Centrists Platform

One of the greatest characteristics of the American federal government is the system of checks-and-balances imposed on the three branches by the founding fathers.  The notion that if one part of the government gets too out of control, the others have a means to impose sanity is a powerful one, which has generally kept Washington from getting too nutty over the past couple of centuries.

Unfortunately, the founding fathers didn’t contemplate the formation of political parties.  As a result, there is always the potential that one part of the American political duopoly can gain control of both the Executive and the Legislative branches, and potentially the Judicial as well.  A single political agenda wielding power over both houses of Congress and the White House can go a long way towards bypassing Constitutional checks on power.

Consider, for example, the excesses of the first six years of the current administration…or the excesses of the first two years of Bill Clinton’s White House.

I have said before, and I will continue to say, that I am happiest with the government when no one political party controls both chambers of the Legislative branch, and the Executive branch.

I’m aware that some folks are concerned that divided government inevitably leads to gridlock.  If I can indulge in a little bit of flippancy… gridlock is the point.

Seriously, I have a healthy distrust for politicians.  Yes, I know that many, if not most, politicians are fine, upstanding individuals.  However, the demands imposed by fundraising to be elected and reelected, the need to support partisan goals in order to gain support for your own interests, and the general corrosive influence of spending so much time in political circles rather than the real world leads to a climate where too much shenanigans can be created.

In theory, a divided government — with the two major parties controlling different parts of the government — should be a potentially effective check on such shenanigans.  It is, after all, in one party’s interest to highlight and block the other’s antics.  If each party accomplishes nothing but the blocking of the other party’s bad ideas…the country is probably the better for it.  Lock the politicians inside the beltway, and let the rest of us lead our lives free from their interference. 

Despite my cynicism towards day-to-day political antics, there are things that the government needs to accomplish.  There are generally enough bright, good folks in elected offices belonging to both parties that I have faith that should something need to be done, it will be done in a bi/non-partisan manner.

I could wish for some sort of Constitutional change to ensure divided government…but frankly, imposing such a certainty would likely lead to some other forms of abuse and gaming, including a further solidification of the Democrats’ and Republicans’ duopoly on political power.

Instead, I’m going to have to hope that more voters will see the sanity and logic of imposing the check-and-balance of divided government as they consider who they will vote for on Election Day.

During my last year of college and my first year in the “real world”, I went on a Heinlein reading kick.  I read everything of his that I could get my hands on.

One of the ideas that stuck with me from that phase was that of “National Service” from Starship Troopers.  While I’m not sure I’d go to the full extent Heinlein takes the concept in the book, the idea of volunteering a year or two of your time to society as you transition to adulthood, in return for certain benefits as an adult has a certain appeal to me.

Maybe that’s because of a lingering interest I had in the military.  As a teenager, I very seriously considered joining the military, in part to address questions of how I was going to pay for college.   And since then, I’ve encountered many people who would be interested in contributing their time to National Guard duty, to assist in disaster recovery and other manpower needs…but are unwilling to enlist due to the potential of true military involvement.

We’ve had incarnations of national service-like constructs before in America.   Consider the FDR’s CCC, which made work for the unemployed.  Consider also attempts such as the Peace Corps and Americorps, both of which might suffer a bit from limited benefits and the granolaish associations with the programs.

So, I would love to see the creation of a national service corps — a decently-funded program by which Americans can contribute their skills to the country as a whole, and by which simple manpower can be organized and mobilized for domestic, peacetime needs, without the threat of being summoned overseas to be shot at.

Considering the concerns we have in this country in which the solutions are impaired by a lack of manpower, there should be plenty that a designated pool of talent could be drawn upon to resolve.

Perhaps such tasks could be as simple as augmenting/relieving the National Guard for border patrol support and sandbagging duties.   Some folks believe that the illegal immigration problem is fueled by demand for labor to fill jobs that no American will voluntarily take; perhaps having a pool of labor to draw upon would resolve that.  And, of course, there are concerns about being unable to find teachers or doctors willing to serve in challenging environments (remote towns, inner cities), which could be addressed as part of a national service program.

