Size Doesn't Matter

There has been some grumbling of late over how the U.S. Senate is constituted. The source of the grumbling is the allocation of seats in the Senate. Every state, regardless of population, gets two seats in the senate. One issue that has been causing resentment is the perception that the Senate can be subverted by senators from small states adept at obtaining federal dollars for their state far out of proportion to their population. "From highway bills to homeland security, small states make out like bandits" said George Washington University political scientist Sarah Binder. This is because every piece of legislation passed in Washington must have the consent of at least 51 senators. Most of those senators are from states with relatively small populations. Their job, like every senator's, is to make sure their state is tended to. It is with that in mind that they review legislation as it comes across their desk.

The item that is generating grumbling at the moment is small states have tended to vote republican while large states have been leaning more and more democratic. Exacerbating the issue is large states are getting larger. Their populations are growing, but their representation in the senate remains frozen. Frustration grows every time a republican senator from North Dakota (population 833,000) thwarts legislation proposed by a democratic senator from New York (population 19,570,000). Democrats feel they have the initiative due to their recent electoral victories. When their agenda is derailed by republicans in the senate they take umbrage. What they see is a group of senators elected by relatively few, largely rural and conservative citizens unrepresentative of the nation as a whole, impeding the will of the nation. This is a thoroughly modern, and I might say, uninformed point of view that can quickly be cleared up with just a little study.

Under the Constitution, the Senate was not designed to be the House of Representatives writ small. Every state, regardless of its population, gets two seats in the senate. That means Wyoming with its 576,000 residents gets the same representation in the senate as California with its 37,254,000. To a growing number of people, some of them politicians, it is unfair that large states are entitled to no more representation in the senate than small states. This is not a new concern at all. Indeed, it was a prominent point of contention at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Small states were concerned that under a system of popular representation, their low populations would make them vassals of the large states. More populous states felt that their higher population and more developed economies gave them greater stakes in any new government and believed that they therefore deserved greater representation. Giving each state two senators was a pragmatic concession made in order to obtain the consent of small states by assuaging their fears that they would be trampled by large states in a new union. (Prior to the ratification of the XVIIth Amendment to the Constitution, the selection of senators was delegated to state governments. The adoption of the XVIIth Amendment providing for the popular election of senators contributed mightily to the erasure of the distinction between popular representation and state representation). Large states, in turn, were calmed by ceding them greater presence in the House of Representatives where the preponderance of legislative power would reside. The people of the states were to be represented in proportion to their numbers in the House of Representatives. The states were to be represented as equal bodies in the Senate. The nation was to be represented by the president. It was not a perfect compromise, but it was good enough to satisfy the competing interests and get the Constitution ratified. The democratic ideal of "one man, one vote" had to be sacrificed in order to bring about the founding of this nation.

In his argument for the ratification of the Constitution, James Madison sought to allay concerns regarding the allocation of legislative power. He wrote in Federalist 62 that "No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence first of a majority of the people, and then with a majority of the states." Why would Madison have written that? Aren't the states simply groups of people? No, they aren't. At the time Madison wrote that, each state was a sovereign entity. To bypass the states and grant national legislative power to the people alone would diminish the power smaller states by undermining their ability to affect legislation in the new government being put forward. They risked being subordinated to the political concerns of larger states. The solution put forward by Madison was the creation of the senate. In the senate, all states were to be represented equally. Every state, no matter how large or how small, no matter how rich or how poor, would have two senators. The compromise was a "constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual states." There was an added benefit to the creation of the senate according to Madison. The senate would serve to impede passage of bad legislation. No law or resolution could be passed "without the concurrence first of a majority of the people [speaking through the House of Representatives], and then of a majority of the states [speaking through the Senate]."

Without equal representation in the Senate, states with small populations would be in danger of becoming little more than provinces to be administered by federal government in Washington. Representation simply on the basis of population would leave states like New Mexico, Montana, and Idaho, with only token representation in Washington. The most populous states would be free to plunder the least populous. Without equal representation in the Senate, a handful of well populated states would dominate the nation and be able to impose their will and sensibilities on it. The fantastic growth in size and power of the federal government has made this an even greater danger today than it was in 1787.

Madison went on to write that the Convention had to sacrifice the principal of democracy to the forces of  what he called "extraneous considerations". We might call them "political considerations" today. He continued, "To the difficulties already mentioned, may be added the interfering pretensions of the larger and smaller states. We cannot err in supposing that the former would contend for participation in the Government, fully proportioned to their superior wealth and importance; and that the latter would not be less tenacious of the equality at present enjoyed by them. We may well suppose that neither side would entirely yield to the other, and consequently that the struggle could be terminated only by compromise." The compromise of splitting representation made possible the founding of the United States of America. It is that compromise that is being challenged in a struggle for political power by a growing number of Americans today.

Everything that is in the Constitution is there for a reason. People should make an effort to understand why a provision is in the Constitution before they start tinkering with it. A bargain was made in 1787. We are obliged to stick to it. As for me, I am more confident in relying upon the political acumen of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison than what passes for most political thought today.

