Forgiving Student Loans Is a Regressive, Sorry Excuse for Economic Stimulus

While we are climbing out of this recession at a quicker rate than was initially projected, we still have a ways to go before we experience an economic recovery. In response, President-Elect Joe Biden and a number of prominent Democratic politicians have proposed cancelling some or all of student debt. The latest argument from proponents of student loan cancellation is that it would help provide economic relief to those who hold student debt. 

The first problem with using student debt cancellation as an economic stimulus is the regressive nature of the policy. As the Left-leaning Urban Institute points out, those who are most likely to own education debt are higher-income households. The Left-leaning People's Policy Project also found that the top quintile holds $3 in student debt for every $1 that the lowest quintile holds. 

Survey data from Pew Research shows that those who are struggling with employment as a result of the recession are the ones that are least likely to have student loans. As data from the centrist Brookings Institution show, nearly three-quarters of student loan payments are made by those in the top two quintiles. This further illustrates that those who are most likely to have student loans are most likely to pay back the loans (more on that momentarily). In its July 2020 analysis, the Urban Institute also found that student loan forgiveness "would direct the most benefits to higher-income households."

Second, student loan forgiveness would not really contribute to the economy. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget [CRFB] calculated that the multiplier (or to put the macroeconomics in layman's terms, the "bang for your buck") is 0.08-0.23, which is much lower than other forms of economic relief implemented in this pandemic (see below). If all of the $1.5 trillion were cancelled, it would mean $90 billion or less in cash available. Why? It would relieve them of the monthly payment, as opposed to giving someone a lump sum amount of cash. Since the typical monthly loan payment is $200-300 (Federal Reserve), it would provide little spendable cash. 

Aside from not providing a real boost to the economy, here are some other issues to take with student loan forgiveness:

1. Three quarters of Americans do not hold a Bachelor's degree. Is it fair to ask someone who has not acquired that level of education to pay for someone who did? Is it fair to those who either avoided debt or paid off debt? This proposal is more unfair considering that those with a Bachelor's degree earn an extra $400,000 in lifetime earnings in comparison to those with only a high school degree (College Board). 
2. As I brought up in my analysis on student loan forgiveness last year, those who are most likely to have difficulties with paying student loans are not necessarily the ones with the largest loans. Those who most likely default are those who drop out and struggle to find a job to pay off the debt (see 2015 article from New York Times here). 
3. Student loan forgiveness misdiagnoses the problem. The single largest factor that has driven up college tuition has been federal subsidies of student loans. The Federal Reserve of New York found that for every dollar in federal subsidies, tuition increased by 60 cents (Lucca et al., 2017). A study from Harvard University concluded that higher education programs receiving federal aid experienced higher tuition hikes than those who did not (Cellini and Goldin, 2012). And here is a Mercatus Center study highlighting the research showing how federal subsidies have exacerbated tuition prices.
4. This would set a bad precedent, which is also known as moral hazard. If current borrowers get their loans cancelled, why wouldn't future borrowers ask for a loan cancellation? This would only serve to jack up tuition prices.
5. According to Federal Reserve Bank of New York labor market data, 33 percent of those with a Bachelor's degree work in jobs not requiring a Bachelor's degree (43.2 percent for recent graduates). How does forgiving student loans solve this issue?

In short, student loan forgiveness is regressive, inequitable, and a poorly targeted form of economic stimulus. I hope that the upcoming Congress does not perform the folly of forgiving these loans.

7 Reasons Why Deutsche Bank's Remote Work Tax Proposal Makes No Sense

As a libertarian, I have spent a fair amount of time criticizing and scrutinizing bad ideas that come from politicians and other government officials in the hopes of "making government great again." From time to time, these bad ideas come from the private sector. Enter Deutsche Bank. Last week, the multinational investment bank Deutsche Bank released a research brief called What We Must Do to Rebuild. Within this brief was a proposal for a five-percent work-from-home tax. 

Why is Deutsche Bank so eager to implement a tax on those who work remotely? From Deutsche Bank's view, working remotely is a privilege. Those who work remotely are less likely to contract COVID-19, either on their commute or in their place of employment. Part of the idea is to subsidize lower-income workers who are unable to work from home. Pandemic notwithstanding, working from home saves on such expenses as commute, lunch, work clothes, and dry cleaning. This would also imply that those who performed the related services are either out of a job or have reduced hours. Because of these benefits, Deutsche Bank argues that there should be a five-percent tax on income for each day worked at home. Deutsche Bank estimates $49 billion in annual tax revenue as a result of this tax. 

