I guess I can start out by pointing out that you said:
Can anyone who likes either "federalism' or "decentralization" be proud of the actual performance of our major states?
But then you said
If truth be known, I don't know of any state or country that provides a particularly inspiring model of both democratic and effective governance

It seems like you have defeated your own premise by acknowledging the problem of poor governance is not (necessarily) begat from “federalism” or “decentralization”, but seems to be a general ailment of all societies. I don't have a solution, but I think a more rational explanation (in the States, at least) is party. California is ungovernable because of party loyalty. A 2/3 vote should not be impossible if the representatives were putting the people first, and not their party. New York is all about party control of the Senate. Minnesota involves a fight between the Dems in the legislature and the Republican Governor on a tax hike to balance the budget. Texas is all about the legislative dems trying to block voter ID. Could better deals be made without the fear of being punished by your party? Could an incumbent cross lines to reach a good deal for the people if he/she didn't have to fear a primary attack from his/her party's natural flank? The two party system creates conditions making compromise more difficult, not less, which should be the opposite of what a deliberative body is supposed to do.

To me, (and I think even Madison would agree) this is where the true error in the Constitutions (fed and state) lies. Any Constitutional “fixes” are pointless if they aren't directed at correcting for the problems created by party. I've thought for years the biggest threat facing the US is the republican party. The second biggest? The dems.
 

"And, even if the weight given the New Hampshire primary is ludicrous, New Hampshirites are also inspiring in the seriousness with which they take their truly 'active citizenship.'"

Years ago I proposed a new license plate slogan for New Hampshire: "VOTE FIRST OR DIE!" Frankly, NH has looked much better politically in recent years due to the move there of residents from MA resulting in political shifts.

Many experiments fail, so the laboratories of some states may fail. But some of the failures have resulted from actions taken at the Federal level establishing expensive programs, the costs of which the Feds passed on to the states when they became too expensive for the Feds to continue to fund. And most states are limited by their constitutions to balanced budgets, whereas the Feds are not. Too bad Brandeis is no longer with us to address this. The Feds and the states share blame.
 

Small states are generally less messy, more orderly, and easier to govern than large ones. They are also more inclined to degenerate into cozy little oligarchies where everything is done on the sly.

I recall after Gov. Blagoevich was arrested TPM has a sort of perverse contest to see whose state was most corrupt. It is fair to ask which (if any) is best governed. (Any suggestions?) Or is it ultimately a question that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence?
 

Not to sound naive, but isn't this post an argument in favor of federalism? If these states are so screwed up just operating in their on little spheres, why should we want to open the entire nation up to this craziness?
 

Defects in the constitutional framework would matter a lot less if it weren't for the "other pathologies" Prof. Levinson asks about. At the same time, bad design contributes to the development of the pathologies.

The seemingly perpetual gridlock over state budgets in California (where I live) provides a helpful example. The two-third requirement to pass a budget or raise taxes is a central element of this situation. But it would matter much less if there were any moderates at all in the state legislature. As things are, it matters a lot.

The question in my mind is, where does the polarization come from? Why does a population whose opinions on most things form a bell-shaped curve end up being "represented" by a legislature whose opinions are more like the two humps of camel's back? The primary answer lies in the increasing geographical segregation of Red from Blue (other pathology) within the state, in the context of winner-take-all election rules (constitutional framework).

(Gerrymandering, which many people blame, might add something to this process but is not the prime over.)

Make the legislature more representative, and the two-thirds rule would be less important because there would be centrist representatives would could broker the necessary compromises. Perhaps ironically, the two-thirds rule seems so important to its defenders precisely because we don't have proportional representation, which is the right way to protect minority interests.

The "other pathologies" matter a lot, but fixing them often (usually?) involves fixing problems hardwired into the institutional framework.
 

At the risk of appearing parochial, I would suggest Colorado has earned the right to serve as an example of democratic and effective governance.

Because our constitution effectively binds our politicians and functionally requires a vote of the People for government to raise taxes to assume additional functions, Colorado provides the basic government services most folks want while remaining solvent and economically viable.

This recession which is destroying places like CA, NY, MI, etc has largely bypassed Colorado. Our state has already turned the corner and local economists expect economic growth to return by the 3d or 4th Q of this year.

I would suggest that this is not an accident.
 

As another CA resident, I basically agree with Bob Richard. I think the 2/3 rules (budget and local tax increases) are fundamentally unrepublican and need to go, but the failure of the legislature to actually represent the body politic surely contributes to the problem.

I'm skeptical of the diagnosis of party as the problem. Not that it isn't a problem; it certainly is (with the modern Republican Party more accurately described as a faction in Madison's derogatory usage). It's more that I don't see any historical or even theoretical basis for the operation of a republic without party politics.

