Nearly all Americans can agree: health care and health insurance policy, as they currently exist, no longer meet our needs. We disagree on the solution. President Obama and most Congressional Democrats see profit and competition as expendable inefficiencies and believe that coverage can be expanded and prices lowered by government entry into the insurance market. Libertarians and other supporters of free-market health care reform see the markets in health insurance and health care as being broken by poorly thought out Federal and State regulatory policies, especially by promotion of overinsurance and coupling of health insurance to employment, and wish to use the best economic advice available to fix these markets.
Nick Coons, currently seeking the Libertarian Party's nomination for U.S. Congress, AZ 5th District, has been giving radio interviews and pounding the pavement talking to ordinary voters and promoting the role of markets and choice in health care reform.
He's just one voice. Claiming that a government program will take care of everything is easy. Explaining how to fix markets, how to expand coverage and choice at the same time, that's difficult, more so because the public and the popular press are unfamiliar. Promotion of real health care reform has been the province of policy wonks and economics nerds for too long. It's
time to take these ideas to the masses.
That's where you come in. Stand up for your health care, and help make Nick Coons's job easier, by spreading the idea of free-market health care reform via guest opinions and letters to the editor. Between now and October 24th, get your letters and guest opinions promoting free-market health care reform printed in Arizona newspapers, and submit them to our contest. The author of the best letter or guest opinion will receive a Nick Coons for Congress T-Shirt, in any color desired as long as it's blue, and a $25 kiva.org gift certificate.
The Rules:
Prize:
A single winner will receive one Nick Coons for Congress T-Shirt and a $25 kiva.org gift certificate.
Where and when letters must be published: Entries must be published between 5 September and 24 October 2009 in a daily or weekly Arizona newspaper with circulation of more than 5,000 copies per day. Both guest opinions and letters may be entered. Web-only publication of a letter does not constitute publication for purposes of this contest.
Submission:
Participants must register their entries by e-mailing a link to the page of a a newspaper's website containing the letter to bennett@kalafut.us, or by mailing paper clippings to
Goldwater State
Attn: Bennett Kalafut
1939 E Hedrick Drive
Tucson AZ 85719-2420.
Entrants must include their name, home address, and e-mail address along with their submissions.
Participants may enter multiple letters or guest opinions.
Privacy:
The name and town or city of residence of the winner and other notable or remarkable entrants will be posted on Goldwater State. Addresses and e-mails will be kept private.
Selection of winner:
A single winner will be selected by 30 October Bennett Kalafut, Nick Coons, and Nick Coons campaign manager Kim Ruff, using Condorcet voting if there is no consensus. The judges' decision is final. If we are unable to contact the winner by 7 November 2009 October, the prize will be given to the second-place finisher.
Final details:
By submitting an entry to the Goldwater State Health Care Reform LTE Contest, you agree to the rules above, and agree to indemnify and hold harmless Goldwater State and the contest judges. Contest is a project of and funded by Bennett S. Kalafut doing business as "Goldwater State" and is not affiliated with Nick Coons for Congress. Bribes will not be accepted and flattery will get you nowhere.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Welcoming another coblogger.
In anticipation of my departure from Arizona--next August at the latest--I'm trying to turn Goldwater State into a group 'blog. So far I've been asking people to join, but if you're interested in contributing, send me an e-mail, and I might send one back, "asking" you to join.
Thane Eichenauer is among the best readers of the Arizona policy 'blogosphere and leaves valuable comments here and elsewhere. He's also, among other things, been a candidate for U.S. Congress, on the ballot in the general election. I'm pleased to say he's joining Goldwater State as a contributor and will leave him to finish his own introduction. He'll bring a bit of a different perspective, both geographically and politically. (Still broadly "modern classical liberal", but we don't all sound or think alike.) Welcome!
Thane Eichenauer is among the best readers of the Arizona policy 'blogosphere and leaves valuable comments here and elsewhere. He's also, among other things, been a candidate for U.S. Congress, on the ballot in the general election. I'm pleased to say he's joining Goldwater State as a contributor and will leave him to finish his own introduction. He'll bring a bit of a different perspective, both geographically and politically. (Still broadly "modern classical liberal", but we don't all sound or think alike.) Welcome!
The passive-aggressive "nofollow"
If you were to see the source HTML code of my posts, you'd notice something peculiar about the link tags: those to 'blogs which do not routinely link to or reference other 'blogs have a rel="nofollow" attribute.
