Harvard recently took action against single sex organizations -- there have long been complaints about social organizations for men only. So Harvard put major restrictions on members of these organizations. But Harvard set the rule for members of any single sex organization, not just those for men only. The reaction was quick -- women protesting against the action, claiming they need their women only organizations and that they need their "safe spaces": Harvard women protest school's crackdown on single-sex groups.
This reaction does show the reality of portions (not all) of the feminist / women's rights movement. There is a desire to break down men only institutions, claiming that they discriminate against women. But women only institutions appear to be perfectly fine. This occurs in other parts of society. Gyms and fitness centers for men only are no longer acceptable, but "Curves Women's Gym" seems to be perfectly acceptable.
Another example where "equal rights" really means "special privileges".
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
More automation means more work
I was thinking a little about claims that artificial intelligence (AI) is taking over more and more decision making and that this time, technology really is going to permanently eliminate a significant percentage of jobs. I then thought a bit about how technology has changed the way we perform certain common tasks -- are AI and automation really taking over?
Let's look at retail sales. If you go back 200 odd years, retail stores looked quite different from today. Merchandise was often behind a counter and the clerk had to gather merchandise at the request of the customer. Of course, some of this was required since most products weren't packaged in nice boxes or bags which a customer could select from a shelf.
Then retailing changed. Instead of the clerk collecting items on request, the customer collected items off of shelves and took them to a counter to be listed and paid for. Note that on the one hand the customer has a bit more flexibility when shopping, but on the other hand the customer has now been made to do part of the work previously done by a clerk.
Similar changes continue to happen. Discount grocery stores experiment with customers bagging their own groceries. Most recently, self checkout lanes have become common. On the one hand, it reduces the number of people the store has to pay, but this is at the expense of the customer doing the work of checking out (and generally takes longer, self checkout scanners are slower because each item must be bagged before the next can be scanned).
Banks took the same route with ATM machines, reducing the number of tellers in banks but also speeding up customer transactions, I haven't stood in line for 10 minutes for an ATM, I routinely did in banks before ATMs. Yet the customer must also do more of the work involved in the transaction.
With the push for a $15.00 minimum wage there are reports that fast food restaurants are moving toward automated ordering stations. Of course, fast food restaurants have already made people pour their own drinks (which on the one hand saves labor, on the other hand customers seem to prefer getting their own drink). Again, automated ordering means that the restaurant can save money, but the customer has to do the work of ordering.
So on the one hand we see the advance of automation and a reduction in retail employment. This has resulted in lower prices as stores don't have to pay as many people, yet at the added cost that the customer must do part of the work previously done by employees of the store.
Let's look at retail sales. If you go back 200 odd years, retail stores looked quite different from today. Merchandise was often behind a counter and the clerk had to gather merchandise at the request of the customer. Of course, some of this was required since most products weren't packaged in nice boxes or bags which a customer could select from a shelf.
Then retailing changed. Instead of the clerk collecting items on request, the customer collected items off of shelves and took them to a counter to be listed and paid for. Note that on the one hand the customer has a bit more flexibility when shopping, but on the other hand the customer has now been made to do part of the work previously done by a clerk.
Similar changes continue to happen. Discount grocery stores experiment with customers bagging their own groceries. Most recently, self checkout lanes have become common. On the one hand, it reduces the number of people the store has to pay, but this is at the expense of the customer doing the work of checking out (and generally takes longer, self checkout scanners are slower because each item must be bagged before the next can be scanned).
Banks took the same route with ATM machines, reducing the number of tellers in banks but also speeding up customer transactions, I haven't stood in line for 10 minutes for an ATM, I routinely did in banks before ATMs. Yet the customer must also do more of the work involved in the transaction.
With the push for a $15.00 minimum wage there are reports that fast food restaurants are moving toward automated ordering stations. Of course, fast food restaurants have already made people pour their own drinks (which on the one hand saves labor, on the other hand customers seem to prefer getting their own drink). Again, automated ordering means that the restaurant can save money, but the customer has to do the work of ordering.
