On the Efficacy of Cash Transfers to the Poor

Smart comments from Chris Blattman:

First, the message can be misunderstood. It is not, “Cash transfers to the poor are a panacea.” More like, “They probably suck less than most of the other things we are doing.” This is not a high bar.

Second, cash transfers work in some cases not others. If a poor person is enterprising, and their main problem is insufficient capital, terrific. If that’s not their problem, throwing cash will not do much to help. I recommend the paper for details. Apologies: It is even more boring that Das Kapital.

Third, a cash transfer to help the poor build business is like aspirin to a flesh wound. It helps, but not for long. The real problem is the absence of firms small and large to employ people productively. The root of the problem is political instability, economic uncertainty, and a country’s high cost structure, among other things. A government’s attention is properly on these bigger issues.

If I were an enterprising young researcher looking for an idea and experiments that will prove powerful in five years, I would try to find the stake I can drive into the heart of the cash transfer movement.

My rule of thumb in this profession: “If the New York Times covers a research paper, the next year we will learn that it’s wrong”.

My only quibble is that aspirins don't help for flesh wounds, as they only serve to thin the blood and increase bleeding.

The Supreme Court and Same-Sex Marriage

I support the policy outcomes in both of the same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court. I believe that the Defense of Marriage Act was bad law that treated people differently for no good reason whatsoever, and I am glad to have seen it overturned in the Court's decision in Windsor. As law professor Randy Barnett, who wrote an amicus brief in the Windsor case, points out,

. . . DOMA was unconstitutional because (a) Congress had no enumerated power to regulate or “defend” marriage by imposing its definition on the states, and (b) DOMA was not necessary and proper for carrying into execution any of its enumerated powers.  By operating in so sweeping and undiscriminating a manner, DOMA was exceeded its enumerated powers by enacting a law that by design interfered with the operation of the traditional state regulation of marriage.  But overlooked in debates about our argument, we also made this federalism claim in the context of equal protection:  (c) DOMA’s sweeping and indiscriminate application to over a thousand federal statutes could not pass any level of equal protection scrutiny, even the most deferential, because Congress failed to identify a federal interest why each of these disparate federal laws should not track state laws defining marriage, as had previously been the case.

I agree with this reasoning, and although--as Professor Barnett points out--Justice Kennedy's opinion adopted this reasoning "with a twist," the fact remains that "federalism wins out in theory as well as in practice" when it comes to the same-sex marriage cases, which is good both for federalism, and for the cause of equality in general.

A very good analysis of the DOMA case is offered by Timothy Sandefur, who--while agreeing with the policy outcome of the case--does state his belief that "the Court went out of its way to escape the long-standing limits on its jurisdiction in order to issue this precedent." And I also agree with the way that Ilya Shapiro has put things:

Today, the Court upheld the equal liberty and dignity of all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation with its ruling in United States v. Windsor. This represents a major victory for gay rights, of course, but more broadly vindicates a robust view of individual liberty as protected by the Constitution. It should be axiomatic that the federal government has to treat all people equally, that it has to accept the several states’ sovereign laws on marriage (and many other subjects), and today there were five votes at the Supreme Court for that proposition.

It is now clear that there was simply no valid reason to uphold DOMA Section 3, no reason to deny the equal protection of more than 1,000 federal laws. As Justice Kennedy wrote for the unified majority, “the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage.”

This is exactly the result we were hoping for.

As for the Perry case, which leaves California's Proposition 8 invalidated due to a standing issue, I am glad that the decision functionally means that same-sex couples are able to get married in California, but of course, the fight in California is not over. I imagine that opponents of same-sex marriage will try to find another way to invalidate same-sex marriage in California, and I think that the only decisive way to beat back such an effort is for proponents of same-sex marriage to win a ballot fight on the issue at the polls. In fact, in general, it is preferable for same-sex marriage advocates that this issue is fought and won at the polls from now on, and kept out of the courts as much as possible. Only by winning at the polls will same-sex marriage advocates be able to show that their cause--which I support--is supported by the American people in general; any victory in the courts, no matter how decisive, will continue to cause opponents of same-sex marriage to claim that the right is being validated because of the actions of unelected judges.

