Beyond Labels

For Monday, we may discuss one (or both) of two topics:

The TikTok “Ban”

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Friday, January 10 with regard to whether it should grant an injunction delaying implementation of a federal law mandating the divesture or closure of TikTok. The parties have been asked to brief and argue the following question:

Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to [TikTok and owner ByteDance], violates the First Amendment.

We touched on the topic a bit at last week’s meeting, but the oral arguments–together with more advance preparation–may make this subject worth a deeper dive.

For a quick overview, here are links to the Wikipedia article, a SCOTUSblog post, and a Washington Post backgrounder. For those who want to dive a bit deeper, here are links to the Supreme Court dockets (24-656 and 24A587).

We can discuss:

• Should First Amendment rights ever be abridged in the interest of “national security?”
• If so, how high should the bar be set? Clear, compelling, and imminent national security risks? Or potential risks, that are much less clear, compelling, and imminent? Where should we draw the line?

DOGE

Incoming President Trump’s designation of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy as heads of a new “Department of Government Efficiency” (not a real Cabinet-worthy department) has triggered discussion about just how much spending could be reduced if the government were more efficient.

We can discuss two aspects:

• What can we expect of the actual Musk/Ramaswamy effort?
• More broadly, where do we think the government can be more efficient, and what would it take to implement those ideas?

Here’s the Wikipedia (the new Cliff Notes) take on the subject, together with a recent op-ed piece that speaks to a small part of the potential opportunity for increased efficiency.

After last Monday’s session ended, I suggested to Scott that we discuss the proper purposes of the federal government. An opinion piece in today’s New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/27/opinion/elon-musk-industrial-policy.html?unlocked_article_code=1.kk4.vx7n.2Ag_Jo35qjd5&smid=url-share) made me think we could address a.narrow slice of that question:

Does (and should) the federal government make “investments”?

I won’t be there on 30 December since I’ll be helping to make soup for the Simmering Pot that morning, so maybe we could discuss this topic on 6 January.

To answer these questions, I think we’d need to address other questions, including the following:

What is an “investment”? Is the definition the same for the federal government as it is for the private sector? If not, how do the definitions vary, and why?

Have some federal government expenditures in the past been “investments” ( e.g., the Louisiana Purchase; the purchase of Alaska; the Erie Canal; the Panama Canal; the space program, to the extent it generated spin-offs like communications, weather, GPS, and other satellite programs; funding for medical research or development of the internet; the national highway program; the air traffic control system; military spending on drones, radar, and other technologies; tax subsidies and credits to mitigate climate change; funding for social safety net programs like food stamps; etc.). If some of these have not been “investments, why not and what were they?

What recent federal government expenditures that were labeled as “investments” were actually not investments? If not, why not and what were they?

Should the federal government articulate an “investment” policy? If so, what should it be?

Should the federal government only make “investments” that the private sector would not make on its own? How should that determination (a “but for” test) be made?

How should the federal government determine whether its “investments” have been “successful”?