Libertas Populi

news - 6/13

2011-06-13T11:34:00.004-04:00

Today's See-I-Told-You-So Edition.

Energy prices to skyrocket. Now that gasoline prices have roughly doubled since he took office, electricity prices are set to jump 50% as well.
Obama scrapped the old missile defense plan for a new one - which I noted would require placing several aegis cruisers in the Black Sea, and would probably irritate the Russians even more. Well...

Point-Counterpoint: Fiscal and monetary tightening caused the 1937 downturn right as the Great Depression was ending. Not-so-fast; there were other factors too.

Mankiw v. Mankiw: The demagoguing of health care reform v. The next step on the road to serfdom

WSJ Op: The Economy Is Worse Than You Think

The new, anemic jobs report

Now the QE2 is coming to its end, has it been good, bad or nothing?

Are we living in the beginning of the Age of Fossil Fuels, and not its end?

This sounds familiar... Paul Ryan's foreign policy address: decline is a choice

Romney's candidacy declaration speech

Romney on global warming. He almost sounded good on it, until he blew it.

Obligatory Steyn: High Function Junction. A Kahn Dominic Strauss writes in to say: "Like all high-functioning men, we need our dalliances with the peasantry on occasion. What else do we keep them around for?"

Obligatory Niall Ferguson: An Rx for China

news - 6/1

2011-06-01T14:44:00.003-04:00

DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz demonstrated her idiocy twice publicly in the last few days. The first was this, in which she attempts to scare voters against the fascistic Republicans who would dare think illegal immigration is, um, illegal. She follows that up, the very next day, with some typical Medicare demagoguery. When asked what the Democrat plan is to bring Medicare to solvency, her response is: Republicans want to kill grandma and future grandmas are going to be thrown to the wolves. Factcheck and WaPo have both knocked her for it. I personally find it rather absurd that Democrats try to portray modern America as some sort of Dickensian novel, with Republicans, rather than angling for a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage, are going for a Tiny Tim in every house and a child-labor army for every fatcat.

Mini-scandal over the weekend in which Congressman Weiner gets caught with his pants down. Unfortunately, I mean that literally. On the rare occasion it has been covered, it has usually been scoffed at, dismissed, and taken the Rep's word for it. Of the few who have covered it, Ace has done an exemplary job at hounding out and predicting how it would unfold.

Now, I don't know a thing about how Twitter works for people using it, other than a person can post short messages either publicly or directly (and privately) to a person. My theory was that it was possible that she wasn't the intended recipient of the tweet. I know there have been a couple times where I was scrolling too fast on my phone's call list and accidentally started calling someone I didn't mean to. Or jumping between several IM windows and write the wrong message to the wrong person. An alternate theory I have heard was that he sent a message along with the picture, and, being interpreted as too long a message, the text was sent privately and the photo was posted publicly. At any rate, the reason I was thinking that BustyInSeattlemight not have been the intended recipient has to do with this.

As to why the media has been largely silent on it... Weiner is rather a big, uh, swinger in NY politics, though he is just a little wiener everywhere else. Problem is: most of the major media outlets are (a) liberal and (b) based in NY. So if (a) doesn't follow, then at least (b) does. Perhaps that might be why conservative and "conservative" outlets have been rather limited in touching this story. One solid exception was this exchange (with vid) on CNN. And here is Ace, explaining psychology 101.

Totally unrelated: 25 rules of lying/misinformation

Wired's DangerRoom: China's 1st carrier is a piece of junk. My only concern around it is that it could act as a decoy for a pack of subs guarding it.

A counter-argument to the anti-ethanol position.

Samuelson: Europe at the edge of the Abyss

Some obligatory Niall Ferguson: Austerity Works

Slides on a lecture in regards to the current economic downturn. h/t Mankiw

Higher-fat diet may not be so bad after all. Old news to those who know how the Atkins Diet (and similar ones) is supposed to be done.

news - 5/19

2011-05-19T02:34:00.005-04:00

Earlier this week, we hit the debt ceiling. In order to makeup the shortfall the Treasury has sought a temporary fix by raiding federal pension funds for short-term liquidity.

The odd case of Mitch Daniels' marital life: His wife left in 1993, after 15 years of marriage, their four daughters were ages 8-14. They remarried four years later, so the kids were 12-18. As a single dad, I totally understand the "kids need their biological parents" argument. A single dad with four daughters and at that age? I'm shocked they didn't tear him apart... and he probably swallowed his pride to allow them to have some semblance of normalcy and allow himself some assistance in raising them. At this point though, the youngest is ~26... so there shouldn't be a question of how running affects the kids. Instead, he is deferring to her so that she can choose whether or not to be savaged in the press. So he is either the supreme beta of betas or is someone of such nobility and humility that we probably don't deserve someone like him in office. And yeah, I think 80%+ are going to superficially glance at this story and think he is a beta-wuss running for an alpha-dog office.

Obama's (soon-to-be) illegal war in Libya. Heh.

Mitt Romney recently gave a speech in which he discussed health care reform. Below is the longest cut of it I could find.

Should RomneyCare be thought of as an asset? The author largely reiterates what Mitt covers in the speech, as well as what I wrote earlier. But the speech has not been well received. And here is another take on it, with some additional points.

Lots of ObamaCare waivers for Pelosi's district.

Obama on the War Powers deadline: pfft. I don't need any authorization. This means Congress is left with 3 choices: withhold funding, impeachment, or ignore it and hope it goes away. The Republicans probably don't want to look like they are "depriving the troops", so the 1st option won't take place. Nobody wants Biden to take over - except for Mr. "Sleepin'-wit-da-fishes". As for the last option, it will mean the end of the WPA, courtesy of Mr. Nobel Peace Prize. But remember, George Bush was the cowboy war criminal.

Some obligatory Mark Steyn. This time on the modern aristocracy. When I discuss it (or Ace does, as he did here), this is one of the more glaring examples to which I refer.

ARRA effectiveness

2011-05-14T20:51:00.004-04:00

Courtesy of Mankiw, is a new study on the effectiveness of ARRA (The Stimulus bill). Their conclusion:

We estimate [ed. - the spending portion of] the Act created/saved 450 thousand government-sector jobs and destroyed/forestalled one million private sector jobs. State and local government jobs were saved because ARRA funds were largely used to o ffset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than boost private sector employment. The majority of destroyed/forestalled jobs were in growth industries including health, education, professional and business services. Searching across alternative model specifications, the best-case scenario for an effectual ARRA has the Act creating/saving a net 659 thousand jobs, mainly in government.

So we racked up a half trillion dollars in additional debt (plus interest), and it only cost us no more than 500 thousand jobs? What a deal!

news - 5/12

2011-05-12T01:46:00.000-04:00

Mankiw: In this instance, I agree with Krugman... What he is agreeing with is how inflation should be calculated, and thus how a central bank targets monetary policy. Krugman states, "Volatile prices are volatile, which is why they shouldn’t be used to determine monetary policy." Under this view, things like oil, corn, and other commodities are not counted. Personally, I understand it when trying to determine "core inflation", but a recent incident comes to mind: the "I can't eat an iPod". The argument goes, that inflation is minimal because they factor in things like iPods and that you can get one now that is twice as powerful for half the price, after just a couple years being out. Now, isn't that volatile too? Why does a television, who's price declines 50% in two years, count while the price of food doesn't? Secondly, why use tech v1.0 as the old price and tech v2.0 as the new price? While new methods for harvesting chicken eggs have been developed, no one has invented a new egg. Shouldn't that be more indicative of inflationary trends than rapidly evolving tech? Lastly, it ignores the psychological aspect to economics. People see the price of food every time we go to the grocery store; we see the price of gasoline every time we drive.

As a secondary argument, Mankiw points to inflationary pressures on labor. While the linkage has been significantly weakened in the Philips Curve, there is still a weak relationship, and we do have 10% unemployment. People will accept lower-paying jobs in weak economies because of job scarcity, but will be increasingly reluctant to do so as they see prices climbing. With high unemployment, and even higher (20%) underemployment, the downward pressure on wages is significant.

Soros editorial: Why I agree with (some of) Hayek. I actually agree with (some of) his argument. In fact, the things he notes are correct. The problem comes in his conclusion, and a problem I have with those he terms "market fundamentalists". Some "market fundamentalists" are such believers in rational markets that they think top-down social engineering - of their variety - can work without negative consequences (which leads to the potential for a Black Swan event). They end up using the same macro market modeling as Keynesians, though for different purposes. Soros agrees with that policy, though for the opposite reason - that markets must be steered and regulated to avoid the flaws in the market. While Soros appears to be focusing on the theme of Road to Serfdom, he misses the theme of The Fatal Conceit: "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."

Speaking of economic theory, EconStories' new video is out!

How debt damages economic performance. "Shockingly", it works just like it does at the personal level.

So have the poor gotten poorer, while the rich got richer during the last 30 years? A new look.

Two new environment articles.

1. Reason article on fraking

2. Scotland now paying wind farms to not operate

More Govt. Silliness:

1. The latest kids' game to get banned.

2. FDA's huge contraband bust

SkyNet story CDXII: Boeing's new drone

Hey PLA, want to see our secret stealth helicopter?

From Cracked, the 5 downsides to high intelligence.

news - 3/27

2011-03-27T20:53:00.004-04:00

Today's obligatory VDH, on Libya.

Same topic, and today's obligatory Mark Steyn.

And Time's Swampland on the odd entrance into the Libya conflict.

Two companion pieces on the CBO's analysis of Obama's latest budget. The first is from Powerline, and the second by Ace. All this time I thought the Left was anti-foie gras. fatten the hog, engorge the beast... it's getting to dangerous levels. Don't forget "bipartisan financing", which is code for increased taxes, supported by both sides, included in the budget proposal. In other words, skyrocket the debt to such levels, conservatives have to vote for increased taxes so the nation doesn't fall into financial ruin.

news - 3/16

2011-03-16T18:16:00.002-04:00

Funny-if-it-weren't-so-tragic of the day: WH insists they are like a William Wallace ninja assassin when it comes to ensuring "Ghaddafi must go" are not just words.

Q: "Doesn't there come a point to make a -- where you have to make a decision?"
A: blah blah blah... "And I would suggest to you that that is what leadership is all about."

Yep. Obama definitely has his ninja warlock mojo going on. The issue is that this is not an isolated incident in his foreign policy plan. If he acts, he has very poor choicemaking when doing so; if he doesn't act, he is de facto supporting the bad guys. Quiet on Iran until after the protests were violently crushed; delay after delay in Af-Pak policy; siding with the Chavista in Honduras; Russia; missile defense; Israel; Gitmo; civilian trials for terrorists; Japan's current troubles; now Libya, which couldn't be called too much of a surprise since Egypt and Tunisia already were in a state of revolution. If it took place occasionally, it could be excused. It could even be thought of as the occasional bit of realpolitik, considering certain realities in places like the Middle East (e.g. dictator or islamofascist). Instead it seems more like chronic incompetence at best.

From an unlikely source, Yglesias at Think Progress: the dangers of make-work liberalism

I think it’s important not to do that. The important thing about public services is the provision of services, not the provision of jobs...

Over the longer run if you can make the private economy work to provide growth and jobs and income, then the public sector needs to be generous to be competitive. But the reverse strategy of building up a generous public sector as the lever for producing an income-generating economy doesn’t work.

That right there is what distinguishes liberalism/progressivism from true marxism. Unfortunately, many on the Left either forget this distinction or use it to hide their true intentions. The latter part is proved here, with a h/t to Mankiw. Artificially increasing wages above what the market demands is bad for the economy. It both costs jobs, as demonstrated in that link, and contributes to an inflationary wage-price spiral.

Fritz on Hitler being right-wing (of the American variety)

MSN Money commentary: Five lies economists are telling us

Our federal budget is in such a dire position, that "mandatory" spending is now higher than total tax revenues. I covered this a bit in the last post, with the link here. The deficit is projected to be roughly the same as it has been the last couple years - about $1.5T. Many blame Bush via the tax cuts and the GWOT for its size. Okay, let's say the war never occurred and the tax cuts never took place (and assume that such things occurred in a bubble and hence had no effect on anything else). The question then is where are you planning on coming up with the other $1.3T? Now, granted, as a percentage of GDP, spending is higher than normal and the tax burden is lower than normal. So let's say the rosy scenario the WH predicts pans out and we rapidly close that gap. Where does the other $600B come from to balance the budget in the best year (and I emphasize that because even the WH projects that it will get worse afterwards). And note that, previously, the WH was projecting that for FY 2012... The WH proposed budget, currently being debated, is for FY 2012 and is at that $1.5T.

And that is all assuming we trend back toward a solid recovery. However, with the chaos in the Middle East, and Japan being hurt by the earthquakes, the tsunami, the nuclear meltdowns, and a volcano erupting, the risk of this turning into a double-dip has increased substantially. Also recall that a little over two years ago I postulated a high likelihood of volatile stagnation. If that scenario holds true, then we have several years to go before we're out of the economic malaise.

The entire state of Maine now has an ObamaCare waiver. One down, 57 to go.

Old interview with LP fave Hayek with Reason.

Incredible pictures of the sun

Closing funny: wikileaks' latest expose

news - 3/8

2011-03-08T15:46:00.004-05:00

oops. should have posted this awhile ago...

Romney v 1.0: D.C. could use parts of RomneyCare as a model

Romney v 2.0: "Our experiment wasn't perfect - some things worked, some didn't, and some things I'd change"

Courtesy of my hometown's wvir nbc affiliate... out: carbon, in: nitrogen footprints. When it comes to concerns over excess nitrogen getting into the environment, is it this or this? The only negative I know of is this.

Biochemistry and Charlie Sheen's tiger blood of a ninja warlock.

Is gravity left-handed? Well, neutrinos, organic molecules, Babe Ruth, and myself are, so why not?

Heh. Obama apparently now in favor of indefinite detention at Gitmo and restoring military tribunals there for captured terrorists.

Some obligatory Mark Steyn, covering our long-standing presence in Germany, the attack on our soldiers there, and demographics.

Speaking of foreign policy, demographics, and obligatory... Niall Ferguson on the rise of Asia's "bachelor generation". He rather skips over the point that it should initially create social disorder at home, and that the governments stir up nationalist sentiment in order to redirect the angst.

I stumbled across this older article of his from last November. It's his guide to the coming sovereign debt crisis.

Chart detailing why our federal finances are so bad. Note that every bridge, soldier, and bureaucrat could be cut from the budget, and only then would we be close to balancing the budget. Meaning, either tax collections need to go up significantly (growing economy, higher rates) or entitlements will have to be significantly adjusted.

GAO detailing billions in waste.

Oh. And the debt accrued from last month alone is larger than the yearly from FY 2007.

de Toqueville on slavery along the Mason-Dixon line. And within it, is contained a gem on economics and why free peoples and free markets are superior.

Wash Times: Was financial terrorism involved in the 2008 crash? Ed @ HA shares some skepticism. This reminds me of a different story from two years ago, when Rep. Kanjorski said financial armageddon was narrowly averted.

news - 2/28

2011-02-28T15:57:00.002-05:00

Cristina Romer on the two sides to Fed policy. Funny how she calls her side of the argument "empirical" and the other side "theorist", when she ignores historical examples that demonstrate instances of failure with her approach. Inflation is the most damaging in a weak economy, when people's pocketbooks are tighter. Deflation, though potentially bad, can act as a salve since lower prices help people stretch their dollar.

MIT's Billion Prices Project. By using a far larger basket of goods, they have the potential to determine a more precise inflation number.

Obligatory Niall Ferguson piece, in which he advocates caution towards the ongoing Arab revolution. And here is a longer companion piece.

The latest analysis on civilian deaths in Iraq.

Wikileaks cables: fatal flaw in Bush's defense shield... it couldn't see an ICBM in time. However, I think this is in reference to Russian missiles (which it mentions near the end of the article). If that is the case, then I've already covered that earlier and McKittrick does here and here. And at a distance of 2000 km, that would bring it's range almost to Tehran.

Joe Klein... Wisconsin: The Hemlock Revolution. Noted liberal commentator comes down on the Republican side?

Why most Americans are both liberal and conservative

The case for conservatism (vs. libertarianism)

Are health care waivers unconstitutional?

Cronyism isn't capitalism

Jeff Jacoby: Made in the USA

Samuelson: the Real Reagan Legacy

News absurdity: NASA makes discovery: the oldest galaxy, from when the Earth was only 600 million years old. So... the Earth is older than the Milky Way?

Funny of the day

back to the basics - health care reform

2011-02-04T02:19:00.006-05:00

I've been pondering on where to go from here, now that ObamaCare's future is cloudy considering the recent Constitutional challenges. Here is an extended preview of my thoughts...

Part I:

There has been some discussion over Mitt Romney and MassCare being his poison pill. He has been steadfastly defending it, though with limited success and, frankly, a rather poor explanation of why. I'll try to explain what I think the origins of it are, and in so doing hope to start a broader discussion towards developing a better policy...

The first question we must ask is where does a person (in this case, Romney) view health care on the spectrum of goods and services? Is it a right, holding the same weight as free speech or right to bear arms? Is it like most other goods/services (e.g. a television)? Is it a social good, like education or firefighting, where there is considerable social benefit to it (and, conversely, considerable negatives when others don't partake)? Is it like a police department, where the power to act with violence is granted exclusively to the state?

He believes in universal health care, and thus a social good. As far as I know, he looks at it in the same way he looks at education (and quite frankly, most conservatives and libertarians look at education this way too) - that there is a significant social benefit to universalizing a social good. Now, that does not mean actually socializing or nationalizing it however; this isn't Democrat newspeak.

Of the problems, two common "market failures" are present: One is a Tragedy of the Commons/Moral Hazard issue and the other is a Freerider problem. As far as I know, the only recent attempt to address the moral hazard/TotC problem was actually in the Bush Medicare plan with the Medicare choices introduced, and more importantly, the creation of HSA's. Romney's doesn't, and Obama's actually works in the opposite direction.

Viewed as a social good, some variant of mandate becomes necessary in order to fix the freerider problem by establishing universality. This is what Romney was trying to address with his plan. It can range from "you must, under penalty of fines and imprisonment" to some type of voucher system. Do mandates work? Yeah, for the most part. Do mandates achieve the desired goal? Again: yeah, for the most part. Viewing it through the lens of education, most are fine with requiring kids to attend school, ranging from public schools and truancy laws to vouchers for private schools. But the problem with a mandate, as we know, is that it is an affront to the American philosophy.

Looking at that as an exercize, this brings us back to (1) is health care a social good?, and (2) what then is the appropriate policy response? As an aside, the major issues I see, with or without ObamaCare, are: TotC/Moral Hazard; freeriders; portability; and price inflation. But #2 is a whole other discussion to be had after #1 is determined.

Taking one step back, I'll say that yes I believe there are social goods. There is a strain of economic thought that says all goods and services are equal. While I get the general principle, and is fine for general modeling, it falls short in real-world application because it has a bit of flawed keynesian consumption concepts wrapped up pretty in market libertarianism. It also essentially denies the existence of occasional complications in basic market theory - like natural monopolies. But then the question arises: should we even do anything about it? Specifically with health care, is it just "it's their responsibility"? If so, does that address all the problems? Is even wanting to address those problems technocratic arrogance?

So running through the list I mentioned earlier... is it a right? Many on the Left think so, as a positive right. Examples include right to housing, health care, food, etc. By being a necessity, to the Left, it becomes a right. Standard libertarian thought is against the notion of positive rights because it means the confiscation of someone else's time, labor, or wealth... that the only true right is a negative right - right to free speech, religion, assembly, personal defense, privacy. This is the great distinction between classic American philosophy and Progressivism. FDR called for a second Bill of Rights; Obama has spoken of the Constitution's shortcomings and the need of positive rights as well.

Another aspect is social good vs. necessity. Some of the arguments in favor of universalizing health care have been met with the retort of "why not food/housing/etc?" But are there always significant social benefits to necessities? And then, does it depend upon whether we are talking about high-density or low-density populations? I think that is where the differentiation between social goods and positive rights exists. By being in a society that provides a fire department, you have a "right" to the protection it provides. But it wasn't created because you have a right to that; it was created so that your house doesn't burn down because the neighbor catches his on fire. He could freeload off your fire insurance, so instead it is mandated that all participate via taxes.

Is it something granted exclusively to the state? Nothing in the Constitution says so. But then, I know of nothing in which the policing power of violence is explicitly and solely granted to the state either. There is mention of Congress's exclusive power to raise an army, that states have a right to form a militia, and we have the right to keep and bear arms. Philosophically, we have a natural right to self-defense. As part of the rule of law and "a tolerable system of justice" as Adam Smith put it, we give up the offensive side to the state. I think we can all agree that there is nothing philosophically or otherwise where health care can be classified as such.

Lastly, is health care a good/service just like nearly everything else? Is it just as ordinary as a television or shoe shine, or is there something particular to it that it warrants special treatment? Does it rise to the level of being considered a social good? This is where the debate on health care needs to begin.

ObamaCare is bad law; it makes a bad situation worse and is open to appalling levels of legalized corruption, with waivers for the politically-connected being the most glaring example. The prior state was deeply flawed too, and so regardless of what the fate of ObamaCare is, reform is needed. When out of power, we can argue our different ideology all we want. It is SOP around the world for voices out of power to do so. But when power is obtained, then comes the far more daunting task of actually governing - and that means turning ideology into good policy.

Part II:

As touched on, mandates aren't necessarily a bad thing. Also, I recall something that Taranto caught onto a few weeks ago... that if the mandate for ObamaCare is unconstitutional, what does that say about the privatization of social security? A retirement program is certainly less of a necessity or "social good" than health care could be considered. The only path I could possibly think of would be the link between the financial sector and our money supply. As a tangent, it makes me think of an idea by Niall Ferguson - that banks should be treated as utilities.

With respect to health care, I think there is another possibility of mandate to create universality - universal (partially-funded) HSA's. Vouchers have a problem in that it would be subsidizing health insurance, and like all subsidies, have a habit of increasing cost and distorting the market. With HSA's, people could choose to pay out of pocket... or allow the excess money to roll over to the next year. So I don't think there would be nearly the pressure on the price of insurance or health care services. As a point of reference, I ran the numbers a year or so ago, and we could hypothetically cover everyone with catastrophic coverage and $2000/year into an HSA for roughly the same price as what government spends on health care currently. Medicare + Medicaid is ~$900B annually. catastrophic care is $3000/household, with ~100M households = $300B. $2000 x 300M citizens = $600B. I'd be interested to see how well that stands up to scrutiny, as that is just back-of-the-napkin math.

Part III:

Personally, I believe that health care may rise to the level of being a social good - that I benefit from others being healthy. I say "may", because it is not as apparent as a fire department. The most obvious reason for it being a social good is communicable disease. But it can also mean greater productivity and greater production, in which case that means I live in a more prosperous society. Thus I gain from others being healthy. First though, we need to look at the major economic flaws in the system.

The moral hazard issue rises largely from the nature of modern insurance in that it is usually not really insurance; it is more like a pre-payment plan in which the benefits are individualized but the cost is socialized. In other words, TotC/Moral Hazard exists as a result of proper market function having broken down - the payment of the services and the recipient of those services are almost completely divorced from one another. To make matters worse, it's really the only industry in which you likely don't know the cost until after the service is provided. The end result is price inflation because there is an incentive to use health insurance when health care is not needed because "oh, i'm paying for it anyway" and other inverted market forces. The two major solutions to this are: (1) restoration of the payer/recipient link, and (2) price controls coupled with rationing.

Furthermore, as long as hospitals are legally required to treat people and ambulances required to pick them up, regardless of ability to pay, some sort of universal coverage can make more economic sense than having to shoulder the deadweight loss of those who don't pay - the freerider problem. Certainly, those who can't pay will likely suffer major financial repercussions, making this not quite the classic freerider issue. But it also means that the providers don't get paid either, which in turn causes everyone else's costs to increase. So in a sense, others end up shouldering the burden for those who don't pay. With respect to the freerider issue, I can only think of two solutions. (1) denial of service to those who cannot pay. Or, (2) universal coverage. I'm open to hearing other suggestions.

The little portability is a consequence of our fractured health structure and high proportion of employer-provided insurance. Medicare, Medicaid, required coverage under parents, various employer plans... it leads to a situation where people often don't have control over their own health care. There has been some attempt to remedy this, such as COBRA. But honestly, how many people are going to pay that when they just lost a job? It's vastly better if a person's health coverage is linked to him/her than island-hopping from one status to the next. Ultimately, there are two fixes for this as well: (1) individual plans, or (2) federal government.

So we see that for most problems there is a pro-liberty/pro-market solution and a pro-statist solution, which is why I earlier differentiated universality from socialism. Is the existence of a military socialist? Are school vouchers socialist? Is privatized, personalized social security socialist? The answer to such questions lies in what the nature of the service is, and what the policy is towards it.

Restoration of the payer/recipient link is easiest done via HSA's and/or catastrophic coverage, as it would restore natural market forces to health care (rather than market forces on insurance, as is currently the case). These are individual plans, so that is solved too. Lastly comes the question on what to do about the freerider issue. Universalizing such plans would both mandate the existence of a market and avoid the morally squeamish issue of denial of service. The last point I will make though is that does such a plan also give into technocratic desires, or has the system become so messed up that it requires a push back to healthy parameters?

related musings:

universal health care thoughts

additional health care musings

SOTU 2011 review

2011-01-26T10:14:00.007-05:00

Watched the SOTU last night. Here is the text. Most of the first third was feel-goodery that no one can really disagree with. Thoughts...

"Thanks to the tax cuts we passed..." uh. what tax cuts? do you mean the tax rate extension? how does that make people's pocketbooks bigger? What about the tax increases in the health care bill?

"The rules have changed. In a single generation, revolutions in technology..." Yeah, that's what happens. It's part of capitalism. But the fundamental rules of free enterprise and economics haven't changed.

"Winning the future"... is that a rip-off of Newt's book or the X-Files?

"None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be or where the new jobs will come from." Uh huh. That's why the free market works better than central planning.

"Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation". Yeah, that's what I said.

