Monday, November 7, 2011

Research

The does not seem to be any definition of what "fair share" means when applied to taxing the people who have money. The tax raisers among us certainly would not consider it fair if everyone one paid the same amount of money; they don't consider it fair if everyone paid the same percentage of their income in taxes (they must have missed the day in 3rd grade where many learned that 20% of $1,000,000 is more than 20% of $50,000); and they don't consider it fair that the top rate is infinitely higher than the lowest rate which is 0%. The left's definition of "fair share" appears to be that some people should pay everything that is needed. What happens when that is not enough?

Whiner in chief

President Obama is making progress. He has advanced from blaming his predecessor to blaming everything. He tells us that his economic plans would have worked except there was a tsunami, problems in the Middle East, oils prices went up and other things happened that were beyond his control. That speech is the first time I have heard any President actually whine and I have been around for more than most. While it is good to know that he recognizes his failures, the blame thing is really getting old.

Well, Recuse me.

When a judge is assigned a case where there is personal involvement, they are supposed to recuse themselves. Our President has at least two close relatives who have been in this country illegally for years and he is still involved in the illegal immigration discussions. The White House has no comment. Hmmm

Friday, October 28, 2011

Getting Richer

There are several very deceptive things wrong with the article about the rich getting richer.

There are reasons why this has to happen:

The top tier has money to invest and does so; the bottom tier does not, so just can not grow as quickly. In addition, inflation makes the absolute difference even larger. The same inflation rate on a larger amount of money has a larger absolute impact.

There is no limit to what the upper tier earns; all the other tiers are limited in what they earn by the tier structure.

If someone in a lower tier earns more than the tier limit, they move up. Except at the top, the highest earners in every tier are always leaving.

The study was over 30 years. Are we to believe that we are discussing the same people? The people in the lowest tier 30 years ago have moved on – obtained more skills, gotten better jobs and higher salaries. If the same people are still in the lowest tier after 30 years, they have a problem, not society.

Meanwhile, the lowest tier has constantly been replenished by new kids leaving the nest, immigrants, etc. It is no surprise these are at the bottom; starting at the top is not the usual way to success. Whether they stay there is the issue.

The results of the study are reported in manner that is deceptive and intellectually dishonest. If this is what the Occupy Wall Street movement is about, it shows their lack of perception.

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Two ways to get better

Debbie and Frank are really in debt trouble and go to two counselors. The smooth talking counselor’s plan has multiple parts: increase their credit line; get money from a few strangers who have more money than they do; over the next 10 years they will have to spend less than they had planned to – more than they are spending now but less than they had planned on. Debbie and Frank are excited about this new way of saving and promise to plan on spending even more so when they cut back a little the savings are even greater. With this savings plan and the counselor’s optimistic projections about their future income growth, they will be in great shape in about 10 years if all the assumptions work out. The other counselor is not as popular with all their friends, seems be less optimistic and his plan is harder. He does not want them to increase their credit line. He wants them to stop spending more than they take in. He notes that their spending has gone way up in the last few years but their income has not – he wants them to go back to that spending level. And he doesn’t think that a slower rate of increased spending is the same as savings.

Compromise

Over the last few weeks, I have learned that I support terrorism, hostage taking, and those who hold a gun to the Government’s head; am in favor drilling for oil, rivers that burn, dirty air and water; am a racist; anti-education; against everyone paying their fair share of taxes; and generally an ignorant, beer swilling, gun toting, religious fanatic who only listens to my side of any argument.
I have apparently earned all of these labels not because I actually hold those opinions but because my opinions are radically different from most of those in the media and the entire Democratic Party. To be clear:
I do believe that a Government that spends 40% more than it takes in is not a supportable policy.
I do believe that there is a place for sound environmental policy. I just do not believe that that is what the EPA or the Department of Energy is doing. There is a middle ground between preserving the environment and stopping everything because there is a lizard crossing the street. And exactly what is the Department of Energy doing?
I do believe that no one should be discriminated for or against based upon the color of their skin. I also believe that when exactly the same guy tries repeatedly to kill us all, it is only reasonable and prudent to pay particular attention to guys like that.
I do believe that most teachers and other workers want to do a good job. I also believe that people should be evaluated and paid based upon their job performance and that there are some organizations that go overboard in protecting poor and unqualified workers only because they are part of that particular organization.
I do believe that everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. Whether fair share means that 50% of the people pay nothing for the privilege of voting and living in this great country while the other half make up the difference is something that needs to be determined based upon a policy more thoughtful than to “tax the rich” because they have money.
Most of all, I believe that all these issues should be debated based upon their merits. The current situation is that people I agree with present their positions – which admittedly can make your eyes glaze over – and the other side calls us names. There is no real debate between the positions – being able to hear both sides, hard as that is to do with the current media – would be a help to us all.

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Sanity defined

The government borrows 40% of what it spends. One solution to living off of credit is to raise the credit limit while another is to not spend as much. The former is characterized as the reasonable thing to do to avoid an unthinkable outcome. The latter is a bomb throwing step toward economic calamity. Now that we have identified who to blame it only remains to implement the reasonable, moral and caring solution. Raise the debt ceiling for everyone: people with too much credit card debt – raise their borrowing limit; people who bought homes they could never afford – refinance and give them more cash to spend; national debt – borrow and spend. What could go wrong?

Who makes money on gas

A Newsday article notes that prices will go down 10-20 cents when the government imposed gas formulas expire for the season. Add the state/federal taxes that account for about another $.50 and the Federal printing press that is making the dollar sink and over 25% of the current price of gas is due entirely to the government. Government policy to discouraging the domestic production that could increase supply and lower the market price doesn't help much either. The price of gas is a dollar before an oil company produces a single gallon of gas, pays any of their hundreds of thousands of employees, or the small business guy who owns the station makes a nickel. The government's cut is the stable part of the price. Exxon does not make a dolooar profit on each gallon but the government does. There plenty of reasons why the price of gas is high but our government is the main one.

Debbie & Frank

Debbie and Frank are really in debt trouble and go to two counselors. The smooth talking counselor’s plan has multiple parts: increase their credit line; get money from a few strangers who have more money than they do; over the next 10 years they will have to spend less than they had planned to – more than they are spending now but less than they had planned on. Debbie and Frank are excited about this new way of saving and promise to plan on spending even more so when they cut back a little the savings are even greater. With this savings plan and the counselor’s optimistic projections about their future income growth, they will be in great shape in about 10 years if all the assumptions work out. The other counselor is not as popular with all their friends, seems be less optimistic and his plan is harder. He does not want them to increase their credit line. He wants them to stop spending more than they take in. He notes that their spending has gone way up in the last few years but their income has not – he wants them to go back to that spending level. And he doesn’t think that a slower rate of increased spending is the same as savings.

Could it Be?

The information clog might be breaking up. An editorial applauds the decreased Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac lending and concludes that we would be better off without the government in the mortgage guarantee business. An article describes the Dodd-Frank requirements for down payment and borrowing limitations related to income and other indebtedness. Ironically, these are the same lending criteria that existed for decades and were discarded by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to make it easier for everyone to own a home. Follow the trail. These agencies guaranteed the mortgages that met their non-criteria and called them sub-prime. The agencies were guaranteeing them so banks responded by making these absolutely secure, guaranteed by the US government loans. The agencies then bought the loans packaged them and sold the resulting securities that were based upon these absolutely secure, guaranteed by the US Government loans. As we are all so painfully aware, making loans with no credit criteria leads to defaults. As the loans defaulted, the securities plummeted in value and so did the derivatives which were based upon the government guaranteed securities. Increasingly, the finger is being pointed at the government’s involvement and attempt at social engineering. A new book on the financial crisis co-authored by a New York Times columnist/business and financial editor (!!!???), blames the central role played by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as government policy that pressured banks into relaxing lending standards so that the "under represented" could buy homes they could not afford.
What is going on?

