... with Kansas? Again? Last year, the state slashed its education budget, in an attempt to roll up history, not just this century, but the last, and the part of the previous one right back to the state's founding. After a draconian cut in the budget for public schools ran into trouble in the state courts, the governor appealed to the state Supreme Court to try to overturn a decision mandating an increase in the per-pupil formula. The state, the lower court said, had not met its constitutional obligation to provide "suitable" funding. If the Supreme Court upholds the ruling, the latest word is that the state constitution will be amended to remove the word "suitable." Oh, and while they're at it, they will remove such matters from the jurisdiction of the state's court system.
Governor Sam Brownback, a conservative, enthusiastically led the state legislature to enact a $1 billion tax cut, benefitting those with higher incomes, as a prelude to the education defunding. He also attempted, by executive order, to defund completely the state's Arts Commission; Kansas is now the only state that has done so.
But all that, it seems, has been insufficient to restore Kansas to the condition of pristine, self-reliant purity that it enjoyed back in 1861 when it was admitted to the Union after a bewildering series of territorial constitutions that alternately permitted and prohibited slavery. Yes, they eventually outlawed slavery as a condition of the entrance of Kansas as a "free" state. But in recent years the good people of Kansas have experienced a refreshing turn backwards, or at least away from the current national trends. In Kansas, life begins at fertilization, for instance; I've no information on how many unborns are claimed as dependents on Kansas tax returns, however.
Also, in Kansas a pharmacist is entitled to refuse to fill a prescription for a drug if he "feels" it may cause an abortion.
But the latest is pretty amazing, even for Sam Brownback and Kansas. House Bill 2453, "An Act Concerning Religious Freedoms With Respect to Marriage," allows pretty much anyone in the state to refuse service to someone if, in the opinion of the person, doing so would violate his or her religious beliefs "regarding sex or gender."
"Religious beliefs regarding gender?" Oh, my. So I could refuse to serve women, for instance, if I believed that they should not appear in public unaccompanied by a male relative. That's not the objective, of course; the goal is simply to legalize discrimination against homosexuals, and anyone else whose (suspected) sexual orientation or practices, or whose gender, might offend the religious beliefs of the person otherwise obligated to provide such service.
This applies to government agents, by the way: a court clerk could refuse to file a document by which a lesbian couple tried to register the purchase of a house.
Kansas, tired of receiving insufficient attention from the rest of the country, calls attention to itself --as a laughingstock.
Monday, February 17, 2014
Monday, May 27, 2013
California, There You Go!
All of a sudden, California, which financially speaking had one foot in the grave the the other on a banana peel, as the saying goes, is flush with cash. A sixty-billion dollar budget deficit has turned into a surplus. And it turns out that several other states are in similar positions.
Not long ago, everyone was wringing their hands over the plight of the states. Federal payments in support of state programs had been cut; unemployment and the housing crash meant serious decreases in state tax revenues; and increasing demands on state social services during the recession produced yawning gaps in state budgets.
Now, everything is suddenly rosy!
Maybe it's all true. After all, the states gutted everything they could think of in response to the recession; and once a social welfare program is cut, there is often less of a constituency in favor of its restoration: the poor are easily ignored. But to go from huge deficits, layoffs of cops and firemen, and municipal bankruptcies to a landscape dotted with state budget surpluses, is odd. I don't get it.
To me, what it suggests more than anything is the folly of our government arrangements, in which substantial matters are left to state and local jurisdictions that cannot easily make adjustments in financial downturns. The states cannot print money, and virtually all of them are prohibited by law from running deficits. This makes for short-term solutions and a lack of sensible planning alternatives. The states borrow money when they shouldn't have to. They have enormous revenue-collecting machinery that unnecessarily duplicates federal structures. They have a mind-numbing array of differing revenue codes and tax laws. All for ... nothing.
This is an unstable system subject to manipulation and corruption. It should be changed. Beyond the sort of Articles-of-Confederation attitude of entrenched state and local interests who want to preserve their access to large amounts of cash, what is the reason that we have delegated so much financial policy and budget authority to state politicians? I suspect the ability of state governments to provide extragavant favors to big (and not so big) businesses, and the quid pro quo of bribes, is a major reason. We should yank this fiscal authority away from the states, and put it where it can be managed with a societal perspective in front rather than a beggar-thy-neighbor pattern of state competition.
Not long ago, everyone was wringing their hands over the plight of the states. Federal payments in support of state programs had been cut; unemployment and the housing crash meant serious decreases in state tax revenues; and increasing demands on state social services during the recession produced yawning gaps in state budgets.
Now, everything is suddenly rosy!
