Thursday, February 28, 2013

Support an Anti-gerrymandering Amendment

One of the reasons for the gridlock in Congress is that we allow states to draw congressional district boundaries.  When this happens, the state will draw those boundaries to benefit the political party in charge in the state.  This, in a way, disenfranchises the minority party in the congressional district.  Congressmen, like Utah's Jason Chaffetz, go to Washington believing that their views represent the majority of the people in their district.  What really happens is that those who believe as Chaffetz does are united, and those who do not are divided, or the boundaries are draw to minimize those voices.A highly republican state like Utah does it, and so does a highly democratic state like Massachusetts and California.  Gerrymandering gives rise to the extremes in both parties, while those who are moderate are silenced.

Seating a congress should be like seating a jury.  You do not want people who are completely impartial, you will never get anything done.  When half the jury is strongly for the defense and half the jury is strongly for the prosecution, the jury will be hung, and justice will not be served.  You want people who, even though they have their biases, can weigh the issues before them and make solid, informed decisions.  If Congress today were a jury, it would be dismissed for being a hung jury. 

How about this amendment:
 
Congressional district boundaries should not be drawn with respect to any political party nor should they be drawn to with respect to any race, religion, national origin, age, family status nor disability.

No congressional district boundary should divide any county, parish, borough, city, town or equivalent unit unless the population of that unit is greater than the proportion of the state's population for any congressional district.  Congressional districts should do not have to be perfectly proportionate with the state's population.

Each state should also make similar considerations when dividing their respective state legislative district boundaries.

This article shall take effect for the first congressional election 2 years after it's ratification by the states.


Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Fixing the deadlock in Congress.

There has always been bickering in the US Congress.  It is only natural.  As a local radio host, here in Utah has said, if two people agree on everything all of the time, one of them is not thinking.  Even if one party were to control everything, there will still be bickering in the Congress.

But the Congress seems hopelessly deadlocked.  There is one solution for the problem, and that is to constitutionally ban gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering is the practice that allows the party in control of the state legislature to draw congressional district and state legislative boundaries in a manner that is favorable to their party.  Here in Utah, it was tried when we were awarded a 4th Congressional District. 

Here is the problem that this level of gerrymandering creates. Congressmen tend to listen to their constituents.  When someone on the extreme right or left is elected, you can bet that their constituents, as a majority, are happy at least with their own representative.

What is the evidence for this?  Congressional approval is at an all-time low, yet over 80% of incumbents are re-elected every 2 years.  People are happy with their own congressman, but not happy with Congress as a whole.

How do we fix this?  We can do it several ways.  First, you could eliminate congressional districts and elect all members of the House of Representatives on a state-wide basis.  Or you could pass an anti-gerrymandering amendment to the Constitution.  Chances are, however, it would not pass because most Congressmen are elected because of how their district boundaries are drawn.  Third is to be more involved after the 2020 census and help ensure the congressional districts in your state are more sanely drawn.

There is a mathematical test for this.  If a city, county or ward within a city has less than the proportioned population, it should not be divided.  Here in Utah, we have 4 congressional districts.  Salt Lake County is the only county in the state that has more than 25% of the state's population.  Salt Lake County is the only county large enough be split into multiple congressional districts.

That will help things in the lower house, but what about the Senate?  The Senate is also deadlocked, isn't it?  Believe it or not, it's not as bad as it used to be in the US Senate.  And the Senate is fighting the House.  There are ways to hold up legislation in the Senate, but it is in Conference with the House of Representatives where the problem lies right now.  The Senate is supposed to be a slower body to consider legislation.  They have 6-year terms.  It is harder for the body of the Senate to change as the mood of the people change.  That is the way the founders wanted it.  If you want the Senate to speed up a little bit, shorten the term.

This blog is not for other drastic changes such as the repeal of the 17th Amendment nor the addition of Term Limits.  Here in Utah, we demonstrated how easy it is to break the power of the incumbent when we send home Robert Bennett in 2010 at the State GOP Convention.  And a lot of people were upset about it.  Amazingly, many I have spoken to who are unhappy about the way Bennett was ousted are for term limits and the repeal of the 17th Amendment, either of which could have ousted Bennett without a primary election as well.

Anti-gerrymandering will help with the Senate, but the effect will not be as obvious.  Anti-gerrymandering should go down to state legislative districts as well.  Many Senators were state legislators or some other office before becoming senators.  If state houses are more even keeled, eventually the Senate will follow.  Also remember that many of our presidents were Senators.

Support efforts in your state to control gerrymandering.  It will lead to a better Congress and a better government.

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Raising the Minimum Wage...Not a Fix for Unemployment.

One of the proposals on the table from the State of the Union Address earlier this week is to raise the minimum wage to 9.00 per hour.  This sounds like a great thing to do, it will give unskilled laborers a little more purchasing power.  But, generally, this is not a fix to unemployment.

From an economic standpoint, the minimum wage is a price floor.  In other words, prices can't fall below this point.  And when you have a price floor, that generally means that the price can't fall to the equilibrium price.  And when the price, legally, is artificically above the equilibrium price, then the quantity supplied will be greater than the quantity demanded.  That translates to a surplus.  Therefore, a raise in the minimum wage will lead to greater unemployment.

Very few adult workers earn minimum wage, however.  But in this economy, some people need all the help they can get.  Some adults are too young to retire, but can't find work doing what earned their bread and butter for so many years and have to start over.  Others need to start somewhere.  Students going to college should not pay for all of their expenses with student loan debt.  Student's going to school from Mom and Dad's money should work to get some spending money.  Minimum wage is for these people.  For most of these people, the  minimum wage is not a lifetime sentence.

Each job has it's own economic system; or it's own supply and demand curve.  That is why some jobs pay more than others.  Most employers are keen to this.  If you advertise a job, and you get hundreds of applicants, then you are probably paying too much.  On the other hand, if you advertise a job and have difficulty finding someone who fits, then you probably need to pay better.  If you have high turnover in your position, you are not paying enough.  If people are staying on forever, then you are probably paying too much.  A good HR manager is keen to these cycles.

It is different for minimum wage jobs.  My wife has recently attempted to return to the workforce after 16 years.  Found herself in a group interview as one of 50 applicants for a minimum wage position.  This probably indicates that for now, the minimum wage is too high.  There are responses like this all over the country for minimum wage work.  If anything, Congress should lower the minimum wage, at least temporarily, until the unemployment rate is back below 6% for a full quarter.

I am also an advocate for a lower minimum wage for workers age 19 and younger and still in high school, as long as the job does not require that kids work more than 25 hours per week when school is in session.  Even in poverty, most kids who are still in high school are not working to help support the family.  Most of these kids should be working to learn how to please an employer, get along with co-workers and develop good habits of managing money.  They do not need to have a minimum wage as high as people starting out.  Their wage could be set at 75% of the Federal wage for those over the age of 19 and who have completed high school.  Right now, that rate would be 5.65.  This would also help small employers who rely on this level of labor to remain in business.  It helps those who run businesses that provide summer employment to reduce their operating expenses, helping them stay in business. I think about this every time I drive by a closed and boarded up store.  Raising the minimum wage isn't going to hurt retail giants like Wal-Mart. 

In fact, a raise in the minimum wage is a good excuse to pass expenses onto customers.  We may raise the minimum wage to increase purchasing power, but in another 2 to 3 years, inflation will absorb that power and it will be time for that debate again.  It was not that long ago that we raised the minimum wage to where it is today for the same reason we argue today.

Let's wait until we've seen a recovery in the job market to raise the minimum wage.  And then, only raise it for those 18 and older once they have finished high school.  That will help small business get a foothold in America again.