Thursday, May 31, 2012

A Right, Really?

From an article on the debate over the ride free zone in downtown Seattle.

"The free-ride zone is not a privilege but a right, and it should be something Seattle people should be proud of having," said Whitney Knox, caseworker for Catholic Housing Services. To her, the repeal "seems kind of mind-boggling, with all the wealth we have in this country."

Now I commute by bus to work most days, so I am as pro-transit as anyone, but how did a limited free area for transit become a "right"?

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

The Truth-Challenged Eugene Robinson

Editorialist Eugene Robinson attacks the character of Mitt Romney, in a rather ironic way:


Even by this lax standard, Romney too often fails. Not to put too fine a point on it, he lies. Quite a bit.
"Since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history," Romney claims on his campaign website. This is utterly false. The truth is that spending has slowed markedly under Obama.
An analysis published last week by MarketWatch, a financial news website owned by Dow Jones & Co., compared the yearly growth of federal spending under presidents going back to Ronald Reagan. Citing figures from the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, MarketWatch concluded that "there has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear."

Mr. Robinson however, ignored the analysis of the fact-checker at the Washington Post, his very own newspaper, which gave that Marketwatch article 3 out of 4 Pinocchios.  

In the post-war era, federal spending as a percentage of the U.S. economy has hovered around 20 percent, give or take a couple of percentage points. Under Obama, it has hit highs not seen since the end of World War II — completely the opposite of the point asserted by Carney. Part of this, of course, is a consequence of the recession, but it is also the result of a sustained higher level of spending.

Robinson replies to this claim in an on-line chat earlier today, but he just doubles down on dishonesty.
I suppose it's too much to ask that you actually read what I wrote. My column says that Romney's claim that under Obama "federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in modern history" is a lie. It remains, in fact, a lie. Glenn Kessler's fine Fact Checker column is an assessment of a claim the president made about spending. While Glenn disagrees with the central assertion of the Market Watch column that I cite -- that spending has risen at only 1.4 percent a year under Obama -- he sets the actual figure at 3.3 percent for the period in question. This is still far, far lower than the rate at which spending increased under Bush, Bush or Reagan. Funny how the big-spending presidents are all Republicans... I should add that Poynter's Politifact truth-squad accepts the 1.4 percent figure, but I included the 3.3. percent number in my column because one doesn't diss the home team. Glenn makes the point that Obama would have spent more if the Republicaans in Congress had let him. I acknowledge that fact, but still there is still no way to justify Romney's false claim. 

He is avoiding the fact, however, that the 3.3 percent number, is only if you start counting from 2010, which as Kessler points out, is highly misleading.

 In theory, one could claim that the budget was already locked in when Obama took office, but that’s not really the case. Most of the appropriations bills had not been passed, and certainly the stimulus bill was only signed into law after Obama took office.

Bush had rescued Fannie and Freddie Mac and launched the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which depending on how you do the math, was a one-time expense of $250 billion to $400 billion in the final months of his presidency. (The federal government ultimately recouped most of the TARP money.) So if you really want to be fair, perhaps $250 billion of that money should be taken out of the equation — on the theory that it would have been spent no matter who was president.

and

Under these figures, and using this calculator, with 2008 as the base year and ending with 2012, the compound annual growth rate for Obama’s spending starting in 2009 is 5.2 percent.  Starting in 2010 — Nutting’s first year — and ending with 2013, the annual growth rate is 3.3 percent. (Nutting had calculated the result as 1.4 percent.)

As the saying goes, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts."



Monday, April 30, 2012

Diversity... I Don't Think That Word Means What You Think It Means

Reading the American media can be quite Orwellian lately, especially from the state of California.  Take this recent AP article on "diversity" in the California university system with the headline "Campus diversity suffers under race-blind policies".


Junior Magali Flores, 20, said she experienced culture shock when she arrived on the Berkeley campus in 2009 after graduating from a predominantly Latino high school in Los Angeles.
Flores, one of five children of working-class parents from Mexico, said she feels the university can feel hostile to students of color, causing some to leave because they don't feel welcome at Berkeley.
"We want to see more of our people on campus," Flores said. "With diversity, more people would be tolerant and understanding of different ethnicities, different cultures."