Are there things we could do to control the pernicious effects of party? Sure. Part of the solution (at least in CA) is to institute majority rule where it's now lacking. Part of it may very well be to take the process of apportionment away from the legislature, though most of the suggestions to that effect have their own flaws.

Ultimately, though, Madison was right in Federalist 10: "As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. ... The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man...."

We just have to accept that people are going to disagree, often intensely, about politics. As long as we circumscribe the playing field a bit to avoid real infringements on the liberty which is essential to the continued operation of the system, we should celebrate that disagreement as part of the success of a republic. Beats the hell out of bullets.
 

To clarify, the Prime Minister of Canada acted like a dictator by asking to prorogue Parliament, not by refusing to prorogue it (prorogue basically means to shut the legislative session down before it's slated to be over).

The Canadian provinces tend to be fairly well run; they certainly seem to deliver social services more effectively than the Federal government.

Indeed, I think that it is the Canadian Federal government that tends towards dysfunction, and that it is the Canadian federation that tends to be ungovernable. There is a lot of regional squabbling in Canada.
 

Although experts will always argue about the prorogation, the "dictator" remark is silly and overblown. Basically, the minority Conservatives had just obtained a confidence vote. They then put forward a quasi-budget that included measures the opposition didn't like. The opposition parties put together an agreement that they would defeat the government. Harper asked the Governor General for a month-long adjournment, and she gave it to him. By the time Parliament resumed, the deal among the opposition parties (which was overwhelmingly unpopular with the electorate) had fallen apart, and so far they have let the government continue.

Provincial governments in Canada spend money far more effectively than the federal government. Their constitutional arrangements (Westminster-style responsible government) are the same as the federal one.
 

Mark -

I agree there is no avoiding party, and indeed, party is a good thing in a lot of circumstances. Constitutional fixes need to address the negative repercussions created by the necessary evil of parties. I thought the open primary in CA would have helped reduce the potential of the extremes being over represented.

However, I would contend it isn't just party, but the two party system that is the major problem in the US. More parties, I think would create more fluid coalitions, which would hopefully more accurately represent the people, and prevent gridlock.

I have to disagree that the 2/3 rule is unrepublican - it may be undemocratic, but the idea of a restrained majority seems entirely consistent with a republican government.
 

I'm happy to stand corrected on the proroguing of the Canadian parliament. If "dictatorial" is perhaps hyperbolic, is "audaciously pushing the envelope" acceptable?
 

I know we have discussed these matters previously, and I may be repeating myself, but I do think that size matters. (ouch)

In fact, both the population and geographic size of a state matter - in some kind of relation I won't hazard to define.

Further, although 'parties' are inevitable, I believe that our two-party system is a particular problem. It inhibits genuine representation, and it encourages polarizing extremism. I have some hope that the increasing number of self-identified 'Independents' might signal the creation of a new party - one that would represent the moderate majority.

By the way,it's nice to 'talk' and 'listen' to you all, again. Thanks to Prof. L for having comments open.
 

I'm glad to see several people mention that one of the major problems with political parties is having exactly two of them. I left that point out of my first pitch for the central role of mechanisms of representation in all this.

That said, I suspect that the impulse to curse political parties in general is strong in the countries that have proportional representation, parliamentary government and multi-party political systems. Maybe not as strong as here, though.
 

One of the big problems in this country, at least, is that with the relentless marche of campaign and election 'reforms', our elections have gotten very uncompetative. Which is as you'd expect it, given that the election and campaign laws are being written by incumbants.

Personally? I think there's a lot to be said for election by lot, as a way to prevent the growth of a self-contained ruling class distinct from the populace at large.
 

I would contend it isn't just party, but the two party system that is the major problem in the US. More parties, I think would create more fluid coalitions, which would hopefully more accurately represent the people, and prevent gridlock.

I'm personally skeptical of multi-party systems. I like the way a two party system tends to force both to the middle.

That said, I'm not unalterably opposed to a multi-party system as long as the barrier is high enough to prevent fringe elements from having a decisive voice (as tends to be true in Israel). I don't pretend to know what the percentage should be.
 

I have to disagree that the 2/3 rule is unrepublican - it may be undemocratic, but the idea of a restrained majority seems entirely consistent with a republican government.

While it's true that restraints on the majority are consistent with republican government, those restraints have to be carefully defined. Majority rule is a fundamental principle of republics no less than democracies, and was so understood at the Founding. Some examples:

George Washington, Message to the Third Congress, November 19, 1794 (discussing the Whiskey Rebellion): “to yield to the treasonable fury of so small a portion of the United States would be to violate the fundamental principle of our Constitution, which enjoins that the will of the majority shall prevail.”

