Hiatus

As is probably quite obvious, I am on a hiatus for the near future. Between work and training I simply do not have the time to blog right now. Once my commute becomes much shorter (ie, I move back to Boston), the blog will return to its regular schedule. I still may post once in a while, should I find the time. In the interim, you can read all of my glibness and sarcasm on my Twitter feed.

Courage or Cowardice

The suicide of Vic Chesnutt over Christmas affected me not only as a fan of his music, but as someone who has been there before. Fortunately none of my attempts were successful. I owe my life to some very special and amazing people who looked out for me, saw that I got help and were there even when I might have wished they were not.

Suicide is either something very courageous or extremely cowardly. Perhaps it is a little bit of both, no matter how dissonant that may seem.

It takes a great deal of courage to contemplate taking your own life, let alone actually doing it. That is why so many people who suffer from severe depression, or other affective disorders, never get to the point of becoming suicidal. The thought alone is enough to scare many people into getting help if they already haven’t. And for some others it may serve as a reality check, that maybe your life is not that bad after all.

But for those who have the courage to pursue suicide, life itself becomes a living hell. You see, deep inside us all is a drive for self-preservation. Thus, every day becomes a constant battle between your desire to die and your innate will to live. This will is what keeps you from jumping in front of a bus or swallowing a bottle of pills at any given moment. The level of agony and angst caused by this inner struggle is immense and only worsens your mental state.

You see, staying alive for another day is not something you see as worthy of self-congratulation. If anything, it makes you feel cowardly for not having whatever it takes to kill yourself. It is not a way of life I would wish upon my worst enemy.

Eventually, this pain becomes so great that you take the cowardly route of ending your life. Cowardly because you’ve decided not to fight through the pain. And make no mistake about it, there is a choice here.  Taking your life is the ultimate avoidance technique. It’s an easy way out, an escape from reality that is much more permanent than drugs or alcohol.

I know that this might be provocative, but I truly believe that if you have the courage to plan your own death then you have the courage to fight through whatever emotional problems you may have. You will not realize it until you’ve made it through, which is why having a strong support system is crucial to surviving.

People may wonder why I am even willing to share this part of my life in such a public way. There is really only one answer- to help others. If one person is helped by these words, then it is worth all of the potential risks of people knowing about my darkest days. If you or someone you know needs help, leave a message in the comments (I won’t publish it), and I will do my best to put you in touch with the resources you need.

Premortem

It remains to be seen just what Tuesday will bring here in Massachusetts as well as the country. Though I still think Coakley can/will eke out a victory, my own prediction of her closing strong and winning by close to double digits seems quite absurd. But I think there are two valuable lessons to be learned.

First, not only do voters turn away from what they perceive to be coronation campaigns, but it is damn near impossible to change their minds once that perception has been cemented. The past couple of weeks here in Massachusetts have been filled with messages from prominent Democrats and their allies for Martha Coakley. And while there has been some re-engagement among the party’s base, the independent voters do not seem to be responding. In fact, these appeals may be having a negative effect as it feels as if the political machine is circling the wagons for one of its own, which plays into Brown’s (dubious) claim of independence.

The other lesson here, and one that is sure to be missed by Democrats in DC, is that the party cannot fail to deliver on its promises of the past two elections and expect its base to remain engaged, committed and active. Unfortunately the folks in DC will take the closeness of this race as evidence that the party needs to trim its sails. But scaling back their agenda, whether on the economy or environment, will only serve to alienate not only the base, but the independents who gave Democrats both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. If Democrats do not make some substantial progress towards their goals, November is going to be a very, very bad month for the party.

Much Ado…

I am of two mind about this. There is some talk that if Scott Brown were to win the MA Senate race (he won’t), that his certification/swearing in would be delayed until after health care reform has been passed. The goo-goo side of me says that such a thing would be bad for government and bad for people’s faith in government, etc.

But the partisan in me thinks this is exactly what should happen. If you think for one second that the GOP would not do the exact same thing you’re not only naive, but completely ignorant of history. Just take a look at the Texas redistricting fiasco in the early 2000’s- broke with protocol, very likely violated the Voting Rights Act, etc. Or how about all of the GOP voter suppression efforts of the 2000’s.

