Thursday, May 17, 2012
Propositions 28 and 29
These are the numbers of two initiative propositions that will be on the ballot in June here in California. I don't like either of them and, if the election were held today, I would vote against both of them.
Proposition 28 is a change in the term limits law that at present limits the terms of office of State officials and State senators to eight years, or two election cycles. Terms of members of the Assembly (lower House) are limited to six years or three election cycles. Once you've served your limit in any of these offices, you are barred from ever again serving in the same office. You can move from office to office, serving the limit in each office. The stated intent of the supporters of term limits is to discourage the creation of a class of "professional politicians." Instead, our laws should be enacted and enforced by "citizen legislators" who serve a limited time in elected office and then return to their regular careers. The effect is to provide the State with a lower house legislature of inexperienced, enthusiastic, incompetent zealots. After six years, the members have gained some experience and have begun to understand that politics is the art of compromise, the art of getting things done. Many of the graduates from the Assembly then move to the Senate, where they have eight years to get something done.
The change would affect the terms of members of the State legislature. Regardless of which house, Senate or Assembly, a member would have a total of twelve years. All twelve years could be spent in either house. (I assume the twelve years could be divided between the two.) At present, a member can spend a total of fourteen years, six in the Assembly and eight in the Senate. To me that is a reduction of two years: fourteen to twelve. Surprisingly, supporters of term limits present the argument that this change would be an expansion of term limits: six years in the Assembly or eight years in the Senate to twelve in one of the two. My own position on term limits is that I don't like them. The change that I would vote for is the elimination of all term limits on elected officials. I certainly will not vote for this fooling around with a bad law that ought to be abolished.
Proposition 29 is an attempt to do budgeting at the ballot box. The proposal is to impose an additional tax on cigarettes. The money from this tax would be used to fund cancer research. Now, I have nothing agains spending money on cancer research. I think that cancer research is a rewarding study. Cancer is an important cause of death and anything that can be done to cure or eliminate various kinds of cancer should be done with efficiency and generosity. The State should fund such research. The State should allocate money from the general fund to pay for the research. That would be a very useful thing for the State to do. Why doesn't the State do it? The reason is that the State has a structural deficit. That is, existing laws prevent the State from taking in enough revenue to pay for all the useful services the State should do. Rather than trying to bypass the apparatus of the State with a special tax, I would rather vote for a proposition that would enable the State legislature to establish tax rates by a simple majority vote.
Proposition 28 is a change in the term limits law that at present limits the terms of office of State officials and State senators to eight years, or two election cycles. Terms of members of the Assembly (lower House) are limited to six years or three election cycles. Once you've served your limit in any of these offices, you are barred from ever again serving in the same office. You can move from office to office, serving the limit in each office. The stated intent of the supporters of term limits is to discourage the creation of a class of "professional politicians." Instead, our laws should be enacted and enforced by "citizen legislators" who serve a limited time in elected office and then return to their regular careers. The effect is to provide the State with a lower house legislature of inexperienced, enthusiastic, incompetent zealots. After six years, the members have gained some experience and have begun to understand that politics is the art of compromise, the art of getting things done. Many of the graduates from the Assembly then move to the Senate, where they have eight years to get something done.
The change would affect the terms of members of the State legislature. Regardless of which house, Senate or Assembly, a member would have a total of twelve years. All twelve years could be spent in either house. (I assume the twelve years could be divided between the two.) At present, a member can spend a total of fourteen years, six in the Assembly and eight in the Senate. To me that is a reduction of two years: fourteen to twelve. Surprisingly, supporters of term limits present the argument that this change would be an expansion of term limits: six years in the Assembly or eight years in the Senate to twelve in one of the two. My own position on term limits is that I don't like them. The change that I would vote for is the elimination of all term limits on elected officials. I certainly will not vote for this fooling around with a bad law that ought to be abolished.
