Miscellany: 2/03/14

Quote of the Day

[E]ven our Commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: 
neither seeking nor granting exclusive favours or preferences; 
consulting the natural course of things; 
diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of Commerce, 
but forcing nothing; 
establishing with Powers so disposed; 
in order to give trade a stable course.
George Washington

Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day

Via the Independent Institute

A Move Towards Economic Liberty

HT John Stossel



The #1 Reason I'm Watching More FNC



Crackpots at the Super Bowl



My Vote for Best Super Bowl Commercial

Is there anything more beautiful than America's children? That marvelous tapestry of races and ethnicities, tongues, cultures of a nation of immigrants, something to be celebrated, not feared. I recently got introduced to a regional staple, the pepperoni roll, by my co-workers (I have to watch my carbs, but what a marvelous idea (not as good as cretons, though)). My first language was French, born of bilingual parents and grandparents, of Franco-American heritage.

My runner up was Radio Shack's imaginative take showing they're not your Daddy's Radio Shack anymore...





Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Gary Varvel via Patriot Post

Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Series

Cher, "Believe".

Miscellany:3/18/13

Quote of the Day
The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Obama's/Dem Orwellian Double-Speak: Enough Already!

I would pay money to see someone slap the taste out of the demagogue's mouth the next time I hear the spendthrift use the term "invest" as a synonym to fecklessly throwing tax revenues of future taxpayers down the rathole of dysfunctional government programs.

I can barely listen to Sunday talk shows because Democrats somehow believe they have co-opted terms like "balanced"--to deficit reduction. Since the Dems grabbed control of the Senate in 2007, spending has gone up a trillion a year--spending not "balanced"  by cuts elsewhere in the budget or by new taxes.. Obama has imposed around a dozen counterproductive class warfare tax hikes already this year--kicking in with a struggling economy, lowering the tax base. It had absolutely to do with balancing the budget--the new revenue, if any, will barely amount to a down payment on new spending. It has more to do with income redistribution, an ideological vs. economics priority.

I haven't commented to date on the sorry case of Detroit; Michigan GOP governor Snyder recently appointed Chrysler bankruptcy lawyer Kevyn Orr, a man of color, as Detroit emergency financial manager. (I'm not a fan of the Obama Administration's manipulated bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler; Orr will have to deal with union contracts, among other things, and he can use his ability to file for bankruptcy as leverage. If Mr. Orr, over the coming 18 months, can somehow turnaround one of the most troubled cities in the country (I remember seeing a story a while back that you could buy a house in Detroit for $3000), he would have a very bright future, possibly including a political one.

Porter Stansberry provides a brief history of Detroit since the 1960's, culminating not just in a city all but functionally bankrupt but in misdeeds by former officeholders, including this news note from last week:

Former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and his longtime contractor friend Bobby Ferguson were convicted of racketeering and extortion Monday, marking an end to a more than decade-long public corruption investigation. Kilpatrick was convicted on 24 of 30 counts, including five counts of extortion, racketeering, bribery and several mail, wire and tax fraud charges.

By the way, what is it about loyalty of black voters to dubious politicians? We have the most recent example of former Congressman Jesse Jackson, whom was overwhelmingly reelected last fall although AWOL from Washington during the last several months of his last term, resigned several weeks ago and recently pled guilty to fraud. We could also discuss ethics-challenged Charlie Rangel and "bribe-money-in-the-freezer" William Jefferson.

Here is a brief synopsis:

Every single mayor of Detroit since 1961 has been a Democrat. Every single mayor of Detroit since 1974 has been black. Detroit has been a major recipient of every major social program since the early 1960s and has received hundreds of billions of dollars in government grants, loans, and programs.

Mayor Cavanagh was the only elected official to serve on Johnson's task force. And Detroit received widespread acclaim for its leadership in the program, which attempted to turn a nine-square-mile section of the city (with 134,000 inhabitants) into a "model city." More than $400 million was spent trying to turn inner cities into shining new monuments to government planning. In short, the feds and Democratic city mayors were soon telling people where to live, what to build, and what businesses to open or close. In return, the people received cash, training, education, and health care. Cavanagh pushed a new income tax through the state legislature and a "commuter tax" on city workers. And so, in 1966, more than 22,000 middle- and upper-class residents moved out of the city. In July 1967, police attempted to break up a late-night party in the middle of the new "Model City." The scene turned into the worst race riot of the 1960s.  Over the next 18 months, an additional 140,000 upper- and middle-class residents – almost all of them white – left the city. The Model City program was expanded and enlarged by 1974's Community Development Block Grant Program. The Model City area lost 63% of its population and 45% of its housing units from the inception of the program through 1990. 

And yet progressives will never concede a failure in public policy. They'll have 101 excuses why their incompetent central planning fails--principally, we never spent enough money to solve the problem....

The Obama IRA/Pension: Thumbs DOWN!

I used to watch FNC weekly business shows on Saturday morning. Fox has a habit of including clueless liberals on panels just to stir the pot. Almost every week there would be some talking head from the left leaning Economic Policy Institute (for some background, see here). When I hear soundbites like "shared prosperity",  I hear a thief rationalizing his entitlement to your property through the Politics of Envy.

There are lots of conspiracy theories out there: who is going to pay for new federal debt if the Fed, Chinese and others don't invest in Democrat budget deficits? Could the government simply steal the retirement assets of those of us whom have worked, saved and invested by the rules to redistribute to others, like FDR confiscated privately-held gold? Not a chance; not only is it dead on arrival so long as the GOP holds either chamber and a filibuster-sustaining minority in the Senate. Even if it gets out of the Congress, SCOTUS would rule it unconstitutional. They may be able to change rules for new investments.

The EPI initiative condescendingly doesn't think we can be trusted to save for our retirement, so it wants to create a defined benefit (i.e., pension versus defined contribution) program for worker not in one, with a government guaranteed return (invested in--debt, of course). See here for more discussion.

You have to admit the Democrats have chutzpah. They have more than doubled the publicly held debt over the past 4 years, they have run up unfunded liabilities of $20-40T in each of social security, Medicare, and federal pensions, their spending has sent California, Illinois and other states almost to the point of bankruptcy, but they think they have the integrity to cast judgment over your liberty to plan for your own retirement.

The State of Maryland and Statist Arrogance

When I drive I'm very safety conscious, but safety goes beyond following traffic signs or signals. It requires judgment and prudence on the driver's part. My baby sister barely escaped serious injury when another driver ran a red light, plowing into her car crossing the intersection. I was driving my parents back from dinner to my brother's house near Joliet off I-55S, when a motorist, on a shoulder after being pulled over by a trooper, drove back into traffic and, not even at the speed of traffic, jumped lanes directly in front of me. I was literally standing on my brakes and miraculously avoided a collision. The trooper then pulled ME over. After 10 minutes or so (long enough for the jerk to disappear into the distance), he finally approached my window and said, "I bet you're wondering why I pulled you over..." Duh! He then apologized, taking responsibility of releasing the driver into traffic. I think that he was afraid I would go after the rogue driver. But to be honest, all I could think of is my parents could have been killed in a car I was driving.

Traffic signs are a poor surrogate for judgment. I have nothing but utter disdain for "rules are rules" mentality. I think I mentioned in a past post I was working on a project in a Milwaukee county suburb in 2001; a VP of my contractor employer decided on a last-minute deliverable which required me to cancel a trip back home to move out of my California apartment. What I didn't realize was that a county fair was taking place that weekend, and my hotel was booked solid. I somehow got a reservation at a Travelodge near I-94 but didn't see the contingent nature of the booking nor the cancellation notice hit my inbox before I left the courthouse exhausted after 10 PM. When the Travelodge desk told me I had no reservation and had no suggestions, my only thought was to head south/east on I-94 towards Chicago and maybe find some interim motel or hotel with a vacancy. The meridian for the turn I wanted back onto I-94 started well before the hotel exit so I had no choice but to cross I-94 and retrace my way back to the opposing lane exit. I took a U-turn at the next intersection (no opposing lane traffic). I hadn't noticed any no-U turn sign, but unfortunately for me, the intersection was a block away from a police station, and there was a patrol car sitting at the intersection. I got pulled over on the shoulder of the interstate entry lane. I finally managed to talk him into issuing a warning, but the infraction was a technicality.

