Where am I?
|
Monday’s New York Times op-ed by Krugman caught my attention:
A brief history lesson: In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Polish legislature, the Sejm, operated on the unanimity principle: any member could nullify legislation by shouting “I do not allow!” This made the nation largely ungovernable, and neighboring regimes began hacking off pieces of its territory. By 1795 Poland had disappeared, not to re-emerge for more than a century.
Today, the U.S. Senate seems determined to make the Sejm look good by comparison.
Krugman goes on to mention Senator Shelby’s (R-AL) current antics of blocking several of Obama’s nominees, allegedly while waiting for some earmark money to be released, and for a major military contract to be awarded to an Alabama factory. Krugman’s conclusion: since the Senate has mostly done away with its old traditions of comity and consensus, perhaps it’s time to relax some of the old rules…and that a vote for a Republican is a vote for paralysis.
I wonder if Krugman would have written this column if the GOP had a majority in the Senate. Or would he have been among those touting the stability benefits of retaining the Senate’s rules on filibusters.
That aside…he does have a point. While I find the notion of the federal government being limited in the mischief that it can cause, petty tactics such as holding up the nomination process in return for funds for constituents definitely seem over the line.
Didn’t some of the hype associated with Obama’s election have something to do with the U.S. moving off the rather draconian path set by the prior administration after 9/11? From cNet:
The FBI is pressing Internet service providers to record which Web sites customers visit and retain those logs for two years, a requirement that law enforcement believes could help it in investigations of child pornography and other serious crimes.
FBI Director Robert Mueller supports storing Internet users’ "origin and destination information," a bureau attorney said at a federal task force meeting on Thursday.
I know that if I don’t visit illicit sites, I have nothing to fear, and that this is sort-of-kind-of analogous to phone companies being required to keep call logs which can be accessed via the appropriate subpoenas.
However, having such a repository of information just seems too tempting for some manner of abuse to occur, be it some sophisticated spam or fishing scam, or the slight chance that the American political climate could deteriorate to the point where there would be repercussions for visiting websites supporting certain views.
I mean, if it’s kosher to bar people from speeches made by political candidates due to the bumper stickers found on their cars, is it really that unthinkable that a person could be excluded from some other political gathering by virtue of the websites they follow?
Seen in Insurance Journal:
The American Bar Association says the Illinois Supreme Court was right in striking down as unconstitutional the caps on non-economic damage awards in medical malpractice cases.
Insurer groups, however, say the decision will add to rising health care costs and stymie the economic climate in the state.
In an opinion filed on Feb. 4, 2010, in Lebron, a Minor v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, the state’s highest court reasoned that the statute that places caps on jury awards violates the separation of powers clause in the state constitution because it allows the legislature to exercise powers "properly belonging to the judiciary."
Although I feel for the people of Illinois because of the likely fallout from this ruling, while I’m not a constitutional scholar (especially not a scholar of the Illinois state constitution) I can actually buy a “separation of powers” argument.
Of course, if a government adopts such a strict interpretation of “separation of powers”, doesn’t that pretty significantly erode the “checks” in the “checks and balances” system that constitutional separation of powers clauses are supposed to promote?
It doesn’t take too much of a stretch to see how such a strict interpretation could preclude constructs such as mandatory sentencing laws. But taking to the extreme, could such complete separation of powers open the door to the executive, legislative, and/or judicial branches all running amok, with the other branches of government lacking effective power to stop the excesses?
Meanwhile, I wonder how many doctors or nurses will consider moving out of state or retiring, when it comes time to renew their med mal policies. It’ll be sad, but interesting, to see what the increase in severity, and the resultant increase in med mal insurance costs, do to the cost of health care in general in Illinois.
On the U.S. East Coast, the date/time is now 2/7 18:28. As I promised last March, I’m wishing everyone a happy e day. 
One item that came up while I was deluged was that Obama’s proposed budget includes a proposed change to the federal backstop on terrorism coverage. Quoting Business Insurance:
According to budget documents released Monday, the administration’s plan would eliminate “nearly $250 million in federal subsidies to insurance companies for terrorism insurance. These subsidies are no longer necessary given the robust private market for such insurance, and domestic terrorism insurance policies are now sufficiently available and affordable to meet demand. According to industry data, property and casualty insurers’ surpluses—the balances available to pay claims associated with covered terrorist attacks—are currently estimated at over $490 billion.”
A couple of thoughts:
1. The only reason that there is a stable market for providing affordable terrorism coverage is the backstop. There may be some E&S insurers (or perhaps a certain taxpayer-owned insurance entity) which might be willing to make the gamble given enough premium, I am pretty sure that many mainstream carriers only provide terror coverage because of the backstop. If carriers had to pick up more of the potential risk, people like me will have nasty cases of indigestion and/or will push to avoid the exposure.
