Some way going forward. That may or may not be clear. It may get up to the Supreme Court in the next few years. I think yesterday the 4th circuit heard a case heard oral argument on a case whether south side data is protected. 5th circuit says it is not protected. These are issues working their way up to the Supreme Court. I think in general justices tepid to be relatively sensitive to how Technology Changes privacy and this is a theme if you look back, the thermal imaging case from 2000. Jones versus united states, the gps case from 2012. Then riley versus california in just this past year this year. Those are all cases where if you just look at the case law, the precedents, you assume the government won would win. Those are all three cases where in fact the government lost. In jones and in riley they lost unanimously. Justices i think republican generally attuned to these concerns and lower courts as well. Were seeing Fourth Amendment law evolve. If we had a functioning congress, i t
Bit, you have to take a stance. And my Technical Work is in maximum analysis of the social policy, and you have to take a stance of what the right question of the analysis would be, and what the decision of the government criteria would be. And so as well as the subtleties. Let me understand that point. So there may be circumstances where the government thinks that sitit is the National Interests to respond to uncertainty by taking the action now, but there may be other circumstances where where you come to the different conclusion . Well, i have a paper that came out this this past year in the economic journal on the Infrastructure Spending. And the big uncertainty is the productivity of spending, and what implication of tax policy. And then i crank out, because i am a technical e cop mist, i crank out the solutions to the problem for the government and i see that i can support higher or lowerr Infrastructure Spending based on what the decision criteria the government is going to p be
Home from those extended duration shifts. Its been recognized in the Transportation Industry since 1907 when in the United States Congress Passed legislation saying anyone working for more than 12 hours would be considered that its illegal and the Supreme Court has ruled that theyre considered impaired by fatigue if theyre operating a train for more than that time, and yet we dont have any limits, even though we now have limits for commercial drivers, train operators, bus drivers, pilots, mariners and so on, there are no limits on work hours in socalled nonsafety sensitive industries, and yet in those industries, as we heard today, in those industries people are driving home many times for doing super commuting. We know from our own research that theres 168 increase Motor Vehicle crashes after working extended duration shifts. We have no limits in the United States for those work hours, and i think an important countermeasure would be to consider limitations such as the european workin
Political restraints, this is a good thing. This is removing the con strant on theest maters that my concern is exactly what youre talking about. That theyll actually be pushed that congress would be mad if they say we dont know. Im very sympathetic because were just saying this is good for growth or bad for growth. But the problem is the answer should be no if we dont no. Do we know enough about this . Yeah, we know enough about this as just as much as efg educational that we score. I think we know a lit less. Im not sure thats true. Honestly. We know that the precise answer of zero is exactly wrong. Theres no virtue to being exactly wrong. By knowing that there might be an impact and saying well ignore it. So i think sort of doing this makes sense. Remember, this bill would probably not get dynamically scored. Its not big enough, the one youre worried about. This is only done in the house rule and should only be done for a major piece of legislation at large predictable impacts. So m
Its just over two hours. For those of us who have been in washington for a while feels a little bit like this person will say this and then this person will say the predictable thing and then marty sul van will say this and bob mcintyre will say that. So well probably have a little of that today. But our goal today was to move a little bit beyond the conversation about whether dynamic scoring is either the best thing to ever happen to washington or the worst thing to ever happen to washington. And, instead, to focus a little more on what is it actually mean and how do you do it. What were going to focus on today is skpaktly how it would be done. What assumptions youd have to make. What are the challenges that the jct and the cbo staff face in doing it. How can it be best presented so that members of congress and the rest of us have a clue as to what the analysis does. So this is a bit of an experiment. And, moving beyond the basic pissing context in washington to look at a little bit o