Maryland has a speed camera program which has raised a statist windfall of millions of dollars in difficult-to-fight $40 fines. I don't have a personal ax to grind here, but serious questions about the reliability of violations and/or context of violations (e.g., school or work zone slow downs after dark) have been raised:

A review by The Baltimore Sun found that more than 40 percent of speed camera tickets from highway work zones were issued between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., a time when construction crews are often gone. The state cameras placed in highway construction zones represent only a portion of the speed cameras put in place by numerous Maryland jurisdictions, including the Baltimore program found to have issued tickets in error and once to a motionless car. 

Sowell Takes On the Self-Esteem Education Establishment
Thumbs UP!

In my humble opinion, an advanced education diploma doesn't even make for decent toilet paper. I would be embarrassed to admit the fact that other countries' students do better, despite lower funding, larger class sizes, etc. We have flat student performance since the 1960's despite throwing incredible amounts of money at schools, tenured public school teachers on a 9-month work schedule can earn well above the median household. A Master's degree is more of a ticket punch to a union-negotiated  higher salary not tied to student performance deltas.



Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Glenn Foden and Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Backstreet Boys, "Show Me the Meaning of Being Lonely".  The first time I ever heard of this group I was working a gig on a custom packaging company (e.g., they made boxes for music collections). They had previously hired an independent Apps DBA contractor; he had a number of quirks--a survivalist, a fitness fanatic (he offered me $50 to throw out all the food in my apartment), and a closet racist  (he was okay with his black pregnant wife having a girl but not a boy).So when he put the Backstreet Boys' new album at the top of his shopping list, I just passed it off as another quirk: I had never heard of a grown man into a boy band. I, of course, would see the school-age girls in my apartment complex skipping rope while singing the group's hits. I'll start off my short series with my personal 3 favorite hits from the group..

Miscellany: 1/30/13

Quote of the Day
The road to perdition has ever been accompanied by lip service to an ideal.
Albert Einstein

Clap for the O Man: He's Going To Take Your  Economy High

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- decreased at an annual rate of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012 (that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the third quarter, real GDP increased 3.1 percent. The downturn in real GDP in the fourth quarter primarily reflected downturns in private inventory investment, in federal government spending, in exports, and in state and local government spending...

Real GDP is inflation-adjusted. A few quick points here: first, these are preliminary numbers: it's possible they could be adjusted upward. Second, economists were caught by surprise, and their models included allowances for the known factors listed in the last sentence. Third, liberals, as I have often predicted, are seizing on "government austerity". Although I also see this delusional progressive economic spin: "Best-Looking Contraction in U.S. GDP You'll Ever See."

Let us be clear: a lot of federal spending does not come from current taxpayers. We have spent nearly 6 trillion dollars under the Obama Administration future taxpayers are on the hook for--money that won't be available to sustain future growth. Government is very labor-intensive; if we lay off surplus government workers and/or ask government employees to share in necessary sacrifice to attain  a more sustainable economy, remember about 5 in 6 workers are in the private sector, which not only has paid the preponderant price in layoffs but basically pays the cost of government which spends one in 4 dollars. Here's an interesting factoid in  from the Gray Lady 3 years  ago:

For the first time in American history, the majority of the nation’s union members are government workers, rather than private-sector workers, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics report released today. This is despite the fact that there are five times more wage and salary workers in the private sector.

There is something intrinsically wrong here--government workers get benefits (including much higher job security) wildly out of step with the private sector: there are waiting lists to get into government sector: 4 members of my own birth family of 9 have spent most of their work history in the public or quasi public (e.g., USPS) sector and in the cases I know, all of them had to wait months or years to get on the payroll. Tell me, if government people are so "underpaid", why are so many people waiting to be "exploited" and so few existing professionals willing to jump at all these better, higher-paying jobs in the private sector? Oh, but you see, public sector workers are more noble and self-sacrificing  than private sector. PLEASE. I've worked extensively in the private sector and as a public sector contractor (at the city, county, state, and federal levels). In my experience the real work was done by contractors, we are often abused and exploited by government personnel (I've given several examples from personal experience in past posts), and there are few government workers or managers I would ever hire in the private sector.

Just in case the reader thinks I'm spouting sour grapes, let me give a new example to explain my point. In the late 1990's, the City of Oakland had a homegrown set of applications. It was notoriously ill-maintained, and only a couple of city people knew the in's and out's of, say, the HR/payroll applications. Oracle and Peoplesoft (at the time an independent vendor, much later eventually acquired by Oracle) were rival vendors for a replacement state-of-the-art ERP system desired by city management. The HR people preferred Peoplesoft, but the city management decides on Oracle's "one-stop-shop" ERP functionality, including its own HR/payroll function.  I worked to deploy the technical infrastructure of Oracle Applications (e-Business Suite). I worked with a number of functional consultants, whom effectively worked with with city personnel on doing application setups for transitioning a migration to our system. I recall a very lovely, sweet Oracle Consulting HR consultant (I had a bit of a crush on her, but she had a boyfriend). Over a number of weeks, she was trying to debrief those two internal personnel, but they were engaging in passive aggressive fashion (you also encounter people who see their knowledge of the status quo as a form of job security) and avoided meeting her. My colleague's deliverables were falling behind schedule. The city had auditors reviewing the project, my colleague was fingered in the process for falling behind, and Oracle responded by rolling her off the project (being rolled off a project is not good for one's career: in many cases, especially if there isn't another assignment immediately available, the employee is fired at will). After she left, I actually inherited her vacated corporate apartment in Emeryville; one day I overheard some city personnel badmouthing my departed colleague--a total lack of class on their part, talking behind the back of a sweetheart whom had to pay the price because of 2 rogue city employees whom put their personal objections to the Oracle software award above city policy. This was a city management problem, not a vendor issue. I sorely wanted to defend the lady's honor, not unlike the knights of old.

I'm sure there are literally thousands of stories. One of my favorite "war stories" was when I was administering the National Archives eMilRecs application. The government geniuses signed off on the server installation, not noticing one of the redundant power supplies wasn't functional (in essence, one of the electric plugs was in a wrong socket)--and it had literally gone for years unnoticed. I wanted to do it but management insisted on doing it by an electrician, the electricians were gone for the day (and the manager wasn't about to call one in to accommodate our maintenance window starting at 7PM; it was okay, however, for me to work extra hours not on the government's dime), and so the earliest it could be scheduled was around 4 AM.  I show up and nobody's there (and the network room personnel think it's hilarious, openly laughing at me). I go down to the electrician's section; they knew nothing about it and refused to help me without authorization. I go to the front desk, which refuses to call the manager in question. I fire out an email to my civil service manager in St. Louis and leave about 4:30am (I have to be back at the 7am hour, not much sleep). The manager ends up lying, telling my manager the electrician got tied up in a traffic jam (at 4am!) and got there a little after 4am, but I had already left! Seriously, folks; this was like some sort of passive aggressive high school prank pulled by a civil servant north of 50! I don't think I ever got a personal apology, maybe a pseudo-apology over my feeling upset over the incident. (The contract allowed me only to book 8 hours for a day--I couldn't charge extra  and I still had to stay until 7PM when the Missouri workers were done for the day.)




