The Liberator Today

Weekend Music Chill

2012-01-27T11:00:00.000-08:00

Getting an early jump on the weekend music. I was thinking about how the tea party has no real candidate in the Presidential race and never did, a too bad to Michele Bachmann, and that dufus who thinks she's queen of the movement. For some reason, the Cars 1979 hit, It's All I Can Do came to mind, with the lyrics It's all I can do, to keep waiting for you, running through my head. I think it makes a nice companion piece to a song that would be on my Desert Island Dozen, Bye-Bye Love.

There's something extra about the studio version of Bye Bye Love, so I included it here.

Caption Contest at SDRostra

2012-01-27T00:37:00.000-08:00

Over at sdrostra.com Jim Sills is having some fun with a caption contest, please click here and post your entry. I love this photo, and so does the Temple.

Defense Spending - Republicans Don't Get It

2012-01-26T22:47:00.000-08:00

Budget "cuts" for the Department of Defense proposed by Obama are fairly responsible as far as I can tell. But Republicans are already criticizing the administration's proposals. Predictably, John McCain called the cuts unacceptable. So what are the facts? Most of the spending cuts come from winding down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The base budget of the Pentagon actually increases beyond fiscal year 2013. Base spending is the spending not going to support the wars. Further, the ground troop strength of the Army and Marine Corps is reduced to somewhat above levels of 2001. Finally, and more controversially, Secretary Panetta called for another round of base closures, setting up a new Base Re-alignment and Closure (BRAC) commission in 2013. (Parochially, speaking the BRAC process has been very good to San Diego, in spite of the closing of the old NTC, now Liberty Station. The move of the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) from DC in the mid-1990s, Mine Warfare Command from TX in the 2000s and additional ships homeported here have added federal spending to the local economy.)

Budgets for hardware procurement in the proposal have their ups and downs, but nothing really major. From McClatchey newspapers.

It wants to raise spending on drones by 30 percent, delay spending on the costly and controversial F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and fund a new bomber and a sea-based vessel that would allow drones and helicopters to take off from international waters. It wants to maintain current spending levels on missile defense and nuclear weapons while increasing spending on cybersecurity.

Republican criticism about the defense budget really misses the mark and paints them as unserious about dealing with spending overall. The one valid criticism actually comes from a Democrat, Senator Carl Levin, who said he wouldn't support closing domestic bases before U.S. bases in Europe were closed. I really applaud that thinking. It costs far more to keep bases open overseas than in the United States because of the costs with rotating troops overseas. The cuts in troop strength are going to lead to longer peacetime deployments. From the LA Times:

Two of the four Army brigades in Europe would be brought home, and the Army and Marines would shift to a rotational training plan under which more units would deploy overseas to conduct exercises with allies in Europe and Asia.

This saps troop morale. They should be enjoying a peace dividend as well. More deployments are also going to raise the expense of maintaining the proposed troop strength. Republicans have enough Congressional leaders with military experience to put forward a more rational critique of this budget. Ron Paul has been the one calling for shuttering overseas bases and having the troops stationed at home. Maybe that's part of the reason why he is the largest recipient of campaign donations from active duty members of the military.

Half Truths and Lies in the News - Indiana to Ban Unions?

2012-01-25T21:05:00.000-08:00

The headline on Google News and CBS news is:

Indiana on the cusp of union ban

Of course they aren't going to ban unions, who are protected by federal law. What is really going to happen is that unions won't be allowed to force employers to collect dues on their behalf from workers. If a worker doesn't wish to join a union, even at a union workplace, then he or she won't have to. This doesn't ban unions.

The article actually spends more time shilling for Scott Walker's recall in Wisconsin, falsely claiming that he stripped state workers unions of collective bargaining rights. In fact, the privileges stripped were not rights, because the state of Wisconsin, as a sovereign entity has the right to set conditions of state employment as a matter of law. Little reported is that this is exactly the way my workplace, a part of the federal government, is governed. Unions can bargain all they want, but ultimately, Congress sets pay and benefits. The laws surrounding this were laid down by Democratic Congresses over 40 years ago, for good reasons. FDR also opposed collective bargaining for government employees.

The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

So Scott Walker is to be pilloried for following the example of FDR and the Democratic Congress of the 1978? The left and its fellow travelers in the media need to get a grip on reality.

Romney's Charitable Giving

2012-01-25T20:30:00.000-08:00

Amazingly, leftist trolls are trying to insinuate that Mitt Romney's tithing, as revealed on his income tax returns, is something that Republicans, and especially evangelicals will hold against him, since the tithing went to the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints or Mormon church, colloquially. As a Christian, this facet of Romney's life gives me great hope for the man. In one of the most personal aspects of one's life, he has chosen to consistently put his money where his faith is. It is indicative of his honor and commitment to his beliefs. Meanwhile, I am not surprised to find that Obama and Biden are much less generous, giving 6.1% and .15% of their incomes respectively in their most recent available returns.

I am not saying that one's level of charitable giving is a qualification for President. However, it is an indicator of character, especially if we can view the long term trend for the man, even before he knew he would be running.

Half Truths and Lies - Live Blogging SOTU

2012-01-24T18:25:00.000-08:00

I am listening to the State of the Union address tonight. A few things struck me.

Obama called on us all to be like members of the armed forces, working together to overcome problems. Really? We all get meager pay and lose many of the rights that citizens take for granted.

Pretty sure his proposal for a minimum tax on international corporations would violate treaty and generally accepted accounting principles.

Took credit for Ford's success? Last I checked, they weren't bailed out.

Taking on China? Who do you think you owe all that swag to?

As with previous Presidents, Obama also wants to be head of your Community College District Board. He is also the webmaster for America's community colleges.

Talking about teacher pay, but state's won't pay for them? Calling for rewards to teachers and flexibility. Called for replacing bad teachers. Hard to believe he's serious, but I am glad he brought it up.

Here it comes, more demagoguery on college student loans. However, Obama actually calls for keeping college costs down, glad to hear it.

Oh no, here comes the DREAM Act stuff. Takes on illegal immigration, but calls for comprehensive immigration reform. Fix the border and we'll talk, sir.

Equal pay for equal work? More interference in the free market.

Obligatory Steve Jobs reference. Tear down regulations? Just do it sir, many of them are of your creation. No need for Congress to put it in a bill. What a bald-faced lie to claim you are seeking to reduce regulation. What was Obamacare all about?

Government R&D led to new jobs? It wasn't private companies that created the new products on which prosperity depends.

Opening 75% of offshore resources to oil exploration. The same 75% you previously closed?

Apparently, Obama discovered the oil coming out of the ground in North Dakota. Now he is in favor of natural gas, oh wait, he's not; proposing new regulations for natural gas producers.

This is getting boring. Renewable energy, Solyndra, blah, blah, blah.

Energetics, wind turbine manufacturer, the next Solyndra?

Clean energy tax breaks, more swag to favored groups.

Differences in this chamber too deep, whaaa. More unilateral action, shredding the constitution, Navy purchase of clean energy. Was that authorized? If not, impeach; if yes, how do you take credit for unilateralism.

He keeps using the line, "send me a bill." No, you already sent us the bill.

Here comes the infrastructure bit. More executive orders? Removing red tape? I doubt it, and the press won't hold him accountable.

Now he's going to interfere in the housing market and interfere in sound lending. Directing the banks to renegotiate mortgages? Welcome back from the dead, Juan Peron.
[Post speech note; Romney can hammer on the theme that government caused this housing bubble in the first place, more intervention props up a market that still needs to deflate.]

Smart regulation to prevent irresponsible behavior, but what new is needed? Now he's the de-regulator in chief. Taking credit for the milk spill deregulation.

Safe food, clean water, and evil health insurance practices. I will not go back to . . . I have restored everything good. Big banks won't be bailed out? Wasn't that the exact result of Dodd-Frank? Making it harder for Americans to get credit by regulating credit card companies, in the name of preventing unsavory practices.

Now he is asking for more legislation on banking. So much for deregulation.

Pay down our debt? No way, immediately on to tax hike prevention, or do you mean blowing a bigger hole in Social Security?

Here comes the tax rate demagoguery. Hey, no applauded the Warren Buffett secretary tax rate lie line. (It is a lie, because Buffet's income is first taxed at a corporate tax rate.) Fair share, blah, blah. Even Dems can barely muster applause.

Millionaire bashing, no real new ideas here. Yes, sir, I am calling this class warfare, because it is built on a foundation of lies. The rich pay twice, first on corporate taxes then on gains. He envisions a nation of dependents, whose lives depend on taxes from the rich. What a poverty of imagination, if that were true we would truly be a nation in poverty.

What are we thinking? Who will win the Super Bowl?

Bemoaning partisanship. Corrosive influence of money in politics. Banning insider trading by members of Congress? Ain't happening.

Going after the cloture rule in the Senate? Really? Don't recall him being for that when he was in the Senate. Asking for a simple up or down vote on nominees? Be careful what you ask for, there will be a Republican President some day.

Building consensus? Quoting Lincoln? Huge lie, Obama has been the chief contributor to partisan fighting. He then talks about the health care bill, the epitome of partisan and lobbyist driven legislation.

I think he's finishing. Terrible speech. Nope, back to taking credit for being Commander-In-Chief. Hey, where's the talk about engagement in Iran? Now he's talking Arab Spring and whacking Ghadaffi. He's going to whack Assad too? Who'd have thunk it, a dude named Barack Hussein Obama is all about whacking Arabs?

Iran isn't going to get a nuke according to Obama, no options off the table. Of course he should say it, even if we aren't really going to bomb them. Oh no, now he's Bibi's his best friend, or at least Israel's.

America is back! Hey, I agree that we are not in decline, but I think he is targeting Romney. Opinions of America in other countries are higher than in years? Don't think so, will look it up later. American exceptionalism.

Budget cuts for the military, cyber threat legislation. Waiting for the other shoe to drop on this issue. Already let the first one fall at the start of the defense review this month. VA spending going up. Veterans rebuilding this nation, with tax credits for veteran hiring. Hey, I'm a veteran, and honestly this all feels like pandering after a while.

Back to the topic of learning from the servicemen and women, we are all in it together, serving one nation. More bin-Laden and flag waving, almost literally. Am I awesome as CINC or what? Mission only succeeded because of ME, is the not so subtle subtext of recounting SEAL speech. More fascist rhetoric about how we all work together as a team. Sorry, we are no longer in the service, as I opined before.

Finally, no mention of Obamacare, expected; but also not much about Defense budget, which I had expected.

The Problem with Ron Paul

2012-01-23T21:53:00.000-08:00

I agree with Ron Paul on just about every subject, but I am not supporting him for President. What gives? First, he occasionally makes a total clown of himself. He can be absolutely correct and so totally befuddle the listener that he gives his ideas a bad name. When your ideas are the best, you should be able to take it the opponents of greater liberty much more effectively than he has. Second, it has become increasingly clear that he is not in the race to win it. His strategy appears to be pick up enough delegates to get his issues aired at the convention. I would normally not object to such a strategy, as the Republican party has proved themselves unworthy of commitment to any actual principle over the years. However, this year, Barack Obama represents an existential threat to the liberty of all Americans, and he must be defeated and Obamacare repealed. This is imperative to getting us of the road to serfdom and back on the highway to prosperity and liberty. Mr. Paul's continued presence and his goal of extracting concessions at the convention will work to the advantage of the President's re-election.

However, my biggest argument is with his foreign policy, actually, his national security policy. Now, I agree that we could do with a huge cutback of bases overseas, and even the defense budget requires scrutiny, but Ron Paul is naive if he believes that neutrality is going to make America more secure. We know from history that it is tyrannies, not democracies that are the source of war and conflict. Further, a stable world political order, in which small nations are not subject to territorial violations by their neighbors keeps the peace, which helps with both United States' and world economic growth. This means that it is in our best interests to work against tyrants and would be tyrants the world over. It also means that we support Israel, as the only true democracy in the Middle East, against aggression from her neighbors. Al Qaeda and its like minded co-conspirators actively believe in pan-Islamic dictatorship, and have simultaneously made the mistake of attacking the United States. This makes defeating them, and killing bin-Laden as part of a legal war of self-defense, legitimate execution of America's national security policy. Ron Paul always seems to get tongue tied when discussing the killing of bin-Laden. One of the principles roles of President is Commander-in-Chief. It seems that Ron Paul is squeamish in exercising our sovereign right of self defense, and that makes him unfit for the Presidency.

Let me be clear that we should not get into a war with every dictator on the planet who might threaten us. Even if that were desirable, we lack the national treasure to do so. For example, I have argued that attacking Iran, even if they obtain nuclear weapons is not a realistic option. We must pick our battles. But we should retain the right of self-defense, and further, the right to intervene in conflicts where tyrants threaten the international order, when that is in the national interest and Congress so authorizes.

Electability

2012-01-21T16:07:00.000-08:00

Gingrich's solid victory in today's South Carolina primary got me thinking about what Republicans want most, Barack Obama's defeat. One might argue that such a goal lacks positive vision, but when you have someone bent on destroying our previously accepted limits on the power of the federal government, such a goal is a worthy one to advance the cause of liberty. It seems apparent to me that Romney's inability to handle the questions about his tax returns, not the facts surrounding the returns themselves, caused a breach in his main argument for nomination, his electability. Further, in thinking about my own enthusiasm, I admit I got excited thinking about having Newt Gingrich debating Obama in his inimitable style, demolishing the shibboleths of the left on national television. Romney gives me no confidence on his ability to handle the unexpected, or even the easy to anticipate in a debate with Obama.

But we have to ask, what wins national elections? We have to further ask if experience is a guide to answering such a question. There have been approximately 800 Republican primary debates so far, well closer to 25. However, there will only be three general election debates. In the past, these debates have generally not proven decisive. As Brit Hume pointed out on Fox News today, most people have seemed little swayed by them, with supporters of each candidate believing that their man (we can say that with Bachmann out) being the winner. Primary debates are necessary, in Hume's opinion because the actual differences between the candidates positions in a single party, aren't that great.

But is that changing? Are the American people open to changing their minds if presented with an intellectually compelling exposition of the key issues? The optimist in me, wants to say yes, given the depth of crisis, surely Americans realize that business as usual is no longer acceptable. If one takes this view, then Gingrich is preferable to Romney, but Paul would actually be even more preferable to Gingrich. Of course, Newt's supporters would argue that Paul is too radical on foreign policy and would not defeat Obama. The realist in me thinks that as bad as things have gotten, they aren't bad enough to cause the sort of epistemological change necessary to accept Ron Paul. But such thinking also militates against Gingrich.

Historically, it has been coalition building, organization and getting out the vote that wins Presidential elections. Gingrich has tried to take a different path. He has certainly has some success, but it remains to be seen if that can win the nomination, much less the general. Romney, by contrast, seems to have done a decent job of building a winning organization, it's the candidate himself that seems to have problems. Also, Romney seems to be finding his voice in a more full throated defense of free enterprise, exactly the tack he needs to take in light of the attacks on his role at Bain Capital.

I am still not ready to endorse a candidate, but I am leaning to support for Romney, as much as I love Gingrich's combative debating style.

With respect to his tax returns, Romney needs to explain the facts to the American people. His case also argues for a tax rate that is both low and equal for all forms of income, whether pay, corporate, gains, retained interest, dividends, or interest. No loopholes and a 15% rate would probably pay for everything the government should be doing. Additionally, in order to keep the marginal rate truly flat, perhaps workers below the social security cap would pay a lower rate of 9.8% so that the marginal tax rate is truly flat.

More Loss of Liberty and Freedom of Conscience

2012-01-20T22:36:00.000-08:00

Of course it did. The Obama administration is not going to allow Catholic organizations freedom of choice in whether or not to fund insurance coverage of contraception. From the NYTimes.

Federal officials said they would give such church-affiliated organizations one additional year — until Aug. 1, 2013 — to comply with the requirement. Most other employers and insurers must comply by this Aug. 1.
. . .
“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York, the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
. . .
The rule includes an exemption for certain “religious employers,” including houses of worship. But church groups said the exemption was so narrow that it was almost meaningless. A religious employer cannot qualify for the exemption if it employs or serves large numbers of people of a different faith, as many Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies do.

Even beyond religious conscience, this limits everyone's choice. What if I want a plan that costs a lot less? Cutting back on mandated services like contraception that have no co-pay could reduce the cost of insurance. Why isn't that a consumer choice? The assault on freedom from the health care law is so vast, that it sometimes helps to just think about one assault at a time.

Those who argue otherwise just hate me as an individual and hate the whole concept of consumer choice. They are called leftists or statists and they have decided to regulate everyone's lives, individual choice and conscience be damned.

Weekend Music Chill

2012-01-20T18:20:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama was on TV today, doing a couple of bars of the Rev Al Green's "Let's Stay Together." It got me thinking about what I might sing on the spur of the moment in public, given my limited vocal talent. Here are two songs I would go with.

And just because I can't resist this cover:

Romney's Tax Returns

2012-01-19T22:41:00.000-08:00

Mitt Romney's defensiveness over his tax returns makes me wonder about his candidacy. Surely he knew that he was going to get pressure in releasing them at some point. Regardless of what was in them, he should have been prepared to deal with those issues. Conversely, if he had decided to gut it out, then he should have prepared a strategy for explaining why his returns were nobody else's business.

I am taking a class where we are discussing scenario building for planning. Competent planning might have looked at a number of planning scenarios by the Romney camp. First, examine all of the potential criticisms that might be found in the tax returns and how to respond, indeed, turn some of them into positives. For example, Romney probably gives millions to Mormon organizations. He could win over Americans who certainly know that charities are solving problems that government has found intractable.

Second, he probably has good reason to want to control the timing of the release. But his campaign could have planned for leaks at the IRS and demands from other candidates to see the returns. He was clearly winging it and caught off guard by the sudden interest. But that interest was wholly predictable.

Third, if he wasn't going to release his returns, at least not without seeing what it might cost him in support, he needed a go on offense strategy for that option. I would have used it to challenge Obama to release transcripts and papers he had written in college. I suspect that Obama isn't releasing his college material because of plagiarism or other embarrassing revelations that might come out. Romney could have used the tax returns as bargaining chips to remind America of how much of his past Obama has hidden from view.

Regardless, Romney inability to handle this situation makes me nervous that he might be the nominee, and get blind sided by Obama. My only solace is that Obama doesn't do well when someone lays a glove on him, either, witness his weak response to Sarah Palin's initial attacks in 2008.

Thinking About Pension Reform

2012-01-18T21:59:00.000-08:00

I fully support the pension reform initiative that will be on the ballot this June here in San Diego, but I think there are some clarifications needed about the facts surrounding the measure. Some key facts.

Short term savings do not result from a shift to a 401(k) plan. The initiative will save the taxpayers money in both the short and long term. However, closing the defined benefits plan will require a plus up of those accounts as there will be no new entrants into those plans. This is made up for by other means, the most significant being fairer sharing of costs for current employees, a cap on the "pensionable" portion of employee pay and an anti-spiking provision. Further, the plan is not technically a 401(k), but a 401(a) which has less flexibility. A 401(k) is not currently legal for municipal employees by federal law. Call your Congressperson.
The plan does nothing about current retiree health care costs. These costs seem likely to increase as retirees live longer.
The costs of running a 401 style plan are likely to be greater than a defined benefits plan due to the need to manage individual accounts.
The city's contribution rate of 9.2% seems high, but must account for the fact that employees are not part of the social security system a 6.2% contribution. That's a huge benefit to the employees which is often overlooked. Over very long time horizons, employees can expect a return of at least 8% per year as opposed to the paltry 2.6% for a medium income two income couple born in 1985. (Source is social security admin.)

So, am I against the 401(a)? No, I believe that it is better to offload future risk from the taxpaying public to the employee. City employees enjoy very high levels of job security, so the tradeoff should be that the taxpayer is no longer on the hook for supporting them after they retire. I honestly don't know why employees wouldn't prefer this deal.

