The North Carolina legislature today attempted unsuccessfully to override Governor Perdue's veto of House Bill 351, the Voter ID bill. According to the News and Observer, there may be future attempts to override.
I have commented previously on this and similar bills here and here.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
Meanwhile, Back at Town Hall
The Town of Oriental has now resolved the police hiring impasse by recognizing that town administration, including hiring and supervision of police officers, is the legal responsibility of the town manager, not the Board of Commissioners.
The morning this revelation was announced, one of the commissioners revealed that she (the commissioner) had tasked one of the town employees with uncovering all of the amendments to the town charter and putting them on the web site.
Not a bad idea, but a better approach would have been to suggest the course of action to the manager and let him decide how to go about it. He is the one who must assign tasks to the staff. This is neither the duty nor the responsibility of a commissioner.
Now that the principal of how responsibilities are divided by North Carolina law between the board of commissioners and the town manager has been accepted, I think commissioners will find their own job very much easier. And they will probably do it better.
The morning this revelation was announced, one of the commissioners revealed that she (the commissioner) had tasked one of the town employees with uncovering all of the amendments to the town charter and putting them on the web site.
Not a bad idea, but a better approach would have been to suggest the course of action to the manager and let him decide how to go about it. He is the one who must assign tasks to the staff. This is neither the duty nor the responsibility of a commissioner.
Now that the principal of how responsibilities are divided by North Carolina law between the board of commissioners and the town manager has been accepted, I think commissioners will find their own job very much easier. And they will probably do it better.
Debt Ceiling Kabuki
Here's what Brad DeLong thinks we should do about the debt ceiling: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/07/what-to-do-about-the-debt-ceiling.html
I like it. It's an example of the TACAMO principal (Take Charge and March Out).
There's another principal the Republican intransigents should consider if they get their way: you broke it, it's yours. In other words, if they succeed, everything that goes wrong with the economy in the next year and a half belongs to them! Be careful what you wish for, lest you get it (the Midas Principal).
I like it. It's an example of the TACAMO principal (Take Charge and March Out).
There's another principal the Republican intransigents should consider if they get their way: you broke it, it's yours. In other words, if they succeed, everything that goes wrong with the economy in the next year and a half belongs to them! Be careful what you wish for, lest you get it (the Midas Principal).
Heads You Win, Tails I Lose
Here are some thoughts on the probable effects of the debt talks: Lose-Lose-Lose.
Not in a Depression - Yet
One of the reasons we are only in a recession and not in a depression is the existence of safety net programs put in place eighty years ago under FDR, supplemented by programs put in place nearly fifty years ago under LBJ. As a consequence, even though the percentage of the population with jobs is lower than at any time since the great depression, we don't have masses of people living in Hooverville's, rummaging through garbage dumps for sustenance.
Because of those programs, which Republicans opposed from the very beginning, not only have individuals and families been able to survive, businesses that would otherwise have had to close their doors have been able to stay open.
The scale of our programs is significant. Twenty percent of all personal income in 2010 came from government transfer programs. Just imagine the impact if those programs didn't exist.
Before the year is over, you may not have to imagine it. Some programs, such as extended unemployment insurance, are due to expire later this year. Some stimulus programs are also due to expire. Among measures proposed to reduce government spending are proposals to raise retirement age, raise the age of eligibility for Medicare and increase the costs paid by individuals.
As of now, it appears that neither party is pushing for measures to stimulate the economy, create jobs, thus increasing GDP and revenue, reducing the deficit by growing our way out of it.
So whatever results from the current budget negotiations, it looks like government spending will be reduced.
This will kill jobs.
In the long run, though, there are issues beyond aggregate demand that need attention. How do we address the jobs deficit in face of outsourcing offshore, computerization, or a combination of both. Where will our future jobs come from?
University of Texas economist James K. Galbraith has some thoughts on the subject in a recent essay published here by the New America Foundation.
Because of those programs, which Republicans opposed from the very beginning, not only have individuals and families been able to survive, businesses that would otherwise have had to close their doors have been able to stay open.
The scale of our programs is significant. Twenty percent of all personal income in 2010 came from government transfer programs. Just imagine the impact if those programs didn't exist.
Before the year is over, you may not have to imagine it. Some programs, such as extended unemployment insurance, are due to expire later this year. Some stimulus programs are also due to expire. Among measures proposed to reduce government spending are proposals to raise retirement age, raise the age of eligibility for Medicare and increase the costs paid by individuals.
As of now, it appears that neither party is pushing for measures to stimulate the economy, create jobs, thus increasing GDP and revenue, reducing the deficit by growing our way out of it.
So whatever results from the current budget negotiations, it looks like government spending will be reduced.
This will kill jobs.
In the long run, though, there are issues beyond aggregate demand that need attention. How do we address the jobs deficit in face of outsourcing offshore, computerization, or a combination of both. Where will our future jobs come from?
