Government Policy and Budget Discussion Thread (no politics)

[CWSooner]

My wife works with a lot of teachers who teach in the inner city and first-ring suburbs in the Twin Cities. For the majority of their kids, school is the only place they are guaranteed to get two meals.

There are a lot of school districts in greater Minnesota where there is a significant percentage of students on free and reduced lunches as well, but no one bothers to print that information. Among those, I've noticed a strong undercurrent of "too proud to ask for help."

I have mixed thoughts about this.
On one hand, we don't want kids to go hungry, and kids who don't know where the next meal is coming from aren't usually focused on academic learning.
On the other hand, we have taught the parents and are teaching the kids that parents don't have primary responsibility for feeding their children.  So the kids whom we are feeding free breakfasts and lunches today will be the parents of tomorrow who don't feel responsible for feeding their children.  One tiny aspect of the problem of generational poverty.
Apropos of nothing, Karl Marx didn't feel responsible for feeding his kids.  Several of them died from malnutrition-related diseases.

[OrangeAfroMan]

I think you’re right. The only one who could’ve really snatched it from him was Bernie Sanders imo.

But in order for him to do that, Bernie would’ve had to gotten dirty and went on the offensive and gone after Biden. Bernie blew his shot.

It was more wide open for him to get in there and get down and dirty and take it this time around than last. He failed to go on the offensive with Biden and now he’s gone.

No, none of this is the case.  You're missing the point. 
Bernie was never going to get it.  Same as 2016.  He wasn't going to snatch anything.  The DNC would rather Trump be president than Bernie Sanders.

[OrangeAfroMan]

I have mixed thoughts about this.
On one hand, we don't want kids to go hungry, and kids who don't know where the next meal is coming from aren't usually focused on academic learning.

Yeah, I think this is the only hand that matters.  I don't disagree with what you said, but when this is on the one side of the scale, that's all there is.

[CWSooner]

You will never get to vote on any "program".


Why do we have a federal board of education, state boards of education, county boards of education, local boards of education?

I count lots and lots of pensions and free healthcare in all of that.

"Federal" is where, IMO, there should not be any educational establishment.  The Constitution doesn't assign education as a federal responsibility, so the federal government, IMO, should first take care of its constitutionally assigned responsibilities, then, if there's any money left over after that, take care of the "nice to haves."

Federalism.  We need to learn to love it all over again.

[Mdot21]

No, none of this is the case.  You're missing the point.
Bernie was never going to get it.  Same as 2016.  He wasn't going to snatch anything.  The DNC would rather Trump be president than Bernie Sanders.

You’re 100% correct on the last part. 

Clinton essentially bought the DNC last time around by funding it with millions of her dollars. That’s why the primary in 2016 was rigged and she always going to be the nominee no matter what. 

I don’t know. I feel like it was wide open this time around. Biden didn’t exert the kind of control over the party that Clinton did. Not even close. 

You think the Republican establishment wanted Trump in 2016? Hell no. They fought him tooth and nail. He went out and bullied everyone and took what he wanted. He was straight up bullying Jeb and Ted Cruz in those primary debates. AND IT WORKED. He went up there and called them liars and incompetent and made fun of them on live tv and the American people said you know what, I agree with that guy. 

Bernie never went on the offensive. He could’ve had a chance to snatch it if he did. One thing Trump is showing- you can’t be mr nice guy and get along with everyone if you want to win an election. You have to bash the shit out of the other guy/gal. He was a master at turning EVERYTHING around on his opponent. He was always on the offensive. Nothing stuck to him and everything stuck to his opponents. 

[CWSooner]

People think of the Civil War as a slavery thing (and it was, no doubt). What many people don't see is how the Constitution fundamentally changed with the 14th Amendment immediately following the Civil War. The 14th Amendment gave the federal government the authority to intervene against the states for violating citizens' rights, and guaranteed those rights across the states, giving the federal government much more power over how the states operate. Ever since its passage, the Supreme Court has been trying to define just how much the federal government can intervene in what had been state-level questions.

A related, but different question is the electoral college. It, too, has roots in slavery (but not exclusively so). But in the modern United States, its impact is similar--with the slavery question removed--it provides the smaller states with a level of representation in the federal government that protects them from the "tyranny of the majority." This is a valid concern. To begin with, constituents who don't think they have any power will not respect democratic decisions, even when made democratically. Conversely, those who believe that they have power in the process are much more apt to accept decisions that go against them. So allowing smaller states additional representation through the Senate and the electoral college provides them representation that otherwise they might not have. Personally, I think the electoral college could be tweaked to avoid a tyranny of the minority that many people feel is in place right now, where smaller states (and far fewer people) have what feels like far too much power. One option would be to take away the additional two "senator" votes from the electoral college.