Among other things, that means that my links do not boost their search engine rankings.
The 'blogosphere works best--it is at its most interesting and most civil--when it is conversational, when 'bloggers respond to one another's ideas and pass along items of interest, and tends to descend to "preaching to the choir" partisan banality when it is not. I don't care too much whether or not those I link reference Goldwater State, but if they're not linking, for search-engine purposes, I won't link them, either!
Among other things, that means that my links do not boost their search engine rankings.
The 'blogosphere works best--it is at its most interesting and most civil--when it is conversational, when 'bloggers respond to one another's ideas and pass along items of interest, and tends to descend to "preaching to the choir" partisan banality when it is not. I don't care too much whether or not those I link reference Goldwater State, but if they're not linking, for search-engine purposes, I won't link them, either!
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Campaigning long before they're 18: Schoolchildren, permission slips, and Obama's speech.
UPDATE: The White House has greatly changed--and improved--the lesson plans, although the "how will he inspire us" line is still in the 7-12 plan. A copy of the original preK-6 plan, "Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?" and all, has been located.
David Safier of 'Blog for Arizona seems a bit perplexed by parental backlash against the showing of a speech from President Obama in schools. Either he missed the note from Tom Horne (Superintendent of Public Instruction) or he's willfully ignoring the rational basis for the actions of people with whom he disagrees.
I'm not going to say that there aren't parents who simply do not want their children to hear an Obama speech. But the Department of Education, in a misstep rivaling the flag@whitehouse.gov proposal, has released suggestions for classroom activities which verge on enlisting teachers (perhaps without their realizing it) as propagandists and Obama mythmakers. (Backup copies of the K-6 and 7-12 suggestions are available on the Arizona Department of Education website.
Horne is correct: neither writing "notable quotes" from past Obama speeches on the board in big letters and having kids reflect on the meaning nor--especially!--having the kids reflect on how President Obama will "inspire" them are appropriate.
Watching Obama's speech certainly has its place in schools as part of a larger civics lesson emphasizing critical reflection on the statements of politicians and perhaps also considering the rôle of the President in American culture. The reverent attitude promoted by Arne Duncan's Department of Education, and the Obama-only focus, is inappropriate in largely mandatory schools in a free society. Parents would not be unreasonable in thinking that at least some teachers have received the Education Department's suggested lesson plans nor in thinking that some teachers, either due to left-wing personal prejudices or lack of criticality, will implement them.
Neither I nor (I suspect) many of my readers may like it, but the transition away from government-run schooling will be a very slow one; the obsolescent relics known as "public schools" will be with us for at least the near future. Until the education market develops to the point where school choice is the norm--we're not at that tipping point, yet--we need some ground rules for the sake of social peace.
It's the most cynical political slogan I can think of since the days of (Pat) Buchananite crypto-racism in the early '90s: "Elections should mean something", the lament of American soi disant "progressives" that the consent of the governed precludes a hard left turn towards social democracy. But even these left-wing ideologues should be able to agree:
Elections should not mean that the winners get to indoctrinate and propagandize the schoolkids.
David Safier of 'Blog for Arizona seems a bit perplexed by parental backlash against the showing of a speech from President Obama in schools. Either he missed the note from Tom Horne (Superintendent of Public Instruction) or he's willfully ignoring the rational basis for the actions of people with whom he disagrees.
I'm not going to say that there aren't parents who simply do not want their children to hear an Obama speech. But the Department of Education, in a misstep rivaling the flag@whitehouse.gov proposal, has released suggestions for classroom activities which verge on enlisting teachers (perhaps without their realizing it) as propagandists and Obama mythmakers. (Backup copies of the K-6 and 7-12 suggestions are available on the Arizona Department of Education website.
Horne is correct: neither writing "notable quotes" from past Obama speeches on the board in big letters and having kids reflect on the meaning nor--especially!--having the kids reflect on how President Obama will "inspire" them are appropriate.
Watching Obama's speech certainly has its place in schools as part of a larger civics lesson emphasizing critical reflection on the statements of politicians and perhaps also considering the rôle of the President in American culture. The reverent attitude promoted by Arne Duncan's Department of Education, and the Obama-only focus, is inappropriate in largely mandatory schools in a free society. Parents would not be unreasonable in thinking that at least some teachers have received the Education Department's suggested lesson plans nor in thinking that some teachers, either due to left-wing personal prejudices or lack of criticality, will implement them.
