I thought I was going to have to do it myself, but this slide-deck from the White House puts together the graphical evidence about economic performance under Obama quite nicely. Highly recommended for people who want to get a sense of context for the economy.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/Documents/20120502_EconomicGrowth.pdf
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
HHS contraceptive mandate debate: summarized
I just got asked for a summary of the HHS contraceptive mandate debate. I've written quite a bit on the topic previously, but since the situation (and my understanding of it) evolved over time, I thought it would be worthwhile to pull together my previous posts and some final commentary. It's worth noting that while the Obama Administration and USCCB seem committed to their final stances, the rules are open for public comment through June, and will only be finalized in August.
The mandate
As part of the Affordable Care Act, all health insurance plans are required to cover preventative care without co-pay, but the definition of such care was left to the executive branch. On the recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences, the Obama Administration included birth control--in particular female birth control, like the pill--in preventative care. This means that all insurers must cover contraceptives without co-pay. The full text of the most up-to-date proposal for the mandate can be found here: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/03/21/2012-6689/certain-preventive-services-under-the-affordable-care-actThe objection
Catholic institutions objected on the grounds that contraception is against the teachings of the Catholic Church. They felt it a breach of religious freedom that they were required to pay for products the primary use of which they considered to be immoral. As the Obama Administration has responded to this objection the complaints have changed. The most recent statements by the USCCB can be found here: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/The response
The administration, gradually, made the following adjustments/clarifications to address the conscientious objections:- The mandate only applies to non-Church organizations, such as Hospitals, Charities, and Schools. Parishes and other institutions who primarily hire and serve Catholics (or people of other objecting faiths) are exempt.
- Insurance organizations must not charge the insuring institution for additional contraceptive coverage.
- For self-insured institutions (most large catholic organizations), the cost of the contraceptive coverage would be born in full by an external entity, rather than by the institution itself.
- (A clarification) The cost of insurance plans with full contraceptive coverage is actually lower than the cost of insurance plans without full contraceptive coverage.
Some links to articles on the subject
My thoughts
Since no Catholic institution will have to pay for contraceptive coverage (free from insurers, and free from insurance managers for self-insured institutions), there is no violation of conscience. Since US law recognizes rights of reproductive freedom and privacy, allowing institutions to inspect employees' sexual practices in the provisioning of healthcare (for instance to cover the pill for ovarian cyst treatment but not contraception) is arguably a violation of employee rights. And since I conceive religious freedom as essentially individual rather than institutional and no individual is coerced by this law, I can find no valid religious-freedom argument against it. The case is further undermined by the governments subsidy of health insurance: taking the government's subsidy means taking the strings attached too. I do think that it might be reasonable to fine non-compliant institutions the exact amount of government subsidy as another means of exemption, but even that butts up against employee rights in an uncomfortable way.
My previous thoughts (in chronological order)
These kind of shift around as the situation and my view of it shifts, but the in series they follow all the important points of argument, and the comments often include useful insights or counter-arguments.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Why do we disagree?
This question matters. It determines the scope of debate and helps us understand differing viewpoints. It is also answered with confusion or misinformation with hilarious frequency. I'll touch on how to think about these disagreements and briefly highlight some examples of confusion in the tax and voter ID debates. Anyway, why do we disagree?
In politics, it seems to come down to a few things:
In politics, it seems to come down to a few things:
- Differing, empirically testable, ideas about the world (facts)
- Differing, empirically testable, ideas about how the world works (models)
- Differing ideas about the proper values and goals of society
- Differing ideas about the proper powers of government
- What is the world like?
- What can we do about it?
- What should we do about it?
- How shouldn't we do it?
None of that is terribly controversial, but I think that people often confuse the origins of their disagreement.
I often, for instance, hear conservatives saying that the government shouldn't raise taxes on the rich, but depending on who you talk to, the answer to why varies a lot. For some it is "because they are job creators", but for others it is "because it isn't fair". These world views have the same conclusion, but different implications. We can, to some extent, test the proposition that raising taxes will mean less job creation. If a person genuinely believes this to be the primary reason not to raise taxes on the rich, then empirical arguments are the most appropriate forum of discussion. For the "it isn't fair" person, the proper arguments are philosophical--diminishing marginal utility, &c. Of course, people often convolve many different types of reasons, or simply hold positions as an aspect of group identity, but the basic point still stands.
Now, I don't think it is impossible to convince people to change their positions in 3 & 4 type disagreements, but it's substantially harder. It is, however, possible to give people better access to facts, and in many cases that changes the nature of the discussion for the better.