"And in a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology"... Wait what? I thought you just said no one knows what the next big industry will be or where the jobs will come from, and it's the free enterprise system that drives innovation. NASA, GPS, the Internet... those were government things, and almost exclusively defense-oriented. And it wasn't until the government let go that these were revolutionized.

"Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all"... Ok. That's good. Except for wind. Wind power is pretty dumb. But having diverse sources is good.

"America has fallen to ninth in the proportion of young people with a college degree"... Education is very important. Everyone should be continuing their education throughout their life. But let's face it: we have a large, diverse economy; not everyone needs that piece of paper for their job. And with the ongoing, rapid growth in the cost of a college education, it becomes more necessary that the education is tied to an increase of pay and less so that it is tied towards knowledge for knowledge's sake. Even unrelated education can have benefits as tangential concepts can lead to innovation. This becomes less likely as the cost increases.

"Some are the children of undocumented workers, who had nothing to do with the actions of their parents. They grew up as Americans and pledge allegiance to our flag, and yet they live every day with the threat of deportation" Uh no. They would be American citizens. Hence, not threatened with deportation.

"South Korean homes now have greater Internet access than we do." Every home has access. It just depends on whether or not they take advantage of it. Dial-up, DSL, cable modem, satellite, cell-phone network, T1... If you have a landline, cell phone, cable, or "a view of the southern sky", you have access.

"Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail." Completely impractical. What do you mean by "access"? Will 20% be forbidden?

"So tonight, I’m asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years" Sounds good. Getting rid of it would be better, even if replacing it with a consumption tax. You mention the trade imbalance. Wouldn't that help?

"Already, our exports are up." Have you seen what is going on with the dollar?

"what I’m not willing to do is go back to the days when insurance companies could deny someone coverage because of a preexisting condition"... so, in other words, not willing to go back to when coverage wasn't universal and mandatory? Because if you do, then the private insurance system would implode.

"So tonight, I am proposing that starting this year, we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years." From the 2007-2010 official budget, it has increased 30%, not including the add-ons like ARRA. And you are freezing it at this new high? And didn't you just propose a whole slew of new spending?

"This freeze will require painful cuts." Wait, is it a freeze or a cut?

How many times have we heard "This means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit" or "[t]o put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations" before? He proposes no reforms, just reforms he is against. The only options left are higher taxes for SS and price controls on health care.

"We should give them a government that’s more competent and more efficient." You do realize that streamlining would mean firing lots of duplicative government jobs, right? Common-sense reorganization is good.

"Look to Iraq, where nearly 100,000 of our brave men and women have left with their heads held high... The Iraq war is coming to an end." Is he really trying to take credit for this?

"Because Republicans and Democrats approved the New START treaty, far fewer nuclear weapons and launchers will be deployed" News Flash: the Cold War with the Soviets is over.

"With our European allies, we revitalized NATO and increased our cooperation on everything from counterterrorism to missile defense. We’ve reset our relationship with Russia, strengthened Asian alliances, built new partnerships with nations like India." We? By "we", you mean Bush, right? Because you didn't mess up those policies, you are taking credit?

"supports the democratic aspirations of all people" Channeling Bush again.

"serving the country they love because of who [sic] they love." Grammar! Instead of teaching AP science and calculus to kids who struggle with algebra, how about reinforcing english and history too? Does economics have too right-wing a bias to be included?

"And yet, as contentious and frustrating and messy as our democracy can sometimes be, I know there isn’t a person here who would trade places with any other nation [sic] on Earth" Lol. Grammar! But as we know what he was intending to say, we can say that isn't true either. I've known people who moved to France because they thought it was better. Tom Friedman has a love affair with China. Many have moved to the Far East or certain parts of Europe for a better business environment.

The end was strong. But it, again, makes me wonder if he realizes that his policy proposals don't match with what he praises. They should run parallel, not perpendicular.

...And later, one of his employees said of the rescue, “We proved that Center Rock is a little company, but we do big things.” (Applause.)

We do big things.

From the earliest days of our founding, America has been the story of ordinary people who dare to dream. That’s how we win the future.

We’re a nation that says, “I might not have a lot of money, but I have this great idea for a new company.” “I might not come from a family of college graduates, but I will be the first to get my degree.” “I might not know those people in trouble, but I think I can help them, and I need to try.” “I’m not sure how we’ll reach that better place beyond the horizon, but I know we’ll get there. I know we will.”

We do big things. (Applause.)...

--------

UPDATES:

Paul Ryan's response. It was better than Jindal's performance, but just felt like it lacked that crushing blow. Especially after the wearing-out from Obama's speech.

AP fact-checks Obama's speech and finds it lacking. Unlike the CBS post-speech analysis that was more vomit-inducing than Matthews' tingly-leg. Speaking of CBS, their "poll" that they claim is scientifically representative gives a 91% approval rating to his speech. Those are Saddam Hussein numbers. Did they stop to think that perhaps there is something wrong with those numbers if they are getting that result? Nah. I doubt it.

Meanwhile, Rassmussen's polling basically says that is garbage.

NH Union Opinion: Winning the Future with Trains and Windmills?

Robert Samuelson: Obama's Empty Evasion

Megan McArdle: The President As Micromanager

Palin's commentary. Nice to see her going more wonkish than red meat.

news - 1/20

2011-01-20T15:37:00.002-05:00

Via Ace, Taranto goes on to hypothesize why all the hatred for Palin. It follows much along the same vein as my theory I wrote mid-2009.

Speaking of echo-chamber... Forbes: The Dow is retracing the stagflation market.

No Hunger at the Fed: A powerful article from Asia-Times on why inflation is so devastating.

As Ed noted, this may be the most ghastly story we'll hear all year. I'll add one thing, from the grand jury report: 'the neglect is clearly not inadvertent: It is by design'. Patterico has more.

One thing I have noticed in the last several days has been the return of the ancient liberty v. tyranny argument. There are many who are enamored with China, and others who fear them.

Here is the NASA Climate Chief stating that China should lead a boycott of the US.
A must-read essay by Mark Steyn: Dependence Day, on the erosion of personal liberty
FP: Why China is not the future
Jonah Goldberg echoes that thought

NYT: Stuxnet was a joint US/Israeli project.

news - 1/15

2011-01-15T11:33:00.008-05:00

In thinking back over the Ahmadinejad-Wikileaks news I mentioned in the previous post, it reminded me of Vonnegut's work Mother Night. The story is about an individual who is facing a war crimes tribunal after WW2 for his work as a Nazi propagandist. In his memoirs, he reveals he was actually an American agent feeding critical information cleverly hidden within his radio messages. By the time the tribunal occurs, he so struggles with what he had done as a Nazi propagandist that he hangs himself in his holding cell. "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."

Riots in Tunisia are being dubbed the Jasmine Revolution.

Russia says they will pull out of START if US missile defense weakens their arsenal. Which I suppose any missile defense at all would be sufficient. While it has recently been argued that the treaty has nothing to do with missile defense by the American pro-START side, I suspect many of those same individuals will be breaking out the old playbook (Star Wars!, unproven!, violates important treaties!) when future missile defense is proposed.

Now there are calls for Congress to work together and show unity. Kerry has suggested that they come together to pass green jobs legislation. Others have suggested a mixing of party affiliation during the SOTU. Because nothing says national healing from a tragedy and ensuing blood libel like passing left-wing policies and a rearrangement of seats so the applause lines don't look quite so partisan on camera.

Telegraph Op: The only way to save the euro is the destruction of the member states. It reminds me of a point I have made for years with regards to the EU - that its form cannot last, as it is essentially a confederacy. Confederacies are unstable systems of government, as has been shown time and again throughout history. Given time, they either collapse (or are conquered), or they consolidate into a far more centralized system.

Homeland Security is cancelling the "virtual border fence" due to ineffectiveness and massive cost overruns. Instead of being the humane, modern way.

I understand the hypothetical need for permits so as to prevent hypothetical chaos and fighting over squatting on certain locations, but shouldn't it be a bit easier?

Turning malignant cancer benign. I wonder if this has anything to do with the ability of certain salamander species to regrow limbs, but it not grow out-of-control like current fetal stem cell treatments do.

NYT: BP spill report claims Jindal was just showboating. Something about this doesn't smell right. First, there is the claim that the barriers didn't do much. I recall there was a substantial delay, not to mention that the actual devastation is far less than what was feared. It does also suggest that it was the federal response that saved the day, when several reports have stated that much of the oil was eaten by bacteria.

Courtesy of Taranto's BOTW, comes this actual example of political incitement of violence. In this case, a momentary, rapid eruption by those on the Right. Here is an article describing what apparently took place. I'll second Taranto's point that there is a world of difference between martial metaphors and actual exhortations towards violence. None of the video shown actually shows violence (and elements of it actually seem somewhat staged), though it is certainly not within more common American tradition of proper political conduct and decorum. As it is centered around Tea Party-backed candidate Popaditch arriving, I would assume that the story is largely legitimate, though no violence is visible and no arrests were made. Here is a counter-argument to the one presented (as far as I can tell) only in that MSNBC segment and in that one college newspaper. It has more video and less MSNBC, which is good if just from a primary source perspective.

Heh. A few weeks ago, I noted how if one overlaid the history of Western civilization atop the climate history of the region, one would notice that warmer weather tended to coincide with better times, and conversely, cooling periods were marked by chaos. Here is a study Reuters reports on that, at the core, says the same thing. They do try to fudge the story a bit by trying to link modern AGW theory to it, with phrases like "climate instability" instead of cooling.

news - 1/13

2011-01-13T21:06:00.005-05:00

I suppose the big news in recent days is the shooting in Arizona. As the full picture has not emerged (nor do I suspect it will), I will keep my commenting to a minimum on it. First, it appears the individual was a lone lunatic. Second, the class and decorum of many people have been revealed as a result of the tragedy, and there appears to be something of a pattern to it. One need only compare this to this. Other conservative voices have commended Obama for his speech, such as here and here. Then there is the odd split in which Rush Limbaugh and Kirsten Powers take issue with it, while others like Krauthammer liked it.

Here is Palin's speech, which ABC oddly complains along the lines of, "why does she have to insert herself into this?" That last article is definitely worth a read. He links this commentary of Ace's and a great insight by Treacher - that the Left is seriously suggesting Palin (et al.) have been engaging in voodoo in order to have caused this. I do have one mi bbbbrttrrttr ally it is quite small, as he believes. But most people have the possibility to fall into this category, depending upon the information they are given. Earlier that day, a coblogger of his (PA) wrote of an old concept called "yellow journalism", in reference to today's politcal-media complex. In it, he notes how the nation was driven to war - the Spanish-American War, to be specific - based upon a false premise. Another cluster of examples would be during the revolutionary era, when many were trying to foment dissent and rebellion amongst the populace of the colonies. This is where the power of the new media lies - even a joe average nobody can research primary source information and publicize the real truth rather than the filtered product.

One more thought that I thought worth noting is this: Is it time for a national debate on the mentally ill? Ace comments too on it, with this critical part:

Further, as far as nanny-stating and size of the government -- it costs money to lock people up this way. They're not criminals so you can't just warehouse them (and even that's expensive); you also have to pay for doctors and treatments and such. With the government already unable to pay for the responsbilities it has undertaken, how can any fiscal conservative justify a bold new area of government growth?

On the other hand: One can argue the government really never should have abandoned this particular mission to this extent, as ensuring the public safety-- and caring for those who plainly are incapable of caring for themselves -- is a core government mission.

But still: The cost.

My take: If it is a core government mission, then the cost really should be of secondary concern - that it has to do with efficiency and efficacy rather than whether or not it should be done.

--------

And while the country has been focused on the shooting, Lebanon is teetering. again.

I don't take quite the offense to this statement of Obama's as some thin-skinned Brits have, but I do find it odd considering history of the last fifty years or so. The reason why it can be excused is that politicians say this sort of stuff all the time and should be taken as standard-fare foreign policy pandering.

According to Wikileaks, Ahmadinejad isn't the problem... the mullahs are. It is apparently at such a point where the head of the IRG will slap him and get away with it.

While the American pro-START side has insisted that missile defense has nothing to do with it, the Russian Duma thinks otherwise.

And just when we thought the EU was edging closer to collapse, in comes SuperChina!!! to the rescue! From a strategic perspective, this strengthens their hand in any future conflict, as they now have additional leverage. Meanwhile, they are testing out their new 5th-Gen stealth fighter, while we scrapped our F-22 and are putting the F-35 on a two-year probation.

CATO: there is only one way to rescue Social Security (and that is privatization). As I noted earlier, the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare mandates will probably kill this idea, unfortunately.

somewhat related: according to CATO, the govt may be cooking the books on healthcare spending.

This may seem like a minor story, but I think there is something major to take away from it... As Ace quips: the appeals court has "established a new legal principle, There is no "i" in independent".

Too much fluoride.

What your brain looks like after 20 years of (healthy) marriage. Basically, a short-term romance is like a narcotic whereas a long-term relationship is like morphine.

In seeing this, the world's largest cave, made me think of Journey to the Center of the Earth.

news - new year's edition

2011-01-01T01:16:00.007-05:00

May you live in interesting times

Originally finding this article via Hot Air, Jay Cost of RCP writes of political realignments, some which are successful and others that fizzle. A major takeaway is this passage:

I think there are two big takeaway points here. First, Republicans need to be ready for the intervention of events, especially our impending debt crisis, which could very well make or break the long-term prospects for Republican governance. Second, and just as important, they have to be prepared for the Democratic response to those events.

In reading this, it struck me that this is the plan behind the 2 year stay on the tax increases. Many on the right have said that they are anticipating the fight over this again in the next election season. Others, particularly on the left, have thought that is an overreach on what the political wind is and will be come that time. In two years, the deficit and debt will be worse, and thus a more dire position. Republicans, holding the House and thus the purse strings of the federal government, are placed in a catch-22: they can either significantly cut (and much will have to come in the form of entitlement reform), buckle on the tax issue, or take a mulligan and thus show they don't have the spine to be fiscally responsible despite the claims otherwise. So what will be done? And how will Republicans respond? I think this article Ace found gives a good glimpse of what is to come.

---------

China news:

China's Defense Minister Says They Are Preparing For, "Military Conflict In Every Strategic Direction"
How it Works: China's new Antiship Ballistic Missile
PM: What a war between the US and China might look like

There is a coming nexus of events surrounding this potential area of conflict. China does have an aging, majority male demographic as a result of their one-child policy. Despite their strong economic growth, they do have unrest at home, especially inland. There is talk of massive bubbles that are due to pop in their economy as well. Their technological advancements, especially in military and dual-use areas, is remarkable, and they are deploying it very rapidly. The PM article suggests a time of 2015; I think, considering when the various stressors overlap, that that is a reasonable guess. There are other factors at play as well. I think that deeper ties to the global economic environment will be a mitigating factor; especially ones that are potentially vulnerable. But there are also other things that increase the likelihood.

One is the perennially problematic Middle East. Iran going nuclear in the next few years. Israel and its neighbors. Iraq.
Another is Latin America. Mexico is getting worse; even the "good" tourist areas aren't the safe enclaves they are generally thought of. Communist-leaning political movements are making a comeback (and it appears to be with the assent of the current administration). Chavez has been consolidating his power and purchasing considerable weaponry.
Russia has been arming many of the potentially problematic areas. They have also been buying equipment from supposed allies of ours. While the article mentions territorial disputes with Japan, and a possible problem if located in the Black Sea, if they are able to get them there, the Caspian is another potential spot. The Caspian is nearly freshwater, making it the largest lake in the world, and also has considerable energy deposits in the region. That makes the area considerably valuable.
The START treaty makes no sense. Our ABM ability becomes more limited as a result. ABM research and deployment is receiving budgetary cuts as well. The only thing I can figure is that there are major unspoken/unwritten agreements obviously not included in the deal. Otherwise the administration feels the US is a danger to world peace and must be weakened.
North Korea is nearing a transfer of power and is increasingly unstable and desperate.
NATO is dying, as many of our allies are neither capable of providing any assistance, or could even be counted as allies.

If China were going to make a move, it would be to their benefit to have a modern day Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact so as to create other distractions and spread our focus over a much larger area.

And tying in the previous subject, I thought I would bring in the idea of contingency planning. I am starting to wonder if the powers-that-be are considering this to be a fait-accompli, and are thus laying the federal architecture for when it occurs. We have seen moves in health care, energy, heavy industry, the internet, infrastructure, and elsewhere in the last few years that function in such a way that its like a nation preparing for a major war, with the rationing and control that become necessary. Things that are worse when the future looks to be a time of peace and prosperity, but become a necessity when the future portends existential conflict.

ADDENDUM: I should also add this article, which if I recall correctly, was originally from a friend ChuckJ, in which FP outlines 16 hot spots in the coming year. Seven are in Africa (with six on the Muslim border), four in the Middle East, and four more in Latin America. The other is Haiti. They note that there are 33 current conflicts across the globe in this companion photojournal.

---------

I saw this the other day at Watt's blog, h/t to TMI3rd for the original link, that only 9100 of the last 10,500 years have been warmer. I will note that the samples were taken in Greenland, and thus it is most indicative of temperatures in that region. But isolating it to that region, I think it is more interesting when one overlays the history of Western Civilization to the timeline. Warm periods tend to mark times of growth and development - "golden ages", so to speak. Cold periods, or at least times when temperatures plummeted, are marked by times of higher change. That change often comes in the form of war, migration, and revolution. more recently, it was the renaissance-industrial era period. Considering how much more effort was required in the past to produce sufficient food, I suspect the times of relative peace are indicative of times of plenty. Prior to the start of the graph, the last great ice age had finally ended. The start of this warming period coincided with the dawn of civilization.

---------

Massive gas find off the coast of Israel. Two thoughts: first, I wish I was still invested in Noble Corp, who made the find. Second, this find may create significant geopolitical shifts in the region, and possibly conflict. It makes me wonder if the Israelis will use it to buy a real peace.

The AI revolution

I've written before how materials science and engineering is the next major technological boom. This article in MIT Tech Review demonstrates why I think that.

I thought I would include this as an update to a previous post: HSA's still require a prescription to purchase OTC medication, but the IRS will now actually allow it. Previously, the were going to ban the use of HSA debit cards for this purpose, citing that customers couldn't prove whether the drugs were prescribed. Now they will allow it if the prescription is in-hand.

Happy New Year. May this year be your best one yet.

news - 12/28

2010-12-28T13:00:00.004-05:00

An argument on the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare that has nothing to do with the individual mandate. Instead it has to do with the General Welfare clause and how ObamaCare will withhold 100% of Medicare funds if a state opts-out. The USSC has already stated that if a state gets taxed, it has to get something in return.

Some old news from the time when the legislation was being hotly debated, but as of Jan. 1st a person cannot use their HSA to purchase OTC medication without a doctor's prescription. (h/t TMI3rd). And really, who is going to get a script for aspirin? The one method that actually introduces real market forces to health care will be eliminated. ObamaCare's restrictions on types of insurance also kill catastrophic coverage, IIRC. The creation of the HSA was the big bright spot to Bush's health care law. So what is ObamaCare? Marxist? not technically. Social Democrat? not democratic... I like my new terms: social oligarch and social corporatist. It describes his philosophy (and that of others too, such as the EU) more accurately. It's not as nebulous as "progressive", and doesn't carry the knee-jerk reaction and stigma of the term "fascism".

Speaking of which... Obama prepares to bring in some measure of price controls to ObamaCare, with the short commentary linking its source to a NYT article.

Oh, and the end-of-life advisory "death panels"? Back in, thanks to the WH creating it via bureaucratic regulation.

Despite congressional and judicial orders to not do so, the FCC is beginning net neutrality rules (it does not have jurisdiction over the internet, just like it doesn't in cable tv either). From what I've read of the arguments in favor of it, it sounds like it is a fix to a problem that does not exist.

John Fund: the Net Neutrality Coup
IBD editorial: Don't Tangle the Web with Rules
fictional dystopian account: If the FCC regulated the Net since the beginning

What Wikileaks reveals about the Honduras presidential situation.

Obama still blocking Columbian free trade deal.

Maet goes into detail on what aspects a California bankruptcy might face.

Not sure how this works, but here is Senator Casey arguing that the new START treaty will help fight terrorism.

Mankiw: the value of good teachers. I think this is closely related to the value of good parents.

Weird News of the Day: Ancient legend of red-haired giants in the Western US turns out to be true?

news - 12/19

2010-12-19T22:50:00.003-05:00

Chavez given rule by decree for next 18 months. Just remember, he is neither socialist/communist, nor a dictator. Nope, not at all. And it is just coincidence that in the recent election, the opposition became considerably more powerful in the legislature. More.

With a h/t to HotAir, comes this op-ed in the Boston Globe: The great RomneyCare denial. Read in full, and then read this companion piece from last April in the WaPo: Obama's health reform isn't modeled on Heritage's ideas.

The economy breathing a sigh of relief?

I guess this is from the Wikileaks dump, though it doesn't say in the article... New Zealand was wooing China in order to curb US and Aussie influence in the region. That was by the prior Labour party-led government. A previous Labour-led government had initially triggered the rift. "[It] introduced the anti-nuclear legislation in the 1980s, a move that led to a decades-long rift in intelligence and military co-operation" to intentionally kill an alliance between that nation and the US & Aussies. The article states that the rift was healed a year ago, which would place credit with Obama, but neglects to note that Labour is now in the opposition and a conservative coalition now holds the reins. In interest of fairness, the conservative National Party did have a prior opportunity during the 90's, but that was during the era of 'a vacation from history' and Clinton wasn't exactly the most pro-military of presidents.

Astronomical curiosity: Lunar eclipse this winter solstice. First time in 456 years. Or 372 years, depending upon the source. Regardless, its been a very long time for this rare event.

What the new World Trade Center will look like. Last I heard, they were still bickering over the design. Didn't realize it until I saw this at Ace's place.

Just in: Senate, unanimously, passes the Food Safety Bill S.510. (h/t rdb) The text, all 248 pages of it, are here. They really wanted it passed to do it during the lame duck, on Sunday night, right before Christmas; perhaps it was done fearing greater opposition being seated in a couple weeks. From my limited reading of it thus far, it appears that the "organic" segment becomes weighted more towards large agribusiness (hence the Soros purchase mentioned previously).

The first linguistic trick in it that I came across follows thus: a roadside stand (or other "direct farm marketing") is now included as a retail establishment. A retail establishment (and consumers) are now called "qualified end-users". And a farm that does under $500k gross and sell its majority to qualified end-users is called a "qualified facility". So one need search for regulations and exemptions pertaining to those terms. If certain alternate guidelines are followed, there are exemptions which apply to the hazard risk assessments and new safety standards. The alternate guidelines include origins on labeling and submission of registration (and other forms of documentation).

news - 12/17

2010-12-17T14:32:00.006-05:00

The tax bill passed both houses, 81-19 in the Senate and 277-148 in the lower chamber. Republicans strongly supported it, and even a majority of Democrats in each house did as well; it did so well, that it received stronger support than when they were passed originally. It's almost like some sort of concession that conservative economic policies were right all along. Many thought that Obama was too ideological to be able to triangulate. I do not know if he is capable of such. Nevertheless, the last two years have thus far looked like a compare-and-contrast between the two main competing economic theories in this country. The first two years reminded Americans of the cost and ineffectiveness of pursuing Left-wing economic policies. The nice thing about history, is that we can look to the past and learn from mistakes, rather than doing it again. I try not to underestimate a person's inability to learn from past mistakes, and I think that is still the case as many do not remember going through the same experiment 30 years ago.

I don't think this will be a huge boost to the economy, however. The income tax rates remain the same, which is beneficial in only that it holds off the negative effects of a tax increase. The temporary payroll tax reduction will mean little, though it should assist with increasing consumption and allowing people to pay off debts a bit faster. The unemployment insurance funding is a costly measure to reduce negative disruption, though probably minimal economic benefit. The rest is pork, including garbage like ethanol subsidies - something even Al Gore recently said was bad. The large negative is the addition to the deficit, which will increase pressure on the bond market. Moody's recently warned that the tax package hurts the government's fiscal position. A major stealth benefit to the tax package is that it destroys the sanctity of the payroll tax/entitlement linkage. It, however little, opens the door to bigger entitlement reform.

A Virginia federal court ruled the mandate in the health care law is unconstitutional. This was one of the two big ones brought against it. Two previous, smaller rulings had upheld ObamaCare, meaning the Supreme Court will hear this. As I've stated since the beginning, the mandate was absolutely necessary to keep this legislation from rapidly destroying the health insurance market, unless done through some sort of universal voucher program. Repeal of ObamaCare, (or at least a substantial fix) is now necessary in the next couple years. More info at the link above. More here, with its relation to the Necessary and Proper clause.

Related: Some time ago, I noted that the one major flaw that those of us who are more pro-market will find if the mandate is declared unconstitutional, is that it will mean that social security cannot be privatized, as that would be essentially the same thing - forcing people to buy a financial product from a private source. And if done by an end-run around it - that is, making privatization voluntary - it would essentially be making the case for a public option in health care as a constitutional way of having a mandate in that as well. I come back to this because I have finally seen a mention of this in the major press outlets, by Taranto in today's BOTW. Follow the link, and it is in the first segment, along with some other interesting tidbits.

Again, there is a far less problematic solution to all this: vouchers. Darn you market, with your zen-like spontaneous order and simpler economic solutions that seek balance!

The Food Safety bill, which united factions on the right and the left against it, had reared its head recently. Congress passed it, but it turned out that some of the language in it rendered it unconstitutional... So they tried sticking it in the omnibus bill. That bill failed. Then the Democrats tried to attach it to the continuing resolution, which I suppose wouldn't have really made it a continuing resolution. With its death, the sneak attempt died along with it. Women, children, and George Soros hardest hit.

Cancun climate talks reach an agreement, which even us and the Chinese sign onto. Why?

But those two nations, which top the list of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, emerged as winners of the summit. If the Kyoto Protocol is extended at the Durban conference next year, China will continue to be spared from having to make binding commitments to cut its CO2 emissions. The same applies to the US, the only industrial country never to have ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

Not too shabby; most of the rest of the world commits economic seppuku, while we continue on our way. It does include $100B to be transferred to poor nations via a "Green Climate Fund".

Related: speaking of economic seppuku, California has just created a state-level cap-and-trade program.

