So-called liberals often cry wolf or throw statistics around with scant analysis, all to support their perception of people in need of the "liberals'" political assistance.
So-called conservatives often are willing to throw facts out the window, to stage events, and to edit liberally(?) to put organizations that they don't like in a bad light. See "At Advocates' Offices, Confronting an Anti-Liberal Scheme", Michael Power, New York Times, 2012-04-02.
Whatever happened to the "virtue" written about so liberally in the Federalist Papers? Whatever happened to promoting the public good rather than private interest? Whatever happened to reasoned argument based on fact and acceptance of different views? Our political system has been debased to a war where the other side is always, absolutely wrong. At least this war is being fought with words rather than swords and with bucks rather than bombs. If you look around the world, we probably should be thankful for this little "boon".
Showing posts with label Federalist Papers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federalist Papers. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 04, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Patriot Act - have you read it?
Did those who voted for it read it? You can find the original, H.R. 3162, at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr3162enr/pdf/BILLS-107hr3162enr.pdf. It has 131 pages and 57,796 words. At 800 wpm that would take 72 minutes to read. More likely it would be at 300 wpm or 192 minutes.
I scanned 26 pages of the PDF file in about 30 minutes and gave up. It's very hard to understand because much of it is "strike" and "insert" directions for existing law. One would have to have be constantly referring to those laws to make sense of it. I imagine it would take several days to read it and understand it fully.
Somebody challenged the members of the Senate to read it, and only one Senator took up the challenge. He voted no, a real patriot. Sen. Barack Obama voted yes.
"[The electors] will not be liable to be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism, which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle."
Federalist No. 64, "The Powers of the Senate", John Jay,New York Packet, 1788-03-07
Maybe we need a Constitutional amendment that no bill can be longer than the original Constitution (4601 words). Given all the misinterpretations of the Constitution, that still might be too long.
I scanned 26 pages of the PDF file in about 30 minutes and gave up. It's very hard to understand because much of it is "strike" and "insert" directions for existing law. One would have to have be constantly referring to those laws to make sense of it. I imagine it would take several days to read it and understand it fully.
Somebody challenged the members of the Senate to read it, and only one Senator took up the challenge. He voted no, a real patriot. Sen. Barack Obama voted yes.
"[The electors] will not be liable to be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism, which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle."
Federalist No. 64, "The Powers of the Senate", John Jay,New York Packet, 1788-03-07
Maybe we need a Constitutional amendment that no bill can be longer than the original Constitution (4601 words). Given all the misinterpretations of the Constitution, that still might be too long.
Saturday, March 03, 2012
The party of pluck and luck versus the parties of cluck
I started to read a tribute to Andrew Breitbart, ("Andrew Breitbart's final message to the left" by Star Parker, Scripps Howard News Service, 2012-03-02) a severe critic of the "left", and couldn't read any further. Like so much writing nowadays, no matter the source, it gives sweeping praise to "our side" and sweeping castigation to "the other side".
We have those who have financial resources claiming that they earned their wealth, and those who feel that many have been left behind have been put there through no fault of their own by those with excessive wealth.
Parker claims that the wealthy have more stable families, et cetera, et cetera; and that the poor have out-of-wedlock births and single parent families, et cetera, et cetera. Could it be that the more wealthy have more resources to hide their dysfunctional families? Could it be that the less wealthy have these problems because they are less wealthy?
Parker blames the left for creating all these problems, including the sexual revolution which increased poverty.
I got news for Parker and others who blame those who are trying to solve certain problems for creating those problems. They have been around for centuries.
I was born in March 1938, supposedly six weeks premature at 8+ pounds. My parents were divorced in 1943. When I was in college, my mother showed me her marriage certificate; she was married in September 1937. You do the math.
Many years later I found out that my great-grandfather left his family in 1904 because he loved women and wine. Even later I found out that his likely father, born in 1818, probably had a "girl in every port" - one in Brooklyn, New York, one in Baltimore, Maryland, and one in Liverpool, England. The person with my surname married in Liverpool gave his father's name as Vincent Magree. Vincent Magree was listed in the 1840 census in Baltimore with a male between 10 and 15 years old.
Well, some of the descendants became college-educated and well-paid, some continued to struggle, and some just muddled.
