“This isn’t what we had in mind.”
A conspiracy theorist might suggest that the debt ceiling crisis was created simply to implement this dictatorship-smelling thing. One can only wonder at how big-business/special-interests will salivate over such a system given how easy it is to influence politicians now with bribes… er, um… campaign contributions.
Debt ceiling negotiators think they’ve hit on a solution to address the debt ceiling impasse and the public’s unwillingness to let go of benefits such as Medicare and Social Security that have been earned over a lifetime of work: Create a new Congress.
This “Super Congress,” composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers — six from each chamber and six from each party.
Legislation approved by the Super Congress — which some on Capitol Hill are calling the “super committee” — would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn’t be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who’d have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.
#93
#92 “Why is health care even discussed at the Federal level?”
The Federal government CAN get involved in public health matters, even over the objection of states.
You are asking the wrong question. The question isn’t whether the current Federal government, after decades of ramming additional powers through the elastic clause and commerce clause today can (or has) claim such powers. There is no doubt that they do/have. The question is whether the original designers of the government intended for the Federal government to have that power. To the later, the answer is clearly no. All powers not enumerated in the Constitution belong to the States. No where in the Constitution does it give the Federal government the power to directly manage health care.
Having the power to deal with an epidemic which crosses State lines is an entirely different situation than directly managing health care cost coverage. Not dealing with the epidemic in one State could directly affect the people in another State. That is not true with health care cost coverage.
During the debate over the Bill of Rights, one small change was proposed that also would have had dramatic effect. The proposal was to adjust the wording of the 10th Amendment (the forgotten amendment), that would have injected the word “explicitly” into the text. The Amendment would have read:
Unfortunately, the measure was overturned by a few votes (why it was overturned is a longer discussion). Many delegates complained that the way the Constitution was written, the Federal government would continue to grow in power until any semblance of State authority would be gone and here we are.
“The Founder’s knew this which is why the States had all the power.”
That is is flat wrong. The main lesson is that they didn’t trust anybody. Set everyone against each other because the fight between them is going to produce a better result than any one king.
Simply not true. The Constitution was designed to enumerate the powers given to it by the States (and by association, the people). For example, many of the original drafters (notably Madison) did not want a Bill of Rights because from their perspective, the Federal government had no other power beyond what was in the Constitution so a Bill of Rights would be redundant and in fact dangerous. The worry was that the Bill of Rights would be interpreted to be those limitations on the Federal government and anything else was fair game (which is effectively where we are today).
The main lesson if you study how the Constitution came into being is that the States did not trust a strong central government whether ruled by King, President or oligarchy. They did not trust centralized power.
Representatives from the Colonies didn’t get together because they had 13 separate problems, they were there because they had one problem 13 times.
Frankly, that list of problems shared by the colonies at the time of the country’s founding was short: invasion, trade, arbitration. Yes, there is a need for the Federal government. However, the Colonies also recognized that their ability to self-govern was threatened by a overbearing Federal government.
“You are asking the wrong question. The question isn’t whether the current Federal government, after decades of ramming additional powers through the elastic clause and commerce clause today can (or has) claim such powers. There is no doubt that they do/have.”
That is the end of the issue for me.
“Having the power to deal with an epidemic which crosses State lines is an entirely different situation than directly managing health care cost coverage. Not dealing with the epidemic in one State could directly affect the people in another State. That is not true with health care cost coverage.”
I thought this debt thing was important to you. The USG is a big buyer of health services\products through Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. The US spends 2x per-capita versus most other developed nations on health care. Facing a demographic bubble in the population of retirees, how is it not in the national interest for the USG to take an active role in driving down health care costs?
“During the debate over the Bill of Rights, one small change was proposed that also would have had dramatic effect.”
Who cares? You’ve got to pull your head out of the clouds and focus on making things work a little better today.
#96
me: “Defense contractors(gov pays for development of products)”
you: “This is one of the areas that has actually been beneficial. All that investment in R&D has created a demand for technical jobs. Granted, the military budget is pretty crazy right now but I’m fine with R&D. The issue is mass deployment of the military”
Looks like you like ‘Military Keynesianism’ at least. I would argue that the New Deal programs provide a lot of the dynamism in our civilian economy(less fear of losing a job) in much the same way that mil dollars helped build the US computer and communication industries.