For a full discussion of public employee pensions in general, and a debunking of many myths, see Governing magazine's article on Pension Puffery by Girard Miller.

SOPA Protesting - UPDATE

2012-01-17T21:04:00.000-08:00

Wikipedia's front page is dark today over SOPA and fellow SLOB, Dueling Barstools, has a protest page up as well. I would like to remind my readers that the SOPA bill is an example of the Congress working at the behest of big corporations in the entertainment industry to protect their business model, while imposing intrusive and unnecessary regulation on the rest of the world.

In an unusual display of right and left agreement that this is an example of crony capitalism at its filthiest I quote:

The email from DailyKos said this.

In short, this proposed law would allow corporate copyright holders the ability to cut off funding and compel the government to shut down websites they deem infringing, without the need of a court order.

And Neil Stevens, at the Daily Caller, opposes the bill as well, saying this:

This portion of the bill has little to do with protecting American interests abroad or with punishing lawbreakers. Instead, this portion of SOPA regulates the Internet at home. It is a framework for domestic censorship only tangentially related to intellectual property rights.

Darrell Issa, one of the few politicians I follow on Twitter deserves credit for crusading against this excrement. He has offered an alternative bill and asked for public comment. Protecting intellectual property rights need not trample our economic rights nor wreck the internet's technical infrastructure. Please put pressure on your Congressperson to oppose this legislation.

Here is what I wrote.

Congresswoman Davis,
The SOPA bill is a dangerous threat to the internet, both from the potential for censorship, misuse by third parties and damage to the internet's technical infrastructure. Please tell me that you will be voting against this bill or its companion Senate measure PIPA.
Regards, B

UPDATE

The protests and congressional contact seem to be having the desired effect. Harry Reid does not appear to have the votes to get a cloture vote on PIPA.

Tweet of the Day

2012-01-16T16:15:00.000-08:00

Comes from @SamValley:

Should @MittRomney release his tax returns? Sure, right after Barack Obama releases his college transcripts. #GOP

You've got to love Sam's tag line:

Drugs, gangs, pornography, crooked politicians, stupid celebrities and high taxes; what's not to love about The Valley?

More Evidence of Iranian Weakness - Threats to Gulf Oil Producers

2012-01-16T11:29:00.000-08:00

Iranian bellicosity against its neighbors demonstrates further weakness in its strategic position. I previously discussed why the threats over closing the Straits of Hormuz showed Iran's weakness. Now, their threats against the Saudis and others over oil production show another pitfall for Iran. The threat:

Iran warned Gulf Arab oil producers against boosting production to offset any potential drop in Tehran’s crude exports in the event of an embargo affecting its oil sales, the latest salvo in the dispute between the West and the Islamic Republic over its nuclear program.
The comments by Iran’s OPEC governor, published Sunday, came as Saudi Arabia’s oil minister was quoted the same day denying that his country’s earlier pledges to boost output as needed to meet global demand was linked to a potential siphoning of Iranian crude from the market because of sanctions.
. . .
Mohammad Ali Khatibi, Iran’s OPEC governor, was quoted Sunday by the pro-reform Shargh newspaper as saying that attempts by Gulf nations to replace Iran’s output with their own would make them an “accomplice in further events.”
“These acts will not be considered friendly,” Mr. Khatibi said, adding that if the Arab producers “apply prudence and announce that they will not participate in replacing oil, then adventurist countries will not show interest” in the embargo.

Iran's threat is a de facto recognition that there is excess oil production capacity in the world beyond their ability to control. The Saudis appear to be backing down on their previously announced intention to keep prices low. Historically, the behavior of oil producing nations has been only loosely coupled with their announced intention. If I were the Saudis, I would not provoke the Iranians publicly, but would quietly boost production while denying that I was doing so. This makes political sense, because it allows the Saudis to appear not to be allying themselves with the west, while still undercutting the key threat to their existence, a nuclear armed Iran. As the Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States demonstrates, the Iranians and Saudis are already in a shadow war with each other.

Why are the Iranians getting so bellicose? I can only assume that they are desperate. The actions of a country on the verge of achieving tactical military superiority would not look like this. Assassinating nuclear scientists and sanctions seem to be having the desired effect. (Caveat: I don't know who is assassinating Iran's nuclear physicists, but they are dying in numbers and by means that point to assassination.)

Weekend Music Chill

2012-01-13T12:48:00.000-08:00

Been watching Justice League (90s cartoon series) on DVD lately as family entertainment. It makes for lively nerd debates on various superheroes. One thing I notices is that even though Batman is by far the more popular DC character, Superman crushes Batman when it comes to pop music themes. I posted two of my favorites last year. Here is one more.

On the whole superhero theme, here is one of the best rockin' renditions of a superhero theme song.

Hypocrisy of Outrage at Marines Pissing on Dead Taliban

2012-01-13T12:12:00.001-08:00

I am not condoning what the Marines did in urinating on dead Taliban corpses, but the hue and cry over their actions has me pretty angry. The Taliban were part of a conspiracy that killed over 3,000 Americans; they have mutilated women, killed those trying to educate girls, killed Christians, killed foreign medical workers, beaten and tortured their own people, and generally acted like uncivilized savages unworthy of the protections afforded civilized peoples in the Geneva Convention and the various Hague treaties. So cry me a river when a few of their fighters suffer disrespect in death after they meet up with justice.

Now I understand that it is not in the political interests of the United States for our Marines to act in this fashion. To some extent, as Clausewitz famously pointed out, war is politics carried out by other means. To the extent that this allows our enemies to frame the conflict as a religious one, these actions are detrimental to the interests of the United States. But we should leave it at that, and reserve our moral outrage for true acts of oppression.

WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGERY

We Had to Destroy the Fish in Order to Save Them

2012-01-11T21:22:00.000-08:00

PG&E operates the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, located near San Luis Obispo is due for a permit to extend its life for another twenty years of delivering electricity to California. Recently, an undersea fault line was discovered in the oceans off San Luis Obispo. In order to get a permit, PG&E must conduct a seismic survey as required by state law.

PG&E has been directed to conduct the survey by the California Energy Commission (CEC) as required by Assembly Bill 1632, authored by Senator Sam Blakeslee. The legislation was enacted in 2006.

To comply with the state law PG&E must recover the costs of the survey from their rate payers, the public. However,

. . .an administrative judge with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) put PG&E on notice that it first must complete high-energy, three-dimensional offshore studies to determine the exact force and velocity of the new fault line discovered three years ago just a few hundred yards off the coast from the nuclear power plant.

Meanwhile, fishermen in the area are very concerned. Presumably, the seismic study is to ensure that the environment in the area is protected, including the fish in the bay, however, the seismic study is likely to kill many fish.

In the midst of many fishers voicing alarm over what they believe will be devastating impacts to fisheries from San Luis Bay to Cambria, the first official environmental impact report on PG&E's proposed deep-water seismic studies of faults that could affect the safety of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant is tentatively being planned for release in draft form in January by the California State Lands Commission.
. . .
In its notice of preparation of the DEIR, the Commission noted that ever since 1987, there has been "mounting evidence of the potentially significant effects of 'high-energy' survey equipment . . . on marine fish (including eggs and larvae), mammals, and reptiles, both behaviorally and physiologically . . . "

Unconfirmed rumor is that fishermen are being offered serious coin to offset the loss of income if the tests are carried out.

Meanwhile environmentalists are attempting to stop a low carbon source of electricity, while AB32 is requiring new sources of low carbon electricity. I love the stupidity of this state. If we don't totally destroy our own economy, I will be shocked.

(H/T to Dawn Wildman of the SCRTC.)

Is This Still the GOP?

2012-01-10T20:08:00.000-08:00

While not particularly a fan of Mitt Romney, the attacks based on his role at Bain Capital made me wonder which party I joined in 2008. Bain didn't take TARP or any other bail out that I'm aware of, but took over failing companies, in many cases turning them around, in others, liquidating them. Republicans candidates are attacking him over this? Do we really believe in free markets? Ron Paul had it right:

Paul said his GOP rivals former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Gov. Rick Perry (Texas) sounded “like Democrats” in blasting Romney’s record with the company.

“I think it’s a big distraction,” Paul said. “And they’re picking up on this and those who are condemning him for it, I think, are arguing like Democrats.

“You know, they come in and say, look, restructuring in the free market is a good idea, and I don’t know anything about Bain, so I’m not taking a position on that, and I haven’t looked at it and I have no idea what he did or didn’t do, but the principle of restructuring is a good thing in the marketplace,” he said.

Here's the audio, skip forward to 3:55.

Political Priorities for 2012 - One SD tea party perspective

2012-01-09T22:12:00.000-08:00

My day job has become very challenging lately, and may continue to cause light blogging. When I have little time, it concentrates my mind on what is both important and within my sphere of influence. For example, I love following Presidential politics, but as a Californian I am going to little influence on neither the Republican nominating process nor the electoral vote totals. Here are my priorities for this year and how I am feeling.

Defeating Governor Jerry Brown's proposed tax increases; highly confident. Getting his execrable budget killed; not so much.
Getting pension reform passed in San Diego; highly confident.
Getting Carl DeMaio elected Mayor of San Diego; optimistic.*
Reaching out to left, right and center on entitlement reform and ending crony capitalism; cautiously optimistic.**

Notes:
* The Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition does not endorse candidates, so this is a personal endorsement.
** Kelly, a liberal commenter, comments on why this is important in the comments section on my Saturday post about Rhode Island's Democrat led pension reform.

I hope for a groundswell of support for these goals.

Dang, I can't resist, here is one reason I can't stand Santorum (H/T Temple of Mut):

Math not Politics - Fixing Pensions in Rhode Island

2012-01-07T23:50:00.000-08:00

Rhode Island has achieved a measure of pension reform, despite being a fairly blue state. From the WSJ:

The plan enacted in November cuts $3 billion of the state's $7 billion unfunded liability by raising the retirement age, suspending cost-of-living increases until the pension system is 80% funded, and even moving workers into a hybrid plan that has a smaller guaranteed annuity along with a 401(k)-style defined-contribution plan.

How did this succes come about? State Treasurer, Gina Raimondo, was able to present the facts to the voters of the state.

"No finger pointing" was her mantra, along with a corollary: "Math, not politics."

I like that last little bit. The state treasurer is a Democrat, but that didn't stop her from recognizing that the state's financial situation was untenable. Perhaps Republicans should de-emphasize blaming the unions, even if we believe they are to blame. The actuarial certainties of our entitlement programs, government pensions, medicare, medicaid and social security, are inexorable. Without change, they will eventually bankrupt us. Democrats can be left to demagogue these issues; but by proposing serious reform, it is actually Republicans, like Paul Ryan, who are doing the work necessary to save the social safety nets in this country.

Promises, Promises

2012-01-06T20:40:00.000-08:00

Governor Jerry Brown's budget promises to cut public education by $4.8 billion if his tax increases aren't passed next November. Promises, promises. That we could get some cuts in the bloated state educracy would be welcome indeed. The California school system is not performing that well, despite spending about $8,452 per pupil per year, although I think that number is low, it is the official state budget number from 2009-2010. The shock of some budget cuts would be welcome as it might force us to evaluate why we allow the government a near monopoly in delivering education.

In a previous post on Douglas County, CO I laid out why outsourcing public education at 75 cents on the dollar would still save the state money.

Let's look at the situation in California. According to the state of California's data, there is a total of approximately $50 billion spent on K-12 education. (I am approximating, because the exact total seems a little squishy depending on the source.) This results in per pupil spending of $8452 per year. A voucher to parents of about $6300 would save the state $2100 per pupil. If only one million of the approximately 5.5 to 6 million students, the state could save $2.1 billion dollars. The more parents take advantage of the program, the more the state saves. At the state level these kinds of savings shouldn't be ignored. It might have the additional impetus of encouraging a mass exodus from failing public schools. I also note that in the review of literature for this article that only 61% of spending in California's schools goes to classroom education. That means the schools have an overhead rate of 63%. It seems obvious that parents could get a more value from 75 cents of every education dollar than they get from the public system.

[ed. note: For those doing the math the overhead rate is calculated by taking the percent of dollars not spent in the classroom divided by the percent actually spent on the classroom (like teacher's salaries), 39%/61% = .639 or 64%, a ridiculously high overhead rate.]

Defeating the tax hikes should be the number one priority of the tea party movement in California this year. Gerrymandering has essentially neutered partisan politics, but large numbers of Democrats seem willing to vote for the conservative position on ballot measures, including voting against tax increases and against gay marriage in 2008, while Obama was sweeping the state. I think the public instinctively knows two things. First, California taxes are too high. Second, when politicians threaten favored programs if they don't get their way on tax cuts, they are bluffing.

Weekend Music Chill

2012-01-06T20:19:00.000-08:00

We still have an intact pumpkin sitting around the house from Halloween. Amazingly, it doesn't stink. My youngest opined that he wanted to be smashing pumpkins, of course. This got us discussing music from the 1990s. This particular song always sticks in my head when I remember it, so here are The Cranberries with Zombie.

Another of their hits, Linger.

Local Republican Crony Capitalism

2012-01-05T19:22:00.000-08:00

Mayor Sanders performs a nice little feat of local crony capitalism, as first reported by the San Diego Reader. From the U-T.

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders allowed Qualcomm Stadium to be temporarily renamed Snapdragon Stadium to promote the wireless chip giant’s smartphone processor during three nationally televised football games despite advice from the City Attorney’s Office that the move wasn’t legally permissible and amounted to free advertising.

The Dec. 7 memo from City Attorney Jan Goldsmith said the terms of the naming rights agreement with Qualcomm don’t allow the company to make any changes, even on a temporary basis, without written consent authorized by the City Council, which never happened. The change also appears to have violated the city’s sign ordinance which generally prohibits off-site advertising, such as billboards and signs, for products that aren’t sold on the premises.

“Qualcomm’s proposal seeks to use the identifying signage to promote its new product without paying any additional consideration to which the city would otherwise be entitled,” the memo said. “Qualcomm does not have that right under the agreement. Per the agreement, the content of the identifying signs is clearly limited to the name of the stadium as ‘Qualcomm Stadium’ and not subject to use for advertising.”

The temporary name change of ~~Jack Murphy~~ Qualcomm Stadium to Snapdragon, despite a memo from City Attorney Jan Goldsmith that the name change was not authorized unless approved by the City Council just disgusts me. The city loses money every year on the stadium, undermining public support for everything else that Mayor Sanders has proposed, including a new City Hall. Why would the mayor engage in such an egregious display of crony capitalism, in effect donating millions of dollars of free advertising revenue to Qualcomm? What is the value of exposure to the approximately 30 million viewers that watched the three games during the temporary name change? The mayor seems totally insensitive to taxpayer sentiment, his false claims of calamity in support of Prop D come to mind. Why elect Republicans if they are just going to gouge taxpayers on behalf of big business, as opposed to Democrats gouging the taxpayers on behalf of the employees unions. This is an example of why we shouldn't put government in charge of anything intended to make money. It's also why I plan to vote for Carl DeMaio, because I believe he is the Republican least likely to engage in such shenanigans in the future.

The Post I Wish I Had Written

2012-01-05T19:08:00.000-08:00

Leslie, at Temple of Mut, has written passionately about the need to stay steadfast and think long term in our quest to restore this Republic to its Constitutional roots. She reminds us of the need to accept diversity of opinion in the tea party movement, while sticking to our core principles of limited government and rule of law. Her other message is to reject the top down messaging of the elites, in order to build a true, lasting grass roots movement. My thanks to her for this reminder.

Defense Budget and the SOTU

2012-01-04T21:44:00.000-08:00

As reported by Reuters, the Obama administration plans on cutting 10-15% of the nation's ground forces. Supposedly, this will represent a slowing in the growth of the defense budget. Why it doesn't represent a decline in spending is not clear, but it seems that the Marine Corps and Army will be the biggest losers in this scenario. Politico is reporting that getting control of military health care, pay and retirements will also be on the agenda. Retired pay is particularly difficult, because retirees are scattered throughout the country, are often successful people with the means to donate to political campaign and are networked through a number of veteran's organizations.

I would expect the President to discuss defense budgeting and strategy in the State of the Union address. Prior SOTU's have not had much focus on those subjects. Based on the initial leaked reports it looks like the Navy and Air Force face fewer force reductions.

I am torn on the defense issue. The potential for mischief by dictators throughout the world remains high. A win-spoil strategy seems risky, and would seem to invite mischief. However, defense spending can't be a sacred cow any more than any other kind of spending in order for us to get our fiscal house in order.

Tweet of the Day

2012-01-03T22:47:00.000-08:00

Comes from Allahpundit:

I cannot believe that the first big GOP race post-tea party is between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.

I can't either. I can understand Romney's tied for first finish (I don't really care about the exact count) because many Republicans view him as the man most likely to beat Obama. Whether that is true or not, remains to be seen, but it is a position I can respect. Santorum appears to have gotten a big lift from evangelicals, who broke for him at the end. This is too bad, as I believe that the Christians, like all Americans, are best served by the limited government perspective espoused by Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Dueling Barstools provides an excellent critique of Santorum that is worth reading.

The good news is that Iowa is not very good at predicting the Republican nominee. This result probably gives Romney a huge boost, as I don't see Santorum having the organization to seriously challenge

The Quote to Start the New Year. . .

2012-01-01T14:13:00.000-08:00

. . . comes from Chrystia Freeland, right, (H/T HotAir) who looks at the unrest the world over and comes to this conclusion.

The unifying complaint is crony capitalism. That’s a broad term, to be sure, and its bloody Libyan manifestation bears little resemblance to complaints about the Troubled Asset Relief Program in the United States or allegations of corrupt auctions for telecommunications licenses in India. But the notion that the rules of the economic game are rigged to benefit the elites at the expense of the middle class has had remarkable resonance this year around the world and across the political spectrum.

Indeed, it is a call for a measure of justice, a universal feeling among human beings of all cultures. Here in the United States the issue has propelled the tea party movement, and to a lesser extent the coffee party (to the extent that it is a movement) and occupy. The issue resonates with left, right and center. Freeland is hopeful for the western democracies on this score.

As for crony capitalism, this slogan of the street is both a challenge for the state and an opportunity. For some regimes, of course, crony capitalism, with a side order of repression, is the only dish on the menu. For them, the trends of 2011 do not bode well.

But most of today’s troubled market democracies don’t need a revolution to sweep away their cronies. What they do need is a new version of capitalism, designed for the 21st century. That is what the world’s protesters, in their different ways, are all asking for. Here’s hoping that 2012 provides some politicians with some answers.

The left sees crony capitalism and concludes that more regulation of business is required to prevent business from seeking ill gotten gains from government intervention. They forget problems of regulatory capture and the fact that regulation favors the entrenched business interests of today, against the entrepreneurs of tomorrow.

The right calls for less regulation, forgetting to tackle the problem that government is enriching corporations in the first place. The tea party answer, is for government to be stripped of the power to enrich corporations in the first place. In my opinion, such a theory is incomplete, because some opportunities for mischief, especially in financial markets are so great that after the fact prosecution is an insufficient deterrent. See some of the danger in The War on Terabytes from the Economist. The answer has to be transparent and simpler regulation. I will post on this more extensively later, but in summary, financial regulation is too complex to be understood or to be effective. Further, given the wide discretion given regulators, made worse by Dodd-Frank, the danger of regulatory capture is increased. Protecting our financial markets from a recession causing melt down requires fewer regulations of a well understood nature.

Meanwhile, crony capitalism must be put to shame. The Obama administration has been making a very good case, in the negative sense, through Solyndra, Fisker, and the GM and Chrysler bailouts.

Picture of Chrystia Freeland from wikipedia.org.

New Year's Predictions

2011-12-31T13:06:00.000-08:00

It's New Year's Eve and I thought I would make some not so fearless predictions. "Not so fearless" because if I'm wrong, there is really no downside if I am wrong. Last year's predictions weren't that great. Some things I got wrong.