University of Texas economist James K. Galbraith has some thoughts on the subject in a recent essay published here by the New America Foundation.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Senator Tom Coburn (R) Oklahoma Is After TriCare
Senator Tom Coburn, physician, of Oklahoma, wants to drastically reduce the health care benefits of retired military personnel and their families.
Senator Coburn, who never himself served in the military, according to his bio, has decided to aim his budget cutting axe at military benefits for active duty and retired military personnel and retirees. Under his axe are Tricare Prime and Tricare for Life, the military's medical care system that covers some active duty personnel as well as retirees and their families. His proposals would increase enrollment costs by as much as eight times and add thousands of dollars to fees charged to Medicare-eligible retirees. "It's a matter of fairness," he says.
Coburn would also raise the cost of pharmaceuticals by three to five times, and he would target prices in commissaries as well.
Walter Pincus of the Washington Post describes Senator Coburn's plan here.
Senator Coburn, who never himself served in the military, according to his bio, has decided to aim his budget cutting axe at military benefits for active duty and retired military personnel and retirees. Under his axe are Tricare Prime and Tricare for Life, the military's medical care system that covers some active duty personnel as well as retirees and their families. His proposals would increase enrollment costs by as much as eight times and add thousands of dollars to fees charged to Medicare-eligible retirees. "It's a matter of fairness," he says.
Coburn would also raise the cost of pharmaceuticals by three to five times, and he would target prices in commissaries as well.
Walter Pincus of the Washington Post describes Senator Coburn's plan here.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Heresy and Heretics
I'm not sure these days exactly what or who is conservative.
There was a time when "conservative" referred to people who dressed conservatively (women wore white gloves and hats, men wore suits and ties with hats and perhaps a vest), spoke with attention to grammatical and factual correctness, and who were cautious about making changes to the existing order. Plainly that understanding no longer applies.
There always were, I knew, different kinds of people who called themselves conservative. A quarter of a century ago, I was puzzled by two of them in particular: James J. Kilpatrick and William F. Buckley, Jr.
What puzzled me was the fact that, though I seldom agreed with James J. Kilpatrick (except when his topic was the English language), I could understand what he was saying and follow the logic of his arguments. Buckley, on the other hand, made no sense to me at all. Because of this, I had no idea if I ever agreed with him.
I asked an Irish Catholic friend and co-worker, who explained: "Kilpatrick is a Protestant. He presents facts and uses logic to make his case. Buckley, on the other hand, is seeking to expose heresy." Then he added: "by the way, liberal Catholic columnists do the same."
It appears that we are being led toward economic catastrophe by a group of grand inquisitors bent on rooting out heresy against the revealed truth as proclaimed by sainted (though dead) economists. If the economic facts collected by statisticians don't fit the revealed theories, then the facts are wrong! If predictions based on those theories don't come to pass - well then, there must be some other explanation.
There was a time when "conservative" referred to people who dressed conservatively (women wore white gloves and hats, men wore suits and ties with hats and perhaps a vest), spoke with attention to grammatical and factual correctness, and who were cautious about making changes to the existing order. Plainly that understanding no longer applies.
There always were, I knew, different kinds of people who called themselves conservative. A quarter of a century ago, I was puzzled by two of them in particular: James J. Kilpatrick and William F. Buckley, Jr.
What puzzled me was the fact that, though I seldom agreed with James J. Kilpatrick (except when his topic was the English language), I could understand what he was saying and follow the logic of his arguments. Buckley, on the other hand, made no sense to me at all. Because of this, I had no idea if I ever agreed with him.
I asked an Irish Catholic friend and co-worker, who explained: "Kilpatrick is a Protestant. He presents facts and uses logic to make his case. Buckley, on the other hand, is seeking to expose heresy." Then he added: "by the way, liberal Catholic columnists do the same."
It appears that we are being led toward economic catastrophe by a group of grand inquisitors bent on rooting out heresy against the revealed truth as proclaimed by sainted (though dead) economists. If the economic facts collected by statisticians don't fit the revealed theories, then the facts are wrong! If predictions based on those theories don't come to pass - well then, there must be some other explanation.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Debt and Remembrance
Here's a comment from Paul Krugman's blog today:
Debt and Forgetfulness
I keep seeing comments along the lines of “Keynesianism doesn’t work, because liberals keep running deficits even when times are good, and never pay debt down.”
Guys, how about looking at recent history (pdf)?
Between 1993 and 2001, federal debt held by the public fell from 49.2 percent of GDP to 32.5 percent of GDP. What stopped the paydown of debt wasn’t liberal big spending; it was demands from conservatives that the surplus be used to cut taxes. George Bush said that a surplus means that the government is collecting too much money; Alan Greenspan warned that we were paying off our debt too fast.
Oh, and I was very much against those tax cuts, arguing that we should pay down the debt to prepare for future needs. As a reward, I now get accused of inconsistency, for saying that deficits were bad under Bush but good now.
Anyway, get your history straight before making claims about who’s fiscally responsible.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