So on the one hand we see the advance of automation and a reduction in retail employment. This has resulted in lower prices as stores don't have to pay as many people, yet at the added cost that the customer must do part of the work previously done by employees of the store.
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Employee stock plans and paying too much tax
NOTE: This is by no means tax advice. It's largely so I can bitch a little and see if I can figure out what's going on while I try to get my taxes right.
Many companies (including mine) offer an employee stock purchase plan (ESPP). Stock purchase plans provide employees with a way to purchase stock at a discount (and if done right, get an almost guaranteed profit).
The way most stock plans work is that some percentage of the employee's income is deducted and put into a special stock purchase account. Most plans use a period of 6 months, beginning August 1 and ending February 1 (or vice versa). Under the plan, the employee's deducted money is used to buy company stock. The stock is purchased at 85% of the lower of the price at the start and end of the period. This is a good deal. If the stock goes up over the 6 months, the employee buys stock at 85% of the lower start-of-period price (a gain of over 15%). If the stock went down, the employee still has an immediate 15% gain if the stock is sold immediately. Of course, taxes are lower if the employee holds on to the stock for at least a year, but at the risk the stock will go down, wiping out any gains. So many employees sell their stock as soon as it is granted (locking in the gain).
The problem I've found with employee stock plans comes at tax time. The moderately complex tax rules combine with really poor information to make it very easy to pay too much tax. This year it appears the IRS has new rules which make it even more likely too much tax will be paid.
The tax issue begins with how the stock plan is taxed. This discussion assumes the stock is sold immediately (so short term gains). I have a few shares of stock which qualify for long term gains but haven't had to figure those out.
Assume stock is purchased for the ESPP and then sold. There are several amounts involved. First is the amount of employee money used to purchase the stock. Second is the market price when the stock was purchased. for instance, suppose the stock went down in price over the plan period and was at $100 per share when stock was purchased. The employee pays $85 (15% less) for the stock. Suppose the employee then sells the stock for $101 per share. What happens tax wise and what is reported to the emplyee?
Tax wise, $15 per share (the purchase discount) is considered ordinary income. This amount is included in the employee's W-2, however it is not separated out. I discovered this because my W-2 wages are more than the total wages of my last paycheck by exactly the amount of the ESPP discount.
So the purchase discount ($15 per share) is ordinary income AND has been reported to the IRS as income. When I later sell the stock for $101, I have an additional gain of $1 per share (minus commissions). This is a short term capital gain, reported on schedule D and form 8949 (with box A checked).
So now turn to my brokerage 1099 form which now reports the basis and sale price of stock (and is reported to the IRS). The 1099 reports the amount received from the stock sale, however under IRS rules reports the purchase price ($85 per share) as the "cost or other basis", not the $100 per share which is the actual basis (since the $15 per share difference has been reported as W-2 wages). The broker CANNOT report $100 per share as the basis, even though this is the actual basis.
This leaves several areas of confusion. First, anybody who copies 1099 basis and sale amounts onto their tax form is being double taxed for the 15% discount. Instead, you need to be smart enough to use the actual basis ($100 per share). Second, we need to hope the IRS is smart enough to figure this out, especially because as far as I can tell the IRS is not specifically told that the $15 per share discount has been included in income (perhaps this is requirement though). Third, it's my understanding that the discount (15%) amount is not included on the W-2 if you don't sell the stock that year. So I'm not sure what's reported if I hold the stock into the next year (but less than 12 months). It's more confusing if I sell the stock after I've left the company. Is something still added to my W-2? Do I get a special W-2 just for stock gains if I sell in the next calendar year? Finally, if the stock is held long term (I have some ESPP stock I've held for 13 years and counting), there are other odd tax rules which I haven't figured out. I think some of the income (15% discount) turns into long term gains but am not sure. I'll find out if I ever sell that stock.