Proposition 29 is an attempt to do budgeting at the ballot box. The proposal is to impose an additional tax on cigarettes. The money from this tax would be used to fund cancer research. Now, I have nothing agains spending money on cancer research. I think that cancer research is a rewarding study. Cancer is an important cause of death and anything that can be done to cure or eliminate various kinds of cancer should be done with efficiency and generosity. The State should fund such research. The State should allocate money from the general fund to pay for the research. That would be a very useful thing for the State to do. Why doesn't the State do it? The reason is that the State has a structural deficit. That is, existing laws prevent the State from taking in enough revenue to pay for all the useful services the State should do. Rather than trying to bypass the apparatus of the State with a special tax, I would rather vote for a proposition that would enable the State legislature to establish tax rates by a simple majority vote.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Critique of Democracy
Many of my liberal friends lament that we do not have a functioning democracy in this country. Money plays a big part in elections and in policies adopted by the elected officials. Presidents solicit huge campaign donations from super-rich Wall Street types and then adopt policies and make appointments that these types favor. Even if we could get rid of the effects of money on elections, we still would not have a truly representative government that approaches the democratic ideal, rule by a thoughtful and careful majority. We have single member election districts. This circumstance makes it nearly impossible for small "third" parties to elect anyone. Our political parties are coalitions to elect that single member of Congress or that single member of a State legislature or the President. These coalitions contain factions with differing views on how the country ought to be run. Elected officials have to cater to certain of these minority groups in order to have a good chance at being reelected.
I compare our archaic system of choosing elected representatives with the election systems used elsewhere in the world. In a small country like Israel, members are not elected from individual election districts. Instead, members of the Knesset are elected at large for the whole country. Different political and religious groups sponsor slates of candidates. These groups win seats in the Knesset in proportion to the votes their slates receive. Every faction is represented fairly. I would call the process "democratic." Every voting citizen is represented in the Knesset.
Consider how our system works if we eliminate the effects of money. In each election district, the majority party in that district elects the candidate. The result is that in a closely divided district, nearly half the population is NOT represented in the legislature or Congress. Only in those districts where an overwhelming majority of the voters choose one candidate can one say that the great majority of voters are pleased with the outcome of the election.
Does a system in which every small bloc of voters has at least one representative in the national legislature provide better governance than one like ours in which a substantial fraction of the voters are dissatisfied at not being represented? I don't know. The experience of Israel suggests that a "democratic" election system does not necessarily produce a government and policies that please the majority of the voters. It is my understanding that a majority of Israelis favor a peaceful accommodation with the Palestinians, including agreeing on a border between two separate countries, abandoning Jewish settlements that are on the Palestinian side of the border, making concessions about water rights, etc. It is my observation that the present Likud government of Israel has no interest in doing any of those things. Settlement activity continues. The wall between the Palestinians and the Israelis is routed to isolate small groups of Palestinians from their farm land.
Why does the "democratic" government of Israel not follow the wishes of the majority? It is similar to the effect noted above of the influence of certain coalitions. Just as American candidates have to placate such groups as the National Rifle Association and the Tea Party to garner enough votes to get elected and re-elected, an Israeli government has to put together a coalition of many political groups in the Knesset to form a majority. In both cases, the result is far from ideal.
I compare our archaic system of choosing elected representatives with the election systems used elsewhere in the world. In a small country like Israel, members are not elected from individual election districts. Instead, members of the Knesset are elected at large for the whole country. Different political and religious groups sponsor slates of candidates. These groups win seats in the Knesset in proportion to the votes their slates receive. Every faction is represented fairly. I would call the process "democratic." Every voting citizen is represented in the Knesset.
Consider how our system works if we eliminate the effects of money. In each election district, the majority party in that district elects the candidate. The result is that in a closely divided district, nearly half the population is NOT represented in the legislature or Congress. Only in those districts where an overwhelming majority of the voters choose one candidate can one say that the great majority of voters are pleased with the outcome of the election.
Does a system in which every small bloc of voters has at least one representative in the national legislature provide better governance than one like ours in which a substantial fraction of the voters are dissatisfied at not being represented? I don't know. The experience of Israel suggests that a "democratic" election system does not necessarily produce a government and policies that please the majority of the voters. It is my understanding that a majority of Israelis favor a peaceful accommodation with the Palestinians, including agreeing on a border between two separate countries, abandoning Jewish settlements that are on the Palestinian side of the border, making concessions about water rights, etc. It is my observation that the present Likud government of Israel has no interest in doing any of those things. Settlement activity continues. The wall between the Palestinians and the Israelis is routed to isolate small groups of Palestinians from their farm land.
Why does the "democratic" government of Israel not follow the wishes of the majority? It is similar to the effect noted above of the influence of certain coalitions. Just as American candidates have to placate such groups as the National Rifle Association and the Tea Party to garner enough votes to get elected and re-elected, an Israeli government has to put together a coalition of many political groups in the Knesset to form a majority. In both cases, the result is far from ideal.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Religion and Genocide
The worst genocide in recorded history occurred in territory now known as the United States of America, starting around 1600 and lasting 300 years or more. During that time approximately 90 percent of the indigenous people were killed to make way for the new immigrants and colonizers from Europe. The process started in the early 1600's or late 1500's when the English colonists noted that the native people were not immune to such childhood diseases as measles, mumps, and chicken pox. Today we know that these diseases are caused by viruses and that children have much stronger immune systems than adults. When a child contracts measles, he or she generally recovers and become immune to the disease for the rest of his or her life. Among Europeans it was customary for children to have all of these diseases. Since the parents had had the same diseases when they were children, they were immune and were able to care for the children.