It's true (in my view) that too much democracy is undemocratic. In states with robust direct initiatives (like California) we see the poor governance that comes from having popular votes on complex issues. A good example is prison/sentencing reform. This is a hard thing to tackle, and impossible to boil down into the kind of soundbites--and legislation--that lend themselves to popular vote (as opposed to, say, do we or do we not want the death penalty in our state, which is a simpler thing to legislate one way or the other). The essence of our government is representative democracy--electing people we believe in to make these kinds of difficult, complicated decisions. That leads to one of my biggest revelations in voting behavior: being able to trust someone is more important to me than the specifics of their political positions (not that those don't matter--unquestionably they do). This is no panacea--politics is hard business, and all people, whether politicians or not, change their views from time to time.

As a plug for the local politicians--this is the area of your closest representative democracy. Pay attention to what they are doing and engage with them. They make more decisions than you realize that impact your day-to-day life, and they are the most responsive politicians you will ever meet. And, they are, generally speaking, the minor leagues for higher office. So if you want good state and federal officials, elect good local ones.

Finally, I was amused by the mayor comment above because my wife presently is a mayor.

Great exposition, SF!
Are you tying the EC to slavery in the sense that slave states had lower population numbers?  That wasn't necessarily the case.  Virginia was among the 2-3 most populous states, while the New England states not named Massachusetts had relatively low populations.  (Or were you thinking about the 3/5 compromise?)
As you say, the intent was to give small-population states more influence than their population strictly warranted.
There were many compromises made at the Constitutional Convention.  The "Great Compromise" was the most important.  It was over arguments about representation in the U.S. Congress.  Madison's "Virginia Plan" called for proportional representation, and naturally, Virginia was a large-population state.  The "little" states howled.  New Jersey presented its plan for the small states, calling for equal representation.  The compromise was submitted by Connecticut--a bicameral congress with the lower house having proportional representation and the upper house having equal representation (the latter method was the how the unicameral Continental Congress and Confederation Congress had done it).  The Electoral College's votes are a direct result of that compromise.
And you probably knew all of that already!

[bayareabadger]

I have mixed thoughts about this.
On one hand, we don't want kids to go hungry, and kids who don't know where the next meal is coming from aren't usually focused on academic learning.
On the other hand, we have taught the parents and are teaching the kids that parents don't have primary responsibility for feeding their children.  So the kids whom we are feeding free breakfasts and lunches today will be the parents of tomorrow who don't feel responsible for feeding their children.  One tiny aspect of the problem of generational poverty.
Apropos of nothing, Karl Marx didn't feel responsible for feeding his kids.  Several of them died from malnutrition-related diseases.

I'd assume the parents still have the primary responsibility. The schools are really only dealing in the secondary responsibilities.

And in the end, if you cut this off, and more kids went hungry and some parents cut back on other things to pay for minimal lunch and breakfast, I'm just somewhat skeptical this would lead to a more responsible next generation. 

I mean, the secret here is, few people actually have a desire to be that poor. It's a pretty unpleasant existence and often one difficult to climb out of. I suppose the answer would be that if we just applied enough scarcity, they'd figure it out. But I remain skeptical. Many of these habits are learned, I'll grant that, but I'm unconvinced the lesson of watching a parent pick food over hot water breeds good habits.

(I had some roommates who came from a different economic class than myself, and their understanding of the ins and outs of finances was woeful. And they had modest privilege, but still no clue. I'd assume if my monthly credit card bill is your monthly everything bill, you'd be hard pressed to have any sense of a good structure for finances)

[SFBadger96]

A critical element to federalism is faith in your representatives, both at the state and federal level. In democracy, those who show up win. One critical ingredient for "the people" to cure their lack of faith in government is for them to participate. That means paying attention and speaking up about issues they care about--not on social media, but to their representatives (little "r"). This is a chicken/egg problem, like dieting and exercise, the only way to start is to start.

[Cincydawg]

I'm tired, Boss.

[CWSooner]

In my model, spending would be flat, it's just that nearly all of the money would go to citizens, instead of bureaucracies in DC trying to check to make sure fraud and abuse are as low as possible.  It would clear out enormous amounts of paperwork.  It would NOT solve social problems very well, but I'd argue the current approach doesn't either.

I think it would need a means test.  No HUD, no SNAP., no Welfare, no Medicaid, no nothing, but a simple check (or debit card).  My Department of Education would also be simple, a block grant to school systems with an inadequate tax base.  Here's a check, bye.  If they waste it, so be it.

