Filner WILL Resign - Some Questions for the Next Mayor

There is no doubt that Bob Filner is on his way out as Mayor.  I predicted he might not make it, but this is fast.  Today both the U-T and KPBS reported that prominent Democrats, including Donna Frye, are urging the mayor to resign over sexual harassment allegations.  There is also the little matter of an FBI investigation into a pay-to-play scandal involving Sunroad Centrum's project in Kearney Mesa.

Fading away? Probably not, but it will be ugly.

Richard Rider provides a nice summary on Twitter:

Filner MUST resign. Sexual harassment charges emerging. IMHO, it's only a matter of WHEN he resigns. He may try to cut deal re: fed charges.
— Richard Rider (@SD_TaxFighters) July 10, 2013

Meanwhile, let's start thinking about the issues that we want the new mayor to address. My debate questions follow:

1. Will the candidate wholeheartedly support the pension reforms of Proposition B, including working with the City Attorney to vigorously defend the measure in court?  Explain your next steps to implement these reforms in order to save taxpayer dollars.
2.  Will you push managed competition to reduce the cost of city services?  What would be the next of services that should be put in play?
3. Name at least one city program that consumes over 1% of the city budget that you would eliminate.
4. What will you do to normalize the legal status of marijuana dispensaries.

What other debate topics do we have?

With regards to the horse race aspect of the race, I see Kevin Faulconer and Nathan Fletcher as early front runners. If Faulconer wins, does that cause a daisy chain effect, with Lorie Zapf vacating her current District 6 seat to run in her home District 2?  If she won, who are the front runners in District 2?  (Like Zapf, I was redistricted from CD-6 to CD-2 when the number of council seats expanded.)  Local politicos are certainly plotting their next moves.

What You Should Be Reading

• Dean, at BeerswithDemo, provides a cautionary tale for advocates of marijuana legalization based on Colorado's experience. Apropos to our own city's struggles with this issue.
• Daniel Henninger declares July 3, 2013 the day big government died.  When leftist government can't even deliver on its core competency of issuing regulations, you know that big government has "hit the wall." H/T KT Cat.

Unaffordable Insanity - The Affordable Care Act

On July 4th I posted that business as usual in our politics has lead to insane outcomes that no one would have devised from scratch.  The so-called Affordable Care Act was my first exhibit and it continues to unravel.  Dean has a great take on the latest fiasco, delaying the employer mandates for a year.

The stated reason for the delay is that the administration couldn't figure out a way to implement the reporting requirements for the effected businesses. Going on 3-1/2 years after the law was passed and they still need another year to figure out how to work one of the key provisions of the law. In Washington D.C. this is known as the “Continuing to Implement the ACA in a Careful, Thoughtful Manner.” In Placentia, California, this is known as "incompetence".

And Dean notes that young voters are still on the hook whether they think they need insurance or not, big business, not so much.  You can file this under "Obama decides what the law is or is not."

But wait, there's more.  The WSJ takes down the administration for giving up on income verification to obtain subsidies for health exchanges, calling the decision a "Liar's Subsidy."

The White House seems to regard laws as mere suggestions, including the laws it helped to write. On the heels of last week's one-year suspension of the Affordable Care Act's employer mandate to offer insurance to workers, the Administration is now waiving a new batch of its own ObamaCare prescriptions.
. . .
In other words, anyone can receive subsidies tied to income without judging the income they declare against the income data the Internal Revenue Service collects. 

I guarantee you that the Democrat running for President in 2016 will be calling for an overhaul of the healthcare law and somehow blaming those rascawwy Republicans for sabotaging it, when in fact it will have collapsed of its own accord.  The far left is looking forward to this fail to take another run at a health care system fully funded by the federal government.  Fortunately, really bad budget numbers for Medicare should be kicking in right about then.  It will be an opportunity to shape the debate on sensible policy.

I have proposed sensible reforms before, with the ACA failing, time to resurrect our plan.  Since it is  a cut and paste, I am putting my policy prescriptions below the fold.

What You Should Be Reading 

• The details of Snowden's revelations about the NSA.  The surveillance state is coming for your liberty at full speed with the power of big data behind it.  It is not a coincidence that the big name in databases, Oracle, got its start in the intelligence field.  Screed of Momus (best blog name, ever) has a great run down on the various reasons the government is highly motivated to continue its various spying programs and to keep expanding them.
• Doo Doo Econ does the job I normally perform and analyzes the latest jobs data.  His conclusion? Despite the seemingly good numbers, the economy is still shaky.  I concur.

What You Should NOT Be Reading

• Anything to do with trial of George Zimmerman.  A young man is dead under murky circumstances, that is tragic.  The shooter alleges self defense.  A jury will decide. Only the MSM has a desire to pour the gasoline of race relations on this story while they light the match. Screw them, don't pay attention.
• Anything to do with the drama of Snowden's asylum.  That's the sideshow, which distracts from the very disturbing allegations he has made about the NSA.
• Anything about our foreign policy with respect to Egypt or Syria.  There is little we can do and no good outcomes in sight.  I despise this administration, but honestly, the situation there is so convoluted I don't think anyone could tell the difference between comptent foreign policy and Obama/Kerrry plan.  Yachting, golfing are indeed the correct response.

Liberty Movement Health Care Plan (first published in 2011):

Here is the plan that John Mackey of Whole Foods proposed, my comments in italics.

1. "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.
2. "Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits."
3. Allow competition across state lines.
4. "Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover."
5. "Enact tort reform."
6. "Make costs transparent."
7. "Enact medicare reform." Medicare policies that are mimicked by the private sector are strangling the medical profession.
8. Revise tax law to make it easier to donate to those without insurance.

To expand on these points.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. With regards to tort reform, we have seen positive results in Texas, where access to care increased after passage of reform.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.

Independence Day and These Insane States of America

Happy Independence Day.  On the 237th anniversary of the founding of our nation, we should reflect on the future direction of the country.  The present may seem bleak, but I am very optimistic about the future.  Before we examine the future, here are some examples of the current insanity.

• The Affordable Care Act has proven to be anything but.  Businesses are busy cutting health insurance benefits, young people will have to pay much more and the government's outlays are rising when it is awash in debt. No one, and I mean no one, ever proposed anything like the current law during any campaign for office.  The Congress took every flawed feature of the previous system and expanded it, and called it reform.
• We live with a system that keeps milk prices high, and prices go even higher, if Congress doesn't set price floors for dairy farmers. 
• Those who believe that Carbon emissions cause global warming are unwilling to use the simplest method to reduce emissions, a carbon tax, instead heaping new regulations on industry of dubious effectiveness.
• We rely on a currency that is publicly acknowledged to be manipulated.
• Sequestration has done nothing to change the long term budget outlook of the U.S., yet it is pilloried as draconian.  According to the CBO, "Under Current Law, Federal Debt Will Stay at Historically High Levels Relative to GDP."