Maybe it's all true. After all, the states gutted everything they could think of in response to the recession; and once a social welfare program is cut, there is often less of a constituency in favor of its restoration: the poor are easily ignored. But to go from huge deficits, layoffs of cops and firemen, and municipal bankruptcies to a landscape dotted with state budget surpluses, is odd. I don't get it.
To me, what it suggests more than anything is the folly of our government arrangements, in which substantial matters are left to state and local jurisdictions that cannot easily make adjustments in financial downturns. The states cannot print money, and virtually all of them are prohibited by law from running deficits. This makes for short-term solutions and a lack of sensible planning alternatives. The states borrow money when they shouldn't have to. They have enormous revenue-collecting machinery that unnecessarily duplicates federal structures. They have a mind-numbing array of differing revenue codes and tax laws. All for ... nothing.
This is an unstable system subject to manipulation and corruption. It should be changed. Beyond the sort of Articles-of-Confederation attitude of entrenched state and local interests who want to preserve their access to large amounts of cash, what is the reason that we have delegated so much financial policy and budget authority to state politicians? I suspect the ability of state governments to provide extragavant favors to big (and not so big) businesses, and the quid pro quo of bribes, is a major reason. We should yank this fiscal authority away from the states, and put it where it can be managed with a societal perspective in front rather than a beggar-thy-neighbor pattern of state competition.
Friday, May 24, 2013
Taking Aim at Connecticut
An interesting NYT piece today focuses on Connecticut and its gun industry. It turns out that the Home of Sandy Hook Elementary, where all those little kids were gunned down, is also one of the leading states in the manufacture of guns. And now that the governor is pressing for stricter gun ownership laws, the state's manufacturing companies are being courted by the likes of Rick Perry: Move your company to Texas, where we appreciate business!
And, indeed, there is a certain amount of hand-wringing in Connecticut and elsewhere: this industry employs lots of people! It adds such-and-such an amount to the state's economy!
It strikes me as odd that people are willing to argue this way. Of course, there's precedent, such as in the gambling industry. We don't exactly like gambling --that's why we call it "gaming"--, but it raises lots of money, especially from poor people who can safely be left out of our conversations. So the casinos append to their advertisements helpful public-service messages advising addicts to abstain, and others to know when to quit --sort of the gambling equivalent of the brewer's "Drink Responsibly" refrain.
On the other is the argument about marijuana legalization: lots of people who don't particularly like the idea appear to be willing to approve it because of the "sin tax" revenue it would be expected to produce.
But, again, some things that are lucrative are, one presumes, beyond the pale: should we avoid efforts to curtail, say, sex slavery because it brings this and that financial gain to our tourism industry?
I realize that this must be part of a larger discussion --guns are not remotely like slavery, for one thing; and plenty of people think they are salutary elements of our national culture. But the argument against them is above all an argument for safety and social harmony; and no argument that I have heard in their favor asserts their worth primarily in financial terms.
So, to Connecticut and similarly-minded states: don't let a concern for lost jobs or state revenue deter you, if banning, say, assault rifles is something you find appropriate from a public safety perspective. The gun debate is too serious, and too basic in some ways, for money to be part of it.
And, indeed, there is a certain amount of hand-wringing in Connecticut and elsewhere: this industry employs lots of people! It adds such-and-such an amount to the state's economy!
It strikes me as odd that people are willing to argue this way. Of course, there's precedent, such as in the gambling industry. We don't exactly like gambling --that's why we call it "gaming"--, but it raises lots of money, especially from poor people who can safely be left out of our conversations. So the casinos append to their advertisements helpful public-service messages advising addicts to abstain, and others to know when to quit --sort of the gambling equivalent of the brewer's "Drink Responsibly" refrain.
On the other is the argument about marijuana legalization: lots of people who don't particularly like the idea appear to be willing to approve it because of the "sin tax" revenue it would be expected to produce.
But, again, some things that are lucrative are, one presumes, beyond the pale: should we avoid efforts to curtail, say, sex slavery because it brings this and that financial gain to our tourism industry?
I realize that this must be part of a larger discussion --guns are not remotely like slavery, for one thing; and plenty of people think they are salutary elements of our national culture. But the argument against them is above all an argument for safety and social harmony; and no argument that I have heard in their favor asserts their worth primarily in financial terms.
So, to Connecticut and similarly-minded states: don't let a concern for lost jobs or state revenue deter you, if banning, say, assault rifles is something you find appropriate from a public safety perspective. The gun debate is too serious, and too basic in some ways, for money to be part of it.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Oh, Baby!