DREAM Act is apparently up for a vote tomorrow. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I haven't seen many of the problems that supposedly exist in the law. The "official" numbers are that it would apply to roughly 50,000 people, though the ardent anti- position claims millions, plus chain migration. Personally, I would guess that it would actually mean amnesty for a couple hundred thousand. It has been reworked for a 5th time this year, so the one I wrote of earlier is definitely different than what will appear tomorrow.

In having done a fair bit of reading on it, I have only come across three arguments that, to me, have some merit thus far. First, the notion of "good moral character". While we all take issue with the absurd length and complexity of how legislation is often written, it is usually done so in order to eliminate arbitrariness and ambiguity. My understanding of the original language was that it meant a clean criminal history. Apparently not so (or, from a different look, the rewording of it may actually allow for some minor problems. Only in DC can good moral character mean having a criminal record).

A second issue would be the application process. While it says that bogus applications will cause a person's status to revert to illegality (and thus subject to deportation), there is no listed mechanism for which to actually ferret out the bogus applications and deport the individuals.

The third issue would be chain migration. I saw no indicator of that being possible in the original text. However, the inclusion of particular phrases can trigger such things to happen, which I am guessing is the case in the prior text. After all, the most recent change likely wouldn't include limitations to chain migration if it didn't stealthily apply in some way.

Also, here is some commentary from Kaus on the subject. I disagree on the complexity of it - something Ace notes as well - as I don't think it is actually that complex; its the ambiguity that allows for the possibility of considerably wide latitude and abuse.

USSC Justice Breyer: the 2nd amendment was only included to appease the states (and thus can be largely ignored). Uhhh. The entire Bill of Rights was included to appease the states (and individuals), as additional restrictions on the power of the federal government. Does that mean the 1st, 4th or 5th amendment can be ignored? If there were any amendments done under coercion, certainly the 13th, 14th, and 15th would apply. So slavery is legal now? Furthermore, he gets his history wrong, as Ed explains at the link.

Brit paper: US to pass new law to prosecute Assange. Apparently they are unaware that we still have a Constitution, and it says no ex post facto prosecutions. But then, it is in the Bill of Rights, and we can ignore those now.

Constitutional Crisis in the Garden State? The state's chief justice just may have earned himself an impeachment hearing.

So who is behind Stuxnet? This theory suggests it was China.

This column by VDH has been making the rounds. His reflections are always worth a read.

news - 12/10

2010-12-10T18:27:00.003-05:00

It appears there is a bit of a break between the overarching philosophy of Assange, and the more simplistic adherents of his. While I do believe him to ultimately be a nihilist, he has recently demonstrated that it isn't the mindless, poorly-thought-out anarchism of his fan base and seen in examples like this or at WTO protests. Many supporters have been launching attacks on the web against various interests as both protest and to demonstrate support for Assange. He said he was both surprised and not happy about such actions, stating he was in favor of openness and not cybercrime.

Also in Wikileaks news, comes this bit of information on the Saudi elite: it is like a non-stop rock 'n' roll after-party.

In Cancun, people from around the world met to discuss international climate change policies. They have learned to pick warmer climes, so as not to be faced with snowstorms that have a habit of appearing when they meet. But it's not like mother nature didn't try: a 100-year record low was recorded there.

In the previous post, I linked an article about the arsenic-loving bacteria. The reason I picked it was a result of feeling uncomfortable with the hype surrounding it. Apparently with good reason.

Credit where it's due: Obama signs free trade agreement with South Korea. Not as strong as it could be, but it is a step in the right direction.

Blue state armageddon on the way? All the talk is starting to make me wonder if it has turned the corner into hype that won't materialize. This next year is still quite precarious though, and we could see a deeper downturn if poor economic policy is pursued (or allowed to occur), or if some new cracks form, such as the Greek's crisis spreading to other parts of Europe or bondholders stop buying American debt.

The reason I said "allowed to occur" is because sometimes inaction is worse than a mediocre action. The tax package mentioned previously looks like it is getting larded up in the Senate. This has the potential to disgust enough conservatives, presuming it doesn't win over enough Congressional Leftists, so that it doesn't pass. There isn't much time remaining in the year for the tax issues to be resolved, bringing greater uncertainty to the market, and a greater likelihood of a stock selloff to ring in the new year. FYI, the vote is set to go down on Monday.

Mankiw weighs in on the tax deal. And here he explains why an employer-side payroll tax cut would be preferred.

Obama the supply-sider? He is considering an overhaul of the tax code, probably to something akin to what the deficit panel recently proposed. If he were to do something like that though, I suspect he would propose higher rates. Recall that deficit panel's rates were at levels high enough to tackle the deficit. This way he could increase the tax burden for greater spending while claiming both a tax cut and a simplification.

And speaking of the debt commission, Kondracke notes one glaring omission: they overlooked health care.

news - 12/5, a wikileaks edition

2010-12-06T02:33:00.007-05:00

Another set of information has come from Wikileaks. In this instance, it is a list of all overseas installations that are in some way important to national security matters. As noted in the article, this is likely the worst yet. Much of what has been reported prior to this has largely been the political junkie's version of US Weekly. But this is far worse as it is a list of vital-points throughout the world. While it doesn't have the personal emotion of the names in the past batch of leaks of unscrubbed informants, it does have the potential to be more damaging in the bigger scheme of things.

As stated in the previous post, this guy is not a hero, but a nihilist. There are people across the spectrum who confuse libertarian (small-L) philosophy with anarchism. I am sure he (and/or at least many who support him) view themselves as modern-day freedom fighters. But liberty cannot exist in raw chaos. Nevertheless many believe a utopia exists in that government-free world. (Interestingly, the communists and the anarcho-capitalists both have a government-less utopia). As a result, many mirror sites have sprung up to keep Wikileaks online and available, faster than the US govt can pressure hosts to shut them down. And if shut down or Assange arrested, there is the claim of an insurance policy - a "doomsday" release of uncensored, unfiltered information covering finance, energy, military, and possibly others. Wherever it pops up, a Denial-of-Service attack occurs, which is done by hijacking, let's say, 30 million computers to bombard the site and clog up its bandwidth. Limiting it to just the economic realm, I have suspected that some transgressions have been "overlooked" due to such global instability. On one hand, much of economics is psychology - there is a reason why economic downturns are called panics and depressions. On the other, you can't make chicken salad out of... It isn't difficult to imagine the potential chaos that could be caused upon release of just that element.

This isn't something I am predicting to happen, nor jumping on some sort of conspiratorial bandwagon. Certain patterns emerge from the information out there and probabilities vary depending upon the remainder of the environment. But what may happen is the opposite of what these people think they are fighting for. Behold, the FCC is about to add the internet to its list of things it regulates. And the modern Left is certainly no friend to liberty. This would be executive decree, not legislative process in gaining control over it. We can look at China's control and see a glimpse of a potential future of our internet. What better reason to seize control and tightly regulate than legitimate national security concerns caused by an diplomatic 9/11? Be wary conservatives: do not lose your head in a crisis, for there are people waiting to exploit it.

---

It's from The Guardian (UK), so the anti-US, Leftist blather has to be filtered out, but what remains is another interesting bit from WikiLeaks, quote: "Embassy dispatches show America used spying, threats and promises of aid to get support for Copenhagen accord". Hey wasn't the Copenhagen Accord an important climate treaty? And we were doing this to get support? But I thought, as the article states, we were a polluting pariah? Also note it says America and not the current regime.

Related: From the far more tolerable UK DailyMail: What happened to the warmest year on record?

PopSci on the new arsenic-loving bacteria. This is one of the better ones I have come across.

Liberalism: An Autopsy vs. Is Keynesianism dead? I agree with the latter; he mentions Hayek, but forgets another reason Hayek provides: the fatal conceit. We all have that "if I were king for a day" thought, but some actually pursue that.

And added for the morning of the 6th:

The house had passed, but the Senate blocked Obama's tax plan that would keep the lower/middle class rates, but increase on the wealthy (and other taxes would increase too, like capital gains). As a result, Dems say negotiating with Republicans is like negotiating with terrorists. Many snarkily respond: does that mean they will appease? Um, yes. Yes it does.

Continuing addendum: It looks like it will be, on the whole, even more appeasing than guessed. The income tax levels are extended for another 2 years, meaning it will be an issue next election. And, payroll taxes will be reduced for a year - something many of us have been advocating since the beginning as a way to aid job creation (apparently it will be on the employee side, so it won't have the job-creating effect that it could have). The estate tax will be 35% at $5 million instead of rising to 55% and back to a lower number (though it has gradually reduced to 0% this year, but in 2009 it was 45% on over $3.5M). Haven't heard on capital gains yet though, though reports had said "Bush era taxes will be extended". A rise in that will likely harm capital finding its way to businesses that need it to grow. The only difficulty in making it an issue in 2 years will be that it will put the Democrats on the side of tackling the deficit. Yeah, I know, it sounds ridiculous considering the spending spree; never underestimate the ignorance and short memory of many voters though.

Wikileaks rundown

2010-12-02T11:15:00.003-05:00

I thought I would put together a collection of what I have seen so far with what was revealed. Initially it didn't seem that major, and only confirmed what I thought anyway. The official report was that it wasn't too damaging, but at the same time, look at the response. Once the first leak occurred, he was charged with rape, which is awfully convenient timing regardless. (He does strike me as a nihilist, not a hero). Now interpol is after him after that charge has been reissued since the more recent leak, and wikileaks has been hit with DOS attacks. Not that it needs stating, but one can only imagine the howls if it were done under Bush's tenure.

Russia is a mafia state
Egypt's Mubarak (like any Arab leader) believes that Iran's influence is spreading, and that is bad
Hezbollah has smuggled significant amounts of arms via Red Crescent (the Muslim Red Cross) ambulances and aircraft
Arab leaders don't care about Israel; they fear Iran, and are strong advocates for a military solution to the Iranian nuclear sites. Consequently, Left-wing mantra is based upon false beliefs.
Obama traded away the European missile shield for Russian assistance
The talk of a new, friendlier approach to Iran was all for show
Obama, GOP worked to kill Spanish 'torture" prosecution against Bush
WashTimes has a list of some disclosures here as well, including: China's assistance of smuggling NorK stuff to Iran; China's cyberattacks; Yemen taking credit for attacking AQ sites
Reuters has a small list here too

New Republic: Why Wikileaks is bad for liberal foreign policy

Tangentally related: the need for state secrets

Apparently this is how the secrets got out. The guy was supposedly irritated about DADT still being law. Apparently it wasn't strongly enforced if he was rocking out to Lady Gaga, and using those burned cd's to smuggle the information out.

econ news - 12/1

2010-12-01T16:22:00.007-05:00

There has been great fear recently in the major economic media about the health of Europe. It is focused on what is being called "contagion" spreading from the PIIGS to other parts. In biological terms, normally we would isolate the sick - quarantine - and then attempt to treat while minimizing risk of exposure and spread. But with global economic weakness, minimizing exposure isn't really possible. Furthermore, they cannot be isolated from the rest of Europe because of the common currency and ECB. It is possible that the PIIGS would be PIIGES if England hadn't kept its own monetary system.

The result is that healthier countries in Europe are in a bit of a bind: they want to stay away from it, but cannot, and do not really have the means to treat it either. Many, including myself, have long predicted the demise of this Left-wing utopian project. While there is strength in numbers, over the years, instead of positive reform, it mutated towards something more grotesque. So what does Europe do? What they always do, of course: have the US do it. We can't let the utopian project fail; and if it comes at the expense of market-capitalist America, all the better!

Related: Fed bailed out industry and foreign banks during financial crisis. Not that new, but several are listed in the article and it gives the number at $3.3T. I am thinking this is the Fed acting as a back-up shadow banking system so that large firms would have the liquidity for daily operations.

WSJ op-ed: Why the Stimulus Failed

NYT: The Japanification of America

Newsweek: The Triumphant Return of Hayek. A decent, though flawed article.

While not as extensive as it could be, I'll give credit where it is due: Obama announces a two-year wage freeze on civilian federal workers. In the link, it details just how limited it actually is. While the ongoing increases in pay on salaries that are already out-of-proportion to private sector counterparts is irritating, it is not something that will really make a dent. And the apparently misaligned payment can be largely explained by the higher need of college-educated individuals in federal employ, and that these people's work tends to be concentrated in more costly cities.

SEC was lenient on BoA due to economic downturn and was on taxpayer support.

Tea Party Nation president: eliminate the right-to-vote for citizens who aren't landowners. The article's author does a good job presenting some limited commentary, so I don't have really much of anything to add. From what I recall, the guy began this very early in the movement and caused some divisions because he wanted it to be profitable for himself. He and his group tends to occupy more of the fringe of the movement as well. The philosophical and historical path of this line of thought is interesting however. A glimpse of it ties into voting rights early in the history of this country, the rise and dominance of the early Democrat Party, and expansion beyond the original 13 states with how the land was divided amongst settlers.

ADDENDUM: Didn't realize the original source was Think Progress, which isn't exactly the most reliable. But in his response, he didn't really deny it either...

During the course of our discussion [about the founders and the original Constitution], I mentioned that the founding fathers limited voting rights to property owners. I commented this was a wise idea. [note: he doesn't qualify it, such as that it was a wise idea for the time]

Oh, its not really economic news, but I am starting to become convinced that Palin is not running in 2012, and instead putting herself out as a target to draw fire. She is certainly good at that.

post-turkey news

2010-11-26T23:45:00.003-05:00

In the last post, I noted how KSM was no longer going to have a trial and instead be indefinitely detained. Perhaps this is the reason why: A few days after that information came out, Ghailani was acquitted of all but one of his nearly 300 charges related to the 1998 embassy bombing. The likely reason behind this is a consequence of what could and would be presented as evidence in a civilian trial. Combatants and civilians have been distinguished for thousands of years, as a hallmark of civilization. It seems strange that "enlightened" liberalism would want to blur the distinction just as barbarians throughout history have. Perhaps it has something to do with the Rousseauean "noble savage", common in liberal-Left thought. More.

I am starting to wonder if it will even get debated, but here is the text of the DREAM Act 2010. It is only 20 pages, so it is neither intimidating, nor so long that it becomes difficult to read and think of it in its entirety. To sum it up, of what it actually does, is this: For illegals who have (a) lived here for a minimum of 5 years upon the date of passage of the law, (b) came to this country under the age of 16, and (c) are of "good moral character", then they can earn a path to citizenship by either going to college or in the military. Any criminal behavior, or even any governmental assistance (with the one exception of student loans) violates the probationary period and they are subject to deportation. There is a minimum of 2 years of good standing that must be complete in either the military or college by the end of their 6 year cpr status. Michelle Malkin has Senator Jeff Sessions' 10 points on why the law is bad. Honestly, I didn't see evidence for some of the concerns, and others were a bit exaggerated.

The NorK's are trying to provoke a war, again.

Weird story of the day: 4 year old's near-death experience. While in heaven, meets grandfather and becomes aware of miscarried sister, neither he had ever known or been aware of.

news - 11/16

2010-11-16T15:15:00.009-05:00

Op-ed: Obama more LBJ than FDR. Does that mean that the next president with be both Nixonian... and/or treated as such?

I caught this over the weekend, as it was part of the Friday evening news dump. As it turns out, the Obama administration may not send KSM to trial after all. Instead he will remain in military detention for the forseeable future. Rather ironic considering what a grave sin Gitmo apparently is.

Mixed inflation news recently

Secret Walmart survey shows inflation already here. Pre-QE2 and an annualized rate of nearly 4% (.6% over 2 months)
Prices increase less than forecast. The core measure declined .6%. Meanwhile, companies have faced a 4.3% increase in cost of goods over the past year. Meaning, companies (rather than hire or expand) are eating the costs.

If the Left did try some other new policy move before January, I had been thinking it would probably be in regards to immigration. There are some murmurs of something like that in the lame duck session. One possibility is the DREAM Act.

Pethokoukis: Why Wall Street should fear Palin

Palinomics, embryonic as it is, seems to be rooted in “free-market populism,” a version of conservative thinking that is pro-market rather than pro-business. It says the role of government is to help markets function more fairly and efficiently for everyone, encouraging competition and “creative destruction” (which Palin specifically mentioned in her book). Pro-business policies, by contrast, can end up subsidizing favored companies, raising barriers to entry and otherwise entrenching the status quo.

Strange.... for a window of 18 minutes, all .gov and .mil sites had communication rerouted through Chinese servers.

A somewhat lengthy back-and-forth on QE2 over at Ace's place

"Debunking the liquidationist myth"

Richest counties in the country. 7 of 10 are in the DC area, and the other 3 are in the NYC area. Recall an earlier link that had the richest county, adjusted for PPP, was Williamson County, south of Nashville.

The NYT's You Fix the Budget. It does have some limitations; I think it is in part due to having some reasonable constraints, and then it becomes a bit of an exercise in teaching compromise. Basically, the only way to balance it through cuts is to gut the military, and the only way to do it via taxes is to gouge the lower/lower-middle class.

"Low incomes make people more conservative", so says the title of this science article. Problem: it is bad science. Correlation does not imply causation. Let me offer an alternative theory: During the 50's - 70's, people were more redistributionist. Then such theories fell into disrepute, and a more conservative economic model was pursued. Income inequality rose, but the economy improved considerably. It continued to grow, with hardly an interruption, from 1981-2006 (when the study ends). Perhaps people's opinions just changed. Fifty years ago, people thought FDR and his policies rescued the economy. In the eighties, people thought Reagan and his policies rescued the economy. Opinions change over time.

Furthermore, those more likely to vote for left-wing economic policies are consistently at either end of the economic spectrum. Voter poll after voter poll says so. Conversely, those who are in between the extremes tend to vote for conservative policies.

A to-the-point, albeit quite graphic and NSFW, parody of Sarah Palin's Alaska: Nancy Pelosi's San ~~Fransicko~~ Francisco

news - 11/10

2010-11-10T16:44:00.003-05:00

Debt commission has given its first set of proposals. It is a mixture of tax modifications and spending cuts. Mankiw has some info here, which also includes a .pdf link of the group's plan. And AllahPundit has more here.

That said, I would think it is dead in the water, as Ace vented in the post, and I've written before. These sorts of commissions are so people can be told at least some of the truth, and absolving politicians the responsibility of doing so. Now they get to grandstand and scoff against certain aspects. Therein lies a simple truth of politics:

Politicians promise sweet, sweet lovin, but promise you get to keep your virtue intact too.

------------

There was an odd sighting off the coast of L.A. a few days ago. The DOD has said they do not know what it was, it wasn't theirs, but do know that you shouldn't worry because it is harmless. People seem more focused on what it is, but what I think is more curious is this:

"In addition, the FAA ran radar replays from Monday afternoon of a large area west of Los Angeles. Those replays did not reveal any fast-moving, unidentified targets."

This would leave one of two possibilities: (1) They know exactly what it is, but don't want others to know - that is, it isn't unidentified. Or, (2) It didn't show up because it's radar cross-section is too small - i.e. that it is somehow stealthed.

Or it could just be a jetliner, as this guy does a good job at explaining, with photographic evidence.

news - 11/9

2010-11-09T14:43:00.005-05:00

I think a few things would make a worthwhile addendum to what I wrote in the last post concerning election thoughts.

One major aspect worth looking into is Republicans and Hispanics. There was some talk about how part of the reason some Democrats held on in the southwest was due to their turnout. Obama and others did go to that region to stir up racial acrimony just prior to the election. It is more effective in that region because a large part of the Hispanic population there are either (a) formerly illegal, (b) are illegal, or (c) at least know people who are. This is in stark contrast to those farther east who are more likely to hail from the Caribbean area. The non-Hispanic R's share of that vote was about 28-30%, whereas nationally, it was 34%. Like I noted before, such targeted outreach seems a tad hypocritical to the overall philosophy. Nevertheless, this is politics and not ideal policy, and so outreach to this (and the black) community must be done. DrewM. breaks this down and says that the Hispanic vote was not the problem for the R's that lost. [Related: a blurb on Marco Rubio and his giving a weekly Republican address]

Another is this additional 'amateur hour' example of poor GOTV.

UPDATE addendum #1: Dick Morris on Obama's turnout efforts. What I find of particular interest is how many undecideds broke to the Democrats. Normally, undecideds break against the incumbent.

UPDATE addendum #2: Zombie's Gerrymandering 101

I've tried emphasizing this point before, but here is an article from AEI covering how economics would be more "scientific" if it weren't for the x-factor of people.

Some QE2 readings:

Bernanke in the WaPo writes why the Fed is pursuing this policy
QE2 as a financial skirmish with China? China's response.
CNBC: Fed action may mean a 20% drop in dollar value (aka, inflation)
RCM: Why QE2 won't and can't work

If steep inflation does occur, which it appears to be materializing, then this will make it even worse. Meanwhile gold hits an all-time high. And oil is creeping up too.

Cure for the common cold within reach?

Printing new skin.

San Francisco bans the happy meal.

Relevant poem... Gods of the Copybook Headings

election thoughts

2010-11-03T15:02:00.003-04:00

I have mixed thoughts about the election. It is possible that this is the best situation. If the election would have been the super-wave scenario, the Republicans would have gotten somewhere in the neighborhood of 100+ in the House, and captured the Senate - both quite uphill battles due to a combination of electoral history and reality on the ground (districting). I saw two posts that largely summed up my thoughts:

Combining California's election results with a strong pickup in the House means that the state will die quicker rather than linger on. It is sort of like euthanasia, and would have had the tranquil ending too if Prop 19 (to legalize marijuana) had passed as well. It could potentially be a fatal example of what happens when Leftism is allowed to run amok to the rest of the country that, unfortunately, hasn't learned from places like Greece, Spain, and France. Secondly, California has had considerable spillover into other states. Leftist zombies have ambled out of the beautiful, resource-rich state they ruined economically and into other states. Many went to places like Colorado and Nevada. Last evening was not a good evening for either state, and that is the core reason. I made a similar remark about my home state of Virginia and how it has been getting closer to the edge due to so many moving there, and bringing their disastrous political opinions with them. "Hey I live in a state. It has/had some really nice features to it, but I can't afford to live here anymore. And the economic environment here is getting worse and worse; and moreso than many other states. I have to move to this other one, which seems nice and has a much better economic environment. I know; when I get there I am going to vote for people who hold the same views as the people who ran my old state into the ground." Never learning. Never accepting responsibility or blame. The mark of foolishness is not in that mistakes were made, but in making them again and again, expecting a different outcome, not learning from previous failures.

On the downside of the electoral results, it doesn't have quite the feel of the repudiation of the policies that were enacted over the past few years. The hype, the enthusiasm gap, etc. didn't quite materialize into the decimation desired at the Federal level. And that leaves me questioning how much more expansion into the House can be done. It is certainly possible, perhaps probable, that there will be - I think there is an upper limit of roughly 30 more seats that can be picked up in the next couple elections there. I think part of the problem lies in the lack of civic education, which results in a large part of the electorate voting, but not having any real core values and are thus swing voters. As an aside... I need a bumper-sticker or t-shirt that says something to the effect of: I was against Obama before it was cool.

There are some other downsides to not having the Senate:

Power of trying impeachment. The House has the power to initiate it.
Hypothetically speaking, the 2/3 majority to veto-override
And the most relevant: Advise and Consent on treaties, ambassadors, judges etc.

Krakatoa, in the link above, covers some ideas that I have have thought as well in recent weeks - that not taking the Senate is better than taking it this cycle for the long-term. [On a tangential but relevant issue, I have heard demands from the more purist element of the right that if elected, a candidate's foremost goal is to repeal ObamaCare. It cannot be done until 2013, at the earliest, because of the Presidential veto and Democrat Congressional obstruction on such an issue. I have heard a few instances where a conservative may note that, and thus making it a backburner issue for the next 2+ years, and be basically described as heretics.] Closing the gap is all that mattered this year, so that the Leftist agenda is halted. 2012 is what really matters, and 2014 for continuing the restoration of civil health to our society. It is then that the undoing of the damage occurs that simply cannot be corrected in these next two.

Related, Obama was reportedly quite calm going into the elections. He did make a few stops for rallies. He did say things to certain groups to boost support that was less than presidential. It leaves a disconcerting feeling, and makes me wonder why.

During the several hour pause I had in finishing this post, Ace posted his own (and Monty's, and indirectly Jim Geraghty's) reflections. A few thoughts... I had worries about the enthusiasm/likely voter gap for a couple months as I watched it continue to expand. When an election seems in the bag, it has a habit of actually suppressing turnout since people expect it to go their way anyway. Call me a skeptic, a cynic, or an eeyore... but the only time it counts is on election day - the day that it must materialize or it was meaningless.

Also, like him, I thought of registration drives. It is something I never hear about from the Right. The Left? Sure. They'll go into colleges, predominately black or hispanic areas, hit up unions, etc. because odds are, those people will vote decidedly Democrat. So what can conservatives/libertarians do? Go find old white guys? It seems silly and antithetical to do so considering it is a philosophy that ignores such superficial things as race, gender, or age. Furthermore, this is a process that needs to begin several months out as many states have a cutoff date well before the election. This is not only something Republicans need to figure out, it is something the Democrats do well, and do easily. It's not like they will be really accused of racism/sexism/etc. in what they do, even if it is blatant. This may be a major reason why Democrats/liberals are competitive at all. As polling has indicated, self-described liberals are only 20% of the population, versus 40%+ for self-described conservatives.

And in a related thought, this is one of the difficulties in running political virgins, as the Tea Party did. The distinct advantage "establishment" folks have is that they know not just how the game is played, but also all the organizational things that need to be done in order to run a successful campaign. In the previous paragraph's link to Ace's piece, he notes several rookie mistakes that he personally saw. It is reasonable to assume there were many, many more.

Getting away from federal elections, there are many good signs for conservatives and libertarians. Thinking again about the long-term strategy, there were many important victories at the state level, which will be very beneficial come reapportionment time. There is a pre-election explanation of it here. And this is a post-election explanation of it here. It's not just that Republicans have a strong (or total) say in reapportionment in many states; it is that it falls in every state that matters. This may mean another 15-20 seats just as a result of shrinking liberal bastions, and growing Republican strongholds.

