Open Letter on the Filibuster

 Dear Senator,

I am writing you today to urge you in the strongest possible terms to work to eliminate the Senate procedure known as the filibuster. I feel it is an anti-democratic anachronism, and its continued existence imperils the future of American democracy itself.

As you most likely know, the filibuster originated as a gap in the rules in 1806, but has been elevated to a principle over the years. However, there is no mention in the 1787 Constitution or its amendments of any super-majority requirement for normal legislation. Treaties, conviction of impeached officials, and constitutional amendments are among several defined actions requiring a super-majority. On the other hand, the Constitution specifically states that “a majority of each [chamber] shall constitute a quorum to do business,” which means that common legislation was expected to be passed with a lower level of consensus. Unfortunately, recent Senate practice has been that a super-majority is required to pass any controversial legislation that cannot be squeezed into the reconciliation process. Continuing that practice will preclude the passage of any important bill in the 117^th Congress.

Removing the filibuster will require you to pressure other members of the Democratic Caucus, most notably Sen. Sinema of Arizona and Sen. Manchin of West Virginia, to join you in moving America forward. Both have expressed the mistaken notion that the filibuster is a core element of American democracy, despite its absence from the Constitution and the well-documented use of the procedure in opposing civil rights legislation. But, honestly, I have no idea whatsoever about how to make either of them understand that not eliminating the filibuster and not allowing votes for important bills like S.1 or JLVRA is critical to the future of American democracy. I can only communicate to you that you, their fellow Democratic Senator, must use all the tools available to you and the party in order to change their minds. Senators Sinema and Manchin have, in effect, decided that the fetish of bipartisanship is more important than the ability of American citizens to vote in free and fair elections. This is obviously insane, as a large majority of the Republican Party supports the January 6 insurrection, which had the goal of overturning a free and fair election through violence aimed at members of Congress. I see no reason to seek “comity” with people who excuse a mob that seemed eager to harm elected officials, and that at the state level are furiously passing bills aimed at restricting the right to vote.

Thank you for your time, and I wish you the best of luck at persuading Senators Sinema and Manchin to change their minds on the filibuster and the future of American democracy.

The Third Constitution of the United States of America

This post provides an updated version of a document I published previously.  It was finalized some time before the election of 2016, which Changed Everything.  Well, hopefully not, but it certainly changed my thinking, given that we now live in post-truth, post-fact, and (most importantly for my efforts at constitutional law) post-norm era.  But until I have another update, here is:

The Third Constitution of the United States of America

Enjoy!

Five Vital Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

In the previous post, I presented an entirely new constitution for the United States of America.  That document began as an effort to address the most important flaws in the current constitution.  My remedies for the five biggest issues are below.

Five Vital Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

I think the document is fairly self-explanatory, but there are brief footnotes at the bottom of each amendment that provide a bit of background.

Enjoy!

The Third Constitution of the United States of America

I've been working on a project for a while, and I've decided it is time to release it. So here it is.

The Third Constitution of the United States of America

I won't try to prejudice your opinion of my efforts by giving any background here, but there is a brief essay at the end of the document if you care to know how it came about.  I suggest you not read until you've gone through the text a couple of times.  The same suggestion applies to the endnotes.

Enjoy!

Our Skies Are Bigger Than Our Wallet

Today, NASA announced its plan to develop a heavy lift vehicle (aka rocket) called - rather uncreatively - the Space Launch System (SLS).  It would use many parts and technologies from the Space Shuttle program in an effort to save money.  But despite that, the cost is huge: $3 billion annually through the first test flight in 2017, for a total of $18B.  That's too much, as far as I am concerned, especially in light of the fact there is no defined need for it.  There's plenty of hoped-for missions amongst human spaceflight supporters, such as to the Moon and to Mars, but those are entirely unfunded at this point.  If the cost was lower, then I would support the program despite its speculative nature.  But at $3B per year, the funding will definitely eat into other programs.  I have no idea if the $18B price tag is justified in terms of the manpower and materials needed to accomplish the task, or if that number is bloated due to too much contracting and sub-contracting.  I do know that making the SLS man-rated will add to the cost, and as I explained before, there's no reason to do so given the parallel development of commercial capsules and the availability of the Russian Soyuz vehicle (though the Soyuz launch system had a small problem last month).

