I think Sarah Palin has hit a nerve

Check this out. Choice quote:

As a woman who does not believe what Palin believes, the thought of such an opportunistic anti-female in the White House -- in the Cheney chair, no less -- is akin to ideological brain rape. What this Republican blowup doll does with her own insides in accord with her own faith is her business.

The internets have seen some nasty things written on both sides in this election. This might be the nastiest.

We might actually win this thing after all, if this is the best our erstwhile opponents can do.

Uh, Josh

From TPM:

Why did Fred Thompson accuse Barack Obama of not opposing infanticide?

Think I'm exaggerating? Look at his words ...

And we need a President who doesn't think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade.

And McCain approved it.

Hey, Josh, the reason Fred Thompson accused Barack Obama of not opposing infanticide is that he doesn't.

Back to blogging

So, now that the spring semester is over, I definitely want to try this blogging thing again.

Meanwhile, I have a new link to the Visual Bookshelf app from Facebook down below on this page. Check it out; it's really cool.

I, for one, welcome our new Google overlords

If you look to the right you can now see my shared RSS items from Google Reader. I recently switched to Google Reader from Outlook for my RSS needs, and you can share the benefits.

Aren't you excited?

Late Kudos

This is way late, but whatever. Kudos to my man Nick for getting all 65 correct in the NCAA field last Sunday.

What Kind of Regulation?

Yesterday, Matthew Yglesias took on the deregulation of the financial markets with his usual combination of light substance and heavy snark.

What nobody has told me and I don't understand is this: how exactly would regulation of the financial markets have prevented the current situation. My understanding is that securitization of mortgages has never been prohibited, under Glass-Stegall or any other regulatory regime. I could be wrong about this; I am hoping my vast readership will fill me in if so.

Anyhow, now the Krugmans and Yglesiases of the world are calling for regulation. I don't have anything against regulation per se, but it would sure be nice to debate something concrete.

I think there is an opening for the Republicans here; while "stick it to those bastards!" is nice rhetoric, it's not good policy. If the McCain campaign can actually come up with something that might ameliorate the specific problems without strangling innovation, it could be helpful in the election.

Win Ben Stein's Vote

This is actually from a week ago or so, but I missed it when it happened. Apologies if you've already seen it.

We all know that the New York Times's idea of a ideal conservative is one that disagrees with conservative ideas. Fine, but not all ideas identified as conservative are good ones, and this Ben Stein column is making some points that need to be made:

In other words, tax cuts do not pay for themselves, at least not on any basis I can see. Certainly, they are not worthless. They make taxpayers feel good and they generate growth. But basically, they shift the tax burden from us to our progeny and add immense amounts of interest expense to the federal budget. At this point, taxpayers shell out about $1 billion a day just for that item.

I would say that tax cuts shift the burden to our progeny only if they aren't counterbalanced by spending cuts, but we all know that's not going to happen. Spending control is all we can hope for.

It is my belief that the government gets enough money to meet needed infrastructure priorities if it focused on the right things, but in time of war it may be necessary to raise taxes. As our Democratic friends constantly remind us, keeping our nation safe is expensive. While I cannot agree with their solution (failing to keep our nation safe), some accounting for the costs may need to be done. I'm all for circumspection in raising taxes, but John McCain (or any other politician), shouldn't take any cards off the table.

For your daily quota of disgustingness

Read the wonderful self-loathing on this AlterNet comment thread. A sample:

There's a potential silver lining here. As he condones and authorizes assassinations, a principle of International Law will kick in...the notion of reciprocity...and Young George himself might be targeted and taken out. Fine with me, so long as Cheney, Condi, and Rummy are with him at the time. :o)

At the risk of sounding like a member of the lizard army at LGF, just go to Canada or Amsterdam or Baghdad. We won't miss you.

You can have a legitimate debate about what sort of measures against terrorism are morally and legally justified. Insisting that President Bush be executed for crimes against humanity is not Step 1 of that debate.

Cost/Benefit

This article in The Nation should be supported by any conservative:

Can we out-trump the conservatives on economics and demand a policy payback analysis to all federal or state investments? How would pet Republican programs do if their corporate welfare programs had to be benchmarked against, say, proven pre-kindergarten education investments for kids? Let's get the substantive cost-benefit analysis done to make that case on everything we are in favor of achieving in the next thirty years.