Friday, July 1, 2011

Teaching Teachers Unions

The head of the teachers union has written Newsday to express opposition to any changes to the current system of teacher evaluation. There are no suggestions for correcting an evaluation system which is clearly not working; only that the changes are bad. In support, he refers to unspecified “educationally sound measures” and the “best educational research” that have been the basis of the system for years. We are now living with the results. There is lip service to having the best teachers but his union, like all unions, is congenitally opposed to rewarding better performance. Finally, at the head of his list of things that will suffer if there are any changes are “impromptu discussions of world events”. More discussions of world events would be a good thing but could these teacher led classroom discussions possibly involve promoting any world events such as the union’s positions on school budgets, pension reform, political candidates and the like?

Monday, June 27, 2011

Deport 'em

Ms. Rajagopalan (Newsday)makes numerous unsupportable statements about deportation. By her statistics, almost a third of those slated for deportation are aggravated level 1 felons. The attempted qualification is always a red flag and makes her statistic a joke. Kidnapping and several categories of murder, manslaughter and rape are level 2 felonies – but they don’t count. Neither does she mention how many of the committed crimes and just didn’t get caught. That is, caught for crimes other than entering the country illegally. Even by her slanted definition, it is scary that she considers that “only” 1/3 of these people are violent felons. There are few circumstances where that group statistic would be considered as desirable.

She ends by promoting an effort to determine why so many illegal immigrants have remained here on a near permanent basis. How about because they get lots of stuff that is free to them but costs others lots of money?

The Luddite

With what may be the stupidest statement on the economy and jobs creation that was ever made, the First Dope is now pinning unemployment on automation.

This is from an interview on NBC:

“There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers,” the president said this week. “You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM. You don’t go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking at the gate. So all these things have created changes in the economy.”

The number of tellers, in fact, rose to an all-time high of 607,960 in 2007 from 493,000 at the start of the decade, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The recession and a wave of bank failures eliminated 52,000 teller jobs over the past three years. So there are still more now that there were.

The Dope is correct that there has been a structural change. There are now fewer people who know how to shoe a horse and there has been a mass reduction in number of phone operators who did things like putting Sheriff Taylor’s call through to Aunt Bea. But wonder how many people employed at companies – like say Honeywell – would have jobs without automation.

But now he has a jobs plan: Hope to move backwards and Change to a pre-industrial society. Won’t be as popular as his last slogan but then neither is he.

Discrimination

Popular mythology teaches us that a corporation will do whatever is necessary to make a profit and that they practice various forms of discrimination against women and minorities. Somehow, it is better for the bottom line to not get the best salesman, manager or whatever and it is also better to pay the one who is less qualified more money only because it is a guy. We are expected to believe that the evil geniuses that run these corporations attempt to maximize their profits by paying second rate employees more money. The argument just does not make any sense but it is good for the trial lawyers.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

The Trust Fund

The act2 article that states that “as a legal matter” Social Security Trust Fund is in a surplus position is absolutely true. The qualifier – as a legal matter – is the red flag that says “SPIN”.

For over 40 years Social Security taxes have been used to buy US Government Securities. The government issues securities and the Government spends the money. Now the Trust Fund holds $2.5 trillion dollars (2009) in IOUs from the US Government and those 40 years of cash tax receipts are long gone.

You put $100 in an envelope every week for 40 years as your retirement plan. Every week you take out the cash, put an IOU to yourself for $100 in the envelope and spend the cash. At the end of 40 years, how much money did you save? You are also in debt for 8 to 10 times your annual income and borrowing about 40% of your current expenses. But you do have the IOUs which you really, really intended to pay back.

With our borrowings/debt at the current levels, the Trust Fund can realistically be valued at 60% of its face. The Social Security system is in desperate need of corrective changes now but until there is a clear description of what is or is not in the Trust Funds, no progress is possible.

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Weiner roast

Don't understand. Weinie lied but not under oath; Weinie didn't - as far as we know - actual physically violate any of these woman and none of these women - so far - worked for him. And the majority is calling for him to resign. But there was a guy who did lie under oath and who did physically violate a subordinate in the most vile way possible on public property. Those of us who wanted him gone were criticized because we were invading his private life. Strange, so why the difference? It seems Weinie's problem is either a.) that the office he disgraced is not high enough or b.) anti-Semitism. Which one do you Clinton defenders who are after Weinie pick?

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Weiner

For days everywhere from the steps of the Capitol to CCN’s Weiner vehemently denied sending out the pictures; blaming unnamed hackers and even slandering the messenger with the help of the media. Democratic flaks (Begala, etc.) came out of the woodwork to say there was no big deal in sight. (At least they got that right.)

The AP has now even found a covey of people in Weiner’s district who will vote for him after he lied. They will do so because he has been a good Congressman for them and they believe that although he has admitted lying and panicking under pressure, he has now un-lied, probably. Their only known behavioral standard for disqualifying a politician from serving seems to be being a Republican.


But politically, it makes no difference. Democratic response to their miscellaneous scandals is that these are private circumstances and the candidates have a right to their private lives. True enough.

The issue here is not the actions of people in the private lives. The issue is the judgment - or lack of it - that they exercise. If you want to send out pictures of yourself that are in bad taste, that is your business. However, it cannot be considered good judgment. We all giving our representative our proxy and count on their good judgment just as we have an expectation of honesty. Honesty is another failing of many but we should not confuse differences of opinion with lies. Weiner lied on the steps of the Capitol, in CNNs’s TV studio and took every other opportunity available to blame unknown hackers and pranksters, call it a joke and slander the reporter who broke the story. With every statement he made, he knew with absolute certitude that he was lying.

His press conference to un-lie admits to mistakes and admits to panic under pressure. Great just what you want in a high pressure job - a guy who panics. Fortunately for him, the Democratic party is a party of forgiveness. The party has allowed people to serve and forgiven: Klan membership, driving off a bridge and killing a campaign aide, tax evasion, your partner running a prostitution ring out of your apartment, favorable loans, lies under oath, and just regular non-felonious lies.

So let the Democrats do what they want. It is only to be hoped that the American public will see that some standards of judgment, honest and grace under pressure are appropriate. If that is not the majority there is no hope anyway.

Teens and Jobs

Summer jobs for teens are difficult to find; so are full time positions. No surprise there. What is a surprise is that the article on the reasons for the difficulty never mentions the mandated minimum wage. The fact is that most teen employment is not absolutely necessary to any business. A business owner’s decision is to hire some kids to help out with the lower end of the tasks involved or not spend the money. It is a financial decision that is made more difficult in this economy. But the decision cannot be made based upon what it is worth to the owner but the owner has to pay the wage the government says must be paid with the result that fewer kids get hired. Less than 3% of employees make the minimum wage. The biggest beneficiaries are the unions who have wage increase based upon the minimum rate. Time to dump this feel good idea.

Blaming the Other Guy

The country has what is laughably called a debt ceiling and there is a perceived need to increase it, at least in the short term. One political party just wants to increase it; the other party admits the need to increase the limit and wants to include some firm commitments to reduce future spending. Mr. Goldmark can only find fault with the party who wants to restrict future spending. In his view, restricting spending is playing with fire while uncontrolled profligacy is a reasonable. He further offers the scare tactic about vital services and Social security checks being cut off. It is freely admitted that Social Security checks will go out what is not so clear are vital services will be discontinued.

Newsday and Free Markets

Mr. Akst has finally determined that the free market should dictate prices. He makes a great case for market prices rates for town owned dock space – as public space increase to market rates, private dock rates will come down due to the competition. Exactly, but it is difficult to determine why he does not apply the same solution to every other issue. His past comments about energy, health care, etc. are invariably focused upon how the government needs to fund the solutions. He must own a boat.

