Non-profit of the Month: December 2012 - Salvation Army
There aren't quite as many places as there used to be that permit the red kettles with bell ringers that collect donations for the Salvation Army. But with the internets, one can go online to donate.
A few years back I was a volunteer bell ringer. That experience was recounted on this blog over here.
In any case, hope you will consider giving to the Salvation Army or some other group that is helping people in our communities.
Merry Christmas!
Non-Profit of the Month: November 2011 - Hope for the Warriors
When I think of Iraq and Afghanistan, I often think of the photographs that are shown on television or the newspaper of the most recent deaths. The deaths have exceeded 6000. In addition, there are tens of thousands that have been wounded in mind and body who have come home. And finally, there are the loved ones of those who have died or have been injured. These too bear the burdens of war in the loss of a loved one or the ongoing care giving to one who has suffered the wounds of the wars.
And so for this month's non-profit of the month, I'm supporting Hope for the Warriors.
There are many organizations like this big and small, national and local who have gathered together good hearted people to stand with and support our service members and their families.
Please consider supporting one of these groups doing this kind of work.
And so for this month's non-profit of the month, I'm supporting Hope for the Warriors.
There are many organizations like this big and small, national and local who have gathered together good hearted people to stand with and support our service members and their families.
Please consider supporting one of these groups doing this kind of work.
Non-Profit of the Month: October 2011 - Friends of LA Phil and Venice Family Clinic
Have been a subscriber to LA Phil since 1999. Ticket revenue covers part of their cost. The rest comes from individual donations and corporate sponsorships. The LA Phil also does educations events for youth in the city so I've tried each year to chip in a little bit by donating to Friends of LA Phil.
Another cause I've been supporting regularly is Venice Family Clinic.
Politically, it is going to take some time to sort through the government role in health care. In the mean time, I think people should support local entities that are doing whatever they can.
Another cause I've been supporting regularly is Venice Family Clinic.
Politically, it is going to take some time to sort through the government role in health care. In the mean time, I think people should support local entities that are doing whatever they can.
Politics: Controversy over Herman Cain
Have very mixed feelings at this point.
If the charges against Herman Cain are true, I would be very troubled and disappointed.
This interview on CNN would lend support to at least one of the accusers.
When charges were leveled against then candidate Bill Clinton and eventually President Bill Clinton, I was troubled and disappointed by his possible behavior.
These kind of charges sometime sank candidates (Gary Hart and John Edwards in recent election cycles).
But, historically, many of our Presidents have not been paragons of virtue in their personal lives and yet, many of them were effective Presidents.
Thus, there is the problem: the charges, even if all true, against Herman Cain are probably no worse than some of the things done by past Presidents.
What should we expect from our political leaders?
Do we want a brilliant brain surgeon who is a jerk removing brain tumors from people or a genial mediocre one?
JFK is regarded highly by many in both parties. Yet, would JFK have been elected in today's news environment?
In Europe, their political leaders often have complicated personal situations and they are rather open about it and their voters don't seem to care. As such, Europeans view American pre-occupation with scandals of a personal nature as a reflection of American "puritanical" attitudes.
So what should we expect from our political leaders?
I want more from our leaders but realistically understand that people are flawed especially those with the ambition to rise to such levels. Think of your circle of friends: do any of them want to be President? People who run and make it to this level are in many ways automatically not "normal" in some ways!
In an ideal world, I want a candidate for President to have policies that are good for the nation, inspirational leadership qualities, demonstrated some experience in running a governmental entity (running a business isn't like running a government) and personal virtue.
The question for voters like me is what degree of failure in personal virtue (we all have weaknesses) is disqualifying.
Disclaimer: I didn't vote for Clinton in 1992 or 1996 for various reasons. In examining the field of GOP candidates for 2012, as appealing as the idea is of an outsider business person running for President, I believe some familiarity with governance is helpful, hence my doubts about Cain prior to the current scandals. The current scandal has added to my doubts.
UPDATE: Goldberg at NR put it this way. Excerpt: My own view is that Cain has other shortcomings that are more substantive disqualifiers for the job of president, but if these charges are true then they are relevant and troubling in their own right.
UPDATE: CNN.com has this item that describes how companies often settle to make the problem go away. Excerpt: Employment lawyers are accustomed to meeting with CEO clients who are initially defiant and determined to resist a false claim of sexual harassment. They want their reputations and integrity preserved. But when a high-ranking executive is involved, the company rumor vine begins to grow. Depositions are taken. Employees are pulled out of the workplace to back one side or the other. Sterling reputations begin to bleed under the slash of a thousand paper cuts.
And of course, the litigation process is expensive for the company. Knowing this, experienced lawyers often urge even the innocent accused executive to agree to mediate claims informally and avoid the possibility of a very public and very embarrassing federal lawsuit. Legitimate victims are also urged to settle rather than risk losing at trial.
Once mediation begins, the parties are told that public humiliation and legal costs can be avoided with a quiet, confidential settlement. Both plaintiff and defendant are simultaneously silenced by the agreement's penalty provisions. The truth of the claims will never be tested in any public forum.
If the charges against Herman Cain are true, I would be very troubled and disappointed.
This interview on CNN would lend support to at least one of the accusers.
When charges were leveled against then candidate Bill Clinton and eventually President Bill Clinton, I was troubled and disappointed by his possible behavior.
These kind of charges sometime sank candidates (Gary Hart and John Edwards in recent election cycles).
But, historically, many of our Presidents have not been paragons of virtue in their personal lives and yet, many of them were effective Presidents.
Thus, there is the problem: the charges, even if all true, against Herman Cain are probably no worse than some of the things done by past Presidents.
What should we expect from our political leaders?
Do we want a brilliant brain surgeon who is a jerk removing brain tumors from people or a genial mediocre one?
JFK is regarded highly by many in both parties. Yet, would JFK have been elected in today's news environment?
In Europe, their political leaders often have complicated personal situations and they are rather open about it and their voters don't seem to care. As such, Europeans view American pre-occupation with scandals of a personal nature as a reflection of American "puritanical" attitudes.
So what should we expect from our political leaders?
I want more from our leaders but realistically understand that people are flawed especially those with the ambition to rise to such levels. Think of your circle of friends: do any of them want to be President? People who run and make it to this level are in many ways automatically not "normal" in some ways!
In an ideal world, I want a candidate for President to have policies that are good for the nation, inspirational leadership qualities, demonstrated some experience in running a governmental entity (running a business isn't like running a government) and personal virtue.
The question for voters like me is what degree of failure in personal virtue (we all have weaknesses) is disqualifying.
Disclaimer: I didn't vote for Clinton in 1992 or 1996 for various reasons. In examining the field of GOP candidates for 2012, as appealing as the idea is of an outsider business person running for President, I believe some familiarity with governance is helpful, hence my doubts about Cain prior to the current scandals. The current scandal has added to my doubts.
UPDATE: Goldberg at NR put it this way. Excerpt: My own view is that Cain has other shortcomings that are more substantive disqualifiers for the job of president, but if these charges are true then they are relevant and troubling in their own right.
UPDATE: CNN.com has this item that describes how companies often settle to make the problem go away. Excerpt: Employment lawyers are accustomed to meeting with CEO clients who are initially defiant and determined to resist a false claim of sexual harassment. They want their reputations and integrity preserved. But when a high-ranking executive is involved, the company rumor vine begins to grow. Depositions are taken. Employees are pulled out of the workplace to back one side or the other. Sterling reputations begin to bleed under the slash of a thousand paper cuts.
And of course, the litigation process is expensive for the company. Knowing this, experienced lawyers often urge even the innocent accused executive to agree to mediate claims informally and avoid the possibility of a very public and very embarrassing federal lawsuit. Legitimate victims are also urged to settle rather than risk losing at trial.
Once mediation begins, the parties are told that public humiliation and legal costs can be avoided with a quiet, confidential settlement. Both plaintiff and defendant are simultaneously silenced by the agreement's penalty provisions. The truth of the claims will never be tested in any public forum.
Religion: What is a cult?
There are a number of definitions offered at Merriam-Webster Dictionary online.
In recent news, a pastor was criticized for calling Mormonism a cult.
Cult in typical American English usage is definition number 5 in MW:
great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement or work (as a film or book)
For example, the film Blade Runner is considered a cult classic. In this case, there are fans of the film who really like the film a lot and will buy the "director's cut" of the film and have collector's items associated with the movie and know many details about the film and the making of the film.
Certain musical bands garner a cult following.
Some libertarians would be described as very devoted to the writings of Ayn Rand and that devotion seems cultic to non-devotees.
In these contexts, the term cult is somewhat descriptive and depending on tone of voice may or may not be a disparaging.
Cult in a religious context tends to be disparaging as it usually describes a religious group where usually one leader (or small number) has a charismatic hold over his/her followers and the peer pressure of the group makes it hard for anyone to leave the group.
However, there is a descriptive definition of cult as described by definition number 3 in MW:
a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious
There are groups within the major world religions.
For example, in Judaism, there are orthodox, conservative and reform congregations. The three groups are not identical but they share much in common.
In Christianity, there are Catholic, Orthodox and various Protestant denominations. Thus, on many (most) doctrinal matters there would be agreement. Yet, there would be some areas of distinctive.
And so within a given religion, there can be and are groups that hold beliefs that would be considered unorthodox or spurious to the vast majority of the adherents of the orthodox/historical form of that given religion.
This would be the case with Mormonism which is also known as the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints (LDS). Mormons use much the same language of traditional Christianity. However, they call themselves the Latter-Day Saints because they believe that the historic forms of Christianity lost the true message which the LDS believes they have recovered.
Objectively speaking there are three possibilities: the Mormon claims are correct, the Mormon claims are incorrect or both the Mormon and traditional Christian claims are incorrect.
However, as a matter of intellectually honesty, regardless of the correctness of the claims of either group, is there significant divergence in beliefs between the LDS church and the historic Christian church?
A Catholic priest, Protestant minister and Mormon elder go to have breakfast at a local diner and write down the beliefs of their churches on paper. What would happen?
The lists would not be identical.
The Catholic list would have more similarities to the Protestant list than to the Mormon list.
Thus, under MW definition #3, Mormonism is a cult.
However, given that much of the American public has in their minds that cult is definition #5, it is not useful to call Mormonism a cult.
A more precise way to describe the LDS church would be, a religious group that holds some aspects of Christian doctrine yet differs with historic Christan beliefs in a number of key areas.
I heard one Protestant pastor describe his relationship with Mormon friends this way, we have significant theological differences but we work together on issues that matter to our communities and our country.
In recent news, a pastor was criticized for calling Mormonism a cult.
Cult in typical American English usage is definition number 5 in MW:
great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement or work (as a film or book)
For example, the film Blade Runner is considered a cult classic. In this case, there are fans of the film who really like the film a lot and will buy the "director's cut" of the film and have collector's items associated with the movie and know many details about the film and the making of the film.
Certain musical bands garner a cult following.
Some libertarians would be described as very devoted to the writings of Ayn Rand and that devotion seems cultic to non-devotees.
In these contexts, the term cult is somewhat descriptive and depending on tone of voice may or may not be a disparaging.
Cult in a religious context tends to be disparaging as it usually describes a religious group where usually one leader (or small number) has a charismatic hold over his/her followers and the peer pressure of the group makes it hard for anyone to leave the group.
However, there is a descriptive definition of cult as described by definition number 3 in MW:
a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious
There are groups within the major world religions.
For example, in Judaism, there are orthodox, conservative and reform congregations. The three groups are not identical but they share much in common.
In Christianity, there are Catholic, Orthodox and various Protestant denominations. Thus, on many (most) doctrinal matters there would be agreement. Yet, there would be some areas of distinctive.
And so within a given religion, there can be and are groups that hold beliefs that would be considered unorthodox or spurious to the vast majority of the adherents of the orthodox/historical form of that given religion.
This would be the case with Mormonism which is also known as the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints (LDS). Mormons use much the same language of traditional Christianity. However, they call themselves the Latter-Day Saints because they believe that the historic forms of Christianity lost the true message which the LDS believes they have recovered.
Objectively speaking there are three possibilities: the Mormon claims are correct, the Mormon claims are incorrect or both the Mormon and traditional Christian claims are incorrect.
However, as a matter of intellectually honesty, regardless of the correctness of the claims of either group, is there significant divergence in beliefs between the LDS church and the historic Christian church?
A Catholic priest, Protestant minister and Mormon elder go to have breakfast at a local diner and write down the beliefs of their churches on paper. What would happen?
The lists would not be identical.
The Catholic list would have more similarities to the Protestant list than to the Mormon list.
Thus, under MW definition #3, Mormonism is a cult.
However, given that much of the American public has in their minds that cult is definition #5, it is not useful to call Mormonism a cult.
A more precise way to describe the LDS church would be, a religious group that holds some aspects of Christian doctrine yet differs with historic Christan beliefs in a number of key areas.
I heard one Protestant pastor describe his relationship with Mormon friends this way, we have significant theological differences but we work together on issues that matter to our communities and our country.
Politics: Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Plan?
Am not an economist. Have not read in any detail the 9-9-9 plan promoted by candidate Herman Cain. Just have my gut reaction to the idea.
My 59 second understanding of the plan is that the Federal Government tax system would be overhauled and replaced with 9% corporate income tax, 9% personal income tax and 9% sales tax.
The virtue of the plan is simplicity. As it is now, the tax code is loaded with deductions and credits and other adjustments that distort economic behavior.
In an ideal world, a tax system should accomplish two things:
(1) raise sufficient revenue to fund government services
(2) be simple so that there is reduced incentive to outright cheat (illegal) on taxes, engage in activity (legal) to shelter money from taxation and keeps compliance costs down.
"Fairness" of a tax system is a highly subjective criteria in comparison to the other two criteria.
Examples of "fairness" questions would be:
At what income level should someone begin to pay personal income taxes?
If someone makes more income, how much more should they pay?
Ironically, the desire to make the rich pay their "fair share," can cause problems which even LA Times lefty commentator George Skelton noted. Excerpt: If President Obama really wants to see the "Buffett Rule" in action, he should look at California's tax system. The state has been plagued by it for years. The revenue stream is unstable and the state budget has been a deficit disaster. Soaking the rich - relying heavily on them for income taxes - has resulted in a precarious revenue roller coaster ride. It's either boom or bust in Sacramento, depending on how the wealthy are faring in the stock market and their other investments.