A Media Hero: John Stossel

This is a Q & A celebrating John Stossel's new book No, They Can't: Why Government Fails-But Individuals Succeed. John briefly explains how he managed to overcome the progressivism of his alma mater, Princeton, home to Keynesian economist, Paul Krugman, on his way to libertarianism.  I haven't read his new book yet, but I own copies of the last two.

I don't know if John would phrase things this way, but I see his criticism of government as a logical extension of his journalistic beginning, uncovering consumer fraud. Progressives saw his report as rationalizing yet another extension of government empire building, notably led these days by Senator "Cherokee Lizzie" Warren. What John found was fraud persisted, despite the government's "best efforts." Human nature being what it is, we probably can't eliminate evil or reform dishonest people, but we can empower people with information they can use to make better decisions.

John'a experience did lead him to discover a new, even worse type of fraud: government. Ineffective, high-cost government that makes promises it can't keep, notoriously can't balance its books, etc. It's one thing if an auto mechanic rips you off; there are other mechanics. If there is a problem with government services, it's not like you have an alternative local/federal government.

A side discussion: John Stossel in the first video mentions in passing that many social conservatives had issues with 'live-and-let live" philosophy about gay relationships. One day my religious mom was upset about my blog. I get one of these classical female  "you know what you did" reactions (no, guys usually don't have a clue). Somehow she got the wrong impression  I was promoting "gay marriage". I will say I ran across the fact that homosexual behavior had been observed in nature while taking a psychology class at OLL. This profoundly disturbed me to the point I wrote a letter to a well known Catholic media conservative (and, to my surprise, got a personal reply). I didn't see the design, functional purpose of such behavior--it didn't sustain the species.  Other things, too--like an animal in the wild accidentally crushing its offspring. But I didn't deny the natural basis of the orientation or relationships between those that share it. That's different from trying to change the definitions of traditional marriage and family.





Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Steely Dan,"Peg"

Miscellany: 12/24/12 Christmas Eve

Courtesy of the Cardinal Newman Society

Quote of the Day
Love conquers all.
Virgil

I'm Dreaming of Having a White Christmas

Of all ironies, I went to take out the trash while AMC was playing "White Christmas" and found myself pelted with big wet snowflakes....



Jack Klugman: RIP

I think the funniest sitcom episode I've ever seen was when Oscar came home to find neat freak roommate Felix has replaced all the old furniture and wall hangings for an edgy new clock (as i can recall, a jumble of dots) everybody else can read, and a chair like a hand.I think it's this third-season episode (I couldn't find a Youtube video):

Take My Furniture, Please has a terrific new "modern art" look for the apartment, circa 1973 (when Oscar sits in a chair shaped like a hand, he says, "I feel like an M&M.")

Of course, Jack did other film and series work (Quincy), but I thought He was brilliant in his signature role as Oscar Madison.





Natural Gas Protectionism

To be fair, it's not just Democrats like Sen. Ron Wyden and Congressmen Ed Markey whom are economics illiterate. Populist conservative Bill O'Reilly has done the same in the attempt to suppress exports of oil products while he saw related retail prices going up. No doubt he thought exports were some sort of conspiracy to drive up prices through artificial domestic shortages. (Among other things, Americans already pay some of the lowest prices in the world, American refineries in a global shortage of refineries also process foreign-owned oil, and we still import half our supplies...)

The argument is familiar: we are now at the lowest prices of a decade (see below chart); you might be under the impression that energy companies must be minting a fortune--but you would be wrong. As of the date of this post, the ETN GAZ, unlike the rest of the market, has dropped 30% in value over the past year..

Courtesy of ChartProphet/Seeking Alpha

Don Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek  has written a very good commentary on the issue here. But let me rephrase it differently: why would/should we be willing to agree to natural gas exports? First, there is an economy of scale issue: I still recall paying over $1000 to buy one of the first VHS recorders on the market. Within 2-3 years, people were paying a mere fraction of my cost. I bought a copy of The Sound of Music for over $70, a multiple of what you would pay today for a special-edition DVD. I did not have buyer's remorse; with a large base for content, I got to buy other titles at low prices If you limit customers to a mere sliver of the world's population, what incentive do producers have to invest in new exploration and infrastructure? We will participate in lower costs from scale and deployment of newer, more efficient technology. Moreover, if Americans were paying world commodity prices, what incentives would producers have for exporting natural gas? Not to mention more exports drive up the demand for dollars, which  makes imports cheaper, benefiting consumers and producers using imported resources or components. (Boudreaux cites a report showing a negligible effect of natural gas exports on domestic prices.)

Judge Napolitano Interview: Taxes, Abortion and More

In this interview Napolitano makes reference to being a traditionalist Catholic; another Catholic libertarian I've embedded videos of, Tom Woods, is also a traditionalist.(Many Catholic scholars consider a libertarian perspective inconsistent with Catholic social teachings. See here for a bibliography of Woods and his critics.) I believe former GOP Presidential contender Rick Santorum is also a traditionalist.

I am sympathetic with traditionalist Catholics (I have a warm regard for the Latin Mass, various rites and rituals): I think the Church has been too accommodating to the culture, to be "relevant" and matters of faith and morals have been subordinated to secular humanism and the culture; one salient incident was at UH Newman: there is a part of the Nicene creed "for us men and for our salvation", The word "men" is generic: the Church has always recognized  female saints. But I remember at least one of the priests refused to say "men" during Mass, and one Sunday I picked up the missal to follow the Mass (mostly for the readings) when I noticed some ideological feminist decided to scribble out in ink all male generic references.  I thought it was pathetic, judgmental, petty, intellectually vapid, and reflective of presentist bias. For me, this subordinates the Church to the god of politically correct nonsense. This does not mean I don't have differences with the Church, which I consider incompetent on economic and political issues. I think the Church underestimates the moral corruption intrinsic to statist social legislation and confounds means with ends. Sermons generally failed to address a prayerful lifestyle, sin and personal accountability.

I have written in this blog I thought I had a vocation to the priesthood. But the final straw (beyond the fact I liked dating young women) was a Mass at UT I attended where the priest gave a sermon building on Olivia Newton John's hit "Have You Ever Been Mellow". (In contrast, my Uncle Roger is a real priest.)

I can't speak for the others, but the Church has lost something since Vatican II. It's like when Coke decided to pull traditional Coke in favor of new Coke, like it or not, one of the dumbest moves in the history of business (although Coke quickly worked itself back to the original formula). I was young during the years following Vatican II. I liked the Latin Mass which had been said all over the world for centuries. I liked the old disciplines. There are reasons that weekly Mass attendance has dropped to approximate figures among Protestants. New Mass/Church isn't working out too well. I find the principles of free market et al. totally consistent with Catholicism.



Brain Cancer Patient 7yo Connor Meets Wrestling Idol

Connor Michalek.cut a promo (first video) to meet favorite wrestler WWE tag team champion Daniel Bryan, including Bryan's "No! No! No!" gimmick





Musical Interlude: Christmas Retrospective

The Priests, "Silent Night"

Miscellany:12/07/12

Quote of the Day
No person is your friend who demands your silence,
 or denies your right to grow.
Alice Walker

Bill O'Reilly, Belcher and Gun Crimes

And so there should be mandatory federal prison time for any person convicted of having a gun illegally and if you commit a crime with a gun that mandatory should be 10 years.

The pro football player Belcher's murder/suicide over last weekend reminds me of the pro wrestler Chris Benoit family  double-murder/suicide a few years back. WWE Chairman McMahon immediately denounced Benoit as a monster and to this day does not allow mention or clips of Benoit on WWE shows or products. (I think even worse would have been if Benoit had plotted his suicide for a PPV).

