It doesn’t take much for me to spiel off some statement that I may later want to recant, and even quick emails face the same chance of iniquitous statements. Writing blog posts, and in the time I haven’t been writing here-journal entries- requires me to self reflect far more on my position on statements, use backing sources, and a greater level of classical logic to defend statements I may propose as valid.

However, I am not immune to how nihilistic writing continuously about policy can make me. I ended up stopping writing both to issues relating to classes, as well as being consumed by the desire to write continuously more in depth posts about particular topics- to date my post about minimum wage laws garners this blog about 10-20 posts a day, somehow.

Today I am going to start off with a quick breakdown of government policy on housing, and what it should do in the near future. It seems that even as home sales increase, prices are still falling.

Surging sales of distressed properties pushed prices for previously owned U.S. homes to a near nine-year low in January, even as they helped to lift overall sales to an eight-month high…

Paul Dales, a senior U.S. economist at Capital Economics, estimates there is an oversupply of 850,000 homes on the market, with another 4.5 million in the foreclosure pipeline.

This points to the fact that the oversupply of housing should lead to even lower average prices across most areas fall. Even cities, usually the bastion of stable or rising home values, have seen falling values.

The S&P/Case-Shiller index of home values in 20 cities fell 2.4 percent, the biggest year-over-year decrease since December 2009, the group said today in New York. The median forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News projected a 2.3 percent decrease…

Nationally, prices decreased 4.1 percent in the fourth quarter from the same time in 2009 and were down 3.9 percent from the previous three months, the biggest quarter-to-quarter drop in almost two years.

Despite this, for much of the previous few years, the Obama administration has done a lot to support propping up home values. This has included the Federal Reserve helping to support home values, and direct assistance from the Treasury Department. The Federal Reserve alone now holds over $900 billion in home mortgages! The administration has recently made the right move in having the Federal Reserve to stop buying mortgages.

Detractors of the plan claim that this will cause rising mortgage rates that could rise and knock the fragile housing recovery off course. This is of course largely backed by home builders and mortgage investors, who have a lot to gain from propping up the housing market.

While they may be right, letting the housing market fall more may encourage people back into being homeowners, and take some ease off the renting market- though maybe I’m just arguing to see my rent go down.

Reuters in response published an article outlining major provisions in KORUS. Some major provisions compiled from both sources;

Agriculture

• a phase-out of over twenty years of South Korean tariffs on apples and pears;
• immediate duty-free treatment for wheat, feed corn, soybeans forcrushing, hides and skins, and cotton;
• immediate duty-free treatment for almonds, pistachios, bourbon whiskey, wine, raisins, grape juice, orange juice, fresh cherries, frozen french fries, frozen orange juice concentrate, and pet food;
• phase-out of tariffs over two years on avocados, lemons, dried prunes, and sunflower seeds; phase-out over five years of tariffs on food preparations, chocolate and chocolate confectionary, sweet corn, sauces and preparations, alfalfa, breads and pastry, and dried mushrooms; and
• increased quotas with zero in-quota tariffs (that is, tariffs that areapplied to imports that enter within the quota) on skim and wholemilk powder, whey, cheese, dextrins and modified starches, barley, popcorn, and feed-grade soybeans.

Automobiles

• revised deal allows for 25,000 cars per U.S. automaker — or almost four times the number allowed in the 2007 agreement — to be imported into Korea provided they meet U.S. federal safety standards.
• U.S. autos will be considered compliant with new Korean environmental standards on fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions, developed since the 2007 agreement, if they achieve 119 percent of the targets in these regulations.
• Korea committed to reduce tax rates for American cars and to streamline current taxes based on engine size, which have tended to raise the cost of the typically larger size of American vehicles sold in Korea.
• The 2007 agreement would have immediately eliminated U.S. tariffs on an estimated 90 percent of Korea’s auto exports, with remaining tariffs phased out by the third year of implementation. The revised deal keeps the 2.5 percent U.S. tariff in place until the fifth year. At the same time, Korea will immediately cut its tariff on U.S. auto imports in half (from 8 percent to 4 percent), and fully eliminate that tariff in the fifth year.