In any case 9-9-9 has the virtue of simplicity, criteria #2.
But how about criteria #1?
Does it raise enough money to fund the government?
The rate numbers could be raised up/down to bring the budget into balance.
In many ways, the greater question is how much do we want the government to spend and are we willing to have a tax system of whatever variety to bring in revenue to pay for it?
Matching revenue with spending is really the first question.
With that question answered, we can then move onto the second one of devising a system that raises revenue effectively without the distortions in economic behavior that the current system has.
In that regard, I think most simple systems with minimal credits and deductions would suffice: 9-9-9 mix of corporate, income and sales tax, national sales tax only with a rebate for low income, flat income tax with exception for low income, 3 income tax bracket, etc.
The challenge is that the current system has provisions put in by political winners to benefit their group and punishes political losers!
Sweeping away all those tax credits, deductions, loopholes and provisions would result in huge political battles.
If we can decide how much government we want and sweep out all the various competing interests baked into the tax code... that would really be something!
UPDATE: Conservative icon National Review is against 9-9-9. I didn't realize that the 9-9-9 plan is just a transition to a national sales tax only plan. In regards to the fairness issue, looks like 9-9-9 might be hard on the lower income folks. Also, there is the difficult political reality of going from our existing system to any proposed system that is radically different. As it is, if any change is to occur, the feasible practical thing to do would be paring back the various tax credits, deductions and loopholes of the existing system in exchange for lower rates rather than shoot-the-moon with a brand new system.
Cato's Dan Mitchell has mixed feelings about 9-9-9. Excerpt: After all, Europe’s welfare states began their march to fiscal collapse and economic stagnation after they added a version of a national sales tax on top of their pre-existing income taxes.
My 59 second understanding of the plan is that the Federal Government tax system would be overhauled and replaced with 9% corporate income tax, 9% personal income tax and 9% sales tax.
The virtue of the plan is simplicity. As it is now, the tax code is loaded with deductions and credits and other adjustments that distort economic behavior.
In an ideal world, a tax system should accomplish two things:
(1) raise sufficient revenue to fund government services
(2) be simple so that there is reduced incentive to outright cheat (illegal) on taxes, engage in activity (legal) to shelter money from taxation and keeps compliance costs down.
"Fairness" of a tax system is a highly subjective criteria in comparison to the other two criteria.
Examples of "fairness" questions would be:
At what income level should someone begin to pay personal income taxes?
If someone makes more income, how much more should they pay?
Ironically, the desire to make the rich pay their "fair share," can cause problems which even LA Times lefty commentator George Skelton noted. Excerpt: If President Obama really wants to see the "Buffett Rule" in action, he should look at California's tax system. The state has been plagued by it for years. The revenue stream is unstable and the state budget has been a deficit disaster. Soaking the rich - relying heavily on them for income taxes - has resulted in a precarious revenue roller coaster ride. It's either boom or bust in Sacramento, depending on how the wealthy are faring in the stock market and their other investments.
In any case 9-9-9 has the virtue of simplicity, criteria #2.
But how about criteria #1?
Does it raise enough money to fund the government?
The rate numbers could be raised up/down to bring the budget into balance.
In many ways, the greater question is how much do we want the government to spend and are we willing to have a tax system of whatever variety to bring in revenue to pay for it?
Matching revenue with spending is really the first question.
With that question answered, we can then move onto the second one of devising a system that raises revenue effectively without the distortions in economic behavior that the current system has.
In that regard, I think most simple systems with minimal credits and deductions would suffice: 9-9-9 mix of corporate, income and sales tax, national sales tax only with a rebate for low income, flat income tax with exception for low income, 3 income tax bracket, etc.
The challenge is that the current system has provisions put in by political winners to benefit their group and punishes political losers!
Sweeping away all those tax credits, deductions, loopholes and provisions would result in huge political battles.
If we can decide how much government we want and sweep out all the various competing interests baked into the tax code... that would really be something!
UPDATE: Conservative icon National Review is against 9-9-9. I didn't realize that the 9-9-9 plan is just a transition to a national sales tax only plan. In regards to the fairness issue, looks like 9-9-9 might be hard on the lower income folks. Also, there is the difficult political reality of going from our existing system to any proposed system that is radically different. As it is, if any change is to occur, the feasible practical thing to do would be paring back the various tax credits, deductions and loopholes of the existing system in exchange for lower rates rather than shoot-the-moon with a brand new system.
Cato's Dan Mitchell has mixed feelings about 9-9-9. Excerpt: After all, Europe’s welfare states began their march to fiscal collapse and economic stagnation after they added a version of a national sales tax on top of their pre-existing income taxes.
Non-profit of the month: September 2011 - California State Parks Foundation
There are many natural wonders and places of historic interest in California that are worth preserving.
And so there is a public aspect of it through the state government of California. Put there is also the part that citizens play in banding together to advocate for and do projects for the benefit of parks.
Thus, I'm supporting California State Parks Foundation.
Here is their "about us" paragraph:
The California State Parks Foundation (CSPF) was founded in 1969 by William Penn Mott, Jr., former director of both California's Department of Parks and Recreation and the National Park Service. With our 120,000 members, CSPF is the only statewide independent nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting, enhancing and advocating for California's magnificent state parks. Since 1969, CSPF has raised more than $170 million to benefit state parks. CSPF is committed to improving the quality of life for all Californians by expanding access to the natural beauty, rich culture and history, and recreational and educational opportunities offered by California's 278 state parks—the largest state park system in the United States.
Thus, I'm supporting California State Parks Foundation.
Here is their "about us" paragraph:
The California State Parks Foundation (CSPF) was founded in 1969 by William Penn Mott, Jr., former director of both California's Department of Parks and Recreation and the National Park Service. With our 120,000 members, CSPF is the only statewide independent nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting, enhancing and advocating for California's magnificent state parks. Since 1969, CSPF has raised more than $170 million to benefit state parks. CSPF is committed to improving the quality of life for all Californians by expanding access to the natural beauty, rich culture and history, and recreational and educational opportunities offered by California's 278 state parks—the largest state park system in the United States.
Politics: Picking Presidents
I think people select presidents for some combination of the following three reasons: inspirational leadership, agreement on policy and demonstrated experience.
With the advent of 24/7 media, the inspirational leadership element is probably the most crucial. You might agree with someone on policy and they might have a terrific resume but if they come across as dull they will have a very hard time getting nominated or elected.
The agreement on policy part reflects itself on two levels of the process. In the general election, probably 33% of the people will vote for a Democrat because they are life-long Democrats and 33% of the people will vote for a Republican because they are life-long Republicans. That is a simple reflection of policy preferences.
The other level where policy preferences show up is among the activists in the nomination process. In the GOP, there are probably three major groups: the economic libertarians, the social conservatives and the national defense hawks. The Democrats would have the same three types: New Deal/Great Society (FDR and LBJ ushered in many new government programs), the social activists (pro-abortion, anti-gun, environmentalists, etc) and the anti-war doves.
Finally, people look at experience. But in truth, the other two factors often trump considerations of experience. Let's look at the presidents in my lifetime.
On the thin side of experience:
Obama - elected while first term senator
Bush 43 - elected while second term governor
Carter - elected after one term as governor
Some experience:
Clinton - served multiple terms as a governor of a small state
Reagan - two terms as governor of a large state
Kennedy - second term senator and three term house member
Much experience:
Bush 41 - VP and many other roles in government
Ford - VP and 24 years in House
Nixon - VP, one term senator, three term house member
LBJ - VP and 12 years in Senate and 12 years in House
With the advent of 24/7 media, the inspirational leadership element is probably the most crucial. You might agree with someone on policy and they might have a terrific resume but if they come across as dull they will have a very hard time getting nominated or elected.
The agreement on policy part reflects itself on two levels of the process. In the general election, probably 33% of the people will vote for a Democrat because they are life-long Democrats and 33% of the people will vote for a Republican because they are life-long Republicans. That is a simple reflection of policy preferences.
The other level where policy preferences show up is among the activists in the nomination process. In the GOP, there are probably three major groups: the economic libertarians, the social conservatives and the national defense hawks. The Democrats would have the same three types: New Deal/Great Society (FDR and LBJ ushered in many new government programs), the social activists (pro-abortion, anti-gun, environmentalists, etc) and the anti-war doves.
Finally, people look at experience. But in truth, the other two factors often trump considerations of experience. Let's look at the presidents in my lifetime.
On the thin side of experience:
Obama - elected while first term senator
Bush 43 - elected while second term governor
Carter - elected after one term as governor
Some experience:
Clinton - served multiple terms as a governor of a small state
Reagan - two terms as governor of a large state
Kennedy - second term senator and three term house member
Much experience:
Bush 41 - VP and many other roles in government
Ford - VP and 24 years in House
Nixon - VP, one term senator, three term house member
LBJ - VP and 12 years in Senate and 12 years in House
Non-Profit of the Month: August 2011 - Union Station Homeless Services
There is a story told by Jesus about Lazarus and the Rich Man. In the pointed story, the Rich Man did nothing to help Lazarus, the poor man who begged for help at the Rich Man's gate.
In Jesus time and in today, the question remains: how can one help the poor? Doing nothing is not an option. If we take the words of Jesus seriously, doing nothing is one road to hell fire of judgement.
I've been told, if one gives money directly to someone on the street, it is likely they will use that money for drugs or alcohol. Thus, in the desire to help them, we may be enabling them to hurt themselves further.
As such, I have decided to give to reputable organizations that helps the poor in practical ways like Union Station in Pasadena.
In the final analysis, the issues of poverty and homelessness often involve many factors and it takes compassionate professionals and highly committed volunteers to effectively offer help. Organizations like Union Station do that and so I hope you will consider supporting them or other groups like them who have a track record of making a difference.
In Jesus time and in today, the question remains: how can one help the poor? Doing nothing is not an option. If we take the words of Jesus seriously, doing nothing is one road to hell fire of judgement.
I've been told, if one gives money directly to someone on the street, it is likely they will use that money for drugs or alcohol. Thus, in the desire to help them, we may be enabling them to hurt themselves further.
As such, I have decided to give to reputable organizations that helps the poor in practical ways like Union Station in Pasadena.
In the final analysis, the issues of poverty and homelessness often involve many factors and it takes compassionate professionals and highly committed volunteers to effectively offer help. Organizations like Union Station do that and so I hope you will consider supporting them or other groups like them who have a track record of making a difference.
Politics: Debt deal near?
They say it should be soon later today.
Politics is "the art of the possible" and this was probably about all that could be done.
The White House wanted the problem pushed past the November 2012 elections.
The Democrats wanted to minimize the chances of spending cuts.
The Republicans wanted to minimize the chances of raising taxes.
And so you get "the deal."
In the House, some Tea Party Republicans will vote no because it doesn't do enough and some Left Democrats will vote no because it does too much. Look for a strange mix of Democrats and Republicans voting yes and no.
How about this for a guess?
Yes
170 Republican
100 Democrat
No
70 Republican
93 Democrat
UPDATE:
UPDATE: In a heart warming moment, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords cast her vote for the deal in her return to the House as she continues her recovery since being shot in January.
In the Senate, I would anticipate passage with some dissent also. My guess:
Yes
40 Democrat
39 Republican
No
13 Democrat
8 Republican
UPDATE: The final vote was 74-26. Democrat support was a bit stronger than I expected with 46 votes and GOP support was weaker with 28. In the end, it passed with apparently little drama.
On substance, the deal just doesn't do all that much. It gets the government past the immediate debt limit problem but doesn't solve the debt problem itself.
$2.5 trillion is a dent in the problem.
The current debt is about $14.5 trillion but the really big number is the future unfunded liabilities in the bottom right of the debt clock. They estimate it to be $115 trillion!
I've seen other estimates but if the $115 trillion is overstated by a factor of two, the problem is still $57.5 trillion.
Politics is "the art of the possible" and this was probably about all that could be done.
The White House wanted the problem pushed past the November 2012 elections.
The Democrats wanted to minimize the chances of spending cuts.
The Republicans wanted to minimize the chances of raising taxes.
And so you get "the deal."
In the House, some Tea Party Republicans will vote no because it doesn't do enough and some Left Democrats will vote no because it does too much. Look for a strange mix of Democrats and Republicans voting yes and no.
How about this for a guess?
Yes
170 Republican
100 Democrat
No
70 Republican
93 Democrat
UPDATE:
In the Senate, I would anticipate passage with some dissent also. My guess:
Yes
40 Democrat
39 Republican
No
13 Democrat
8 Republican
UPDATE: The final vote was 74-26. Democrat support was a bit stronger than I expected with 46 votes and GOP support was weaker with 28. In the end, it passed with apparently little drama.
On substance, the deal just doesn't do all that much. It gets the government past the immediate debt limit problem but doesn't solve the debt problem itself.
$2.5 trillion is a dent in the problem.
The current debt is about $14.5 trillion but the really big number is the future unfunded liabilities in the bottom right of the debt clock. They estimate it to be $115 trillion!
I've seen other estimates but if the $115 trillion is overstated by a factor of two, the problem is still $57.5 trillion.
Science: BPA Concerns May Have Been Overstated
One of the things about belonging to a professional society is that one can receive occasional news round-ups of items that might be of interest.
As someone who likes hiking, I heard about BPA in the context of Nalgene deciding to shift the making of their water bottles to plastics that do not contain BPA.
In their BPA FAQ Nalgene said this:
We are confident that the bottles which contain BPA are safe for their intended use. However, because of consumer requests for alternative materials, we have decided to transition our polycarbonate product line to Eastman Tritan™ copolyester. This product joins our family of bottles and containers made of various non-BPA materials such as HDPE, PP, LDPE and PET.
...
Based on the findings of the Food and Drug Administration, The Environmental Protection Agency, The European Food Safety Authority, The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, The Japan Ministry of Health, Labor & Welfare, The American Plastics Council and other reliable sources from around the world, we continue to firmly believe in the safety of our products containing BPA. However, we intend to carefully monitor the results of the National Toxicology Report and the Canadian government’s inquiry into this issue and any other relevant scientific information.