I can't speak for all my relatives as to how they arrived where they did, but I know my own life has been a crazy stew of pluck and luck. I had a family that expected me to do well in school. But many were the times I could have blown it with some stupid act. I had a teacher who encouraged us to go to a highly-rated engineering school. I had an assistant principal who found a full-scholarship for me to that school. I blew that by being unsure of what I wanted to do. I had a registrar in another college accept me and encourage me to study mathematics. That got me into graduate school in the school I flunked out of. That school happened to be buying a new computer. The manufacturer of that computer was hiring and hired me. And on and on with ups and downs. Some of these because I kept trying, some because somebody helped me, some because I kept screwing up. Pluck and luck, over and over again.
Right now we have two parties of "cluck". One claims that the wealthy are solely responsible for their wealth without recognizing all the clerks, laborers, and government institutions that supported them. The other claims that the wealthy are solely responsible for the problems of the poor without recognizing that that some of those problems (not all) are self-inflicted. These are the factions that James Madison warned about in Federalist No. 10
We really need a party of "pluck and luck". One that recognizes that problems go beyond blame, that many of these problems have been with our country since before the Revolution, and that we have to keep trying to provide some means of increasing the opportunities for both pluck and luck. We need a party that truly recognizes the problem of balancing "public good and private rights" - James Madison, Federalist No. 10.
We have those who have financial resources claiming that they earned their wealth, and those who feel that many have been left behind have been put there through no fault of their own by those with excessive wealth.
Parker claims that the wealthy have more stable families, et cetera, et cetera; and that the poor have out-of-wedlock births and single parent families, et cetera, et cetera. Could it be that the more wealthy have more resources to hide their dysfunctional families? Could it be that the less wealthy have these problems because they are less wealthy?
Parker blames the left for creating all these problems, including the sexual revolution which increased poverty.
I got news for Parker and others who blame those who are trying to solve certain problems for creating those problems. They have been around for centuries.
I was born in March 1938, supposedly six weeks premature at 8+ pounds. My parents were divorced in 1943. When I was in college, my mother showed me her marriage certificate; she was married in September 1937. You do the math.
Many years later I found out that my great-grandfather left his family in 1904 because he loved women and wine. Even later I found out that his likely father, born in 1818, probably had a "girl in every port" - one in Brooklyn, New York, one in Baltimore, Maryland, and one in Liverpool, England. The person with my surname married in Liverpool gave his father's name as Vincent Magree. Vincent Magree was listed in the 1840 census in Baltimore with a male between 10 and 15 years old.
Well, some of the descendants became college-educated and well-paid, some continued to struggle, and some just muddled.
I can't speak for all my relatives as to how they arrived where they did, but I know my own life has been a crazy stew of pluck and luck. I had a family that expected me to do well in school. But many were the times I could have blown it with some stupid act. I had a teacher who encouraged us to go to a highly-rated engineering school. I had an assistant principal who found a full-scholarship for me to that school. I blew that by being unsure of what I wanted to do. I had a registrar in another college accept me and encourage me to study mathematics. That got me into graduate school in the school I flunked out of. That school happened to be buying a new computer. The manufacturer of that computer was hiring and hired me. And on and on with ups and downs. Some of these because I kept trying, some because somebody helped me, some because I kept screwing up. Pluck and luck, over and over again.
Right now we have two parties of "cluck". One claims that the wealthy are solely responsible for their wealth without recognizing all the clerks, laborers, and government institutions that supported them. The other claims that the wealthy are solely responsible for the problems of the poor without recognizing that that some of those problems (not all) are self-inflicted. These are the factions that James Madison warned about in Federalist No. 10
We really need a party of "pluck and luck". One that recognizes that problems go beyond blame, that many of these problems have been with our country since before the Revolution, and that we have to keep trying to provide some means of increasing the opportunities for both pluck and luck. We need a party that truly recognizes the problem of balancing "public good and private rights" - James Madison, Federalist No. 10.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Facts, figures, and finagling
Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN8), in his "Week in Review & Look Ahead" for January 13, quotes the National Association of Manufacturers that the Keystone XL pipeline project is "estimated to create 20,000 high-paying manufacturing and construction jobs".
