Poverty and Institutions

As the new year gets started, here is an interesting link to a study that has analyzed causes of national poverty and offered a solution.  “Fix incentives and you will fix poverty” is an interesting idea but it’s way too simplistic. Still they touch on some of the major macro-causes of poverty in the Third World and it’s well worth your time.

‘Huskers Gotta Get Paid Son

You know Nebraska loves that bling bling and living the high life ain’t cheap. Luckily they’ve got friends like Ben Nelson to get the feds to pick up the check. Now reports are surfacing that in addition to federally funded Medicare throughout the state the University of Nebraska may be in line for over $100 million. Nelson’s response is “I always put Nebraskans first”. Indeed. Here’s a roundup on where healthcare legislation stands after the jump.

Writing Laws By Hand

One recent trend in legislation is length. The stimulus bill started around 600 pages and ended up going over 1000. The current health care reform bill is almost 2,000. Although there are valid arguments that page length isn’t a huge deal, it does matter significantly.

Even if only a portion of the written bill is substantive, staffers still must sort through it all and figure out exactly what it means. 2,000 pages of detailed minutia would strain anyone’s capacity to understand. I think anyone would agree that we shouldn’t be passing legislation that we don’t understand. So how to fix this problem?

Here’s a quaint thought: why not require Congress to hand write all legislation?

The pros: It would cut down on bill length, increase time for congressmen to read and study the bill, and slow down legislation in general making it a more open process

The cons: It would take a long time and a lot of man power, as well as increasing the difficulty of fixing type-o’s (and every other reason we use computers instead of paper)

Of course this will never happen but its an interesting thought and a simple way to fix a real problem.

By Any Means Necessary

It now looks as if the Health Care Reform Bill will pass the Senate. I’ll leave the ruminating on the law to the more experienced* and focus on something else.

The turning point arrived when Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) agreed to support a slightly revised version of the bill. He claimed that he gave it support because it limited abortion, and I’m sure he did. But it’s worth looking at what pressure was put on Nelson to change his mind and support the legislation. Earlier, there were rumors saying that the White House was threatening to close military bases–and thus seriously damage the economy– in Nebraska if Nelson continued his opposition. Both the Senator and the White House denied this.** That’s a major threat.

What might be more shocking  is what is in the final version of this bill.

Third Party Rise?

Maybe the single most defining feature of recent election (and the recent political climate in general) has been the absolute vitriol shown to incumbents. It is being compared to the attitude in 1994 and 2006. One obvious comment on this. The time between those two included: 12 years, 6 elections, and 3 presidential elections. Between 2006 and 2010 there will have been: 4 years, 2 elections, and 1 presidential election.

That significantly shorter time period may mean that the electorate is less willing to re-embrace the out of power party. So what will that lead to?  Mort Kondracke points out that the situation is ripe for a third party run. Although I hadn’t thought of it before, he is absolutely right.

Although the chances of a third party permanently establishing themselves are extremely small (the last one to do it was a little known group of anti-slavery advocates known as the Republicans in 1860) America actually has a pretty rich history of influential third parties.  Populists, Progressives, Dixiecrats, American Independents, and Independents/Perotistas have all changed elections and left a mark on the political landscape without winning the presidency.

I’m not sure what this party would look like exactly (maybe that’s worth tackling another time) but I get the sense that it won’t be one of the more established 3rd parties (Green, Libertarian) if one arises.

Weekend Links, with a Visit from Sen. Smarmy 5th Grader

I’m not a huge fan of Lindsay Graham (R-SC). I have substantive reasons for this but no small part of it is that he comes off as a whiny 5th grader complaining to the teacher half the time. But sometimes that 5th grader reminds you of how smart he is and then kicks you in the shins.

Yikes. Or, make up your dang mind on Afghanistan already.

Karl Rove criticizing the permanent campaign is like a crack dealer criticizing tobacco companies.

I may have said this before, but “The State” is the best paper in SC and honestly it’s not really that close. But every once in a while it will have a headliner showing it’s still just a small town paper. This is one of those stories. Actually, that is a great idea, hopefully the city council makes it work.

Keep on Truckin’

Big, big news out of Montgomery yesterday. Governor Riley* announced that a task force assigned to solve traffic problems on Highway 280 had created a new plan that should meet the needs of all parties involved. The basic plan is to expand the highway with toll roads (elevated in some areas) and create over/underpasses on several major intersections. The details are here, or take a look at the map beyond the jump.

Weekend Links

You too can turn your old jewelery into cash! George Will takes on the destruction of the dollar and the rise of gold. This type of thing is very interesting to me.

9 Muppets kicked off of Sesame Street.

Should football ban helmets? An interesting examination.

Taking down Ayn Rand. Comes across as a little harsh but I’m not sure that makes it wrong.

“Obama has spend more on new programs in nine months than Bill Clinton did in eight years.” But the State of the Union is going to be focused on deficit cutting. Good.

A really good read on Sen. John Thune (R-SD). This is the first time I’ve heard him mentioned as a 2012 contender though.

Conn. Senate Poll

A new Quinnipiac poll shows (likely candidate) Republican Simmons with an eleven point lead over incumbent Chris Dodd. Although this might not seem stunning consider that Dodd has held that seat since 1980. Within the past two years he felt secure enough to launch a campaign for president.

Rather than viewing this as the rise or Republicans, it might be more appropriate to see it as anti-incumbent sentiment. 53% of voters don’t think Dodd deserves re-election. Dodd (and other incumbents) ought to be shaking in their boots because all signs are pointing towards a bloodletting. It will be interesting to see if they try to push through any big legislation (Stimulus 3?) to try and save themselves by boosting the economy.

