A few things to notice:

• Because each frame is a 12-month running average, the map doesn’t show whether some counties have started to pull out of high unemployment.
• Michigan and Oregon were hurting before the bust really got started.
• What makes the Rocky Mountain states (the swath starting at Montana and the Dakotas and moving South) have lower unemployment from start to finish?

No matter where you fall on these issues, I think it’s worth watching.

The trouble with talking about government budgets, even ones as small as a city or local school district, is that big numbers rapidly lose meaning to people. It’s more visceral to talk about a dozen people (or dollars or “things”) than to discuss a million of then. Big numbers are hard to visualize.

Take dictionaries for example. Without peeking, is 10,000 words a good dictionary? What about 20,000? How many words are there in a typical collegiate dictionary? Take a guess before looking at the answer.

You’ve heard the politicians say it (and it’s true): “A million here, a million there and pretty soon we’re talking real money.” One of the ways I try to make the number a bit more “real” is to estimate how many people could be employed at a particular job for that amount. Try it. How many professional workers (between $50,000–60,000 annual salary) can be employed in government jobs for $1M? (My answer.)

John Gruber linked to a blog called Information is Beautiful, highlighting an impressive infographic comparing budget numbers in the billions. (The same link that starts this post. Once there, click the graphic to see how the data was sourced, along with viewer comments.) Go see it!

How would government change if budget committees published these numbers visually instead of numerically?

A federal judge denies an individual of property (contents of an email account) without notification, with no opportunity for appeal (the person is not a party to the matter), and with no cause to suspect wrongdoing.

Saith Gruber, who dubs U.S. District Court Judge James Ware “Jackass of the Week”:

This is absurd:

1. Rocky Mountain Bank emailed confidential financial information to the wrong Gmail address./li>
2. The bank attempts to force Google to release the name of the owner of the email address. Google refuses without court order.
3. Federal judge James Ware orders Google to disable the email account — which belongs to someone who did nothing wrong and was sent the email message by mistake.

John Gruber, “Jackass of the Week: U.S. District Court Judge James Ware”, Daring Fireball. Accessed 2009-09-25

I think the post from Technologizer stabs at the root issue, though:

The temptation to heap scorn upon District Court Judge James Ware is obvious, but I’m most appalled by the reported initial actions of Rocky Mountain Bank. Why was anyone there e-mailing Social Security numbers to anyone?“Rocky Mountain Bank: Rocky, Rocky Security!” by Harry McCracken. Accessed 2009-09-25, emphasis added

It’s a good question. Why would any company ever allow sensitive information be sent through an unencrypted medium? Back up a step, though: Under any sane security policy, how could an individual even acquire a list of social security numbers on their desktop in the first place?

UPDATE (2009-09-28): Techdirt reports that Google and the bank have both requested the judge reinstate the account.

What do you make of arguments which state that disclosure is enough and that caps aren’t needed?

If voters know immediately where candidates are getting their funding they can usually pretty well decide whether or not the politician has the same policy preferences they support.

Comments to alt-tag.com, “Utah Campaign Finance”, 2009-06-29

We have disclosure, yet behavior that I find ethically questionable still exists. There are several possible reasons: voters aren’t aware of it (possible), the majority of voters don’t care (likely), or I’m up in the night (very likely). I noted previously that to my recollection, when these ethical questions are brought up on the campaign trail only intra-party challenges have succeeded. This leads to a fourth possibility: voters prefer ethically questionable members of their own party to unknown members of the “opposition.” (Better the devil you know that the devil you don’t.)

To answer Jeremy’s question a bit more directly, no, I’m not convinced disclosure is enough. Additional ethical standards and restrictions should be defined.

Even the question of whether campaign finance reform should be considered is being debated:

Is “campaign finance reform” about good government? We’ve long argued not—that reformers seem to care very little about governmental outputs, thinking it best to focus on an ideology of inputs. [T]he success of tax funding of campaigns is not measured by whether they lead to better government, but by the number of candidates who participate in the system.* If contributions can’t be shown to be a source of corruption, it is enough if they create “an appearance” of corruption. Make no mistake—this is an ideology, and a relatively blind one at that, for no study dissuades, no amount of experience shatters the belief that more reform is required. But historically, reformers have at least argued that they cared about good government.Brad Smith, “Is Campaign Finance Reform About Good Government?”, 2009-03-21, retrieved 2009-08-24

The argument is wrapped in a straw man (one can rightly care about both inputs and outputs), but does raise the question, “Why debate the issue?” At a high level, my response goes like this: good government is ethical; ethical government is more likely when its members are ethical; ethical behavior is more likely when clear standards are in place and ethics are openly discussed.

If standards should be put in place, how then should it be done? Jeremy continues:

Unlimited contributions allow for well financed new-comers who can pose a viable challenge to incumbents. Contribution limits end up benefiting those politicians already in power because they require that opponents have a much larger contributor base than is often possible.Comments to alt-tag.com, “Utah Campaign Finance”, 2009-06-29

I agree. After brainstorming, here are a few thoughts I’d love to see argued. (If you do post a response on your own blog, please add a link to the comments here—I’m not checking the bloghive as often as I’d like.)

Prohibit corporate donations

Corporations exist for a different purpose than citizens do. The difference in comparative wealth of corporations versus citizens should be enough to sustain this argument, but it’s not the only reason. The primary purpose of corporations is profit; it follows that the corporation’s primary purpose in financing/lobbying government is also profit. This is, I think, not generally in the best interests of citizens. For the same reasons, corporate contributions to political parties, PACs, and other political special interest groups should be restricted. (For example, corporate interference on health care issues.) There are significant restrictions on corporations at the federal level, but there is a fairly important case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court that could drastically alter the landscape. (Also here, here.)

Prohibit campaign contributions from other candidates’ funds

Nothing, I think, makes the U.S. Senate look like an old boys club than the massive campaign support members provide each other. Once one is “in” the club, it would certainly be difficult to turn aside such displays of friendship. Still, I’m not convinced that such behavior serves the public interest.

Require tracking of all contributions

In the age of credit cards and anonymous pre-paid debit cards, it is important, if one values disclosure, to closely track contribution from these sources. The Obama campaign was criticized for accepting contributions from anonymous sources (although nothing was ever done, largely, I suspect because there wasn’t enough information to prove anything), and it was speculated they also accepted multiple contributions below current disclosure levels that in aggregate would have exceeded legal limits. (See e.g., Washington Post, New York Times, and here. See also criticism of McCain’s funding.) This is not the first campaign to face this criticism, and won’t be the last until finance law catches up with the Internet. (See also here.)

Restrict campaign funds to a single election cycle

The uphill financing battle faced by newcomers is significant. A more equitable approach would be to restrict campaign accounts to have a fixed duration (say, three years before the election). The surplus would be required to be donated to charity (or some such). This would require donations to be tagged at donation time for a specific election year as a preventative action against an account-shuffling shell game, but this wouldn’t be a bad thing.

FYI: a $24 B bailout spread across 218 M adults (2003) is about $110 per person, not including the cost of paying back interest on the change in national debt.

If someone knows the original source of this, please let me know so I can give proper credit.

America seems to have an irrational soft spot for its auto industry. It’s a shame that these once-great companies have fallen so far, but the simple truth is that Ford and G.M. make ugly, inefficient cars that few people want to buy.John Gruber, daringfireball.net, 8 Nov 2008