Blind Leading The Blind

Today a friend and I went to see Mike Capuano give an "Open Mike" talk in our town.  Mike is currently a US Congressman representing the 8th Congressional District of Massachusetts and running for the open Senate seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy.  I wanted to ask his opinion on the Constitution and the current healthcare reform.

First, I want to talk about the event itself.  This was my first time ever going to see a politician talk and it was quite an event.  The talk was scheduled to start at 11:30am and was hosted by a local tavern down town.  My friend and I arrived early so that we were sure to get in (about 11:10am).  There were a couple of folks already there chatting amongst themselves and one came over to us shortly after we sat down.  At first I thought nothing of this guy coming over to chat - there were only 5 people at the tavern at this time that didn't work there, so he seemed like he was just trying to be friendly when he asked us if we were residents of the town.  Then he asked why we were there and if we were political activists.  Woah - what?  Right from townie small-talk to political activism?  As it turns out, most of the people that showed up (I'm estimating 80%) were advocates from some group or another trying to get the Representative to hear their pleas.  By the looks of it, everyone knew everyone else because they were all activists for some group or another.  The first gentleman we spoke with was advocating to escalate the war in Afghanistan and pull troops out of Iraq - another person we spoke with was advocating to end the "military industrial complex" (do people really talk like that any more???) - and someone else was advocating for gun rights.  I felt a little out of place.  The few people that weren't activists were town leaders from state representatives to the chief of police.

Around 11:20 the staffers for Mike's campaign came in and started posting signs all over the place.  It was a game to see how many "Mike Capuano for Senate" signs they could put in the little room we were all in.  We asked one of the staffers working near us what how she got involved with the campaign and her answer was a little interesting.  She was going to the Kennedy College and after the death of Ted Kennedy, she became more interested in politics.  She chose to work with Mike's campaign because his office was located near her home in Cambridge, MA and because he seemed like a good guy.  When we pressed a little more, she said the she agreed with some of his political views, but that she really liked him because he seemed like a good guy.  This was a common theme among the people at the event: they were mostly there to support Mike Capuano because he is a good guy.

Representative Capuano showed up around 12:10pm and things kicked off shortly after that.  Before anything could begin however, Mike walked around the room to everyone that was there and shook their hands to thanked everyone for coming personally.  He gave a very well delivered speech (without notes or a teleprompter) talking about how his orphan grandfather came over from Italy to live the American Dream (I'm paraphrasing a little bit, but you get the picture).  His strongest point seemed to be that you were voting for him because of his moral standings and judgment - not his political positions (because you won't agree with him on every point).  He was also very open that when voting on an issue of great importance to himself, he would vote towards his conscience even if it meant voting against his constituents.  He was very proud of his decision to vote against the Patriot Act even though he thought most of his constituents would have wanted him to vote for it.  He thought that if he was consistently voting against his constituents that he would be voted out of office.

There was a brief question and answer session after his speech.  There were a couple of things that I thought were interesting including his stance on immigration, a public option for health care, and education.  He felt that the immigration policy could be boiled down to economic policy - If the US economy is good, then we can accept a lot of immigrants and if the economy is bad, we can refuse a lot of immigrants.  The immigrants that are here should have available to them a path to citizenship... but the immigrant criminals should be deported.  Mike's stance on a public option was a little vague because he said that he hasn't heard any good options from experts yet.  He basically said that he gets one option for health care as a US Representative: Blue-Cross Blue-Shield.  He would support a public option that offers more choices.  I don't think the people there saw the connection that your bountiful choices would be between your employer's coverage and the government option.  Wonderful choices.  Mike also stated that there is only two ways to limit the cost of health care: a government-controller health care system or competition.  He doesn't believe the country is ready for a government-run health care system, but he thinks that it would be the best way to solve the current problems.  His stance on education was simply that the schools weren't receiving enough funding to implement No Child Left Behind and that all of the problems could be solved by increasing funding for education.