Oh, and two quotes that I saw on Facebook are worth repeating here. Here is the first: 

Clinton signed DOMA into law. The Koch Brothers favored same-sex marriage before it became fashionable. But it's not like you'll update your priors based on that.

The second one makes the same point, and is from law professor Jonathan Adler: 

Nice to see so many friends of mine on the Left cheering a Supreme Court decision striking down a federal law enacted by a broad, bipartisan majority and signed into law by President Clinton. (Oh, and did I mention that this decision was supported enthusiastically by the Koch Brothers and urged by Koch-funded entities?)

 

Edward Snowden: Hero of Transparency

Or, you know, not: 

Since he publicly acknowledged being the source of bombshell leaks about the NSA two weeks ago, Ed Snowden has portrayed government secrecy as a threat to democracy, and his own leaks as acts of conscience. But chat logs uncovered by the tech news site Ars Technica suggest Snowden hasn’t always felt that way.

“Those people should be shot in the balls,” Snowden apparently said of leakers in a January 2009 chat. Snowden had logged into an Internet Relay Chat (IRC) server associated with Ars Technica. While Ars itself didn’t log the conversations, multiple participants in the discussions kept logs of the chats and provided them to the technology site.

At this point, Snowden’s evolution into a fierce critic of the national security establishment was in its early stages. Snowden was incensed at the New York Times, which had described secret negotiations between the United States and Israel over how best to deal with Iran’s suspected nuclear program.

“Are they TRYING to start a war? Jesus christ. They’re like wikileaks.” Snowden wrote. “You don’t put that s— in the NEWSPAPER.”

“They have a HISTORY of this s—,” he continued, making liberal use of capital letters and profanity. “These are the same people who blew the whole ‘we could listen to osama’s cell phone’ thing. The same people who screwed us on wiretapping. Over and over and over again.”

He said he enjoyed “ethical reporting.” But “VIOLATING NATIONAL SECURITY? no. That s— is classified for a reason. It’s not because ‘oh we hope our citizens don’t find out.’ It’s because ‘this s— won’t work if iran knows what we’re doing.’”

“I am so angry right now. This is completely unbelievable.”

People change, of course. But few change so drastically. Fewer still currently claim to be champions of openness and transparency while using unfree societies to shield themselves from the law, and very few openness and transparency advocates get jobs under false pretenses.

 

Why Democrats Have Turned Away from President Obama

Chris Cillizza and Sean Sullivan discuss.  One reason they cite is the fact that the presidential election is over, and Democrats no longer feel as much of a need to rally around the president. But here are the other reasons:

2. No big second term accomplishments. President Obama devoted the most powerful moments of his 2013 State of the Union address to the necessity of Congress passing gun control legislation. That push became a touchstone for Democrats across the country. It failed. While immigration reform remains in process, there’s not much he can point to that excites his base at the moment.

3. The whiff of scandal. The Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservatives and the revelations regarding the widespread surveillance of data and phone records by the National Security Agency left Obama playing defense. While neither story turned Democrats away from Obama, they may well have cut at the enthusiasm that members of his party expressed for him.

Hope and Change have pretty much gone by the wayside, haven't they?

Shelby County v. Holder: Ilya Shapiro's Take

Probably the most sane analysis of the Supreme Court's holding that I have seen: 

In striking down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, the U.S. Supreme Court has restored a measure of constitutional order. Based on 40-year-old voting data that doesn’t reflect current political conditions, this provision subjected a seemingly random assortment of states and localities to onerous burdens and unusual federal oversight.

To be clear, neither minority voting rights nor the ability of the federal government to enforce those rights were at stake in Shelby County v. Holder. Both of those were, are and will be secure regardless of this case and its consequences.

