Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Teaching Cost Benefit Analysis (again)
I am a year older and presumably wiser than I was when I last taught cost-benefit analysis to my Master's students (and blogged on the subject)The results did not appear to be exceptionally different however. The same looks of uneasiness crossed my student's faces, particularly as we discussed the value of a statistical life.
I've defended cost benefit analysis on this blog before so I won't go into too much detail doing so again (see the entry above as well as here. In a nutshell I will always feel that more information is better when making public policy decisions and cost-benefit analysis is a way of concretely organizing that information for decisionmakers. I also feel that opponents of using the methodology deprive themselves of a weapon that can be used as effectively to argue for government intervention as it can against it.
Instead let me overstate the importance of this debate by analogizing it to the overall political climate. Those who inveigh against cost benefit analysis are choosing ideological purity over using a weapon that could help achieve their substantive aims. (As an example, last year I conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the Administration's regulatory peer review proposal showing it was not a good idea). Interests out of power cannot afford such purity. They must use every tool at their disposal to fight being swamped by opponents.
The next several years are going to see some very bad public policy ideas put forward and some of them will have a realistic chance of adoption. If the Democrats rely upon their traditional defense of arguing that the policies just help the rich or industry, they will end up standing by helplessly as many of these ideas become law. Instead they will have to argue these policies on the Republicans turf. They will have to argue that the costs to society of social security privatization, tort reform, medical savings accounts and relaxed environmental rules clearly outweigh the benefits. These arguments are out there waiting to be made. They shouldn't be passed up.
I've defended cost benefit analysis on this blog before so I won't go into too much detail doing so again (see the entry above as well as here. In a nutshell I will always feel that more information is better when making public policy decisions and cost-benefit analysis is a way of concretely organizing that information for decisionmakers. I also feel that opponents of using the methodology deprive themselves of a weapon that can be used as effectively to argue for government intervention as it can against it.
Instead let me overstate the importance of this debate by analogizing it to the overall political climate. Those who inveigh against cost benefit analysis are choosing ideological purity over using a weapon that could help achieve their substantive aims. (As an example, last year I conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the Administration's regulatory peer review proposal showing it was not a good idea). Interests out of power cannot afford such purity. They must use every tool at their disposal to fight being swamped by opponents.
The next several years are going to see some very bad public policy ideas put forward and some of them will have a realistic chance of adoption. If the Democrats rely upon their traditional defense of arguing that the policies just help the rich or industry, they will end up standing by helplessly as many of these ideas become law. Instead they will have to argue these policies on the Republicans turf. They will have to argue that the costs to society of social security privatization, tort reform, medical savings accounts and relaxed environmental rules clearly outweigh the benefits. These arguments are out there waiting to be made. They shouldn't be passed up.
Saturday, November 27, 2004
FDA and Drug Approvals
The Food and Drug Administration has had a tough time of it lately. With accusations that they should have pulled Vioxx from the market and more quickly given a "black box" warning (the most serious kind) for the suicide risk for antidepressants, there have been widespread calls for FDA to toughen up its new drug reviews and more closely examine already approved drugs.
FDA was one of the agencies I worked with when I worked at OMB. The decision to approve a drug is one of the hardest decisions they or any federal agency has to make. Absent in the recent coverage is the legitimate argument that FDA is too hard on new drug approvals (actually not entirely absent, yesterday there was a fascinating article in the Times about how patients of an experimental drug for Parkinson's Disease were upset that the company was not going to produce because of side effects). There are many examples of drugs approved in Europe but not here.
To gain approval, a company has to show that a drug is safe and efficacious. In most cases, they have to undertake a series of trials of the drug include the gold standard of a double blind study (where neither the doctor nor the patient knows whether the patient is on a placebo or the drug itself). They then have to submit thousands of pages of data to FDA which then has to examine all the data and make a determination. FDA can then ask the company for more data.
A series of tough questions has to be answered. What if the drug works in the manner intended but has side effects? What if those side effects manifest themselves in only a small number of people? What percentage of the patient population must be improved in order to say the drug is efficacious? And as extensive as the drug trials are, if the drug has a potentially fatal interaction with a condition present in only in a very small percentage of the population, then the interaction will not be picked up in the trials.
People are seizing upon the Vioxx and antidepressant findings to claim that the Bush FDA is controlled by the drug companies. I don't think this is a fair conclusion. We don't want to admit it but errors in the drug approval process are inevitable and if anything our process is too strict. Where improvements are needed (as many have recognized) is in monitoring of drugs after they hit the market. FDA conducts this function but it is not part of the agency's core mission. The Office of Drug Safety within FDA should become independent of the agency and be given the funds it needs to set up a new drug monitoring system. Only this way, will we learn enough to make smart decisions about these mysterious chemicals we put inside our bodies.
FDA was one of the agencies I worked with when I worked at OMB. The decision to approve a drug is one of the hardest decisions they or any federal agency has to make. Absent in the recent coverage is the legitimate argument that FDA is too hard on new drug approvals (actually not entirely absent, yesterday there was a fascinating article in the Times about how patients of an experimental drug for Parkinson's Disease were upset that the company was not going to produce because of side effects). There are many examples of drugs approved in Europe but not here.
To gain approval, a company has to show that a drug is safe and efficacious. In most cases, they have to undertake a series of trials of the drug include the gold standard of a double blind study (where neither the doctor nor the patient knows whether the patient is on a placebo or the drug itself). They then have to submit thousands of pages of data to FDA which then has to examine all the data and make a determination. FDA can then ask the company for more data.
A series of tough questions has to be answered. What if the drug works in the manner intended but has side effects? What if those side effects manifest themselves in only a small number of people? What percentage of the patient population must be improved in order to say the drug is efficacious? And as extensive as the drug trials are, if the drug has a potentially fatal interaction with a condition present in only in a very small percentage of the population, then the interaction will not be picked up in the trials.