Monday, June 6, 2011

Free Market

Mr. Akst has finally determined that the free market should dictate prices. He makes a great case for market prices rates for town owned dock space – as public space increase to market rates, private dock rates will come down due to the competition. Exactly, but it is difficult to determine why he does not apply the same solution to every other issue. His past comments about energy, health care, etc. are invariably focused upon how the government needs to fund the solutions. He must own a boat.

Loose Money

Great news. Banks are making car loans to people with marginal credit scores. That’s wonderful for the auto industry. It’s a free market and they have to do something with all the money that the Fed keeps printing. But once upon a time, banks made lots of mortgage loans to people with marginal credit ratings. As I recall that didn’t work out too well and can’t see how it can work this time. It would be really good if the banks that do this don’t get bailed out again

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Profit Plans

The current economic plan is to set up enemies to blame for whatever goes wrong. While claiming to be a friend of business, this Administration has fed the populist urge to blame banks, oil companies, drug companies, insurance companies and any other industry that makes a profit – unless they are heavily unionized or in Nancy Pelosi’s district. Favorites get waivers from Obamacare and subsidies; those who are not get audited, increasing regulated, don’t get waivers and are blamed for anything that goes wrong.

The latest plan is to eliminate tax breaks for oil companies and make then pay more taxes – a popular stance. The oil companies announce high profits and are an easy target but a thought or two would be instructive.

The first thing to note is that no corporation really pays taxes. Companies get money by selling something to customers; the money corporations use to pay their taxes comes from - customers. Suppose you own a business selling widgets and tomorrow there is an additional 10% widget tax. What do you do? Probably raise your prices about 10%. So who is paying the tax?

It is no surprise that big companies make more profit in total dollars than small ones. They have more invested. It is also no surprise that they make more when prices rise. The reason is profit margin - the return of their money. Suppose you risk $100 in an investment and at the end of a year you have $110. Pretty good these days, you made 10%. But suppose you risk $10,000 and at the end of the year you had $10,010. Both investments made $10 but one guy did well and one guy didn’t because their return percentage was markedly different. Oil companies have billions invested and they make billions but their margin is not particularly high.

Headlines about how much money a company makes in absolute dollars is not particularly informative. But this is helpful to the demagogues who have a need to blame someone else and distract from the Administration’s efforts to raise fuel prices in every way they can. The Secretary of Energy is on record as supporting higher oil prices; the EPA puts all kinds of roadblocks in the path of the oil companies; leases are discouraged; oil flow from Alaska is reduced; drilling is pushed to the most expensive places to drill. All of these things contribute to higher fuel prices. While this is all happening, additional dollars are being printed. When the dollar’s value goes down, oil prices go up. Their need for a scapegoat is obvious.

Ending subsidies is not a bad idea but singling out one industry is and most of the tax deductions under discussion are available to all businesses. Ending all subsidies is a different discussion but the plan to end subsidies for oil and continue to subsidize the energy producers that are currently in favor just creates another Government Motors. Does anyone think these government subsidies will end? If these energy producers need government subsidies to succeed we are only creating another ward of the State.

Whether solar, wind or bio-fuels become economically feasible is something that will be determined in the future. Whether anyone likes it or not, there are no viable and affordable wind/solar/biofuel/hybrid cars available and when they are available, it will be quite a while before people can afford to replace their current cars. While the Administration devotes its efforts to increasing oil prices in order to assist sources that might be of use in 10 years, we get $4+ gas prices.

Administration efforts to increase oil prices and blame the messenger have to stop. More importantly, the reasons for the increases need to be properly identified so that corrective measures can be directed at the real root causes.

Akst Angst

Mr. Akst’s article (Newsday) about banks is an example of misdirection that would make Houdini proud. The formula is predictable: Lead with something about the Bad Guys - CEO’s make a lot of money and credit card rates are high - to stir the populist pot; link that to the need for unavoidable Government action - holding rates down; and throw in a sympathy line - Grandma is paying for this).

The implications are that Grandma is paying CEO salaries, that Banks are holding down their borrowing rates, and that the government is the white knight that will correct this mess. Well, no it is not.

CEO salaries have nothing to do with Fed Rates or Grandma; perhaps shareholders should hold them more accountable but that is another discussion.

The bailouts (all of them, some of them?) were not unavoidable. The Government’s responsibility was to honor the guarantees they made on the sub prime mortgages that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were pushing and securitizing. The sub prime market was their creation in an effort to support the Government’s social policies.

Banks are certainly beneficiaries of the Federal Reserve policy of artificially keeping interest rates low but they do not make the policy and the policy is certainly not unavoidable. It is the Federal Reserve that sets the rate and has printed trillions of dollars in the last few years. This devaluation has made everything more expensive – gas, clothes, food, - everything. This is inflation that Bernanke does not recognize but it does impact Grandma. Her savings have less value and her monthly check buys less but has nothing to do with the banks, their CEOs or their salaries. The Fed is just supporting the Administration’s announced policy of making oil more expensive.

Some banks credit card rates are higher than other - so shop around – some cars cost more than others. It should also be noted that recent Government legislation limits the fees for overdrafts, bounced checks, exceeding card credit lines and such. This spreads the costs for these things from the people who do them to everyone. The government thinks that is only fair but means that Grandma is paying for bounced checks whether she does or not.

Just set up some bad guys – banks, oil companies, insurance companies, drug companies – and link anything that goes wrong to them. It keeps the pressure off of the ineptitude of Government actions.

Tax Gymnastics

Peter Goldmark’s article (Newsday)about corporations and taxes had three main points: that the US does not tax corporations enough; that corporations keep overseas profits overseas to avoid taxes and that creates jobs overseas; and that there are too many lobbyists and the tax code provisions are too complicated.

The last one is the easiest. Whatever the reason, the tax code is too complicated and has specific provisions that apply only to specific companies or industries. It must be simplified.

The other points can be disputed. Corporations do not pay taxes in any situation. Businesses obtain the money to pay taxes from their customers. A simple quiz is instructive: You own a business selling widgets. Tomorrow the tax on all widgets sold goes up 10%, what do you do? Right. You (the business) raise your prices at least 10%. So who paid the tax? Right again - the customer. The government got more money and the business broke even – assuming sales stayed the same which they probably didn’t – and the customers paid 10% more than they used to for their widgets.

His comment about overseas profits is confusing. There is no doubt that that overseas profits stay overseas because they are taxed if they are brought back into the country. He acknowledges that leaving this money overseas creates jobs overseas and his strong implication is that they should bring the money back and be taxed to pay their share. But bringing the money back would create jobs in this country. The current choice is between avoiding US taxes and creating jobs overseas or bringing the money back and paying taxes which leaves less money for job creation. A simpler solution would be to allow the companies to bring the money back, avoid taxes and create the jobs here. Use the money companies generate overseas to create domestic jobs. What a concept! Other countries funding US job growth for a change.

Universally bad

Universal health care might be inevitable but it is not good. We are living in the rubble of an attempt at universal home ownership and the same people who brought us that failed concept have moved on to promoting universal health care. Let us not kid ourselves. The Obama healthcare plan makes no attempt to control cost and counts revenues over a longer period than expenditures even to come close to breaking even. This is a program in which Administration favorites ask for and receive exemptions while others are forced to participate while tort reform, allowing policies across state lines, and other areas of cost control areas are not even considered.

The political party supporting this has a platform based upon convincing the public that the government will provide a house, healthcare and most everything else for free since the other guy will pay for it. The only certainties are that the definition of the other guy will have to continually expand to meet these expectations and that this Administration has created another protected class that will be exempt from the program.

When the voters who get something from the government exceed the voters who pay for government there can be no end and we are approaching that point. Soon the campaign promises will be about universal ownership of a Lexus, a flat screen TV and an iPad.

Why not, the other guy will pay for it?