The House of Representatives, making formal response to President Washington praising his handling of the Whiskey Rebellion: “It has demonstrated to the candid world, as well as to the American People themselves, that the great body of them, everywhere, are equally attached to the luminous and vital principle of our Constitution which enjoins that the will of the majority shall prevail....”

Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address: “[I]t is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government.... absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics....”

In Federalist 58, James Madison responded to an anti-Federalist argument that the quorum in the House of Representatives ought to be more than a majority. In fact, this anti-Federalist argued, the Constitution should have required more than a majority for certain votes. Madison rejected these arguments as leading to minority rule, a rule inconsistent with fundamental republican principle:
“It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale.

In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.”

Similarly, Alexander Hamilton criticized the Articles of Confederation precisely because they required more than a majority vote: “Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. … To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision) is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. … The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater….”

Basically, majority rule is a necessary consequence of the fact that the people are sovereign. That can only remain true if the people make decisions by majority vote.

Now, it's true that we recognize limits to uninhibited majority rule. There have been many treatises on the nature and purpose of those limits, but nobody has ever suggested that those limits ought to apply to spending or taxing decisions as CA does. Historically, it was the insistence by the House of Commons on the right of the majority to make such decisions which led to the triumph of majority rule and popular sovereignty itself.
 

Mark:

There have been many treatises on the nature and purpose of those limits, but nobody has ever suggested that those limits ought to apply to spending or taxing decisions as CA does.

The Founders did not have the vaguest concept of the modern welfare state, entitlements or public employee unions.

Since the advent of those features of the modern state, there are been many treatises about the necessity of structural curbs on taxing and spending.

California's pending insolvency problem arises from the failure of its structural curbs to limit run away taxing and spending.
 

Just wanted to say thanks for this post, Sandy. (See, I don't always just bitch.)

Funny, too, that you mentioned Norway. I just took a class with Prof. Asbjørn Eide. He seemed to be a fan of the country. :)
 

As a N.Y. resident, I will say a word about the current circus.

First off, as a whole, I have found living in NY a pretty good experience as a whole over the years. The play/movie 1776 suggested the NY legislature was a mess for two hundred years, but the state is doing okay. This means something.

The system might be dysfunctional, but there is a reason many don't seem to care.

Second, the current mess is a result of factors not all related to structure. Structure didn't cause the governor with some potential to change things for the better to leave because of a sex scandal. This left a weaker person in control, but any football fan realizes that we often don't put enough effort in back-ups.

Also, helped by gerrymander that made thing closer, we wound up with a state senate narrowly divided. This means -- see Israel and the problems with some third party arrangements -- a few independents have a lot of power. Since the two who threw their power to the Republicans are seedy sorts (one under indictment for domestic violence), this is particularly troubling.

A leadership vacuum -- the former (?) majority leader is due to lose his role as Democratic leader -- also hurt. But, this was not somehow compelled by the structure of the system. Current events suggest it also might be self-correcting.

I would think there is an chicken/egg issue here. Sandy wonders if the Constitution is the problem, which is important given his campaign to replace the U.S. one. But, it seems as likely that we have constitutions that match our people. Thus, a divided legislature matched a divide (roughly upstate/downstate) of the state itself.

Also, he suggests the value of unicameral legislature. It would seem to me that when 49 states do something, they do it for a reason.

As to the ban on locked doors, I see that was around in 1788 and reference to keeping an journal and "unless the Business may in their Opinion requires Secrecy" suggests it was an open government measure, not a guard against adjournment of the kind shown here.

Oh, and NY might be a big state, but we had some pretty good senators over the years, including the one who gave us our next Supreme Court justice, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, one President, and the current Secretary of State. Looking at a list, 'showboating demagogues' is not what comes to mind.
 

Mark Field btw quotes some people who spoke about the importance of majority rule. On the whole, of course, this has bite.

But, they were fine with a system that was not supportive of that.
This includes the U.S. Senate, limited suffrage, and so forth. In fact, this applied to taxing and spending too.

The problem in CA appears to be the lengths minority rule is taken.
 

But, they were fine with a system that was not supportive of that.
This includes the U.S. Senate, limited suffrage, and so forth.

I basically agree with this, but I'll add a couple of nitpicks:

1. At least technically, there's a distinction between the breadth of the franchise and majority rule.

2. Madison vehemently opposed the unrepresentative Senate. He may very well have been willing to walk out of the Convention over it, but others gave in.
 

Madison, I reckon, bowed to the operative majority will on the matter?
 

