Among the many issues not being discussed by the 2012 Presidential candidates is military policy in Afghanistan. There is no daylight whatsoever between the proposed strategy of Mr. Romney and the existing strategy of the President. Romney ought to be talking about the disgraceful rules of engagement that the President has saddled on our soldiers in Afghanistan, which has lead to a US casualty rate per month that is nearly four times higher than under the Bush Presidency.
Obama is generally regarded as having a successful foreign policy, the basis of this record is the successful killing of Osama Bin Laden. The success of the raid on the terrorist leader cannot be disputed. One successful mission does not a military policy make. Despite the President's shallow basis for claiming success in military policy, Romney has not distinguished his position from the President's, except to say that he will not cut military budgets below their current level.
Romney is missing a huge opportunity to discuss an issue that means life or death for our troops in harm's way. Rules of engagement are a set of standing orders issued to soldiers stationed in hostile areas. The orders specify under what conditions our soldiers can engage an enemy, or perceived enemy. For instance, under aggressive rules of engagement, soldiers can engage (fire upon) persons suspected of being enemies, without waiting for those persons to fire first, or without waiting for further orders from superior officers or other military bureaucrats, who may or may not be present in the hostile area. Passive rules of engagement, on the other hand, make it illegal for our soldiers to open fire on anyone, unless and until that person has taken hostile actions. Unfortunately for our troops, passive rules of engagement in a place like Afghanistan mean more casualties as the President is trading the lives of our servicemen for those of Afghani combatants and civilians.
According to the NY Times, in an article published on August 21, 2012, the US has just surpassed its 2,000th casualty in Afghanistan. The first 1,000 casualties took eight years of combat; the second 1,000 casualties took 27 months of combat. In other words, under President Bush, the Afghanistan conflict cost around 10 soldiers per month, under President Obama, the conflict costs over 37 per month. What does the US gain for the price paid by American families? The people of Afghanistan hate us a little less for the occupation, maybe. Mr. Romney must discuss this disgraceful policy of the President.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Friday, May 1, 2009
School Vouchers in a Purely Competitive Marketplace
What if I told you that a simple change in public policy could result in a solution to our current unemployment problem, and our current education problem? Is that something you might be interested in?
Its a tall order so you are dubious right off the bat. Well, let me disabuse you of your doubt.
Here's the short answer, we give the option for every student in America to take their $10,000.00 worth of government funded education money (voucher) and use it in any educational capacity they and their family sees fit. At the same time, we drastically ease restrictions on what qualifies to receive this voucher in return for educational services. The purpose? Every member of the young, college educated, unemployed work force, can choose to open a school. The result? A purely competitive education market, funded by government spending, through individual students, with small class sizes and unheardof teacher/student repport. Here is how:
Any one who was awake during introduction to microeconomics in college knows that probably the most utilitarian way to distribute goods and services in a society is through a purely competitive market. A purely competitive market has many small firms, all producing relatively homogeneous goods or services, has low market entry/exit barriers (cost of starting or selling the business), and perfect information for buyers and sellers. Market equilibrium is achieved, which means that the good or service is sold at the lowest possible price, and the good or service is produced at the highest possible quantity. This education plan can achieve perfect market conditions.
Here is what it means in an abstract example. Producing a marble has a certain cost. The cost associated with this unit for a includes the worker's wage, the cost of the marble making equipment and the rent for a marble making shop. Because there is this cost, a certain price must be payed for the production of that marble, or none would be produced. If the price is above the cost for the marble shop, it will produce marbles. If the price is below the cost, the shop will not produce marbles. That is how we figure out that at a certain price, a certain quantity will be produced.
We know the average price of education around the country, payed by tax revenue, is about $10,000.00 per student per year. That money must pay for teacher's salaries, teacher's union dues, administrator's salaries, ganitorial service, security, counselors of every stripe, athletic coaches, school building costs, books, utilities, computers, librarians, school district administrators, school board members, attorneys, accountants, busses, bus drivers, insurance, school supplies, and other education costs that I haven't thought of. This means that the money which is allocated to the essential education function, teacher time, is a low percentage by the time the money has to pay all the other costs listed above. If we want to improve education, we need to increase the quantity and quality of the essential education function, teacher time.
The only way to increase the quality and quantity of a good, is to raise the marginal profit available to producers of the good. I know what you just thought, schools shouldn't worry about profit. Profit in economics is the difference between price and cost - if the price is above the cost there is posiive profit - if the price is below the cost, there is negative profit. In order for more or better education to be produced you could either raise the price of education, or lower the cost of education. Raising the price is easy, you say, just tax people more. Education is priceless isn't it? I'm not averse to raising taxes to pay for education, but there is a better way to get more bang out of the $10,000.00 per student already being payed by the generous taxpayers. Remember all the stuff that the $10,000.00 has to pay for? I'm referring to everything below "teacher's salaries" above.