Aside from the fact that Miss Flores hardly seems to be "tolerant and understanding of different ethnicities" herself,  the article lists the racial breakdown of UC Berkeley:

With affirmative action outlawed, Asian American students have dominated admissions. The freshman class admitted to UC Berkeley this coming fall is 30 percent white and 46 percent Asian, according to newly released data. The share of admitted Asians is four times higher than their percentage in the state's K-12 public schools.

So a campus that is 70% non-white is "hostile to students of color"?

Really?

REALLY?

Monday, April 23, 2012

I Blame Bush!

James Taranto points out this particularly idiotic editorial by Catherine Poe of the Washington Times.  He concentrates on the accusations of racism against Republicans, which by now is pretty much old hat.  I was more amazed by another typical accusation.

Like it or not, Republicans know President Obama inherited the Near Depression from President Bush, caused by the Republican love of tax cuts, especially for the wealthy, love of war, hence the Iraq debacle, and love of deregulation, thus our financial collapse. 


Ok, you can make at least a logical argument, although an extremely weak one regarding "love of deregulation" although there was no actual regulation that was ever "deregulated" that would have stopped the housing bubble, and Democrats certainly never proposed one, but how exactly are they blaming tax cuts for this?  Really?  In what feverish left-wing fantasy do you get from "tax cuts for the rich" to "housing bubble based on sub-prime mortgages"?

Sunday, February 12, 2012

The More I Think About It Old Billy Was Right...

I just finished reading economist and mathematician Steven Landburg's The Big Question, an interesting, if somewhat confusing examination of life's "big questions".  One interesting point he did bring up, which admittedly fit into my biases, is that lawyers are one of the few, if not the only professions where being intellectually dishonest is not only accepted, but required by their ethical code.  Think about it, if a scientist puts forward a hypothesis which is disproved by others, he is ethically required to change his hypothesis, that is the whole point of the scientific method.

You will never catch a lawyer, on the other hand, saying "You honor, I change my mind, the defense witness has my client dead to rights.  There is no question he did it."  He is legally and ethically required to keep promoting his defense, whether the evidence supports him or not.

This is not to say that this is bad, or that lawyers are inherently evil.  I have friends who are lawyers, and they are good decent people, but that they represent a unique position among our professions, one that is required to be dishonest.  Maybe this is why so may politicians are lawyers?  Over half of the current Senate for example.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Why Do They Say This Guy is So Smart, Again?

This bit from yesterday's State of the Union Address still has me shaking my head.

In the next few weeks, I will sign an executive order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects.  But you need to fund these projects.  Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.  (Applause.)


Huh?  Even without the expense of the Iraq War, we are still running a deficit somewhere in the vicinity of $1.5 trillion a year.  How exactly do we pay down anything based on the fact that we could have been spending more?  Sorry, they never covered this accounting trick in B-School.

The Wall Street Journal Imitates Me

Hmm, sounds familiar.


This is because wealthy tax filers make most of their income from investments. Such income is taxed once at the corporate rate of 35% and again when it is passed through to the individual as a capital gain or dividend at 15%, for a highest marginal tax rate of about 44.75%.
This double taxation is one reason the U.S. has long had a differential tax rate for capital gains. Another reason is because while taxpayers must pay taxes on their gains, they aren't allowed to deduct capital losses (beyond $3,000 a year) except against gains in the current year. Capital gains also aren't indexed for inflation, so a lower rate is intended to offset the effect of inflated gains.



Tuesday, January 24, 2012

A Simple Proposal

With the all the brouhaha over Mitt Romney's tax return, and the President's State of the Union address, much has been lost about why some rich investors pay such a low rate.  The media and politicians always seem to miss that it is the simple fact that capital gains are treated differently than regular income.  Should it be, well that depends on your perspective, but there are several legitimate reasons why it is.  Such as:

1.  They have already been taxed, both when the original capital was taxed as income, and at the corporate level, which on the books at least, is one of the highest in the world.

2.  They are not indexed for inflation. If, for example, you have an investment which makes a 30% return over a period of time when the inflation was 40%, you not only lost 10% in real terms, but you get the pleasure of paying a tax to the government for the honor.  Not exactly fair.

3.  They are not riskless.  If you receive a paycheck, the worst thing that can happen is you are laid off, and your pay goes to zero.  If you invest $1 million and receive an income stream off of it, you not only lose your income, but you can lose your $1 million.  If you make a million you have to pay taxes on that income, but if you lose that same million, the government does not cut you a check for that same amount in taxes.