1. Romney would fade as a candidate due to lack of tea party support.
2. The economy would recover then stall. It just never really recovered.
3. The nut roots would froth at the mouth at Obama. They occasionally did so, but not much.
4. A multi-employer union pension plan would go bust. None did, although Kroger took some action due reduce risk to such funds that it contributes to.

The big thing I got right was that the battle to reduce spending would be mostly a draw due to divided government.

On to my fearless 2012 predictions.

The world will not end in December, although many will wish it would due to an Obama victory in November.*
Romney will be the Republican nominee.
The economy will recover but stall around election time, but not soon enough to derail Obama's election prospects. The signs of recovery abound. I recall reading over the past two weeks that consumer confidence is up, steel prices are up, on-line holiday sales are up 15% and new unemployment claims are down. Enough good news would allow Obama to eke out a victory, because the Republicans have not made the case that they are not the party of business interests married to government.
Looming economic disasters in China and Europe will be put off until the end of the year.
Pension reform will pass locally in San Diego.
Global warming debate will remain unsettled as higher sunspot activity will continue a warming trend.

These are my own predictions, I am sure my fellow SLOBs will be posting their own.

*Of course, I am not rooting for an Obama victory, but it is the way to bet. Also, my history of Presidential predictions is almost perfectly inaccurate, starting with Goldwater in 1964.

Death to Ethanol Subsidies

2011-12-30T18:01:00.000-08:00

The Iowa caucuses are only a few days away, and interestingly, the tax subsidy for ethanol production steep import tariffs are about to expire about the same time. I have inveighed against the evils of these subsidies for some time. Seeing their expiration is a cause for rejoicing, and evidence that we can win victories against entrenched special interests. Unfortunately, there is still a federal law on the books that requires the use of ethanol in gasoline. H/T WSJ.

It's also great to see that ethanol hasn't become a burning issue in the Iowa caucuses; perhaps because of the near universal condemnation the whole program is receiving. No matter, time to start taking on other formerly sacred cows of government subsidy. Anyone up for removing the home mortgage subsidy next?

Makes more sense than paying to convert it to ethanol.

Weekend Music Chill - New Year's Edition

2011-12-30T16:41:00.000-08:00

We've been watching a lot of football and it's almost New Year's Eve, so what better music to post than Gary Glitter's Rock and Roll Part 2.

And to round our festivities with another stadium favorite, here is Kernkraft 400 with Zombie Nation, supposedly the sports chant stadium remix edition.

Iran Displays its Weakness

2011-12-28T21:34:00.000-08:00

Even dictators are politicians, who must win the support of key constituencies to remain in power; how else to explain the hold on power by such madmen as Kim Jong Il. Bret Stephens explained this best in this 2009 WSJ article.

Tyranny is a demanding and quintessentially human art, requiring, among its better practitioners, a discriminating nose for the weaknesses of others and a keen mind for how to exploit them to the fullest. The weaknesses of your own people—the sublimated terror of the masses; the petty ambitions of the cadres; the cravenness of your inner circle—you know only too well.
But a tyrant’s training is no less useful for the manipulation of free men. What keeps an abused and subjugated people in line is the constant fear that things could suddenly get dramatically worse, along with the sporadic hope that things might also get marginally better. So long as most people feel they have much to lose and something to gain, you will have them in your power.

Which brings me to Iran's recent threat to close the Straits of Hormuz to shipping if sanctions were imposed on its crude oil exports. While this may seem a replay of the sort of moves that Kim made famous, I think this is clearly a signal that the Iranian leaders are in a weak position. Kim's threats were aimed at parties who lacked the desire or the means to fully call his bluff, specifically China and South Korea. The Iranian threat directly impacts Obama's re-election prospects and he has the means, in the form of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, to do something about it.

Consider the bearded ones' positions. Despite years of work, they still seem a ways off from achieving their goal of building a nuclear warhead that can be delivered at a distance. Clearly the U.S. and/or Israeli campaign of sabotage and assassination has been successful in slowing their nuclear progress. It seems that the mullahs are in a race against time; they feel the need to fulfill their nuclear ambition to secure their base and to increase their popularity before popular discontent with their failing socialist economy causes the government's collapse. This is why the threat to close the Straits of Hormuz is so telling. It is an almost credible threat, but reveals that they are nervous about the impact of economic sanctions. From the CIA factbook on Iran:

Iran's economy is marked by an inefficient state sector, reliance on the oil sector, which provides the majority of government revenues, and statist policies, which create major distortions throughout the system. Private sector activity is typically limited to small-scale workshops, farming, and services. Price controls, subsidies, and other rigidities weigh down the economy, undermining the potential for private-sector-led growth. Significant informal market activity flourishes. The legislature in late 2009 passed President Mahmud AHMADI-NEJAD's bill to reduce subsidies, particularly on food and energy. The bill would phase out subsidies - which benefit Iran's upper and middle classes the most - over three to five years and replace them with cash payments to Iran's lower classes. However, the start of the program was delayed repeatedly throughout 2010 over fears of public reaction to higher prices.

The dependency on oil revenue to buy domestic peace is clearly their weakness. Another significant weakness, not mentioned in the factbook, is that the Iranians import significant amounts of their gasoline, despite their oil production.

With regards to policy towards, Iran, it seems that the current one is probably the best plan. Use covert means to sabotage the program and delay its progress, and build a consensus on sanctions. We are in no position to threaten full scale war with Iran, nor would we want to do so if sanctions and sabotage can achieve our goals. The ayatollahs are deeply unpopular, starving them of the means to buy domestic support will bring them down.

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

Another Trillion in Debt

2011-12-27T22:02:00.000-08:00

The President notified the Congress that he needed some more pocket change to keep the federal government running, to the tune of $1.2 trillion. Under the terms of the misbegotten deal that was struck last August, the President is authorized this last raising of the debt ceiling unless Congress can override a veto that would certainly come if they disapprove.

The deal turned out badly, for many reasons. The Super-Committee failed, and automatic cuts are supposed to kick in, but not until October 2012. Elections are going to intervene before any real change is effected, hence the failure. In hindsight, enabling a super-committee was a bad move tactically and constitutionally. I am sorry I thought it might work to reduce the debt. Deals to continue the payroll tax holiday only make another debt ceiling crisis right before the election more likely.

Speaking of elections, here is the most interesting question. Did the administration miscalculate? Might the debt ceiling actually come into play prior to the November elections, rather than in 2013, as previously predicted? The current limit is $15.194 trillion, which was reached rather quickly, it seems. If the debt ceiling becomes a problem prior to the election, what will the administration do? Here is a hint.

A Treasury Department document shared on Tuesday said that if the limit is reached before the elections, the government could take “extraordinary measures to extend borrowing authority beyond the next elections.” But the department offered no detail.

Because, as Dean often states, Constitutional Republics, are like, hard. I think the political fall out from the Treasury taking such action would be bad for Obama, so he might be forced to grandstand on the issue and take this to the Congress. It would give him an opportunity to run against Congress, instead of the Republican nominee. I hope Boehner is thinking this one through, but I am worried.

The winners of next November's elections will face very tough decisions; we are running out of room to maneuver. That makes these elections the most important in our lifetime.

Merry Christmas

2011-12-25T13:29:00.001-08:00

Taking the day off from politics and blogging. Merry Christmas from the B-Daddy family. Here is a little Christmas cheer.

Old blue eyes has the best version of this song, but I like Judy Garland's as well, unfortunately, embedding is not available for her video.

Christmas Pancakes

2011-12-24T21:33:00.000-08:00

It has been a tradition in our household that I make pancakes on Christmas morning. My sons have always been big fans. When we first started doing this, a simple recipe involving Bisquick sufficed to make them happy. As they grew older, I wanted to keep making improvements, because they were always so giving of their love and appreciation for the effort I put into Christmas breakfast. A wise man told me years ago that having children would change my life for the better. At the time, I didn't see how. I thought of all the things I wasn't going to do and all of the responsibilities I would soon be shouldering. He was wise enough not to try to explain it to me, because I don't think I would have understood.

My boys are in college now, but still live at home, so I still get to make pancakes for them. God richly blesses my life. I don't know how many more Christmases like this we will have. They will soon have careers that may take them far away. So, I want to share my latest Christmas pancake recipe with you, maybe it will inspire someone else's Christmas tradition.

B-Daddy's Beer Pancakes

This recipe makes 12-14 pancakes.

Ingredients:

2 cups less 4 tbsp Organic FlaxPlus Multigrain Pancake Mix
6 tbsp Granulated Sugar
2 packs Instant Oatmeal mix (flavored is fine, I used Maple-Brown Sugar)
1 tsp Baking Powder
4 tbsp Wheat Germ (if you don't have wheat germ, use the whole 2 cups of pancake mix)
2 tbsp Canola Oil
2 tbsp Lemon Juice
3 tbsp Trader's Vic's Macadamia Nut liquer (or your favorite, or use 2 tbsp vanilla extract)
12 oz Shiner Bock beer (or any flavorful malty lager or ale, I don't recommend hoppy ales.)
4 tbsp Butter (for the griddle)

Set up two bowls, wet and dry.
In the dry bowl, stir the Pancake Mix, sugar, oatmeal, baking powder and wheat germ to an even consistency.
In the wet bowl, add, in order, the oil, lemon juice, liqueur and beer.

Now gently pour the contents of the dry bowl into the wet side. There should be considerable foaming from the beer. Very gently, with a fork, stir the ingredients. This will take some time, as you want to break up the clumps of mix that are hiding the dry material inside. At first, the mix will appear too runny. Be patient, the oatmeal takes time to absorb the liquid.

Preheat a griddle on medium low heat, and grease with butter to an even coat. Be careful with the temperature, these pancakes burn easily, even if the bubbles haven't stopped.
Pour a full 1/4 cup per pancake. I usually use a 1/3 cup measuring cup to make sure I can easily get the full 1/4 cup onto the griddle. Flip the pancakes a little earlier than the normal rule of waiting until the bubbles have almost stopped. In about a minute they should be done. Serve with your favorite syrup.

P.S. Those good looking rascals pictured above get their looks from their beautiful Mom.

If You're Flying These Holidays

2011-12-23T22:19:00.000-08:00

You should feel very, very safe, if your flight is on a U.S. flagged carrier. There were no fatalities in 2011, and only two in 2010, according to a WSJ article. Today, the chance that an airline flight will have an accident with a fatality is sitting at about one in 11 million. Flying is up to 100 times as safe as car travel by some estimates.

Meanwhile there was much ballyhooed release of new regulations to ensure that pilots and air crews get enough rest. Measure these remarks against the actual safety record shown at right:

Calling the long-awaited regulation a "landmark safety achievement" that resolves pilot-fatigue issues that have been festering since the 1970s, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on Wednesday said the changes were based on the latest scientific sleep research.

Perhaps the reference to sleep research is true, but to say that there is a long festering safety issue is demonstrably false. Fortunately, the new regulations aren't quite as onerous as originally thought.

Total projected compliance costs for industry dropped to about $300 million over 10 years, compared with $1.2 billion as originally proposed. FAA officials said they believe the industry won't have to hire new pilots to comply. Even so, the FAA still faced a seemingly big challenge justifying costs versus benefits.

According to the 300-plus page regulation, the value of anticipated benefits ranges from $247 million to more than $700 million over 10 years. Those benefits could include avoiding accidents, reducing aircraft damage and lowering insurance costs

I agree that reduced accidents have great economic value, the first article quoted savings of $600 million per year due to the low accident rate. But the accident rate is already close to zero, so I think we are just going to increase the cost of plane tickets with added regulation. We know from standard economic analysis that for each increase in airline ticket prices some people will choose to drive. That choice will result in more deaths. Why isn't this taken into account in regulatory analysis? It always sounds great when the government announces new regulation to increase safety, but there is a cost to regulation that has unintended consequences. This is why I view the regulatory regime with suspicion.

Weekend Music Chill - Christmas Edition

2011-12-23T15:13:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas, and Happy Hanukkah, which goes from December 20 to 28 this year. Like last weekend, I want to play one modern and one traditional Christmas tune.

Here are The Waitresses with Christmas Wrapping.

Here is a traditional rendering of Good King Wenceslas from York Minster in 1995.

Lying, Cheating . . . whatever

2011-12-22T22:39:00.000-08:00

I read a couple of articles today that made my blood boil, not only because of what happened, but because I am certain that there will be absolutely no accountability imposed for lying and cheating. Exhibit 1, involving the DOJ and that miserable hack, of course, involves admitted perjury by a justice lawyer, presumably an "officer of the court." H/T HotAir. From PJMedia.

Stephanie Celandine Gyamfi, reportedly told investigators from the Inspector General’s Office that she perjured herself during an inquiry into Justice Department leaks during the previous administration. Despite the admission, she has not been fired for criminal malfeasance. Indeed, it appears she has not been disciplined in any meaningful way at all.
. . .
According to numerous sources within the Section, Ms. Gyamfi had been asked in two separate interviews whether she was involved in the leaking of confidential and privileged information out of the Voting Section. Each time, she flatly denied any knowledge as to who was responsible for the leaks. In a third interview, she was once again questioned about her role in the leaks. At first, she adamantly denied involvement. Then, however, she was confronted with e-mail documents rebutting her testimony.

And here is the kicker, and what drives me to despair. The lack of accountability.

Amazingly, despite Ms. Gyamfi’s admission of committing perjury not once, but three times, she so far has been neither terminated nor disciplined by the Justice Department. In fact, her boss, Voting Section Chief Chris Herren, continues to assign her to the most politically sensitive of matters, including the Department’s review of Texas’s congressional redistricting plan.

Mere mortal employees of the federal government, such as yours truly, would find ourselves out on our butts, our security clearances revoked and generally unemployable if we were determined to have perjured ourselves. Further, we would not even have to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, the mere preponderance of evidence would be necessary to get ourselves fired. But because Ms. Gyamfi's political positions are useful to this administration, jack will be done.

Exhibit 2 is even more painful, because it expressly violates the will of the voters in California. Olga Pierce and Jeff Larson have a devastating article in ProPublica titled, How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission. The whole article is almost too much for me to take. It is such an obvious first step on the road to dictatorship that I have difficulty absorbing the article's entire contents.

In previous years, the party had used its perennial control of California’s state Legislature to draw district maps that protected Democratic incumbents. But in 2010, California voters put redistricting in the hands of a citizens’ commission where decisions would be guided by public testimony and open debate.
. . .
n the weeks that followed, party leaders came up with a plan. Working with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — a national arm of the party that provides money and support to Democratic candidates — members were told to begin “strategizing about potential future district lines," according to another email.
. . .
When they appeared before the commission, those groups identified themselves as ordinary Californians and did not disclose their ties to the party. One woman who purported to represent the Asian community of the San Gabriel Valley was actually a lobbyist who grew up in rural Idaho, and lives in Sacramento.
. . .
The losers in this once-a-decade reshaping of the electoral map, experts say, were the state’s voters. The intent of the citizens’ commission was to directly link a lawmaker’s political fate to the will of his or her constituents. But as ProPublica’s review makes clear, Democratic incumbents are once again insulated from the will of the electorate.

We used to have a consensus in this country that crimes against the public trust were serious and important enough to warrant punishment, regardless of the politics of the perpetrator. If we accept that any amount of lying and chicanery is acceptable in the name of political gain, then we have surely lost our way.

Payroll Tax Fiasco

2011-12-21T21:26:00.000-08:00

Pillars of the economy meet with members of Congress.

Today's WSJ editorial excoriates House Republicans for their mishandling the payroll tax debate. While there is plenty of tactical political blame to be shared by Boehner and McConnell, the real crime is that we are debating this at all. The tax holiday on payroll taxes that temporarily cut the rate from 6.2% to 4.2%, is never going to be made permanent. Everyone knows it, so any impact on hiring is already discounted. The current tax holiday has done nothing for unemployment, which remains stubbornly high. Worse it is blowing a hole in the social security accounting, bringing the day of bankruptcy closer, much faster.

A better approach comes from John B. Taylor, on the opposite page from the editorial, who argues that stable tax policy would help recovery much more than any gimmickry. I would say that stable regulatory policy should be added to the mix, as well. He points out that the Congressional Budget Office has called for higher tax rates as one option to repair social security's balance sheets. The current loss of revenue from reduced rates only makes that option more attractive in the long run, so it is a self defeating policy, as employers know that they are likely to be saddled with higher taxes later and just have to lay people off. As a manager, I am always trying to balance hiring against future budget expectations, sometimes leaving positions vacant as a hedge. I can't imagine business owners think differently.

Taylor has a slightly different argument about why the temporary holiday is bad.

But the policies are worse than doing nothing at all. Rather than stimulate the economy, they hold the economy back by creating policy unpredictability and by distracting Washington from crucial long-term reforms that are key to restoring economic growth and creating jobs.

He also attacks the complexity of the tax code, and notes that there are 84 temporary provisions expiring this year. I think the Congress likes the temporary nature of the provisions, because they can collect rents from special interests every few years as inducement to extend them. This is in line with my recent theme of crony capitalism. How can the following temporary measure be of any value to the economy? "Three year depreciation for race horses two years old or younger." Really, when the race horse owners, those pillars of the American economy, need this policy extended, I am sure they are going to be very generous giving to their senator's re-election campaign.

Congress - Putting the Crony into Capitalism

2011-12-21T21:03:00.000-08:00

Walter Russell Mead, getting to be one of my favorite writers, takes down Congress and Wall Street on their extremely cozy relationship. This whole article is worth a read, because it proves the old saw that the real crime is what's legal. A brief summary.

Hedge fund investors and other key Wall Street insiders get tipped off by Congress and staffers on legislative direction. From the WSJ: When Senate Democrats finally brokered a compromise over the proposed health-care law, a group of hedge funds were let in on the deal, learning details hours before a public announcement on Dec. 8, 2009.
As Mead notes. Fabulous profits are there to be made, perfectly legally; legislators do Wall Street a favor by giving the hedgies an early head’s up, the hedgies reciprocate by making large campaign contributions. Everybody wins except for the pathetic losers not part of the magic inner ring, and nobody breaks any laws.
Congresscritters in turn, personally benefit from being brought in on deals that you or I can only dream about. Nancy Pelosi and her husband were parties to a dozen or so IPOs, many of which were effectively off limits to all but the biggest institutional investors and their favored clients. One of those was a 2008 investment of between $1 million and $5 million in Visa. . .
OWS got it wrong, the problem isn't Wall Street, but the coziness between Wall Street and Washington, which the Tea Party better understands. The paternalistic and benevolent government envisioned by the architects of the blue social model has morphed into a corrupt insider state that can no longer regulate or protect. The answer can’t be to give more power to people like Chris Dodd; that is what the Tea Party understands and the OWS folks too often miss.

Considering all of the advantages that Congress has, we find studies that show that members of the House of Representatives stock market returns beat the market by 6.8%. To quote Dean:

These guys write the legislation, they make the rules... and they're completely immune from taking advantage of gaming the situation in any manner they feel... and they still can't make out any better than 6 and 12 percent above the market average?

U.S. Congress: where corruption meets complete incompetence.

No Blogging Tonight

2011-12-20T20:57:00.000-08:00

Enjoying some family time.

Obamacare - What Actually Changed?

2011-12-19T20:06:00.000-08:00

. . . Other than a morass of new regulation? As the slow moving train wreck called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act rolls down its tracks of doom, it seems that many of the worst elements of health insurance have survived. All that has been added are layers of bureaucracy, as if even more regulation was going to help an industry choking on it. Here is the latest instance of plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. From the Wonkblog at WaPo.