This is might sound nice and dandy, but here are some issues to take with the proposal (aside from the fact that Deutsche Bank has a lot of commercial real estate holdings and remote work would affect their bottom line):

1) Enforcement and Tracking Costs. According to Deutsche Bank's own survey data (p. 33), 96 percent of workers are not going to be working remotely every day post-pandemic. Since most people would not work remotely all the time, this means that the tax would most probably be charged on a pro rata basis. HR departments would have to track when employees are in the office and when they are not for tax purposes. Additionally, they would need to distinguish when they are working remotely and when they are out of the office for something such as a business trip or an on-site visit. As the Tax Foundation points out, this complicates matters for those with performance- or project-based elements to their compensation package. 

2) More complicated tax code. These complications are not only an issue for those collecting the labor data. It would make tax collection and enforcement more complicated, which could lead to greater tax fraud and evasion. If there really is a correlation between income bracket and remote working, you could simply alter current income tax rates to compensate or make similar adjustments to the current tax code. 

3) We already have a tax system to help the poor. Our taxation system is a progressive one, which means that it is designed to help the poor. More to the point, we already have general taxes that are used or could be used to fund welfare benefits or wage supplements to deal with the short-term labor displacement. 

4) Would it really help the poor? If the wealth transfer translates into a $1,500 a month check for lower-income workers, it would be likely that employers would adjust by offering lower wages. After all, we see such behavior in minimum wage, payroll taxes, or other labor laws in which the tax incidence ultimately falls on the worker. In net, the effect for low-wage workers might not be that much. 

5) Does working from home really mean less spending? One of the concerns of the Deutsche Bank is that people will spend less because they are working home. First of all, if that is the case, what is the issue with increased savings, especially in a society that had a lower savings rate pre-pandemic (Federal Reserve)? Also, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the demand is allocative, which is to say that people could simply spend their disposable income elsewhere.   

6) Labor rigidities and assessing costs of remote working. Much like everything else, there are costs and benefits to everything. The Deutsche Bank report seems to be dismissive by asserting that the costs are low. Aside from dealing with potential child care, here are a few: paying for one's remote work setting, increased utility bills, having to be one's own computer technician, increased social isolation, and smaller likelihood of having one's work noticed for promotional potential. As Deutsche Bank survey data showed (see above), most will not work remotely completely, assumedly to balance the pros and cons of remote working. Instead of using the tax code to incentivize a one-size-fits-all solution, employees and employers should have the ability to determine how much they work from home based on their circumstances.

7) Why disincentivize remote work? Generally speaking, taxation has two general purposes. One is to collect revenue. The second is to disincentivize behavior. In this case, the behavior that is being disincentivized is remote working. Remote working is not hurting society or even the government. The tax de facto acts as a punishment on remote working, a trend that has been taking place within the past decade and was accelerated as a result of the pandemic. This makes even less sense when considering that productivity and job satisfaction have overall increased as a result of increased remote work. There is no compelling reason to incentivize people to work in brick-and-mortar establishments. 

A remote work tax is similar to proposing a tax on people who recycle or decide to life healthily. If anything, there is a stronger argument for subsidizing it (not that I am in favor of this proposal per se) since less commuting would be better for the environment. There is a reason why there is no wide public interest in a remote work tax: a remote work tax truly is a solution in search of a problem.  

Why More States Should Legalize Sports Betting: A Look at Maryland and South Dakota Ballot Initiatives

With a pandemic, recession, social unrest, and a presidential election dominating the news cycle, you would think there would be little room for much else. And yet, there is some space for sports betting. As of August 2020, 19 states have legalized sports betting since the Supreme Court ruled that sports betting should not be under the purview of the federal government (Murphy v. NCAA, 2018). This Tuesday, there are two states that are voting on ballot initiatives to be added to the list of states that legalize sports betting: Maryland and South Dakota. South Dakota is deciding whether to allow for sports betting within the limits of the town of Deadwood, which houses a casino and is near Mount Rushmore. The net municipal proceeds would go to the Deadwood Historic Restoration and Preservation Fund. In Maryland, the state revenue funds generated are intended to go to fund public education. In both cases, the ballot initiatives bring up the question of whether we should legalize sports betting. 

