google.) More on that later . . .

In discussing the role of the federal government in an economic recovery Ronald Hunt and Charles D. brought up the issue of the role of corporations. Charles was good enough to provide links to a 2-part article by Richard Grossman from 1998 (Part 1, Part 2) that did a good job of discussing how corporations have turned into very unwieldy masters over “we the people.” I was amazed when I first realized that these articles, which are so pertinent to our situation of bailing out “too big to fail” institutions was written more than a decade before our massive Bush bailouts.

I especially enjoyed a couple of quotes from the second part of the article:

the Supreme Court of Georgia, in Railroad Co. v. Collins, wrote: “All experience has shown that large accumulations of property in hands likely to keep it intact for a long period are dangerous to the public weal. Having perpetual succession, any kind of corporation has peculiar facilities for such accumulations . . .” (emphasis mine)

And from the end of the first part:

In Richardson v. Buhl, the Nebraska Supreme Court in the late 19th century declared: “Indeed, it is doubtful if free government can long exist in a country where such enormous amounts of money are… accumulated in the vaults of corporations, to be used at discretion in controlling the property and business of the country against the interest of the public and that of the people, for the personal gain and aggrandizement of a few individuals.” (emphasis mine)

Tags bailout, economics, Elevated, government, KVNU FTP

culture

What Are Your Fundamental Assumptions?

Post author By David
Post date December 3, 2009
17 Comments on What Are Your Fundamental Assumptions?

photo credit: quarksteilchen

In the midst of a recent comment the author revealed a fundamental assumption that he and I don’t share that clearly explains why we have differing views on government:

Federal mandates are about the only power the government has to prevent a race to the bottom. . . THE only way to get some states to do what needs to be done is to simply mandate it. The race to the bottom has got to end.

I should start by saying that federal mandates truly are the only power that government has to prevent a race to the bottom – also that I don’t think such mandates are sufficient to prevent such a race (in other words government is powerless to stop that race). After exploring the assumptions that serve as the foundation for that statement about a race to the bottom I quickly concluded that I could not accept that view of the world for myself.

The view that government must use federal mandates to prevent a race to the bottom seems to be built on the belief of Thomas Hobbes that people are basically selfish and evil. People who act as Hobbes expects will naturally engage in a race to the bottom on any issue. It is possible to believe that states will engage in a race to the bottom while still thinking the people are not basically selfish but to hold that combination of beliefs requires a belief that politics is basically corrupt and that it is mainly those who would engage in a race to the bottom who hold public office.

Tags Elevated, federalism, political philosophy, reactions, thoughts

culture

A Fundamental Difference Between Conservatives and Progressives

Post author By David
Post date December 2, 2009
14 Comments on A Fundamental Difference Between Conservatives and Progressives

photo credit: Marcin Porwit

Late in October a comment by Jason sparked my brain to recognize a subtle but fundamental difference between conservatives and progressives. Perhaps it should have been obvious simply by comparing the definitions for “conservative” and “progressive” but the implications seem to be both subtle and profound.

The word “conservative” can be reduced to essentially seeking to maintain a static foundation. The word “progressive” can be reduced to essentially seeking to promote change from the status quo. Notice that, contrary to what some people believe, progressive and conservative are not antonyms. There are times when change from the status quo may be towards an earlier static foundation, but I think it is obvious why these two views would generally not be in harmony with each other.

Tags conservative, Elevated, political philosophy, progressive, thoughts

National

A Short-Term Vision of “Purity”

Post author By David
Post date November 24, 2009
8 Comments on A Short-Term Vision of “Purity”

photo credit: David Reeves

It’s never safe to focus so much on the present that we lose sight of the future. This seems to be what is happening with the push by some to codify a purity test within the GOP. If you have not heard about this I would sum it up like so – there is a resolution before the Republican National Committee which would prevent them from giving financial backing to a candidate that did not support at least 7 of the following ten principles:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

I am amazed that the people backing this proposal do not see how short-sighted this effort is. I believe that their efforts are sincere, but sorely misguided, as they seek to define the GOP in a way that is more concrete than “not the democrats.”