I mentioned earlier electoral history with regards to the Senate. Senators, of course, are elected every 6 years. Going back 6 years ago was 2004, which was a good year for Republicans. Hence, it was difficult to pick up much in the Senate, and the R's had more to defend. 2006 was a big year for the Democrats, in which they took both houses of Congress. Six years later is 2012, hence the importance of that election cycle I mentioned earlier. In 2012, there are 20 Democrats up for re-election, 2 Independents (Lieberman and Sanders, who both caucus with the Dems), and 10 Republicans. That leaves a lot of room to gain seats in the Senate, and a quick glance makes me think there are roughly ten that are distinct possibilities. In '06, Republicans lost 6 seats, so those could flip back on all those one-termers. And 2014 will be important as well, as Democrats picked up an additional eight seats six years prior. Thus, because of the nature of the Senate, it may be as late as 2015 before it becomes possible to undo the bad legislation of the last two.

news - 10/29

2010-10-29T19:30:00.003-04:00

Has anyone noticed that W. has both released his book right at election time, and will be throwing out the Game 4 pitch in the World Series on Sunday (1.5 days before the election)? Reportedly, the book says not one word about Obama, just as Bush has not commented on his successors presidency. I'm guessing that this is intentional; that the silence is deafening. And in totally unrelated news, more people think Bush was a better president than Obama has been thus far.

Supply v. demand in the legal profession. Apparently, there are more lawyers being churned out than the legal profession can create jobs for.

Germany's unemployment dips to eighteen year low. Why would that be? Perhaps it has been the result of some the policies they have done recently. Also, they are an export-driven economy, and their exports have remained strong.

TNR: 4 myths on the Tea Party. A hard Leftist that actually kinda gets it.

Sometimes it is rocket surgery.

Today's Too cool: DARPA's cyborg prosthetics.

Star Trek meets reality: transparent aluminum armor.

Tangentally related: Star Trek II cited in Texas law.

Today's silliness: Time travel? Not only do I call hooey, I think I know what is actually taking place: holding the brim of the fedora-style hat, while trying to shield the eyes/face from either wind or sun.

news - 10/27

2010-10-27T12:41:00.003-04:00

One of the problems with multi-national forces: Australian and US special forces operating in Afghanistan were ambushed. Nearby Dutch air power refused to assist. One dead, 9 wounded.

Bloomberg: Bernanke's QE2 risks unleashing 70's style inflation.

Zero Hedge: Fed could trigger a civil war, if its actions cause the currency to break.

I tend to lean towards the first possibility than the latter (or the 'neither' option). Do they not remember the stagflation that supposedly was impossible?

Today's Stupid Republican moment: candidate suggests violent overthrow is on the table. Philosophically, he is correct. But he doesn't seem to be presenting it as thus, nor as the option of last resort. On the other hand, DMN isn't exactly the best outlet for accurate reporting.

Today's 'duh, I said that a long time ago, I'm already at tangential repercussions' from WaPo: Fighting the mandate will create single payer system

New theory links depression with chronic brain inflammation. Which would suggest commonplace OTC anti-inflammatory/painkiller medications should help.

We hear routinely from those in politics (especially on the Left) about money's corrupting influence on politics and how a person can buy an election. Money only allows a candidate to get their word out and sustain their campaign for longer. Many fail just because they do not have the resources to continue. But if there is a sufficient war chest, then additional money is somewhat meaningless. Money becomes a smaller factor thanks to debates, news outlets, volunteer GOTV, etc.

Part of the reason we have our electoral system is so that politicians cannot do mass "purchases" of votes in dense population centers, getting a bulk discount, like what took place under republican Rome's system. In other words, it is basically impossible for a candidate to buy an election, outside of having a stated policy to rob the public coffers. And that is where the real corrupting influence of money lies. Ultimately the power remains in the hands of the electorate - to vote for responsibility or vote for a sugar daddy. Case in point:

quote: "the latest figures show that the Democratic Party machinery has outraised its Republican counterpart in this campaign cycle by almost $270 million.
And even when outside spending on television advertising and direct mail is added to the mix, Republicans still haven’t closed the gap.
The money race totals come to $856 million for the Democratic committees and their aligned outside groups, compared to $677 for their Republican adversaries, based on figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics."
2/3 of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, and Obama's approval has slipped to 37% in this Harris poll.
Jay Cost on likely voter polls, and gives a final percentage breakdown of 57-43. RCP's House map. CAC's House map.

“The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters."

I am the punishment of God...If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.

With Heaven's aid I have conquered for you a huge empire. But my life was too short to achieve the conquest of the world. That task is left for you.

~ Genghis Khan

"[We have] a Republic, if you can keep it"

~ Benjamin Franklin

news - 10/21

2010-10-21T11:33:00.003-04:00

NPR fires Juan Williams over a moment of honest remarks in which he states that he does feel a modicum of concern when he is on a plane and there are some obviously Muslim individuals on it too. Even in that NPR link, they note that they have essentially been looking for a way to fire him since he has been on Fox News as a contributor. So is it hyper-political-correctness in which Islam is a de facto state religion, hostility towards a conservative news outlet, or a mixture of both?

Totally unrelated: owner of cafe is ordered to remove stove's vent fan because the smell of frying bacon might offend Muslim passerbys. I emphasize "might", considering the husband is Muslim, as are several of their customers.

Union in New Zealand might cost the country hundreds of millions by forcing The Hobbit to be filmed elsewhere.

When I saw these two news articles, along with related stories recently, I thought the same thing Monty wrote. Europe is teetering on the edge of collapse. The underlying importance here is culture - that is, the national psychology - that contributes to the overall economic health. The aggregate psychology of the populace has an enormous effect on what happens in the economy.

Related: Gallup says unemployment has crept back up to double-digits, that the underemployment is at 18.6%, and that these numbers are held down due to "a continued exodus of people from the workforce". Recall that it took 4 years for unemployment to reach its peak during the Great Depression.

Related #2: out of the NYT commentary, The X-factor of Economics: People

Related #3: Agressive QE2 coming to re-inflate the economy? All this does is covertly rob from people's savings as a circuitous method of doing another stimulus. Monetary stimulus will not do any more at this point because our current situation has nothing to do with lending, but psychology. People don't see strong opportunity because the future looks bleak. Why would anyone take out a loan to start a business if they think the next several years will be bad?

Tangentially related: Germany's Merkel says their multicultural policy has been a failure. And finds an unlikely ally - Turkey's president.

More than half of jobs that have been created since the official end of the recession (summer of 2009) were in Texas. Eight percent of the population; 55% of the job creation. Why would that be?

I've commented on this topic beforehand, about how there were signs of a pending collapse and there were many similar markers in the run-up to today versus the late 1920's. Here is a brief paper on that subject.

news - 10/16

2010-10-16T12:51:00.005-04:00

Bloomberg poll suggests privatization of Social Security and Medicare might not be the 3rd rail it is always assumed to be? When I wrote several months ago that the fixes needed were likely insurmountable, this was one of those high hurdles. I would suspect people to be more hostile to the idea of raising the retirement age than reducing government's control in these areas.

Related: Looks like the idea of seizing private retirement accounts may be getting some discussion again. Pension plans were never a good idea; what sounds like a low-risk, calculable program is actually very susceptible to demographic and economic changes. Many on the Left want to install a mega-pension plan that everyone is in, like what Argentina has already done.

Random related thought: if mandatory, private health insurance is unconstitutional, does that make mandatory, private retirement unconstitutional too? In other words, will it make some version of privatization of Social Security unconstitutional? The only difference is the type of financial instrument government is forcing you to buy.

Last 45 seconds are the best in this video. Mocking, done properly, is a very effective tactic. The most potent ad McCain ran was the one in which Obama was Moses. If the GOP were to nationalize the campaign this election season, there are a bounty of quotes they could use in a similar fashion. Imagine:

Black screen, white lettering: Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), impeached Federal judge, on the health care bill.

Cue video

Closing quote: Today's moment of Democrat wisdom brought to you courtesy of the RNC

Or:

Congressman John Conyers (D-MI)

Cue video

Closing quote

Or this recent one, if they are concerned about featuring a black guy (who isn't saying something as mindbendingly stupid as Hank Johnson did):

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA)

Cue video

Closing quote

Or Pelosi's 'unemployment creates jobs' line.

Or on Barney Frank and the mortgage meltdown.

Or Obama and 'shovel-ready stimulus'.

Or Harry Reid's 'War is Lost', and then denial.

Or Boxer playing race card against a black guy by suggesting he isn't authentically black in his stance on energy policy. Closing quote: Today's moment of viewing policy through a racial prism...

Or the 'blame Bush deficit', in this video by Geithner. And compare it to a graph like this one, but perhaps based upon Democrat control of Congress.

As long as the standard and annoying scary-voice-and-impending-doom-music schtick isn't used. Could do a whole series of them, as the closing quote implies.

ADDENDUM:

I saw Gabe post a blurb about the VAT, and I thought I would put my two cents here.

There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding as to how a VAT operates. It is not a cumulative (e.g. 2%+2%+...) tax. And it has, in large part, to do with how the "efficiency" in it works... As a business, you deduct the VAT paid by the companies you purchased your goods from your share of the VAT. Thus, assuming no business doesnt want to pay extra, it will ultimately end up at whatever the rate that is set because the deduction neutralizes the cumulative effect perfectly. This function also has the added benefit of discouraging black market operations. Note that if this deduction were not present, small businesses (or any product that had numerous steps in its path to the consumer) would be destroyed as there would be a massive benefit to a business being a vertical monopoly.

It is basically a more efficient version of a corporate income tax that instead of its net, essentially taxes a business's gross. And therein lies why I think we have a corporate income tax instead of a VAT, national sales tax, or some variant - that only profitable businesses have to face the tax. For simplicity's sake, let's assume that in either case, the government sets it at 10%. If you are a large business that does a billion in sales, then you owe roughly $100 million under a VAT/sales tax set up. But under a corporate income tax, you may pay nothing at all if you ended the year in the red. I think that if that business lost $50 million over the year, people have some reluctance hitting them with $100 million on top of that in taxes.

I've noted it before, but efficiency is a good thing. The current tax system is basically a jobs program for accountants and lawyers. That's waste, and a considerable amount of money that could be put towards more productive things.

Income taxes are possibly less transparent thanks to the withholding setup we currently have. Under a VAT or sales, everyone would know that they are paying a certain additional amount to it, just like we know going into a transaction that there is a sales tax that will be added to it.

Now to compare a VAT and a sales tax... under a sales tax, all products are treated equally regardless of their manufacturing origin. Obviously the government can only tax domestic sales, so anything that is sold domestically gets the same tax rate. Under a VAT (or a corporate income tax), only domestic manufacturers are taxed obviously, so foreign manufacturers are benefited by such a tax scheme both on domestic sales and exports (unless a specific exemption is included for exports or a VAT-based tariff on imports)

And on a more general note, it is typically not good to have fewer, larger taxes. The higher the tax rate, the greater it distorts the market, and in a non-linear fashion. I mentioned this by Mankiw previously, but he briefly touches on deadweight loss in his first response. I say typically not good, because it possibly could be if the deadweight loss was in the form of reducing a frowned-upon behavior.

news - 10/12

2010-10-12T14:09:00.004-04:00

Mankiw responds to a few questions regarding his most recent NYT commentary about his own taxation he experiences as a microcosm of how it distorts the market. With regards to the second question listed, I would add a bit. First, many of those "tax avoidance" mechanisms would be more accurately described as "tax delay" mechanisms (e.g. Roth IRA); in others, the tax is paid at the beginning so as to avoid paying it later (e.g. IRA). I would also add that such policies introduce their own market distortions. His closing wisecrack is good too.

Will the tax hikes coming January 1st help to trigger another downturn?

That will be all the more fun if a trade war (in the form of currency battles) erupts. (alternate article, same topic)

And since it just wouldn't feel complete without a third element, let's add oil to the mix. There is always the risk of some incident in the Muslim world causing oil prices to spike. And a currency conflict would likely drive the price higher, perhaps something similar to what we saw a few years ago. On the other hand, OPEC's prices may collapse in the weak environment, and a lot depends on what Iraq does when the dust has finally settled there.

Latest edition on ObamaCare and crony capitalism.

WaPo editor inadvertently lampoons self, paper.

Still, Style editor Ned Martel said he decided to yank it, after conferring with others, including Executive Editor Marcus W. Brauchli, because "it seemed a deliberate provocation without a clear message." He added that "the point of the joke was not immediately clear" and that readers might think that Muhammad was somewhere in the drawing.

Um.... Like all jokes, it just is not as funny if it has to be explained.

Brit paper: fetus smiling at 17 weeks. I fall more on the skeptical side that it is a legitimate smile, and that isn't counting the visual oddities that can show up in ultrasounds, but not actually be there. For example, in my own daughter's 4-D ultrasound pictures, there is one in which she looks like she has a mouth that stretches ear-to-ear and has a skeletal stub of a forearm; it is for similar reasons that we see the face on mars, when the actual structure of the martian mountain is nothing like that. There are two things I take from this article.

First, the UK limit on abortion is 24 weeks, and many other European countries have similarly "low" limits. I get a kick out of those who view Europe as particularly enlightened in comparison to us in the backwater that is America get in such a tizzy when any limitations to that procedure are suggested.

Secondly, there is some subtle suggestion that abortion should still be okay since the fetus 'is naturally sedated and unconscious in the womb and cannot feel'. When it comes to abortion, that is not the question; that is a red herring, a straw man. The question is whether or not the unborn constitutes innocent, living, human life. I don't think it's necessary to use such an extreme example as comparing that to someone sleeping... Can I legally shoot someone dead if they are in a coma? Does that not count as murder? Many would respond to that question by stating, "that doesn't count. That is a real person." Which is exactly the point: that abortion is not about whether the fetus suffers or not (and hence, a decision that can be based upon what's convenient), and instead whether that constitutes life.

On a related note, a good friend of mine had his first born today.

So what happens if the FBI is bugging you, and you find it?

Maet had a post that reminded me to mention this article about the demographics of today's army.

Bad apples, and all that. Part of me misses the romanticism of some old traditions. In this case: a firing squad.

Federal judge orders military to cease DADT, saying it is unconstitutional, giving the 1st Amendment (speech) and 5th Amendment (due process) as the reasons. Many rights are curtailed when one voluntarily joins the military. Can judges even rule on military matters? Then there is the matter of military capability and logistics, as I have written of in the past.

news - 10/1

2010-10-01T22:11:00.004-04:00

Iran's nuclear facilities were hit by a computer worm. The Pentagon's response: no comment. There has been some discussion that it was the Israelis.

Krauthammer notes that Woodward confirmed what us cynics were saying about Obama's efforts in the GWOT.

TARP to cost less than expected... at most, $50B, and may end up netting the taxpayer a positive return. This was another reason why I supported this decidedly unpopular program. Aside from it being the sole reason the economy stabilized, it will end up costing us a relative pittance, if anything at all. Note that by the time the ARRA (stimulus) bill was passed, the economy's slide was stopping. And by the time the first dollars rolled out of that bill, things had already stabilized. In fact, it was recently stated that the recession ended in June... of 2009. Has ARRA done anything? In a word, no. So TARP ends up costing us nothing and stabilizes the economy; ARRA only digs a trillion dollar hole into our long-term deficit (and ultimately will be far higher), while shoring up Democrat interests. From Forbes, more.

Related: Black Swan's Taleb jumps on the bandwagon, stating Obama made things worse.

Commentary on the "shadow banking system".

Today's Stupidity of the World edition:

Heh. Senate EPW shows new EPA rules could cost 800,000 jobs. Green economy!
From Hot Air, the EuroLeft is whining that Gitmo detainees only get one ice cream per day.
According to Obama, Mexicans were here "long before America was even an idea" For reference, here is a map of the Americas, circa 1750.

Scientists discover planet that is theoretically habitable.

Who knew Sesame Street was so tawdry?

news - 9/25

2010-09-21T10:04:00.004-04:00

The political class thinks of you as sheep, as pawns, and not as people who just want to be left alone to live your life as how you see fit. And in so doing, completely miss those twin, deeply-American concepts of independence and individuality.

“Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” -- Proverbs 16:18

Ozymandias

by Percy Bysshe Shelley

I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Now that we have the pre-holiday cheer out of the way, on to the news!

The "deleveraging deception" - how debt isn't really being paid down. This is a big reason why this downturn will last longer than it should.

Krugman doesn't know what he's talking about, part... I lost count. One caveat to it is that I would note that the Fed actually did know of the forming housing bubble, as did Krugman. I linked an article from Kruggie himself in 2002 when he wrote of an intentional engineering of the housing bubble and how he was ("is", at that time) for it.

The Laffer Curve, v. 2.0: The "Woodhill Curve". Honestly, this is what I interpreted the Laffer curve to ultimately mean. But I think most thought of the Laffer Curve only in the short run.

Newsweek: Save us politcal ubermensch! You're our only hope! Not a bad read, though they really insist upon peddling the notion that no one knows what happened nor knew it was coming - that a whole new set of economic theories are needed. The Great Moderation they mention is not an example of hubris - it's hype. It's a good read in that it demonstrates the vast abyss that is the economic understanding out there.

CATO: Keynes was wrong about stimulus, but Keynesians are wrong on everything.

Mentioned this sort of stuff here, but a refresher is always nice. Like a quick shower before going out with friends for the evening. How the Stimulus works on paper, but nowhere else

There was some back-and-forth about the O'Donnell/Castle primary in DE earlier. I was rather 'meh' on the whole thing, and found the internecine hostility more interesting and concerning. The basic argument came down to was Castle sufficiently conservative that one could hold their nose and vote for him, because: hey, it's Delaware. Considering the vitriol that was directed at several Castle supporters - those that I know to be very solid conservative/libertarian types - I was gradually getting pushed into being part of that camp. It should have just remained a serious debate about tactics since we all had the same goal. At any rate, one of the dumber things I saw from the O'Donnell side is shown here, in a quick an effective takedown by Patterico.

Mankiw dubbed this the best congressional testimony ever: Steven Colbert, in character, testifying about illegal immigration before Congress. Though the initial intent was to mock the conservative position on the issue, it ended up mocking the fools in 'Ugly Hollywood'.

Fountain of youth pill around the corner?

Image is Everything; Thirst is...

2010-08-30T12:13:00.004-04:00

I saw this today:

The photo is part of a larger collection via the AP. Photographers are allowed close by intent. So all photos are part of a politician's propaganda effort, in order to convey a certain message or play to a larger narrative. Every single one does this, especially the president, because the president isn't just a person or politician... he is a symbol. It plays into the psychology of the nation; it demonstrates the country's stance vis-à-vis other nations.

It's not just politicians; we all do this too. In choosing our clothing, our hair style, our homes, our cars, make up, hygiene, movie collection, book collection, music, artwork, etc., we not just pick what we like, but also pick a certain image that reflects a bit about ourselves that we want to share with others. Propaganda does not have to be deceptive or manipulative; it only needs to convey a certain perception for others to pick up on.

Take a closer look at the above photo of Obama. It's August, and he is wearing snug fitting "mom jeans"to bike ride. And not just any bike, but a girl bike. (Though, as an aside, I never understood what made those girl bikes; as a male, I subconsciously prefer that bar to be farther away from... me; though, a male bike does look structurally more sound).

Far more than Dukakis in the tank or Kerry in that ridiculous blue, well, this... such photo ops are emasculating of the presidency, the commander-in-chief. Not to sound chauvinistic, but such a role is a masculine job. It's not part of some patriarchal indoctrination; it is instinctive. The president's main job is as CIC. The tough guy who does what needs to be done, and will kick your butt if you mess with his family. Who wants a wimp as their champion? Since the election, Obama has increasingly shifted to the imagery of the antithesis of the manly man. Prior to the election, it was quite the opposite - we haven't seen this in a long time.

One could argue that this is all posturing - speak softly and carry a big stick. But who is he trying to bluff? And considering all that is bogging us down at the moment, what could we really do? Considering world stability is in our interest, what would possess a person to want to encourage others to make destabilizing geopolitical moves? That, along with other 'tells', leads me to believe that it isn't a bluff, but closer to who he really is. In this game, image is everything. And people instinctively thirst for something quite different.

news - 8/24

2010-08-24T13:26:00.004-04:00

(sorry for the delayed posting of this... just sat in the draft section)

A Californian frame of mind:

The $578M school. For just 4000 K-12 students.
CA delays $3B to schools to figure out how to cover it's $19B deficit

Iran unveils drone bomber. Okay, but does it fly? Their state media claims its payload is 500 lbs of explosives, and it can travel ~600 miles at ~600 mph. If no return flight, it could then be called a suicide bomber. No word on if it receives 72 virgins afterwards.

Totally unrelated: Al Qa'ida prepares for Iran-Israel war.

(Muslim) Miss USA thinks the 'ground zero mosque' should be moved.

Big business abuse, courtesy of Politico.

Hollywood's view of the future. (h/t Maetenloch)

Looks like, according to the sages of film, our immediate future is one of chaos and the breakdown of society. Eventually fascistic governments arise, societies get somewhat back on track, and there are amazing technological breakthroughs like space-faring and AI. Both become problematic soon afterwards as our first encounter with an alien species is exceptionally hostile and involves a glitchy AI. The glitchy AI should have been a warning as less than a century later, the robots rule the world. Humans eventually win out and return to space-faring, coming across numerous other humanoid races. Meanwhile the earthlings left behind devolve courtesy of all the advancements allowing idiocy to flourish. Things get so bad, despite President NotSure's efforts, that speech reverts to occasional grunting and the apes leapfrog humanity to become the primary sentient species over the centuries. Over several thousand years, they eventually evolve into the navigators of the spacing guild, while humans, having learnt of their ancient history involving numerous instances of rebellious robots, have banned the use of computers and AI.

Reich vs Romney

2010-08-19T22:12:00.003-04:00

Robert Reich takes on Mitt Romney. Let's go through his argument... His main focus is calling Romney's plan, and supply-side in general, "wet noodle economics". He likens supply-side to pushing on a wet-noodle, whereas his is demand-side economics, which pulls it along.

The core flaw of his position, like all those who hold a similar one, is that he doesn't look at the changed psychology (from one of consumption, to one of saving), realize that changing it back is what will bring more short-term growth, and that that change back needs to run its course. People - this especially includes businessmen - see the economic environment and are concerned. Reserves are down, and the anticipation for near-term improvement is weak. It makes sense that business is a haven for the most rational (and hence, most predictable) of economic actors.

The natural reaction is to play safe and build up reserves. He criticizes this by stating the enormous reserves American corporations have, and noting the 0% fed rate. Small problem however... The reserves are almost exclusively within the major companies; they aren't held by small businesses which account for roughly 70% of our jobs (and that stat is key to the larger economic policy question). It is small businesses that are struggling the most because they don't have the options large corporations do. Furthermore, a low rate means little if one cannot secure a loan. Since small businesses are in the most precarious positions, they will be particularly risk-adverse. Hence the need to build reserves, so that one feels safe; again, this goes for individuals and businesses. Fortune cookie moment: Do not walk out onto a limb without secure footing.

He confirms this flaw (looking at big businesses solely) a few paragraphs down:

These days, businesses are raising profits by cutting costs (mostly by laying off even more workers), shifting operations abroad wherever they can find consumers (China, Brazil, India), and buying up their own shares of stock. Romney’s tax breaks will only hasten all this.

Exactly how many of those small businesses, again which make up 70% of our workforce, do that stuff? Some may attempt to go bare-bones on the staff, but that is usually difficult to manage for many small businesses. Do they buy up their shares of stock with these vast, non-existent reserves? Do they shift operations to other countries? Good luck to Bob's Beans & Gas Truck Stop picking up and moving to Brazil.

He does note that the lingering economic slump is due to a drop in consumer demand (hence his arguing in favor of demand-side policies), and the main reason for this is because people choose to spend instead on reducing their debt. He goes on to suggest a course of action to help speed it along: cut the payroll tax for "ordinary Americans". Nice one. I recall that being a suggestion two years ago as an alternative to the "stimulus". You know, back when it would have done more good since reducing the employer side of the payroll tax would have probably saved a few jobs by making them cost less. And helped people pay down their debts a bit... back when they had jobs.

His last suggestion comes straight out of Statist Europe...

So instead of giving tax breaks to companies for buying more machines to replace their workers, make big profitable companies pay severance to any worker they lay off, equal to a month’s salary times the number of years worked. And require that any corporations receiving government contracts and subsidies (including defense contractors) use the money to create jobs in the United States.

Apparently he isn't familiar with the primary reason why countries like France have permanent 10% unemployment, even during "good" years. It is exactly these sorts of asinine labor policies that encourage businesses to never hire another person. Ever. This sort of policy won't encourage job formation; it will freeze the economic environment in place.

One last point... how exactly is a business supposed to hire someone if it is in survival mode?

(For reference, here is Romney's opinion piece)

news - 8/18

2010-08-18T16:34:00.002-04:00

Barney Frank, neo-austrian. I saw this earlier and thought, "hey, wasn't Riechfuhrer Chimpy McBusHitler, dumbest humanoid in history, wanted to tighten the reins... ohh... seven years ago to avoid a catastrophic housing bubble?" And I recall him name-dropping Keynes routinely, even recently, and Fannie/Freddie is textbook Keynesian economics. Oh yeah... this guy and his cohorts denied the housing bubble's existence and then branded anyone of a differing viewpoint as racist. I wanted to collect the video clips of all this, but fortunately that has already been done. Ace, doing the job I'm not paid to do.

Dissent within the Fed... Hoenig: Fed is playing a dangerous game

The triumph of pirate capitalism: The Dodd-Frank Wall St. Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Four parts makes it a bit lengthy, but worth a read.

Totally unrelated: Inside the beltway insider trading

A 2004 study of the results of stock trading by United States Senators during the 1990s found that that Senators on average beat the market by 12% a year. In sharp contrast, U.S. households on average underperformed the market by 1.4% a year and even corporate insiders on average beat the market by only about 6% a year during that period. A reasonable inference is that some Senators had access to – and were using – material nonpublic information about the companies in whose stock they trade.

Bah. I think it is just because our political betters are economic ubermench. It couldn't be due to also being the ones writing the laws and making the regulations, could it?