Revenue and Jobs Generation: One of the obvious benefits is the money that sports betting generates. In May 2017, Oxford Economics released a report saying that legalizing sports betting in the United States would add anywhere between $11.6 billion and $14.2 billion to the United States GDP. Oxford Economics also found that it could generate 86,819 jobs directly, as well 129,852 indirect jobs. Keep in mind that would be the case if the entire country legalized sports betting. The state of Maryland's legislative analyst estimated that a 20 percent table games tax rate would translate into $18.2 million of tax revenue for the state of Maryland. While there is greater economic potential in the private sector, the Tax Policy Center warns of the limits of counting on sports betting being a cash-cow, especially given how sports betting operates and is taxed (Auxier, 2019).

Issues of Underground Markets and Exploitation: Whether it has been marijuana, prostitution, or human organ sales, there is a major concern of what happens when you drive something to the underground market. For one, the legal economy is deprived of the revenue generated from that commerce. This is important, especially considering that sports betting is a $155 billion market [in 2017 dollars], 97 percent of which was generated illegally in underground markets, as of 2017 (Reason Foundation). It is clear that sports betting, regardless of its legal status, is a desired trade. Second, underground markets lead to abuse of power and empower criminals. We see this when pimps abuse their prostitutes, drug lords are able to carry out unspeakable acts, or when a dysfunctional immigration that keeps workers undocumented, which not only keeps their potential in the labor down, but also leaves them open to exploitation in the workplace. In the case of sports betting, keeping sports betting illegal empowers bookies. Keeping sports betting illegal drives people into the arms of the criminal underworld. 

Is Gambling Addiction a Concern with Legalization?: This is one of the main concerns of those who are against sports betting. Their theory is that if we legalize sports betting, this will increasing the amount of gambling addiction. A 2016 study from the National Institutes from Health sheds some light on the matter (Welte et al., 2016). The NIH study looks to see if an increased amount of gambling legalization and availability of gambling options increased the rates of gambling addiction and problem gambling. Interestingly enough, these rates remained stable with increased legalization. The best explanation for that is because the ubiquitous nature of the black market makes gambling easily accessible. This is yet another reason to legalize. Instead of stigmatizing gambling addictions related to sports betting, legalization would bring it to light in a way that would help those who need it. Making sports betting doesn't make the gambling problems go away. It sweeps them under the rug while adding on other problems that come with the underground markets. 

Conclusion: It makes very little to no sense to keep sports betting illegal. As has already been proven, people will find a way to partake if they want, whether it is by going underground or crossing state lines to a place where it is already legal. Legalizing sports betting is shown not to increase gambling rates, and keeping it illegal is not shown to make gambling addiction go away. Even better, legalizing sports betting does not make game fixing more likely (Morris and Bentley, 2017). Legalizing sports betting helps to keep power away from those operating activities while generating revenue for both the government and the economy at large. If you live in Maryland or South Dakota, please vote "yes" to legalize sports betting.  

California Proposition 25: Should Cash Bail Be Replaced with Risk Assessment Tools?

The right to a pretrial bail is so old that it predates the Magna Carta. It is a right that is also protected in the United States Constitution under the Due Process clause (United States v. Salerno, 1987). This upcoming November, the state of California is voting on Proposition 25 in the hopes of doing away with cash bail. Back in 2018, the California legislature passed legislation on replacing cash bail with an algorithm-based risk assessment to determine whether the suspect is a flight risk enough to be incarcerated pretrial. This assessment would result in certain monitoring conditions throughout the trial. Unsurprisingly, the bail industry filed a veto referendum to dispute SB 10. If Proposition 25 passes, then cash bail will be a thing in the past. Here's what I am wondering: if pretrial bail has been such an enshrined right historically, why take issue with it? 