Without going into specifics I am basically in favor of principles such as those outlined above, and the fact that the resolution only requires 70% support for those principles to receive party support is proof that they are not trying to weed all but the staunchest conservatives from the party (especially since they do not specify any subset of the principles which demands 100% conformity).

The shortsightedness is evident in the specific references such as “Obama’s ‘stimulus’ bill,”, “Obama-style government run health care, ” and “victory in Iraq and Afghanistan” (or maybe they are just admitting that this is a perpetual project).

I believe that there is value in talking about what defined ideological purity within the party – we certainly need to have some idea about who we are in order to be able to identify what the party has to offer voters but this particular proposal is significantly too blunt an instrument to benefit the party. Without any extended study of exactly the best way forward for the party I have a few suggestions, based on the existing proposal, for an approach that would be more likely to make things better rather than worse.

Tags Elevated, parties, Republican

General

Stretching Our TARP

photo credit: wolfheadfilms

When the TARP bill was first being discussed I made a statement that I would like to repeat about the TARP money:

[T]his should not be used as a windfall by Congress to fund some pet projects.

We have come to the point now where Congress is faced with the question of whether to extend the program past the initial time of authorization. From the earliest versions of the bill (not including the 3 page version written by Sec. Paulson) to the final version the program was authorized only until 2009 with the option for Congress to extend it as far as two years from the day it was enacted (October 10, 2010 being that two year mark). Faced with the reality of this first deadline there are people who are absolutely opposed to those members of Congress who have indicated a desire to not extend the program.

I stand by my response to what I called “my favorite section” of that first version of the bill:

Of course I won’t hold my breath that it will die in two years or less.

Indeed, Sec. Geithner testified before Congress yesterday that:

he would not support a permanent extension of the program, but . . .

(emphasis added)

Tags bailout, Bob Bennett, Elevated, money

General

Phony Federalism

photo credit: estherase

Gene Healy wrote about what he called Obama’s phony federalism but what he was really talking about was a relatively universal perspective on federalism:

Not yet a year into his administration, Obama’s record on 10th Amendment issues is already clear: He’ll let the states have their way when their policies please blue team sensibilities and he’ll call in the feds when they don’t. Thus, he’ll grant California a waiver to allow it to raise auto emissions standards, but he’ll bring the hammer down when the state tries to cut payments to unionized health care workers.

. . .

Just a few years back, the Republicans — nominally the party of federalism — were busily wielding federal power to enforce red state values . . . In that odd political climate, you often heard liberals lamenting the decline of states’ rights.

That strange new respect for the 10th Amendment lasted roughly as long as the blue team’s exile from power.

Federalism then, as understood by both major political parties is simply a tool to bash your opponents into conformity and then deflect their power from affecting you when you are on the defensive.

Tags connections, Elevated, federalism, liberty, parties

culture

Political Cultures

photo credit: www.charlietphoto.com

There are two political cultures that we need to change in order to have a healthy “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” in this country. The first is the culture among the voters as defined by how thy perceive those who hold political office. The second is the culture among lawmakers as defined by how they perceive the purpose and role of government.

Our Pit of Dysfunction

I got thinking about these culture issues during a brief discussion with my brother in which he mentioned an ex-politician that now works for the same company as he does whom he described like so:

He’s the kind of guy who leaves you with a sense that not all politicians are scum sucking bottom dwellers. He’s a really great guy.

That is a great example of the voter culture that leaves voters not wanting to participate in politics because the whole process feels dirty. That perception makes you feel that anything more than voting might contaminate you by association and has the added effect of making your vote feel useless anyway.