So while I can understand why some people argue that for fairness, the very rich at least, should have to pay a higher capital gains right, fine, first just address the 3 issues I have raised above.  Raise the capital gains rate to the same as income, but first cut the corporate rate to 15-20%, in line with the rest of the developed world.  Then allow capital gains to be indexed for inflation, and finally allow capital gains losses to be offset against regular income.

Anyone think the president will actually propose any of these?  Nah... didn't think so.

Thursday, January 12, 2012

But Lawyers Are?

I will leave it up to the inimitable Steven Landsburg (just picked up his latest book) to address the bad economics in this Paul Krugman post, but I was most interested in the anti-business bias.


A brief thought on something I’ll try to expand on later. Leaving aside all the questions about what Mitt Romney did or didn’t do at Bain — and about his self-aggrandizing double standard — there’s an even broader question: why does anyone believe that success in business qualified someone to make economic policy?
For the fact is that running a business is nothing at all like making macro policy. The key point about macroeconomics is the pervasiveness of feedback loops due to the fact that workers are also consumers. No business sells a large fraction of its output to its own workers; even very small countries sell around two-thirds of their output to themselves, because that much is non-tradable services.

Well first of all, nobody claims that businessmen are experts on macroeonomics and monetary policy, but in general they at least have an idea in how to lead large organizations and how the economy works.  Right now we have a government run by lawyers.  Over half of the Senate are lawyers, every Democratic presidential and vice presidential candidate since 1984 has gone to law school (Al Gore, the Nobel Prize winning intellectual of the left and creator of the Internet dropped out, shortly after flunking out of law school).

So having someone with some experience in the real world, outside of government or the court room, is not a bad thing.  There aren't really any good jobs to prepare for being president anyway, aside from being a governor, which is why most presidents are former governors.  A first term senator getting elected to the presidency is actually quite rare, for a reason.  Romney being both a governor and successful businessman certainly demonstrates more experience than our current part-time law professor/community organizer in chief.  Now you can definitely make some arguments against voting for him based on policy, but that is another topic.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Democrats Against Democracy

Aside from this whole thing where Obama simply ignores the constitution by pretending that Congress is in recess, the fact that liberals support the CFPB because it is protected from democracy is disturbing.  Can our system be corrupt and self-serving at times?  Sure, but it is the best we got.  Creating government entities which are immune from control by elected from officials and which rely solely on the virtues and judgement of bureaucrats, is, dare I say, fascist.


The bigger question is why Republicans oppose an agency that would stop financial companies from cheating and taking advantage of ordinary Americans, which happened to millions during the mortgage mania. They complain that the current setup leaves the bureau "unaccountable" to the American people, in part, because its funding comes automatically out of the Federal Reserve's budget rather than through the congressional appropriations process.
Unfortunately, the interests of the American people and individual members of Congress are not always one and the same. The funding mechanism was created precisely to remove the power of the purse from the industry's handmaidens in Congress. During 2007 and 2008, the height of Wall Street excess, conservatives cut the funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, whose job it was to patrol the markets. They apparently want the ability to deny the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau the means to stand between the unscrupulous financial salesmen and their unsophisticated prey.

Friday, January 06, 2012

I Blame Paul Krugman

Well since the Nobel Laureate already set a precedent for accusing people you disagree with politically of motivating crimes, then I will start trying to connect his anti-banking rhetoric and support of the Occupy Wall Street crowd to this attempted fire bombing of a bank in Seattle.

 Seattle police arson/bomb-squad investigators and the FBI are trying to determine who left an incendiary device at a Southeast Seattle bank early Friday.
The device, which one witness described as two bottles wrapped in tape in a box with wires, failed to ignite. Seattle police are calling the incident an attempted arson.
Police spokesman Mark Jamieson said that someone who apparently saw the device inside the secure ATM area at the Chase Bank, at 7100 Martin Luther King Jr. Way S., flagged down a patrol officer at 6:37 a.m.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Krugman's Army Arms Up

For today's feature I could post about how the protesters in Madison got in trouble for, ahem, taking things into their own hands, but instead I will focus on the original protest.

Fights are erupting among Occupy Wall Street protesters, so much so that one corner of Zuccotti Park has emerged where protesters say they won't go for fear of their safety, the New York Daily News is reporting.

Police officers also have been warned of "dangerous instruments" being concealed in cardboard tubing, the News says it has been told by unidentified police sources.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Krugman's Army Marches Down the Charles River

I could make c into a regular feature. But at least none of them are breaking out those tricorner hats!