Yes, there are already programs or constructs to address all of those concerns.  However, it seems to me that they suffer somewhat due to their balkanized nature.  One program, efficiently run, should be able to draw a larger talent pool to fill a broader variety of needs.

Heck, I can even imagine my being drafted for a couple of weeks a year to go bolster ranks of federal analysts.   The Federal Part-Time Actuarial and Statistical Corps, anyone?

I understand that many people might be uncomfortable with the concept of National Service.  I myself am not a fan of the idea of compulsory volunteerism.  National Service also seems uncomfortably close to a resumption of the draft.  And my expressing interest in the creation of a National Service Corps does require me to table my general distrust of any expansion of government’s involvement in our daily lives.

But thinking about how the draft of the 40’s and 50’s lead to a mixing of society — folks of different economic backgrounds and from different parts of the country rubbing elbows in ways that hadn’t previously been common — and considering just how much debt lower- and middle-income young adults incur to get a good start in independent life….  well, maybe a national service program wouldn’t be such a bad idea.

Last week, I expressed concerns about the politicization in the identification of judges and attorneys general, and pondered about the potential drag on society from political motivations trumping objective justice.

Another area of the judicial system that I worry about is just how overloaded the entire system seems to be, and how slowly the wheels of justice move.

This is a subject I have a personal interest in, thanks to what my family has been through in the past several years, after my wife was disabled in a car accident. 

For example, it took just shy of 3 years for Social Security disability payments to start up.  Two thirds of that time was just spent waiting, for my wife’s case to move up through a very long queue on the docket, before it could be reviewed by an Administrative law Judge.

Then there’s the lawsuit associated with the accident itself.  We’re scheduled to go to finally go trial this October, 6½ years after the accident.   True, our case is a little unusual, but the slowness with which the wheels of justice have turned has been remarkable.

Tort reform is a popular subject for those of us in the insurance industry to prattle on about, when talking about what’s wrong with the country.  And, while I do share many of my colleagues’ concerns about excessive awards, jurisdictions in which rulings tend to be biased against industry, and the degree of influence trial lawyers associations seem to have… I wonder if a decent part of the problem is structural.

Considering the speed with which the world moves today, shouldn’t we be attempting an objective look to the mechanics with which the legal system operates?

Yes, easing the drag caused by the presence of some frivolous lawsuits on the docket would help “real” cases move forward faster, but surely we have enough creativity in this country to look at how the legal system can be made to operate more efficiently, without significantly impairing the prospects of fairness for all parties involved.

One of the biggest sources of silliness I see in America today is just how litigation-happy our society seems to have become.

Yes, there is no question in my mind that when a person, business, or other entity errs and harms another, indemnification is in order.  The threat of punitive damages is a handy incentive for Big Business to not behave badly.   And I don’t, as a matter of principle, share conservatives’ fear of “activist judges”.

However, some of the, um, “creative”  legal theories espoused by some judges, and the grandstanding by certain attorneys general is certainly sufficient to give even well-behaved businesses a healthy sense of paranoia, and a desire to avoid admitting wrongdoing except when absolutely necessary.

No, AG offices and the judiciary aren’t the sole cause of litigation madness in this country.  But they do play a role, I think.

Maybe it’s my imagination, but casual observation has me wondering about a correlation between how judges and AGs are selected, and their respective nuttiness.   After all, when political motivations are in play (such as a desire to be reelected, or a desire to support the leader upon whom your appointment depends), they do expose one to the potential for less-than-purely-objective thought.

Here in Connecticut, we’re treated to quite a bit of entertaining grandstanding by Attorneys General, both by what we see from our own AG Blumenthal, plus the entertainment that can be derived by watching Massachusetts’ AG at work.   Previously, we also had the regional entertainment of New York’s former AG Spitzer.

And while I have personal reason to be thankful for the tenacity of Blumenthal’s office, I can’t help but wonder how much of his antics are politically motivated, rather than a promotion of justice and the rule-of-law in the state.