Other

• when new services emerge in the U.S. or South Korean economies, those services are automatically covered by the FTA and if either country unilaterally liberalizes a measure that it had listed as an exemption, it is automatically covered under the FTA.
• U.S. financial institutions will be able to establish branches of banks, insurance companies, and assets management firms. U.S. companies would be able to control up to 100% of domestic Korean telecommunications companies, although they would still only be able to directly own up to 49% with remaining ownership held by a Korea-based holding company.
• In order for textile and apparel products to be considered FTAeligible, they must be produced from components made in either the United States or South Korea.  About 61% of U.S.-South Korea trade in textiles and apparel would become duty-free immediately
• Under a voluntary industry-to-industry agreement struck in 2008, South Korea imports U.S. beef only from cattle younger than 30 months, considered the safest.
• The United States agreed in the revised deal to let South Korea delay by two years — until January 2016 — the elimination of tariffs on some pork products.

Overall this is a step in a positive direction, the lowering of tariffs in many markets is something to be applauded, but at the same time the stress for the failures of existing FTA’s should be addressed in that protectionist elements have remained in both countries to support politically important sectors. While KORUS is a positive step forward, including extending preferential trade towards the North Korean Kaesong Industrial Complex, the fact that many price discriminatory tariffs and quotas still exist weakens the aims of free trade.

Today I am going to talk briefly on the Bush tax cuts, and why either extending all of them, or creating a phase out window, is the right now, and why repealing them could cause a double dip recession.

Both the Deficit Committee and the repealing of the Bush Tax Cuts are aimed at helping pay down our budget deficit, which will exceed $1.4 trillion dollars this fiscal year. This is intended to be met with a large number of raising age requirements in social programs, cutting back the defense budget, and other minor augmentations to existing programs.

Here is the plan as it was reported on Dec 1st. Overall, I would like to point out, that I support most of the plan. It includes removing tax credits and lowering marginal tax rates, cutting corporate tax rates, raising ages and some requirements to get in Social Security and Medicare, cuts defense spending, and many other policies that should have already been enacted.

However, Democrats are going against their temporary best interests by repealing any of the Bush tax cuts, a major discussion in any talk about the current economy and the economic recovery. The policies that the new revenue raised would fund would not benefit middle and low income families consumption, and would simply be a net drag on promoting economic activity. Repealing the tax cuts would simply be a reduction in total consumption in the economy right now. This is seen through the traditional formula for GDP. Gross domestic product = Y; Consumption is a function of total income minus taxes = C(Y-T); investment into physical capital = I; government fiscal expenditures = G; and net exports = NX, or;

Y= C(C-T)+I+G+NX

But, the new taxes (increasing T), do not go to new government fiscal expenditures, but to help finance expenditures that would already happen regardless if the money is physically present or not. This is a byproduct of how our current budgeting process is carried out. The result is equal to the lowering GDP equal to a function of the rate of savings and the taxed income.

Governments are notoriously inefficient in the handling of money, due to malaise, shoddy contract methods, and bureaucratic capture among others. Pulling the money from individuals and using it to pay off debt or expenditures already in the works would only remove money from the economy. The effect would be that companies right now would continue to face short term profit volatility that could hinder hiring.

Does this mean that we shouldn’t embrace some austerity? I don’t think so. A lot of the deficit committees suggestions could be a good aid to long term economic well being while not hurting short term consumption. A lot of the budget cuts and government downsizing should still be addressed in the legislature. Really the best course of action right now would be local and state reform to open up firm entry and freedom to operate abilities.

The main lesson is that raising taxes to pay for items already budgeted, or accrued interest, won’t do anything but lower current demand and hurt short term prospects of raising hiring rates. Rather than simply repealing the Bush Tax Cuts, congressional Democrats should support a phase out method on the highest incomes back to Clinton-era levels. The continued schizophrenia of the democratic party in the economic sphere only threatens to exacerbate economic languor.