The natives of New England had never been exposed to these particular viral diseases. They contracted them as adults. Measles in particular is often fatal to an adult who has no acquired immunity. Entire population of villages would come down with measles and would die. The European settlers were actually welcomed when they occupied the villages that had been emptied in this way. No one in those days understood that diseases are caused by tiny living things, like bacteria and viruses. Things not understood were ascribed to God. God was very near. God took care of His people, the people who worshiped the Bible as God's Truth, and punished their enemies. The Bible contained stories of how the Israelites, God's chosen people, had come out of the desert into a fertile land, already occupied by another people, and had slaughtered the occupants to make room for themselves. Arranging for the native Americans to die of measles was thought to be the act of God, who was preparing the new land for his chosen people.
By 1900 the descendants of the Europeans realized that it wasn't the work of God at all but the result of this "European" disease that had killed the native population. The idea that we descendants of Europeans were somehow responsible for a great killing began to take root in our thinking. Today we try to make amends by creating museums devoted to the culture of the now-vanished original inhabitants, recording as much as we can of the native languages and oral literature, and romanticizing the lost people. We congratulate ourselves that at least we admit that we caused the extinction of tens of millions of people. Some of regret what happened. Others believe still that it was inevitable that the superior European culture would replace the native cultures. Perhaps it was. At least we do not censor writers who study this great genocide and report for future historians the facts available about it.
The natives of New England had never been exposed to these particular viral diseases. They contracted them as adults. Measles in particular is often fatal to an adult who has no acquired immunity. Entire population of villages would come down with measles and would die. The European settlers were actually welcomed when they occupied the villages that had been emptied in this way. No one in those days understood that diseases are caused by tiny living things, like bacteria and viruses. Things not understood were ascribed to God. God was very near. God took care of His people, the people who worshiped the Bible as God's Truth, and punished their enemies. The Bible contained stories of how the Israelites, God's chosen people, had come out of the desert into a fertile land, already occupied by another people, and had slaughtered the occupants to make room for themselves. Arranging for the native Americans to die of measles was thought to be the act of God, who was preparing the new land for his chosen people.
By 1900 the descendants of the Europeans realized that it wasn't the work of God at all but the result of this "European" disease that had killed the native population. The idea that we descendants of Europeans were somehow responsible for a great killing began to take root in our thinking. Today we try to make amends by creating museums devoted to the culture of the now-vanished original inhabitants, recording as much as we can of the native languages and oral literature, and romanticizing the lost people. We congratulate ourselves that at least we admit that we caused the extinction of tens of millions of people. Some of regret what happened. Others believe still that it was inevitable that the superior European culture would replace the native cultures. Perhaps it was. At least we do not censor writers who study this great genocide and report for future historians the facts available about it.
Monday, April 09, 2012
My complaint about the current Primary Race
Not too long ago I celebrated my 89th birthday. I have decided that I will claim and exercise the prerogatives of old age, particularly the right to grump and kvetch about things that displease me. One think that displeases me is the current primary race in the Republican Party. The whole purpose of the reform that led to primary elections rather than party conventions was to provide an open, democratic, honest, and effective way to choose the Nation's Chief Executive.
So, what do we have this year? At present we have three candidates running around from State to State, campaigning for votes in the various primary elections. Do the candidates talk about what they will do if elected President? No. They talk about what a miserable, useless fellow the present incumbent is. Each one talks about what a liar each of his opponents in the present primary race is. From other things each candidate does or doesn't say, I conclude that, if elected, he would try to:
So, what do we have this year? At present we have three candidates running around from State to State, campaigning for votes in the various primary elections. Do the candidates talk about what they will do if elected President? No. They talk about what a miserable, useless fellow the present incumbent is. Each one talks about what a liar each of his opponents in the present primary race is. From other things each candidate does or doesn't say, I conclude that, if elected, he would try to:
- Abolish the new health care law
- Abolish recent regulations on speculation by banks
- Make war on Iran
- Reduce taxes on wealthy individuals
- Force women to use dangerous methods to obtain abortions
- Encourage the exporting of American jobs to improve the bottom lines of American businesses
- Oppose fair treatment of homosexual couples
Etc., etc., etc.