O'Reilly does his usual predictable populist spin: don't scapegoat law-abiding gun-owners; the real answer is to crackdown on those owners abusing their gun rights. I am not a psychologist; the issue I have with O''Reilly here is not responsibility, but the fact that many violent crimes are not premeditated. This is not an attempt to excuse violent behavior, but to explain why acting "tougher" won't help reduce violent crime if the crime is am impulsive one. I think we have to be more observant and proactive; I've occasionally had to deal with people whom can't handle stress very well, (I was a subcontractor remember working on a project at the headquarters of a famous management consulting company ; the lead developer subcontractor had written bad code but irrationally attributed the problem to my allegedly changing his permissions to database objects and made physical threats; the client had actually sent him home for the day a week or two earlier although I don't know specifics).

But the worst part of O'Reilly's incompetent analysis and opinion is what I cited above. He has decided that the solution to the gun violence problem is that local/state enforcement is inadequate and the Feds need to get involved. Never mind that Fast and Furious fiasco--obviously O'Reilly thinks AG Holder is up to the task. (I suspect if my philosophy professor Fr. Lonergan read this, he would say, "Now don't make Donceel O'Reilly out to be an idiot." I'm actually being a little sarcastic.)

The Great Thomas Sowell Responds to DNC 12 Nonsense Debunks Michelle, Bill and Barack

A mosquito in a nudist colony: where to start? I'll have to remember that one...Now you know why I hold Sowell economic texts in my personal library. He and I have a similar perspective; Democrats actually somehow believe the worst economic record since the Depression is actually a success story of government intervention. (I wouldn't be surprised if Leftist economists tried to blame Tulipmania on the unregulated derivatives market.)  Barack "We Can't Afford to Do Nothing" Obama has never learned Bastiat's lessons of things unseen--opportunity costs of misguided regulations which added economic uncertainty-the last thing a healing economy needs.. In all fairness, Bush added to Clinton's housing mania, actually hyping a historically high home ownership, with all the sincerity of Internet bubble investors whom argued we were in a new market  where profits didn't matter.

  

Political Humor

 "Today New Jersey Governor Chris Christie visited the White House. President Obama told him, "I'd invite you to lunch but the deficit is already too high." - Conan O'Brien

[Obama helped Christe with after Hurricane Sandy, an act of God--it's only fair that Christie help out Obama deal the fiscal cliff, an act of Democrats. Christie has plenty of experience, cleaning up after the Corzine disaster.]

  Prince William's wife, Kate, has been released from the hospital after suffering from severe morning sickness. Doctors told her take it easy, no strenuous activity, and don't go to work. In other words, just act like a member of the royal family. - Jay Leno

[Obama Administration]

The Pentagon is preparing for massive budget cuts in the event that the country does go over the fiscal cliff. You can tell the Pentagon is scaling back because today it became the "Triangle.” - Jimmy Fallon

  [It started issuing golden parachutes to personnel and contractors.]

Mitt Romney got a job. He's working at a Marriott. He is the guy that comes out to the pool and tells the kids to stop splashing.  - David Letterman

[I'm not saying Obama is rubbing it in, but he left word at the front desk for Romney to give him a 3 AM wake-up call.]


Musical Interlude: Christmas Retrospective

How the Grinch Stole Christmas, "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch"



My Hero: Rick Santelli on Government Statistics

Some key takeaways from the referenced Schiff column:

In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.. How in the world has the tax burden on the wealthy remained roughly the same?Lower- and middle-income workers now bear a significantly lighter burden than in the past. And the confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them.  [Lower tax rates came with elimination or caps on existing higher income offsets.] Those 1950s gambits lowered tax liabilities but dissuaded individuals from engaging in the more beneficial activities of increasing their incomes and expanding their businesses. As a result, they were a net drag on the economy.

In contrast, the share of taxes paid by the bottom two-thirds of taxpayers has fallen dramatically over the same period. In 1958, these Americans accounted for 41.3% of adjusted gross income and paid 29% of all federal taxes. By 2010, their share of adjusted gross income had fallen to 22.5%. But their share of taxes paid fell far more dramatically—to 6.7%. 

As I pointed out before, in discussing Krugman's nostalgic pining on 91% upper income tax bracket where the government leaves you a tip for signing over your paycheck is not realistic. What should the rate be? For me, It's an empirical question: federal tax revenue increased to its highest levels in the second Bush term I think you haven't cut rates enough.

Election Day 2012: Results LATE EDITION

There is no way to sugarcoat the fact other people today reelected the worst,  most incompetent President in  American history whom ran a dishonorable campaign unworthy of a legitimate American President. The next 4 years I will be an outspoken opponent of the renewed economic fascist regime.  There will be no congratulations. I wish my country well, but you get what you voted for. You are too easily satisfied and all you have done is defer the necessary changes and sacrifice, and the necessary medicine will be all the more bitter.

All night long until about 12:30 AM EST Obama was behind in the popular vote, he divided the nation and will reap what he sowed. There is no mandate,

I will criticize the Romney campaign at a later date.It's bad enough he lost a close election. I give him props for turning around a losing campaign with one of the best debate performances in American history. Yet for a really smart guy, he let the opposition define him, he didn't take advantage of a predictable opponent , and he seemed to coast down the home stretch, saying little more than "the economy sucks, and I can fix it." An election should be about big ideas, not your resume.

To be honest I had a sinking realization even before I published my earlier post. On FNC, I saw very long lines in Virginia and Florida. I had been led to believe that the Dems had banked their reliable votes. But I was hearing very high turnouts in Dem strongholds.  Then there was a report that an Obama pollster had ceded NC, FL, and VA, and it looks like the last 2 states actually went for Obama by a per cent or so. Clearly the Obama campaign executed their ground game better.

I made several predictions that went wrong very quickly, including thinking Romney would split 2 of MN, MI, WI, and PA. I didn't publish but I had already written off NH, NV, and IA. To be honest I wasn't that comfortable with a couple of polls suggesting a tie or 1-2 point leads--they could have been outlier results.When I saw PA fall quickly, it was clear that the surge I thought I saw for Romney was based on illusory, thin data. At that point, along with the fact Romney was struggling to win the 3 states I thought he had taken out 2 or 3 weeks ago I knew Romney was going to have a long night--he needed more of a surge to get past the trenches in the battleground states.

I'm glad to see the GOP House held, maybe picked up a few seats. We can be sure Obama will not be allowed to resume his spendthrift ways.

I am probably just as disappointed over the Senate races as much as the Presidential race. There is no excuse when Dem seats are 2-1 over the GOP not to pick up 3-4  seats to win the majority  Except for the Nebraska race, the GOP got its clock cleaned. Murdoch and Akin, the 2 "abortion rape" candidates, lost what should have been gimme seats. I heard some idiot FNC commentator link abortion to the Tea Party. The Tea Party is about limited government, and there is no consensus on abortion: some think government has no standing to intervene in women's health issues, and others, like me, argue that violence against a fetus is a violation of a child's unalienable right to live. The issue of pregnancy when the woman does not consent to intercourse is particularly problematic  although statistically insignificant from the universe of pregnancies. If there is consensus, it's that any relevant regulation is enforced under traditional state police powers; I have argued that enough pro-abortion choice Dems are elected to block more restrictive measures; the more practical approach may be enabling restrictions once the fetus has measurable organ (e.g., heart, brain) activity.

Miscellany: 10/28/12

Quote of the Day
We know what we are,
but know not what we may be.
William Shakespeare

Congratulations, World Series Champs SF Giants!