It's easy to rag on corporate welfare and certainly there's a bunch of it in the budget, much of it perpetrated by Republicans. It's this sort of anti-conservatism that has us in danger of being left as a 20% rump for a generation. Embracing this sort of rigorous analysis would lead us to a better understanding of what the proper role of government would be.

I also want to take up this:

Conservatives would be forced to take a public stance against doing the math on what government buys, and abandon their argument that government spending is useless.

Nobody in American government believes that government spending is useless. As this article so ably points out, history is replete with examples of government programs with lots of upside benefit that exceeded their cost. It's even more replete with programs that didn't work worth a damn or whose benefits were overwhelmed by unintended consequences. A really rigorous cost/benefit, that took into account all the costs and benefits of a program, monetary or not, would really help us to identify those expenditures that will be helpful, and those that won't. I don't think that sort of work would favor much of the current Democratic agenda, but if it did, let's do it. Republicans (especially the current crew) don't have a monopoly on good ideas, after all.

David Mamet sees the light

Check it out.

Who pays for health care?

While you may not be able to tell from reading this blog, health care is an interest of mine. This article (which is based on a paper in this week's JAMA) takes on the intersection of health care and employer relations.

What does this mean, exactly? Simple: “the common claim that employers, government, and households all pay for health care is false. Employers do not share fiscal responsibility and employers do not pay for health care.” In fact, the “money [for health care] comes from [our] own pockets.”

Well, no kidding. No rational employer gives a rat's behind whether they're spending their compensation dollars on cash, health care, or free donuts in the break room; they do what enables them to keep their employers happy. In today's tax environment, often that's health care. With that said, dollars spent on health care are dollars that come out of somewhere else; they have to. The customers will only pay so much for whatever good or service is being produced; there's only so many dollars to go around. What comes out of one pot necessarily comes out of another.

With that said, the statistics you so often see about the stagnation of middle class wages leave out the dramatically increasing health-care part of the compensation package. The fact that people have chosen to take more health care benefits instead of wages represents the people's choice, not a decline in living standards. I may do a post on that in the future once I dig up some of the stats.

More Future of the Union

I told you; there's all kind of good stuff on there.

This is from the Lansing State Journal, from a story about how the Detroit Three might start hiring pretty soon:

There might be a disconnect between what the automakers are willing to pay and the skills they want from new workers.

Wait, what's this? You mean that employers might have to pay more than they'd like to attract good employees? I thought that more money was only obtained by unions or government or a gun?

This must be a mainstream media trick or something.

Who deserves to get paid for labor?

I am a regular reader of the Soldiers of Solidarity site Future of the Union. It's a rank and file publication that had its genesis out of the Delphi issues a few years ago. They reprint a lot of stories that are of interest if you follow organized labor news as I do.

This popped up there yesterday:

Who owns the jobs? Who created the wealth that American Axle invested around the globe?

The answer to that one is pretty obvious: the customers paid for everything. In American Axle's case, that's the Big Three directly, but ultimately American car buyers who have decided not to pay the bill anymore. Whether you're a CEO or a line worker, if you're busier trying to grab a piece for yourself than satisfy the customer, pretty soon there won't be any pieces to grab.

Just to review

Your wife: OK

Chicks that do it for free: unsavory, but not illegal




Paying $4300: Not cool.

Some inequality numbers to think about

I don't like inequality, I just think the alternatives are worse. I'm not here to defend it but I think the statistics used to justify big government interventions to reduce it are overstated. Apparently, Brad Schiller agrees with me.

From today's WSJ (if you can't read this and are interested in seeing it, email me):

The "typical" household, however, keeps changing. Since 1970 there has been a dramatic rise in divorced, never-married and single-person households. Back in 1970, the married Ozzie and Harriet family was the norm: 71% of all U.S. households were two-parent families. Now the ratio is only 51%. In the process of this social revolution, the average household size has shrunk to 2.57 persons from 3.14 -- a drop of 18%. The meaning? Even a "stagnant" average household income implies a higher standard of living for the average household member.

And from later in the article. . .