Monday, May 23, 2011

Enemies List

The current economic plan is to set up enemies to blame for whatever goes wrong. While claiming to be a friend of business, this Administration has fed the populist urge to blame banks, oil companies, drug companies, insurance companies and any other industry that makes a profit – unless they are heavily unionized or in Nancy Pelosi’s district. Favorites get waivers from Obamacare and subsidies; those who are not get audited, increasing regulated, don’t get waivers and are blamed for anything that goes wrong.

The latest plan is to eliminate tax breaks for oil companies and make then pay more taxes – a popular stance. The oil companies announce high profits and are an easy target but a thought or two would be instructive.

The first thing to note is that no corporation really pays taxes. Companies get money by selling something to customers; the money corporations use to pay their taxes comes from - customers. Suppose you own a business selling widgets and tomorrow there is an additional 10% widget tax. What do you do? Probably raise your prices about 10%. So who is paying the tax?

It is no surprise that big companies make more profit in total dollars than small ones. They have more invested. It is also no surprise that they make more when prices rise. The reason is profit margin - the return of their money. Suppose you risk $100 in an investment and at the end of a year you have $110. Pretty good these days, you made 10%. But suppose you risk $10,000 and at the end of the year you had $10,010. Both investments made $10 but one guy did well and one guy didn’t because their return percentage was markedly different. Oil companies have billions invested and they make billions but their margin is not particularly high.

Headlines about how much money a company makes in absolute dollars is not particularly informative. But this is helpful to the demagogues who have a need to blame someone else and distract from the Administration’s efforts to raise fuel prices in every way they can. The Secretary of Energy is on record as supporting higher oil prices; the EPA puts all kinds of roadblocks in the path of the oil companies; leases are discouraged; oil flow from Alaska is reduced; drilling is pushed to the most expensive places to drill. All of these things contribute to higher fuel prices. While this is all happening, additional dollars are being printed. When the dollar’s value goes down, oil prices go up. Their need for a scapegoat is obvious.

Ending subsidies is not a bad idea but singling out one industry is and most of the tax deductions under discussion are available to all businesses. Ending all subsidies is a different discussion but the plan to end subsidies for oil and continue to subsidize the energy producers that are currently in favor just creates another Government Motors. Does anyone think these government subsidies will end? If these energy producers need government subsidies to succeed we are only creating another ward of the State.

Whether solar, wind or bio-fuels become economically feasible is something that will be determined in the future. Whether anyone likes it or not, there are no viable and affordable wind/solar/biofuel/hybrid cars available and when they are available, it will be quite a while before people can afford to replace their current cars. While the Administration devotes its efforts to increasing oil prices in order to assist sources that might be of use in 10 years, we get $4+ gas prices.

Administration efforts to increase oil prices and blame the messenger have to stop. More importantly, the reasons for the increases need to be properly identified so that corrective measures can be directed at the real root causes.

Schumer's Latest Demand

Senator Schumer demands that Amtrak fix its problems but Amtrak is a public for profit (insert laugh track) company owned by the US Government. The Senator should be asking why the Federal Government is in the railroad business. It is only a coincidence that it is a highly unionized industry so there must be some other reason. Even with heavily subsidized fares, Amtrak’s share of the market is minimal; most travel is by people in with higher incomes; and its contribution to reducing pollution and congestion is minimal at best (no riders). If a railroad is privately owned and does not run trains, the owners generate no revenue until the problem is fixed; if Amtrak cannot run trains it just asks for higher subsidies. Just another example of what happens when the Government tries to run a business. Why does anyone think a government run healthcare system is going to work?

Strawmen vs.real bad guys

Mr. Akst’s article about banks is an example of misdirection that would make Houdini proud. The formula is predictable: Lead with something about the Bad Guys - CEO’s make a lot of money and credit card rates are high - to stir the populist pot; link that to the need for unavoidable Government action - holding rates down; and throw in a sympathy line - Grandma is paying for this).

The implications are that Grandma is paying CEO salaries, that Banks are holding down their borrowing rates, and that the government is the white knight that will correct this mess. Well, no it is not.

CEO salaries have nothing to do with Fed Rates or Grandma; perhaps shareholders should hold them more accountable but that is another discussion.

The bailouts (all of them, some of them?) were not unavoidable. The Government’s responsibility was to honor the guarantees they made on the sub prime mortgages that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were pushing and securitizing. The sub prime market was their creation in an effort to support the Government’s social policies.

Banks are certainly beneficiaries of the Federal Reserve policy of artificially keeping interest rates low but they do not make the policy and the policy is certainly not unavoidable. It is the Federal Reserve that sets the rate and has printed trillions of dollars in the last few years. This devaluation has made everything more expensive – gas, clothes, food, - everything. This is inflation that Bernanke does not recognize but it does impact Grandma. Her savings have less value and her monthly check buys less but has nothing to do with the banks, their CEOs or their salaries. The Fed is just supporting the Administration’s announced policy of making oil more expensive.

Some banks credit card rates are higher than other - so shop around – some cars cost more than others. It should also be noted that recent Government legislation limits the fees for overdrafts, bounced checks, exceeding card credit lines and such. This spreads the costs for these things from the people who do them to everyone. The government thinks that is only fair but means that Grandma is paying for bounced checks whether she does or not.

It has a favored tactic to link government action to protecting people. Just set up some bad guys – banks, oil companies, insurance companies, drug companies – and link anything that goes wrong to them. It keeps the pressure off of the ineptitude of Government actions.

Solutions

A hotel worker is raped in NYC; a guy leaves his kid in a car in Italy and the kid dies. A politician in Brooklyn thinks the answer is to make all hotels provide employees with panic buttons in case they are attacked by patrons. Miscellaneous do-gooders want all cars to have a system that automatically keeps cars cools whether anyone is in the or not so no one who forgets their kid is in the cars accidentally kills them. It is unfortunate that either thing happened but the proposed solutions are misplaced.

There are alternative positions: It makes no sense for hotels to provide panic buttons. Who does this guy think is going to pay for that? The answer is that people who do not rape hotel maids. Is there a rash of such incidents? Should the Post Office provide all its workers with panic buttons in case a disgruntled former worker goes postal? How about retail workers or what about when the plumber shows up?

People do stupid things. It is not a function of government to spread the costs of stupid mistakes over the entire population. The majority of people are bright enough to know that there is a kid in the back seat and to make sure there are no children playing behind the car before they back up. If people want to buy back up screen and automatic car cools that is their business but politicians should have better things to attempt to mandate things designed to prevent stupidity. That isn’t going to work anyway.

Since there are other stupid mistakes and potential crimes to be avoided, why not provide everyone with their own government worker who would be responsible for reminding people that they had kids, that it was a bad idea to back up the car without looking, to floss frequently and to eat sensibly. It is a full employment program but there is still the issue of the government worker remembering to do all that stuff.

The solution to stupid mistakes and preventing crimes is not for the government to another service that the vast majority does not need or passing another cost on to business

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Time and Taxes

The Obama administration has floated a transportation authorization bill that would require the study and implementation of a plan to tax automobile drivers based on how many miles they drive. The proposal was included in a draft of the administration's Transportation Opportunities Act, but (after it became know to sane people outside the Administration who are not Democrats) a White House spokesman said it "was not an Administration proposal." Somehow, the people that the First Dope appointed to the Department of Transportation wrote a bill that was not really put out by the people appointed by the Administration. They don’t want you to use gas so and that makes revenue from gas taxes go down so, in addition to the taxes on gas, they come up with a tax on people whether they use gas or not – a non-consumption tax! This is the same thing as taxing people who don’t smoke cigarettes because revenue from cigarette taxes is decreasing. Who thinks this stuff up and who appoints the dopes who think this stuff actually makes any sense?