The Giants swept the Tigers in 4 games, for their second crown in 3 years, after an improbable comeback in the NLCS. I'm an AL fan, but the Giants' pitchers completely shut down the powerful  Tigers lineup.Triple crown Cabrera did get a wind-aided homer tonight--he took a called third strike to end the game, but It seemed the Tigers slumped badly all at the same, worst time--or maybe the Giants' pitching is that damn good.

Preparing for Hurricane Sandy

The calm before storm--you wouldn't know. I absolutely love cool, crisp autumn days with soft, cool breezes. I think "Autumn Leaves" (below) was a featured selection in my high school choir's first concert

I remember waiting for word of Dad's assignment after his isolated tour in Southeast Asia; I didn't care where (say, Michigan) so long as there was a change of season. Even though I'm a native Texan, I did not initially take well the news we were moving to South Texas. My fears were confirmed; it hit 95 on our first Christmas, our front yard had brown grass with maybe 2 inches of rain over 9 months  Perfect training ground for new pilots, of course.

 There are things you learn from past storms: I made sure I was parked away from trees, you eat stuff from your freezer, you charge up your devices (cellphone, iPod shuffle, etc.), you wash a load of clothes,  you double-check your rechargeable lantern is charged, etc.

I'll try to set up some scheduled posts over the next few days and overwrite boilerplate with commentaries as my Internet service remains available.





Bill O'Reilly, Romney, Obama & Benghazi

I haven't watched the Factor in months, but i do download  his daily talking points memo. O'Reilly was beside himself after the last debate critical of Romney's taking a ball on Schieffer's softball pitch to lead off. I would have handled it differently than Romney  (and note that the President had the same question and spun his way through it). I do think it was odd that Romney was asked first, a point O'Reilly never raised.

I an a noninterventionist, but by any objective standard, Obama was not forthcoming; the Administration botched things. I think if Obama had gone first, Romney was prepared to cross.

First, I think Romney was concerned about Obama counterattacking the Romney campaign's premature response to the  Egypt/Benghazi incidents (before we learned of the ambassador's murder); second, Romney didn't want to be accused of politically exploiting a tragedy; third, Obama would have been in a state of denial, denying anything Romney said;  the burden of proof was on Romney.  Finally, there's the question of "what would you have done?", especially if requested resources weren't sufficient to repel the attack.

I think one question I haven't heard addressed is: if the Benghazi consulate was considered vulnerable, why was the ambassador there? I'm not trying to blame the victim: it's just the date has high significance for these groups, and the ambassador would likely have been safer at the embassy.

One thing as a libertarian has me absolutely seething about is the idiot responsible for putting an ad on Pakistan television publicly distancing itself from that controversial film. I object to the film based on matters of civility, but did the US pay for ads in Vatican City when say the National Endowment for the Arts subsidized (not merely tolerated) Serrano's much more offensive "Piss Christ"? Leftist civil libertarians at the time were dismissive that "some" Christians might be offended  by the appearance of a Christ figure submerged in the "artist"'s own urine. (This is a typical hypocritical leftist pseudo-apology (I wonder if they would feel the same way if a conservative artist released "Defecate Obama" using stimulus money ).) The idea of Obama, Clinton and their Progressive-Censors-Are-More-Equal stance spending money they don't have so they can dubiously mitigate the effects of radical, trouble-making clerics  (as if Obama has any credibility by playing Whack-a-Mole with drone attacks and collateral damage and/or the clerics care about whether the government made or subsidized the film). It's not just this Administration threw our constitution under the bus, but they basically played into the hands of uncivil malcontents.

What would I have said in Romney's place? First, it was clear from the outset that the Egypt and Libya incidents were different and the ambassador's death was the result of  a military/terrorist attack, and the Obama Administration knowingly misled the American people through its minions (e.g., Susan Rice). It's one thing to redact sensitive information; it's another thing to be in a state of denial. Second, there seem to be management problems in the State Dept. Recall the nearly tragic circumstances of the underwear bomber, and now this disagreement between State and national intelligence. Another point is that the US meddling in the Libyan conflict during the Arab spring had consequences. Finally, protection of our diplomats in job #1, and I would make clear that a Romney Administration would be sensitive to requests for additional  security.

The Tea Party, Rape and Abortion

I seriously want to kick Indiana GOP Senate candidate Murdoch's ass.  I cannot understand why Tea Party favorites let themselves get trapped into talking about cases of abortion and rape. The percentage of rape-caused pregnancies is negligible, I got an email alert--probably the night of a debate by one of my mainstream media alerts quoting Murdoch about carrying a rapist's baby to term.

How Murdoch got trapped on this after the Akin kerfuffle blows my mind. I do expect Akin and Murdoch to eventually win their races, but some facts of life: first, the Tea Party has no position on abortion. Second, there is no chance of passing a pro-life amendment given the number of pro-abortion choice Dem senators in the next Congress. Third, if there is a consensus view, it  is that abortion comes under the police function of states

I'm pro-life. I understand where Akin and Murdoch are coming from, but given the status quo I see one of 2 possible viable alternatives: (1) restoring state regulation including extenuating circumstance exceptions (like mother's life or rape) and/or (2) banning abortion, short of risk to the mother's life,  after signs of the baby's functional  organ activity  (e.g., a baby's heartbeat).  I also think you could restrict the type of abortion to facilitate the baby's chances to survive a procedure (e.g., born alive versus D&C).

But "it''s the economy, stupid". Arguing state regulation should be the default Tea Party response.

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

The Carpenters, "Ticket to Ride". This Beatles' cover off their first A&M LP didn't quite hit Top 40; their next single, "Close to You", would be their first #1 (3 on the hot 100, over a dozen on adult contemporary) and they never looked back. Richard brilliantly retools the arrangement here in the now familiar Carpenters' sound), slow and poignant (it takes testicular fortitude to alter a classic Beatles hit but here  it works: the student exceeds the master). This performance showcases Karen's rich lower register--just flawless, seemingly effortless technique: she has a way of projecting in an intimate manner--like she is singing just for you, almost like the female version of Sinatra for the Baby Boomers.

Miscellany: 3/01/12

Quote of the Day

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.
William Butler Yeats

Andrew Breitbart: Done Too Soon at 43

Breitbart was the undisputed leader of the new generation conservatives, someone whom was influential in iconic websites DrudgeReport and Huffington Post and had several of his own with a Big[name].com: BigGovernment, BigPeace, BigHollywood, etc. He was seen collapsing  on a late night walk by a neighbor, whom called an ambulance; he allegedly had known heart problems. Breitbart often assumed guest host duties of Dennis Miller's radio show (Dennis Miller also does the greatest interviews with actor Orson Bean, Breitbart's father-in-law); in fact, I was listening to one of those guest host podcasts yesterday.

Breitbart broke a number of well-known stories, including some of the Acorn stings, the infamous Shirley Sherrod audio/visual clip that led to her termination, etc.

Ms. Sherrod expressed her condolences to the family, and I applaud her for that. I still have mixed feelings about the Sherrod incident. The "big sin" was that Breitbart, who had been given an excerpt of the speech, went public before getting a copy of the full speech if it was available. I still think it would have been better for Ms. Sherrod to be prudent in explaining how she felt about the white farmer whom had disrespected her. I don't think I would have released it having heard the whole speech. Ms. Sherrod was certainly entitled to her opinion.

I have mixed feelings about Mr. Breitbart. I thought he was always interesting to listen to, although I thought he was a bit too focused on and defensive about  progressive's abusive assaults on conservatives. My feeling is, get over it: life isn't fair. I don't think it's prudent to show the jerks are getting under your skin.

But as someone who myself started out as a liberal Democrat, it was always refreshing to hear of another conversion to conservatism; we had something in common. He, of all the media conservatives, came across as a genuine, very nice man. He left behind an amazing family with several beautiful pre-teen children; my thoughts and prayers are with his surviving family members and friends.

