Topic: Government and Politics

How To Stop Politicians From Gerrymandering

I’ve got a new piece at the Institute for Humane Studies’ Learn Liberty explaining the basics of how politicians rig district lines to reward friends and punish foes, the entrenchment of an established political class that results, and how it might be combated. Snippet:

In a classic single-party gerrymander, the party in power packs opposition voters densely into as few districts as possible, thus enabling its own voters to lead by a comfortable margin in a maximum of districts. When a legislature is under split party control, the theme is often bipartisan connivance: you protect your incumbents and we’ll protect ours. Third-party and independent voters, as is so common in our system, have no one looking out for their interests….

Geographic information systems (GIS) methods now allow members of the public using inexpensive software to analyze the full data set behind a map. In several states, that has meant members of the public could offer maps of their own or make well-informed critiques of legislators’ proposed maps. In one triumph for citizen data use, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidated a map drawn by lawmakers as clearly inferior to a map that had been submitted independently by an Allentown piano teacher.

Separately, I generally agree with what Aaron Blake writes in a new Washington Post piece: with so many other solid reasons to end gerrymandering, there’s no need to over-sell two arguments frequently invoked against it, the polarization thesis and the “GOP-fixed House” thesis.

On the much-noted trend in national politics toward ideological polarization, it seems clear that gerrymandering is but one contributing factor among many. The U.S. Senate, for which districting is not an issue, has followed a path not too far from that of the House, with virtually all Senate Democrats now to the left of virtually all Senate Republicans and stepped-up party-line cohesion on voting. And states with relatively fair districting maps have experienced polarization with the rest. So, yes, reform will probably make a difference at the margins for those who would like there to be more swing or contestable seats, but don’t expect miracles.

And while gerrymandering today on net benefits Republicans (which has not always been the case), it is probable for reasons Blake explains that fair/neutral districting would still have produced a GOP-run House in 2016. An important reason is that Democratic voters are so concentrated in cities.

For some of the many other reasons the cause is worth pursuing no matter which party (if any) you identify with, check out my IHS piece or, for somewhat more detail, my chapter on the subject in the new Eighth Edition of the Cato Handbook for Policymakers. I’ve previously written several pieces about my experience dealing with the problem in my own state of Maryland.

Nuclear Option Restores Senate Normalcy

Today’s removal of the filibuster – a parliamentary tool effectively requiring 60 votes to proceed with a vote on a matter – for Supreme Court nominees is the long overdue denouement of a process that began not with Senate Republicans’ refusal to vote on Merrick Garland, or even Harry Reid’s elimination of the filibuster for lower-court nominees in 2013, but with Reid’s unprecedented partisan filibusters in 2003. Recall especially the record 7 failed votes to end the filibuster of Miguel Estrada, who was blocked primarily because Democrats didn’t want President Bush to appoint the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.

The Senate is now restored to the status quo ante, such that any judicial nominee with majority support will be confirmed. That’s a good thing.

RIP Partisan Filibuster (2003-2017)

On ObamaCare, Trump Is Still Exhausting Every Alternative to Doing the Right Thing

House Republican leaders cancelled a vote on the American Health Care Act nearly two weeks ago, after it became clear the measure would not command a majority. The conservative House Freedom Caucus objects that, far from repealing and replacing ObamaCare, the AHCA would make ObamaCare permanent. It would preserve the ObamaCare regulations that are driving premiums higher, causing a race to the bottom in coverage for the sick, and causing insurance markets to collapse. The Congressional Budget Office projects the bill would cause premiums to rise 20 percent above ObamaCare’s already-high premium levels in the first two years, and leave one million more people uninsured than a straight repeal. Oh, and it also reneges on the GOP’s seven-year campaign and pledge to repeal ObamaCare.

The House Freedom Caucus has offered to hold their noses and vote for the AHCA despite several provisions its members dislike, including a likely ineffectual repeal of ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion, new entitlement spending, and the preservation of most of ObamaCare’s regulations. All they ask is that House leaders agree to repeal the “community rating” price controls and the “essential health benefits” mandate that are the main drivers of ObamaCare’s higher premiums, eroding coverage, and market instability. Repealing those provisions would instantly stabilize insurance markets and cause premiums to plummet for the vast majority of Exchange enrollees and the uninsured.