Here is my interpretation of his views: Immigrants are a drain on our economy, so we will only let them in while the economy can support them (except the smart immigrants... they will help are economy).  A public option health care will allow people to choose between the one choice they have now and a government option... but the government should really control the cost of health care.  Our schools are failing students because they don't have enough money, so just throw more money at them and everything will be fine.

I wasn't able to ask my question during the Q&A session, but thanks to the bold actions by my friend, I was able to ask Mike my question one-on-one.  I asked Mike to explain to me how any federal decision on health care fell within the powers mandated to it by Article 1 Section 8 the US Constitution.  Mike's response was that it was entirely within congress' powers because the Constitution outlines powers granted to the states and whatever powers weren't granted to the states fell under federal control... then he said that he respectfully disagrees with my opinion that Congress was overstepping its powers and was ushered off to his next appearance.  I feel like I've done a lot of reading regarding the powers of the federal government outlined by the constitution and never have I found anyone that even suggested that the US Constitution applied limits to state powers.  The US Constitution was created to protect the people from an oppressive government and to protect the states rights outlined within their own constitutions.  I've linked this blog many times to the direct text of Article 1 Section 8 which begins with, "The Congress shall have power to..."  That deffinetly sounds to me like the beginning of a list of powers that The Congress has (not what powers the states have and absolutely not "these are a few of the powers of the Congress, but they can make more if they feel like it").

Mike Capuano seems like a nice guy.  He spoke very clearly and passionately about things he believes in, and he really wants to help people.  In his own words, he wants to help people and he doesn't know any other way to do it other than through his work in the Federal Government.  I guess he doesn't care for charities or community help organizations because clearly they aren't doing any good.  The event was interesting to see, and I think I might go to a few more if my schedule allows... but Mike Capuano will definitely not be getting my vote.

The Government Machine (Part 2)

Last time I looked at the National School Lunch Program, the Peace Corps, Delivery of Social Security and Government Retirement benefits, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology for waste, inefficiencies, and ways that the free market can easily step in and handle these initiatives without the need of federal government regulation.  Indeed, these programs could operate more effectively and respond to problems more quickly than the bloated government bureaucracies.  The one thing that these programs all have in common is the morality behind them.  No one is arguing if these programs are fulfilling a need - my argument is simply that it can be done better without the need for force from the government.

Food and Drug Administration
The FDA is the government agency in the Department of Health and Human Services tasked with regulating and supervising the safety of things that go into your body: food, diet supplements, drugs, vaccines, medical products, and cosmetics to name a few.  It also enforces sanitation requirements for interstate travel and rules for the control of disease in pets and other biological products.  The fun part is that there is only one regulatory agency responsible for these regulations.  Just like you wouldn't want a single commercial company in charge of important things like your credit score.  In an effort to combat this single point of regulation, there are several government and non-government organizations watching the FDA.  Unfortunately since there is only one regulating body, and that regulating body has the authority of the Federal Government behind any of its decisions, it isn't obligated by anything other than the level of public outcry to change its policies or regulations.

The American Red Cross is obligated to abide by FDA regulations.  The FDA has mandated that in order to reduce the risk of HIV-contaminated blood samples, any male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977 is not eligible to donate blood.  If we look at the government's aids.gov research, we can see their verification data.  In 2007, 57% of those involved in this study reported that they had been infected through sexual contact involving two males.  That sounds like a strong statistical basis for prohibiting gay men from donating blood.  This got me thinking: what percentage of gay men in the US are HIV positive?  I found this interesting source that did some number crunching for me.  Since there are still lots of people that aren't comfortable reviling their sexual preference, it is very difficult to get a real number, so most if it is still mostly done through analysis.  This analysis reviled that only about 12% of gay males in the US have HIV.  With this revaluation, the statistical case for banning gay males from donating blood goes out the window.  Unfortunately, this government agency doesn't see any reason to change their regulations... the FDA revisits this policy once a year, by the way.  They have chosen to do nothing for the past 32 years.

With a single regulatory agency there is also the chance of corruption.  In a 2005 article in the scientific journal Nature, a study reviled that in 70% of all FDA prescription drug panels writing clinical guidelines had at least one member on the panel that has direct financial ties to the pharmaceutical company that manufactures the drug being evaluated.  In one case, every single member on the panel evaluating epoeitin alfa for use in HIV positive patients had received money from the drug's manufacturer.

