Tuesday, December 27, 2005
A Year as a Dad
Sparse posting during the holidays where my (newly) one year old son is keeping me busier than my job ever would. A few random thoughts on my first year as a father.
-- It amazes me how much he has changed in a year. For the first three months all he did was eat, sleep, and produce waste (or pee and poop which are two of the most common words in my vocabulary). Now he is a little person. One who can't talk or walk yet but a person with a personality nonetheless. If he changed this much every year he would be E.T. by the time he was ten years old.
-- I've said it before but the amount of work that parenting is amazes me. I am more tired after a day of taking care of him than I am after teaching two three hour classes or working a full day at my old government job (which was typically ten intense hours). If compensation was tied to effort rather than market value, then good child care providers would be millionaires.
-- People have a lot wrapped up in the choices they make as parents. Whether it is things my wife reads me from parenting chat boards (or from her friends), things I see in the newspaper, or things I hear from colleagues, it is clear that people are very defensive about the choices they've made regarding their child. This goes beyond defending their own choices and is often expressed as the demeaning of the choices made by others. Obviously child care is the big thing people like to insult others about ("we'd never leave little Johnny . . . or we'd only leave little Susie with . . .) but the vitriol extends to the type of stroller you buy or the type of toys you give your little one you play with. We all need to relax a bit and realize that most of this will not even make the smallest of differences compared to whether your kid knows you love him or her and whether he or she feels safe when they wake up in the middle of the night.
-- A father playing a big role in his baby's life is still treated as the exception. All advice is geared to moms. Dads are patronized when they ask questions (especially by female sales people or service providers). While nurtured by the dominance of mothers raising children, this attitude also reinforces the existing paradigm. I'm not sure one changes without the other.
-- Did I tell you that my son is the brightest cutest kid on the planet?
Happy Holidays to all and go Yankees and Dems in 2006.
-- It amazes me how much he has changed in a year. For the first three months all he did was eat, sleep, and produce waste (or pee and poop which are two of the most common words in my vocabulary). Now he is a little person. One who can't talk or walk yet but a person with a personality nonetheless. If he changed this much every year he would be E.T. by the time he was ten years old.
-- I've said it before but the amount of work that parenting is amazes me. I am more tired after a day of taking care of him than I am after teaching two three hour classes or working a full day at my old government job (which was typically ten intense hours). If compensation was tied to effort rather than market value, then good child care providers would be millionaires.
-- People have a lot wrapped up in the choices they make as parents. Whether it is things my wife reads me from parenting chat boards (or from her friends), things I see in the newspaper, or things I hear from colleagues, it is clear that people are very defensive about the choices they've made regarding their child. This goes beyond defending their own choices and is often expressed as the demeaning of the choices made by others. Obviously child care is the big thing people like to insult others about ("we'd never leave little Johnny . . . or we'd only leave little Susie with . . .) but the vitriol extends to the type of stroller you buy or the type of toys you give your little one you play with. We all need to relax a bit and realize that most of this will not even make the smallest of differences compared to whether your kid knows you love him or her and whether he or she feels safe when they wake up in the middle of the night.
-- A father playing a big role in his baby's life is still treated as the exception. All advice is geared to moms. Dads are patronized when they ask questions (especially by female sales people or service providers). While nurtured by the dominance of mothers raising children, this attitude also reinforces the existing paradigm. I'm not sure one changes without the other.
-- Did I tell you that my son is the brightest cutest kid on the planet?
Happy Holidays to all and go Yankees and Dems in 2006.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Dan Maffei for Congress
I spent last night co-hosting a fundraiser for my former grad school roommate, Dan Maffei. Dan is running for the House of Representatives in New York's 25th District. A couple of weeks ago I wrote here about the chances for the Democrats to take back at least one house of Congress. By and large these chances rest with races like Dan's.
The Democrats are (finally) pursuing a strategy of contesting every seat. They are recruiting candidates to run across the country. The more races that become close, the more that Republicans have to spend on races they thought were secure. More importantly if events lead to increased voter dissatisfaction with the Republicans as 2006 unfolds, having candidates everywhere, increases the chances of winning enough races to win back the House.