Presenting evidence of the extremely low incidence of voter ID fraud, for instance, seems to have shifted the debate from "we need to curb rampant voter ID fraud" to "it is right and proper for voters to show ID in order to vote". In other words, the debate has shifted from an empirical one to an ideological one. From my perspective, that is good, because ideological questions are the only valid questions to ask voters in my idealized constitutional anarchy model of government. Voters are, in fact, quite bad at discerning which facts and models best reflect the real world. But, they are excellent at determining what they think are good goals to focus on as a society, and what they think are categorically unacceptable ways of achieving those goals.
I'll have more on practical applications of this idea, and ways in which it might help move the debate forward in a later post.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Church & State
It seems like freedom of religion has been roiling about a bit more than usual in the national consciousness, so I thought I'd take a poke at what I think is important in this idea and what it means for good governance. Basically, this is about a natural tension between the desire for people of faith to exercise their political will in accordance with their personal beliefs, and the need for government to permit, value and tolerate the beliefs of those outside the majority-faith.
Now, this is a real contradiction. People of faith should certainly be allowed to vote for policies in keeping with their beliefs, but those who don't share those beliefs shouldn't be prevented from practicing appropriately because of those policies. Tricky widget.
The tools that we bring to this challenge on behalf of people of faith are freedom of speech (& expression, & religion, & to assemble peaceably) and the idea of conscientious objection. But, in a nod to diversity, we constrain these freedoms in both scope and context. These constraints are the subject of much bickering--as they should be--so I kind of want to lay out the ones that I see and what I think of them.
1. People of faith cannot justify impeding the safety or freedom of others by citing religious practice.
This principle allows limiting or outlawing animal sacrifice, curbing faith sanctioned abuse and murder, and applying the fire code to religious buildings. Creationists can't squash the teaching of evolutionary fact (though boy do they love to try).
2. Conscientious objection is legal only when it is demonstrably non-opportunistic, and only exempts the objector from direct participation in the objectionable act.
This is clearly the case in wartime, where pacifists a) still pay taxes that support the war effort and b) often end up as medics or otherwise indirectly involved participants in the conflict.
3. Public institutions, offices, and officers acting in their official capacities are severely constrained in their ability to proselytize, endorse particular religions, or adopt explicitly sectarian practices. This seems primarily to be true of un-elected officials.
We're not always super successful at applying this rule, but it is certainly a general principal at work in our country.
Basically, I think that what's going on here is that we as a society recognize that the rights of others constrain our own rights, and observe a moral distinction between personal life and public service.
Some interesting general distinctions arise:
1. That the practice of faith can be properly limited to the personal, or limited to the community of the faithful.
2. That the right of the faithful to object is limited to the eschewing of direct action contrary to faith and the peaceful--read here as non-disruptive, as opposed to non-violent--protest of such actions (and of course the right to vote according to belief).
3. That the faith rights of individuals do not extend to the public institutions in which they serve, and the official capacities in which they act. When acting on behalf of the public, they must respect the constitutional constraints of church and faith.
Now, this is a real contradiction. People of faith should certainly be allowed to vote for policies in keeping with their beliefs, but those who don't share those beliefs shouldn't be prevented from practicing appropriately because of those policies. Tricky widget.
The tools that we bring to this challenge on behalf of people of faith are freedom of speech (& expression, & religion, & to assemble peaceably) and the idea of conscientious objection. But, in a nod to diversity, we constrain these freedoms in both scope and context. These constraints are the subject of much bickering--as they should be--so I kind of want to lay out the ones that I see and what I think of them.
1. People of faith cannot justify impeding the safety or freedom of others by citing religious practice.
This principle allows limiting or outlawing animal sacrifice, curbing faith sanctioned abuse and murder, and applying the fire code to religious buildings. Creationists can't squash the teaching of evolutionary fact (though boy do they love to try).
2. Conscientious objection is legal only when it is demonstrably non-opportunistic, and only exempts the objector from direct participation in the objectionable act.
This is clearly the case in wartime, where pacifists a) still pay taxes that support the war effort and b) often end up as medics or otherwise indirectly involved participants in the conflict.
3. Public institutions, offices, and officers acting in their official capacities are severely constrained in their ability to proselytize, endorse particular religions, or adopt explicitly sectarian practices. This seems primarily to be true of un-elected officials.
We're not always super successful at applying this rule, but it is certainly a general principal at work in our country.
Basically, I think that what's going on here is that we as a society recognize that the rights of others constrain our own rights, and observe a moral distinction between personal life and public service.
Some interesting general distinctions arise:
1. That the practice of faith can be properly limited to the personal, or limited to the community of the faithful.
2. That the right of the faithful to object is limited to the eschewing of direct action contrary to faith and the peaceful--read here as non-disruptive, as opposed to non-violent--protest of such actions (and of course the right to vote according to belief).