In a recent email news update from one of the scientific professional societies, there was a link to this item about BPA.
Excerpt:
“In a nutshell, says Teeguarden, “we can now say for the adult human population exposed to even very high dietary levels, blood concentrations of the bioactive form of BPA throughout the day are below our ability to detect them, and orders of magnitude lower than those causing effects in rodents exposed to BPA.”
The study was entirely funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), while the analytical work was duplicated by two other government laboratories to ensure extra rigor. The researchers used the latest and most sensitive techniques to find BPA as determined by the CDC (LC/MS/MS using on-line 2-dimensional liquid chromatography if you are curious). Moreover, the new study corroborates earlier independent studies which showed that BPA was rapidly absorbed, detoxified, and eliminated from humans.
I don't know how widely reported this study will be. But I pass it along via this blog to those who might have concerns about BPA. From a business perspective, does this mean BPA will once again be used?
As it is now, my current hiking water bottles are of the newer Nalgene BPA-free variety. Hopefully, there isn't some other chemical in those plastics that might be the subject of investigation in the future?!
As someone who likes hiking, I heard about BPA in the context of Nalgene deciding to shift the making of their water bottles to plastics that do not contain BPA.
In their BPA FAQ Nalgene said this:
We are confident that the bottles which contain BPA are safe for their intended use. However, because of consumer requests for alternative materials, we have decided to transition our polycarbonate product line to Eastman Tritan™ copolyester. This product joins our family of bottles and containers made of various non-BPA materials such as HDPE, PP, LDPE and PET.
...
Based on the findings of the Food and Drug Administration, The Environmental Protection Agency, The European Food Safety Authority, The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, The Japan Ministry of Health, Labor & Welfare, The American Plastics Council and other reliable sources from around the world, we continue to firmly believe in the safety of our products containing BPA. However, we intend to carefully monitor the results of the National Toxicology Report and the Canadian government’s inquiry into this issue and any other relevant scientific information.
In a recent email news update from one of the scientific professional societies, there was a link to this item about BPA.
Excerpt:
“In a nutshell, says Teeguarden, “we can now say for the adult human population exposed to even very high dietary levels, blood concentrations of the bioactive form of BPA throughout the day are below our ability to detect them, and orders of magnitude lower than those causing effects in rodents exposed to BPA.”
The study was entirely funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), while the analytical work was duplicated by two other government laboratories to ensure extra rigor. The researchers used the latest and most sensitive techniques to find BPA as determined by the CDC (LC/MS/MS using on-line 2-dimensional liquid chromatography if you are curious). Moreover, the new study corroborates earlier independent studies which showed that BPA was rapidly absorbed, detoxified, and eliminated from humans.
I don't know how widely reported this study will be. But I pass it along via this blog to those who might have concerns about BPA. From a business perspective, does this mean BPA will once again be used?
As it is now, my current hiking water bottles are of the newer Nalgene BPA-free variety. Hopefully, there isn't some other chemical in those plastics that might be the subject of investigation in the future?!
Politics: Playing Debt Chicken or Is it a Poker Game?
That about sums it up.
Both sides want to avoid problems with the debt limit.
But each side wants something in exchange for raising the nations credit limit.
The Republicans want the growth of government to be slowed down and are using the debt limit as leverage.
The Democrats want the growth of government to continue and are using the debt limit as leverage.
Each side thinks the other will be blamed for any resultant economic chaos if the debt limit is not raised.
From a hard headed political perspective, the key is probably the Senate Democrats. They have the edge 53-47.
If those four votes can't be peeled off, the Democrats will blame the House Republicans for the failure.
But if four of them were to be swayed by an offer from the House, a deal would then pass the House and Senate leaving the White House with the burden of issuing a veto.
UPDATE: I made a terrible mistake in forgetting the culture of the Senate that manifests itself in the "cloture rule." Simply stated, debate can be closed (cloture) with a vote of 60. Thus, the deal making must bring over 7 Republican Senators.
In order for the House to reverse course, 26 Republicans have to switch which could happen but that is unlikely given that both sides of the House have pretty solid party discipline. Senators traditionally have been more willing to break the party line.
UPDATE: The current scenario is that the Speaker of the House will have to bring over Democrat house members to counter the no votes from the Tea Party Wing of the GOP House members.
It is a high stakes poker game and both sides have lousy cards but one side will take the pot when the blame falls on the other.
Both sides want to avoid problems with the debt limit.
But each side wants something in exchange for raising the nations credit limit.
The Republicans want the growth of government to be slowed down and are using the debt limit as leverage.
The Democrats want the growth of government to continue and are using the debt limit as leverage.
Each side thinks the other will be blamed for any resultant economic chaos if the debt limit is not raised.
If those four votes can't be peeled off, the Democrats will blame the House Republicans for the failure.
But if four of them were to be swayed by an offer from the House, a deal would then pass the House and Senate leaving the White House with the burden of issuing a veto.
UPDATE: I made a terrible mistake in forgetting the culture of the Senate that manifests itself in the "cloture rule." Simply stated, debate can be closed (cloture) with a vote of 60. Thus, the deal making must bring over 7 Republican Senators.
In order for the House to reverse course, 26 Republicans have to switch which could happen but that is unlikely given that both sides of the House have pretty solid party discipline. Senators traditionally have been more willing to break the party line.
UPDATE: The current scenario is that the Speaker of the House will have to bring over Democrat house members to counter the no votes from the Tea Party Wing of the GOP House members.
It is a high stakes poker game and both sides have lousy cards but one side will take the pot when the blame falls on the other.
Politics: CBO Projections as of June 2011
For your bed-time reading.
I haven't read the thing but I've skimmed a few sections here and there and I've looked at some of the graphs where as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Here are the ones that caught my eye.
The "Extended-Baseline Scenario" assumes that current tax and spending policies are not changed going forward. Thus, some tax cuts that are set to expire actually expire and some tax increases set to take place do become activated. Likewise, spending increases and decreases currently projected to occur become realized.
As you can see most spending remains steady except for the health care part of the budget (Medicare for elderly, Medicaid for poor, CHIP for children and Exchange subsidies for the newly passed 2010 health reform law) which looks to increase 2-3 fold.
The revenue line grows to 30% of the GDP to cover the increased spending.
The "Alternative Fiscal Scenario" is based on current tax and spending policies but assumes some of the tax increases expected to occur in the "Extended-Baseline Scenario" will not occur for obvious political reasons as well as tax cut expiration dates get pushed further into the future. Likewise, some of the spending cuts expected to occur in the "Extended-Baseline Scenario" do not occur for obvious political reasons.
As you can see the overall spending in this scenario grows just like the other one but the revenue line holds at 18%.
Thus, the key facts:
(1) Spending will go up in either scenario. The baseline scenario goes up slightly less compared to the alternative scenario probably because the alternative scenario assumes some promised spending cuts don't actually happen.
(2) Revenue as % GDP rises in the baseline scenario while it doesn't in the alternative scenario.
Is the rise in taxes assumed in the baseline scenario realistic?
Historically, how much taxes have we paid?
That is shown in the graph below.
Tax revenue has been remarkably flat in the last 40 years. It has been as low as 15% of GDP due to the recent economic downturn combined with tax cuts to try to revive the economy. It has been as high as 20% during the boom time of the 90s just before the double hit of recession and 9/11 in 2001.
Thus, the "Alternative Fiscal Scenario" that assumes ~ 18% GDP tax revenues is historically realistic.
Key policy question:
(1) Does the Federal government back off on the spending to match the more historically realistic revenue behavior of the last 40 years?
(2) Or does the Federal government go on a full-court press to explain that taxes need to rise in order to pay for the promised health benefits which account for the bulk of the growth of the government in the decades ahead?
I haven't read the thing but I've skimmed a few sections here and there and I've looked at some of the graphs where as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Here are the ones that caught my eye.
The "Extended-Baseline Scenario" assumes that current tax and spending policies are not changed going forward. Thus, some tax cuts that are set to expire actually expire and some tax increases set to take place do become activated. Likewise, spending increases and decreases currently projected to occur become realized.
As you can see most spending remains steady except for the health care part of the budget (Medicare for elderly, Medicaid for poor, CHIP for children and Exchange subsidies for the newly passed 2010 health reform law) which looks to increase 2-3 fold.
The revenue line grows to 30% of the GDP to cover the increased spending.
The "Alternative Fiscal Scenario" is based on current tax and spending policies but assumes some of the tax increases expected to occur in the "Extended-Baseline Scenario" will not occur for obvious political reasons as well as tax cut expiration dates get pushed further into the future. Likewise, some of the spending cuts expected to occur in the "Extended-Baseline Scenario" do not occur for obvious political reasons.
As you can see the overall spending in this scenario grows just like the other one but the revenue line holds at 18%.
Thus, the key facts:
(1) Spending will go up in either scenario. The baseline scenario goes up slightly less compared to the alternative scenario probably because the alternative scenario assumes some promised spending cuts don't actually happen.
(2) Revenue as % GDP rises in the baseline scenario while it doesn't in the alternative scenario.
Is the rise in taxes assumed in the baseline scenario realistic?
Historically, how much taxes have we paid?
That is shown in the graph below.
Tax revenue has been remarkably flat in the last 40 years. It has been as low as 15% of GDP due to the recent economic downturn combined with tax cuts to try to revive the economy. It has been as high as 20% during the boom time of the 90s just before the double hit of recession and 9/11 in 2001.
Thus, the "Alternative Fiscal Scenario" that assumes ~ 18% GDP tax revenues is historically realistic.
Key policy question:
(1) Does the Federal government back off on the spending to match the more historically realistic revenue behavior of the last 40 years?
(2) Or does the Federal government go on a full-court press to explain that taxes need to rise in order to pay for the promised health benefits which account for the bulk of the growth of the government in the decades ahead?
Technology: Digital Radio
We all know about digital TV. A little while ago, the USA made the transition to digital only signals. Thus, all the old analog TVs became non-functional unless one connected a digital converter box.
Little did I know until recently there is a transition to digital radio taking place.
For the moment, analog signals will continue to be transmitted with the digital signals.
This process is also occurring in many other countries with each region adopting their own technology standard.
I have bought one of these gadgets to hear the new technology in action.
Pros:
The sound quality is indeed excellent.
The text information on the display can be informative.
The parallel channels are fun to pick up.
Cons:
The device is somewhat expensive though I would imagine audiophiles with nice stereo setups would enjoy the options available.
Though the number of stations broadcasting with digital signals is expanding, in practice there are only of handful of stations I like to listen to. Some of them haven't gone digital or if they have, the signal strength is insufficient such that the reception defaults to analog.
Outlook:
Radio devices are quite durable, I wonder how often does the average person buy a new radio?
When one does enter the market for a new radio, unless one is an audiophile wanting top notch sound or someone interested in new tech gadgets (like me), the price differential is a barrier to buying a digital capable unit.
Given that much radio listening is done while doing housework, working in the garage, or puttering around the yard, the quality of sound a digital signal could generate may not be worth the extra expense.
Thus, digital radio will remain niche until the price comes down substantially.
Little did I know until recently there is a transition to digital radio taking place.
For the moment, analog signals will continue to be transmitted with the digital signals.
This process is also occurring in many other countries with each region adopting their own technology standard.
I have bought one of these gadgets to hear the new technology in action.
Pros:
The sound quality is indeed excellent.
The text information on the display can be informative.
The parallel channels are fun to pick up.
Cons:
The device is somewhat expensive though I would imagine audiophiles with nice stereo setups would enjoy the options available.
Though the number of stations broadcasting with digital signals is expanding, in practice there are only of handful of stations I like to listen to. Some of them haven't gone digital or if they have, the signal strength is insufficient such that the reception defaults to analog.
Outlook:
Radio devices are quite durable, I wonder how often does the average person buy a new radio?
When one does enter the market for a new radio, unless one is an audiophile wanting top notch sound or someone interested in new tech gadgets (like me), the price differential is a barrier to buying a digital capable unit.
Given that much radio listening is done while doing housework, working in the garage, or puttering around the yard, the quality of sound a digital signal could generate may not be worth the extra expense.
Thus, digital radio will remain niche until the price comes down substantially.
Non-profit of the month: July 2011 - Arise Africa Kershaw Challenge
Arise Africa is a non-profit started by some young Americans who wanted to do something to serve the people of Africa.
It isn't a big group but it is taking practical steps to serve.
I heard about the organization because as a Dodger fan, I get occasional email notes about what is happening with the team off-the-field in addition to the usual game updates.
In what has been a tough year for Dodger fans, one bright spot has been Clayton Kershaw, the ace of the pitching staff.
But my respect for him is heightened mostly because of one of his off-the-field commitments that has come to my attention.
His wife, Ellen had been a part of Arise Africa in her college years. During the off-season, after their wedding, they went together to participate in some of the work taking place there. As a result, upon their return, they set-up the Kershaw Challenge to raise funds for an orphanage.
I'm "pitching" in by donating to the cause and hope you will "step-up to the plate" too! 8-)
It isn't a big group but it is taking practical steps to serve.
I heard about the organization because as a Dodger fan, I get occasional email notes about what is happening with the team off-the-field in addition to the usual game updates.
In what has been a tough year for Dodger fans, one bright spot has been Clayton Kershaw, the ace of the pitching staff.
But my respect for him is heightened mostly because of one of his off-the-field commitments that has come to my attention.
His wife, Ellen had been a part of Arise Africa in her college years. During the off-season, after their wedding, they went together to participate in some of the work taking place there. As a result, upon their return, they set-up the Kershaw Challenge to raise funds for an orphanage.
I'm "pitching" in by donating to the cause and hope you will "step-up to the plate" too! 8-)
Politics: "Kinder and gentler" political rhetoric ... not ...
Geraghty points out latest from POTUS.
Quote emphasis by Geraghty:
President Obama, yesterday: "I’ve asked leaders of both parties and both houses of Congress to come here to the White House on Thursday so we can build on the work that’s already been done and drive towards a final agreement. It’s my hope that everybody is going to leave their ultimatums at the door, that we’ll all leave our political rhetoric at the door."
President Obama, today: "The debt ceiling should not be something that is used as a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners, for oil and gas companies that are making billions of dollars because the price of gasoline has gone up so high."
