Civil Rights
1. There is quite a bit of good news for civil rights. First, National Security Letters--which the federal government uses to get personal information on thousands of Americans from companies like Google--have been ruled unconstitutional. What made NSLs particularly disturbing was that the recipient companies were forbidden from ever acknowledging that they had given the government any information. Thankfully, these gag orders have also been ruled unconstitutional.
2. Second, the Supreme Court limited the use of sniffer dogs and expanded the Fourth Amendment's protection of the home by declaring that porches count as part of the home.
3. There's good news for civil rights in Canada as well. The Supreme Court there recently ruled that police need special wiretapping orders, not just ordinary search warrants, to intercept text messages.
Deficit & Spending
4. Via PostLibertarian, the federal deficit for the first six months of fiscal 2013 is 23% lower than the deficit for the same period in fiscal 2012. Government spending in March 2013 was more than 20% lower than in March 2012, a $76 billion fall from $369 to $293 billion. Moreover, an analysis of four major budget plans (President Obama's, Senate Democrats', House Republicans' and Senator Rand Paul's) shows that all four cut spending over the next ten years relative to the current-law baseline. The coming debate won't be whether or not to cut spending, it will be how much.
Energy & Climate
5. In November 2012, U.S. oil production surpassed that of Saudi Arabia! U.S. oil production also remained higher than Saudi Arabia's in December 2012. While month-to-month production fluctuates, and there may again be months where the Saudis produce more oil than we do, for at least two months in 2012, the United States was the largest oil producer in the world. U.S. oil production has continued to grow since then, and is now more than 7.2 million barrels per day, a level not seen since July 1992. Also in December, another country (China) imported more oil than the U.S. for the first time in four decades (ht).
6. Coral reefs are more resilient than we thought. Reefs damaged in super-hot 1998 were presumed to have little chance of recovery, yet they're recovering nonetheless.
Health
7. A new Bluetooth-enabled implant (ht) can monitor blood levels of up to five chemicals and transmit that data to a smartphone or tablet (and from there to the internet) in realtime. It can currently detect glucose (useful for diabetics), troponin (which is released during a heart attack) and a few other substances, but the device has been designed to accommodate sensors for substances not yet covered.
8. Functioning kidneys can now be grown in a lab, at least for rats. Doing the same with human kidneys will take some time, and even then the lab-grown versions are only 5% as efficient as natural, healthy kidneys. But if your natural kidneys aren't healthy, 5% could be enough of an improvement to be worth the transplant. No doubt researchers will also be working on improving that efficiency as well.
Poverty
9. Two recent studies, one from Oxford University and the other from the UN, highlight the improving conditions of the world's poor (ht via @LDoren). Many of the world's poorest nations are on track to eliminate acute poverty and growth is lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty. From the UN report: "Never in history have the living conditions and prospects of so many people changed so dramatically and so fast."
Other Optimists
10. Ezra Klein (ht MR) has his own list of reasons for optimism. Among others, he lists the slowing rise of health care costs, a turnaround in housing, corporate profits, natural gas and technological advances.
11. Stephan Kinsella (ht Bob Murphy) says, "The Golden Age of America is Now." Kinsella writes from a libertarian viewpoint, and therefore includes items like imminent marijuana legalization that some might not agree are actually good things. But many of his points cut across ideologies--there is no draft, air travel is safer and cheaper than ever and technology is amazing, from cell phones to the internet to 3D printing to private spaceflight. He also cites increased diversity and tolerance, saying, "some people are vegetarians, vegans; no big deal... Some people have nose rings, multiple earrings. Tattoos. Nobody cares... Mixed-race couples? Nobody bats an eye."
Showing posts with label Rand Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rand Paul. Show all posts
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Thursday, March 7, 2013
On Drones and Droning On
Yesterday, Rand Paul gave an old-style filibuster where he talked on the Senate floor for 12 hours and 54 minutes about drones and executive power. At first, Paul wanted the Obama administration to come out and say that it is unconstitutional for the government to kill American citizens on American soil without due process. Obama's response: "No comment."