People are seizing upon the Vioxx and antidepressant findings to claim that the Bush FDA is controlled by the drug companies. I don't think this is a fair conclusion. We don't want to admit it but errors in the drug approval process are inevitable and if anything our process is too strict. Where improvements are needed (as many have recognized) is in monitoring of drugs after they hit the market. FDA conducts this function but it is not part of the agency's core mission. The Office of Drug Safety within FDA should become independent of the agency and be given the funds it needs to set up a new drug monitoring system. Only this way, will we learn enough to make smart decisions about these mysterious chemicals we put inside our bodies.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
The Artest Formerly Known as a Basketball Player
The sports world has been abuzz since Friday night with debate over the brawl in Detroit's Palace at Auburn Hills at the end of a basketball game between the Indiana Pacers and the Detroit Pistons. After an on court fight between the two teams, a fan threw a cup of beer on a reclined Ron Artest, basketball's current bad boy. Artest bolted into the stands accompanied by teammate Stephen Jackson which led to a near riot with players hitting fans, fans hitting back and general chaos.
David Stern, the dean of sports commissioners (by virtue of longevity and by longevity of virtue), suspended Artest for the season, Jackson for 30 games and their teammate Jermaine O'Neal (who also clocked a fan on the court) for 25 games. The suspension is the longest since Latrell Sprewell was suspended for a season for choking his coach.
Make no mistake about it, the fans who threw the beer and antagonized the players are morons. Buying a ticket, even a very expensive one does not give you the right to yell things at strangers that you would be embarassed to have your family hear. It certainly does not give you the right to throw a beer on a player no matter how much you hate him (and no, I would not take the opportunity to do this to Pedro).
That said, Stern did exactly the right thing. A line has to be drawn and players have to know, no matter how bad the provocation, you cannot go into the stands. In the long run, this is as much for the player's safety as for the fans. How long before some psycho with a knife gets a player to come after him? The results could be tragic. Artest has a long history of irresponsible behavior so while going into stands may have merited "only" a 50 game suspension, I have no problem with Stern making it a year for him. (O'Neal on the other hand has a very good reputation and it is possible that Stern was too harsh on him).
Those who I know who work with criminals say that many of them are in jail because of how they reacted to perceived threats to their manhood. It is better to be in jail than to be "dissed". As absurd as this behavior is on the street, it is doubly so from a basketball player. Ron Artest does not have to respond to provocations from idiot fans. Both as someone who can set an example for others and someone who has so much to lose by responding to such provocations, he has to turn the other cheek. Hopefully Stern's suspensions will send the message to the next Artest that it is better be the bigger man and turn away.
Bill Simmons has written two great columns on the incident here and here. If you are a sports fan with a sense of humor, you should be reading Bill Simmons religously.
David Stern, the dean of sports commissioners (by virtue of longevity and by longevity of virtue), suspended Artest for the season, Jackson for 30 games and their teammate Jermaine O'Neal (who also clocked a fan on the court) for 25 games. The suspension is the longest since Latrell Sprewell was suspended for a season for choking his coach.
Make no mistake about it, the fans who threw the beer and antagonized the players are morons. Buying a ticket, even a very expensive one does not give you the right to yell things at strangers that you would be embarassed to have your family hear. It certainly does not give you the right to throw a beer on a player no matter how much you hate him (and no, I would not take the opportunity to do this to Pedro).
That said, Stern did exactly the right thing. A line has to be drawn and players have to know, no matter how bad the provocation, you cannot go into the stands. In the long run, this is as much for the player's safety as for the fans. How long before some psycho with a knife gets a player to come after him? The results could be tragic. Artest has a long history of irresponsible behavior so while going into stands may have merited "only" a 50 game suspension, I have no problem with Stern making it a year for him. (O'Neal on the other hand has a very good reputation and it is possible that Stern was too harsh on him).
Those who I know who work with criminals say that many of them are in jail because of how they reacted to perceived threats to their manhood. It is better to be in jail than to be "dissed". As absurd as this behavior is on the street, it is doubly so from a basketball player. Ron Artest does not have to respond to provocations from idiot fans. Both as someone who can set an example for others and someone who has so much to lose by responding to such provocations, he has to turn the other cheek. Hopefully Stern's suspensions will send the message to the next Artest that it is better be the bigger man and turn away.
Bill Simmons has written two great columns on the incident here and here. If you are a sports fan with a sense of humor, you should be reading Bill Simmons religously.
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Electronic Rulemaking
I haven't written about my area of research in a while so I figured I'd take a break from being depressed about the election and the World Series.
The regulatory process is undergoing a number of changes under the Bush Administration. One change which has widespread bipartisan support is the movement toward using information technology to streamline the process. A one-stop portal has been introduced for acccess to all regulations currently out for public comment. This is the first step in a process that will greatly ease public access to the rulemaking process.
A more ambitious effort is underway to allow the public to comment electronically on all rulemaking and to make all rulemaking dockets available on the internet (a docket contains all of the relevant information regarding the rulemaking including the rule itself, supporting documentation and public comments). The expectation is that by increasing the ease of commenting on agency proposed rules, the volume of comments from the public will multiply.
What is unclear is whether or not this will make any difference in public policy. In the best scenario, agencies will gain information from the increased participation and make better regulatory decisions. In the worst case, agencies will be so overwhelmed by thousands of comments on any action that is the least bit controversial that making regulatory policy will become extremely difficult. Somewhere in between is the possibility that participation will increase but agencies will ignore the comments and do what they were going to do anyway (which is what many believe goes on now). Which of these scenarios is likely to occur is one of my primary interests (I lean toward the last one).
The online docket system also presents a great opportunity for academics. For the first time it will be relatively simple to delve into the regulatory process and understand why agencies make the decisions they do. For it to achieve this potential, the system needs to contain the right data and be designed in a way that in which the data is easily searchable. These concerns and others are outlined in a letter signed by over 50 scholars which I helped to author. Electronic rulemaking is a new frontier in policymaking. Like many frontiers, the decisions we make today will have large implications in the future.
The regulatory process is undergoing a number of changes under the Bush Administration. One change which has widespread bipartisan support is the movement toward using information technology to streamline the process. A one-stop portal has been introduced for acccess to all regulations currently out for public comment. This is the first step in a process that will greatly ease public access to the rulemaking process.
A more ambitious effort is underway to allow the public to comment electronically on all rulemaking and to make all rulemaking dockets available on the internet (a docket contains all of the relevant information regarding the rulemaking including the rule itself, supporting documentation and public comments). The expectation is that by increasing the ease of commenting on agency proposed rules, the volume of comments from the public will multiply.