But maybe it is better if these guys just completely waste their time; that way they do less harm. ABC News says that the Senate (the part of Congress where the Democrats currently control the agenda) will hold hearings on the use of the code name Geronimo as a reference to Osama Bin Laden. The Senate committee is chaired by Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii. It will examine how Wild West shows, Hollywood films, and Indigenous-themed sports mascots have shaped the perception of Native Americans.

Culture Wars

Any potential cuts in child care are seen as victims of the culture wars. The specific cultural roadblock that is seen as an obstacle to preventing children from receiving these subsidies is that those who think mothers should stay home and raise the children oppose subsidies.
It can be agreed that stay at home moms are not an economic reality for many. It is also a reality that the largest obstacles to achieving any measure of success for both the parent and child are dropping out of high school, having a child before you are 18, and being a single parent. This is the environment and culture that “at risk” children come from. Newsday gives that culture a complete pass. While no one is advocating cutting off all aid, there is something intrinsically wrong with increasingly subsidizing the behaviors that are at the root of the problem.

Savings Plans

Teachers unions are militant and tax payers are outraged. And then there is our current economic situation while Newsday (“Teachers’ union takes lower raise”) only fans the flames. There is no dispute that school costs have to be brought to a sustainable point. Similarly, we have to have teachers and they have to be paid the salaries necessary to attract and retain qualified people.

The misdirection is worthy of Houdini. The article refers to “step” increase five times and in every instance these are distinguished from salary increases but they are cash payments that raise salaries. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck… But the pro-union people act like they do not count even though they increase taxes just like salary increase would.

In the time honored tradition of political “savings”, not spending money in future years is considered a cost cutting triumph. According to this logic, if my plan is spend a million dollars next year and I manage to eke by only spending a hundred thousand, an easy way to save $900,000. That will be my new retirement plan.

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Steve fuels the car

Steve Israel wants to tap the Strategic oil reserve. There are 700 million barrels in the reserve; the US uses 20 million barrels a day, so the reserve is little over a3 month supply. Negligible on the world market.
Steve doesn’t say how much he wants to use – it’s a strategic reserve and it would be foolish to release all of it; he doesn’t project what this will do to oil prices – it won’t have any effect since there is very little available compared to the world wide daily market; he doesn’t say how much the US should sell it for or how it should be replaced. His plan seems to be for the Feds to buy oil at the market prices and sell it at below market rates. That would keep gas prices down and could borrow more money from China to keep that system going. Steve’s suggestion doesn’t make much sense but this is the same guy who wants all states to receive the same amount of money back from the Federal government as the states send the Feds in taxes. Why we listen to economic wizards like this is a mystery.

Newsday Friends Dodd/Frank

Newsday continue to paint banks as bad guys. Now they are being chastized for havingthe gall to lobby against the Dodd/Frank bill.

It is demonstrable that Levin, Frank and Dodd were key players in engineering our current financial situation.

Frank: "I would like to get Fannie and Freddie more deeply into helping low-income housing... I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing." House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003

Dodd: "This is not a time to be panicking about this. These are viable, strong institutions," July 2008 press conference about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Carl Levin is now leading the charge to point fingers at everyone except the culprits and Newsday’s editors are buying it (see Point two fingers of Recessionary Blame). Having these guys make the new rules for banks while they completely ignore Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their own culpability is a measure of their cluelessness and true aims. The fox is in the hen house.

Among their solutions to a situation that has its roots with Freddie Mac and Fannie dropping all pretense of lending guidelines to meet their social goals is to have the government determine what constitutes a reasonable and fair cost for a transaction. In their world, price controls, contrary to fact that price controls have failed every time they have been imposed, will solve part of some unrelated problem. These culprits seem to believe that something is inherently wrong when a business passes along its costs to the end customer. There is also part of the Dodd/Frank mess that allows borrowers to sue the lender for making a loan that borrower doesn’t pay back. Somehow, is supposed to facilitate prudent lending but is clearly a cookie for the trail lawyers.

Financial institutions are quite correct to lobby against this law – another one where we will see what is in it when it takes effect. There is clearly need for some reform but a populist campaign to divert attention from the real culprits and basic causes will only make things worse.

The blame game is helpful when it correctly points at the culprits, and helps to develop corrective measures that have some basis in economic practicality. That is not what is happening.

Kings Point Cameras

The big objections to the Kings Point cameras is that “it will have the effect of screening every driver – resident or visitor – for criminal activity.” Further, “it isn’t being applied to troublesome, or even potentially troublesome, spots”.

It can only be concluded that the editorial would be in favor of a system that did not screen every driver and was only applied to troublesome locations. Should Kings Point have applied some sort of selective parameters to the process? Perhaps they could only take pictures of persons who fit a profile of troublesome; or only position the cameras at locations where troublesome people congregate. Seems like that would resolve your objections.

Whether there is an expectation of privacy on public streets will eventually be determined in the courts. The current practice of fondling everyone at the airport indicates what that decision will be.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Never the Twain shall meet

Two opinions are current. One encourages the President to take Social security, Medicare and Medicaid off the table and accuses the GOP of wanting to do away with entitlements; the other accuses the GOP of fraud and both want to stop the “unnecessary” tax cuts to the wealthy.

No one has said anything about cutting entitlements. The Ryan plan does not do anything to those over 54. For those under 55, it attempts to put the plans on a fiscal basis that will ensure that the plans are around to actually pay benefits to people who are 54 and younger. A plan that provides benefits is somewhat better than a plan that is not there.

Hello. Someone who makes $250,000 pays five times more in the taxes than the guy who makes $50,000. This President ran on the promise to take money from the rich (defined as anyone who makes more than you do) and share the wealth with those who make less. We know that will work for President but it doesn’t work for the economy.

Safe Borders

The Custom and Border Patrol announced that they had stopped and confiscated 25,000 chocolate Kinder Eggs. Stopped them cold as they were coming in from Europe. And why did they do this? Exploding eggs? Tainted Chocolate? Nope. They were deemed a choking hazard for kids under 3 years old. And how does a 3 year old kid obtain one of these dangerous things? Maybe they would need help from Mommy or Daddy. Someone would have to drive the kid to the store. Or maybe a stranger would do it while Mommy and Daddy were not paying attention. But who gives the kid money to buy one, if he could reach the counter? Doesn't seem like there should be a problem here.
But congrats to the Customs guys for capturing these dangerous chocolates. Easier than capturing any illegal aliens like they should be doing. Plus now they get to eat the chocolate.
Parents should do parent stuff and customs guys should actually protect the borders.

The Third Finger

The Opinion article in Newsday Point two fingers of recessionary blame] points fingers at banks and public employee unions for the current economy but left out the largest offenders. One of the two things these situations have in common is that the banks and unions both acted in their own best interests. The unions can only propose contracts. Politicians and school boards have to agree to them. You propose a contract with salary, benefits and raises that are unsustainable and beyond other industries. Your employer gives it to you. Do you turn it down? Probably not.

The banks made mortgages according to the rules set down by the politicians who ran Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The mortgages were guaranteed. The instruments that the banks created were backed by these guaranteed mortgages. Banks made money on both. They didn’t turn the money down either.

There is a pattern here that shows that there is a third finger to point. In both cases, bank and union actions were determined by what politicians did. The other thing that these situations have in common is that in both cases the politicians were spending money they didn’t have. When the reason for what happened is properly defined there will be hope of getting on the right track. Until then, everyone will blame everyone else and those truly responsible will continue to be re-elected

Republicans are dopey II

Perhaps the only intelligent thing Bill Clinton ever said was, "It's the economy, stupid." That is more correct now than ever.
It is not about abortion, whether George marries Fred, or whether either of them is in the Army. It is about taxes and spending, jobs and growth. There is a need to lower the first two and raise the second two.
The constant drum beating about these social issues is going to provide us with an unelectable Republican candidate for President and continue to allow the Democrats and their lackey press to obscure the important issue.
Look at it logically. The conservatives are not going to have abortions anyway, if people who believe in abortion have less abortions they will have more kids that they will raise to believe what they believe. That doesn't help. George and Fred will not be having any abortions anyway.