Too long a day, and too busy, yesterday, to post. But I heard about this on NPR, on the way somewhere or other: Say you are a childless couple, and you want to adopt a newborn. Open adoption is a practice under which babies are adopted by people who have contact with the birth mother (or birth parents), as contrasted with the sort of adoption where a baby is placed by a state or private agency with an adopting parent, and the natural parents are completely removed from the picture.
Open adoptions often occur in situations where the "giving" and the "receiving" parents are in contact even months before the birth. Everything is arranged by agreement among the birth mother/father and the adopting parent(s).
Sounds okay, right: willing buyer/seller, all that sort of thing. Of course, there would have to be rules. And here is where the proliferation of individual states' laws creates uncertainty, unnecessary expense, and similar avoidable problems.
Does the birth mother have the right to change her mind after giving birth, even if the adoption has been pre-arranged and the baby delivered to the adoptive parent? For how long after the birth can this "window" during which she can change her mind remain open? A day? A month?
What are the rights of the natural father? Can he irrevocably give them up, or can he also change his mind?
Can the prospective adopting parent make cash payments to the birth mother? Under what circumstances, and in what amounts?
Are there any "residency" or short-term stay requirements for the adopting parent?
What are the rights of an adopted child, upon reaching maturity? Can he have access to the identity of his birth mother?
And so on. Folks, the answer is ... it depends on which state you are in. Wouldn't a nice, uniform national set of rules, carefully and dispassionately drawn up to protect everyone's interests, be in, well, everyone's interests?
Sure; but that might violate the sovereign rights of some state or other. And, oh, the states we're in!
Open adoptions often occur in situations where the "giving" and the "receiving" parents are in contact even months before the birth. Everything is arranged by agreement among the birth mother/father and the adopting parent(s).
Sounds okay, right: willing buyer/seller, all that sort of thing. Of course, there would have to be rules. And here is where the proliferation of individual states' laws creates uncertainty, unnecessary expense, and similar avoidable problems.
Does the birth mother have the right to change her mind after giving birth, even if the adoption has been pre-arranged and the baby delivered to the adoptive parent? For how long after the birth can this "window" during which she can change her mind remain open? A day? A month?
What are the rights of the natural father? Can he irrevocably give them up, or can he also change his mind?
Can the prospective adopting parent make cash payments to the birth mother? Under what circumstances, and in what amounts?
Are there any "residency" or short-term stay requirements for the adopting parent?
What are the rights of an adopted child, upon reaching maturity? Can he have access to the identity of his birth mother?
And so on. Folks, the answer is ... it depends on which state you are in. Wouldn't a nice, uniform national set of rules, carefully and dispassionately drawn up to protect everyone's interests, be in, well, everyone's interests?
Sure; but that might violate the sovereign rights of some state or other. And, oh, the states we're in!
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
The Wind Came Sweepin' Down the Plain
No waving wheat, this week in Oklahoma. Devastation, instead.
What about this small, mostly rural state, one of the reddest among the red?
As it happens, I grew up there, in Tulsa, where we considered ourselves the civilized part of what even we (or maybe especially we) regarded as a hick place. Tulsa was hilly, and reasonably green, being on the edge of the Ozarks in the relatively settled eastern part of the state, the former Indian Territory where the "five civilized tribes ended up after being driven from their towns in the Southeast US by the racist policies of the likes of Andrew Jackson. Tulsa sophisticated home of actual tall buildings (a few, anyway), wasn't like the dusty, flat prairies to the west. It was the "Oil Capital of the World." It was also, though no one spoke of this all the years of my childhood, the site of one of the worst massacres of black people in US history, 25 years before I was born.
It was a nice place to grow up, and, of course, for us it was the center of the universe.
Time sorta slipped from the grasp of the Okies, it has seemed to me. Houston, where you could buy a drink, usurped the "Oil Capital" honors as the big oil companies moved away or were bought by bigger oil companies. The population, which had pretty much stagnated after 1930 (actually declining between 1930 and 1960), began to grow again after the Sixties, in fits and starts; but still. It now has about as many people as Puerto Rico, a bit over 1% of the US population. My brother calls it "flyover country," in that sort of stubborn-pride way some people, feeling themselves marginalized in the opinion of others, wear that sense as a badge of honor.
We don't hear much about Oklahoma except for the disasters: the bombing by Timothy McVeigh that ushered in the era of modern domestic terrorism, the tornadoes, like the one yesterday. But the people are nice, welcoming, for the most part at least in the cities, and unpretentious. It was a fine place to be a kid in the 1950s (if you weren't a black or Indian kid, anyway, and your folks weren't poor).
More on Oklahoma in a future post.
What about this small, mostly rural state, one of the reddest among the red?