Among politicians the dysfunctional culture is one that views government as a powerful multi-tool which is adaptable to help deal with whatever problem the nation is facing at the time. The perception that government can be so adaptable is dangerous because it causes an excessive reliance on government (a hammer) so that we use it for tasks it was not meant to address (like cutting aboard and wondering why the edge is all jagged) while overlooking other available tools (any number of saws) that are better suited to many of the challenges we face.

The reality is that neither of those cultural perceptions is correct. Many politicians (possibly even the vast majority although my own experience is too limited to prove that conclusively) on both sides of basically every issue are good people who really do want what they think is best for their constituents and the nation as a whole. That fact may explain why, when confronted with their individual elected leader at whatever level, voters find it easy to send the incumbent back even while holding a very low opinion of the elected body they are sending them to participate in. Because government is not a multi-purpose tool to address a wide variety of problems, even well-meaning people (politicians, lobbyists, voters) trying to use it as such will create at least as many problems as they solve and they will be dissatisfied with the results of all their hard work.

Continue reading “Political Cultures”

Tags change congress, civic participation, discourse, Elevated, legislation, power

General

Why Life Imprisonment is Wrong

Post author By David
Post date November 9, 2009
No Comments on Why Life Imprisonment is Wrong

photo credit: BlatantNews.com

When I read Jay Hutchinson’s post about Why Capital Punishment is wrong I could not sit still without sharing the opposite perspective so that some people can recognize that the issue is not one sided or clear cut. I am not one who believes in excessive punishment and I would not argue that a justice system without an option for capital punishment is inappropriate, but the longer I live the more I recognize that I have never heard an argument against capital punishment that did not ring hollow on some level.

When Jay speaks of the “hypocrisy” of a government killing to prove that killing is bad he both makes a very poor argument and misses the point of capital punishment entirely. The shallowness of that argument is apparent when we recognize that government has a legitimate position of authority with regard to society and thus has some limited permissions not available to society as a whole. For his argument to work you would have to be able to argue that a father was being a hypocrite for making a rule that his child could not use matches when he uses matches to light the furnace when it goes out. Another example would be trying to argue that police departments are hypocritical for enforcing speed limits on the population while they and other emergency workers regularly exceed the speed limit in the course of their work. The use of capital punishment is not to show that killing is bad, it is meant as a consequence of certain actions as a way to demonstrate unacceptable behavior through the punishment and as a way to remove future threats to society. That certainly does not mean that capital punishment is the only way, or even necessarily the most desirable way to meet these goals, but it is not simply to show that killing is bad.

Of Jay’s three official arguments, two of them hinge on far from common occurrences – the change of heart and the wrongful conviction. That these are not true in the majority of cases does not mean that they are not legitimate concerns, but governing based on exceptions is a very dangerous practice. The fact is that most of the time the person convicted is the guilty party and of those convictions that are overturned a sizable number are overturned on technicalities, not necessarily because the defendant was innocent – nothing we can do in our justice system will ever make it 100% accurate, but we do fairly well. Jay gives exactly one exceptional example of a change of heart while claiming that “people often have a change of heart on death row.” I’m not sure how we could determine “often” since no metric, including professions of innocence, can accurately draw a line between those who have a change of heart and those who don’t. Even if we could draw that line accurately part of a change of heart for those who are guilty is an acceptance of the consequences of their actions. If society has determined that death is the appropriate consequence for our actions then a real change of heart would include coming to terms with that punishment for our actions. (After all, just because Bernie Madoff changes his heart about defrauding millions of people out of billions of dollars and promises never to manage money again does not mean that he should not face the consequences of his previous actions.)

His third argument is not dependent on the exceptional case – the financial cost of capital punishment is almost universally higher than the financial cost of life imprisonment. Like governing based on exception however, governing based on financial considerations alone is dangerous. Besides that, there are things we can do to change the equation (considering that the vast majority of appeals result in no change of sentence one option would be to reduce the number of available appeals).

For those who are still convinced that capital punishment is just wrong please consider the alternative and see if we are not stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Tags connections, death penalty, Elevated, issues, laws