tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-66588653529618512232024-03-19T00:46:55.972-04:00The People's BusinessA forum for civilized discussion about government and lawThe People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.comBlogger135125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-84774728659809498992011-07-07T11:23:00.000-04:002011-07-07T11:23:46.753-04:00Waste, Fraud and Abuse...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJXxsC7fBS0sAxOwDsJzX8SUObxZtZPsMmwZyvB22rHl9L-SVzc1Ya6qCcICqAywTC1HfjE5yATo8soahVS_4M8br1OC5GOaebKjmUKV67XoFvgPHyeK81bPftyLLgV83XbRUp9HLOOtrw/s1600/pigs-in-feed-04-02-01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJXxsC7fBS0sAxOwDsJzX8SUObxZtZPsMmwZyvB22rHl9L-SVzc1Ya6qCcICqAywTC1HfjE5yATo8soahVS_4M8br1OC5GOaebKjmUKV67XoFvgPHyeK81bPftyLLgV83XbRUp9HLOOtrw/s320/pigs-in-feed-04-02-01.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<br />
Generally when a politician indicates that he'll obtain more revenue and / or pay for a program or tax cut by identifying and eliminating "waste, fraud and abuse," there are few further details as to what that constitutes and how he'll actually get rid of them.<br />
<br />
In the Wall Street Journal, though, NYU Professor Paul Light outlines how <a href="http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304760604576428262419935394.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion&mg=reno-secaucus-wsj">he'd save $1 trillion through eliminating waste, fraud and abuse</a>:<br />
<br />
* Eliminate about one third presidential appointees, senior and midlevel federal employees: $100b. Light estimates that this would, in essence, put the government at about the same structure as it was in 1960 (although much larger). Since 1960, there has been a significant growth in the number of levels of federal employees in cabinet departments from about 7 to 18 in his estimation. This represents needless bureacracy in his view.<br />
<br />
* Only hire for these positions upon a certification of need to meet a national priority as determined under the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act. $250b<br />
<br />
* Curb improper payments: $500m<br />
<br />
* Elimination of duplicative systems: $100b<br />
<br />
* Restore the use of federal productivity measures to eliminate activities whose costs outweigh their benefits (one good example can be found <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/07/05/137402941/the-government-spent-300-million-making-coins-no-one-wants">here -</a> NPR's Planet Money team talks about the USG's spending $300m on dollar coins unwanted by the public). <br />
<br />
* Reform federal payroll practices to reward performance rather than seniority: $100b.<br />
<br />
* Cut the number of federal contractors by 500,000, end automatic pay hikes and demand productivty gains from the remainer. $300b<br />
<br />
As a tool of implementation, Light calls for the creation of a Government Reorganization Committee, modeled after the Resolution Trust Corporation. Such a committee would have broad authority to make decisions liquidating government assets, collecting moneys owed, and proposing legislative proposals to Congress that it would receive up or down votes (i.e. no burying or amending the proposals).<br />
<br />
Of course, such proposals would meet strong resistance from many quaters, particularly government employee unions. It's also to be seen whether Congress would hand over such sweeping authority to unelected policy makers. Finally, there will be many who doubtless take issue with Light's proposals and potential savings numbers. <br />
<br />
Still, for $1 trillion it's a debate worth having.The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-79116944034348061192011-07-07T10:33:00.000-04:002011-07-07T10:33:56.409-04:00<div style="text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdN2JUV2y1gdqAbNdpgsEVOpoCzZB9J6UQTMLWbLz1r2uXS2hcjX_YMrLdZknsH0xoKlatbIhO6lUmWww79LW0bx0oqkzvPb8q0o7KcGuZ-_tG7OxVGbeoCc0Cb_tvdk3I9WKcO6L2vR_w/s1600/Capitol.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdN2JUV2y1gdqAbNdpgsEVOpoCzZB9J6UQTMLWbLz1r2uXS2hcjX_YMrLdZknsH0xoKlatbIhO6lUmWww79LW0bx0oqkzvPb8q0o7KcGuZ-_tG7OxVGbeoCc0Cb_tvdk3I9WKcO6L2vR_w/s200/Capitol.jpg" width="166" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">Today in Congress</span><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;"><strong>July 7, 2011</strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Senate will continue debating S. 1323, while the House will continue working on H.R. 2219 (Defense appropriations). In essence, the Senate is continuing to posture on political matters while the House does the real work of governing.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">As much as I prefer not editorialzing, the above is sadly true. When the Republicans waste time on a measure solely for political purposes (as they have done in the past and will do so again in the future) I'll point that out as well.</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">For now its the Senate's Democratic leadership that is guilty of wasting the chamber's time on nothing other that trying to score political points.</div>The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-29925036729467583612011-07-06T09:11:00.000-04:002011-07-06T09:11:36.987-04:00Today in Congress, July 6, 2011<div style="text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdN2JUV2y1gdqAbNdpgsEVOpoCzZB9J6UQTMLWbLz1r2uXS2hcjX_YMrLdZknsH0xoKlatbIhO6lUmWww79LW0bx0oqkzvPb8q0o7KcGuZ-_tG7OxVGbeoCc0Cb_tvdk3I9WKcO6L2vR_w/s1600/Capitol.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdN2JUV2y1gdqAbNdpgsEVOpoCzZB9J6UQTMLWbLz1r2uXS2hcjX_YMrLdZknsH0xoKlatbIhO6lUmWww79LW0bx0oqkzvPb8q0o7KcGuZ-_tG7OxVGbeoCc0Cb_tvdk3I9WKcO6L2vR_w/s200/Capitol.jpg" width="166" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">Today in Congress</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">July 6, 2011</span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">The Senate will take up S. 1323, a "sense of the Senate" that "any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should require that those earning $1 million or more per year make a more meaningful contribution to the deficit reduction effort." This is a political measure intended to force Republicans into taking a hard vote. I'd expect Republicans to keep it from coming to a vote, forcing a "cloture" vote to shut off debate. That will fail (requiring 60 votes) but it will put Republicans on record for the 2012 election as the "party of the rich."</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;">The House will take up the bill funding the Department of Defense, as well as two items deemed to be non-controversial: a bill to reauthorize the Belarus Democracy Act of 2004 and a resolution on the Israeli-Palestian conflict. The latter reaffirms its support for a two state solution in the Middle East, achieved through direct negotiations between the parties. Most substantively it calls on the administration to exercise the US's veto power in the UN for any attempt to establish a Palestinian state outside Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Both measures are being placed on the suspension calendar, which provides for only short debate, and requires a 2/3 vote of the House. This indicates that the House leadership does not expect serious opposition (not that they aren't occassionally surprised).