Romney Takes Wyoming Caucuses 
For Fourth Consecutive Win

Maine, Arizona, Michigan and Wyoming add to Romney's prior victories/ties in Iowa (tie), New Hampshire, Florida, and Nevada. The Gallup tracking poll, as I expected, has Romney up by 11% over Santorum, and Rasmussen has Romney up 40-24 over Santorum, reversing an early 39-27 advantage for Santorum. Next week will be more of a challenge with Romney up in Massachusetts, Virginia and Vermont, Gingrich up in Georgia, and Santorum up in Ohio, Tennessee and Oklahoma. Romney is a lock in Massachusetts and Virginia, only facing Ron Paul. And after Santorum bragged about earning just as many delegates in Michigan as winner Romney, one delegate was effectively flipped for Romney. Romney holds an estimated 182 of  1144 delegates needed for nomination. Romney picked up the endorsement of an influential Georgia newspaper, and Gingrich admits that winning his home state is make-or-break for his campaign.

On the Latest Episodes of  
"O'Reilly Knows Nothing (About Economics)"...

Before proceeding with the video commentary below, the reader may want to review my original response to the first episode; I also provide a related excerpt from Cafe Hayek at the end of a long commentary here.

I'm a little frustrated here, because I don't think the oil industry spokesman in the piece does a very good job of explaining a number of things. True, he talks about global prices, but he needed to be somewhat more specific. First, it's not true that America is self-sufficient in oil. Even with North Dakota's production, we are still dependent on about half of the oil we use. Second, money is fungible: the price of oil (holding type of oil constant) is determined by the global market. The spokesman did mention the global market, but did not explain about valuation of American oil. To suggest, as O'Reilly does, that American oil and derived products be sold below global costs is perverse economics and bad accounting: what is relevant is current/future prices for ongoing enterprises. It is true that matching existing inventory acquired at a lower price will show higher profits, but those profits are an artifact of accounting procedures: the inventory is really worth the current price. The use of obsolete prices of source resources would be unsustainable and misleading. Third, O'Reilly's market manipulation argument won't work (unless a company is distressed and will sell at any price). A vendor should be indifferent where he sells the goods (inside or outside the country): the relevant price is the global market price. Bill thinks that the vendor would be forced to sell at whatever the local market will bear. But as a vendor, I have no incentive to sell below my relevant costs; I would rather store my product until I get acceptable prices. Note that Bill's argument could be used for any exported good:  given the supply/demand curve he figures larger supply means lower price. Just don't export any good, and Americans will pay lower prices. There are several problems with that (besides the argument I just made about vendors refusing to sell below relevant costs), including the fact that American higher-value goods often require imported resources or components: how does the American manufacturer get his supplies if we aren't exporting? Fourth, Bill is pulling a bait-and-switch; he's talking about gasoline and other downstream products, but refining is only one set of operations for Exxon and contributes only part of the revenues and profits earned by the parent company O'Reilly cites. An Exxon refinery in theory could process crude from any source, over and beyond Exxon's own exploration and production unit. And Exxon's production unit could sell to any refinery in theory. What's the settled price? Clearly the market price for crude. The refinery has its own market, and it operates at typically lower margins than other aspects of the oil business (production, transport, etc.). For example, according to Ycharts, Valero, a very large refining and marketing operation, has a margin of 5.58%. Finally, market prices encourage locating and developing additional or alternative supplies. Bill's market manipulation does no such thing. New discoveries can have a material downward affect on global prices.

• "A decade ago, oil exports were not even among the top 25 exports." Even if true FOR DOWNSTREAM PRODUCTS (not crude, which O'Reilly implies), irrelevant. As Dobbs pointed out, there are higher-growing economies with expanding middle-income families buying cars. It may also be that international refineries are already running at capacity and hence are looking to the US refineries.
• "Many Republicans want to drill baby drill but what's the point if all the oil goes to China? Increased production obviously doesn't mean lower prices for us." Let's get this straight: China's demand is going to go up as its middle class grows, with or without new discoveries of American oil. So what Mr. Bill is saying here is "don't discover new oil--which will positively affect oil prices--because the Chinese are out to buy every barrel it can and/or downstream product it can find anywhere." Um, Mr. Bill? What about the fact that we're continuing to depend on foreign suppliers of oil, and we have to bid against China for that oil? What you are suggesting is MAKING A BAD SITUATION WORSE. That's not "looking out for the folks".
• "However, if the Obama administration wanted to, it could ask Congress to raise export taxes on the oil companies to encourage them to sell their products here." Not a chance in hell the GOP will raise business taxes, which are contrary to their entire rhetoric against Obama's anti-growth economic policies. Bill O'Reilly, as usual, gets it exactly backwards: the correct policy is to encourage domestic investment by constraining the EPA, expanding leases, streamlining approval processes, etc. More domestic supply encourages energy independence. What O'Reilly is doing here is a violation of equal protection principle; it engages in the same sort of picking winners and losers in the marketplace--an argument the GOP has been pressing against the Dems.
• "Well, Republicans generally don't want to inhibit the oil industry. And Democrats generally want high gas prices so folks switch to other modes of transportation and embrace alternative energy". The GOP, if it argues that it believes in the free market (which it has) will not intervene in the market. They have been arguing against the Dems engaging in industrial policy. I will point out that the Dems are well aware that the GOP will use high prices against Obama in the campaign--because Obama has opened only a marginal number of new sites. But both Dems and Republicans have thrown money at alternative energy, which is an indirect way of boosting prices for alternative fuels. And the Dems' standard talking point on this issue is more subtle than O'Reilly presents: they argue that new discoveries won't hit the market for years and hence will have no affect on prices in the short term. False; it depends on the nature of the find.
• "The cartels overseas and the oil companies here set the prices based upon what they can get anywhere in the world." Apparently O'Reilly thinks there's a problem which suppliers charging what the market will bear. As I explained in an earlier post, price-fixing is economically inefficient; oil shocks can trigger recessions and cut demand and also provide an incentive to find new supplies or make alternative energy supplies more feasible.

More on the second video to follow...



(About halfway through this commentary O'Reilly talks about oil and President Obama's leadership.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: The amount of oil that we drill at home doesn't set the price of gas by itself. The oil market is global. Oil is bought and sold in a world market. And just like last year, the single biggest thing that's causing the price of oil to spike right now is instability in the Middle East. This time around Iran.

O'REILLY: But that's not entirely true. As "The Factor" has been reporting the oil companies are selling products that originate in America overseas because they can get more money in China and other places. That is the primary reason we're paying more for gas right now, because our domestic supply up because of the mild winter is being diverted to other countries so the oil companies can make more profit.

Obama, in this instance, is correct (not something I say that often). However, his energy policies have deterred the industry from finding or developing new supplies, and his policies towards Iran are playing a role.

O'Reilly is simply misleading the folks. First of all, we're still importing about half the oil we need. By what stretch of logic is he attributing refinery products to domestic (vs. imported) oil? Moreover, O'Reilly is confusing different markets here. There's the issue of heating oil, a different product. Heating oil is also being affected by Americans converting to cheap natural gas (which we have in abundance) versus home heating oil. And O'Reilly has things exactly backwards here: the reason we are paying more for oil reflects the global market price, not America's exports of oil products.

Therefore President Obama and Congress have a perfect right to regulate where fossil fuels that originate in the USA go because it's basically the property of we the people. But once again our leadership lets us down. If I am president I say to the American oil companies, hey, you have to sell a certain percentage of what you find and refine here to Americans.

Gas retailers already provide as much domestically-gasoline at a market price as consumers want or need. There are additional shipping costs for exported oil products.

