Expanding the House?

So, conservative activists are filing a lawsuit to expand the House of Representatives in order to ensure truly equal representation for all people. Because representation is decided on proportional population per state, some people get underrepresented. A problem? Perhaps. But this is a fantastically bad idea:

That 400,000-person disparity between top and bottom has generated a federal court challenge that is set to be filed Thursday in Mississippi, charging that the system effectively disenfranchises people in certain states. The lawsuit asks the courts to order the House to fix the problem by increasing its size from 435 seats to at least 932, or perhaps as many as 1,761. That way, the plaintiffs argue, every state can have districts that are close to parity.

“When you look at the data, those are pretty wide disparities,” said Scott Scharpen, a former health care financial consultant from California who has organized the court challenge. “As an American looking at it objectively, how can we continue with a system where certain voters’ voting power is substantially smaller than others’?”

Of course, a larger House may not thrill Americans who are tired of Congress, and may make an already unwieldy body more so. “You may create a more equitable system that’s less governable, and I’m not sure the country comes out ahead,” said Kenneth Prewitt, a former Census director who now teaches at Columbia University.

Prewitt is clearly correct. You know, America is basically ungovernable today. Putting another 500 or 1300 members into Congress is only going to make things worse.

I did find it interesting to find out why Congress actually stopped growing in size in the 1910s: too many immigrants that rural states did not want to see represented. Racism works in strange ways.

I'm not really qualified for this kind of work

In a few weeks, California's love affair with direct democracy will be rekindled with a special election featuring six budget-related propositions.

I'm no fan of the annual (this year, semi-annual) Propapalooza; in fact, I don't really like voter referenda very much at all. Most of the issues (like the budget) are really too complicated and too interdependent for me to actually evaluate the effect accurately. The text of the propositions is beyond obfuscatory; I'm still trying to decipher sections like:

(h) If the Supplemental Education Payment Account is established by subdivision (a) on October 1, 2011, and on October 1 annually thereafter, the Comptroller shall transfer from the Budget Stabilization Fund to the Supplemental Education Payment Account the lesser of the following:

(1) A sum equal to 1.5 percent of General Fund revenues for the current fiscal year
(2) The amount of total supplemental education payments set forth is subdivision (a) of Subsection 8.3 remaining to be allocated

Byzantine language aside, once one decodes the legalese, there is still the question of the actual impact of these propositions. For example, take Proposition 1E-- it would redirect mental health services funding earmarked by Prop 63 to other kinds of mental health services not included in Prop 63 (namely, the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program for children and young adults). What to do? What is really going on here, and what is the real impact going to be? I can imagine that it is entirely possible that Prop 63 and Prop 10 (voter-approved budget earmarks and funding rules) are somewhat inflexible, and some retooling of the language or flexibility is needed to ensure that some necessary programs actually get funded instead of axed. I could also imagine that Prop 1E is intended to gut mental health services funding as a cost-reducing strategy-- maybe it does fund the children's Early and Periodic Screening program, but only nominally, while cutting funding for the majority of programs. It is really hard to tell what is going on.

This Prop 1E conundrum highlights the problem, though-- the budgeting process for a large, complicated government entity (like the State of California) should not be left to direct democracy. It isn't a question of voters not being informed or smart enough; we, as voters, can't contextualize these proposals and we can't make even educated guesses about the true impact vis-a-vis the entire hundred billion dollar state budget. We elect professional legislators to read, learn, debate, and understand these issues in context. Someone thinks we need Prop 1E to retool the budget requirements of Prop 10 and Prop 63; later on down the line, maybe we need another to fix 1E. I'm sure most people that attempt to put propositions on the ballot are well-meaning (except for the Prop 8 asshats); having a voter-approved ballot measure that directly requires the state to fund certain worthy causes feels good-- but it isn't, in practice, a good system by which to create a good budget. Let the legislature work out the budget; it's not a perfect system, but it works a little better than creating constitutional mandates for certain projects and programs over less popular and less financially powerful issues. While we're at it, we could also stop crushing the civil rights of a portion of our population by a statewide up-or-down vote.