</span></div></span><div style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div>The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-87768469141427382712011-07-05T20:27:00.000-04:002011-07-05T20:27:41.233-04:00Fixing the Confirmation Process<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.aoc.gov/images/old_sen_ch_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="500" src="http://www.aoc.gov/images/old_sen_ch_1.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: xx-small;">You can still visit the old Senate chamber, where the US Senate met from 1819-1859</span></i></div></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">One of the very worst things about how Washington works is the Senate confirmation process. <br />
<br />
Even many routine, insignificant, part time government appointees must receive Senate confirmation for jobs with a tenure that generally lasts less than two years. In sum, about 1,200 appointees are subject to Senate confirmation. Between the amount of paperwork and disclosure, committee hearings, floor action, and a potential "hold" for reasons that have nothing at all to do with the nomination itself, it can take nearly as long to be confirmed as the person will hold the post for which she was confirmed.<br />
<br />
The situation has grown significantly worse in recent decades. While cabinet officers are still confirmed with relative promptness, confirmation for the all important subcabinet posts have slowed from 114 days during the Reagan administration to nearly 200 during the Obama administration. </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">As a result, many sane persons decline such appointments, and the government is denied the services of some of the most talented people this country has to offer. Instead, a cadre of job holders who have previously been Senate confirmed tend to shuffle in and out of posts over the years.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Despite all of this, the Senate has generally been uninterested in changing its ways on confirmations, preferring instead the leverage it can exercise over the executive branch to needed reforms to improve the workings of government.<br />
<br />
On June 28th , though, the Senate finally passed legislation, S. 679, the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act, that would significantly improve this situation. First, the bill would eliminate the need to confirm 170 positions. These are mostly non-policy roles, e.g. public affairs, internal management officials, etc (most prominent would be the US Treasurer, not to be confused with the Secretary of the Treasury). Next, it would provide for expedited consideration for another 250 appointees for part time boards and commissions.<br />
<br />
Of special interest is the irregular methods used by the Senate to accomplish this task. A special committee of Senators was formed with members from both the Rules Committee (which has jurisdiction over internal Senate operations), the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (which has jurisdiction over the confirmation process generally) and others with a "stake" in the system. This ad hoc group drafted the legislation, which sailed through a chamber too often stifled in partisan gridlock by an impressive 79-20 vote. Whether such tactics can work on other issues remains to be seen.<br />
<br />
While the bill must, of course, still go to the House for approval before being sent to the President, it is expected to do so without much controversy as the House does not play a role in the confirmation process. The Senate's willingness to pass a bill that would reduce its own leverage for the good of government overall is one very bright ray of bi-partisan sunshine in a city too often marked by competition for political power.</div>The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-51682313024500257202011-01-10T10:19:00.000-05:002011-01-10T10:19:49.315-05:00IncomphrensibleThe weekend's events, nothing short of a political assassination (one hopes an attempted one), are generating a lot of heat, but not much light.<br />
<br />
One theme's that is being discussed a lot is the role of heated political rhetoric. While it doesn't appear that this particular event was closely related, but politicians of all stripes are re-thinking their use of langugage and metaphors of violence (I always have hated the term "war room," mostly used by civilians who have never seen anything like the hardships endured by those who serve in the military). That's a good thing regardless.<br />
<br />
So far, the best thing I've seen is <a href="http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01/08/after-the-arizona-massacre-will-congress-ever-be-the-same/">Walter Shapiro's take</a>. He notes the trend towards less accessibility of people to their leaders, and wonders who quickly the weekend's events will accelerate this trend, and interestingly how more security would affect the mindset of Members of Congress:<br />
<blockquote>Equally troubling will be the psychological effects on House members themselves as Congress gives way to the inevitable security mania. Although there is no way of proving it, I have long nurtured the belief that living inside a protective bubble exaggerates the self-importance of public officials. If everyone must be screened and frisked before being allowed to see a freshman congressman, it is easy to imagine how this legislator might soon believe that he is entitled to perks worthy of the court of Louis XIV.</blockquote>The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-30045361318241030412011-01-03T09:40:00.000-05:002011-01-03T09:40:43.773-05:00Some advice for a new chairman<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib4I6wq3VIBgDh8f80VYXyOrdk_wRMKK-Lq_B21CFztUDBCjZBNYo-Ye0nM1dmxLmoou7vmZK5ENk9aLrzEJ6STCsQuBLLAg53cnOcnOASLfnLmFfSyxwxELLxPYpV2rHYVdH80nBIsD5B/s1600/Issa.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib4I6wq3VIBgDh8f80VYXyOrdk_wRMKK-Lq_B21CFztUDBCjZBNYo-Ye0nM1dmxLmoou7vmZK5ENk9aLrzEJ6STCsQuBLLAg53cnOcnOASLfnLmFfSyxwxELLxPYpV2rHYVdH80nBIsD5B/s200/Issa.jpg" width="163" /></a></div><br />
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California) is the incoming chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The Committee's chief role is to monitor the workings of government (oversight) and fix what's broken (reform). It doesn't enact the laws and regulations that govern us directly, but rather the laws and regulations that govern those who carry out the laws. Those oldest of enemies, "waste, fraud and abuse" are its meat and drink.<br />