What is unclear is whether or not this will make any difference in public policy. In the best scenario, agencies will gain information from the increased participation and make better regulatory decisions. In the worst case, agencies will be so overwhelmed by thousands of comments on any action that is the least bit controversial that making regulatory policy will become extremely difficult. Somewhere in between is the possibility that participation will increase but agencies will ignore the comments and do what they were going to do anyway (which is what many believe goes on now). Which of these scenarios is likely to occur is one of my primary interests (I lean toward the last one).
The online docket system also presents a great opportunity for academics. For the first time it will be relatively simple to delve into the regulatory process and understand why agencies make the decisions they do. For it to achieve this potential, the system needs to contain the right data and be designed in a way that in which the data is easily searchable. These concerns and others are outlined in a letter signed by over 50 scholars which I helped to author. Electronic rulemaking is a new frontier in policymaking. Like many frontiers, the decisions we make today will have large implications in the future.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
From Cabinet to Kitchen Cabinet to Echo Chamber
When talking about the Presidency to my students, we discuss the difference between a pyramid structure of management and a cluster structure of management. Pyramid structures tend to be very centralized with clear chains of command. Nixon and Reagan both used this approach. Clusters tend to have responsibilities divided between different subordinates so that the President can hear different points of view. FDR was the classic cluster manager and Clinton tried this approach before moving to a pyramid structure.
The first term of the Bush Administration was clearly managed in a pyramid style with power consolidated in the White House. However there were cabinet officers, Colin Powell, John Ashcroft, and for a while Paul O'Neill who clearly were not afraid to express dissenting opinions internally even if they would toe the party line in public (O'Neill didn't do the public part all that well which is why he was asked to leave early).
Bush has made three cabinet appointments since winning reelection. Condi Rice, Alberto Gonzalez, and Margaret Spellings all have one thing in common. They all worked in the White House in the first term and were part of Bush's Kitchen Cabinet (a term derived from Andrew Jackson's use of informal advisers who would meet in his kitchen). Their placement will give the White House unprecedented control over the cabinet departments.
Is this good or bad? If we felt that these individuals were able to candidly express their opinion to the President (and the Vice President) then control of the Cabinet by the President might not be a bad thing. However every indication and every discussion of the Bush Presidency indicates that Bush values loyalty not debate. These individuals are at the cabinet agencies to follow orders and make sure they are carried out. They are not there to offer their expertise and they are certainly not there to let Bush know that, according to their new subordinates his policies won't work.
It is possible that Rice, Gonzalez, and Spellings will evolve in their new position and not be afraid to speak truth to power. It is more likely that we will have an administration that hears no dissenting views on important decisions and makes those decisions in an ill informed and precipitous manner. Picture the first Bush administration on steroids.
Update: More on this subject from Publius.
The first term of the Bush Administration was clearly managed in a pyramid style with power consolidated in the White House. However there were cabinet officers, Colin Powell, John Ashcroft, and for a while Paul O'Neill who clearly were not afraid to express dissenting opinions internally even if they would toe the party line in public (O'Neill didn't do the public part all that well which is why he was asked to leave early).
Bush has made three cabinet appointments since winning reelection. Condi Rice, Alberto Gonzalez, and Margaret Spellings all have one thing in common. They all worked in the White House in the first term and were part of Bush's Kitchen Cabinet (a term derived from Andrew Jackson's use of informal advisers who would meet in his kitchen). Their placement will give the White House unprecedented control over the cabinet departments.
Is this good or bad? If we felt that these individuals were able to candidly express their opinion to the President (and the Vice President) then control of the Cabinet by the President might not be a bad thing. However every indication and every discussion of the Bush Presidency indicates that Bush values loyalty not debate. These individuals are at the cabinet agencies to follow orders and make sure they are carried out. They are not there to offer their expertise and they are certainly not there to let Bush know that, according to their new subordinates his policies won't work.
It is possible that Rice, Gonzalez, and Spellings will evolve in their new position and not be afraid to speak truth to power. It is more likely that we will have an administration that hears no dissenting views on important decisions and makes those decisions in an ill informed and precipitous manner. Picture the first Bush administration on steroids.
Update: More on this subject from Publius.
Monday, November 15, 2004
Overreacting to Moral Values
Much ado has occurred as a result of the exit poll question asking voters in the Presidential election, what the most important issue was in choosing their candidate. Twenty-two percent of the respondents answered "Moral Values" and these voters overwhelmingly voted for George Bush. Over the past two weeks, pundits, bloggers and politicians have overinterpreted this result.
The biggest reason that the result has been overinterpreted is the nature of the question itself. It was not an open-ended question to which 22% of the respondents came up with moral values as an answer. It was a multiple choice question with six answers (including the economy, terrorism, Iraq, health care, and one other which I can't remember). As an esteemed faculty colleague of mine has noted, voters coming out of the booth who voted for Bush had to choose one. If they didn't think he was doing a great job in the War on Terror (the other answer which was dominated by Bush voters), they really only had "Moral Values" as a choice. So, the many voters who voted for Bush because they liked him better than Kerry or they trusted him more than Kerry (or for any other reason), probably chose "Moral Values" as their answer.
Conservatives from Rush Limbaugh (Democrats "don't like God") to Bob Jones (the election of George Bush was a "repreive from the agenda of paganism") to James Dobson have jumped upon this data as evidence that all God fearing Americans are Republicans. My hope is that Karl Rove (who has pointed to the data as a reason to continue to pursue the anti-gay marriage amendment) similarly overreacts. I would love to see the Republicans spend their political capital on these social issues and weaken themselves for battles on the tax code and social security.
Of more concern to me is the Democratic and liberal overreaction. Frank Rich wrote an article yesterday that has been much cited as part of this debate. Rich is correct when he warns against using this information to change views on gay marriage and abortion. Poll after poll has shown that a substantial majority of Americans favor civil unions (although opposing gay marriage) and legal abortion in some cases. The Democrats do not need to change their views on these issues.
