National Journal has just made available the transcript of its September forum on Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s health care plan.
At the event, 2008 White House aspirant Romney was on hand to give an overview of his plan, which requires that all residents of Massachusetts purchase health insurance.
After Romney’s talk, Cato’s Mike Tanner provided the lone voice for limited government as he squared off with supporters of the plan, including a scholar from the Heritage Foundation and one of the Governor’s advisors.
Noting the government’s inability to ensure that all residents of Massachusetts have purchased health insurance, Tanner quipped, “The governor suggests that people are going to have to put on your tax return that you had insurance. You can’t even get all the members of the state legislature to file their returns.”
For more information on the shortcomings of the Romney plan, click here.
My dad once told me that, when buying a car, check three boxes: (1) Do you need the car? (2) Is the car too expensive? (3) Does the car work?
This paternal wisdom is generally applicable not just to cars, but to all sorts of things – like the Virginia Marriage Amendment. The Arnold and Porter memo that David linked to yesterday demonstrated that the vaguely worded amendment is destined to generate a great deal of costly litigation and may possibly surprise voters by curtailing contract and property rights of unmarried gay and straight couples. As such, it’s a bit like an overpriced, poorly maintained 1966 Mustang – overly expensive, liable to break down, with a not‐insignificant‐risk it will explode on impact.
Here’s one more reason to oppose it, even if you are a committed foe of gay marriage: There’s absolutely no need for it. Opponents of gay marriage suggest the amendment is needed to defend against “out‐of‐control” state judges, who might impose gay marriage on the Virginia electorate from the bench, like the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court did (so the standard conservative story goes) in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.
Yet, there’s virtually no risk that will happen in Virginia. One, Virginia judges are elected by the reliably conservative state General Assembly, guaranteeing they will not stray very far from current enactable preferences of Virginia’s staunchly red‐state voters. Two, the Virginia Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Virginia Constitution’s narrowly worded anti‐discrimination provisions (I say narrowly, because the Virginia constitution does not include a general equal protection clause at all. See Boyd v. Bulala, 647 F. Supp. 781, 786 (W.D. Va. 1986) (“The Virginia Equal Protection Clause contains no equal protection clause as such”)) to provide “no more” protection than has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court under the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Wilkins v. West, 264 Va. 447, 467 (2002); Archer v. Mayes, 213 Va. 633, 638 (1973).
In this, Virginia’s constitutional precedents differ markedly from those of Massachusetts, where, prior to Goodridge, courts had long recognized that the broadly worded Massachusetts Constitution provides more protection for individual liberty than the federal Constitution. That means that if gay marriage is ever recognized in Virginia, it will be the U.S. Supreme Court and federal constitutional law that drive its recognition. Under the Supremacy Clause, no state constitutional amendment can defend against that.
As a result, the Virginia Marriage Amendment can’t plausibly be justified as a defensive amendment. To put it in my dad’s terms: its too expensive, it’s at risk of breaking down, and there’s no conceivable need for it. A lemon all around.
Colleges often have to decide what their rules are about language that offends people. Is a professor’s criticism of affirmative action offensive to black students? Is a gay‐rights group’s advocacy offensive to Christian or morally conservative students? And people can debate how to weigh free speech versus a nurturing atmosphere in a particular college.
But Marquette University seems to have reached new heights, or depths, in what it considers offensive. A graduate student there posted on his office door a pithy quotation from humorist Dave Barry:
“As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.”
A strong opinion, to be sure. One that I’d bet is shared by many but certainly not all Americans. Apparently Barry’s sentiment is not shared by the chairman of Marquette’s philosophy department, who took it upon himself to take down the quotation and sent a department email declaring it “patently offensive.”
Offensive to whom? Surely not to any of the usual identity groups, ethnic or religious or sexual‐orientation or gender or whatever. Nor does it use the four‐letter words that might be inappropriate for a public space. Perhaps it’s offensive to employees of the federal government, or to those who have a great deal of respect and admiration for the federal government. But one would think that at a university it falls within the parameters of debate. And while Dave Barry writes more effectively and memorably than most philosophers, his statement still qualifies as humor or political commentary or both.
Marquette is a private university and is thus free under the First Amendment to regulate speech as it chooses. But if libertarian jests are “patently offensive” and subject to censorship at Marquette, it might want to note that in a new paragraph of its academic freedom guidelines and perhaps in the catalog provided to prospective students.
TechCrunch is a terrific blog covering new Internet products and companies. Edited by Michael Arrington, it’s a clearinghouse of information on “Web 2.0” — the agglomeration of innovations that could take online life and business through their next leaps forward.
In this recent post, TechCrunch briefly assessed some concerns with Google’s office strategy. Google has online offerings in the works that could substitute for the word processing and spreadsheet software on your computer — just like Gmail did with e‑mail.
And just like Gmail, documents and information would remain on Google’s servers so they can be accessed anywhere. This is a great convenience, but brings with it several problems, namely:
The fact that unauthorized document access is a simple password guess or government “request” away already works against them. But the steady stream of minor security incidents we’ve seen (many very recently) can also hurt Google in the long run.
Arrington’s post goes on to highlight a series of small but significant security lapses at Google. If Google wants companies and individuals to store sensitive data on their servers, they have to be pretty near perfect — or better than perfect.