So why the optimism?  First, I think that this insanity is doomed to collapse. We are already seeing the ACA start to unravel with yesterday's announcement of the delay in business penalties for failure to comply, which begs the question of the government's willingness to force individuals to comply.  

Second, we are catching a lucky break because there are no serious global competitors to our economic supremacy right now.  China's state sponsored capitalism is proving unsustainable. The Europeans are, well, European, awash in fresh crises every few months.  India isn't yet ready to grow, even if they are the chief long term rival.  

Third, I have faith in the freedom loving DNA of our people.  Eventually we figure things out and we are figuring out that big government, big labor and big business are bad for freedom; especially in combination. We are slowly, but effectively, fighting back.  

James Bennett and Michael Lotus have written a book about their own optimism called "America 3.0."  I am not particularly enamored with the title, but it is a convenient short hand for the idea that we are entering a new epoch.  The America 2.0 of big government and mass production is giving way to new modes of economic development and delivery.  The old system is collapsing due to its complexity and internal contradictions.  A new system has yet to arise, but it should value liberty for the individual, if it is to succeed.  Perhaps more on that in a future post.



Stuff You Should Be Reading

You should be reading the Burning Platform blog because the federal government doesn't want me to read it. Jim Quinn of Burning Platform had posted a decent article about hatred for Obama in Egypt on Zero Hedge so I thought to look them up and here is what I got:

Arguing for freedom is somehow suspicious?  I think it is their full throated defense of Snowden that is the real reason for getting blocked. (I deleted the full name of my B-Daddy log in, other than that, the picture is a replica of what I got.)  No, I did not submit the unblock request.

The Libertarian Case for Federal Employment

The latest news only reinforces the belief that the Federal government has far exceeded its constitutional bounds.  I find the IRS targeting especially troubling, as it is touches the most Americans and yet appears to be unaccountable.  News of the NSA spying, as egregious as that is, has pushed the even more problematic spying on reporters and potentially the Congress off the front page.  And the death of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi has yet to be adequately explained.  In spite of all this, the federal government is my employer.  How could I work for an employer of whom I am so critical, one might wonder.

First, I work in a part of the federal government that more or less operates within its constitutional bounds.  More importantly, I don't think that those of us in the liberty movement should cede federal employment to the left.  Peggy Noonan discusses the importance of the character of civil servants in the IRS scandal.  Forty years ago, Nixon tried to use the IRS to harass his enemies.

But part of that Watergate story is that Nixon failed. Last week David Dykes of the Greenville (S.C.) News wrote of meeting with 93-year-old Johnnie Mac Walters, head of the IRS almost 40 years ago, in the Nixon era. Mr. Dykes quoted Tim Naftali, former director of the Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, who told him the IRS wouldn't do what Nixon asked: "It didn't happen, not because the White House didn't want it to happen, but because people like Johnnie Walters said 'no.' "

Unfortunately, Douglas Shulman the IRS Commissioner during the targeting of liberty movement groups seemed to be acting at the behest of the White House, which was publicly decrying the groups while Democratic Senators were calling for investigations only of conservative groups.

Often, it only takes one person to stand up and say "this is wrong" for a bad policy to get stopped.  This is why we need constitution-abiding, freedom-loving employees on the federal payroll.  I understand that its the taxpayers money we are spending and I do my best to keep that in mind.

A small example, from my own work comes to mind.  Years ago, our agency outsourced most of our standard desktop and networking IT.  Getting with the program and cooperating with the effort, despite its enormous difficulties became the order of the day.  However, in my little pocket and others, we still had research networks to run that were specifically exempted from the monolithic agency IT solution.  However, we were forced onto server based computing solutions before they were ready for prime-time and paid a hefty fee to do so, about $2,000 per year.  In order to maintain the sanity of our users, we maintained an email capability at much lower cost per person.  While the two grand was supposed to deliver much more than just email, that was all it was really used for and it wasn't that good initially.  Many of our users continued to use our research network email address until this became a large public embarrassment, cost be damned.

I came under severe pressure to eliminate the old email completely, but I fought long and hard for some exceptions so that I wouldn't have to shut down.  Fast forward six years and sequestration is getting leadership to rethink their priorities.  $2,000 per year for a solution where the users only use the email looks pricey, all of a sudden.  Next thing you know, my boss is asking me to write a proposal to drop all the users out of the agency system who only use the research network for significant cost savings.

If I hadn't been convinced that in the long run, the cost argument would prevail, I wouldn't have fought so hard in the first place.  I have certainly had my share of failures in other policy areas, unfortunately.  But I believe that if there were more employees with my frame of mind, our government would be more efficient and less intrusive.  To be fair, because the federal government tries to do too much, it will not be efficient until it is much smaller.  Better to have liberty movement types on the inside than not.

Weekend Music Chill

I found a new artist on my "Gold on the Ceiling" Pandora station, so I am sharing.  Here is Patrick Sweany with "Them Shoes."




And another decent tune, "Sleeping Bag."


The second song reminds a little of the Rolling Stones' 60s sound.

Weekend Music Chill

I am feeling good about the country today.  Obama's agenda, whatever it was, is bogged down in the land of Scandalabra.  Oil and gas drilling in North America might save the economy.  The internal contradictions of the ACA are becoming so glaring, that its failure is becoming obvious to the masses.  Time for some party music:

First, a tune that I built a new Pandora station around, "Glad You Came" by The Wanted.

And this one for my brother-in-law, who thinks he still has the moves.

High Speed Choo-Choo to be De-Railed?

The U-T is reporting that the California High Speed rail project could come crashing down in court tomorrow.

A Sacramento County Superior Court judge is scheduled to hear arguments in a lawsuit that claims the project doesn’t comply with a statewide ballot measure approving $9.9 billion in bonds for the systems.

. . . Former Sen. Quentin Kopp, involved in planning high-speed rail since 1992, states in an expert declaration in the case that the so-called “blended” system forcing the bullet train and standard rail to share tracks from San Francisco to San Jose is not genuine high-speed rail.

Even if the lawsuit fails, it is clear that the voters were sold a pack of lies.  Dean has been covering the history.