Aaron Sorking and The Flaming Lips

Apparently, Aaron Sorkin is working on a musical version of The Flaming Lips' album, Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots.

This has been floating around for a couple of years now, but I just heard about it. At least according to the Seattle indie station KEXP, this is still happening.

I really like The Flaming Lips. But this also sounds like arguably the worst idea I've ever heard.

Drill, Baby, Drill

Evidently, many people believe that we can drill our way out of all of our problems.

And if the resources aren't here? Well, we'll drill the rest of the universe.

Starting with the moon according to Julia Levitt.

She writes:

The New York Times reported last week that on October 22, India launched its first unmanned spacecraft to orbit the moon.

The craft is expected to remain in space for two years. During that time, it will do something undeniably cool:

prepare a 3-D atlas of the moon.

The other part of its mission, however, is something I find pretty unsettling:

and prospect the lunar surface for natural resources, including uranium, a coveted fuel for nuclear power plants, according to the Indian Space Research Organization.

Um, this is a really stupid idea. Not only is it logistically insane and prohibitively costly, but it is yet another example in humans' belief that there is always more where that came from and that technology will solve our problems.

But there's not more of a lot of things. And if we are seriously looking to find our resources from the moon, we are in very big trouble.

Invading Burma?

Romesh Ratensar asks in Time a question that others are throwing around: should we invade Burma because their government is so indifferent to the suffering of their people in the wake of the recent cyclone?

Um, no?

Actually, I have mixed feelings over military actions based on humanitarian purposes. This kind of action appeals to the human rights instincts within me. If you have a large military, there has to be a time and place to use it. On the surface, this seems like the correct opportunity.

On the other hand, the problems with such an invasion would be myriad.

1. Haven't we already invaded 2 other countries in the last 6 years? And how has that gone? Oh yeah, not so well. Where would the troops come from for such an action? Where would the money come from? What would the American public do? These are some serious questions.

2. What kind of invasion would it be. Ratensar suggests a sort of humanitarian invasion that would essentially bypass the regime and provide aid directly to the people. What evidence is there that this would work in Burma? Ratensar suggests similar situations in the Ivory Coast, Bosnia, and Sudan have worked. But Burma is probably stronger than any of those nations. Their leadership is certainly as brutal. Would their military fire on UN or US troops? It is quite likely. And what would the response be from the invading force? I believe we would have to be prepared for a full fledged invasion with regime change if we were to start such an action. Are we prepared for that? Absolutely not.

3. China. Related to the previous question, what would China's response be? While the Chinese have interests in the Sudan and Russia certainly is a major supporter of Bosnia, the Chinese and Burmese governments are very close. China would likely veto any security council measures regarding Burma. China is going to see such an action as a western attempt to increase their presence in one of their major suppliers of natural resources. Certainly I doubt the Chinese would send in their military in response to a humanitarian or even a full-fledged invasion, but they do have massive economic power. They could completely undermine the dollar if they chose to. I don't know that they would take such a large step. But the Chinese would have to either play a central role in an invading force or at least be reckoned with very carefully. I don't see the UN or US willing to take that on.

4. It seems like regime change in Burma would be fairly popular with the people. There was a major rebellion just last year and clearly the junta is far from liked by most. But like Iraq, I suspect the U.S. foreign policy community knows next to nothing about Burma. Are we willing to deal with the Karen rebellion in the north? What role would Thailand and India play in such a situation? And of course, there is China, Singapore, and other less than democratic powers in the region to reckon with.