So, I’m left wondering — should we, as a society, be looking for more objective ways to select our Attorneys General and our judges?

Perhaps moving to a system where such individuals were identified by bipartisan/nonpartisan committee, and appointed to terms detached from our current election cycles would promote a bit more stability, fairness and predictability.

It may be boring, but sometimes boring is good for society.

Like last week’s post, this week’s topic is another on my list which I should have probably made a few notes on.  Like crime last week, there are many potential education sub-topics I could write about….and I will once again resort to a bullet list. 

• One of the more recent annoyances I’ve witnessed (admittedly from the outside, since I don’t have kids) in the past several years is a seeming over-reliance on standardized testing to measure kids’ educational progress.
   
  I do actually agree with the principle that if money is being spent on school programs, some proof should be required that the investment is worthwhile; but in the time that school systems have gone too gung-ho with testing, folks seem to have forgotten that the only thing standardized tests measure is the ability to take standardized tests.
   
• I do have to give President Bush some credit for seeking to prevent learning-disabled children from being left behind in the push to improve school systems.  However, from what I’ve seen and heard here in Connecticut, school systems being obliged to add support for disabled students have had to withdraw support for programs for gifted students.  This potential drag on the best and brightest of the upcoming generation seems rather counterintuitive to me.
   
• I have seemingly conflicting concerns on the subject of teacher pay.  On the one hand, the pittance we pay teachers in this country is appalling.   Personally, I’d love to be a teacher, but I’m not sure that I’d be comfortable trying to provide for my family on a teacher’s salary; thus, I became an actuary instead.  I’m sure that there are many other professionals who have similar thoughts.
   
  On the other hand, one of my recurring gripes with my local school system is the contractually-obliged annual raises that are granted with seemingly little improvement.  What is it that teachers unions have against pay-for-performance?
   
• Looking on to college — is it my imagination, or has college  become ridiculously expensive in the past couple of decades.  I was lucky enough to eke out of school without debt by scholarships, odd jobs, and finishing my degree in 3 years; however, it seems like recent graduates are coming out of university up to their eyeballs in debt.   Perhaps some thought should be given to alternative funding schemes…or perhaps American society needs to start asking if a 4-year university education really necessary for most jobs?

When I outlined the topics I wanted to cover in my “Centrist’s Platform” series of articles, “crime” was one of the topics on the list.

Unfortunately, when it came time to sit down and write this week’s post…I’ve been left wondering exactly what I was going to say…if I even had more than just a topic picked out.  That’s not a good thing, because there are so many sub-topics that could be touched upon….none of which seem to burn brightly in the sky of current events.

Consider the following:

• Earlier this year, headlines were blazing with the statistic that prison population had crept above 1% of the total population of the country — a higher rate than is seen in most other countries.  Is this a problem, or is it a statement about our culture?  How much of it is a testament to a lack of mental health and social services in certain communities, I wonder.
   
• The death penalty is usually a topic that can provoke heated debate.   Personally, I’m extremely uncomfortable with it. I think it’s entirely appropriate for perpetrators of certain heinous crimes to be completely excluded from the benefits from and support of society, which is something that can only really be achieved with banishment or execution.  I’d prefer banishment, but that isn’t practical in today’s world. 
   
  Also, certain apparent inequities in the awarding of the death sentence, leave me questioning whether justice is being applied equally to all.  Plus, if my tax dollars are going to be used to permanently remove someone from society, I want to be d*mn sure that the person really is guilty.
   
• Requiring judges to adhere to certain minimum sentencing requirements is something else I’m extremely uncomfortable with.  I can appreciate the need to foster some consistency, but real life is far more complex, filled with shades of grey, than any black-and-white legal text can attempt to prescribe for.  I’d prefer that judges have the authority to take into special circumstances, or even sometimes prescribe some form of creative, alternative sentence when the situation warrants.
   
