The Barr Report, June 27

Representative Barr sent me an e-mail with a short questionnaire on immigration reform. He didn’t just send it to me, he sent it to his entire constituent e-mail list. I don’t know how many voters in the Sixth District are on the list, but hopefully it is a large number, and a high percentage of the population. Democracy should be a two way street, and these e-mails (and questionnaires) are an important part of that. I assume most members of Congress have similar constituent e-mails, but Barr should certainly be commended for this effort.

This particular questionnaire dealt with immigration reform, and it is good to know that Barr is reaching out to his constituents to see what they think. I had one small quibble with the form: some of the questions don’t have a real range of possible answers, but seem to be skewed. Take the fourth question:

The U.S. Senate is debating a bill that would allow undocumented immigrants to stay in the country legally if they meet certain requirements. Which comes closer to your view about how to handle undocumented immigrants who are now living in the U.S.?

[] Undocumented immigrants should be deported and should not be allowed to stay in the country legally under any circumstances.
[] I would consider supporting a way for them to stay in the country legally without any special path to citizenship, if penalties are paid and certain border security, interior enforcement and other requirements are met.
[] Other

Why not a variation of the second answer that allows potential citizenship?

But again it is good to see that Representative Barr is communicating with his constituents.

A version of the Questionnaire can be found here: Barr Immigration Questionnaire.

 

 

The Fight for the Fifty-Sixth, and My Brain

I heard, back to back, campaign commercials for Democratic candidate James Kay, and then Republican candidate Lyen Crews. According to one, the other guy is a sleazy liar, and according to the other, the other guy is lying and sleazy.

I could feel the stupidity trying to invade my brain. I had to crank some Sonic Youth to get that sound out of my ears, and read some Orwell to try to drive the stupid out of my brain. I don’t know if it worked.

Immigration and Job Creation

According to a report issued by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, if the pending immigration reform bill (S. 744) is passed, it will have significant economic benefits for the country.  According to the CBO, new immigrants will generate enough new revenue to shrink the budget deficit by $175 billion over the next decade, and increase GDP by as much as two percentage points.

Here’s an article from Quartz

Here’s the link to the CBO report.

Here’s Ezra Klein’s take at the Washington Post

Conservatives claim that their main priority, above all else, is shrinking the deficit. So lets see how they interpret this report.

 

 

The Andy Barr Report June 16 Edition

In this week’s constituent e-mail Representative Barr announces the redesign of his official web site. It is available at www.barr.house.gov. It’s pretty slick, with lots of photos and videos, and easily available press releases regarding his recent votes and the bills he has introduced or co-sponsored.
Representative Barr filed legislation to amend the tax code to remove a tax on bourbon aged in barrels. Apparently other distilled spirits are not taxed as they age (to the extent that they are aged) and this legislation would remove this disparity. This sounds like a great idea to me.

Barr voted for the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act, which, among other things, attempts to address the problem of sexual assault in the military and the backlog of care in the Veterans Administration.

Barr also is co-sponsoring an act finance a number of infrastructure programs with repatriated tax funds. H.R. 2084, the Partnership to Build America Act. This seems like a worthy goal, but is really a drop in the bucket in addressing our pressing infrastructure needs. For more information on America’s crumbling infrastructure, see the American Society of Civil Engineers Report Card on America’s Infrastructure. Deteriorating roads and bridges hamper the national economy. When politicians refuse to spend money on needed infrastructure they are being penny wise but pound foolish.

 

Politics American Style

I often wonder if politicians hear what comes out of their mouths, or if they are aware of how dumb their campaign commercials sound. Fortunately examples are never hard to find. There is a special election being held in the 56th Legislative District in Kentucky. There are three candidates, Republican Lynn Crews, Democrat James Kay, and independent John-Mark Hack.

The Republican, Lynn Crews, has been running ads attacking James Kay, and saying, among other things, that his first job out of law school was working in politics. Shocking. The only problem with that argument is that a number of prominent Republican politicians from Kentucky worked in politics right out of school. Senator Mitch McConnell, for example, worked for U.S. Senator Marlow Cook (R. KY) after graduating from law school. He then worked in the Ford Administration, and served as the Judge-Executive of Jefferson County from 1979 to 1985, before his election to the United States Senate, where he has served ever since. If McConnell has ever worked in the private sector, he doesn’t mention it on his senate web site biography. (http://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Biography)

And then there is Representative Andy Barr. Barr worked as an intern form Senator McConnell, and then after graduating from college worked as a legislative assistant for Missouri Congressman Jim Talent. Barr then went to law school, and after graduating worked for about two years in private practice at a law firm in Lexington. He represented Ernie Fletcher’s one time running mate Hunter Bates in a dispute over his residency, and then after Fletcher’s election he joined the Fletcher administration, where he served in a number of positions. After Fletcher’s defeat he returned to private practice, until his election to Congress in 2012. If my math is correct Barr has spent nearly as much time in politics as in the private sector.

