Disqus - Latest Comments for Mudley

Re: Living Wills

Mudley — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:53:42 -0000

The problem I have with the living will provisions is that the bill would have this done by a doctor, rather than a lawyer. It sounds like a small, maybe even beneficial difference, but the doctor-patient relationship (as opposed to lawyer-client) is one where one side assumes an air of authority that I feel is incompatible with the idea of a patient-guided decision. If this were being done by a lawyer, most lawyers would simply discover what kind of life the client wishes to lead and would help write up a living will in accord with those preferences. I'm not sure that we could discover the patient's true wishes if a doctor were running the discussion; the biases of the professional would undoubtedly leak through. I don't think most doctors can be impartial in that situation.

Re: The Hood Conjecture Results

Mudley — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:28:21 -0000

First they'll bloat the welfare state so that they can get their hands on some weed, then they'll shut down free trade for a free bag of Fritos.

Re: The Economic Patriot Act

Mudley — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 06:04:37 -0000

I believe someone once called this the "Shock Doctrine."

Re: The “Annually Appropriated/Authorized Until Revised” Spending Distinction

Mudley — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:30:17 -0000

How about Fiat Spending? I think this term is both accurate and non-judgmental.

Re: Non-Discretionary Spending

Mudley — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:51:57 -0000

I think the distinction is that, based on current law, the recipient has a legal right to the money (It is different with Medicaid, which is an entitlement to the state, not an individual one, but the principle is the same). For discretionary spending, appropriations committees can provide less or more funding than Congress originally had in mind when the program was established, but non-discretionary spending is governed by the controlling legislation and must be fully funded. Technically I guess you could say that Congress still has discretion, in that they could change the law, but it is the appropriations committees that do not.

The border fence is a good example of discretionary spending. Congress can "build" one without ever actually appropriating any funds -- funding can be doubled one year and zeroed out the next without any intervening legislation.