Quote of the Day
What is important is to keep learning, to enjoy challenge, and to tolerate ambiguity. In the end there are no certain answers.
Marina Horner
The Japanese Fukushima Nuclear Accident:
A Simple and Accurate Description: Thumbs UP!
[3/15/11 edit. MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering has edited and updated Dr. Oehmen's original post here.]
MIT Scientist Dr. Josef Oehmen does a superb job in accessibly describing the (boiling water) nuclear plant design and components (including various melting points), discussing the layers of defense in containing an accident, the engineering trade-offs in plant design within the context of a 8.9 Richter scale earthquake/tsunami, points of failure in coolant system strategy (e.g., why mobile coolant systems weren't deployed), why seawater and boric acid were used (and fresh water would have been preferable to seawater), and why this was never going to be another Chernobyl. Dr. Oehmen was motivated to write his layman's version because many of the wire stories on the accidents (e.g., CNN) had several factual and conceptual errors regarding the incidents and basic nuclear reactor design.
To Michael Moore and the
Other 'Don't Worry, Be Happy' Democrats:
The Baby Boomer Entitlement Tsunami Is Coming...
I have relatives whom like to stir the pot. And so I'll occasionally get a Paul Krugman column or, of course, the Michael Moore March 5 diatribe in Madison which really isn't anything new: just the same old same old class warfare, the bank conspiracies, etc. There are really no specifics, just wild, unsupported accusations regarding the economic tsunami of 2008...
I'm not going to go through the Politics of Envy point by point. The two richest Americans are Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. Both men have already bequeathed the bulk of their estates to Gates' foundation; Buffett lives in an ordinary house, used to drive an older model Lincoln Town Car with license plates "THRIFTY", and notoriously called derivatives (later an issue during the tsunami) "financial weapons of mass destruction". Incidentally, both Buffett and Gates are Democrats and have endorsed raising tax rates on their fellow billionaires.
The fact is, both men earned their first billion within the last 25 years and were self-made billionaires, not the idle rich parodied by Moore. Moore, pure and simple, wants to do away with the unalienable right to property, guaranteed by the US Constitution. But let's have a little reality check: America added 10 new billionaires last year, but Russia, India, China, and Brazil shared 108 new ones. And by the way, Michael Moore--in this fantasy of yours that the rich were not affected by the tsunami: we have 56 fewer billionaires than we did in 2008, and during the last decade (which the American leftists blame on Bush policies), we went from having 1 out of every 2 billionaires to 1 of 3. And we roughly produce about a quarter of the world's GDP, which seems to be reasonably in line.
As for the tax burden, the fact is that significant top-rate tax cuts in the 1920's, the 1960's and the 1980's did not result in an adverse effect on federal revenues (and note that there weren't compensatory rate increases in lower brackets). Other than mandatory benefit contributions for entitlements or minor excise taxes (e.g., gas tax), half of American workers pay no income tax--which I argue is morally hazardous.
The exact type of moral hazard that we saw in the legacy Wisconsin public sector collective bargaining agreements, which included virtually no employee contributions for benefit packages. Since the employees don't share in the cost burden, they have no vested interest in controlling benefit costs. In earlier posts, I mentioned the average school teacher compensation package in Milwaukee amounts to about $105K, about 40% in benefits. I referenced how some unions cut sweetheart deals like multiple pensions or "emeritus" statuses on retirement that provide a bonus full year's salary for a few hours of work, if any. In the meanwhile, private sector workers may be lucky to be paying a quarter of the cost of their health care benefits or have found their employer's 3% or so match for 401K plans suspended during the recession. I also mentioned how collective bargaining in Wisconsin essentially barred the state or local government from seeking the low-cost vendor, privatizations, or even the use of prisoner labor and volunteers. I noted that unions preferred seniority based layoffs to hour reductions and refused taking a lower-cost health care which would have enabled no layoffs.
In short, the BIG LIE, Moore, is your blaming higher-income taxpayers because they don't want to pay for an unfair share of the burden fiscally irresponsible special interest deals cut between Democrat lawmakers and unions, which in turn support their elections, which is INTRINSICALLY corrupt: deals that, for example, allow up to six-figures in overtime pay for corrections officers or bus drivers or pay a bonus 10% salary just for wearing a pager, whether or not there is any contact or work performed.
