The Second Bill of Rights was a proposal made by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944 to suggest that the nation had come to recognize, and should now implement, a second bill of rights. Roosevelt did not argue for any change to the United States Constitution; he argued that the second bill of rights was to be implemented politically, not by federal judges. Roosevelt’s stated justification was that the “political rights” guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had “proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.” Roosevelt’s remedy was to create an “economic bill of rights” which would guarantee…

via Second Bill of Rights – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Is that a good thing, keeping the banks free to run the mechanics of policy without political considerations, or a source of risk (see: United States)?

Leaving aside the question of whether it is a good idea to use these reserves to pay off international creditors – something that perhaps only the future will tell – is there a good reason why central banks should be “independent” of their elected governments?

The business press, which has the support of the vast majority of economists on this question, thinks there is. The basic argument is that if the central bank is not able to determine monetary policy free of “political considerations”, then politicians will force the bank to be “too loose” with monetary policy and the country will end up with dangerously high levels of inflation.

This would seem to be a tough argument to swallow for anyone who believes in representative democracy. Fiscal policy – the government’s decisions with regard to spending and taxation – is also a major determinant of economic activity. There are important tradeoffs that affect the livelihood, income and employment of most of the population. Yet in the US, these decisions are entrusted to our elected representatives in Congress, together with the executive.

There is no obvious reason why monetary policy – the central bank’s decisions with regard to interest rates and money supply – is so different from other major policy decisions that it should be specially insulated from the electorate. There is no valid analogy, for example, to the independence of the judiciary – which is based on a theory of separation of powers, or checks and balances, ostensibly to limit abuses of power or infringements on civil rights and liberties.

via Answer to the people, not big finance | Mark Weisbrot | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk.

A new Washington Post-ABC News Poll shows far more Americans trust congressional Republicans to handle the big issues than they did just a few months ago, as public approval of Washington sinks.

via FOXNews.com – Republicans Winning Back Trust on Handling of Big Issues, Poll Shows.

…and because politics seems to speak so little to what they are going through – because they understand that politics today is a business and not a mission, and what passes for debate is little more than a spectacle – they turn inward, away from the noise and rage and endless chatter. [Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope]

If the Liberals trigger an election Monday, I imagine even more Canadians will be alienated from our increasingly self-referential, navel-gazing, game-playing political system.

I believe that is essential to our fundamental freedom that government power be pushed down to as local a level as is practical. Clearly there are some things that are best handled at the national and perhaps international level, but if it can reasonably be handled provincially or civically, it should be.

Why is this? Because it allows us to vote with our feet. If we find taxation or regulation draconian, it’s relatively easy to move to a another city or province…  [Dr. Roy]

As sor points out, Jack won more votes than EACH the runners-up.
But not more votes than ALL their combined vote.
Should Jack step aside for a Liberal led coalition in his riding?

[Comments on Kirk West]

I don’t know enough about all of the different voting methodologies such that I can put all my weight behind first-past-the-post, but as I noted to Steven Fletcher at his forum on the topic of Democratic Reform, FPtP certainly offers a pragmatic road to governance that allows legislators to get on with the business of legislating instead of coalition building. Wilson’s comment above re-frames the concept nicely.