New York's 25th District is comprised of Syracuse and extends to the suburbs of Rochester. It is currently represented by Jim Walsh, a nine term Republican incumbent. Before you think he is unbeatable however, keep in mind that this is one of only 16 districts in the country where a Republican represents a district that voted for John Kerry in 2004. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton and Elliot Spitzer, two extremely strong candidates will be on the top of the ballot for Democrats in 2006.
This is a race that can be won (and I'm not just saying that because Dan is one of my best friends). As events like the Alito nomination and the wiretapping of American phones by our government unfold, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the time to place constraints on the government's swing rightward is waning. So not only is this a race that can be won, it is one that it is very important to win.
Visit Dan's site at www.maffeiforcongress.com and if you have a little money left over after holiday shopping contribute there to a chance for a Democratic Congress in 2006.
The Democrats are (finally) pursuing a strategy of contesting every seat. They are recruiting candidates to run across the country. The more races that become close, the more that Republicans have to spend on races they thought were secure. More importantly if events lead to increased voter dissatisfaction with the Republicans as 2006 unfolds, having candidates everywhere, increases the chances of winning enough races to win back the House.
New York's 25th District is comprised of Syracuse and extends to the suburbs of Rochester. It is currently represented by Jim Walsh, a nine term Republican incumbent. Before you think he is unbeatable however, keep in mind that this is one of only 16 districts in the country where a Republican represents a district that voted for John Kerry in 2004. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton and Elliot Spitzer, two extremely strong candidates will be on the top of the ballot for Democrats in 2006.
This is a race that can be won (and I'm not just saying that because Dan is one of my best friends). As events like the Alito nomination and the wiretapping of American phones by our government unfold, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the time to place constraints on the government's swing rightward is waning. So not only is this a race that can be won, it is one that it is very important to win.
Visit Dan's site at www.maffeiforcongress.com and if you have a little money left over after holiday shopping contribute there to a chance for a Democratic Congress in 2006.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
The Presidency at its Peak?
When the Constitution was written, the founders feared that the executive was the weakest of the three branches. The 19th Century provided evidence to support their foresight as Congress, much as the founders had envisioned, dominated the policymaking process. The 20th Century was very different. Starting primarily with FDR and the New Deal and then buoyed by the powers of radio and television, the Presidency steadily gained power.
There were fits and starts of course. From Watergate until the Reagan inauguration, Congress had a brief resurgence. The Clinton impeachment put a brake on that Presidency. Since 9-11, however the Bush Administration, by administrative means and by bending Congress to its will in domestic policy, and more importantly in foreign policy, has asserted powers unlike any that has come before it. While defenders of the Administration say they are merely making up for powers that have been given away in recent decades, the reality is that they are building upon the century long growth in the power of the Presidency.
While I hesitate to overreact to a small number of events, the signs are pointing at least to a blip in the growth of presidential power. This week Congress successfully defied Bush (more likely Cheney) and passed a torture ban. Cat torturer Frist was unable to deliver a Senate reauthorization of the Patriot Act despite the clear preferences of the Administration. Four Republicans even crossed party lines, true to their libertarian words.
Then on Friday, the New York Times reported on the spying by NSA on phone conversations within the United States as authorized by Bush. The reaction on Capitol Hill was sharp as Congress correctly intuited that the American public would not be happy with this latest revelation. The media has been as cowed by Bush & Co. as the Congress has been and the Times article is only further evidence that the Bushies are losing their grip.
The Bush reaction was to once again invoke fear and to blame the Times for reporting the story. It won't take. With shadows of the Pentagon Papers from a generation ago, Bush is increasingly appearing to seem like Nixon without the intellect. As his approval ratings stagnate in the 30s and show no sign of improving, this latest revelation will only exacerbate the President's decline. A weak President emboldens Congress and weakens the Presidency. Expect to see many more policies coming out of Congress over the next three years and a Presidency in retreat until 2009.