In this case I was making a much more limited point: We should let the R & D costs fall on the contractors. Boeing doesn’t go to airlines and demand money up front before they build the next-gen plane. They build it, show it off, and hope like hell someone buys it. Gov should demand the same. Don’t give any cash unless they show up with a working product.
me: “Big Media( perversion of IP laws so we can kiss up to Disney)”
you: “I agree but I’m not sure it will matter. The problem is that the media giants now have enough resources to put pressure on other countries which put pressure on us.”
I’m trying to suggest that the modern incarnation of the “Welfare Queen” is often a well known company. This isn’t a circumstance where the government’s money is going to to support them, but where gov casually makes choices that negatively impact the economy as a whole.
me:”Firemen/police/teachers(pensions)”
you: “AFAIK, this is all handled at the State and local level as it should. So, write your local representative or City Council member.”
It can still be a problem even if the feds aren’t involved.
I was trying to make my list of special cases as cringe-worthy as possible. A little something to piss everyone off. Boehner’s suggestions of what to cut is laughably narrow and ideologically targeted.
#97
I thought this debt thing was important to you. The USG is a big buyer of health services\products through Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA.
To what purpose are they buying health care? Why couldn’t the States provide that health care?
The US spends 2x per-capita versus most other developed nations on health care. Facing a demographic bubble in the population of retirees, how is it not in the national interest for the USG to take an active role in driving down health care costs?
First there are multiple reasons we spent more such as lack of competition, insurance provided through employers instead of to individuals, tort reform, lack of standardization across State lines and so on. If a person in Louisiana does not have health care coverage, it does not directly affect someone in Mississippi even if they cross State lines. However, a person with an infectious disease does.
Second, the Federal government shouldn’t be providing Medicare or Medicaid and there are other solutions for the VA. If they weren’t, that would help the budget more than just about anything. The States should be responsible for providing health care coverage.
RE: Bill of Rights
Discussions about the concerns about the loopholes in the Constitution during the process of ratification are quite relevant. They show that numerous people predicted the problems with too much centralized power that we see today. I don’t think you understand the gravity of the complaints against the Federal government. There have been calls for a Constitutional convention in the past 50 years and they have all been short by only a few votes. The current government design is an anathema to the Founder’s fundamental intentions and as it becomes bigger and more corrupt, the odds of that happening grow.
So, you want a solution for how to make things better? Restructure the government. Take power and money out of the hands of the Federal government and give it back to the States as was the original intention.
#98
Looks like you like ‘Military Keynesianism’ at least. I would argue that the New Deal programs provide a lot of the dynamism in our civilian economy(less fear of losing a job) in much the same way that mil dollars helped build the US computer and communication industries.
Hardly. First, I recognize that once you shut down R&D, it is very difficult and expensive to restart it. Second, having better technology has enabled us to have the most efficient military on the planet. That means fewer deaths. Third, we can’t compete with the likes of China on pure production or numbers. Fourth, recognizing the benefits of military R&D has absolutely zero to do with people’s fear of losing their jobs. That doesn’t even factor into the equation. Fifth, the New Deal worker programs did nothing to expand demand for technical jobs. They were busy work jobs like mopping floors and the corruption in those programs was rampant. Lastly, the New Deal programs were, over the long term, a failure. They create a bunch of temporary low wage jobs at a much greater cost to the government and thus the taxpayers. This was also true of the stimulus bill where I seem to remember a figure of something like 200K for each job saved. Oh, and on top of all that.
We should let the R & D costs fall on the contractors. Boeing doesn’t go to airlines and demand money up front before they build the next-gen plane. They build it, show it off, and hope like hell someone buys it. Gov should demand the same. Don’t give any cash unless they show up with a working product.
You clearly know nothing of how defense contracts work. There are no free lunches. Contractors are going to make up the money they spend on design and proposals. Second, quite a bit of R&D already “falls on the contractors” which they recoup when they win a proposal.