Under the health reform law, every insurance plan will be required to cover a set of “essential health benefits.” The Affordable Care Act defines 10 broad categories that must be included, such as “professional services of physicians and other health professionals” and “hospitalizations.” What fits within those categories is up to the Obama administration. Any plan that wants to sell on the new insurance marketplace will have to cover the benefits.
. . .
But what Health and Human Services created today wasn’t really an essential health benefits package at all. Instead, the department announced that every state will have the option to determine essential health benefits themselves, by using standards that already exist in their states. “The state is always in control of what the essential health benefit plan is in that particular state,” Steve Larsen, director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, told reporters this afternoon.

How is that really different than today, where insurance is regulated by the states? The Secretary of HHS can now sue each state if he/she doesn't like their interpretation of the law, setting up politically motivated punishments of states by the federal executive branch, consolidating federal power. While the Obama administration would never abuse its power to sue a state trying to conform to federal law, what if those wascawy Wepubwicans ever win the White House? Something for you Democrats to think about.

Fruther, if the Supreme Court fails to strike down the individual mandate, the case is more important from a precedent setting perspective than from a practical one. The fines set for the individual mandate are not set high enough to get compliance. Further, there are weak enforcement mechanisms. From Randy E. Barnett in the New York University Journal of Law & Liberty.

Moreover, unlike Sonzinisky, the penalty does not even purport to be a tax. It is called a “penalty.” Although the penalty was inserted into the Internal Revenue Code, Congress then expressly severed the penalty from the normal enforcement mechanisms of the tax code. The failure to pay the penalty “shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.” Nor shall the IRS “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 impose a “levy on any such property with re- spect to such failure.” All of these restrictions undermine the claim that, because the penalty is inserted into the Internal Revenue Code, that it is a garden variety tax.

What did this atrocity really get us? More bureaucracy and regulation, less choice, maddeningly more complex regulatory landscape, more subsidies, more debt and a dubious precedent that will effectively grant Congress unlimited power over every person if upheld. Glad we had time to read the bill.

Agreeing With Krugman on China - Truly Scary

2011-12-18T22:25:00.000-08:00

Paul Krugman is the economist/columnist that I love to hate. He is probably brilliant in some way that I cannot understand, because I almost never see it in his work at the New York Times. He is a Nobel Prize winner, but I often wondered if his award was not politically motivated, in much the same way that Obama's clearly was. I was surprised to find his analysis of China's economic situation quite penetrating. I had argued against Glenn Beck and others that China was not the formidable foe they thought. My unlikely ally in this regard is Krugman. Some key points.

Still, even the official data are troubling — and recent news is sufficiently dramatic to ring alarm bells.
The most striking thing about the Chinese economy over the past decade was the way household consumption, although rising, lagged behind overall growth.

. . .China increasingly relied on trade surpluses to keep manufacturing afloat. But the bigger story from China’s point of view is investment spending, which has soared to almost half of G.D.P.

. . .it [the motivation for this investment] depended on an ever-inflating real estate bubble. Real estate investment has roughly doubled as a share of G.D.P. since 2000, accounting directly for more than half of the overall rise in investment.

Do we actually know that [Chinese] real estate was a bubble? It exhibited all the signs: not just rising prices, but also the kind of speculative fever all too familiar from our own experiences just a few years back — think coastal Florida.

. . . it’s impossible not to be worried: China’s story just sounds too much like the crack-ups we’ve already seen elsewhere.

Krugman also takes to task those who think that China's "strong, smart leaders" who don't have to bother with democratic niceties will somehow handle the situation. He points out that endemic bribery at the local level limits the central government's ability to govern. I would add that even dictatorships are subject to political pressures, which ultimately cannot be ignored.

We have a good news, bad news situation. Despite all of the troubles of the Unites States, there is no other nation close to being able to challenge our leadership, not the Europeans, not China and not Russia. However, if China also starts to suffer serious economic hardship, then a global depression seems possible.

Managed Competition with Subsidies is not a Free Market in Health Care

2011-12-17T23:05:00.000-08:00

Paul Krugman summarizes the leftist argument for socialized medicine in today's New York Times. He also cites a longer article by Ezra Klein purporting to prove that competition doesn't lower the cost of health care. Krugman's summary.

Patients by and large don’t have the information to evaluate medical treatments; in any case, they mainly buy insurance rather than medical care directly; and insurers profit not by providing the most cost-effective care, but by trying to insure people who won’t need care.
And it’s not as if market competition hasn’t been given a try; in this country it has been tried over and over, by politicians who won’t take no for an answer.

Ezra Klein cites any number of examples such as Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D to show that the competition within those programs has not lowered costs.

These are misleading arguments that need rebuttal.

In a free society, why is it a goal to spend less on health care? If we have rising levels of discretionary income, why wouldn't we choose to spend more on improving our quality of life?
We conflate total costs with unit costs. An aging population is going to consume more health care, there is nothing to be done about the demographic curve. However, competition can reduce unit costs.
Even if people have to make decisions about medical providers under emergency conditions, they do not make decisions about insurance plans that way. True competition between plans is stifled by Obamacare and so many other regulations.
Even under emergency conditions, people make informed decisions about health care treatment. They can often decide which emergency room to visit and have information about who is best when they do so. During my last few emergency room visits, I arrived by private vehicle, in full possession of my faculties, as did over 90% of the other patients I saw there.
If we had people paying significant out of pocket expenses, and they had better choices in health care providers, then an Angie's List for doctor's would spring up. Krugman thinks the average person as both ignorant and stupid, unable to learn for themselves. When the chips are on the line, I find people to be just the opposite, researching treatments and providers extensively.
Competition has been slowly squeezed out of the market place ever since the introduction of Medicare and the insurance industry following all of Medicare's practices. It is a lie to say that any free market solution has been tried in the last three decades. Klein makes the classic leftist argument that when a quasi-competitive managed system that also involves government subsidies and regulation doesn't deliver cost savings, this is proof of the failure of free markets. It is not.

Until we decouple insurance from work and free up the insurance industry to provide plans with high deductibles and relatively high catastrophic caps, we are not going to get unit cost containment. Until the baby boomers leave the stage, we are going to see increases in health care costs, period.

Keystone Pipeline and Latest "jobs" Bill

2011-12-17T10:42:00.000-08:00

The Democrat controlled Senate passed a two month extension of the payroll tax cut and an unemployment benefits extension. Although touted as a jobs bill, this will do little to help the economy. The payroll tax cut has so far done nothing, and will continue to do nothing except bring the day of reckoning on social security much sooner. That this doesn't produce cognitive dissonance at the AARP is beyond me and shows how deeply they are embedded with the Democratic party.

However, the Republicans managed to get a provision into the bill forcing the administration's hand on the Keystone XL pipeline. I was wondering how the left might spin this, and was surprised at the pretty realistic coverage by Joan McCarter at DailyKos:

Of course this doesn't mean that construction on the pipeline itself will be expedited, it's just intended to make Obama look bad at the beginning of an election year. When it's denied, as the State Department has already said would happen if forced to have to decide in just 60 days, Republicans can screech about his killing jobs. If he overrules the State Department, a possible but unlikely outcome, then Republicans can watch his base explode. Their favorite pastime.

Of course Joan doesn't remember the first Bush years, and all of the Reagan administration, where this was the favorite pastime of Democrats. It's a healthy part of the political system, because it forces choices on the parties and makes them say what they stand for. This is why being in power is hard, you can't equally please all parts of your coalition. In this case Obama will be forced to choose between his base of enviro-greenies and labor. I think that he will still try to finesse the deal, but it will be a test of how badly he wants to be re-elected. My guess is that because he does desire re-election, he will stiff the greens, because they have nowhere to go, and ensure labor support, because they have cash and boots on the ground.

Mark Meckler Arrest in New York

2011-12-16T23:03:00.000-08:00

Mark Meckler, head of the Tea Party Patriots, was arrested at New York City's La Guardia airport, after declaring that he was carrying an unloaded firearm, following TSA regulations for so reporting. He was arrested for his troubles. SarahB at Lipstick Underground has the details. Bottom line, federal law protects his transport, as he has a permit for concealed carry. New York City merely wants to harass travelers because of their animus against the Second Amendment. They will lose this court case, but all people will remember are the headlines that some tea party dude brought a firearm to the airport.

Podcast below that gives a full explanation.

KOGO Podcast

Weekend Music Chill

2011-12-16T10:34:00.000-08:00

We may not be blogging next weekend, and its time to get into the spirit of the season, so here is some Christmas music, of two very different styles.

This one is for Nanny.

Republican Sioux City Iowa Debate

2011-12-15T23:37:00.000-08:00

I watched most of the last Iowa debate tonight and was impressed with the Republican candidates. Practice, if it doesn't make perfect, gets you pretty far down the road to it. Some observations.

I saw some passion from Romney. This was his best performance. I loved his defense of his time at Bain Capital. He cut some jobs, but he also created jobs. Then he makes a very sly move and compares it to when "Obama ran General Motors." Killer move, because he isn't criticizing the take over, but it is so unpopular, that reminding voters of it is toxic to Obama.
Rick Perry had one of the more memorable lines, comparing himself to Tim Tebow, as an underdog candidate. Also very sly, given the current controversy and the make up of Republican voters in Iowa. I think that if Perry can get a ground game going in Iowa and South Carolina, he may still have a chance.
Gingrich had a great performance, except in explaining the nature of his services to Freddie Mac. As popular as it was, I wasn't happy about the whole judges testifying before Congress part. Another example of a seemingly brilliant, "out of the box idea," that didn't get the vetting needed.
Bachmann looked bad, because, even if she damaged Gingrich, she looks a bit unethical in making baseless charges about Gingrich's work at Freddie Mac. I found her attack distasteful, as she suggested it was somehow unethical, with zero evidence to back up her claim.
The discussion on Iran did no one any favors. Ron Paul sounded weird and defensive, and couldn't make the sale, but the rest of the gang sounded trigger happy. My belief is that the clandestine war that we are already conducting is the best approach. But if they get a nuke, its not the game changer everyone thinks. A nuke is eventually going to be used in the region; better it come from the devil we know, to give BMD a chance, than from a surprise source that we aren't prepared for. Now what to say in public about it? That's the tough question.
Romney also responded to the flip-flop question with facts and sincerity. When you look at the fact that he governed Massachusetts as a Republican with huge Democrat majorities, you are looking at a guy who made some compromises to get things done. He touted his veto record as governor, but didn't mention how many were overridden.
Santorum did a good job too, I just have a hard time being objective. It's a personal gut reaction thing for me, I just don't like him.
Jon Huntsman was at the debate and sounded intelligent as well.

I saw a tweet that Gary Johnson is going to run as a Libertarian. This is bad news, if true. After the debate Ron Paul made it pretty clear that he isn't running as a third party candidate, even though he didn't rise to Sean Hannity's challenge to offer an absolute pledge. I get the feeling that Ron Paul finds Obama so distasteful that he wouldn't want to facilitate his re-election. But Gary Johnson might pull in enough tea party types angry over their choices to hurt the Republican nominee's chances. Hard to say if the desire to see Obama off would overcome the loathing of the current field as more of the same establishment Republican types.

All told, when I think through Obama's baggage, the bad economy, everything Holder does, Solyndra, Fast and Furious and ongoing bailouts, I believe he can be beaten. But he is the President, sitting on a mountain of cash, so we should remember that he will be looking to whack his opponent, figuratively, of course.

Christopher Hitchens - Requiescat in pace

2011-12-15T23:07:00.000-08:00

Just a few quick notes on the passing of Christopher Hitchens, who died today. I always found him maddeningly effective in his prose style. I often disagreed with him, especially about religion, for which he blamed much of the world's troubles. But I also respected him for taking on former allies in attacking the left's blind spot towards militant jihad. He seemed to veer wildly between leftist positions and a deep regard for liberty, but the man could write. We will miss his sharp wit.

In the Unlikely Event of a Water Landing

2011-12-14T22:59:00.000-08:00

I work in IT management, and preparing for contingencies and product launch failures and delays is a prudent part of my daily routine. We always joke about the process, because unlike airlines, where water landings are very rare, apparently, disasters are more routine in IT. Which brings me to the euro. Here is a little tidbit that is an indicator of the euro's long term health.

At least one—the Central Bank of Ireland—is evaluating whether it needs to secure additional access to printing presses in case it has to churn out new bank notes to support a reborn national currency, according to people familiar with the matter.

So, in the unlikely event of a water landing. Just a friendly warning. I cashed out an international fund six weeks ago and put the funds in U.S. corporate bonds. The more I study the problem the more I am convinced that the euro can't survive. More than one prominent economist points to the huge productivity growth disparity between Germany and the rest of the euro zone, which is not compensated for by wage disparity, as the reason the euro can't survive. Alan Blinder has a very readable explanation here.

Incompetent Polling on Brown's Tax Hikes - UPDATE

2011-12-13T21:06:00.000-08:00

Lest you get depressed over the stupidity in the headline in today' U-T that a big majority approves of Jerry Brown's proposed tax hikes, let me return you to reality, and a much better outlook. Here is the main quote.

Nearly two-thirds of Californians favor Brown’s tax hike, but fewer than half of them think he’s doing a good job as governor, according to a survey released Monday by the nonprofit Public Policy Institute of California.

First, remember that this a poll of "adults," allegedly, not likely voters, not even registered voters. Such a poll is bound to vastly over estimate the support for new taxes. Likely voters are going to be more conservative than "adults."

Second look at the actual wording of the question:

Governor Brown has proposed a plan to help close the state’s budget deficit over the next five years. The plan, which would be put before voters in November, would raise $7 billion annually through a temporary four-year half- cent sales tax increase and a temporary five- year income tax increase on those earning more than $250,000. Do you favor or oppose this proposal?

They might as well have said Do you support the heroic Governor's surefire plan to cure our deficit woes? What kind of polling is this?

Third, in my experience, polls always over estimate the support for tax increases. Remember how Proposition D, the half cent sales tax increase was supposed to be a squeaker? The U-T published a poll near election time that showed a 40% to 40% tie with a large number of undecideds. Final result? The tax increased was crushed 63-37, not even getting the 40% it polled at.

Fourth, PPIC, who performed the polling, is generally left of center. Of course they will get a result that supports tax increases.

Finally, these tax increases energize an angry public to vote no because they are sick to death of lack of accountability from government. This vote will re-energize the tea party movement in California.

UPDATE

I cross posted this article at sdrostra.com. In the comments, Tony Krvaric makes some excellent comments, here is an excerpt.

1) The question is framed in terms of deficit reduction, even though real world experience shows that there’s no correlation between raising taxes and reducing the deficit (or else California certainly would have no deficit by now.)

2) The poll tries to state as fact that Jerry Brown’s plan will, for certain, produce $7 billion in new tax revenue, even though again, real world experience shows that tax increases rarely, if ever, produce the revenue its predicted they will.

3) Is it really necessary for a pollster to underline that four year and five year tax increases are “temporary?” Doesn’t their descriptive as four year and five year tax increases already make that clear?

4) Look at the timing of this poll. It was released the same day that the Department of Finance director announced the budget trigger cuts.

His entire comments are worth a read.

SHOCK? Overcounting Home Sales

2011-12-13T20:57:00.000-08:00

The Drudge headline says SHOCK: Realtors: We've Overcounted Home Sales for Five Years... I guess someone is shocked that the very people who stand to benefit from painting a rosy picture on housing have been providing inflated numbers? Count me shocked as well, like Captain Renault.

Supposedly the revised numbers won't affect home prices, but how do those guys know? They're in shock. This blog has consistently said that home prices still have a ways to fall. We still haven't changed our mind.

The Government is Collecting Geolocation Data from Your Cellphone

2011-12-12T21:06:00.000-08:00

Just a warning. Reliable sources indicate that the information the U.S. Government is collecting mobile phone geolocation data under a secret interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act. From Reason's blog:

. . . [Senators] Wyden and Udall, both members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have been warning that the Obama administration relies on a "secret interpretation" of the PATRIOT Act to justify surveillance that the general public does not realize is happening. The interpretation involves Section 215 of the law, which authorizes the FBI to demands business records or any other "tangible things" it deems useful "for an authorized investigation. . .

Of course that miserable hack at DOJ is part of the fun. Wyden and Udall condemn Justice's denial of a secret interpretation as "extremely misleading."

Why do some think that this has to do with geolocation? From the Cato Institute' Julian Sanchez:

Department of Justice has developed a novel legal theory, known as the “hybrid theory,” according to which law enforcement may do some types of geolocation tracking of suspects’ cellular phones without obtaining a full-blown probable cause warrant. The “hybrid theory” involves fusing two very different types of surveillance authority. “Pen registers” allow the monitoring, in real time, of the communications “metadata” from phones or other communications devices (phone numbers dialed, IP addresses connected to). For cellular phones, that “metadata” would often make it possible to pinpoint at least approximately—and, increasingly, with a good deal of precision, especially in urban areas—the location of the user. Federal law, however, prohibits carriers from disclosing location information “solely” pursuant to a pen register order. Another type of authority, known as a 2703(d) order, is a bit like Patriot’s business records authority (though only for telecommunications providers), and is used to compel the production of historical (as opposed to real-time/prospective) records, without any exclusion on location information. The Justice Department’s novel theory—which I discussed at a recent Cato event with Sen. Wyden on geolocation tracking—is that by bundling these two authorities in a new kind of combination order, they can do real-time geolocation tracking without the need to obtain a full Fourth Amendment warrant based on probable cause.

Further, there is reason to believe that the information isn't being used in any particular investigation. From the Campaign for Liberty, more from Wyden and Udall:

Section 215 authorities are not interpreted in the same way that grand jury subpoena authorities are, and we are concerned that when Justice Department officials suggest that the two authorities are ‘analogous’ they provide the public with a false understanding of how surveillance law is interpreted in practice.

Why the discussion of grand jury rules? The U.S. Attorney's manual provides that:

It is improper to utilize the grand jury solely as an investigative aid in the search for a fugitive in whose testimony the grand jury has no interest.

Wyden and Udall conclude that:

...locating subjects for the benefit of law enforcement (rather than as a means of securing their testimony before the grand jury) is one of the few things so expressly and specifically excluded.

From this we might conclude that the government is making use of geolocation data for other than ongoing criminal investigations. I could be wrong, but I have to trust my instincts on this one.

I would like to thank this man, Julian Sanchez, for working diligently to work on the behalf of all citizens in the arena of electronic freedom.

Occupying the Ports? #Occupy's War on the Working Class - UPDATE 2

2011-12-11T15:58:00.000-08:00

The Occupy movement intends to shutdown ports on the West Coast tomorrow, Monday, December 12. OccupySD plans are listed here. There stated aim is to draw attention to "unfair and unjust business practices of multinational corporations." That there is a nexus between multinationals and the ports is left to the imagination of the reader. They also claim that their purpose includes:

- our picket lines are picket lines organized by working class people, in solidarity with fellow workers

One problem with that assertion is that the unions aren't too happy. From the SF Chronicle.

"Support is one thing," Robert McEllrath, president of the International Longshoreman and Warehouse Union, wrote to his members last week. "Outside groups attempting to co-opt our struggle in order to advance a broader agenda is quite another and one that is destructive to our democratic process."

Not the 1 percent

The Alameda County Building and Construction Trades Council's secretary-treasurer, Andreas Cluver, said many of his union's workers were recently hired at port building projects after long stretches on unemployment. Given that, a port shutdown aimed at punishing the 1 percent "makes no sense," he said.

He said no union at the port supports the shutdown.

"We're extremely supportive of the message of Occupy Oakland, and we did come out to support the Nov. 2 general strike, but we're not behind this one," Cluver said. "When working people aren't involved in the decision on whether to shut down their jobs at the port, that's problematic. And we weren't consulted. Losing a day of wages is hard."

Also, given that this protest is planned for a Monday, is this really a protest of working people? Or maybe its a protest against working people for their effrontery in working for big corporations in order to put food on the table for their families. It seems that the #OWS and its affiliate's protests are actually a war against those who work, regardless of their "percent" by the leisured class of those who subsist off the generosity of our society.

UPDATES

SarahB at Lipstick Underground is providing updates this morning.