News flash- political actors often engage in activities that straddle the line of propriety in order to advance their political goals. So to all the cry babies at the Herald and on right wing blogs, go Cheney yourself.

How Not to Win a Senate Race

Although the three major polls of the MA Senate race show different results, the bottom line is that Martha Coakley has turned what should have been a cakewalk into an actual race. And therein lies the problem. Team Coakley assumed that once clear of the primary, she was going to be the next senator from MA. That type of assumption is a cardinal sin in politics.

Though MA is a blue state, no one likes a coronation campaign. The hubris and arrogance drive undecideds away from what might be their common electoral home. In addition, failure to engage an opponent is, with very rare exceptions, a phenomenal blunder. Not only will it allow your opponent to take swipes at you unanswered, but you will also come under fire from editorial boards and others who believe in an active civic dialogue.

Team Coakley has done all these things in spades. She was not on the air after the primary and did minimal advertising through the holidays. And she was not exactly blazing up the campaign trail either. Only recently has she gone back up, and not in a particularly aggressive manner. She has failed to make the case that she deserves to be our next senator.

That this race could be within ten points is a testament to how poorly her campaign has been managed. Sure, there are challenges outside of her control (unpopular Dem governor, among others), but there is simply no good reason that a right wing former model ought to be even close in MA. Coakley has not gone after Brown or his record nearly enough. Instead, she and her campaign simply assumed that having a D next to her name was sufficient to win. But voters do not often reward hubris.

Prudence Should Trump Politics

When my boss came back to the office from a briefing this morning, he told me about the December revenue numbers and my comment was something to the effect of you know they’ll spend it ASAP. Apparently, I was right. While I am overjoyed that MA revenues have exceeded projections, especially in December, I don’t think that now is the time to restore some of the 9c cuts. Between the Governor’s commitment to restore regional school transportation and the $14 million restoration of TAFDC, the money is already spent.

Now, it should come as no surprise that I favor spending on social safety net programs and believe that we (in MA and nationally) spend far too little money on these programs. So then why do I think that restoring some cuts is bad policy? Well (and hopefully I am not speaking out of school) close to half of the increase in the December revenue numbers is due to tax settlements. This is not actual revenue growth, but merely one time events. And, one or two months of okay revenue numbers does not make a healthy fiscal year. There are no guarantees that January through June will meet, let alone exceed, the October projection (new revenue projection for FY10 is due out about the 15th and it will be interesting to see how DOR/ANF view the world).

The danger here, in case it is not yet obvious, is that the state’s fiscal picture could worsen between now and the close of the fiscal year. Then what? Do we go back and make further 9c cuts? Do we take back the money we restored in January?

What the administration ought to do is put the higher revenue into the stabilization fund. I do not advocate that as a means of replenishing, but rather as a safe place to store cash in the event that it becomes necessary between now and July 1. Of course, as we get closer to the end of the FY, if revenue numbers continue to improve then we ought to consider restoring some of the painful cuts that have been made. But only insofar that those funds are not going to be needed simply to provide level services in FY11.

Alas, this just is not politically feasible. First, everyone on Beacon Hill likes to spend money. Especially given the drastic cuts that have been made this year. Plus, it’s an election year and putting money into the stabilization fund, though prudent fiscal policy, is not sexy politics. It’s really just that simple.

Stupid Religious Tricks

The pro-lifers want to spend $4 million on a Super Bowl ad. What would possess anyone to waste that sort of money on an advertisement that will be tuned out by 99.99% of the viewership? Considering that such ads have not been approved by the networks or the NFL in the past, I sense that much of this story is an attempt to get some free publicity for the forced childbirth lobby.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the ad does air. And let us further assume that the true goal of the pro-lifers is reduction of abortions (this is debatable; and I say that as someone with deep experience in the pro-life community). Is this money well spent? In other words, will anyone considering an abortion not have one due to this ad? I would say that is very unlikely. But imagine if we used that $4 million to promote better access to birth control, or provide comprehensive sex education. In other words, why not spend the money on programs that will actually reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place?

I will tell you why. Because most of the pro-life community are religious zealots who not only oppose abortion, but also oppose birth control and sex education. And there is more than a little bit of a desire to “punish those dirty little sluts.” To the pro-life community, the fetus is nothing more than a fetish or idol. It’s tempting to say that their concern for life begins at conception and ends when the baby passes through the birth canal, but they do not even care about prenatal care for the fetus or its mother. You won’t see them lobbying for adequate children’s health care or increasing aid to poor families with children, either.