2. While the industry balance sheet is strong enough to handle virtually any mega-catastrophe, including a major terrorist attack, what will the industry balance sheet look like after that? One of the reasons that many insurers carry such large amounts of surplus is to be able to continue to provide insurance for customers even after a nightmare occurs. If surplus is substantially depleted after a mega-attack, we’ll have a pretty big problem.
There’s no telling what a proposal to scale back TRIA might look like if/when it gets through both houses of Congress, so I wouldn’t get terribly excited about this yet. At least we’re not waiting until the last minute before reauthorization time to discuss revisions to a continuing backstop of some sort.
Yes, the day job has been keeping me busy enough that I’ve been pretty quiet here lately. However, I did have to resurface to share the results of a Rasmussen poll:
In January, the number of Americans identifying themselves as Democrats fell another tenth-of-a-percentage point. Now the number of Democrats is at the lowest level recorded in more than seven years of monthly tracking by Rasmussen Reports.
However, in January, the number of Republicans in the country dropped by nearly two percentage points.
Mainstream public debate seems polarized between D’s and R’s, or Obama supporters and haters. However, maybe the silent middle is sick of both nutty donkeys and crazed pachyderms.
One can only hope.
Amazing; the feds are actually going for the idea. As seen in the Courant:
The federal government on Tuesday committed $45 million toward the New Britain busway, the strongest sign yet that the long-planned and frequently delayed project will actually be built.
The announcement was greeted cheerfully by Gov. M. Jodi Rell and Mayor Timothy Stewart, who are counting on it to help revive downtown New Britain and ease rush-hour congestion on I-84. But it was a severe blow to opponents who have campaigned to scuttle the project.[…]
Connecticut is banking on the federal government to come through with about $450 million of the estimated $569 million cost; state taxpayers will have to cover the rest. The money will build a 9.4-mile buses-only highway from downtown New Britain to Hartford’s Union Station.
I’ll admit that the busway idea seems cheesy to me, but I’d love to be proven wrong and see any relief for the rush-hour parking lot known as I-84.
I disagree with those critics of the busway plan who would like to see intrastate rail service started up between Waterbury and Hartford. Like many commuters, I like trains more than busses, but I just don’t see there being enough demand for commuter rail between Hartford and Waterbury to support enough frequency to make such a line viable.
I don’t really see any way local/regional rail service can be viable in southern New England unless it ties seamlessly into rail service to/from New York or Boston. The proposed New Haven – Hartford – Springfield commuter line would do that, but not a Waterbury – New Britain – Hartford line.
I am still skeptical of the busway being the boon that its proponents claim, and Hartford-oriented public works projects do have an unfortunate habit of stalling mid-build. But maybe this one time, it’ll actually work as planned and advertised.
After all, hell can theoretically freeze over sometimes.
Some happy thoughts courtesy of Paul Farrell at MarketWatch:
Retire? You can fuggetaboutit if the new Global Debt Time Bomb is detonated by any one of 20 made-in-America trigger mechanisms.
Yes, 20. And yes, any one can destroy your retirement because all 20 are inexorably linked, a house-of-cards, a circular firing squad destined to self-destruct, triggering the third great Wall Street meltdown of the 21st century, igniting the Great Depression II that George W. Bush, Ben Bernanke, Henry Paulson and now President Obama have simply delayed with their endless knee-jerk, debt-laden wars, stimulus bonanzas and bailouts.
Some selected items from his top 20 list:
- Federal deficit
- US foreign trade imbalance
- Social Security
- Medicare
- Medical inflation
- Underfunded pension plans
- Consumer debt
- Dysfunctional two-party system
It’s a great article. If you have some excess optimism that you need to quash, I’d encourage giving it a read.
Seen on Insurance Journal:
California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner said that his position has become too politicized and should return to being one that’s appointed by the governor. […]
California’s insurance commissioner became an elected position when voters approved Proposition 103 in 1991.[…]
Poizner says the insurance commissioner acts as an important watchdog for consumers and should not be swayed by politics or campaign contributions from insurance companies and others seeking influence over the office. Poizner has refused to accept such donations.
Although California, while particular in its ways, isn’t the most difficult DOI to work with, in spite of the politicization of the Commissioner’s office, I think there is something to be said for the lead insurance regulator in a state being focused on balancing consumer protection and the need to ensure the smooth operation of a robust, fiscally strong insurance market.
|
|