An Economist blog post talks about how firm clustering and consumer choice is often tied in with local regulations- in Pubs. Among other bloggers quoted in the article include Megan McArdle, Matt Yglesias, and Ryan Avent who have all touched on pub culture and economics.

The argument is that regulations towards bars have led to various levels of vibrancy in night life. London, with the lowest amount of regulations to start a bar, has the best bar scene, New York, the medium level of regulation comes next, and Washington DC with the most restrictive regulation comes last.

This is not surprising to anyone who has at least look briefly at urban economics. Firms wish to cluster, in the past this was often done through manufacturing firm clustering into “factory cities.” Today in many cities where there is a demand for localized services and amenities, there should naturally be a demand for a “fun district.”

An example of this would be right near my apartment, in Northern Virginia, where I live right around the corner from a strip club, a gay bar, a place that occasionally brings in live bands, and two sports pubs. Other areas of DC that reflect this are 14th street, and Adam’s Morgan, where students and young professionals flock on weekends.

Perhaps a missing aspect of previous discussion is also on the role of public transportation. DC Metro, one of the most widely used services, and certainly the one with the most publicity and safety record (at least personally, since I had a friend attacked on a bus once late at night), closes at twelve on weekdays. In comparison New York Cities subway runs 24 hours, and the London Underground runs until 1. However, liberal licensing laws in London lead to a cottage industry of local pubs diminishing the need for transportation access.

The number of new licenses issued offsets the ability for people to get to bars. In some areas of DC a new liquor license hasn’t been issued in 20 years, and there has been proposed moratoriums in new fun districts. In many areas, including the comparable vibrant Dupont Circle and Adam’s Morgan, there is limited ability for new bars to open up and attract a variety of clientele.

The original Economist blog post asks;

…but I’m also wondering why a comparison of pub quality in these three places would focus primarily on regulatory or economic issues rather than that diffuse and confusing beast we call culture.

Pub quality is one of those subjective values. The “utility” I gain from going to the sports pub with pool tables, where the waitresses knew my name after my second time going is higher than going to the crowded occasional live venue location. Regulatory and economic issues hinder the competition and consumer choice that create “better” bars through which ones are driven out of business through enabling consumer choice.

As someone who is more of a recluse when it comes to my bar patron-ship, I am more likely to go to a small more personal bar over packed, noisy venues. Unfortunately the few times I’ve gone bar hoping I’ve found that such locations are in short supply for me, since regulatory and economic framework forces people looking for bars into the few in each ward that have already obtained licensing.

Certainly, for people who want to see a more vibrant night life appear, going to local neighborhood committees that control licensing and opposing moratoriums may be a good start, since it will open up bar choice and increase variability.

Border liberalized strategies are coupled with the decriminalization of immigration to remove costs from the judicial system, and the enforcement of automatic deportation of illegal immigrants back to port of entries and grants to the Grupos Beta immigration services. The aim of this program is not the exist for all time, but rather to help short term migration issues until greater convergence can narrow the wage gap between America, Mexico, and Latin American countries.

My position, if actually enumerated would be this;

Create 300,000 temporary worker visa’s for mexians only, of which a certain % would offer a 7 year path to citizenship done by opt-in lottery*

Create 50,000 temporary worker visa’s for other latin american countries, of which a certain % would offer a 7 year path to citizenship.**
Change the soft cap on immigration to reflect a 1% immigration rate/population. This would keep the current skill distribution***

Streamline immigration procedures to allow for lower civics requirements, and a lower proficiency in English, try to bring down expected naturalization process to ~5 years, including lower costs levied against “low income, low education” workers, with interim work permits. This would also partially end favoritism towards families and relatives.

Start automatic deportation, repeal laws that give federal sentences for crossing the border. End further production of the wall, stop separating families in deportation, increase funding for mexican side border control and grant funding towards Groupus Beta in Mexico to help bring immigrants back to their families or receive help to enter into formal temp worker programs.

The above policy, which includes the creation of new programs and laws by which migrants can come to the United States and acquire citizenship through safe and legal means that puts them on the books, the more efficient enforcement for laws already in place, and working with Mexico to remove incentives to immigrate.