In the corporate world, a regulatory agency that continued these practices would loose credibility and be run out of business as member organizations withdrew from this agency's regulations.  What makes the FDA immune to this type of action?  They are the only regulatory agency in the US and they are backed by the US Government.


Global Positioning System
Oh, the Department of Defence:  how we both love and hate thee.  It is funny that when people think of frivolous government spending, the DOD is one of the first government agencies that is fingered because of their enormous budget ($612.4 Billion identified as "Discretionary Spending: Defense" in 2008 according to the congressional budget office - that is about 4.9% of all Federal Government Spending in 2008) and its infamous "black budget" for secret projects and yet GPS is one of the projects that is identified as a federal government success story.

The Global Positioning System began its life in 1960 under a NAVY program called Transit.  It was a constellation of five satellites that would float around the globe together allowing for a navigational fix once about every hour.  In 1983 President Ronald Reagan issued the National Security Defense Directive NSDD-102 (Previously classified document, released in part) in response to Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (which happened to be carrying a seated member of the US Congress) being shot down by the Soviet Union because the aircraft strayed into Soviet airspace while on autopilot.  This directive allowed GPS technology to be available to the public as a service to benefit the common good once it was fully operational.  The modern constellation of satellites was completed in 1994, but there are still a few launches to upgrade the system and replace failed satellites.

Nearly everyone has a GPS receiver now, but do you know its limits?  Because it is a government-controlled device, each manufacturer is held to strict FCC regulations that can change at the whim of the government.  One such restriction is that your GPS receiver won't operate above 18km (about 60,000 feet) or while moving faster than 515m/s (about 1100mph).  The government thinks that if your receiver is doing one of these things, then clearly it is a ballistic missile and should be denied GPS capability.  That sounds reasonable, but what if I want to make an amateur weather balloon to take pictures of the curvature of the earth and track the balloon's progress because it is cool?  These types of experiments will commonly exceed 40km (about 130,000 feet) and thus will be denied the ability to use GPS.  There are several other similar systems created by other countries, but all of them are forbidden in the US due to import restrictions.  Alternatively, what if I wanted to build a cruise missile in the US - it would fly at about the same height and speed of a private plane, so I could use GPS for that... not to mention that it is much easier to build a cruise missile than a ballistic missile.

Finally, what about those people that choose not to use GPS for whatever reason (maybe they don't like that the US military is using it to bomb civilians in Afghanistan or something).  They are still forced to pay (through their taxes) for the maintenance of the system.  This, like several other government problems, boils down to freedom.  You don't have the freedom to choose what your money supports: be it a sophisticated map to get you from A-to-B or the ability to "reach out and touch someone" with a 3000lb JDAM.

Postal Service
Postal services on US Territory actually pre-dates the United States, but the United States Postal Service was headed up by Benjamin Franklin in 1775 and backed by the Second Continental Congress.  There were a couple of government changes that eventually led to the creation of today's postal service after the 1970 Postal Reorganization Act.  The current USPS is legally identified as an "...an independent establishment of the executive branch..." as opposed to a Government-owned corporation (like Amtrak).  As an Independent establishment it has not received tax money since the early 1980's, but it does receive several perks of a government entity.  Among them are sovereign immunity (it cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution), eminent domain powers (the ability to seize private property or rights without consent), powers to negotiate postal treaties with foreign nations, and the exclusive right to deliver 1st and 3rd class mail.

Do any of those powers strike you as shocking?  The nice little nook it has created in the government also protect it from anti-trust regulations as decreed by the supreme court in 2004 .  Additionally, it is a federal offense for anyone other than an employee or agent of the USPS to deliver anything to that box you paid for on your property labeled "U.S. Mail".  Would the USPS be as successful without these protections?  FedEx and UPS alone have dominated the package delivery service for several years causing the USPS to increase their rates on their protected products (have you ever seen the price of a stamp go down?).  What benefit does the Post Office provide in today's world?  The US Constitution allows the government to create and maintain Post Roads, but it did not mandate a US Postal Service.  It was created during a time when communication between cities was so poor that companies like FedEx and UPS weren't viable, but in today's world it is the USPS that can't keep up.  It has out-lived its usefulness as is evident through the success of its competition even in the face of government handicaps.