Quote emphasis by Geraghty:
President Obama, yesterday: "I’ve asked leaders of both parties and both houses of Congress to come here to the White House on Thursday so we can build on the work that’s already been done and drive towards a final agreement. It’s my hope that everybody is going to leave their ultimatums at the door, that we’ll all leave our political rhetoric at the door."
President Obama, today: "The debt ceiling should not be something that is used as a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners, for oil and gas companies that are making billions of dollars because the price of gasoline has gone up so high."
Theology: Re-imagining the American Experience
What are the virtues of the American story?
I think Dennis Prager puts it pretty well in the video item below.
To summarize:
Liberty
We are free to pursue our dreams and to go as far in life as hard work and good luck will take us.
E pluribus unum
“From many, one.” Unlike other countries, America is composed of people of every religious, racial, ethnic, cultural and national origin. Out of many people we become one people – Americans.
In God we trust
America was founded on the belief that our rights and liberties have been granted to us by the Creator.
America is far from a perfect place and we have our share of troubles. However, these virtues have meant a great amount to our country and has helped build much good in it.
However, the clear weakness of America in recent decades has been the over-emphasis on the accumulation of wealth and the willingness among some to break rules to do so.
As a follower of Jesus, how might I re-imagine the American narrative bringing it under the Lordship of Christ?
I found myself drawn to St. Paul's letter to the Galatians.
If we speak of liberty as a virtue then we who call Jesus Lord need to heed the following:
Galatians 5:13
You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.
If we acknowledge "e pluribus unum" and the great melting pot of America, then we must rise to the challenge of loving our neighbor who may or may not share our religious or political beliefs nor share common cultural traditions or personal interest. As St. Paul put it bluntly:
Galatians 5:14-15
For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
And finally, if in God we trust is to have its fullest expression in us as followers of Christ then we need to yield totally to the Spirit.
Galatians 5:16-17, 22-23
So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
The "spirit of the age" has made the acquisition of wealth the central aim. We need the antidote that an attitude of service, the priority of love and the working of the Holy Spirit can provide.
As we celebrate July 4 and the founding of America, let us do so with thanksgiving but also prayerfulness for our citizenship is to the even higher calling of the Kingdom of God!
I think Dennis Prager puts it pretty well in the video item below.
To summarize:
Liberty
We are free to pursue our dreams and to go as far in life as hard work and good luck will take us.
E pluribus unum
“From many, one.” Unlike other countries, America is composed of people of every religious, racial, ethnic, cultural and national origin. Out of many people we become one people – Americans.
In God we trust
America was founded on the belief that our rights and liberties have been granted to us by the Creator.
America is far from a perfect place and we have our share of troubles. However, these virtues have meant a great amount to our country and has helped build much good in it.
However, the clear weakness of America in recent decades has been the over-emphasis on the accumulation of wealth and the willingness among some to break rules to do so.
As a follower of Jesus, how might I re-imagine the American narrative bringing it under the Lordship of Christ?
I found myself drawn to St. Paul's letter to the Galatians.
If we speak of liberty as a virtue then we who call Jesus Lord need to heed the following:
Galatians 5:13
You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.
If we acknowledge "e pluribus unum" and the great melting pot of America, then we must rise to the challenge of loving our neighbor who may or may not share our religious or political beliefs nor share common cultural traditions or personal interest. As St. Paul put it bluntly:
Galatians 5:14-15
For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
And finally, if in God we trust is to have its fullest expression in us as followers of Christ then we need to yield totally to the Spirit.
Galatians 5:16-17, 22-23
So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
The "spirit of the age" has made the acquisition of wealth the central aim. We need the antidote that an attitude of service, the priority of love and the working of the Holy Spirit can provide.
As we celebrate July 4 and the founding of America, let us do so with thanksgiving but also prayerfulness for our citizenship is to the even higher calling of the Kingdom of God!
Culture: Putting the American Dream on the Psychologist's Couch
I suppose every culture has a heroic narrative of itself. It can be reflected in their national anthems or in their unofficial anthems.
For the British, it probably would be "Jerusalem."
For Americans, it can be any number of songs like "God Bless America," "America, the Beautiful," Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA," or Neil Diamond's "Coming to America."
Conversations about the merits of the American Dream and the idea of American Exceptionalism have been made difficult by binary thinking: America is the Great Satan or America is a Christian Nation.
Like most things in the world, America is a mix of good and bad.
But having said that, America is pretty unique as a beacon of liberty (economic and religious) such that people for centuries have taken great efforts to immigrate here.
Also unique is the melting pot of America where in many parts of the world such a mix of ethnic groups and religious ideas would lead to outright fighting in the streets.
And finally, the notion that humans have rights given by a Creator has propelled America forward in advancing freedoms here in the USA and the nation's willingness to support freedom in other parts of the world.
Here below is a video describing the above three ideas of "liberty," "e pluribus unum" and "in God we trust."
Happy Birthday America!
For the British, it probably would be "Jerusalem."
For Americans, it can be any number of songs like "God Bless America," "America, the Beautiful," Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA," or Neil Diamond's "Coming to America."
Conversations about the merits of the American Dream and the idea of American Exceptionalism have been made difficult by binary thinking: America is the Great Satan or America is a Christian Nation.
Like most things in the world, America is a mix of good and bad.
But having said that, America is pretty unique as a beacon of liberty (economic and religious) such that people for centuries have taken great efforts to immigrate here.
Also unique is the melting pot of America where in many parts of the world such a mix of ethnic groups and religious ideas would lead to outright fighting in the streets.
And finally, the notion that humans have rights given by a Creator has propelled America forward in advancing freedoms here in the USA and the nation's willingness to support freedom in other parts of the world.
Here below is a video describing the above three ideas of "liberty," "e pluribus unum" and "in God we trust."
Happy Birthday America!
Business: How price controls can make things worse
Cindy's Chicken Coop raises chickens for food at the cost of $1/chicken.
She sells them at $2/chicken to Mary's Market and the profit is her annual income. She raises and sells about 50,000 chickens a year thus she makes $50,000 a year before taxes.
Mary's Market then sells them to you for $4/chicken.
That is how the free market system works.
The government may send the occasional inspector to Cindy's Chicken Coop and they will visit Mary's Market as well.
But what if the government institutes price controls arguing: chickens are essential to the health and well being of our citizens and the people must be protected from the profit taking Cindy and price-gouging Mary.
Therefore, Mary's Market must sell chickens at $2 and if the inspector finds the prices higher Mary will be fined or imprisoned or both.
Mary goes to Cindy and says, can you sell me your chickens for $1.50 a piece?
Mary also starts looking into selling other kinds of products that aren't price controlled to keep her business afloat.
Mary starts looking into chicken farms that may sell her chickens for less than Cindy.
Cindy has to decide, do I see my profits cut in half? Or do I give up raising chickens for a living?
Cindy decides to give up her chicken business and find another line of work.
Mary finds that George sells chicken for the $1.50 price but he makes most of his money selling corn. Thus, his farm isn't set up to raise as many chickens as Cindy so Mary's Market is constantly short of chicken.
Thus, the chicken shortage was caused by the government instituted price controls driving Cindy out of business. The opposite of what the price control was intended to do which was to make chicken available at more affordable prices.
The chicken shortage has gotten dire and people are demanding chicken and will go to great lengths to get chicken. The shortage is so extreme that Michael decides to set up a chicken coop and he brings them to market himself in a truck he parks down the street from Mary's Market. He sells chicken for $8 each (4x higher than the government regulated price). When he sees the inspector coming, his drives off avoiding the fines. The people buying from Michael ask why he charges so much? He explains, "if I get caught I have to pay a fine which has happened on several occasions so I use the profits to pay for those fines." He also explains some of his profits go to paying bribes to inspectors who will look the other way and not issue him a citation.
In the more extreme scenario, not only does the price control result in shortages it can result in black market prices that may be higher than what they would have been without the price control!
She sells them at $2/chicken to Mary's Market and the profit is her annual income. She raises and sells about 50,000 chickens a year thus she makes $50,000 a year before taxes.
Mary's Market then sells them to you for $4/chicken.
That is how the free market system works.
The government may send the occasional inspector to Cindy's Chicken Coop and they will visit Mary's Market as well.
But what if the government institutes price controls arguing: chickens are essential to the health and well being of our citizens and the people must be protected from the profit taking Cindy and price-gouging Mary.
Therefore, Mary's Market must sell chickens at $2 and if the inspector finds the prices higher Mary will be fined or imprisoned or both.
Mary goes to Cindy and says, can you sell me your chickens for $1.50 a piece?
Mary also starts looking into selling other kinds of products that aren't price controlled to keep her business afloat.
Mary starts looking into chicken farms that may sell her chickens for less than Cindy.
Cindy has to decide, do I see my profits cut in half? Or do I give up raising chickens for a living?
Cindy decides to give up her chicken business and find another line of work.
Mary finds that George sells chicken for the $1.50 price but he makes most of his money selling corn. Thus, his farm isn't set up to raise as many chickens as Cindy so Mary's Market is constantly short of chicken.
Thus, the chicken shortage was caused by the government instituted price controls driving Cindy out of business. The opposite of what the price control was intended to do which was to make chicken available at more affordable prices.
The chicken shortage has gotten dire and people are demanding chicken and will go to great lengths to get chicken. The shortage is so extreme that Michael decides to set up a chicken coop and he brings them to market himself in a truck he parks down the street from Mary's Market. He sells chicken for $8 each (4x higher than the government regulated price). When he sees the inspector coming, his drives off avoiding the fines. The people buying from Michael ask why he charges so much? He explains, "if I get caught I have to pay a fine which has happened on several occasions so I use the profits to pay for those fines." He also explains some of his profits go to paying bribes to inspectors who will look the other way and not issue him a citation.
In the more extreme scenario, not only does the price control result in shortages it can result in black market prices that may be higher than what they would have been without the price control!
Business: Are hybrid vehicles economical?
Short answer: it depends.
Assumptions:
Regular car getting 25 miles per gallon
Hybrid car getting 40 miles per gallon
Utilizing the vehicle for 100,000 miles
Gasoline costing $4 per gallon
Comparable repair costs
Comparable insurance costs
The hybrid car saves $6000 in fuel costs.
Change the assumption of gas to $5 per gallon and the hybrid car saves $7500 in fuel costs.
At the moment, hybrid vehicles cost more than regular vehicles. Thus, fuel savings may or may not balance the initial purchase cost.
Also, I don't know if the repair costs and insurance costs are actually identical.
Assumptions:
Regular car getting 25 miles per gallon
Hybrid car getting 40 miles per gallon
Utilizing the vehicle for 100,000 miles
Gasoline costing $4 per gallon
Comparable repair costs
Comparable insurance costs
The hybrid car saves $6000 in fuel costs.
Change the assumption of gas to $5 per gallon and the hybrid car saves $7500 in fuel costs.
At the moment, hybrid vehicles cost more than regular vehicles. Thus, fuel savings may or may not balance the initial purchase cost.
Also, I don't know if the repair costs and insurance costs are actually identical.
Non-profit of the month: June 2011 - UCLA
Budgets are tight all around. It is impacting college education just like everywhere else.
The political mantra among some is that everyone should get a college education and mechanisms should be put in place (i.e. tax dollars in direct aid or loans) to facilitate it. Indeed, getting a college education does open up doors of opportunity. However, not everyone may benefit or need a "4-year" style college education. There is the whole realm of trade schools that provide focused education in specific areas to prepare people for particular types of jobs.
Nonetheless, I had the great opportunity to attend UCLA to get my degree in chemistry and biochemistry. And so this month, I made a contribution to UCLA's scholarship fund.
If you have benefited from a college education, please consider giving to your alma mater to support their efforts!
The political mantra among some is that everyone should get a college education and mechanisms should be put in place (i.e. tax dollars in direct aid or loans) to facilitate it. Indeed, getting a college education does open up doors of opportunity. However, not everyone may benefit or need a "4-year" style college education. There is the whole realm of trade schools that provide focused education in specific areas to prepare people for particular types of jobs.
Nonetheless, I had the great opportunity to attend UCLA to get my degree in chemistry and biochemistry. And so this month, I made a contribution to UCLA's scholarship fund.
If you have benefited from a college education, please consider giving to your alma mater to support their efforts!
World: UBL raid reads like something from a Clancy novel
Details continue to come out and am looking forward to a documentary, long-form magazine accounts and probable future books and movies on the raid that killed UBL.
But the big geopolitical question is how many in Pakistan knew UBL was there and how high up in the government?
In the article, the closing paragraph was:
This discovery and subsequent death of bin Laden doesn't bode well for the Pakistan government. According to Martin, it will be hard for the Pakistanis to explain how bin Laden could have been living in a huge compound located in a densely populated suburb filled with retired military unnoticed.
Indeed, it appears that UBL was hiding in plain sight and not out in some rural mountainous caves.
But the big geopolitical question is how many in Pakistan knew UBL was there and how high up in the government?
In the article, the closing paragraph was:
This discovery and subsequent death of bin Laden doesn't bode well for the Pakistan government. According to Martin, it will be hard for the Pakistanis to explain how bin Laden could have been living in a huge compound located in a densely populated suburb filled with retired military unnoticed.
Indeed, it appears that UBL was hiding in plain sight and not out in some rural mountainous caves.
World: UBL is dead!
Bin Laden killed just outside Islamabad by US special forces.
Details of the operation and the intelligence that led to the raid will undoubtedly be very interesting.
Highest commendations to the US armed forces and the intelligence teams that made this long awaited moment of justice possible.
Hats off to President Obama and his national security team that doggedly pursed UBL and their willingness to authorize this risky mission!
Details of the operation and the intelligence that led to the raid will undoubtedly be very interesting.
Highest commendations to the US armed forces and the intelligence teams that made this long awaited moment of justice possible.
Hats off to President Obama and his national security team that doggedly pursed UBL and their willingness to authorize this risky mission!
Sports: Being an LA Sports Fan
Well, what can you say?
The Ducks and Kings were bounced from the NHL playoffs.
Of the six games the Kings and Sharks played, three went into OT indicating the two teams were pretty evenly matched. Not bad considering how the Kings had some late in the season injuries and pretty much limped to the finish line. Wait until next year!
Dodgers have been doing better on the field and perhaps with MLB trying to wrest control of the team from McCourt, things will get better off the field. Nonetheless, the Dodger brand has been badly tarnished.