There is no doubt that even if the state loses the lawsuit, that won't prevent them from moving forward.  It is a hallmark of this era that mere judicial rulings do not deter the government from proceeding with its intended aims.

Researching the text of the law, I came across this little gem:

"the planned passenger train service to be provided by the authority, or pursuant to its authority, will not require operating subsidy." This must be certified prior to expending funds.  I don't know if it is part of the lawsuit, but I wouldn't want to be the state official who had to sign that document.

We will see what happens tomorrow.

What You Should Be Reading

Dawn Wildman exposes the intellectual bankruptcy of the so-called Common Core curriculum.

Naked D.C has a hilarious take on the Scandalabra engulfing the administration and a picture of Eric Holder in a sparkly speedo. Truly must read to put it all together.

Shinzo Abe Cannot Save Japan

Source: The Economist.

I should probably just end this post with the picture, but a little explanation would be polite.  Shinzo Abe is on the cover of this week's Economist.  Ironically, it is also source of the graphic above.  The Economist is all but endorsing Shinzo Abe's approach to revitalizing Japan, but unless something radical changes with its demographics, it will have too many old people to support with too few workers.  They admit as much in one of the opening paragraphs:

Pulling Japan out of its slump is a huge task. After two lost decades, the country’s nominal GDP is the same as in 1991, while the Nikkei, even after the recent surge, is at barely a third of its peak. Japan’s shrinking workforce is burdened by the cost of a growing number of the elderly. Its society has turned inwards and its companies have lost their innovative edge.

What are the Prime Minister's bold proposals?  More government spending in an economy with an already debt to GDP ratio over 200% and printing money.  And vague "supply side" reforms to be created by five different commissions.  This won't help, but to be fair, nothing will help.  Mr. Abe also proposes to reinvigorate national pride.  Unless this results in more babies; nothing he does will do much good, because his economy lacks workers and the old folks want their benefits.

A stable or growing population is a source of economic growth.  We see this over and over throughout the world.  When native birth rates fall, then immigration is the only other source of population increase, which isn't happening in insular Japan.

Here in the United States, immigration reform is necessary for the same demographic reasons as exists in Japan.  However, pulling in an unskilled immigrant population that is as dependent on the government as the elderly will do us no good.  We need skilled and wealthy immigrants.  The current effort in the Senate does not emphasize this outcome.

What You Should Be Reading

Dean outlines simple and common sense health care reform implemented by one doctor.

Could we finally be getting rid of that miserable hack Holder?

What Obama's Scandals Have in Common

The scandals besetting the administration have this in common, they all spring from a desire to score political victory at all costs.  The administration's belief is that it must maintain a narrative, convenient to the President, facts be damned, rule of law as well.

The scandal of Benghazi grew out of a desire to wish away the inconvenience of the resurgence of al-Qaeda.  Obama was supposed to have won the war on terror by killing bin Laden, the success of terrorists in killing a U.S. ambassador couldn't be admitted to, so some poor schlub who made a third rate video finds himself behind bars.  Some excellent background and the Petraeus connection here.

The IRS targeting of tea party and "patriot" groups came after prominent Democratic politicians and the left wing grass roots led a drumbeat of accusations that the tea party was not a genuine grass roots movement, but a creature of the Koch brothers and anonymous right-wing billionaires.  We were warned that Democrats might push the IRS to target conservative groups in 2010 and look what happened.

Similarly, the massive dragnet against the AP's phone records look like payback for another story that upset the Obama narrative about the war on terror.  In May of the election year, the AP broke a story of an al-Qaeda plot to blow up an airliner on the anniversary of the bin Laden killing.  Bringing to the public's attention the fact that there were negative consequences to the killing of bin Laden and the fact that the terrorists are still active is another inconvenient narrative.

Finally, while not a scandal, the pending furloughs of defense employees was also wholly avoidable.    The administration directed the Defense Department to continue spending at last year's levels, rather than setting aside reserves in case of sequestration.  Allowing any hint that there would be actually be a sequestration might hurt Obama's chances for re-election in northern Virginia home to many defense employees and contractors.  The administration even told contractors that they shouldn't send out the warning notices that their might be layoffs.  Now, furloughs will cause across the board delays to defense programs, which will cascade into increased costs in future years.  Meanwhile, the administration has yet to propose any significant program cuts that would rationalize the defense budget.

What connects these issues is the unlimited greed for power and the bending of every portion of the government to maintain the President's power.  Ironically, the scandals will weaken Obama during his second term.

What You Should Be Reading

DooDoo Economics reports on Microsoft getting into the political discrimination business.  Memo to Bill Gates, the election is over.

Mark Steyn tells you all you need to know about the rot that is Britain, as revealed by the machete murders in Woolwich.  The reaction of the British is more frightening than the heinous crime itself.


Patrick Buchanan explains why the Middle East will stay engulfed in civil war for a while, and why we should stay out of it.  There is precious little the U.S. can do to influence a good outcome there.

What You Should Be Reading - College Grads and Jobs

With the U.S. still not increasing the percentage of those employed, today's reading is about jobs and college graduates.

First, the graph above represents the percent of people employed vs the total population.  Notice how well it's doing during this "recovery," statistically unchanged since it bottomed out during Obama's first term.  If you think its bad news that the percentage of people with jobs never recovered, you're right.  On to some insight on the current situation for college grads.

Kirk McDonald, President of an Ad Tech company in Manhattan, explains why he isn't hiring you, if you are a recent U.S. college grad.

Even CNBC pounces on colleges' failure to disclose how well they prepare graduates for the job market.  If you can't read the full article, here is the money quote:

Indeed, the McKinsey study found that a disturbing one-third of graduates "did not feel college prepared them well for employment."

Leslie Eastman, at College Insurrection, wonders who will take the blame for these grads not getting jobs. 

A repeat, but Walter Russell Mead explains why there will be structural shifts in employment in the coming decade.  This has implications for college grads.  Hint: Don't major in an area that can be outsourced or performed by computers. 

The Cover Up - IRS Harassment of tea party Groups

Here comes the cover up.  Yesterday, I wrote about the IRS illegal targeting tea party groups for harassment.  Today, there are reports of a cover up and much, much earlier knowledge by senior IRS officials.  Hotair has great coverage of the story, but if you don't have time, here is all you need to know, from the AP.

A federal watchdog's upcoming report says senior Internal Revenue Service officials knew agents were targeting tea party groups in 2011. 

The disclosure contradicts public statements by former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, who repeatedly assured Congress that conservative groups were not targeted.