I assert that the primary system for selecting Presidential nominees is a failure. I advocate getting rid of it and combining the Primary and General elections with a single instant run-off election. Let all the candidates who can qualify by obtaining enough signatures or raising enough money or whatever run in the General Election in November. Voters would indicate their first, second, third, fourth, etc., choices. Counting would consist of repeatedly discarding the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes and distributing the other choices among the other candidates until one candidate has a majority.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
The Supreme Court and the Insurance Mandate
No one knows what the outcome will be in the case now before the Supreme Court. The case deals with several features of the new law regarding health insurance coverage. The aim of the law is to make sure that everyone is covered. To achieve that goal with private insurance, it is necessary that the insurance pool be as large as possible. That is, just as in the case of home or auto insurance, everyone shares the risk. The system will break down if only those individuals who expect to use the insurance actually buy it. If home insurance were restricted to those whose homes were in real danger of being damaged by flood or fire, the premiums on this restricted pool would be high enough that the insurance would not be worth while.
Once the decision was made to create a system based on what now exists, it was necessary to create a large enough pool that insurers could insure everyone, regardless of existing conditions, at reasonable and affordable premiums. Insurers naturally tend to try to insure healthy people. Healthy people tend not to buy insurance because they don't expect they will need it. Hence, the requirement that everyone should either buy an insurance policy or pay a special tax, to be used to reduce the premiums charged to those people who do buy health insurance.
The system won't work unless everyone pays a share of the total health care cost for the whole nation.
The Court will decide, among other things, whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to require everyone to buy health insurance. If the Court decides that the mandate is unconstitutional, the whole scheme will have to be revised. It probably will be necessary to enact a national health care plan, paid for with taxes, to cover everyone. The people who have brought the case to the Court because they object to the mandate are providing the justification for the need of a national plan that covers everyone, similar to the "single-payer" system in Canada or the National Health Service in many European countries.
I have mixed feelings about this case.
Once the decision was made to create a system based on what now exists, it was necessary to create a large enough pool that insurers could insure everyone, regardless of existing conditions, at reasonable and affordable premiums. Insurers naturally tend to try to insure healthy people. Healthy people tend not to buy insurance because they don't expect they will need it. Hence, the requirement that everyone should either buy an insurance policy or pay a special tax, to be used to reduce the premiums charged to those people who do buy health insurance.
The system won't work unless everyone pays a share of the total health care cost for the whole nation.
The Court will decide, among other things, whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to require everyone to buy health insurance. If the Court decides that the mandate is unconstitutional, the whole scheme will have to be revised. It probably will be necessary to enact a national health care plan, paid for with taxes, to cover everyone. The people who have brought the case to the Court because they object to the mandate are providing the justification for the need of a national plan that covers everyone, similar to the "single-payer" system in Canada or the National Health Service in many European countries.
I have mixed feelings about this case.
Labels: " universal health care, "Obama Care
Friday, February 24, 2012
About Iran
There's a debate going on in our country about how to prevent or deter Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. The debate reminds me of a debate in Voltaire's Candide, in which two Muslim theologians debated for days the question of the source of the quill with which the Prophet wrote the Quran. Did the Angel Gabriel give the Prophet a quill from his wing or did the Prophet steal the quill surreptitiously? After three days a spectator asked whether it wouldn't be logical to start by determining whether the quill in fact came from the wing of the Angel. He was put to death by stoning.
There are two points of view in the debate about Iran and its nuclear weapon program. One view is expressed by the President and his supporters. Military force (i.e., "bomb Iran") won't work. We have to try economic force (i.e., sanctions). The other view is expressed by many Republicans. Economic force (sanctions) hasn't worked. It fact it won't work. We must bomb Iran's uranium enrichment facilities and take other military means to prevent its nuclear program from proceeding.
Nobody is talking about a third option: do nothing. The argument in favor of this approach is that the Iranians are almost certainly determined to build their own atomic bomb. Nothing we can do will stop them. We must consider a future with Iran having a nuclear capability with two possible conditions: A. It has been attacked militarily or economically by the United States; B. The United States has not attacked it. Which Iran would we rather live with, A or B? I think the obvious answer is B.
I will do what I can to dodge the stones.
There are two points of view in the debate about Iran and its nuclear weapon program. One view is expressed by the President and his supporters. Military force (i.e., "bomb Iran") won't work. We have to try economic force (i.e., sanctions). The other view is expressed by many Republicans. Economic force (sanctions) hasn't worked. It fact it won't work. We must bomb Iran's uranium enrichment facilities and take other military means to prevent its nuclear program from proceeding.
