De-Simplifying the Balanced Budget Amendment
Sounds great, right? A balanced budget amendment. It’s a slam-dunk. Surely we can all agree that we should have a balanced budget (except under rare and specific circumstances), and that this is an important and necessary step towards fiscal solvency. It almost seems too obvious. Why on earth didn’t we do this decades ago?
Well…maybe it’s not quite so simple.
Here’s my take on it: some form of a balanced budget amendment is necessary. As it stands now, we’ve grown so accustomed to running an increasingly massive budget deficit on an annual basis, that the de facto presumption is that we’ll continue to do so. And any time we balance the budget, it’s considered a big deal. A balanced budget amendment would reverse that. We shouldn’t be elated when the budget is balanced; we should expect that. Rather, we should be skeptical and cautious when it’s not balanced.
Therefore, a constitutional mandate to balance the budget is necessary. The problem doesn’t lie in the underlying goal or intent, but in the specific approach sought by the Congressional Republicans. The biggest issue I have with their approach is the idea of capping spending as a percentage of GDP (currently, they seek a cap of 18%), allowing for exceptions in a state of declared war or when 2/3 of both the House and Senate agree to allow more spending. I first read about this in a great New York Times blog post by a former IMF chief economist. You can read it for yourself, but I would like to draw attention to a few of his points about how this 18% cap could really hamper the progress of the US economy in the years to come.
The first thing he points out might seem like a trivial concern, but it’s really a big one when you put it in perspective. GDP does not have a “legal” definition. (Under the assumption that knowledge of economy theory ranges widely among my readership, I’ll very simply define GDP here: It’s a measure of the size of the American economy, and therefore a measure of economic activity. The raw number is equal to the amount of total income by all Americans in a given year). Although the federal government does have a formula that they prefer to use when calculating GDP, and although they do use this same formula every year in issuing official reports on economic data, nowhere is it written into stone that this definition has to be used.
Why is this an issue? Consider an example: some president at some point in the future wants to spend loads of money, above the 18% cap. He can simply redefine GDP so that it’s calculated in such a way that the number is suddenly larger than it would have been had the traditional formula been followed (he could, for example, sign a law requiring that small jobs involving cash payments such as babysitting, lawn mowing and table waiting, be reported to the IRS so that the value of those payments can be added to GDP). All of a sudden, GDP goes up on paper (but the economy is the same size) and that particular administration is enabled to spend more. Sets a nasty precedent, doesn’t it?
The specific figure of 18% that they’ve chosen raises some questions as well. While that figure might make sense right now, with a growing percentage of the population becoming eligible for certain entitlements as the baby boomer generation retires en masse, we will need to devote a larger percentage of GDP to entitlement spending than ever before (it should go without saying that I support massive reform of our entitlement programs to promote the future solvency of these programs in the wake of the massive expense that this new generation of retirees represents). The 18% figure is based on historical trends, not on future projections. Yet the fiscal circumstances of the next few years are unlike anything we’ve ever experienced, and need to be addressed as such. The 18% figure needs to be more flexible to accommodate the kind of circumstances that we haven’t before seen, and that weren’t necessarily considered in developing that figure.
Finally, I’d like to use a hypothetical scenario to illustrate one final danger of setting a government spending cap as a percentage of GDP. Suppose we have a situation of stagflation — defined as a stagnant, or shrinking, GDP combined with high inflation (this happens rarely, but when it does, it can be fatal to a nation’s economy — just look at pre-WWII Germany). In that particular scenario, GDP (by definition) goes down, and therefore the spending cap decreases. In addition, high inflation means that the real value of government expenditures decreases, leading to a massive net decrease in government spending, when the economy is already desperately hurting. I’m no Keynesian, but it doesn’t take a far-left economist to acknowledge that such a situation would spell serious trouble for the economy. And while the rule could be temporarily suspended by a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress, one lesson that should be drawn from the recent debt ceiling debate is that you can never completely trust Congress to put aside ideology for the greater good of the economy.
The point of this is not to dismiss the idea of a balanced budget amendment — as I said, I would absolutely support that kind of measure, if it contains the kind of provisions necessary to give Congress flexibility in times of armed conflict, and unusual or unique (but far from impossible) economic circumstances. I just hope that before crying out for the need to balance the budget, political activists take the time to do the research and understand all possible consequences of a balanced budget amendment — both the good and the potentially scary.