I am unsurprised that you reject federalism. It's messy. It allows one state to experiment and another not. It allows what philosopher Karl Popper considered vital for a pluralistic democracy: piecemeal social engineering without autodidact from a central party.

I doubt Sandy is a Marxist, but the temptation to "universalize" all facets of state, as the wise Antony Appiah rejected as rejecting the "primacy of practice" for the primacy of central planning, just like the central planning in Washington knows "best" for me in San Francisco, when the Speaker doesn't, not to mention one of our senators. I prefer subsidiarity, rather than monolithic central control -- of most things.

I would not bet on Geithners', Sumners', and Rubin's unilateral actions as succeeding, but if it fails, what then? The whole country goes down the tube? Yeah, like the U.S.S.R. No! Piecemeal social engineering needs multiple experiments. You want the hierarchy from on high to rule. Go Mao.
 

Bart:

Because our constitution effectively binds our politicians and functionally requires a vote of the People for government to raise taxes to assume additional functions, Colorado provides the basic government services most folks want while remaining solvent and economically viable.

Why, that's just what happened in California as well! Imagine that....

And despite "Bart"'s bragging here, I doubt that Colorado is really doing any better than other states. The financial meltdown is national if not global in extent.

Cheers,
 

Madison, I reckon, bowed to the operative majority will on the matter?

Heh. Madison would have done so, I suspect, since he in fact did that with the Bank. In this case, however, he gave in to the minority of people but a majority of states. In a nation built on the principle of sovereignty of the people, that's not easy to justify and Madison never did get over it (see his grudging acceptance in Federalist 62).
 

Arne:

MSNBC is reporting CA entered recession in back in Dec 07.

CO did not enter recession until Nov 08.

Moody's Economy.com is projecting Colorado among the first five states to restart job growth in 4Q 2009.

California is not projected to start hiring again until 3Q 2010, if then.

Unemployment is a lagging indicator. Colorado economists are already reporting signs of returned economic growth in the morning news today.

California will have to languish for another year.

Colorado is looking at a 7-9 month recession.

California is looking at around 24 months.
 

Arne,

Colorado is blessed with relatively recession-resistant employers, such as a very high number of federal installations, the brewing industry, and agriculture.

Of course, having these as large employers also means that, when the recovery comes, it won't be as strong in Colorado as it will be in California, for example.

I don't think we can really look to Colorado as a beacon of good government. Their state constitution seems entirely unexceptional, design-wise. The usual bicameral legislature, state bureaucracy, and so on.

The passage of the 1992 supermajority requirement for tax increases hasn't helped keep an educated workforce, which may explain why people from states with good education systems have been moving there in recent years. I've heard a close relative with children in school there state that Colorado can't fund secondary education -- and he's a conservative.

If I am incorrect, I'd love to have someone tell me what features in the state constitution create the difference, because, on the face of things, the difference in harshness of the recession appears to be an accident of geography.
 

C2H50H informs us:

"Colorado is blessed with relatively recession-resistant employers, such as a very high number of federal installations, the brewing industry, and agriculture."

but failed to include the "blessing" of our resident LLB* who staunchly supported Bush/Cheney for 8 years and staunchly challenges Obama/Biden who have to clean up all the crap. I recall our resident LLB* regaling us with his stock market expertise leading him to such great profits, perhaps relying upon his minor in economics. Now he is touting Colorada. My, my, our resident LLB* should perhaps be emulated since everything he does - defend Bush/Cheney and their policies - successful stock picks - a premier legal practice of DUI (attributable to the blessing of Colorado's brewing industry?) - pre-emptively critical of Obama/Biden - why Colorado must be a veritable Garden of Eden.

But our resident LLB*'s crowing demonstrates a problem of federalism - my state's better than your state. Times have changed since 1789 in too many ways to mention on this Blog. But we are a nation and all states have to pull together to keep this nation economically strong. CA has had its ups and downs. So have many other states. No one state has the successful experiment that the others can emulate. One size does not fit all. And that's why we need a federal government that works, especially when Bush/Cheney dumped 8 years of crap on Obama/Biden. (An earlier post on this Blog focused on David Leonhardt's NYTimes front page article on June 10, 2009 titled: "Sea of Red Ink: How It Spread From a Puddle - Bush, Obama and a Long-Gone Surplus.")

There seems to be a touch of Schadenfruede with some of the comments on this thread. But consider a chain as being no stronger than its weakest link. As a nation we need action and leadership that will pull the states - and thus he nation - together, not pull them apart. Without this we may see Joseph Schumpeter's creative destructionism of capitalism extended to democratic/republican governance.

*Little Lisa's bro
 

Bart: I said "other states". Learn to read.