You mentioned UBI upthread, and now this is about the same thing.
The late, great Milton Friedman worked in the Nixon administration and got Nixon to submit to Congress a UBI-sort of plan, "Guaranteed Annual Income."  It initially had bipartisan support, but then some Democrats got the administration to admit that it could not guarantee that not one single welfare recipient would receive less than he/she was currently receiving, and Republicans started thinking that it was going to cost too much (back in the long-ago, far-away days when Republicans cared about spending), so it failed.  Daniel Patrick Moynihan was one of the point men on the program, and he wrote a book about it and other domestic-policy struggles, Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding: Community Action in the War on Poverty.
It probably would have been a great thing had it passed.  Much simpler than we have now, with a vast bureaucracy administering a blizzard of confusing, conflicting, sometimes contradictory programs.

[CWSooner]

I don’t think he’s interested in running for president. He’s said as much. And I know he’s playing this dignified leader on tv, but- he ain’t. NYC and NY state officials handled this thing terribly from day one, and that’s why it’s become center of the pandemic in the US where half of all cases in this entire country are.

Biden has the nomination in the bag now imo.

Hey!  That's no disqualification for running for president!  

[SFBadger96]

Means testing and low- versus no-cost programs is an interesting issue. I largely don't believe in "free" stuff, but prefer means-tested, low-cost stuff. But there is a good argument that for certain things, free is the right way to handle it. Food for the poor may be one such place. There is little evidence that providing food to the poor encourages poor people not to work.

One of the big areas of abuse in the medicare/medicaid programs is over prescription--not outright fraud, but overselling certain services. This is also very hard to police (think "death panels"). Doctors are paid by service provided, and there is a lot of effort put into selling those services. But who is the government to tell a doctor a service isn't medically necessary? Of course, "the government" employs hosts of people with expertise in these issues, but anytime the answer is "no" you range into "death panel" territory. Insurers do it all the time, of course, but because they are private parties, we hear less about it (but not nothing). And setting fraud, waste, and abuse aside, most of us have been in the situation where we have had to evaluate various cost/benefit scenarios related to different available medical treatments. It's hard, and imperfect in the best of cases.

Personally, I don't believe in "free" medical care, meaning without any kind of co-pay. But I do believe co-pays shouldn't be so big as to prevent necessary care. Naturally, for the very poor, this is a very difficult line to draw. Maybe even harder for those who hold down a job (or several), but can barely afford their rent, food, and the necessities of life. For the very poor, they may not be making decisions about what not to pay for, but for those on the edge--hard workers, struggling to get by (and this is a large group of people)--forcing them to decide between medical attention and paying rent that month is tough.

[CWSooner]

In the darkest sense, it's a cost saver for you.

If you don't extend that net and kids go super hungry, eventually that's a crime. Parents get locked up, which you pay for. Kids go to foster care, which you pay for. We get a mess of court proceedings, which you pay for.

Can't deny folks the right to have kids and can't make parents not have problems or be very crappy at it.

The stocks.  Bring back the stocks.  Folks can't procreate while they're in the stocks.
Aah, I guess it would violate the 8th Amendment.

[CWSooner]

I'd assume the parents still have the primary responsibility. The schools are really only dealing in the secondary responsibilities.

And in the end, if you cut this off, and more kids went hungry and some parents cut back on other things to pay for minimal lunch and breakfast, I'm just somewhat skeptical this would lead to a more responsible next generation.

I mean, the secret here is, few people actually have a desire to be that poor. It's a pretty unpleasant existence and often one difficult to climb out of. I suppose the answer would be that if we just applied enough scarcity, they'd figure it out. But I remain skeptical. Many of these habits are learned, I'll grant that, but I'm unconvinced the lesson of watching a parent pick food over hot water breeds good habits.

(I had some roommates who came from a different economic class than myself, and their understanding of the ins and outs of finances was woeful. And they had modest privilege, but still no clue. I'd assume if my monthly credit card bill is your monthly everything bill, you'd be hard pressed to have any sense of a good structure for finances)

Maybe the food should be delivered to the home, or picked up at a local "free food" dispensary, so that the parent would at least have to get his/her dead ass out of bed to feed the kids with the free food.  I teach in a rapidly growing suburb that still has a relatively low cost of living, so many of the families who qualify for reduced/free lunches aren't really "poor" by local standards.  Still, some of the kids come to school having gotten themselves up and the unemployed parent(s) still asleep when the kids left the house.  The parents need to be part of the solution.