<br />
Issa has let it be known he plans a very aggressive agenda, with an average of a hearing a day (thank goodness I'm no longer working on Capitol Hill!) and vigorous investigation of the executive branch. He thinks he could possibly save $200 billion, all told. Happy hunting.<br />
<br />
While I appreciate his optimism and think a little additional oversight is a good thing (oversight lacks when both parties control Congress and the executive branch), it's clear that <u>Issa really needs to step up his own performance when it comes to public statements.</u><br />
<br />
Most notably, <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/01/republican-plans-investigations-of-corrupt-obama-investigation/1">Issa called President Obama "one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times."</a> Now, this is utter nonsense (though arguably not much dumber than some of what was said about Obama's predecessor - it comes with the territory in these partisan times), but its the sort of thing politicians say all the time when they're hyperventilating on partisan talk radio and TV shows with some talking head urging them on. The difference is, Mr. Issa, you're no longer the irrelevant backbencher who needed to say outrageous things in order to get the media to pay attention, but the Chairman of a congressional committee with subpoana authority.<br />
<br />
Fortunately, Mr. Issa seems to get it, saying he regretted his language and trying to explain it in context of an administration that has (thanks to Congress mind you) a large amount of discretionary authority, the kind that Congress rotuinely gives the President in a crisis. <br />
<br />
For his sake and ours, I hope Issa grows in office, and focuses on his stated priorities:<br />
<br />
1. Impact of regulation on job creation.<br />
2. Fannie/Freddie & the Foreclosure Crisis<br />
3. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the failure to identify origins of the financial crisis<br />
4. Combating corruption in Afghanistan<br />
5. WikiLeaks<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>6. FDA/Food & Drug Safety.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">The lesson here is when you move from the minority to the majority, your demeanor and style need to change as well.</span>The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-11074711502932825252010-11-22T10:17:00.000-05:002010-11-22T10:17:47.214-05:00Fidelity to Law For Its Own Sake<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjMz-ccsqm-fhkkdmjrGGnYt8YsgzYFtnG8UFBf67q4xKBq3Hn3X0iRQrmJR8pxeQx0iQXVA8TJytt5moz0ZC52kYgOLILfdFIZew_P1gJpT5zW33kPA-kBKiaYj34Qy7dVUY4IFDigadv/s1600/Rabbit.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" ox="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjMz-ccsqm-fhkkdmjrGGnYt8YsgzYFtnG8UFBf67q4xKBq3Hn3X0iRQrmJR8pxeQx0iQXVA8TJytt5moz0ZC52kYgOLILfdFIZew_P1gJpT5zW33kPA-kBKiaYj34Qy7dVUY4IFDigadv/s200/Rabbit.gif" width="200" /></a></div><br />
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, established by Congress, announced that <a href="http://www.fcic.gov/news/pdfs/2010-1117-Report-Media-Advisory.pdf">it will delay, slightly, its report, due in December to January.</a> The reason is apparently completely innocuous - it simply wants to publish its report in book form, which will delay release by a few weeks.<br />
<br />
<em>There's only one problem.</em><br />
<br />
The statute (aka law) that created the commission requires it to report by December 15th, 2010. <br />
<br />
Four members of the Commission<a href="http://www.fcic.gov/news/pdfs/2010-1117-Commission-Republicans-Media-Advisory.pdf"> dissented from this decision</a> for this reason. The dissenters point out that the work is complete and the report can still be delivered on time.<br />
<br />
It raises the interesting question of fidelity to law simply for the sake of fidelity to law.The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-54406302905418473952010-11-17T06:06:00.003-05:002010-11-17T06:10:53.755-05:00You would think...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjogze3TMUP8ujClt_KEXArj21D76RVZ_Rr-AOFHR5yyiagiKFwtVece5AWv6yq4GguNoALHEnUbGJ2arh6WQvd8MSMcgYDVvbKkEGpBV9ovcVQFhlPqJzHZdJd_D9xZvFO7ohEG5z6ANYm/s1600/post.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="87" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjogze3TMUP8ujClt_KEXArj21D76RVZ_Rr-AOFHR5yyiagiKFwtVece5AWv6yq4GguNoALHEnUbGJ2arh6WQvd8MSMcgYDVvbKkEGpBV9ovcVQFhlPqJzHZdJd_D9xZvFO7ohEG5z6ANYm/s1600/post.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>You would think that the <i>Washington Post</i> would be a good source for an evenhanded treatment of the economic policies of the incoming House majority.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/16/AR2010111607468.html">You'd be wrong</a>.<br />
<br />
Steve Pearlstein, who's been writing such gems as full throated defenses of Fannie Mae for as long as I can remember, sums up the incoming House majority's skepticism of current economic policy, to wit:<br />
<br />
-quantitative easing<br />
-retaining the Bush tax cuts for households making over $250,000<br />
-unlimited unemployment benefits<br />
<br />
as follows:<br />
<br />
"GOP to jobless: Drop Dead"<br />
<br />
To be fair to Pearlstein, this is from the headline, not the column, and headlines are generally written by editors - not the person who wrote the article or column, so I'll reserve the possibility he (a) didn't write it and (b) chewed out the person who did.<br />
<br />
The fact is, there are serious policy arguments on these issues on both sides (see, for example, a critique of the fed's quantitative easing by some of the nation's leading economists). Pearlstein himself claims to have concerns. Why he can voice them but others can't isn't clear. I think there's a distinctly unparliamentary name for criticizing others for something you do yourself, but let's not go there. The name calling obscures these honest policy differences, and reduces our chances of finding the middle ground that Pearlstein and his ilk claim to seek.<br />
<br />
Instead, Pearlstein goes on about William Jennings Bryant, and only cites economic authorities that fit the Post's preconceived preferences for big government. If the big government policies are the right ones (and I have defended some, e.g. TARP) they certainly need better defenders.The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-34222537558895668912010-11-15T15:37:00.001-05:002011-07-05T20:33:20.333-04:00McConnell and Earmarks<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgy7G9P31afd-oDdnSRb2N-QsZHoN1BqSFQopo19HknAAzqTg1ZKKjLXWeIT4RrrIhA5htHuvI3Sbm-II3qf3RgsC0A7uY2J164pYwsBCgRmiDXIKzbKVoW6dxICNWgTdW_wmPwWRJw3_S7/s1600/MMC.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" px="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgy7G9P31afd-oDdnSRb2N-QsZHoN1BqSFQopo19HknAAzqTg1ZKKjLXWeIT4RrrIhA5htHuvI3Sbm-II3qf3RgsC0A7uY2J164pYwsBCgRmiDXIKzbKVoW6dxICNWgTdW_wmPwWRJw3_S7/s1600/MMC.bmp" /></a></div><br />
<br />