And the left mocks conservatives for buying guns as insurance against eventual government tyranny or anarchy.  How are the IRS' tactics any different from what Chavez did in Venezuela?  Oh, I forgot, he was BFFs with the likes of Sean Penn and Danny Glover, so he couldn't have done anything wrong either.

Hopefully Mr. Shulman can find himself on trial for perjury, since he denied any of this in March 2012.

What You Should Be Reading

Walter Russell Mead looks at the future of work and paints a scary picture.  I actually agree with his conclusions.  Mead is a great writer and thinker in general, I read and listened to a number of his lectures in a strategic planning class I took last year and always found his work insightful.

W.C. Varones explains why San Diego County Taxpayers Association is not to be trusted through the example of the Poway "borrow $100 million - pay back $1 billion bonds."

Mark Steyn, with his usual bite, sums up the utter depravity of Hillary Clinton's response to Behghazi. Many conservatives believe that she would have been a less awful President than Obama. I just think it would have been a different kind of awful.

Weekend Music Chill

This weekend's music starts slow, but is quite rousing. It is very different from what I normally listen to.

An Apology is not Enough - IRS Harassment of tea party Groups

The IRS finally acknowledged what conservative groups have known since early 2012, they were targeted for special scrutiny by the IRS when applying for tax exempt status.  The WSJ is reporting:

A congressional aide familiar with the findings of the inspector general's report said it concludes that tea-party groups were delayed in the application process, and were asked unnecessary questions.

The power of the IRS to ruin the life of the average citizen is well known.  Besides being a clear abuse of power, IRS harassment is a powerful tool to stifle dissent.  Nixon is alleged to have used the IRS to harass those on his "enemies list," to great and well deserved outrage.  Leftists who are the most vocal about Nixon are saying nothing or even saying that the tea party groups deserved the scrutiny because of collective guilt for being front organizations for business interests.  I won't link the Daily Kos articles that so state.

I am not alleging that this effort was directed by the Obama administration.  It matters not why the harassment took place, when it is targeted based on belief it is unconscionable.  The IRS has too much power over our lives.  The complexity of the tax code makes average citizens potential criminals.  The ACA has put an even larger burden the IRS, and at the same time made it more likely that an individual tax return will be out of compliance and subject to audit.

There will be a lot of hoopla about ensuring there is an investigation.  Much will be made of imposing new rules that ensure "fairness."  What is really needed is tax code simplification, across the board, not just in the area of tax exempt organizations.

What You Should Be Reading

DooDooEcon examines this IRS story and other Friday dumping by the administration that tends to escape notice.  

Byron York summarizes how heightened border security proposals are getting killed in Senate committee on 10 Democrats plus Graham and Flake. Lack of adequate border security will kill the usefulness of this bill.  We need to contact our House members.

Why I Froze My Eggs - You Ignored the Wisdom of Ages

I started to read a WSJ article that discussed egg freezing this weekend while visiting my parents.  Ever the optimist, I thought this would be an article about giving married woman more options, which might also reverse our low birthrates.  Instead, the second paragraph revealed the real issue:

Egg freezing stopped the sadness that I was feeling at losing my chance to have the child I had dreamed about my entire life. It soothed my pangs of regret for frittering away my 20s with a man I didn't want to have children with, and for wasting more years in my 30s with a man who wasn't sure he even wanted children. It took away the punishing pressure to seek a new mate and helped me find love again at age 42.

I don't normally wade into the culture wars, leaving that for KT and Leslie (Leslie also posts regularly on College Insurrection).  But I have to ask what inability to assimilate socially useful information (search that phrase) results in a decade and a half of relationship futility with known losers?  Decade 1: you know that you don't want to have children with Dolt #1, despite your claim that having children is your lifelong dream, but hey what's a decade?  Decade 2: Dude can't even decide?  Sorry, a real man will either say "I want to have children and marriage for life; honey you're the one I want to make babies with" or "I don't want kids, I am focused on my own career, or whatever, but I still want the lifelong marriage."  Mister milquetoast does neither and Ms. Egg Freezer can't bring herself to leave this loser.  I didn't read the rest of the article, because this woman had destroyed her credibility in two short paragraphs.  And she is sadly mistaken if she thinks that this all cost her $50,000.  It cost far, far more and sadder still, she is now lying to herself about it.

This is why, in ancient times, like up to a few centuries ago, marriages were arranged by parents or through some other means.  Relationships outside of the context of life long commitment weren't even contemplated.  The lesson to be drawn is that you only date those with whom you see a possibility of marriage.  My oldest son, in his early twenties, gets this.  If you ask him why he hasn't been on that many dates, he will say that he only dates women with whom he intends to have a serious relationship.  By serious, he means potentially leading to marriage.  Why bother otherwise, he says, it just wastes the precious little time that God has given him on this earth.  That American women in their late thirties do not understand this concept eludes my comprehension.  Like all great principles, this one is simple and understandable.

What You Should Be Reading

Dean calls out Chuck Schumer for throwing Obama under the bus, acknowledging that the ACA is going to send your health care bills through the roof.  Relatedly, Megan McArdle analyzes why access to Medicaid doesn't make Oregonians healthier.  

As Professor Mark J. Perry has been pointing out on his blog, Shale oil and gas in North America is THE game changer.  Even Obama can't stop this from benefiting the U.S. in a big way.  The National Interest looks at the national security implications.

Listening to Scott Peters This Week

I had a chance to listen to my Congressman, Scott Peters (CA-52) earlier this week.  I should have posted sooner, but not much of what he said in the 15 minutes was very newsworthy.  He comes across as a bit soft spoken and very reasonable sounding, and frankly a lot more appealing personally than the incumbent he defeated in 2012, Brian Bilbray.

He spoke about his work on the House Armed Services Committee, which is important to San Diego, as well as the Science and Technology committee.  He has urged flexibility in how the Pentagon allocates its funding to allow each service to reduce civilian employee furloughs, which was popular with his audience.  He discussed the increasing importance of defending against cyber attacks, but didn't really cover any new ground.

On the budget, he said that the freshman class was characterized by an attitude of wanting to get a deal done that reduced the budget deficit through some sort of compromise.  He said that lack of progress could be attributed to bad blood and memories of previous battles on both sides of the aisle.  He believes that President Obama has actually called for reasonable compromise with the GOP, specifically that entitlements must be reformed.  However, he characterized that in the context of asking for more tax revenue as part of a larger bargain.  I was also struck by the number of times he referred to the Democrat leadership with the term chain of command.