On the other hand Rich cites Thomas Frank's book "What is the Matter With Kansas?" and argues Frank's thesis that voters in the heartland have foolishly voted against their economic interests in favor of other things including "Moral Values." This may be true but is not particular to Republican voters and runs the danger of being dangerously patronizing. Democratic voters vote against their economic interests all the time. Just this weekend, my wife and I were at an inn and the innkeeper was screaming about taxes and environmental regulations that were forcing him to sell his business. A typical Republican? No, he was gay, and his worst insults were reserved for Bush and Cheney. Clearly he voted his moral values, not his economic ones.
Many of us do so. I will probably do fine with a revision of the tax code. But I'm a Democrat in part because I believe in the moral obligation of government to help the less fortunate. Democrats cannot criticize or patronize voters who vote Republican against their economic interests. These people are not stupid. Democrats instead need to make their case better and not have a candidate that vast sections of the country sees as out of touch or elitist or as looking down on them. They cannot rely on strictly economic arguments (It's not just the economy stupid). If the Democrats overreact to the Moral Values question by questioning the sanity or intelligence of 22% of voters, they run the danger of losing many presidential elections in the future.
The biggest reason that the result has been overinterpreted is the nature of the question itself. It was not an open-ended question to which 22% of the respondents came up with moral values as an answer. It was a multiple choice question with six answers (including the economy, terrorism, Iraq, health care, and one other which I can't remember). As an esteemed faculty colleague of mine has noted, voters coming out of the booth who voted for Bush had to choose one. If they didn't think he was doing a great job in the War on Terror (the other answer which was dominated by Bush voters), they really only had "Moral Values" as a choice. So, the many voters who voted for Bush because they liked him better than Kerry or they trusted him more than Kerry (or for any other reason), probably chose "Moral Values" as their answer.
Conservatives from Rush Limbaugh (Democrats "don't like God") to Bob Jones (the election of George Bush was a "repreive from the agenda of paganism") to James Dobson have jumped upon this data as evidence that all God fearing Americans are Republicans. My hope is that Karl Rove (who has pointed to the data as a reason to continue to pursue the anti-gay marriage amendment) similarly overreacts. I would love to see the Republicans spend their political capital on these social issues and weaken themselves for battles on the tax code and social security.
Of more concern to me is the Democratic and liberal overreaction. Frank Rich wrote an article yesterday that has been much cited as part of this debate. Rich is correct when he warns against using this information to change views on gay marriage and abortion. Poll after poll has shown that a substantial majority of Americans favor civil unions (although opposing gay marriage) and legal abortion in some cases. The Democrats do not need to change their views on these issues.
On the other hand Rich cites Thomas Frank's book "What is the Matter With Kansas?" and argues Frank's thesis that voters in the heartland have foolishly voted against their economic interests in favor of other things including "Moral Values." This may be true but is not particular to Republican voters and runs the danger of being dangerously patronizing. Democratic voters vote against their economic interests all the time. Just this weekend, my wife and I were at an inn and the innkeeper was screaming about taxes and environmental regulations that were forcing him to sell his business. A typical Republican? No, he was gay, and his worst insults were reserved for Bush and Cheney. Clearly he voted his moral values, not his economic ones.
Many of us do so. I will probably do fine with a revision of the tax code. But I'm a Democrat in part because I believe in the moral obligation of government to help the less fortunate. Democrats cannot criticize or patronize voters who vote Republican against their economic interests. These people are not stupid. Democrats instead need to make their case better and not have a candidate that vast sections of the country sees as out of touch or elitist or as looking down on them. They cannot rely on strictly economic arguments (It's not just the economy stupid). If the Democrats overreact to the Moral Values question by questioning the sanity or intelligence of 22% of voters, they run the danger of losing many presidential elections in the future.
Friday, November 12, 2004
A Quick Observation -- Baseball and Blue States
Heading out for the weekend so just something for you to chew on until Monday.
19 out of 30 Major League baseball teams are located in blue states.
16 out of 30 National Basketball Association teams are located in blue states.
15 out of 32 National Football League teams are located in blue states.
8 out of 23 tracks used for the Nascar Nextel Cup are located in blue states.
Draw your own conclusions.
(I counted Toronto in MLB and the NBA as being in a blue state, states don't get much bluer than Canada)
19 out of 30 Major League baseball teams are located in blue states.
16 out of 30 National Basketball Association teams are located in blue states.
15 out of 32 National Football League teams are located in blue states.
8 out of 23 tracks used for the Nascar Nextel Cup are located in blue states.
Draw your own conclusions.
(I counted Toronto in MLB and the NBA as being in a blue state, states don't get much bluer than Canada)
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Electoral Reforms
There is considerable hubbub (particularly among those who think there was widespread cheating in the election) for changes in voting technologies. This is important and doable. Equally important but unfortunately, much less feasible are wholesale changes to the electoral process that the last two elections have highlighted the need for. Some would help the Democrats and some wouldn't but all would make the process more fair and equitable. Here are four changes that I feel would improve the way we select our leaders.
The Electoral College If John Kerry had secured 200,000 more votes in Ohio, he would have won the Presidency despite losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. The complaints we heard four years ago would have been tiny compared to the Republican uproar this would have generated. Unfortunately since it didn't happen our best chance and changing the electoral college may have passed. The electoral college is a sop to states rights, ensuring that small states have influence on the election outside their proportion of population.
Switching to popular vote would dramatically change the dynamic of campaigns. Democrats would spend time in major cities getting out the urban vote. Republicans would blanket all of the red states (not just the swing states) with ads trying to get out their vote. Far more people would see the candidates and their messages. Too many states would fight this change however. Slightly more promising is the approach considered by Colorado which would have divided up its electoral votes (like Maine and Nebraska already do) giving two votes to the candidate who takes the state and 1 vote to the candidate for each congressional district they carry. This would create a race for "swing districts" and may get us away from the red state/blue state discussion. I think this would be an improvement but it would only work well if we also dealt with . . .
Gerrymandering The House of Representatives continues to get more and more ridiculous. Not counting redistricted seats, only six seats changed parties this election. The Democrats and Republicans have cooperated to make most House districts completely safe for the incumbent party which increases polarization in Congress and turns off the electorate from Congressional races. Kevin Drum suggests a constitutional amendment against gerrymandering. Joe Scarborough suggested on MSNBC a commission to be put in charge of redistricting (as opposed to state legislatures which currently do the job). The latter approach is how Iowa comes up with Congressional districts and they regularly have competitive House races. More states should follow Iowa's example and if they don't, the constitution should be amended to force them to.