Neither I nor (I suspect) many of my readers may like it, but the transition away from government-run schooling will be a very slow one; the obsolescent relics known as "public schools" will be with us for at least the near future. Until the education market develops to the point where school choice is the norm--we're not at that tipping point, yet--we need some ground rules for the sake of social peace.
It's the most cynical political slogan I can think of since the days of (Pat) Buchananite crypto-racism in the early '90s: "Elections should mean something", the lament of American soi disant "progressives" that the consent of the governed precludes a hard left turn towards social democracy. But even these left-wing ideologues should be able to agree:
Elections should not mean that the winners get to indoctrinate and propagandize the schoolkids.
Does Arizona need a budget? Should Arizona have a budget?
Last Saturday a few University of Arizona-affiliated 'bloggers--Laura Donovan, Evan Lisull, Vishal Ganeshan, and myself--got together at a local bar to say "hello" and get updatd on an upcoming project. All three are far more capable writers than I am--working with optical tweezers and Markov chain models all day doesn't provide much practice--and are also interesting enough to be worth following, so add them to your RSS aggregator or 'blog feed. (I'd say that a broader get-together should happen, but some partisan or ideological 'bloggers haven't yet learned that the 'blogosphere is improved when it becomes a conversation--e.g. when Wilkinson and Yglesias read each other and the ideas are allowed to develop--and if you don't even link, can you socialize?)
That, eight weeks past its deadline, the legislature has yet to produce a meaningful, workable budget compromise with the Governor, came up briefly in discussion and my memory was instantly loosened up a bit as though sprayed with PB Blaster: former Congressional Joint Economic Committee senior economist (among other things) Joe Cobb, nowhiding from the fuzz in Arizona, had said at one point that governments do not need budgets and that until around 1900, normally did not have budgets. I couldn't, however, remember the particulars or the arguments for it, although as Lisull noted, having to re-approve spending items each year could possibly lead to more sunsetting of (on net) worthless programs.
After leaving I gave Joe a call, trying to get him to write a guest post on the subject. No such luck. (The invitation to guest post on AZ policy still stands, and readers are welcome to send him bribes on my behalf. "Did anyone order a pizza?") But I was able to get a few minutes of his time, an explanation, and referral to an explanatory draft article on his website.
To quote:
The idea: have government Appropriations Committees fund projects based on tax revenue received, not tax revenue predicted. In Cobb's words, "This is...actually how households and private businesses control spending." The current system is biased heavily in favor of borrowing and increasing taxes when an economic downturn causes revenues to fall, and towards ballooning a budget unsustainably during short term "boom times" such as the construction-based expansion Arizona saw in the decade leading up to 2008. Going to the sort of "reality-based budgeting" where government spends money in hand restores the symmetry between spending cuts and tax increases.
Elimination of forward-looking budgeting would help Arizona to avoid, when the next downturn comes, the sort of scrambling legislative breakdown we're seeing now. It may also force a bit more rationality out of the voters, as rent-seeking will become (even more) transparent, and politicians would have to get more honest about their vote-buying spending programs. "You want the schools and prisons funded first, right? If you also want the UA Presents subsidy of highbrow entertainment, we will have to raise your taxes.
The main trouble in going back to the pre-budgeting way of doing things is the changeover. The old system worked, and in good years the new system works, but to go from the new system to the old system requires money in hand and for payment takers--both private and governmental--to get used to a bit of uncertainty and for institutional culture to change accordingly. Also, given that a switch will make it much harder for government to do everything we think would be nice, we can expect the Left to very strongly oppose such a switch when it does not appear necessary. At the risk of having a fictional villain named after me in the next Naomi Klein novel, I'll say that the current crisis provides the natural time to switch.
I hesitate in writing "crisis." Commenter Thane Eichenauer was right: government failure isn't going to happen. The legislature is already, out of necessity, switching to Cobb's prioritized, "reality-based budgeting" and for example those million kids I mentioned in a previous post aren't finding themselves locked out of grade school. It'd be nice for the change to become permanent. What it will take is for someone or several someones to get this idea to legislators and opinionmakers--for newspaper opinions and think-tank whitepapers promoting such a switch to start to appear.