Death Panels V1.0, beta-test. Thing is, much of the desire to get it de-approved has nothing to do with efficacy or associated risks, but the cost. The FDA has no business ruling on that.

Considering the developing pattern, I wonder if he is just crazy or doing so with intent. NYT: Obama strongly backs WTC mosque. It's Constitutional, it's pro-private property, it just isn't tasteful. Historically, it has been the habit of pretty much every religion to conquer an area and either convert or build on top of religious sites (or at least sites of great importance). Pagan temples into churches (e.g. the Parthenon, in Rome). Mosques, such as Al-Aqsa in Jerusalem, the Eyup and Blue Mosques of Istanbul, and Al-Masjid al-Haram in Mecca. Pretty much every castle. Etc. Regardless of what the building actually is - I've heard descriptions ranging from a Muslim YMCA to Osama's Chapel of Doom - there is symbolism there.

To borrow the term making recent rounds in the media and liberal commentators: optics - that's what it is about. It is symbolic... to demonstrate victories and domination. As an aside, since when has the Left been on the side of religious freedom and private property rights? Anyway, shouldn't we just let them build it, then get around to building the new WTC so big that the "cultural center" is perpetually in it's shadow? Optics.

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi thinks they should investigate the funding of the mosque's.... critics. That is, the 70% or so who are opposed to it. And that is just liberal NYC. Note that rather than say it was a misstatement, she doubles down.

The new EEOC: businesses better hire criminals and deadbeats because otherwise they might face charges of racism. Seriously.

New Democrat bill cuts Food Stamps to shore up public unions. This is the $26B "stimulus" scam I noted in the last post. I include that reminder because it leads quite nicely to this: Michelle Obama's $8B child nutrition bill to be funded by... a cut in food stamps. Hey, all those little fatties will be healthier if they don't get as much food! Since when do the unelected first-spouses get to craft legislation? I think it is symptomatic of a broader culture of political aristocracy.

Science only a government would fund.

Cool science, by comparison.

news - 8/10

2010-08-10T15:52:00.003-04:00

What may be the cleverest, and most libertarian/constitutionally-friendly, response to the "ground zero mega mosque" I have seen. Something most Americans could get behind. Or stand in the general vicinity of, depending upon sexual orientation and comfort level. The best name suggestion I came across was The Scimitar. The second best idea might be a hot dog stand or a BBQ shop.

While on that subject... Ross Douthat: The Marriage Ideal. He somewhat misses the point at the beginning, noting somewhat-strawmen arguments, but then sort-of gets it later in that much of it boils down to two competing concepts of marriage.

Again, this is not how many cultures approach marriage. It’s a particularly Western understanding, derived from Jewish and Christian beliefs about the order of creation, and supplemented by later ideas about romantic love, the rights of children, and the equality of the sexes.

Or at least, it was the Western understanding. Lately, it has come to co-exist with a less idealistic, more accommodating approach, defined by no-fault divorce, frequent out-of-wedlock births, and serial monogamy.

In this landscape, gay-marriage critics who fret about a slippery slope to polygamy miss the point. Americans already have a kind of postmodern polygamy available to them. It’s just spread over the course of a lifetime, rather than concentrated in a “Big Love”-style menage.

If this newer order completely vanquishes the older marital ideal, then gay marriage will become not only acceptable but morally necessary. The lifelong commitment of a gay couple is more impressive than the serial monogamy of straights. And a culture in which weddings are optional celebrations of romantic love, only tangentially connected to procreation, has no business discriminating against the love of homosexuals.

But if we just accept this shift, we’re giving up on one of the great ideas of Western civilization: the celebration of lifelong heterosexual monogamy as a unique and indispensable estate. That ideal is still worth honoring, and still worth striving to preserve. And preserving it ultimately requires some public acknowledgment that heterosexual unions and gay relationships are different: similar in emotional commitment, but distinct both in their challenges and their potential fruit.

I've written on this topic before, though I don't think I brought in the concept of the competing ideas of what marriage is. Some people look at marriage as a celebration of two people who are in love - and that's it. The more traditional view may include that (though not necessarily, in the case of arranged marriages), but the critical focus is on the concept of the establishment of a family. It isn't just a symbol of a regular physical companion, but a companion in all things. One of the sorta-strawmen he throws out is that "'traditional marriage' is not universal". Though not citing any, he notes that many cultures have polygamy as the norm. When I argued this point in an earlier post, I made the distinction of civilization. There are occasional exceptions, but those were not the norm for even those societies. The only instances where I can think of polygamist cultures (and not subcultures, such as fundamentalist Mormons) are tribal, hunter-gatherer societies. Again, traditional marriage is the building block upon which every civilization has been built upon, throughout all of history. It is for this reason there has been a political force behind it, whether it has been through the church (when the church could exercise political power) or the state, and various social taboos.

------

Medicare's chief actuary explains how the entitlement program is doomed. Courtesy of Obamacare, Medicare is now even less attractive to providers as Medicaid is. There are two ends to this. The first option is a collapse of the system, which may mean the end of the program (oh noes! Obama wants to take your health care away and let old people die in the street!). Or, a government mandate that it is accepted at all providers, which will mean the remaining health insurance plans will necessarily skyrocket so providers can recoup the cost.

Income falls in every major city... except three. In those three, federal government jobs grew sufficiently for there to be a net-positive though private sector jobs saw reductions in those three. But what is more interesting is part II of the discussion at the link. Ace looks at the new $26 billion "stimulus" one way, but JackM. points out that much of it is essentially a money-laundering scheme. The money goes to prop up public unions. The unions are then able to direct a portion to campaign contributions. And to whom do they contribute overwhelmingly?

Did TARP really get paid back?

The New Yorker commentary: Don't soak the rich... soak the very, very rich.

SecDef Gates has proposed the elimination of the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk. The argument behind it is bringing defense spending under control. On the other hand, the center's purpose is to coordinate between the branches for greater operational efficiency and effectiveness. Unless it is redundant, I could think of much better areas to cut.

Gates on Monday also detailed other efforts to reduce waste and duplication, including a plan to cut the Pentagon's use of outside contractors by 10 percent next year and rein in the growth of senior leadership positions. Gates called for a freeze on the number of employees working for his office, defense agencies and combatant commands for the next three years and a cut of at least 50 general and flag officer positions and 150 senior civilian executive positions over the next two years.

...Gates took aim at what he called wasteful business practices and too many generals and admirals, and noted that "overhead" costs chew up as much as 40 percent of the Pentagon's budget.

...The plan Gates outlined is similar to one suggested last month by the Defense Business Board, a panel of company executives who advise the Pentagon. The board said Gates should cut the number of civilian employees by at least 15 percent. The panel also identified Joint Forces Command as contributing to much of the contractor bloat because it had more contractors than government employees on its payroll.

China's only strength is its population

...Going to update the previous post...

A Stake in the Heart of Obamanomics (Updated)

2010-08-03T20:55:00.006-04:00

Geoff looked at a recent report that was getting some cheerleading in the media about how the ARRA "stimulus" saved lots of jobs and did so much to bolster the economy. As it turns out... not so much. The guys who put together the study didn't provide the numbers, so Geoff had to tease them out of what was provided. One of the things he discovered:

According to Blinder & Zandi, we’ve spent $391 billion in stimulus money in “now” dollars, to get a GDP increase of $340 billion (in 2005 dollars), so we lost $51 billion.

I'm at a bit of a loss how it could be so screwed up that the multiplier is actually less than 1. A multiplier of 1 is largely thought to be asymptotic, meaning that the government spending is providing no benefit through increased GDP - that there should be at least a smidgen that trickles into the rest of the economy so that it is greater than 1. But this would be a multiplier of .87. All I can figure, assuming the numbers are correct, is that the stimulus had a detrimental effect towards overall GDP. Even if it were to be used to pay off debts, it should still find its way into the economy elsewhere. I suppose this means $50B found its way into somebody's sock drawer.

That number will ultimately be even worse when the effect of interest rates (since it is borrowed money) is factored in. Let's be compassionate and conservative for a second here and guess that it will ultimately be $500B in future taxes to pay it off. That means we borrowed $500B in future economic growth (again, probably much worse than that) to boost $340B today.

They also tell us that their modeling predicts that the stimulus itself was responsible for 2.5 million jobs. If you simply take that at face value, and divide it into the $391 billion spent thus far, you find that each job cost us more than $150K. Yep – each job over that 18 month period cost us $100K/yr.

Honestly, this isn't surprising. It is a common misconception to think that the cost of a job is nothing more than what the employee gets paid. Sometimes that can be the case, approximately. But let's look at a random private sector example, Bob McDoodles, who gets hired for $40K. Certainly, that $40K counts towards the cost of the hire. But there are also taxes, benefits, etc that go into that - let's say another $10K. Then there may be training. If a business is hiring because it is expanding, then the cost of new equipment, a new building/factory can be considerable. Many of these "stimulus jobs" were supposed to be part of Obama's new "Rainbowsnskittles Economy for the 21st Century"^TM - things like green energy. So if a company spent $10M for the 100 new employees' new manufacturing site, then that essentially cost $100K/employee. So now hiring Bob costs $150K (though the "cost" would be $50K in future years, in this hypothetical; and I'm avoiding the complication of amortization to keep things simple).

Nevertheless, such "jobs created" should be balanced out by the "jobs saved", as keeping an employee around is far cheaper than expansion. And there are examples abound of instances where some guy reports that he "created or saved" a dozen jobs off a couple thousand in ARRA money. Not to mention the average income in this country is roughly $40K, and most jobs from ARRA are "saved", not "created", especially this early in the spending. All this means what "created" jobs there are so far, are tremendously expensive.

Lastly, those like Ezra Klein are claiming 8.5M jobs "saved or created" as a result of ARRA.

That’s a nice spin, but if you read the report, does it truly say that the “financial rescue and stimulus” were responsible for “saving or creating 8.5 million jobs?” Not really. The report actually places most of the credit on the changes in financial policy & TARP.

The report actually says 2.5M jobs, meaning 6 million were a result of TARP and the Fed - shoring up the banks and an easy money policy. This ultimately means Obama & Co. get credit for roughly 30%, while Chimpy McBusHitler and Bernanke get 70%.

Also, I thought I would add a little with regards to the multipliers. Keynesians insist that government spending has a multiplier of 1.4. Krugman has noted it several times, and this from Wikipedia:

In congressional testimony given in July 2008, Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com, provided estimates of the one year multiplier effect for several fiscal policy options. The multipliers showed that increased government spending would have more of a multiplier effect than tax cuts. The most effective policy, a temporary increase in food stamps, had an estimated multiplier of 1.73. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent, had the second lowest multiplier, 0.23. A payroll tax holiday had the largest multiplier for tax cuts, 1.29. Refundable lump-sum tax rebates, the policy used in the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, had the second largest multiplier for a tax cut, 1.26.

That is according to Zandi, one of the authors of the report Geoff dissected. Standard Keynesian econ 101 thought. Mankiw, a few months later when a massive stimulus package was first being discussed, wrote this. He notes in a few studies that typical Keynesian spending has been roughly 1-1.4 since WW2. In contrast, the Romers (yes, those Romers working with Obama) looked at tax changes and found the multiplier to be closer to three.

The puzzle is that, taken together, these findings are inconsistent with the conventional Keynesian model. According to that model, taught even in my favorite textbook, spending multipliers necessarily exceed tax multipliers.

Meaning, the standard Keynesian model is flawed and incomplete.

How can these empirical results be reconciled? One hypothesis is that that compared with spending increases, tax cuts produce a bigger boost in investment demand. This might work through changing relative prices in a direction favorable to capital investment--a mechanism absent in the textbook Keynesian model.

...This hypothesized channel seems broadly consistent with the empirical findings of Blanchard and Perotti, Mountford and Uhlig,Alesina and Ardagna, and Alesina, Ardagna, Perotti, and Schiantarelli. The results of all these authors suggest you need to go beyond the standard Keynesian model to understand the short-run effects of fiscal policy.

Again, it is the policy view of that of a teenager - someone who thinks they know everything, but does not have enough wisdom through real world experience; that the world is vastly more complex and intertwined than some simplistic theory or model. Something that in reality is unfathomably complex; in a sense, it is like one of us mere mortals trying to comprehend the mind of God. There are nearly seven billion people on the planet, each with their own tastes, behaviors, needs, and desires. Beyond that, there are all the other factors that can work their way into economics: earthquakes, hurricanes, snow storms, solar flares, weather, seasons, wars, demographic changes, cultural changes, etc. Each time a model is simplified, there is a greater error rate. But when human behavior is simplified in the model, the model begins to only apply to a theoretical world.

(Thanks to Ace for the heads up on Geoff's story)

-----------------

UPDATE:

I thought it worth adding a few points to the original article. Firstly, Geoff went back and checked his numbers. He *thinks* he may have wrongly assumed a characteristic to them and thus backed out the numbers incorrectly. He updated that at the link. The end result is that the spent stimulus and its effect should both be roughly $100B higher - $472B spent and $434B in return. Since the return numbers are, for some reason, in 2005 dollars whereas the spent number is current, the difference becomes roughly a wash due to inflation. Thus the multiplier is approximately 1. [I would have checked, but my acrobat reader isn't cooperating with the .pdf of the study - it says there is a problem with the document.]

Also, I wanted to add another possibility to the "difference" - that the money spent hasn't yet all found its way into work, yet. That is, a construction project may have largely been paid for, but it hasn't been started (or completed) yet. As a result, it hasn't filtered through the initial phase, let alone the rippling through the rest of the economy. The multiplier thus should gradually inch up a little bit, turning asymptotic as the ripples become smaller and smaller. It doesn't change the end result of it being a slow and comparatively ineffective method of economic stimulation. Furthermore, the future burdens of such a large debt will still have a considerable negative effect on growth.

One need only look at Hoover's and FDR's work projects and compare it to how the economy fared prior to WW2. Ultimately, it was the rest of the world clamoring for America to supply them with armaments etc. that provided the export-based stimulus to pull our country out of that depression. As for today, the only reason the unemployment number is where it is today is a result of the workforce share of the population is shrinking, which continues to this day, making the number appear better (since millions of lost jobs aren't counted). The share of the working-age population with jobs has shrunk from roughly 63% to 58.5%, which translates to another 8 million or so that aren't counted. Again, this number is shrinking. It is one thing if the unemployment rate is stagnant because it is the result of a growing workforce (such as the downturn and recovery in the early 2000's). It is a whole 'nother beast if the opposite is the case. It is getting late for course correction - the Fed has already downgraded its forecast. Soon it will become part of a lasting psychology - people switching from being just better savers to hoarders - and we will find ourselves in another Great Depression.

Ironically, this Weekly Standard piece just came out, which is dated to ...ummm... 6 days from now.

news - 8/01

2010-07-31T17:52:00.004-04:00

Do Kindergarten teachers matter more than parents? New research suggests good teachers do wonders for kids. Early teachers are especially important because it is such a developmental period in a person's life. But one of the authors writes into Mankiw, at the end of the piece, that parents explain three times the variance, meaning good parenting is far more important (whereas bad parenting can be quite deleterious).

Two related pieces:

Bloomberg: The New Abnormal
VDH: A Weird Sort of Depression

It reminds me of something I heard about the Great Depression... that those who had jobs generally did just fine.

Something of a how-to when it comes to manufacturing news stories.

Is the Administration sitting on a report that favors Toyota? It's one thing if it's being held onto to double-check everything to make sure it is accurate. It's another to actively hide it.

Do the Republicans deserve power? Are they ready to lead? DrewM. lends his thoughts

Federalism. In the Constitution, there is the Supremacy Clause:

Article VI. Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

But to ensure that a federal system wouldn't be quickly replaced with a highly centralized, statist structure, two amendments were included, with the latter being the more important towards this:

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

A federalist system is critical, though often an overlooked element, to maintaining individual liberty and responsible government. By essentially creating a free-trade zone amongst the states, with freedom of movement, people are able to go where they feel they will benefit the most as there are fifty different experiments in republican government. The drive to destroy this has been ongoing since roughly the founding. Alexander Hamilton, one of our most influential founders, wanted a system akin to what was in England at the time. This attitude was carried by the Whigs (who were dominated by the D-R party until it collapsed), and then their heirs the Republicans. But for over a century, it was nothing more than the proverbial camel's nose, until the Progressives came on the scene to take over 1.5 of the parties. Fascism was the new fad. It was new! It was hip! It was scientific! Only a troglodyte would be against it! Progressives of the day referred themselves as a kinder, gentler - a more American - version of that fashionable concept sweeping Europe. The idea was that a corps of enlightened individuals - political ubermensch - could engineer society to a better future.

Putting on my nerd cap, I offer this analogous situation concerning the Fall of Sauron, from Wikipedia. Sauron was originally a master blacksmith - an engineer, really - who was renowned amongst the angels (Valar and Maiar). But early in the history of Middle Earth, he was seduced by the first Dark Lord, not because of a desire for evil and destruction, but:

"that "it had been his virtue (and therefore also the cause of his fall ...) that he loved order and coordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction." Thus "it was the apparent will and power of Melkor to effect his designs quickly and masterfully that had first attracted Sauron to him."

Even later, in the Second Age, he was not wholly evil. Instead: "[T]hough the only real good in, or rational motive for, all this ordering and planning and organization was the good of all inhabitants of Arda (even admitting Sauron's right to be their supreme lord), his 'plans', the idea coming from his own isolated mind, became the sole object of his will, and an end, the End, in itself. ... [H]is capability of corrupting other minds, and even engaging their service, was a residue from the fact that his original desire for 'order' had really envisaged the good estate (especially physical well-being) of his 'subjects'."

The point being, all reformers believe themselves to be doing good. But oftentimes, they fall victim to the idea we all entertain periodically "if only I were king for a day, I would..."

All that is an introduction to this article at NRO.

news - 7/28

2010-07-29T15:41:00.004-04:00

NRO's Salam: A Note on Supply-Side Thinking. A reasonable argument against ideological/partisan stances on fiscal policy.

Vampires, Zombies, and the Estate Tax

Niall Fergusen: Sun Could Set Suddenly on Superpower As Debt Bites.

SEC says that the new Financial Reg bill exempts the agency from FOIA. Transparency!

Wikileaks: we don't know the source of the Afghanistan leaks. US govt: we do.

Speaking of which... the nearly 100,000 leaked documents pertaining to the Afghan war include information on the Afghan informants, tactics, etc. And the guy doesn't seem rather bothered by that, or if it costs lives because those Afghans were probably criminals anyway. I enjoyed this takedown from the center-left Daily Beast. I could understand, conceptually, the desire for a place for whistleblowers like Wikileaks, just as I could understand the desire for something like the ACLU to defend individual rights against an overbearing government. But in this case, the guy is a pompous nihilist. And the actual criminal.

Scott Johnson @ Powerline on Obama and the roots of Progressivism

The point of marketing. Many who don't understand it, think that marketing just makes stuff cost more (especially common when criticizing the cost of pharmaceuticals). Instead, it is to boost sales so that, with an economy of scale, each item costs less. If the sales do not sufficiently increase, then the marketing failed.

Geoff on the "Recovery Summer". Note that they are now trying to tout the surge in stimulus spending, 6 months prior to the elections - something else I criticized a year ago.

It's about time. SecState Hillary ruffles some Chinese feathers over the S. China Sea.

Oddity of the day: Does this public university make being pro-gay rights a necessity for a diploma? Specifically, it has to do with being a counselor and how certain professions, such as this one, are best done by people who enter into each case with objectivity. Built-in bias, really in most any profession, creates a blind-spot that can be an enormous source of trouble. Nevertheless, that should have very little to do with academic qualifications but instead professional quality. Personal belief has nothing to do with whether or not someone can approach an issue with reasonable objectivity. And as everyone has their own biases, that would hypothetically disqualify everyone.

news - 7/27

2010-07-27T11:11:00.005-04:00

On the Friday afternoon news dump, the Administration put out its new budget forecasts. While not official yet, the deficit is expected to be $1.471T for FY2010, and another $1.4T in FY2011. (For those unfamiliar, a fiscal year for the government runs from October of the prior year to the following October of the labeled year). Recall this graph from early last year, originally compiled by the WaPo:

FY2009 ended at $1.4T. I think this came in lower than expected due in large part to the rapid repayment of TARP loans to the banks. I adjusted the graph, denoted in blue to show the new stats for last year and the next couple. Because of the way budget planning works, the Democrats will have the opportunity to set next year's budget before the Republicans get in. And it is unlikely for there to be a large enough group in Congress to force a scaling back, with or without the president's signature.

Furthermore, the new projections predict unemployment will stay about 'the magic number' of 8% through 2012 "despite the assumption that relatively normal economic growth would have been underway for more than two years by then." Longer-term budget outlooks grow increasingly bleak as Obama has already increased federal outlays by $1T per year and the boomer generation is hitting retirement age and the entitlements along with that.

Samuelson: The Big Hiring Freeze. I think what is missing in all this is that corporations and individuals need to rebuild their reserves because of the economic downturn. Unfortunately, the reduced consumption from increased saving (indicated in graph below) slows down the current economy. Also, the uncertainty as to the future as a result of both that and the various government changes to taxing, spending and regulation encourages businesses and individuals to be more hesitant with spending. Furthermore, because returns and incomes are lower, it will take longer than normal to build up the reserves under a chronically weak economy.

Tamny: Money Supply Confuses Deflation's Confused Proponents. Basically, he is arguing against the Quantity Theory of Money. The QTM does make logical sense and does have some historical incidents to back it up, but there are also other situations in which it has fallen apart. I think part of the linkage between money supply and inflation broke down with the advent of paper money and open exchange rates, effectively making "money" more conceptual and less concrete (i.e. based on a commodity). Instead, money supply is more symptomatic of the health of the larger economy, assuming reasonably sound monetary policy. Of course, some symptoms can cause problems on their own and need to be treated too, not just the root cause of the ailment.

Credit where it's due: the Administration on the released plane bomber Megrahi.

Jon Stewart on Sherrod: Breitbart may have been the most honest person involved in this mess

There are a few bright spots in the JournoList revelations.

The ROUSes are real! Found in East Timor, aka the Fire Swamp.

news - 7/26

2010-07-26T14:11:00.007-04:00

There has been lots of hubbub over the Brietbart/Sherrod incident. I haven't yet heard Brietbart articulate properly what his point was, but Moynihan @Reason put it as "a teachable moment, but it is unclear who the students were". Many of the liberal establishment, including politicians, elements within the media, and the NAACP have referred to the Tea Party as racist, without proof. Some have even gone as far as to be plants by leftist organizations to establish "proof" of it. Brietbart countered with offering $100k for proof of one particular incident that was claimed by a few politicians. Never has there been any proof, let alone that Obama's race has never remotely been the point of the gatherings. But the meme continues, widespread, within the establishment.

So to teach: let's throw this video out there and see what happens... how did everyone react? Everyone on the Left has lambasted Brietbart, including Sherrod who said he wants to bring back slavery. Howard Dean was on Fox News Sunday, saying that what Fox did was racist. Even though the first to really discuss it was Glenn Beck, hours after she was fired (because the WH told her that she was going to be on his show that afternoon), after others in the media had reported it, and on top of that, he stood up for her. So who are the students? We are. The public.

What did we learn? We see what the reaction is by everyone in the establishment, double-standards, and who are the actual racial reactionaries and who aren't. I think if Brietbart had presented himself after the fact-checking took place with that angle, he may have had more impact. I know that he was at least attempting to do so, but really only getting out the "double-standard" argument in the 30-second-soundbite-interview news media we have today. This article is the closest I've seen to hitting the point.

Somewhat related: I had thought that was sort of what Andrew Sullivan had been doing with his Trig Truther stuff - that it was a tongue-in-cheek mimickry of the Birthers. Evidently, it is quite a popular conspiracy theory amongst the establishment Left, at least within JournoList.

And speaking of JournoList and Trig Trutherism, the DailyCaller is today reporting on their discussions on Palin. They both describe her convention speech as "gangbusters", and also discuss on what memes they should follow in order to bring McCain/Palin down for Obama to win. I thought this was a good review of the situation.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA): Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege

Across the Pond news:

The new UK coalition government launched a website asking people to nominate some of the "intrusive and unecessary" laws imposed on a luckless nation during the disastrous Blair-Brown years". What was the result? Well, the top choices are being dismissed.
PM Cameron is raiding dormant bank accounts for new spending.
They are going to decentralize the NHS, according to the NYT. summary

I wonder if this is legit. If so, it may be good as much of the housing collapse has to do with this. Of course, it could just mean that he wants to end the mortgage deduction on taxes as a source of more revenue.

Reid to the Nutroots: We will have a public option. I think he may be right. Or if not, then at least some variant of a more socialized system. A government takeover of healthcare is inevitable, now that Obamacare has passed (and was a near-certainty before anyway). I just don't think there will be a sufficient number within the halls of Washington willing to undo all that has been done.

Obama: the GOP lacks faith in the American people. When you are done laughing at the irony, here is a good retort from Harsanyi.

This makes one wonder how useful the government-sponsored job training is. Of course, the object isn't so much to get a person an as-high or higher paying job, as it is to help them get a decent enough job when the prior one goes. But the article seems to be critical of that aspect too. Obviously, what is critical is that employers are taking a role in it. Basic training doesn't do enough to entice an employer, especially in difficult economic times, and often an employer will do the training themselves to get a potential employee the needed expertise.

Another report on market volatility. Chart patterns predict a drop to 7500 or so this year.

In contrast, this one is rather optimistic. Using post-WW2 as a predictor is less accurate than post-1920's, in my estimation however.

A look into the final hours of the doomed oil rig, before the explosion.

CBO models are breaking down due to the glum deficit forecasts. This, coupled with the JournoList stuff earlier, reminds me of this old incident in which the reporter got into an argument with the Tea Partier, arguing that Obama was cutting taxes for 95% of Americans, etc.

Speaking of taxes, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire January 1st. I wonder if the Democrats will pass an extension. If they don't then the tax spike, along with the economic downturn that will accompany it, will assuredly be blamed on Republicans coming into office (assuming they win one or both Houses).

Politifact fail. They try to claim that the Obama Administration never promised that the ARRA would keep unemployment down to the 8% level, or thereabouts.