Note the above references to 15% or $15 assume that the stock went down during the ESPP 6 month period. If the stock went up the discount (and income gain) could be a much higher percentage. If the stock started at $100 and was at $150 at the end of the period, it would still be purchased at $85. The income gain is then $65 per share and the cost basis for any sale $150. But the 1099 still reports $85 per share (and the possible double taxation is that much higher.
Tax reporting rules have generally made it easier to do your taxes. The brokerage must now track your cost basis and report it along with the sale price. But for ESPP plans the reported basis is not the correct figure, and teasing out the correct information can be challenging.
Many companies (including mine) offer an employee stock purchase plan (ESPP). Stock purchase plans provide employees with a way to purchase stock at a discount (and if done right, get an almost guaranteed profit).
The way most stock plans work is that some percentage of the employee's income is deducted and put into a special stock purchase account. Most plans use a period of 6 months, beginning August 1 and ending February 1 (or vice versa). Under the plan, the employee's deducted money is used to buy company stock. The stock is purchased at 85% of the lower of the price at the start and end of the period. This is a good deal. If the stock goes up over the 6 months, the employee buys stock at 85% of the lower start-of-period price (a gain of over 15%). If the stock went down, the employee still has an immediate 15% gain if the stock is sold immediately. Of course, taxes are lower if the employee holds on to the stock for at least a year, but at the risk the stock will go down, wiping out any gains. So many employees sell their stock as soon as it is granted (locking in the gain).
The problem I've found with employee stock plans comes at tax time. The moderately complex tax rules combine with really poor information to make it very easy to pay too much tax. This year it appears the IRS has new rules which make it even more likely too much tax will be paid.
The tax issue begins with how the stock plan is taxed. This discussion assumes the stock is sold immediately (so short term gains). I have a few shares of stock which qualify for long term gains but haven't had to figure those out.
Assume stock is purchased for the ESPP and then sold. There are several amounts involved. First is the amount of employee money used to purchase the stock. Second is the market price when the stock was purchased. for instance, suppose the stock went down in price over the plan period and was at $100 per share when stock was purchased. The employee pays $85 (15% less) for the stock. Suppose the employee then sells the stock for $101 per share. What happens tax wise and what is reported to the emplyee?
Tax wise, $15 per share (the purchase discount) is considered ordinary income. This amount is included in the employee's W-2, however it is not separated out. I discovered this because my W-2 wages are more than the total wages of my last paycheck by exactly the amount of the ESPP discount.
So the purchase discount ($15 per share) is ordinary income AND has been reported to the IRS as income. When I later sell the stock for $101, I have an additional gain of $1 per share (minus commissions). This is a short term capital gain, reported on schedule D and form 8949 (with box A checked).
So now turn to my brokerage 1099 form which now reports the basis and sale price of stock (and is reported to the IRS). The 1099 reports the amount received from the stock sale, however under IRS rules reports the purchase price ($85 per share) as the "cost or other basis", not the $100 per share which is the actual basis (since the $15 per share difference has been reported as W-2 wages). The broker CANNOT report $100 per share as the basis, even though this is the actual basis.
This leaves several areas of confusion. First, anybody who copies 1099 basis and sale amounts onto their tax form is being double taxed for the 15% discount. Instead, you need to be smart enough to use the actual basis ($100 per share). Second, we need to hope the IRS is smart enough to figure this out, especially because as far as I can tell the IRS is not specifically told that the $15 per share discount has been included in income (perhaps this is requirement though). Third, it's my understanding that the discount (15%) amount is not included on the W-2 if you don't sell the stock that year. So I'm not sure what's reported if I hold the stock into the next year (but less than 12 months). It's more confusing if I sell the stock after I've left the company. Is something still added to my W-2? Do I get a special W-2 just for stock gains if I sell in the next calendar year? Finally, if the stock is held long term (I have some ESPP stock I've held for 13 years and counting), there are other odd tax rules which I haven't figured out. I think some of the income (15% discount) turns into long term gains but am not sure. I'll find out if I ever sell that stock.