The purpose of cash bail is to provide an incentive for those who are released pretrial to appear for their court dates. For those in favor of Proposition 25, there is the criticism that the cash bail system does not judge an individual based on an actual flight risk. Those who fare better in the cash bail system are those who are wealthier. Most who are wealthy can afford bail with little to no impediment. As for those who are poorer, they are forced to pay a disproportionately large amount of cash to work and be with their family as they await trail, regardless of whether they are minimal flight risk. On top of that, it entails giving the bail companies a nonrefundable premium worth 10 percent of the bail (e.g., a $50,000 bail means losing out on $5,000). For those who cannot afford to pay, they stay in jail. Not only are they deprived of working in while awaiting trial, but those who are stuck in jail are often forced to accept harsher plea deals than those who can fight the charges unincarcerated (Donnelly, 2018).

This brings us to the cost of the California bail system. As of 2014, 62 percent of prison beds (or about 50,000 beds) in California were filled with those awaiting trial, according to the Public Policy Institute of California [PPIC]. A Human Rights Watch report uses an estimate that the daily cost per prisoner is $113.87. Assuming that cost is accurate, that would mean the daily cost of imprisoning unsentenced individuals is about $5.7 million daily (or $2.09 billion annually). If we use the daily cost nationwide of $77.67 found in a December 2018 report from the centrist Brookings Institution, that would still mean an annual cost of $1.4 billion. These calculations would assume, of course, that all the unsentenced individuals would not be incarcerated. The high-bound assumption could be why the California Legislative Analyst Office [LAO] estimated that the reduction in local jail costs would be in the high tens of millions, instead of a higher amount.

This leads to the trade-off of replacing it with a risk assessment system. The aforementioned LAO fiscal impact report estimated that a new system under Prop 25 would cost in the mid-hundreds of millions of dollars, implying that the net cost could be higher under Prop 25. The fact that the LAO does not put a dollar amount on it makes it more difficult to determine net cost. The PPIC had a similar issue of putting a price tag on Prop 25 this past August.

Many Left-leaning individuals have been for Prop 25. However, there are some on the Left (and not just the American Bail Association) that believe that Prop 25 will make matters worse. The Essie Justice Group believes that it will have an even larger, disproportionate effect on minority communities. This seems to have been the case when the state of Kentucky removed its cash bail system (Albright, 2019). New Jersey had mixed results. On the one hand, pretrial imprisonments dropped by 27 percent since it removed cash bail in 2017. On the other hand, racial disparities did not budge. The ACLU of New York released a policy brief this year on how risk assessment tools perpetuate socio-economic and racial disparities. A group of researchers, including those from Harvard and MIT, signed a letter in 2019 saying that these tools do not reduce racial disparities. 

The fact that the cash bail system de facto punishes many by throwing hundreds in jail before being tried, many of whom are low-risk, non-violent offenders, makes the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" a cruel joke or something that only applies to those who can afford it. Bail reform is needed. At the same time, one could argue that risk assessment tools perpetuate past biases of the criminal justice system. While there are issues with both the current cash bail system and risk assessment tools, I think I have a slight preference for Prop 25. I like how the Brennan Center for Justice concludes: If California votes "no," they should go back to the drawing board, get rid of cash bail, and avoid risk assessment tools. If California votes "yes," we should monitor the implementation of risk assessment tools to make sure disparities are not being perpetuated in the criminal justice system. 

2020 State Ballot Hodgepodge: Florida Minimum Wage, Illinois Income Tax Reform, California Gig Economy, and Marijuana Legalization

One of the things I enjoy most about election season is not the presidential election hullabaloo or even when you have Supreme Court justice vacancies. I personally get a kick out of the state ballot measures voted on in November. They are voluminous, they cover a wide range of topics, and they have greater impact on our lives than we can anticipate. Some of the fun ones I have covered in past years have included  single-payer healthcare, condom use in the porn industry, the right to hunt, and labels for genetically modified food. Today, I will cover minimum wage, tax reform, labor market reform, and marijuana. 

Florida Minimum Wage: Florida is looking to increase its minimum wage to $15 per hour by September 2026 (Amendment 2). The legislative branch's research arm, the Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR) conducted a fiscal analysis of the ballot initiative. The EDR found that by 2027, it would cost the state of Florida $540 million per annum. Proponents argue that Florida needs to increase the minimum wage to account for rising costs in housing and transportation. Aside from contributing to the broader economy, the additional spending would offset the unemployment losses. 

