If I were President 4: some social programs

In earlier posts I said I would stop the War on Drugs. I would do so because it hasn't worked. We've spent a great deal of money on the "war," and yet drug use is higher than before the War on Drugs was declared. If I remember correctly, in Economics 101 we are taught "the quantity supplied is related to the quantity demanded" such that price will act to equalize the quantity demanded and the quantity supplied, also called an economic equilibrium. If we want to reduce the usage of drugs in the US, there are two ways to do it: limit the quantity supplied or reduce the quantity demanded. The War on Drugs failed to do the first, and the jailing of people for minor drug offenses did not reduce demand, so where does that leave us?

It turns out there have been pilot programs which reduce the likelihood of teens and young adults getting involved with drugs. These programs cost a fraction of police enforcement of drug laws. Further, if the number of drug offenses is reduced, prison overcrowding would be reduced. According to the Bureau of Justice, 21% of state prisoners and 55% of federal prisoners are in for drug offenses. In numbers, this is half a million people... and most of those are either users or low-level dealers, and a large majority are minorities. The US has the largest per capita incarceration rate... even higher than China's, odd considering that country's regular jailing of dissidents.

One other contribution to the high rate of incarceration is minimum required sentences and the so-called "three strikes" laws. If judges had more leeway in sentencing there would be fewer people in jail, even if they sentence the same number of people they did before, just because of the shorter terms many of these prisoners would get.

So far this has been a lot of talk. What I would propose in a budget is a reduction in the drug enforcement agency and a commensurate increase in the number of prevention and treatment programs. In addition, I plan a number of reforms to improve the overall standard of living, which will also act to reduce the number of drug users. Such reforms include government works projects, particularly for infrastructure improvements (modeled after FDR's WPA projects); an increase in the minimum wage to place incomes of those workers above the poverty level; a more equitable tax structure (which I will discuss in the next post); and other improvements I have not fully thought out yet.

Next are two social programs I'll touch on: Social Security and Medicare. Please read this post. In that post I wrote:

... the real fix to Social Security is to eliminate the cap on taxable income for Social Security taxes, or at least make it a reasonable number (say, $1,000,000) and then index it for inflation....

Finally, the real social program in trouble is not Social Security but Medicare. To fix both problems, the Social Security tax should be lowered to 4%, the Medicare tax raised from 1.7% to 4%, and have no caps on income subject to these taxes. Today the combined weight of these two taxes is 7.8 percent, so the change I suggest would retain about the same weight (it's actually a 0.2% tax increase, which is very slight) but resolve both problems for the foreseeable future.

As a final comment in this post, I draw your attention to evidence-based social programs that work. Please give that website a read.

Next post: taxes.

If I were President 3

Yesterday I talked about democracy as an open form of government. I said I would be far more open with the press, no more lies. I also said I'd re-declassify previously non-classified documents, and open up some investigations into some of the policies of the Bush Administration. One of the worst is the enemy combatants issue and the people we are keeping in Guantanamo Bay (and elsewhere) indefinitely.

Even a conservative court, with many of them siding with the ideology of George Bush, said the keeping of criminals without trial, without access to council, or even knowing what they did wrong is unconstitutional. The Bush administration said, "Fine, good idea" and kept right on ignoring the law of the land, the law of the world (as delineated in the Geneva Convention) and the Constitutionally-granted rights to a speedy trial, the right to council, and the right to confront their accusers. What kind of justice is that? No wonder nearly the entire free world thinks we're hypocritical and is afraid of us.

As Commander in Chief, I would first take us off a war footing with these nations and eliminate the "enemy combatant" label. I would then have the case of each person in Guantanamo, and those rendered to other countries, examined as any criminal case. I would ask the military if each may still have useful information, find out who is actually innocent of the "charges", and immediately release those who were either innocent or those for whom their "crime" would have been paid for by the length of their incarceration (i.e. "time served"). Of course, repatriation may be a problem. This is a problem I have not given full thought to. Perhaps some of them have family to return to. Perhaps some would like to become US citizens (although I doubt that; we've abused them so much I consider the possibility unlikely). I'm not sure what other answers to give until I knew more about the problem, and it would be different for each person.

Once Guantanamo has been emptied, I would return it to the Cubans. It is, after all, their land.

During this process I would have the military, CIA, and FBI re-evaluate their interrogation techniques versus standard practice in the free world, the Geneva Convention, and a general concern for human rights. As I said in an earlier post, terrorists need to be dealt with on a criminal basis, not a war footing. This means going back to the UN and work with the major powers to begin the long, slow process of regaining our status in the world regarding basic human rights.

Of course, human rights within the US are of great concern to me as well. We have some housecleaning to do, such as eliminating the warrant-less wiretapping and other spying on people of the US. The FISA provisions work well for those cases where there is an imminent threat. We don't need the government to be Big Brother; that's so 1984. Orwell would be "proud" of the Bush administration.

Speaking of human rights, I consider the right to health as a basic right. While there is nothing specific in the Constitution about medical care, there wouldn't be anyway; medical care in the late 18th century was just about non-existent. The Founders did not write about it because it simply didn't occur to them. As I've stated before, I am not a strict constructionist; that is a foolish position, in my mind. There are so many new concepts and technologies developed over the last 230+ years which the Founders could not have known about, and to assume because they didn't write about something it can be ignored. That's not logical.

Because I've written a bit about this before (see my post Single Payer Healthcare) I won't go into much more detail here. I will just remind people the three countries with the best health care are France (the best in the world), Taiwan (modeled after our own Medicare system), and Canada... and all three have national health care. Are these systems perfect? No, nor do I expect any healthcare system designed by the US to be perfect either. The big difference between those countries with a national health plan and the United States is the fact we require people to have jobs before they get insurance, while the other countries set out to insure everyone at a basic level and allow those with jobs to purchase better coverage. We have to learn the way to better care is not to line the pockets of corporations but to care about the individual. This is a major paradigm shift, but will have to be made not only for healthcare but our energy policy, safety, climate change, and so on. The big mistake was considering a corporation to be the same as a single person in regards to who can petition the US government to do what they want. There is no possible way one person, or even a million single individuals, can compete against a powerful lobby backed by deep corporate pockets. This practice must end.

Well, that was quite a soap box speech. My next post may be just as interesting: social programs other than national health care. See you then!