That, eight weeks past its deadline, the legislature has yet to produce a meaningful, workable budget compromise with the Governor, came up briefly in discussion and my memory was instantly loosened up a bit as though sprayed with PB Blaster: former Congressional Joint Economic Committee senior economist (among other things) Joe Cobb, now
After leaving I gave Joe a call, trying to get him to write a guest post on the subject. No such luck. (The invitation to guest post on AZ policy still stands, and readers are welcome to send him bribes on my behalf. "Did anyone order a pizza?") But I was able to get a few minutes of his time, an explanation, and referral to an explanatory draft article on his website.
To quote:
Governments pass laws to spend money. Households and businesses don’t. Those laws make it much more difficult to change if they get things wrong.
Whereas households and businesses can predict wages and sales, governments have a difficult time predicting tax revenues when inflation and tax brackets have a large effect on actual revenues collected the following year.
The idea: have government Appropriations Committees fund projects based on tax revenue received, not tax revenue predicted. In Cobb's words, "This is...actually how households and private businesses control spending." The current system is biased heavily in favor of borrowing and increasing taxes when an economic downturn causes revenues to fall, and towards ballooning a budget unsustainably during short term "boom times" such as the construction-based expansion Arizona saw in the decade leading up to 2008. Going to the sort of "reality-based budgeting" where government spends money in hand restores the symmetry between spending cuts and tax increases.
Elimination of forward-looking budgeting would help Arizona to avoid, when the next downturn comes, the sort of scrambling legislative breakdown we're seeing now. It may also force a bit more rationality out of the voters, as rent-seeking will become (even more) transparent, and politicians would have to get more honest about their vote-buying spending programs. "You want the schools and prisons funded first, right? If you also want the UA Presents subsidy of highbrow entertainment, we will have to raise your taxes.
The main trouble in going back to the pre-budgeting way of doing things is the changeover. The old system worked, and in good years the new system works, but to go from the new system to the old system requires money in hand and for payment takers--both private and governmental--to get used to a bit of uncertainty and for institutional culture to change accordingly. Also, given that a switch will make it much harder for government to do everything we think would be nice, we can expect the Left to very strongly oppose such a switch when it does not appear necessary. At the risk of having a fictional villain named after me in the next Naomi Klein novel, I'll say that the current crisis provides the natural time to switch.
I hesitate in writing "crisis." Commenter Thane Eichenauer was right: government failure isn't going to happen. The legislature is already, out of necessity, switching to Cobb's prioritized, "reality-based budgeting" and for example those million kids I mentioned in a previous post aren't finding themselves locked out of grade school. It'd be nice for the change to become permanent. What it will take is for someone or several someones to get this idea to legislators and opinionmakers--for newspaper opinions and think-tank whitepapers promoting such a switch to start to appear.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Firearms, automobiles, and invisible errors.
On the last day of the rapid-fire, no-way-to-keep-up-unless-you're-at-the-capitol, legislative session, SB 1168, a bill prohibiting property owners or tenants from forbidding storage of firearms in locked cars or motorcycles parked on their lots, was passed by the House and Senate.
The bill attracted some rather odd opposition, including that of the Goldwater Institute, which offered to file Private Property Rights Protection Act (2006 Prop. 207) claims on behalf of property owners opposing the bill. Their estimate of the value of the claims: $263 million!
The Goldwater Institute is an oddball hybrid libertarian/conservative think-tank. Like most think-tanks, it does a lot of working backwards from a desired conclusion and choosing methodologies to suit. And like most think-tanks it ends up with some really sharp people (e.g. Matthew Ladner) but many who wouldn't make the cut in the world of true scholarship (e.g. Byron "They're going to regulate our breath!" Schlomach--trust that I'm pulling punches in his case.) But the usual problems aren't what's at work here: what's at work is the silly principlism that dominates most popular libertarian and much right-wing thought.
To think according to heuristic is human, but libertarians and right-wingers both like to elevate some of these heuristics to the status of "principles", which are inviolable rules. Taking stands "as a matter of principle" is considered a mark of virture among the vulgar in both crowds: rather than thinking the strange cases through, apply the "principles" blindly. This happens despite both libertarian and right-wing philosophers' recognition of tradeoffs and conflicts in law. (Law professors and analytic philosophers both love the tricky cases.) I suspect--and I'd love to see a social-scientist tackle the problem--that underlying this is a desire for "moral clarity". Principles, such as "property rights are absolute control", have moral clarity. Casuistry, although the foundation of our legal tradition, inherently recognizes lack of absolute moral certitude. Recognition of tradeoffs destroys moral clarity altogether.