UPDATE 2

Dean at BeersWithDemo checks out the action with some man in the street pictures. Here is a taste:

A Quick Note on Newt Gingrich's Palestinian People Comment

2011-12-10T21:16:00.000-08:00

Newt Gingrich's comments below brought him controversy and attacks from the Palestinians themselves as well as other Republican candidates.

That his remarks are accurate doesn't appear relevant to those criticizing him. A succinct history of the term, Palestinian, makes that clear. However, I think that a people are who they decide to be, for reasons good and otherwise. One might believe that the Arabic peoples who are descendants of settlers of the territory that is now Israel could have made other choices about their national identity. They did not and that is now a fact that must be dealt with. There was no American people until after the revolutionary war. The main allegiance of people was to their state and not the United States as a whole initially. This is evidenced by the fact that prior to the Civil War, sentences might be constructed that begin "The United States are. . ." whereas after the war, the usage changed to "The United States is. . ." I believe wholeheartedly in the invented people know as Americans.

Gingrich's comments show that he can't resist showing off; trying to impress his interviewer with just how smart he is on a subject clearly of interest to that audience. Rather than thinking clearly how he might use the opportunity to further the interests of the United States, especially in the event that he becomes President, Gingrich veers into immaturity with a true but irrelevant comment sure to ignite controversy.

In my view, Obama suffers from the same malaise of short-sighted and egotistical behavior, but just isn't near as smart as Gingrich. We don't need an immature conservative President. Regardless, I am hoping for Newt to clean up his act, and show that he can act Presidential. I'm not supporting him, but if he is the nominee, I want him to be in a position to beat Obama.

Weekend Music Chill

2011-12-09T09:00:00.000-08:00

Saw Limitless last weekend, and really enjoyed some new music. Here are The Black Keys performing Howlin' For You.

And Ash Grunwald performing Walking.

Newt Gingrich Called Me

2011-12-08T18:19:00.000-08:00

I got a call from Newt Gingrich tonight, not the man himself, of course, but a recorded message from him. I have noticed that the tactics that campaigns use in direct mail and fund raising telephone calls differ from what they use on television and in press releases. For that reason, I often report on calls like this to shed light on the process.

Newt's call started with a live human being who let me know that although Newt was leading in the polls, the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries would be starting in January, so there was not time to waste in getting campaign cash into the candidates' coffers. (I am using Newt and not Gingrich, because his paid callers were not using his last name either.) He then put on a recording of Newt's which had the following main points.

Now that he is the front runner, Gingrich has been subject to a smear campaign from left leaning media. This is to be expected, because he is the candidate they fear most.
Three things distinguish him from other Republican candidates, all of whom would make a better President than Barack Obama.
Gingrich is the best debater, and therefore will crush Obama in Presidential debates in October. This crushing will lead inevitably to Obama's defeat.
He has proven leadership experience. He cited his ability to get welfare reform done as a bipartisan deal with a Democratic administration.
He claimed that the breadth of his solutions was more compete than any of his opponents. [This is not necessarily a good thing IMHO, and shows his penchant for always pointing out that he is the smartest kid in the class. Since I was actually the smartest kid in the class, I don't enjoy the competition.]
He chided fellow Republicans for their attack ads against him, and pointed out that Obama will have a billion dollars of campaign cash and free media from the likes of MSNBC to attack Republicans next fall. He said we needn't give them any help.

After the call, a woman came reminding me that true conservatives always knew that Newt's superior credentials and ideas would cause him to rise to the top of Presidential polls. She wasn't actually that eloquent, seemingly barely able to read her script. She proceeded to ask me for a $100 donation. At least it wasn't a three dollar raffle ticket to have dinner. I had heard enough by that point, and told her I was supporting Ron Paul, just to see if I could get a reaction. She just plowed on with her script, so I hung up.

As these things go, I believe Gingrich wasn't really flying anything under the radar, good for him. I am pretty unenthusiastic about my choices; but I actually think that Gingrich could beat Obama, if and its a big if, he didn't self destruct in the interim. Unfortunately, the risk averse bet would be to go with Romney, but hedging one's bets don't produce big pots.

San Diego's Poor Students Fall Behind

2011-12-07T20:53:00.000-08:00

Recent testing of San Diego fourth and eighth graders showed that the poor kids are doing even less well in San Diego's schools than when similar tests conducted in 2003. From the U-T.

Among San Diego’s fourth-graders eligible for free lunch, those tested last year earned a math score that was 38 points lower than those who do not receive that income-based subsidy. That’s a deeper chasm than the 27-point difference reported in 2003.

Budget cuts are blamed by some in the article for the drop in scores, but the gap is consistent with other research.

In his 2008 book, the Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell posits that the reason for lower test scores achieved by lower income students was due to lack of summer activities that promote further development of reading skills. From the book, he addresses research performed by Johns Hopkins University sociologist Karl Alexander. He reviewed changes in reading test scores that occurred over summer vacation, dividing scores by income groups, top, middle and bottom.

(Source: Gladwell, Malcolm (2008-10-29). Outliers: The Story of Success (p. 257). Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition.) We see that the those in the high income group achieve a 52 point cumulative increase in test scores over their summer vacations, compared to poor children, who make no progress.

In Outliers, Gladwell looks at KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) where students spend considerably more time in school than the national average. The program has lifted almost everyone one of its poor students into college eligibility. From The Economist:

In particular, charter schools in the Knowledge is Power Programme (KIPP) start the school day at 7.30am and end at 5pm, hold classes on some Saturdays and teach for a couple of weeks in the summer. All in all, KIPP students get about 60% more class time than their peers and routinely score better in tests.

The lengthy school days, and the work over the summer allow these poorer children to perform as well as students in wealthy districts. One of the criticisms of the KIPP program is the self-selection of children whose parents are motivated to be involved. However, I see it differently. They have a program that demands high commitment from parents, and being free from the shackles of the public education system, they can do so. It is just one of many innovations available when schools are freed from tight legal restrictions.

A public school cannot compel the compliance of parents to be involved in their child's education in the manner that a charter such as KIPP can. When government takes over the duty of educating all children, we lose the flexibility to allow education to innovate to 21st century demands. Further, the schools no longer view parents as clients they must please in order to maintain their business of educating children. For this reason, I believe we should end the system of public education and provide subsidies to allow parents to pay for the education of their children.

Will that fix the system? Probably not, because parental involvement and longer hours are also needed and full privatization won't fix that. However, as schools who implement reforms that draw the parents into greater involvement and longer hours, including summer studies for students, their free market success will spawn imitators.

San Diego Navy Lights and USS Benfold Tour

2011-12-06T21:45:00.000-08:00

I took a break from politics this evening and took family and friends to the Naval Base in San Diego for the Holiday Lights and a tour of the USS Benfold (DDG-65). It was great that the Navy opened up the base to the public and let them tour some of our ships. I was struck by the professionalism and high spirits of all the officers and sailors involved. There was quite the line to get on base, and the line of cars moved slowly, but it was worth it. Here are a few photos and explanations from the tour.

This is the fantail of the Benfold, where the ship can land a Navy helicopter. Our tour guide mentioned that they occasionally hold barbeques on the "steel beach" (the fantail) during long deployments. You can also see pier security in the background. The Navy did a great job of balancing security with making people feel welcome. I noticed that a lot of sailors on duty made a point of saying Merry Christmas to us.

Here's our tour group on the forecastle (pronounced foc'sle) with the 5 inch gun mount featured prominently. We were told that the spent rounds from firing the gun put dents in the non-skid on the deck. Our tour guide was the ensign in camouflage in the foreground. She was very patient with the questions from our group and had great answers. The hexagonal features below the bridge wings are part of the ship's ballistic missile defense system. On the deck behind the gun is the vertical launch system for various missiles, including the famous Tomahawk.

Here's another photo of the five inch gun with San Diego Harbor in the background.

This is a view across the dock, towards the USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6), I believe. During the tour, one of the ships was playing the made for TV Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer on the fantail, which was a great touch.

On our way off the ship, we were treated to Christmas cookies. They were as delicious as any I have ever tasted. Better than Army cookies by a long shot. Beat Army!

Odds and Ends

2011-12-05T21:14:00.000-08:00

Newt is the next not-Romney, but his experience and the seeming belief that all his dirty laundry has already aired might mean he has staying power. Not an endorsement, just an observation. Two things I like about the new Newt, and we'll see how long it lasts, are his frequent comments that any of the GOP candidates would make a better President than Obama and his intelligence over the illegal immigration question. I was starting to resign myself to Romney, not liking Newt's checkered past, but who knows, Americans are forgiving if somebody looks repentant enough and the sin was long ago enough.

Speaking of which I am waiting for any conservative to rebut my comments from an earlier post:

Do conservatives really want a government powerful enough to round up 11 million people for deportation? Do we really want the federal government getting practice at interning that many people?

Or rebut my contention that Gonzales vs Raich was wrongly decided and helps the constitutional case for Obamacare.

Even Vladimir Putin can't stuff enough ballot boxes to totally control an election. Gives me hope for beating Obama in 2012.

The slow motion collapse of the euro continues. The situation is pretty simple, despite claims of complexity to the contrary. The standard way out for governments that have spent and promised too much is to debase their currency through inflation. Since all of the offending countries are in the euro, only two solutions remain. Italy, Portugal and Greece and others leave the euro, or the European Central Bank prints euros, which screws the Germans, and to a lesser extent the French. Count on the Germans to elect a government that leaves the euro if they start to suffer inflation. Either way, the euro is toast, no matter what European politicians say. Count on fools at the fed and in the administration to think they can help with a bailout through the IMF. (Treasury spokesman denies this, so we know it must be true.) To coin a phrase, "There's not enough swag in China to bail out all the fools."

Covert action against Iran's nuclear program suggests CIA or Israeli involvement. I should hope so. Do we really want a war? People who rail against covert action always act like its evil. But is a nuclear-armed Iran preferable, especially given the crazy Mahdists that run the place? As an aside, it seems obvious that the Stuxnet virus was an example of state-sponsored cyber-warfare against Iran. But we better get our game up, the mere fact that Stuxnet showed it was possible to infect stand alone industrial control systems means that others will try.

Overall, I am pretty up beat. I think that the eventual Republican nominee can beat Obama. He or she doesn't have to be perfect, just tested in the fire of the campaign.

Obamacare, Medical Marijuana and the tea party

2011-12-04T12:49:00.001-08:00

No this isn't an article about whether Obamacare should cover medical pot. If you thought so, I recommend reading up on this blog's agenda and purpose. Today's U-T reports that a group known as Citizens for Patient Rights plans to introduce a ballot measure that would regulate medical marijuana in the city. The plan would include zoning, and a tax structure to pay for regulation. It all sounds very un-libertarian, so why shouldn't the tea party movement be opposing this effort?

Thinking further into the unique circumstances that led to the need for this regulation, we find that it impacts Obamacare. Some background: currently, federal law prohibits dispensing marijuana for medical or any other purposes. U.S. attorney for San Diego, Laura Duffy has promised a vigorous prosecution campaign not only against the dispensaries, but against advertising outlets that take their business. Further, the city attorney is prosecuting the dispensaries for zoning violations. So, despite state law that permits the sale of medical marijuana, the dispensaries are at great legal and financial risk. The proposed initiative is part of a campaign to normalize the local law enforcement environment for the dispensaries. In fact, almost all businesses face forms of local regulation, so this effort supports a local outcome that would be similar to regulations facing liquor stores.

I support this effort at normalization, because it sets up legal challenge to the federal law under which the feds believe they can outlaw pot sales in California. The relevant Supreme Court decision is Gonzales v Raich, in which the Supreme Court held that the federal government had the right to prevent all marijuana cultivation and use, regardless of circumstance. This broad view of the interstate commerce clause, essentially gutted the 10th amendment. Some key quotes from the decision.

Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U.S.C. § 801(5), and concerns about diversion into illicit channels,33 we have no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA. Thus, as in Wickard, when it enacted comprehensive legislation to regulate the interstate market in a fungible commodity, Congress was acting well within its authority to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper” to “regulate Commerce … among the several States.” U.S. Const., Art. I, §8. That the regulation ensnares some purely intrastate activity is of no moment. As we have done many times before, we refuse to excise individual components of that larger scheme.

. . .limiting the activity to marijuana possession and cultivation “in accordance with state law” cannot serve to place respondents’ activities beyond congressional reach. The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail. It is beyond peradventure that federal power over commerce is “ ‘superior to that of the States to provide for the welfare or necessities of their inhabitants,’ ”

The tie to Obamacare proceeds from this broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. It is an interpretation that we should profoundly desire to become unpopular. Overturning Gonzales v Raich in a future Supreme Court would further tea party goals of increasing individual liberty and limiting the power of the federal government. Volokh (always a great source for liberty leaning constitutional analysis) discusses a proposed bill put forward by Ron Paul and Barney Frank to repeal the federal law banning marijuana. The key insight regarding limiting federal power follows.

On the other hand, it is unfortunate that this essentially federalist bill hasn’t attracted any support from conservatives, especially the Tea party faction. After all, the bill does not require nationwide legalization, but merely leaves it up to each state to decide for itself. One of the main themes of the Tea Party is their insistence that the federal government has exceeded its constitutional bounds. The War on Drugs is a particularly extreme example of such federal overreach. Indeed, the federal ban on marijuana is responsible for Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court’s broadest and most questionable interpretation of federal power so far (which I criticized in this article). Raich held that Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce was broad enough to justify a ban on the possession of medical marijuana that had never been sold in any market or ever crossed state lines.

Every lower court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate has relied heavily on Raich. In my view, the mandate goes even further than Raich did. But there’s no doubt that Raich makes life more difficult for mandate opponents. A political movement that is serious about constraining federal power cannot, consistent with its principles, support the present sweeping federal War on Drugs.

Normalizing marijuana regulation in the city provides a real life rebuke to the idea that we must depend on the federal government to regulate every aspect of national economic and criminal policy. It builds a coalition against the pervasive view of federal power contained in Gonzales. For that reason, the tea party movement should be supporting this initiative.

Unemployment Falls to 8.6%, Employment Falls to 64.0%

2011-12-03T15:13:00.000-08:00

This morning's headlines, before Herman Cain* dropped out of the Presidential race, was that unemployment had declined to 8.6%. I was immediately skeptical about the numbers, because a shift that big is not normal, in my experience. Sure enough, digging into the numbers we find this factoid.

The decline in the participation rate to 64.0% from 64.2%, was driven by a drop of 315,000 in the labor force which contributed to the 594k decline in unemployment.

Clearly, the news is not as good as news as the headlines would lead us to believe. New job creation was pegged at 120,000, but it is only about the number of new entrants in the labor force. It's good that there are new private sector jobs, but I have read various sources that peg the required number of jobs needing to be created per month between 200,000 and 250,000. In my opinion, the continued fall in labor participation rate is the key story here. This means we have a shrinking percentage of people working to support the overall economic output that we all rely upon. I will admit that a portion of the fall is not due to anything the administration could have done, because there are demographic trends, i.e. aging baby-boomers, contributing to a fall in labor force participation. The very long term trends can be viewed below from Calculated Risk.

Calculated Risk also points out that "U-6, an alternate measure of labor underutilization that includes part time workers and marginally attached workers, declined to 15.6% - this remains very high. U-6 was in the 8% range in 2007."

The other bad news is that the number of long term unemployed stayed stuck. From the government's BLS.

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) was little changed at 5.7 million and accounted for 43.0 percent of the unemployed.

This is a big problem for the long term, as these folks start to see themselves, and employers see them as unemployable. We have some serious problems with entitlements starting to be a huge drain on the federal budget. One way to alleviate part of the problem is for people to work longer into retirement. But the large number of long term unemployed and the declining labor force participation rate makes that outcome less likely.

*A quick note on Herman Cain. Without taking a position on whether he is guilty of anything he is accused of, I can safely say that he has displayed very poor judgement, by his own admission. Giving another woman money over the course of many years, without telling your wife, and not being prepared to discuss the issue during a Presidential campaign is too much to accept in a candidate.

Weekend Music Chill

2011-12-02T12:32:00.001-08:00

A little nostalgia from my youth for this weekend's music. Mellow ear candy from Blondie.

Unacceptable Tax Hikes in California

2011-12-02T08:29:00.001-08:00

A few days ago, I read Richard Rider's detailed post about how truly awful the California tax burden is. A quick refresher.

California has the 3rd worst state income tax in the nation. 9.3% tax bracket starts at $46,766 for people filing as individuals. 10.3% tax starts at $1,000,000 http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/bp59_es.pdf (election likely later this year to again raise these rates)

Highest state sales tax rate in the nation. 7.25% (as of 1 July). 7% is next highest (does not include local sales taxes) http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/bp60.pdf Table #15.

California corporate income tax rate (8.84%) is the highest west of the Mississippi (our economic competitors) except for Alaska.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/bp59.pdf Table #8 — we are 8th highest nationwide.

So imagine my ~~surprise~~ disgust, when I picked up this morning's paper to see this headline (article not yet available on line).

BROWN TO SEEK TAX-HIKE INITIATIVE

Not only is this a tax the rich scheme, but everyone will suffer with a half-cent sales tax increase. Apparently not content to be merely third worst in the nation for income tax rates, state politicians appear to want to be number one in both income taxation and sales taxation. Further tax increases are proposed:

Additional 1.0% for filers over $250,000 income.
Additional 1.5% for filers over $300,000 income.
Additional 2.0% for filers over $500,000 income.

Meanwhile California continues to lag in job creation. Who is going to have the money to invest in new jobs? For example, a single small business owner who makes $1.5 million per year would see a tax increase of $23,500. That is the entire salary of one minimum wage worker, and it is small business owners who are usually the millionaires who create jobs.

The sales tax is only going to hurt businesses as well, as all consumers will get less for their money and will end up spending less. The end result is always that such increases end up generating less revenue than static analysis would indicate.

Meanwhile, Governor Brown and the legislature have done nothing to reform California pensions. So here are my demands regarding state employees and their pensions before such a proposal should even make the ballot. The Governor has proposed pension reform, but has not delivered. Any tax hike is dead on arrival until more cuts are implemented, starting with pension reform. Some key issues:

Brown wants to ask voters to increase the retirement age for future state and local government workers and require all employees to contribute at least half of their annual pension costs. And that's just for starters.

Some other reform proposals can be found here.

Anti-spiking provisions, including a tighter definition of “base pay” to eliminate all the abusive overtime and non-recurring and special pay features that bloat pensions, plus a three-year averaging process which is conventional in many other states.
No more retroactive benefits increases -- a hot button for pension reformers, because such ‘retros’ never actually “attract and retain employees” which has been the traditional baloney we’ve been fed for years about those giveaways. SB 400 in California was the millennial poster child for the failure of this selfish gambit which has since been discredited by the professional associations. . . .
No more employer pension-contribution holidays. Just look at Illinois for proof positive on this one. When politicians cut corners in pension funding, the results are predictably disastrous. Californians need only look at CalSTRS, the state teacher’s system, for a classic example of the systematic failure of legislative underfunding.
Felons would be ineligible for public pensions related to their government employment. This feature will win votes every time after Bell, Calif.’s compensation scandals.
No more “air time," or purchasing service credits for time never worked in the first place.

Further, the state needs to implement a pay freeze, like the federal government has done, for all state employees. The state has a long way to go before they should be asking the tax payers for more money. This ballot measure will be spark another surge in activism by those sympathetic to tea party goals in this state.

Losing the "War on Drugs"

2011-12-01T23:27:00.001-08:00

The U-T is reporting on the discovery and shut down of an elaborate tunnel between Tijuana and Otay Mesa as a great victory in the war on drugs. The tunnel ran 612 yards from Mexico to the United States and dropped 40 feet underground with wood shoring and a rail and elevator system. Here is some video.

The tunnel “took massive resources and massive amounts of time to construct and plan and build, and we were able to shut it down before it became operational,” Benner said at a news conference.