But that's not even the main point I want to address. The fact of the matter is that if Enron or any of the investment banks put together financial statements like state/local governments do--in fact, the public sector statements would not pass private sector company accounting standards, the former assuming nearly twice the investment returns from pension funds (i.e., the government would have to make up the difference if the reserves are inadequate). It's the HYPOCRISY of these progressives, which, at the drop of a hat, would be screeching corporate greed and criminal behavior at a FRACTION of what is currently going on in state and local governments. Private sector companies become convenient whipping boys while progressive-favored Democrat lawmakers whom have run cities and states almost into the ground and have used accounting gimmicks that would even make Bernie Madoff blush are beneficiaries of a blatant double standard. Have you looked at the house of cards in Los Angeles lately, Mr. Moore? What's going to happen when pensions, some of them north of $50,000 a year, chew up nearly a third of the city budget and force a choice between cops on the street and a retired cop's comfortable retirement?
Oh, I know. I can guarantee that Michael Moore will not tell the retired teacher or cop they are getting too much. He will find some corporate executive with a generous retirement benefit to serve as a scapegoat. But the executive is not being paid by the taxpayer. It brings up a famous baseball anecdote about the greatest baseball player of all time, Babe Ruth, whom was asked by a reporter about the fact that Ruth earned more than the President. Ruth pointed out that he had had a better year... If a corporate executive makes decisions resulting in billions in profits for stockholders, I'm okay with generous pay packages. What I'm not okay with is Democrat politicians refusing (like the Illinois state government which has treated pensions like its own cookie jar over the past decade) to do the right thing and unethically dumping the liabilities onto state or local governments years from now--whom will not only have to cover their fair share but make up the difference from the financially irresponsible past.
The fact, Mr. Moore, is the Baby Boomer Generation Is Retiring. Social security, Medicare, and federal, state, and local pension plans have TRILLIONS in unfunded pension liabilities, Ponzi schemes of the highest order. RESOLVING THESE WILL REQUIRE SHARED SACRIFICE. One thing is for sure: THERE AREN'T ENOUGH RICH PEOPLE TO PAY THEM OFF. You would need dozens of Warren Buffett estates just to pay off this year's Obama deficit--and you can only steal Warren Buffett's estate once.
We need to make a lot of compromises without chasing away the job creators Michael Moore is scapegoating and the incentives to nurture job creators. The first step is to get real about the problem and to adopt more rigorous and consistent accounting for pensions and other unfunded liabilities. The second step is to engage in shared sacrifice. This likely will require a shared cost burden: increasing revenues, tightening criteria, reducing certain benefits, vesting beneficiaries in cost-sharing (e.g., higher deductibles), etc.
I last referenced a Veronique de Rugy piece when she exploded some of the myths rationalizing the American local public school monopoly in the context of comparative international student performance. She does a good job in this piece addressing the state of denial by Moore and others:
Political Humor
A few originals:
- President Obama heralded today's move to Daylight Savings Time, noting this will undoubtedly cut down the number of nightly casualties from vampire bites, thus lowering healthcare costs
- President Obama declined to intervene in the NFL lockout, noting a $9B industry doesn't need his help. On a separate note, President Obama accused Wisconsin Governor Walker of vilifying public sector employees because Walker wanted to provide some of the same or comparable rights federal workers have, including the right not to pay union dues, and state/local workers to pay half the percentage costs federal employees do for healthcare.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
America, "I Need You". I love a great love song, whether it celebrates the exhilarating bliss of discovery (The Beatles, "I Want To Hold Your Hand"), the je ne sais quoi of the other (The Beatles, "Something"), or its innocent, irresistible nature (the Carpenters, "Close to You"). Some great love songs also feature love's unconditional, transcendent essence (the Pretenders, "I'll Stand By You"). Then there's the tragic, wistful, plaintive nature of unrequited love (the Turtles' "Happy Together", Roy Orbison's "Crying" and this song). I particularly like this song's minimalism, the simplicity of verse and melody without being unduly sentimental; you can almost hear a lover's heart breaking in the arrangement.