The Controversy that Isn’t
As of late, pundits on both sides of the aisle have been having a fit over this apparently earth-shatteringly controversial mosque to be built two blocks from ground zero. I have a two word response to all those (now including myself, I suppose) who have bothered to prop up this issue by writing or speaking about it at length: who cares?
There are two basic sides to this argument: the first, generally from the right, suggests that this mosque is insensitive and anti-American. Some have even claimed that it could serve as a hub for terrorist activity. The other, generally from the left, would argue that this is an important test of America’s meddle and credibility in defending its citizens’ freedom of speech.
And then there’s the third side of the issue — my own personal side, which hasn’t quite caught on much yet. The side that would argue something to this extent: our country is $13 trillion dollars in debt, unemployment is nearing 11%, Social Security is on the brink of an unstoppable downward spiral and Iran is developing nuclear capability. And we’re spending our time talking about the construction of a mosque? What?
Here’s my response to both sides of the issue.
To the right: first of all, it’s not a mosque — or at least not in the way you might think of what a church is to Christians. It’s an Islamic community center with a prayer room in it which, apparently, classifies it as a mosque. Secondly, labeling it “the ground zero mosque” adds an unfair layer of drama to the situation, given that it’s going to be built two blocks away. Third, anyone who actually believes that a mosque is immediately at risk for generating terrorist activity is an Islamophobe who has no credibility anyway. And finally, why do you really care? What kind of personal effect could this possibly have on you? I understand if you don’t like the idea of building a mosque two blocks from ground zero but unfortunately, that defense doesn’t hold much ground in a serious political debate.
To the left: let’s be honest. The people who are proposing this construction knew the kind of resentment it would generate. Knowing that this kind of controversy would be stirred up HAD to be part of the decision to pick that particular construction site — you don’t just “accidentally” overlook that. And is this insensitive for that very reason? Yes, it is. Wrong? Maybe, maybe not. But insensitive? I think so. And please stop with the whole “freedom of speech” crusade that you’re leading in defense of this project. In the United States, people have the right to built WHAT they want but not necessarily WHERE they want to build it. That’s what zoning laws are for. It wouldn’t necessarily be right, but it certainly wouldn’t be outside the government’s authority to disallow the construction. The point is, this is not a freedom of speech issue. And the more you try to make it one, the more you turn this into a laughable political soap opera.
If you want to know what I think should happen, I think they ought to go ahead and build the thing. I don’t much care for the idea of it, but that’s not really the point; it’s not illegal and the property is privately owned. So they should build it and move on to bigger issues — important issues. An Islamic community center near ground zero isn’t going to keep me up at night. But the prospect of paying over 40% of my income in taxes one day just might.
The New SCOTUS
Yesterday marked the swearing in of new Justice Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court. Naturally, I have a few thoughts on the matter.
First off, it’s no secret that she wouldn’t have been my first choice and it shouldn’t surprise anybody that something like a Supreme Court confirmation that is supposed to be non-partisan (and ideally, a bit less divisive than politics as usual) was as split along party lines as it was.
Those who followed the confirmation process (which seemed to be far more under-the-radar than other recent confirmations) know that there was a strong and fairly unified Republican resistance to her nomination, based primarily on her lack of judicial experience. There was also a strong, largely unspoken opposition to her political leanings and the fear that she might try to legislate from the bench.
I didn’t follow the confirmation hearings religiously so I cannot say with entire certainty that I would or would not have voted to confirm her, were I a senator. However, given what I do know, I see no reason why I wouldn’t have voted for her (shocking, I know).
Here’s the thing: all justices have biases. And all of them have been exposed at some point or another. To hope for a politically neutral justice is unrealistic. And even if such a judge existed, they would never be nominated by any President because they would serve that President’s political agenda no good. Do I like it? No. The Supreme Court is a largely tainted institution (then again, no more so than any other extension of our government) that, inevitably, has been penetrated by ideological conflict. But regardless, we all know that her nomination does virtually nothing to change the ideological balance of the Court.