The increase in nominal GDP since 2000 amounts to over $4 trillion annually. If you assume that all that money went to the wealthiest 10% of U.S. households, that bonanza would come to a whopping $350,000 per household. Yet according to the Census Bureau, the top 10% of households has an average income of $200,000 or so. The implied bonanza is so absurd that the notion that only the rich have gained from the economic growth can be dismissed out of hand. Clearly, there is a lot of economic advancement across a broad swath of population. Dramatic changes in household composition, household size and immigration tend to obscure this reality.

"They're both not ready. . ."

Of course neither Senator Clinton or Obama is ready to face the challenges of the war on terror and keep our country safe. We knew this.

But, why take it from me when you can listen to Sen. Obama's foreign policy advisor Susan Rice:



If you're serious about defending our country, you have one choice.

For the counterfactual crowd. . .

You might enjoy this from Volokh Conspiracy. It asks for nominations about the long-term effects of Supreme Court cases being differently decided. There's quite the interesting comment thread developing.

Union Math: Where All Children Are Above Average

From the CtW blog:

The study finds that only one in four jobs in America can be described as "good jobs" -- where good jobs is defined as a job that offers health insurance, a retirement plan, and that pays at least an amount in inflation-adjusted dollars equal to the median male worker's wage in 1979 (!). (Nearly a third -- 29% -- of workers surveyed hold jobs that meet none of these three criteria.)

I wonder what the relevant figure was in 1979. I guarantee that it was below half, because _by definition_ half of the male worker's population is below the median,and women's wages are lower than men's.

If you're trying to pull up the percentage of people who are below the median income, you're going to have a tough time with that one.

Ohio and NAFTA

In their Ohio campaigning, the Democratic candidates have decried NAFTA as having cost a whole bunch of Ohio jobs and generally serving only the rich.

Displaying typical Democratic powers of analysis, they have ignored one tiny fact: The unemployment rate in Ohio in December of 1993, the month before NAFTA took effect, was 6.5 percent. Since that month, it has never been that high.

Free trade causes dislocations, there is no question about that. We as a society need to do better at helping people who suffer the downside of free trade obtain new skills in more productive avocations. Having a wealthier society makes that a lot easier. We can only tax what someone makes.

Today's Awards

Sly Innuendo Award: The crew responsible for the ridiculous attempted hit piece on McCain in today's NYT.

Holy Crap! Award: I agree with Talking Points Memo! I do believe that this is a first.

As Glenn Reynolds would say, "heh": The Times Upholds Its Standards, by John Hinderaker at Power Line.

I can't add much to that discussion. From the Times, this sort of thing is less surprising than lamentable, but there we go.

Market vs government power

My friends over at workinglife.org and some other corners of the web would do well to keep this (from John Stossel) in mind:

Notice that she equates government power and market power. That is absurd. "Power" in a free market means success at creating goods and services that your fellow human beings voluntarily choose to buy. Government power is force: the ability to fine and imprison people.

Read the whole thing. I don't necessarily agree with all of his conclusions (that the government is bad at something right now doesn't necessarily mean that they shouldn't do it.), but it is important to recognize that there is a cost associated with interfering with the market. Sometimes it's worth it, but a lot of times it's not.

Electoral Compass

My boy Nick did this and I thought it was cool, so I did too (if the picture's too small, click it):



I suppose this is a fair place to put me in the American political context, although with a different set of questions I could come out on the other side of the libertarian/authoritarian line. In fact I do, on the Political Compass:



One of the things that my buddies on talk radio could stand to learn is that any given election will serve up issues that may be somewhat misleading as to a candidates ideological position. Looking at a candidate's outlook more generally is probably a better indication of what they'll do than their individual positions. The fact that I agree with Ron Paul on some issues that have been discussed in this particular election does not mean that I think he'd be the best candidate.

I may develop this further in another post; I want to talk about the Republicans' choice in the 2000 Presidential primary and how it relates to this point.

In Which Sherrod Brown tries to score points from my misery

Well, OK, not my misery exactly; it turned out alright for me, but the legitimate misery of a lot of people I care about.

Most of my vast readership knows that my first job after college was at the American Standard plant in Tiffin, Ohio. It was bought along with the rest of American Standard's bath and kitchen business last year by Bain Capital, and they closed the plant on December 31st. It really sucked for a lot of my friends, to say nothing of my hometown.