Note the above references to 15% or $15 assume that the stock went down during the ESPP 6 month period. If the stock went up the discount (and income gain) could be a much higher percentage. If the stock started at $100 and was at $150 at the end of the period, it would still be purchased at $85. The income gain is then $65 per share and the cost basis for any sale $150. But the 1099 still reports $85 per share (and the possible double taxation is that much higher.
Tax reporting rules have generally made it easier to do your taxes. The brokerage must now track your cost basis and report it along with the sale price. But for ESPP plans the reported basis is not the correct figure, and teasing out the correct information can be challenging.
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
The Rolling Stone Rape Story
Columbia Journalism School has released its report on the Rolling Stone article about campus rape featuring "Jackie"'s story of a gang rape at a fraternity at the University of Virginia. While the report outlines the original story and its problems and then discusses what Rolling Stone did wrong, it skirts the real reason why the story was published. Much of the reporting of the report and the fact that the fraternity involved is suing Rolling Stone give many reasons why the story was run and failed, but they seem to skirt around the real reason for the story.
Briefly, I think Sabrina Erdely and Rolling Stone anticipated fame and fortune. Ms Erdely started out wanting to write a story about the "rape culture" on college campuses. Jackie's account was perfect for her story:
Briefly, I think Sabrina Erdely and Rolling Stone anticipated fame and fortune. Ms Erdely started out wanting to write a story about the "rape culture" on college campuses. Jackie's account was perfect for her story:
- Jackie reported a violent rape. Many college "rape" cases which have been in the news are easily labelled a change of heart afterwards or consensual acts which went too far. Jackie's description was of being forcibly held down.
- The rape happened in a fraternity. Fraternities have long been blamed for excesses at colleges. It was additionally associated with initiation into the fraternity, further validating fraternity stereotypes.
- Afterwards Jackie's friends were uncaring and more concerned with their social lives and not alienating the fraternities.
- The university is more concerned with its own good name and not getting negative press than with Jackie.
So here is somebody giving the ideal story of the "rape culture." Awards, a Pulitzer, fame, and magazine sales beckoned. So when Jackie was difficult and when the story couldn't be independently verified, the lure of fame and fortune overrode any doubts. This wasn't a case of giving too much deference to the victim of a rape. It was not wanting to push too hard in case facts came out which contradicted the story.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
The Entrepreneurial State -- Is Apple "dependent on the public purse"? Part 1
This post deals with The Entrepreneurial State, a book by Mariana Mazzucato. See this post for an introduction.
Apple computer is the primary corporate example used by The Entrepreneurial State so it seemed reasonable to examine Ms. Mazzucato's claims about Apple and state funding. In particular, page 11 states that Apple "requires the public purse". In this post I examine the claim that Apple was state supported early in its existence..
The claims about Apple and government funding early in Apple's existence as a corporation are on page 94, "From Apple I to the iPad: The State's very visible hand". This section begins with some general statements about Apple turning state financed technologies into products, then goes on to claim that personal computing was made possible by various "public-private partnerships established largely by government and military agencies". This essentially claims that all computer, integrated circuit, etc. technology was dependent on the government. I'll leave these claims to another post as they will take a fair amount of space and because they don't apply specifically to Apple, rather to all technology companies.
The first specific claim of government support for Apple is that Apple secured a $500,000 equity investment via the Federal government's SBIC program prior to its IPO in 1980. A bit of investigation finds that yes, Apple did secure this investment, though it isn't clear that Apple had any idea there was government involvement (see The Little Kingdom by Michael Moritz, p. 220). Let's look at this money in more detail.