*As a side note, another, older poll listed is from DailyKos showing the race as much tighter. I don’t trust polls from them. Period.

Don’t Call it a Comeback

Those of you with lives might not have realized that there were several elections held yesterday two days ago throughout the nation. The big three were gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia and a special election for Congress in New York’s 23 District. An amendment to ban gay marriage was also up for a vote in Maine after the legislature had approved it a few months earlier. How did they go?

Republicans won in Virginia and New Jersey and same sex marriage (SSM) was defeated in Maine. In a complicated race, a Democrat won the NY election by beating out a Conservative Party candidate.  (Elsewhere in New York, Mayor Bloomberg was narrowly reelected despite spending $100 million or what would amount to $166 per vote) The reaction has been mixed. Some say this is a sign of a Republican revival while others say the races were determined by local issues and were not a referendum on President Obama.  So what to think?

Weekend Links

Somebody must have put some pepper in George Will’s coffee because this is about as edgy as he gets. (This is of course a joke because George Will doesn’t drink coffee but would enjoy some  tea and plain toast, thank you)

“The Hill’s” take on the failed doctor fix bill. People say this is bad for Harry Reid, but who really knows. In that article Reid is disappointed because the AMA said it could “deliver” 27 GOP votes and did not. Strange, I never knew lobbyists were so brazen about owning legislators. (Also, The Hill is different from “The Hills” so don’t confuse them. I know it’s hard.)

How do you make a bloody border dispute between two, nuclear-armed arch rivals even worse? Insert China.

It’s Wednesday, so Watch Ron Paul

Congressman Paul on Wall Street’s recent resurgence, the Fed, limiting executive compensation, and shenanigans. Say what you will about Paul, but he might be the most knowledgeable Rep there is on economic issues. Very good interview.

“Wall Street has the strings on Washington”.

“The cause of the problem is easy credit”.

“None of this is a surprise”.

The DOJ’s New Rules on Pot

According to the AP, President Obama is changing the Justice Department’s enforcement guidelines for medical marijuana. He will instruct prosecutors not to go after suppliers in states that allow pot for medicinal use. However, all other drug offenders will be treated the same.  (Condensed version of the AP story is here.)

Even though it may be semi-legal, don't be a pot head

While I like the end result of this policy, I wish it would have come through a change in federal law instead of just instructing prosecutors to leave them alone. Turning a blind eye to it rubs me the wrong way since it is the executive’s duty to enforce the laws.

Jonathan Adler gives a defense of the change here. While I don’t totally buy into his rationale in the first paragraph, he makes a good point on the limited resources of federal prosecutors. I also think his second paragraph is right on.

UPDATE: I tend to think this is exactly right

No, We Shouldn’t Have a Department of Peace

A reply to Atticannie. First of all I want to be very careful here since topics like war and peace have huge potential to turn into shouting matches, which nobody wants.With that in mind, here we go.

No, we shouldn’t create a Department of Peace (DOP). Atticannie’s blog uses pathos extremely well, but emotion shouldn’t be what moves government. The arguments for a DOP are almost without exception full of naivete.

The idea that a government agency on the federal level can eradicate or even noticably reduce American violence is a an unattainable dream. The writer herself points out how violence comes from the individual (when addressing schools) and works its way up into society. That shows that attempts to stop it need to begin on an individual level instead of a top down department.  For example, local police departments are much more effective in stopping crime than things like public housing.

While I’m convinced that a DOP wouldn’t actually work, what bothers me the most about the suggestion is that it would be a symbolic band-aid. Something so politicians could say “Sure we care about peace, we voted for the DOP!” and then not actually look to solve the root problem. In fact Departments already exist to further peace abroad (State Department) and at home (Justice, Education, HHS, HUD).

It also lets common people and private organizations off the hook. It’s not a bureaucrat’s job to create peace. If you care about peace, go work to achieve it. Volunteer your own time and money instead of having some career desk jockey get paid for it. To create a DOP would be dereliction of civic duty.

The author asks where all of the peace loving Vietnam protesters went. Well, not all of them were peace loving and a substantial number of them explicitly espoused violence. I would point out a logical flaw there. Peace isn’t merely the absence of foreign wars. No amount of protesting against Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else is going to decrease violence in the US.

I agree wholeheartedly that the United States is a violent place, but I would point out that so is everywhere else. It’s not because government or society hasn’t done enough to prevent violence. It isn’t because some “he-men” want us to be a tough nation. It isn’t because of video games, youth sports leagues, or  its because humans are naturally evil. We steal, cheat, hit, and kill. No Peace Department can stop that.

I’m not really sure how much sense all of that made, but hopefully I got my point across. I’ll sum it up like this: If you could create a government department that would significantly decrease violence then I’m all for it. But you can’t, and it’s naive folly to try.

Weekend Links

Bizarre: Iranian President Ahmadinejad is reveled to have a Jewish childhood. Just a strange, strange story.

In other Middle Eastern “news”, Bobby Bowden’s empire is going fast. Who knew Iraqi’s were so passionate about football.

Could the elderly put the Republicans back into power in 2010 only to take them back out in 2012?

Alabama puts up a strong contender for worst statue in the US Capitol. The Father Damien statue is jealous.

Birmingham mayor Larry Langford is accused of getting paid off over $20,000 through a rigged gambling game. Even if these accusations are false should a public official in a city currently investigating the legality of gambling be going to the casinos?

A somber story about a small Appalachian high school football that’s getting close to it’s final season. A good story about the personal side of lower school enrollment.