And beyond the lack of efficacy is an even bigger question about priorities. Why spend $4 million to air a 30 second ad about abortion when there are tens of thousands of children going hungry each day? Or when many of those same children do not have a bed to call their own?

It’s because the Religious Right is obsessed with sex. Never mind that the Bible speaks far more often about alleviating poverty and taking care of the needy than it ever does about human sexuality. Why bother helping to feed the hungry when you can rail against some gay people who want to get married? Why try to alleviate homelessness when there are women who want an abortion?

Nothing makes me more angry than these religious assholes. They are exploiting people’s faith for monetary gain. It’s all a fucking scheme. Many, if not most, of the leaders probably care very little about gays or abortion. What they do care about, though, is the amount of money that will come rolling in every time they attack the “sinners.” I hope that there is a special place in hell for these hucksters and their flocks.

Valuing Altruism

It is no secret that economics gets some things wrong. Despite my own fairly heterodox views, I find that neoclassical economics offers one of the best tool kits for analyzing public policy. Unlike others, I am not averse to using dollars to capture what are non-monetary values.

A case in point is determining the value of altruism to the individual. First, I should mention that for the uber-rational folks, there is very little room for altruism; it simply does not fit into their model of rational maximization. Let us leave that aside for now for other questions. Particularly, why do we need to measure altruism and how can we measure it.

I would argue that without some understanding of how people value altruism, we can not estimate labor markets in general, and the public and not for profit sectors specifically. It’s common sense to assume that people select careers and specific jobs for a whole host of reasons, including salary, benefits, prestige, fit, and so on. Some of these values are fairly idiosyncratic and beyond measurement. Others are more difficult to measure, like altruism.

People enter careers in the public and not for profit sectors for various reasons, but most, if not all, do so for what I shall call its altruistic premium. The altruistic premium is that amount of non-monetary benefit received from working in these sectors. It should be obvious that the AP is not a specific amount, and will vary both with the individual as well as the job. In other words, it is extremely difficult to quantify.

But just because something is tough to measure does not mean we ought not endeavor to do so. What I would argue is that, in some measure, people are revealing their preference for altruism by accepting employment in a job whose wage is below that which their skills and education would receive in the labor market. Herein lies another layer of difficulty- how do we specify the labor market, do we include everything but the public and not for profit sector or do we include the entire labor market? If we opt for the latter, we might underestimate the value of altruism as the lower wages in the public and not for profit sector will push the market wage down. Though, if we instead look only to the private sector wage rate, we could overstate the value of the altruistic premium. This is so because there may be some other characteristic/trait of the person working in the public or not for profit sector that would diminish their market value.

Another measurement problem is that what I have labeled the altruistic premium might also include some other idiosyncratic values. For example, in some segments of the population, public service is highly valued as an end in itself. Therefore, people who are so motivated might be willing to take a lower than market wage more for the prestige of the position than for its altruistic premium.

Again, I am under no illusion that the altruistic premium would be easy to measure. But the value of such a measure is that it allows us a richer understanding of  labor market decisions. I would argue that it also has some carry over to the private sector. Some individuals for are altruistically inclined might opt for the private sector, yet choose an employer who has volunteer friendly policies. Or one that simply keeps the work week to forty hours, rather than sixty. Understanding how people make their labor market decisions has wide implications not only for public policy, but also holds pertinent information for private firms.

Now, back to the rational maximizer. I would argue that altruism is not in conflict with notions of maximization. We already assume that people include leisure time in their utility functions. I am not convinced that we ought to lump altruism into leisure, as I think the trade off is more complex than one of leisure/altruism v. work. Altruism could come at the price of both or either, really.

Hopefully the methodological difficulty does not keep mainstream economics for placing more emphasis on altruism.

Vic Chesnutt, RIP

Vic Chesnutt passed away on Christmas. He had been in a coma for two days, the result of an intentional overdose of painkillers. Vic was always open about his struggles with depression, despair and hopelessness. Even so, his death was a shock.