The audience questions were mostly related to cyber threats, furloughs and the direction of the fiscal year 2014 budget. But as I said, little new ground was plowed.

Debate Over Tsarnaev's Rights

I have seen commentary about whether or not Dzokhar Tsarnaev should have been given his "Miranda Rights" immediately or not.  On one hand, there are those who say that the "public safety" exception where questioning can proceed without Miranda warning where "police officers have an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or public from immediate danger."  Although the Supreme Court has carved out this exception, I think it requires modification to protect all citizen's rights.  If the police have need to invoke the exception, any evidence obtained should not be admissible.  In this way, the police won't be tempted to stretch the limits of the exception to the breaking point, while still giving them the opportunity to act in the interests of public safety.

Liberty Movement Reading

How is the ACA is actually reducing the amount of health insurance the average employee receives from their employer?  Remember when we heard, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it?"

Income inequality is rising screams the left, blaming Chimpy McBush Hitler, but the actual event and time frame goes much farther back.  Curious as to when and why? See W.C. Varones blog.

What You Should NOT Be Reading

I have been posting some links to interesting articles, but I wanted to warn you about wasting your time on certain subjects as well.

• Obama's red line of death in the sand comments relating to possible, but maybe not, Syrian use of chemical weapons.  There is no sense beating up on the President's feckless approach to foreign policy.  There is precious little up side to any action in Syria, even if the regime is using chemical weapons.  It is probably in our interests for this civil war to be a stalemate for a long time, as it eats into resources of Iran and other players in the area.
• Anything else Obama said at his press conference as his second term is essentially over.
• Koch brothers take over of American newspaper outlets. If those fabulously rich conservatives want to waste their money on a dying industry and some fool lefties get tied in knots, precious little changes.
• Breathless commentary from MSM types about gay basketball players coming out.  Most Americans are thinking, of course, since there are guys in every other walk of life.

What do I really care about? Immigration reform that really increases border security would be a nice start.  Work on a real budget that includes entitlement reform and tax simplification so that the economy can grow.

Liberty Movement Reading

Via College Insurrection via Instapundit, Parents Beware of College Borrowing.  The return on investment of college tuition keeps falling as the price keeps rising, parents shouldn't join the legions of borrowers who will be crushed in a debt crisis, especially when you can't discharge college loans in bankruptcy.

Dean keeps us updated on the stench of billions of waste and continued appearances of impropriety of California's high speed choo-choo imbroglio.  Fantasy vs. Reality of this project pictured below.

What You Should Be Reading

I am toying with the idea of an occasional round up of the best analysis and writing I find in the liberty movement and elsewhere.  This is my first foray.

KT Cat notes the explosive situation in Spain.  In my view, Europe is a crisis away from the EU collapsing, they have desperately staved off disaster to date, but for how long?

W.C. Varones notes that the FBI often gets the wrong guy in high profile cases and points with pride to predicting same.  He also sees gold as a buying opportunity.

The Economist notes all of the problems with Europe's Cap and Trade for carbon emissions, but then can't bring themselves to disavow this stupidity.  Meanwhile, shale gas has reduced U.S. CO2 emissions to early 1990s leves, faster than any cap and trade scheme.  (H/T Professor Perry)

George Will points to the historic tragedy of waiving constitutional rights by dissecting the fraud, suppression of evidence and outright lies that led to the Supreme Court upholding Japanese internment in Korematsu v United States, which decision reeks worse than Kelo v New London.

That's all for now.

Taking Issue with the Navy's Vice Chief on Acquisitions Approach

The U-T interviewed Admiral Mark Ferguson, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations (VCNO) on the impacts of sequestration to the Navy, especially the local impact.  With regards to acquisition cut backs, he had this to say:

On investments (in new equipment), we had to reduce quantities. We’re buying less — an E-2D, a P-8, some Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) unmanned aerial vehicles. Those quantities are reduced and we pushed them into the future.

What the VCNO didn't say is that the reduced production rates will have the predictable effect of increasing unit costs.  There are so many GAO reports over two decades that discuss the causal relationship between "low production rates" and higher unit cost that I will not link them here.  The administration has not taken the opportunity to look at acquisition programs in the light of the reduced budget and cut programs that are not performing.  Instead, the so called "salami slice" approach means that every program will bleed a little and underperform.

The Congress and the Department of Defense should look at programs that are likely to be obsolesced by technology and kill them.  It has been widely understood for some time that manned fighter and attack aircraft will be made irrelevant by unmanned aerial vehicles within a decade or so.  Here is what the GAO found in examining the JSF program:

Joint Strike Fighter restructuring continued throughout 2011 and into 2012, adding to cost and schedule. The new program baseline projects total acquisition costs of $395.7 billion, an increase of $117.2 billion (42 percent) from the prior 2007 baseline. Full rate production is now planned for 2019, a delay of 6 years from the 2007 baseline. Unit costs per aircraft have doubled since start of development in 2001. Critical dates for delivering warfighter requirements remain unsettled because of program uncertainties. While the total number of aircraft DOD plans to buy has not changed, it has for 3 straight years reduced near-term procurement quantities, deferring aircraft and costs to future years. Since 2002, the total quantity through 2017 has been reduced by three-fourths, from 1,591 to 365. Affordability is a key challenge–annual acquisition funding needs average about $12.5 billion through 2037 and life-cycle operating and support costs are estimated at $1.1 trillion. DOD has not thoroughly analyzed program impacts should funding expectations be unmet.

The extended quote is necessary, because those kinds of acquisition challenges for a fighter likely to be made obsolete make no sense.  Even if the JSF can marginally outperform unmanned vehicles, the risks of losing pilots to capture or death are going to make the unmanned option very attractive to decision makers, as we are already seeing with drone strikes in Yemen, etc.   There is plenty of savings available from killing one big program, that can help make more necessary programs healthy or can be used to meet budget targets.

This is the effect of the continued expansion of entitlements and rising debt, we have to make tough and risk decisions with regards to acquisition programs.  Without making tough choices we will end up wasting huge amounts of money on a wide variety of systems, but none will be procured in the quantity or quality needed.

The other area where acquisition reform is needed is in the procurement of of information technology for the services.  The Department of Defense would be the 17th largest economy in the world, were it a separate country.  Both the Congress and the leaders of the DoD insist on running it as if it were a business when it comes to IT systems.  But no one is able to scale IT across the diversity of business lines that make up the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force.  Big multinational firms that have multiple business lines don't try to unify their financials into single systems, they perform a roll up from separate feeder systems.  The poverty of the DoD's approach is illustrated by the recent Air Force decision to cancel an Enterprise Resource Planning project after blowing through $1 billion.  Rather than forcing the services to have a financial system that meets Sarbanes-Oxley standards, the Congress should just ensure that the services can track expenses (costs) and the value of capital equipment.  There is no need for further level of detail, because there is no need to assure investors of the ongoing value of the firm.