The only thing I mentioned California for was to point out that it also requires voter approval to raise taxes. I admit it is a basket case, but that hardly supports your argument.

Your hypothesis is still very much only that:

Because our constitution effectively binds our politicians and functionally requires a vote of the People for government to raise taxes to assume additional functions, Colorado provides the basic government services most folks want while remaining solvent and economically viable.

Typical BartSpew: Unsupported bullsh*te which curiously and coincidentally matches his political ideological "talking points".

Cheers,
 

As to Mark's follow-up, on some matters, we (as in we the majority) do let the minority have their way. In fact, Art. VII assumes this. But, I respect your point overall.

Shag notes:

"One size does not fit all. And that's why we need a federal government that works."

Both are true enough, but they sort of at times go against each other. The fact we are all in this together is true enough. As noted in an opinion that deserves more coverage (including Justice Jackson's excellent concurrence):

The Constitution was framed under the dominion of a political philosophy less parochial in range. It was framed upon the theory that the peoples of the several states must sink or swim together, and that in the long run prosperity and salvation are in union and not division.

Federalism suggests a role for the local and the national. Experience suggests this is still true, even if both have problems.
 

Edwards v. California
 

C2H50H/Arne:

Colorado's TABOR has two caps - one on spending and one on taxes. Both require popular votes to lift. This is why it is impossible for the state to spend itself into insolvency ala CA.

Given that Congress has given up any pretense of fiscal responsibility and is in the process of debasing the currency and bankrupting the nation, a TABOR provision with an exception for declared wars should be item one on the agenda for Sandy's federal constitutional convention. Politicians have proven themselves incapable of managing the modern welfare state and require constitutional checks.
 

California is hardly unique in having more dollars committed by the state than there are dollars coming in. Lots of other states have the same problem.

What makes California unique, or at least unusual, is its constitution, combined with partisan politics in the legislature, overly constrain the problem so there is no solution.

The problem admits of three solutions: reduce dollars going out, increase dollars coming in, or some combination of the two. One party objects to the first solution, the other party to the second, and both parties to each side of the third.

Breaking this deadlock by majority vote is not admissible because the state constitution requires a two thirds majority. This allows a minority to hold the solution hostage; a minority consisting entirely of one party is equally sufficient and turns out to be exactly what obtains.

Thus the problem is overly constrained; all solutions vanish.

Analysis and experience show that the constitutional requirement of two thirds is what turns this into a constant problem. Relaxing this constraint is an obvious approach, and is much talked about hereabouts these days.

A slightly larger view notes that certain commitments cost money this year but end up saving money. Disease, ignorance, crime, and institutional care are expensive. This is all straightforward analysis but it too has become hostage to the same constraint. From this it's likely that a chunk of eventual cuts done to appease a minority whose rallying cry is to cut government cost will end up increasing government cost, sometimes in very short order.

This is an example of the mess created by the overly constrained problem. It was not created by the finite dollars coming in; the same finite dollars will hit up against the increased cost, soon and for many years to come. It was not created by the commitments in place; all states have some level of services, and some of these commitments actually save money. It was created by the situation that makes it impossible to make good decisions. Constitutional issue? Sure, in part.
 

Bart:

Politicians have proven themselves incapable of managing the modern welfare state...

... politicians like Gramm et al., and the Republicans who looted the country's treasury as well as plundered the markets, and drove out nation to the brink of another Great Depression. And you misspelled (or omitted) "corporatocratic".

Cheers,
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Arne:

1) When Gramm last served in Congress, the budget was in surplus thanks to the Gingrich reforms.

In the era of hope and change, we currently have a Trillion dollar deficit en route to a $1.8 Trillion tidal wave of red ink for 2009 alone with Trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

2) The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act simply allowed financial institutions to compete with one another and had nothing to do with the Freddie and Fannie's extension of sup prime loans to the non-creditworthy.
 

jpk:

Government budgeting should be based upon the assumption that the government will limit its spending to the amount of revenues the People are willing to pay in taxes.

California's (and our Congress') problem is that the political class feels entitled to a certain level of spending and wishes to compel the tax payers to provide the required funds and the tax payers have told them no.

This begs the question of whether the political class works for the People or the reverse.
 

Does our resident LLB* understand cause and effect:

"When Gramm last served in Congress, the budget was in surplus thanks to the Gingrich reforms."

without telling us when and why Gingrich resigned as Mr. Speakah?

As to the Gingrich reforms, did any of them relate to why he resigned?

And why doesn't our resident LLB* reference the surplus when Clinton left office for Bush/Cheney's SCOTUS appointment?

