The Berlin Wall

Tomorrow marks the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Paul Hollander had this to say at the Washington Post:

The failure of Soviet communism confirms that humans motivated by lofty ideals are capable of inflicting great suffering with a clear conscience. But communism’s collapse also suggests that under certain conditions people can tell the difference between right and wrong. The embrace and rejection of communism correspond to the spectrum of attitudes ranging from deluded and destructive idealism to the realization that human nature precludes utopian social arrangements and that the careful balancing of ends and means is the essential precondition of creating and preserving a decent society.

“[T]he realization that human nature precludes utopian social arrangements and that the careful balancing of ends and means is the essential precondition of creating and preserving a decent society,” seems like a very important realization to me.

Also, over at The Volokh Conspiracy Ilya Somin talks about why the neglect of communist crimes matters. Which it does.

Individual Mandates and The Constitution

One of the most controversial aspects of the health care debate is the notion of the individual mandate. The argument is that in order make the demand on insurers that they cannot exclude coverage or drastically differentiate prices for consumers based on preexisting conditions tenable (either politically or in actuality) then the insurance pools must include more healthy people. To ensure that healthy people enter the pool, whom individually have no incentive to buy health insurance if they know that they can get it after they get sick because insurance companies can’t reject them based on preexisting conditions, an individual mandate is put in place requiring everyone to purchase health insurance.  The controversy is usually pretty straight forward, boiling down to concern over the infringement of individual liberties. Whether or not we believe our government should have the right to create such a mandate, the immediately relevant question is whether creating such a mandate is constitutional or not, that is, do they have the power?

This online debate does a good job of providing the rough arguments for and against constitutionality claims concerning individual mandates to purchase products or services. This blog post collection does a good job of expanding on the ideas, creating more nuanced arguments about the constitutionality of individual mandates but does somewhat digress at the end into an argument over what “constitutionality” means and should mean. Also some interesting perspectives concerning the power politics exerts on the judicial branch.

The main argument for constitutionality is that under the Commerce Clause, which grants congress the right to regulate commerce “amongst the several states”, congress does have the power to mandate individuals in this manner because purchasing health insurance has economic effects involving interstate commerce. Some strong applications of the Commerce Clause have been the regulation of wheat grown for personal consumption, the regulation of marijuana grown for personal consumption, and upholding the “Gun Free School Zones Act” in United States v. Lopez all of which were upheld because of a connection between these acts and interstate commerce.

The main argument against constitutionality is that while not purchasing health care is certainly an economic decision and has effects on interstate commerce, allowing regulation of such cases applies the Commerce Clause far too broadly and in completely unprecedented ways. Considering that nearly every aspect of our behavior has some economic impact that permeates the whole of the economic scene applying the Commerce Clause in such a way give congress the capability to control every aspect of our individual spending and in fact our personal lives. The argument also follows that the Commerce Clause was not intended to be applied in this way because these results violate the idea that The Constitution provides congress with limited, enumerated powers. It also points out that an act of economic abstaining isn’t necessarily the same as an active economic act when regulation is in question.

I am personally somewhat of a federalist in that I approve of a strong interpretation of the tenth amendment and generally prefer my legislation closer to the chest than the national level. So it shouldn’t be much of a surprise that I lean toward the argument against constitutionality. It seems clear to me that there is a substantial difference between not purchasing health care and growing marijuana. Also if it so happens that there is not available at all levels a non-profit option for healthcare I think the mandate becomes an even greater violation of individual rights and its constitutionality becomes an even more important question. I would be a stronger advocate of a single-payer style system that was funded via taxes because I thinks its simpler and probably has a stronger constitutional argument for it.

I’d write more, but work calls. I’m interested in what you guys think.

Politically Convenient: Gay Marriage As a State Issue

Yesterday a couple of friends and I were watching The West Wing and on the show there was a brief discussion concerning same-sex marriage. One of the characters, a current senator and presidential candidate played by Alan Alda doesn’t support same-sex marriage protections by the federal government because marriage is a ’state issue.’ We got into a heated discussion where I attempted to defend Alan Alda’s statements against Kevin’s argument that certainly same-sex marriage was like other civil rights issues and the federal government is in fact constitutionally compelled to intervene, arguing that “if states offer the contract of marriage to opposite-sex couples, they must offer it to same-sex couples.”

My personal morality lies with Kevin’s as I do also believe the feds should intervene, and certainly I’ve yet to hear a valid constitutional defense of DoMA, but what I’ve gotten to thinking about is whether the “marriage is a state issue” is anything more than a political convenience for our politicians. Kevin goes so far as to call those who use it ‘bigots’ in the same sense as those who use purely religious reasons are, though I argued that one could in fact support same-sex marriage at the state level, while believing that the national government should keep its hands out of state business (this would require supporting the repeal of DoMA). One could argue that they are simply creating a compromise between their beliefs as equal rights activists and their beliefs as federalists, but does that make their actions any less bigoted? Thoughts?

Cool Republicans: Lindsay Graham

“I’d like to solve a problem, and if it’s on President Obama’s watch, it doesn’t bother me one bit if it makes the country better off” Lindsay Graham (R-SC) said concerning emissions control legislation.

Here are two article that parties interested in the strongest congressional movement concerning global warming that’s in progress should read:

This one is an op-ed in the NY Times co-written by Senator John Kerry (D-Mass) and Senator Graham about they’re combined commitment to enact legislation to reduce both carbon emissions and our dependency on foreign oil.