The holidays are a particularly difficult time for anyone who suffers from depression. As the season changes and the days grow colder and shorter, a sense of despair can become overwhelming. To that, add the stressors of the holiday season. Or, for some, the lack of family or loved ones only underscores their lack of connectedness to the world.

The stigma attached to depression has lessened significantly over the past twenty years, but it still persists. Too often people fall back on stereotypes and prejudices, assuming that people who suffer from depression just have a case of the blues and need to buck up. If it were that easy, there would be no depressed people. Though some depression is situational, most includes a biochemical component.

Chances are someone you know or love has fought through depression at some point in their life. It is not an easy task, and it is made so much more difficult when that person faces cruel stereotypes and lack of support from his/her family and friends. The reality is that depression is not something one can surmount on their own. It takes a support network of family, friends and clinical help.

Vic had that support network, yet he still succumbed to suicide. The pain was simply too great for him to bear any longer. Perhaps Vic’s death can serve as a powerful reminder about how fragile life is. And how quickly it can be lost.

Please, learn the warning signs (here). And, be good to each other.

If I Were Advising Deval Patrick

With the gubernatorial election just over 10 months away and with approval ratings that are pretty much in the dumpster, Governor Patrick can use all the help he can get. For those readers not up to date on the current field, there are two Republican candidates and one independent (former Democrat) vying for the opportunity to unseat the incumbent governor.

First, on the Republican side, are Christy Mihos, a former independent candidate for governor, and Charlie Baker, a former cabinet secretary in the Weld and Cellucci administrations and former CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare. Mihos does not offer too many specifics on his website, but the picture it does paint is of a somewhat conservative Republican, particularly on social issues. He favors opt-in for sex education and opposes the use of embryonic stem cells, for example. Mihos has also called for the state to guarantee 40% of its revenues to cities and towns.

Charlie Baker is what is known here as a Weld Republican. It’s essentially our version of the old Rockefeller Republicans- fiscally conservative, socially tolerant. As I have written before, Baker selected an openly gay state senator to serve as his running mate. Similar to Mihos, Baker has called for a change to local aid, such that a defined share of state taxes would be set aside for local aid (unlike Mihos, he does not peg a certain percentage). Baker also calls for the repeal of this year’s sales tax increase, but couples that with support for closing the educational achievement gap and tweaking the state’s health reform efforts (including forcing providers to make public their rates). Socially divisive issues like abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research are absent from Baker’s website.

The independent in the race is former Democrat, and current state treasurer, Tim Cahill. As of yet, Cahill has taken no specific positions (at least as represented on his website) other than arguing (correctly, I might add) that local aid needs to be on the table when discussing budget cuts. Otherwise, all Cahill offers is boilerplate language about being a fiscal conservative and being opposed to tax increases.

Now that is out of the way…. here is the advice I would give to the Governor.

1. Ignore Tim Cahill entirely. He will be a non-factor in the general, except to siphon off some anti-incumbent votes from the GOP nominee. Also, his position on local aid, though right, is political suicide. Cutting local aid is akin to being opposed to apple pie and motherhood.
2. Begin campaigning against Baker, but keep it at least somewhat below the surface. Baker is the prohibitive favorite on the GOP side. He has the pedigree and the political moderation to actually win in a blue state like Massachusetts.
3. Also, the right messaging early on could help to expose fissures in the GOP. For example- focus on tying Baker to the national GOP, who are probably the only group of folks less popular in MA right now than the Governor. This presents Baker with a choice- distance himself from the Party or owning some of the insanity. It’s a win for Patrick either way. If Baker distances himself, he risks fomenting a teabagger uprising (yes, they really do exist even here) that would drive support to Mihos and force Baker into a much more difficult September primary than he has planned. If, on the other hand, Baker fails to distance himself from the national party, the opportunities to tie the GOP around his neck are endless, especially in a blue state like MA.
4. Ignore Mihos. He has next to no chance of being the eventual GOP nominee. Plus, any messaging that weakens Mihos makes Baker’s path to November much easier.

I am under no illusions that the Governor will actually consider my advice. Not only has he proven remarkably inept at governing, but (notwithstanding 2006) he is an amazingly poor politician. Clearly no state executive is going to be the most popular person in the state during a fiscal crisis, but Governor Patrick has made more than his fair share of optical missteps as well as tactical errors. His one saving grace may just be that he’s not a Republican.