Meanwhile, the Lakers could be nearing the end of their run with Kobe injured and the Lakers seemingly unable to summon the will to play a full 48 minutes against the upstart Hornets.
The Ducks and Kings were bounced from the NHL playoffs.
Of the six games the Kings and Sharks played, three went into OT indicating the two teams were pretty evenly matched. Not bad considering how the Kings had some late in the season injuries and pretty much limped to the finish line. Wait until next year!
Dodgers have been doing better on the field and perhaps with MLB trying to wrest control of the team from McCourt, things will get better off the field. Nonetheless, the Dodger brand has been badly tarnished.
Meanwhile, the Lakers could be nearing the end of their run with Kobe injured and the Lakers seemingly unable to summon the will to play a full 48 minutes against the upstart Hornets.
Politics: What are taxes for?
Taxes serve three purposes:
1) Raise revenue for government purposes
2) Subsidize activities the government believes (rightly or wrongly) to be beneficial for society
3) Redistribute wealth
Redistribute wealth
Current workers pay Social Security taxes to pay benefits to retired individuals.
Current workers pay Medicare taxes to fund health care for the elderly.
High income earners pay income taxes that funds various programs that may or may not benefit them directly.
Subsidize activities
Are homeowners considered a special interest group?
One deduction in the tax code is interest payments to service a home loan. Thus, the tax code is subsidizing this activity.
Are workers who get health insurance from their companies special interests?
Health insurance benefits from employers are not taxes as salary. Thus, the tax code is subsidizing this activity.
Are people who donate to charity a special interest group?
One can deduct donations to IRS recognized charities. Thus, the tax code is subsidizing this activity.
Any deduction or credit one claims on the 1040 is a subsidization of that activity.
Raising revenue
Government taxes the people to raise revenue to spend it.
The debate needs to be on how many of the current functions are proper.
Government has proper functions in society. I don't advocate getting rid of all the discretionary spending portion of the budget but it could use a trim (e.g. agricultural and energy subsidies go to the politically connected while education and housing are rightly local matters).
We need to talk about the big dollars in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense.
Interest on the debt is big but you can't stop paying the interest on the debt without a calamity on the financial markets so you can't really do anything about that one except borrow less so that part doesn't keep getting bigger!
Defense needs to be trimmed (listen up GOP).
Social Security and Medicare needs to be trimmed and re-organized because we should not promise benefits for our seniors we can't realistically pay for (listen up Democrats).
Funding of Medicaid is morally defensible because that is for the poor (listen up GOP). However, the way its organized could use some work (listen up Democrats).
The debate also needs to be on whether the tax code should have so many credits/deductions to subsidize certain activities.
Most forms of taxation are FLAT and impact rich and poor alike. This is not true of the income tax.
As a practical matter, I think the income tax system should be tiered progressively (i.e. higher income pays a higher percentage). I think the cap on Social Security taxes (currently at $106,800) should rise and eventually be lifted. I think most credits/deductions should be phased out over time.
Taxes should be primarily about raising revenue for needed government functions and much less about subsidizing activities the government deems desirable.
1) Raise revenue for government purposes
2) Subsidize activities the government believes (rightly or wrongly) to be beneficial for society
3) Redistribute wealth
Redistribute wealth
Current workers pay Social Security taxes to pay benefits to retired individuals.
Current workers pay Medicare taxes to fund health care for the elderly.
High income earners pay income taxes that funds various programs that may or may not benefit them directly.
Subsidize activities
Are homeowners considered a special interest group?
One deduction in the tax code is interest payments to service a home loan. Thus, the tax code is subsidizing this activity.
Are workers who get health insurance from their companies special interests?
Health insurance benefits from employers are not taxes as salary. Thus, the tax code is subsidizing this activity.
Are people who donate to charity a special interest group?
One can deduct donations to IRS recognized charities. Thus, the tax code is subsidizing this activity.
Any deduction or credit one claims on the 1040 is a subsidization of that activity.
Raising revenue
Government taxes the people to raise revenue to spend it.
The debate needs to be on how many of the current functions are proper.
Government has proper functions in society. I don't advocate getting rid of all the discretionary spending portion of the budget but it could use a trim (e.g. agricultural and energy subsidies go to the politically connected while education and housing are rightly local matters).
We need to talk about the big dollars in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense.
Interest on the debt is big but you can't stop paying the interest on the debt without a calamity on the financial markets so you can't really do anything about that one except borrow less so that part doesn't keep getting bigger!
Defense needs to be trimmed (listen up GOP).
Social Security and Medicare needs to be trimmed and re-organized because we should not promise benefits for our seniors we can't realistically pay for (listen up Democrats).
Funding of Medicaid is morally defensible because that is for the poor (listen up GOP). However, the way its organized could use some work (listen up Democrats).
The debate also needs to be on whether the tax code should have so many credits/deductions to subsidize certain activities.
Most forms of taxation are FLAT and impact rich and poor alike. This is not true of the income tax.
As a practical matter, I think the income tax system should be tiered progressively (i.e. higher income pays a higher percentage). I think the cap on Social Security taxes (currently at $106,800) should rise and eventually be lifted. I think most credits/deductions should be phased out over time.
Taxes should be primarily about raising revenue for needed government functions and much less about subsidizing activities the government deems desirable.
Politics: Do the rich pay "enough" taxes?
That is a question people often ask with the assumption the answer is, NO!
But the question does require two assumptions:
What is the definition of rich?
What is enough?
Thus, leaving aside "who is rich" and "what is enough" questions, what can we say about this taxing question?
This item suggests that the bulk (97.3%) of the income taxes are paid by those in the top 50% of the population. Looking at the other part of the bar graph, 58.7% of all income taxes are paid by just 5% of the population.
Thus, with regards to income tax, the rich do pay a large share of the taxes.
However, as any average working person knows, we also pay Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes.
Turns out Medicare tax is essentially a FLAT TAX on income for all employers/employees of 1.45% for employer and 1.45% for employee. Thus, the Medicare tax falls on all people equally.
However, the Social Security tax is a FLAT TAX on income up to $106,800 with 6.2% on employers and 6.2% on employees. Thus, for folks earning $106,800 or less, we are all taxed the same. But if one earns more than $106,800, those extra dollars are not subject to the Social Security FLAT TAX, thus the effective rate for them falls as they earn more.
Of course, someone earning over $106,800 is taxed in the 25, 28, 33 or 35% tax bracket depending on total income compared to the 10 and 15% bracket for the less well heeled.
Then there are SALES taxes levied at the state/county/city levels which hits all people. And there are PROPERTY taxes which hits all people who own homes. There are GAS taxes at the pump that are paid by anyone who drives. There are alcohol and tobacco taxes for those who partake.
There are specialized taxes on dividends and capital gains which are at rates in some cases lower than income tax rates. However, dividends and capital gains are generated by the purchase of mutual funds and stocks and other investment vehicles usually with income that has been taxed once already.
As you can see there are many tax mechanisms that the population pays: no one escapes the TAXMAN as described in the Beatles song.
And it turns out that most taxes are of the FLAT tax variety (i.e. as a percentage the same for everyone) with the income tax as progressive (i.e. higher rates for higher income) and social security tax as regressive (i.e. lower rates for higher income) above $106,800
The really big question is how much government do we want to pay for?
Revenues need to match expense. But since they don't, there is DEBT. This DEBT is paid out of future tax revenues and is a "tax" on future generations.
A secondary question is what types of tax systems to use.
The more complicated the systems, the more likely there will be honest mistakes, legal tax avoiding actions and outright tax evasion.
But the question does require two assumptions:
What is the definition of rich?
What is enough?
Thus, leaving aside "who is rich" and "what is enough" questions, what can we say about this taxing question?
This item suggests that the bulk (97.3%) of the income taxes are paid by those in the top 50% of the population. Looking at the other part of the bar graph, 58.7% of all income taxes are paid by just 5% of the population.
Thus, with regards to income tax, the rich do pay a large share of the taxes.
However, as any average working person knows, we also pay Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes.
Turns out Medicare tax is essentially a FLAT TAX on income for all employers/employees of 1.45% for employer and 1.45% for employee. Thus, the Medicare tax falls on all people equally.
However, the Social Security tax is a FLAT TAX on income up to $106,800 with 6.2% on employers and 6.2% on employees. Thus, for folks earning $106,800 or less, we are all taxed the same. But if one earns more than $106,800, those extra dollars are not subject to the Social Security FLAT TAX, thus the effective rate for them falls as they earn more.
Of course, someone earning over $106,800 is taxed in the 25, 28, 33 or 35% tax bracket depending on total income compared to the 10 and 15% bracket for the less well heeled.
Then there are SALES taxes levied at the state/county/city levels which hits all people. And there are PROPERTY taxes which hits all people who own homes. There are GAS taxes at the pump that are paid by anyone who drives. There are alcohol and tobacco taxes for those who partake.
There are specialized taxes on dividends and capital gains which are at rates in some cases lower than income tax rates. However, dividends and capital gains are generated by the purchase of mutual funds and stocks and other investment vehicles usually with income that has been taxed once already.
As you can see there are many tax mechanisms that the population pays: no one escapes the TAXMAN as described in the Beatles song.
And it turns out that most taxes are of the FLAT tax variety (i.e. as a percentage the same for everyone) with the income tax as progressive (i.e. higher rates for higher income) and social security tax as regressive (i.e. lower rates for higher income) above $106,800
The really big question is how much government do we want to pay for?
Revenues need to match expense. But since they don't, there is DEBT. This DEBT is paid out of future tax revenues and is a "tax" on future generations.
A secondary question is what types of tax systems to use.
The more complicated the systems, the more likely there will be honest mistakes, legal tax avoiding actions and outright tax evasion.
Theology: Passover and Easter, When?
Saw this item today.
I knew that Jesus celebrated the Passover with his disciples prior to his death on Good Friday and Resurrection on Easter Sunday.
What I didn't know was that Matthew, Mark and Luke offered that description but that John stated that Jesus died on the day of preparation for the Passover (Friday) which results in a special Sabbath Saturday that was also a Passover remembrance.
Thus, it appears confusing and contradictory!
The article offers this explanation:
Humphreys' research suggests Jesus, and Matthew, Mark and Luke, were using the Pre-Exilic Calendar, which dated from the time of Moses and counted the first day of the new month from the end of the old lunar cycle, while John was referring to the official Jewish calendar of the day.
.......
If the Passover meal and the Last Supper did take place on a Wednesday it would help explain how the large number of events that the Gospels record between the Last Supper and the Crucifixion were able to take place.
With the help of an astronomer, Humphreys reconstructed the Pre-Exilic calendar and placed Passover in the year AD 33, widely accepted as the year of Jesus' crucifixion, on Wednesday April 1.
That means if modern Christians wished to ascribe a date for Easter based on Humphreys' calculations, which he has been mulling over since 1983, Easter Day would fall on the first Sunday in April.
If this analysis correct, Jesus celebrated Passover with his disciples as described in Matthew, Mark and Luke on a date (Wednesday) that was different then the establishment Jewish community of the time which celebrated it on Saturday which was what John was referring.
I look forward to seeing if some other scholars I check out on these theological matters agree with this proposed explanation.
UPDATE: Here you can hear Humphrey's explain in a BBC interview.
I knew that Jesus celebrated the Passover with his disciples prior to his death on Good Friday and Resurrection on Easter Sunday.
What I didn't know was that Matthew, Mark and Luke offered that description but that John stated that Jesus died on the day of preparation for the Passover (Friday) which results in a special Sabbath Saturday that was also a Passover remembrance.
Thus, it appears confusing and contradictory!
The article offers this explanation:
Humphreys' research suggests Jesus, and Matthew, Mark and Luke, were using the Pre-Exilic Calendar, which dated from the time of Moses and counted the first day of the new month from the end of the old lunar cycle, while John was referring to the official Jewish calendar of the day.
.......
If the Passover meal and the Last Supper did take place on a Wednesday it would help explain how the large number of events that the Gospels record between the Last Supper and the Crucifixion were able to take place.
With the help of an astronomer, Humphreys reconstructed the Pre-Exilic calendar and placed Passover in the year AD 33, widely accepted as the year of Jesus' crucifixion, on Wednesday April 1.
That means if modern Christians wished to ascribe a date for Easter based on Humphreys' calculations, which he has been mulling over since 1983, Easter Day would fall on the first Sunday in April.
If this analysis correct, Jesus celebrated Passover with his disciples as described in Matthew, Mark and Luke on a date (Wednesday) that was different then the establishment Jewish community of the time which celebrated it on Saturday which was what John was referring.
I look forward to seeing if some other scholars I check out on these theological matters agree with this proposed explanation.
UPDATE: Here you can hear Humphrey's explain in a BBC interview.
LA Scene: LA Phil's Importance of Being Earnest by Ades and Barry
The review from the professional (LA Times Mark Swed) was positive.
The reviews from the comment's section of Mark Swed's report were mixed.
The fact that the concert hall was no where near full meant that many had voted with their feet by either not showing up for their subscription concert, trading out of it or not buying this show in particular.
We went with some trepidation. But as a subscriber since 1999, I had been exposed to some contemporary musical programs and had more often than not enjoyed them. Thus, we went with an open mind to see the show.
It was awful.
Imagine the sound of singers trying to sound like roaring lions? Or was that cats coughing? Or dogs choking? Imagine watching two musicians cracking plates in garbage cans and cranking wind machines. I had to wonder what the singers and musicians thought when they first got the music score? Do they actually like to do these kinds of programs? Or do they figure, well its a paycheck?
Below is the letter I am sending to the LA Phil.
I don't attend those because having heard some new music on the radio, I know I am not likely to enjoy or be interested in that type of programing.
Over the years, I have come to trust the LA Phil programing staff in regards to their music choices beyond the traditional Bach, Beethoven, Brahms and other crowd pleasing favorites that they mix in to the general subscription packages. Some have been quite enjoyable or at least thought provoking. Examples: Salonen's farewell concert, an Ades led concert, Concrete Frequency Festival, Stucky's Second Concerto for Orchestra.
Importance of Being Earnest was dreadful.
The reviews from the comment's section of Mark Swed's report were mixed.