Instead, the court was considering whether the “exceptional conditions” and “unique circumstances” of the Jim Crow South still exist such that an “uncommon exercise of congressional power” is still constitutionally justified -- to quote the 1966 ruling that approved Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as an emergency measure.

As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in 2009, the last time it looked at this law, the “historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable,” but the modern uses of Section 5 -- which requires federal “pre-clearance” of any changes in election regulation in certain jurisdictions -- “raises serious constitutional concerns.” The provision maintains antiquated assumptions and flies in the face of the 15th Amendment’s requirement that all voters be treated equally.

Yet Congress renewed Section 5 in 2006 without updating Section 4’s coverage formula, and it ignored the court’s warning that “the Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs.”

That second paragraph is especially important to keep in mind, as is the fact that Congress can always rewrite the pre-clearance sections of the Voting Rights Act in order to accurately reflect current circumstances. But neither Congress, nor the Court, nor all of the people who offer outraged commentary on the holding of the case can ignore the very basic fact that the country has changed since 1965. And I don't know why we would want to ignore that fact, as it has changed for the better. Recognizing that change is not an admission of defeat for civil rights advocates--and I count myself as one. It is a declaration of victory, the kind that we have long waited to make.

The Latest IRS Scandal

It's just as ugly as the last one: 

The Internal Revenue Service got some more unwanted attention Tuesday, but not for targeting political groups. This time, a congressional investigation has revealed a technology contractor won questionable bids worth up to $500 million.

Braulio Castillo began winning hundreds of millions of dollars worth of contracts with the IRS within months of founding his technology company Strong Castle in early 2012.

"We've found the kind of wrongdoing that should have caused this contract to be cancelled," said Republican Darrell Issa, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, which investigated Castillo's rapid rise.

They found that just before opening Strong Castle, Castillo filed for a "disability rating" with the Veterans Administration, citing a "foot injury he suffered in 1984" -- 27 years ago -- while playing sports at a military prep school.

That rating enabled Castillo to register Strong Castle as a "service-disabled, veteran-owned small business," eligible for preferential treatment in bidding competitions.

"Understand -- never served a day on active duty, went to a school at taxpayers' expense and had a minor injury that didn't keep him from going on to play college ball," Issa said.

Castillo, who lives in Virginia, also chose carefully where to locate Strong Castle: "In the heart of Chinatown," says his company website.

It's a formerly blighted area now bursting with shops and restaurants, but Chinatown is still designated a government "hubzone," which meant Castillo's company qualified for even more priority in bidding.

I am sure that there are IRS employees who are honest and who do their jobs well. Too bad that so many of their colleagues ensure that these honest and competent employees do not receive publicity. 

Lawfare Is an Example of the Best of the Blogosphere, and it Deserves Your Support

I am very pleased to note the success of Lawfare in attracting readers and in shaping the law/national security debate, and not just because I guest-blogged at Lawfare one time, or because Jack Goldsmith once had nice things to say in passing about an article I wrote. Rather, I am pleased by Lawfare's success because I think that the site does a wonderful job of discussing the intersection of law and national security. Its writers are terrific at both reporting law/national security news and at writing what they think about the latest developments in the field. That's no mean feat. Lawfare's writers clearly have strong opinions on the issues of the day, but they respect their readership enough to give them oodles of relevant, timely and important information so that readers can make up their own minds on the issues the site covers and discusses. I like blogs that treat their readers like smart people, and Lawfare is a prime example of a blog that makes the Internet a better place by markedly improving the level of online conversation and discourse.

The blog has now transformed into a non-profit institute.  It is soliciting donations to help with site maintenance, and it will be applying for tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status. Of course, I heartily encourage you to support this blog, but you should support Lawfare and the Lawfare Institute as well--for a better blogosphere, better reporting and editorializing on law and national security issues, and a higher quality of discussion on policy formulation and implementation.