The Primary System I'm slightly torn on this one. I like the idea of candidates having to do retail politicking in Iowa and New Hampshire but I don't think it is reasonable that those two states should always have so much power. I would prefer a rotating system among small states for the first two primaries, followed by rotating regional primaries (one year the south would come first after the first two, another year the west, etc.) with several weeks between them. If Howard Dean becomes DNC chair, there is a chance he will take on Iowa in particular. I hope it happens.
Campaign Finance Reform Wow, McCain Feingold really got the money out of politics, didn't it? That's not entirely fair; the bill was a good one but as Bill Bradley has said, money in politics is like ants in the kitchen, once its in, it is nearly impossible to get out. This leaves reformers with two options. The first is public financing of campaigns. As much as I like this idea, I don't think there is any chance it will happen and there is a fair chance the Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional.
An alternative idea that I've seen mentioned in a few places is the exact opposite. Let everyone contribute as much as they want. But, make it all completely anonymous. People can give to a commission legally bound to keep all information confidential that will then disperse the money on a monthly or quarterly basis to candidates. Most of the objections I've heard have been that it wouldn't work but I think it is feasible, if difficult. Others say that contributors will tell the candidate that they gave money. That's fine, candidates will have no reason to believe them since people who didn't contribute can tell them the same thing. Radical ideas are necessary in this area and I have seen few that are quite this radical and potentially effective.
The Electoral College If John Kerry had secured 200,000 more votes in Ohio, he would have won the Presidency despite losing the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. The complaints we heard four years ago would have been tiny compared to the Republican uproar this would have generated. Unfortunately since it didn't happen our best chance and changing the electoral college may have passed. The electoral college is a sop to states rights, ensuring that small states have influence on the election outside their proportion of population.
Switching to popular vote would dramatically change the dynamic of campaigns. Democrats would spend time in major cities getting out the urban vote. Republicans would blanket all of the red states (not just the swing states) with ads trying to get out their vote. Far more people would see the candidates and their messages. Too many states would fight this change however. Slightly more promising is the approach considered by Colorado which would have divided up its electoral votes (like Maine and Nebraska already do) giving two votes to the candidate who takes the state and 1 vote to the candidate for each congressional district they carry. This would create a race for "swing districts" and may get us away from the red state/blue state discussion. I think this would be an improvement but it would only work well if we also dealt with . . .
Gerrymandering The House of Representatives continues to get more and more ridiculous. Not counting redistricted seats, only six seats changed parties this election. The Democrats and Republicans have cooperated to make most House districts completely safe for the incumbent party which increases polarization in Congress and turns off the electorate from Congressional races. Kevin Drum suggests a constitutional amendment against gerrymandering. Joe Scarborough suggested on MSNBC a commission to be put in charge of redistricting (as opposed to state legislatures which currently do the job). The latter approach is how Iowa comes up with Congressional districts and they regularly have competitive House races. More states should follow Iowa's example and if they don't, the constitution should be amended to force them to.
The Primary System I'm slightly torn on this one. I like the idea of candidates having to do retail politicking in Iowa and New Hampshire but I don't think it is reasonable that those two states should always have so much power. I would prefer a rotating system among small states for the first two primaries, followed by rotating regional primaries (one year the south would come first after the first two, another year the west, etc.) with several weeks between them. If Howard Dean becomes DNC chair, there is a chance he will take on Iowa in particular. I hope it happens.
Campaign Finance Reform Wow, McCain Feingold really got the money out of politics, didn't it? That's not entirely fair; the bill was a good one but as Bill Bradley has said, money in politics is like ants in the kitchen, once its in, it is nearly impossible to get out. This leaves reformers with two options. The first is public financing of campaigns. As much as I like this idea, I don't think there is any chance it will happen and there is a fair chance the Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional.
An alternative idea that I've seen mentioned in a few places is the exact opposite. Let everyone contribute as much as they want. But, make it all completely anonymous. People can give to a commission legally bound to keep all information confidential that will then disperse the money on a monthly or quarterly basis to candidates. Most of the objections I've heard have been that it wouldn't work but I think it is feasible, if difficult. Others say that contributors will tell the candidate that they gave money. That's fine, candidates will have no reason to believe them since people who didn't contribute can tell them the same thing. Radical ideas are necessary in this area and I have seen few that are quite this radical and potentially effective.
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Election Postscript Part 2
George Bush is in an enviable position. Having just won a convincing victory (I'm not going to touch the question of whether it was a mandate because for practical purposes it is irrelevant) he can now push key agenda items through Congress. However the recent history of second term Presidents is not encouraging. Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton all won more convincing victories to begin their second term and all faced second terms plagued with scandals and failed policy initiatives.
Bush has one advantage that his predecessors did not. Congress is controlled (and in the case of the House, I mean controlled with a capital C) by his party. This gives him a little more leeway. His speeches since Tuesday seem to recognize his advantage and he is strategically coming out strong. Bush (and Rove) realize that he will only get weaker as the next few years wear on. He may never be as powerful as he is over the next several months.
Now is therefore the time for Bush to push his most controversial initiatives. He must figure out how far he can go and go there immediately. How conservative a judge can he name to replace Rehnquist? How much privatization can he put in place for Social Security? How radical a reform of the tax code (a national sales tax and a flat tax?) can he advocate? Bush's advisers are certainly debating these questions and we should expect the answers to be disquieting.
As with the Democrats, attention will focus on the Senate. Can Bush get Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu and others to vote with him and break Democratic fillibusters? Can he hold Chafee, McCain, Collins and the few remaining moderate Republicans to win up and down votes on his initiatives? One big loss on one of these issues will weaken his power considerably. Therefore he also has to be careful about the order in which he takes them on.
As I noted before the election, Bush sits astride a vulnerable coalition. Religious conservatives, neocons, fiscal conservatives, and isolationists will not agree on all issues. And after the widespread (although possibly incorrect) interpretation of Tuesday's results, the religious conservatives will feel they have primacy in the coalition. Richard Viguerie said last week, "If you don't implement a conservative agenda now, when do you?" If the religious conservatives force Bush into the wrong jihad (word use is intentional) then his honeymoon could indeed be short lived.