Why then is working in politics such a bad thing?

But the real question is whether Crews even thought about what his ad said. How could he, with a straight face, complain about a candidate with little or no real experience in the private sector without realizing that someone was going to point out that Senator McConnell has no appreciable experience in the private sector?

Some Economic Data and Fun Charts

I like charts. Jared Bernstein has a nice post today with lots of charts, and those charts show the economy picking up, and as the economy picks up the deficit (the year to year overspending) is steadily decreasing. Here’s the post: The Facts of the Case

Here are a couple of charts.

Economic data chart

If these charts are correct, in a few years the deficit may go to zero, and like the Clinton years we may actually run a surplus. Wanna bet that it we do run a surplus our conservative friends will once again call for tax cuts rather than paying down the debt?

The Market Has Spoken

The market has spoken: tolerance is good for business.

Most major corporations have strong anti-discrimination policies. Most have active minority recruitment and retention policies. And increasingly, many support providing benefits for domestic partners.

According to DiversityInc.com, most major companies are committed to diversity it the workplace, though they admit that many companies do fall short. Most try because they understand the importance of a diverse workforce. Virtually all companies, large and small, have anti-discrimination policies, and increasingly those policies cover discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. According to the Equity Forum, in 2012, 483 of the Fortune 500 companies specifically included sexual orientation in their anti-discrimination policies. (www.equityforum.com/fortune500)

A significant majority of Fortune 500 Companies now provide domestic partner benefits. According to the Human Rights Campaign, in 2011, 291 of the 500 companies offered domestic partner benefits. [http://preview.hrc.org/issues/health/domestic_partner_benefits.htm]

As the twin cases dealing with Gay Marriage were at the Supreme Court, a group of businesses, which included Apple Inc., Broadcom Corp., Citigroup Inc., Facebook Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Marriott International Inc., Microsoft, Orbitz, Starbucks, Twitter and the Walt Disney Co., signed an amicus brief opposing the federal Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), and therefor supporting both gay marriage and domestic partner benefits. [The briefs can be found here: http://www.glad.org/doma/documents/]

Many prominent local and regional companies also provide domestic partnership benefits, including Proctor & Gamble in Cincinnati, Lexmark in Lexington, and Toyota in Georgetown.
Many companies are proudly outspoken about their anti-discrimination policies:

HP, for example, states that it has long been committed to fair employment practices, and strives for a diverse workforce.
HP believes that this diverse work force helps the company realize its full potential. Recognizing and developing the talents of each individual brings new ideas to HP. The company benefits from the creativity and innovation that results when HP people who have different experiences, perspectives and cultures work together. [See, http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/abouthp/diversity/nondisc.html]

Here’s is what HP says is its diversity philosophy:

HP’s Diversity and inclusion philosophy

• A diverse, high-achieving workforce is the sustainable competitive advantage that differentiates HP. It is essential to win in the marketplaces, workplaces and communities around the world.
• An inclusive, flexible work environment that values differences motivates employees to contribute their best.
• To better serve our customers, we must attract, develop, promote and retain a diverse workforce.
• Trust, mutual respect and dignity are fundamental beliefs that are reflected in our behavior and actions.
• Accountability for diversity and inclusion goals drives our success.

HP’s anti-disciminatin policy, which it calls its “Global Non-Discrimination Policy” provides that we do not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of gender, color, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, disability, pregnancy, covered veteran status, protected genetic information and political affiliation. [Id.]

HP is far from alone. Walmart, America’s largest company has this non-discrimination policy:

The first of the three basic beliefs upon which Sam Walton founded our company is “respect for the individual.” Each of us is responsible for creating a culture of trust and respect that promotes a positive work environment. This means treating one another with fairness and courtesy in all of our interactions in the workplace.

