Thursday, April 10, 2008 - Posts
-
sponsorship
David, your point about home rule is well taken, but even in cities with broad home rule, local authority is often quite limited.
Two examples from the city that knows how (but still can’t, as it happens).
California cities have very broad home-rule powers—among the most generous in the nation. But the courts often interpret ambiguous state laws as implicitly preempting local ordinances. San Francisco voters passed a handgun ban by initiative in 2005. Unlike Washington, D.C., which is at least getting the chance to test its ban against the Second Amendment, San Francisco just has its ban invalidated in state court as preempted by a state firearms regulation. The state laws the court relied on are actually silent as to local regulation—they’re laws that establish statewide regulation of firearms. The courts found that these laws occupied the field and implicitly prohibited the local regulation.
Another example of aggressive preemption hobbling local government: San Francisco’s attempt to provide for universal health care for local residents has run into federal preemption problems in court. The city wants to extend its existing coverage provided through SF General Hospital and a network of local clinics to all residents who don’t already have coverage. But it also wants to be sure employers don’t just drop health insurance and dump their employees on the city in response. So it’s added a mandate that most employers either offer coverage or pay a fee to contribute to the city health-care plan. This is not a regulation of employee benefits—the city isn’t making anyone provide health-care benefits. It’s just making those who don’t offer coverage to pay the fee (or better put, it’s making every business pay a fee for local health care and exempting those business that provide coverage for their employees) in order to ward off the free-rider problem. But this initiative is being challenged as preempted by ERISA, which regulates employee benefits and preempts almost any state of local law in the field. Is San Francisco’s ordinance even within the field of employee benefits, or is it just a fee levied on local businesses (which the city is otherwise entitled to levy) coupled with a city-provided service? A broad interpretation of field preemption will kill the city’s health-care initiative.
Now you might think the city has no business trying to mandate universal health care—it’s not really a local issue, right? But consider this: The city already operates a large health-care system because, as a consolidated city and county, it’s responsible for public health care for the indigent. The city discovered that it spent a fortune treating poor people in the ER of SF General for conditions that really should be treated cheaply in routine doctor's-office visits. So it set up a network of free neighborhood clinics to provide preventative and routine care in order to keep those people out of the ER. At this point, the city already has a health-care network in place. But what about people who have jobs and aren’t indigent but who still don’t have health care? When they get really sick, they wind up at SF General, too. So the city wants to cover them in the clinics. This led to the push for universal health care and to the contested employer fees.
I’m not at all certain this is good policy. It’s possible that, as the small-business owners and restaurant owners argue, the mandate will put people out of business and make everyone worse off. Restaurants have gotten together and decided to tack a fee onto every bill to cover the costs of the new health coverage. They want the consumer to know why they’re paying extra for their five-course tasting menu and wine flight. Maybe the extra costs will drive away consumers and put the marginal restaurant out of business. Maybe it will even destroy the foodie culture here and consign us all to have to eat at Red Lobster and Outback. But isn’t this just the kind of local effect we should expect a city to be sensitive to and adjust to? And mightn’t it be a good idea to let a local government experiment with universal health care to give Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama some actual information to work with when they argue about it?
These aren’t home-rule issues, but they are examples of how we hobble our cities from doing what cities ought to do—experiment with new policy ideas that might not occur to legislators or bureaucrats at the state or national level—or might not get past the special interests there.
-
sponsorship
Adam, you're right to point out that the process for joining a law faculty as a tenure-track junior professor is not family-friendly at all. But once you're hired, a law-teaching job is pretty much the model of a family-friendly job—the schedule is extremely flexible. Other than classes and some light committee work, individual faculty are pretty much in charge of when they come into the office and when they work from home and how much they work—at least in the short run.
True, tenure is typically up-or-out after a fixed number of years, and pay tends to be lockstep or close to it, but as I suggested vis-a-vis firms, that's not necessarily a bad thing overall. It prevents faculties from stringing junior faculty along and makes faculty life more equitable. And, in fact, the tenure rate at law schools (not university departments, just law schools) is quite high—I'd guess better than the rate at which associates are promoted to partnership at big firms. The tenure clock is also stopped for paternity leaves, and unlike firm practice, you can usually simply pick up where you left off with the type of research and writing most professors do.
This isn't because law schools are somehow more virtuous than firms. Rather, it's because what we do is different, because we aren't as immediately and directly disciplined by market forces and because we've all already decided to make the lifestyle-for-income tradeoff. As for options, one can join a law faculty as a clinical professor or teaching professor at many law schools with dramatically reduced expectations for scholarly output, and one can teach part-time as an adjunct professor.
-
sponsorship
continue reading at Balkinization ...
-
sponsorship
The Beijing Olympics are offering the world a nice look at what Chinese State PR looks like.
A good example came yesterday, when Sun Weide, deputy director for communications for the Beijing Organizing Committee, presented this view of how the torch relay is going: "I think the operation of the torch relay has been very smooth and very safe."
Indeed. Perhaps the relay was sponsored by American Airlines.
-
sponsorship
"Removing Saddam Hussein was the right decision early in my presidency, it is the right decision now, and it will be the right decision ever." —President George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 12, 2008
"Let me live here ever / So rare a wondered father and a wise / Makes this place Paradise."—William Shakespeare, London, England, circa 1610.
Our presidents have always loved Shakespeare. In April 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson visited Shakespeare's birthplace at Stratford-upon-Avon. "They shew us an old Wooden Chair in the Chimney corner, where He sat," Adams wrote in his diary. "We cutt off a Chip according to Custom." Adams lamented that "[t]here is nothing preserved this great Genius," with no apparent recognition that more might have been preserved if tourists had not taken away chips of the fixtures.
Lincoln could recite hundreds of lines from the plays by heart. Along with the Bible and U.S. Statutes, a volume of Shakespeare graced his White House desk. While steaming up the Potomac in April 1865, Lincoln read aloud lines from Macbeth describing the peaceful postmortem sleep of the good King Duncan. After Lincoln was assassinated five days later (by an actor who had played some Shakespearean roles), Lincoln further cemented the reputation of Macbeth as an unlucky play.
Passing to more recent times, Shakespeare scholar Stephen Greenblatt writes about attending a 1998 White House event in which Clinton mentioned being forced to memorize passages from Macbeth in junior high. It was not, Clinton said wryly, the most propitious beginning for a political career. When Greenblatt shook his hand afterward, he asked the president: "Don't you think that Macbeth is a great play about an immensely ambitious man who feels compelled to do things that he knows are politically and morally disastrous?" Still holding his hand, Clinton replied: "I think Macbeth is a great play about someone whose immense ambition has an ethically inadequate object."
It might be hard to see George W. Bush's place in this great presidential tradition. Internet searches reveal no evidence that Bush has ever quoted or referred to Shakespeare. But while others only parrot Shakespeare, Bush emulates him.
Shakespeare is famous for having introduced more words into the English language than any other individual. Those words have become so much a part of our vernacular that we no longer associate them with the Swan of Avon. Words used above—like birthplace, fixture, and assassination—originate with him. Perhaps Shakespeare's most enduring legacy lies in his unseen mark on our semantic stock.
Along this metric, Bush stands alone among the 43 presidents. His coinages are the stuff of legend, including terms such as misunderestimate, mential, and embetterment. Many critics lament how busybody editors "corrected" Shakespeare's Quartos because they did not conform to their pedestrian notions of proper usage. For the same reason, we should not let stenographers "correct" Bush's contributions to our literary heritage. Bush's words do not belong to us. We hold them in trust—for our childrens, and for our childrens's childrens.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?