Gramm and his spouse demonstrated their economic/financial wizardry with Enron.

And why does our resident LLB* ignore David Leonhardt's NYTimes front page article on the deficit fault lines of Bush/Cheney for 8 years?

Reality gets in his way - and bites!

*Little Lisa's bro
 

It sure would be nice to read comments that are not peppered with invective and ad hominem. Rebuttals that seek to debase or belittle your opponent do not help advance your position and only serve to make you look small and irrelevant.
 

It sure would be nice to read comments that are not peppered with invective and ad hominem. Rebuttals that seek to debase or belittle your opponent do not help advance your position and only serve to make you look small and irrelevant.

# posted by Craig : 4:31 PM



And yet, here we are.
 

And yet, here we are.
# posted by Blogger Bartbuster : 4:38 PM

Indeed.
 

Where dreams of reasoned discourse go to die.
 

Bart:

1) When Gramm last served in Congress, the budget was in surplus thanks to the Gingrich reforms.

Beautiful. Stating your conclusion as a predicate. Interesting combination of circulus in demonstrando and cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Once again, unsupported RW "talking points" bull effluvia. See below (and Shag's comment) on Gramm. And it's bizarre for the Republican "talking points" spewers to blame the Macs for any part they had in this ... when they were private companies!!!

In the era of hope and change, we currently have a Trillion dollar deficit en route to a $1.8 Trillion tidal wave of red ink for 2009 alone with Trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

Yes. Prof. Balkin blogged about that.

2) The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act simply allowed financial institutions to compete with one another and had nothing to do with the Freddie and Fannie's extension of sup prime loans to the non-creditworthy.

Now a "red herring" tossed in. That's not what GLB did. It allowed banks to construct, market, and sell these risky securities that made everyone want to issue as many mortgages as they could and sell them off, so everyone made big bucks along the way on the rising [read: "speculative"] market. And it made AIG become a "savings and loan" (or "thrift") for purposes of lax regulation so it could underwrite these debt-based Ponzi schemes.

Being Republican means never saying you're sorry (to paraphrase Gore's college buddy).

Cheers,
 

The definition of irony:

[Craig]: It sure would be nice to read comments that are not peppered with invective and ad hominem. Rebuttals that seek to debase or belittle your opponent do not help advance your position and only serve to make you look small and irrelevant.

Cheers,
 

Germany's division of power between the central and state governments puts much more of the state bureacracy at the state level, adminmistering the laws, and much more private law at the federal level, and the balance works rather better (Germany also has more partisan local government).

Canada follows a similar pattern in a less doctrinaire way. And, while Americans rant about pork barrel politics, many Canadians wish that federal funds were more geographically distributed and have pushed for political structures the create more pork barrel politics.

Ironically, both Germany and Canada adjudicate federal private law rights mostly in state courts.

One of the big virtues of having a lot of fiscal activity go on at the state level is not that they won't fail. Fiscal deadlock is unlikely to hit in California and Texas and Florida and New York and Illinois all at the same time. Similar virtues attach to having elections conducted administrative at the state, rather than the federal level. Unless the divide in very close, a slow resolution in a Minnesota race for U.S. Senate, or a vote counting problem in the state with the marginal electoral votes doesn't bring the Republican to a halt (Bush v. Gore being the exception that proves the rule).

States continue the pattern. The most essential functions like schools, law enforcement and trash collection are highly decentralized, so deadlock in one part of a state due to strike or democratic failure to agree on a budget doesn't foul up the rest of the state.
 

Has Craig's-List invaded Balkinization? Curious, I linked onto Craig and found it listless. Maybe he/she needs a sense of humor transplant. Or a lesson on how to challenge unsupported factual allegations that go on and on and on ... even when challenged.
 

Shag/Arne:

1) If you do not want to make yourself appear ridiculous, do not quote the NYT for anything concerning economics unless it comes from the business section, and even then look for political land mines.

2) Too bad Jack did not open up his post promoting the NYT flow chart claiming to track the federal deficit. With all due respect to Jack, only a partisan moron would have given that lie packed partisan CYA of the Obama deficit any credence whatsoever.

I could not resist shooting Jack the attached following email:

Jack:

If you do not want to look ridiculous, you may want to avoid citing the NYT on economics in the future. The chart which you posted is so incredibly dishonest that it is hard to know where to begin. Here are a few lowlights:

1) There was never anything close to a $850 billion dollar surplus as a beginning point.

2) The ending point in 2009 is a $1.8 Trillion dollar deficit according to CBO, not the $1.2 T on this chart.

3) The Obama 2009 deficit is four times the size of the Bush 2008 deficit.