Then there is government “request.” Arrington makes appropriate use of quotation marks to indicate irony. Governments rarely “request” data in the true sense of that term. Rather, they require its disclosure various ways — by warrant or subpoena, for example, by issuing “national security letters,” or by making a technical “request” that is backed by the implicit threat of more direct action or regulatory sanctions.
On resisting government demands for data, Google has been better than most — an awfully low hurdle. It opposed a subpoena for data about users’ searches earlier this year. But Google has a long way to go if it wants people to believe that leaving data in their hands does not provide easy (and secret) access to the government. Indeed, thanks to the recently passed cybercrime treaty, doing so may well provide access to foreign governments, opening the door to corporate espionage and any number of other threats.
At a meeting of the Department of Homeland Security’s Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee in San Francisco last July, I asked Google Associate General Counsel Nicole Wong what the company is doing about its ability to protect information from government “request,” given the sorry state of Fourth Amendment law with respect to personal information held by third parties. Her answer, which I must summarize because the transcript is not yet online, amounted to “not much.” (Eventually, the transcript should be linked from here.)
Google has issued a “me too” about an effort to invite regulation of itself. That project is going nowhere, but if it did get off the ground, it would do nothing about government access to the information that Google holds for its customers.
Government access to data is a big flaw in Google’s nascent effort to move into online productivity services.
At Cato, we often point out when politicians do something wrong — and who can blame us given the target‐rich environment? But we should also salute the rare politician who does something right (more or less). So let’s give two tips of the hat to New York mayor Michael Bloomberg for choosing not to inflame two recent situations that could easily have been exploited for political gain.
Last July, parts of Queens lost electricity for more than a week because several of the borough’s feeder cables failed, leaving about 100,000 people without power. During and after the blackout, several NY politicos piled on Consolidated Edison, which is a tried‐and‐true political tradition in New York City. But Bloomberg broke with tradition, publicly refusing to bash the utility. Instead, he worked to lower the political temperature, and he urged others to do the same.
Now, Bloomberg is also declining to bash yesterday’s announced $5.4 billion sale of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village, two massive middle‐income apartment complexes in Manhattan. Together, the complexes comprise more than 11,000 units in 110 buildings covering some 80 acres of the most lucrative real estate on the planet. The sale is reported to be the largest real estate deal in American history.
As the impending sale became public, many New York politicians and political activists ripped the deal because of fears of “gentrification.” But Bloomberg, to his credit, said simply, “MetLife owns it, and they have a right to sell it.”
Of course, housing affordability is a legitimate public concern. But the much‐ballyhooed policy prescriptions — e.g., rent control, affordable housing mandates, “inclusionary zoning” — are window dressing at best and counterproductive at worst.
Fortunately, there is a far‐superior policy response that also is market‐friendly: government need only remove the restrictions preventing the market from satisfying the demand for affordable housing. This is argued well by Harvard economist Ed Glaeser and Wharton School economist Joe Gyourko in the Fall 2002 issue of Regulation.
If Bloomberg really wants to make my day, he should read Glaeser and Gyourko’s article and allow developers to build as much housing as the New York market demands.
There’s a common perception in this country that public schools are underfunded, and that if they could only spend as much as private schools do, they’d be in clover. When it is pointed out that the average private school tuition is around half of total public school spending per pupil, defenders of the status quo counter that tuition only covers a fraction of total costs.
So wouldn’t it be interesting to know how much private schools actually spend, in total, per pupil? Well now we do, at least for the state of Arizona.
In a study released yesterday by the Goldwater Institute, I analyze the results of their most recent private school survey. Among the other fascinating findings is that public schools spend one‐and‐a‐half times as much per pupil as do private schools. Or, looked at the other way, private schools spend a third less than public schools.
Some other fascinating tidbits:
Teachers make up 72 percent of on‐site staff in Arizona’s independent education sector, but less than half of on‐site staff in the public sector. In order to match the independent sector’s emphasis on teachers over non‐teaching staff, Arizona public schools would have to hire roughly 25,000 more teachers and dismiss 21,210 non‐teaching employees.
When teachers’ 9‑month salaries are annualized to make them comparable to the 12‐month salaries of most other fields, Arizona independent school teachers earned the equivalent of $36,456 in 2004 — about $2,000 less than reporters and correspondents. The 12‐month‐equivalent salary of the state’s public school teachers was around $60,000, which is more than nuclear technicians, epidemiologists, detectives, and broadcast news analysts. It’s also about 50 percent more than reporters or private school teachers earn.
I wonder what effect these numbers will have on the flood of education stories about how desperately underpaid public school teachers are… given that those teachers are earning the equivalent of 50 percent more than the journalists who cover them.
There are many other gems in the full report, including a comparison of the condition of physical facilities between public and private sector schools. Public school lobbyists claim they need loads more money to repair and maintain their buildings, so it’d be interesting to know how private schools cope with this issue on a fraction of the public sector’s budget, hmm?
Never mind Fox NFL Sunday.
Move over, Scrubs re‐runs.
C‑SPAN2’s Book TV will air the Cato Institute’s book forum for Medicare Meets Mephistopheles at 12pm and 11:30pm on Sunday, October 22. The forum features the author, David Hyman, along with Yale University’s Ted Marmor and Washington & Lee University’s Robin Wilson.
Isn’t scandal fun?