Somewhere there is an aged Republican with a bad arm who stands on street corners with an anti-abortion sign - in one hand. He is the next Republican Presidential candidate

Fixing the Banks

This was a story from Reuters:

Fed unveils proposal on mortgage standards

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Lenders would be required to make sure prospective borrowers have the ability to repay their mortgages before giving them a loan, under a proposal released by the Federal Reserve on Tuesday.

The rule, which is required by the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, is intended to tighten lending standards and combat home lending abuses that contributed to the 2007-2009 financial crisis.

The rule would establish minimum underwriting standards for most mortgages and lenders could be sued by the borrower if they do not take the proper steps to check a borrower’s ability to repay the loan.

Unbelievable! Barney and Chris have suddenly decided that you have to have the ability to repay a mortgage loan. The part about everyone owning a home didn't work out so well. Needing the ability to payback a loan sounds pretty obvious but that is not the point of the law. This is in the Dodd/Frank Bank Act or whatever According to their plan, if you don’t repay the loan, you can sue the bank that lent you the money because they lent you money that you don’t repay.

I don't think this will reduce loan defaults and with such a dopey rule, why should anyone ever repay any loan? Just default and sue the bank who lent you the money. You can then pay off the loan with the money you get from the law suit. But then you can repay the loan so the bank will sue because you can pay the loan. The bank wins this time because you can pay the loan. Now you have no money because you lost and can’t pay the loan so you can sue the bank for lending you the money. But you win and can pay the loan so…..

Might never end. But the lawyers make out well. Probably doesn't make any difference since with this kind of law out there, why would anyone lend any money?

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

A Real Policy Change

There was once a President who had a policy that terrorists fighting against the US did not have any claim to the protections of the US Constitution; a policy that those terrorists should be held at Gitmo; that those terrorists should be tried by military tribunals; and that those military tribunals should be held at Gitmo.

Then there was a candidate for President who campaigned on the policy that the terrorists were entitled to the same Constitutional protections as US citizens; that the terrorists should not be held at Gitmo and that it should be closed; that the terrorists should be tried in civil courts; and those civil trials should be held in major population centers.

Was the first position right all along? What is different now?

The Dynasty Cracks

We learn from Newsday’s reviewer that the Kennedy miniseries has been produced by “an avowed conservative”. Apparently, to the avowed liberal who wrote the review that description is intended to convey that the series is inaccurate. To those whose religious Trinity is comprised of Jack, Bobby and Teddy such a formulation is just another obvious religious tenet. But the larger - not surprising - story is that the History Channel pulled because the remaining worshipers have complained. These complaints were probably not based upon the bad dialogue and there is no mention of inaccuracy; the series just taints their gods. Meanwhile, pulling a series or movie that was critical of an avowed conservative for any reason would a.) never happen and b.) if it ever did be met with cries of censorship. Fair and balance reporting is a difficult goal.

Saturday, March 26, 2011

Schools and Public Relations

It is instructive that a public relations officer for a local school district has written the newspaper about how the schools just need more money to do their job. This is exactly the point of discussion. A public relations officer's job is supposed to be to favorably influence public opinion and behavior and is essentially a lobbyist for the company involved. This one is just doing her job. The but is why a public school district needs a public relations officer in the first place?

Soccer Moms and Rational Thought

A woman from Northport writes of her experiences getting into the Shoreham demonstrations 30 years ago. She especially notes her gasp while watching "China Syndrome" and even a quote from the moving about Pennsylvania becoming permanent uninhabitable forever? Wow! Real quotes from an actual movie to prove a scientific point. QED. What could be more solid? Good thing she didn't see "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and was too young for "The Twilight Zone". She would be busy saving us from everything.
Of course, nothing actually happened at 3 Mile Island. Thirty years later and there is no higher incidence of cancer or anything else. But that does not make any difference to the true disciples. The geology of Long Island is significantly different from the geology of the Pacific rim but, again, we have Jane Fonda's word for it against actually, like, science and the geological record.
Which is more likely: An Islamoterrorist dirty bomb going off in NYC, a tsunami overwhelming Long Island, an 8.9 earthquake on the eastern seaboard, or potential meltdown that might have a minor impact if it did happen? Right, a dirty bomb and she worries about the traffic jam that would have happened if Shoreham had opened. We live on an island, it is difficult to get off of it under normal circumstances.

And there is the Imagine part of her world view. Imagine if we just stopped using all these dangerous - her word- oil, coal and nuclear power technologies. Okay. Tomorrow, we could all jump in our death trap electric cars that can't make the round trip from Northport to Hicksville. Tomorrow night we could plug those cars in and recharge them with electricity that was magically delivered to those holes in our walls. Wonder how that gets there? It used to be from the oil, coal or nuclear powered plants that this genius imagines away. But it is not there any more. Guess we just have to walk the kids to soccer practice. And what of the batteries for these electric wonders. These things are environmental disasters waiting to happen as are those new mercury filled light bulbs light up that the EPA issued 3 pages of instruction for their disposal. No one mentions the downside of these great ideas. Anyone ever see a story about how many windmills it would take to replace the power we need and how one windmill needs an acre of land. No, just feel good stuff like this. Just think is a key statement.

Dopey Ideas

An article from a member of the Newsday editorial board proposes an energy tax that would be designed to reduce our dependence on the troubling energy sources that are currently available and be used to underwrite future sources. Last week, the same guy had a proposal to deal with the Somali pirates using water cannons and razor wire and the suggestion that the oil tankers go faster and out run the pirates.

First, this is surprising source for a tax idea that is so regressive. Further, the writer’s definition of this or any tax as something that we would “pay the money to ourselves” can only be considered as laughable.

People make the economic decision to conserve all the time. We allocate our available time and money as best we can to whatever we consider the highest priority. That’s life. It is also our decision and is based upon what is available to us. Clearly, these decisions should not be based upon the government’s desire that I ride around in a motorized death trap they think is a Smart car or their current definition of whether the heat or AC is too high. And, again, the less money people have, the more of a negative impact such a tax would have.

It was also a good try though to cavalierly eliminate all current sources of energy. Don’t drill anywhere; don’t tap natural gas; don’t build nuclear plants. The plan is the same. Make it as difficult as possible to get energy from places where it is easy to obtain; then complain when something goes wrong when drilling in 5000 feet of water. The same news sources that have equated the news from Japan with 3 Mile Island have neglected to actually recount what happened in Pennsylvania. The answer is nothing except media noise. Lots of buzz words like meltdown and radiation thrown around with no perspective. What actually is a melt down? How much milk would have to be consumed to equal an xray ? The same people that tell us every snow storm will be the worst blizzard in history seem to take over when there is a potential problem. They are mostly wrong and skip off to the next thing with no apology but never waste a crisis.

The positive is that we now have simeone to blame for the consistently dopey opinions that appear on the Newsday editorial page. If their aim is to fill the space, they have certainly achieved that goal. But not much else.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Why Wholesale Prices Increase

Newsday has an unsigned article titled: Increase in wholesale prices hints at inflation:

It included:

“Some economists said yesterday that companies are starting to pass those [increased] costs to retailers. That’s likely to increase prices for consumers later this year.”

This is on the Business page. The dope who wrote the headline see hints of inflation just because gas prices have doubled in two years? Hints? When is a hint not a hint anymore?

And where did the other dope who wrote the article find ANY economists who thought that price increases for raw materials only INDICATED companies MIGHT start passing these costs to retailers. And if they passed those costs along, it is LIKELY that the retailers would increase prices to consumers.