The fact that the concert hall was no where near full meant that many had voted with their feet by either not showing up for their subscription concert, trading out of it or not buying this show in particular.
We went with some trepidation. But as a subscriber since 1999, I had been exposed to some contemporary musical programs and had more often than not enjoyed them. Thus, we went with an open mind to see the show.
It was awful.
Imagine the sound of singers trying to sound like roaring lions? Or was that cats coughing? Or dogs choking? Imagine watching two musicians cracking plates in garbage cans and cranking wind machines. I had to wonder what the singers and musicians thought when they first got the music score? Do they actually like to do these kinds of programs? Or do they figure, well its a paycheck?
Below is the letter I am sending to the LA Phil.
The LA Phil has a clearly marked and labeled new music series called Green Umbrella.
April 9, 2011
Los Angeles Philharmonic
111 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Dear LA Phil,
I have been a subscriber since 1999 and my ticket package (currently FR3) has usually included one concert a season devoted to contemporary music. Over the years, more often than not, I've enjoyed those concerts. Thus, I'm not reflexively opposed to contemporary music. I have admired the astute judgement of your program planners that resulted in musical choices that “pushed the edge” without going over the edge.
However, last evening, the Ades-Barry project The Importance of Being Earnest was well over the edge. I recognize that when an organization commissions a work they must permit the artists considerable freedom to pursue their ideas. However, it should be noted that the “customers” can vote with their feet by leaving the performance or not showing up.
I did not know what to expect and came with an open mind. But within 5 to 10 minutes, a number of people started to leave the concert. We would have left as well except for the fact we didn't want to climb over a half-dozen people to get to the aisle. Suffice to say, we did not return for Act III.
Because of the high quality performances of familiar works and tasteful selection of less familiar and new works, the LA Philharmonic enjoys a vast pool of good will. However, such rapport with the subscribers and audience should not be taken for granted or abused. Hopefully, blunders like The Importance of Being Earnest will remain the exception.
Thanks for a mostly wonderful 2010-2011 season. I look forward to 2011-2012.
Sincerely,
I don't attend those because having heard some new music on the radio, I know I am not likely to enjoy or be interested in that type of programing.
Over the years, I have come to trust the LA Phil programing staff in regards to their music choices beyond the traditional Bach, Beethoven, Brahms and other crowd pleasing favorites that they mix in to the general subscription packages. Some have been quite enjoyable or at least thought provoking. Examples: Salonen's farewell concert, an Ades led concert, Concrete Frequency Festival, Stucky's Second Concerto for Orchestra.
Importance of Being Earnest was dreadful.
Non-profit of the month: May 2011 - KOCE
With KCET breaking away from the PBS network, PBS retains its presence in Southern California through KOCE. Thus, I go to 50.1 to get my PBS Newshour, Washington Week, Nova, Nature and American Experience.
Whether you think PBS should get Federal funds or not, go support your local PBS station if you watch it.
My feeling is that PBS Federal funding should be reduced and used to support stations in rural areas where the support base is smaller. In big metro areas, viewer support should be adequate to carry the weight to keep them on the air.
Whether you think PBS should get Federal funds or not, go support your local PBS station if you watch it.
My feeling is that PBS Federal funding should be reduced and used to support stations in rural areas where the support base is smaller. In big metro areas, viewer support should be adequate to carry the weight to keep them on the air.
Non-profit of the month: April 2011 - KCET
Grew up watching KCET: Sesame Street, Mr. Rodger's Neighborhood and Nova.
As an adult, I enjoyed MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour, Wall Street Week with Louis Rukeyser, Washington Week in Review, American Experience documentaries and documentaries by Ken Burns.
Alas, KCET couldn't or wouldn't make a deal with PBS over financial issues so they have now become an independent station and lost access to a lot of the shows I enjoy on the PBS networks.
By all accounts, KCET is struggling financially even more so now.
Nonetheless, I still find my remote hitting 28.1 periodically because of Huell Howser and So Cal Connected and international news feeds on 28.4.
Therefore, I'll make a contribution to KCET.
As an adult, I enjoyed MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour, Wall Street Week with Louis Rukeyser, Washington Week in Review, American Experience documentaries and documentaries by Ken Burns.
Alas, KCET couldn't or wouldn't make a deal with PBS over financial issues so they have now become an independent station and lost access to a lot of the shows I enjoy on the PBS networks.
By all accounts, KCET is struggling financially even more so now.
Nonetheless, I still find my remote hitting 28.1 periodically because of Huell Howser and So Cal Connected and international news feeds on 28.4.
Therefore, I'll make a contribution to KCET.
Politics: Pick a number ... Rep. Ryan picked 20%
It isn't rocket science: one must balance spending with revenue.
Rep. Paul Ryan selected revenue as 20% of GDP and proposes that spending go down to 20% of GDP.
Of course, he and his plan is being attacked! Shocking, eh?
Would those who oppose his plan please pick a number?
UPDATE: Below is a screen grab from a CBO analysis of Rep. Ryan's plan.
Looks like Rep. Ryan split the difference ... spending is almost 24% GDP and revenue at 15% GDP. The middle ground would be 19-20% bringing down spending 4-5% and bringing up revenue 4-5%.
We need to decide how much government we want. If we want government to be 30% of GDP (baseline scenario - wonder if that is what happens if nothing is done to current policy? Alternative scenario has spending greater than 40%.) then we need to have revenue rise (double) to more than 30% GDP to begin to pay for it and begin to pay down the accumulated debt.
Will his critics come up with a number?
UPDATE: Cato weighs in on his proposal. They feel it is positive step to begin the conversation on restraining spending. But they do have a few complaints. Excerpts:
Ryan doesn’t provide specific Social Security cuts ...
Would rather see Ryan’s Medicare reforms kick in sooner ...
Ryan adopts Obama’s proposed defense (security) savings, but larger cuts are called for ...
Ryan includes modest cuts to nonsecurity discretionary spending. Larger cuts are needed, including termination of entire agencies ...
UPDATE: Of course, in the confused language of Washington DC, draconian cuts (what they are saying of the Ryan plan) are actually not cuts but reductions in growth! This item at Reason of a segment on Bloomberg explains.
Politics: Just how much is $61 billion in cuts? Yet another view ...
Imagine the hot dog vendor charges $3.81 but then says, "Hey, I'll cut my prices and sell it to you for $3.75, would you buy it now?"
That is what cutting $61 billion dollars from the US Federal budget is equal to on a percentage basis at the food truck on the construction site.
That is what cutting $61 billion dollars from the US Federal budget is equal to on a percentage basis at the food truck on the construction site.
Technology: The Challenges of Green Energy
The "PR" of Green Energy is very good: good jobs! clean energy! saves the US economy! saves the world!
Of course, most things are never quite as good as advertised.
Why would anyone want to throw cold water on Green Energy?
Well, the reality is that Green Energy bumps its head up against the laws of physics and it costs lots of greenbacks (dollars).
This item I found at the Cato web page is a reprint of an item in Forbes magazine.
Excerpt:
green energy is diffuse ... the entire state of Connecticut (that is, if Connecticut were as windy as the southeastern Colorado plains) would need to be devoted to wind turbines to power the city of New York.
Sad to say, the land footprint of a traditional power plant is much smaller than a wind farm. And building wind farms out in the ocean is very challenging and expensive. I wonder how many acres of solar panels would one need to match one good old fashioned natural gas power plant?
Excerpt:
it is unreliable. The wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine when the energy is needed. We account for that today by having a lot of coal and natural gas generation on "standby" to fire-up when renewables can't produce.
The CAL-ISO manages the electricity needs of California and they have cool graphs of what is happening on a daily basis. As one can see there are peaks and troughs from the wind and solar portions of the electrical portfolio.
As long as solar and wind account for only a small portion of the electrical generation portfolio and the system resource curves and demand curves don't get too close, one probably can live with those peaks and troughs. But when the lines get close, the electrical grid will need a more stable source of electricity; hence, backup generation capacity from gas and coal.
Excerpt:
once the electricity is produced by the sun or wind, it cannot be stored because battery technology is not currently up to the task. Hence, we must immediately "use it or lose it."
Without battery technology, the peaks and troughs of wind and solar will need backup generation in case of a power crunch.
The Green Energy movement is hesitant to embrace nuclear power for philosophical reasons and the practical radiation risk as highlighted in the recent problems in Japan. But nuclear doesn't produce greenhouse gases so in that sense it can be included in the green category.
Unfortunately, nuclear, in addition to the radiation risks, does pose some financial challenges too. Because of the radiation risks, plant design has to be very good thus nuclear has very high initial capital costs which this item over at Reason discusses.
Excerpt:
While the nuclear industry in the United States has seen continued improvements in operating performance over time, it remains uncompetitive with coal and natural gas on the basis of price. This cost differential is primarily the result of high capital costs and long construction times. Indeed, building a nuclear power plant in the United States has cost, on average, three times as was originally estimated.
Am not in the energy business but clearly there are some very big challenges out there!
Of course, most things are never quite as good as advertised.
Why would anyone want to throw cold water on Green Energy?
Well, the reality is that Green Energy bumps its head up against the laws of physics and it costs lots of greenbacks (dollars).
This item I found at the Cato web page is a reprint of an item in Forbes magazine.
Excerpt:
green energy is diffuse ... the entire state of Connecticut (that is, if Connecticut were as windy as the southeastern Colorado plains) would need to be devoted to wind turbines to power the city of New York.
Sad to say, the land footprint of a traditional power plant is much smaller than a wind farm. And building wind farms out in the ocean is very challenging and expensive. I wonder how many acres of solar panels would one need to match one good old fashioned natural gas power plant?
Excerpt:
it is unreliable. The wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine when the energy is needed. We account for that today by having a lot of coal and natural gas generation on "standby" to fire-up when renewables can't produce.
The CAL-ISO manages the electricity needs of California and they have cool graphs of what is happening on a daily basis. As one can see there are peaks and troughs from the wind and solar portions of the electrical portfolio.
As long as solar and wind account for only a small portion of the electrical generation portfolio and the system resource curves and demand curves don't get too close, one probably can live with those peaks and troughs. But when the lines get close, the electrical grid will need a more stable source of electricity; hence, backup generation capacity from gas and coal.
Excerpt:
once the electricity is produced by the sun or wind, it cannot be stored because battery technology is not currently up to the task. Hence, we must immediately "use it or lose it."
Without battery technology, the peaks and troughs of wind and solar will need backup generation in case of a power crunch.
The Green Energy movement is hesitant to embrace nuclear power for philosophical reasons and the practical radiation risk as highlighted in the recent problems in Japan. But nuclear doesn't produce greenhouse gases so in that sense it can be included in the green category.
Unfortunately, nuclear, in addition to the radiation risks, does pose some financial challenges too. Because of the radiation risks, plant design has to be very good thus nuclear has very high initial capital costs which this item over at Reason discusses.
Excerpt:
While the nuclear industry in the United States has seen continued improvements in operating performance over time, it remains uncompetitive with coal and natural gas on the basis of price. This cost differential is primarily the result of high capital costs and long construction times. Indeed, building a nuclear power plant in the United States has cost, on average, three times as was originally estimated.
Am not in the energy business but clearly there are some very big challenges out there!
Politics: Just how much is $61 billion in cuts? Another view ...
Imagine a car with a sticker price for $38,190.
One salesman says, "I'll sell it to you for $37,580. Would you buy it now?"
That is what cutting $61 billion dollars from the US Federal budget is equal to on a percentage basis on an automobile dealership lot.
One salesman says, "I'll sell it to you for $37,580. Would you buy it now?"
That is what cutting $61 billion dollars from the US Federal budget is equal to on a percentage basis on an automobile dealership lot.
Politics: Just how much is $61 billion in cuts?
Politics: Should public-sector unions have collective bargaining rights?
At the moment, the Wisconsin public sector unions do but its Republican Governor and Republican members of the legislature want to remove that right.
Question: Do Federal workers have the right to collectively bargain?
Going to google ... many of the top website hits are people arguing with each other in blog discussion sites ...
Of sites that might be less heated and try to stick to the facts ...
It appears at the Federal level they do have some rights but national security workers appear to have limited rights according to this PolitiFact item. Excerpt:
Under the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act, all federal employees have the right to bargain collectively, but the president has the power to restrict those rights for employees working in the intelligence or national security fields.
At the state level, it appears to be the opposite in that this item posted in 2007 from the Heritage think tank seems to say that collective bargaining rights is widely available to public safety employees (i.e. police, fire, etc). Excerpt:
Thirty-four states already have collective bargaining for both police and firefighters. Four states extend collective bargaining privileges to firefighters but not police officers. In states without laws mandating collective bargaining, some local governments nonetheless do so. Other states authorize public employers to voluntarily recognize collective bargaining agreements, but do not require it.
In this Newshour item, David Brooks points out two difference between public sector and private sector unions which I've marked in bold. Excerpt:
I think, when a private sector union negotiates, they know their company can go out of business if they ask too much. That's not the state with a state monopoly. When the private sector negotiates, a private sector union, the management has an incentive to say no.
Here, the management has much less incentive. Most importantly, the public sector unions have a chance to help select the people they're negotiating with through their campaign donations.
And, so, they get to ask what they want. I perfectly understand that. But when it's slightly off-balance, then you get what you have got in 30 or 40 states, fiscally unsustainable situations. So, I think I'm not totally in agreement with what Scott Walker is trying to do, which I think is way too polarizing, but I do think the balance has to shift a little.
The multi-billion dollar question is how does one shift it back? The pension and benefit liabilities the states have to their employees are busting their budgets. Can it be done while leaving collective bargaining in place?
On a related note, Dennis Prager wonders how the media would cover the story if Tea Party people started camping out in a statehouse like the way the unions and their allies are doing in Wisconsin?
Question: Do Federal workers have the right to collectively bargain?
Going to google ... many of the top website hits are people arguing with each other in blog discussion sites ...
Of sites that might be less heated and try to stick to the facts ...
It appears at the Federal level they do have some rights but national security workers appear to have limited rights according to this PolitiFact item. Excerpt:
Under the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act, all federal employees have the right to bargain collectively, but the president has the power to restrict those rights for employees working in the intelligence or national security fields.