That said, I'd much rather be in his position then the one my party is in.
Other good thoughts on this subject.
The Bull Moose again.
Mark Schmitt.
Former Reagan aide Lyn Nofziger.
Bush has one advantage that his predecessors did not. Congress is controlled (and in the case of the House, I mean controlled with a capital C) by his party. This gives him a little more leeway. His speeches since Tuesday seem to recognize his advantage and he is strategically coming out strong. Bush (and Rove) realize that he will only get weaker as the next few years wear on. He may never be as powerful as he is over the next several months.
Now is therefore the time for Bush to push his most controversial initiatives. He must figure out how far he can go and go there immediately. How conservative a judge can he name to replace Rehnquist? How much privatization can he put in place for Social Security? How radical a reform of the tax code (a national sales tax and a flat tax?) can he advocate? Bush's advisers are certainly debating these questions and we should expect the answers to be disquieting.
As with the Democrats, attention will focus on the Senate. Can Bush get Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu and others to vote with him and break Democratic fillibusters? Can he hold Chafee, McCain, Collins and the few remaining moderate Republicans to win up and down votes on his initiatives? One big loss on one of these issues will weaken his power considerably. Therefore he also has to be careful about the order in which he takes them on.
As I noted before the election, Bush sits astride a vulnerable coalition. Religious conservatives, neocons, fiscal conservatives, and isolationists will not agree on all issues. And after the widespread (although possibly incorrect) interpretation of Tuesday's results, the religious conservatives will feel they have primacy in the coalition. Richard Viguerie said last week, "If you don't implement a conservative agenda now, when do you?" If the religious conservatives force Bush into the wrong jihad (word use is intentional) then his honeymoon could indeed be short lived.
That said, I'd much rather be in his position then the one my party is in.
Other good thoughts on this subject.
The Bull Moose again.
Mark Schmitt.
Former Reagan aide Lyn Nofziger.
Friday, November 05, 2004
Election Postscript Part 1
In reality it is of course far too early to understand the events of
this past Tuesday. Unfortunately we all suffer from the human need for
some kind of catharsis and so the analysis and recrimations have already
begun. I need catharsis as much as anyone so here goes. Today I will
discuss the Democrats and this weekend I will post on the Republicans
attempting both to look back and to look forward.
Before being too hard on the Democrats, it must be noted that they were
competing against an incumbent president during wartime who had access
to unlimited resources. With that in mind the Kerry campaign did very
well. We can all find individual decisions that were incorrect (not
attacking the Swift Boat Veterans for Lies quickly enough), on the whole
Kerry ran a good campaign. The focus on his Vietnam record and his
tough talk on terror were both correct decisions and his performance in
all three debates was strong.
What Kerry couldn't change was who he was. He was a Senator from a
state that had just legalized gay marriage. He had a twenty year record
of votes in the Senate that could be combed for proof he was "liberal"
or a "flip-flopper." He is an aristocrat's aristocrat and an
intellectual in a country that does not particularly like either of
those characteristics. While he ran a much better campaign than I
expected, he should not have been the nominee in the first place.
In terms of 2008, it is obviously far too early to think about it
despite the temptation to do so. That said, there is much angst about
the 22% of voters who said that moral values was the most important
issue for them. There is already much hand wringing about nominating a
candidate who shares their values. Does this mean we need someone who
is against gun control, for repeal of Roe v. Wade, and against gay
marriage? No. Others have argued (including Thomas Frank in today's
Times) that the Democrats need to move leftward. This is an equally bad
idea because it ignores the realities of the electoral map (and the need to pick up votes in more conservative areas of the country).
The Democrats would be nuts to nominate anyone who lives within 300
miles of an ocean. Bill Clinton cheated on his wife repeatedly, signed
the Brady Bill, and was clearly pro-choice, yet these "moral issues"
voters returned him to office overwhelmingly in 1996 and he would have
won in 2000 and 2004 as well. No, the Democrats need a candidate who
speaks to the people in rural areas in the midwest and south without
condescension and with respect for their faith. Try as hard as he
could, John Kerry could not be that person. The overwhelming lesson of
this election is not that the Democrats need to focus on values, but
that perceived character is more important than perceived policies. I'm
fairly convinced that half of the voters who said moral values was the
most important issue to them were looking for a policy justification for
their gut instinct that they liked and trusted Bush more.
As for the nearer future, the Democrats have one weapon at their
disposal, the fillibuster. Like David with the slingshot (see I can
relate to my more religous countrymen) they must use this weapon judiciously.
They must choose issues which are both critical in importance and with
which it will be easy to demonize the Republicans in 2006. To my mind
these include confirmation extremely conservative Supreme Court justices, Social Security privatization, and any expansion of the Patriot Act. They may
even find some sympathetic Republican Senators to support them and these
are issues that can translate into electoral gains in the midterm
elections. The Democrats need to do to Bush what the Republicans did to
Clinton and his health care plan in 1993 when they were in the minority.
There will be many disastrous policies put forward in the next two years.
The Democrats need to stop the worst of these and make sure the
Republicans pay a political price for them. Most importantly they need to
find the right voices to make their case for them. It is an uphill battle
but it is worth fighting.
Other good thoughts on the subject in the blogosphere.
The moderate DLC
The thoughtful Publius
The progressive and overly optimistic Ruy Teixera
Three entries from the former McCainiac Bull Moose, here, here, and here.
Update (11-6): Nicholas Kristof gets it.
this past Tuesday. Unfortunately we all suffer from the human need for
some kind of catharsis and so the analysis and recrimations have already
begun. I need catharsis as much as anyone so here goes. Today I will
discuss the Democrats and this weekend I will post on the Republicans
attempting both to look back and to look forward.
Before being too hard on the Democrats, it must be noted that they were
competing against an incumbent president during wartime who had access
to unlimited resources. With that in mind the Kerry campaign did very
well. We can all find individual decisions that were incorrect (not
attacking the Swift Boat Veterans for Lies quickly enough), on the whole
Kerry ran a good campaign. The focus on his Vietnam record and his
tough talk on terror were both correct decisions and his performance in
all three debates was strong.