Federal Highway Administration
With the broad hand-waving flying around regarding a US Highway Department and its efficiency, I believe the closest actual government entity to be the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which is a division of the United States Department of Transportation.  The administration has a complicated history that you can read about here, but the current form was created in 1967.  The largest push for the creation of the US Highway System was the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 signed into law by President Dwight D Eisenhower.  Eisenhower argued that in the interest of national defense, the highway system would allow the Army to quickly move around the country to fend off invasion by a foreign power.  Upon the completion of the highway system the cross-country trip of an Army convoy was reduced from two months to two weeks.  All hail the Department of Defense and its public works programs!

The major thing this administration has going for it is that most of its responsibility is maintenance.  Approximately 98% of the roads identified in the National Highway System have been built already.  Road maintenance doesn't experience a lot of fluctuation in cost or procedures, so there isn't really a lot to screw up.  Except when it comes to bridges, apparently.  Remember the bridge collapse in Minnesota?  An investigation into US bridges came up with 26.2% of all bridges in the US are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete (by the way: watch out, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Washington DC, and Hawaii - more than 42% of your bridges are bad!).  I'll grant that not all of these bridges fall under direct control of the FHWA, but that agency is responsible for the quality of work for which federal funds support... which is another area where the FHWA is lacking: regulations.

The FHWA is also responsible for generating highway safety standards.  How many of you follow the speed limit?  According to various studies, anywhere from 60% to 80% (depending on where the speed was measured: rural, suburban, or urban highways) of all drivers do not comply with the posted speed limits.  Remember when highway speeds were limited to 55 mph for safety and fuel economy?  According to the Cato Institute, safety on the highways actually worsened for the first several months after the passage of the 55pmh law.  As for fuel economy - various independent studies assembled by the Heritage Foundation have shown that limiting highway speeds to 55 mph only has a 0.5% fuel economy saving.  With this in mind, how much is the FHWA actually helping highway safety?  Of course you remember my gripe from Part 1 about government regulations when private regulation agencies are quicker to adapt to new technologies and better at world-wide implementation.

Finally, what about making the highways pay for themselves?  have you ever had that though when you are driving down the highway that just made sense?  One example I can think of is: why isn't there some sort of wind turbine embedded in the median the take advantage of the wind all of those cars driving by creates.  Any privately operated road system that wanted to remain free to its users would need to come up with some way of making that roadway generate revenue.  Why shouldn't a road be able to generate enough revenue to support itself?  Toll roads were emerging around the country as a highly successful venture before the national highway system monopolized everything into a government-run institution.  From my experience in Massachusetts, it angers me to no end that the tolls I pay on the Mass Pike (I-90) are mostly going to pay for the Big Dig around Boston which I don't even drive on.  If the Big Dig was such a necessity, why doesn't it become tolled until its debts are paid off?

I haven't made my arguments as strong as I typically like through the use of more examples mostly because I wanted to keep the length of these posts to a readable limit.  My intent is to get you to break from the normal thinking of, "well it has been working for this long - it must be good."  The status quo may be functioning now, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a better way to do things and it definitely doesn't meant that just because the government can run a program for a long time that it is running it well.  Did I miss something or get my facts wrong?  What do you think about my compilation?  Let me know in the comments.

The Government Machine (Part 1)

In an effort to identify where my own thoughts of the government's ability to successfully operate programs differed from the norm, I asked for some help from my friends.  I wanted to know what federal government programs they thought were well-run, efficient, and to the benefit of the common good.  Some I were expecting and some caught me off guard.  Below is my analysis of each program or office mentioned to me prior to publishing this article.  Since I got a lot of good feedback, I'm going to break this into multiple pieces.