• “Three strikes” laws and restrictions placed on where sexual offenders may live after they’ve served their sentence have a definite appeal to most Americans.  However, they always leave me wondering — if a person has paid his/her debt to society, shouldn’t they be treated the same as any other person?  Or, if a released convict is deemed “too risky” and therefore must have restrictions placed upon him/her after release — why the heck are they being released to begin with?

And the list could go on.

However, really, all that I want from a politician when it comes to crime is a sense of realism and fairness, rather than an inclination to pay lip service to the subject for political gain, without really thinking their stances through.

One of the secrets to America’s success has, I think, been its citizens’ and immigrants’ creativity.    We’ve capitalized on those talents, invited individuals of exceptional skill to immigrate here, and we’ve invested in education in an effort to bolster the skills and aid the innovations of future generations.

However, recently I, like many folks I think, have become very concerned that as a country, we might be losing our edge.

Granted, in some respects, that is not necessarily bad news, since it is a reflection of the development in other parts of the world.  Increased technological skills, coupled with semi-free trade arguably create new markets for us, which is probably a good thing.

However, I suspect that to a certain extent, our technological prowess is being dragged down by inefficiencies in our society, xenophobia, and plain ol’ resistance to change.

For example, consider the lowly light bulb.  Incandescent light bulbs have been around for over a hundred years.  And, even though more efficient CFL’s are now easily accessible and prices for LED bulbs are dropping, as a society we seem to be stuck on incandescent bulbs, perhaps because there’s too much money invested in existing incandescent infrastructure, and perhaps because Joe Average American can’t get his mind around these new-fangled twisted lightbulbs.

Consider also how foreign student enrollment in American universities has declined, presumably because of the post-9/11 bureaucratic hurdles that must be crossed to obtain a student visa, as well as the availability of competitive quality education elsewhere.   That brain-drain bodes ill for the future, I think.

I’d like to see our politicians embrace the idea of investing in the nation’s technological future. 

Such embracing should not come in the form of erecting barriers to trade or exchange of ideas.  Don’t prohibit business from going “outside” or be overprotective of existing domestic industries.  Instead, I’d like to see strategic, meaningful investment in new industries and education to support those new industries.

It’s admirable that our political leadership says it wants to fix the ills in today’s society, and ease the suffering of the nation’s disadvantaged.  However, how about daring to display some vision, and foster investment in the future?

So, unless you’ve been living in a cave, you’re probably aware that currently a “credit crunch” and the global economy is reeling.  A few pundits have been opining about how global economic woes are in no small part the result of reality setting in on an American society that has been too reckless in its spending, and which has abused the credit it has had available. 

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a few policy makers start remembering old calls to stimulate saving and investment by Americans, or at least shift disposable incomes away from wasteful spending.

In most cases, I’d have to resist such calls, just as I resist too much government intervention on folks’ personal lives.  Living in a free society means having (within reason) the power to make individual decisions, which comes coupled with the responsibility of accepting responsibility for mistakes one makes.

However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that government can’t or shouldn’t assist citizens by empowering them or even incenting them to make responsible decisions.

We actually try to do that today when it comes to savings.   There is an alphabet soup of vehicles that seek to empower and encourage saving for specific purposes, frequently with tax deferment as an incentive.

We have 401(k)’s, IRA’s, Roth IRA’s, Roth 401(k)’s all available as vehicles to save for retirement.  There are an assortment of programs by which money can be stored away to fund future education.  Many Americans can, through their employers, gain access to special tax-advantaged saving accounts to fund future medical expenses.  And, of course, insurance products are available to provide protections such as income in the event of long-term disability.

Many people take advantage of these programs.  A surprising number do not.

I hypothesize that a reason that folks fail to participate, or at least participate in a suboptimal manner, is that for Americans of modest means, their income is limited enough that participation in designated saving programs becomes a set of “either-or” decisions.  As in, “I have a spare $150 from my paycheck.  Do I put it into my 401(k), or do I put it into a medical saving account?”

I wonder if better participation could be achieved if we didn’t have so many alphabet-soup saving vehicles, each limited to specific purposes.