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced that despite his longstanding support for earmarks as a member of the Senate appropriations committee, he was going to <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/mcconnell-to-support-earmarks-ban/?hp">support a ban on earmarks</a>.<br />
<br />
I've written about <a href="http://thepeoplesbusiness.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-and-earmarks.html">my views on earmarks</a> before. In short, I view them as a bad practice in that their existence (a) politcizes spending and (b) incentivizes more of it than would otherwise occur.<br />
<br />
Critics note that "earmarks account for just three-10ths of 1 percent of federal spending." Yet, they're the tail that wags the dog. If members aren't guaranteed their share of ribbon cuttings and publicity, the allure of running up big bills their constituents ultimate pay becomes much diminished.<br />
<br />
Here are my questions for Senator McConnell:<br />
<br />
(1) Why the late conversion given your past support?<br />
(2) Given that Republicans are in the minority, the Senate's practice will likely still embrace earmarks regardless. Are you pledging that Republicans (and yourself) will abstain from earmarks even as they see their Democratic colleagues engaging in it?<br />
(3) House Democrats were down on "earmarks" before the 2006 election that brought them to power, yet once given the majority embraced "legislatively directed spending" (i.e. earmarks). What pledge can you give that Republicans will retain their opposition to earmarks when it really counts (i.e., when they are in the majority)?The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-41915401280794129612010-11-10T14:15:00.000-05:002010-11-10T14:15:07.239-05:00How to Restore the American Dream<a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2026776,00.html">How to Restore the American Dream</a> is one of the better pieces I've read recently on how the world really works and what it will take to get back on our feet.The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-35617732668245971672010-11-01T11:19:00.000-04:002010-11-01T11:19:42.030-04:00"No Final Victories"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7s1qdl3Ytkgu3Exa4f34BphroTM1HYei1I5zhxLlu6JJYFf5ndMDyT4MwlPLRju9HlgdtL3WcRcHYz5DGiIn-9SlNJuYhwkz4iMzFPIVQ9eNZAhEsRMhcCT8Fv-TOygH1eju7Os2gPK0I/s1600/elections-idiots.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" nx="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7s1qdl3Ytkgu3Exa4f34BphroTM1HYei1I5zhxLlu6JJYFf5ndMDyT4MwlPLRju9HlgdtL3WcRcHYz5DGiIn-9SlNJuYhwkz4iMzFPIVQ9eNZAhEsRMhcCT8Fv-TOygH1eju7Os2gPK0I/s320/elections-idiots.jpg" width="255" /></a></div><br />
E.J. Dionne is a columnist I do not, shall we say, consider essential reading. <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/01/no_final_victories_107783.html">Today's column on tomorrow's election</a> offers an opportunity for explaining why (to be clear, I don't believe he or anyone else I'm referring to in this post is an "idiot" - I just thought the picture was funny).<br />
<br />
Dionne mostly relates a dinner conversation he had with a Democratic Member of Congress, Patrick Murphy, who relates how Democrats had thought that after the election of 2006, where they took control of Congress and 2008, where they captured the White House and got 60 votes in the Senate needed to prevent a fililbuster, they were some sort of "permanent majority" and that the Republicans would be in the wilderness for an extended period if not forever.<br />
<br />
Such an attitude was on display at such entities as <a href="http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/conservatism-dead">The New Republic</a>:<br />
<blockquote>What conservatives have yet to do is confront the large but inescapable truth that movement conservatism is exhausted and quite possibly dead.</blockquote>The New York Times, no longer the "gray lady" or even, in fact, a shadow of its former self rejoiced after the 2008 election that conservatism was not only defeated, but even discredited.<br />
<br />
I haven't been in Washington as long as Dionne, Sam Tenenhaus or the New York Times, but one thing I've learned is that there is no such thing as permanent victory in a democracy. Republicans who spent and waged war more like progressive Democrats learned that. Now Democrats are learning this all over again, as if losing control of Congress in 1994 wasn't enough. Is 14 years really long enough time to forget what you've learned?<br />
<br />
Apparently.The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-30378158529466620042010-10-19T10:35:00.000-04:002010-10-19T10:35:47.283-04:00What Do You Call This Again?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0VVHESUdObrFDA6ZKJjeg3TrpHKfC4oIzPKVqm7mzk6dyef7mFECP4I_NK16p7sN5XcvyrISY1x-l1srtAq3X5MoMW7l_yVEZfVqiXN6wwXhmYp4afVaTaQuPUUcSObo8bHO92fMDwv63/s1600/Bribe.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" ex="true" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0VVHESUdObrFDA6ZKJjeg3TrpHKfC4oIzPKVqm7mzk6dyef7mFECP4I_NK16p7sN5XcvyrISY1x-l1srtAq3X5MoMW7l_yVEZfVqiXN6wwXhmYp4afVaTaQuPUUcSObo8bHO92fMDwv63/s400/Bribe.bmp" width="400" /></a></div><br />
The latest idea from Congressional Democrats is to make a one time payment to Social Security recipients.<br />
<br />
Politically, this makes a lot of sense. Seniors vote, and who wouldn't want a "bonus" these days? Put your Republican opponent in the position of having to oppose it.<br />
<br />
They're promising to push this once Congress returns after the election in a "lame duck session" (i.e. one that takes place between the election and the seating of new members and removal of old ones not re-elected).<br />
<br />
The rationale is that Social Security recipients have not received an increase in their payments for cost of living this year. <br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
Because, according to the government statistics, the cost of living didn't actually rise.<br />
<br />
Supporters argue that this is "stimulus" and that seniors are struggling, and have to deal with depleted savings. No word on why taking money from a working family of four and handing it to someone to augment their depleted savings will have an economically "stimulative" affect.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
To recap: Democrats are offering seniors an additional payment that was not earned, to which they are not entitled under current law, and which has no policy rationale.<br />
<br />
What would you call this?The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-62577175696952558232010-10-01T15:57:00.000-04:002010-10-01T15:57:30.224-04:00TARP May Actually Make Taxpayers Money<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://i378.photobucket.com/albums/oo230/stockpreacher/Wall_Street.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" px="true" src="http://i378.photobucket.com/albums/oo230/stockpreacher/Wall_Street.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
