Adoption and mental health, from the Illinois Times

August 11, 2011 Leave a comment

Here’s story on “failed” adoptions.

Categories: Uncategorized

Okay, Fine. Let’s Have a Balanced Budget Amendment

July 28, 2011 1 comment

Let’s be honest: A balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is probably a terrible idea.

The big issue with a balanced budged amendment is that, as the lender of last resort, the Federal government occasionally needs flexibility to borrow to address certain problems, like emergencies, recessions/depressions and fluctuations in revenue occasioned by the peaks and values of revenue that are caused by normal economic cycles (some of that can be compensated for by not requiring the budget to be balanced annually, of course). That, you know, and balanced budget amendments at the state level don’t seem to have been particularly effective at creating balanced budgets.

But here we are.

Congress and the President have taken the delusional stance that raising the debt ceiling should somehow be tied to cuts in the federal budget. Nevermind the fact that the appropriate forum for these kinds of discussions would, you know, be during the annual appropriations process where, you know, deficit budgets are enacted into law. But, again, here we are.

In this game of brinksmanship with the Full Faith and Credit clause, there is only one group that is sure to lose no matter what the ultimate settlement is: The poor.

So, as House progressives complain that they have been shut out of the negotiations on raising the debt ceiling; as the Republican caucus is fractionating among the budget hawks, the political opportunists and the truly deranged; and as the Senate offers an incomplete solution, it occurs to me that it is time to embrace some of the Tea Party talking points and turn them into something that is palatable from a social justice standpoint (A tip of the cap here to Sven Wilson over at Pileus, who inspired this post with one of his own).

So, I say: You want a balanced budget amendment? Fine. Here’s what we want: A Constitutional guarantee that the budget will not be balanced on the back of the poor, the vulnerable, the sick, or the elderly.

Here’s what I propose (I mean, the language clearly needs to get cleaned up a bit, but you’ll get my idea):



The Constitution of the United States was established to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. We acknowledge that debt incurred in the normal course of business of the United States has the potential increase to a level which threatens the establishment of justice, domestic tranquility, the common defense, and the general welfare; and may threaten our legacy of liberty. Therefore, in accordance with those principles, this amendment ensures increased fiscal responsibility by requiring that the Congress more closely balance the expenditures of the Government of the United States with its revenues.

Section 1.

Upon the effective date of this Amendment, and except as provided herein, the Congress may not enact a budget for any fiscal year which contains allocations that exceed one hundred and five percent of the annual average of revenues for the last five fiscal years, allowing an appropriate adjustment for inflation.

Section 2.

Should the Congress enact a budget with allocations exceeding one hundred and five percent of the annual average of revenues for the last five fiscal years, allowing an appropriate adjustment for inflation, such budget shall be enacted by a two-thirds majority vote.

In the event of a special allocation of monies, outside of the normal budgeting process, such allocation shall be enacted by a two-thirds majority vote.

Section 3.

If the Congress acts in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of this Amendment, the Attorney General of the United States shall file a Petition for Injunction in the Supreme Court of the United States seeking enforcement of this Amendment. If the Attorney General of the United States fails to act, any elected member of Congress or the President may seek enforcement of Sections 1 and 2 of this Amendment. If the elected members of Congress and the President fail to act under this section, any tax payer in the United States may file suit in a District Court of competent jurisdiction seeking enforcement of Sections 1 and 2 of this Amendment.

Section 4.

This Amendment shall go into effect on January 1, 2027.

The extended period of time given to comply with this Amendment is in consideration of the budget deficits of the Federal government at the time this Amendment was ratified. As the Federal government seeks to balance its budget, it is the intent of the ratifiers of this Amendment that vulnerable populations in the United States are not disproportionately affected by that process, to-wit: benefits received by vulnerable populations (I mean, we could fight over this definition) shall not be reduced from 2011 levels, adjusted for inflation, until January 1, 2027.

Categories: Uncategorized

News roundup

July 11, 2011 Leave a comment

An interesting article on competency in juvenile delinquency proceedings from the NYT. Editorially, I would point out that this would probably be less of a problem (strategically and legally speaking) if juvenile delinquency courts were more focused on rehabilitation and treatment as opposed to punishing offenders.

Online therapy? Could this be a solution to bringing resources into undeserved areas?

And one more NYT piece on rethinking addiction.

Wired has an interesting piece on feedback loops.

Google Ideas looks for a solution to extremism. Could this concept be applied to other social problems?

Categories: Uncategorized

Some perspective from the Miami Herald

On child homicide trials which are not national media attention grabbers: Story here.

