On The Fence

Sensible
Having first proposed and demanded the sequester, it would make sense that the president lead the effort to replace it. Unfortunately, he has put forth no detailed plan that can pass Congress, and the Senate—controlled by his Democratic allies—hasn't even voted on a solution, let alone passed one. By contrast, House Republicans have twice passed plans to replace the sequester with common-sense cuts and reforms that protect national security. (John Boehner, WSJ, 2/19/2013)

There is a part of us that wonders if sensible Democrats feel the same way about Nancy Pelosi that sensible Republicans feel about John Boehner. Namely, both might prefer a different spokesperson. Boehner is at times awkward and inarticulate and has let Obama get the best of him. Nonetheless, we were thrilled to read his Wall Street Journal piece. No doubt pushed by RedStateVT which has been insistently recycling Charles Krauthammer's reminder that the sequester was Obama's creation, Boehner finally makes this very point. It cannot be said enough as sequester nears.


Scofflaw
Voters should scoff at the idea that a $3.6 trillion government can't save one nickel of every dollar that agencies spend. The $85 billion in savings is a mere 2.3% of total spending. The agencies that the White House says can't save 5% received an average increase in their budgets of 17% in the previous five years—not counting their $276 billion stimulus bonus. (WSJ, 2/19/2013)

Truth in numbers.


Prison Time
The shift to tougher penal policies three decades ago was originally credited with helping people in poor neighborhoods by reducing crime. But now that America’s incarceration rate has risen to be the world’s highest, many social scientists find the social benefits to be far outweighed by the costs to those communities.

“Prison has become the new poverty trap,” said Bruce Western, a Harvard sociologist. “It has become a routine event for poor African-American men and their families, creating an enduring disadvantage at the very bottom of American society.” (NYT, 2/18/2013)

Loved this one from the Times. Long prison sentences are a major contributor to poverty. We don't even know where to begin. 


Argumentative
Indeed, the same logic that argues for setting a minimum wage also argues for the government setting wage standards more generally. The government could require businesses above a certain size to increase employees’ wages in line with the economy’s productivity increases, for example, exempting those companies that experienced losses the previous year.

That will never happen, of course (and might be a bureaucratic nightmare if it did). But what are more plausible scenarios for jump-starting Americans’ earnings? A better-educated workforce might command more income, but incomes in most professions have been stagnating as well.

If wages are to rise, the only alternative to giving the government wage-setting authority is giving employees the power to bargain. Today, that power has just about vanished. With union membership down to just 6.6 percent of the private-sector workforce, the overwhelming majority of U.S. workers have no power to bargain for their share of company revenue, and those few who do have a weak hand. Reforming labor laws so that workers could join unions or workers’ associations without fear of firing might ultimately compel chief executives to invest some of that $1.7 trillion on hand to training and rewarding their workers, even if it means they can’t buy back as many of their own shares. (Harold Meyerson, Washington Post, 2/19/2013)

Meyerson hops around the Liberal playbook in this column from which we quote extensively. See if you can follow:

--We really need to raise the minimum wage.

--Actually that is such a great idea that the government should be able to force businesses to raise non-minimum wage workers' pay.

--OK, that probably couldn't happen. (But it would be great if it could.)

--Well then workers should at least be able to join unions. (Apparently that is not possible currently.)

Where to begin?