It's been a while since my last post. I wasn't kidding when I said I wouldn't post anything unless there was something that compelled me to write.<br />
<br />
What's gotten my off the couch was <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/01/business/01tarp.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fbusiness%2Findex.jsonp">this from the New York Times</a>:<br />
<blockquote>Even as voters rage and candidates put up ads against government bailouts, the reviled mother of them all — the $700 billion lifeline to banks, insurance and auto companies — will expire after Sunday at a fraction of that cost, and could conceivably earn taxpayers a profit. <br />
...<br />
the once-unthinkable possibility that the $700 billion <a class="meta-classifier" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/credit_crisis/bailout_plan/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="More articles about the credit crisis bailout plan."><span style="color: #004276;">Troubled Asset Relief Program</span></a> could end up costing far less, or even nothing, became more likely on Thursday with the news that the government had <a href="http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/tg880.htm" title="Treasury statement on A.I.G. accord."><span style="color: #004276;">negotiated a plan</span></a> with the <a class="meta-org" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/american_international_group/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More information about American International Group"><span style="color: #004276;">American International Group</span></a> to begin repaying taxpayers. </blockquote>For all the criticism that the TARP program received, I thought voting for it was the right thing to do. I had always thought that the media coverage of it as costing $700 billion was overblown because it obviously wasn't the case as we knew SOME of the costs would be recovered.<br />
<br />
That we could actually be "in the black" on this thing was, I thought, a disingenous selling point. The payoff was really keeping the financial system from going under (which as we know it didn't although we may never understand exactly how much TARP contributed to this).The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-40957164991171391662010-07-22T08:23:00.000-04:002010-07-22T08:23:16.775-04:00Never Mind - Nothing to See HereIn an apparent end to the controversry surrounding the firing of several US attorneys toward the end to the Bush Administration, <a href="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/conyers.dannehy.ola.resp.pdf">the special prosecutor has opined that</a>:<br />
<blockquote>The investigative team determined that, based on the evidence already developed by OIG/OPR and Congress, as well as the additional evidence developed through the criminal investigation, that evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias. The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias. Additionally, the investigative team determined that there was insufficent evidence to show that any witness made prosecutable false statements to either Congress or OIG/OPR, or corruptly endeavored to impede a congressional inquiry.</blockquote>I'm no fan of the Bush Justice Department as it existed under Attorney Generals Ashcroft and Gonzalez. In short, there is insufficient evidence that any of the activity related to this episode rose to the level of criminality. We'll see if the press, which covered this story ad nasuem when it first broke, gives the story's end the same coverage it gave its beginning.The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-63309513725893387092010-07-12T14:28:00.000-04:002010-07-12T14:28:30.781-04:00Getting the Economy Moving...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.newsweek.com/content/newsweek/2010/07/11/the-center-holds/_jcr_content/body/mainimage.img.jpg/1278722370456.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="152" src="http://www.newsweek.com/content/newsweek/2010/07/11/the-center-holds/_jcr_content/body/mainimage.img.jpg/1278722370456.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
One of may favorite journalists, Fareed Zakaria, reports that <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/11/the-center-holds.html">the British are proposing to tackle the deficit</a> as a means of convincing investors that England is a good place to do business:<br />
<blockquote>the new chancellor, 39-year-old Tory George Osborne, [has] presented a budget that promised to get Britain’s fiscal house in order with sharp cuts in spending, coupled with tax increases. It landed in the midst of a heated debate across the industrialized world about how to best get the economy back on track. Osborne and his boss, Prime Minister David Cameron, have come down firmly on one side of this debate, hoping that a major effort to reduce the deficit will reassure bond markets and investors that Britain is a safe and compelling place to put their money.</blockquote>Meanwhile, the Washington Post's policy blogger Ezra Klein,<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/10/AR2010071000071.html"> characterizes the debate within the Obama White House</a> as between those who wish to spend their way to prosperity vs those who argue, ala Osborne, that restraint is a quicker way to prosperity:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">we're starting to hear rumblings of a fight within the White House. The political side, we're told, wants to focus on the swelling deficit, which it believes is contributing mightily to the public's sense that the economy isn't being effectively managed. Karl Rove, who's been on the political side of a White House himself, agrees with them: "People's concern about the spending and the deficits and the debt and the out-of-control government have been growing and growing and growing," he said on Fox News. "And it's one of the key drivers in the 2010 election."</span></blockquote><div id="body_after_content_column" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', times, serif; font-size: 17px;"><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">The economists disagree: They see a weak economy that still needs government support.</span></span></blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">You got that? Those who believe in restraining borrowing are Karl Rove type political hacks, while the economists all support increased government spending. Economics is that black and white in Klein's world. All we need to do is keep spending and things will get better.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">In fact, of course, there are economists on both sides of this vital question (and probably those who take different viewpoints all together). One thing IS for certain however: anyone who is telling you there's a <i>painless</i> way out, such as Klein, isn't being realistic.</span></div>The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-69215053554469651532010-06-30T10:08:00.000-04:002010-06-30T10:08:29.434-04:00Beating A Dead Horse<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/congress/congress.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="281" src="http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/congress/congress.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