Boeing goes to the airlines with designs of the aircraft they are considering (after discussions with the airlines about what they want, where their cost pressures are etc). and tries to bag contracts for purchases before they build it. With some airlines that works, with others it doesn’t. They are going to figure the cost of R&D used to build the aircraft into its cost.
“lack of standardization across State lines”
As it currently stands private insurance is almost entirely a within state thing. Different units of, say BlueCross/BlueShield are all different corporations to prevent any one unit that goes bankrupt to take down the whole network. Almost like a criminal organization. 🙂
“If a person in Louisiana does not have health care coverage, it does not directly affect someone in Mississippi even if they cross State lines. However, a person with an infectious disease does.”
Considering that people without insurance tend to be less healthy, I do think differences in the level of covered residents by state could make quite a difference. A high coverage state bordering a low coverage state would see a lot of people traveling or faking residency to get care. A lower funded state system is also going to be less able to combat spread of infectious diseases.
“I don’t think you understand the gravity of the complaints against the Federal government.”
I understand the complaints, but don’t find state governments a compelling solution. The conventional case against government posits rooms full of lazy semi-conscious people uninterested in their jobs, or in helping you.
I’m not blind. There is a reason that meme is so effective, but I’ve encountered that almost exclusively at the state level. Ditto, the annoying little shit with the clipboard that shows up to check out your business.
The US has a MUCH more local/decentralized education system than most of the advanced countries, and we do that very badly with it. I think that the feds should actually be originating content and providing it online. Do a little thought experiment about how books cost, how many students, how often new editions come out. The numbers are staggering.
Local is NOT necessarily a solution. The idea that local interest groups can more directly effect politics is undoubtedly true. Look how well teachers unions and police unions do for themselves.
“So, you want a solution for how to make things better? Restructure the government. Take power and money out of the hands of the Federal government and give it back to the States as was the original intention.”
Restructuring big systems always causes huge problems. Watch Egypt for an object lesson in how plans go awry. Everybody jumped on that bandwagon so quickly because it is so nice to see people yearning to be free. Steven Wynn, visionary, recently opined that the business community was staging an investor’s revolt against Obama because of the uncertain conditions that his policies create. Dismantle the current system and everything financial is going to freeze solid. Watch Egypt.
If we are going to talk radical solutions I’d rather see the country split off by regions.
Let the South neatly divide into slums and gated communities; the Mountain West become an open pit mine; the West Coast become massively-multi-cultural tech and weed producers; New England to the Mid-Atlantic would probably become THE WORLD’S hot money center; the Midwest-West would be forced to grow more real food due to disappearance of corn syrup/ethanol subsidies.
I like that idea! The very special deal the less populated states get, much greater federal assistance due to having equal senate representation would be out the window. If you’re really looking for systemic problems in the US that one is a real powerhouse.
#100
“First, I recognize that once you shut down R&D, it is very difficult and expensive to restart it.”
Similar to people losing jobs for extended periods of time due to low demand, and becoming unemployable due to lost skills and losing work-specific socialization.
“recognizing the benefits of military R&D has absolutely zero to do with people’s fear of losing their jobs”
No, but it is a jobs program. If the US backed down from a world-wide hegemon to a regional power, that also provided extra security at selected strategic spots in cooperation with locals, a lot of people would lose their jobs. Defense contractors specifically assign manufacturing facilities to districts of helpful representatives. An excellent public-private partnership(barf!).
“You clearly know nothing of how defense contracts work. There are no free lunches.”
Maybe you’ve heard of the F-35 alternate engine program. The Gov was paying not one but TWO companies to develop engines for the next gen fighter, which is the best new thing since the f-22 ( which is sadly useless for its intended role).
Why are we paying anyone to develop the engine? Shouldn’t the big aircraft manufacturers be interested in the carryover tech benefits to their civilian offerings to do the damn job gratis?
If you can build an engine with the right characteristics and hookups the USAF will give you cash on the spot. We want almost 3k engines. That’s a big prize.
Maybe the government procurement people could learn a little, but hopefully not too much from Wal-Mart. Make a big buy with detailed specs at a low low cost. Don’t want to stretch too far on the Wal-Mart angle…
Step back and look at gov procurement as a whole. There have been lots of $100M+ IT systems abandoned, after delivery, as useless. Some of that is state government systems.
