The days after DOMA

With the unrest in the Middle East and the constant debate over government spending dominating the political and news landscapes, one important story flew under the radar last week -- at least to some extent. President Barack Obama is refusing to defend DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996.

Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder will no longer force the Justice Department to defend the law in court, opening the door for the future legalization of gay marriage and admitting that refusing that right in the first place is a violation of civil rights.

In a word: finally. I've criticize Obama pretty harshly on many of his social policies and his failure to stand up for the electorate. Lately, however, it seems that principle trumps political expedience, which it typically should.

Still, it's a bit odd for the executive branch to declare a law unconstitutional, as that is typically the role of the Supreme Court. Though uncommon, this move is not without precedent. But as one would expect, there are oppositional voices from conservatives.

"Some conservatives questioned Mr. Obama’s timing and accused him of trying to change the subject from spending cuts to social causes," said Charlie Savage and Sheryl Gay Stolberg of The New York Times.

I think this criticism is accurate, but neither party really has grounds to accuse the other of altering national discourse for political gain. It happens constantly. In 2004, the Republicans rode the threat of terrorism and national moral erosion into the White House. Obama did the same in 2008 by shifting the focus to domestic issues. Then there's the 2010 election, when concerns over deficit spending put Republicans back in control of the House. So how is this different? It's not. Moving on.

This is my personal favorite among the dissenters: "This is the real politicization of the Justice Department — when the personal views of the president override the government’s duty to defend the law of the land." This statement comes from Republican Texas Rep. Lamar Smith.

Personal views always inform political and legal decision. Why do you think the approval of Supreme Court justices takes so damn long? We vet their personal views. The law is really just a social contract that reflects our collective personal views concerning what we deem acceptable and unacceptable at the time of its writing. As our views change, so does the law, though much more slowly.

My big question in all this goes to the Republicans, supposed champions of personal freedom and limited government: Why do you care about how two consenting adults choose to live their lives and why should the government involve itself in such decisions? To me, their stance it the epitome of hypocrisy. Score one for freedom!

Spend, save or draw?

Surprisingly, few Americans support decreases in federal government spending according to a PEW Research Center study.


In only two areas -- unemployment benefits and aid to the world's needy -- does the public favor a decrease over an increase.

I say these results are surprising for two reasons. First, it seemed as though the midterm elections were focused on deficit spending and decreasing federal spending as a whole. As it turns out, most people aren't ready to make those cuts. Perhaps all we heard were the loudest voices, not the people's voices.

Second, the wave of Tea Party candidates pushed an agenda of lower taxes. But lowering taxes and preserving the Bush tax cuts, while at the same time increasing spending, will inevitably lead to a deficit. We can't have it both ways.

Interestingly, perhaps we don't want it both ways. In a previous post, I pointed out that most Americans don't feel overtaxed. Again, perhaps all we heard were the loudest voices, not the people's voices.

Regardless, until the silent majority finds its voice, we're looking at political deadlock and party-line idiocy.

News and Comedy Central

There's an interesting study out from the PEW Research Center about viewers of the Comedy Central news programs "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report."

According to PEW:

When it comes to mixing news and point of view, at least seven-in-ten NPR listeners, "Colbert Report" and "Daily Show" watchers and USA Today readers say they want news without a point of view.

As a regular viewer of these programs, I tend to agree, but I recognize the irony. Stewart and Colbert unquestionably present a point of view, and typically a politically liberal one. What makes these programs unique is that these viewpoints are disguised by satire, which has some interesting implications for what results when comedy and information mix.

Personally, I find their views to be logical and well informed and their humor to be...well, humorous. Still, maybe that's a rationalization for my own biases. Something worth thinking about...

Well enough alone

Americans are split when it comes to what the federal government should do concerning the recent health care bill.

Twenty percent think we should leave it as it is, 35 percent think it should be expanded and 37 percent think it should be repealed, according to findings from the Pew Research Center.

My guess is we'll have a preservation of the status quo. The support for expansion and repeal are roughly equal, so I doubt either side has much to go on -- that is, of course, assuming Democrats don't roll over on this one, which is a damn big assumption.


It's no secret that I'm for expanding to a single-payer system. My few interactions with insurance companies have been unpleasant to say the least, and as I understand it, my insurance is damn good. Maybe my mood is telling or maybe I expect to much.

The politically interesting point of all this concerns the deficit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan group, the GOP plan to repeal the health care bill would actually increase the deficit by $145 billion over the next 8 years.

Also, consider that the George W. Bush deficits were larger than those of any other president in history and that the RNC debt currently sits at $23 million.