4) Tax revenues skyrocketed by double digits and the deficit plunged after the Bush 2003 tax rate reductions, increasing three times as fast as previously under the prior higher tax rates. The tax reform brought in money, rather than the reverse.

5) The entire Iraq War cost less that the failed Obama Porkulus Bill.

6) The Porkulus Bill costs a little under $800 billion over 2 years, not $145 billion per year.

7) Current discretionary spending spiked by 20% this year under the earmark bill Obama signed a couple months ago. This is not counted at all by the NYT.

8) TARP was $750 Billion and both administrations went through nearly all off it. The NYT $185 B number has nothing to do with TARP.

9) The nationalization of Freddie and Fannie was happened last year. This is probably where NYT got some or all of the $185 B number.

10) Blaming Bush for the mortgage mess when Congress blocked Bush reform of Freddie and Fannie is simply a lie.

I could go on and on, but you should get the idea.

Take care.

Bart DePalma
 

I'm sure Jack was hurt to the quick - or died laughing - with our resident LLB*'s missile-like email demonstrating that his expertise in economics (in which he minored) is on a par with his legal expertise. Surely our resident LLB* is aware that David Leonhardt normally writes in the NYTimes Business Section. This particular article was too important for the Business Section, deserving front page treatment. Perhaps our resident LLB* is prepared to attack specifically Leonhardt's statements rather than broadbrush the NYTimes. And pray tell, just what did Bush/Cheney after 8 years leave to Obama/Biden? That Backpack of Lies is bottomless.

*Little Lisa's bro
 

Shag:

I notice that you do not challenge my numbers or defend the NYT fictional numbers. Do you ever tire of red herring rants and insults posing as argument? Did this work for you in your law practice?
 

"I notice that you do not challenge my numbers or defend the NYT fictional numbers. Do you ever tire of red herring rants and insults posing as argument? Did this work for you in your law practice?"

I do not challenge, defend or accept David Leonhardt's numbers. He has certain professional credentials in the field of economics. I have been reading his articles in the NYTimes in the Sunday Business Section for some time. The evening his article appeared in the NYTimes, I watched Charlie Rose's segment on the article with guests Leonhardt, Alan Blinder and Alan Auerbach, each with economic credentials. While the NYTimes articles are not 100% perfect, there is fact checking. So I read articles such as Leonhardt's with care. The discussion on Charlie Rose added to this.

As for you, even accepting your claim of minoring in economics, you do not have credentials similar to Leonhardt. Based upon your commentary at this Blog over the years, I would have quite a bit of difficulty with your numbers, that presumably have not been fact checked by others nor supported by economists such as the two Alans. You automatically challenge any and everything that may in any way be considered favorable to Obama/Biden and automatically come to the defense of Bush/Cheney for just about everything that they did in their eight years.

Leonhardt's article was not praising Obama/Biden. Rather, he was pointing out what Obama/Biden had dumped on them by Bush/Cheney from their eight years. Leonhardt went on to point out that in the long run (which may not actually be that long) the deficits will have to be seriously addressed with tax increases and spending cuts. Leonhardt had also pointed out that projections of Bill Clinton's surplus beyond 2000 were too high. This was a fair and balanced article by a credentialed economist, with support from both Alans - Auerbach was of the view that the deficits would have to be addressed sooner than in Blinder's view.

Now, if you could challenge Leonhardt's numbers with support from credentialed economists, I'd be glad to listen. But you have cried Bush/Cheney too long for me to trust your numbers, and where you pulled your numbers from - perhaps your backpack of lies. There is no reason for me to check your numbers especially without cites to sources to verify. As noted earlier, I'm not going to check Leonhardt's numbers. If they are wrong, perhaps credentialed economists may point that out.

By the Bybee, what does this discourse have to do with the practice of law, how I practiced or you practice? This is more of a political discussion than one involving legal issues. It's clear with your sensitivity that you never would have made it hangin' on the corner like we city boys did growing up - or dealing the dirty dozens while serving in the military.

Meantime, I've got to start on my Minestrone - from scratch - for dinner tonight, with mortadella, hot capicola and provolone "sangwich." But no herring, either red or smoked.
 

Shag:

Fact checking the claims in the NYT deficit chart does not take a scintilla of training in economics. An intelligent high school senior with a basic knowledge of where to find the actual figures in the government statistics could do the job in a couple hours. A NYT editor who gave a damn about accuracy could have done it in 30 minutes.

David Leonhardt dishonestly gamed the numbers.

1) Leonhardt started with an $850 B surplus as the baseline for 2009. His source was an unidentified projection from 2000 of a surplus nearly a decade later. There was never anything close to a $850 B surplus. This baseline is a complete fiction.