The notion that we ought to take our time to study and understand a problem before reacting to it, especially when it comes to something as complicated as legislating, is one I've discussed several times, most recently with regard to financial services reform. <i>Still, Congress is on the precipice of enacting a massive financial services reform law despite the fact that the Commission that Congress itself created to better understand the causes and nuances of the crisis has not yet completed its work.</i><br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
One proponent of reform, federal judge and author of <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Failure-Capitalism-Crisis-Descent-Depression/dp/0674035143/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277905965&sr=8-2">A Failure of Capitalism </a></i>on the financial crisis, Richard Posner, explains this phenomenon:<br />
<blockquote>But just as politics requires that President Obama be seen to be doing something about the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, though there is nothing he can do, so politics requires that Congress be seen to be doing something to prevent another economic disaster, though there is nothing it needs to do.</blockquote>Posner doesn't say that the government doesn't need to change its policies, but that the changes necessary aren't changes in the law. In short, they can be made largely without Congressional action. Now, that's a problem, because if Congress doesn't solve the problem by passing a bill (the only thing Congress does is change the law by enacting bills) then Members won't be able to claim credit by the November election.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>And THAT's why its rushing to pass legislation despite the ongoing work of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission - a government body created BY CONGRESS to report on the crisis's cause. The Commission's work is ongoing (today, in fact, it is holding a hearing on the part played by derivatives, the regulation of which was one of the most contentious issues that delayed the financial services bill) yet their work will not be factored into the legal reform.The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-78117154554750218952010-06-28T11:17:00.000-04:002010-06-28T11:17:01.779-04:00The Tea Party Explained<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.californiadar.org/chapters/jhlivermore/spiritof76.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="195" src="http://www.californiadar.org/chapters/jhlivermore/spiritof76.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.american.com/archive/2010/june-2010/the-revolt-against-cronyism">This analysis</a> is one of the best explanations I've read about the Tea Party, which is a loose collection of people who share one thing in common: frustration with the status quo. It comes in the wake of the South Carolina primaries that saw two Tea Party favored candidates prevail. In both cases, they were minorities beating middle aged white guys.<br />
<br />
A pattern seems to be emerging that runs through the views of those who identify with Tea Party, and it doesn't appear to be a strictly "throw the bums out" mentality. It doesn't make sense to punish people for nothing other than incumbency, and many incumbents are surviving. <br />
<br />
The question is why some incumbents survive if the Tea Party nothing more than a "throw the bums out" style movement:<br />
<blockquote>This question that can be easily answered by those who have argued all along that the Tea Partiers are just a collection of crackpots and dodos, incapable of seeing where their true self-interest lies. What else would you expect from such idiots? But there is another way of interpreting the South Carolina primaries. The real target of Tea Party wrath is not the establishment or incumbency, but cronyism.</blockquote>Such cronyism exists in many aspects of life, not the least of which is Wall Street and its relationship with Washington, DC. There is, perhaps, nothing more American than the notion people should advance on their own merits rather than their status or birth.<br />
<br />
It will be interesting to see how this theme continues to play out through the rest of the year.The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-61065452547806968192010-06-02T11:43:00.000-04:002010-06-02T11:43:58.811-04:00Campaign Finance I<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://24hourpartypooper.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/voting_booth-723571.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="222" src="http://24hourpartypooper.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/voting_booth-723571.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
I'm not sold on the concept of publicly financing campaigns. It should not be easy for any crackpot to get hold off taxpayers' money to launch a loony, joy ride of a political campaign. <br />
<br />
Still,<a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/02/campaign_finance_reform_will_fix_sleaze.html"> articles like this</a> from the excellent Ruth Marcus make me willing to re-consider:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Washington operates on the tacit understanding that campaign contributions grease the way for access and influence. Both sides in this transaction, lawmaker and donor, perceive, or at least present, themselves as the victim: elected officials as captives of a system that demands incessant fundraising; donors as the target of a none-too-subtle shakedown scheme.</blockquote><blockquote>As the legislative director for Teledyne Controls, a California defense contractor, told OCE investigators, "It does go through your mind whether you are buying influence." Yah think? </blockquote><br />
Having spent 10 years on the Hill, I wouldn't say money buys results (except in a few highly publicized cases where people went to jail), but it can get you a hearing, without which you have little or no chance of getting what you're looking for. Even the late Paul Simon (D-IL) acknowledged that his time was limited, and when handed his list of phone calls gave preference to big donors.<br />
<br />
Most so-called campaign finance reforms have, in my view, made the system even worse. Limit how much individuals can give? OK - you simply empower "bundlers" who can bring many individuals together. Even worse, because only small amounts can come from any one source, it takes MUCH more time for Members to fund raise. Every lunch hour and free evening becomes a fund raising session whereby a Members Chief of Staff will her take over to the Republican or Democratic Committee to start placing phone calls to lobbyists and constituents. <br />