A collection of House moderates known as the Tuesday Group, meanwhile, has threatened to vote against the AHCA if it repeals community rating. The group has refused even to negotiate with the House Freedom Caucus. One Tuesday Group member recommended to the others, “If that call comes in, just hang up.”

In an attempt to bridge the divide, the White House has proposed to let individual states opt out of certain ObamaCare regulations, including the essential-health-benefits mandate and (presumably) the community-rating price controls. Reportedly, states could apply to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive some (but not all) of ObamaCare’s Title I regulations, and the Secretary would have discretion to approve or reject waiver applications based on their compliance with specified metrics, such as premiums and coverage levels. 

What might seem like a fair-minded compromise is anything but. The fact that White House officials are floating this offer means they have reneged on their prior proposal to repeal ObamaCare’s “essential health benefits” mandate nationwide. The current proposal would keep that mandate in place, and make it the default nationwide. That alone makes this “opt out” proposal a step backward for ObamaCare opponents.

Even if the White House were not displaying bad faith, an opt-out provision offers little to ObamaCare opponents. The obstacles to using such a waiver would be so great, it is unlikely any states would be able to exercise it, which would leave ObamaCare’s regulations in place in all 50 states.

Opting-Out Would Be All But Impossible

Under an opt-out, ObamaCare’s regulations—in particular, the community-rating price controls and essential-health-benefits mandate that the House Freedom Caucus has said are the price of their votes—would remain the law in all 50 states. States that do not want those regulations would have to take action (and get federal permission) to roll them back. Federal control would remain the default.

To take advantage of the waiver process, ObamaCare opponents would have to fight, again and again, in state after state, to achieve in each state just a portion of what President Trump and congressional Republicans promised to deliver in all states. Opponents would have to convince both houses of each state legislature (Nebraska excepted), plus the governor, plus the Secretary of HHS to approve the waiver, all while being vastly outspent by insurance companies, hospitals, and other special interests.

If President Trump and congressional Republicans advance an opt-out provision, they will essentially be telling ObamaCare opponents, “Thank you for spending all that money and effort electing us, but we are not going to repeal ObamaCare. Instead, we want you to spend even more money having ObamaCare-repeal fights in all 50 states. And good luck getting state officials to keep a promise they haven’t made, when we won’t even keep the promise we did make.”

Donald Trump's "Contract with the American Voter"

Women’s Attitudes on the Gender Pay Gap May Surprise You

Today is Equal Pay Day, the day that marks how far into the next year women on average have to work to bring home the same income men earned in the previous year. In light of Equal Pay Day I published an op-ed in the Washington Examiner that looks at women’s opinions about the gender pay gap. What I found might surprise you:

Pew Research Center survey found that 62 percent of women believe that women “generally” get paid less than men for doing the same work. However, when asked about their own companies, far fewer — just 14 percent total — believe women are getting paid less than men where they work, and 17 percent say women have fewer opportunities for promotions where they work.

These are nearly 50-point shifts in perception from what women believe is generally happening in society at-large, and what they collectively report is happening based on their experiences in their own jobs.

This in no way discounts the negative experiences women have had, and we should not shy from denouncing inequitable treatment. Yet these data also reveal that although most women believe they are being treated fairly, they also believe that most other women aren’t.

These data indicate that women have come to believe the myth that women are getting paid less than men for doing the same work. However, academic studies show that gender discrimination is not largely influencing wages, as I explain in the op-ed:

Although Census data show that women make less money on average than men, this fails to consider any information about how women and men choose to pursue a work/life balance, whether they enter a career that requires 80-hour work weeks or 40-hour work weeks, whether they take time out of the workforce to raise children, how much education they attain, whether they go into careers like investment banking or education, surgery or nursing, etc.

Studies that take these other factors into account find that the gender pay gap narrows to about 95 cents on the dollar. The remaining 5 cent difference might be due to discrimination, or it might be due to differences in salary negotiations, or other reasons. Harvard economist Claudia Goldin writes, “The gender gap in pay would be considerably reduced and might even vanish if firms did not have an incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who worked long hours and who worked particular hours.”

The Pew Survey found several disconnects between what women believe is causing the gender pay gap and the empirical research. First, Pew found that 54% of women believe that gender discrimination is a “major reason” for the pay gap. Although gender discrimination in pay can occur and should be sharply rebuked, research finds it is not significantly impacting wages.