I believe that reform is needed to enforce the border, rather than an escalation of manpower and weapons. The further promotion of a wall and the criminalization of immigration have done nothing but exacerbate economic and political forces on both sides of the border.

Illegal immigration is derived from the same everyday economic forces that determined why a decade ago my family left Maryland to find employment in Massachusetts, and why a year ago I came back to DC for education- it is where the best employment, or education is at any given time for a persons needs.
Illegal migration is the result of the United State’s naturalization process being unfit for the social, political, and economic issues that have manifested on the border.

Between the passing of NAFTA and the Mexican Tequila crisis, many incomes and jobs in southern Mexico have either disappeared or shown no income growth. Latin America has undergone civil war, coup d’états, natural disasters, and economic hardships. Therefore, it has been poor workers from southern Mexico and from other Latin American countries who have decided to give up their lives in order to find employment in the United States: where there are jobs that require the skills that they possess as workers.

It is by no accident that illegal immigrants filled the rolls of construction workers, during a time in which the country had a housing bubble, or did regional work that is traditionally undermployed by native young adults whom lack the ability to give up school or home to seasonally pick fields. As economist Robert C Feenestra notes, the US has the greatest amount of skilled labor in the world, whose demands and skill sets rank far above the pay of unskilled work.

Economist Julian Smith in his book “The Economic Consequences of Immigration” notes that immigrants have a higher labor force participation rate, and are more likely to start their own business or be self-employed. It is not that immigrants steal jobs, but rather create or fill jobs that otherwise wouldn’t have existed.

Despite the real demand for unskilled labor that drives migrants to the United States, the current immigration policies have led to it taking more than 10 years for the average immigrant to become a citizen through the naturalization process, and that America’s selection of migrants favors rich, already educated over the poor unskilled migrants that move here illegally.

Workers from Mexico and Latin America have for much of the past two decades still been drawn to the United States due to higher paying jobs and better living standards. Because they are unable to come here through legal means, they are incentivized to migrate through illegal channels. Today with a poor job market, illegal migrants are leaving the country hoping to find better employment or social services in Mexico- because despite popular rhetoric it is illegal for illegal immigrants to receive social services besides for school lunches.

Even then, the IRS and CBO admit that tax revenues drawn from illegal immigrants exceed the revenues they currently use, and economist Julian Smith notes that naturalized immigrants utilize less social services more than natural born citizens. Furthermore, the Bureau of Justice Statistics notes that violent crime has decreased over the past decade in Border States, exemplifying the economic desires that drive immigrants here, rather than nefarious aims.

The existing policies supported by isolationists to secure the border require hiring tens of thousands of border patrol agents, putting up and maintaining over 580 miles of fence, surveillance equipment, and various sand traps. It requires spending millions of dollars a day around the nation to support the nearly 10.9% of prison inmates held for immigration offenses. Coyotes, individuals who bring immigrants across the border, have simply raised fees and now offer multiple trips across the border in case they get caught. The net effect is that despite an exponential amount of money being spent on border patrol, the actual rate of entry hasn’t changed.

It is not through the stricter enforcement of these laws that the countrywill be able to secure the borders, but rather through actual immigration reform now to create easier, legal, means for immigrants to come into the country. Through working with Mexico and other Latin American countries to help improve their economies, policy makers can help decrease the desire for individuals to migrate to the United States.

*The 300,000 number is taken from NAFTA Revisited, with a slight change with the path to citizenship option.

**Currently we only give out 100,000 temporary worker visa’s, for people of all countries.

*** If this policy had beed adopted in 2008, in 2009 we would have let in triple the nominal amount of immigrants. The 2009 immigration rate was .34% of population. Current skill distribution for naturalized citizens is 22% of immigrants are below highschool education, 22% of immigrants have a high school education, 22% of immigrants have a college degree, and about 12% of immigrants have a graduate degree. There is also heavily skewing of incomes and age.