What Kerry couldn't change was who he was. He was a Senator from a
state that had just legalized gay marriage. He had a twenty year record
of votes in the Senate that could be combed for proof he was "liberal"
or a "flip-flopper." He is an aristocrat's aristocrat and an
intellectual in a country that does not particularly like either of
those characteristics. While he ran a much better campaign than I
expected, he should not have been the nominee in the first place.
In terms of 2008, it is obviously far too early to think about it
despite the temptation to do so. That said, there is much angst about
the 22% of voters who said that moral values was the most important
issue for them. There is already much hand wringing about nominating a
candidate who shares their values. Does this mean we need someone who
is against gun control, for repeal of Roe v. Wade, and against gay
marriage? No. Others have argued (including Thomas Frank in today's
Times) that the Democrats need to move leftward. This is an equally bad
idea because it ignores the realities of the electoral map (and the need to pick up votes in more conservative areas of the country).
The Democrats would be nuts to nominate anyone who lives within 300
miles of an ocean. Bill Clinton cheated on his wife repeatedly, signed
the Brady Bill, and was clearly pro-choice, yet these "moral issues"
voters returned him to office overwhelmingly in 1996 and he would have
won in 2000 and 2004 as well. No, the Democrats need a candidate who
speaks to the people in rural areas in the midwest and south without
condescension and with respect for their faith. Try as hard as he
could, John Kerry could not be that person. The overwhelming lesson of
this election is not that the Democrats need to focus on values, but
that perceived character is more important than perceived policies. I'm
fairly convinced that half of the voters who said moral values was the
most important issue to them were looking for a policy justification for
their gut instinct that they liked and trusted Bush more.
As for the nearer future, the Democrats have one weapon at their
disposal, the fillibuster. Like David with the slingshot (see I can
relate to my more religous countrymen) they must use this weapon judiciously.
They must choose issues which are both critical in importance and with
which it will be easy to demonize the Republicans in 2006. To my mind
these include confirmation extremely conservative Supreme Court justices, Social Security privatization, and any expansion of the Patriot Act. They may
even find some sympathetic Republican Senators to support them and these
are issues that can translate into electoral gains in the midterm
elections. The Democrats need to do to Bush what the Republicans did to
Clinton and his health care plan in 1993 when they were in the minority.
There will be many disastrous policies put forward in the next two years.
The Democrats need to stop the worst of these and make sure the
Republicans pay a political price for them. Most importantly they need to
find the right voices to make their case for them. It is an uphill battle
but it is worth fighting.
Other good thoughts on the subject in the blogosphere.
The moderate DLC
The thoughtful Publius
The progressive and overly optimistic Ruy Teixera
Three entries from the former McCainiac Bull Moose, here, here, and here.
Update (11-6): Nicholas Kristof gets it.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Shell Shocked
I don't think I'm capable of writing anything particularly long or profound today. What follows is a series of observations on last night's debacle that I will probably expand upon in the weeks ahead.
-- The impact of the election cannot be understated. With gains in the Senate and House coupling with his reelection and scaling of 50% in the popular vote, Bush can claim to have more of a mandate than was given in any of the last four elections. Given that he acted like he had a mandate in 2000, expect the policy initiatives to be bold and very conservative. Furthermore he will be unconstrained by the need to win reelection.
-- Take the following as things that will surely happen in the next two years: tort reform, expanding or making permanent tax breaks, increased use of Medical Savings Accounts, and a reauthorization and possible expansion of the Patriot Act. Administratively the rollback in regulations will pick up speed as initiatives that were proposed in the past four years get finalized in the next two. It wouldn't surprise me to see elections in Iraq postponed. And Bush and Delay will reach for the third rail of American politics, social security reform. This could cost them Congress in 2006 or it could result in the first step toward dismantling of the New Deal.
-- Many have opined on the impact of this election on the Supreme Court. Bush will be tempted to elevate Scalia to Chief Justice. If you are the praying type (and you haven't already bought into the "all good religious people support Bush idea"), pray for the health of Justice Stevens.
-- The Democrats nominated the wrong candidate (again). I think my preferred candidate in 2004, Howard Dean, would have done worse. However I am nearly 100% certain that Edwards, Clark and maybe even Lieberman would have done better.
-- The Democrats now need to take a long hard look at the electoral map. Liberal bloggers who want the party to move leftward should look at that map and ask which states will be more likely to vote Democratic if this is the case. The answer is none. We live in a country with conservative social values that has been made more so by 9-11. A winning Democratic candidate will come from a red state and will have the common touch. As my friend Chris noted, anyone who starts up with Hillary in '08 should be throttled.
-- At least I'm not that depressed about the Yankee loss anymore. My wife speculated that Kerry lost because some Red Sox fans made a deal with the Devil to have Boston win the World Series. Makes sense to me.
-- The impact of the election cannot be understated. With gains in the Senate and House coupling with his reelection and scaling of 50% in the popular vote, Bush can claim to have more of a mandate than was given in any of the last four elections. Given that he acted like he had a mandate in 2000, expect the policy initiatives to be bold and very conservative. Furthermore he will be unconstrained by the need to win reelection.
-- Take the following as things that will surely happen in the next two years: tort reform, expanding or making permanent tax breaks, increased use of Medical Savings Accounts, and a reauthorization and possible expansion of the Patriot Act. Administratively the rollback in regulations will pick up speed as initiatives that were proposed in the past four years get finalized in the next two. It wouldn't surprise me to see elections in Iraq postponed. And Bush and Delay will reach for the third rail of American politics, social security reform. This could cost them Congress in 2006 or it could result in the first step toward dismantling of the New Deal.
-- Many have opined on the impact of this election on the Supreme Court. Bush will be tempted to elevate Scalia to Chief Justice. If you are the praying type (and you haven't already bought into the "all good religious people support Bush idea"), pray for the health of Justice Stevens.
-- The Democrats nominated the wrong candidate (again). I think my preferred candidate in 2004, Howard Dean, would have done worse. However I am nearly 100% certain that Edwards, Clark and maybe even Lieberman would have done better.
-- The Democrats now need to take a long hard look at the electoral map. Liberal bloggers who want the party to move leftward should look at that map and ask which states will be more likely to vote Democratic if this is the case. The answer is none. We live in a country with conservative social values that has been made more so by 9-11. A winning Democratic candidate will come from a red state and will have the common touch. As my friend Chris noted, anyone who starts up with Hillary in '08 should be throttled.