First, what is the SBIC? It stands for Small Business Investment Companies, and as the name implies, SBIC funding is made available through private companies. These companies are licensed by the government and invest using a combination of their own money and money provided by the government through the Small Business Administration. Note that SBIC money is for any type of small business. Companies such as Federal Express and Costco received SBIC money, as have other technology companies. Note that the government doesn't choose the companies which receive SBIC investments, that's done by the SBIC licensed investment companies.
In the summer of 1978 Apple Continental Illinois investors asked about investing $500,000 in Apple. This is the SBIC money. So Apple did receive government money. But was it "dependent" on this money? In January of 1978 Apple raised over $500,000 from private sources, and later in the year received at least one other investment of $100,000 (The Little Kingdom p. 219-200). In the year ending September, 1978 Apple had sales of almost $8 million, a profit of almost $800,000, and total assets of over $4 million. While the SBIC money of $500,000 was certainly useful to Apple, this was not a company desperate for money. The company was profitable and had numerous big name private investors putting money in.
So in summary:
Personally, I think this is more an example of a government subsidy to private investors than the State being entrepreneurial.
Sources:
Apple computer is the primary corporate example used by The Entrepreneurial State so it seemed reasonable to examine Ms. Mazzucato's claims about Apple and state funding. In particular, page 11 states that Apple "requires the public purse". In this post I examine the claim that Apple was state supported early in its existence..
The claims about Apple and government funding early in Apple's existence as a corporation are on page 94, "From Apple I to the iPad: The State's very visible hand". This section begins with some general statements about Apple turning state financed technologies into products, then goes on to claim that personal computing was made possible by various "public-private partnerships established largely by government and military agencies". This essentially claims that all computer, integrated circuit, etc. technology was dependent on the government. I'll leave these claims to another post as they will take a fair amount of space and because they don't apply specifically to Apple, rather to all technology companies.
The first specific claim of government support for Apple is that Apple secured a $500,000 equity investment via the Federal government's SBIC program prior to its IPO in 1980. A bit of investigation finds that yes, Apple did secure this investment, though it isn't clear that Apple had any idea there was government involvement (see The Little Kingdom by Michael Moritz, p. 220). Let's look at this money in more detail.
First, what is the SBIC? It stands for Small Business Investment Companies, and as the name implies, SBIC funding is made available through private companies. These companies are licensed by the government and invest using a combination of their own money and money provided by the government through the Small Business Administration. Note that SBIC money is for any type of small business. Companies such as Federal Express and Costco received SBIC money, as have other technology companies. Note that the government doesn't choose the companies which receive SBIC investments, that's done by the SBIC licensed investment companies.
In the summer of 1978 Apple Continental Illinois investors asked about investing $500,000 in Apple. This is the SBIC money. So Apple did receive government money. But was it "dependent" on this money? In January of 1978 Apple raised over $500,000 from private sources, and later in the year received at least one other investment of $100,000 (The Little Kingdom p. 219-200). In the year ending September, 1978 Apple had sales of almost $8 million, a profit of almost $800,000, and total assets of over $4 million. While the SBIC money of $500,000 was certainly useful to Apple, this was not a company desperate for money. The company was profitable and had numerous big name private investors putting money in.
So in summary:
- Private investors had been putting money into Apple all along.
- Apple was profitable throughout this period.
- Apple was growing rapidly (sales were about $800,000 in 1977, $8 million in 1978, $48 million in 1979), with profits each year.
- One investor, partially government funded, put money into Apple, at most 40% of the money Apple raised in 1978.
So is this the Entrepreneurial State? Or did one group of private investors use government money and guarantees to reduce their risk and increase their profits by investing in Apple?
Personally, I think this is more an example of a government subsidy to private investors than the State being entrepreneurial.
Sources:
- The Little Kingdom by Michael Moritz, 1984.
- Apple 1980 IPO prospectus. A copy is at http://www.swtpc.com/mholley/Apple/Apple_IPO.pdf.
