Legal Commentary

Before I ride off again into the prawfs sunset, let me mention two other projects I hope readers might find of interest.  The first tries to tie together three literatures--federalism, charities, and privatization-- that don't usually go together.  The basic point is that, while the acccepted rationale for charity assumes that we need the nonprofit sector to give us diversity, experiments, and public goods the median voter wouldn't want, in fact by most accounts federalism can give us that, too.  So any account of why we should have charity has to tell a different story.  My story is that federalism has some predictable failings (e.g., tax competition makes redistribution difficult), many of which can be overcome by combining federalism with a robust nonprofit sector. 

I've dithered an unusually long time in getting this piece ready -- first adding lots of math, then spinning the math off into a separate paper.  But, finally, it's out and should be on law review editors' desks at this very moment.       

The second piece won't be ready for a few weeks, but might be of interest to both of the readers who enjoyed the series on UI funding.  It considers the political economy of state savings, argues that state "rainy day funds" are the best way to overcome the crippling effects of state budgets on the national economy, and offers design options for rainy day funds that would actually work.   Look for it in a few weeks.  Thanks again to the prawfs community -- ciao.