3. That the faith rights of individuals do not extend to the public institutions in which they serve, and the official capacities in which they act. When acting on behalf of the public, they must respect the constitutional constraints of church and faith.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Some sustainability science of interest
I saw this article which does a nice job of summing up some of the thoughts and concerns regarding the impact of ecological damage. I don't know why exactly this topic interests me, other than that it seems to be a part of politics where I'm right of left and left of right and don't have much in the way of company in the discourse. Still, I'll keep posting informational articles until I get bored or form some substantial opinions that can stand on their own in the company of the evidence.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Validation!
Just for the record, there are some economists just as skeptical about local foods as I am.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2011/LuskNorwoodlocavore.html
There you go. I'm not a crazy person. May still be wrong, but officially not crazy.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2011/LuskNorwoodlocavore.html
There you go. I'm not a crazy person. May still be wrong, but officially not crazy.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Terms of Art and Points of Agreement in Sustainability
Right, so first of all, I'd like to declare victory on the "local" aspect of this environmental argument (which was the whole point of these pots... the rest of the sustainability stuff just appeared as a side effect). The ongoing comment-blog debate has basically shifted entirely away from issues of local and small-scale farming. I've noticed some points of confusion arising from terms of art, and some points of broad agreement, so I want to highlight the latter and clarify the former in this post.
Where the sustainafreaks and I are in agreement:
1. Companies need to pay the real costs of the damage done by their pollution. I come at this from a broadly economic (more on that later) rather than ecological perspective, but the conclusion is the same. If you are going to pollute or otherwise harm people, the cost of that externality (economic term-of-art) should be included into your operating costs. That would go a long way to leveling the playing field between "green" industry and traditional industry.
2. Again, from a purely economic perspective, we shouldn't be subsidizing farms (or, really, much of anything at all except basic research and some other things prone to market failures). If this incidentally furthers ecological aims, that's a bonus.
Terms of art:
The big thing that I wanted to mention in this is that when I say "reduced quality of life" I'm borrowing a term of art from economics. The fact that I think of this phrase primarily in the economic way probably says something about how far down the rabbit whole I've gone in my reading, but there it is. As a side note, while some people would happily abandon many modern amenities, I'd say that they aren't the majority case. I can tell by how people keep voluntarily buying all this extra stuff they "don't need". Everyone has a list like the one in the comments about what bits of modern life they like and want to keep, but the point is that these lists don't overlap, and the people who don't want certain modern amenities can (and do) decline to purchase them. The fact that we keep making these things indicates that for many people they are standard of living enhancing even in the common sense.
As a side note, I also use the word "externality" a lot, which is basically a cost of production born by society rather than the producer. Pollution is the canonical example of this sort of thing, and basically every branch of economics thinks that such things should be forced into the cost of production and passed on as added prices.
And because I can't help myself...
Places where we hilariously disagree, or are miscommunicating (limited in scope to sustainability):
Where the sustainafreaks and I are in agreement:
1. Companies need to pay the real costs of the damage done by their pollution. I come at this from a broadly economic (more on that later) rather than ecological perspective, but the conclusion is the same. If you are going to pollute or otherwise harm people, the cost of that externality (economic term-of-art) should be included into your operating costs. That would go a long way to leveling the playing field between "green" industry and traditional industry.
2. Again, from a purely economic perspective, we shouldn't be subsidizing farms (or, really, much of anything at all except basic research and some other things prone to market failures). If this incidentally furthers ecological aims, that's a bonus.
Terms of art:
The big thing that I wanted to mention in this is that when I say "reduced quality of life" I'm borrowing a term of art from economics. The fact that I think of this phrase primarily in the economic way probably says something about how far down the rabbit whole I've gone in my reading, but there it is. As a side note, while some people would happily abandon many modern amenities, I'd say that they aren't the majority case. I can tell by how people keep voluntarily buying all this extra stuff they "don't need". Everyone has a list like the one in the comments about what bits of modern life they like and want to keep, but the point is that these lists don't overlap, and the people who don't want certain modern amenities can (and do) decline to purchase them. The fact that we keep making these things indicates that for many people they are standard of living enhancing even in the common sense.
As a side note, I also use the word "externality" a lot, which is basically a cost of production born by society rather than the producer. Pollution is the canonical example of this sort of thing, and basically every branch of economics thinks that such things should be forced into the cost of production and passed on as added prices.
And because I can't help myself...
Places where we hilariously disagree, or are miscommunicating (limited in scope to sustainability):
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)