Of course, there is no mention of printing money or borrowing money having anything to do with this. The blame goes to “about 40% of the rise in the core index stemmed from higher pharmaceutical prices”. Pharmaceutical prices! The question is whether the pharmaceuticals this dope was using are the legal kind. As long as oil companies, pharmaceuticals, banks and any other company that employs anyone keeps taking the blame, we will make zero progress in correcting this mess.

Oil Plan

Oil is $100 a Barrel and the USA sends billions to countries that want to blow us up to get it. It would be better not to depend on these guys or give them money.

Natural Gas is 1/5 the price for the same amount of energy produced. It is clean burning and exists in huge quantities in the US.

The Obama Administration controls GM.

The Obama Administration favors clean energy alternatives like solar and windmills. But it is unlikely that we will ever see either a solar powered car – especially at night – or powered by a windmill in the near future.

GM introduced a new breakthrough car that can go as far as 40 miles without a charge, is expensive to buy, hard to refuel, and not really ready for the market. In addition, if all those problems were resolved, it would still run on electricity – most of which is provided by oil.

The Obama Administration pushed tax credits for cars that use less oil instead of pushing for cars that use no oil.

Cars powered by natural gas exist, get good mileage and have a decent range.

The question: Does this plan makes sense to anyone who is not a dope?

Monday, February 14, 2011

Quotes from the Second Dope

"Mubarak is not a dictator."

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here's what happened.'" The stock market crashed in 1929. FDR was elected in 1932. And televisions were still in the laboratory.

"Chuck, stand up, let the people see you," said Biden at the rally. He than noticed the wheelchair and added, "Oh, God love ya...What am I talking about?"

"In Delaware, the largest portion of the population is Indian-Americans," said Biden. "You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.... I'm not joking."

There are lots of others. His plugs are too tight

Nassau Animal Shelter

The real issue with the Animal Shelter is being obscured by the ridiculous salaries and political affiliations of the people involved. The debate should be on whether running an animal shelter is a valid use of public funds at all. Operating a kennel or adoption agency for stray pets is not a valid function of government or a good use of the limited funds available. If the people to whom this is important wish to donate to a center for the purpose that is their business. Like people who want to listen to a particular type of music, public radio and television or enjoy watching people who cover themselves with chocolate in the name of their art, these things should exist or not based upon their ability to generate the funds necessary. If the people who want these things are not willing to make contributions and or buy tickets to keep them in business, why should anyone else.
The story prompted a letter asking when the cat shelter would be build. Seriously. We are going backwards.

Defense of Sex Workers

Newsday printed an article about how mistreated Sex workers are. Or else it was an early April Fools' story. The next article will be about the organization to protect the rights of street load lighteners. Otherwise known as muggers, these are the guys that will gladly reduce the heavy pocketbooks and wallets that their unwilling victims are carrying. The police could work with these people to determine what strategies they use to protect themselves from violence from their intended victims and improve their working conditions. They do things like preying on the weak and vulnerable, working in groups, working in more affluent neighborhoods when it is not raining. Muggers and thieves are fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters and we as a society cannot accept violence against them.

Head of the Nail

I copied this from a European paper.

The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool.

It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.

School Budgets

Two things have to change in order to make any significant progress. First, we must get rid of the notion that spending more money per student will resolve the problem. It clearly will not. The highest cost per student systems in the country are in Washington DC and Detroit. No one can argue that those systems should be emulated.
The second idea is that the goal is to push every kid through college. The number of college students taking remedial college makes that a joke. It would be cheaper and just as effective to just everyone a college degree without wasting money requiring that they actually go to school.

Jose is still drunk

Jose Borbon got convicted of DWI. He actually got a year in prison so it probably was not his first offense. Six weeks later he is behind the wheel again, still drunk and even on his cell phone. This time he killed someone. He got 1 1/3 – 4 years and he’ll be out in a year - a slap on the wrist for killing someone
Last year Newsday ran a series of stories about “The Gap” - the small distance between LIRR platforms and railroad car. It is time to run another series. The public should be aware of the ridiculous fines, suspended sentences, probation and minimal jail time that multiple DWI offenders are getting. These people are putting everyone else on the road at risk when they get behind the wheel. Establish a real level - .08 is not it; enforce the drug laws that mandate confiscation of the vehicle; increase jail time/fines. This will never end until the punishment is made to fit the depraved indifference that these people show to everyone else’s life.

The left finds religion

In most situations, Newsday’s position is that other Christianity must bend to whatever is necessary - except when it serves their political purposes. The most recent example is Mr. Keeler’s heart rending effort to justify the Dream Act. The newest parallel is somehow between certain parents (don’t say Christ - that would be hateful) that fled to Egypt 2,000 years ago and the basic illegal alien. The illegal alien is away from home, misses the memories of home, misses the family that is unable to illegally enter the country, and misses not being able to illegally go home and then illegally come back. Now all of this could be avoided if the illegal alien stayed wherever the family was in the first place. That would be the country where his kid is going to college; where he would be with his wife and other kids; where he wouldn’t be lonely; and where he would be in a culture that celebrates his traditions. All those things were less important to Mr. Busboy than getting in this country. Remember that Mr. Busboy came here of his own volition.

Lots of things can be done to make the immigration system better but none of them should be done because people who leave where ever they are miss the people they willingly left behind.

Representative Israel has saved us again.

He has introduced legislation to” standardize dosing devices” and to “require clear dosing information”. His justification is a red flag. When “the children are at risk” gambit is used it is most often a clear indication that the topic under consideration has no defensible purpose.
Now no one wants children to be hurt. The doctor that was interviewed identified the larger problem – whether the medicine works – that needs to be investigated but Rep. Israel focuses on different issues.
It seems that the doses of different medicine are in various units (tablespoons, teaspoons). This is a potential source of a different problem than the Representative envisions. If a parent doesn’t know, or can’t figure out where to get the information that there are 3 teaspoons in a table spoon, the child needs more protection than the government can provide.
It is also laughable that a member of a Congress that has constantly produced bills consisting of thousands of pages of unintelligible legalese is calling for clear instructions.

Listening to the wrong guys

People come up with all sorts of ideas. The ones that make the market place are voted on by consumers who either buy the product or they do not. Success or failure is rewarded accordingly.
It would be of enormous benefit if governmental ideas were put to the same type of evaluation. Some of these are put to the test of elections every few years but some are the work of appointees who seem immune to the process. There should be some kind of scorecard kept to memorialize the idea, who supported/promoted it and whether it worked. Some examples are instructive:

Years ago those of a certain political philosophy determined that the right thing to do was to make it really easy for immigrants to not learn how to speak English. Governmental instructions, the entire education system, voting, signs and most everything else became bi- and then multi- lingual. Look how much better it would be if everyone spoke English. It would certainly better for the immigrants who would be more able to contribute to the economy and cheaper in tax money. It was just an incorrect decision.

In the 1990’s the people running Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae determined that it would be a good idea to increase the percentage of subprime loans in their portfolios. So they changed their lending standards and bought as many of these loans as the banks could sell them. These loans were made regardless of down payment, with no proof of income and no credit check. That didn’t work. Who is responsible? Google: What They Said About Fan and Fred

China is currently building 25 nuclear plants; France gets most of her energy from nuclear sources. The United States, thanks to the determined opposition of a few, has not built a nuclear plant in more than 30 years. We export big bucks to buy oil and fund terrorism against ourselves. Which party is associated with opposition to nuclear plants?

The current Administration is showing its commitment to current technology by promoting expansion of the trains which were the really hot technology in the 19th Century and by building windmills which people with wooden shoes popularized in the 16th Century but were around before that.

Several years ago, electronic signs began to appear on NY parkways informing riders how long it was going to take to get from where they were to a spot 8-15 miles away. The State spent tax money to develop, install and maintain this worthless addition to our knowledge base. Whose idea was this? Is he still employed by the State? Why?