And if you don't, we're going to slap an import tax... an export tax I should say on what you send overseas. Now that will bring down the price of gasoline? Would it not?

No. What will bring down the price of gasoline is decreased global demand (e.g., a recession) or increased global oil supply. We should not be discriminating against American downstream product exports; exports enable imports of goods that are cheaper to produce by others than we ourselves (the law of comparative advantage). You can't force a producer to sell below price, and discouraging American exports also adversely effects well-paid staff and (largely senior investor) stockholder income. What O'Reilly also fails to see is that we are not exporting crude--the raw material of oil products--but generally higher-margin value-added products.

Mr. Obama could call every American oil president into his office tomorrow. He could say exactly what I have just said in this "Talking Points" memo. You guys either sell a certain percentage of your oil to Americans or you've got to pay a price.

First of all, I don't believe in an imperial Presidency. Obama has no authority to unilaterally change terms of a contract after the fact (which oil companies have for domestic exploration and production); I didn't like it when Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson forced banks to accept federal money against their will, I didn't like it when Obama ignored higher-standing bondholders ahead of his crony union members. Second, even assuming the GOP House would pass this nonsense, which I doubt given the fact the GOP opposes industrial policy, it doesn't do anything to solve the real problem--that global demand is outstripping supply. What the Republicans need is a long-term solution to phasing out dependency on foreign energy supplies, not O'Reilly's megalomaniac short-term fixes which do nothing to address the long-term needs.

Political Humor

"Today is the 100th anniversary of the Oreo cookie. For New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, it's a holy day." - David Letterman

[Thank God that Letterman didn't think about doing a Barack Obama joke.


Santorum charged Romney of twisting the cookies apart and settling for the middle and Newt Gingrich of dunking his Oreos in batter and deep-frying them. As in all things, Santorum himself sees the discussion of Oreos as black and white.]

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Paul McCartney & Wings, "Silly Love Songs"

Miscellany: 2/24/12

Quote of the Day 

Grow old along with me!
The best is yet to be,
the last life,
for which the first was made;
our times are in his hand who saith,
 'A whole I planned,
youth shows but half;
trust God:
See all,
nor be afraid!'
Robert Browning





Physician, Heal Thyself
Government Official, Police Thyself

[On the news that President Obama has proposed a "Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights"...] I was amused to find this comment posted on The Freeman website:

Don’t invade people’s privacy. The government hates competition.

Ah, yes: the same government that knew about Martin Luther King's extramarital affairs, can see what you look like naked before boarding the aircraft and recently extended the Patriot Act with multiple anti-privacy measures wants to let you know that you can trust them to crack down on Internet companies tracking your every move. Obama wants to let you know the Social Security Administration won't send you an AARP insert with your annual statement when you turn 50. (But, you know, the USPS is going broke, and .... Scratch that idea: I don't want to give Obama any ideas...)

Let's have a brief reminder:

The original Patriot Act made it far easier for the FBI to use National Security Letters (NSLs) to compel private citizens, businesses, nonprofits, and other entities to surrender information on demand. NSLs empower the FBI to seize records that reveal “where a person makes and spends money, with whom he lives and lived before, how much he gambles, what he buys online, what he pawns and borrows, where he travels, how he invests, what he searches for and reads on the Web, and who telephones or e-mails him at home and at work,” the Washington Post noted. The FBI was issuing more than 50,000 NSLs per year.

The prior year, when he was running for reelection, Bush assured Americans that no wiretaps were occurring without federal court authorization. But the Times revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) had conducted warrantless wiretaps on thousands of Americans based on flimsy pretexts. The Times’ James Risen reported that Bush’s “secret presidential order has given the NSA the freedom to peruse . . . the email of millions of Americans.” 

Google can only dream what it could do if it only had access to government data on citizens...

Libertarians are not convinced that Obama has made reform of the oversight boards a high priority with belated appointments, there has been little accountability of past abuses, and the status quo seems to build on the same opaque characteristics as the past...

Yes, Obama understands the nefarious invasive nature of  private businesses gathering information on customer behavior; of course, he wants to let you know behind that new bill of privacy rights will be a new wing of an expanded federal bureaucracy aggressively meddling in the affairs of Internet businesses protecting our privacy.

I think Obama has far bigger issues on his plate: (1)  a federal government that knows its boundaries and does not harass, stalk or spy on the private lives of its citizens without their knowledge and consent or due process that goes beyond lip service; and (2) the need for a strong, independent, proactive federal internal affairs unit protecting citizen privacy from government abuse.

Bill O'Reilly On Rising Gas Prices: Grade F

I want to reassure my readers that I didn't start off the day intending to write a rant about a Bill O'Reilly commentary. I'm sure that there are dozens of things that are said everyday that I would disagree with on all the major cable news outlets. The fact of the matter is Bill O'Reilly's opinion reflects a populist standpoint that could have been written from the left or right; probably the main difference would be that liberals or progressives wouldn't have felt the need to bring Obama into the conversation.

I have edited the following commentary excerpt, which I present in the event the accompanying embedded video, available at the time of this post, becomes unavailable at a later date. The excerpt is printed for reader convenience and context for relevant discussion; I found the video and transcript available here (I always encourage readers to visit Fox News and/or Bill O'Reilly's website for the original material):

O'REILLY: Yesterday at LAX I saw gas signs that said $4.50 a gallon. Working Americans and the poor are getting hosed at the pump. The President gives working Americans a payroll cut tax,but the extra income goes into the gas tank. Why is this happening? Well, Lou Dobbs says there is plenty of gas and oil in America. The record warm winter means reserves are way up.
DOBBS: Primarily jet fuels, diesel and gasoline which normally would be in abundance right now is being shipped overseas. The fact of the matter is we are competing with demand in China, in Europe, and primarily in Latin America.
O'REILLY: There is plenty of oil in the USA. Prices should not be at record levels. But they are because the oil companies are sending their products overseas to make more money. And what is the federal government doing about that? Zero. It's my job to tell you the truth. Right now we are all being taken advantage of by an administration that has an anti-fossil fuel agenda and an oil industry that manipulates the U.S. market.

I hardly know where to start here. First of all, this is not the first time Bill O'Reilly has voiced his conspiracy theory about oil companies and speculators;  let me also point out I hold no direct positions in oil companies or the industry itself (e.g., in a sector fund or ETF).

But I have to question O'Reilly's understanding of basic economics. You always have the law of supply and demand at stake. There are reasons that Saudi Arabia, for instance, doesn't want the price of oil to get too high, too fast: it can trigger a global recession, and recessionary economies cut back on energy, and it also makes alternative energy supplies more cost-competitive. For example, Canadian oil sands are more expensive to process versus, say, pumping oil out of a traditional well. Not to mention the high prices encourage more oil exploration.

We don't need to engage, like Bill O'Reilly does here, on  unwarranted speculation of oil companies trying to "manipulate" the market. O'Reilly needs a healthy dose here of Ockham's razor. For example, it's not really clear how speculators got into a position of manipulating the market or why they would ever let it go once they had it. We see these things happen all the time in other contexts: Brazil has a poor coffee harvest, and prices everywhere jump; soaring corn prices, in part due to the competitive use of corn in the US production of ethanol for transportation, have led Mexican officials to institute price caps (thumbs DOWN!), hedge against rising prices, etc., because corn is a staple of everyday life (e.g, tortillas). In sugar, for instance, futures prices have averaged just over $11--but in Nov. 1974, they rose to $65. (I remember a sitcom episode at the time that focused on the high price of table sugar.)