Laugh of the day... Reuter's: Europe's prospects brighten as US fades. Long-term, Europe is doomed. We struggle currently because the US does not have (nor respond well to) a government-driven economy.

Today's Moment of Zen:

news - 7/18

2010-07-18T17:20:00.004-04:00

CNN Money: While many fear a double-dip recession, the new fear is a lost decade. Though that was part of my theory I started to write about back in 11/2008. If the historical pattern continues, this period will be marked by a long, flat trend, though quite volatile, for roughly 18 years. There are some modern aspects that may alter that (debt, size of government, international political and economic issues), but as I had pointed out before, the flatlining began around 2000. Which would mean another eight years or so before any real sustained growth.

To accompany that, Brookings put together this chart about our unemployment situation. Commentary from Ezra Klein and Ed Morrissey at the link. Ezra:

The “job gap” underlying these numbers is daunting. In recent months, on this blog, we described the job gap — the number of jobs it would take to return to employment levels from before the Great Recession, while also accounting for the 125,000 people who enter the labor force in a typical month. After today’s employment numbers, the job gap stands at almost 11.3 million jobs.

How long will it take to erase this gap? If future job growth continues at a rate of roughly 208,000 jobs per month, the average monthly job creation for the best year for job creation in the 2000s, it would take 136 months (more than 11 years). In a more optimistic scenario, with 321,000 jobs created per month, the average monthly job creation for the best year in the 1990s, it would take over 57 months (almost 5 years).

5-11 years. Average is 8, which would be moderately optimistic. I would think, generally speaking, a recovery would start slow, and then once confidence started to return, hiring would pick up rapidly. I could compare the post-WW1 "forgotten recession" (more), but the government is not going to do anything like that. Instead, here are a few changes to the IRS courtesy of just ObamaCare. I don't think the addition of sales to the 1099 will be a huge burden to companies, as many already do something similar as part of their accounting, but it is more paperwork for them and vastly more for the IRS. Goldbugs are concerned since pretty much any sale to an individual, considering current prices, is going to be reportable.

Speaking of which, the Administration is arguing that the new health law (and mandate) is a tax. Which they insisted it wasn't, and was budget-neutral before. But now, they need to in order to try to validate its constitutionality in court. This same sort of chicanery was done when Social Security was brought into existence and challenged in court. While Gabe, who is a lawyer and would generally defer to on this, states:

On the other side, the states suing agree that the penalty for failure to purchase health insurance goes to the federal government and so takes the form of a tax. But that's only the penalty. Before you get there, ObamaCare requires individuals to buy goods and services from private (in the sense of non-public) entities: the insurers. That's something very different than a tax. That's compelled economic activity and no court has so far "discovered" constitutional authority for the federal government to compel Americans to take part in private contracts against their will.

... I'm going to have to point out one minor flaw in that final thought. That is, for all intents and purposes, exactly what the Kelo decision did. The USSC decided that government does have the power to compel an individual to sell their property to another private individual (a private contract), against their will (hence the Kelo case), for some theoretical public good (in that instance, tax revenue and new jobs). And Social Security is exactly compelled economic activity - essentially, forcing people to purchase a very bad retirement plan - though the provider is a public, rather than private, source. Based upon both the Social Security and Kelo precedents, I think it will stand. But then, lawyers also have this strange fascination with establishing legal paradoxes.

Back to the future, or at least what it may hold in store for us: Jonah Goldberg vs. Krauthammer. Honestly, I don't see that they have to be mutually exclusive.

Mort Zuckerman, one-time (?) Obamazombie says Obamanomics is "our economic Katrina".

Scientific modeling and self-reinforcing feedback loops.

I thought Mankiw puts it well:

But notice that this exercise is not really a measurement based on what actually occurred. Rather, the exercise is premised on the belief that the model is true, so no matter how bad the economy got, the inference is that it would have been even worse without the stimulus. Why? Because that is what the model says. The validity of the model itself is never questioned.

And as, in both cases, there is nothing concrete to truly compare it against (a definitive "control" to compare against the "variable" in the experiment), the hypothesis (model) can never be proven.

Mankiw: The return of command-and-control. Obama's EPA destroys the SO2 cap-and-trade market. As a corollary, this could occur with the proposed fiat currency of "carbon credits" that so many big businesses are salivating over.

What is gravity? This guy thinks it doesn't really exist, at least separately, but is instead a consequence. I hear occasional talk of graviton particles, etc. but I've always been more fascinated with the idea how Einstein described it: imagine a wrestling mat, then place a bowling ball on it. The mass distorts the mat, curving it. Thus gravity is a consequence rather than something concrete like atoms, electrical fields, or photons.

Today's moment of Zen: your Racism Report...

Belly-buttons are racist
Chris Matthews: how can South Carolinians vote for an Indian and not support a black president?
Obama accuses Al-Qa'ida of racism. Because blacks are used as "cannon fodder" and don't have access to positions of power within the organization.
NAACP delegates vote and approve measure to repudiate the racism of the Tea Party movement. Because, um, fiscal profligacy is black. Or something.
Leftist bastion Think Progress using known plants in Tea Party rallies as evidence of racism.

Speaking of the NAACP, check this out. It isn't just what the speaker says, it's that the audience cheers.
Pre-election, many in the media conspired to kill the Jeremiah Wright stuff, according to their own words in Journolist.
Black Nigerian parents give birth to Nordic baby.

Book Review: Romney's No Apology

2010-05-30T20:35:00.004-04:00

We must be ready to dare all for our country. For history does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
~ Dwight D. Eisenhower

He begins the book reminiscing on his youth and the value of hard work. Not surprisingly, the title is The Pursuit of the Difficult. Years ago, I had a discussion with someone with a young son. I had mentioned the absurdity of the lavish sweet sixteen parties that were glorified on MTV at the time. He stated his struggle/desire in wanting to provide everything he possibly could (materially) for his son. My thoughts at the time were focused on the notion that there are certain lessons that can be learned, when young, that become invaluable later in life - the value of hard work, and the value of money. Romney's version can be summed up with a statement his father made to him while the young Mitt was pulling weeds from a flower bed: "The pursuit of the difficult makes men strong." Perhaps this is what Nietzsche had in mind when he stated: "that which does not kill us, makes us stronger".
He expands this concept and says it also applies to nations - that those who rise to challenges become stronger, whereas those who shrink away become weaker. It reminds me of a thought I had some time ago about the Great Depression. In December of 1941, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, believing the United States had become weak in character and fortitude due to the decadence of American prosperity (relative to most other countries), especially during the Roaring Twenties. And that it had been further exacerbated by the widespread despair of the intermediate decade. But what it had actually done was toughen and make more resilient our populace for the ordeals yet to come.

He goes on to provide a brief description of why nations decline, in the aptly named chapter "why nations decline". As I have attempted on occasion, he details the importance of history and how it can be a tool when designing new policy. Depending upon the policy, it is going to have various benefits and drawbacks. Some of these aren't immediately apparent, and show up in other places - such as, an economic policy changing culture or a nation's resolve and spirit.
He points out that there are certain commonalities to these countries. One major trait has been protectionism/isolationism, especially when done out of fear and tailored to such; he gives roughly half a dozen major examples through history. Another is easy money, which he compares it to inherited wealth resulting in descendants' profligate spending and eventual economic ruin. A third is turning a blind-eye to problems, sometimes willfully. He follows with stating that all of these are ultimately the result of a nation's culture - that either a nation does away with what made it successful, or is excessively rigid towards adapting to a changing world. But decline is not inevitable, he concludes, if a nation has the will and the ability to do so.

He states there are four different paths being followed to attain global hegemony.

The first is the Chinese model. It is one of authoritarian rule, coupled with free enterprise. It has massive industrial growth as its backbone, coupled with some nationalistic fervor and theft of Western technology.
Another is the Russian model. It is similar to the Chinese model, but rather than industry, it is focused on energy and resource domination. Rather than the national pride China promotes, Russia's is more oriented towards propaganda (more specifically, a rewriting of history)
A third model is Islamism. What makes this unique is that it is not defined along any borders, but instead on ideology. It is "a strategy based on conquest and compulsion", that ranges from Al Qa'ida and Islamic Brotherhood to CAIR and the Islamic study centers in Western universities that mollify and pacify anyone who might object.
The last is the Western model, which he interchangeably also calls the American model . He includes Europe in this, though I wouldn't. Instead I would have the EU model as the fifth, though it is certainly no real path to power, and it is questionable whether or not they even seek such status - which is possibly why he doesn't include it. Regardless, this model is built upon economic, personal, and political liberty.

He concludes this segment with pointing out that of the four major strategies for world leadership, only one is founded on freedom. If America (and the West) fail, then we and our progeny are doomed to live in a world where we are not free. A strong America is good for peace and essential for freedom, and thus it must be our primary objective to keep our country strong. Or as Reagan once opined: “The United States remains the last best hope for a mankind plagued by tyranny and deprivation. America is no stronger than its people -- and that means you and me..."
In order to secure our place and continue our leadership, we must follow a path that strengthens us in both domestic and foreign areas. On the foreign front, he argues that we have the most potential of any nation or competing ideology to exercise soft power, but we also do a very poor job of it. Soft power is our way of acquiring friends and securing their continued existence. But it has little meaning if we do not have the hard power muscles to flex.

The remainder of the book, and the bulk of it, is almost entirely devoted to economic issues; it is fitting, considering this is his obvious area of expertise. He initially covers productivity, innovation, government's role, research and regulation. He spends several chapters on health care and education. One part that left me quite puzzled on the health care side was his advocacy for changing the way we pay for it - that is, going from a pay-per-service to a pay-per-condition. On the surface, that sounds like a good way to rein in costs: "hey let's pay you a flat rate for treating x disease instead of for each and every test you want to tack on". But what that really amounts to is a form of price controls, which as he should know is decidedly anti-market and would lead to a host of problems that arise from such government actions.
Also the part of the school reform that most interested me was when he addressed expenditures and class size relative to student performance. Relative to class-size, the variability of performance increased with smaller class size, which, if anything, suggested a slightly positive correlation between class size and performance. In other words, the bigger the class, the better the students did... totally contrary to popular opinion. As for dollars-per-student, there was no improvement demonstrated when comparing schools that spent $7000/child versus $17000/child. As an aside, the schools being compared were all located in Massachusetts.

All in all, it was a good book. I tend to be quite picky when it comes to political works; I like ones that lay out a strong case and are able to argue it with substance, and in a very readable fashion. Most don't. This one does.

news - 5/17

2010-05-17T23:55:00.003-04:00

Nothing ever changes. The play is always the same. The actors may be different, but the roles always remain.

People, by nature, follow patterns. We are all creatures of habit. Even those who seem chaotic, therein can lie the pattern too - chaos. History is not just facts and dates. It is patterns - oscillations - of the collective human existence. Economies go up, and economies go down. Wars are fought over religion, resources, and reputation. Each time major changes occur, there is some precedent for them in history.

This has been a common theme in much of my writing and article selection. I bring it up again because of this book review, from Business Insider titled We Are So Screwed. The book is appropriately titled This Time Is Different. From what I gather of the work, it is something that I will both enjoy and will not need to give my own review as this one seems to be sufficient.

Never been a gold bug, never will; the medium of exchange we use is meaningless. (That doesn't mean it can't be a good "investment", if a person wants to play off popularity trends) Nevertheless Monty points out the soaring popularity of it in the EU now. It makes one wonder what changes the future holds for them...

Chaos is gripping Greece and looks to only get worse. The only options facing the EU at the moment seem to be either to purge Greece from the union or break their own rules and bail them out. The prior choice would send the country into chaos, but also serve as an example for fiscal posterity. The latter would mean the end of the rule of law and the system would break down.

And the UK's budgetary problems look to be surpassing Greece.

The Greek fiscal austerity plan being basically forced upon the country requires the privatization of health care and laying off all the completely unnecessary government workers. Ironic considering how the opposite is being done for our supposed economic salvation.

That historical pattern has occurred in the past. Regardless of how smart some future generation believes itself to be, regardless of how much they preach that this time they will get it right because they have learned from the mistakes of the past, if they try to do it again then they will fall victim to a similar situation.

Robert Samuelson is referring to the current situation as the welfare state's death spiral.

Another prediction of a massive crash coming for China's economy.

Meanwhile back home... members of Congress are allowed to profit on insider trading.

Today's moment of Zen. Yeesh.

news - 5/02

2010-05-02T14:38:00.005-04:00

One of these things is not like the other: the Financial Reform bill apparently gives the FTC authority over the internet.

Recall the GM commercial I mentioned two posts ago, in which I explained the duplicitous nature of it? The NYT has gotten around to mentioning it. But it goes even further, in that this normally constitutes fraud, and it appears it goes well up into the Administration. And why wouldn't it? It is Government Motors now. Scott @ Powerline has the details. (h/t Ed Morrissey)

Honestly, I can't think of the last time I heard of an environmental disaster as the result of an oil rig. Tanker? yes. Drilling platform? No. Even during hurricanes, there isn't widespread disaster. Nevertheless, right on time for Earth Day, one in the Gulf of Mexico blew up, killing about a dozen people, and spreading an ongoing plume of oil that is far greater than expected. And so, conspiracy theories have come out. It was only furthered by the rather odd order of swat teams to the area. The first I heard was that it was sabotage, either by extreme environmental groups or even the political Left so that offshore drilling would be halted by anyone under US jurisdiction (Cuba, China, et al. would continue drilling there, but not us). The latest is looking at North Korea.

John @ Powerline details yet another example of why polling and "studies" cannot always be trusted. At the heart of this is how the Left and the Right look at the world differently, even getting to different meanings of the same words.

Some time ago, I argued that, from a Machiavellian point of view, the best course of action for the Democrat Left would be to pursue immigration reform. Some have argued that it wouldn't pass, considering how contentious it was last time around - it had failed with about 2/3 of Republicans and 1/3 of Democrats voting against it. Well, we know that the Democrats will hold a much stronger position through the end of the year to pass something like this, but do they have enough? What if there is a game-changing event, like ohhhh, Puerto Rico becomes a state? It would probably give 2 extra Senators and 6 Representatives to the pro-illegal position.
Puerto Rico votes on this issue periodically, and each time it has said no, it does not want to become a state. Apparently they are rather fond of getting most of the goodies of being part of the US, but not having to do things like pay income taxes. The trick in the new legislation, which just passed the House, is by making the current situation not an option. Rather than ask: "do you want to become a state?" like it has asked in the past, it now asks "do you want to change to a different political status?" It is similar to the polling trickery when they ask do you prefer specific incumbent candidate X or dream candidate Y; obviously there is a bias towards people picking the alternative because then they can project a particular ideal instead of a specific candidate that will win over some but alienate others. Thus if a majority of voters want to change the status, regardless of direction, the popular current status as U.S. territory no longer becomes an option. Instead, the follow up choices on the second vote are statehood or 2 other unpopular possibilities.
And for the heck of it, lets look at those comparatively non-fascist immigration laws of Mexico.

Russian arms-maker is (here is a link to a working video) advertising what can only be described as a mobile cruise missile system for terrorists. It is a launching system designed for cargo ships or trucks as it looks just like your typical container... that is, until it opens up and four large missiles appear. Oooh. And if you watch the video, you will see that the "hostile neighbor" seems an awfully lot like US forces. Thanks guys. Reset those relations!

Your moment of Zen, if that last one wasn't sufficient:

(background to the vid)

Intemperate thought - 4/27

2010-04-27T11:21:00.001-04:00

If salt is bad, is that why the Earth buries it underground and dumps it in the ocean?

news - 4/26

2010-04-26T13:50:00.006-04:00

So how did GM pay back its loan from the government? A bit of sleight-of-hand, accounting tricks, TARP, et al. Basically, they are using a different part of TARP; an escrow account was put aside for the company as "working capital" that was acquired through the debt-for-equity swap that turned it into "Government Motors", giving the US and Canadian governments a 72.5% stake in the company. But that is only part 1 of the story. By doing so, the company qualifies for a DOE $10B loan at 5% interest, a full 2 points better than the previous loan through the bailout that they just "paid off". And this loan is 50% ($3.3B) larger! Ed has more.

Since history started January 20th, 2009, anything the president does is a new idea, representing change and a break from the old. I guess that means if he continues to do stuff from pre-history, then its not really a historical repeat.

Looks like they are dumping cap-and-trade legislation to pursue immigration legislation, something this prognosticator divined a month ago. Byron York talks about it. I disagree with York however in that he thinks this is a losing strategy. This is a play that doesn't just affect the 2010 elections, but those for decades to come as it is a shrewd play to demographics. The Civil Rights Act was passed over 40 years ago, and ever since then blacks have voted 90%+ for the Democrat. Hispanics are now a larger population than blacks, and will continue to grow more and more; it was for this reason that the Bush administration made this push before.

Speaking of political divination... It looks like the health care bill is quite costly and the Democrats are suggesting that if the Republicans want to demonstrate responsibility, then they should come to the table to help control costs. How so? Price controls. And by mandating price controls, it kills insurance companies when their costs go up but their prices can't. Mark Warner (D-VA):

"Now that the baseline question of coverage has been answered, it would be irresponsible if we didn't come back and try to do more on costs," said Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., who voted for the bill and led efforts to squeeze more savings.
"I think there is going to be a debate in the Republican Party on whether they should waste all their energy on repeal or make an effort to do something on cost containment," Warner said.

I covered this issue somewhat in an earlier post, but I thought it worth linking this since AEI goes into much further detail how the financial reform bill is still a bailout bill, and doesn't really fix the core issue.

Here is a different suggestion on what could be added to the reform bill - more information, so related markets can function better.

Is an international financial tax coming?

Motley Fool's testimony before Congress on financial reform. Their suggestion? Greater shareholder voice in selecting corporate boards.

This appears to be a shrewd political move from the Tea Party leadership - endorsing a Democrat to demonstrate they are outside the Republican party. It demonstrates that they aren't an organ of the party, thus based more on principle, and also has the added benefit of holding Republicans' feet to the fire if they want the endorsement of this new grassroots movement.

In honor of Earth Day, what are the economics (and environmental impact) of recycling? From a former EPA guy, it looks like the best are plastics, white paper, and aluminum. Glass is a net loser as it is both heavy to truck around, and ground glass is basically sand. Found it at NRO, which links a few other articles on the subject. I mention that because the first two other links are essentially worthless from an intellectual point of view, as seems to occasionally be the case on the "anti-recycling" side of things. The last link at NRO is another good one, which goes here.

Today's moment of Zen was a tough pick, but as I had already kind of done one, I chose this:

Thanks to AllahPundit for it, who notes that it is getting attention because Time magazine is pushing the angle that it is an allusion to Guy Fawkes. Guy Fawkes = anti-government terrorist who tried to blow up Parliament; Teabaggers = anti-government terrorists who want to blow up Congress. QED.
DiT gives a history lesson to who he was, and gives them credit for knowing some history. I am a bit more skeptical however as they could just have recently watched the recent blockbuster V for Vendetta, which was a political masturbatory aid for liberals during the McBusHitler Reich - that pre-history period when it was patriotic to oppose the federal government.
I did notice that the V in November stands out in their "Remember November". So if it is playing off something, the question is then, is it a play off V for Vendetta, the new V tv series, or Rock the Vote?

news 4/20

2010-04-20T23:51:00.002-04:00

About a month ago, a NYC Democrat pushed to ban salt in the city's restaurants. He was rightly excoriated for it, and he backtracked considerably when later stating it was just about awareness. Now the Administration, via the FDA, is seeking to legally limit the salt content in food. Salt is an essential part of cooking, not just for taste but for the chemistry of food too, oh and essential to our health as well. Like the way a particular meal tastes at your favorite restaurant? Like a certain amount of salt on your fries? Tough. Nanny Government knows better than your own tastebuds.

I figure, unless we make a significant change in policy direction, we will be like the EU in about 20 years. Well now Brussels has declared that holidays are a human right.

Now Brussels has declared that tourism is a human right and pensioners, youths and those too poor to afford it should have their travel subsidised by the taxpayer.

I know Europe is in its self-imposed twilight years, but sometimes it seems like they are actively pursuing their last holiday before euthanasia.

Did the Administration have the SEC file a charge against Goldman Sachs in order to support their financial reform package?

Rep. Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Oversight committee, is demanding a slew of documents from the Securities and Exchange Commission, asserting that the timing of civil charges against Goldman Sachs raises “serious questions about the commission’s independence and impartiality.”

Samuelson in WaPo: the VAT isn't the fix it is trumped up to be. A few reasons:

In 2020, the deficit (assuming a healthy economy with 5 percent unemployment) would be 5.6 percent of GDP. To cover that, taxes would have to rise almost 30 percent.

A VAT could not painlessly fill this void. Applied to all consumption spending -- about 70 percent of GDP -- the required VAT rate would equal about 8 percent. But the actual increase might be closer to 16 percent because there would be huge pressures to exempt groceries, rent and housing, health care, education and charitable groups.

Op-Ed out of the CATO Institute: An Economy of Liars

Free markets depend on truth telling. Prices must reflect the valuations of consumers; interest rates must be reliable guides to entrepreneurs allocating capital across time; and a firm's accounts must reflect the true value of the business. Rather than truth telling, we are becoming an economy of liars. The cause is straightforward: crony capitalism.

Steyn on today's non-proliferation. This one sentence sums up my thoughts.

Granted that almost all of Obama’s exciting, innovative “change we can believe in” turns out to have been exhumed direct from the sclerotic Seventies to stagger around like a rotting zombie in polyester bell-bottoms from some straight-to-video sequel, there’s still something almost touchingly quaint in the notion of an international summit on nuclear “nonproliferation” in the 21st century.

He continues:

We’re on the brink of a world in which the wealthiest nations from Canada to Norway to Japan can barely project meaningful force to their own borders while the nickel-’n’-dime basket cases go nuclear.

The next Bond flick is being delayed indefinitely. Why? MGM may be going out of business.

news - 4/19

2010-04-17T19:26:00.009-04:00

Andrew Ferguson at TWS discusses behavioral economics, Cass Sustein's Nudge, and the Obama administration's governing philosophy.

A summary of the financial overhaul bill. h/t Gabe, who highlights this passage:

First, the bill contains a $50 billion fund for resolution of systemically risky institutions. The bill allows a 2/3 vote of the Financial Stability Oversight Council to deem any firm (financial or non-financial) as coming under its rubric and then authorizes the FDIC and Treasury Secretary to treat each of the firm's shareholders and creditors as they choose, without regard to bankruptcy law. Second, the bill gives the Treasury and the FDIC authority to grant an unlimited number of loan guarantees to systemically risky institutions. No Congressional authorization or appropriation is required. Third, the bill gives the Fed the authority to fund any "program" to assist these institutions accepting as collateral anything it deems appropriate.

So let me interpret:

The end of contract law - a necessary component to a market system
Permanent bailouts continue - moral hazard still exists
TARP becomes institutionalized and given authority in perpetuity

I've written before that I think that the economy will be weak for some time, and detailed past economic history, patterns, etc. Here is more evidence of lasting high unemployment, and thus a long, slow recovery.

There has been some discussion over Mitt Romney and MassCare being his poison pill. He has been steadfastly defending it, though with limited success and, frankly, a rather poor explanation of why. I'll try to explain Romney's position, or at least how I interpret it...

He believes in universal health care. He looks at it in the same way he looks at education (and quite frankly, most conservatives and libertarians look at education this way too) - that there is a signficant social benefit to universalizing the social good. That does not mean actually socializing or nationalizing it however. Furthermore, as long as hospitals are legally required to treat people and ambulances required to pick them up, regardless of ability to pay, some sort of universal coverage makes more economic sense than having to shoulder the deadweight loss of those who don't pay. Two common "market failures" are present in health care currently: Tragedy of the Commons and the Freerider problem.

Thus, some variant of mandate becomes necessary in order to fix the problem and establish universality. It can range from "you must, under penalty of fines and imprisonment" to some type of voucher system. Do mandates work? Yeah, for the most part. Do mandates achieve the desired goal? Again: yeah, for the most part. Viewing it through the lens of education, most are fine with requiring kids to attend school, ranging from public schools and truancy laws to vouchers for private schools.

Therefore, I think it as a question of: where does a person view health care on the spectrum of goods and services? Is it a postive right, holding the same weight as free speech or right to bear arms? Is it like most other goods/services (e.g. a television)? Is it a social good, like education or firefighting, where there is considerable social benefit to it? Is it like a police department, where the power to act with violence is granted exclusively to the state?

My personal opinion is that it is a social good, like education, though I suspect my version is slightly different than Mitt's. But I also recognize that the mandate is both offensive to my political persuasion as well as to core American philosophy. And that is the reason I have suggested a voucher system as a work-around.

SecDef Gates, while in South America.

But remember, he is democratically elected...

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called on 35,000 armed militias on Tuesday to defend his socialist revolution with their lives if necessary as he faces a test of its popularity in elections in September.

Major cancer breakthrough? New treatment appears to halt metastasis (when the cancer moves from one part to another in the body)

Quasars don't show time dilation? Basically, this means either our understanding of physics, particularly on the galactic-scale, is way off, or our understanding of the Big Bang and expansion is way off.

Today's Moment of Zen:

(h/t/ Allahpundit)

Lessons in Foreign Policy

2010-04-14T12:07:00.002-04:00

Obama with PM Harper (Canada):

Obama with Hu Jintao (PRC):

End Lesson.

news - 4/13

2010-04-14T00:07:00.003-04:00

The WSJ is reporting that SCUD (class-D) missiles have been given to Hezbollah. These would easily be able to hit any part of Israel from any part of Lebanon. However, they are quite large which would make me think they would be somewhat easier to track and target for bombing, even if they are mobile. The rockets previously used by Hamas and Hezbollah have been quite smaller, with a range roughly 5-10% of a SCUD-D. (h/t Paul @ Powerline)

And so it begins: Polish MP claims the Russians engineered the crash that decapitated much of their government.

Libya certainly has traveled quite a ways in just a few short years. Not long ago, they were busy soiling their britches while publicly giving up their secret WMD program. Now they snub their nose with impunity.

According to the NYT, of all places, it turns out the geniuses in DC may have killed their current generous health care benefit package as a result of ObamaCare.