What I’m saying is that the Federal/State/Local gov units often look like complete muppets in big procurement deals. Being bad at the job is different than the job being unnecessary or impossible.
#101
A high coverage state bordering a low coverage state would see a lot of people traveling or faking residency to get care.
If you mean moving to that high coverage State, you are right. I’m fine with that. One means the States compete with each other is via the services they provide to their constituents. Faking residency is a different problem. Again, if a State that provided high coverage thought there was quite a bit of fraud due to fake residency claims, they can fix that problem.
A lower funded state system is also going to be less able to combat spread of infectious diseases.
We are not talking about disease epidemics. We’re talking about standard health care cost coverage. The entire health care debate has nothing to do with the spread of infectious diseases. The vast majority of health care costs are not due to communicable diseases.
Local is NOT necessarily a solution. The idea that local interest groups can more directly effect politics is undoubtedly true. Look how well teachers unions and police unions do for themselves.
The more local the politics the more responsive it is to the constituents but that does not necessarily mean more effective and doesn’t necessarily mean less effective either but it does mean that the constituents are able to be more involved.
RE: Splitting the country into regions.
What you are really suggesting is splitting the country into a handful of smaller countries. However, the same debates are going to come up. Who arbitrates decisions? Is there a Federal government? What authority does the Federal government have over the regional governments? Can the Federal government directly tax all citizens? How much autonomy do the regional governments have? Can a regional government trump the Federal government in any respect?
Ironically, in the original design the country, those “regions” were in fact the States.
RE: Results of the regions
Right now the next equivalent of the Silicon Valley is in Austin, TX. In fact, there is a ton of tech in the South because it’s cheap to setup there. A friend of mine moved to TN just outside Nashville and got 30mpbs to his house and that was considered an average deal.
NE to the mid-Atlantic would likely become something akin to MA: broke, heavy liberal government, very high tax rate which would make the South more attractive. It was already the case that NY was the money center but this last crisis has hit them hard. One problem in NE to mid-Atlantic region is that there very little production depending on which States you include.
The Midwest would grow whatever made the most money just as they do now. If selling food to the other regions made more money, they’d do it. If selling corn for biofuel made more money, they’d do that. Just like now.
The West wouldn’t be much different than it is now (perhaps more conservative). CA would still grow a lot of food and still retain the entertainment industry but as with now, much of its tech would likely move to the South because of taxes and cost of living.
The back and forth on the health system, on my end, is that it is a system. You can’t separate out some stuff from the other stuff. Less money equals worse response.
There are some credible efforts to lower costs based on figuring out who makes the most costs and figuring out how to limit that. The cost distributions are very uneven. Maybe 1-3% of people, and not ones about to die, are using 10x to 100x the health resources that the average person uses. Cutting those costs represents a huge opportunity. That sort of focus is welcome and long overdo.
I maintain that the optimization of the existing system is NOT going to come about through politically generated cost cuts. That stuff is brainless.
Not more with less, but MUCH less with less.
Noticed you avoided my #102 post about mil procurement. I do think that things have improved from the cost-plus contracts era of 10k toilet seats.
That doesn’t mean the mil and gov don’t get royally shafted in contracting today. Washington has progressed from paper bags filled with cash to implicit no-work jobs for loyal gov underlings after they retire. Generals go to work for defense contractors and congress reps become lobbyists.
The money still gets exchanged, but the helper has to make it out without getting jailed before that happens.
I do think splitting off by regions is a decent idea. The coasts supply the interior with a lot of cash transfers. CA and New England to the Mid-Atlantic would not have to help support the bellicose military adventures by the crusading southern evangelicals or the MASSIVE federal redistribution payments to the South, and Mountain-West.
The low-population/large-area states get a sweetheart deal from the feds. More infrastructure is required. There is a strong correlation between states that get more fed payments than their citizens contribute fed taxes, and the conservative leaning of those states.
If NY and CA could keep more of their own money I’d be sanguine about their prospects.
Personally, I think Lincoln’s war to keep the South is one of the WORST moves any US President has ever made.