The fact is, the free market WORKS. A bad harvest is followed by a good harvest, new oil supplies become available (e.g., the Williston, ND oil boom, with North Dakota looking to surge past both Alaska and California over the near future). As Obama noted (although it is not because of his efforts but despite them  with meager offerings of offshore acreage, endless environmental lawsuits against the development of vast oil shale properties, the BP spill-related moratorium on permits, etc.), we are now beginning to import less oil than just a few years ago.

I also want to point out to Mr. Bill's attention, that US consumers pay much less than most consumers worldwide for a gallon of gas, and part of the reason that costs have gone up is because of a declining dollar in purchasing power thanks to the Fed Reserve's easy money policies.

O'Reilly also seems to ignore some inconvenient facts. For instance, America is far from self-sufficient in oil: what does he think the Keystone Pipeline project is all about? Canadian tar sand oil. Another major point is that he's missing a critical distinction that Dobbs is making: the US isn't exporting CRUDE--it's exporting REFINED PRODUCTS. Different thing; perhaps he doesn't remember but I seem to recall that Iran for years  has had to IMPORT gasoline because the oil-producing state doesn't have enough of its own refineries: in fact, the US has attempted to use Iranian dependence on refined oil products as part of its economic sanctions. We also have millions of new Chinese, Indian and other drivers all needing refined products (no doubt there's a ramp up to get refineries up and running, especially, say, if available refineries are running at full capacity)--and there's a separate supply and demand issue in play.

When O'Reilly starts griping about the government doing absolutely nothing, I'm not really sure what he has in mind: banning exports of refined oil products? Price caps? Grandstanding Congressional investigations?  Justice Department crackdowns on oil company "market manipulators"?

And/or is he talking about the government opening up new exploration areas, approving things like new pipeline projects from Canada, cutting through environmentalist red tape, etc.? Note that even in the case of the latter, it can take  months to years before we drill productive wells and even longer to get to market, so short-term relief is questionable. (And note that Canadian reserves are already factored into the price equation: it doesn't really matter whether Americans or Chinese buy the oil in the same we are talking about a global market: we are paying market prices for oil wherever we find it.) What helps prices is when large new finds come to the attention of the global market--and as O'Reilly notes, Obama has little interest in seeing that happen on his watch.

O'Reilly seems to place most of the blame on the shoulders of Big Oil--he goes out of his way to say even if the Keystone Pipeline was already done, greedy Big Oil would export the relevant refined products anyway... (Ah, yes, let's build on this: Big Oil has been the secret party really responsible for seeding the market and raising the standard of living in India, China and other developing nations so their citizens can afford gas-guzzling cars. Maybe Obama should shunt aside his environmentalist cronies and put those wily economic geniuses running the oil companies on his board of economic advisers!)

Note that Dobbs is not, at least in the quoted excerpt, blaming the oil companies of manipulating the market; he's simply explaining there is strong global demand for refined oil products. Bill O'Reilly somehow thinks it is wrong for US companies to sell their products at the better price, domestic or international. Profiting from a robust market for your goods or services is hardly "manipulative": it's participatory. If I was a shareholder or employee, I want the company getting the highest price it can, which is to my own benefit. Selling for below-market prices is irrational sentimental behavior.  If I had a $150K house, a young family offered me $175K, but a Saudi prince was willing to give me $350K in cash, I'm sorry but I'm taking the prince's offer. It's not personal but business. Yeah, the wife may be pregnant and tell you she can't afford to match the offer. But just imagine how I would feel if I gave in, only to see her turn around and  flip the property to the prince, making a 100% profit at my expense?

Bill O'Reilly says that he writes his own material and he claims to be a television journalist. However, all I see here is muddled thinking and unsupported, reckless allegations. As for O'Reilly's discussion of Obama, I do realize that high petroleum product prices encourages the production of alternative green energy, but I guarantee the last thing Obama wants is high gas prices with an election just about 8 months way. High energy prices can trigger an economic downturn, the last thing Obama wants, just as we finally seem to be emerging from the economic malaise.

Another thing, Bill: a plurality or even majority of poor households can't afford to buy or operate a car (including insurance and repairs); this is one of the lessons Bill O'Reilly seems to have forgotten from the public sector failure to evacuate New Orleans before the Katrina tragedy (see here, for instance). This issue does squeeze disposable income, particularly for  lower middle class household, young drivers, senior citizens on fixed or limited income, etc., but O'Reilly's use of poverty in this context seems gratuitous and opportunistic in making the point.

A couple of final observations about O'Reilly's shoddy commentary:

• What was the point here? All he seems to be doing is whining: he doesn't seem to have any constructive solutions. Is this the kind of analysis Roger Ailes has come to expect for reportedly paying him somewhere in the range of $20M a year?
• O'Reilly's commentary seems to be an imitation of Barack Obama's pathetic "gotta be doing something: we can't afford to do nothing" rhetoric in arguing Big Government needs a blank check to impose its will on any matter crossing its radar screen; unlike business, the government doesn't have to worry about raising capital: government can tax at will or print money, undermining the currency and the people's savings.  Why does Mr. Bill seem to think that government is solution and not part of the problem? True, he doesn't particularly care for Obama's "solutions", but he doesn't seem to have that much faith in Adam Smith's "invisible hand" either. "Looking out for the folks" obviously doesn't include those of us whom believe in economic liberty, personal virtue and limited government.

Watching Obama's lust for Big Government reminds me of this one occasion back in 1995 when I was eating in a São Paulo, Brazil churrascaria (steakhouse). (For those who don't know, it's often a single-price, all-you-care-to-eat steakhouse concept where you typically start off with a self-serve salad bar, but waiters come around with plates or skewers of meat, chicken hearts, etc, or certain side dishes and carve portions or serve you at your table.) What I hadn't noticed at this one particular restaurant was that there was a green/red button near the plate. So my plate is full, and this waiter comes by and politely offers to serve me a portion. I explain, in my limited Portuguese, that I have no room on my plate. He smiles and says, "No problem!", pulls out a second plate and serves a portion. Soon, that second plate is full, and the waiters are still stopping by. I'm sure I have enough to satiate my appetite and try to explain to the waiter when he points out my green button (which I promptly turn over). The point is that if we were talking about a government banquet table, Obama wouldn't be satisfied with a second helping--he wants a second table. And a third...

Bill O'Reilly is a pseudo-conservative; he's not a real Tea Party/limited government type of guy. Oh, he might grumble about that Solyndra plate served up and tell the restaurant owners that he's not going to pay good money for THAT. And, unlike Obama, O'Reilly does seem to be a little worried  what the final bill is going to look like.

But you know, sometimes we experienced bike riders take a spill. We don't whine to other people or ask Mommy to kiss our boo-boo; we don't go around looking for other people to blame. A spill is what it is, a fact of life. We deal with it: we get up off the ground, dust ourselves off, fix the bike and start pedaling again: we don't need a government recall on the bike model and Obama-regulation training wheels, more public safety officials riding along our bike path "just in case", or new restrictions about where we're allowed to ride our bike.

And just a final comment about O'Reilly's bringing up the payroll tax cut. I have repeatedly argued against any payroll tax cut unless we get a fundamental reform of the social security system to deal with massive unfunded liabilities: cutting present contributions only makes since if we agree to take lower payouts in the future. Obama, of course, is hypocritical here: he can talk about the cost-saving benefits for government-paid or mandated health care funding, but what about preventive funding decisions underlying our currently unsustainable senior entitlement programs? Are you kidding me?

The last thing I heard is that the Congress did not agree on a tax increase/spending cut package to pay for the package, so it will be funded out of the deficit. We have an unfunded liability problem with social security even before Obama started raiding the lockbox last year and this year: I've also mentioned that, consistent with Milton Friedman's permanent income hypothesis, I oppose temporary tax cuts because consumers make decisions based on sustainable income.



Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups

Paul McCartney & Wings, "Band on the Run"