Some Oklahomans, including legislators, are seeking to re-establish (or establish?) a state militia to fight federal policies. All states have a right to do so under the 2nd Amendment, which contains the expressed purpose of protecting states from an overbearing federal government. While the idea is eyebrow-raising, the critics quoted in the article miss the point. Some liken it to Tim McVeigh, which is rather insulting. Others were stating that its purpose is already provided via the National Guard; evidently the national vs. state aspect is lost on them. And it is somewhat ironic that many of those that sneer and jeer this idea are also the ones who claim that this is the sole purpose of the 2nd Amendment (vs. an individual right to keep and bear arms). Of course, this should also be rather moot when one factors in Posse Comitatus.

A couple posts ago, I mentioned "conservative progressivism" and Paul Ryan. Though it appears I was correct in the language dispute, I presumed too much in stating that I presume Ryan would use that term as well. Apparently he agrees with me in not just finding the term "progressive" rather sketchy, but also that if a term were to be claimed/reclaimed, it should be liberal.

Cure for skin cancer? Maybe. The one little quibble I have with the article is that the author calls it a vaccine, when it isn't. Vaccines are preventative and must be taken before acquiring the disease; this treatment helps those who already have it, thus making it a cure.

"Six shockingly evil things babies are capable of". Reminds me of a topic I covered several months ago, having to do with the more innate tribalism versus the learned behavior of "individualism". The #1 is probably the most shocking, as it carries an in-utero Cain-vs.-Abel vibe to it.

Oooooh. Found another must-have. Now I won't be stuck with poorly-constructed shirts that fall apart from normal wear. Instead, it brings new meaning to UnderArmour. Thanks to Jack M.

Darleen certainly has a nose for sniffing out the most absurd stories floating around.

"The little girls’ room won’t be just for little girls anymore, if the Maine Human Rights Commission has its way." I suspect this will be quite popular amongst teenage boys.
Genocide... Crimes Against Humanity... Ecocide? The UK's Guardian news outlet notes that the supporters are salivating over it because they think they will be able to turn anyone who is not big on global warming alarmism into an international criminal.

Today's Moment of Zen:

(h/t HotAir)

Holy crap, that pudgy androgynous Asian kid has a set of pipes! And here, he's doing Amazing Grace in Taiwan's Super Idol.

news - 4/12

2010-04-12T12:15:00.006-04:00

The big recent news is that Poland's leadership has effectively been decapitated as a result of a plane crash. Conspiracy theories immediately emerged. First, it is odd that so many of its leadership would be all on one plane. However strange that may seem to us, it is not nearly as uncommon among poorer nations than our own, especially one that tries to follow the degree of fiscal frugality that a country like Poland does. According to reports, they were flying to Smolensk, in western Russia, to pay their respects on the 70th anniversary of the Katyn forest massacre where 20,000 Polish elite were executed by Stalin. This only adds to the conspiracy theory as Poland has emerged from the Cold War with a vociferous anti-Russia/pro-America stance, and Putin active attempts to rehabilitate the image of Stalin. It certainly does not help that Putin has stated he will head up the investigation. And considering Russia's recent willingness to assassinate political opponents, at the very least they are a victim (with regards to the conspiracy accusations) of their own making.

The other big news recently has to do with SC Justice Stevens and his announced retirement. It is something that has been speculated upon for some time. Considering that he is considered to be a reliable liberal on the court, and the expectations this coming election season, it is politically pragmatic for him to retire now so that Obama can replace him with someone at least as reliably Left has he is. Recall that the Constitution states that the president can appoint anyone to the highest court, "with the advise and consent of the Senate".

Mankiw pointing out the enormity of the fiscal gap. From the Tax Policy Center, in order to reduce the deficit to 3% of GDP (that is Obama's goal for 2015, and note we are not talking about eliminating the budget deficit), it will require an increase on income taxes of 40% on everyone. If it were isolated to the evil rich, whom Obama stated would be the only one effected by his tax policy, it would require a 70% increase. This follows a similar vein to something I pointed out a year ago with some "back-of-the-napkin" calculations - that his spending plans would necessarily require a massive increase, and that his behavior suggests that this is to intentionally increase (and cement in place) the size of government to European levels.

A few posts ago, I looked into the health care mandate, and how it might be enforced. Many were claiming that it was unenforceable, though I was ultimately skeptical. The head of the IRS has confirmed what I stated.

Harvard Business Review: Welcome to the False Recovery. It largely focuses on savings rates, something that I have noted in the past when discussing the severity of this downturn, and its roots tracing back to the 90's.

Obama Administration's DOT: We are going to put biking and walking on the same level as driving. I guess that makes sense if they were trying to end the age of the automobile. While the alarm may be overblown, he is the one that called it "a sea-change" from past policy. Choice exerpts:

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood: “This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of nonmotorized.”

“Treating bicycles and other nonmotorized transportation as equal to motorized transportation would cause an economic catastrophe,” warned Carter Wood, a senior adviser at the National Association of Manufacturers. “If put it into effect, the policy would more than undermine any effort the Obama Administration has made toward jobs. You can’t have jobs without the efficient movement of freight.”

“I don’t even understand how you get a bang for the buck out of a bicycle project,” Mr. LaTourette [R-OH] subsequently commented. “I mean, what job is going to be created by having a bike lane?”

Glenn Reynolds, of Instapundit: the knowledge problem for Progressives. This is the core flaw in all central planning, and why markets are more efficient and effective.

So Obama's new START treaty doesn't effect missile defense? Turns out the only way that can be interpreted as accurate is that if the Administration was going to do this stuff anyway. McKittrick, of Closing Velocity, points out new restrictions, straight from the text of the treaty. I suppose what it means is that for missile defense to be constructed, it has to use new launching facilities, rather than revamp old ones. As we shut down ICBM facilities, what then will we do with the big holes? As for sub-based defense, we would have to build whole new submarines in order to do so, which run about $2.5 billion each.

With regards to the Michael Steele fundraising/scandal that I mentioned earlier, I thought it appropriate to mention these updates: It was an after-party for young donors. That link also has a statement from the RNC. The staffer who was behind it (Steele apparently played no part) has been fired. It was also a West Hollywood club modeled after Kubrick's/Cruise's/Kidman's Eyes Wide Shut, which suggests to me that while risque, it wasn't a bondage-themed strip club as it was originally made out to be.

Today's moment of Zen:

I'd give a hat-tip, but I don't recall from whom I got this clip from. The first 60 seconds remind me of the most effective ad McCain ran during the election - the one that compared him to Moses. As for the last 30 seconds, I've made this point before on political ads: I seriously doubt the effectiveness of such stuff because it sounds like such a stereotypical attack ad with the stereotypical scary voice that (I would think) most viewers would just shut it out. Humor and mocking is considerably more effective and more memorable.

And congrats to an acquaintance of mine, a blogger (and, now, doctor) who goes by the pen-name TMI3rd, on his newborn first-born. Welcome to the world, TMI4th.

news - 4/05

2010-04-06T01:11:00.002-04:00

Another thing in the ObamaCare bill... remember the "death panels"? In regards to those, the bill states on p. 1020:

"it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

It is an old link, but I am just seeing it now, and have checked the passed version and it is still there, on the same page. Normally I would think, "how on Earth is something like this Constitutional?" According to the author at the Weekly Standard, it is not legislation... it is a rule change. Constitutionally, both Houses have the ability to govern their own procedural affairs. Normally, the Senate has decided that a 2/3 vote is necessary to issue any rule changes. Obviously, this bill was not passed with a 2/3 vote so where does something like this stand? It is not a rule that was passed by both Houses and signed by the president, it was a law. Thus it is not improper decorum to discuss such a matter in either House, but illegal. Furthermore, it is absurd on its face that such a law can exist in this country, as if it stands, it could mean any thought or speech can be criminalized. And why not state this for any major element of legislation?

James Pethokoukis reports on a recent economic paper in which non-existent growth is predicted for the next couple decades. I mentioned the same thing 1.5 years ago, based upon preliminary trendlines that I was observing.

Obama is in the process of issuing a new energy policy, and thus far the focus has been on offshore oil exploration. There has been some skepticism: IBD, and others on the fine print.

Vanity Fair recently did a piece on Gen. Petraeus. It makes me think of him as a modern-day Patton. And speaking of him, the murmurs of him being a presidential candidate continue. Daffydd discusses. Like him, I would certainly find it an interesting scenario to have a presidential debate on foreign policy between Obama and the General.

Paul Ryan discusses the two types of Progressive thought.

Early Progressives wanted to empower and engage the people. They fought for populist reforms like initiative and referendum, recalls, judicial elections, the breakup of monopoly corporations, and the elimination of vote buying and urban patronage. But Progressivism turned away from popular control toward central government planning. It lost most Americans and consumed itself in paternalism, arrogance, and snobbish condescension.

This concept is further discussed here. It is interesting to note how people have different terms for the same thing. And how arguments spawn from people who have different definitions for the same set of words. Both this author and Paul Ryan (at least, I presume) call this "progressive conservatism". Many, including myself, would think of that term as being big-government conservatism and not a "libertarian populism"as what is described (and from which helped spawn the name of this blog). Personally, I would prefer an attempt to reclaim the term "liberal" than "progressive", as the term "classical liberal" refers to one who holds the ideals of our founders and not what it has morphed into today. In comparison, "progressive" has had a dark side ever since its inception, though some of what it advocated early on was good reform. The author inadvertently seems to acknowledge this at the end of his piece by referring to it as "radical reform conservatism".

SciAm: Are men the more belligerent sex? Studies suggest men are more violent, and it is likely linked to the presence of testosterone, with one notable exception: relational aggression. Rather than resorting to physical violence, women tend to engage in personal destruction via social manipulation - i.e. talking behind one's back, spreading rumors, and other "stealth attacks". Also, women commit at least half, if not a majority, of violence within romantic relationships. So... does this qualify as a "did someone actually get paid to research this" study? It seems to me that the psychologists are finally coming around to what I thought was common wisdom.

As it has been a comparatively slower news week, I've been working on a review of Mitt Romney's new book as I read it (along with three others that have bookmarks in them). I should have that soon, but I will say that thus far, I have been enjoying it.

And now, your moment of Zen... Michelle Obama, the Birther.

(h/t Gabe)

With Regards to the Mandate

2010-03-29T23:45:00.002-04:00

I read this post today at Powerline, in which they ask whether the mandate is enforced. So what does the bill say about the mandate?

under the requirement to maintain essential minimum coverage (section 1501):

p. 322 of HR 3590

‘‘(2) INCLUSION WITH RETURN.—Any penalty
imposed by this section with respect to any month
shall be included with a taxpayer’s return under
chapter 1 for the taxable year which includes such
month.

(penalties for coverage gaps under 3 months):

p. 332
The Secretary shall prescribe rules for the collec-
tion of the penalty imposed by this section in
cases where continuous periods include months
in more than 1 taxable year.

in a later section, it gets into the meat of it:

p. 336

‘‘(g) ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The penalty provided by this
section shall be paid upon notice and demand by the
Secretary, and except as provided in paragraph (2),
shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as
an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter
68. [ed- of the Tax Code]
‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any
other provision of law—
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In
the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely
pay any penalty imposed by this section, such
taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal
prosecution or penalty with respect to such fail-
ure.
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—
The Secretary shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to
any property of a taxpayer by reason of
any failure to pay the penalty imposed by
this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with
respect to such failure.’’.

I am no lawyer, so my interpretation is just a layman's... but what it sounds like is that the mandate is enforced via the IRS. No liens nor criminal penalties will be imposed for failure to be covered. I suppose then it could be sought civilly or via a person's tax return. If a person files a tax return, they can just state "no you aren't getting back $X, you are getting back $X minus the penalty". I have seen the same thing done with overpayment of social security to an individual, where the IRS said she owed a few hundred dollars because of overpayment on their part and so it was being deducted from her tax return.

It is also interesting to note that the bill itself points out that the mandate is the 3rd leg of the stool and why it is essential to include with the rest of the bill. (p. 320)

news - 3/29

2010-03-29T01:56:00.012-04:00

WaPo: Obama to require "lenders to temporarily slash or eliminate monthly mortgage payments for many borrowers who are unemployed". (h/t Gateway Pundit) Good for foreclosure stats, bad for banks.

Consumer metric indicators are predicting a double-dip to begin in the near future.

I blame Bush.

Iraq is now considered a safer bet than Argentina, Venezuela, Pakistan, and Dubai — and is nearly on par with the State of California, according to Bloomberg statistics on credit default swaps, which are considered a raw indicator of default risk.
“Compared to California, I’d rather bet on Iraq,’’ Daher said. “Iraq is a country where there are still bombs going off and people getting murdered, but they are less indebted than the United States. California is likely to have more demands on its resources, and there is no miracle where California is going to have more revenue coming out of the sky. Iraq has prospects for tremendously higher revenues, if they can manage to get their act halfway together, which they seem to be doing.’’

There is a scandal brewing that was originally reported to involve RNC chairman Michael Steele. Gabe has been following it closely. Here, he continues.

So health care reform is passed. First, major companies have stated that they will take a heavy hit as a result of it, estimated to be $4.5 billion in the first quarter alone. It's my understanding that publicly-traded companies have to make such an announcement because their books have to be publicized, by law; thus, any modifications to what their costs, assets, et al. must also be announced. In response, Stupak and Waxman sent letters to their CEO's to state they will investigate. But considering they are asking for intra-company emails that may pertain to the effects of the law, it appears that they are more interested in investigating those companies' management. Now Aetna's CEO has stated that premiums must go up as well.

CNBC commentary: Seven prickly questions for ObamaCare. The author's answer to Q3 is incorrect, however, as I have demonstrated the ambiguous reality of abortion funding. But considering the back-and-forth on it, I don't really blame him. Speaking of which, Kathleen Parker in this WaPo column details how the legislation will via community health centers.

Can states opt out? The mandate starts in 2014, but the opt-out is in 2017, meaning states would be stuck with it for three years. How likely is it then that they would uproot it after just settling in?

I have been trying to figure out exactly how the legislation will effect HSA-type policies. As I have noted before, I believe these to be the most effective means of properly controlling costs in health care.
     In reading the details concerning catastrophic coverage (begins p.116), it effectively eliminates such plan, though it does not ban them. They do not have to fit within the actuarial constraints of the other plans (Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum tiers), but there are others. First, they are only available to individuals. Second, a person can only purchase one if they are either aged 27-29 or financially unable to purchase anything else. Why 27-29? Well, the law in that section specifically states that the person must be under 30, and elsewhere, anyone up to 26 can be covered on their parent's plan. Also, anyone who is unable to afford anything else will likely prefer to be on Medicaid instead, who's rolls were significantly expanded under this legislation.
     What about similar plans like HSA's (my favorite, if you haven't figured out yet)? It is quite questionable if they would still exist. In order to meet the minimum, their actuarial value must be at least 60% (Bronze level). For those wondering what that means, here is a NYT article, and here is another, both which do a decent job explaining it and other aspects. Basically what it means is that the insurer must cover at least 60% of health care bills, on average, for all who carry such a plan. (As an aside, this has an effect of reducing customization of policies.) So do HSA-type plans meet this minimum? According to this article, it may mean that they no longer exist, or become much less common, for individuals because such plans are closer to 55%. Employer-provided HSA's tend to be a bit more generous, and also may have the employer contributions counted, which makes their actuarial value closer to 85%. Ultimately however, by law, it will be totally dependent upon the whim of whomever the Secretary of the HHS is at the time. The Manhattan Institute has more, as does this HSAfinder article.
     There will also be new requirements on such policies. (1) Three primary care visits covered. (2) coverage of certain preventative care visits, and (3) essential health benefits that all policies must cover (which can be expanded by the Sec. of HHS), as listed on p. 105. The perverse result is that the most promising policy (in economic terms) becomes less likely to be allowed (or increasingly meaningless) the more healthy people are. In other words, the lower the rate of cancer, the less the insurance company pays out, and thus the lower the actuarial value of a particular plan. Once the plan gets low enough, it becomes illegal to own. So smoke your cigarettes for the good of the economy.

The bill also requires that all chain restaurants of more than twenty stores to post calorie information on their menus, menu boards, and drive-thrus. As this is a pretty flat cost regardless of chain size, it will burden smaller companies more than larger ones. As this will be a temporary boon to menu and sign companies, are these some of the jobs that the bill supposedly creates? If so, it suffers from the broken window fallacy.

Speaking of broken windows... Having grown up in that town, I have some experience with the people. The city council is 100% Democrat. One year, a Republican was running for a seat and had asked if he could put a sign out front of my father's business. But to my knowledge, having that sign by the roadside earned him nothing but animosity; several nasty letters were left behind, which included statements that they would cease all patronage with his business. One year, the election turnout was so low that one Republican actually made it on to the council; the howls and gnashing of teeth did not cease until the following election when the sole Republican was beaten by not one, but three Democrats running against him.

In related news, the guy who has been making death threats against Eric Cantor has been arrested by the FBI.

The GOP attempted to delay the reconciliation package via offering various amendments. If the Democrats had accepted any, then the bill would have to be sent back to the House to be voted on again. The Democrats shot down them all, including a barring coverage on Viagra for sex offenders. But ultimately they had to send it back to the House anyway over language on Pell Grants. So, humorously, it appears that they found nationalizing student loans to be a more important issue than keeping erectile-boosting medications from sex predators.

A heart-warming story of father and daughter from the NYT.

Parental abduction and bitter divorces. And the psychological harm to children.

I've had personal experience with this.

news - 3/23

2010-03-23T18:24:00.009-04:00

So what are the myths about how great this health care bill is?

From the Left, the co-founder of FireDogLake. Among the myths she takes to task involve: the faux-universality; insurance companies actually love it (at least for the first few years); all the financial numbers are crap, it will cost many people more, doesn't "bend the cost-curve", and bust the budgets of middle-income Americans.

The one thing I disagree with her on is that she stated it was not a path to single payer. Truth is, is that it is actually on a very destructive path to there (a must read, as it explains how).
One year ago, I wrote that there is a method to the madness; that everything pursued is to intentionally set us on the path to become Italy, and also so that path becomes fixed. The bill is, in fact, a ticking time bomb and its components (such as pre-existing conditions, price controls, etc.) are like explosives and trigger mechanisms. Having it mandated does slow the process, but in some respects, this is like what was done for the past-mentioned Tsar Bomba. The Soviets constructed the largest-ever warhead that was to be 100Mt. Concerned about the fallout and the enormity of such an explosion, they included a lead tamper. This also meant the explosion, which was still the largest in history, was small enough for the bomber to get out of the way. That's essentially what the mandate does - slow the implosion enough so that they can get America out of the way of further disaster by implementing a socialized system. The path we were on was unsustainable. This bill has fast-tracked it. There are only two solutions (and hence only two end results) to cost-containment: either market forces or the price controls of a government takeover.

IBD: 20 ways ObamaCare will take away our freedoms.

Speaking of getting out of the way, who is exempt from the bill?

Heritage Foundation on abortion coverage. I mentioned the sleight of hand with subsidized private plans. They list a few others.

And what about the reconciliation bill? Heritage Foundation looks at that too.

And here is another gimmick within it, to the tune of $29 billion.

One of the other concerns I have had is its effect on medical innovation. America's culture of entrepreneurship and liberty are critical to the dominance we have in this field. Reason.tv explains, which also links to the parasitic nature of other nations resulting in higher costs here.

I've written in the past about the uniqueness of American culture, and how it is not defined in the same way all other countries do. Rather than commonality of cuisine, language, architecture, et al., we have been united under common philosophy. I also noted how the decline in a nation's cultural essence is often tightly interwoven with the nation's decline itself. Mark Steyn writes of this link, asking is America hitting this decline now and ponders what the future may look like.

Economic dynamism and political continuity seem far more central to America’s sense of itself than they are to most nations’

It is an interesting thought experiment. He notes something Charles Krauthammer said recently: “decline is a choice.” I agree with Steyn that our decline, if we follow that path, will be much more tumultuous than Europe's has been thus far. Per our replacement, China does have numerous problems that will increasingly hold it back from being able to take over our role (and even if they were to, it would not be to the world's benefit as having us at the helm). India has its own issues, though different from China's. The result would be a multipolar world, and history has suggested that is an environment for higher levels of violent struggles for power and resources.

In related news, Time discusses the possibility of a clash between India and China, and how confrontation is becoming more likely.

Also, here is a collection of outlines of Roman history, that, among other things, details the decadence and decay experienced in its decline.

Random thing of the day: the top 20 conservative counties in America. The number one is Williamson Co., TN which is a suburb of Nashville.

Never heard of Williamson County? Well, you need to start paying attention to it. It is number one on this list for a few reasons. First, when you factor cost of living into household income, Williamson County is the wealthiest county, not only on this list, but in America. Second, it is a reliably conservative county: McCain got 69 percent here and its congresswoman is Marsha Blackburn, a strong conservative. It has the single highest rate of married families on the list. Tennessee is a conservative state, with strong religious adherence and taxation only on interest and dividends. To top it off, it is home to some of the elite of Red America, like country singers Kenny Chesney, Carrie Underwood and Dolly Parton, and investment guru Dave Ramsey. This is Noam Chomsky’s version of hell.

No wonder I liked living there so much.

news - 3/21

2010-03-21T18:39:00.006-04:00

Looks like the Senate's version of health care reform is now a fait accompli. Here is a link to the text that the House is passing. And Mark Steyn's view on what this means. Ace, from whom I got the link, adds to the thought:

[Obama] also aims to make Republicans partners in the destruction of America, by making us endorse his cataclysmic irresponsibility -- when we take back Congress, we will be faced with two vicious choices: Raise taxes ruinously, or allow the country to repudiate its debt and go bankrupt. Because the best option -- repealing the bill -- will be impossible until a real President is installed and next-to-impossible thereafter.

One of the worst (if not the worst) aspect to the bill is the significant expansion of Medicaid. And it couldn't come at a worse time.

VDH describes it as having crossed the Rubicon. He goes on to discuss the possibility of the large Democrat majority to rush several other major bills through via a similar process, which got me thinking... everyone is saying that the Democrats will be crushed this November, and even more so due to the passage of the health care bill. Going further, saying that the anger will carry through to the 2012 elections as well. Currently that seems likely, though Democrats deny that and say that once it gets going, people will like it.
In my previous post, I noted Luis Gutierrez's "bribe" was that an immigration bill would advance quickly and with Obama playing an active roll in pushing it forward. What if all the illegals were given amnesty, and hence voting rights? And would it be as solidifying a base for the party, like the Civil Rights Act stuff was for blacks and the Democrats? An additional 10 million Democrat voters would likely allow them to keep the House, and establish a permanent majority. But it may aslo discourage the Right (at least at the ballot box), while also leaving a large segment of the population feeling marginalized, more acutely disenfranchised, and angry. Essentially, we would have European politics.

Oh, just in time too. We are on the verge of losing AAA status on T-bills. And Warren Buffett currently gets better rates for Berkshire Hathaway than Obama does now.

Remember when the Democrats booed President Bush during his push for Social Security reform, stating that it would turn red and then go bankrupt? He used the then-projections that it would go red in 2018, and bankrupt in 2042. The Democrats accused him of being overly pessimistic so as to incite fear to pass his proposed reforms. Well... now that it is in the red, what year is it?

You may have heard there is some hubbub over new book requirements in Texas schools. Complaints over lack of balance, due to (according to the AP) 'a “far-right faction” of the board had succeeded “in injecting conservative ideals” into the curriculum'. How so? The inclusion of Hayek in economics. So does he belong? Citations have him on par with Friedman and Keynes, and only behind Smith and Marx.

Now even the NYT and WaPo state the CBO numbers the Democrats are touting don't pass the smell test. A former CBO director speaks out about it too. Despite that, many blue-dogs are using the scoring as a fig leaf. I suspect the future will prove that the fig leaf will not cover that for which they are shameful.

Uncertainty's effects in an economic downturn.

Today's random scientific study. Finding? The ridiculous part: People find sexist remarks to be offensive to the entirety of that gender. I thought that factor was already implied in the word "sexist"; in totally unrelated news, black people find racist comments about 'blacks and genetic propensity towards criminal behavior' to be offensive towards all blacks. What is more interesting, if they actually went that far: the psychological side of an individual being the recipient of prejudiced behavior (regardless of real or perceived) and the "critical mass" needed to establish a pattern for what I'll call revenge prejudice.

Commentary: How the Administration's Middle East policy will end with the result as minimal US regional influence and our adversaries as the new power.

Will Latvia be one of the first Eastern European countries to fall?

Chicago Chicanery - Health Care Reform

2010-03-19T02:08:00.013-04:00

When major legislation is close, the process has a habit of getting ugly. Congresscritters realize that their vote is worth considerably more, and start tiptoeing the line between a raised eyebrow and outright bribery. ObamaCare is very close to having enough votes in the house to pass, and the leadership (along with Obama) are doing everything they can to ensure its passage, damn the consequences. As I have stated before: if it passes, the political reality is that it will never be undone; it will be law for at least three years before anyone can think of repealing it or considerably modifying it to a more palatable version.

The Chicago-schooled Community-Organizer-in-Chief believes he knows the way to ensure passage, and that is what he learned in his political upbringing: bring on the bribes.

Still seeking votes for his proposed health care overhaul, President Barack Obama appears ready to reverse his position and allow unpopular deal-sweetening measures in the hopes of finding Democratic support for legislation whose future will be decided in coming days.

And its not just kickbacks, but campaign funds and support as well.

California Congresscriminals Cardoza and Costa were yesses. Then declared they were undecided. But then switched back to yes, which just so happened to coincide with the Department of the Interior modifying that region's water allocation. The region has been in a drought and hit with water shortages. If memory serves me correctly, it was also one of political creation, in order to protect a delta smelt. So farmers losing crops and jobs and their land... not an issue. ObamaCare votes? Now it is.

Luis Gutierrez went through the same motions, except over immigration.
Gutierrez said later he agreed to vote for Obama's signature domestic bill, health care reform, only if an immigration bill advanced quickly and with a presidential imprimatur. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus also endorsed the health care bill.
Dennis Kucinich was an ardent no vote, until recently, as the bill was apparently not socialist enough for his tastes. Obama invited him onto Air Force One, and by the time it landed, he had changed his stance. One can only guess at what was said, but my money is Mr. Chicago stated that Mr. Moonbeam could either see Area 51 as a visitor... or a visitor. And be a permanent resident alien.