The insistence on killing large programs could lead to greater discipline in coupling programs to strategic need and actually produce better defense.  Predictably, the administration and the Congress will avoid strategic choices and waste your tax dollars.

There is a lesson in here that relates to government control of health care, but I will let the reader draw their own conclusions today.

More Analysis of the San Diego TMD Hotel Tax

This is a follow up to yesterday's post.  Over on the sdrostra.com blog, the City Attorney responded to my criticism of Judge Denton's ruling.  He made some cogent points.  First, he affirms the ruling, stating that because the Tourism Management District (TMD) tax is a business-based assessment, only the hotels themselves have standing to sue. The business based assessment district is an exception in Proposition 26 to the definition of a tax.  One of the exceptions is:

A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege.

As such, the hotel occupant is not directly assessed the tax. The fact that hotels charge it as a "pass through" seems misleading, but a guest would have to sue the hotel itself for false advertising or on some other legal theory, according to Goldsmith.  I haven't seen a San Diego hotel bill since the passage of the tax, so I don't know if the hotels are calling this out as a separate tax.

However, he doesn't appear to be a fan of the tax itself.  In a legal opinion prepared for the city council in June, 2012, he makes the following suggestion:

Due to the Risks Associated with Assessment Districts to the City, this Office
Suggests that Interested Property Owners and Businesses Consider Forming
Private Associations to Implement the Improvements Activities Desired

He explains that "The current legal landscape with respect to both business-based and property-based assessment districts is treacherous. The passage of Prop 26 has left the legality of business-based assessments in limbo until it is clarified by legislation or litigation. . . A potential solution to this dilemma is for the businesses or property owners to form their own private association and “assess” each of the members for the benefit conferred. The association could also consider recording instruments that would act as a lien on their businesses or property to ensure payment and participation."

I appreciate his willingness to patiently argue his position with me.  Closing question: Why haven't the hoteliers themselves used this option to reduce the risk to the business operations of the TMD?  Perhaps some students with connections in the hospitality industry could ferret out the answer.

San Diego Hotel Tax Update

In a ruling that certainly disappoints, Judge Steven Denton has dismissed the lawsuit of Mel Shapiro challenging the 2% hotel tax that supports the San Diego Tourism Management District (TMD).  The suit was dismissed on the technical grounds that Mr. Shapiro lacked standing to file the suit because he was not an affected hotel owner.  From the U-T:

Shapiro, the judge concluded, “does not contend he falls into such a category of persons affected by the assessment/tax. Therefore, (he) does not have a direct interest for the purposes of a validation action.”
That legal argument, if it is sustained in a final ruling, could lead to dismissal of the other two suits.
“Under this ruling, only the hotels would be able to challenge the assessment because they pay the money,” said [City Attorney Jan] Goldsmith. “It would set a strong precedent for the other two suits.”

I agree that only those with standing should be able to sue, even when I am sympathetic to the desired outcome of the plaintiff.  However, the City Attorney's comments imply that a San Diego resident who stayed in a local hotel and was forced to pay the tax would lack standing.  This seems to violate common sense.  As I posted previously, the tax is collected under the color of authority of the city government, the city clerk certified the hotelier's election result.  If so, why can't a private citizen who had to pay the tax, challenge the ruling?

Hopefully, an affected hotel that was not in favor of the TMD tax will challenge the it.  The TMD tax needs to get in front of the California Supreme Court.  The consequences of the murky legal character of the tax can only hurt the city, if they are not resolved.  To be clear, I remain opposed based on arguments presented previously.  I sincerely hope for a lawsuit that will bring clarity to the matter, because there is still risk from a lawsuit that is ruled to have standing.

Islamic Terrorist Brought to Justice - America Rises to the Challenge

This afternoon, I prayed earnestly that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would be captured alive.  I thank God that it was so.  I hope that his capture and the subsequent information we find will shed light on how the tragedy at the Boston Marathon came to be and help us prevent further attacks.  I am proud to be an American, where even terrorist murderers are captured alive, when we are able.  One of the state police spokesman was very matter of fact today, saying, we always attempt to capture suspects alive, with an air that suggested the reporter who questioned that was somewhat ignorant.

Once again, ordinary Americans also rose to the occasion in aiding the capture of a terrorist.  The quick thinking of the man on Franklin St. who called 911 to report that a bloodied man was in his boat was the key action that aided in his capture.

It is clear that the bombings were the work of Islamic terrorists.  I thought this was going to be true, but wanted some confirmation. We have to face the unpleasant and uncomfortable fact that even if a very small minority of Muslims are willing to martyr themselves by attacking the West and America, we are going to have a long and bloody effort ahead of us.  Muslims complain that these people are a small minority who tarnish the name of Islam.  Fair enough.  Perhaps the Islamic community should monitor for the signs of radicalization and aid authorities when they are aware of likely terror activity or cells.  Preaching hate, jihad and murder should be unacceptable to all Americans, including Muslims.  Why does preaching that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman provoke outrage on the left, but not the preaching of jihad and hatred for Western values?

I oppose the death penalty, with two exceptions, treason and espionage.  The reason for those exceptions is that those crimes are an assault on the country as a whole.*  Under the doctrine of inherent right of self-defense, nations have the right to hang those found guilty because we are defending ourselves against a foreign threat when doing so, just as we may kill enemy soldiers on the battlefield.  As horrible as other crimes may be, I oppose the death penalty for them because our society is capable of self defense in locking such persons away.  But treason and espionage are acts of war against the nation itself.  If found guilty, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be facing the death penalty.  Perhaps he might bargain for a lesser sentence by providing our government with needed information.

This is a great country, where we rise to the occasion during such times.  Even the President, who frequently angers me with his public statements, rose to the occasion with an excellent summary.  I applaud the brevity and clarity of his remarks.  It is a reminder that we are more united than we may give ourselves credit for.







* For a complete treatment of the morality of the death penalty, see the Evangelium Vitae of Pope John Paul II on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life.  I quote from section 56 below:

This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence". Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. 

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent 

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person".

In my view, the crimes of treason and espionage are such threats to the state as to be an existential threat of the state's ability to provide for the public order and people's safety.  This is my reasoning for the exception.