At the state level, it appears to be the opposite in that this item posted in 2007 from the Heritage think tank seems to say that collective bargaining rights is widely available to public safety employees (i.e. police, fire, etc). Excerpt:
Thirty-four states already have collective bargaining for both police and firefighters. Four states extend collective bargaining privileges to firefighters but not police officers. In states without laws mandating collective bargaining, some local governments nonetheless do so. Other states authorize public employers to voluntarily recognize collective bargaining agreements, but do not require it.
In this Newshour item, David Brooks points out two difference between public sector and private sector unions which I've marked in bold. Excerpt:
I think, when a private sector union negotiates, they know their company can go out of business if they ask too much. That's not the state with a state monopoly. When the private sector negotiates, a private sector union, the management has an incentive to say no.
Here, the management has much less incentive. Most importantly, the public sector unions have a chance to help select the people they're negotiating with through their campaign donations.
And, so, they get to ask what they want. I perfectly understand that. But when it's slightly off-balance, then you get what you have got in 30 or 40 states, fiscally unsustainable situations. So, I think I'm not totally in agreement with what Scott Walker is trying to do, which I think is way too polarizing, but I do think the balance has to shift a little.
The multi-billion dollar question is how does one shift it back? The pension and benefit liabilities the states have to their employees are busting their budgets. Can it be done while leaving collective bargaining in place?
On a related note, Dennis Prager wonders how the media would cover the story if Tea Party people started camping out in a statehouse like the way the unions and their allies are doing in Wisconsin?
Theology: Does the Bible Support Same Sex-Marriage?
According to Prof. Robert Gagnon, no.
In his piece, he addressed the question of analogies to slavery. Excerpt:
Scripture shows no vested interest in preserving the institution of slavery but it does show a strong vested interest from Genesis to Revelation in preserving a male-female prerequisite. Unlike its treatment of the institution of slavery, Scripture treats a male-female prerequisite for sex as a pre-Fall structure.
The Bible accommodates to social systems where sometimes the only alternative to starvation is enslavement. But it clearly shows a critical edge by specifying mandatory release dates and the right of kinship buyback; requiring that Israelites not be treated as slaves; and reminding Israelites that God had redeemed them from slavery in Egypt.
Paul urged enslaved believers to use an opportunity for freedom to maximize service to God and encouraged a Christian master (Philemon) to free his slave (Onesimus).
How can changing up on the Bible’s male-female prerequisite for sex be analogous to the church’s revision of the slavery issue if the Bible encourages critique of slavery but discourages critique of a male-female paradigm for sex?
Much closer analogies to the Bible’s rejection of homosexual practice are the Bible’s rejection of incest and the New Testament’s rejection of polyamory (polygamy).
Homosexual practice, incest, and polyamory are all (1) forms of sexual behavior (2) able to be conducted as adult-committed relationships but (3) strongly proscribed because (4) they violate creation structures or natural law.
Like same-sex intercourse, incest is sex between persons too much structurally alike, here as regards kinship rather than gender. Polyamory is a violation of the foundational “twoness” of the sexes.
The church I'm a member of is part of the PCUSA denomination that is currently voting on whether to alter the following language as a standard for ordination of ministers:
Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.
If this standard is repealed, the new wording would make it likely that ordination of practicing homosexual pastors would be allowed.
In his piece, he addressed the question of analogies to slavery. Excerpt:
Scripture shows no vested interest in preserving the institution of slavery but it does show a strong vested interest from Genesis to Revelation in preserving a male-female prerequisite. Unlike its treatment of the institution of slavery, Scripture treats a male-female prerequisite for sex as a pre-Fall structure.
The Bible accommodates to social systems where sometimes the only alternative to starvation is enslavement. But it clearly shows a critical edge by specifying mandatory release dates and the right of kinship buyback; requiring that Israelites not be treated as slaves; and reminding Israelites that God had redeemed them from slavery in Egypt.
Paul urged enslaved believers to use an opportunity for freedom to maximize service to God and encouraged a Christian master (Philemon) to free his slave (Onesimus).
How can changing up on the Bible’s male-female prerequisite for sex be analogous to the church’s revision of the slavery issue if the Bible encourages critique of slavery but discourages critique of a male-female paradigm for sex?
Much closer analogies to the Bible’s rejection of homosexual practice are the Bible’s rejection of incest and the New Testament’s rejection of polyamory (polygamy).
Homosexual practice, incest, and polyamory are all (1) forms of sexual behavior (2) able to be conducted as adult-committed relationships but (3) strongly proscribed because (4) they violate creation structures or natural law.
Like same-sex intercourse, incest is sex between persons too much structurally alike, here as regards kinship rather than gender. Polyamory is a violation of the foundational “twoness” of the sexes.
The church I'm a member of is part of the PCUSA denomination that is currently voting on whether to alter the following language as a standard for ordination of ministers:
Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.
If this standard is repealed, the new wording would make it likely that ordination of practicing homosexual pastors would be allowed.
Non-profit of the Month: March 2011- Cato Institute
Tired of the talking-screaming heads on television news?
One of the places I go for thoughtful analysis of policy issues of the day is the Cato Institute.
Its a think tank in DC that often says the answer isn't a program based in DC.
From their "about" page:
Founded in 1977, Cato owes its name to Cato's Letters, a series of essays published in 18th- century England that presented a vision of society free from excessive government power. Those essays inspired the architects of the American Revolution. And the simple, timeless principles of that revolution — individual liberty, limited government, and free markets — turn out to be even more powerful in today's world of global markets and unprecedented access to more information than Jefferson or Madison could have imagined. Social and economic freedom is not just the best policy for a free people, it is the indispensable framework for the future.
One of the places I go for thoughtful analysis of policy issues of the day is the Cato Institute.
Its a think tank in DC that often says the answer isn't a program based in DC.
From their "about" page:
Founded in 1977, Cato owes its name to Cato's Letters, a series of essays published in 18th- century England that presented a vision of society free from excessive government power. Those essays inspired the architects of the American Revolution. And the simple, timeless principles of that revolution — individual liberty, limited government, and free markets — turn out to be even more powerful in today's world of global markets and unprecedented access to more information than Jefferson or Madison could have imagined. Social and economic freedom is not just the best policy for a free people, it is the indispensable framework for the future.
Non-profit of the Month: February 2011- Americares
When a disaster strikes somewhere in the world, only a handful of agencies have the size and know-how to get help in fast.
Americares is one of those organizations.
From their "about us" page:
Since our founding in 1982, AmeriCares has provided more than $10 Billion of aid to 147 countries. To accomplish these results, AmeriCares assembles product donations from the private sector, determines the most urgent needs and solicits the funding to send the aid via airlift or ocean cargo to health and welfare professionals in the indigent locations. The model is time tested, cost effective and experience driven. Historically, for each $100 donated, AmeriCares delivers more than $3,500 in emergency relief and humanitarian aid, including medicines, medical supplies, clothing, blankets and nutritional supplements.
AmeriCares has a longstanding commitment to fiscal responsibility and has consistently received high rankings from Charity Navigator for our efficiency. These ratings reflect the fact that more than 98% of our overall expenses directly support programs and relief for people in need – and just under 2% represent administrative costs.
Americares is one of those organizations.
From their "about us" page:
Since our founding in 1982, AmeriCares has provided more than $10 Billion of aid to 147 countries. To accomplish these results, AmeriCares assembles product donations from the private sector, determines the most urgent needs and solicits the funding to send the aid via airlift or ocean cargo to health and welfare professionals in the indigent locations. The model is time tested, cost effective and experience driven. Historically, for each $100 donated, AmeriCares delivers more than $3,500 in emergency relief and humanitarian aid, including medicines, medical supplies, clothing, blankets and nutritional supplements.
AmeriCares has a longstanding commitment to fiscal responsibility and has consistently received high rankings from Charity Navigator for our efficiency. These ratings reflect the fact that more than 98% of our overall expenses directly support programs and relief for people in need – and just under 2% represent administrative costs.
Non-profit of the Month: January 2011- Union Rescue Mission and Venice Family Clinic
Starting the year off with a local flavor. I've mentioned them before but I'll mention them again because I am supporting these long time organizations that have been doing good working in the City of Angels. Hope you will do the same!
Union Rescue Mission
From their "about" page:
Established in 1891, URM is one of the largest rescue missions of its kind in the United States and the oldest in Los Angeles.
We provide a comprehensive array of emergency and long-term services to our guests, including: food, shelter, clothing, medical and dental care, recovery programs, transitional housing, legal assistance, education, counseling, and job training to needy men, women, children, and families.
Venice Family Clinic
From their "clinic in brief" page:
Founded in 1970 in a borrowed storefront dental office, the Clinic has grown into the largest free clinic in the nation. Founder Phillip Rossman, MD, and co-founder Mayer B. Davidson, MD, called upon friends and colleagues to help. That spirit of volunteerism prevails today with more than 2,000 volunteers and $12.1 million in-kind contributions from hospitals, laboratories, specialty-care providers and pharmaceutical companies.
The Clinic provides comprehensive primary health care, specialty care, dental care, mental health services, health education and child development services, as well as public insurance enrollment to more than 24,400 patients, including more than 6,000 children, who make over 103,000 visits annually. Prescription medicines are provided at no charge.
Union Rescue Mission
From their "about" page:
Established in 1891, URM is one of the largest rescue missions of its kind in the United States and the oldest in Los Angeles.
We provide a comprehensive array of emergency and long-term services to our guests, including: food, shelter, clothing, medical and dental care, recovery programs, transitional housing, legal assistance, education, counseling, and job training to needy men, women, children, and families.
Venice Family Clinic
From their "clinic in brief" page:
Founded in 1970 in a borrowed storefront dental office, the Clinic has grown into the largest free clinic in the nation. Founder Phillip Rossman, MD, and co-founder Mayer B. Davidson, MD, called upon friends and colleagues to help. That spirit of volunteerism prevails today with more than 2,000 volunteers and $12.1 million in-kind contributions from hospitals, laboratories, specialty-care providers and pharmaceutical companies.
The Clinic provides comprehensive primary health care, specialty care, dental care, mental health services, health education and child development services, as well as public insurance enrollment to more than 24,400 patients, including more than 6,000 children, who make over 103,000 visits annually. Prescription medicines are provided at no charge.
Politics: Can you cut $100 billion from the Federal Budget?
According to Wikipedia the US government spent $3.55 trillion in 2010.
I don't think there is an actual 2011 budget on the books as of this writing.
So I can only use the 2010 numbers to try to cut $100 billion.
It should be noted that cutting $100 billion (considered drastic by the people in DC) still leaves the budget over $1,000,000,000,000 in the red.
Anyway, right now, neither party will touch the "mandatory" programs and the Republicans won't touch defense. Thus, the cuts have to be made from everything else. Note the debt can't be cut because if one doesn't pay one's debts one is in default which would result in major chaos in the financial markets.
As you can see, 14% across the board cuts would be needed to reach the target.
But what if everything except the debt was on the table?
Here is my attempt to make cuts:
Rationale
Start with 2% cuts on the premise ALL must give up at least a little.
Medicare - turn the program into vouchers
Medicaid - turn program to block grant to states
Other mandatory - I wonder what these are? But in the effort to have shared sacrifice they too take a small hit
Social Security - alter the benefit calculation so it is 2% less generous
EPA and Interior - we do need to protect the environment and natural places
DOJ - law enforcement is a proper government function
VA - our veterans need medical care
HHS - programs for public health and medical research are in this department
4% cuts
Treasury and Labor - they also have some law enforcement functions
Agriculture - the farm subsidies should take a hit but the food stamps and other social services for the poor should take a smaller trim
6% cuts
DHS and Defense - security is a proper government function but some gold plated weapons systems could be trimmed and homeland security probably has some overlap and fat
State - cut some foreign aid to get some savings
DOT - infrastructure work is needed but the Amtrak subsidies and the high speed rail projects are doubtful
8%
Commerce - its a real grab bag of programs which can be trimmed
NASA - if we don't fly humans into space we can really save money
DOE - are corn ethanol subsides in this department? Energy subsides and research projects are a result of lobbyists from those industries which need to be trimmed.
10%
HUD and Education - long known for wasteful spending and probably better handled at the state and local levels
12%
Others - there is probably a plethora of programs that don't fit into neat categories that could be trimmed.
To save even more money look at the ambitious (probably too ambitious) effort at Downsizinggovernment.org.
The sad part is even with $130 billion in cuts, my proposed budget is still over $1 trillion in the red! To actually balance the budget, one needs 30% across the board cuts or corresponding tax increases or a combination of both. That is how out of balance the budget is right now.
I don't think there is an actual 2011 budget on the books as of this writing.
So I can only use the 2010 numbers to try to cut $100 billion.
It should be noted that cutting $100 billion (considered drastic by the people in DC) still leaves the budget over $1,000,000,000,000 in the red.
Anyway, right now, neither party will touch the "mandatory" programs and the Republicans won't touch defense. Thus, the cuts have to be made from everything else. Note the debt can't be cut because if one doesn't pay one's debts one is in default which would result in major chaos in the financial markets.
As you can see, 14% across the board cuts would be needed to reach the target.
But what if everything except the debt was on the table?
Here is my attempt to make cuts:
Rationale
Start with 2% cuts on the premise ALL must give up at least a little.
Medicare - turn the program into vouchers
Medicaid - turn program to block grant to states
Other mandatory - I wonder what these are? But in the effort to have shared sacrifice they too take a small hit
Social Security - alter the benefit calculation so it is 2% less generous
EPA and Interior - we do need to protect the environment and natural places
DOJ - law enforcement is a proper government function
VA - our veterans need medical care
HHS - programs for public health and medical research are in this department
4% cuts
Treasury and Labor - they also have some law enforcement functions
Agriculture - the farm subsidies should take a hit but the food stamps and other social services for the poor should take a smaller trim
6% cuts
DHS and Defense - security is a proper government function but some gold plated weapons systems could be trimmed and homeland security probably has some overlap and fat
State - cut some foreign aid to get some savings
DOT - infrastructure work is needed but the Amtrak subsidies and the high speed rail projects are doubtful
8%
Commerce - its a real grab bag of programs which can be trimmed
NASA - if we don't fly humans into space we can really save money
DOE - are corn ethanol subsides in this department? Energy subsides and research projects are a result of lobbyists from those industries which need to be trimmed.