At this point the best option for a heavy lift vehicle is the Falcon Heavy, which has a test launch scheduled in early 2013.  It will only have a maximum capacity of 50,000 kg to low-earth orbit, as compared to 70,000 kg for the first launch of the SLS, which is intended to have a maximum capacity of 130,000 kg.  But the Falcon Heavy will be available much sooner, at a much lower cost, and, again, as of now there is no defined need to lob something that heavy into orbit.  If for some reason a larger spacecraft is needed, it can be assembled in orbit, just like the Space Station has been.  That would add costs to a mission, but probably not so much that the $18B SLS program would become justified.

Up, Down, Turn Around

I want to thank S&P for providing me with this evening's quota of humor.  If you're going to do something as momentous as downgrading the U.S. Government's credit rating, at least get the numbers right first.  And after embarrassing itself so thoroughly, I suspect S&P went through with the change mostly so it could distract everybody from its foolishness.

On the sober, serious side, Salmon has some good comments on the situation.  The US remains the richest country in the world, with very low tax rates compared with other industrialized countries.  But the political risk of default is very, very real.  Heck, if "the deal" had been bad enough, I would have been willing to bring on the default.  As it turned out, the deal is merely mildly counterproductive - at least until the new and improved Catfood Commission II reports in.  But the entire crisis was purposely contrived to extract spending cuts that the Teahadists wouldn't have been able to negotiate with the Senate and White House.  The best analogy I can come up with is a doctor holding a pneumonia patient hostage by threatening to shoot the patient unless the doctor is allowed to amputate a leg.  The US is suffering through a huge jobs crisis, but the Teahadists want to cut government spending, and they were willing shut the US government down and ruin its credit rating in order to get what they wanted.  Fortunately (or not), all they got was a promise to consider amputation in a few months.

BREAKING!  MUST CREDIT... just about everyone.  Okay, here's some text from S&P's release:

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process.

Heh-indeedy.  Unfortunately, the rest is worse.  But that's not surprising, as the way S&P inserted itself in the debate to begin with showed that it was clearly on one side.  The release as whole is basically a continuation of their pressure to act in a certain way.

Added: Krugman weighs in with a somewhat harsher view of S&P than Salmon.

Added: Drum thinks the risk of actual default was and is remote.  I used to think that, but I no longer believe that the Teahadists are under anybody's control.

Added: Here's a good post on why the practical effects of a downgrade - even by all three agencies - are likely to be minimal.  I largely agree, though I would qualify it with "in the short term" more explicitly. Another qualifier that I would add is "provided nothing bad happens elsewhere."  A breakup of the Euro would send investors piling into any US asset, especially Treasuries, driving down yields sharply.

Shit Sandwich, or Just Plain Shit?

There's very little positive to say about the deal reach today, except that it's better than default, and it's better than other possible deals.  The details floating about earlier in the day were skimpy, but awful.  The final deal seems to be better, though there are conflicting versions.  It's not over yet, however, as one or both House caucuses might reject the deal.

Given a choice between shit or a shit sandwich, I think most people would take the latter.  But it's not really something anyone would celebrate.  Similarly, default is a worse option than the deal, but the deal is still bad in the absolute.  We need more deficit spending now, not less.  The economy is very weak, and the longer it stays weak, the bigger our long-term problems will become.  We shouldn't be making big cuts to domestic discretionary programs, because they are already insufficient.  We should be making more cuts the national security budget, and moving that money over to the domestic side.   And so on.

It's crazy that we are even having this discussion.

Update 2011/08/01: Also, not a grand bargain, but no guarantees that the hostage-taking won't happen again with the 2012 and 2013 budgets. And some of the language in the spin from the White House is horrid.

Lasting Relief

I had been planning to write a post on the end of the Space Transportation System (STS), a.k.a. the Space Shuttle once the Atlantis landed successfully.  But mistermix beat me to it, hitting all the points I was going to make.