There were fits and starts of course. From Watergate until the Reagan inauguration, Congress had a brief resurgence. The Clinton impeachment put a brake on that Presidency. Since 9-11, however the Bush Administration, by administrative means and by bending Congress to its will in domestic policy, and more importantly in foreign policy, has asserted powers unlike any that has come before it. While defenders of the Administration say they are merely making up for powers that have been given away in recent decades, the reality is that they are building upon the century long growth in the power of the Presidency.
While I hesitate to overreact to a small number of events, the signs are pointing at least to a blip in the growth of presidential power. This week Congress successfully defied Bush (more likely Cheney) and passed a torture ban. Cat torturer Frist was unable to deliver a Senate reauthorization of the Patriot Act despite the clear preferences of the Administration. Four Republicans even crossed party lines, true to their libertarian words.
Then on Friday, the New York Times reported on the spying by NSA on phone conversations within the United States as authorized by Bush. The reaction on Capitol Hill was sharp as Congress correctly intuited that the American public would not be happy with this latest revelation. The media has been as cowed by Bush & Co. as the Congress has been and the Times article is only further evidence that the Bushies are losing their grip.
The Bush reaction was to once again invoke fear and to blame the Times for reporting the story. It won't take. With shadows of the Pentagon Papers from a generation ago, Bush is increasingly appearing to seem like Nixon without the intellect. As his approval ratings stagnate in the 30s and show no sign of improving, this latest revelation will only exacerbate the President's decline. A weak President emboldens Congress and weakens the Presidency. Expect to see many more policies coming out of Congress over the next three years and a Presidency in retreat until 2009.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Guidance Documents and Public Policy
In the world of obscure public policy actions, an OMB bulletin on how agencies should manage guidance documents will strike some as particularly unworthy of attention. However this is the type of subject that interests me intently and also strikes me as much more important than it gets credit for.
As their name implies, guidance documents, are documents issued by agencies to resolve ambiguities in their regulations. Basically if businesses or individuals don’t understand the regulations they are supposed to follow, then one option for a government agency is to issue a guidance document to clarify their regulations. This is much easier than asking Congress to amend a law to provide clarity or than amending agency regulations.
Problems arise however when agencies use guidance documents in lieu of a regulation. This may be an innocent decision done to issue a clarification quickly. Or it may be done because an agency fears that it will have difficulty making the policy change through the regulatory process for legal or political reasons. Whatever the reason, the result is often a change in government policy made without the traditional safeguards to assure democratic accountability.
The OMB bulletin is intended to rectify that. It requires agencies to post “significant guidance documents” on their website, to ensure senior agency officials approve such documents, and to create a means for the public to comment on such documents. These are all highly positive steps that should the decrease the use of such documents to make policy and increase their use in providing guidance.
As their name implies, guidance documents, are documents issued by agencies to resolve ambiguities in their regulations. Basically if businesses or individuals don’t understand the regulations they are supposed to follow, then one option for a government agency is to issue a guidance document to clarify their regulations. This is much easier than asking Congress to amend a law to provide clarity or than amending agency regulations.
Problems arise however when agencies use guidance documents in lieu of a regulation. This may be an innocent decision done to issue a clarification quickly. Or it may be done because an agency fears that it will have difficulty making the policy change through the regulatory process for legal or political reasons. Whatever the reason, the result is often a change in government policy made without the traditional safeguards to assure democratic accountability.
The OMB bulletin is intended to rectify that. It requires agencies to post “significant guidance documents” on their website, to ensure senior agency officials approve such documents, and to create a means for the public to comment on such documents. These are all highly positive steps that should the decrease the use of such documents to make policy and increase their use in providing guidance.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Baseball at Midwinter
Well Jason Starkand Rob Neyer have given their verdicts and so I know the baseball is anxiously awaiting my analysis of the bevy of deals that went down at the winter meetings in baseball.