Speaking of space... Bart Gordon, "retiring" Representative from TN, a formerly solid no-vote, has apparently been promised to be appointed as the NASA administrator. At the link, Tom Bevan points out one piece of irony to this situation - that current Democrat governor Phil Bredesen had sent a note stating how passage of this legislation would put the state's finances in a more precarious position, and that that was a major part of the reason Gordon was opposed to it. Well, the legislation hasn't changed, but his vote has. Part two is that Gordon has "expressed skepticism" for the Administration's new plans for NASA, meaning Obama is willing to toss that aside as well for passage.

Also in TN, there is some talk that John Tanner will be named Ambassador to NATO.

What made Betsy Markey (D-CO) switch from no/maybe to yes today? (She had voted against the House version before, and has stated her misgivings for the Senate version). It is a Republican-leaning district that opposes the bill nearly 2-1, and she is a freshman in the House. Just speculation, but she has worked in computer security for the government before as the Director of Computer Security Policy, and afterwards co-founded the software firm Syscom Services, which (according to her bio) was basically her first private sector job. Perhaps there may be a return to federal IT work, as I haven't seen anything resembling Colorado-related-policy yet. I just don't buy the argument that the sketchy CBO preliminary scoring swayed her this time around, but didn't last November.

Is Lynch, one of Pelosi's House whips, angling for something, along with other Massachusetteans?
In an e-mail alert to constituents Tuesday night, Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Somerville) said he’s still undecided on the legislation. Like Lynch, he expressed concerns that the bill could hurt Massachusetts’ new universal health-care program. Rep. John Tierney (D-Salem) was also on the fence.

Rep. Edward Markey (D-Malden) said yesterday he’s leaning toward supporting the bill, but won’t officially make up his mind until he sees final language of the bill and how it will be voted upon.
And what about Bobby Rush (D-Ill.)? The guy is from Chicago, so he knows the game.

Though since removed, there was an exception to the student loan nationalization that is being included in reconciliation: The state-owned Bank of North Dakota would be the only lender outside the Federal Government still allowed to make student loans. Why? Kent Conrad (D-ND), chair of the Senate Budget Committee.

Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA) says, "if you don't tie our hands, we will keep stealing."

As brought up earlier, the student loan nationalization is in part done to help pay for this. So part of a student's loan will go to pay for this, on top of the requirement to carry an insurance policy.

Obama to Nelson: I've used you, now its time to lose you. Ben Nelson's "Cornhusker Kickback" has been purged. He sold out his constituency for it, and now will all be for naught. As a result, he will likely never be elected again, reviled across the state, and will have nothing at all to show for it. For more on policy purges (and ones kept), read this WaPo article.

Not that it matters considering what is happening to Nelson, but Coburn vows to assist that process:

“I want to send a couple of messages to my colleagues in the House. If you voted no, and you vote yes, and you lose your election, and you think any nomination to a federal post isn’t going to be held up in the Senate, I’ve got news for you. It’s going to be held [up].

Number two is, if you get a parochial deal for you or your district, I’ve already instructed my staff that we will look at every appropriations bill, and we will associate that with the buying of your vote. I want to tell you that your deal isn’t going to happen. And be prepared to defend selling your vote.”

--------

As a sidebar: the first decade that the bill will be in full effect will cost not $940B that the Dems are claiming, but over $2T.

To see the bill’s true first-decade costs, we need to start the clock when the costs would actually start in any meaningful way: in 2014. The CBO says that Obamacare would cost $2.0 trillion in the bill’s real first decade (from 2014 to 2023) — and much more in the decades to come.

But $2.0 trillion wouldn’t be the total ten-year costs. Instead, that would merely be the “gross cost of coverage provisions.” Based on earlier incarnations of the proposed overhaul, the total costs would be about a third higher (the exact number can’t be gleaned from the CBO’s analysis, which is only preliminary and is not a full scoring) — making the total price-tag between $2.5 and $3 trillion over the bill’s real first decade.

And at this point, it reminds me of a recent post by Greg Mankiw on "The Problem with Deficit Neutrality"

Walgreens has announced that it will no longer take any new Medicaid patients.

With regards to this "deem and pass" stuff, it may be unconstitutional, but it may still stand. More. The Constitution specifically states:

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States;

news - 3/18

2010-03-18T20:40:00.004-04:00

Reason.com: Five lies about the American Economy

Jim Cramer: ObamaCare will cause the market to collapse, as it (along with other policies that would quickly come down the pike after passage) puts a severe double-dip recession back into play.

Business Insider: 15 reasons why Obama's claim that "A second depression is no longer a possibility" is dead wrong

So much for giving credit to Obama for advocating offshore drilling. The administration has issued a three year ban and is advocating a "starvation diet" to end the age of oil, according to Investor's Business Daily.

Such negativity is a downer. At least we have a good manufacturing base. No seriously, the rhetoric is way off base.

AEI: immigration and entrepreneurship. I find this a very interesting subject as it strikes at the heart of American culture. Borrowing a line from ol Frankie Blue Eyes, "if I can make it there, I can make it anywhere", our immigrants tend to be at least as entrepreneurial as our native population. I've mentioned it before, but what really defines our culture versus that of other nations is that ours is not based upon race, or language, or cooking style... it is based upon values.

From the alma mater: The brains of psychopaths appear to be wired to keep seeking a reward at any cost. While not necessarily a good predictor of violence or criminal behavior, it does mean that the draw towards the potential reward overwhelms the desire to avoid any potential punishment and perception of risk.

It's official, the joint venture between EADS and Northrop Grumman has dropped its bid to secure the USAF refueling tanker, citing favoritism and protectionism. It was originally Boeing's, but NOC/EADS had won the new contract a few years back. Boeing challenged and has now acquired it. It couldn't be that two-thirds of Boeing's workforce is in Washington and California? Or that it is headquartered in Chicago? Meanwhile NOC is largely located in Virginia, the Gulf Coast, and is moving its HQ to northern Virginia?

According to a report, we are sending lots of bunker-busters to a staging area on the British island of Diego Garcia, in the central Indian Ocean. It makes me wonder how things are tied to the withdrawal of forces from Iraq, if indeed they are intended for Iran. Or they may just be for the Af-Pak hinterlands.

The Atlantic: What Obama is Actually Trying to do in Israel. Two words... regime change. With friends like this...

In the House, Republicans imposed a party-wide ban on earmarks. Meanwhile, the Senate rejected such a policy: Fifteen Republicans joined with most Democrats in rejecting the moratorium on earmarks by a 68-29 vote.

Hacker disables over 100 cars remotely, as vengeance for having his own car repo'ed. Not to sound overly conspiratorial, but it made me think of the Priuses.

Looks like the planet Krypton has been found.

Life under the Antarctic ice.

How to keep the crunch in food when microwaving.

No idea what I would actually use this for, but nevertheless this would be a cool birthday present.

Whereas, I could certainly find a use for this.

news - 3/15

2010-03-14T00:03:00.004-05:00

Whoops. Here it is, posting a couple days late.

--------

The administration is looking at ways to limit fishing in our oceanic territorial waters. There has been some speculation that it may mean significant banning. I've written my thoughts on proper management before, such as here.

Obama is catching some more heat over his decision to turn NASA into a global warming research organization. Rather than return to the moon, which is like (sha!) so last generation, it is probably better to head towards establishing a large facility. We have a ways to go in order to make a moon base (likely polar) a viable idea. Solar panels used for electrolysis on the frozen water must be efficient and extensive, especially as an energy source for rocket fuel. Mars is, at a minimum, ten times farther than Luna, making it a considerably longer journey and more dangerous. Lagrangian points are thus probably the best places thanks to the balance of gravity there. The Sun-Earth L1 and L2 are about 4 times further than the Moon. However, the Earth-Moon L1 point is only about 80% the distance, making it an ideal location.

Looking at the Danish experience, wind power has been a complete disaster. In related news, a Gallup poll shows that the belief that global warming is "generally exaggerated" has skyrocketed in recent years to roughly half the US population. What makes that all the more significant is (a) how little people generally pay attention to the news, and (b) how little the recent scandals have been covered in US media.

Lost Jewish tribe found in Zimbabwe. Evidently their traditions, and some of their ancestry, dates back to some people who left the Holy Land about 2500 years ago.

In a recent televised interview, Obama stated his desire for all individuals arrested to have their DNA collected. Not convicted. Arrested.

So who ultimately was it that captured "Jihad Jane"? Turns out it was a few intrepid bloggers. Congrats to our friends at JawaReport, et al.

According to Judicial Watch, the Obama administration spiked the investigation into ACORN's misdeeds.

A couple months ago, I mentioned the current Administration's desire to nationalize student loans. According to the National Association of Scholars, this idea has been inserted into the reconciliation bill for ObamaCare. And check out this planned slight-of-hand:

[According to Senator Alexander, former Sec of Education, the] DOE plans to borrow from the Fed at a 2.8 percent interest rate, lend to students at 6.8, and splurge with the difference with a massive new spending program.

And speaking of the Fed, the new appointment for vice-chair is an inflation-loving Keynesian. But hey, if we are going to be resurrecting stuff from the 1970's, at least it's not the sense of style.

Der Spiegel: the fundamental flaw of the Euro

But it isn't quite that easy [blaming evil finance]. Many of the most notorious gamblers don't work on the trading floors of international financial centers, but in government offices in Athens, Madrid, Berlin and Brussels. They have either used the euro, along with tricks and falsification, to live for years at the expense of others, or they have deliberately looked the other way.

The notion that the European common currency is based on nothing but a series of lies is now taking its toll. All of the founders of the euro knew that the new currency could only be stable if all member states committed themselves to sound financial policy and, in the long run, spent only as much as they collected in tax revenue. But many ignored this principle right from the start.

Study finds median wealth for single, black women is.....

Among the most startling revelations in the wealth data is that while single white women in the prime of their working years (ages 36 to 49) have a median wealth of $42,600, ... the median wealth for single black women is only $5.

But we all know the cause of it, right?

"If wealth was based on hard work, African-Americans would be the wealthiest people in our nation," she [Ms. Lui, director of the Closing the Gap Initiative] said. "It's not about behavior. It's about government policies. Who does the government help and who is it not helping?

news - 3/10

2010-03-10T14:50:00.005-05:00

A true Marxist intellectual, being honest about his stances.

Speaking of which, here is the chief Kossack of DailyKos essentially stating that libertarianism = Mogadishu. That is his own website I linked to too.

Which makes me scratch my head that a self-described 'classical liberal'/libertarian/Austrian (econ) individual even posts there. The Kossacks are lovers of big, controlling government; she isn't (or at least shouldn't be). Here she gives a good, detailed explanation of the Keynes vs. Hayek rap. But having gone through her other posts, she has said some idiotic things to say, so maybe she isn't such a bad fit.

What anti-American propaganda from North Korea looks like. Hollywood has made some movies like that recently.

Is Greece the harbinger of things to come?

The best solution to a fiscal deficit is growth, yet growth has to battle with the inevitability of spending cuts and tax rises to come. Is there any way out? The UK is pinning its hopes on exports – but, regrettably, we are not alone. The French government this week announced plans to eliminate the industrial deficit over the next five years by raising production by a quarter. The line-up of export hopefuls is getting ever more crowded.

As the drug-induced stupor of public support wears off, the pain will be almost universally felt. Public policy may have smoothed the comedown, but it hasn’t permanently suspended it. If there is one positive to be drawn from these widening deficits, it is this: they have at least focused attention on the intergenerational debts that we threaten to heap on to our children, and provided the wake-up call needed to address them.

While nearly all economists agree that trade is good (even one-way), many nations pin their hopes of economic growth to boosting exports and its relativistic win-win more nature. Fast-growth nations rely on exports to maintain it (e.g. China). Slow-growth nations rely on exports to buoy their stagnant economies (e.g. continental Europe). For obvious reasons, not every nation can be a net-exporter. Problems arise when politicians, under stressful economic situations like now, start pondering the Prisoner's Dilemma and think they can get a little extra at the expense of other nations. Tariffs and trade barriers then lead to worsening economic problems. This exact pattern occurred during the global slump that began 80 years ago.

IBD editorial: A Tale of Two Depressions.

Economic fascism in practice: Toyota is getting irritated.

Civic literacy quiz. Full disclosure, I got 32/33 (96.97%). Read question #14 too quick. The general public failed it, at 49%. But those who had held office and took it did even worse at 44%. Which again begs the question, is Washington capable of running things better than individual Americans are? More.

The end of the road for Obama? A surgical takedown with the eloquence we can only imagine also possessing a British accent. For those of us who tried to avoid base demagoguery during the past election season as to why we opposed Obama's election, this conclusion sums it up:

The slickness of campaigning that comes from a combination of heavy funding and public relations expertise does not inevitably translate into an ability to govern. There is no point a nation's having the audacity of hope unless it also has the sophistication and the will to turn it into action.

When I read this, my first thought was Cain and Abel - Abel being a farmer, and Cain a rancher.

Cro-Magnon Couture, courtesy of Chanel at the Paris fashion show. Check out the slide show. The German designer makes wookiewear, the Italian designer makes East German fashion, and the French designer makes stuff that would only be found in Cabela's lingerie section, April Fool's edition. From the AP:

Models in classic Chanel suits with fur trim or tweed jackets paired with pants that looked like they were made out of Chewbacca, the "Star Wars" Wookiee (sic), struck poses in front of the giant icebergs, which had apparently been special-delivered from Sweden.

So yes, in order to re-aim the cannons of the fashion world's soft power at climate change, they brought giant Swedish icebergs to Paris to melt on stage for the runway models to slosh through.

Texas vs. California. One caveat. The ACT score rank listed is actually the ranking based upon the percentage of students who take it; I think that is rather meaningless, as some states are more likely than others to have ACT (vs. SAT). The composite scores have California at #13 (22.1) and Texas at #40 (20.5). But then, 30% of Texans take the test versus only 15% for California; the lower the number, the more likely it is that the only ones taking it are those who are using it for college entrance (and thus the academically weakest are not included in the score). For comparison, Illinois has 100% of high school graduates take it, and their ACT composite score is identical to Texas's at 20.5. Minnesota, however, has 70% and beats both at 22.5. However, I suspect Minnesota is an outlier due to variations in the 'culture of achievement' scholastically. Also, a bond rating of A- is normally pretty good, except this is for a state government. We reasonably expect government to be a pinnacle of stability because it doesn't have to operate under the market laws a business does. Thus 'speculative' shouldn't be a word that applies.

So what does ObamaCare say about abortion? According to this Slate article, Stupak (the titular head of the pro-life House Democrats) really shouldn't be complaining. On the other hand, there is this. Basically, it is political slight of hand. Government wouldn't fund it directly via subsidizing health care. Instead it would subsidize all the rest of the insurance plan, and if the person wanted abortion coverage in their plan, they would pay a nominal fee amounting to a dollar per month (the Senate law stipulates that as the minimum). Example... let's say a person qualifies for the government to pick up half the cost of insurance. So instead of paying, say, $800/month, a person would be paying $401/month for subsidized coverage that included abortion. What Stupak et al. are claiming is that effectively constitutes the government subsidizing abortion by virtue of a person getting insurance that covers abortion, and that insurance is cheaper as a result of a subsidy. By subsidizing the mechanism which a person can insure abortion, it effectively subsidizes the procedure itself; it is sort of like subsidizing 1000W amps for car stereos and then saying that is government-supported 'noise pollution'. Obama & co. claim that isn't true, because the person has to ask for it to be included and has to pay at least a dollar per month for the additional coverage. They claim it is a 'rider policy' and thus doesn't apply.

Slate commentary: The New Backlash Against Casual Sex. The author seems to think that it is just a cultural cycle. And cites a study that suggests 'hooking up is not psychologically damaging'. Yet she provides examples of women who should be the most "ideologically pure" in the pro-sexual liberation camp that still are hit with what she calls the "shame-feedback loop". Shame is an emotion hardwired into nearly every individual. Just like disgust, it provides a check against behaviors that result in a higher likelihood of causing harm to ourselves. Meanwhile, culture (especially the transient fads within it) inevitably oscillates as it changes over time. Perhaps the author is confusing the two.

Yeeeh. 1 in 6 Americans (ages 14-49) have genital herpes. Women, minorities hardest hit. Not only is the virus bad enough in-and-of itself, it is also racist and sexist. The article does not indicate whether or not it is homophobic as well.

Black women had the highest rate of infection at 48 percent and women were nearly twice likely as men to be infected, according to an analysis by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Typing by thinking - a plugless "brainjack" kit has been invented. Jordi LaForge is happy to hear it.

news - 3/04

2010-03-05T01:21:00.004-05:00

Romney is shaping up to be the "not-Palin" in the presidential running for 2012. "Beware the temptations of populism". There are generally three different types of populism: the masses vs. the elite, populist vs. elitist, and populist (somewhat authoritarian). Often these overlap, but not necessarily. What Mitt is warning against is the first one, which I distinguish from the second. A person can be elite, without being elitist.

Gender politics? The mommy state vs. daddy state.

The SC is signaling that they may in fact think the 2nd amendment does apply to an individual's rights. The last related case was specific to federal law (the DC handgun ban). The Chicago ban looks to be next in line.

Crony Capitalism:

Jonah Goldberg: Big Business is Vampiric.
Jonah #2: Progressive Corporatism
Reason.tv: More eminent domain abuse, this time in Brooklyn
Jim Demint: the WH land grab

Geert Wilders' Freedom Party wins big in the Netherlands. Paul discusses some of the problems "right-wing" parties face in Europe.

Hugo Chavez to be brought up on charges in Spain for being a terrorist thug. It is one of the quirks of Spanish law in that judges can bring cases against foreigners like this.

Obama snubs the British... again. This time over the Falklands.

Obama may insist on military commissions after all, at least for KSM. To quote Patterico:

"I’m happy to see that they’re going to do the right thing, but distressed that they consider this a political decision rather than a decision based on what is legal and appropriate."

Taranto makes note of this genius line from a WH advisor, in regards to the (assumed) decision to press forward on Obamacare: "This is the last helicopter out of Saigon". Follow the link; DRJ has the summation.

Obama stated a willingness to include some Republican ideas in the eventual "reconciliation" package for the health care plan that will be rammed through. Is it just me or is stating there will be $50 million designated to research medical malpractice reform quite the token gesture? Another idea was going after waste, fraud, and abuse. Which until now, I didn't realize that was a Republican idea. I suppose the R's will take it where they can get it. And there is some possibility that HSA plans will be offered in his insurance exchange. If that is the case, it makes Obamacare significantly better, as that is the only logical path for solving the problems. Nevertheless there is some concern that this is all just a feint, and there may be no reconciliation at all; instead, the House will just pass the Senate bill, Obama signs it, and no one ever gets around to "fixing" it. And if that is the case, then is it even possible to get rid of it down the road? Or as Scott writes:

Cunningham begins his column with this thought extracted from the mind of a hypothetical Democrat: "Hey, passing health- care reform may cost us the House or even the Senate this fall -- but we'll get control back eventually, and the Republicans will never be able to repeal it."

Isn't that right? I have always thought that repeal would be impossible as a practical matter once the damned thing is enacted. Andrew McCarthy holds: "If Obamacare passes, Obamacare is forever." Repeal is theoretically possible, but it would defy the laws of political gravity.
I therefore think that it's an error to take consolation in the political damage that the final push for Obamacare will do to Democrats. The thing must be stopped. If stopping it improves the fortunes of Democrats, we must be willing to pay the price.

It makes me wonder... the Democrats may now believe electoral disaster in this political cycle is a fait accompli. If they already think they are going to lose, then why not? It reminds me of a nuclear weapon Nikita Khrushchev wanted to build - something that would dwarf their Tsar Bomba. It was to be a floating nuke, a doomsday ship... that if the USSR was attacked with nuclear weapons, it would automatically detonate, and kill all life on the planet via radiation poisoning... the ultimate MADness.

Credit where its due: There has been some serious rooting out of Al Qa'ida and Taliban from the cave networks along the Af-Pak border.

The American (of AEI): look north for a better banking system, to Canada's, which has fared better in this downturn. He gives half a dozen reasons why. Some of them are challenged in this WSJ Q&A about the financial crisis.

A temple complex found in southeastern Turkey is rewriting the annals of human civilization.

Religion now appears so early in civilized life—earlier than civilized life, if Schmidt is correct—that some think it may be less a product of culture than a cause of it, less a revelation than a genetic inheritance. The archeologist Jacques Cauvin once posited that “the beginning of the gods was the beginning of agriculture,” and Göbekli may prove his case.

I have briefly opined, on several occasions and on various topics, the importance of maintaining the foundations of society for a lasting civilization. When it comes to belief, I will let Darleen say it (as it was her that I gratuitously stole this story from).

It is the view of modern sophisticates that religion has always been a hindrance to civilization, a drag on the creative mind of Man. However, this self-serving view is dismissive of the great role (sometimes for the good and sometimes not) that religion has ever played in history. Great thinkers, great art, great education spring from Man’s eternal quest for purpose. Why am I here? What is Man’s purpose? Indeed, science itself arose out of religion and Man’s need to figure out, understand and sometimes tinker with his surroundings.

Thus stamping out faith, can stamp out Man's eternal quest for purpose. And without meaning, what is the point?

Funny of the day: "Feelings", a comic strip.

Today's nerdiness brought you by the Möbius strip, the three dimensional object with one side. And similar stuff cropping up in nature.

news - 3/03

2010-03-02T02:08:00.009-05:00

The evil, moronic Chimpy McBushitler has tricked the Democrats into extending the Patriot Act.

This guy thinks Obama should expand the SC so that he can stack the court, much like what FDR tried to do.

The Brits are trying to mobilize their version of our Tea Party movement. It will be interesting to see if they can both mimic it and keep a similar set of political views. The European Right often feels so disenfranchised and ridiculed that the only ones who are in the open often tend to be either virulently xenophobic (i.e. the only ones willing to be publicly branded as racists are the racists themselves) or big-business/mercantilist types (i.e. no true pro-market individuals).

China, due to increasing concerns, is retuning its Iran policy. More Obama realist foreign policy:

Beijing is monitoring the evolving United States-led Iran sanctions campaign with alarm and - as conflicting responses to an Israeli initiative indicate - some uncertainty. It suspects the Barack Obama administration may be as interested in leveraging the Iran crisis in order to reassert America’s world leadership at China's expense as it is in removing Iran's nuclear weapons threat.

Commentary: China won't be a threat for some time.

A few months ago I mentioned how the only other option to the missile defense location to combat the Iranian threat would be to move it closer to the Black Sea, if not sea-based itself. And that if Russia threw a fit over the Poland/Czech locations, then they would go - ahem - ballistic over that development. Historically, the Black Sea has been viewed as their pond by Russia; they have long had an immense desire to possess and dominate a warm-water port area. Considering Obama's realist perspective, it makes me wonder if this was the plan all along; the irony being the Left wanted to end the ABM in central Europe in order to foster better relations with Russia, that Bush had so soiled. From a realist perspective, it was quite good - it permanently entrenches us as the dominate power in the Black Sea, and almost entirely depending on which way the political winds blow in the Ukraine. From a 'liberal' perspective (i.e. fostering good, cooperative relations with other countries), it is dangerous. Here is what may be the most important article on geopolitics that I have read in months: Europe's New Flashpoint.

I thought this was an interesting thesis to read: The Fragility of Thalassocracy (rule via sea power).

A month ago, I commented on how the EU could quickly domino, resulting in a collapse of the superstate. Here, Niall Ferguson has a similar thought for "the American empire", and not in my reader's digest version.

Is Soros seeking to help collapse the Euro, and make a tidy profit as a result?

The case for high-deductible health insurance.

John Tamny: the problem with the Volcker banking plan. To summarize: it sounds good on its surface, but it will be a repeat of what happened to the S&L's.

I have begun to wonder if Maxine Waters just pretends to be this bad. Incompetence is a good cover for criminality. And mind you, she is on both the House Judiciary Committee as well as the Financial Services Committee.

Nice, little Social Security story from DrewM. Straight from the SS website:

On January 31, 1940, the first monthly retirement check was issued to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont, in the amount of $22.54. Miss Fuller, a Legal Secretary, retired in November 1939. She started collecting benefits in January 1940 at age 65 and lived to be 100 years old, dying in 1975.
Ida May Fuller worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.

First, this should prove that it is not a retirement program, but age-based welfare. Secondly, it should demonstrate why it is having such a fiscal problem.

Related... The Economist: Retirement time has sharply increased in recent years. Another thing to note from the graph is to look at the retirement ages for each country: that is the starting point from where each bar begins (i.e. France doesn't have the highest life expectancy, but the longest period of retirement). It is also worth noting the comparative life expectancies for the elderly, which I have adjusted in the graph below. I set the baseline to 66, as that is where it states ours is, and we have the highest retirement age. Thus the red lines are how long people in that country typically live beyond the age 66. The green line is for the US average, to ease comparison between countries. What is interesting to note is that the only listed countries with statistically significantly higher lifespans are Austria, Spain, and Italy. I suspect Spain and Italy owe a considerable amount of that to dietary reasons; I don't know what sets Austria apart, however. Note again, this is life expectancies for those of retirement age, not for the general population. I point this out because of how surprisingly poor Japan does, when the Japanese are generally considered to have the longest life expectancies.

According to Harvard, fuel taxes must rise considerably to meet Obama's green agenda... to where we would pay $7/gallon. The irony in the timing is how the Democrats are beating up Toyota and the Prius right now.

Apollo Mission astronaut: Obama made a huge mistake scrapping the raison d'etre of NASA - exploration.

New technology to cut a potential travel time to Mars from roughly 6 months to 39 days.

Have scientists discovered a type of dark matter? The size suggested for these "WIMPs" would put them at roughly 10x the weight of a proton.

And now for your daily brain-mush: According to 5000 polled, jet-setting Brits, Americans are the most attractive people in the world. Brazil, Spain, Italy and Australia followed.