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a study on what a $15 federal minimum wage would look like. CBO found that while 1.3 million would be pulled out of poverty, the same amount of people would become unemployed. That on top of the fact that it would have a net cost of $8.1 billion. Not exactly an economic booster! Data from the last recession also found that minimum wage increases prolong recessions. Not exactly a winning policy if one of the main goals is to pull Florida out of the recession. Generally speaking, minimum wage increases such as these make it more difficult for low-skill labor to find or retain work, it is a poorly targeted policy when it comes to poverty reduction, and adversely impacts business operations. If you live in Florida, vote "No" on Amendment 2. For further analysis on Amendment 2, see the Reason Foundation's analysis here. 

Illinois "Fair" Tax: The main ballot initiative in Illinois this November is for what has been colloquially referred to as a "fair" tax. Essentially, Illinois is looking to switch its income tax from a flat tax (everyone pays the same percentage) to a graduated tax system (the richer you are, the higher percentage you pay). I covered the Illinois "fair" tax last year, but the proposed brackets are the same, so the analysis still applies. Aside from asking what constitutes as "fair when it comes to taxation, I took issue with the following:

• The tax will not close the budgeting gap.
• The tax reform does nothing to change Illinois' atrocious spending habits.
• The "fair" tax does not adequately address the issues of fairness that proponents purport.
• Illinois already has lousy tax competitiveness. Switching to a graduated tax system will simply incentivize more people to move outside of Illinois. 

Illinoisans should vote "no" on the "Illinois Allow for Graduated Income Tax Amendment." If you want more recent analysis on the ballot initiative, here is one from the Tax Foundation.

California Gig Economy: Last year, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 5, which applied a three-factor test to determine whether a worker could be classified as an independent contractor under California law. AB 5 had considerable implications for gig workers, but especially app-based drivers (e.g., Uber, Lyft). If it passes this November, Proposition 22 would essentially reverse AB 5. I covered AB 5 last year shortly before it became law this past January. I thought AB 5 was inferior policy because a) it would cause greater unemployment, b) cost the California economy millions, c) increase costs for consumers, and d) eliminate the flexibility in hours that most app-based drivers prefer to the 9-5 work hour. 

Looking at the analysis by the California Legislative Analyst, it would create a minor boost in income tax revenue because drivers would be earning more in income. More to the point, passing Proposition 22 would "would allow the companies to charge lower fares and delivery fees. With lower prices, customers would take more rides and place more orders. This could increase the companies' profits. High profit would increase the companies' stock prices." This analysis points out that AB 5 has been hurting app-based drivers, customers, and companies that hire gig workers alike. In case you need more convincing, here are analyses from Reason Foundation and the American Action Forum. I urge Californians to vote "Yes" on Proposition 22 this November. 

Marijuana Legalization: This November, we have four states looking to legalize recreational marijuana - Arizona, Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota. Reason Foundation provides analysis on each of these ballot initiatives. There is a reason states have been trending towards legalizing marijuana in recent years. It is because the fears and stigma surrounding marijuana have been overblown, to say the least. Colorado legalized in 2014, and it has not been anywhere near the disaster that naysayers thought it would be. Economically speaking, marijuana legalization makes sense. We're not spending millions to enforce laws (that includes policing, prosecuting, and imprisonment costs), which means we can focus on more serious crimes. There is more government revenue, which means that if government dollars can be spent, it could spent where it could do more good, instead of punishing a victimless crime. Also, we can reduce the size of the underground market. This is great not simply because it expands the legal economy, but because less commerce in the underground market gives criminals and drug lords less power. Let's continue the trend towards marijuana legalization by voting these ballots and making them the law of the land for these states. 

A Sukkot Lesson on Schach and Being Comfortable with the Uncomfortable

For a Jew, it's the most wonderful time of the year. Jews have four holidays crammed into a single month. We are currently in the middle of Sukkot (סכות). Also known as "the Festival of Tabernacles," Sukkot acts as a harvest festival. A major component of Sukkot is building a temporary dwelling called a sukkah (סוכה). As I looked up through the roof of the sukkah this year, I started to focus on the roof covering of the sukkah, referred to as schach (סכך). 

I started to think of some of the technicalities about what makes for valid schach under Jewish law. Two important details have to do with what the schach is made of (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 134:3). It has to grow from the earth (גדולו מן הארץ) and it has do no longer be attached to the earth (תלוש). On the one hand, it is material made of this earth, implying there was nurturing and growth that was involved in the creation of the schach. At the same time, it is no longer attached to the earth. It has been uprooted from the conditions that once allowed for it to grow. 