So, what is a "high-paying" job? My wife cynically says anything above minimum wage. For starters, I'll go with $20/hour. At forty hours per week that would be $800/week and $41,600/year. So, 20,000 workers would be paid 832 million dollars. I was often told that the overhead for employees was equal to their salary. We do have to add 6.2 percent payroll tax, health insurance, and liability insurance. Those would easily take us over one billion dollars just for labor for the pipeline. But if "high-paying" really means high-paying, then we're probably talking $40 or more an hour. That means were talking over two billion dollars for labor for the pipeline. But these probably won't be 40-hour weeks, but more likely 60-hour weeks. That gets us to over three billion dollars.
Then we have side effects upon side effects, externalities in economic terminology.
First, all those workers will drive up local costs, making life very expensive for local people. This has already happened in the Dakotas.
Second, the free market proponents of this project should consider the anti-free market components of this project. A true free market has many buyers and sellers, buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a decision, buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market, and there are no externalities – costs to other than the buyers and sellers.
There will essentially be one buyer for the right of way for the pipeline. That buyer will determine which property will be required and will set a price. The property owners of that right of way are not free to leave the market; the buyer and governments have determined that they cannot leave the market. Interestingly, free marketers are very much against government interference with private affairs.
The externalities other than contamination of the aquifers have not really been considered. These include the distortion of local economies mentioned above, farmland taken out of cultivation, air pollution from the large construction project, and cost of security for the pipeline (both for safe operation and against malicious damage).
Another factor not being considered is opportunity cost. An opportunity cost is money spent for one thing that could have given greater gain elsewhere. An opportunity cost is not regularly washing your car and paying more later for rust repair or shorter useful life.
How many solar panels and windmills could these billions buy? How much battery research could these billions buy? How much energy conservation could these billions provide? How much public transportation could these billions provide? Hey, a bus driver may not have a "high-paying" job, but it is a great job with a living wage. I know, I was a bus driver. And every passenger is often one less car on the road.
What is needed, and will rarely ever happen, is a full cost-benefit analysis of projects like these. Rather than look at the benefits for a few, we should look to the benefits and costs to the whole society. Rather than cater to special interests, something many of the writers of the Constitution decried, we need to seek the public good:
"It is a misfortune, inseparable from human affairs, that public measures are rarely investigated with that spirit of moderation which is essential to a just estimate of their real tendency to advance or obstruct the public good; and that this spirit is more apt to be diminished than promoted, by those occasions which require an unusual exercise of it." - Federalist No. 37, James Madison
So, what is a "high-paying" job? My wife cynically says anything above minimum wage. For starters, I'll go with $20/hour. At forty hours per week that would be $800/week and $41,600/year. So, 20,000 workers would be paid 832 million dollars. I was often told that the overhead for employees was equal to their salary. We do have to add 6.2 percent payroll tax, health insurance, and liability insurance. Those would easily take us over one billion dollars just for labor for the pipeline. But if "high-paying" really means high-paying, then we're probably talking $40 or more an hour. That means were talking over two billion dollars for labor for the pipeline. But these probably won't be 40-hour weeks, but more likely 60-hour weeks. That gets us to over three billion dollars.
Then we have side effects upon side effects, externalities in economic terminology.
First, all those workers will drive up local costs, making life very expensive for local people. This has already happened in the Dakotas.
Second, the free market proponents of this project should consider the anti-free market components of this project. A true free market has many buyers and sellers, buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a decision, buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market, and there are no externalities – costs to other than the buyers and sellers.
There will essentially be one buyer for the right of way for the pipeline. That buyer will determine which property will be required and will set a price. The property owners of that right of way are not free to leave the market; the buyer and governments have determined that they cannot leave the market. Interestingly, free marketers are very much against government interference with private affairs.
The externalities other than contamination of the aquifers have not really been considered. These include the distortion of local economies mentioned above, farmland taken out of cultivation, air pollution from the large construction project, and cost of security for the pipeline (both for safe operation and against malicious damage).
Another factor not being considered is opportunity cost. An opportunity cost is money spent for one thing that could have given greater gain elsewhere. An opportunity cost is not regularly washing your car and paying more later for rust repair or shorter useful life.
How many solar panels and windmills could these billions buy? How much battery research could these billions buy? How much energy conservation could these billions provide? How much public transportation could these billions provide? Hey, a bus driver may not have a "high-paying" job, but it is a great job with a living wage. I know, I was a bus driver. And every passenger is often one less car on the road.
