The Thurston Mittens the 3rd Veep Megathread

[Barrister]

I can now see that our (continental European) legal education is superior, then. We have a 5 year legal degree, where two years are devoted almost entirely to history of law, history of ideologies, philosophy of law, jurisprudence, sociology of law, comparative law and similar topics. That way we hope to create people with an understanding of law that goes beyond simple knowledge of case law and statutes.

I suppose the traditional response would be that it's more important to create people who understand the practice of law than the theory (which I think operates at a deeper more hidden level in a common law system). I don't think it's a question of superiority but different systems with different historical origins, philosophies and approaches.

I should say that I and many other students do read about the history and philosophy outside the course (I think every law student's read Lord Binham's Rule of Law), but I can't think of a time I've used any of that reading in an essay or exam. The possible exception is constitutional law.

I did take the mandatory 1 credit hour legal history course (note: most classes are 3 to 6 credit hours), and did take the optional 3 credit hour jurisprudence course.  It was interesting stuff, part of me wishes I could have taken more...

...but without a doubt they are the classes that impact me the least as a practising lawyer.

[Phillip V]

Marti had a good point a few pages back. Picking Ryan does signal that Romney is not going to fight the culture war here.

And no move to the center for neither Romney nor Obama?

[MadImmortalMan]

Marti had a good point a few pages back. Picking Ryan does signal that Romney is not going to fight the culture war here.

And no move to the center for neither Romney nor Obama?

In a way, that strategy is a form of moving to the center.

[CountDeMoney]

Marti had a good point a few pages back. Picking Ryan does signal that Romney is not going to fight the culture war here.

Are you kidding?  Ryan is an anti-choice radical.

•   During his time in the U.S. House of Representatives, Ryan cast 59 votes on abortion and other reproductive rights issues. He voted anti-choice each and every time.
•   Ryan repeatedly voted for and cosponsored the Federal Abortion Ban, a law that criminalizes some abortion services, endangers women's health, and carries a two-year prison sentence for doctors.

Ryan is outspoken about his anti-choice beliefs: "I'm as pro-life as a person gets. You're not going to have a truce. Judges are going to come up. Issues come up, they're unavoidable, and I'm never going to not vote pro-life."

And he's anti-pillowbiter happiness, too.

Ryan's said he's anti-same-sex marriage, and he's voted against adoption rights for same-sex couples.

He did vote for the Sexual Orientation Employment Nondiscrimination Act, but his future boss is against it, so his opinion on the matter is nixed.

[The Minsky Moment]

Joan, you realize your profession does not, by and large, make a tremendous amount of money, in or out of government, right?  And the government ones are actually doing better than many if not most (I'd say most) in private practice?

I only know what the NALP statistics say.

They report that despite a massive plunge in entry level private sector salaries since 2008, that median/mean salary for first year lawyers is $60,000/$78,000.  Whereas for median public sector salary for first year lawyers is in the 45-50 range.  So there is a discrepancy off the bat, which only grows over time.

If you compare like to like, the elite of the public state bar should be able to perform at a level competitive to the private bar they have to face off against, but there the gap is cavernous. 

[MadImmortalMan]

He's got that boxed checked off, but everybody knows what his focus is.

[The Minsky Moment]

Whose salaries do you propose reducing?

Teachers, cops, and firefighters.

And where is the evidence that they are being overpaid in comparison to their value?

[MadImmortalMan]

And where is the evidence that they are being overpaid in comparison to their value?

Is that even possible to provide?

[The Minsky Moment]

What confuses me about your first post is, what's the point of submitting the plan to CBO analysis if you already have the debt/GDP ratios?  That's the whole point of CBO analysis, to determine what effect proposed changes to tax laws and spending rules and amounts will have on the deficit, and on GDP growth.

Now that I can access it for quoting, I will respond by quoting CBO's own statement on the plan:

The analysis in this letter does not represent a cost estimate for your proposal. Producing
such an estimate would require a more detailed analysis of the Roadmap's many
provisions, rather than the fairly mechanical extrapolations that underlie most of the
findings presented here. Moreover, CBO's cost estimates generally apply only to the
10-year budget projection period, because the uncertainties about the budgetary
effects of legislation (especially regarding health care) are simply too great beyond that
span. In contrast, this analysis uses a 75-year horizon to offer a rough assessment of
long-term trends under different policies.]Even this rough comparison can be constructed
for your proposal only because its provisions and additional specifications
provided by your staff set predetermined growth rates for the key amounts of taxes
and transfers; CBO does not have the capability to model more subtle changes in
federal health programs, even in an approximate way, over that very long time span.