Categories: Uncategorized

OPINION: Drug testing welfare applicants

There is a lot to work with here, and I’m studying for an economics final tomorrow, so I’m going to try to hit the highlights:

Almost (but not quite) nudging out Casey Anthony as the top Florida-related news story of the day, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed a bill on Tuesday that requires drug testing for welfare applicants.

TANF outlines requirements that states can impose for recipients, and drug testing is not allowed by statute. So, if Florida wants to keep receiving TANF funds then they need to repeal this statute. That’s the legal argument against this.

There is also a compelling compelling administrative argument against. The requirement creates the necessity of forming an entirely new bureaucracy (on an entirely new subbureucracy). Even before you get to the substantive arguments about why this is asinine and why it will do more harm than good, there are some excellent administrative arguments for why this is moronic. First, does anybody have any idea how much this is going to cost? I mean drug tests themselves aren’t exactly cheap, especially when you scale up the group of people who are being tested to the size of the Florida welfare applications. And that’s just the in-the-box cost. Sure they say that welfare applicants need to pay for this, but this requirement may add a constitutional question to the whole thing when you are talking about a needs-based entitlement program. Who is going to administer these tests? Those people are about to get a lot busier. And what were they doing before they were giving drug tests to poor people? How is that work going to get done and who is going to do it? What happens when there is a positive stick test? Those things are wildly inaccurate and will not support a denial of benefits alone, I mean, just because these folks are poor doesn’t mean that they aren’t entitled to some procedural due process. So there is an added layer of expense for lab testing and then some sort of administrative or judicial hearing before there is a discharge. That system surely exists, but is it set up to handle the increased number of people who are about to be pumped through it?

And those are just the technical, administrative “process” concerns I have about this. In my opinion, anybody with any sense at all would look at that and say that the cost is not worth it.

But, of course, then you’d lose the opportunity to point at the poor people and complain about how much more they are costing the rest of us. And that, of course, is my real problem with this law.

Poor people are human beings. Most of them don’t want to be poor. Most of them are humiliated by the fact that they are poor. Most of the reasons that they’re poor impose some sort of communal obligation on the rest of us who have benefitted from the largess of the same structure that relegates them to their poverty. As a society we’ve recognized that, so we’ve created a series of social safety net programs to protect the poor from living in abject, destressing (possibly revolutionary) poverty–but we’ve ensured that those programs are also designed to be crappy, to remind people that they are poor and they should be ashamed of themselves for taking help from people who are working hard while they are poor, and to be brief–“poor people shouldn’t attach themselves to the public tit forever, and they would if it weren’t for limitations, because they are lazy.”

So, we give poor people crappy stuff because we don’t want them to like it very much.

However, we want them to like it enough to be appreciative about it. After all, we’re working and they’re poor. That’s our money they’re spending. Because of that they should live their lives the way that we want them to live their lives, not the way that they want to live their lives. So we get mad when poor people have a lot of children. Or use drugs. Or sell the crappy stuff that we give them to inject a tiny bit of liquidity into their lives. Because, you know, they shouldn’t do that. And we clearly know best because we are not poor. And to correct your bad behavior we are going to take away your crappy crap that we gave you and you weren’t thankful enough for.

There was a great piece in Monkey House yesterday which suggested that the invasiveness of this requirement might lead to further suppression of participation of the poor from public life. This is a compelling argument against, particularly when taken hand in hand with the legal, practical, and moral arguments. And particularly in light of emerging psychological and sociological evidence that suggests that increasing the burdens of poverty decreases the resilience of the poor and their ability to overcome poverty.

Categories: Uncategorized

Things that I would have lots of opinions about if it weren’t finals week


  1. The new Florida law which requires drug testing for people on public aid.  This is a bad idea for hundreds of reasons, including the administrative expense that is going to accompany it and, more importantly, the damage to the dignity of the poor.  This is an especially daft move for Florida
  2. Catholic Charities in the Rockford Diocese halting adoption services because they don’t want to facilitate adoptions for gay couples. I mean, Catholic Charities can decide who they want to contract with, no worries, my gripe is that as the state abdicates more and more of its safety net services to private agencies–many of them faith-based organizations–and the institutional structure to provide those services at the state level atrophies I would expect more moral conflicts like this. And, I would suggest that the biggest losers here are kids who were being served.
Categories: Uncategorized

Doctors evaluating juveniles in custody receive payments from big pharma

From the Palm Beach Post via Mother Jones.

Categories: Uncategorized
%d bloggers like this: