Miscellany: 11/30/10

Quote of the Day

The nobler sort of man emphasizes the good qualities in others, and does not accentuate the bad. The inferior does the reverse.
Confucius

A Surprising Note about Federal IT Pay

I remember when I worked as a contractor at NASA-Houston (Clear Lake City) years ago (shuttle robotic arm related software programs), one of the federal workers I worked with was a NASA version of Corporal Radar O'Reilly of the M*A*S*H series. (Radar was known for his horse-trading prowess in terms of scrounging up whatever the doctors needed.) However, other federal workers were less motivated; I saw some of them going to the gym in the early afternoon and others spent time socializing around water coolers.

I've had a long-standing interest in IT managerial issues, including J. Daniel Couger's research on programmer motivation and IBM programmer productivity studies. The literature shows considerable variability in performance levels (e.g., an able programmer can accomplish more than a small team of average programmers), and that shows up in the government. I have posted a number of my experiences
in the past, but let me briefly summarize a few: one federal manager came to me to access how Oracle software licenses were deployed across the installation, despite the fact I had no information beyond personnel granted Oracle support accounts.

In another case, a federal project manager, who had pushed an upgrade project for a certain Oracle application, was upset when I completed an application server installation; she considered continuing Microsoft document setups by administrative staff to be a success criterion. In fact, the Oracle upgrade no longer supported custom print drivers (which the document setups accommodated) and instead generated standard Adobe pdf and other output types. The project manager had been falsely told by the prime contractors (whom had previously failed the installation twice on their own) that they had upgraded the application prior to my arrival and they had failed to brief her on the nature of the upgrade as described, but she decided to lash out at my "incompetence" (in front of her prime contractors) for failing to preserve what she considered the salient criterion of maintaining her administrative staff's busy work in preparing documents. I also had to mentor the prime contractor's inexperienced developer how to adapt the application for the new application server.

There are several other incidents I could mention, but I think I've made my point. However, one of the myths I had been led to believe was that federal IT personnel made significantly less than in the private sector. Apparently that's not true:

An InformationWeek salary survey earlier this year of 20,492 IT pros (931 of whom worked in federal government) showed that, on average, government IT workers earn about 10% more than their private sector colleagues. The survey found that federal IT managers earn an average of $121,000 a year, as opposed to $110,000 in all industries surveyed, and that federal IT staffers earn $94,000 a year in the government, as opposed to $85,000 overall.

Drugs and Public Safety: A New Federal Study

I side with libertarians on a number of issues, but there are some obvious limitations to individual rights: for example, I don't have the right to make unsupported damaging claims about another human being, I don't have the right to incite a panic, etc. I can't distribute unsafe pharmaceuticals or ill-prepared food. Similarly, if I drive a public school bus or my car, I cannot drive in a suboptimal state, whether we are talking about lack of sleep or in an impaired state.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration just released its first study involving deceased drivers in fatal accidents. Granted, there are limitations to the study; only about two-thirds of relevant drivers were tested for drugs and the number of drugs tested for vary across states (not to mention, unlike alcohol, the lack of various diagnostic standards of impairment), but nevertheless we see a troubling trend increasing from 13% in 2005 to 18% in 2009 of the detection of drugs; prescribed drugs, illicit drugs, and over-the-counter medications were aggregated for the analysis. It is very difficult to keep people from doing harm to themselves or others in a free country. But what I do know is that it won't be resolved by lowering the barrier to entry or promoting its social acceptability.

A Compromise on the Bush Taxes?

One of the frustrating things of watching today's talking point dance between the Dems and the GOP at the White House is that the Dems are approaching the matter from an ideological versus practical perspective. Warren Buffett, who I've sharply criticized, asks the right question, but draws the wrong conclusion. In pointing out that he pays maybe 17% of his overall income in taxes but his secretary might top 30% on a more limited income, Buffett is justifying increasing the marginal rate to 39.6%. The more salient question is: why is Buffett paying 17% versus 35% of his income? In particular, this seems to reflect the lower tax rate of capital gains. Buffett could be making more of a convincing argument to suggest, say, more of a flat tax or making the tax treatment of capital gains more progressive (e.g., capping the amount of gains eligible for a particular tax rate). Or, for example, the Democrats could agree to maintain favorable tax treatment of small business/entrepreneurial/venture capital income.

Instead, the Democrats are playing a high-stakes game of chicken, as if a 13% increase in the top tax rate, which might pull in up to $70B a year, is material relative to $1T-plus deficits.

Sen. Lindsey Graham: No GOP Votes for a National Sales Tax? Thumbs DOWN!

On the best Sunday morning talk show, Fox News Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham said that there was not a single GOP vote for a national sales tax. He did not elaborate, but I suspect the talking point behind that statement is a Republican fear that a national sales tax would essentially allow the progressive Dems to lock in their super-spending policy initiatives and take away the pressure from fiscal responsibility and discipline. However, I disagree with this point of view.

In comparatively analyzing the American economy, it is clear, in my judgment, that (1) we are deficient in saving and have spent beyond our means, both on aggregate personal and government levels, (2) our government has made unrealistic, unsustainable promises, especially to senior citizens and employees, and (3) we have had dysfunctional government policies that promote moral hazard and do not vest many citizens in frugal government operations or (indirectly through insurance) health care decisions.

But we have to face some facts. First, we have a $13.8T debt that needs to be serviced.  The interest payments will soon crowd out defense or domestic expenditures; this is something we can't simply punt to another Congress or Administration. Second, we are pulling in only just north of $2T in revenues while spending over $3T. The only way we are going to grow revenues long-term is through pro-growth policies, which will expand the tax base and amount of individuals and companies. We have to be realistic in terms of business and employment gains in the short term; income and jobs were boosted by massive liquidity during the real estate bubble. A national consumption tax (something, by the way, implemented by many players in the global economy) would provide more balance in taxation, more incentive to save and invest, and would have relatively modest effects on overall consumption.

Political Humor

A few originals:

• President Obama is very upset over WikiLeaks. He just found out what Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were saying behind his back...
• President Obama got a split lip over the holiday weekend. The Republicans had given him an early Christmas present, a pair of scissors, as a symbolic way of urging him to cut his budget. Obama had never used a budget cutter before and hurt himself...
• Pollster Scott Rasmussen got a gift subscription to the Dead Fish of the Month Club. The donor is anonymous, but the first selection was an Asian carp.

Musical Interlude: Holiday Tunes

Dean Martin, "Baby, It's Cold Outside". (I prefer the version from the film Elf, between Leon Redbone and Zooey Deschanel, but Youtube doesn't allow embedding of relevant videos. Click here.)

Miscellany: 11/29/10

Quote of the Day

The important thing is this: to be able at any moment to sacrifice what we are for what we could become.
Charles Du Bos

Federal Pay Freeze? The Devil Is In the Details: Half a Thumb Up...

How can one rain on President Obama's parade when he finally takes a first step towards addressing an unsustainable federal payroll? Let me count the ways:

• the pay freeze is for only two years and doesn't affect a large number of federal workers: the military, personnel costs in the legislative and judicial branches of environment, defense contractors, postal employees
• it doesn't include things like bonuses (why, after Obama demagogued against the mischaracterized AIG bonuses, is Obama considering any bonuses?) or step-increases
• it'll only trim up to $5B in projected savings while we've been running $1.3T or higher deficits
• it doesn't include any staffing cuts or pay cuts for those positions paid significantly above comparable positions in the private sector

Any faithful reader of this blog knows I have repeatedly criticized Obama's policy of picking winners and losers in the market place or gimmicky initiatives that are more public relations than actual benefits--remember last years $17B and $100M budget cuts? Remember how with much fanfare he released certain offshore tracks for oil drilling and exploration--which ended up being only about 5% of promising drilling areas?

I get constantly annoyed by politicians (particularly progressive ones) pandering to the politically correct occupations, e.g., military, teachers, policemen, firemen, etc. I do not question and am appreciative of the contribution made by hard-working people in these valuable occupations. Two words: equal protection. We already valuate these services at some level; I'm not going to comment on how fair those salaries are, other than to point out that presumably if a soldier's compensation was inadequate, the military would have a difficult time staffing its available positions. Clearly no amount of money can compensate a mother or widow whom has lost a loved one in the service of his country. But are we to expect if the rest of federal workers get by without increased compensation why are all these other groups of employees "more equal"?

Warmed-Over Sunday Talk Soup

Christiane Amanpour is a disaster at ABC This Week; I am already missing Jake Tapper and George Stephanopoulos (hardly conservatives). This Sunday was the latest installment of the liberal mainstream media once again trying to argue it's just and fair to increase taxes only on the top 2% of compensated workers. Amanpour had 3 guests/couple: Warren Buffett, Bill and Melinda Gates, and Ted Turner.  Among other things, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates was questioned about the failure of his dad's initiative to introduce a new Washington state income tax for high earners, with proceeds dedicated to certain services; the fact that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer opposed the initiative made for a predictable question from Amanpour.

Warren Buffett does all the predictable orthodox Democratic talking points: the increasing gap between the rich and the poor, the payment of payroll taxes by lower-income people, the higher relative proportion of taxes paid by lower-income people, the fact that the US economy grew at Clinton's tax rates and even higher.

Let me briefly respond to these arguments. I think that there's a "good old boy" network operating across boardrooms that can be addressed through some stockholder reforms or independent compensation analysts. But there are a number of factors which have contributed to slow wage growth among the lower middle class, including but not restricted to increased globalization and commoditization of low-skill labor and counterproductive public policy, including huge deficits crowding out private investment and high business tax rates. Second, payroll taxes as discussed by Buffett and others are deliberately misleading, because payroll taxes don't support government services; they are investments for future retirement disbursements.  The fact is nearly half of the general public pay nearly zero federal taxes (maybe a few minor excise taxes). Third, why is relative proportion of expenses to income relevant? You can also argue food, utilities, and automobile expenses are relatively higher percentages of compensation as well.  Finally, the issue has to do with economic growth: all things being equal, higher taxes dampens growth. Growth is what rises all boats.

It's plainly obvious that Buffett's positions are based not on business and economics, but on conventional political ideology. That becomes apparent when he sounded like Chicken Little ("the sky is falling") on the idea that former Fed Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan mentioned: letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire, when you consider almost $3T over the next decade goes to sustaining the "lower 98%" tax cuts.

Let me make myself clear: I believe in a pro-business growth strategy; I'm concerned about uncompetitive high business income tax brackets and successful small business owners in those brackets, about to be increased.

But I also doubt that the Congress is going to close a $1.3T deficit without some serious spending cuts and/or tax increases; now I would prefer to have a consumption tax instead of an income tax increase. If we can't wring $1.3T out of the budget, we need some compensatory revenue. But as a deficit hawk, if the Democrats want to play class warfare, in one fell swoop, I can chop that $1.3T deficit by $400B. Now to the "Chicken Little" Republicans who think if we revert ALL the tax cuts, it will be an economic doomsday, I think shoring up the national income statement and balance sheet will have some compensatory pro-growth effect.

Political Humor

A few originals:

• Sarah Palin, when asked whether she used a ghost writer to write her new bestselling book America By Heart, denied it. Sarah asserted that she had lunch with the real writer just last week...
• Palin's latest book, America By Heart, is considered a battle plan for rallying conservatives to the Presidency in 2012. On amazon.com, Palin's new book trails George W. Bush's #1 Decision Points, not to mention the late author Mark Twain's autobiography and new books by the Rolling Stones' Keith Richards,  comedian Jon Stewart, Glenn Beck, and Barack Obama's book for children.

Musical Interlude: Holiday Tunes

Connie Francis, "Baby's First Christmas"

Miscellany: 11/28/10

Quote of the Day

I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.
Thomas Jefferson

How the Grinch Stole a Young Boy's Ear

Aidan Sullivan, a 9-year-old third grader who is the oldest child in a New York City firefighter's family, suffers from a congenital disease that left the right side of his head deformed, including no right ear. One can imagine how difficult it must be growing up as a child whom looks different from other kids. Aidan has already undergone 10 surgeries, but this one, which would form a right ear using cartilage from his ribs, is not covered by insurance, and two fundraisers had raised $8K to defray related medical expenses, when the donation box was stolen when it was briefly set down and backs were turned. Showing, once again, the fundamental goodness characteristic of our fellow Americans, others have stepped forward to replace the stolen money. I like Aidan's spunkiness; his open message to the unidentified thief is: "I'm going to kick your butt!"



Bipartisan Policy Center Deficit Reduction Plan: Thumbs UP: A Good Start

The BPC was co-founded by 4 former Senate Majority Leaders: 2 Democrat (Mitchell (ME) and Daschle (SD)) and 2 Republican (Baker (TN) and Dole (KS)). A second deficit reduction plan, this one independent of President Obama, was introduced by former Republican Senator Domenici (NM) and Democrat Alice Rivlin (former CBO and Clinton Administration budget director). There are several elements of note:

• a simpler, lower, two income tax rate bracket schema
• a payroll tax holiday, subsequently displaced by a national sales tax
• lower corporate tax bracket
• elimination of many idiosyncratic credits, deductions with a transformation of two of the most popular (mortgage and charitable giving)
• changes to social security include more contributions from the affluent, reduction of some benefits on all but the lowest income
• changes to Medicaid include more (means-tested) deductibles, reductions of some benefits
• $1T reductions of military and domestic spending (separately) over the coming decade

My brief take: I like the income tax simplification and lower income tax rates (particularly for business); I've been consistently calling for a more balanced tax system, including consumption taxes; I've also been calling for more vesting of consumers in health care payments. If there is going to be a stimulus, I like the idea of balancing it across employers and employees, e.g., through payroll taxes.

However, I have some criticisms to make. First, I'm hesitant about the wisdom of short-term tax cuts; I think it results in noise on the demand size and introduces end-point game playing. Second, I don't like the idea of making the entitlements even more progressive. In essence, in guaranteeing more benefits for lower-income seniors, we are describing more of a welfare net, and so those extra benefits should come from general revenues. Third, I don't like the fact this group is not looking at delaying the retirement age. Finally, I think the defense and domestic spending cuts will be easier said than done. I would have liked to see greater elaboration for some things, like the earlier plan which included things like pay freezes and staffing cutbacks. I think there should be a ceiling on certain types of deductions (e.g., mortgage). I also think everyone should contribute a portion of income, even the less affluent to ensure everyone has some stake in efficient government spending.

Political Humor

A few originals:

• President Obama got a split lip playing a game of pick-up basketball when Rey Decerega, director of programs for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, elbowed him in the act of shooting. No doubt it was a Freudian slip of the elbow over immigration policy... I expect that all future basketball opponents will now undergo a screening of their elbow pads, sweatbands, shoes, and trunks, just like pro wrestlers. That probably doesn't bother the players as much as openly gay Secret Service agents using the open-palm sliding motion during the pat-down.
• Sarah Palin is still smarting for her "North Korean allies" gaffe and responded with a Facebook message highlighting well-known Obama gaffes. No word on what Palin's reaction was to another beauty pageant veteran, former Miss Universe Alicia Machado's recent tweet: "Tonight I want to ask you to join me in a prayer for peace, that these attacks between the Chinas [i.e., vs. Koreas] do not make our situation worse." I'm sure Palin's discussion of the two-China policy did NOT make reference to the relative merits of bone china and porcelain.

Musical Interlude: Holiday Tunes. One of the greatest novelty songs...

Spike Jones, "All I Want For Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth"

Miscellany: 11/27/10

Quote of the Day

The hardest job kids face today is learning good manners without seeing any.
Fred Astaire

UAW Makes Out Like a Bandit...

Shareholders in General Motors at the time of the bankruptcy got nothing (including any participation in Government Motor's recent IPO at $33/share). The federal government has spent about $50B, bondholders held about $27B, and UAW about $20B in GM debt. The original settlement terms gave the UAW trust about a 17.5% in common stock, $6.5B in preferred stock, and a $2B note; the bondholders got 10% in stock. The UAW sold a third of its shares for $3.4B, and by some estimates UAW breaks even on the deal in the share price rises to $36. In contrast, under the most conservative estimates, share prices would need to increase by roughly 50% for the US taxpayer to break even.

It would be nearly impossible to find a more egregious example of special interest influence than this corrupt arrangement which pays labor unions,  whose unsustainable compensation packages hastened the day of reckoning, ahead of investors whom risked their own money and the federal taxpayer whose money was spent by the Obama Administration without their knowledge or consent.

Saturday Night Live TSA Spoof



The European Debt Crisis Continues

Irish banks had one of the same problems experienced by many American banks during the real estate bubble and subsequent correction: they loaned money at the top of the market and found themselves underwater on the loans. Economy-crushing interest rates are driven up by dwindling capital. The government assured bondholders that if the banks failed they would make the bondholders whole. But already interest rates on troubled nations' (Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Portugal) bonds are nearly triple that of Germany.

In the aftermath of the earlier Greek bailout, the EU/IMF set up a $1T bailout fund; in order to get access to that fund, EU countries need to get their financial house in order, e.g., deficit at less than 3% GDP, austerity programs which are resulting in angry protests. There is increasing pressure to force bondholders to write down some of the loans in question. There is also some evidence pressure is being applied to the next countries in line, most probably Portugal and Spain, to accept aid to contain the crisis.

The big fear is that $1T won't be enough to contain the crisis, and they will come back to the stronger EU countries, principally Germany, France, and the Netherlands (all with some austerity plans of their own), to double the size of the funds. Credit default swaps (against default on a bond) are way up in these countries as well.

Sheila Bair, chair of the FDIC, wrote an op-ed entitled "Will the Next Financial Crisis Start in Washington" (thumbs UP!), arguing federal spending is unsustainable and pointing out that two-thirds of Treasury bonds are expiring within 5 years and may require a significant risk premium for new lending. It is the time to start doing politically unpopular things, like benefit cuts, tax increases, etc. to get our house in order before the market forces austerity.

Political Humor

On Glenn Beck's radio show yesterday, Sarah Palin accidentally said, "We have to stand with our North Korean allies." Then Palin was like, "Wait. North Korea's the one in the south, right?" - Jimmy Fallon

[And Sarah thought her husband Todd was bad with directions...No word on whether Sarah has approved Kim Jong-Un's friend request on Facebook...]

President Obama said yesterday that GM's comeback would be the success story of this recession. GM said it wanted to thank those who made its recovery possible: Toyota's brakes, Toyota's steering, Toyota's accelerator... - Jimmy Fallon

[Nothing speaks success in the free enterprise system quite like a President firing the CEO of Government Motors, socializing company expenses and debt, ripping off bondholders to pay off political chits to crony union interests, frittering away millions of dollars the US Treasury just doesn't have on pushing-on-a-string Cash for Clunkers programs, and using taxpayer money to promote its offerings against Ford, which didn't need and refused a government bailout. Remember how GM hyped paying off its government loans--with what was TARP money? Just like all the jobs the Obama Administration misleadingly claims to have "created" or "saved" while squandering over a third of annual federal revenues on an ineffectual "stimulus" bill...]

Musical Interlude: Holiday Tunes

Augie Rios, "¿Dónde Está Santa Claus?". This song was in a beloved (and all but worn out) Christmas hit compilation my folks bought; it brings back some nice family moments.

Miscellany: 11/26/10

Quote of the Day

Sticks in a bundle are unbreakable.
African proverb

Tea Party and the Future: Vetting Candidates? Yes   Expand Agenda? No

I saw an interesting Fox News segment on the Tea Party that focused on the prominent failures of multiple high-profile candidates, in particular, as explicitly named during the segment, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell, and Sharron Angle, and on the question of expanding the Tea Party's agenda beyond limited government and fiscal responsibility.

The interviewee conceded the obvious: that the Tea Party (Express) did not do due diligence in researching the personal backgrounds behind the referenced candidates. The rejections were due to failed messengers, not the message. The gist of the discussion was that the Tea Party needed to learn from its missed opportunities during the 2010 campaign.

One could only hope that if and when the Tea Party looks at potential candidates against Obama, they will realize that Sarah Palin may talk the talk, but she doesn't walk the walk. She comes with baggage, just like the failed Senate candidates, she runs worse than major contenders like Romney and Huckabee against Obama, and despite some populist moves like her misleading account of selling the $2.7M state plane on eBay (in fact, although it was listed on eBay, it didn't sell there, but in a subsequent transaction at a $600K loss) and letting go a domestic staff at the mansion (but later would be forced to reimburse the state for other family member utilization of state-paid transportation), she presided over huge spending increases by the Alaskan state legislature and signed into law significant tax increases on energy companies. Sarah Palin is the epitome of  political spin, and her personal hero is, of all people, Hillary Clinton, whom has less than a 10% lifetime rating by the American Conservative Union.

Then there's the rumored attempt to add to the Tea Party agenda, particularly social conservatism issues and immigration. My advice to the Tea Party: don't allow the media conservatives (i.e., Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, and Ingraham, among others) dilute your limited-government/fiscal discipline message with unnecessarily divisive messages. The Tea Party has all it can handle in terms of streamlining government; it doesn't need litmus-test issues alienating key groups in the coalition (including centrist Democrats, independents and moderate Republicans).

SNL Skit: 2010 Public Employee of the Year Satire:  Thumbs UP!



An Example of Airport Security Abusive Behavior (Not TSA Personnel): Thumbs DOWN!

Dr. Phil McGraw, a syndicated TV psychologist, discusses (with accompanying incident video outtakes) the experience of a female business traveler whom got a concussion from local airport police whom decided that the woman wasn't sufficiently complying with the TSA screening process (yielding a small bottle of contact lens solution) and threw her to the ground, causing a concussion. (The woman claimed that she told the TSA personnel they could simply dispose the contact liquid bottle and denied provoking the authorities in any way.) In my opinion, this incident constituted criminal battery and unconscionable abuse of authority; I see no evidence in the video of any of the victim's behavior which justified this kind of response (even if she said something disagreeable, which we can't tell, a professional officer should be able to keep his emotions in check).

Sarah "I Quit" Palin Goes After the "Blue Blood" Bushes

Sarah Palin once again demonstrated her polarizing personality, not taking very well former First Lady Barbara Bush's suggestion in a recent Larry King interview that "I think she's very happy in Alaska, and I hope she'll stay there." This was a thinly-veiled, politely worded suggestion that Sarah Palin abandon her all-but-certain quixotic attempt to run for President.

This is public plea for Mike Huckabee to announce for the Presidency, if for no other reason than to save the GOP from a landslide loss to Barack Obama; the polls show that Huckabee draws votes, particularly from social conservatives, whom would likely otherwise go to Palin.

I heard one Dennis Miller show listener discuss his support for Sarah Palin, saying in effect that the moderate Republicans and others would have no choice if the two principal rivals are Obama and Palin: "What are they going to do: vote for Obama?" No, that's never going to happen. But I GUARANTEE a race between Obama and Palin opens up an independent candidacy (e.g., NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg) which would be significantly more potent than Perot's 1992 run or John B. Anderson's 1980 run: I like businessman/3-term Bloomberg's chances against an incompetent Obama and an even more incompetent Palin.

However, Sarah Palin's rebuke against the Bushes, calling them 'blue bloods' (no doubt meant to convey the image of an  elitist moderate Republican multiple-generation dynasty) along with a thinly-veiled attack on George W. Bush's economic policies, may come back to haunt her (I would love to hear Rove's response to the Palin critique). As if Palin didn't have enough on her plate with her recent gaffe reference to rogue nation North Korea as "our allies"... [It could also be a petty slap back at Bush for reports saying that Bush attributes McCain's loss to the selection of Sarah Palin. Where some people see spunk and the ability to stand up for herself, I see a thin-skinned person whom sweats the small stuff and lacks judgment and class in dealing with adversity. There's absolutely no question that the Palin selection did not help in the battleground states, but I attribute the loss more to the economic tsunami and McCain's erratic performance during the tsunami, in particular the foolhardy suspension of his campaign.]

George W. Bush is very popular with the GOP base, especially military and social conservatives, and his own favorable ratings have shown a resurgence, rivaling Obama's flagging ratings. Retaining the Bush tax cuts has been a major conservative initiative since Bush left office. Jeb Bush, who has gotten considerable attention for his own possible Presidential ambitions (which he rejects for 2012),  also won 2 terms as governor to an influential Southern state and Tea Party favorite Senator-elect Marco Rubio is Jeb's protégé.  For Sarah Palin to diss the Bush clan of highly likable, competent public sector executives shows an astonishing lack of respect and political judgment.

Is Our Bill of Rights "Words, Just Words"?

One step you can take is to sign the petition at http://flywithdignity.org.

Courtesy of David Vincent Wolf

Photo Courtesy of Max Trombly

Photo Courtesy of Max Trombly

Political Humor

In her new book, Sarah Palin says she once gave up chocolate for an entire year just to prove she could do it. Still think she's not qualified to be President? - Jimmy Fallon

[She once managed to spend almost two-thirds of a single term as Alaska's governor just to prove she could do it. Still think she's qualified to be President?]

An original:

• Remember when Chris Matthews mentioned after an Obama speech,"My, I felt this thrill going up my leg"? He still gets that thrill--going through airport security...

Musical Interlude: Holiday Tunes

Royal Guardsman, "Snoopy vs. The Red Baron". One of my family's favorite Christmas albums...

Miscellany: 11/25/10 Happy Thanksgiving!

"The First Thanksgiving" (1914), by Jennie Augusta Brownscombe (1850-1936)

 oil on canvas, Pilgrim Hall Museum, Plymouth, Massachusetts.

Quote of the Day

He left us and we rejoiced; then an even more unbearable person came.
Arabic proverb


Feature Video: The History of Thanksgiving



TSA's Department of Propaganda Paid For By the Taxpayer?

Let me make myself clear: the federal government serves the people; the people do not serve the federal government. Except for Administration officials who are directly elected or confirmed by the Congress, the agencies should be policy-neutral; for example, we do not let active-duty military or civil service personnel to participate publicly in the political process because they have a vested interest in policy decisions.

I have no doubt that TSA personnel, whom have to follow what their supervisors require, sometimes have to deal with policy resistance, and no doubt personnel on the front line can find themselves experiencing the displeasure of the public (although ugly threats to arrest or fine people standing up for their unalienable rights are beneath contempt). One would expect government employees to act professionally, patiently and responsibly versus knee-jerk thuggish threats and intimidation. Of course, no one believes that the employees carrying out controversial procedures are responsible for them. (One would hope that TSA personnel would rather resign as a matter of conscience versus carry out a process blatantly unconstitutional, but unfortunately one would be mistaken.)

The target of my rant is a self-congratulatory blog post, under the title "Opt Out Turns Into Opt In" (still up as of late morning Thanksgiving). I don't mind the TSA alerting travelers and their destination contacts about any undue delays at the airport; this post, however, seems unduly provocative, rubbing in the fact that a rumored attempt to make the heaviest travel day of the year (Thanksgiving Eve) slow to a crawl by demanding more time-consuming safety procedures didn't occur. What's even more annoying and out of line is a long list of newspapers or media outlets reporting the same. It wasn't enough simply for TSA to report based on its own direct knowledge; they seemed to go out of their way to marginalize the pro-Constitution opposition.

It is not surprising that someone who bought his or her tickets weeks before the policy was revised didn't want to inconvenience other travelers or their own families. No faithful reader doubts where I stand on this issue; I've written multiple commentaries against the revised TSA policy. But I did not promote the opt-out in my posts. I think there are basically two ways to approach this issue: change policy through legislation (or a new President in 2012) and/or challenge the policy in the federal courts. [However, there are a number of reports (e.g., here) that suggest that the full-body scanners, in fact, were barely used in many airports yesterday.]

Would I make an issue of it at the airport? Probably not--it's not worth the aggravation. As a professor, I've sometimes had students ask the same procedural question multiple times during a lecture. I don't know why they didn't hear my original response--maybe they weren't paying attention or they came late to class. I just felt it was a lot easier to answer the question directly in 5 seconds or so than to read the student the riot act for 2 or 3 minutes of valuable lecture time. You would be surprised (maybe not) at how many people will simply respond to a specific question by saying they already answered that question, without additional comment.

Self-Serving Snapshot Posted on Federal Government Blog

Let me briefly object to the moronic sign in the above snapshot; when will parents stop using their kids as props for their political standpoint? Tell me, since when is being "lucky" an effective policy? Almost all the issues the TSA is responding to are based on international security lapses, not domestic. Tell me, how many American children, old people, business travelers, or Christian clergymen have, even once over decades of air travel, boarded with shoe bombs, had chemicals sewn into underwear or explosives hidden in brassieres, etc.? Do you honestly believe that a TSA agent, doing the equivalent of an unwarranted search on a person, terrorizing small children, violating an adult's privacy, is keeping your family safe? Why? Because a TSA agent is feeling up a 70-year-old grandmother? How does that make you safer?

Are there ever guarantees in life? No. But there's something terribly wrong when people start getting paranoid about their fellow citizens at the airport and are willing to subjugate everybody else to a process that almost never results in a salient arrest. It brings up a point I mentioned before about my 8 years in teaching university classes and catching more students cheating than the rest of my colleagues put together. When I brought the students in, almost invariably the only thing they wanted to know is how I caught them. Their motivation was obvious: they would simply revise their schemes to work around my heuristics. Let me give an example: consider the fact that one of the salient facts that emerged in a past incident was that the terrorist had purchased a one-way ticket and hadn't checked luggage. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the terrorist group probably subsequently changed its tactics by ensuring the purchase of roundtrips and at least one piece of luggage checked.

Irish Austerity Measures: Will America Follow Suit?

In order to get EU/IEF funding of a massive, necessary failout, Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen, widely expected to resign ahead of new elections in several weeks, has put together a blend of tax increases, budget cuts and other policies in an attempt to cut the deficit to with 3% of GDP, including:

• lower transfer payments (e.g., welfare, pensions, etc.)
• higher property taxes (property; widened income tax bands with lower bracket floors)
• higher excise taxes (sales, water, tuition and fees, etc.)
• government personnel cuts
• lowered minimum wage

Notably, Ireland has thus far refused to raise its 12.5% business profit tax rate (which has attracted over 600 US businesses among others, responsible for about 20% of Irish GDP).

All of these things, in fact, are policy items I would strongly recommend at the American federal level, with the exception (and this is something the progressives just don't get) being a steep cut in the highest business tax rate. Obama just can't understand why US companies want to invest internationally--why, it must be because of domestic tax breaks--not the fact that domestic corporate tax rates are higher than almost any other country than Japan (and we know how well that's working for them...)

Take Nancy Pelosi and entitlement reform. She won't budge on raising retirement ages. The fact is that lifetimes are lengthening, which means that more money will be paid out post-retirement. But workers and their employers only paid so much into social security, not enough to cover expected payouts. That extra money is essentially borrowed from younger generations. Is it fair for older generations raid from the lockbox for younger ones? I submit that it is not. We cannot continue to borrow from subsequent generations; that is unsustainable. We have to raise payroll taxes, lower payments, and/or raise retirement age. But the only thing Pelosi and the rest of the class warfare warriors want to discuss is having higher-income people pick up the tax burden (and/or losing their own pensions); in short, that is not a sustainable solution.

Political Humor

"A new study says that radiation from Wi-Fi is hurting trees. Environmentalists are calling it the worst assault on trees since George W. Bush and Sarah Palin became authors." - Jimmy Fallon

[Al Gore is having a bad year. First came ClimateGate. Then came the separation from his wife Tipper and the "sex crazed poodle" kerfuffle. Now the "Father of the Internet" is being held responsible for damage to the forests...]

"Ratings for the second episode of Palin’s TV show have gone way down, falling 40 percent. So I guess she and President Obama do have something in common after all." - Jimmy Kimmel

[No doubt Sarah Palin, who used to watch "Dallas", is looking for ideas to boost her ratings. I think they may have to move up the cliffhanger episode, "Who Shot Todd?" Dick Cheney, of course, is ruled out because of his health issues. Las Vegas oddsmakers are making Palin's former brother-in-law, state trooper Mike "Tase the Boy" Wooten, the prohibitive favorite.]

Some originals:

• President Obama pardoned the Thanksgiving turkey. I think the President gave him an unusual nickname: 'Marc Rich'. By sheer coincidence, the California Dems just received their biggest donation to date for the 2012 campaign.
• Sarah Palin demonstrated that Joe Biden has nothing on her when it comes to committing gaffes by saying on a Glenn Beck radio show that we need by our "traditional ally", North Korea. She quickly corrected herself, adding that she would stand by South Carolina and South Dakota against their northern adversaries.

TSA Bumper Sticker of the Day



Musical Interlude: Holiday Tunes. (Note: my ongoing series Instrumentals/One-Hit Wonders is going into hiatus, resuming after New Year's.)

Air Supply, "In the Eyes of a Child". Is it possible for Air Supply to sing a song I don't like? I love the video accompanying the song; the song brings out the wondrous promise of a child's birth, like glorious one of Christ Jesus.

Miscellany: 11/24/10

Quote of the Day

Let no man imagine that he has no influence. 
Whoever he may be, 
and wherever he may be placed,
the man who thinks becomes a light and a power.
Henry George

DREAM Act? An Alternative Proposal

Harry Reid and President Obama have not been able/willing to deliver on immigration reform, even with super-majorities. But let's be realistic; I am a strong pro-immigration reformer, and the Democrats, with the exception of certain high tech allies, are not really in favor of what I call "immigration reform", i.e., fixing a broken temporary worker program, ending chained immigration (relatives get preference, regardless of merit), setting more merit-based criteria (in-demand professional/entrepreneurial knowledge and skills, academic credentials, working knowledge of English, etc.), revising (larger) quotas for larger countries, etc. They are instead focused on unauthorized Latinos, primarily low-skilled workers and their families.

The DREAM Act is an interim step to a comprehensive immigration reform bill which would decide a "final status" for the 11 million or so unauthorized Latino visitors. Many law-and-order conservatives are vehemently opposed to immigration reform, noting that the previous 1986 immigration reform act was supposed to have ended the flood of unauthorized visitors but instead government seems to have looked the other way while unscrupulous employers hire these workers under the table or ignore warning signs of forged documents (like California GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman was alleged to have done with her maid). In their view, granting "amnesty" (in fact, granting those whom crossed the border illegally a path to US citizenship in exchange for what is basically seen as a mere slap on the wrists) simply reinforces the benefits of working around legal entry and sets the stage for another amnesty down the road, say another 20-25 years from now. And so they've demanded a necessary sealing of the border to end, for once and for all, this cycle of illegal entry before deciding a "final status".

The DREAM act would allow foreign-born children of unauthorized visiting workers a path to citizenship if they volunteer to serve in the military or attend college for a specified number of years. (There are certain qualifications regarding a suitably-long residency in US pre-college schools, no criminal record, etc.) Advocates argue that dependent children should not be held responsible for the actions of their parents; opponents counter that this is little more than a back door to amnesty which would set a bad precedent.

On balance, I oppose the act as it currently stands because it is unfair to international students whom follow the rules but are not provided the same path to citizenship and I believe that immigration reform should be decided in a concurrent, comprehensive, not piecemeal fashion. In no case should other family members be able to piggyback off a dependent's separate path to citizenship; it sets a morally hazardous, unconscionable precedent of unauthorized parents using their own children to establish legal residency. However, I am more open to the path of citizenship for foreign young people whom choose to serve in the US military (and in particular at risk assignments, e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan).

I think a reasonable compromise might be to also allow current resident college-age students to apply for student visa programs through their native country. Furthermore, I am supportive of a path to citizenship for ALL foreign-born students whom complete their programs in certain in-demand scientific, technical or professional areas (e.g., science, engineering, math, technology, nursing and medical doctors).

A Season of Giving: Some Comments

It is a very challenging global economic environment, and we should not forget the growing numbers of people in need. In deciding where to distribute one's limited resources for charitable purposes, it is important to be hard-nosed in assessing the worthiness of the charity: how much of the money donated actually spent on relevant goods and services? How transparent are the charity's business operations, and are its financial statements fairly stated?

I personally recommend considering the Better Business Bureau's resources.  They have a set of 20 standards for charitable accountability; interested persons can check out appraisals for a large number of charities here. The BBB has a Wise Giving Alliance Accredited Charities program list and a related voluntary National Charity Seal program list.

I'm personally intrigued by charities that focus on what I refer as "starter dough" ("teach a man to fish") concept: providing small loans to help those, particularly in developing countries, to start or expand their own businesses. Some organizations, such as FINCA, offer microfinance programs, e.g., offering a female small business owner a loan. I leave to the reader to read some of the remarkable stories, like that of Florence Nabukenya from Uganda. Florence, a mother of 3, took into her one-bedroom home 4 orphaned nephews and nieces whose parents had died of HIV/AIDS. She used her microcap loan with fish wholesalers to buy in bulk and  increase the operating margins at her fledgling fish market store; today she also owns a small shop and farm, and future plans include the purchase of some land on which to build a retail building yielding rental income for her retirement.

I will point out that FINCA has been criticized by BBB for not meeting 3 of its 20 standards, which have to do with a relative proportion of compensated personnel, its new compliance with international versus (more rigorous) American accounting standards, and insufficiently transparent expense statements. I would encourage FINCA to address the BBB's concerns and leave it to the reader to make his own judgment. I do like the story this charity has to say; it stands in stark contrast to the progressives in the Congress and the White House whom have done little but to foster an unhealthy dependence on government handouts.

Political Humor

"The turkey that President Obama will pardon this year for Thanksgiving will come from California. The spokesman for the turkey said it doesn't need a pardon, it needs a job." –Conan O'Brien

[Well, it was going to get a pardon until it got into Michelle Obama's vegetable garden. The family could tell it was a California turkey--it had a strong smoky flavor to it... Obama nicknamed the bird "Joe Biden".]


"We've patted you down twice, Congressman Frank. Why don't you just go to your office now?" -- Ann Coulter, speculating on what if members of Congress had to go through TSA-like screens on the way to their offices

[No doubt Congressman Frank would also do the full-image scanner and take a second image, just in case the first got his bad side. He would then order an extra set of prints for his boyfriend...]

An original:

• The TSA has picked up a few tips from how the USPS does business. For a small additional fee, you can get your package stamped "First Class/Handle With Care" and it will get to your destination faster. 

TSA Bumper Sticker of the Day



Musical Interlude: Instrumentals/One-Hit Wonders

Herb Alpert & the Tijuana Brass, "Lonely Bull" This song reminds me of the time I was in high school, and the family went into Nuevo Laredo to see our first bullfights. The stadium charged two prices: one for the sunny side, the other for the shady. [One of the first albums I ever purchased was Herb Alpert & the Tijuana Brass' Greatest Hits; highly recommended!]

Miscellany: 11/23/10

Quote of the Day

To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science.
Albert Einstein

Political Potpourri

• The GOP is now ahead 242-191 in the House race as CA-20 was called for the Democrat and NY-25 went to the Republican (as expected). Two remaining seats are uncalled: CA-11 and NY-1. The lead in NY-1 flipped over absentee ballots, so it is likely both remaining seats will be awarded to the Democrats.
• Joe "Sore Loser" Miller, the unsuccessful GOP candidate for the US Senate from Alaska, is refusing to concede despite losing by over 10,000 votes--not even close. He is trying to grasp at straws in a pathetic attempt to save face. A federal judge issued a temporary injunction against Alaska's election board's certification of results; Miller is attempting to strike any trivial variation of Lisa Murkowski's name as a disqualified vote and he also wants a hand recount of machine-scored ballots (as a computer professional who also used mark-sense forms for some exams as a teacher, I can attest that Miller's position for a recount of tabulated results is without merit whatsoever). I've made the other point several times--voting is not a spelling contest. Those 8000 or so voters who thought they had voted for Lisa Murkowski but made a slight typo should not be disenfranchised. I have to believe that the federal judge is simply bending over backwards to give Miller all due consideration, so Miller will not be able to appeal his decision. Voting processes as specified by a state legislature cannot override a citizen's fundamental right to have his vote counted. In my judgment, the issue is more about integrity and character--write-ins in almost any election are negligible. In this particular election, they won a clear plurality of the vote, and there was only one well-known write-in candidate, the incumbent senator. If any federal judge ultimately ruled in Miller's behalf, it would not be upheld on appeal; the evidence of voter intent is compelling.

IDB Editorial, Strip Search USA: Thumbs UP!

This is what our forefathers fought for? I don't care if two-thirds of the American public are willing to impose strip-or-molest on the rest of their fellow Americans in violation of an individual's unalienable rights... IDBE is spot on; I'll quote a few items that got my attention:

Last year an assassin attempting to murder Prince Mohammed bin Nayef of Saudi Arabia blew himself up with a bomb stuck where suppositories normally go. Luckily, he didn't try to board an American aircraft this Thanksgiving or all air travelers would probably have to bend over and cough...Flight attendant and breast cancer survivor Cathy Bossi [during her pat-down was told by] the TSA agent, "You'll need to show me that." So [Bossi] removed her [breast] prosthesis for the agent...In the "enhanced pat-down," a TSA agent broke the seal [of retired teacher Thomas Sawyer's urostomy], and it leaked over Sawyer's body and clothing...Then there were the 100 Indiana National Guardsmen returning from duty in Afghanistan who were forced to exit their plane during a stop.

Bill O'Reilly: Stereotyping College Professors?

To any regular readers of the blog, I've been an occasional critic of Bill O'Reilly, primarily on his populist topics like oil speculation and the Ground Zero mosque. I'm going to pick on his Monday talking points memo "Trusting President Obama". (O'Reilly's podcasts are available for a limited time period following their original broadcast via iTunes and other media: click here.) I guarantee that Bill O'Reilly probably would never guess the point where I took issue with him.

O'Reilly is talking about the current kerfuffle about the full-body scanners/intimate pat-downs and basically talks about a couple of points I've been stressing over the past week, including risk-based selections and random sampling procedures. But then he starts talking about Obama's communication patterns, which at times tends towards the abstract and long-winded. He then basically categorizes Obama as your typical college professor, clueless about how the real world operates, living in a world of abstractions and ideals.

I'm particularly sensitive about that stereotype because it was a common bias I had to battle in transitioning from academia in the early 1990's; I've mentioned in past posts that I had to hide my PhD--or even remove it from my resume, on the advice of professional recruiters. In fact, I was curious why the UH Alumni Association was referencing my MBA instead of my PhD in mailings; I was told that it was common practice by most program graduates, that the MBA was more marketable. Most of my fellow PhD candidates (at least the American ones) had significant professional IT experience, a number of them as a mid-level IT manager or consultant; I myself was in my third year as a programmer/analyst when I started working on my MBA, taking a couple of courses a semester. As a professor, I kept up with a variety of industry publications (subscribing to some of them like Computerworld); I was an early user of Microsoft Windows and Word (before Windows 3.0 was introduced, never mind Office).

I don't think I have a thin skin, but as someone who taught full-time as a college professor for 5 years (and another 3 as a  UH graduate teaching fellow), I think O'Reilly is way off-base. I never had a professor anything like Obama. Are some professors long-winded and have problems connecting with their audience? Yes, but you could make the same point about certain clergymen, medical doctors, and other professionals. I'm speaking as someone whom has read literally thousands of research or professional articles and taken courses which would be mind-numbingly tedious to most people.

I've listened or read dozens of Obama's speeches and writings, and I don't particularly find them "interesting", i.e., thought-provoking or novel. There's a lot of noise--you have to filter out the repetitious, predictable political spin, the scapegoating and defensiveness, the platitudinous insights, the condescending rhetoric, etc. The general impression I get at times is that he is trying to impress other people with how intelligent he is by making arcane distinctions, using technical jargon and rattling off a rehearsed series of facts and statistics.

I realize that some readers may think my posts themselves can be rather inaccessible and long-winded (my mom has occasionally used the word "boring"); my dissertation chairman used to tease that it took me 20 minutes just to introduce myself. I do think there are distinctive differences in my style: I work on the readability and organization of my commentaries; I'm more interested in ideas, not political spin or fingerpointing; I seriously look at opposing positions; I'm decisive--I don't equivocate about my perspective on controversial issues

I am not here advising Barack Obama on his "communication problem", e.g., giving over 30 speeches on health care, and the public is still opposed. But what's fascinating is, for someone who prides himself himself as knowing symbolism, he didn't understand the significance of being seen playing golf during the oil spill process; he was caught flat-footed on the AIG bonus issue; while private sector employees are living with at risk jobs, reduced hours or lower pay/benefits, Obama is hiring public sector employees with virtually tenured employment, total compensation averaging over $100K with pay increases.

I'm writing a book of essays on my political perspectives; one of them looks at the usability of government products and services. This is more of a paradigm shift in conceptualizing things. I gave an example several weeks ago of Governor Mitch Daniels whom focused like a laser on the Indiana DMV--in particular, improving atrocious wait times. Similar considerations occur in other aspects of how the government touches the lives of citizens. The most obvious example is the current TSA kerfuffle; how could Obama and his administration possibly not anticipate the public uproar over touching a taxpayer's private areas and/or see him or her naked? But you can also look at numerous unpleasant developments after the health bill was signed into law.

In fact, one of the big issues is jobs, but how did Obama address it? What are businesses looking at? Employee benefits; government regulations and paperwork; uncertain policies (e.g., tax); high tax rates compared to the rest of the world, etc. Until Obama learns to conceptualize from the position of a business owner or a job seeker (whom might be willing to work for less than minimum wage if it's the difference in getting a job), he'll continue to have communication problems.

Political Humor

"Vice President Joe Biden turned 68 years old. President Obama was so excited. He asked Biden to attend the party for him." –David Letterman

[Joe Biden is eligible for social security. The Republicans are planning a big retirement party for him when he turns 70.]

An original:

• Great Britain has announced the engagement of Prince William and Kate Middleton. The wedding is scheduled at Westminister Abbey on April 29, and the wedding day will be a national holiday. No doubt American federal workers have noticed and want Barack and Michelle's wedding anniversary to be made into a national holiday.

Musical Interlude: Instrumentals/One-Hit Wonders

Climax, "Precious and Few". On my all-time favorite list and one of the first songs I ever chose to license. As a bonus, I'm embedding one of my favorite related medleys by the Lettermen (I love their harmonies and material; their greatest hits LP is one of the first albums I ever bought).

Miscellany: 11/22/10

Quote of the Day
It is a great ability to be able to conceal one's ability.
Francois de La Rochefoucauld

Sunday Talk Soup

Brent Bozell of conservative-leaning Media Research Center does a good job of exposing liberal media bias on the national networks without any help. Not that it's that hard; a prominent liberal talking point is that Senate Minority Leader McConnell's top goal is to make Obama a one-term President. It is often accompanied by related conspiracy talking points that the Republicans are opposing Obama across the board, having no constructive alternative agenda, and the opposition is based on a personal, not substantive basis.

In fact, the reality is quite different. First of all, McConnell is not stupid; the American people will be making the decision on whether to reelect Obama. That decision is beyond McConnell's control. Second, McConnell is really making a statement to the GOP base, trying to set expectations: the Minority Leader does not set the Senate agenda, and there's not much he can do to overcome a Presidential veto with the Democratic majority. There are only a few things McConnell and the GOP House can do to dismantle the damage done by the spendthrift, empire-building progressive Democrats and President under a super-majority; they can try to put the beast on a diet, but more importantly, they can also impose an end to Obama's Big Government agenda.

There were a couple of threads during Sunday morning talk soup I wanted to address. First, Bob Schieffer had a conversation with outgoing House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (soon to be Minority Whip). One of the topics that came up was the Bush tax extension. How sick and tired are my readers of hearing some hypocritical, disingenuous Democrat moan about the $700B price tag for maintaining the current top two tax brackets. Let's put this in perspective: the $700B is an estimate for another TEN YEARS of maintaining  the status quo. That's $70B per year--versus about $532B paid in taxes, a large percentage of just over $2T in overall tax revenues. When you take into account probably at least 1 out of 3 in the top brackets report more than half their income from small businesses, just a subset of job creators in that area, is it particularly  a wise strategy to provide less of an incentive to grow their businesses and thus create new jobs? Those newly employed people pay taxes, too...

So when Steny Hoyer starts talking about borrowing from the Chinese to pay for the equivalent of $70B out of a $1.3T deficit, give me a break. What about the $3.1T over the next 10 years to sustain the rest of the Bush tax cuts that Obama and the Congressional Democrats want? And why is it that money is strictly added to the deficit versus any other federal revenues? Money is fungible. I see once again Warren Buffett is talking about other rich people; a Republican on one of the talk shows yesterday agreed that Warren Buffett should pay more taxes. What a hypocrite! Buffett doesn't have to pay the lowest taxes possible; the US Treasury is willing to accept more. Incidentally, it's clear the reason he pays maybe 17% is because long-term capital gains are taxed at around 15%.

Bob Schieffer has been moaning ever since he got John Boehner to admit if the Democrats tried to box him in with a middle-class-tax-cut-only, he might settle for half a loaf.  So he was pumping Hoyer on possible workarounds to the GOP "holding the middle class tax cuts hostage"--e.g., bumping up the income threshold for the higher rates (e.g., to $500K or $1M), or making the high tax brackets temp (but making the lower tax brackets permanent). This type of "compromise" is really no compromise at all. Every formulation Schieffer specified leaves class warfare, an ideological stand, in place. If you split the groups getting the perm tax hike, that means you have to press for the expiring ones in a separate bill later: does the GOP stand a realistic chance of passing a separate bill to make the others permanent 2 to 5 years from now? Talk about a Democrat's dream legislation to run against and demagogue! The GOP has to insist on an all-or-nothing: make the cuts permanent across the board or temporary across the board.  But what is absolutely required is a pro-growth agenda absent during the last 4 years: you are not going to get more business and job growth by punishing success. Since many businesses do planning over, say, a 5-year period, the GOP should compromise, suggesting  extending all tax cuts for the next 5 years.

The second issue I want to raise is Christiane Amanpour's This Week. Ms. Amanpour quite clearly, by any objective analysis, assumed a pro-START Treaty (see below) stance that verged on propaganda. There was absolutely no discussion of the limitations or disagreements; for example, Jim DeMint, a prominent critic, was not included in the discussion. If there was any discussion, the tacit (or even explicit) assumption was the opposition was politically motivated and ignorant of the basic facts. Amanpour stressed backing of many European countries, a list of high ranking officials from prior administrations (going back to Kissinger) and appealed (like the Administration) to Lugar (R-IN), allegedly "the" expert Republican. The Obama Administration's talking points were largely adopted in full, without critical appraisal. (I should point out that George Will was on the broadcast, but he only had limited input in a slanted panel discussion.)

New START Treaty Confirmation in Lame-Duck Session? 
Thumbs DOWN!

First of all, I'm not saying I am against the new START treaty, but Obama's attempt to try to pass a major treaty within a lame-duck session of Congress (before 6 net new Republicans senators are sworn in) is blatantly political; he's worried he won't win the two-thirds vote in the new Senate. I also don't like the high pressure sales pitch he's using (remember he pulled the same thing with last year's stimulus bill?) and the Chicken Little consequences of not passing the treaty ASAP.

The last thing we need is to pass a critical treaty in haste. The fact that Obama has worked towards unilateral deep cuts in defense R&D and related spending, if anything, leads one to question whether he made the best, most effective bargain in terms of the strategic long-term interests of the US--and/or whether he's simply putting lipstick on a pig, with hyped, dubious verification procedures. There are also some serious issues about missile defense that go beyond the Russian/American balance of nuclear weapons. Russians, of course, are wary that a super-effective American defense shield would call into question their own security and ability to respond in a crisis. Americans are worried about the proliferation of long-range missiles being developed by Iran and North Korea (this weekend's revelation about North Korea having built a nuclear enrichment facility didn't ease these concerns), not to mention a possible nuclear race in the Middle East by countries seeking to encounter Iran's developments and other countries (of course, China, but others as well).

Let me summarize some of Jim DeMint's (R-SC) reservations: (1) America lets Russia lock into a large advantage of tactical nuclear weapons; (2) missile defense, particularly against the types of threats posed by rogue countries, would be adversely affected; (3) Russia is able to continue upgrading its nuclear technology while under Obama, modernizing has been severely hampered; (4) Russia has a poor record of treaty compliance.

Heritage has published, among other critiques, an independent assessment: it argues in effect that the claimed 30% warhead reduction is misleading, with an apple vs. oranges comparison with less restrictive language and bomber counting in the new treaty; the same liberalized language occurs with respect to launcher limits; some limits require unilateral reductions for the US, but no compensatory reduction for Russia; and the new treaty terms limit conventional strategic warheads (which Russia wants) but not tactical nuclear.

Political Humor

In Portugal, Obama pointed out that his dog, Bo, is a Portuguese water dog. That’s a good way to make friends — “Hey, you know who’s just like you people? My dog.” - Jimmy Fallon

[In response, Portuguese prime minister José Sócrates noted that his dog, Michelle, is an American pit bull terrier.]

An original:

• Sarah Palin earlier this month took aim at Federal Reserve chairman Ben "Helicopter" Bernanke, demanding that he "cease and desist" his $600B bond purchase program under quantitative easing, aimed at lowering longer-term interest rates and thus boosting the economy. This comes from a woman whom thinks that M3 is a new Irish rock band...

Musical Interlude: Instrumentals/One-Hit Wonders

Bill Conti, "Gonna Fly Now (Theme From 'Rocky')"

Miscellany: 11/21/10

Quote of the Day
Compromise: 
The art of dividing a cake in such a way that everybody believes he got the biggest piece. 
Sherry Rothfield

Financial Quote of the Week: T Boone Pickens: 
Thumbs UP!

No, I will probably not by shares of GM. I remember what happened to the equity holders there one time. I’d buy Ford.

Pickens was referencing the morally corrupt manner in which Obama Administration subordinated bondholder interests during bankruptcy proceedings to lower-standing union claims. There was used car company salesman POTUS Barack Obama last week, giving his cream puff sales pitch, arguing how his bailouts of Government Motors would eventually be vindicated. I have driven GM cars most of my adult life; I might well have continued if a properly-chastened GM, stripped of its unrealistic, unsustainable union contracts and of state-of-denial management designed and sold products making more than an occasional guest appearance in Consumer Reports, had not gone to the federal government for morally hazardous bailouts doing little more than postponing the inevitable day of reckoning and add to the federal tab on the backs of future generations beginning to approach $14T.

There's an interesting twist to all this. T Boone Pickens had championed a plan which included Obama-hyped windmill farms in northwest Texas and natural gas (which has become significantly cheaper due to shale-based recoveries) would be converted to vehicle fuel; in theory, this could help modulate the deteriorating domestic supplies the Obama Administration is blatantly ignoring, increasing dependence on foreign supplies. Recently Pickens raised the white flag, unable to obtain permits for a transmission line from his proposed windmill farm. GM--which has sold natural-gas (and flex-fuel) vehicles in foreign markets--is finally releasing a couple of models to its commercial fleet.

Pope Benedict XVI's Nuanced Decision on Prophylactics

I haven't started my religion blog yet (I'm Roman Catholic), and normally I don't touch on religious issues in this blog except to remark on isolated issues like how most elected Catholic Democrats have advocated pro-abortion choice positions, which is inconsistent with Christian/Catholic teachings going back to the earliest days of the Church (cf. Chapter 2 of the Didache). But the issue of contraception does allow a political reflection on Griswold.

In the Church's view, procreation within the context of marriage is the ultimate fulfillment of God's desire for the human race to go on. Self-indulgent sexuality, divorced from its functional nature, is seen as selfish and sinful. The Church does recognize the practical reasons for natural family planning, but artificial means to prevent conception, including contraceptives and condoms, are viewed as intentional interference with God's plan. The moral (not doctrinal) teachings and distinctions are subtle and confusing to many of the faithful; for example, many young people are aware of restrictions against contraceptives, find themselves pregnant, and then choose to have an abortion. Abortion is the taking of an actual, not potential life, a graver sin, a direct frustration of God's plan.

There are differences between Church and state laws. The Church does not seek to impose the disciplines of her followers on others, but there are some moral laws that transcend any one religion and are reflected in our government statutes, including homicide, adultery, and stealing.

The Pope's pragmatic decision to relax Church's traditional opposition to the use of condoms in an effort to help contain the risks of HIV, e.g., through homosexual behavior, is welcome, useful, but also puzzling. What's its theoretical underpinnings? Sex outside of marriage (including gay sex) is prohibited, and it seems to suggest different standards for gay and straight use of condoms. It's likely that the Pope views the condom for gays primarily as a filter for sexual disease and issued the teaching as a means of  compassion.

Griswold v Connecticut, which overturned the state's law prohibition of contraceptives, is interesting because it was the one where Justice William O. Douglas' constitutional "penumbras" and "emanations" in finding a marital right to privacy. I am probably most convinced by Justice Goldberg's argument using the ninth amendment. I do think the state has a right to ensure transactions are safe and not misleading, but I generally think certain decisions, e.g., for a couple whether to have children and how many, are beyond the scope of the state. I'm less certain about any attempt to enumerate unenumerated rights under the ninth amendment. (I certainly do agree the state has a right to promote or incentivize marriage and family.)

Political Humor

"The U.S. Postal Service announced today they lost $8.5 billion this year. They said they blame it on people using e-mail. And the fact that terrorists have switched to UPS." - Jay Leno

[Obama got the bad news on his Blackberry... That retro green initiative isn't working out that well: those pony expenses keep climbing... Of course, the dead letter office is doing well, with all those stimulus checks mailed out last year... Delivery times are improving: Democratic state party chairmen just last week got Obama's letter outlining his secret plan to win the midterm elections... Democrats angrily pushed back at GOP suggestions to privatize the Post Office, arguing, just as in the case earmarks, a few billion dollars here and there are inconsequential compared to the rest of their $1.3T deficit... Obama is doing his part to spark demand for USPS services by suggesting all his supporters to mail him and each member of his family Christmas cards... The USPS is trying to modernize its image by licensing hip-hop remakes of "Please, Mr. Postman", "Signed, Sealed, Delivered", "The Letter" and "Sealed With a Kiss".]

An original:

• Former NFL quarterback Heath Shuler (D-NC) got thrown for a loss by 70-year-old outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, also competing for Minority Leader, 150-43. The Democratic caucus hadn't seen that lopsided a loss in DC since the last time Shuler ran the Redskins offense. He tried passing deep over the middle of the field but there weren't any receivers out there... Shuler tried running in the shotgun formation but all he managed to do was injure his foot (again). After the contest, he found his office had been relocated to Pelosi's doghouse.

Musical Interlude: Instrumentals/One-Hit Wonders

Jigsaw, "Sky High".

Miscellany: 11/20/10

Quote of the Day
Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

The Ongoing Kerfuffle Over 
TSA Enhanced Security Techniques....

One of my guilty pleasures is late Saturday mornings on Fox News, which has four half-hour shows (Bulls & Bears, Cashin In, Forbes on Fox, Cavuto on Business) discussing business, the economy,  national policy issues, and investment. There was a heated discussion on Forbes on Fox this morning over the new TSA policies (see below). I found one particular panelist, Kai Falkenberg, unduly provocative when she started waving the flag over our young soldiers sacrificing and dying in the Middle East and if we can't put up with a minor inconvenience of a virtual strip search or molestation... (I would argue that our young soldiers are fighting so we remain free, without Big Brother violating our privacy and and affronting by disregard for our dignity.)



This kerfuffle is interesting in nature, because it makes for odd bedfellows. Many law-and-order conservatives are willing to accommodate whatever policy is perceived in the best interests of public safety, and of course progressives feel that government is the best arbiter of what is in the public interest. On the other hand, many conservatives with a libertarian twist, including myself and many Tea Party advocates promoting limited government are allied with many liberals worried about corruption and unequal protection for certain groups.

I want to make a few points here. I'm not motivated by modesty concerns; it has more to do with an increasingly convoluted, unsustainable, reactive TSA, still not fully integrated with our nation's intelligence systems. It has to do with a warped sense of reality that it is more important to treat each person equally as a prospective criminal, even 3-year-old little girls or elderly nuns, rather than based on a confluence of factors, including suspicious behavior, travel history to or from nations or areas harboring terrorist groups, past communication with known radicals,  etc.

The emperor here really is wearing no clothes. Does anyone really feel any safer at the sight of TSA personnel taking stuffed animals out of the clutches of small children, confiscating various incidental everyday items or forcing an old man to take off his shoes?  Never mind the fact than more often than not my everyday belts almost always end up getting special attention. And I'm not sure TSA releases these statistics, but I'm willing to bet that less than 1% of all shoes or belts have been found problematic, and if anyone has been arrested trying to go on a flight with hidden weapons of that nature, I don't know about it. No doubt proponents of unrestricted TSA activities will argue that it "proves" the check is working. Nonsense: shoes and belts haven't been problems for decades. But all these checks have a very definite cost. Everything is based on risk, and here's a thing that nobody on that segment was talking about: everyone thinks that these boorish indignities means that the TSA is protecting the public. But, in fact, I submit that the TSA is addressing the symptoms, not the disease.

Let me give a simple example I haven't heard or seen others raise. Suppose you have a terrorist highly skilled in the martial arts. Certainly that constitutes more of a threat than, say, a woman carrying tiny scissors in her purse. How are TSA personnel going to check for someone's knowledge of the martial arts? Or maybe a pilot ate something poorly prepared at lunch or is upset and distracted by a conversation with his wife.

As I've mentioned in other posts, many things affect airline safety, and yet airline safety is probably better than highway safety. Other examples include pilot performance, weather conditions and aircraft maintenance. Not to mention TSA personnel performance and training issues in carrying out relevant searches.

Another point is that I don't hear any of these pundits questioning whether there are less intrusive alternative methods (e.g., technology able to detect distinctive characteristics), or (if the chemicals have a certain odor), trained dogs. (Even if they don't, the presence of police dogs may affect the behavior of relevant suspects.)

Moreover, it makes no sense to do a detailed screening of everybody. A properly implemented sampling procedure maintains deterrence while minimizing the inconvenience of most passengers.

Finally, there's the sheer arrogance of the government which believes that citizens must surrender to its arbitrary fiat which makes a mockery of liberty; in fact, it derives its consent from the governed.

Charles Krauthammer, "Don't Touch My Junk": 
Thumbs UP!

Everyone knows that the entire apparatus of the security line is a national homage to political correctness. Nowhere do more people meekly acquiesce to more useless inconvenience and needless indignity for less purpose. Wizened seniors strain to untie their shoes; beltless salesmen struggle comically to hold up their pants; 3-year-olds scream while being searched insanely for explosives - when everyone, everyone, knows that none of these people is a threat to anyone. The ultimate idiocy is the full-body screening of the pilot... All he has to do is drive [the plane] into the water.

I have been a vocal defender of the rights of Muslim Americans. But even they must acknowledge the facts that the 9/11 terrorists, Richard Reid (the shoe bomber), Faisal Shahzad (the Times Square bomber), Major Hasan (Ft. Hood), and others professing a fidelity to Islam have murdered or attempted to murder Americans in a disproportionate percentage relative to the other world religions. Chechen women are suspected of suicide bomb attacks on Russian flights and  subways. There is no doubt that the relative percentage of these terrorists is low compared to the number of Muslims worldwide. But I would submit that any properly structured sampling would contain a commensurate number of Muslim passengers. This is not "discrimination" any more than a woman with a family history of cancer has more frequent medical tests or a good driver, with fewer accidents/costs, shouldn't have to subsidize the insurance of a bad driver.

But I would like to go beyond Charles' analysis and suggest that the detailed inspections also serve a political purpose, i.e., the TSA is on the job, it's on the lookout for rogue elements, it's catching the bad guys by targeting everyday Americans. Never mind time and again it's been a day late and a dollar short.

Of course, I disagree; I think instead of wasting its resources fruitlessly inconveniencing everyday Americans, the TSA should focus its energy and resources on identifying risks based on available data and relevant factors...

Political Humor

A thief broke into a house in Alaska and found $100,000 but only took $20,000. Police are searching for a man with simple dreams. - Conan O'Brien

[Only 20%? I think we can safely rule out the IRS...]

TSA agents can now feel the inside of passengers’ thighs. I get more action going through airline security than I did all through high school. - Jimmy Kimmel

[Great...The TSA gets to third base with my girlfriend, whereas I can barely get to first...What's worse is when she gives the agent her phone number... My friend and his wife have decided to spice up their sex life; she has him don a TSA uniform... My problem is with those passengers whom want to help out the TSA by not stopping with taking off their shoes....]

Musical Interlude: Instrumentals/One-Hit Wonders

Walter Murphy, "A Fifth of Beethoven"