Median household income of current US citizens is $52,029 (USA Census QuickFacts 2009), which is lower than individual income of naturalized migrants by $5,000, and below naturalized migrant houshold income by $9,000. The median age of naturalization is 39, however most illegal immigrants are in the 18-24 demographic, making them drastically underrepresented by the naturalization process (10%) of total immigrants. To put a number on this, last year we let in 1,130,818 immigrants (DHS yearbook 2009), and of that 12% were Mexican (135,399 people) and of that only 10% where in the 18-24 demographic. or 13,569 people who make up the “illegal immigrant” demographic (many of whom are probably moving in with wealthy families, rather than on their own merits, I’d imagine).

Faith is based on a set of unfalsifiable positions, or positions that cannot be proven true or false. The scientific method however requires a proposition that is falsifiable through a hypothesis that can be tested. Now, I’m going to be specific here, since it’s important to get religions into heterogeneous categories. All of my following examples will be based on Christianity, since it is the religion from which I can pull the best examples from given my current level of knowledge.

Christianity can still acknowledge the scientific method, but the primary axioms of Christianity is a series of unfalsifiable propositions. Such as;

1. There is a God

1.1 The God is the one written in the Old Testament and the New Testament, called the Holy Bible.

2. Mankind is sinful

etc

This is seen through documents such as the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.* Christianity with its concept of God creates a tautology of God and his traits due to belief in the scriptures. The following was a sentence, though albeit somewhat out of context sent to me by a pastor whose church I briefly attended.

“Assuming God exists He must be the highest of all things good…” (Nathan Knight of Restoration Church, Washington, DC with a M.A. in Divinity from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Just to get my citation right). The tautology here is;

if God then Highest of All Things Good

or

God = the Highest of All Things Good**

That statement cannot be falsified, I can simply argue the validity of the text it was based on as a binary variable of belief/disbelief. The Christian God exists in the context of the Bible alone, so I cannot run tests on the validity of that statement. I either accept the if then statement, or reject it. But there is no truth value attained through this discussion, simply conjecture.

The important part here is my inability to test the proposition for validity. This runs counter to the main points behind the scientific method.

Some examples of unfalsifiable propositions in context of the above proposition;

What does the term good mean? What is the highest of all things good? I actually reject the statement [if God exists then he is the highest of all things good] entirely because it is nonsensical. There is no way to objectively quantify the statement of “good” or “bad” or even what satisfies the requirements of “the highest of all things good.” All those terms are rather subjective, and would need to be conceptualized differently depending on who you are talking to.

I have a friend who is a Confuscist and am currently going through Mark with a Christian. Both their concepts of “good” and “bad” are shaped by the philosophies, ethics, and morals they believe in. If I were to tell each of them the statement “what is the highest of all things good?” the two of them would come to radically different conclusions based around how their mind registers those terms.

The proposition’s put forth in religious contexts are meaningless unless parties involved can come up with agreed upon definitions of necessary terms, at which point the discussion becomes somewhat falsfiable (though probably limited by data). Without an agreed upon conceptualized definition of those terms, the sentence is senseless. How can we even test the truth of a proposition unless we can also test the validity. For example the statements;

The Christian God exists

and

The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists

are both equally ambiguously true because neither can be empirically tested.

Morality and ethics by comparison are not truths, but rather subjective values. They each have individual subjective likelihoods that each proposition may be true. However we cannot test these propositions for validity; at best we can challenge them with better definitions and ideas. But there is no “true” morality, or “false” ethic. Even assigning true and false to those ideas is likewise nonsensical, because they are not falsifiable.***

The statement that a sentence is nonsensical doesn’t mean it cannot be true, but that discussing it is useless since there is nothing to debate about the proposition. It becomes a binary variable, where you either agree with it or disagree with it, where if you accept the null hypothesis “ex: God is not the Highest of all things Good,” you typically put forth your own likewise untestable and therefore senseless proposition.

Religious claims may be true, but they equally may not be true. The actual truth of a religious claim exists outside of the confines of a discussion, but due to limited knowledge, ability, and untestability of many religious claims the propositions most religions put forth becomes senseless. Therefore we return to my initial statement. Religious propositions are based around the primary axioms that are unfalsifiable, which has been self inforced by at least Christianity. Later propositions are framed around those axioms, and lose falsibility and from that the ability to be proven true. In the context of “true” and “false” religious propositions become logically senseless, and removed from scientific methodology.