I would just like to point out that I just provided more deep thinking about a potential invasion of Burma and its aftermath than did the Bush administration before they entered Iraq. This puts me in a bad position. That I am thinking about this at all makes me clearly overqualified for a leading foreign policy position in a Republican administration. Obviously I have no expertise and the Democrats are likely to appoint competent people so I'm screwed there too. I guess if I had just shut up and created rosy fictions about the consequences of a Burma invasion, I'd be helping my future career as a Republican foreign policy expert tremendously. Me and my stupid big mouth.

(More) McCain by the Numbers

The venerable bastion of free* market capitalism, the Investor’s Business Daily, has come to the defense of John McCain against those that would paint him as a big spending quasi-liberal (apparently, some people actually think of him this way). The following article makes the case that he isn’t (he really isn’t).

* “free” until risky speculation causes you to lose your ass… then the government can bail your corporation out, as long as you aren’t a single mother or disabled veteran.

The nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union has compared spending proposals of the various candidates and found that while McCain's proposals for new federal outlays come in at under $7 billion a year, Clinton's total exceeds $226 billion and Obama's tops $307 billion.
McCain's ideas include spending $5.4 billion over three years for elementary and high school scholarships for disadvantaged children, $280 million over five years to let families buy health insurance across state lines, and $5 million over five years for development of electric auto batteries.

Item 1: $5.4 billion for scholarships sounds great, given the way federal student loan programs have been fundamentally changed over the past few years—the decrease in interest subsidies for these programs has made interest rates skyrocket for federal loans. If I may inject some anecdotal evidence—my wife’s student loans from her undergrad in the late 90’s are locked in a 2%. The ones I took out for my doctoral degree over the past few years are at 6.8%.

Given the drastic change in affordability of credit for education, the $5.4 billion is welcome. But read the sentence again—“for elementary and high school scholarships for disadvantaged children”. I think this might denote scholarships for elementary and high school students to attend other elementary and high schools, which amounts to a federal voucher system couched in more palatable terms. Vouchers are wildly unpopular, and remain a part of the GOP platform that even many conservatives don’t support.

Item 2: McCain’s healthcare plan is… well, see my post from last week. Buying insurance across state lines is part and parcel of the idea that increased competition will somehow force the insurance cabal to lower prices. If you believe this one, we should talk about that $10 million in my Nigerian bank account again.

Item 3: McCain, savior of the environment, climate change warrior, and leader of energy policy reform: $5 million over five years for electric auto batteries. A whole $1 million a year. That’ll go far. To invoke my good friend Sator Arepo, “Wow. Just, wow.”

So the IBD goes on to rail against the massive spending proposals by Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, which apparently are considered egregious. These include:

$113 billion for Healthcare (Clinton)
$20 billion for education, including pre-K programs (Clinton)
$2.3 billion for welfare and foster-care proposals (Clinton)
$32 billion over 20 years to rebuild the Gulf Coast (Obama)
$15 billion in energy, environmental and agriculture programs (Obama)
$60 billion over 10 years for infrastructure reinvestment (Obama)

Addressing energy policy, food supply, health care, infrastructure, education, rebuilding the Gulf Coast... those sound like things the government should do. John McCain is basically espousing a carbon copy of the Bush-era domestic policy: destroy what you can and sit around with your thumb up your ass on the rest. No thanks, John.

By the Numbers: McCain on Health Care

John McCain, in what one Cainanite called “a major policy speech”, unveiled his health care proposal yesterday. His plan entails giving tax credits to families that purchase their own health insurance, which, by his logic, would allow those that have employer provided insurance to keep their coverage and the rest of us to benefit from the glorious, invisible hand of the market to keep our health insurance costs down. For those with no income tax liability, the credit would come as a rebate.

This post isn’t to make an argument for why this is bad—I don’t want to insult the intelligence of the Alterdestiny readership—but rather to show just how bad an idea this is.

First off, as the Clinton campaign pointed out, this plan would all but eliminate employer provided health insurance. What incentive would an employer have to offer insurance if employees could get a tax credit or rebate to purchase their own? It would seem easy (if unconscionable) for a business to axe health care costs from the bottom line citing the tax credit as a viable option for employees.

