Rational Politicking | To Replace Acrimony With Civility

Tuesday

May042010

National Debt

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 at 8:50PM

It appears that the economy is finally turning around. While the employment and payroll numbers tell a bleak tale, GDP was up 3.2% for the first quarter of 2010 and the markets have been displaying resilience over the past year. Perhaps more importantly, investment in single-family structures rebounded from a four-year plummet in Q1. Many economists in both the public and private sectors believe we are headed toward more growth and stronger numbers across the board. This scenario is ideal and I hope it will be fulfilled, yet I remain skeptical of the exuberance.

In response to the financial crisis, the federal government added trillions to the national debt in its stimulus spending, tax credits, and expansion programs. The total federal debt is currently around $13 trillion and continues to increase. This figure is difficult to grasp though and means little to average citizen. In an admittedly obtuse manner, I want to make the scale of this figure easier to grasp so that I may elaborate on its importance for our nation’s future. If we divided the federal debt evenly amongst all U.S. citizens, each of us would be responsible for $42,000.

More troubling is the interest that will be due on this debt. Another response to the crisis was the lowering of interest rates to near zero in an attempt to keep markets liquid. The inevitable reaction to this response is the eventual increase of those rates, which is applied to the national debt. The annual interest due on our national debt currently stands at $187 billion. The Congressional Budget Office projects an increase of the interest due to $916 billion by 2020. If this holds true, interest alone would cost more than we currently spend on Social Security. It would comprise 18% of federal spending, nearly equally defense spending.

Projections on such a time scale are notoriously unreliable and we could see a complete reversal of the numbers. These projections are actually based on fairly optimistic assumptions though, we could easily see numbers worse than these as well.

To make the effect of these figures more relevant I turn to Greece, which because of rampant spending and a failure to correct the budget, is now bankrupt. The government has enacted austerity measures cutting public services (i.e. waste removal, fire/rescue, postal, etc.) in an attempt to solicit bailout funds from other nations. A similar scenario for the U.S. is remote, but the current situation in Greece should serve as fair warning of what is possible if we fail to control spending.

Criticism of the governmental response to the financial crisis is difficult to levy due to the immediacy and scale of the issues we faced. Regardless of personal opinions regarding how we responded to the issues, we must now work together to reign in waste and revamp our national fiscal policy. This will not be easy or painless, but it must be done and we must elect representatives who are willing to take the necessary risks to get it done.

The Rationalist |

Comcast v. FCC

Monday, April 12, 2010 at 9:51PM

The topic of net neutrality gained attention last week when the Department of Justice overturned a ruling of the Federal Communications Commission. I have touched on this issue previously in an article with a legislative focus and would now like to discuss this judicial ruling and its implications.

In its ruling last Tuesday, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals stripped the FCC of the ability to regulate network management practices of internet providers. The appeal levied by Comcast stemmed from the FCC’s intervention when Comcast began limiting bandwidth availability to individuals based on the applications used by the individuals. Comcast claimed that the restrictions were necessary to maintain the stability of its network, while the FCC deemed the restrictions a violation of the Internet Policy Statement.

The legal arguments presented by both sides hinged on interpretations of congressional delegation of authority and previous court rulings. Comcast argued that the FCC had breached its jurisdictional bounds in intervening. The FCC claimed it derived this authority from its ability to pursue “necessary and proper” actions. Essentially, the court ruled that the FCC failed to show that Congress had granted the FCC regulatory authority over the internet.

Two important implications of this ruling are:

The FCC must carefully establish the source of its authority in any future intervention it pursues in regards to internet access.

The past means of doing so are no longer valid, thereby negating any oversight authority the FCC possessed.

In February 2009, Congress asked the FCC to create a plan to modernize and expand our national broadband access. This ruling jeopardizes portions the proposed National Broadband Plan, which were to be implemented under the clause deemed inapplicable by the court. More importantly however, it grants authority of bandwidth access to the providers. In stripping this authority from the FCC, the Court has ruled that providers can throttle the bandwidth speeds of its users, selective promote specific content by setting speeds, and completely block specific content.

While the legal grounds for the ruling are valid, it creates a threat to access. If the FCC is to implement its Broadband Plan, Congress must grant it authority over the internet. With the current political climate and the telecom industry donating nearly $4 million since January, this will not be an easy feat. We must pressure our officials to maintain an open internet and protect our right to access.

The Rationalist |

State of Rage

Monday, March 29, 2010 at 10:08PM

We are all aware that Obama’s long sought and hard fought health care reform bill was signed into law last week. The partisanship that accompanied this bill ranged from comical to disturbing, and its passage has not assuaged any of this. This historic bill will proffer a number of ramifications that we are yet uncertain of and that concern many of my fellow citizens. While my stance on this bill is relatively positive, I am not going to defend its passage in this writing. What I want to address is a frightening trend that has become evident in the days since the bill’s passage.

There have been a number of threats levied against congressional representatives over the past week. The majority of these have been against Democratic representative, but some Republicans have been targeted as well. These threats include obscene phone calls, faxes bearing the images of nooses, bricks thrown through windows, white powder in mailed envelopes, and cut gas lines. On March 23, a bullet hit an office used by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA). While investigators deemed the bullet a stray, it is troubling nonetheless.

Our representatives are elected as public servants to serve the needs of their constituency. Their positions grant them an immense level of power that may be abused at times and they may lose sight of what is important. In such instances, it is our responsibility to hold them accountable via an election. It is not within the power of the people to threaten or endanger any citizen, be it an elected official or other. To do so is anathema to our nation’s founding standards.

If any individual feels that our government is behaving in a derelict manner, speak to your representative and make your concerns known. This will not alter the course of the nation and may not achieve your ultimate legislative goal. It will allow you to become an active member of the constituency and for you to place a vote of conscience.

Exercise your rights of speech and assembly; make your legislators hear you. However, do not trample the rights of other citizens in making your point. While you have a voice, you do not speak for nor decide the fate of others.

As a citizen and patriot of this nation, I abhor the actions of those who seek to physically threaten or endanger any citizen. The people who aim to dismantle national discourse through violent means are of no value to society and need to be made aware of such.

The Rationalist |