Not much of the $10,000.00 actually makes it to the teachers, and here is how I know that. Say the average class size in the United States is 30. Its probably much higher, but I like even numbers in my examples. $10,000.00 times 30 is $300,000.0o per year, per classroom. How much of that does the teacher receive, $30,000.00 maybe - probably less in reality but lets try to keep it simple. So, the essential function of education is payed for by 10% of the whole price of education. The bang for our education buck is %10. My plan can get this number much, much higher, by making education much much cheaper.
Imagine a school that is run entirely by one person, a recent college graduate named Steve. Having tested the waters in the presently hopeless labor market, Steve was only able to find work as a waitor. Nothing against waiting tables, but Steve graduated summa cum laude and was hoping to use his brain at work and make some difference in the world.
Instead of waiting tables, Steve enrolls in a program to test the viability of a new education program. In order to establish a school, all Steve would have to do is rent a space, which could be in his own house, if he had room in his house which could be suitably situated as a small classroom. Steve would have to buy a few computers, buy a few books, build a few desks, get high speed internet, and maybe take some kind of general knowledge test to ensure he is able to teach the basics. The details if the test and accompanying license are not important here. It is enough to say that a recent college graduate intent on being a teacher at the high school level should have sufficient understanding of calculus, lab science, computer science, literature, writing, history and civics.
Steve takes the plunge and decides to do it. He is confident that he can make a living by enrolling only seven students. The limit is 10 students per teacher. If he is a good enough teacher to keep his seven students all year, he will make $70,000.00, before expenses. If he is frugal and wise, his net wages could easily equal $50,000.00 per year. Steve doesn't think its a bad deal at all considering the next best use of his time would earn him around $25,000.00 waiting tables, if he is lucky. He spends 6 to 7 hours with his seven students each weekday. He teaches each subject, in a manner he sees fit. His students are tested often, in tests administered to students from each school like Steve's, so their parents know how Steve is doing, as well as how their kids are doing.
Utilizing internet resources, most of which are free, such as wikipedia, and Google books, Steve can teach his students any subject he wants, and any subject the students want. Think of how cool it would be for students to guide their own education, based on their own aptitudes and interests? Of course there would still be a required core curricula, of math, English, science, and civics.
If the parents of Steve's students didn't think he was a good teacher, or thought he was a little too creapy, or if the student didn't meld well with Steve's teaching style, they can easily transfer to a different Steve-like school without any trouble. Steve knows this, so he tries very hard to be a good teacher.
Thats it. Thats the plan that could revolutionize education. It establishes a market for education which is regulated by perfect competition. It could be available to every child, unlike current voucher programs which are scarcely available. It costs no more than we are currently spending on education, and it will increase the role of parents in their kids education.
Does anybody believe that will actually work? If not, why? Let me know.
Its a tall order so you are dubious right off the bat. Well, let me disabuse you of your doubt.
Here's the short answer, we give the option for every student in America to take their $10,000.00 worth of government funded education money (voucher) and use it in any educational capacity they and their family sees fit. At the same time, we drastically ease restrictions on what qualifies to receive this voucher in return for educational services. The purpose? Every member of the young, college educated, unemployed work force, can choose to open a school. The result? A purely competitive education market, funded by government spending, through individual students, with small class sizes and unheardof teacher/student repport. Here is how:
Any one who was awake during introduction to microeconomics in college knows that probably the most utilitarian way to distribute goods and services in a society is through a purely competitive market. A purely competitive market has many small firms, all producing relatively homogeneous goods or services, has low market entry/exit barriers (cost of starting or selling the business), and perfect information for buyers and sellers. Market equilibrium is achieved, which means that the good or service is sold at the lowest possible price, and the good or service is produced at the highest possible quantity. This education plan can achieve perfect market conditions.
Here is what it means in an abstract example. Producing a marble has a certain cost. The cost associated with this unit for a includes the worker's wage, the cost of the marble making equipment and the rent for a marble making shop. Because there is this cost, a certain price must be payed for the production of that marble, or none would be produced. If the price is above the cost for the marble shop, it will produce marbles. If the price is below the cost, the shop will not produce marbles. That is how we figure out that at a certain price, a certain quantity will be produced.
We know the average price of education around the country, payed by tax revenue, is about $10,000.00 per student per year. That money must pay for teacher's salaries, teacher's union dues, administrator's salaries, ganitorial service, security, counselors of every stripe, athletic coaches, school building costs, books, utilities, computers, librarians, school district administrators, school board members, attorneys, accountants, busses, bus drivers, insurance, school supplies, and other education costs that I haven't thought of. This means that the money which is allocated to the essential education function, teacher time, is a low percentage by the time the money has to pay all the other costs listed above. If we want to improve education, we need to increase the quantity and quality of the essential education function, teacher time.
The only way to increase the quality and quantity of a good, is to raise the marginal profit available to producers of the good. I know what you just thought, schools shouldn't worry about profit. Profit in economics is the difference between price and cost - if the price is above the cost there is posiive profit - if the price is below the cost, there is negative profit. In order for more or better education to be produced you could either raise the price of education, or lower the cost of education. Raising the price is easy, you say, just tax people more. Education is priceless isn't it? I'm not averse to raising taxes to pay for education, but there is a better way to get more bang out of the $10,000.00 per student already being payed by the generous taxpayers. Remember all the stuff that the $10,000.00 has to pay for? I'm referring to everything below "teacher's salaries" above.
Not much of the $10,000.00 actually makes it to the teachers, and here is how I know that. Say the average class size in the United States is 30. Its probably much higher, but I like even numbers in my examples. $10,000.00 times 30 is $300,000.0o per year, per classroom. How much of that does the teacher receive, $30,000.00 maybe - probably less in reality but lets try to keep it simple. So, the essential function of education is payed for by 10% of the whole price of education. The bang for our education buck is %10. My plan can get this number much, much higher, by making education much much cheaper.
Imagine a school that is run entirely by one person, a recent college graduate named Steve. Having tested the waters in the presently hopeless labor market, Steve was only able to find work as a waitor. Nothing against waiting tables, but Steve graduated summa cum laude and was hoping to use his brain at work and make some difference in the world.
Instead of waiting tables, Steve enrolls in a program to test the viability of a new education program. In order to establish a school, all Steve would have to do is rent a space, which could be in his own house, if he had room in his house which could be suitably situated as a small classroom. Steve would have to buy a few computers, buy a few books, build a few desks, get high speed internet, and maybe take some kind of general knowledge test to ensure he is able to teach the basics. The details if the test and accompanying license are not important here. It is enough to say that a recent college graduate intent on being a teacher at the high school level should have sufficient understanding of calculus, lab science, computer science, literature, writing, history and civics.
Steve takes the plunge and decides to do it. He is confident that he can make a living by enrolling only seven students. The limit is 10 students per teacher. If he is a good enough teacher to keep his seven students all year, he will make $70,000.00, before expenses. If he is frugal and wise, his net wages could easily equal $50,000.00 per year. Steve doesn't think its a bad deal at all considering the next best use of his time would earn him around $25,000.00 waiting tables, if he is lucky. He spends 6 to 7 hours with his seven students each weekday. He teaches each subject, in a manner he sees fit. His students are tested often, in tests administered to students from each school like Steve's, so their parents know how Steve is doing, as well as how their kids are doing.
Utilizing internet resources, most of which are free, such as wikipedia, and Google books, Steve can teach his students any subject he wants, and any subject the students want. Think of how cool it would be for students to guide their own education, based on their own aptitudes and interests? Of course there would still be a required core curricula, of math, English, science, and civics.
If the parents of Steve's students didn't think he was a good teacher, or thought he was a little too creapy, or if the student didn't meld well with Steve's teaching style, they can easily transfer to a different Steve-like school without any trouble. Steve knows this, so he tries very hard to be a good teacher.
Thats it. Thats the plan that could revolutionize education. It establishes a market for education which is regulated by perfect competition. It could be available to every child, unlike current voucher programs which are scarcely available. It costs no more than we are currently spending on education, and it will increase the role of parents in their kids education.
Does anybody believe that will actually work? If not, why? Let me know.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Somali Pirate Encounter and American Exceptionalism
Recently the Somali Pirates took possession of their first US ship the Maersk Alabama. Over the last few years the Somali Pirates have baffled international maritime authorities having seized hundreds of ships flying flags of other nations. Their pirating efforts have been virtually undaunted, that is until they messed with the United States. The US/Pirate encounter has given us and the world another reason to believe that American Exceptionalism is real.
American Exceptionalism, a concept first put forth by Alexis de Tocqueville, is the idea that America has a special place at the head of all developed nations. Our history, traditions, institutions and most importantly our people, have advanced, in a relatively short period of time, far more than other nations. It is controversial, particularly for liberals who point to our history of slavery, and our present struggle with lagging education statistics and civil rights to decry American Exceptionalism as a myth.
The recent dust up with the Somali Pirates should be added to the list of reasons for believing that there is something special about America, and something very real about American Exceptionalism. Hundreds of foreign ships have been captured by the pirates, and the governments and owners of every one of those ships have given in to the pirates demands, or have let the captured sailors, around 230 of them, rot in pirate custody. On the other hand, when the pirates captured their first American ship, the American crew fought back and indeed took back control over their ship.