. . . .
Under the proposal, federal outlays excluding interest (so-called primary
spending) would decline, from 26 percent of GDP in 2009 to 19 percent in 2020,
16 percent in 2060, and 14 percent in 2080. Revenues under the Roadmap would initially correspond to revenues under the alternative fiscal scenario and then remain
at 19 percent of GDP after 2030, on the basis of specifications provided by your staff.

Basically they just took what Ryan's staff told them and then plugged them into their general economic and demographic forecast.

[Admiral Yi]

And where is the evidence that they are being overpaid in comparison to their value?

I think there is quite a bit, but my original point made no reference to their value.  Whatever the hell that means.

[Admiral Yi]

Basically they just took what Ryan's staff told them and then plugged them into their general economic and demographic forecast.

So as I thought it's CBO generating the forecasts and not Ryan.  And it seems to be CBO supplying the demographics and not Ryan.

Not sure if that 14% looks all that crazy 70 years out.  Baby Boomers will be dead and forgotten by then.

[Neil]

That's not how it is at all in Alberta.

You have to contract with the RCMP in order to have them act as your police.  They don't do it for free.  The province negotiates that contract on behalf of its munipalities.  The provinces does mandate a certain level of service that must be provided.

That's what I said.

Several communities besides Edmonton and Calgary have their own municipal PDs.  Camrose, Lethbridge, Lacombe, Medicine Hat and Taber have their own.

I'll admit - I googled that - I only knew 3/5.

So it seems like it's a Southern Alberta phenomenon, having a police department.  Fuck those guys.

[Neil]

Never mind god, it's the mark of a civilized society.

Seedy is the one who raised the rights argument, not me.

Albeit a silly one.  Rights from nature?  Yeah, nature's just chock full of that shit.  Human rights are so natural that they cannot be meaningfully argued over and were discovered by a species that has existed for over a million years well over four centuries ago.

That is not really true. The concept of natural rights of man dates as back as ancient Greece (or perhaps to still older times, but no records are obviously present). It has been argued for by Romans, who recognized ius gentium, and by fathers of the Church and later by Aquinas, Marsilius of Padua, Grotius and Spinoza, to name but a few. Also, the paradox of it seemingly changing has been answered at least in two different ways - either that our understanding of it is improving (Kant) or that it does actually change due to human nature also changing (Stammler, Radbruch).

Have you had no history/philosophy of law classes at law school?

The difference between 400 and 2000 years is still pretty small next to the history of homo sapiens sapiens.

[The Minsky Moment]

Basically they just took what Ryan's staff told them and then plugged them into their general economic and demographic forecast.

So as I thought it's CBO generating the forecasts and not Ryan. 

That's not how I read it.
What it appears to say is that the following comes entirely from Ryan's staff:
1)  the levels of tax revenue/GDP, and
2)  "Predetermined growth rates for . . . transfers"  which the next sentence indicates applies to federal health programs. 

With respect to medicaid specifically, CBO noted that they modelled it as "prescribed rate" of spending growth supplied by Ryan's staff, with the only CBO supplied variable being population.

And it seems to be CBO supplying the demographics and not Ryan.

Not sure if that 14% looks all that crazy 70 years out.  Baby Boomers will be dead and forgotten by then.

But the US population is still growing safely above replacement rates, and life expectancy keeps increasing.  So even after the Boomers wreak utter havoc on Ryan's plan (and its 10 year backloaded health reforms) for the first 0-50 years, the general problem of an increasing age profile is still going to be there.

Keep in mind that 14% is for ALL fed spending.   Absent mass euthanasia of everyone over 65 and making the poor vanish, it isn't going to happen without returning the Coolidge Era.

[Admiral Yi]

That's not how I read it.
What it appears to say is that the following comes entirely from Ryan's staff:
1)  the levels of tax revenue/GDP, and
2)  "Predetermined growth rates for . . . transfers"  which the next sentence indicates applies to federal health programs. 

With respect to medicaid specifically, CBO noted that they modelled it as "prescribed rate" of spending growth supplied by Ryan's staff, with the only CBO supplied variable being population.

Sure, with respect to Medicare and Medicaid Ryan's plan specifically limits the growth in spending to the inflation rate.  So with Medicare all you need to do is plug in CBO's population forecasts and you get Medicare/GDP and Medicaid/GDP with no muss and no fuss.

What you do *not* get is zeroed out residual discretionary spending to fit Ryan's spending/GDP target, as you suggested earlier.

But the US population is still growing safely above replacement rates, and life expectancy keeps increasing.  So even after the Boomers wreak utter havoc on Ryan's plan (and its 10 year backloaded health reforms) for the first 0-50 years, the general problem of an increasing age profile is still going to be there.

Keep in mind that 14% is for ALL fed spending.   Absent mass euthanasia of everyone over 65 and making the poor vanish, it isn't going to happen without returning the Coolidge Era.

Population above replacement rate does not create an increasing age profile.  It creates the opposite.