Another important detail is that there has to be enough schach to provide more shade than sun (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 134:5). What is interesting is that we are not completely covered under a sukkah. We need enough openings to have the sunlight come through the roof and enough where we can see the stars. Yes, we are supposed to receive some coverage, but we still leave enough openings to be exposed to nature, to the elements. 

You would think that these would only be details that a carpenter or architect would give particular meaning. I would normally find a fixation with such details as material type of the schach to be reflective of the obsession in the Orthodox world over legal minutiae that seemingly have no bearing on a spiritual experience. And this year, I was able to find spiritual meaning in them. 

I have been reading the book How to Be Comfortable with Being Uncomfortable by Ben Aldridge. Aldridge talks about his journey, which includes the exploration of Stoicism, Buddhism, and cognitive-based therapy. By discussing these approaches, Aldridge describes how he came to terms with his fears and anxieties by leaning into them. As the title suggests, he developed the mental resistance to become comfortable with the uncomfortable. 

I think the schach has a similar lesson to teach, especially if the sukkah is meant to act a metaphor for joyful living. We grow up only to have life thrust less-than-ideal situations upon us. We are uprooted from the things that make us feel comfortable: that is an inevitability in life that I discussed this past Tisha B'Av. I think this feeling has been quite notable during the pandemic. Pre-pandemic, so many people went to work and went about their day-to-day in an automatic fashion, thinking that nothing could shake their sense of stability or security. And then we got hit with the worst pandemic since the Spanish Flu, the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression, and social unrest in the United States that has not been since the late 1960s. The uprootedness, the disorientation, things not going as we expect: this is all a part of life experience. 

If the amount of schach teaches us anything, it is that we are not meant to be sheltered from the elements. We are meant to accept the elements as part of the process. As a dear friend of mine brought up, the sunlight comes in through the cracks. Even as we protect ourselves from the elements, we have to remind ourselves vis-à-vis gratitude that there is good in our lives. 

What about when the elements get to be too much? I wrote a piece two years ago about the exemption of sitting in the sukkah when weather conditions are uncomfortable and what we could learn about adapting to bad situations. It seems contradictory that I would now write that we need to be comfortable with the uncomfortable. But if we sift through some of the details, it really is not contradictory. 

One of the interesting points about the exemption is that it is based on a subjective definition of discomfort. If we learn to become comfortable with the uncomfortable, it would not bother us as much. It means we would have a higher resilience to deal with cold weather or rain if it comes on Sukkot. 

It is also worth noting that the sukkah pushes us in multiple ways. The temporary nature of the sukkah reminds us that our lives are also temporary. We have to find joy even while knowing that we will all die one day. Many have argued over the centuries that money buys happiness. Although it might seem intuitive for that to be the case, we are meant to find spiritual joy in material simplicity. We also have to find comfort and joy in nature when we could readily enjoy the comforts of modern-day life. The fact that Sukkot does not commemorate a specific event implies that we have to push ourselves to find meaning to a situation when one is not immediately apparent.

Yes, there will be certain scenarios in which we cannot avoid going indoors for Sukkot, such as when a hurricane, whether literal or metaphorical, abruptly comes in our lives. We cannot weather everything. We are human and thus limited by our imperfections. However, if we could learn to weather a slightly colder wind or a temporary storm, it gives us more opportunities to experience a mitzvah, to experience something we otherwise would not have. If you can enjoy eating in a sukkah, saying brachot (blessings), and singing zemirot (holiday songs) regardless of what life, G-d, or Mother Nature throw at you, I would argue that is equanimity. Stoic philosopher Epictetus once said that it is not so much the external events that cause distress, but how we respond to them. If we learn to better respond to the external events, we would have fewer scenarios in which we would feel the need to go inside during Sukkot. Life is not about the comfort zone. It is about moving beyond it to grow, much like Abraham did when he left his hometown at the age of 75. Interestingly enough, the Torah does not mention anything in Abraham's life prior to him pushing himself outside of his comfort zone. To quote American author Neale Donald Walsch, "Life begins at the end of your comfort zone."

