U.S. Politics part X

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kay,

putting disincentives on drunk driving is a great way to get people to pay to use public transit more. The light rail system in Minneapolis pretty much only runs between bars and residential areas.

Yes, but if the fine is so incredibly large that the average person will need to obtain a loan to pay it I imagine it is unlikely to raise much money.

[Undead Dungeon Master]

Well if you want to get picky, it demonstrates the failure of the administration's prediction of what effect the stimulus bill would have.

First: No, it doesn't. In order to prove that at this early of a stage, you would need a control group, an exact duplicate of the economy where there was no stimulus bill. If unemployment rose slower there, then you'd have the proof you need. But no such control group exists, so there is no way for you to reach your conclusion logically or empirically.

In Q4 of 2010, then we can begin talking about the "failure of the administration's prediction of what effect the stimulus bill would have," but even then we'll never have any certainty. Politics is an uncontrolled experiment, that's why it's generally impossible to prove success or failure of public policy. By enacting policy or not enacting it, one makes it impossible to know what would have happened had one made the other choice.

Second: The administration didn't make it's own predictions. It based its numbers off figures aggregated from a number of reputable mainstream sources and nonpartisan government agencies. If you'd read the source pdf linked to in the original article (which you should have linked to), then you would know that. So what it demonstrates is that the mainstream of economic prognosticators underestimated the effects of the recession. That is all it demonstrates. It says nothing about the stimulus bill at all.

Again, I think you need to seriously consider the possibility that you are starting from the assumption that the stimulus bill will fail and are grasping at straws to justify that foregone conclusion. Because this evidence proves nothing of the sort of conclusions you are drawing.

[Lord Mord]

Commodore,

I'm sure there will be all sorts of clever ways used to confiscate wealth. Cap-and-trade, taxing health benefits, taxing retirement benefits, that's where the huge bonanzas are for the feds.

The fact that the people being taxed are killing us shouldn't in any way deter them from making a profit, of course.

[Lord O' Bones]

Kay,

I think seizing drunk driver's vehicles is a good idea. However, if they don't have a car how are they going to get back and forth to work to make the money necessary to pay the fine to fund health care or public transit?

At least one state already does this (Illinois) and I believe a few others have followed suit. But, I'm unaware of any state that doesn't suspend drunk driver's license's for at least 6 months and people deal with it all the time. Although in CA at least, you can take a full year suspension to retain "to and from work only" privileges if you have to.

[Swordfish]

I'd say that is the problem of the driver. The same issue arises when licenses are revoked for the same reason, and I think consequences like that are a strong disincentive on drunk driving.

What if it isn't their vehicle?

[Lord O' Bones]

What if it isn't their vehicle?

In Illinois, it didn't matter. That vehicle was gone. This was in '94 though, they may have changed it by now.

[Watcher]

Nate Silver proposes an $8,000 federal drunk driving fine to fund universal healthcare.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/lib...s-wants-to.html

My thought is that this would be such an exceptional deterrent on drunk driving it'd struggle to raise 1 billion, rather than the 9 billion he envisions it raising. two beers in one hour or one drink in one hour puts the majority of people over the legal limit. I think you'd have an initial spike in enforcement, as I'm certain local police would get a cut of that $8,000, and then a huge fall off as people learn that so little alcohol can result in them being convicted of a drunk driving felony and the stiff fee that goes with it (not to mention the additional insurance premiums etc). Would this result in a lot of bars going belly up though? (I'm wondering if this would reduce alcohol consumption so much at bars that it would make the finances of operating almost impossible). It'd also put a great deal of strain on the restaurant industry as far fewer people would order alcoholic beverages with their meals, reducing one of the few areas of restaurant operation that has a big profit margin. There's also the additional problem of this fine likely being mostly regressive, but I suppose it would be possible to scale to income, as Silver suggests. On the other hand, if this reduces the demand for alcohol and prices fall it would also cause corn prices to fall making corn based ethanol cheaper, resulting in lost income on the agricultural side of things, but greater potential for expansion and job gains in the ethanol industry.

so would this be a smart move in a recession, given that it's likely to cause job losses at bars, restaurants, and a lot of hemorrhaging on those employed by the alcohol industry itself including dropping the bottom out of the price of corn (although probably some job gains on soft drink side of things as their sales will spike proportionally)?