This week’s 32.4-ton marijuana seizure was the largest confiscation associated with a single tunnel, Benner said. Its estimated street value is $65 million.

Look at the resources available to the drug runners and the value of their product. It seems obvious that we have done little as a nation to stem the flow of drugs. Law enforcement happened to find this tunnel and seize some pot, how much more was missed? I would like to reiterate what I wrote earlier about the negative impact of the war on drugs and the case for legalization.

Cost. Effectively winning a war on an inanimate substance requires huge resources that we just don't have. Drug legalization would simultaneously put the drug kingpins out of business while vastly reducing the need for law enforcement spending on interdiction, etc. Those resources could be split between returning the money to the taxpayer and more effective policing elsewhere.
Control of the Border. The steady flow of narcotics across the border makes securing the border much more difficult. While the bandits that traffic in human beings are violent enough, adding the military paraphernalia of the drug cartels has made border enforcement a nightmare. The nation needs to solve the border security issue, the cross-border flow of drugs makes this that much more difficult.
Death. Americans keep dying in the war on drugs. Either innocent bystanders or government agents are regularly dying at the hands of the drug cartels. The money to pay for their weapons would dry up if drug manufacture were normalized.
Freedom. This is the ultimate Tea Party issue. We believe in free markets, except when we don't, like in the case of drugs. But drug use is not different in any significant way from alcohol or tobacco use (or Four Loko use) for that matter. We don't interfere with Americans' rights to recreational activities, even if some of them overindulge. When people overindulge, we hold them accountable and get them help, if necessary (and I don't mean government help, I mean the kind of help you give to friends.)

Note to those who fear that kids will be able to get drugs more easily if legalized. Drugs are illegal now, and as a consequence are easier for the youngsters to obtain than booze, where businesses seek to keep their licenses by limiting sales to minors.

Dealing With the Illegals Already Here

2011-11-30T21:40:00.001-08:00

It is commonly believed that there are about 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. today. Dealing with that in a rational manner is worth discussing, and I'm glad that Newt Gingrich brought up the subject. I would like to caveat all discussions with my belief that securing the border is the down payment necessary by the Congress and the President to allow any other discussion to occur. Depending on whom you believe, the number of border crossers may have already significantly decreased. From the LA Times.

Arrests of illegal crossers along the Southwest border dropped more than two-thirds from 2000 to 2010, from 1.6 million to 448,000.

The article goes on to describe bored border patrol agents falling asleep on the job because there's "no action." The hyperbole leads me to believe that the article might be propaganda, and fellow tea partyers have anecdotal evidence that the border is not so secure. It seems likely that the increase in border patrol agents and the fewer border crossers are verifiable, but even at 448,000 apprehensions, and who knows how many get away, we can't really say the border is secure.Thomas Sowell takes exception to Newt Gingrich's ideas, and doesn't so much rebut them as make the case for securing the border. His key points.

When you import people, you import cultures, including cultures that have been far less successful in providing decent lives and decent livelihoods. The American people have a right to decide for themselves whether they want unlimited imports of cultures from other countries.
. . .
Moreover, in an age of terrorism, everyone who comes across the border from Mexico is not Mexican. It is the height of irresponsibility to leave that border open and the people who cross it a protected group.

Fair enough, and even true. But Sowell doesn't really address the issue of what to do with the illegals already in the country, which is what Gingrich was addressing.

Pushing back against the charge that he supports “amnesty” for illegal immigrants, Newt Gingrich outlined another immigration reform proposal that would have “citizen juries” to decide whether illegal immigrants are fit to be granted legal status—but not citizenship.

On the trail in Florida on Friday, Gingrich explained that he would grant “path to legality” to upstanding illegal immigrants with deep family ties who could prove they could support themselves without federal welfare or other benefit programs.

I like two things about Gingrich's plan. First, there will be no citizenship for those who have come here illegally. Second, those here illegally will have to show their ability to support themselves and their families. Gingrich's full immigration plan is here, like me, he starts with "secure the border." He has sensible ideas that are worthy of examination by those in the tea party movement.

I'm not sure what those who oppose Gingrich's plan would do with the current illegals. They need a legal status and deporting 11 million people is frankly impracticable. Do conservatives really want a government powerful enough to round up 11 million people for deportation? Do we really want the federal government getting practice at interning that many people? If not, then we better deal with the situation at hand. We need these people out of the shadows and paying taxes and drawn into a law abiding culture. Isn't that a worthwhile conservative or libertarian goal?

Finally, from a political perspective, getting this issue fixed is in the long term interests of the Republican party. When Hispanics see that we are willing to allow legal immigration, with proper controls, for workers from Latin America, the belief that Republicans are racists will disappear. Peter Skerry has this to say in yesterday's WSJ.

Liberals may advocate the maximalist position of full citizenship rights for illegals, but they're content with the status quo. They know that keeping illegals in limbo works to the political advantage of liberals and Democrats. Republicans ignore this at their own peril.
. . .
Whatever the plight of individual illegal immigrants, the problem of 11 million of them constitutes a blemish on the body politic that taints us all—and one that certainly won't be healed by the draconian policies most Republican candidates seem to advocate. Mr. Gingrich's proposal, or something like it, could actually address this genuine dilemma while acknowledging the legitimate anxieties that many Americans have about illegal immigration.

From Gingrich's web site.

1. No “comprehensive” plan can work. President Bush could not pass one during six years with a Republican Congress. President Obama could not pass one with a Democratic Congress. Immigration reform can be outlined as a complete proposal but has to be passed in a series of steps, with each one understood and passed on its own merits.
2. Under no circumstance can a path to citizenship be created which would allow those who have broken the law to receive precedence over those who patiently waited to become residents and citizens via the legal process. Those who adhered to our immigration law cannot be usurped by those who violated it.
3. We must reconcile the goal of legality with the reality that there are millions of immigrants currently here outside the law, some with a long set of family and community ties, and some with no ties. A system has to be established that establishes legality but no citizenship for those with deep ties, repatriates those with no family or community ties in a dignified way, and quickly sends home those who have committed criminal and other destructive acts.

Internet Takeover at Behest of Big Entertainment

2011-11-29T19:42:00.001-08:00

After writing that I would be glad to work with the left in fighting corporate welfare, an email from DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas arrived in my inbox about the effort by big entertainment industry to destroy internet freedom to protect their intellectual property. I am in favor of protecting copyright and intellectual property, but the so called SOPA (Stop Online Privacy Act) goes way, way too far in allowing bad acting to shut down web sites. Sadly, tea party favorite Marco Rubio is a cosponsor. The idea is too force internet search engines and internet service providers to prevent their customers from reaching sites that promote online piracy. However, the proposed law makes it far too easy to abuse the system. Just an accusation, without proof, could trigger the death penalty for a blog or web site. Obviously, the opportunities for abuse are wide open. Don't like the politics of your opponent's web site? Find where they quoted some copyrighted material, even if legal under fair use doctrines, and make a complaint. Voila, they are shut down.

The Economist had this to say about the dangers of this bill.

The loose definition of infringement in SOPA could include sites that unwittingly carry comments linking to pirated material. That would make it too easy to launch spurious claims and too onerous for intermediaries to deal with them, and could discourage entrepreneurs from setting up new sites allowing users to post things (which, in the era of social media, is almost all websites). Large firms can cope with the extra hassle, but the fear of lawsuits could stifle smaller companies and start-ups.

A second big drawback is that SOPA obliges ISPs to put filters in place to prevent their customers reaching pirate websites easily. That risks damaging the internet’s vital internal addressing system, which lets people use words instead of numbers to access websites. It also clashes with DNSSEC (don’t ask), a protocol that America has long championed to increase internet security. Messing with DNSSEC could create loopholes for hackers by allowing rogue websites to pose as legitimate ones.

The email from DailyKos said this.

In short, this proposed law would allow corporate copyright holders the ability to cut off funding and compel the government to shut down websites they deem infringing, without the need of a court order.

And Neil Stevens, at the Daily Caller, opposes the bill as well, saying this:

This portion of the bill has little to do with protecting American interests abroad or with punishing lawbreakers. Instead, this portion of SOPA regulates the Internet at home. It is a framework for domestic censorship only tangentially related to intellectual property rights.

Giving government the power to censor the internet seems like a bad idea, to me. Its bad enough that Google sees fit to use software to shut down blogs in a seemingly random manner. You can bet that the government won't do so randomly.

Recommend that you contact your Congresscritter to oppose this legislation.

Note: Since you did ask, DNSSEC stands for Domain Name System Security Extensions, a protocol designed to protect the integrity of the routing of internet traffic against attacks against the servers that translate and authenticate packet routing requests.

Housing Prices Continue to Decline

2011-11-28T22:50:00.000-08:00

As predicted here and here, housing prices continue to fall, because the administration has not allowed this bubble to burst and housing is still overvalued when compared to rental values. Zero hedge has the news.

I need to find the update to this chart, which shows that the correction isn't quite complete.

2012 Presidential Election: Electoral Map

2011-11-28T22:22:00.000-08:00

2012 Presidential Election: Electoral Map: This map displays my guess of the final make up of the 2012 Presidential election. It's a fun little game to play. But it shows how difficult a Republican victory might be, when one considers entrenched electoral votes in big deep blue states like New York and California.

H/T Left Coast Rebel.

Bracing for Stormy Economic Weather - UPDATE

2011-11-27T21:53:00.001-08:00

Update at bottom.

The leader in the most recent issue of the Economist questions Europe's collective will to defend the euro. The result of failure would be catastrophic, in that august publication's opinion. I am not so sure, but it would be bad in the short term. They recommend a number of steps in the unsigned editorial, most notably, printing more euros, although that's not how it is phrased of course.

That is because much looser monetary policy is necessary to stave off recession and deflation in the euro zone. If the ECB is to fulfil its mandate of price stability, it must prevent prices falling. That means cutting short-term rates and embarking on “quantitative easing” (buying government bonds) on a large scale. And since conditions are tightest in the peripheral economies, the ECB will have to buy their bonds disproportionately.

It is an open question whether the euro will survive in its present form, but regardless of the outcome, we can expect turbulence ahead. Even if the euro is saved by the aforementioned actions, it will set in motion long term inflationary pressures as the euro loses value against the dollar. This will have a negative impact on U.S. exports, putting more pressure on our tepid recovery. However, if the euro zone can't be saved, and widespread defaults on government bonds outside of Greece get started, then a real liquidity crisis could trigger a second global recession. America would not be immune to this outcome either.

Either way, we are going to see real pressure on our own government's deficit situation, as economic headwinds deprive governments at all levels of revenue. At the same time another recession increases outlays due to unemployment payments and increased use of food stamps, medicaid and other parts of the social safety net.

The silver lining is that Obama is unlikely to be re-elected in such a climate. But many Americans and people all over the world are going to suffer. The root cause of our troubles is clear; all over the western world, politicians have made promises that were going to be impossible to fulfill. This is the central appeal of Chris Christie; he is the politician who has best articulated this truth. The end result is that those dependent on the government, whether retired employees, social security recipients, or others, will not have the standard of living they thought. Governments will not keep their promises, either through bankruptcy, inflation or abrogation, because the collective promises can't be met. This will lead to lowered consumption as the reality of reduced lifetime income sets in and long term re-adjustment in the economy. We are not going to have a full recovery for a decade, in my humble opinion. But the tea party movement is correct in focusing on getting the spending under control now, because the sooner we come to grips with the spending problem, the sooner the economy will recover.

UPDATE

Over at Zero Hedge, Phoenix Capital Research has this to say:

Indeed, with Europe’s entire banking system insolvent (even German banks need to be recapitalized to the tune of over $171 billion) the outcome for Europe is only one of two options:

1) Massive debt restructuring.

2) Monetization of everything/ hyperinflationThese are the realities facing Europe today (and eventually Japan and the US).

Either way we are talking about the destruction of tens of trillions of Euros in wealth. The issue is which poison the European powers that be choose.

Personally, I believe we are going to see a combination of the two with deflation hitting all EU countries first and then serious inflation or hyperinflation hitting peripheral players and the PIIGS.

Programming Alert

2011-11-27T10:46:00.001-08:00

For reasons unknown, brother Dean's blog had disappeared from blogger, Google's blog product, but is now back up.His blog address is http://beerswithdemo.blogspot.com/

Outreach to Occupy - A Fool's Errand? UPDATE

2011-11-26T22:20:00.000-08:00

I probably should have come to this conclusion before, but yesterday's tomfoolery at WalMart is really the last straw for any thoughts that the tea party could make common cause with #ows. From Free Republic via Gateway Pundit.

Meanwhile, the San Diego occupiers stormed into a Wal-Mart, filled 75 carts with merchandise, disrupted shoppers by chanting their nonsense for several minutes at the cash registers, then fled the store leaving behind 75 full carts for the employees to put away.

The occupiers have been compared by the President to the tea party, but there is really no comparison. Some friends pointed out that the fundamental difference accrues to respect for every individual and their rights that forms the basis of tea party principle, but is absent from the occupy movement. In this occupy action against Walmart, no such respect is present.

The occupiers presume to speak for the employees, as if they can't speak for themselves. I know that Walmart employees can't speak out at work, but they have other avenues of protest available.
By leaving the shopping carts filled with junk, they just create more work for those same employees, with whom they profess solidarity.
They presume to inconvenience the shoppers at the store, infringing their opportunity to shop.
They try to make the point that corporations aren't people, so they feel free to trespass on Walmart property. But Walmart's stockholders are real people who own stock in the company, and as owners, they have rights too.

Besides the lack of respect for individuals, this stunt is just childish. Chanting slogans and interfering with the workings of a business and leaving a mess? Certainly you can do better.

That said, I will continue to make common cause with those on the left who want to oppose corporate welfare and crony capitalism, nationally or locally. The purchase of the Union-Tribune by Doug Manchester, with the selection of John Lynch as new President and CEO, brought to light a case in point. As has been reported here and here, the U-T will now shill for a new Charger stadium, presumably with taxpayer funding. I will certainly make common cause with the left of center VOSD for example, to prevent a taxpayer fleecing in support of the big business known, currently, as the San Diego Chargers. But as for the occupiers themselves, their movement seems to have gone off the rails.

UPDATE

SarahB at Lipstick Underground offers an assessment of the disrespect shown to the mothers shopping at Walmart.

And, as a mother, what horrifies me most, is how they boxed in families during the stunt. One mother with a stroller, a small boy and a baby in her arms, has no where to go. If that was me, I would have been angry and terrified. One wrong move by anyone in that crowd and things would have turned dangerous in a flash.

Thanksgiving 2011 - Beers With Demo re-post

2011-11-25T20:41:00.000-08:00

Beers With Demo re-post. As an experiment while Dean's blog is down, I am re-posting his Thanksgiving day post from Google reader. Here is Dean's post from November 24.

.

Consider it done. Thanksgiving has surpassed our former favorite holiday, Christmas. No gifts, no lame office parties, no tacky sweaters.

Just food, football, family and friends... Box that superfecta in any order you prefer.

We hope everyone is enjoying a safe and blessed Thanksgiving with their loved ones today.

We'll see you all tomorrow.

Programming Alert - Beers With Demo "Off the Air"

2011-11-25T19:41:00.000-08:00

Brother Dean's blog is back up.

Thankful

2011-11-24T09:10:00.000-08:00

Happy Thanksgiving to my American readers; and to for my readers in other countries, I hope you find in America a country that the world should be thankful for.

A few things that I am thankful for personally.

That God, through Jesus, asked me to follow Him, and it changed my life and its trajectory.
For a wife who loves me fiercely and keeps my attention.
For two sons with whom I am closer than I ever thought possible.
For my parents who loved me and held me to high expectations.
For my brothers, sister and my in-laws, that I have the love of so many.
That I live in a country blessed by freedom.
That I have meaningful work. That my federal job is not at risk every election.
That I have met fellow patriots who are now my friends.
That I have the opportunity to make a difference in this world, and leave my little part of it better than I found it.

Happy Thanksgiving, may God bless your day. Now we are off to put together the traditional celebration spread, so I hope to write something relevant and worthwhile tomorrow.

No Wonder People Hate Big Pharma

2011-11-22T23:03:00.000-08:00

Eli Lilly is shilling for Medicare Part D, the better to receive government dollars in the form of medicare reimbursements. Their scare campaign is shameless hucksterism and favor-currying with a corrupt Democrat White House and members of Congress. This is the evil of too much government; your tax dollars go to government programs that fuel profits that get recycled into expanding these same programs to take more of your tax dollars. Boycott Eli Lilly. They can have their freedom of speech, I can avoid their products.

Patriot Act Debate - Gingrich vs Paul

2011-11-22T22:23:00.000-08:00

Well this is unfortunate. Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich debate the Patriot Act in tonight's debate. I agree with Paul's position, but Gingrich gets the best of him, in my opinion. The use of Timothy McVeigh undermines Paul's argument, but the Patriot Act would not have prevented the Oklahoma City bombing. If we are serious about the War on Terror, we will pay for the judicial oversight to issue warrants and supervise the executive branch's prosecution. This doesn't have to be an either/or proposition. My objection to the Patriot Act is the unsupervised powers given to the executive branch. Some of the powers granted were already available, they just required warrants, so the Act seemed like a sneaky way to expand government power.

Occupy the Mall?

2011-11-22T21:47:00.000-08:00

The Drudge Report alerted me to the latest "occupy" plan, to Occupy Black Friday. I cruised over to their Facebook page to find this unhelpful rant:

This Black Friday, we will boycott all of the corporations that corrupt our government, and put profits before people.

Any holiday shopping we do this day will be at independent shops to support local economies and the 99% as a whole!

How do I figure this out? I guess I'm supposed to look up which of my shopping destinations are publicly traded corporations. Guess I'll have to buy that copy of today's Wall Street Journal after all.

So who do I notice has "liked" their Facebook page? Usual suspects, Al Jazeera English, and Noam Chomsky, Bernie Sanders, . For real? This is mainstream? Obama wants to hook up with such a movement? At a time when his only real chance of re-election is a miracle in the economy, he's down with interfering with shopping? Not that it will make much difference. My money is on the following outcome, 99% of the stores in America don't even notice the campaign, while the media focuses on and glorifies some minor impact at the 1% of stores who get a few protesters.

Super Difficult Draconian Security-Threatening Cuts to Start. . . in 2013

2011-11-21T19:20:00.000-08:00

Well, no wonder they failed. In political terms, 2013 is a lifetime away. Obama will probably not be President by then. There is no immediate impact other than to credit ratings. It gives the new President and a new Congress time to deal with the problem. It even gives the current President and Congress time to deal with the problem. If pork barrel spending in their districts was going to end next month, maybe some compromise would have been reached. For all of the press and attention given to the so called Supercommittee, the actual immediate impact will be nil.

Billy House of The National Journal got the important fact correct.

But the nation’s debt crisis will continue – with the deficit now at about $15 trillion. It also is likely no coincidence that the committee waited until the financial markets closed for the day to make the announcement. The Dow Jones industrial average had already tumbled by more than 300 points earlier in the day partly in anticipation of the acknowledgement of failure.

In case you thought that the Supercommittee meeting its goal would be a significant victory for deficit reduction, consider this.

By law, 18 percent of the automatic savings are assumed to come from interest costs the government would save from reducing the debt. If the Super Committee fails completely, out of the $1.2 trillion in automatic savings, $216 billion would be assumed interest savings.

That would leave $984 billion in automatic spending cuts over 10 years. That works out to around $55 billion annually each from defense and domestic programs though a CBO analysis shows that comes out to 10 percent of the Pentagon budget in 2013 alone, a huge hit.

$55 billion annually? Really? The national debt is increasing at a pace of close to $2 trillion per year, with an official budget deficit of $1.5 trillion per year. (I never figured out that discrepancy, the official deficit is always less than the annual increase in debt, go figure.) To put this into household terms, its as if you were borrowing close to $200,000 against your house, year after year, and an adviser came up with bold plan to reduce your expenditures by ~~$5,500~~ $11,000* per year. Not even a really credible first step. What a game politicians, with the connivance of the press, are playing on us all.