The National School Lunch Program

The NSLP was officially enacted with the passage of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act under President Harry S. Truman in 1946.  This program evolved out of the common problem that a lot of politicians have: the desire to remain in office over the desire for a prosperous country.  People were looking for help from rough times, so the politicians sought to make them happy with promises of free lunch.  I won't dwell on the development of the program because it is a rather convoluted story.  Sufficed to say that the programs leading up to the current NSLP involved price fixing and legislative language to punish schools that did not choose to participate in the program.

The program today offers free or reduced price meals to qualified individuals and qualified public, nonprofit, and residential educational agencies.  Sounds like a great program to get behind - it appeals to all of your moral values and beliefs.  Did you ever stop to think about the problems with this program?  First off, all meals prepared at an institution receiving NSLP must adhere to FDA guidelines (be sure to check the next post which will include the FDA).  Secondly, the government is using farm subsidies to provide fixed-priced goods.  What is wrong with farm subsidies, you ask?  Do you know where high fructose corn syrup comes from?  When the US sugar farmers couldn't keep up with foreign competition, US Farm Subsidies effectively increased the price of all foreign sugar imports so the US sugar farmers wouldn't lose their market share.  Then when other sweetened products (like coke) were competing to get their prices down, HFCS stepped in to become the new low-cost sweetener made by the US corn farmers (under another subsidy program).  Price fixing also has another impact that isn't always apparent: stifled competition.  In a free market, someone comes out with a good or service and prices it to make a profit.  The price is basically determined by supply and demand: the higher the demand, the higher the price.  Someone else sees the product and the selling prices, decides that they can make it in a way that selling it for less would still turn a profit, and enters the market at the lower price.  At this point, each manufacturer is trying to get the price down or increase the value of their product through development and marketing.  When the government is involved, not only does a competitor have to beat the government price, but it also has to beat the taxes taken away from people in order to be competitive.  Additionally, there are usually stipulations tied to the purchase of government goods that would further hurt the buyer if they stopped using the government product.  The stipulation from the government in the NSLP is that if a school opts out of the program, they lose additional federal food support in the way of excess farm goods (a by-product of a different farm subsidy) and additional monetary support for unsubsidized meals.

So what could be done better with the National School Lunch Program?  I can imagine a grocery store, restaurant, or local charities teaming together to create school lunch kitchens for entire districts.  Currently, part of the NSLP restrictions is that all lunches must be made on-sight in order to qualify for aid.  Everyone knows that mass production helps reduce costs and in meal preparation, it is no different.  These large kitchens could be located such that they could deliver hot meals to several schools on a rotating basis to coincide with the school's lunch periods.  The low-cost or free meals could be covered through the cost of other student's meals - like any other business that offers discounts (when that loan company offers you 0% financing, you know they are still getting their money somewhere else).  This may not be the only solution - there may not be any one single solution.  The point is that government aid comes at a higher cost than is initially identified by any single program.

US Peace Corps
The Peace Corps was started by Executive Order under President John F Kennedy and later authorized by congress with the passage of the Peace Corps Act.  The goal is to send able-bodied Americans out into the world to help other countries with needed training, improve the image of Americans abroad, and to increase the understanding of other cultures among Americans.  Since its inception, there have been nearly 200,000 volunteers that have served 139 countries around the world with a budget of $340 Million in FY2009.  So what is the problem?  I say it doesn't do enough.  The US Government decides who deserves to be helped and who must go on suffering.  Not only this, but it is hopelessly inefficient and redundant.  Check out the International Volunteer Programs Association (only one example of many) which sets up international volunteerism through any number of different programs.  Private overseas aid was three times more than government programs.  The message here is that the government bureaucracy is slowing down our ability to help others.  Furthermore, when you donate your time and money to a private charity, you can more specifically target your donations as you wish.

Delivery of Social Security and Government Retirement Checks
I am a little relieved that Social Security and Government Retirement programs weren't targeted directly - it makes me think you have some common sense.  This is a little specific in my mind.  Distribution of mailers is an automated system (most likely developed by the private sector, I might add) and should be efficient.  Now try fixing a problem that may occur with the delivery of your check - THAT takes forever.  I'll also cover the actual delivery of items when I talk about the Post Office next time.