-- At least I'm not that depressed about the Yankee loss anymore. My wife speculated that Kerry lost because some Red Sox fans made a deal with the Devil to have Boston win the World Series. Makes sense to me.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Election Interlude -- NBA Preview
While waiting for the returns to come in, a diversion:
Eastern Conference (in order of playoff seeding):
1. Detroit -- The defending champions have gotten better with the addition of Antonio McDyess.
2. Miami -- Shaq has an MVP year to prove that he was the Man in LA. And since there are no other centers in the East he puts up amazing numbers.
3. New York -- Thank you realignment. They probably finish with the 5th best record but get a 3 seed thanks to their weak division. They have a lot of talent but I'm not convinced that they will play well as a team.
4. Indiana -- The second best team in the conference, easy to forget they won 61 games a year ago.
5. Cleveland -- LeBron James will make this the team no one wants to play in the first round of the playoffs.
6. Philadelphia -- Jim O'Brien was a great coach to pick up and they will have just enough of a supporting cast to help Iverson.
7. New Jersey -- They could plummet if Kidd pouts and then gets traded.
8. Washington -- A lot of good pieces, lets see if they fit together.
-------------------
9. Milwaukee -- If TJ Ford comes back by midseason put them up a spot or two.
10. Chicago -- One of these years, the young talent will come together. Chandler and Curry are in contract years so maybe it's now.
11. Boston -- Danny Ainge seems bent on destroying this team. Doc Rivers was a good coaching choice though.
12. Orlando -- A lot of publications have them picked for the playoffs. I don't see why.
13. Toronto -- Vince Carter gets traded by midseason. And Toronto is better for it.
14. Atlanta -- Think you're an NBA fan? Name three players on the Hawks. Here's a hint, they picked up Antoine Walker and Al Harrington.
15. Charlotte -- Highlight of the Bobcat's first season. Emeka Okafor edges out former Connecticut teammate Ben Gordon for Rookie of the Year.
West
1. San Antonio -- They were probably the best team last year and they picked up Brent Barry.
2. Minnesota -- A return trip to the Western Conference finals is in their future.
3. Dallas -- They finally have an actual player at each position and a deep bench. Don Nelson couldn't screw this up . . . could he?
4. Houston -- McGrady has a lot to prove and Yao is now the best center in the West.
5. Denver -- I like this team so much I almost picked them for third. So much talent with the addition of K-Mart.
6. Sacramento -- The window is closed and the dissolution of the Kings may be ugly.
7. Los Angeles -- Kobe tries to show he is MJ and instead shows he is Pippen.
8. Utah -- Kirilenko and Boozer at the forwards. Sloan rides them to the playoffs.
--------------
9 Phoenix -- Picking up Steve Nash and Quentin Richardson means they will play a lot of 110-109 games.
10. Memphis -- Took me (and everyone else) by surprise last year. Would be the fourth best team in the east this year.
11. Portland -- They've already had their first arrest (Qyntel Woods) this year.
12. Golden State -- Name four players on Golden State. . . Keep trying.
13. New Orleans -- Playing in the western conference will not be pleasant.
14. Seattle -- Poor Ray Allen. Poor Nate McMillain.
15. L.A. Clippers -- One of the worst franchises in sports.
Eastern Conference (in order of playoff seeding):
1. Detroit -- The defending champions have gotten better with the addition of Antonio McDyess.
2. Miami -- Shaq has an MVP year to prove that he was the Man in LA. And since there are no other centers in the East he puts up amazing numbers.
3. New York -- Thank you realignment. They probably finish with the 5th best record but get a 3 seed thanks to their weak division. They have a lot of talent but I'm not convinced that they will play well as a team.
4. Indiana -- The second best team in the conference, easy to forget they won 61 games a year ago.
5. Cleveland -- LeBron James will make this the team no one wants to play in the first round of the playoffs.
6. Philadelphia -- Jim O'Brien was a great coach to pick up and they will have just enough of a supporting cast to help Iverson.
7. New Jersey -- They could plummet if Kidd pouts and then gets traded.
8. Washington -- A lot of good pieces, lets see if they fit together.
-------------------
9. Milwaukee -- If TJ Ford comes back by midseason put them up a spot or two.
10. Chicago -- One of these years, the young talent will come together. Chandler and Curry are in contract years so maybe it's now.
11. Boston -- Danny Ainge seems bent on destroying this team. Doc Rivers was a good coaching choice though.
12. Orlando -- A lot of publications have them picked for the playoffs. I don't see why.
13. Toronto -- Vince Carter gets traded by midseason. And Toronto is better for it.
14. Atlanta -- Think you're an NBA fan? Name three players on the Hawks. Here's a hint, they picked up Antoine Walker and Al Harrington.
15. Charlotte -- Highlight of the Bobcat's first season. Emeka Okafor edges out former Connecticut teammate Ben Gordon for Rookie of the Year.
West
1. San Antonio -- They were probably the best team last year and they picked up Brent Barry.
2. Minnesota -- A return trip to the Western Conference finals is in their future.
3. Dallas -- They finally have an actual player at each position and a deep bench. Don Nelson couldn't screw this up . . . could he?
4. Houston -- McGrady has a lot to prove and Yao is now the best center in the West.
5. Denver -- I like this team so much I almost picked them for third. So much talent with the addition of K-Mart.
6. Sacramento -- The window is closed and the dissolution of the Kings may be ugly.
7. Los Angeles -- Kobe tries to show he is MJ and instead shows he is Pippen.
8. Utah -- Kirilenko and Boozer at the forwards. Sloan rides them to the playoffs.
--------------
9 Phoenix -- Picking up Steve Nash and Quentin Richardson means they will play a lot of 110-109 games.
10. Memphis -- Took me (and everyone else) by surprise last year. Would be the fourth best team in the east this year.
11. Portland -- They've already had their first arrest (Qyntel Woods) this year.
12. Golden State -- Name four players on Golden State. . . Keep trying.
13. New Orleans -- Playing in the western conference will not be pleasant.
14. Seattle -- Poor Ray Allen. Poor Nate McMillain.
15. L.A. Clippers -- One of the worst franchises in sports.