I’m going to ad a brief post script to this though; Again, I’d like to reiterate that discussing religion, ethics, and morals has value, just not one in which people in that discussion will uncover objective truth on the matter. People should still believe in various theologies and ideas since everyone has their own opinions on what can and may be true, though usually framed in the form of “is true.” However, the quest for objective truth on these matters is horrendously limited, and people should acknowledge those limits per the above when discussing truth with others.

*http://www.creeds.net/baptists/1689/kerkham/1689.htm

**I think technically it should be like A < B, but I think Nathan’s statement can be read in both directions due to God being a singular entity per 1.1/the 1689 Baptist Creed. Also, there can only be one thing that is the highest, making whatever it is a single entity. Therefore, both the Highest of All things Good must be God, and God must be the highest of all things Good in the Christian tradition. Therefore, it reverts back to a tautology with an if statement preceding it.

*** There are attempts by philosophers who discuss ethics, morals, and aesthetics to determine true, false, good, and bad of many of these ideas but in the end their likewise unfalsibility means they suffer the same senselessness of religious discourse with diverging primary axioms. Therefore, my assertion that “assigning true and false to those ideas is… nonsensical” can be debated. I believe that because that there is not a falsifiable truth behind those values, they can be discussed but a conclusion, fact, or truth, cannot be found.

Recently arguments have been flying around about the Mosque going up in New York, New York. I figured I would take a moment to show some of the pro-comments, a position that I follow.

Mayor Bloomberg pitched his support behind the NY, NY endeavor, claiming

“The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

“Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

“This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.

and even Fareed Zakaria, a well known author and journalist, returned an award he received from the Anti-Defamation League, after they voiced their opposition to the mosque.

Other various commentators I follow have also voiced their opinion in favor of the mosque, largely angled from the freedom of religion and property rights perspective- much as Major Bloomberg eloquently summarized.

Will Wilkinson pointed out that the Republican party now takes up idealogical identity politics. From their xenophobic stances on immigration policy, to their opposition to the anglo-christian view of American history, they have vowed to protect the general perceptions of the quintessential “olde” America.

Wilkinson notes;

For the cult of Americanocity, the primary purpose of politics is to preserve and assert  imagined American identity against those imagined forces that are imagined to undermine it.

It is sad that the rights concept of olde America is juxtaposed almost entirely against the leftist proposition of minority and disenfranchised group based identity politics.

As the article above notices though, that the general strife has spread into every community. No longer is this simply an old time America focused on the holy ground of Ground Zero, but rather every back yard and empty lot. It is sad that such backlash is happening against a group of people who are trying to flee from the violence and fundamentalism that at least appears to pervade the western concept of the middle east.

The way to integrate people into society isn’t through ostracizing them, but rather allowing them to peacefully practice and participate in the greater civil society on equal grounds as everyone.

The question is also unsettling when it comes to topics like car insurance, were whether or not people should be mandated to buy it is in question. Therefore, feel free to try to persuade me into any sort of camp on the issue, as it is a debate I am waging internally to little success.

I have been mulling over this a bit myself, and I’ll take a crack at it. You’ll have to forgive me if my first few paragraphs outline an issue that has already been outlined over and over again, but I feel like it lends clarity to my argument (or at least allows me to organize my own thoughts.)

The primary contention regarding the health care legislation is that the mandate to purchase insurance is beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause since it forces citizens to purchase a commodity. There’s a difference between funding a government program (ex. Social Security), regulating an industry (ex. health care, auto, etc), and forcing everyone to buy a commodity (a book, vegetables, a PS3, health insurance, whatever.) There are two counter-arguments to these assertions:

• “It’s a mandate to pay for other things, like Social Security” – As funding for a government program. This mandate essentially requires individuals to purchase a commodity from a private company ie. forces them to take part in an economic transaction.
• “But this is like auto insurance” – Only if one actually purchases and drives a car (which, it’s worth noting, is considered a privilege.) It’s essentially opt-in, not to mention the powers of the federal government are expressly enumerated in the Constitution. Not so with state governments.