The total cost for a DUI is already over $10,000 and as you suggest could hurt the economy.

I think a better way to raise money is to create a temporary worker program for low-skill workers. Charge a $1,000 fee for a 2 year guest worker permit. Secondly legalize marijuana and tax it similar to alcohol. Not only would these two programs raise money we could reduce and refocus the efforts of the border patrol and reduce the money spent on returning illegal immigrants to Mexico.

[Paladin of Ice]

Kay,

Yes, but if the fine is so incredibly large that the average person will need to obtain a loan to pay it I imagine it is unlikely to raise much money.

Perhaps the fine could be made repayable ala a loan schedule, complete with the person being able to apply for deferments due to economic hardship and such, but with either that car, (or a new one, if this goes long enough) being repossessed if payments are not made? Or the local government becoming a lienholder on the vehicle, as banks and other lenders are?

[Ormond]

I blame any person of minority who voted for Prop 8, and I'm not shy about admitting it. No one gets a pass on discrimination, but those who have personally experienced it should be the most staunchly opposed.

"Should" is an opinion word, I realize, but it does amaze me that so many people seem to have been surprised that Blacks were more in favor of Prop 8 on average than members of other ethnic groups.

If you look at the relationship of people from the various ethnic minorities to each other, they certainly have not historically acted like "personally experiencing discrimination" makes them less likely to discriminate themselves. Polling data in California showed years ago that if you ask people about the major negative stereotypes of the "big three" minority groups (Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians), members of the minorities are MORE likely to believe the negative stereotypes about the other two minorities than Whites are.

A lot of this comes from correlations with education, of course. But unfortunately, as much as it might seem logically to follow that members of one minority would support the rights of other minorities, empirically it has very rarely worked that way in human history.

[Ormond]

My three pound brain has led me to believe that whites are morally superior based on Ormond's post :P

Oh dear, I must have written that wrong. :)

As someone else pointed out upthread, you get the same generational difference within the minority communities on gay marriage as you get within the White community. And I don't think young people are generally "morally superior" to the elderly. It's just that both education and personally knowing "out" gay and lesbian friends are much less common among the elderly (and probably a bit less common among minorities, especially Blacks and Asians) than they are among younger people. It's the education and the personal experience with GLBT people that explains most of both the generational and ethnic differences here.

[TrackerNeil]

If you look at the relationship of people from the various ethnic minorities to each other, they certainly have not historically acted like "personally experiencing discrimination" makes them less likely to discriminate themselves. Polling data in California showed years ago that if you ask people about the major negative stereotypes of the "big three" minority groups (Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians), members of the minorities are MORE likely to believe the negative stereotypes about the other two minorities than Whites are.

A lot of this comes from correlations with education, of course. But unfortunately, as much as it might seem logically to follow that members of one minority would support the rights of other minorities, empirically it has very rarely worked that way in human history.

Then they should be ashamed of themselves. Seriously.

[Meili]

A lot of this comes from correlations with education, of course. But unfortunately, as much as it might seem logically to follow that members of one minority would support the rights of other minorities, empirically it has very rarely worked that way in human history.

I agree. Most the the prejudices I have seen where I live comes from Hispanics views of blacks and vice versa and not white people. What is interesting to me though is that homosexuals of any minority are much more open and less biased to other minorities than straights are. I assume it is because they get the double dose of discrimination and this has made them more unjudgemental than others. But I could be wrong.

[TrackerNeil]

What is interesting to me though is that homosexuals of any minority are much more open and less biased to other minorities than straights are. I assume it is because they get the double dose of discrimination and this has made them more unjudgemental than others. But I could be wrong.

Well, I have no data to support what I'm about to say, I can tell you that I have met more than my share of gays/lesbians who are prejudiced against blacks, Hispanics, Asians...you name it. Kinda like the atheists I know who are less than rational.