We are committed to maintaining a diverse workforce and an inclusive work environment. Walmart will not tolerate discrimination in employment, employment-related decisions, or in business dealings on the basis of race, color, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, religion, disability, ethnicity, national origin, veteran status, marital status, pregnancy, or any other legally protected status. We should provide an environment free of discrimination to our associates, customers, members, and suppliers.
[http://ethics.walmartstores.com/IntegrityIntheWorkplace/Nondiscrimination.aspx]

Major corporations do these things, not because of some weak-kneed liberalism, not out of a desire to be politically correct, or out of fear that they will be accused of not being politically correct. They do these things because it is good for business.

Companies know that they need to sell their goods and services to everyone to make money. In today’s highly competitive economic marketplace companies know that they can’t ignore any potential market. And they have found that the best way to compete in every market is to have employees that reflect every possible market. And so they actively recruit potential employees from every potential market, and once hired work hard to retain and promote that diverse workforce. Make no mistake, diversity is good for business. Make no mistake, tolerance is good for business.

Conservatives are fond of saying we should run government more like a business, and in this area at least, I agree.

Ma Bell and the Modern Market

Conservatives like to complain that government regulation is stifling the economy. This implies that, once upon a time, the market was free of government interference. And likely they would point to the 1950’s as the glory days of the American free enterprise system. I suspect that if you were to ask most Republicans, they would likely say that the American economy was more free and open in the 1950’s than today. The reality, however, is quite different.

Remember “Ma Bell?” Ma Bell was the nickname for AT &T, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company. Ma Bell was the only phone company in the country until the early 1980’s. Ma Bell was a government sanctioned monopoly. There was no competition, there was no free market, in telecommunications in this country in the 1950’s.

Remember the Civil Aeronautics Board? Up until deregulation in 1978, the CAB controlled rates and routes in the American airline industry. There was no competition, there was no free market, in the airline industry in this country in the 1950’s.

Remember the Hays Code? Most people don’t know the name, but in the 1920’s the Motion Picture Association of America created a production code that prohibited the depiction of certain subjects in film. This was known as the Hays Code, and it was censorship, plain and simple. The MPAA kept a tight rein on films until the late 1960’s, when things began to loosen up. There was a tightly regulated market in films in this country in the 1950’s. In fact there was widespread censorship in this country until the late 1950’s, when judicial decisions allowed the importation and domestic printing of books like Lady Chatterley’s Lover. Most of the censorship occurred at the state and local level, but the federal government enforced these laws at the Post Office by refusing to mail books deemed obscene. These laws were largely overturned in the 1973 Supreme Court case of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

Before the deregulation movement of the late 1970’s, most of the American transportation industries were heavily regulated. Railroads were deregulated in 1976 (the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976), trucking was deregulated in 1980 (the Motor Carriers Act of 1980), and bus lines were deregulated in 1982 (the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982). There was no competition, there was no free market, in the transportation industry in this country in the 1950’s.

Banks and finance were heavily regulated after the market collapse of 1929, but things began to change in the 1980’s. In 1980, Congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act, which removed many restrictions on the way Savings and Loans operated. Many went on a tear offering new loans, and the system collapsed in the late 1980’s, leading to the so-called “Savings and Loan Crisis.” Banks were largely deregulated in 1999, with the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. There was no competition, there was no free market, in the banking industry in this country in the 1950’s.

(I have neither the time or expertise to discuss the widespread use of tariffs and import laws to protect domestic industry, but suffice it to say, the American economy didn’t have to deal with much worldwide competition in the 1950’s.)

The U.S. economy of the 1950’s was also operating in the shadow of World War Two, when the government, through various war time production agencies, essentially controlled the economy. War production rebuilt many industries that had languished during the Depression, and after the war many of these facilities that had been built at taxpayer expense, were given, or sold at very low cost, to private industry. War production nearly doubled the size and output of the American aluminum industry, and after the war these facilities were sold for pennies on the dollar.

So the so-called free market of the 1950’s was anything but, and exists not in reality but only in the febrile imaginations of conservatives.

There is no doubt that there is still a great deal of regulation in the American marketplace, but it is regulation of a different sort. Modern regulation does not regulate the operation of the market, but regulates the behavior of businesses. The most hated forms of regulation are environmental regulations, product safety regulations, and work place safety regulations. These are certainly a burden to business, but it not manipulation of the market like the government involvement of the 1950’s. This sort of regulation, however, is probably much more of an irritant to business owners because it seems to presuppose that they need adult supervision to run their businesses honestly and properly. It is also much more niggling and picayune. And so it is likely much more despised than earlier forms of regulation.

But just because it is more irritating doesn’t necessarily mean that it is more burdensome than the higher level of market control and regulation that existed in the 1950’s.