Nobody is talking about a third option: do nothing. The argument in favor of this approach is that the Iranians are almost certainly determined to build their own atomic bomb. Nothing we can do will stop them. We must consider a future with Iran having a nuclear capability with two possible conditions: A. It has been attacked militarily or economically by the United States; B. The United States has not attacked it. Which Iran would we rather live with, A or B? I think the obvious answer is B.
I will do what I can to dodge the stones.
Labels: bombing, Iran's nuclear program, nothing; partisan divide, Three options: sanctions
Saturday, February 04, 2012
Is Conservatism a Religion?
Some of my Conservative friends have accused us Liberals (Progressives? Social Democrats?) of believing in a religion. I shall try to present their arguments fairly and objectively. They argue that we Liberals ignore human nature. Humans are greedy and selfish. On election day they vote their immediate self-interest. An economic safety net comprising Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, free medical care, and the like discourages saving for retirement, living a healthy life style, and looking for and accepting jobs that aren't the kind we are used to. Instead, our society should encourage or even force self-reliance and discourage dependence on government to bail us out when we are in trouble.
My response to that argument is that Conservatives are ignoring human nature. Humans may indeed be greedy and selfish. However, the history of our species indicates that cooperation with and taking care of other humans are characteristics that have enabled us to dominate the planet and climb to the top of the food chain. We Liberals believe in exploiting these social and mutual help aspects of human behavior. We believe that a successful society is based on mutual support rather than individual greed. Certainly there are greedy individuals. However, the society must contain structures that exploit human tendencies toward mutual support. Hence, we advocate in favor of free medical care for all, for unemployment insurance, for generous pensions, for a generous and effective social security system, and the like.
Are these two opposing sets of beliefs like religions? Are Conservatives ignoring important aspects of human behavior in advocating a society that rewards greed and self-reliance and punishes dependence? Are Liberals ignoring other important aspects of human behavior in advocating a society with adequate social and economic safety nets? I suppose you could say that either set of beliefs resembles a religion. In a religion there are certain things you are supposed to believe even though they seem impossible (Jonah and the whale, Moses and the burning bush, the punishment of the snake for tempting Eve). Both Conservatives and Liberals believe that in a fair election the majority of the people would choose their respective visions of the ideal society. In the case of Conservatism it would be a society without labor unions, without pensions or social security, without Medicare or Medicaid, without unemployment insurance, and an absence of government regulations on business. In the case of Liberalism it would be a society with free or almost free medical care for everyone, with generous pensions, with strong democratic labor unions, an effective economic safety net for the unemployed, and with enough good jobs that no one would have to be unemployed. Conservatives tend to look to Hong Kong as their model. Liberals look to Denmark.
My response to that argument is that Conservatives are ignoring human nature. Humans may indeed be greedy and selfish. However, the history of our species indicates that cooperation with and taking care of other humans are characteristics that have enabled us to dominate the planet and climb to the top of the food chain. We Liberals believe in exploiting these social and mutual help aspects of human behavior. We believe that a successful society is based on mutual support rather than individual greed. Certainly there are greedy individuals. However, the society must contain structures that exploit human tendencies toward mutual support. Hence, we advocate in favor of free medical care for all, for unemployment insurance, for generous pensions, for a generous and effective social security system, and the like.
Are these two opposing sets of beliefs like religions? Are Conservatives ignoring important aspects of human behavior in advocating a society that rewards greed and self-reliance and punishes dependence? Are Liberals ignoring other important aspects of human behavior in advocating a society with adequate social and economic safety nets? I suppose you could say that either set of beliefs resembles a religion. In a religion there are certain things you are supposed to believe even though they seem impossible (Jonah and the whale, Moses and the burning bush, the punishment of the snake for tempting Eve). Both Conservatives and Liberals believe that in a fair election the majority of the people would choose their respective visions of the ideal society. In the case of Conservatism it would be a society without labor unions, without pensions or social security, without Medicare or Medicaid, without unemployment insurance, and an absence of government regulations on business. In the case of Liberalism it would be a society with free or almost free medical care for everyone, with generous pensions, with strong democratic labor unions, an effective economic safety net for the unemployed, and with enough good jobs that no one would have to be unemployed. Conservatives tend to look to Hong Kong as their model. Liberals look to Denmark.
Labels: Conservatism, Liberalism, pensions; General Motors; Social Security; universal health care