Weekend Music

This weekend's music is a reminder that we have seen much, much tougher times and far worse threats to the Republic than the random violence of a few deluded maniacs.

He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored.  Indeed.

Potential for Good in the Senate Immigration Bill

But we have some questions too.  First, why the heck does the dang thing have to be over 800 pages?  My brother rightly excoriated the ACA when it was being passed for its Byzantine complexity.  This bill is only slightly shorter.

A round up of key features pulled from various news sources:

• Provisional residency and a long, long term path to citizenship for those who were here illegally prior to January 1, 2012.  This is my least favorite part. We are going to make citizens out of those broke the law.  I am against deportations, and we need some kind of normalization, but this strikes at the rule of law. There will be a background check and a $500 fine and a fifteen year path, so I can probably live with this.  Also the DREAMers legal status will be codified into law.  
• More money for border security, with specific metrics regarding apprehensions.  I like this a lot more.  Stopping illegal border crossers simultaneously is humane and upholds the rule of law.  I believe that Mexico's declining birth rate will also help with this issue.  There are also provisions to monitor for those overstaying their visas, another key source of illegal immigration.  The downside is that e-Verify is being resurrected and mandated.  I find it ironic that mandate the use of e-Verify got Arizona sued by the feds.

• Expanded H-1B visas and streamlining, hooray, but with new rules about wage rates, boo. A new program for agricultural workers will be put into place, as well as other unskilled labor.  All of this will be accompanied by more federal bureaucracy to monitor labor conditions and wages and whatever.  I am happy for the increased immigration.  I am unhappy about the attendant bureaucracy and inevitable vote buying and corruption that will follow.  There is also provisions for granting visas to foreign born college students getting advanced degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM). We need more such immigrants to grow our economy.
• The bill will make it easier for spouses, children and parents to be united.  Seems good as well.  

Overall my first impression is that this is good, even if compromises were made.  I would hope that Republicans fight to reduce the number of new bureaucrats that have to be hired and streamline some of the processes that allow employers to bring in foreign workers.

I knew immigration was a done deal a couple of weeks ago when my son's monthly newsletter from UCFW-135 started touting the benefits of immigration reform (sorry, can't find the online newsletter link).  Big labor had always been the big stumbling block in my view.  When I knew they were on board, I knew a deal could get done.  

Conservatives should be in favor of immigration reform, because of our belief in limited government.  Businesses should be able to hire labor from where ever they can find it.  We must maintain the sovereignty of our borders, but overall we should have a free market in labor.  Adam Ozimek and Sean Rust make this point:

Lost in such pessimism [about immigration reform] is the usual conservative optimism about the benefits of when the government gets out of the way and lets people work and trade together in free markets. Gone is the optimism about how competition helps create a dynamic and growing economy, benefits consumers, and makes all of us, even the employees of Mom & Pop groceries, better off in the long-run. Many Republicans forget that trade and free markets are not a zero sum game; that immigrants pay taxes, buy goods, innovate, start companies, and grow the size of our economic pie. There's empirical evidence backing all this up, but Republicans are often drawn to the most pessimistic studies and interpret all of the evidence in light of strong prior beliefs about a zero sum economy where competition is a bad thing.

It indeed seems an inconsistency to oppose immigration based on static economic models when we object to the use of those models when it comes to determining the benefits of reduced tax rates. Increased legal immigration will expand our economy.  Now, if Obama would just open up federal lands for fracking, we might get a recovery in spite of the ACA and regulatory overload of this administration.

First Signs of Stupidity

I posted yesterday about the futility of our security measures.  Right on cue, the city of Indianapolis and the Indian Pacers are doing the following: (H/T Reason.com)

The Indiana Pacers, after consulting with the Department of Homeland Security, will remove all trash cans outside of Bankers Life Fieldhouse for all events, said Greg Schenkel, vice president of public relations for the Pacers.

This will reduce the chance of terrorism at a Pacers game by exactly zero.  Meanwhile, you have to believe that those trashcans served a purpose.  Will a build up of trash obscure a small package of poison powder that would have been noticed and contained if a trashcan had been present?  Gestures of futility just inconvenience ourselves and do nothing to fight terrorism.  

Bruce Schneier has a nice article about fighting terrorism based on movie plots and the last attack.

Terrorists don't care if they blow up subways, buses, stadiums, theaters, restaurants, nightclubs, schools, churches, crowded markets or busy intersections. Reasonable arguments can be made that some targets are more attractive than others: airplanes because a small bomb can result in the death of everyone aboard, monuments because of their national significance, national events because of television coverage, and transportation because most people commute daily. But the United States is a big country; we can't defend everything.

Boston Tragedy - What Will Be Our Response?

I am disinclined to write at length about the tragedy at the Boston Massacre, because little relevant is know except the number of dead, 3, and injured 140+.  There have been various reports about suspects, none of them reliable.  For the dead, my heartfelt sympathies to their loved ones.  It is hard to imagine the heart-break of having someone you love die in this gruesome way on Patriots' Day, especially the parents of the eight year old who was among the dead.  The injuries to those who survived will also be mind-numbing.  Our prayers go to the injured as well, many are suffering grievously.

I worry also about what self-inflicted stupidity will result from the tragedy that will further erode our rights without adding to our real security.  Early reports suggested that the bombs might have been in back packs.  Will we be checking young mother's diaper bags when they take their babies to the beach as our next move to ensure safety.  Will we ban backpacks altogether, or at least at any public gathering?

After 9-11, we started to strip down at the airport and take off our shoes and generally suffer humiliation just to use air transport.  Who can argue that we are safer as a result?  As a people, we need to stop believing that the we can be made perfectly safe and that our safety is solely the province of the government.  Private firms and private citizens can and will take action without violating the rights of others.  Airline safety could be vastly improved by merely reinforcing the cockpit door and arming pilots, for example, to prevent hijackings.  The shoe bomber was stopped by passengers.

I hope for a more sensible debate about security when the details of this tragedy are revealed.  Ceding more of our personal liberty shouldn't be on offer.

The Real Crime Is What's Legal - Gifts to Staffers

The U-T reports that legislative staffers in Sacramento are the recipients of significant largesse from lobbyists last year.  What a shock.  It turns out the legal limit for Sacramento staffers is $420, twenty times greater than the $20 limit imposed on federal employees.

Groups that spent the most on lobbying last year provided legislative aides with about $69,500 in gifts. A U-T Watchdog review showed that the same groups — from companies to associations and unions — bestowed roughly $70,500 in gifts to lawmakers.

And who gives the gifts?