The refusal of the American crew to lay down before the pirates hearkens back to September 11, 2001, when the American passengers of Flight 93, on their own initiative, in an effort to defend the United States, attacked the hijackers and caused the plane to crash in a field, rather than into an important government building. The lesson from that infamous day was that the terrorists should be afraid of the American people, not the other way around. The Somali Pirates have learned the same lesson.
The Somali Pirate incident has shown us that American Exceptionalism does not stem from our government, our material wealth, or our massive and deadly military - it stems, as it always has, from our people. The crew of the Maersk Alabama epitomizes the American Spirit, when challenged, they showed that they are tough, independent, and will return violence in the face of violence.
And of course, lets not forget the SEALS. All they needed was the go ahead and three quick shots later the situation was over.
American Exceptionalism, a concept first put forth by Alexis de Tocqueville, is the idea that America has a special place at the head of all developed nations. Our history, traditions, institutions and most importantly our people, have advanced, in a relatively short period of time, far more than other nations. It is controversial, particularly for liberals who point to our history of slavery, and our present struggle with lagging education statistics and civil rights to decry American Exceptionalism as a myth.
The recent dust up with the Somali Pirates should be added to the list of reasons for believing that there is something special about America, and something very real about American Exceptionalism. Hundreds of foreign ships have been captured by the pirates, and the governments and owners of every one of those ships have given in to the pirates demands, or have let the captured sailors, around 230 of them, rot in pirate custody. On the other hand, when the pirates captured their first American ship, the American crew fought back and indeed took back control over their ship.
The refusal of the American crew to lay down before the pirates hearkens back to September 11, 2001, when the American passengers of Flight 93, on their own initiative, in an effort to defend the United States, attacked the hijackers and caused the plane to crash in a field, rather than into an important government building. The lesson from that infamous day was that the terrorists should be afraid of the American people, not the other way around. The Somali Pirates have learned the same lesson.
The Somali Pirate incident has shown us that American Exceptionalism does not stem from our government, our material wealth, or our massive and deadly military - it stems, as it always has, from our people. The crew of the Maersk Alabama epitomizes the American Spirit, when challenged, they showed that they are tough, independent, and will return violence in the face of violence.
And of course, lets not forget the SEALS. All they needed was the go ahead and three quick shots later the situation was over.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Cap and Trade Should Be Benched
I am not ignorant of the science; I'll even repeat it here so everyone knows that I'm not just paying lip service. Carbon emissions causes global temperatures on average to rise. The polar ice caps melt, draining millions of acre-feet of freshwater into the ocean. The sea levels rise, the thermohaline circulation shuts down, and no longer does the ocean transmit the sun's heat to northern latitudes... Ice age. Ok, so we can all agree on the theory.
Here is the problem: enacting drastic carbon reducing measures such as Cap and Trade, and other carbon taxes poses a much greater risk to our present survival than climate change or rising sea levels. Consider this: our economy is presently far more fragile than the Earth's climate, and our ability to affect the economy is presently far greater than our ability to affect the climate. Carbon taxes are regressive. A regressive tax is one that is proportionately levied more heavily upon the poor, than the rich. Well how can that be, you ask? After all Cap and Trade is a tax levied on rich energy companies, big industry, and baby-seal-hating SUV drivers. While that may be true, what is also true is a law of economics: taxes always get passed on to the consumer.
Trickle-down economics may be a myth, and maybe not. One thing that has always been true is that taxes trickle-down and raise prices to the consumer. Not all taxes that get passed down to the consumer are regressive, for instance taxes on Lexus, Rolex, Prada - are not regressive because the end consumers are rich. However, when the good being taxed is a necessity, the tax is regressive.
Necessitites are economic goods that are necessary for survival. No matter how much a necessity costs, it still must be purchased. For instance, food is a necessity. Taxes on food are classic regressive taxes.
Energy is a necessity for two reasons. The first reason is that energy is a necessity in and of itself. Energy comes in the form of electricity, heating oil, natural gas, and gasoline. People need energy for light, for heat, for cooking, and to get to work. A tax on energy raises the cost of the necessity for everyone, but it affects poor people more heavily because poor people must pay a higher proportion of their income for energy.
The second reason is that energy is a necessity indirectly. Every good on the shelves of every store arrived with energy - diesel or coal - presumably. So a tax on energy is effectively a tax on transportation. This raises the price of all other necessities which are transported: food, building materials, clothing, and energy.
Cap and Trade will disproportionately raise taxes on poor people. In a fragile economic climate, possibly more susceptible to inflation than ever, raising the prices on consumer goods is a dangerous plan. It is far more dangerous than the veritable drop in the bucket that a few more years of undiminished carbon emissions will cause.