BOSTON - A man and woman who have been living in a tent with Occupy Boston protesters have been arrested for allegedly selling heroin to an undercover police officer.

Issac Bell, 34, and Charlene Dumont, 31, both pleaded not guilty to drug possession and distribution charges at their arraignments Monday. They were released on their own personal recognizance and ordered to stay away from the Occupy Boston encampment.

Prosecutors say police set up a sting after learning of drug activity in the encampment.

Monday, October 24, 2011

Krugman's Army on the March

Don't think this will make his next column either.

Dallas Police continue to investigate whether a teenage runaway was sexually assaulted by an adult male at the Occupy Dallas encampment behind City Hall.

A source within the Dallas Police Department who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation said the girl ran away from home in Garland last month and that she is now refusing to cooperate with investigators. She initially told officers that she had sex with a man in his early twenties and had engaged in sexual activity with several other people.

Some members of the group told CBS 11 the girl identified herself as a 19-year-old and never knew she was 14.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Krugman's Army

As Paul Krugman said earlier.


Consider first how Republican politicians have portrayed the modest-sized if growing demonstrations, which have involved some confrontations with the police — confrontations that seem to have involved a lot of police overreaction — but nothing one could call a riot. And there has in fact been nothing so far to match the behavior of Tea Party crowds in the summer of 2009.


Odd, I don't remember this happening at any Tea Party event.


Cleveland police are investigating an alleged sexual assault incident that occured Saturday at the "Occupy Cleveland" rally involving a 19-year-old female student.
According to police reports, the 19-year-old student was instructed by "Occupy Cleveland" personnel to "share a tent with the suspect due to a shortage of tents."


Or this:


Thanks to some watchful officers and Occupy Seattle protesters, police have arrested a man suspected of exposing himself to children at least five different times throughout Seattle.

Police had been searching for suspect since the incidents, which occurred between September 29 and October 3.

“During the course of their investigation, detectives discovered that the suspect had been at Westlake Park, participating in Occupy Wall Street,” said detective Reneee Witt “Flyers of the suspect was circulated to officers and the public at the event.”


But don't worry, they are taking the problem seriously.

Efforts by the Occupy Baltimore protest group to evolve into a self-contained, self-governing community have erupted into controversy with the distribution of a pamphlet that victim advocates and health workers fear discourages victims of sexual assaults from contacting police.

The pamphlet says that members of the protest group who believe they are victims or who suspect sexual abuse "are encouraged to immediately report the incident to the Security Committee," which will investigate and "supply the abuser with counseling resources."

Monday, October 10, 2011

A Beautiful Mind: Part II

Paul Krugman shows he is sinking deeper into dementia, with a series of recent editorials. First, from Friday (emphasis added).

Bear in mind, too, that experience has made it painfully clear that men in suits not only don’t have any monopoly on wisdom, they have very little wisdom to offer. When talking heads on, say, CNBC mock the protesters as unserious, remember how many serious people assured us that there was no housing bubble, that Alan Greenspan was an oracle and that budget deficits would send interest rates soaring.

Uhh, like Paul Krugman said himself:

So what? Two years ago the administration promised to run large surpluses. A year ago it said the deficit was only temporary. Now it says deficits don't matter. But we're looking at a fiscal crisis that will drive interest rates sky-high.

Now Krugman is chiming in on the Occupy Wall Street protests.

Consider first how Republican politicians have portrayed the modest-sized if growing demonstrations, which have involved some confrontations with the police — confrontations that seem to have involved a lot of police overreaction — but nothing one could call a riot. And there has in fact been nothing so far to match the behavior of Tea Party crowds in the summer of 2009.


Seattle police arrested 25 people on Wednesday as they clashed with protesters and hauled away tents. The protest continued after arrests were made.

Wednesday's showdown — in one of downtown's most popular gathering spots — began just after lunchtime, as some demonstrators refused a city order to remove the tents.


Several influential New York state lawmakers have received threatening mails saying it is “time to kill the wealthy” if they don’t renew the state’s tax surcharge on millionaires, according to reports.

“It’s time to tax the millionaires!” reads the email, according to WTEN in Albany. “If you don’t, I’m going to pay a visit with my carbine to one of those tech companies you are so proud of and shoot every spoiled Ivy League [expletive] I can find.”