Why not have one generic tax-advantaged savings account, which can be drawn  upon to provide income in the event of retirement, disability, or unemployment, to pay medical bills, to pay for education expenses, and even to help fund a down-payment on a first home?

It’s great that the government tries to encourage people to save for various purposes.  However, I believe that if low- or middle-income Americans didn’t have to worry about earmarking their limited savings to specific purposes, program utilization would increase.

Many of the subjects I’ve commented on as part of my “Centrist’s Platform” series of posts have been either obscure, or at least not sexy enough to garner attention in the popular mass media.

That’s definitely not the case when talking about health care or health insurance this election season.  Perhaps that’s part of why it’s taken me so long to get around to writing this post — it’s a hot topic, one that has been a recurring theme in this blog, and which it is difficult to say much that I either already haven’t said…or which seems ridiculously self-evident, at least to me.

You see, in this country we have a bit of an inconsistency — we have some of the most advanced medical care available in the world.  We’re a prosperous enough country (ignoring temporary economic blips) that it seems preposterous that anyone in this country shouldn’t have access to the very best medical care.

Unfortunately, such an observation runs flat into another reality — we also have the most expensive medical care in the world.  Part of the reason for advancement of our medical technology and our pharmaceutical arsenal is that there is a lot of money to be made, a fact that tends to attract capital and research attention.

Throw in inefficiencies inherent in the system (overcapacity of certain “sexy” technology, drag from inefficient billing, systemic burden of litigation and the defense therefrom)…and you have the chaotic mess we have today.

Politicians seem to be having a field day tossing around ideas, be they national health care, mandatory private health insurance, malpractice reform, or what-have-you, in an attempt to garner popular support to further their own political careers.

Annoyingly, it seems that much of the debate focuses on maximizing access to health care service or coverage by health insurance plans.  Very few folks seem to be looking at the fundamentals of the problem — that health care is expensive and is becoming more so at an alarming rate — and how to address that.

Improving the availability of health care is a worthy goal…but society won’t be doing itself any favor if, by initially achieving that goal, it dooms itself to bankruptcy in the future.

One of the hot topics in the Dems’ campaigns for the Ohio and Texas primaries was a debate on the merits of NAFTA and free trade in general.

Within the context of that discussion, Ohio and Texas provide an interesting contrast.  On the one hand, you have the rust-belt state of Ohio, which has seemingly been walloped by industry leaving the state for less-costly venues.

On the other hand, you have Texas, which is not only a lower-cost venue, but is seeing a boom from being so centrally located on the new free-trade axis, and the new industry and services that result from that enviable position.

I am a firm believer in the power of the free market.  In the long run, society in general benefits from an environment where trade is free and fair…although the transition to such freedom, and shifts in the general market, can be painful for the folks closest to the change.

However, I suspect that our leaders tend to forget the “and fair” portion of “free and fair trade”.  Granted, fairness is a subjective measure, but “free trade” isn’t supposed to simply be a codeword for “throwing open the doors for a mass exodus of industry without some benefit flowing back”.

When looking at alleged free-trade practices or arrangements, it is I think important to remember that “trade” consists of more than just goods.  True, you would expect to see a shift in manufacturing operations to those areas where it is cheapest or most efficient under a “free and fair” trade environment.

However that freedom shouldn’t be turned into a backdoor to avoid taxation or environmental protections.  And, to be truly fair, that freedom also needs to allow for movement of labor and of capital.  

If it’s more efficient to operate a factory in Country X (even after allowing for the same standards of environmental protection), that’s fine…but let us freely invest in and provide services to Country X in return for giving up the industrial production at home.

Similarly, if it’s more efficient to manufacture in Country X, perhaps provision should be made for some of our manufacturing laborers to have a chance to compete for jobs in Country X…or for Country X’s folks to come here, if the real cause of that disparity is a shortage of cheap labor domestically.

I know that it is likely in the next administration that there will be some reform of “free trade”.  I hope that it won’t be the readoption of inefficient protectionism.  I’d much prefer to see an expansion to “free and fair trade” rather than the half-baked implementation we have today.