Here is the problem: enacting drastic carbon reducing measures such as Cap and Trade, and other carbon taxes poses a much greater risk to our present survival than climate change or rising sea levels. Consider this: our economy is presently far more fragile than the Earth's climate, and our ability to affect the economy is presently far greater than our ability to affect the climate. Carbon taxes are regressive. A regressive tax is one that is proportionately levied more heavily upon the poor, than the rich. Well how can that be, you ask? After all Cap and Trade is a tax levied on rich energy companies, big industry, and baby-seal-hating SUV drivers. While that may be true, what is also true is a law of economics: taxes always get passed on to the consumer.
Trickle-down economics may be a myth, and maybe not. One thing that has always been true is that taxes trickle-down and raise prices to the consumer. Not all taxes that get passed down to the consumer are regressive, for instance taxes on Lexus, Rolex, Prada - are not regressive because the end consumers are rich. However, when the good being taxed is a necessity, the tax is regressive.
Necessitites are economic goods that are necessary for survival. No matter how much a necessity costs, it still must be purchased. For instance, food is a necessity. Taxes on food are classic regressive taxes.
Energy is a necessity for two reasons. The first reason is that energy is a necessity in and of itself. Energy comes in the form of electricity, heating oil, natural gas, and gasoline. People need energy for light, for heat, for cooking, and to get to work. A tax on energy raises the cost of the necessity for everyone, but it affects poor people more heavily because poor people must pay a higher proportion of their income for energy.
The second reason is that energy is a necessity indirectly. Every good on the shelves of every store arrived with energy - diesel or coal - presumably. So a tax on energy is effectively a tax on transportation. This raises the price of all other necessities which are transported: food, building materials, clothing, and energy.
Cap and Trade will disproportionately raise taxes on poor people. In a fragile economic climate, possibly more susceptible to inflation than ever, raising the prices on consumer goods is a dangerous plan. It is far more dangerous than the veritable drop in the bucket that a few more years of undiminished carbon emissions will cause.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Colbert's Space Station Module - A Model for Direct Democracy
NASA recently decided to name its new space station module by way of a national internet vote. The Colbert Nation, talk show host Steven Colbert's legion of followers, seized the opportunity and stuffed the online NASA ballot in favor of naming the module after their standard bearer, Mr. Colbert. It is yet to be seen whether NASA will follow through and actually name the module after the election winner, Mr. Colbert. Nevertheless, the NASA internet balloting, and the Colbert Nation, have showed us how a model of direct democracy could work.
America is a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. Democracy is a system in which all government decisions are made by the people. This kind of system is more accurately known as Direct Democracy. It existed in Ancient Greek city states such as Athens. Every elector (men of the patrician class) frequently met in the city to vote on legislative proposals, judicial decisions, and the like. To be sure there were elected executive officials that made certain decisions when necessary, but for the most part all government decisions were made by the people. Direct Democracy is fine in a small city, where all the electors are able to meet on a regular basis.
Democracy becomes impractical, even impossible, as the government increases in geographic jurisdictional size. The limits on Direct Democracy are limitations on travel, and communications. Imagine how unproductive you would be to have to travel for days from your home, business, and farm every time there is a legislative meeting.
The internet solves this problem. Now due to enhances in communications technology, we can all communicate with one another instantly, even virtually meet, discuss, and vote without leaving our homes. The Colbert space module is a model of how this can work.
There is a distinct advantage in direct democracy, versus representative democracy: decisiveness. Our modern representative form of government is actually hampered by telecommunications technology, not enhanced by it. In a world where everyone can instantly learn what is said and what is done over the internet, outrage and political correctness, dominates. No government proposal, such as naming a space module for instance, can get accomplished when the name offends some group, or fails to adequately represent some group, or interest.
One major example comes to mind: the re-building of the ground zero sight in downtown New York City. Almost eight years have gone by since the towers fell and in that time literally nothing has been done to re-build the ground zero sight. Its sad really. The most powerful nation in the history of the world cannot re-build the sight of its most tragic domestic attack in almost eight years: not a monument, not a building, scarcely a plaque, statute, or memorial of any kind. The reason is a hyper-sensitive populace, made more responsive to perceived offense, by the internet.
Political correctness has run amok, largely due to everyone being plugged in, all the time. Unfortunately elected representatives face the brunt of political correctness scrutiny and can therefore get nothing done. Here is how it works: a politician proposes a plan for a building including a name, and a blueprint. Some group decides that their particular ethnicity, or cultural heritage is underrepresented, or that the building is somehow offensive and they go online and rail against the politician and the plan. The media, having taken its cues from the internet for at least five years, picks up on the "outrage" and reports it, and then the outrage mushrooms. The politician cannot afford to stand up to the outrage, and he withdraws the proposal.
All is not lost. The internet can be used productively in a democracy, and the Colbert space module is the model. If there is no elected representative to focus the outrage on, no strawman who represents the insensitive or politically incorrect proposal, than the group's (or groups' ) outrage does not act a veto, but merely a voting block.