To no one's surprise, a whole litany of Democratic politicians used this situation as an occasion for nativist demagoguery. The latest example is this conversation that Sherrod Brown recently had with The Nation, in which he seems to imply that Bain Capital closed the plant specifically because they enjoy throwing people out of work.

That plant closed because it was a poisonous environment to work in. Whether that's due to mismanagement or mis-unionism, I can't say. Personally I suspect both. The fact is, though, that it wasn't producing cost-effective ware or Bain Capital would not have closed it. No organization will stay in business very long if it's bleeding money, whether it's GM or American Standard or whatever, and no one, workers, financiers, or government, can take profits that aren't being produced.

Down With Math

Now here's a viewpoint I can stand behind.

I think there is a broader point to be here for business curriculums. A very large portion of the typical university business curriculum is devoted to functional skills. Almost the entire last two years is taken up with classes taught from the business college.

I'm not at all sure that this is the best way to educate someone who is headed for a business career. The narrow focus on what we can do, leaves little time to consider what we should do.

Dear Dr. Krugman:

On September 11, 2001, some terrorists flew 2 planes into the World Trade Center. They destroyed the buildings and killed 3000 Americans. That started a war, where we tried to keep terrorists from doing that sort of thing again. This required an increase in defense spending.

Apparently, you are unaware of these facts so I just wanted to remind you.

Sincerely,

Brian M. Saxton

Americans Against Fair Lending

There was a letter to the editor in today's NYT that I want to talk about. Go read it.

Some group called Americans for Fair Lending has taken a bold, inspiring stand:

A set of principles of fair lending, agreed to by Americans for Fairness in Lending, a coalition of national consumer groups, should be followed: responsibility, justice, equality, information, accountability, law and enforcement.

I know I'm impressed. They're for responsibility and information!

It's a good thing we have this thing called the market, that has strongly punished companies that violated those bold principles. It turns out that companies that did that stuff, they've already taken their beatings. People that signed contracts they didn't understand, or did understand and just ignored, yeah, it didn't work out too well for them either.

If the answer to every question you ever ask is government, you need to open up the playbook a little further.

Feel the McMentum!

When even the TownHall crew is moving toward McCain, you can feel the fat lady warming up.

So, think about where we could be: a balanced budget, the war in Iraq won, a conservative Supreme Court, border security increased, the Republican Party's reputation much improved, and McCain leaving office in 2012. Can you really tell me that sounds so bad?

Yes, indeed.

The enemy isn't us

Dear John Quiggen:

Moreover, where it was once possible to treat occasional public manifestations of Freeperism as aberrations, it’s now obvious that this is how the Republican base really thinks. So, any Republican, no matter how superficially reasonable, must be regarded as either someone who shares Freeper/LGF views or someone who is willing to exploit the holders of such views in the pursuit of a personal or class interest.

You have a point here, no doubt. But our team hardly has a monopoly on wingnuts.

"REA-GAN GOOD!"

It has been highly amusing to me to watch the netroots demand ideological purity from their candidates at the expense of nominating people that can win elections, and then claiming that, "they just weren't pure enough!" (Hint: the reason that Congress's approval rating is even lower than the President's isn't that they haven't started on impeachment proceedings against the President.)

It would not be a good idea to follow their example, as Shawn Macomber so elegantly reminds us on the AmSpec blog. Support or don't support a candidate as you like, but leave room in the tent for the rest of us, please, and try to keep in mind that general elections are won by the guy or gal that appeals to the whole country.

Say's Law

I hope that everyone can read this from today's WSJ:

Some Democrats still think that government stimulation of demand is an antidote to a slowing economy. Yet economics has certain iron laws that the government violates at its peril. One of them has been called Say's Law, because it was first enunciated by the late 18th-century Frenchman Jean-Baptiste Say. He said "products are paid for with products." Or to rephrase the point, "a society can't consume if it doesn't produce." Hillary's assertion that her "stimulus" package shouldn't be paid for denies reality. Somebody has to pay for it. One man's consumption must be paid for by his own or someone else's production.