Markets in Everything (Boston Parking Spaces Edition)

I have to get into this action, somehow. Money can be made hand over fist:

A slab of asphalt, a couple of white lines, it often comes as part and parcel of a home purchase without too much thought. But in cities like Boston, parking spaces are at a premium, and prices have been climbing for years. In certain neighborhoods, the price of a home can go up $100,000 or $200,000 if parking is included, which it often is not, only adding pressure to the supply and demand crunch that drives prices up further.

Jaws dropped in 2009 when someone paid $300,000 for a parking space, which was thought to be a record.

But now, even that has been shattered. At an auction on Thursday, the bidding for a tandem spot — space for two cars, one behind the other — started out at $42,000. It ended 15 minutes later at $560,000.

The spaces are behind 298 Commonwealth Avenue in the Back Bay, one of the costliest neighborhoods in the city.

“What we’ve seen is the meteoric rise of these prices as the professional class has moved into town,” said Steven Cohen, a Boston-based principal and broker at Keller Williams Realty International. “The Back Bay is almost on a par with Lower Manhattan and Switzerland.”

The winning bidder, Lisa Blumenthal, lives next door in a multimillion-dollar single-family home that already has three parking spots. She told The Boston Globe that the auction was a rare chance to acquire more parking for guests and workers, though she did not expect the bidding to run so high.

And yet, she still paid.

Edward Snowden's Dubious Achievement

To be entirely fair to Edward Snowden, there are whistleblowers who stand with him and who applaud what he has done in exposing NSA surveillance programs and techniques. But it is also worth noting that there are plenty of whistleblowers who think that Edward Snowden has done the cause of whistleblowing no good whatsoever:

When Edward Snowden first started revealing secrets about the National Security Agency's massive surveillance operations, the small community of U.S. government whistleblowers and their advocates publicly leapt to Snowden's defense. But now that the world's most famous leaker has apparently left Hong Kong for Moscow (and beyond), that support has begun to erode. Some of the best-known whistleblowers of the past decade are now concerned that Snowden's flight to America's geopolitical rivals will make it easier to brand tomorrow's whistleblowers as enemies of the state.

[. . .]

"By fleeing to foreign countries of questionable taste, [Snowden] has taken his acts beyond the normal American view of a whistleblower," adds veteran investigator Glenn Walp, who exposed huge security holes at Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory. "Ultimately he will not be remembered or identified as a whistleblower, but rather, in most circles, as a traitor - that's the difference."

Other whistleblowers have latched onto Snowden's recent admission that he took his job with Booz Allen Hamilton for the sole purpose of gathering evidence on the NSA's cyberspying networks. "That's not how a whistleblower behaves," said Martin Edwin Andersen, a former whistleblower who exposed misconduct within the Justice Department. "He had a number of legal recourses he could have pursued; for example, he could have gone to Congress, where many members -- Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative -- regularly and vocally challenge the system. Instead, he knowingly went back on his word and broke the law."

And remember: Snowden, the supposed advocate of an open, free and democratic society is relying on countries that are anything but open, free and democratic to shield him from the legal consequences of his actions.

 

Bad News and Good News Regarding Obamacare

First the bad news: It may not work all that well. 

A top administration aide in charge of implementing Obamacare said on Tuesday that he would be "surprised" if it starts perfectly, the latest gloomy assessment of the massive revolution in how Americans get health insurance.

Gary Cohen, deputy administrator and director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told a friendly audience at the Brookings Institution that the early kinks in Obamacare should eventually even out, but that the beginning will be messy.

Citing critical press reports questioning whether the administration will be ready on January 1, the official kickoff of Obamacare, Cohen said, "Will it be as wonderful on the first day as it is on the 30th day, or the 60th day, or the 90th day, or year five? Maybe not."

Of course, the problem is that no one knows what "kinks" we will have to endure as health care "reform" is being implemented. In addition, no one knows for how long we will have to endure said kinks, or how many people will have their health care compromised because of the presence of kinks.

I did promise you good news as well, however. Here it is: Celebrities are going to help roll out Obamacare. 

Don't you feel better now?