These are the shocking scenes that have led some people to accuse the Occupy Wall Street protesters living rough in New York's financial district of creating unsanitary and filthy conditions.
Exclusive pictures obtained by Mail Online show one demonstrator relieving himself on a police car.
Elsewhere we found piles of stinking refuse clogging Zuccotti Park, despite the best efforts of many of the protesters to keep the area clean.


Thousands of Occupy Wall Street protesters swarmed the Brooklyn Bridge Saturday, shutting down car lanes and setting up yet another tense showdown with the NYPD.

Roughly 700 people were arrested after standing in the roadway, blocking the Brooklyn-bound lanes. Traffic in the opposite direction was slowed -- but still running after the 4 p.m. standoff.


Thursday, September 08, 2011

Ask and Ye Shall Receive

Jimmy Hoffa, introducing President Obama on Monday:


video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

And now today:


At least 500 Longshoremen stormed the Port of Longview and broke out windows in the guard shack, according to Longview Police Chief Jim Duscha. As men wielding baseball bats and crowbars held six guards captive, others cut brake lines on boxcars and dumped grain, according to Duscha.

Monday, September 05, 2011

None Dare Call it Economics

Krugman has gone over the edge, now proclaiming that virtually any kind of spending, no matter how productive is beneficial.

This puts us in a world of topsy-turvy, in which many of the usual rules of economics cease to hold. Thrift leads to lower investment; wage cuts reduce employment; even higher productivity can be a bad thing. And the broken windows fallacy ceases to be a fallacy: something that forces firms to replace capital, even if that something seemingly makes them poorer, can stimulate spending and raise employment. Indeed, in the absence of effective policy, that’s how recovery eventually happens: as Keynes put it, a slump goes on until “the shortage of capital through use, decay and obsolescence” gets firms spending again to replace their plant and equipment.

And now you can see why tighter ozone regulation would actually have created jobs: it would have forced firms to spend on upgrading or replacing equipment, helping to boost demand. Yes, it would have cost money — but that’s the point! And with corporations sitting on lots of idle cash, the money spent would not, to any significant extent, come at the expense of other investment.

So why not force corporations to build ice sculptures in their cafeterias or something? At least that would look nice.

Monday, August 22, 2011

Practicing Journalism Without a License

I always thought that the AP was an actual news organization, not an arm of the Democratic Party. I have been shaking my head all day at this AP story, run here in the Seattle Times, with the headline:

GOP aims for end to payroll tax break


But if you actually read the article, however, it doesn't list a single Republican "aiming" to end this, much less any indication that it is part of GOP policy, and in fact concludes with:

Neither House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, nor Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has taken a firm stand on whether to extend the one-year tax cut.

Tuesday, July 05, 2011

Journalistic Standards

After my previous post on Greg Valentini, the war-story telling vet who is suing the VA, I e-mailed it to Steve Lopez, the journalist for the LA Times who written 3 stories on the guy with lurid but vague tales of bloody combat. I never received a response.

I just noticed though that Mr. Lopez has now written a fourth article on the guy, with no mention of the previous issues with his stories.

Valentini enlisted in the Army in 2000 primarily for the G.I. Bill and ended up in heavy combat a year later, even though he's generally antiwar. He hung a "Veterans for Peace" sign on his dorm room door at the vet center, and when Zenner objected, Valentini hung it on Zenner's door.


So I e-mailed Mr. Lopez again, and this time I got a pretty swift response. Mr. Lopez insisted that I didn't know what I was talking about and the Rakkasans had fought in Operation Anaconda. Nevermind that I had already stated that fact in the first story that I did, less than a week in a support roll for the Army Rangers, does not count as "9 months of bloody combat", in addition to the issues of claiming to have assaulted Tora Bora or the Kandahar Airport.

Anyway, after several exchanges as I tried to explain to Mr. Lopez that either both him and Laurence Tribe (he claimed not to be familiar with Tribe's claims) had made up stories, or Valentini had lied to him, I finally got a response stating, "Ok, well I appreciate your service there, and I admit to not knowing everything greg went through because I wasn’t there with him".

Well that isn't the point! I don't know absolutely everything that he did either, but at least I can check the big things, such as the fact that the 101st didn't suffer a single fatality despite their "9 months of heavy combat", hell, I did a search for news articles on Purple Heart recipients for that tour and came up with a grand total of 1. And that was for a pilot, not an infantryman. Aren't journalists supposed to do at least the most basic fact checks, or do they just write down whatever people tell them?