Let's Hear it for NASCAR

U.S. Senator Cris Murphy (Ct) is angry. He is angry because of the upcoming NASCAR Sprint Cup race has been renamed the NRA 500. He is outraged. "NASCAR has crossed a line" he said. He called the decision by NASCAR to accept NRA sponsorship an affront to the victims of the Newtown shooting. He accused NASCAR of crossing a line and putting themselves "in the middle of a political debate". He stated that by accepting NRA sponsorship NASCAR will be giving the impression that NASCAR and the NRA are "allies in the current legislative debate over gun violence." Maybe they are, maybe they are not. But using the logic that NASCAR in some way endorses everyone and everything that sponsors a race or an event is preposterous. Insisting that NASCAR refrain from making deals with sponsors that some people find objectionable is censorship.

Senator Murphy's ire is selective. He has said nothing about the sponsorship of races by brewers and distillers. He evidently has no quarrel with NASCAR's Crown Royal 400 or its two Budweiser Duels. He is not disturbed by the image of cars speeding around a track at 200 miles an hour festooned with beer logos. He does not seem at all concerned about the association of fast cars, aggressive driving, and whiskey. Evidently, his concern for public safety does not extend to alcohol.

The carnage on our highways caused by alcohol is alarming. In 2010, 10,136 people were killed the numbers are frightening. 18 people die every hour in alcohol related crashes our roads. 2,000 are injured. Last year 708,000 Americans were injured in alcohol related crashes, 74,000 of them seriously. In fact, one American dies an alcohol related death every 48 minutes. According to the CDC, excessive alcohol consumption costs the U.S. $225.5 billion a year and is a contributing factor in over 75,000 deaths. 1.4 million drivers were arrested for DWI last year. As for our young people, alcohol related traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for young Americans between the ages of 16 and 24. According to MADD, alcohol abuse causes the deaths of 6,000 teenagers a year. 1 in 5 teenagers binge drink. A third of 8th graders have tried alcohol.One in three drivers will be involved in an alcohol related traffic accident in their life time. Ask any parent what they are more concerned about when their child pulls out of the driveway on a Saturday night, guns or booze?

There is a curious phenomenon when it comes to violence and murder in this country. If a drunken husband shoots his wife a gun, it is the gun that will grab the headlines, not the booze. It is guns that will be the target of public wrath, not alcohol. There will be demands that gun ownership be made illegal, not whiskey. Likely this is due to the fact that many Americans have experience with alcohol. They are familiar with it. They have used it. Many have at one time or another been drunk.

The irony here is that the typical American is far more likely to die or be injured in an alcohol related traffic accident than by gunshot. The first concern of a parent when they hand over the car keys to their child on a Saturday night is not that they will be shot, but that they will become involved in a traffic accident. Despite the spate of sensational shootings, the fact is, that unless you are involved in criminal activity or are in a relationship with an abusive lover, your chances of being shot are remote. The same cannot be said of automobiles. Young or old, male or female, rich or poor, when you take to the road you put your life in jeopardy. The steady drip of traffic fatalities only occasionally gains notice. They have become routine.

Despite the strict laws against driving under the influence, people continue to do so everyday by the tens of thousands. Where is the outrage over alcoholic beverages? Where is the protest about the sponsorship of racing teams by brewers and distillers? What better way to discourage drinking and driving than to advertise whiskey on a race car? Why aren't Heineken and Crown Royal held responsible when their products are used irresponsibly and people die? Why is it than even though alcohol is a contributing factor to countless crimes in the U.S., the blame rarely, if ever, falls on distillers an brewers? Certainly, most drinkers use alcohol responsibly, but most gun owners handle their weapons responsibly too. If a man shoots another dead in a drunken bar room brawl you can be sure it is the gun that is gets the headlines, not the whiskey. It is remarkable that Senator Murphy can be so moved by gun related violence and so wary of the message NRA sponsorship of a race might send yet mute when it comes to violence associated with alcohol.. Perhaps that is because. Then again, it is remarkable how much death and violence Americans are willing to accept at the hands of alcohol.

Then there are the social costs of alcohol. How many marriages are broken up because one of the spouses owns a gun? How many people lose their jobs because they hunt? How many women are beaten in a gun induced stupor? How many people die on our roads every year because someone owns too many guns? My guess is none.

There is no controversy of beer and alcohol sponsorship of sporting events because most people do not blame alcohol for violence. They blame the person who is drinking alcohol. Alcohol itself is only blamed tangentially, if even that. We expect people to drink responsibly. We expect them not to drive if they have been drinking. If they do drink and drive,we punish them. If they kill someone while driving drunk, we punish them severely. When there is a spectacular or gruesome crash in which children die due to a drunk driver there are no public calls to ban alcohol. There are only calls to tighten  laws against drinking and driving and enforce them more strictly.