What I leave you with are some questions to think about: What makes us uncomfortable? How does the discomfort impede us in life? How do we learn how to build our resilience? How do we learn to become comfortable with the uncomfortable so we experience life more fully instead of missing out on the vast number of opportunities that life has to offer? 

מועדים לשמחה!

Let's Dismiss the Case for Court-Packing

The death of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg could very well reverberate and affect our democracy for years to come. This would not be because of the Justice's death per se, but the implications of how and when to fill the vacancy. President Trump is looking to fill that seat with another conservative justice. If the Republicans are successful, that would result in a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court. It's interesting to see both sides react. The Left thinks that a conservative grip on the judicial branch would harm the country for decades. The Right thinks that the Left is acting like a bunch of sore losers and that "it's our turn to be at the helm." Since the Democrats are unlikely to block a nomination (either before or after the presidential election), they are looking at another solution: court-packing.

The term court-packing dates back to Franklin D. Roosevelt. FDR tried passing various legislative initiatives (most notably the New Deal), but the Supreme Court struck down a number of these initiatives as unconstitutional. To deal with the frustration of his vision of government largesse, he attempted to increase the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to fifteen justices. This has rightfully been portrayed as a political ploy and a power grab to gain influence over the judicial branch. 

Since the Democrats do not want to acquiesce power to the Right, they are looking to "pull an FDR" by packing the Court if they gain a majority in the Senate. The last Judiciary Act, passed in 1869, set the number of justices at nine. The number of justices has been adjusted on more than one occasion, so it is not as if there is not any historical precedent for changing the number of justices. Constitutionally speaking, all the Democrats would need to do is pass another Judiciary Act to modify the number of justices. The question is not so much whether the Democrats could gain enough power after the 2020 elections, but rather whether they should go down this path.

For one, the Supreme Court's popularity is at an all-time high (Gallup). If the Democrats opt for court packing, the political costs for the Democrats would be high. It could help to bolster the Republican's narrative on the Supreme Court. 

But let's think of this in terms of political calculus. After all, the call for court-packing is a political process and it would be foolish to think that the call for court-packing is about restoring "good governance." To quote the late Justice Ginsburg, "If anything, it [court-packing] would make the court look partisan. It would be that--one side saying, 'When we're in power, we're going to enlarge the number of justices, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to." 

As the Brennan Center for Justice, which is not exactly a conservative institution, brings up, it would be dangerous to "tamper with the mechanisms of democracy to thwart a single political figure." Since the impetus for court-packing is political in nature, you better believe that if the Democrats strike the first blow, the Republicans will retaliate with even more court-packing once they regain power. Since the Court would appear more partisan as a result of court-packing, it would end up eroding the legitimacy of the judiciary branch. 

If the Supreme Court cannot be seen as or act as a check on the other two branches, that erodes separation of powers, and ultimately the constitutional republic that was envisioned by the Founding Fathers over two centuries ago. Since the Left is concerned about such causes célèbres as the right to an abortion or the right to same-sex marriage, it seems peculiar that you would undermine the very judicial protection that has held those rights in place.

To be sure, both parties feel justified in retaliating when it comes to court nominees. The Democrats feel like they were robbed when it came to nominating Merrick Garland in 2016. The Republicans feel like they have been robbed of multiple federal court nominees, including Miguel Estrada. Let's be for real. Both parties have chucked procedural decency out the window when it was politically convenient.  Partisan politics can be summarized by saying "it's okay when we do it, but not when they do it." Harry Reid created the "nuclear option" in 2013. Senator Mitch McConnell extended the "nuclear option" to Supreme Court justices in 2017. 

Even so, court-packing is a whole different animal. At least with filibustering or holding up nominees, the judicial system was held intact. If we throw the norm against court-packing out the window, we also through our capacity at judicial review out of the window. As the Left-leaning Vox illustrates, multiple political scientists have pointed out that there have been multiple examples of court-packing by would-be or eventual autocratic countries: Hungary, Honduras, Poland, Venezuela, Argentina, Turkey. 

For those who complain about Trump bringing down the country, it seems hypocritical for various anti-Trumpers to advocate for a policy that would most likely erode democratic institutions. Those on the Left might want to retaliate in response to their animus towards Trump, but if successful, it would be one of the more myopic things to come from the Left, which is saying something given a look at the economic policies so many of them cherish.