In the NASA internet voting model, every citizen who had cause to weigh in, weighed in and voted. The Colbert Nation was more mobilized than any other interest group, and their members signed onto the NASA sight in greater numbers than anyone else, and they won for their man, Steven Colbert. The module now has a name, and no one person is responsible for any possible offense, or lack of cultural sensitivity for the name. And, no one has any reason to be offended, left out, discriminated against, disenfranchised, etc., because everyone had a vote. This is decisiveness, created out of the inherent fairness of the direct democratic process.
So, thank you Colbert Nation and NASA. You have provided the model of the future of direct democracy in the nation and in the world.
More to follow.
America is a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. Democracy is a system in which all government decisions are made by the people. This kind of system is more accurately known as Direct Democracy. It existed in Ancient Greek city states such as Athens. Every elector (men of the patrician class) frequently met in the city to vote on legislative proposals, judicial decisions, and the like. To be sure there were elected executive officials that made certain decisions when necessary, but for the most part all government decisions were made by the people. Direct Democracy is fine in a small city, where all the electors are able to meet on a regular basis.
Democracy becomes impractical, even impossible, as the government increases in geographic jurisdictional size. The limits on Direct Democracy are limitations on travel, and communications. Imagine how unproductive you would be to have to travel for days from your home, business, and farm every time there is a legislative meeting.
The internet solves this problem. Now due to enhances in communications technology, we can all communicate with one another instantly, even virtually meet, discuss, and vote without leaving our homes. The Colbert space module is a model of how this can work.
There is a distinct advantage in direct democracy, versus representative democracy: decisiveness. Our modern representative form of government is actually hampered by telecommunications technology, not enhanced by it. In a world where everyone can instantly learn what is said and what is done over the internet, outrage and political correctness, dominates. No government proposal, such as naming a space module for instance, can get accomplished when the name offends some group, or fails to adequately represent some group, or interest.
One major example comes to mind: the re-building of the ground zero sight in downtown New York City. Almost eight years have gone by since the towers fell and in that time literally nothing has been done to re-build the ground zero sight. Its sad really. The most powerful nation in the history of the world cannot re-build the sight of its most tragic domestic attack in almost eight years: not a monument, not a building, scarcely a plaque, statute, or memorial of any kind. The reason is a hyper-sensitive populace, made more responsive to perceived offense, by the internet.
Political correctness has run amok, largely due to everyone being plugged in, all the time. Unfortunately elected representatives face the brunt of political correctness scrutiny and can therefore get nothing done. Here is how it works: a politician proposes a plan for a building including a name, and a blueprint. Some group decides that their particular ethnicity, or cultural heritage is underrepresented, or that the building is somehow offensive and they go online and rail against the politician and the plan. The media, having taken its cues from the internet for at least five years, picks up on the "outrage" and reports it, and then the outrage mushrooms. The politician cannot afford to stand up to the outrage, and he withdraws the proposal.
All is not lost. The internet can be used productively in a democracy, and the Colbert space module is the model. If there is no elected representative to focus the outrage on, no strawman who represents the insensitive or politically incorrect proposal, than the group's (or groups' ) outrage does not act a veto, but merely a voting block.
In the NASA internet voting model, every citizen who had cause to weigh in, weighed in and voted. The Colbert Nation was more mobilized than any other interest group, and their members signed onto the NASA sight in greater numbers than anyone else, and they won for their man, Steven Colbert. The module now has a name, and no one person is responsible for any possible offense, or lack of cultural sensitivity for the name. And, no one has any reason to be offended, left out, discriminated against, disenfranchised, etc., because everyone had a vote. This is decisiveness, created out of the inherent fairness of the direct democratic process.
So, thank you Colbert Nation and NASA. You have provided the model of the future of direct democracy in the nation and in the world.
More to follow.
The Drive for Political Irrelevance
There is a bill presently making its way through the Colorado Legislature which will peg the Colorado electoral votes during Presidential elections to the national popular vote. It is House Bill 1299 and it has passed favorably through the Colorado House of Representatives. If it passes the Senate, it will likely be signed by Governor "Rubber Stamp" Ritter and it will make Colorado irrelevant in Presidential elections. Indeed, it is part of a national strategy, working its way through several states' legislatures to back-door the elimination of the electoral college as we know it, the effect of which will make the votes and interests of all small states, irrelevant.
People forget that one of the major concerns of the Founders during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was tyranny of the majority. The Founders were very careful to check the power of large states in the Federal Government. The nation might never have been founded were it not for the Connecticut Compromise, also known as the Great Compromise which resulted in a bicameral legislature, one house's representatives elected popularly, the other elected by states. The Connecticut Compromise created a check on the power of large states, and ensured the power and relevancy of small states.