[Foreverlad]

But unfortunately, as much as it might seem logically to follow that members of one minority would support the rights of other minorities, empirically it has very rarely worked that way in human history.

Reminds me of an episode of Flight of the Conchords called Drive By

The end of the episode was funny, but also sad in just how realistic the phenomenon is.

[Maithanet]

Virginia Gubenatorial Primary is today. I think Deeds is the more electable, given that he's more of a Virginia moderate type Democrat. I prefer Moran by far in terms of policies, but I'm not sure I'm going to vote for him.

McAuliffe I will never forgive for threatening the country a year ago. He went out on stage and said not only is Hilary not stepping down, but she is going to become President (somehow?) and everyone cheered. It looked like the Dems were going to do their damndest to fumble the election at that point, and he seemed quite pleased about it.

I hope he never runs for election again.

We'll see who pulls it out.

[awesome possum]

What if it isn't their vehicle?

In Illinois, it didn't matter. That vehicle was gone. This was in '94 though, they may have changed it by now.

As recently as 2002 as well. I was able to procure for myself a relatively brand new car from my uncle's junk yard for only storage expenses thanks to some kid from Iowa getting busted in Illinois and his father (who owned the car) refusing to bail out his son yet again.

[awesome possum]

Debunking Canadian health care

Written by a Canadian who had been living in the US for the last 17 years. Worth a read of the whole article, but I'll quote the first three Myths the writer debunks:

Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.

In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.

Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.

The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.

Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.

Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.

What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.

Sure as heck doesn't sound like the utter catastrophe opponents of UHC claim it is. Of course, many of the opponents in Congress are probably recipients of hefty donations by the CEO's mentioned above who are filthy rich because of our inadequate system.

[sToNED_CAT]

Debunking Canadian health care

Myth : emergency healthcare is expensive.

I was often wondering about this, because most people claim it's EH costs that bring US system down. Your quote shows that's not true. If there are 40 millions uninsured Americans and emergency healthcare costs 45 billion $, it means EH costs just little over 1000$ per person. (and that's not counting underinsured who use EH too) If you consider EH as defacto "insurance" for poor people (like many do) you must admit it's fantastically effective insurance, probably 3-4 times more effective than Canadian system and 6-8 times more effective than typical american insurance. It's funny , but it looks like all health insurance in US should be abolished and replaced with ER only, if you want to reduce costs.

[Shryke]

Except those people getting your supposed "care" at $1000/person are receiving substantially inferior care.

[Jaqen the FatManderly]

you can try and balance the cali budget yourself with this tool at the la times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-state...95571.htmlstory

I've been loosely following the budget crisis, but trying to do it myself sort of drove home just how much you have to cut that you don't want to cut to even get close to a balanced budget.

In interesting news, the governer asked the state congress to wipe out a slush board filled with retired legislators drawing 6 figure salaries doing little of nothing. Instead the congress decided to trim their salaries a bit, make the slush board more powerful and instead eliminate most of the governer's policy departments support staff. tit for tat.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bu...0,2569636.story

Those are always fun.

I cut over $16.5b pretty easily with no tax increases, no one-time fixes, and no raiding of retirement benefits.

I'd have to think a bit more on the rest.... I wouldn't be surprised to find billions more wasted that could be cut that the bureaucrats think it too much of a sacred cow. The "slush board" mentioned above is an example. Considering the typical inefficiency of government, I bet there are tens of thousands of do-nothing jobs in education (outside of classroom teachers) and bureaucracy that could easily be eliminated.

I wonder how effective some of the programs on the chopping block are, such as prison rehab. Good idea in theory, but often that sort of thing doesn't work very well.

I added a few more cuts for $2b (again, no shady stuff), took commercial property off Prop 13 (which I think is a silly law in execution, though well-intentioned), increased ciggy taxes, which leaves $2B more to close the deficit, which I think can be found elsewhere in the bloated socialist state.

I kept:

community college funding

dev. disabled benefits

parole violations

no shift of cost to county jails

no one time fixes (though the juvie justice thing looks fishy)

retirement & pension items

parks

and avoided the rest of the tax increases.

Easy!