- The SBIC program, see http://www.sba.gov/content/sbic-program.
Is There an Entrepreneurial State? Analysis of "The Entrepreneurial State" by Mariana Mazzucato
I recently saw reviews of Mariana Mazzucato's book "The Entrepreneurial State". For instance, see the review here. In it the author argues that contrary to the usual belief that private industry is innovative and risk taking, it is actually the government which takes the risks and innovates new technologies, with private industry getting a "free ride", exploiting and profiting from the government's efforts.
Having spent 40 years in the technology industry, I found this claim a bit outrageous. I've certainly never worked for a company which took government developed technology and just profited from it. Everyplace I've worked engineers have been hard at work trying to create original or improved products.
So I got a copy of the book and have been studying its arguments. In doing so I found that there are a number of academics making the same argument, an academic "cottage industry" creating the story of an innovative government and risk averse private sector. Since this doesn't match my own experience, I started looking into the book's claims to see how well they stand up to the evidence.
As a result of this investigation, this is the first of what might become several posts examining The Entrepreneurial State and its arguments.
I'll start with an overview of the book's claims:
Like Barack Obama's famous "you didn't build that", The Entrepreneurial State argues that the government has "nurtured almost all of the key technological advances of the last hundred years" (quoting the review above).
In one sense, the book is an argument against the conservative view that all government spending is waste. In this sense the book is correct -- the government has made significant contributions to innovation, especially during the last 100 years. Nothing in my comments is meant to deny government's contributions to innovatoin.
However, the book goes much further, painting a picture of a timid, risk averse private sector. The private sector is presented as almost parasitic, letting the government take all the risks then reaping the rewards. Regarding much of the new technology in the iPhone, the introduction asserts "It was the visible hand of the State which made these innovations happen. Innovation that would not have come about had we waited for the 'market' and business to do it alone" (p. 3). Apple is the example technology company of the book, which is "dependent on the public purse" for its success (p. 11 of the book).
So here is the book's primary thesis: If government were not spending money to create new technologies, innovation would drastically slow down or even stop. Companies would not spend the money for innovative R&D and technological advances would stagnate.
I will attempt to analyze these claims in the book. In particular, especially for innovations which have clearly been driven by the government, I am going to ask a few questions about the book's claims:
Having spent 40 years in the technology industry, I found this claim a bit outrageous. I've certainly never worked for a company which took government developed technology and just profited from it. Everyplace I've worked engineers have been hard at work trying to create original or improved products.
So I got a copy of the book and have been studying its arguments. In doing so I found that there are a number of academics making the same argument, an academic "cottage industry" creating the story of an innovative government and risk averse private sector. Since this doesn't match my own experience, I started looking into the book's claims to see how well they stand up to the evidence.
As a result of this investigation, this is the first of what might become several posts examining The Entrepreneurial State and its arguments.
I'll start with an overview of the book's claims:
Like Barack Obama's famous "you didn't build that", The Entrepreneurial State argues that the government has "nurtured almost all of the key technological advances of the last hundred years" (quoting the review above).
In one sense, the book is an argument against the conservative view that all government spending is waste. In this sense the book is correct -- the government has made significant contributions to innovation, especially during the last 100 years. Nothing in my comments is meant to deny government's contributions to innovatoin.
However, the book goes much further, painting a picture of a timid, risk averse private sector. The private sector is presented as almost parasitic, letting the government take all the risks then reaping the rewards. Regarding much of the new technology in the iPhone, the introduction asserts "It was the visible hand of the State which made these innovations happen. Innovation that would not have come about had we waited for the 'market' and business to do it alone" (p. 3). Apple is the example technology company of the book, which is "dependent on the public purse" for its success (p. 11 of the book).
So here is the book's primary thesis: If government were not spending money to create new technologies, innovation would drastically slow down or even stop. Companies would not spend the money for innovative R&D and technological advances would stagnate.