National Institute of Standards and Technology
This one is in response to a comment that the time.gov service (the government service that keeps everyone's clock synchronized).  I have chosen to cover all of NIST in this section because time.gov is only a very small part its mission.  NIST is responsible for determining industry standards, validating new measurement standards, and pushing new technology.  As with the Peace Corps, NIST is disconnected from industry and redundant.  Currently the most widely used set of standards in industry is organized through an international organization called the International Organization for Standards (ISO).  ISO has member companies in 158 countries around the world and as such is the largest international standards organization.  Standards set by this organization are agreed upon though agreements by technical experts in their field.  Industry has always been the most successful at pushing technology, so the ISO standards are also the most up-to-date and relevant to their fields.  ISO isn't the only standards organization, either - nearly every professional society has a list of standards such as ASME and IEEE (ex: IEEE 802.11 - more commonly referred to as wi-fi).

Be sure to tune in next time for a look at the Food and Drug Administration, The Department of Defense's Global Positioning System, the Postal Service, and most people's golden egg: The US Highway Department.

Government Intervention in the Economy

Everyone knows the problems the are facing with health care and the economy - either they deal with them all of the time or surely heard about the problems in the news. I think it is appropriate to discuss this country's path down the welfare road. This is beneficial because for the vast majority of people, no one knows why they were brought into being much less their specific roll in our current debacle. The key to a successful future is an accurate understanding of the past.

Most of the country's welfare programs began, as one would expect, during and shortly after the Great Depression (which started in 1929). Whatever the real cause (which is still a topic of great debate today), ultimately the blame fell to the president at the time: Herbert Hoover. Franklin Delano Roosevelt defeated Hoover in the election of 1932 with an economic recovery plan called the New Deal, saying:

Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth… I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people. This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms.

-Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1932 Democratic National Convention

Not only did Roosevelt beat out Hoover, but the democrats won in a land-slide, ousting the incumbent Republican majority in congress as well. Before I go into the New Deal, I think it is interesting to note that some economists of the time believed that the US economy was turning around in 1932 regardless of the next president.

President Roosevelt's New Deal was a significant shift in government policy giving the government more control over the economy and money supply, intervention to control prices, and agricultural production. The New Deal saw Roosevelt meeting with congress for the first 100 days he was in office. During these first 100 days, congress granted every request made by the President. This period also saw the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Wikipedia has a good list of New Deal Programs - I'm not going to talk about all of them. This is where Social Security, Farm Subsidies, the move away from the Gold Standard, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA - This allowed the formation of labor unions), and the foundation for most modern welfare programs came from. Basically the New Deal was an effort to give the government more control over areas that the Constitution expressly prohibits (see my arguments in this post regarding this topic). Clearly any problem of the complexity of the Great Depression has more than one solution - FDR's approach assumed the government would know best.

For those eagle-eyed readers out there, you noticed that my graphic above included a section called the "Recession in Depression." In FDR's second term in office, there was a sharp spike in the unemployment rate. By this time, the second stage of FDR's New Deal was in full swing, including federally backed Unemployment Benefits and Mandatory Minimum Wages designed to increase the spending power of working-class Americans.

Today there is still fierce debate as to whether or not the New Deal helped or hurt the economy. According to One thing that is certain is that there were still other recessions (haven't you read the news lately?). With these new recessions come a host of recurring events: the incumbent president and political party catch the blame, the opposing party wins the next cycle of elections in a land-slide based on a platform of giving the American people the support they need, followed by a fury of legislation designed to increase government control over the economy with the intention of preventing further recessions.

When do we (the American people) put our foot down? When does it become blatantly obvious that the government has tried this trick before with the same results repeated time and time again? When do we demand to the federal government to stop arbitrarily assigning value to our currency? When do we demand that the government give back our money so that we can do with it what we choose instead of seeing it thrown away on another policy that we know won't actually fix anything in the long term? When do we the people demand that our rights outlined by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are once again honored by our chosen representatives?