The $263 million figure has been left unexplained to date, and is almost certainly glibertarian hyperbole--the pattern among libertarians and conservatives is to overstate their weak cases. E.g. "Global Warming is Teh Hoax", "Public Schools are Socialist Indoctrination Camps", etc. A hint: invisible acts do not diminish a property owner's use rights. Storage of a firearm out of sight in a locked car is an invisible act; in ordinary circumstances the act of parking is no different whether the trunk is empty, contains a firearm, or a toaster. As I understand it, invisible harms, invisible diminishment of use, has $0 value in our legal tradition. We do not consider sin, that is to say, "Invisible Error", an object of law.
Of course, there are circumstances in which this could be an actual loss to property owners: someone intent on using a firearm to commit a crime decides to not bring his own, and instead starts breaking into auto trunks, gets lucky, and finds a weapon. I'd be willing to support compensation if that happens. And I'd even support compensation for assuming this risk--but it's an incredibly low risk. (Disagree? Then show me where the $263 million figure comes from!) What I do not support is allowing the right of employers and other property owners to prevent Invisible Error to trump the right to self-defense traveling to and from work or otherwise granting hoplophobes a veto over harmless behavior tied to the right to self defense. This isn't even one of those tricky cases. Invisible Error is not, in our legal tradition, a harm.
The bill attracted some rather odd opposition, including that of the Goldwater Institute, which offered to file Private Property Rights Protection Act (2006 Prop. 207) claims on behalf of property owners opposing the bill. Their estimate of the value of the claims: $263 million!
The Goldwater Institute is an oddball hybrid libertarian/conservative think-tank. Like most think-tanks, it does a lot of working backwards from a desired conclusion and choosing methodologies to suit. And like most think-tanks it ends up with some really sharp people (e.g. Matthew Ladner) but many who wouldn't make the cut in the world of true scholarship (e.g. Byron "They're going to regulate our breath!" Schlomach--trust that I'm pulling punches in his case.) But the usual problems aren't what's at work here: what's at work is the silly principlism that dominates most popular libertarian and much right-wing thought.
To think according to heuristic is human, but libertarians and right-wingers both like to elevate some of these heuristics to the status of "principles", which are inviolable rules. Taking stands "as a matter of principle" is considered a mark of virture among the vulgar in both crowds: rather than thinking the strange cases through, apply the "principles" blindly. This happens despite both libertarian and right-wing philosophers' recognition of tradeoffs and conflicts in law. (Law professors and analytic philosophers both love the tricky cases.) I suspect--and I'd love to see a social-scientist tackle the problem--that underlying this is a desire for "moral clarity". Principles, such as "property rights are absolute control", have moral clarity. Casuistry, although the foundation of our legal tradition, inherently recognizes lack of absolute moral certitude. Recognition of tradeoffs destroys moral clarity altogether.
The $263 million figure has been left unexplained to date, and is almost certainly glibertarian hyperbole--the pattern among libertarians and conservatives is to overstate their weak cases. E.g. "Global Warming is Teh Hoax", "Public Schools are Socialist Indoctrination Camps", etc. A hint: invisible acts do not diminish a property owner's use rights. Storage of a firearm out of sight in a locked car is an invisible act; in ordinary circumstances the act of parking is no different whether the trunk is empty, contains a firearm, or a toaster. As I understand it, invisible harms, invisible diminishment of use, has $0 value in our legal tradition. We do not consider sin, that is to say, "Invisible Error", an object of law.
Of course, there are circumstances in which this could be an actual loss to property owners: someone intent on using a firearm to commit a crime decides to not bring his own, and instead starts breaking into auto trunks, gets lucky, and finds a weapon. I'd be willing to support compensation if that happens. And I'd even support compensation for assuming this risk--but it's an incredibly low risk. (Disagree? Then show me where the $263 million figure comes from!) What I do not support is allowing the right of employers and other property owners to prevent Invisible Error to trump the right to self-defense traveling to and from work or otherwise granting hoplophobes a veto over harmless behavior tied to the right to self defense. This isn't even one of those tricky cases. Invisible Error is not, in our legal tradition, a harm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