The numbers tell the real truth—the amount of the tax credit/rebate is $2,500 per individual and up to $5,000 for families. I received some quotes from various on-line health insurance providers, and the results are telling. I only selected plans that had deductibles less than $2,500, copays less than $50, and coinsurance (the percentage of total medical costs the policy holder is responsible for after the deductible is paid) of less than 15%. This nominal coverage costs around $434 per month ($5,208 per year). The tax credit covers the premium only; remember that every office visit will cost you $35-$45, the insurer won’t cover a dime until you spend the deductible amount, and you will be paying 10 – 15% of total expenses after you shell out $2,500 for the deductible.

But this isn’t even the worst part, really. In order to get the tax rebate, you have to purchase a plan—for low and middle income people, just having that extra $434 per month is insurmountable. Take a family of four making $30,000; after state and federal income tax withholding, the net pay per month is $2,062. The $434 per month to even buy into the tax credit system is 21% of monthly take home pay. How many low and middle income people can afford to spend the 21% to buy in to the system?

If we do the math for a single parent making $7.50 an hour, the problems with McCain’s plan become even more clear. There are nearly no options for a single parent with one child to get less than 20% coinsurance (I’m not sure why this is…), so I selected for plans at 20% coinsurance, less than $50 office visits, and $2,500 deductibles. These plans average (generously) around $225 per month. Take home pay for the parent would be $988, making the $225 a month 23% of net monthly income.

How many single parents do you know that can wait a full year to get their $5,000 rebate? How many middle class families can afford to put away $434 a month to pay for health insurance until that rebate check arrives? My guess is those premiums would sit on credit cards all year until the rebate arrived, amounting in $592 of finance charges (assuming a 21% APR credit card).

Certainly, in most states, the child in the single parent situation would be covered by Medicaid's CHIP program. But how long until the tax rebate becomes an argument for dismantling the program? We've already seen the hard line the Bush Administration has taken with respect to CHIP; much like employer provided insurance, this tax rebate plan would likely usher in major cutbacks in state and federal health care spending.

At the risk of repeating myself, the amounts shown above are for basic coverage only-- the insured party in these scenarios will have huge amounts of medical expenses. If the family has a toddler with a high fever in the middle of the night and has to take her to the emergency room, the insurance doesn't even kick in until they rack up $2,500 in charges. After that, the family will still be paying 15% of the accrued costs. My guess is that most families and individuals will elect to not pay for coverage, gambling that their out of pocket medical expenses will be less than $2,708 per year (annual premium plus deductible. minus the tax credit), or realizing up front that no matter the forseen cost of healthcare, the 20+% of their income required to buy insurance is untenable. Which, of course, leaves us in the same position we are now, and possibly worse.

We can quibble about mandates and numerical games in the Clinton and Obama plans while still pining for a single-payer system, but either plan is a significant improvement over the current system or McCain’s laissez-faire fantasy.

Bad Advice on Tornadoes

A student of mine just wrote a paper on the 1979 Wichita Falls tornado. She discovered that prior to this tornado, researchers recommended to people in their homes to open their windows during a tornado. I'm not sure exactly why this was the case but this advice was evidently widely followed and led to several of the 43 deaths in the storm when the wind got in the house and tore the roofs off. I should go read the article she cites on this to see just why.

Huh.

This Doesn't Seem Like a Particularly Effective Idea

Albuquerque wants to fight its graffiti problem by forcing those found guilty of gang-related activities to have their names and faces on a website, like sex offenders.

Except the two things aren't the same. Are the gangsters actually ashamed of what they are doing? Or will it be, as Duke City Fix claims, a "Gangster Hall of Fame?" I suspect the latter. But hey, if any city wants to have a Gangster Hall of Fame, it might as well be Albuquerque!