As for her lack of judicial experience, while it is certainly not ideal (in my opinion), it does not necessarily disqualify a Court nominee. William Rehnquist, a widely revered and respected former Chief Justice, came to the Court lacking experience as a federal judge as well. Should he not have been confirmed? There have been times in recent memory when as many as three justices serving simultaneously have been without federal court experience. If that’s the best opposition the GOP can muster up to Kagan’s nomination (now, apppointment) to the Supreme Court, then they all really ought to have voted to confirm her. In my view, a SCOTUS confirmation vote ought not to be an ideological popularity contest among the Senate. It should be a vote to answer one question: is this person qualified to sit on the United States Supreme Court?
So, through gritted teeth, I will reluctantly admit that, yes, I believe her to be adequately qualified. And while it might conflict with my personal political sway, I would like to think myself capable of making that decision on the basis of what really matters — that is, the nominee’s credentials, not her personal convictions.
It’s just a shame that we can’t expect the same from our elected officials.
Protest Gone Wrong
Another op-ed by my ever-opinionated roommate…
As many are aware, the recent immigration law passed in Arizona has sparked heated controversy within the state and throughout the country. And while the content of these changes to existing laws that combat illegal immigration are open for debate on their appropriateness, the actions of protestors against SB1070 have been consistently uncivil and offensive.
We have seen the more stringent controls on illegal immigration compared to the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, the imposition of a Nazi police state, South African Apartheid, and the Jim Crow Laws (though they’ve been renamed “Juan Crow Laws” in this case). Perhaps next they will invoke the Trail of Tears. Or instead maybe the Great Purges of the Soviet Union. The Crusades anyone? Drawing these parallels is outright fear mongering of the worst kind, and does little for legitimating their cause. The Tea Parties that get such extensive attention by the mainstream media for their radicalism seem quite passive in comparison. I would say downright harmless in fact when you hold the two protests next to each other.
Probably the most pervasive protesting in particular has been the invoking of Nazi Germany. Reasonable suspicion written into the new immigration law has now been turned to cruelly characterize law enforcers (who risk their lives each and every day for Arizona) as Gestapo coming and pounding on peoples’ doors asking for their immigration papers. The Governor of Arizona has been called a racist Nazi, meanwhile protestors have repeatedly invoked ‘Chicano pride,’ seeing no contradiction at all in their own ethnocentric rallying cries.
Protestors have further upped their methods of characterizing Arizona as a Nazi police state. Now by wearing white armbands to show their solidarity to the oppressive forces they believe immigrants will come under. While they explain that this protest tool comes from the use of black armbands in Vietnam anti-war protests, it seems much more likely that they are attempting to draw parallels to Jews forced to wear armbands with the Star of David in Nazi Germany. In fact, it seems to make perfect sense that these protestors would try to put immigrants on the same footing as Holocaust victims to symbolize the oppression they believe they will ultimately share with Jews. Besides the fact that such beliefs are utter nonsense, this use of armbands is grossly offensive to all Jews, and belittles all those who suffered and died under real genocidal oppression. Even if these protestors rationalize alternative reasons for this use of armbands, such arguments hold little weight under serious scrutiny. Ignorance is not an excuse, and they should all be ashamed of themselves for such insidious rhetoric and symbolism.
Illegal Immigrants: Get Over It
The recent passage of Arizona SB 1070 has raised quite a bit of controversy in the American Latino community, as the provisions requiring police officers to ask for identification from suspected illegal immigrants are perceived as “racist” or “discriminatory.”
You know what I think? Get over it.
The illegal immigrant community is, by and large, an enormous drain on American resources. They don’t pay taxes, they take American jobs, they invite drugs, prostitution and crime into the United States from across the border, they transplant American capital into a far less stable and prosperous economy, they set a dangerous precedent if they stay permanently, they benefit from welfare, health and education services, they enjoy the same legal rights and protections as everyone else, they enjoy police and military defense and they apparently have a very influential voice in American politics.
They enjoy all of these benefits, in spite of the fact that they are in violation of American laws by simple virtue of the fact that they are here. And while legal Americans repay their government for countless services through taxation, illegal immigrants simply ignore that obligation, since it would inevitably be revealed that they are breaking immigration laws. It’s a pretty good deal, if you ask me.
And yet they have the audacity to call this law “racist?” For all the ways they take advantage of the American social, economic and political framework without paying their civil obligations, they are really going to criticize a law like this? All it does is allow police to check for proof of identification. Where’s the problem? When I get pulled over or stopped by a police officer, I need to provide proof of identification too. And if you really are a legal resident, you lose nothing more than 30 seconds of your life. There are worse things that could happen to you.