Many of the top gift-givers are in highly regulated industries, among them AT&T, Sempra Energy, Edison International and Comcast. AT&T and its affiliates spent more than $27,000 on tickets for aides, including passes to Monster Jam, WWE Raw and Disney on Ice. The figure was nearly seven times what the company spent on lawmaker gifts.

Of course they're in regulated industries.  Just more reason to have government regulate fewer areas of our life, and grant fewer monopolies requiring regulation.  I don't blame the unions and companies for giving gifts within legal limits.  Working the legislative system to protect one's interests is necessary in a day and age when calls for more regulation follow the discovery of every new societal ill, whether its the fact that the poor lack high def televisions or hospitals with private rooms for rich patients provide with food with higher nutritional value.  By God, we are going to find a legislative and regulatory cure for these ills, by taxing cable users to subsidize high def tv giveaways or regulating a consistent nutritional content in hospital meals, complete with inspectors and food tasters.

Government is too big.  This is just one more symptom.  Government's size distracts it from its main mission of securing our rights by protecting us and running the courts.  It's size also is a drag on the economy.  I work for the federal government and while well intentioned, everything we do is rife with red tape that makes us inefficient.  We should do the minimum we are constitutionally mandated to do.  The red tape will never go away, because there is always someone ready to use "streamlined" processes to steal your tax dollars.  We need to embarrass the left over every suggestion that government can do anything efficiently, because it can't.

Let the Means Testing Begin - Sebelius Proposes Medicare Changes

I have always felt that means testing for Medicare and Social Security was inevitable.  Liberal groups have opposed the idea because means testing changes the entitlement programs from covert wealth redistribution schemes to overt wealth redistribution schemes. Liberals believe being overt, i.e. "transparent" about the wealth transfer would undermine popular support.  To which I reply, "Great, who cares?"  The programs are going bankrupt, popular support or otherwise, making them less important to the social fabric of the middle class, especially upper middle class will allow for some sensible discussion of further reform.  A recent letter to the NYTimes captures the liberal thinking quite well.

Social Security is our most successful antipoverty program, more successful than any welfare grants. Medicare is our most successful medical care program, more successful than Medicaid. In each instance the program available without means-testing works better, without stigma and with general approval and political support. Means-testing turns applicants into potentially fraudulent beggars for charity.
. . .
Entitlements without means-testing unite us into one country. Means-testing divides us into rich and poor, each resenting the other. Our tax system is a much more effective mechanism to deal with disparities in wealth and income.

The letter was responding to an Op-Ed piece by Yuval Levin discussing how the two programs might be means tested.  While I quibble with some of the particulars, I don't see any other long term solutions.

Right on cue, the administration's budget for HHS contains the following gem:

President Barack Obama’s plan to raise Medicare premiums for upper-income seniors would create five new income brackets to squeeze more revenue for the government from the top tiers of retirees, the administration revealed Friday.. . .“Means testing” has been part of Medicare since the George W. Bush administration, but ramping it up is bound to stir controversy. 

The plan itself is complicated. The bottom line is not: more money for the government. 

Obama’s new budget calls for raising $50 billion over 10 years by increasing monthly “income-related” premiums for outpatient and prescription drug coverage. The comparable number last year was $28 billion over the decade.

Inside the details of the plan are increases in premiums and a freeze on adjusting income brackets for inflation.  It is interesting to me only that the administration is floating this idea with little fanfare.  House Budget Chair Paul Ryan is asking Kathleen Sebelius for more details of the plan.  My hope is that this gets more publicity, so the nation starts to realize that we can really only afford to pay for medicare for the poor as part of a welfare program.

What Has Your Government Screwed Up Today?

Government action in a Republic is subject to politics and bureaucracy, by definition.  It should attempt nothing that can be performed by the private sector, because politics and bureaucratic rules will cause its efforts to fail.

This news was filled with examples last week.

First, the City of El Cajon is out $600K over a loan made to a brewery as part of an effort to revitalize the city center.  Hey, why not a brewery?  Maybe because San Diego already has over 30 breweries, almost Belgianesque.  Now the brewery is closing after being unable to emerge from bankruptcy.  In the comments section of the linked article, Stephen Meadows, the owner, is called a con man by someone who appears to be his brother.

Meanwhile, at the Federal level, Fisker Automotive, which took a $529 million loan in 2009 to build luxury electric cars in Finland, laid off about three quarters of its work force as it "worked through financial difficulties" like no buyers for its cars and preparing for bankruptcy.  To be fair, it did not receive all of the proceeds from that loan, but the company does owe the $129 million to the DOE.

Various provisions of the Affordable Care Act are unlikely to be implemented on time, proving that even if we had read the bill, we still wouldn't know what was in it.  This week? The federal government's health insurance marketplace for small businesses, SHOP, will be delayed, with no reported date of delivery.

The reason for the delay is likely that the government "underestimated a logistical challenge inherent in getting these exchanges up and running," said Bob Graboyes, senior fellow, health care, at the National Federation of Independent Business, a small-business lobbying group in Washington that opposes the law. 

"The information-technology needs required to get these up and running are staggering," he said. "They didn't leave enough time and they underestimated the extent of the task."

I am an IT Manager for the federal government, and I know that even the simplest system is complex to deliver, because government regulation requires reasonable assurances about system security and performance.  But this is a reason to let the private sector do this job.  Further, the government's IT will always fall short for a system like this.  In the private sector, the business has a vested interest in understanding the translation of complex business processes into IT functional requirements.  In fact, business engagement with the IT team is one of the key predictors of IT project success.  However, the federal government is acting as a middleman in this application.  There is no one who really has a business interest in the successful outcome of the system.  I doubt if they will ever build a reasonable IT system.  The alternative will be a very expensive hybrid manual system.

Even though I loathe the idea of the government running an exchange at all, a better solution would be to bid out the business function of running the marketplace and give a cut of the action to the winning bidder.  Then there would be a business with a vested interest in assessing cost, schedule and performance trade-offs necessary to deliver a reasonable system.  It's cheaper to give a business a cut of the action than the billions that will be wasted on a system that is never really going to work.

Putting a bow on this; if only microbreweries needed complex IT systems, maybe I could go to work in my ideal industry in the private sector.

Weekend Music Chill

Hiatus from blogging for school, but I hope to start up again this weekend.  I wanted to get some good music to kick it off, in the Indie Folk genre, which reminds me of old school country.  Here are the Decemberists with Down By The Water

Here are The Lumineers with Ho Hey




Yeah, Misha, you're my sweetheart.