10%
HUD and Education - long known for wasteful spending and probably better handled at the state and local levels
12%
Others - there is probably a plethora of programs that don't fit into neat categories that could be trimmed.
To save even more money look at the ambitious (probably too ambitious) effort at Downsizinggovernment.org.
The sad part is even with $130 billion in cuts, my proposed budget is still over $1 trillion in the red! To actually balance the budget, one needs 30% across the board cuts or corresponding tax increases or a combination of both. That is how out of balance the budget is right now.
Science: How much vitamin D to take?
Recently, the Institue of Medicine issued a report on vitamin D.
Some in the research community disagreed with their recommendations.
Disclaimer: My research projects are in the realm of assessing the role of vitamin D on immunity. I personally take 2000 IU/day.
Politics: Health Care Bill, where the Dollars go?
A helpful article on where the cost is.
Health care is valuable and helping more people gain better access is a good thing.
However, is this the best way to do it?
The "how" question is where there is a difference of opinion.
It is a national shame that so many people have a hard time with our health care system. No question we need to spend money to do better but are we spending it wisely in this new health bill?
We need to recheck our assumptions about some of the solutions that have been passed. Good intentions are not enough.
As in previous posts, I'm a big fan of vouchers (part I in the bill according to this article). It puts $$$ in hands of people who need it to buy health insurance. My guts tell me that is the part of the bill that should be protected. But many of the other provisions that come with it place too much power into the hands of too few regulators in DC. That is the part I think is upsetting people.
If anything, my assessment is that the states should have the option of converting their Medicaid and CHIP programs (section II of the health bill as summarized in the article) into voucher programs and see if that works better.
As for part III, a truly radical reform would be to decouple insurance from employment by phasing out the tax sheltered status of insurance benefits. That simple but dramatic shift in policy would level the playing field for small businesses in a more clear cut fashion that providing them tax credits and puts more control into the hands of the individual.
There will always need to be some social safety net because a certain segment of the population will fall through the cracks. As an honorable society, we need to own that duty.
But also, we need to own up to our duty to look closely at our health care system rather than continuing to let more power flow to DC. For the vast majority of Americans, we need to request that the government provide that safety net for those who truly need it and give the rest of the people the options and flexibility that will shrink as the regulatory power of the government grows in the health care industry.
Health care is valuable and helping more people gain better access is a good thing.
However, is this the best way to do it?
The "how" question is where there is a difference of opinion.
It is a national shame that so many people have a hard time with our health care system. No question we need to spend money to do better but are we spending it wisely in this new health bill?
We need to recheck our assumptions about some of the solutions that have been passed. Good intentions are not enough.
As in previous posts, I'm a big fan of vouchers (part I in the bill according to this article). It puts $$$ in hands of people who need it to buy health insurance. My guts tell me that is the part of the bill that should be protected. But many of the other provisions that come with it place too much power into the hands of too few regulators in DC. That is the part I think is upsetting people.
If anything, my assessment is that the states should have the option of converting their Medicaid and CHIP programs (section II of the health bill as summarized in the article) into voucher programs and see if that works better.
As for part III, a truly radical reform would be to decouple insurance from employment by phasing out the tax sheltered status of insurance benefits. That simple but dramatic shift in policy would level the playing field for small businesses in a more clear cut fashion that providing them tax credits and puts more control into the hands of the individual.
There will always need to be some social safety net because a certain segment of the population will fall through the cracks. As an honorable society, we need to own that duty.
But also, we need to own up to our duty to look closely at our health care system rather than continuing to let more power flow to DC. For the vast majority of Americans, we need to request that the government provide that safety net for those who truly need it and give the rest of the people the options and flexibility that will shrink as the regulatory power of the government grows in the health care industry.
Life: Remembering the I have a Dream Speech
Simply wonderful!
Students recite portions of MLK's famous speech at the Lincoln Memorial.
Students recite portions of MLK's famous speech at the Lincoln Memorial.
Devotional Thoughts: Thinking about the Puritans
What do you think of when you think of the Puritans?
I think of the Puritans coming to America and the courage it took to cross the sea and try to scratch out a new life in the New England colonies. In that regard, I admire them.
Of course, there are the negative connotations of the word puritanical.
Its a given that any group will have its successes and excesses.
But what did they believe about their faith?
One of my reading goals for the year will be to work my way through this book that excerpts some of their writings. The book also gives a brief sketch of the historical context of the Puritan movement and short biographies of the writers of the excerpts contained in the book.
What I'll do here for blog posts is to share a tidbit here and there.
According to the book, the English Puritans (1560-1710) sought reform of the Church of England. The Westminster Confession and Catechisms (1647) that are still widely respected today was strongly influenced by Puritan theological perspectives. Alas, their drive for reform took a setback with the Act Of Uniformity (1662) that resulted in the expulsion of most Puritan clergy. Nonetheless, their ideas endured even though they lost official status within the church.
Lord help us in the modern world to learn from the best of the past. Taking in what is good and true and beautiful for those things stand the test of time. Amen.
I think of the Puritans coming to America and the courage it took to cross the sea and try to scratch out a new life in the New England colonies. In that regard, I admire them.
Of course, there are the negative connotations of the word puritanical.
Its a given that any group will have its successes and excesses.
But what did they believe about their faith?
One of my reading goals for the year will be to work my way through this book that excerpts some of their writings. The book also gives a brief sketch of the historical context of the Puritan movement and short biographies of the writers of the excerpts contained in the book.
What I'll do here for blog posts is to share a tidbit here and there.
According to the book, the English Puritans (1560-1710) sought reform of the Church of England. The Westminster Confession and Catechisms (1647) that are still widely respected today was strongly influenced by Puritan theological perspectives. Alas, their drive for reform took a setback with the Act Of Uniformity (1662) that resulted in the expulsion of most Puritan clergy. Nonetheless, their ideas endured even though they lost official status within the church.
Lord help us in the modern world to learn from the best of the past. Taking in what is good and true and beautiful for those things stand the test of time. Amen.
Money: Final Four Stock Picks
Disclaimer: not in the financial planning business, investments can and do lose money, and this is offered as opinion and does not constitute advice for your specific financial situation, etc.
SYT
What?
Agribusiness based in Switzerland.
Why?
People have to eat and this company is one of the big players on the world stage.
CSCO
What?
Internet hardware.
Why?
The internet is going to keep growing and this company is one of the top companies in that industry.
DUK
What?
Electrical utility.
Why?
Great dividends and people need electricity and this is one of the biggies that is well-run.
VZ
What?
Telecom.
Why?
Great dividends and by all accounts VZ's cellphone coverage beats everyone else in the USA and they just got rights to sell iPhone. This could be good in getting more customers but it could be bad if their network gets clogged!
SYT
What?
Agribusiness based in Switzerland.
Why?
People have to eat and this company is one of the big players on the world stage.
CSCO
What?
Internet hardware.
Why?
The internet is going to keep growing and this company is one of the top companies in that industry.
DUK
What?
Electrical utility.
Why?
Great dividends and people need electricity and this is one of the biggies that is well-run.
VZ
What?
Telecom.
Why?
Great dividends and by all accounts VZ's cellphone coverage beats everyone else in the USA and they just got rights to sell iPhone. This could be good in getting more customers but it could be bad if their network gets clogged!
Politics: Immigration Reform
As in health care reform, some claim to want "comprehensive" immigration reform.
Call me a skeptic about "comprehensive" solutions. I don't have a lot of confidence that a bunch of experts can dream up a system to handle really huge problems. Perhaps, a more modest approach would be helpful.
In the case of immigration reform there are several issues and perhaps it is best to address them one-by-one rather then trying to "shoot-the-moon" with a comprehensive solution/reform. From what I have gathered, these are the distinct aspects of overall immigration question:
(1) Shortage of high skill labor.
(2) Shortage of low skill labor.
(3) Illegal immigrants who are already here.
(4) Border security.
Issue #1
High tech companies need highly skilled workers and they complain the US doesn't produce enough scientists, engineers, programmers, etc. They want to hire those kinds of workers from overseas and are unable to hire enough because the quotas are quickly filled up. I wonder where the political opposition comes from on this issue? Why not allow the best and the brightest to come here to work with the option of citizenship down the road? I suppose there could be some who are security risks but I would imagine a company doing the hiring would be highly motivated to avoid that kind of problem.
Issue #2
Illegal immigration which is down right now due to bad economic conditions in the USA will rise again when the economy recovers. As it is, some low skill jobs are filled by illegal immigrants. Why not bring them into the legal system by offering some kind of temporary workers program? Thus, companies can hire people in a legal manner and those illegals who want to be law abiding have the option. Again, down the road, some of these could be put on the citizenship track.
Issue #3
Apparently there are a number of people who have been in the USA for a long time but have lived in the shadows as illegal immigrants yet in all other ways have been law abiding contributing members of the society. The Dream Act was supposed to provide a path to citizenship for those who enter military service or obtain a college education. Hopefully, that plan can be re-visited.
Issue #4
The sad reality is that as long as Mexico teeters on economic collapse and drug lord violence, people will make the dash across the border with the risks that involves. As I see it, this goes hand-in-hand with issue 2. Tighten the border but also have the valve of a temporary workers program. This would provide incentives for compliance with legal mechanisms of immigration and employment.
Call me a skeptic about "comprehensive" solutions. I don't have a lot of confidence that a bunch of experts can dream up a system to handle really huge problems. Perhaps, a more modest approach would be helpful.
In the case of immigration reform there are several issues and perhaps it is best to address them one-by-one rather then trying to "shoot-the-moon" with a comprehensive solution/reform. From what I have gathered, these are the distinct aspects of overall immigration question:
(1) Shortage of high skill labor.
(2) Shortage of low skill labor.
(3) Illegal immigrants who are already here.
(4) Border security.
Issue #1
High tech companies need highly skilled workers and they complain the US doesn't produce enough scientists, engineers, programmers, etc. They want to hire those kinds of workers from overseas and are unable to hire enough because the quotas are quickly filled up. I wonder where the political opposition comes from on this issue? Why not allow the best and the brightest to come here to work with the option of citizenship down the road? I suppose there could be some who are security risks but I would imagine a company doing the hiring would be highly motivated to avoid that kind of problem.
Issue #2
Illegal immigration which is down right now due to bad economic conditions in the USA will rise again when the economy recovers. As it is, some low skill jobs are filled by illegal immigrants. Why not bring them into the legal system by offering some kind of temporary workers program? Thus, companies can hire people in a legal manner and those illegals who want to be law abiding have the option. Again, down the road, some of these could be put on the citizenship track.
Issue #3
Apparently there are a number of people who have been in the USA for a long time but have lived in the shadows as illegal immigrants yet in all other ways have been law abiding contributing members of the society. The Dream Act was supposed to provide a path to citizenship for those who enter military service or obtain a college education. Hopefully, that plan can be re-visited.
Issue #4
The sad reality is that as long as Mexico teeters on economic collapse and drug lord violence, people will make the dash across the border with the risks that involves. As I see it, this goes hand-in-hand with issue 2. Tighten the border but also have the valve of a temporary workers program. This would provide incentives for compliance with legal mechanisms of immigration and employment.
Politics: Blood Libel and Palin and Current Climate
Palin uses the phrase "blood libel" and the political world goes bananas. Alas, the phrase has been used on many other occasions by people on both the left and right. Perhaps the term is overused but the outrage over Palin sounds like "heads I win, tails you lose."
UPDATE: More uses of blood libel cited.
Memo to both sides: calm down and chill out.
Sadly, I had a feeling that the political dialog in the USA was going to go even further downhill when I first heard the horrible news about the shootings in Arizona. I heard the story on KNX1070AM radio here in Los Angeles. As part of the coverage, Orange County Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez was contacted. The interview began with Ms. Sanchez describing her relationship with Congresswoman Giffords as they served on some committees together in the House. From these comments I had a very good feeling about Ms. Giffords and all subsequent stories about her I have heard since support the perspective that she was one of the bright young stars in the House.
The reporter then asked, do you think the climate of political discourse in the country caused this event?
At this point Congresswoman Sanchez could/should have said, we are just a couple of hours after these horrendous shootings and we know nothing about the gunman. Our attention should be on praying for and comforting the family and friends of those impacted by this horrible situation. Law enforcement officials are investigating the gunman and we will all know more later. But for now, let's remember those who are hurting right now and praise the first responders who did their jobs so well in tending to Congresswoman Giffords and the others wounded today.
Instead, Ms. Sanchez politicized the shootings and blamed the rhetoric of the opponents of her political party.
As I heard her go on about this for a couple of minutes I knew the tone of the next few days was going to be poisonous.
UPDATE: More uses of blood libel cited.
Memo to both sides: calm down and chill out.
Sadly, I had a feeling that the political dialog in the USA was going to go even further downhill when I first heard the horrible news about the shootings in Arizona. I heard the story on KNX1070AM radio here in Los Angeles. As part of the coverage, Orange County Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez was contacted. The interview began with Ms. Sanchez describing her relationship with Congresswoman Giffords as they served on some committees together in the House. From these comments I had a very good feeling about Ms. Giffords and all subsequent stories about her I have heard since support the perspective that she was one of the bright young stars in the House.
The reporter then asked, do you think the climate of political discourse in the country caused this event?
At this point Congresswoman Sanchez could/should have said, we are just a couple of hours after these horrendous shootings and we know nothing about the gunman. Our attention should be on praying for and comforting the family and friends of those impacted by this horrible situation. Law enforcement officials are investigating the gunman and we will all know more later. But for now, let's remember those who are hurting right now and praise the first responders who did their jobs so well in tending to Congresswoman Giffords and the others wounded today.
Instead, Ms. Sanchez politicized the shootings and blamed the rhetoric of the opponents of her political party.
As I heard her go on about this for a couple of minutes I knew the tone of the next few days was going to be poisonous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
UPDATE: Wind farm greenlighted by Dept. of Interior . Really didn't know what tag to put on this item. Economics? Politics? Cultur...
-
Am looking at Matthew 13:31-32 tonight. Jesus again illustrated the Kingdom of Heaven with an agricultural image. The kingdom is like a tiny...
-
Am mesmerized by John Coltrane's jazzy version of My Favorite Things . Thus, it was natural to use that as a basis for planning my birt...