This one is a feature also in the NY Times is a profile of Senator Graham and explains his position, his thoughts, and how completely opposite of his fellow senator from South Carolina.

Politics: The Filibuster

Greg Koger is an Assistant Professor of American Politics at the University of Miami. He recently posted a really good description of several arguments for the filibuster and the requirement of a supermajority to override it. Beyond that it delves into some of the inner political workings of the house and senate in relation to special interests, constituents, party politics, etc. Really interesting stuff.

He presents a crazy hypothetical that I found an interesting case of possible political maneuvering where the republicans present a single-payer amendment:

Imagine, for example, that health care reform comes to the House floor under an open rule (any amendment allowed) and the Republicans offer an amendment setting up a single-payer government health care system. If the amendment is adopted by a coalition of sincere liberals ( who think a single-payer system is ideal) and strategic Republicans (who vote for a position contrary to their conservative views in order to defeat the bill), then the bill would probably fail on final passage; moderate Democrats and Republicans would oppose a single-payer system, leaving liberal Democrats supporting a defeated bill.

Politics/Economics: Why We Can’t Cut Spending

This Forbes article did a pretty good job of explaining in simple terms and numbers why we can’t balance the budget just by cutting spending. The gist is that there really isn’t that much money in services which can be cut (to balance the budget we’d have to cut nearly ALL of it) because services are really a very small portion of the federal budget.  Along with the minuscule impacts of cutting services on the budget, there’s little political will for doing so.

Another interesting point that puts simply what I didn’t hear in the news during the debate over stimulus v. tax cuts is spelled out:

Revenues would be even lower if Republicans had gotten their wish and the stimulus consisted entirely of tax cuts. How tax cuts would help people with no wages because they have no jobs or businesses with no profits to tax was never explained.

Ezra Klein talks with Director of the CBO

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has been in the news plenty lately in reference to its estimates concerning the effects of health care reform policy on the national budget. This interview between Ezra Klein and the director of the CBO Doug Elmendorf gives a good cursory overview of what the CBO does, including how it deals with the politics that surround it.

I found it interesting.

The Nature of the World

When are people going to understand that the world isn’t strangely well suited for us, we are explicitly well suited for it? That if the world were different, we would be different?

To think otherwise is to assume an astonishing hubris, and displays a conviction to ignore demonstrable facts for unfalsifiable faith. To think otherwise is to purposefully set aside reason for irrationality.

Childhood indoctrination is to blame. More on this later.

Sarah Palin

There is no single position in the world that one individual can hold that is of more importance than that of President of the United States. The responsibility should at no times be taken lightly. I expect the person who fills this position to hold it with as much serious consideration as possible. It is not something one trifles with.

In nominating Sarah Palin as his running mate John McCain has shown total disregard for the importance of the office of the President of the United States. And in doing so has made it clear that regardless of his opposition he is not a man that we want to lead this country.

The Republican party has opted to do what they perceive to increase their odds of winning, over what is best for this country. Winning the job has become more important than doing the job and that, above all else, is what makes me dislike the Republican party right now.

Most of my differences with the Republican party are ideological, but the power held by the President is the one thing that we should all be able to understand. Being President should be about sacrificing oneself, about doing ones duty for this country.

Someone like Sarah Palin should not be as close to being President as she is. She should not be as close to Vice President as she is. As Vice President she would be abysmal. She lacks the understanding and the desire to understand necessary to fulfill a position like that. As President she would be a failure and we as citizens should make mockery of the nomination of Sarah Palin. In my opinion the Republicans should receive zero votes in this election.

Perhaps they truly think that winning with Sarah Palin will result in a better country than losing to Obama. Perhaps, but I don’t think its an argument they should be able to convince anyone of and arguing it only convinces me that they could be more delusional than I already thought.

If you don’t like the democrats either, then vote for an independent that you do like. If you don’t like anyone and you can, vote for none of the above. The Republicans have shown that they don’t respect this country and they don’t respect its citizens, us. They don’t deserve a vote.

A Necessary Conversation for the Times

This article written by Jonathon Haidt has really hit the mark for me. I’ve always hated the duality of our current political system, this red/blue divide which has done little to promote any sense of unity I might feel with my country and my community. And Haidt’s article has done a lot to clear up my confusion about the ideology of people who, I am told, are on the ‘other side.’

There is an undercurrent to this divide that threatens us. When it becomes more about an imagined evil represented by those who stand for something different than us instead of about the ideas and organization of principles the threat grows larger. To dispel this undercurrent I think we must see that our differences are of ideologies, of values, not a true difference of intention. We all seek to do what we think is right and we are blatantly erroneous when we think that we are better or somehow more just; the universe does not inherently define laws of value, we have decided to take that burden unto ourselves.

We must try to truly understand the values of those who differ ideologically from ourselves. We must seek to find the merit in their beliefs, and if we still feel we have just cause for keeping to our ideologies we must find the language to express that cause; why we feel following the organization of our principles will lead to a better world.

And we must listen goddammit. We must allow others to express fully their ‘just cause’ so that we may understand more deeply the ideologies apart from our own. So that we can discard our shallow understandings and grasp the knowledge of not just what principals they stand for, but why they are stood for.

More on this and similar topics later. Thanks for reading.