To seek to ban the possession of firearms because some people use them criminally is akin to seeking to ban alcohol because some people drink recklessly. In both cases people die. Making alcohol illegal did nothing to make people more responsible or end crime associated with drinking. What it did do was foster a thriving criminal subculture. Making firearms illegal will not rid the country of gun crime. It will just make more criminals.

The great majority of Americans own guns responsibly, just as the great majority of Americans drink responsibly. We do not insist that sponsorships  by distillers and brewers be banned because some people kill others while under its influence. We should not seek to ban the NRA's sponsorship because some people kill others with firearms. The irony of seeking to ban the NRA's sponsorship of NASCAR while ignoring the ubiquitous alcohol advertisements on racing cars is completely lost on the anti-gun lobby. The NRA does not encourage or condone gun violence. Far from it. They advocate the safe and legal possession of firearms. They also provide courses and literature to help ensure the responsible ownership and use of firearms.

In any case, I hope to see everyone at the NASCAR Budweiser Shoot Out  race. Talk about the best of both worlds. We can talk about the Winston Cup then. You can be confident that no one will be shot at the at the Budweiser Shoot Out. You can be equally confident that people will get drunk and some of them will be driving home. To call the sponsorship of an auto race by the NRA an affront to shooting victims while turning a blind eye to the sponsorship of races by distillers and brewers is absurd. The NRA no more encourages murder than Budweiser encourages drunk driving.

Sponsorship is about business, not politics. This is a point increasing lost on a culture where everything has become political. We can only wonder how Senator Murphy would feel if Planned Parenthood sponsored a race.

The Scalpel or the Cleaver

As most are no doubt aware, Washington is in turmoil. The widespread tax increases and budget cuts agreed to by Congress and the president, known as the "fiscal cliff", are imminent. The harsh ramifications of the measures were intended to spur agreement on addressing the ballooning deficits rung up by the government over the last 12 years. The tax increases and budget cuts intended to motivate Washington to take the debt in hand have failed. We are teetering on the cliff.

Odds are we will not go over the cliff. The benefits of the "sequester", as the agreement is called, are slight. All that is gained is a modest reduction in the growth of the debt. That is a gain that will not improve the lives of Americans any time soon. Against that we have the consequences if the measure is ever allowed to kick in. Jobs will be lost. Services Americans have become accustomed to will be reduced or eliminated. Defense spending will be cut. Government workers will be furloughed. Our borders will become less secure. Medicare spending will be cut. Many other government programs will have their funding reduced. Given the choice between the theoretical good of reducing deficits over time and imminent pain, you can be confident that Americans and their elected representatives in Washington will decide that the present is more important than the future and will choose to avoid the pain.

What is frequently lost in the commotion over addressing the monstrous deficits our government has been running are the consequences of adding to the debt. The nation is preoccupied with the effects of the proposed spending cuts. This is understandable. It is human nature to pay little mind to the future. The present is real. It can be seen and touched. The future lies in the imagination. It consists of possibilities, not certainties. The country might go bankrupt or it might not. The economy could catch fire, or it could wind up in the tank. The consequences of the sequester, on the other hand, will be real. They will be felt concretely by those who have become dependent on government funds, whether directly, as in the case of those who receive money from the government such as contractors, farmers, and federal employees, or indirectly as in the case of those who sell things to people who are paid by the government. The benefits of cutting spending are abstract. They will only be realized in the future and even then indirectly in the form of a healthier economy. They are mere numbers representing money that no one will ever see.

Against this we have the creeping doom that is the national debt. As the debt rises, so do interest payments. Last year, the government ran its fourth consecutive yearly a deficit of well over $1 trillion and pushed the national debt to above $17.6 trillion. The interest paid on the debt last year was $296 billion.With every new dollar the government borrows, that amount goes up. That is what this is all about. Borrowing money is easy, well, it has been anyway. It is paying it back that kills you.

It is to be excused if many in this country have come to confuse the arguing over spending cuts and tax increases with attempts to address the issue that is the cause of all this turmoil, the growing national debt. The root of the problem is that for years the government has been spending far more money than it takes in. That is fine with many Americans. They are getting government at a discount.

Even though the imminent financial crisis in Washington has been averted, we have only gained a respite. Amidst the relief of the deal's passage, it needs to be pointed out how little was really achieved. What we have is a commitment to reduce deficits by roughly $4 trillion over the next ten years. Given that we have run trillion dollar plus deficits for six of the last seven years, we should hold our celebration. Even if the deal is adhered to over the next decade, and that is by no means certain, we will still be piling up hundreds of billion of dollars in new debt each year. Without the cushion of a surplus, one war, one market swing, one economic downturn, would erase the gains of the deal and put us right back on the brink of financial collapse. Then there is the ticking time bomb that is social security. Nothing has been done to stave off the crisis that will bring..

America is doomed to repeat this scenario over and over again in ever worsening ways. Even if Congress and the president cobble together a deal, as they most certainly will, that will only tide us over to the next budget battle. Unless things change and the government starts showing some black ink, we will eventually have to put away the scalpel and bring out the meat cleaver. Then we will not be facing cuts. We will be facing amputations.