Government spending is a cost to the economy, not a benefit. There are some things we want the government to do, but the answer to an economic slowdown is less government, not more.

Chinese Restaurant in Baghdad

I wonder if the AlterNet crew will think about the implications of this story. It would appear that peace is coming to parts of Baghdad, and normal, free, life is coming to a country that hasn't had it in a very long time, if ever.

If Iraq can find politicians worthy of the sacrifices of its people, it'll be alright.

UPDATE: Nah, they didn't consider it much. There's no way to write "BUSH BAD! DON-KEYS GOOD! in the comments, so nobody commented.

How the Democrats can lose this election

It'll be a challenge, but they might just be up to it. Eating their own is probably a good start.

One of the things that I find most obnoxious about the Bush administration and the state of the Republican right is the insistence on orthodoxy. Like the Party in 1984, their command is not "Thou shalt," it is "Thou art." Our friends in the netroots despise this unwillingness to acknowledge the good faith of the other side, as do I.

Apparently, their solution is to emulate it. I don't think that is a winning position.

Mike Brown gets an extension

I'm a little late to the party on this one; it happened a few days ago.

Now that the organization has shown some (well-deserved, don't get me wrong) confidence in its head coach, can we please, please, PLEASE hire him an assistant that knows something about offense???

Please?

Someone making sense? In the New York Times?

It happened:

One way to think about that is to ask what your moral instincts tell you in analogous situations. Suppose, after years of buying shampoo at your local pharmacy, you discover you can order the same shampoo for less money on the Web. Do you have an obligation to compensate your pharmacist? If you move to a cheaper apartment, should you compensate your landlord? When you eat at McDonald’s, should you compensate the owners of the diner next door? Public policy should not be designed to advance moral instincts that we all reject every day of our lives.

Not sure I agree with the policy result -- the idea that your education and experience could suddenly become obsolete because of foreign trade disincentives education, which I'm not sure we want to do. With that said, it's a powerful line of reasoning and one that should be considered carefully by those who want to use force to take my money and give it to people they think deserve it.

The Mind Reels

This is really something.

While thousands voted in the Michigan presidential primaries yesterday, more than 3,500 union members and allies monitored polling places statewide for a potential “right to work” for less petition drive on the day of the primary. More than two dozen international unions participated in the statewide mobilization, taking shifts morning, noon and night at 2,000 polling locations across the state.

Now, I have nothing against union folks showing up to polling places. And, I have nothing against their opposing right-to-work legislation. I'm not sure it's a good idea, myself. But, one wonders how they were planning on opposing it if the petition circulators had shown up? If union folks expect to be allowed to leaflet polling places, then they have to expect that everyone else will get the same privilege. Right?

Advances

While traipsing through the interwebs today I found this diary at Kos. It's some interesting (if not entirely economically literate) discussion of the investment or lack thereof in American infrastructure.

At any rate, in the comments was linked this essay by George McGovern. The quote I'm concerned with is as follows:

Virtually every step forward in our history has been a liberal initiativet aken over conservative opposition: civil rights, Social Security, Medicare,rural electrification, the establishment of a minimum wage, collective bargaining, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and federal aid to education, including the land-grant colleges, to name just a few.*

(emphasis mine)

If you believe that every step forward in our history is provided by the government, then, yes, you are probably a liberal. If you like things like:

• Personal computing (and, yes, the Internet, or at most of the content thereon)
• Telephones, both wired and cellular
• Automobiles
• Drop ceilings
• A thingy that sprays cleaning solution around your shower so you don't have to scrub it
• Pizza delivery

Then you might realize that not all steps forward are provided by the government, and too much government interference might prevent the invention of things we like and use.

Jackson is sure doing something

No one can say that Frank Jackson isn't doing something. He has found a remarkably efficient way to chase home lenders out of Cleveland, and like the bold leader he is, he put it into action!

Way to go, Mr. Mayor! Bold leadership for America!

Two things I don't usually do

I don't normally think too much about abortion, and I don't base my votes on that issue exclusively. Also, I don't typically fear for society based on what I read on the internet; if I did, I'd never do anything else. Then I read something like this comment (scroll down):

To be forced to carry and give birth to a baby and then have it torn from you is unimaginable. For me, and for many other women, it's far worse than the ending of a life that has not yet truly begun.