Later, Paul was willing to compromise and end the filibuster for a vote on a non-binding "sense of the Senate" resolution that "the use of drones to execute or target American citizens on American soil who pose no imminent threat clearly violates Constitutional rights." Democrats (in particular, Majority Whip Dick Durbin) refused.
Ultimately, Paul ended the filibuster without accomplishing his explicit goals, though he has clearly energized his supporters and apparently turned a libertarian talking point into GOP policy. The Minority Leader Mitch McConnell showed up to explicitly support Paul and encourage other Republicans to do the same.
Not all Republicans agreed, however. Senator Lindsey Graham called the whole thing "ridiculous," and he's right -- it should be. The proper response from the Obama administration would have been, "Of course, it's unconstitutional to kill citizens on our soil without due process." This should not even be a question. Indeed, if they had responded quickly enough, they could have devastated Rand Paul's credibility and painted him and libertarians in general as paranoid freaks. But they didn't, and that really has me puzzled.
Obama had the opportunity to give the Tea Party and libertarians a roundhouse kick to the face on prime time TV, and he didn't. He did nothing, and doing nothing gave Paul an incredible victory. Durbin went even further, and objected to just a vote on a non-binding resolution on the issue. Why are Obama and Durbin (and the rest of the Democrats) willing to hand Republicans such a PR coup just to hold on to a power they claim they don't want to use anyway?
At this point, it would be easy to fall into conspiracy theories, but I suspect the Democrats are being honest when they say they don't want to kill Americans in the streets. However, being in power, they thought they had an opportunity to expand that power, and they took it. Everyone likes to have options. They just didn't think anyone would notice. Once libertarians did notice, the Democrats thought no one would pay attention to the libertarians anyway. Now that Paul has forced the issue and gotten people to pay attention, the Democrats don't want to turn around and admit that he's right, because they think they'll look bad if they do. They don't seem to recognize that digging their heels in and insisting on the right to kill American citizens without due process makes them look even worse.
Now that Paul has everyone talking, it will be interesting to see what he does with it. Can he inspire actual change?
Later, Paul was willing to compromise and end the filibuster for a vote on a non-binding "sense of the Senate" resolution that "the use of drones to execute or target American citizens on American soil who pose no imminent threat clearly violates Constitutional rights." Democrats (in particular, Majority Whip Dick Durbin) refused.
Ultimately, Paul ended the filibuster without accomplishing his explicit goals, though he has clearly energized his supporters and apparently turned a libertarian talking point into GOP policy. The Minority Leader Mitch McConnell showed up to explicitly support Paul and encourage other Republicans to do the same.
Not all Republicans agreed, however. Senator Lindsey Graham called the whole thing "ridiculous," and he's right -- it should be. The proper response from the Obama administration would have been, "Of course, it's unconstitutional to kill citizens on our soil without due process." This should not even be a question. Indeed, if they had responded quickly enough, they could have devastated Rand Paul's credibility and painted him and libertarians in general as paranoid freaks. But they didn't, and that really has me puzzled.
Obama had the opportunity to give the Tea Party and libertarians a roundhouse kick to the face on prime time TV, and he didn't. He did nothing, and doing nothing gave Paul an incredible victory. Durbin went even further, and objected to just a vote on a non-binding resolution on the issue. Why are Obama and Durbin (and the rest of the Democrats) willing to hand Republicans such a PR coup just to hold on to a power they claim they don't want to use anyway?
At this point, it would be easy to fall into conspiracy theories, but I suspect the Democrats are being honest when they say they don't want to kill Americans in the streets. However, being in power, they thought they had an opportunity to expand that power, and they took it. Everyone likes to have options. They just didn't think anyone would notice. Once libertarians did notice, the Democrats thought no one would pay attention to the libertarians anyway. Now that Paul has forced the issue and gotten people to pay attention, the Democrats don't want to turn around and admit that he's right, because they think they'll look bad if they do. They don't seem to recognize that digging their heels in and insisting on the right to kill American citizens without due process makes them look even worse.
Now that Paul has everyone talking, it will be interesting to see what he does with it. Can he inspire actual change?