The Virginia Plan, named after the largest and wealthiest state at the time, would have based the election of representatives of both houses of congress, on population. So Virginia, the California of the day, would have dominated both houses of Congress. Were this the only idea for the legislative branch, the small states never would have voted to adopt the Constitution, and America never would have been founded.
Like the Senate, which creates equal legislative power among all states, big or small, the Electoral College was designed as a way to equalize the voting power of all states in presidential elections. In 1789 Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York could almost have elected the first president without the support of any other state. The electoral college made this impossible.
Today there are more states, and the states are spread all across the continent, but we still have the problem that certain states are larger than the others. If the electoral college were eliminated in favor of a popular vote system, California, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan - all large states - would dominate Presidential Elections, and the smaller states in the rest of the country would be ignored.
Colorado is an interesting example of being ignored in national politics. The 2009 "Stimulus" Bill, allocated some $787 Billion for various spending projects across the nation. Colorado is estimated to receive almost $2 Billion of the total. Is Colorado's share equal to the per-capita population of the United States? Not even close. The 2006 estimate figures some 4.7 million humans in Colorado, some 1.5% of the national total of 299 million humans. Colorado's offensively miniscule share of the Stimulus will be .2% of the total. Colorado is underrepresented in Stimulus spending by more than 7 times what it should be.
To add insult to injury, President Obama chose a museum in Denver, Colorado to sign the Stimulus Bill, hoping perhaps that no one would notice the slight. The gamble worked, and no one seems to have noticed. Imagine how irrelevant, and overlooked Colorado would be if it delegated its electoral authority to the national popular vote? Colorado is not unique, all small population states will be ignored as irrelevant if the Electoral College is dismantled through bills like Colorado's HB 1299, known nationally as the "National Popular Vote Bill"
A more appropriate title might be the "Middle America Marginalization Bill" or the "Bill to Establish Flyover Country."
People forget that one of the major concerns of the Founders during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was tyranny of the majority. The Founders were very careful to check the power of large states in the Federal Government. The nation might never have been founded were it not for the Connecticut Compromise, also known as the Great Compromise which resulted in a bicameral legislature, one house's representatives elected popularly, the other elected by states. The Connecticut Compromise created a check on the power of large states, and ensured the power and relevancy of small states.
The Virginia Plan, named after the largest and wealthiest state at the time, would have based the election of representatives of both houses of congress, on population. So Virginia, the California of the day, would have dominated both houses of Congress. Were this the only idea for the legislative branch, the small states never would have voted to adopt the Constitution, and America never would have been founded.
Like the Senate, which creates equal legislative power among all states, big or small, the Electoral College was designed as a way to equalize the voting power of all states in presidential elections. In 1789 Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York could almost have elected the first president without the support of any other state. The electoral college made this impossible.
Today there are more states, and the states are spread all across the continent, but we still have the problem that certain states are larger than the others. If the electoral college were eliminated in favor of a popular vote system, California, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan - all large states - would dominate Presidential Elections, and the smaller states in the rest of the country would be ignored.
Colorado is an interesting example of being ignored in national politics. The 2009 "Stimulus" Bill, allocated some $787 Billion for various spending projects across the nation. Colorado is estimated to receive almost $2 Billion of the total. Is Colorado's share equal to the per-capita population of the United States? Not even close. The 2006 estimate figures some 4.7 million humans in Colorado, some 1.5% of the national total of 299 million humans. Colorado's offensively miniscule share of the Stimulus will be .2% of the total. Colorado is underrepresented in Stimulus spending by more than 7 times what it should be.
To add insult to injury, President Obama chose a museum in Denver, Colorado to sign the Stimulus Bill, hoping perhaps that no one would notice the slight. The gamble worked, and no one seems to have noticed. Imagine how irrelevant, and overlooked Colorado would be if it delegated its electoral authority to the national popular vote? Colorado is not unique, all small population states will be ignored as irrelevant if the Electoral College is dismantled through bills like Colorado's HB 1299, known nationally as the "National Popular Vote Bill"
A more appropriate title might be the "Middle America Marginalization Bill" or the "Bill to Establish Flyover Country."
Sunday, February 22, 2009
The Return
After more than a year off, we're back. It was a transformative year for the country and for me. For most of it I was hiding from that awful year of our lord 2008 on various rivers in the west, and in a college town supporting the local liquor economy. I read an awful lot of Hunter S. Thompson, so his influence here will be felt. Like many, I was looking for serious work. Having been laid off from my law job last March, I too am a victim of the era of greed. Many of my friends, like me, have been languishing in recession-ville, wasting our youth, talent, and education, but not our spirit.