• Thank FSM it's over.  Ever since the Challenger disaster, and even more so after the Columbia disaster, I gritted my teeth during each flight.  The STS program ended up being the most deadly manned program in history (not counting related on-the-ground accidents), killing 14 astronauts, vs. 4 during the entire course of the Soviet Union/Russian program.
• It was a Frankenstein.  I don't know the history of how the program evolved, so I don't know if the Shuttle could have been designed better.  But the additional weight of a man-rated reusable vehicle made launches of satellites and robotic missions much more expensive.  The Shuttle was approximately three times heavier than its payload capacity.
• Ease up on the jingoism.  The pride element of objecting to using a Russian rocket is silly.  They have a reliable launch vehicle and space capsule, so it makes sense to use it now that there is no requirement to launch large ISS components.
• Kill the ISS already.  The International Space Station is the most expensive thing on Earth built by humans, and is unlikely to yield scientific or technological results that will come anywhere close to justifying its immense cost.  It should be flown into the Pacific Ocean.  But because it's an international program, doing the sensible thing won't happen until at least 2020.
• Crowds are no fun.  Money is always an issue, and the extraordinary expense of the STS and ISS probably crowded out a lot of more rewarding robotic missions.  The caveat is necessary because there is no way of knowing if any of the money spent on the manned missions over the past three decades would have been spent otherwise, but I think it's likely that a good portion of it would have been.
• It ain't over 'til its over.   Space is still out there, and there are incredible things yet to discover.  The gee-wiz factor of putting men into space is gone, at least for the time being.  But robotic mission can yield fantastic results, as programs like Voyager, Hubble, and the Mars Rovers have shown.  There's no reason to equate the end of the Shuttle program with the end of space exploration.

 So what should NASA be doing in the near future?  This is how I see it:

• Minimal support of the ISS.  Because it is an international program, keeping the ISS alive is necessary for political reasons.  But the US should do no more that meet its obligations.
• Minimal development of COTS capsules.  Currently, three different unmanned supply vehicles are available to take cargo and fuel to the ISS: the European Automated Transfer Vehicle, the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle, and the Russian Progress vehicle.  They have completed 2, 2, and 46 trips respectively.  Since there is no immediate need, NASA should provide limited funding to American companies for developing similar capabilities, or manned capsules.
• General spaceflight research and development.  This would be NASA's slush fund for interesting but not immediately applicable technology development.  One specific goal I would recommend is to find a way to capture and de-orbit space debris.
• Aeronautics research and development.  The first "A" in NASA is usually an afterthought.  But given how important air travel and freight are, some effort should be put into research applicable to atmospheric vehicles.  The emphasis should be on fuel efficiency.
• Robotic exploration.  This should be the main focus of NASA for the next decade.  While there have been mishaps, the list of successful missions is much, much larger.  The missions can be divided into three categories
  1. Solar system exploration.  This includes missions to planets or other bodies, and Sol observation.  Dawn and SOHO are two such missions.
  2. Earth observation.  Any mission to observe the Earth not undertaken by NOAA or the military falls here.  The Aqua/Terra satellites comprise one notable program.
  3. Astronomy and physics.  The Hubble is the most famous example of this type of mission, but there are many others.  The James Webb Space Telescope is the next big one scheduled for launch, but it may be canceled due to budget cuts.
• Heavy lift development.  This is admittedly the most dubious item in the list.  As of 2011, the Atlas V HLV is the largest available launch vehicle, with a claimed capacity to LEO of 29,000kg.  In contrast, the Saturn V was able to launch 118,000kg into orbit.  The STS was able to launch as much as 109,000kg to LEO, but most of that was the Shuttle itself.  There has been talk for years about developing an unmanned launch vehicle from the STS components, and NASA appears to be on the verge of announcing they intend to do just that.  But no one has identified a need to lob anything that weighs 70,000kg or more into orbit, either right now or in the foreseeable future.  So there are reasons for putting the program on hold.  To me, there are two arguments for the program.  One is that nobody else is likely to do it.  Other space agencies and various commercial organizations have slowly raised the capacity of their systems over the years.  But a much bigger rocket would have to be designed from scratch, and I think it's unlikely that anyone but the Chinese government would be willing to make such a huge and largely speculative investment.  The other is that most of the components are already available in the US from the existing Shuttle infrastructure.  They would have to be re-integrated after a new fairing system is designed, and then tested.  But if NASA plans and executes wisely, it should be able to have the new system ready in less than a decade and for a reasonable-ish cost (leaving aside the issue that it is pointless right now).

No discussion about NASA is really complete without noting that it still receives indirect support from the Department of Defense.  The two programs are largely separate, but they often use the same contractors and the same launch vehicles, which reduces NASA's costs over being the sole customer government customer.  Occasionally there is some direct cooperation, though its nothing like what took place in the 1960s.  In addition, NOAA is in charge of a satellite fleet, but they are purchased, not built in-house, and are launched on commercial rockets.

Mo' Money, Mo' Money, Mo' Money

The NYT has a good article on the NRC up.  Here's a passage that I want to highlight:

In 2008, for example, workers at the Oconee plant in South Carolina discovered that a crucial line in the cooling system at Reactor Unit 1 was blocked by a broken gasket. The workers fixed it and the reactor was restarted.