Has our country really gotten so morally bankrupt that it's better to kill your own child than let them live if they can't be part of your life? And this point of view is celebrated?

Today is what's right with America

For horse-race punditry, go somewhere where it's followed closer than it is here. But, today, in New Hampshire, they choose a leader. My boy is John McCain, and here's his final thought. Whoever you favor, in New Hampshire or somewhere else, think about this as you vote:

Thank you for your support. Please vote for us tomorrow. But most importantly, I cannot tell you what an honor it is for me to have had the great privilege of sharing so many wonderful, wonderful experiences with you about the most important part of democracy, the best part of democracy in a nation that is still a shining city on a hill. Thank you very much, thank you for being here, God bless you and God bless America.

(H/T: Byron York)

Typical

I don't know anything about this guy, but if this book title is a fair representation, he's like most union members. Hating to work is common in those communities, no?

An Argument I'd Wanted to Make

This comment was made on a thread about TPM's Golden Duke Awards. It's a viewpoint that I wish would get more play in our national discussion:

Guys!

This is all just left bashing right (Did I miss a lefty named somewhere?). What is going on in America with the increasing rise of hateful, poisonous, mostly emotional attitudes? This desire to to hate, to villify, to call criminal and call for impeachment because certain groups of people don't like a politician's POLICIES and VIEWPOINT, is a very perverted, dysfunctional, inefficient way for society to operate.

As much as I don't want to see Hillary make office, I certainly don't want to put up with 4 to 8 years of emotionally generated, attempted take-downs by the right.

I'm not a Bush supporter, but there are so many lefties out there who do not understand that Bush is PURPOSEFULLY challenging the boundaries of the Constitution and the very powers of the office of the president. But this is his position and right UNDER the Consitution. Our system actually has checks on a president going too far (even if they seem to operate slowly). Notice how NONE of these checks have come into reality even with a Democratic majority? There's a reason, and you don't know what your talking about until you know the reason.

Michael R.
Roswell, NM

GMAC Bowl Halftime Commentary

SUCK SUCK SUCK SUCK SUCK HANG ON TO THE FOOTBALL SUCK SUCK SUCK.

That is all.

ABC Debate

My boy Buckeyenewshawk is probably not watching the debate (with the Steelers on) so I'll fill in with some thoughts on the GOP debate:

• What was with Romney pushing the health care mandate? He was taking a reasonable position, but can't be a winner in this primary, can it?
• Yes, yes, we know. Mitt is a flip-flopper. Thanks, boys.
• The measuring contest on who can be tougher on illegals was kinda silly. Fred Thompson was generally pretty good but he was unnecessarily shrill here.
• It was nice to see my boy John above the fray somewhat -- he jumped on Mitt a couple of times but given the format, it must have been tempting to come at him more. I guess when you're the front-runner, you can play it safe.
  
• Thompson, as the not-front-runner, could have been a little more aggressive. It's one thing to say "flip-flopper!" or "amnesty!" and another thing to offer your own policy proposals and contrast them with others'.
• I still like McCain, but I thought Romney won the show. He showed mastery of the various issues in a way the other candidates didn't.
  

Blackwater to kill Obama

You go, HuffPo. It's impossible to argue with closely reasoned logic like this. I mean, how can the rest of us compete with that?

H/T: NRO.

Happy New Year

Yeah, so I haven't been so good about posting. Consider a regular appearance here to be a New Year's Resolution.

Check out this story from some guy in LA. Of particular interest is this graf:

Supporters of right-to-work statutes tend to be anti-collectivist, libertarian wannabes who elevate personal choice to iconic status, and are willing to be paid less and accept substandard benefits in return for the right not to have to join a big, bad workers' collective. When you consider the simple arithmetic involved, this antipathy to unions, this flat-out rejection of economic advancement via strength-in-numbers, isn't merely irrational, it's pitiful.

That could be. It's also possible that they don't want to pay for the "privilege" of supporting political causes they don't believe in. It's also possible that they would like to speak for themselves, and not have their talking done for them by a body that may not represent them. Or, maybe they believe in a collaborative working environment, that their job ultimately depends on the success of their employer.

But, sure, people who believe in right-to-work must be stupid.