Only serious decreases in spending and increased revenue from a recovering economy are going to fix this. So every job killing, economy destroying decision by this administration starting with Obmacare, the Boeing plant in SC, ending most recently with killing the Keystone XL pipeline, has hurtled the country towards increased and unsustainable debt.

The Democrats were their usual retarded selves in this deal, but I thought the Republicans could have smarter about offering some revenue increases that would accrue to eliminating loopholes/deductions as a step towards comprehensive tax reform, earlier in the process. It appears that Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) offered such a plan at the last minute, but it didn't raise enough revenue to satisfy the Democrats.

Toomey’s plan would raise $300 billion in new tax revenues while overhauling the federal tax code. Republican officials say it would drop the top tax rate on personal income to 28 percent from the current 35 percent. It would reduce or eliminate some well-known itemized deductions and reduce the corporate tax rate.

If Republicans had offered the plan earlier, and got agreement to score it with dynamic, not static analysis, it would raise far more revenue than the $300 billion advertised, and we might have been much closer to a deal. The Republicans are right to keep trying to push down marginal rates, but they should be coupled to eliminating deductions to move towards more of a flat tax, because this will also be a reform that reduces corporate influence on Capitol Hill.

Just in case there was any doubt about my discussion on the fact that spending and revenue are both problems, but spending is more of the problem, I offer this chart from the Heritage Foundation.

*Post publication correction. I failed to account for the fact that there are two categories of spending reduction, so the total per year needed to be doubled. However, $11K per year against a household deficit of $200K per year is still pathetic.

Tea Party Health Care Reform

2011-11-20T16:15:00.000-08:00

Calivancouver, a liberal commenter on this blog, has published his own health care plan, based on the idea that Obamacare was pretty much a sop to various special interests that included lobbyist insertion of provisions favoring industry. The end result was an unintelligible hash that undermines its own goals. I am paraphrasing here, so he can correct me in the comments. Suffice to say that liberals weren't terribly pleased with PPACA.

People are starting to think again about health care insurance reform because there is a good chance that the individual mandate will be struck down and found non-severable. I think we have the opportunity to propose reform that is truly market based, both on the insurance side of the equation and on the medical delivery side of the equation. My point of departure is the "Freedom Coalition Agenda," that I periodically update (which predates my tea party involvement). However, the debate over Obamacare has brought more detail into focus. Here is the plan that John Mackey of Whole Foods proposed, my comments in italics.

"Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts." Patients who have skin in the game and market knowledge will reduce costs faster than any government program.

"Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits."

Allow competition across state lines.

"Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover."

"Enact tort reform."

"Make costs transparent."

"Enact medicare reform." Medicare policies that are mimicked by the private sector are strangling the medical profession.

Revise tax law to make it easier to donate to those without insurance.

To expand on these points.

The government could help lead this effort by reforming first Medicaid, by turning it into an insurance subsidy program for the poor. But the program would require those in the program to pay a high copay until a low catastrophic cap was reached. Such a system would create a market for a system where people have more incentive to shop for best value in medical care. This system could then be applied to Medicare.

The next big issue is that health care is tied to employment. My first impulse is to forbid the offering of insurance through employment, but that would make a conservative social engineer, instead of a liberal one. Removing the tax advantage would at least set a level playing field. To date, the portion of employee compensation that comes in the form of employer health insurance isn't taxed as compensation. This ties employees to their companies and needlessly. You would think that liberals would be opposed to a scheme where tax policy gives corporations leverage over employees. However, I dislike schemes whereby the government imposes on employee relations, so I will settle for leveling the playing field.

Interstate competition is not the norm in insurance. Surely the federal government has the right to "regulate" as in "make regular" this portion of interstate commerce, by insuring that any insurance offered for sale in a state would be available in the fifty states. Increasing competition will probably be opposed by the insurance industry, but freer markets benefit consumers.

One size never fits all. So mandating coverage should be banned. Insurance is always tricky business, even homeowner's insurance, as Road Dawg can attest to. Along with no mandates will be the need to enforce clear language in policies and communications with policy holders. I am a libertarian, but not so naive as to believe that some insurance companies won't try to wriggle out of agreements to save money. Court is expensive for individual consumers, so regulation that enforces good practices of transparency and clarity will be necessary. But regulation should always aim for simplicity and this also needs to be part of a reform package.

With regards to tort reform, we have seen positive results in Texas, where access to care increased after passage of reform.

Cost transparency is important to enable process improvement and allow patient choice. Most people don't know the true cost of a medical visit, even after the visit is over. Here again, Medicaid reform could lead the way, by insisting that patients receive better notice and understanding of their bill.

Medicare policies with regards to reimbursement are arcane and lead to huge misunderstandings on what is covered and unexpected bills. Transforming Medicare to save it for those who truly need it, into an insurance subsidy scheme, will get the government out of the rule writing business and free up insurance plans to compete.

Allowing Americans to donate to those who need health care insurance might make little difference, but maybe not. I see lots of do-gooder millionaires wanting to pay more taxes. Maybe they could pay for poor people's insurance in the interim.

Some issues that are not really settled, but requiring discussion. The popular reasons for the health care law could be boiled down to two issues. First, there are many uninsured Americans. Second, many people with pre-existing conditions can't get health insurance. Dissatisfaction with one's own insurance was not an issue. My proposal:

The uninsured. It turns out that this group is not as big of a problem as one might think. The widely quoted number of uninsured of 46 million people vastly overstates the problem. Previous posts on the subject here and here. The actual number of poor uninsured citizens is closer to 8 million people. The simplest and least intrusive answer is to provide them a subsidy to buy health insurance. Further, this should be done at the state level. Even if done at the federal level it is a far better answer than the bill passed.

Pre-existing conditions. The best answer is to guarantee health care portability, in the same manner that we guarantee phone number portability when we change carriers. This would eliminate the tying employees with difficult health problems to their jobs. Ditto for their dependents. As we move to a system in which individuals pay for their own insurance, because it is not tied to their job, then this problem becomes moot. Children who are on their parents plans should be given the opportunity to convert that plan to their own personal plan as well. This would solve most but not all of the issues with pre-existing conditions. There are already programs such as SSDI to cover those with incapacitating disabilities, although that system also needs reform.

There are a few ancillary issues to deal with. First, Calivancouver likes emergency rooms, as an example, not as a place to visit. We do not refuse treatment at emergency rooms, but not everyone pays, driving up the price for the rest of us. If the reforms I suggest work out, only those with enough money to afford insurance but who don't carry it would become a problem, along with illegal aliens. For those who can pay, we might modify financial regulation to make sure that hospitals have the ability to collect from those who chose not to carry insurance, including head of the line in bankruptcy proceedings. Illegal aliens will have to be the subject of another discussion, as I have previously discussed the need for a comprehensive plan that includes enforcing the border.

The other issue is end of life care. This is where insurance transparency becomes paramount. People are going to have to make tough trade offs between paying higher fees that will cover expensive life extending treatments and thinking through what they leave to their heirs. This is a tough subject, but there is no free lunch. Someone is going to pay for expensive end of life care, we must as well budget for it now.

Sorry this ran long, but I think it necessary to put together real solutions that sustain liberty and keep government size to a minimum. The left's solutions usually fail, but often we have not put together our own policies, so we just get the next leftist solution after the last one fails. After Obamacare is rescinded, whether through the courts or elections, getting to work on real health insurance reform will become necessary. Best get thinking about it now.

SDUSD Mess Update

2011-11-20T13:18:00.000-08:00

Erica Holloway, blogging at sdrostra.com, has an update on the fiscal mess of our local San Diego school district. I posted on November 2 on the same subject. A few quotes from Erica's article:

School district officials and board members say that without a serious, life-saving infusion of state revenue or drastic cuts, such as closing schools, the state could take over the district due to fiscal insolvency, or bankruptcy.

After the utter failure of the school closure plan, Sheila Jackson, schoolboard member, takes full responsibility for the board's failure to put together a reasonable process.

It’s not appropriate for people to come to us and be upset. We didn’t even know what the criteria was, we didn’t even tell the staff which direction we wanted.

Good going there Sheila. In any other kind of electoral situation, she would be a shoo in for recall or at least wouldn't get re-elected. But in an electoral system plagued by general voter apathy towards the schools, the teachers unions are able to hand pick the board. VOSD had this to say about her statement.

But the board was highly involved in setting those criteria. The trustees had discussed and voted on the criteria at least three times in the previous two years
Last July, Jackson and her colleagues voted unanimously to approve a 37-page document that precisely lays out the process by which schools would be chosen for closure. The document includes a four-page board policy detailing all the criteria by which schools should be selected.

They also labeled Jackson's statement "huckster propaganda" with a picture of Pinocchio sporting a very long nose.

Business As Usual - FHA Mortgage Limit Raised

2011-11-18T18:57:00.000-08:00

What the hell? At a time when we should be getting the federal government out of the housing market, this little gem appears.

President Obama on Friday signed into law a bill that will reinstate higher limits for Federal Housing Administration-backed mortgages in high-cost areas. In expensive housing areas such as Los Angeles and Orange counties, the limit for these FHA-backed loans had dropped to $625,500 from $729,750 on Oct. 1. The change became effective Friday.

Hey occupiers, how do you like that? Loan guarantees for 1%er home loans. How did this excrement make it out of the House? Well, many Republicans must have voted for it, and Democrats provided the margin of victory. Nice to see bipartisan folly in support of the wealthy. In fact only 101 Republicans voted against it out of 242. This comes at a time when we already know that the FHA is going to need more tax dollars to prop up its loan portfolio. From Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) Chair of the subcommittee on GSEs:

". . .an independent audit of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) revealed that the housing agency’s cash reserves are down 45% from last year and the “chance that future net losses on the current, outstanding portfolio could exceed current capital resources is close to 50 percent,” which could necessitate a taxpayer bailout next year."

Garrett issued this statement in response to the bill.

“This is what happens when the federal government meddles in economic affairs best left to the private market. Because the federal government has played an outsized role in our country’s housing system, the American taxpayers are now at risk of another costly bailout that will put future generations even deeper into debt. Today’s report shows that FHA is overleveraged at a shockingly high rate of 400 to 1, making Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, the poster children of the 2008 financial collapse, look like financially solvent institutions. The FHA audit proves once again that, if left unchanged, the reckless policies currently guiding our nation’s housing finance system will threaten the financial solvency of the United States of America."

Amen, brother.

However, I have to admit that this legislation isn't all bad. It is part of a continuing resolution (or CR, as we call it at work) that was also called a minibus bill, as opposed to omnibus. What was good about the minibus? High speed rail is dead. From FireDogLake (please keep the schadenfreude in check.)

The House passed a spending bill today that kills high-speed rail funding for the current fiscal year. The Senate is expected to follow suit, which means California should not expect the billions of dollars in federal aid on which its futuristic plan for bullet trains depends.

We need to alert Dean.

Weekend Music Chill

2011-11-18T08:53:00.000-08:00

No back story today, just a style of music I enjoy. My question, does anyone else think that Scott Stapp of Creed sounds like Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam?

Lie of the Day

2011-11-17T21:43:00.000-08:00

Secretary of Energy Steve Chu on his actions in the Solyndra scandal.

"As the secretary of energy, the final decisions on Solyndra were mine, and I made them with the best interests of the taxpayer in mind," Chu told members of the House Energy and Commerce.
"And I want to be clear. Over the course of Solyndra's loan guarantee, I did not make any decision based on political considerations. My decision to guarantee a loan to Solyndra was based on the analysis of professional -- experienced professionals and on the strength of the information they had available to them at the time."

I look forward to the day when this perjury is proved, as anyone who has followed the story knows the Secretary of Energy is lying.

Quote of the Day

2011-11-17T16:34:00.000-08:00

Given the dicey future that Obamacare faces before the Supreme Court, it's interesting to note that it accrues entirely to the fear of calling the mandate a tax and the fact that Democrats miscalculated the constitutional question with arched eyebrows and an "Are you serious?" reply.

Quote of the Day in The American Interest by Walter Russell Mead.

If the Supreme Court decision goes against the individual mandate, the
progressive imagination will be haunted for decades by what historians will
consider one of the great legislative and political blunders of all time.
A rare perfect storm of political forces brought liberals the most power they
have had since 1934 and 1964. If history records that this generation’s
progressive leaders threw that moment of power away by an easily correctable
mistake in legislative draftmanship, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will be forever
remembered as the greatest legislative bunglers in American history.
College students in generations yet unborn will rub their eyes in disbelief when
they get to this part of the story.
. . .
I am less worried about the bitter mockery of future generations, however,
than I am about what is in the rest of the bill. Even if the Court upholds
it, it is clear that sheer arrogance and legislative incompetence led the
architects of this massive reform to endanger their own handiwork by clumsy
design.

Free Markets and Health Care

2011-11-16T23:14:00.000-08:00

In the debate over health insurance solutions, there seems to be a belief on the left that healthcare is somehow fundamentally different from other goods and services that we might purchase. Calivancouver had this to say in response to my suggestion that prices are dropping and quality rising for cosmetic surgery and vision correction.

Might I point out that those are not government-provided, nor should they be, because they are elective. You can shop around for boobjobs and lasik surgery, plan them in advance, and weight the costs and benefits like any other good.

You don't shop around for emergency surgery. You might not even be conscious.

WC points out that the insurance you purchase before the emergency room visit would be better off under free market conditions. But I would go further. All sorts of medical procedures are expensive but not unaffordably so and aren't performed under emergency conditions. In my own personal experience, I have had physical therapy and a steroid injection for neck pain that were definitely non-emergencies. If I was paying out of pocket, I would have had a wider choice of providers and would have shopped around on both price and quality. Why wouldn't free market pressure for those medical services produce improvements as well.

Frankly, I was appalled by the massive bureaucracy associated with the injection, for which I did not receive anesthesia. I literally came into contact with a dozen people besides the doctor who performed the procedure. It seemed that at least two of them were solely concerned with insurance and payment issues and another three were all about legal release forms and triple checking what I disclosed in terms of medical history, presumably so that the doctor wouldn't get sued.

Post of the Week

2011-11-16T23:02:00.001-08:00

DooDooEcon goes behind the scenes at OccupySD and finds some surprises. One thing that doesn't surprise is that the media has not accurately portrayed the occupiers. A few quotes.

Several occupiers were dismissive of Councilman DeMaio as a political opponent. Upon hearing these sentiments I mentioned some of the reasons he is supported by both fiscal conservatives and more libertarian Tea Party members. The change in attitude in the occupiers toward Councilman DeMaio was abrupt and surprising.
. . .
One item that struck me was the claim that many occupiers are fiscal conservatives. First, it was good to see that they are educated enough to understand the term fiscal conservative. It was an appeal to common ground which is as dangerous a political position for the Tea Party as it is for the Democrat Party.

Tough Times for the tea party

2011-11-15T18:51:00.000-08:00

We should admit that the present political situation is a difficult one for the tea party movement. Achievement of some measure of power does that to any popular movement. We are now in a difficult situation where mere protest and indignation against the train of abuses is an insufficient rallying cry to our cause. We expected to propose real solutions, since we are perceived as having some power in the seat of government and, inevitably, concrete solutions will have elements that are objectionable to some constituencies. This also saps popularity.

Some additional elements have made our situation even more difficult. First, the occupy movement, despite its problems, has captured significant attention. It has focused on some of our issues, like crony capitalism, but overall has had such a diffuse focus that a discussion of actual issues has been avoided. Its narrative is filled with stories of the suffering of art history majors who are only qualified to wait tables, but have huge student loans.

Second, despite our fondest hopes, no natural Presidential candidate has emerged who embodies tea party hopes. We seem to be waiting for Reagan's heir, and so far she has not emerged. It would be good to remember that Reagan's first brush with fame came in 1964 with his nominating speech for Barry Goldwater, followed by two terms as governor of California, where he did some liberal things, a failed bid for the Presidency in 1976 before becoming President. We are reduced to arguing which candidate is least objectionable and writing attack pieces about the various Republican potential successors to Barack Obama. (I am guilty as well.)

Third, there are the dangers of the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare*, which I discussed yesterday.

Finally, our insistence on changing the direction of the federal government has made us vulnerable to charges of obstructionism. The super-committee will likely fail and the tea party might get some of the fall out.

My answer to all of this is, tough. To quote some famous Americans whom we hope to emulate:

"These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."

Who said that reversing a century of effort by progressives was going to be easy or accomplished in two years. Keeping a focus on our principles is the only path to long term success. We know what works. We see the blue states sputtering with high taxes and business exiting. We see quasi-socialist stimulus policies failing to end the recession. We see Obamacare failing to deliver on any of its promises of lower insurance rates, keeping your insurance, or helping the economy.

We will make tactical changes to respond to circumstances. The occupiers have focused the attention of the nation on crony capitalism, to some extent. The tea party should be reminding the whole public that we were protesting the wall street bailouts and corporate welfare from the beginning. This is an example of a tactical shift that stays true to one's principles.

Further, we should be developing a strong bench. Keeping an eye on local races to develop a new generation of office holders who genuinely believe in limited government is important, but not exciting work. Finally, we must continue to change the climate so that even bad men are persuaded to do the right thing, because it is politically profitable.

Reagan wasn't elected to the Presidency until 1980, but he made this speech in 1964. Think about the difference between him and Barack Obama, who made a well received speech at the Democratic convention in 2004 and was then elected in 2008, with little of the experience that Reagan developed. Which man will have the more lasting positive legacy for the nation and his party?

*In yesterday's comments, liberal friend Calivancouver thinks the next round of health care reform will result in single payer. I disagree and liberated my comment here.

Too much to debate why I think single payer will bankrupt those countries who are trying it. Consider this. The best parts of the medical industry from both reports and personal experience are vision correction and cosmetic surgery. There are no waits, prices keep declining, and quality keeps improving. They also have in common that most consumers pay their own way with no insurance or government involvement. The free market is achieving the purported goals of government health care, declining price and increasing quality. Yet we seem loathe to try for more free market solutions with any other part of health care.

Obamacare Before the Court

2011-11-14T21:49:00.000-08:00

I am a little nervous about Obamacare being decided by the courts before the election. The individual mandate is unconstitutional, there are some learned lawyers on my side. But I am troubled that this may be decided by the court for a number of reasons.

It might go the wrong way, establishing a horrible precedent for decades. It would expand Congress' power under the interstate commerce clause beyond all recognition. Even breathing could be regulated.
It might go the right way, but energize the Democratic base to push for a changed majority on the Court, giving Obama just enough support to get re-elected.
It might go the right way, but only the individual mandate gets struck down and the Supremes give a pass on the whole severability issue. This would leave a very poorly written law mostly intact with its attendant drag on the economy, but take some of the air out of attempts to repeal.
It takes the issue out of play for the November election. The eventual nominee will be able to hammer the President over the sausage making involved in this legislation.
It takes the issue out of play for the November election. I believe issues of such national importance are best decided by the voters.

There is a possibility that the justices could put off a final ruling until after the election, but that seems unlikely.

Best outcome? From David Kopel.

The Court should re-affirm Gibbons v. Ogden, which followed the original understanding of the interstate commerce clause: “commerce” means mercantile exchange, plus some closely-related subjects, such as navigation. Among the subjects which are not interstate commerce, according to Gibbons, are “health laws of every description.” The Court should then over-rule South-Eastern Underwriters (1944), which broke from long-established precedent, and declared that even purely intrastate insurance was interstate commerce. Because South-Eastern claimed to be following original meaning, the modern Court should simply point out that none of the original sources cited by the South-Eastern opinion remotely support the contention that all forms of insurance are “commerce.”