But the two N.R.C. inspectors assigned full time to Oconee quickly began asking why Duke Energy, the operator, wasn’t also inspecting corresponding valves and lines at the plant’s other two reactors. Duke said the clogging was isolated and a blocked line could be bypassed in a pinch.

In February 2010, when the company finally agreed to look at the other two reactors, it discovered that the lines there had the same problem and that the bypass option would never have worked.

I think this is a good illustration of why the current ownership model of nuclear power plants is problematic.  In this situation, the NRC identified a safety issue in one reactor that could have been generic to all three of the B&W L-loop PWRs at Oconee Nuclear Station.  (It also could have been generic to all L-loop plants, of which there are seven operating.  Were the other four inspected?)  But the owner of the power plant successfully fought off inspection of the other two reactors for two years.

Why did Duke try to stop further inspections?  Because shutdowns might have been required (and ultimately were).  A reactor that is shut down doesn't make money, and making money is the sole purpose of private corporations in the US.  The senior management of a profitable company gets rewarded on a yearly basis, which is a much shorter time scale from when corner-cutting might result in an accident large or small.  But the impact of a large accident at a nuclear power plant is potentially very large, which means safety has to be pursued aggressively at all times.  That sets up a conflict between the plant owner/operator and the regulatory agency, and in today's (legally) corrupt politics, the regulator ends up backing down.

Isn't It Grand?

The Villager rumor mill churned out a real humdinger last week, which was that a "grand bargain" is in the offing.  Recovering economist Duncan Black provides the appropriate reaction in his usual pithy manner.  A number of other people weighed in, including Black two more times, Digby, Drum, Klein, Benen, and Day again.  I agree with the two basic reactions: it's unlikely to happen, and it would suck if it did happen.

The fact is, any such bargain would bad for the country and its citizens.  At this point no amount of cutting alone can close the budget gap without basically eliminating a large number of government functions.  A lot of conservatives argue that government shouldn't be doing much of what it currently does, but they are as wrong about that as they were about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  On the other hand, the budget can definitely be balanced in the short term without too much difficulty by cutting one area - defense - and raising revenue.  And that revenue can be raised with minimal harm to the lower and middle classes.

Here's the current situation.  As recently as 2008, the Federal Government collected 18.8% of GDP in taxes.  Receipts have fallen to a projected 14.8% for the current budget year.

And here we are with a budget that leads to a constant debt ratio.  How did we get here all of the sudden?  Security spending (Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Homeland Security, and about 2/3 of the Department of Energy) was cut by 1.4% of GDP.  Revenue was increased via two new taxes (carbon and transaction), reforming of the corporate income tax, and hiking personal income taxes on the wealthy.  The SS portion of F.I.C.A. also goes up once (if) the idiotic payroll tax holiday ends.  The carbon tax is regressive, but in the long run the poor and middle classes would be better off paying it, and not having other programs cut or eliminated.  And even after the tax increases, the total federal, state, and local tax burden in the US would be lower than just about every other industrialized country in the world.

Some things to note:  I'm not saying that this would be popular. Nor am I saying it has any chance of passing Congress.  Nor, finally, am I saying that the long-term budget problem - which is almost entirely due to out of control health care costs - would be solved.  The point of these two graphics is simply to point out that the current budget discussion as it is presented in most of the media is entirely fraudulent.

Premature Capitulation

Obama really needs to get some desensitizing lotion or learn to think about last night's box scores whenever the concept of pleasing Republicans pops into his mind.  The proposal to freeze government workers' pay would save about $2 billion in FY2011, which represents about 0.18% of the projected deficit.  And Obama made the offer out of the blue, not at the negotiating table where the other side might offer something in return.  It was a moronic move.

ETA: As multiple commenters at BJ point out, the worst aspect of this proposal is what it does to the narrative.  Instead of talking about jobs, we're talking about budget deficits.  And instead of talking about defense spending or health care spending, we're talking about the pay of those evil commie government workers.  Which, in the scheme of things, just doesn't matter that much, because total civilian wages and salaries add up to about $250 billion.  Not paying federal workers at all for a year would cover only about 1/4 of the projected FY2011 deficit.

ETAA: DDay makes a good point about the cost of ethanol subsidies vs. the pay freeze.