<br />
This is time not working on the nation's problems or even time socializing and getting to know one another personally. Don't underestimate the importance of this latter activity - its one of the reasons Washington has become so nasty.The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-9035814418717425852010-06-01T11:01:00.000-04:002010-06-01T11:01:27.987-04:00Some proposals from Brookings<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://arraupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/biden_brookings.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="133" src="http://arraupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/biden_brookings.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><br />
<a href="http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2010/0601_innovation_galston.aspx">This</a> came across my desk this morning. <br />
<br />
Titled "Econonic Growth and Institutional Innvotation: Outlines of a Reform Agenda," the policy monograph by William Galston discusses how our institutional design can affect our economy.<br />
<br />
Galston starts from the premise that our economy is hampered by three deficits: fiscal (also known as the US budget deficit), savings (the lack thereof by US citizens) and investments. He proposes that these be attacked by such things as Commissions that are insulated from the political process, yet still answerable to Congress. Mandatory individual accounts added to Social Security. And the creation of a "National Infrastructure Bank" funded with US tax dollars. Such reforms would be impossible in our current climate, so institutional reforms that will empower centrists must be enacted. <br />
<br />
To me, these are the more interesting suggestions: (1) replace the current system of having state legislatures draw political districts for themselves and the US House and (2) mandate voting. I'll take a closer look at these ideas in some of my next posts.The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-29994894716587215642010-05-25T13:40:00.000-04:002010-05-25T13:40:25.867-04:00Even more insane than I imagined...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.liberadio.com/wp-content/loony_sm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.liberadio.com/wp-content/loony_sm.jpg" /></a></div>As you'll recall, the agency that overseas safety at offshore drilling facilities, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) (an agency within the US Department of Interior) was structured in such a way as to <a href="http://thepeoplesbusiness.blogspot.com/2010/05/regulatory-incentives-case-study.html">create a conflict of interests</a>. In short, its funding came from the operations of the entities it was supposed to oversee from a safety perspective. If your budget comes from an entity's operations, what are the odds you'll shut it down, even if you're concerned about safety?<br />
<br />
This flaw was addressed rapidly as Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced that <a href="http://thepeoplesbusiness.blogspot.com/2010/05/learning-right-lessons-part-ii.html">MMS's collection and safety functions would be separated.</a><br />
<br />
Today's <i>Post</i> contains the strongest evidence to date that the agency's conflict of interests created a situation where this situation was possible. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/24/AR2010052401974.html">Amazingly, MMS officials' bonuses were tied to how meeting federal deadlines for leasing offshore oil and gas exploration, according to the Washington Post</a> Reports of environmental risks triggered reviews that delayed leases according to the story.<br />
<br />
In short, the incentives for the individuals with oversight of the safety of offshore drilling facilities were paid based on how fast they could get drilling approvals done.<br />
<br />
If this story is ever told in a productive manner it will be one of failed government design as much as anything else.The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-31558322376391555592010-05-19T09:56:00.000-04:002010-05-19T09:56:28.201-04:00Yesterday's Elections<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://sewingnetwork.net/horseracing3.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="214" src="http://sewingnetwork.net/horseracing3.JPG" width="320" /></a></div><br />
I'm not a political analyst, so I'll leave the analysis to others. I'd just warn you that 90% of those who claim to be political analysts aren't very good at it, or have agendas other than providing the unvarnished truth. <br />
<br />
Here are a few links for your consideration:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/">http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/">http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/">http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.cookpolitical.com/">http://www.cookpolitical.com/</a>The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-21192739538425208822010-05-17T12:56:00.000-04:002010-05-17T12:56:40.821-04:00The Financial Crisis Explained - Gambling With Other People's Money<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/thumb/SG_6431.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/thumb/SG_6431.jpg" width="142" /></a></div><br />
Russ Roberts has made a career out of explaining difficult economic topics by relating them to ordinary life in a readable manner. He explained why we should support free trade in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Choice-Fable-Free-Trade-Protection/dp/0131433547/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274114405&sr=1-4">The Choice</a> and other economic concepts in several other <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Heart-Economic-Romance/dp/0262681358/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274114405&sr=1-3">novels that involve economic themes</a>.<br />
<br />
He's just issued a paper that explains the recent financial crisis very well. You can download it <a href="http://mercatus.org/publication/gambling-other-peoples-money">here</a>. <br />
<br />
His critique is well balanced and very nuanced. It covers all the bases to some degree, although it focuses most heavily on the problem he sees at the heart of the matter: government actions created a bailout expectation that led creditors to not act with their usual caution when it came to the housing market. He partitions blame between the government and private actors who advocated the government's actions for personal gain. I like that he takes a degree of personal responsibility, acknowledging that he had downplayed concerns about high leverage (ratio of debt to capital). Most important, he rejects any easy, simplistic answers from the left (Wall Street Greed) or right (all due to Freddie and Fannie).<br />
<br />
Here's just a very short "summary of the summary" to give you a taste:<br />