This is the most arrogant and cocky expression of entitlement I have ever seen. To the illegal immigrant community: how dare you compare the United States of America, the most tolerant and pro-human institution ever conceived by mankind, to a gestapo-run, Nazi police state simply because we wish to ensure the legality of our citizens? You are cheating the American community out of millions in taxpayer dollars and are destroying the credibility and integrity of our immigration laws. Instead of imposing an appropriately harsher fine or punishment on you (which, frankly, we should), we simply ask to see your identification. So sorry if you’re “offended” by that. Maybe you ought to go through the legalization process and stop leeching off a system financed by me and the 300 million other legal residents.
And one last thing. This has been called a bill that legalizes racial profiling. Yep, it is. That’s exactly what it is. Arizona law enforcement officers will be targeting Mexicans (yes, people from Mexico) when looking for illegal immigrants. As much as I’d love to randomly check every third person that walks by — black, white, Asian, Latino, Native American or whatever — to see if they are illegal Mexican immigrants, I kind of think targeting actual Mexicans might be the most efficient means. Just a thought.
So, I will again address the illegal Mexican community: I leave you with three truly just options. One, you can shut up, risk deportation and realize that this law is necessary for our national security and for the equitable treatment of all legal citizens. Two, you can become legal and accept that you might get asked for ID once in a while. Or three, as much as I hate to echo sentiments of the Tea Party, you can leave. I won’t lose any sleep over it.
Appeasing Cartoon Jihad
Most of you have probably heard about the recent over-the-top measures to censor the show South Park on the part of Comedy Central, after backlash from an extremist Muslim group with regard to the show’s recent depiction and satirical portrayal of the prophet Muhammad. Rather than ranting about it myself, one of my roommates, who is far more knowledgeable and opinionated about this matter, asked to have a short opinion piece published here. Here’s what he had to say:
William F. Buckley once pondered, “is the day imminently ahead when Muslim influence expresses itself here as vigorously as it is doing in Europe?” The question now seems answered, evident by the recent censorship of the South Park episode “201.” Like the controversy surrounding the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons in Denmark, the threats directed at the creators of South Park and Comedy Central illustrate the growing headway a small minority of Muslim extremists have gained surrounding issues of censorship and free speech.
For the 14 years of South Park’s existence, the television show has maintained its status as an equal opportunity offender towards all religious groups, whether they are Christians, Jews, Mormons, or Scientologists. Yet the poignant satire directed towards these religions has never sparked violence, threats, or even censorship. A civil society like ours does not exist on such illiberal lines, and if offense is taken people respond in a mature adult manner – by boycott, peaceful protest, or simply tuning out. The infantile actions of a small extremist group have taken the opposite route, and ironically its demands and interests have been appeased at the public’s expense.
And while it is understandable to take such threats seriously, the fact is that Comedy Central in its censorship of South Park has merely pushed this issue further down the road, where it will surely arise again. Their concession has given these Muslim radicals, formerly confined to their small niche within the dark corners of the Internet, a level of influence and power they should never have. This power to effectively make threats and intimidate leaves no legitimate criticism of Islam in the media safe, and guarantees more threats will be made on the whim of a few Muslim fundamentalists. This vicious cycle is Tocquevillian: The greater level of accommodation given, the more whetted the petitioners’ demands become. Where is the line drawn? When do free citizens uphold and defend their rights to offend, speak, and promote their ideas freely?
It is an even greater sad state of affairs when on the South Park website, Parker and Stone, the creators of the show, noted, “Kyle’s customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn’t mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too.” Evidently, Comedy Central has no concept of where to drawn the line on accommodation, and instead did great disservice to the right of free expression to avoid offending Muslims. When even civil discourse becomes self-inhibited and opinion muted, a civil society has indeed done severe harm to itself. As Buckley noted, “the laws asserting the freedom of the press, like most laws, depend for their fortitude on public backing.” But rather then provide such needed support and allow for a public dialogue (of which many people in the world have no privilege of), Comedy Central lost an opportunity Americans (and the West) still need to confront between the clashing of Islam and liberalism. South Park’s network sadly opted for avoidance and appeasement, and the liberties and civil discourse we all enjoy have been tarnished because of it.