2) Leonhardt attributes a $673 B annual loss to Bush policies - Tax cuts, Iraq War and the prescription drug program.

a) The Iraq War has cost $678 B over 7 years or about $97 B per year.

b) Medicare Part D cost $45 B in 2009.

c) The growth in federal tax revenues more than doubled after the 2003 Bush marginal tax cuts.

As you can see, there is nothing close to an actual $673 B increase in spending or loss in revenues here. Leonhardt does not explain where he obtained his numbers, but they are not based on actual data. I can only guess that Leonhardt is claiming that tax revenues would have grown even faster that the record breaking post tax cut pace if tax rates were higher and/or is offering the difference between his fictional $850 baseline surplus and reality. Who knows?

d) Leonhardt does not provide any source for his figure of $479 B lost due to the recession. Hopefully, he is actually using real revenue loss and welfare increase figures.

e) Leonhardt attributes only $185 B per year to the Wall Street Bailout. In fact, the nationalization of Freddie and Fannie is expected to cost $25 B the TARP cost $750 B over the past two years. The total figure for FY 2009 should be some thing in the vicinity of $400 B.

f) Leonhardt has not counted the 20% spike in discretionary spending nor the announced $30 B more going to GM. The enormous cost of Obama-care is also absent, but Leonhardt can be forgiven for not including a cost that Obama and the Dems are keeping secret.

g) Leonhardt only attributed $145B a year to the nearly $800 B Obama porkulus bill. Either Obama is lying by saying that all of this will be spent in 18-24 months or Leonhardt is lying.

h) Leonhardt arrives at a total of a $1.2 Trillion Obama budget deficit from an alleged analysis of the CBO data. This would be a big surprise to CBO, who is predicting a $1.8 T Obama deficit for 2009 - four times the 2008 Bush recession deficit.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

... the TARP cost $750 B over the past two years.

There hasn't been "two years" of TARP.

Anyone who says that is either dishonest or an eedjit.

Cheers,
 

Our resident LLB* apparently is demonstrating how

"An intelligent high school senior with a basic knowledge of where to find the actual figures in the government statistics could do the job in a couple hours."

but fails to tell us where he found his figures in the 9+ hours that elapsed following my earlier response to him.

Arne has been kind in only noting one of our resident LLB*'s possible errors. Or perhaps Arne is being mean, perhaps planning to use Chinese water torture techniques in pointing out the errors of the ways of our resident LLB8. Not to steal Arne's potential raindrops, what about this:

"a) The Iraq War has cost $678 B over 7 years or about $97 B per year."

Let's ask our mythical high school senior, did the Iraq War start in 2002? Perhaps it did in the minds of Bush/Cheney, but wasn't it more like sometime in 2003? Of course we have former Sec'y. of the Treasury Paul O'Neill under Bush/Cheney who suggested that the Irag War was on the minds of Bush/Cheney from day one.

For those really interested in testing David Leonhardt's analysis of deficits, perhaps a Google search might locate more credible challengers than our resident LLB* armed with his minor in economics that probably serves him well in his legal DUI specialty, assuming that is his day job. Is it possible that the fumes from his clients may be influencing his jihad against Leonhardt? Try Googling:

"Economists challenging David Leonhardt deficit analysis"

for some post-high school views.

*Little Lisa's bro
 

Shag:

As a high school grad, you should be able to find these figures on the net in about 15 minutes.

It would take me longer to set up the links than it would take you to find the figures.

Stop playing lazy and dumb.

Arne:

I did mistakenly state "past two years" with the TARP and the Freddie/Fannie nationalization. FY 2009 and FY 2010 is more accurate. A small amount of the Freddie and Fannie nationalization cost may have fallen in the tail end of FY 2008 between the summer enactment of the legislation and September 2008.

The vast majority of both were spent in FY 2009 and will be counted against the 2009 deficit. I was being generous by simply dividing the amount in two.
 

Our resident LLB* with this:

"It would take me longer to set up the links than it would take you to find the figures."

reminds me of Evolution and explains what is missing with our resident LLB*. That's like filing a legal brief without any citations to support legal positions and when this is questioned by the judge the briefer responds: "Check Lexis/Nexis." A reminder to our resident LLB* that it is he who is challenging Leonhardt's numbers, not me. And I am not challenging his for reasons previously stated.

*Little Lisa's bro
 

"It would take me longer to set up the links than it would take you to find the figures."

Translated from Republican into English: "It would take me longer to find any information to actually back up my assertions than it would take you."

Which still doesn't make any sense.

No charge.

Stop playing lazy and dumb.

Back atcha. But I suspect you're not playing....

Cheers,