The list goes on and on and the same people are the wrong side all the time. But they manage to stay around. Maybe that makes them the smart ones.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Drunken Cycles

Jose Borbon got convicted of DWI. He actually got a year in prison so it probably was not his first offense. Six weeks later he is behind the wheel again, still drunk and even on his cell phone. This time he kills someone. He gets 1 1/3 – 4 years and he’ll be out in a year. Unless the punishment is made to fit the crime, this will never end. When he was driving drunk he was guilty of the attempted murder of everyone on the road and his punishment should have fit the crime. When he did kill someone it, he was guilty of willful murder. He'll be back behind the wheel in no time. Great

Haiti Summarized

They had an earthquake - people gave money. They had a hurricane - people gave more money. Two Presidents even went around collecting. It is unfortunate that this happened but in the year in between these events, exactly what did the people there do for themselves? Did they work to move any rubble? Doesn't look it. Make any effort to clean anything up? Apparently not. Looks like they did two things: had more kids, and waited for someone else to do something for them.

Energy

China is currently constructing 25 nuclear power plants. The US has not built a nuclear plant in 30 years. France gets 75% of their energy needs from nuclear power. The US is building windmills in places that do not interfere with the view from Hyannisport. The US has a Department of Energy. China and France do not. What is the Department of Energy doing?

Meanwhile, the current Administration's plan is to print more money to reduce the value of the dollar and to not drill for oil anywhere in the United States. The price of oil goes up. There is nothing else that could happen.. The biggest surprise is why increasing energy prices are a surprise to anyone.

Social Work

A Hauppauge social worker is guilty of posting a suggestive ad on Craigslist about a 9-year-old girl. Posting suggestive ads about 9 years old is pedophilia. As her punishment, she got community service and counseling. That means she will be talking to another social worker about being a pedophile. That will obviously work. And there is not one word about this woman obviously unqualified woman losing her job. That would be her job as a SOCIAL WORKER.
Now we know that social worker pedophiles are entitled to their union jobs and pensions no matter what they do. Our tax dollar in action.

Whacky Media Scales

There is a total media preference for outrage at every statement a conservative makes and silence about anything else. This inhibits any reasonable discussion. Palin's website was not the first to use the target analogy. The Democratic National Committee site used it as early as 2006; the liberal Daily Kos pulled theirs when Palin did. But there was no noise about the guilt or either, even after the shooting by a guy who was clearly not a conservative by any definition. And of course, the guy who said: ...they bring a knife we'll bring a gun... was never called to answer for that. But that is another issue.

Palin's blood libel comment was slammed anti-Semitic by her more unhinged opponents while even Alan Dershowitz said it wasn't. Meanwhile this Congressman compares everyone who disagrees with him to Joseph Goebbels and there is barely a wimper. Fair and balanced reporting that.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

All Death Penalties

Debate continues. There are people who are really worried about the scum that sits on death row. They contend that there is no valid reason for society to take another person’s life regardless of this crime. In support there have the oft quoted “better that the guilty go free than one innocent man blah, blah, blah”. Their statistics counter that the death penalty does not deter anything (?); and that proportionally more minorities get death sentences. The answer is that neither stat is relevant. It might not deter every nut but it will deter some and that can only help; the answer to the latter is proportional to what – the number of murders minorities commit? - The percentage of minority population? - The percentage accused or caught? The Constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment is another favorite dodge. People are put out for operations all the time using various drugs. It can be the same here; they just don’t wake up.
Another excuse offered is the sickness of the murderer. By some definitions, anyone who kills anyone is at least a little sick. And so? People have sniffles, cancer and fallen arches, they don’t get off. Why should another type of illness which is subjective as to whether you actually have it, excuse murdering someone?

Their premise is whether anyone deserves the death penalty for anything? Well, suppose Hitler had been captured? Would a life sentence be an adequate punishment? If Hitler deserved the death penalty, does it depend upon how many people you kill? What is the magic number of murders that warrants death? 6 million? 100? 6? Is one priceless life worth more than 6?

This Death Penalty

The guy randomly killed 6 people and injured 14 more. He was caught with the smoking gun in his hand. There is no doubt that he committed this atrocity. Yet, newspapers refer to him as the “suspect”, perhaps in preparation for the anti-death penalty noise. There is no reason why this guy should not be executed and in a timely manner. Show of hands – who wants to pay for this guy’s food, housing, endless legal challenges/appeals and medical coverage for the next 50 years?
The people who were involved in Lincoln’s assassination were swinging from a noose inside of 4 months. There is no reason why this should take any longer.

Who is the Nut?

The blame game continues. It seems that the loonies are all after Palin. But,
The guy is a nut.
He has been stalking the Congresswoman since before anyone ever heard of Palin.
He is a fan on The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Mein Kampf. People who are fans of government control are seldom found at Tea Party rallies.
His friends identify him as a liberal who never watch TV or listened to talk radio.
He drug use is another thing that it not found at Tea Party rallies.
The oft noted target icons were used by websites on both sides of the political spectrum.
There is zero evidence that this guy was associated with any political movement.

Regardless it must be Palin’s fault. This marks progress for the lefties. They have moved on from blaming Bush.

Name Calling

Name calling is inching toward asking for Olympic status. This guy is labeled as a “right wing nut” while some use “Nazi” as a synonym. Others favor “socialist” as the ultimate in smears. Here’s a test:
Question 1:
The scale runs from complete freedom to do anything you want to total mind/body/property control by whatever you call the people in charge. (Said another way, who wants more laws and who wants less.)
Now - put these people/ideologies on the scale:
Libertarians, Socialism, Hitler, Stalin, Republicans, Ronald Reagan, Nazism, Communism, Barack Obama, Anarchists, Democrats, Liberals, Right Wing nuts, Conservatives.

The answer is the same when you use a scale based upon economic freedom. The discussion now is to determine the relative differences between these points on the scale and who anyone wants to be close to.

It seems that in any accurate definition, the right wing nut and the Nazi are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. And Obama is closer to Nazi than Republican. How about that?

Saturday, January 8, 2011

Defense Cuts

The knee jerk Conservative reaction is that the defense budget can not be cut at all. It is absurd to say that there is not one tuba player in one band on one base that cannot be done without. And in a budget this big there has to be room for improvement without reducing defensive capability or making any of our brave soldiers do without supplies, support pay or medical care.
Here's a start: When Clinton was "nation building" Conservatives and Republicans were properly strong in opposition to it. The same thing is going on in Iraq and Afganistan and now it's OK? It's time to go. Give each of them an assault rifle (if they don't already have one) and leave. If the mission can't be sensibly defined - and it can't - it's a lousy mission.

Friday, January 7, 2011

Home values and Help

Lots of people are demanding help for people in foreclosure and those owing more than the house value. Before throwing more money at the problem, some effort needs to be expended on looking at who should be helped. Some reporting on the extent of the situation would be of value. For example:
Identify how many of these properties were purchased as second home/income property. Those who did so made investments. Investments go up and investments go down. These went down – just like most 401Ks and IRAs. There is no reason at all why these properties should not be foreclosed on and even less reason why the government (tax money) should bail out the investors.

Identify how many of these properties were the subject of cash out refinances. Those who did this converted their equity in the property for cash in return for higher debt (and probably lower interest rates). Anyone who took out money in this way simply made a bad investment decision.

Identify how many people would be underwater if the money they took in cash refinances were considered as part of the value of the home. These owners have already received that value and not to consider as part of their value is a misrepresentation. Note that a very large percentage of the mortgages prior to the bubble bursting were cash out refinances.

And then there are the people who are claiming that they didn’t know that adjustable mortgages actually, you know, adjust; that balloons came due; or who were sure that they could carry a mortgage payment that was 50% of their gross salary. Stupidity is not a valid defense for anything.

If there is anyone left, we could look at the proper actions to take.