This blog is taking a new direction. It will be dedicated to the lost generation: those of us who are over-educated, under-compensated, rarely appreciated, and almost never listened to. It will be a platform for the discussion of issues of grave national concern, but from our perspective. It will be the start of the political movement of our generation.
For too long the older generations have held onto the reigns of political power in this country. Even now the World War II generation is just beginning to lose power to the older baby-boomers. During the Obama campaign, our generation showed its first signs of political life. Unfortunately, we were used. What was the first act of the so-called President of our generation? He signed the largest tax onto our generation that has ever been passed by any government onto any group of humans, anywhere in history.
President Obama has shown his true roots. I'm not talking about race, ethnicity, or religion - those are not characteristics that our generation are concerned with. Those are issues of the past. No, President Obama showed that he is, first and foremost, a product of his generation. He was born in 1961 - a few months after the boomer generation ended. Of course, the lines by which generations are defined are blurry, not hard-lines. According to wiki-pedia, the boomers were born between 1944 and 1960. So, at the very least, Obama was conceived as a boomer, if not born as one. So, the President of hope and change used the same fear-mongering tactics to continue the same economic policies of greed and avarice of President Bush. And like his predecessor, President Obama has already ballooned the national debt beyond the level that even socialist economists would think prudent. When you include the near-bankrupt social security system, which will most certainly also be debt financed by our generation, it will be a long time before we get our heads above water. Make no mistake about it, the taxes we will pay for our entire lives will go to the repayment of this government debt.
Its hard to get your head above water if you are never given the opportunity to swim. We are the true victims of this recession and the accompanying unemployment. The millennial generation, or whatever you want to call the children of the baby-boomers who came of age around the turn of the new millennium, never expected anything from the future but good things. We went to college, under the prevailing ethic that if you didn't go to college you were a loser. Having been driven by a similar ethic, I went to law school because everyone was going to college and I wanted to distinguish myself from everyone else. The result of all of this education - more debt. Sound familiar?
So this is what we're going to do: consolidate and mobilize political power for our ends, not theirs. There are policy solutions which could move this country past the era of greed, and the politics of entitlement. Unfortunately they are not discussed in a serious way because the entrenched interests of prior generations forbid it. Our generation can outflank these entrenched interests if we mobilize under our policies and our principles. This blog will explore our policies and advocate for our principles. Look forward to policy articles on energy, education, markets, national defense, food production and distribution, health care, drug policy, the environment, and the role of government.
This blog is taking a new direction. It will be dedicated to the lost generation: those of us who are over-educated, under-compensated, rarely appreciated, and almost never listened to. It will be a platform for the discussion of issues of grave national concern, but from our perspective. It will be the start of the political movement of our generation.
For too long the older generations have held onto the reigns of political power in this country. Even now the World War II generation is just beginning to lose power to the older baby-boomers. During the Obama campaign, our generation showed its first signs of political life. Unfortunately, we were used. What was the first act of the so-called President of our generation? He signed the largest tax onto our generation that has ever been passed by any government onto any group of humans, anywhere in history.
President Obama has shown his true roots. I'm not talking about race, ethnicity, or religion - those are not characteristics that our generation are concerned with. Those are issues of the past. No, President Obama showed that he is, first and foremost, a product of his generation. He was born in 1961 - a few months after the boomer generation ended. Of course, the lines by which generations are defined are blurry, not hard-lines. According to wiki-pedia, the boomers were born between 1944 and 1960. So, at the very least, Obama was conceived as a boomer, if not born as one. So, the President of hope and change used the same fear-mongering tactics to continue the same economic policies of greed and avarice of President Bush. And like his predecessor, President Obama has already ballooned the national debt beyond the level that even socialist economists would think prudent. When you include the near-bankrupt social security system, which will most certainly also be debt financed by our generation, it will be a long time before we get our heads above water. Make no mistake about it, the taxes we will pay for our entire lives will go to the repayment of this government debt.
Its hard to get your head above water if you are never given the opportunity to swim. We are the true victims of this recession and the accompanying unemployment. The millennial generation, or whatever you want to call the children of the baby-boomers who came of age around the turn of the new millennium, never expected anything from the future but good things. We went to college, under the prevailing ethic that if you didn't go to college you were a loser. Having been driven by a similar ethic, I went to law school because everyone was going to college and I wanted to distinguish myself from everyone else. The result of all of this education - more debt. Sound familiar?
So this is what we're going to do: consolidate and mobilize political power for our ends, not theirs. There are policy solutions which could move this country past the era of greed, and the politics of entitlement. Unfortunately they are not discussed in a serious way because the entrenched interests of prior generations forbid it. Our generation can outflank these entrenched interests if we mobilize under our policies and our principles. This blog will explore our policies and advocate for our principles. Look forward to policy articles on energy, education, markets, national defense, food production and distribution, health care, drug policy, the environment, and the role of government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