It is the auto insurance counter-argument that is relevant to Kevin’s question. I think the express enumeration of powers for in the Constitution is self-explanatory, so I’ll leave that be for now. Having said that, a poster on another site rightly pointed out that the ubiquity of cars – especially as a means for anything from travel and employment – makes the “opt-in” point misleading because, for many people, it is a necessity. As a consequence, the requirement for purchasing car insurance if one “chooses” to buy a car makes it a mandate in all but name only.

I understand this argument, but am not entirely convinced, mostly because it is not wholly analogous. The mere fact that this ownership is a necessity only in certain locations and, possibly, at certain times (for we do not know if we will be as dependent on car for travels in the future the way we are today) is an incredibly different kind of ownership as that of inherent and permanent ownership of our own bodies. We cannot divorce ourselves from it.  There is no exit option, literally. The exit option for car insurance may be costly (as an opt-out, not as a punitive measure for neglecting to buy a car), yes, and that could (and should) be remedied if poor city planning and suburban sprawl are leading to sub-optimum outcomes, but the fact remains that there is a substantial difference between a high-cost exit option and no exit option at all. It is not a mandate to purchase anything by virtue of something you are born with an unable to detach yourself from.

In other words, the primary difference is the decision not to buy a car is to voluntarily eat the costs of not doing so. The decision not to purchase health insurance is to eat the punitive costs of not doing so. The former situation totally sucks, and most people are hamstringed in their decision-making, but the nature of this discussion is not about what the optimum choice is, merely whether the the former requirement functions as a justification for the other. As of right now, I’m leaning towards no.

The topic of today’s post is more about a later comment he made, in which “the constitution is the binding contract between the government and The People.” I disagree with this assessment. The constitution is largely a document between the government and the people of 1788, or at best 1992 after the 26th amendment.

The constitution cannot be amended via general convention, and must be first brought about through congress. This creates limited ability for how I want our society to function to actually influence things. The government system creates limited ability for me to have a contract with the government via the constitution, rather than the body of legislative statutes that are passed with each congress.

The constitution by itself I don’t think really reflects the contract that individuals have with government right now. The Constitution is a crucial document, without a doubt, but to claim that it is the foundation of individuals contracts with it’s government is rather flawed.

Perhaps Jefferson was right, when he said “God forbid we should be twenty years without such a rebellion.” Each generation has different values and concepts of justice and equality than previous generations. The debate that the founding fathers had on these topics has nearly been lost and the group solidified into the lofty Founding Fathers(tm), which carries with it almost the singular idea that is the constitution.

The healthcare legislation has unconstitutional clauses, but the constitution alone does not alone constitute our contract with the government, but rather the scope it should take. Today, people should wonder whether it should be time to open it up again, if people indeed value healthcare as a right, and rightfully make it an amendment.

So if you had the ability to add one amendment to the constitution, what would you put in? How would you change our contract with the government?

The start of the second week brought the first of the withdrawal pangs. I felt restless and more than a little snappy. Things were still alright, but I noticed most people becoming uneasy around me in a way they never had before. An acquaintance later said that at the time I seemed to be simultaneously on the brink of either breaking down in tears or exploding into a violent hate frenzy.

By the start of the third week I was miserable. Every evening brought lots of pacing, heavy drinking and the knowledge that I was going insane. I had decided my break would last a certain amount of time, but I could barely stand it any more. I could feel the addiction chewing at the back of my brain, a giant perverse leech that had already consumed all four lobes of my brain and drained the vital fluids of my spinal column and was now feasting on my cerebellum. It was with a final, agonizing howl of rage and frustration that I downed the rest of my rum and coke, logged onto the internet and brought up the Politics section of a half dozen news sites.

My name is Daniel Waugh, and I tried and failed to end my addiction to Politics. I am simultaneously filled with rage and contentment at this outcome. My tales of small island politics and how mainland politics affect us as well as whatever other crude and irreverent happenings I might be involved in will again be posted here on a regular basis.