Winners
Chicago White Sox: Despite winning the World Series, it was clear that the White Sox could not stand pat. They were at best on a par with four other teams in the AL and may have gone into next season as the underdogs in their own division. To their credit, they recognized this and dealt Aaron Rowand (an excellent defensive centerfielder but one for whom they have a replacement ready) for Jim Thome. This is a gamble, given Thome's health, but if Thome gives them 400+ at bats next year, their offense moves from mediocre to good. Combined with a potentially excellent pitching staff, a repeat is not out of the question. They also picked up the useful Rob Mackowiak from Pittsburgh.
New York Mets: They paid too much for Billy Wagner. They may have given up too much for Carlos Delgado and certainly did for Paul LoDuca. But at the end of the day, they have Delgado, LoDuca, and Wagner. They need Pedro and Glavine to stay healthy but if they do, they will present Atlanta with its most serious divisional challenge since 1994.
Cleveland Indians: The team that may have been the best in the AL last year faced a perilous offseason. They lost Kevin Millwood and much of their bullpen. However they signed Paul Byrd at a rate cheaper than the going overinflated rate for pitchers and Byrd is about as good Millwood who will get twice as much money. They resigned effective closer Bob Wickman. They could use another arm or two but I barring changes in the AL East powerhouses, the two best teams in the AL next year may be in the Central.
Losers
Toronto Blue Jays: AJ and BJ will help. They are both good pitchers. But at the end of the day, they spent $100 million (a tenth of a billion dollars!!!) and it won't move them out of third place in the AL East. The team's lineup is too weak to get them above 90 wins without more help.
Chicago Cubs: Hmmmm Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez had fewer runners in scoring position than any other 3 and 4 hitters in baseball. So the Cubs sign Juan Pierre and retain Neifi Perez? Pierre is not bad but has a skill set that will get worse with each passing year. Perez is bad. Not a bad person, just a bad major league player. The Cubs are in trouble.
St. Louis Cardinals: They've lost Larry Walker, Reggie Sanders, and Matt Morris and so far all they have picked up is Larry Bigbie. I understand that having Chris Carpenter, Albert Pujols, and Scott Rolen can make you cocky but the Cardinals have effectively brought themselves back to the pack in the NL Central. They may still be the favorites but their margin for error is gone.
Incomplete
Boston Red Sox: The most active team this winter is the hardest to gauge. I have thought each deal they have made was good on its own. However now they have 3 3rd basement (Youkilis, Lowell, and Marte), 2 2nd basemen (Grafanino and Loretta), no shortstop and no 1st baseman (although one of the 3rd basemen could end up there). They also have a vacancy in centerfield if Johnny Damon leaves and who knows what is going to happen with their best player, Manny Ramirez. There are clearly more moves coming.
As there are for many other teams. Damon, Morris, and a host of other useful players are still unsigned. Trades will still happen. No sport is as much fun in the offseason as baseball.
Winners
Chicago White Sox: Despite winning the World Series, it was clear that the White Sox could not stand pat. They were at best on a par with four other teams in the AL and may have gone into next season as the underdogs in their own division. To their credit, they recognized this and dealt Aaron Rowand (an excellent defensive centerfielder but one for whom they have a replacement ready) for Jim Thome. This is a gamble, given Thome's health, but if Thome gives them 400+ at bats next year, their offense moves from mediocre to good. Combined with a potentially excellent pitching staff, a repeat is not out of the question. They also picked up the useful Rob Mackowiak from Pittsburgh.
New York Mets: They paid too much for Billy Wagner. They may have given up too much for Carlos Delgado and certainly did for Paul LoDuca. But at the end of the day, they have Delgado, LoDuca, and Wagner. They need Pedro and Glavine to stay healthy but if they do, they will present Atlanta with its most serious divisional challenge since 1994.
Cleveland Indians: The team that may have been the best in the AL last year faced a perilous offseason. They lost Kevin Millwood and much of their bullpen. However they signed Paul Byrd at a rate cheaper than the going overinflated rate for pitchers and Byrd is about as good Millwood who will get twice as much money. They resigned effective closer Bob Wickman. They could use another arm or two but I barring changes in the AL East powerhouses, the two best teams in the AL next year may be in the Central.