Finally, Congress should explain that the Necessary and Proper clause underscores the unconstitutionality of the mandate. As McCulloch v. Maryland demonstrated, the original meaning of the clause affirms the Congress may exercise powers which are incidental to an enumerated power. The power to compel a private person to engage in commerce with a private company is not an incident of, or lesser than, the power to regulate voluntary interstate commerce. Further, government-created monopolies were, in the Founding Era, a paradigmatic example of improper government action. Therefore, it is not constitutionally “proper” to force citizens to spend their money on a government-favored Big Insurance oligopoly.

Stolen Valor and Free Speech on Obamacare and Abortion

2011-11-13T18:53:00.000-08:00

The Supremes have agreed to hear the case of Xavier Alvarez, (right) who introduced himself after election to the Three Valleys Municipal Water District in Claremont, CA with the lie that he had served in the Marine Corps for 25 years and received the Congressional Medal of Honor. He was convicted under the "Stolen Valor Act" and if you think I am going to defend his despicable behavior, you would have guessed wrong. However, the law itself is a vast usurpation of government power, and we should be mindful of the consequences. Do we really want a government so powerful that it can prevent lying?

More importantly, doesn't the first amendment protect lying? That may sound absurd, but let's consider the road we are traveling. If we grant to Congress the power to criminalize lying, who decides? Will there be an Orwellian Ministry of Truth? Ultimately, there are remedies for false speech other than government regulation. In the case of Alvarez, voters could use the recall process to remove him from office. If we allow the government to decide what is truth, it will effectively end free speech as we know it.

Right now there is a case working its way through the courts in Ohio, in which lying in a political campaign has become the subject of government regulation. Steve Driehaus, (left) now a one-term former Congressman from Ohio claimed to be both pro-life and a supporter of Obamacare. The Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life group, ran ads portraying the vote as support for federal funding of abortion. Whether that it is true or not is irrelevant to this discussion but consider that it is at least a matter of opinion.

Until the eve of the House vote on the health-care legislation, Driehaus and about a dozen other antiabortion Democrats vowed to oppose the health care bill unless abortion language was changed. It was not, so the president, trying to provide cover for those Democrats, agreed to issue an executive order purportedly limiting the funding of abortions under the legislation.
But the president of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, contentedly dismissed the order as merely “a symbolic gesture.” The National Right to Life Committee, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other pro-life forces grimly agreed.

In Ohio, SB-9 makes it illegal to knowingly "Make a false statement concerning the voting record of a candidate or public official." Driehaus used the law to complain to the Ohio Elections Commission, after which the the Susan B. Anthony List was unable to put up its billboard ads. Of course the members of the election commission are appointed by sitting politicians, but no conflict of interest there.

After the election, where Driehaus went down to much deserved defeat, he dropped the complaint, but then sued the List for defamation in Federal court. Here is where we are at:

The case was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Timothy S. Black, who ruled on August 1 on procedural grounds (standing, ripeness, 11th amendment, among others) that the List’s lawsuit against the law should be dismissed. Given that the law was therefore still intact, he said the Driehaus defamation lawsuit against the List could proceed, and permitted discovery on whether the List had an animus against Driehaus.
The List has now asked the 11th circuit to reverse the U.S. District Court’s decision that said the List’s lawsuit against the Ohio law should be dismissed. The lawsuit is getting a great deal of publicity, especially on television public affairs programs with hosts who are angry with Driehaus. Driehaus is now working overseas in the Peace Corps. Judge Black has been criticized for not recusing himself, since between 1986 and 1989 he was President and Director of Planned Parenthood Association of Cincinnati. Thanks to Eric Garris for this news.

(Bold added by the editor.) So the List's officers will now be subject to the inconvenience and misery that accrues to discovery, for merely making political speech. Even the ACLU is appalled.

. . .the ACLU of Ohio, in an amicus brief filed last October, came to the group’s defense. The pro-abortion legal group wrote, “The people have an absolute right to criticize their public officials, the government should not be the arbiter of true or false speech, and the best answer for bad speech is more speech.”

Exactly. It has been the habit of established and powerful politicians to use every speech regulating law to suppress citizen activist groups. Consider the case in Parker North, CO:

A federal appellate court today [Nov 9, 2010] held that six neighbors in the tiny subdivision of Parker North, Colo., should not have been forced to register with the government and comply with burdensome campaign finance laws simply for opposing a ballot issue involving the annexation of their neighborhood.

Regardless of the argument that unfettered free speech allows corporations undue influence, the real effect is to suppress the less powerful citizen movements. Corporations and the wealthy will always hire the lawyers necessary to get around restrictions, the average citizen ends up in front of truth tribunals.

H/T to George Will.

Iranian Nukes - There Is No Deterrence

2011-11-12T20:55:00.000-08:00

I didn't see tonight's GOP Presidential foreign policy debate, but a couple of quotes caught my attention. First, I have to applaud Perry for his position that we should reset foreign aid to zero, and not give any to uncooperative nations. Second, I was disturbed about the zeal of some of the candidates for going to war to prevent Iranian possession of nukes. To be clear, this was discussed as a last resort, but is still a bad idea, regardless. The threat of war is normally considered a deterrent, but, to paraphrase Israel Kasnett, deterrence only works when one's opponents have rational self-interest. However, Iranians leaders desire war with the west as a way to hasten the return of the 12th Madi.

The basic tenet of deterrence is built on a foundation of rational decision making by both sides – a capacity which Iran lacks.

So what is to be done? I think a policy of deliberate de-escalation on the part of the United States, coupled with a publicity campaign that makes it clear to the Iranian people that their leaders are endangering the safety of their people. Ultimately, we are going to have to play a subtle game, because public breast beating and escalation of tensions plays into Iranian desires. Newt, who thinks himself very clever, has apparently not thought this through. My opinion is that the Iranians are counting on the Israelis being the ones who will take action. However, the Saudis are probably the nation most threatened by Iranian nuclear ambitions. This is because the Saudis control Muslim's holiest cities and are the chief expositors of Sunni theology, which relegates the Shiite Persians to second class status. As this threat becomes more real the potential to pick up allies in the Middle East increases. However, early unilateral action allows the Saudis and others to sit on their hands and blame us for being Islamophobic.

If the Iranians only have a few nukes initially, they aren't going to target a nation with BMD defenses and potentially wasted their one invaluable resource, getting all of the downside associated with a strike, but none of the upside.

Let's be clear, the Iranians may end up launching a nuke, where it might land and whether it would detonate are open questions. As regrettable as that might be, we may have to wait and use that opportunity to reshape the world. I don't think the Iranian people are going to be too happy with a regime that puts them at risk.

Gibson Guitars and Out of Control Government

2011-11-11T21:22:00.000-08:00

This story is a little old, but deserves to be kept alive because it is so illustrative of the sweeping overreach and potential for tyranny as we allow the federal government to become involved in every aspect of our lives.

On August 24th, Federal SWAT teams working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service raided Gibson guitar plants, looking for illegally imported wood from India. Supposedly, Gibson was damaging the environment by importing wood that is environmentally protected. But is that really the case? The federal government has yet to return an indictment, so here is what Henry Juszkiewicz, CEO of Gibson, said about the behavior of the federal government.

The recent raid of Gibson, however, did not come about because the wood was illegally harvested. Rather, the U.S. government alleges that the wood was imported in violation of an Indian export restriction designed to keep wood finishing work in India. To make matters worse, although the Indian government certified that the wood was properly and legally exported under this law, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service substituted its own opinion and reinterpreted Indian law. Its analysis suggested that if Gibson would just finish its fingerboards using Indian labor rather than Tennessee craftsman, there would be no issue.

Let me get this straight, this wood would have been harvested no matter what; the Indian government certified it for export and the only beef is that Obama and Holder want Indian workers to finish the wood, not Americans? Well, Obama sure is consistent on his desire to destroy American jobs. I'm thinking about Keystone XL pipeline and Boeing plant.

Think that this is just a problem for a big manufacturer? Thinking about traveling with a musical instrument? This could happen to you.

Recent revisions to 1900's Lacey Act require that anyone crossing the U.S. border declare every bit of flora or fauna being brought into the country. One is under "strict liability" to fill out the paperwork—and without any mistakes.
It's not enough to know that the body of your old guitar is made of spruce and maple: What's the bridge made of? If it's ebony, do you have the paperwork to show when and where that wood was harvested and when and where it was made into a bridge? Is the nut holding the strings at the guitar's headstock bone, or could it be ivory? "Even if you have no knowledge—despite Herculean efforts to obtain it—that some piece of your guitar, no matter how small, was obtained illegally, you lose your guitar forever," Prof. Thomas has written. "Oh, and you'll be fined $250 for that false (or missing) information in your Lacey Act Import Declaration.

This is the result of an out of control government that seeks to criminalize everything under the sun. For example, a father and son who were arrested and threatened with felony charges because they dug up Indian arrowheads. The Right Thinking blog has a more full exposition.

A nice side benefit of cutting the size of government will be to reduce tyranny such as this.

Weekend Music Chill - Veteran's Weekend Edition

2011-11-11T09:00:00.000-08:00

Welcome to Veteran's Day 11/11/11. Since I am a veteran, I thought I would play some tunes that reminded me of my time in the military.

First up is the unofficial theme song of the second submarine on which I served. We wanted to make this our "breakaway song" but the skipper wasn't down with that. A breakaway on a sub meant something a little different than the article at the link would suggest.

When we were "on station" a significant part of one's life was consumed by post-watch reconstruction. This was often a tedious effort that occasionally yielded some surprises that were occasionally embarrassing. To keep myself serene during this work, I really liked to listen to Sting, especially this tune:

Finally the worst first impression I ever made was discussing my visit to the Equestrian, Bovine Sanctuary and Memorial Ballroom the previous evening with my new Commanding Officer, on my first day reporting aboard, where I had participated in a sing along of this classic country ballad.

Obama Sides with Enviro Extremists over Jobs

2011-11-10T21:31:00.000-08:00

Wait, that's dog bites man stuff. H/T W.C. Varones. The State Department has put off approval of a pipeline from the "tar sands" of Canada to the United States until 2013, despite the pressure it would put on Mideast dictators. Of course the decision was portrayed as a result of the administration's purported concern over the Sand Hills environment, but we know this is about global warming. Obama is just too big of a pusillanimous vacillator to say so. From a previous discussion on the real reason this is being opposed:

Opposition to the Keystone pipeline, designed to bring so called "tar sands" oil from Canada to the United States is usually couched in language about the potential impact to water supplies and the like. However, famous global warmist James Hansen, also director of the Goddard Space Flight Center, explicitly links opposition to the pipeline to preventing global warming.
Phase out of emissions from coal is itself an enormous challenge. However, if the tar sands are thrown into the mix it is essentially game over. There is no practical way to capture the CO2 emitted while burning oil, which is used principally in vehicles.
Note that this is a tacit admission that there is plenty of oil in the ground, by a leading warmist. It is interesting to note that the enviros try to have it both ways, arguing simultaneously that our dependency on oil will come a cropper as we run out of oil, and also saying that if we keep burning oil we will wreck the environment. If we were really running out, then they wouldn't have to worry, would they?

Meanwhile, no mention of the whole AGW thing in the presser associated with the another job killing Obama administration decision.

The Weakness of the Occupy Protest Model

2011-11-10T21:03:00.000-08:00

Temple of Mut has the details here, but suffice to say that living in unhygienic conditions is well, unhygienic. I have felt all along that the whole sleep-over motif of the movement was self-defeating, because the tent cities lent themselves to criminality and filth. Tea party protests have been famously well ordered and litter free which enhanced the credibility of the protesters. I might have been more impressed by the occupy movement if they were able to come back day after day, but leave their environment in, well, a green condition.

What if its Mittens? Part II

2011-11-09T19:37:00.000-08:00

I missed tonight's debate but saw a Youtube video, promoted by Drudge, of Perry fumbling around with figuring out the third agency of government he would shut down, and taking a full and embarrassing 53 seconds to do so. Additionally, I think the steady drumbeat of harassment allegations are going to eventually take down Herman Cain. That doesn't mean the accusations are true or fair, this is just my frank assessment, as his campaign isn't handling them well, falsely tying one accuser to Politico, for example.

Which leaves us Mittens, and whoever the next not-Mittens is. Mittens is up again on intrade to over 70% Funny thing about the whole not-the-front-runner thing, is that he usually loses. I am old enough to remember ABC, "Anybody But Carter" in the 1976 Democrat primaries, and "Anybody but Clinton" in the 1992 primaries. Mitt Romney is clearly not the right man we would want as the Republican nominee. Which brings me to this Milton Friedman quote.

“I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.” (I believe this quote is slightly different than what Milton Friedman says on youtube above.)

What Friedman says about Congress is true for the Presidency as well. It is time to crank up the tea party energy again and re-establish the political climate that allowed such a sea change in 2010. Clear focus that every embarrassing example of crony capitalism and corporate welfare will be exposed and ridiculed and every effort to increase the size of the government will be unalterably opposed are the necessary ingredients to making an historic change in this next election cycle. At a time when government's ties to corporate cronyism are anathema to vast majorities, tying Obama to Solyndra and Wall Street seems like the clear path to victory.

I also heard on the news that the audience in today's debates gave a hearty boo to Maria Bartiromo when she asked about alleged sexual harassment and cheered when the debate returned to economic issues. I think that was a healthy expression of priorities. (BTW, I was not one of those Republicans who thought Clinton should be impeached, so I don't want to be hit up for hypocrisy here.) Time to change the terms of the debate, maybe even the venue.

Today's intrade graph for Romney to win the nomination:

This is an update to "What if its Mittens?"

Follow Up on Susan Davis' Town Hall

2011-11-08T20:20:00.000-08:00

Last Thursday I live-blogged a telephone town hall with Congresswoman Susan Davis. I never got a response about my question, so today I emailed her the following:

Congresswoman Davis,
In last Thursday's telephone town hall, you heard complaints about college loan repayment problems. But when is Congress going to do something about the tuition gouging at colleges. Every time the government increases aid to students, the colleges raise tuition, at three time the rate of inflation. Why aren't you supporting controlling tuition if a student receives federal aid?
Regards, B

We'll see what she says. I am of course not being serious, just attempting to provoke some cognitive dissonance. A fool's errand, no doubt.

Obama's Christmas Tree Tax - Hilarity from The Onion UPDATE

2011-11-08T18:53:00.000-08:00

UPDATE below.

In today's news:

In the Federal Register of November 8, 2011, Acting Administrator of Agricultural Marketing David R. Shipman announced that the Secretary of Agriculture will appoint a Christmas Tree Promotion Board. The purpose of the Board is to run a “program of promotion, research, evaluation, and information designed to strengthen the Christmas tree industry’s position in the marketplace; maintain and expend existing markets for Christmas trees; and to carry out programs, plans, and projects designed to provide maximum benefits to the Christmas tree industry” (7 CFR 1214.46(n)).

Those guys at The Onion, always lampooning the government, what a bunch of chuckleheads. But wait, is it really The Onion. An internet search of federal government websites reveals this announcement (excerpted here):

The proponent, the Christmas Tree Checkoff Task Force is an industry wide group of producers and importers that support this proposed program. They have conducted meetings throughout the United States with several State and multi-State Christmas tree organizations. The proposed program is not intended to duplicate any State program. The proponents have determined that they need a mechanism that would be sustainable over time. A national Christmas tree research and promotion program would accomplish this goal.
. . .
This rule establishes an industry-funded promotion, research, and information program for fresh cut Christmas trees. The Christmas Tree Promotion, Research, and Information Order (Order), was submitted to the Department of Agriculture (Department) by the Christmas Tree Checkoff Task Force (Task Force), an industry wide group of producers and importers that support this program. Under the Order, producers and importers of fresh cut Christmas trees will pay an initial assessment of $0.15 cents per tree, which would be paid to the Christmas Tree Promotion Board (Board). This Board will be responsible for administration and operation of the Order. Producers and importers that produce or import less than 500 Christmas trees annually will be exempt from the assessment. The program is authorized under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (1996 Act).
. . .
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia A. Petrella, Marketing Specialist, Research and Promotion Division, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 1406, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; telephone: (301) 334-2891; or facsimile: (301) 334-2896; or email: Patricia.Petrella@ams.usda.gov.

Yes, I urge you to contact the Marketing Specialist. Your government is on the job, promoting Christmas trees. And dang, if crony capitalism isn't alive at the very lowest levels of government. The very innocuousness of the program belies its evil. One group of producers gets to tax other members of the industry to put together an ad campaign for their product. It is unbelievable that we tolerate this in our government. And as you can see by the relatively small beer program, this kind of thing permeates state and federal government. Not to pick on Patricia Petrella, but why in the world do our tax dollars pay for a marketing professional that the Christmas tree industry could fund themselves? And really, why do Christmas trees need marketing anyway?

UPDATE

Apparently, someone in the administration got a clue as to what a public relations disaster this was and is going to delay implementation. Delay implementation? That's a relief. The real issue is why does the federal government believe it is constitutionally enabled to perform this function anyway? The administration likened it to the 'Got Milk?' campaign, but that's outside the legitimate bounds of government action as well.

I am sick to death of apologies for corporate welfare and crony capitalism. This crap costs the taxpayers, because employees of the federal government are paid to administer the programs and the public pays higher costs for milk and Christmas trees for the ad campaigns. In the comments, I was taken to task for the headline, the commenter thought that Obama should be held blameless because an industry group requested the fee. By that measure, we should hold Washington blameless for spending taxpayer money on bailing out GM, banks, etc, since industry requested the bailouts. Without unchecked government power, taxpayers are going to continue to pay for benefits that flow to corporations. This must end. That's my tea party stance. Waiting for the occupiers to make this their major focus.

Welcome, Mark Steyn Fans

2011-11-08T15:28:00.000-08:00

Since I am "reader of the day" on Mark Steyn's website, I have been getting a lot of new traffic. I would like to welcome my visitors and thank them for stopping by. Hope you peruse the content and check out what other San Diego tea party movement bloggers have to say.

How do you get to be "reader of the day?" A little shameless sycophancy in recommending Mr. Steyn for the Pultizer.

Corporate Welfare, OWS and the tea party movement

2011-11-07T22:13:00.000-08:00

This morning's WSJ editorial page picked up on a theme from this blog that the occupiers and tea partyers can come together in opposition to corporate welfare. The whole article is worth a read, but they offer additional egregious examples of the waste of your tax dollars in support of companies that should sink or swim on their own.

Some of the most expensive flops include the Supersonic Transport plane of the mid-1970s, Jimmy Carter's $2 billion Synthetic Fuels Corporation (the precursor to clean energy), Amtrak, which hasn't turned a profit in four decades, and the most expensive public-private partnership debacle of all time, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have lost $142 billion of taxpayer money.

The ethanol subsidy, benefiting mostly corn farmers and corporate fuel blenders in the Midwest, costs about $6 billion a year through an array of tax subsidies, tariffs and mandates while making fuel and food more expensive.

Crop price supports for wheat, corn, rice, sugar and soybean farmers are supposed to help struggling family farms, but at least half the subsidies go to large and wealthy farmers and corporations. Congress can't seem to wean the farm belt off these payments even though commodity prices and farm incomes are near an all-time high. Restricting those funds to farmers with incomes below $250,000 would save $30 billion over the next decade.

The Export-Import Bank has a portfolio of $14.5 billion of outstanding loan guarantees to assist major U.S. exporters. More than 90% of the funds went to 10 corporations, including Boeing ($6.4 billion), General Electric ($1.043 billion) and Caterpillar ($424 million).

The Presidential candidate that can capture the anger over these outrages can easily beat Obama, because he is all in for government subsidies, and has doubled down on defending the likes of Solyndra.

The Republican nominee doesn't have to have a great track record on this issue, he just has to show a credible change of heart on the issue. Fortunately, there is an easy way to do so, campaign against ethanol subsidies in Iowa, and then consistently oppose any other such subsidies the rest of the campaign. Tying Obama to corporate welfare is relatively easy. Given the justified anger over giving our tax dollars to corporations, Obama should have no chance. That he does is shameful.