It's All Fun and Games Until Somebody's Taxes Get Hiked

Via several blogs, I've come across this interactive graphic entitled "Budget Puzzle" from the NYT.  It's somewhat buggy (sometimes allowing both mutually exclusive items to be selected) but it is also much more comprehensible than the other budget calculators I've played with.  Most others only give results for the next year, but the NYT version shows results at two different points in the future, which is much more useful.  My solution used early withdrawals from our land wars in Asia, efforts to slow the growth rate of medical expenses, an end to the giant tax holiday the rich have enjoyed over the past 7-9 years, and new taxes on carbon and the banksters.

ETA: Klein has links to some other budget calculators.

Industry, Perseverance, and Frugality Make Fortune Yield

Apropos of the post prior to the previous post, here are some very simple revenue projections for taxes other than the personal income tax.

Since it is assessed at a flat rate, a value-added tax is regressive. Poorer people, who spend a greater amount of their income, end up paying more tax as a percentage of their income than the well-off do with a VAT, or with any other consumption tax for that matter. This can be somewhat mitigated by excluding certain items. Food and housing are the most common. If consumption stays at 70% of GDP, a 12% VAT excluding food and housing would yield just about 6% of GDP. If consumption falls to 58% the rate would have to go to 15%. For comparison, the median rate in the EU is 20%.

Ah, the gas tax. One would think after two wars directly related to oil (yep, they were) people would be gung-ho about this source of revenue. The current federal gas tax is $0.184 per gallon, with an additional $0.00 (Alaska) to $0.416 (New York) in state taxes. Taxes on diesel are slightly higher. Increasing the federal tax to $1.50 would yield about 1.5% of GDP at the current consumption rate of 9.5M barrels per day. The total pump price would go up to about $4.00 per gallon.

This is an attempt to look at a carbon tax in a slightly more sophisticated way - but I don't have a background in economics so this initial cut could be completely wrong. Anyway, there are three sets of lines - no reduction, a 2% decrease for each $5 per ton increase in the tax, and a 4% decrease. Applying the 2% factor resulted in consumption falling by 45% at the highest price, and the 4% factor resulted in a reduction of 70%. Nice results, but they in no-way reflect what might happen if a big tax was slapped on tomorrow - pure chaos. But applied over time - increasing by $5 per year, and by $10 after several years - there would be significant reductions without harm to the economy, though the change in consumption would not follow a simple curve.

For reference, the Iraq War has cost about $600B so far, and the total long term cost will be much higher. If we had tried to pay for the war in real-time, a gas tax of $1.00 or $1.25 would have covered it.

My Problem Lies in Reconciling My Gross Habits With My Net Income

I've been trying to get a better handle on what the future economy might look like. So far I've only tackled the federal government portion. (Note that spending in this presentation is a measurement of flows, not contribution to final demand. Also, much of federal "spending" is actually programmatic transfers to the states, which in turn do the actual spending.)

This is roughly how federal government taxes and outlays broke down in 2007. On the tax side there are essentially two streams - taxes not dedicated to any program, and payroll taxes dedicated to senior assistance. Total tax revenue has not been enough to cover net current spending since 2001, thus the box on the right side showing the amount borrowed. Over on the spending side there are three big categories - general government (both discretionary and mandatory), Social Security, and Medicare. As we should all know by now, Social Security is running a surplus and the excess is being siphoned off to pay for the rest of government. Even with that surplus in hand, the federal government has been a net borrower since 2001. In contrast, the revenue for Medicare doesn't cover its total costs, and thus some general tax revenue is used to pay for what the payroll tax and premiums don't cover.

Anyone who says (net) taxes can be cut at this point is an idiot or a liar. Between the current budget deficit (1.2%), the "borrowing" from the Social Security Trust Fund (1.4%), and the inevitable increase in debt servicing to both the public and the SSTF we will see in the near future(>1.3%), there is a structural revenue shortfall of about 4% of GDP. Any new revenue for creating national healthcare system would be on top of the other increases. The proposal here would raise SS taxes slightly (0.3%), raise personal and corporate income taxes substantially (0.8%), return the estate tax to its pre-2000 levels (0.2%), implement a carbon and/or gas tax (1.5%) and create a whole new revenue stream for a healthcare system. I favor this approach on the merits, but I realize it won't fly - at least right now.

Here's an alternative that voters probably would not find to their liking. Convincing people trade a carbon tax for a payroll tax deduction probably wouldn't be too hard. But raising personal income taxes to 16% of GDP? Unlikely. Doable, but unlikely.