What is needed, and will rarely ever happen, is a full cost-benefit analysis of projects like these. Rather than look at the benefits for a few, we should look to the benefits and costs to the whole society. Rather than cater to special interests, something many of the writers of the Constitution decried, we need to seek the public good:
"It is a misfortune, inseparable from human affairs, that public measures are rarely investigated with that spirit of moderation which is essential to a just estimate of their real tendency to advance or obstruct the public good; and that this spirit is more apt to be diminished than promoted, by those occasions which require an unusual exercise of it." - Federalist No. 37, James Madison
Friday, December 30, 2011
Regulation of commerce - the intent of the Founders
The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
- United States Constitution, Article I, Section. 8.
The want of a power to regulate commerce is by all parties allowed to be of the number. The utility of such a power has been anticipated under the first head of our inquiries; and for this reason, as well as from the universal conviction entertained upon the subject, little need be added in this place. It is indeed evident, on the most superficial view, that there is no object, either as it respects the interests of trade or finance, that more strongly demands a federal superintendence. The want of it has already operated as a bar to the formation of beneficial treaties with foreign powers, and has given occasions of dissatisfaction between the States.
- Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton
The Tea Party believes we can get the intent of the Founders by a strict reading of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton was one of the signers of the Constitution. "more strongly demands a federal superintendence" is a lot stronger than Article I, Section 8. In other words, some of the writers of the Constitution had a lot stronger intent than was actually put into the Constitution.
- United States Constitution, Article I, Section. 8.
The want of a power to regulate commerce is by all parties allowed to be of the number. The utility of such a power has been anticipated under the first head of our inquiries; and for this reason, as well as from the universal conviction entertained upon the subject, little need be added in this place. It is indeed evident, on the most superficial view, that there is no object, either as it respects the interests of trade or finance, that more strongly demands a federal superintendence. The want of it has already operated as a bar to the formation of beneficial treaties with foreign powers, and has given occasions of dissatisfaction between the States.
- Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton
The Tea Party believes we can get the intent of the Founders by a strict reading of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton was one of the signers of the Constitution. "more strongly demands a federal superintendence" is a lot stronger than Article I, Section 8. In other words, some of the writers of the Constitution had a lot stronger intent than was actually put into the Constitution.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Founding optimists
"[The electors] will not be liable to be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism, which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle."
Federalist No. 64, "The Powers of the Senate", John Jay,New York Packet, 1788-03-07, on the age restrictions in the Constitution for the House of Representatives and for the Senate
Oh, how I wish that Jay had not deceived himself.
Federalist No. 64, "The Powers of the Senate", John Jay,New York Packet, 1788-03-07, on the age restrictions in the Constitution for the House of Representatives and for the Senate
Oh, how I wish that Jay had not deceived himself.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Quote of the day – Moderation in politics
So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 1
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 1
Monday, September 12, 2011
When did we go wrong?
"THE THIRD charge against the House of Representatives is, that it will be taken from that class of citizens which will have least sympathy with the mass of the people, and be most likely to aim at an ambitious sacrifice of the many to the aggrandizement of the few. Of all the objections which have been framed against the federal Constitution, this is perhaps the most extraordinary. Whilst the objection itself is levelled against a pretended oligarchy, the principle of it strikes at the very root of republican government. The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust."
- Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, Federalist No. 57, "The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many Considered in Connection with Representation", New York Packet, 1788-02-19
"Public good" or "common good" appear 26 times in the Federalist Papers. "Business" appears 26 times but almost always in the context of the business of government. "Corporation" appears seven times, but only twice in the sense of business. One is that the King of England has authority to establish corporations but the President of the United States does not. The other is how laws have not become perfect, including the law of corporations.
Now we have for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and the most virtue to pursue, the private good of corporations.
So much for following the intent of the "Founding Fathers".
- Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, Federalist No. 57, "The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many Considered in Connection with Representation", New York Packet, 1788-02-19
"Public good" or "common good" appear 26 times in the Federalist Papers. "Business" appears 26 times but almost always in the context of the business of government. "Corporation" appears seven times, but only twice in the sense of business. One is that the King of England has authority to establish corporations but the President of the United States does not. The other is how laws have not become perfect, including the law of corporations.
Now we have for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and the most virtue to pursue, the private good of corporations.
So much for following the intent of the "Founding Fathers".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)