Losers
Toronto Blue Jays: AJ and BJ will help. They are both good pitchers. But at the end of the day, they spent $100 million (a tenth of a billion dollars!!!) and it won't move them out of third place in the AL East. The team's lineup is too weak to get them above 90 wins without more help.
Chicago Cubs: Hmmmm Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez had fewer runners in scoring position than any other 3 and 4 hitters in baseball. So the Cubs sign Juan Pierre and retain Neifi Perez? Pierre is not bad but has a skill set that will get worse with each passing year. Perez is bad. Not a bad person, just a bad major league player. The Cubs are in trouble.
St. Louis Cardinals: They've lost Larry Walker, Reggie Sanders, and Matt Morris and so far all they have picked up is Larry Bigbie. I understand that having Chris Carpenter, Albert Pujols, and Scott Rolen can make you cocky but the Cardinals have effectively brought themselves back to the pack in the NL Central. They may still be the favorites but their margin for error is gone.
Incomplete
Boston Red Sox: The most active team this winter is the hardest to gauge. I have thought each deal they have made was good on its own. However now they have 3 3rd basement (Youkilis, Lowell, and Marte), 2 2nd basemen (Grafanino and Loretta), no shortstop and no 1st baseman (although one of the 3rd basemen could end up there). They also have a vacancy in centerfield if Johnny Damon leaves and who knows what is going to happen with their best player, Manny Ramirez. There are clearly more moves coming.
As there are for many other teams. Damon, Morris, and a host of other useful players are still unsigned. Trades will still happen. No sport is as much fun in the offseason as baseball.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Jet Blue and Airline Deregulation
I just had my first experience flying Jet Blue Airlines and it is indeed all it is cracked up to be. The seats were comfortable, unlike major airlines I got a beverage and a choice of cookies, chips, or pretzels, and most importantly are those wonderful tv sets for each passenger with 36 channels (I'm not sure why I can never find anything on at home where I have more channels, but on an airplane I'm desperately flipping between three programs).
My parents (and many other liberals) have often bemoaned the deregulation of the airlines in the 1970s. It is true that flying was more pleasurable before deregulation with full meals, seats with a lot of legroom, and all sorts of other perks. However, flying was prohibitively expensive. The poor never flew and for the middle class it was a once a year experience.
Since deregulation, prices have dropped dramatically and the usage of air travel has exploded. The government sponsored oligopoly was broken and the predictable economic results followed. It is true that there were some negative effects. The annoying hub and spoke system evolved and flying certainly became far less comfortable. It is hard for me to see however how this comes close to compensating for the lower prices and the vastly increased access to air travel.
And now, airlines like Jet Blue are bringing perks back to air travel. And they are doing so without raising the cost of flights (my round trip to Orlando was $130). Part of the reason is that they are not bound by the union contracts of the older airlines. However, I'm sure part of it is due to innovative business model. There is a reason that economists advocate competition in the marketplace. Jet Blue is that reason.
My parents (and many other liberals) have often bemoaned the deregulation of the airlines in the 1970s. It is true that flying was more pleasurable before deregulation with full meals, seats with a lot of legroom, and all sorts of other perks. However, flying was prohibitively expensive. The poor never flew and for the middle class it was a once a year experience.
Since deregulation, prices have dropped dramatically and the usage of air travel has exploded. The government sponsored oligopoly was broken and the predictable economic results followed. It is true that there were some negative effects. The annoying hub and spoke system evolved and flying certainly became far less comfortable. It is hard for me to see however how this comes close to compensating for the lower prices and the vastly increased access to air travel.
And now, airlines like Jet Blue are bringing perks back to air travel. And they are doing so without raising the cost of flights (my round trip to Orlando was $130). Part of the reason is that they are not bound by the union contracts of the older airlines. However, I'm sure part of it is due to innovative business model. There is a reason that economists advocate competition in the marketplace. Jet Blue is that reason.