Second, although differences in the number of hours men and women work (and when those hours are worked) is a significant driver of the wage gap, most women don’t find this believable. Only 28% thought this was a “major reason” that women on average earn less than men. Perhaps it sounds like one is accusing women of being lazy. Just because men on average work more hours in an office setting doesn’t mean women aren’t working the same or more hours when you combine hours worked in the office and taking care of family and home responsibilities.

Women responded better to the idea that men and women on average make different choices about how to balance work and family responsibilities and that might explain differences in pay. In fact, this was the most likely reason selected with 60% of women saying it was a major reason men and women earn different incomes.

As we talk about Equal Pay Day and the gender pay gap, it’s important to keep in mind both the empirical facts and where people are coming from. Some women have experienced discrimination in their jobs and such treatment should be condemned. We also need to be mindful about how we explain the sources of the gender pay gap, and avoid suggesting women aren’t working as hard as men.

Furthermore, in light of Equal Pay Day, we should point out the potential harms caused to women by perpetuating the idea that there is widespread injustice set against them. If women believe the deck is stacked against them regardless of their choices, this risks undermining risk-taking, accountability, and initiative. 

You can read the whole op-ed at the Washington Examiner here.

Sessions to Review Federal Monitoring of Local Police Agencies

Yesterday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered a review of existing federal consent decrees with respect to troubled police departments.  Sessions’s legal memorandum is right that primary responsibility for dysfunctional police agencies resides with local officials–mayors, police chiefs, and city councils.  Those officials too often deflect criticism of their oversight failures with loud calls for a “federal investigation.”  When the feds announce their intervention, attention shifts to what the federal findings and recommendations may be later on.  For example, Mayor Rahm Emanuel was under heavy fire after the video of the Laquan McDonald shooting was disclosed.  By agreeing to a federal investigation, Emanuel survived, at least temporarily.

Some on the right mistakenly believe that the Obama administration was “anti-police” and that the DOJ investigations exhibited some sort of bias against law enforcement.  Not true.  Sessions is making a grave mistake if he thinks previous DOJ investigations did not uncover severe problems in American policing.  The problems are there.  The real question is how to address them.  In the education area, teacher unions are the main obstacles to reform.  Police unions are the major obstacle to sensible accountability measures for police organizations.  But over the long run, local mayors and city councils must make a sustained commitment to proper oversight of police.  It is unrealistic to expect the Attorney General or a federal monitor to do their jobs.

For related Cato work, go here and here.

Tucker Carlson & Peggy Noonan Mimic Piketty & Saez

In a recent Wall Street Journal column defending Obamacare 3.8% surtax on investment income on joint returns above $250,000, Peggy Noonan ends by quoting Tucker Carlson’s Fox News interview with Paul Ryan which questioned the now-suspended health plan’s elimination of that surtax:

“Looking at the last election, was the message of that election really, ‘We need to help investors?’ I mean, the Dow is over 20,000. Are they really the group that needs the help?…“The overview here is that all the wealth, basically, in the last 10 years, has stuck to the top end. That’s one of the reasons we’ve had all the political turmoil, as you know. And so, kind of a hard sell to say ‘Yeah, we’re gonna repeal Obamacare, but we’re gonna send more money to the people who’ve already gotten the richest over the last 10 years.’ I mean, that’s what this does, no? I’m not a leftist, it’s just—that’s true.”

Can You Tell the Real Politicians from the Satirical Ones?

At least in Serbia, people know that politicians’ promises are ridiculous. NPR reports on a satirical candidate named Ljubisa Beli Preletacevic, or just Beli for short:

A new politician is here to save you. I’m pure and clean. Whatever the other politicians promise you, I will promise you three times more.

I’ll give jobs to everyone and big pensions to everyone. I’m going to move the sea here because we need a beach.

Satire it may be, but his new party won 12 council seats in his home town, and most of his party’s candidates are seriously seeking election. Reporter Joanna Kakissis continues:

There will be no corruption, excluding my own of course, he declares to one crowd. Please send all money directly to my pockets. Drama student Danka Svetilova laughs and asks for a selfie. She says mainstream politicians have lied to Serbs for years….

So that’s why she and her schoolteacher mom are voting for Beli in this Sunday’s presidential election. Better a fake candidate who tells the truth about lying, she says, than a real one who lies about telling the truth.