As it happens, I grew up there, in Tulsa, where we considered ourselves the civilized part of what even we (or maybe especially we) regarded as a hick place. Tulsa was hilly, and reasonably green, being on the edge of the Ozarks in the relatively settled eastern part of the state, the former Indian Territory where the "five civilized tribes ended up after being driven from their towns in the Southeast US by the racist policies of the likes of Andrew Jackson. Tulsa sophisticated home of actual tall buildings (a few, anyway), wasn't like the dusty, flat prairies to the west. It was the "Oil Capital of the World." It was also, though no one spoke of this all the years of my childhood, the site of one of the worst massacres of black people in US history, 25 years before I was born.
It was a nice place to grow up, and, of course, for us it was the center of the universe.
Time sorta slipped from the grasp of the Okies, it has seemed to me. Houston, where you could buy a drink, usurped the "Oil Capital" honors as the big oil companies moved away or were bought by bigger oil companies. The population, which had pretty much stagnated after 1930 (actually declining between 1930 and 1960), began to grow again after the Sixties, in fits and starts; but still. It now has about as many people as Puerto Rico, a bit over 1% of the US population. My brother calls it "flyover country," in that sort of stubborn-pride way some people, feeling themselves marginalized in the opinion of others, wear that sense as a badge of honor.
We don't hear much about Oklahoma except for the disasters: the bombing by Timothy McVeigh that ushered in the era of modern domestic terrorism, the tornadoes, like the one yesterday. But the people are nice, welcoming, for the most part at least in the cities, and unpretentious. It was a fine place to be a kid in the 1950s (if you weren't a black or Indian kid, anyway, and your folks weren't poor).
More on Oklahoma in a future post.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Meanwhile, in Minnesota ...
... we creep closer to the day when 25 or so Blue states, representing maybe 65% of the population, will have approved gay marriage. Minnesota became the third state this month to do so; and it is possible that Illinois will not be far behind.
When we reach the halfway point, it is likely, absent a more sweeping SCOTUS ruling than I anticipate next month, that we will freeze in place, and so have some goofy patchwork of a map, wherein the righteous (read: the American Taliban) will carry on the glorious legacy of the South and hold fast to the eighteenth century, for at least another generation.
When we reach the halfway point, it is likely, absent a more sweeping SCOTUS ruling than I anticipate next month, that we will freeze in place, and so have some goofy patchwork of a map, wherein the righteous (read: the American Taliban) will carry on the glorious legacy of the South and hold fast to the eighteenth century, for at least another generation.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
France Approves Gay Marriage
France, that is. Not "Ile de France," the Department (state) in which Paris is located. Not Burgundy, not Provence. The whole country.
The NYT informs us, this morning, that French President Francois Hollande yesterday signed the country's law allowing marriage "for all." France is the 14th country, the article says, to legalize gay marriage. In the U.S., 12 states and D.C. have done so.
This is another example of the ill effects of our federal system, in which individual states have a wide and bewildering array of powers, with the result that our national laws are a patchwork of silly variation that serves no one's interest and costs us, undoubtedly, billions annually, if only in endlessly repeated lawsuits, bribes --why not just one level of bribery, in the national Congress?--, and special accommodations and duplicative work by businesses operating across state lines.
Whose interest is served, other than that of state legislators and lobbyists, by having fifty fiefdoms, each with its own legislature, governor, political establishment, and so on? And don't even get me started about the thousands of county governments across the country. My own state, Illinois, leads the nation with over 7,000 separate and distinct taxing authorities. Seven thousand!! Even Republicans believe that this is too many.
This blog will comment on our states, and what I believe to be their pernicious effect, as they are now constituted, on our national well-being.
For another example, here's an old post of mine from another blog. It still stands, in my opinion.
The NYT informs us, this morning, that French President Francois Hollande yesterday signed the country's law allowing marriage "for all." France is the 14th country, the article says, to legalize gay marriage. In the U.S., 12 states and D.C. have done so.
This is another example of the ill effects of our federal system, in which individual states have a wide and bewildering array of powers, with the result that our national laws are a patchwork of silly variation that serves no one's interest and costs us, undoubtedly, billions annually, if only in endlessly repeated lawsuits, bribes --why not just one level of bribery, in the national Congress?--, and special accommodations and duplicative work by businesses operating across state lines.
Whose interest is served, other than that of state legislators and lobbyists, by having fifty fiefdoms, each with its own legislature, governor, political establishment, and so on? And don't even get me started about the thousands of county governments across the country. My own state, Illinois, leads the nation with over 7,000 separate and distinct taxing authorities. Seven thousand!! Even Republicans believe that this is too many.
This blog will comment on our states, and what I believe to be their pernicious effect, as they are now constituted, on our national well-being.
For another example, here's an old post of mine from another blog. It still stands, in my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)