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Not Nearly Enough
No matter how you look at it, the GOP's budget proposals just don't cut it. Before being elected, they promised $100 billion in cuts. Now that they're in office, that number has fallen to $74 billion. But that's $74 billion in cuts from the planned 2011 level of spending. When compared to 2010 (you know, back when they were running for office and promising to cut $100 billion), the new cuts are just $35 billion less than we spent last year.
Even so, that's $35 billion with a B. That has to be a significant cut, right? Not so fast. The federal deficit in 2010 was $1,555.6 billion (with a B). The GOP's $35 billion cut lowers the deficit by 2.25%. Let's put that in perspective.
In the graph to the left, the blue bar is the 2010 deficit. The red bar is the 2011 deficit with the GOP's cuts enacted. Huge difference, right?
To put this another way, think of yourself cruising along the debt highway at 65 mph, when you see there's a roadblock up ahead. If you're a normal person, you'd stop the car completely (in other words, eliminate the deficit). But if you're the GOP, you'll slam on the brakes and slow down to... 63.5 mph. Were these really the best people to put in the driver's seat?
You might also have noticed the rather smaller green bar in the graph to the left. That bar represent's Rand Paul's cuts, about $500 billion. In order to reach that level, Rand Paul had to propose dozens of cuts, including eliminating the departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and Education (except for Pell grants), a three-fourths cut to the Department of the Interior, a one-third cut to the Judicial Branch, and a one-fifth cut to the Legislative Branch, along with others. It's a bold plan, but even with all these cuts, the green bar on the graph is still above one trillion dollars. Even if Rand Paul's cuts are all enacted, we will still face a deficit this year greater than $1,000,000,000,000. Remember the roadblock on the debt highway? Rand Paul would slow the car down to 44 mph. He's a lot better than the rest of the GOP, but it's still not nearly enough.
To be fair, Rand Paul says his plan is just the beginning, and he's willing to make much deeper cuts to eliminate the deficit. That would be comforting, if I thought for a moment that his current plan had any chance of success. Unfortunately, the GOP leadership isn't even aiming for the green bar; they're aiming for the red bar, the $35 billion cut, and that's before the inevitable process of compromise with the Democrats begins. Once it's over, we may end up with a bigger deficit in 2011 than we had in 2010-- and the politicians will still say how successful they were in cutting the budget.
Even so, that's $35 billion with a B. That has to be a significant cut, right? Not so fast. The federal deficit in 2010 was $1,555.6 billion (with a B). The GOP's $35 billion cut lowers the deficit by 2.25%. Let's put that in perspective.
To put this another way, think of yourself cruising along the debt highway at 65 mph, when you see there's a roadblock up ahead. If you're a normal person, you'd stop the car completely (in other words, eliminate the deficit). But if you're the GOP, you'll slam on the brakes and slow down to... 63.5 mph. Were these really the best people to put in the driver's seat?
You might also have noticed the rather smaller green bar in the graph to the left. That bar represent's Rand Paul's cuts, about $500 billion. In order to reach that level, Rand Paul had to propose dozens of cuts, including eliminating the departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and Education (except for Pell grants), a three-fourths cut to the Department of the Interior, a one-third cut to the Judicial Branch, and a one-fifth cut to the Legislative Branch, along with others. It's a bold plan, but even with all these cuts, the green bar on the graph is still above one trillion dollars. Even if Rand Paul's cuts are all enacted, we will still face a deficit this year greater than $1,000,000,000,000. Remember the roadblock on the debt highway? Rand Paul would slow the car down to 44 mph. He's a lot better than the rest of the GOP, but it's still not nearly enough.
To be fair, Rand Paul says his plan is just the beginning, and he's willing to make much deeper cuts to eliminate the deficit. That would be comforting, if I thought for a moment that his current plan had any chance of success. Unfortunately, the GOP leadership isn't even aiming for the green bar; they're aiming for the red bar, the $35 billion cut, and that's before the inevitable process of compromise with the Democrats begins. Once it's over, we may end up with a bigger deficit in 2011 than we had in 2010-- and the politicians will still say how successful they were in cutting the budget.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