<blockquote>In the United States we like to believe we are a capitalist society based on individual responsibility. But we are what we do. Not what we say we are. Not what we wish to be. But what we do. And what we do in the United States is make it easy to gamble with other people’s money—particularly borrowed money—by making sure that almost everybody who makes bad loans gets his money back anyway. The financial crisis of 2008 was a natural result of these perverse incentives. We must return to the natural incentives of profit and loss if we want to prevent future crises.</blockquote>I don't agree with everything he says, this is probably one of the best pieces I've seen for those who aren't financial policy buffs but want to understand the connection between government activity and the economy a little bit better.The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-15833057726421809112010-05-13T10:20:00.000-04:002010-05-13T10:20:18.817-04:00The Inmates are Running the Asylum<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://artworks.avalonweb.net/excellence/asylum.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="http://artworks.avalonweb.net/excellence/asylum.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><br />
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/12/AR2010051204541.html">The Washington Post's editorial page sounds a worried note</a> after a conservative Republican lost his primary bid for not being quite conservative enough (<i>i.e.</i> he had voted for TARP and had co-sponsored a relatively moderate health care reform proposal with a Democrat) and a Democrat from West Virginia who had shown a willingness to compromise on greenhouse gas regulation lost as well. In short, two fairly well respected Members who were willing to work with others on compromises lost to candidates who made it clear that compromise was not in their vocabulary:<br />
<blockquote>For many party cleansers, working across party lines constitutes treason. We agree that elected officials ought to be guided by principles that they are willing to fight for. But we also see a difference between fidelity to principle and dogmatism. If Republicans cannot accept that Democrats may make some reasonable arguments, and vice versa, then nothing will get done</blockquote>I normally don't blog on electoral politics, but this trend has obvious implications for governance if Members of Congress believe that the only way to keep their seats is to scream across the aisle rather than actually governing. In future posts, I hope to look at what institutional reforms can be made to keep parties from becoming hostages to their most extreme elements. <br />
<br />
Because, right now, the inmates are running the asylum in both parties.The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-22033763381290706472010-05-12T14:07:00.000-04:002010-05-12T14:07:18.800-04:00The New Prime Minister<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/5/7/1273240795726/David-Cameron-arrives-for-006.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/5/7/1273240795726/David-Cameron-arrives-for-006.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<div><br />
</div>It hasn't taken as long as some feared for Britain to get a new government. Conservative leader David Cameron and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg have formed a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_government">coalition government</a> (the first since the end of World War II apparently) between the two parties, with the Conservatives getting most of the leading offices given that they won the largest number of votes. But Clegg will serve as the Deputy Prime Minister and several other top government posts will go to Liberal Democrat MPs.<div><br />
</div><div>Interestingly, one of their first moves will be to enact legislation fixing the term of Parliament at 5 years. Under current law, a Parliament may last up to 5 years, but a Prime Minister may dissolve Parliament, thereby causing an election, earlier if he or she chooses. The move may help to solidify the coalition (allaying Liberal Democrat fears that the Conservatives would call new elections once their polling looked better, gain a majority, and kick them out) but it also seems like good government (prohibiting a politically motivated call for a new election by the party in power for the purposes of political advantage.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Still, this could have profound effects on the entire British political system, and render it looking much more like that of the U.S. in several ways.</div><div><br />
</div><div>For example, suppose the Prime Minister loses the majority. Would Britain be stuck with a prime minister who lacks majority support in the Parliament? If so, it could come to resemble the US system, where the President and Congress frequently do not come from the same party, a little bit more.</div><div><br />
</div><div>More importantly, it would also likely end the tradition of short, inexpensive campaigns because candidates will know exactly when the elections will be and can start campaigning earlier than the usual 30 day window from when the PM announces an election and when it takes place. Such a change may wind up with very profound effects. As a result of longer, more expensive campaigns, voters may wind up paying less attention and fewer going to the polls.</div>The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6658865352961851223.post-8905451136170958232010-05-11T10:22:00.000-04:002010-05-11T10:22:41.446-04:00Learning the Right Lessons Part II<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://bobmccarty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/interior-secretary-ken-salazar.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://bobmccarty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/interior-secretary-ken-salazar.jpg" width="142" /></a></div><br />
Learning the right lessons from a failure is the first step towards improving future performance, in life, in business and especially in government. <a href="http://thepeoplesbusiness.blogspot.com/2010/05/regulatory-incentives-case-study.html">As we discussed earlier</a>, the most important aspect of the government's oversight of the safety of offshore drilling rigs may have been the merger of two conflicting tasks, safety and revenue collection, in the same agency.<br />
<br />
The AP is now reporting that <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/11/AR2010051101038.html">the administration is looking into splitting the Minerals Management Services into two different agencies</a> centered around these very different tasks. As we learned last week, the British took a similar step years ago, and improved their safety record as well. Even if the Wall Street Journal didn't seem to get it quite right when it wrote its headline, Department of Interior Ken Salazar seems to understand.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div>The People's Businesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397781935048864087noreply@blogger.com0