I'm not arguing that this makes Republicans fiscally irresponsible. Deficit spending during times of economic crisis are useful ways to stimulate business growth because of reluctance to spend from the private sector. Don't believe me? Ask Paul Krugman. That Nobel Prize in Economics should carry a bit of credibility.

I am, however, arguing that Republicans are disingenuous. They are engaging in practices similar to those of the Democrats, yet they condemn the opposition. They accuse Democrats of a "tax and spend" philosophy, but at least there is an input for the output. The real Bush doctrine was "don't tax and spend anyway." It doesn't take a financial genius to see how that will play out, but I didn't hear any Republican cries for reduced spending then.

Now the new GOP policy is "don't tax, cut," but the proposed program cuts would put a minimal dent in the deficit -- or even increase it in the case of the health care debate.

In the end, I feel like being the party of "no" is just a hard habit to break. Opposition isn't bad, but when it's blind, it can become stupid and down right dangerous, as my good friends at the Onion point out.

Fatherhood

Nearly 70% of Americans see the trend toward single-motherhood as societally damaging, according to a study from the Pew Research Center. Continuing with my recent conservative trend, I'm throwing my lot in with the majority.

I'm not saying that being a single mother is necessarily bad, or that entering a loveless marriage or "staying together for the kids" is a good idea. However, there have been numerous studies highlighting the positive social and psychological effects of a two-parent home.

The strengths and weaknesses of one parent tend to balance out in the other, often resulting in more well-adjusted kids. I think family is critically important and that children benefit from positive male role models.

However, I seriously doubt that the nuclear family has a monopoly on producing people of good character. Still, I would bet that a commitment to childrearing beyond just the mother provides a definite boost.

Renewed focus on infrastructure

President Obama alluded to advancing U.S. infrastructure in his State of the Union address, a change that I find refreshing.

Liberal as I may be, I don't think the federal government can sustainably create jobs. At best it offers a Band-Aid that can't protect a wound forever. It can, however, protect a wound long enough to heal and return to normal.

That's what investments in infrastructure can do for the American economy. Building better roads, rail lines, airports and communication systems offers short-term job opportunities to help workers weather the unemployment storm.

Once these systems are in place, they create new opportunities for the growth of private business and the creation of sustainable, long-term employment. Such growth is good not just for business and for workers, but for the country as a whole. We need to adjust in order to ride the coming wave of globalism...that of be swept away by it.

Vindication

A new study reports a dramatic decline in study time among college students.

According to authors Philip Babcock and Mindy Marks, college students in 1961 devoted 40 hours a week to study, as opposed to just 27 hours in 2004. And yes, this applies to everyone: "the declines occurred at 4-year colleges of every type, size, degree structure, and level of selectivity."

The article is written for an economics article, so the authors take a "garbage in, garbage out" approach. The concern is that, provided investment in study yields positive results -- which it likely does -- declines in study time will result in a batch of graduates that are unprepared for a competitive job market and uneducated, despite the degrees.

Babcock and Marks provided several reasons for this decline, but my favorite is the following:

Institutional standards may have evolved to meet an evolving market for college students.

In other words, colleges make more money if they admit more students, so they lower their standards to increase the customer pool. What's strange about this whole thing is that the key to a university's success is the devaluing of its own product. Anyone smell another remake of The Producers?

I, for one, am not buying into this game. Earlier this week I actually had a student remind me that I "don't teach at Yale." So I should expect less of you as a student? I don't think so. Expect more from yourself...that or drop out.

But they can't quit. They're trapped. Soon McDonald's will require a college degree from its employees. Societally, in an effort to "leave no child behind," we've let every child down. A Bachelor's degree is the equivalent of a high school diploma. It is expected and valueless, at least for my generation. What pride is there in achieving what so many others achieve?

Our real problem is that too many people attend college. Yeah, I said it, and I'll say it again: too many people attend college.

Let me be clear: I'm not blaming the students. What choice do they have? Some have no interest in the careers a college degree ideally affords, but jobs that don't truly require higher education for some reason require a degree. Other individuals, to be perfectly honest, lack the temperament or intelligence to benefit from college. But again, to get a moderately decent job, a college degree is required.

In my eyes, this system creates two major problems. First, is forces individuals who have no interest in being in the university system to go to college. Second, it devalues the degree students eventually earn because it's not that damn difficult to get one. Does a Bachelor's degree really separate you from the pack anymore? I don't think so...at least not like it once did.

I think a return to a trade-school focus is in order. Let's educate people to do what they really want to do. If a nine-to-five is your only end goal, then train for that. If your interested in something more thought-provoking and mentally challenging, then train for that.

But the incessant dumbing down of curriculum and the perpetually lowering bar are not effective ways to mine human capital or benefit students.