I will attempt to analyze these claims in the book. In particular, especially for innovations which have clearly been driven by the government, I am going to ask a few questions about the book's claims:
- If government drove an innovation, was it because the private sector refused to invest in a new technology? Or did the government drive the technology because it was the first to need it or because it had the deep pockets to pay the high initial costs? Would the technology have existed without government investment?
- What was the government's role in the innovation? Did it merely fund the underlying science or did it fund development of a practical product? Was the government a deciding factor?
My analysis will focus on electronic and computer technologies. The book also discusses nanotechnology, biotechnology (including drug development), and green energy. Since I'm most familiar with electronic and computer technologies, I'll stick to areas I know and leave it to others to analyze other fields.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Politics over good government
Recent news stories feature claims that congressional Republicans have voted to force the deportation of spouses of US soldiers (see here and here). As is often the case in stories of this sort, there is actually nothing in the vote relating directly to immigration, let alone military spouses, but the bills could make it easier for Republicans to force such deportations.
Let's look at the two bills quoted in the first source above and see what was really being voted on. Both bills illustrate the dysfunctional and often childish efforts of today's politicians.
The first bill is HR 3973, the "Faithful Execution of the Law Act of 2014." This two page bill says nothing about immigration and doesn't directly deal with the immigration sections of the law. What does the bill do?
The existing law says that the Attorney General must report any time he or the Justice Department choose not to enforce a law because they think it is unconstitutional. The bill makes two changes. It adds "any other Federal Officer" to the people who might choose not to enforce a law and changes "unconstitutional" to "state the grounds for such policy." This bill does not force any deportations. It would require that the Attorney General report to Congress that the government has chosen not to enforce the law. So if the law today says that military spouses who are not in the United States legally can be deported, the Attorney General would have to report this and give Congress a reason for no enforcing the law. Given that administration officials have generally announced to the public that they aren't enforcing laws of this sort, the main effect of this bill will be to generate more paperwork (reading the full current law, the Attorney General ought to be able to generate thousands of pages of trivia by mentioning every time any government official chooses a less than literal treatment of a law, overwhelming Congress with only a small effort.
The second bill is HR 4138, the ENFORCE the Law Act of 2014. While a bit longer, this bill also says nothing directly about immigration. Instead, this is a bill to make it easier for Congress to sue the government in civil court to demand enforcement of a law. It allows one or both houses of Congress to sue in court and sets up streamlined procedures -- the case goes to a three judge panel of a district court, then is appealed directly to the Supreme Court. This bypasses the normal appeal process and will shorten the time before the case is resolved.
This second bill really does two things. First, it gives Congress standing to sue. Courts only take a "real" case, meaning somebody has to have been harmed. A law could be blatantly unconstitutional but if it's never enforced, the courts would have no reason to review it. Members of Congress have been frustrated in the past trying to challenge a law in court because they don't have "standing" to sue. Second, it tries to speed up the process since a case can take years or decades to work its way through the courts.
So these are the two bills. Neither directly relates to immigration but both try to reduce the president's use of executive discretion to enforce or not enforce a law.
So is this a good idea? Obviously, Republicans think it is today. But today the Republican majority in the House is thinking of a Democratic president. What happens if these laws are on the books and a Republican is elected President? Suddenly the Democrats (assuming they control either the House or Senate) have the ability to turn the tables if the Republican President doesn't enforce every law to its literal limit. However, this law doesn't really matter since the Senate will just ignore it. So it's another House political statement vote on legislation which isn't designed to pass, but instead make a statement.
So our short sighted, politics over good government Congress continues its course. Republicans use these bills to enforce arguments that President Obama is not enforcing the law (going so far as to complain because Obamacare, which they oppose, has been illegally delayed). Democrats meanwhile argue the President is using legally allowed discretion when deciding how to enforce the law. In a few years, if the roles are reversed, we'll see the Democrats making the same complaints about a Republican President.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)