All work and no play makes me a dull boy. And it makes me a terrible Brewer. It's been, oh...two weeks since I last had a cup of Morning Joe with you all. In that time, a lot has happened. The economy went further into the sheisse bucket. The candidate who ran on hope and change has become the President who peddles fear in order to pass his agenda, and does so better than his predecessor. Our extremely popular Congress semi-rushed to pass a, well, I don't know, $800 billion, $900 billion, or over $1 trillion (actual figure is just semantics) "stimulus" package full of the artist formerly known as Pork, which really stimulates nothing save deforestation in Brazil and the generation of global warmth-inducing Congressional/Presidential CO2 emissions. Oh, I say semi-rushed because, well, it "absolutely needed to be passed," but only after a three-day, holiday weekend. And there is talk about nationalizing some banks.
The sky really is falling.
Yes, I made that.
Let them eat Tax:
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood recently mentioned in an interview with AP that, "We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled." In layman's terms, this is a mileage tax. LaHood, who is one of two Republicans in President Obama's Cabinet and a former Congressman from Illinois, thinks that this would be a good way to "fund our infrastructure." It seems that the federal tax on gasoline is no longer providing enough revenue to maintain the highway system. But LaHood doesn't want to raise the federal gasoline tax in a recession. See, we don't to raise current taxes, because that looks bad. But making new ones is alright. Somehow. I don't really understand it.
Obama's press secretary Robin, er, Robert Gibbs says that the Obama Administration is not considering a mileage tax. Of course, they're not considering the "Fairness Doctrine" either...but if it walks like a duck...
Some states, however, are considering a mileage tax, which we've discussed in previous editions of the MC. In Rhode Island, the proposed tax would be one half a cent per mile driven. The tax would be calculated by using the mandatory GPS/clock/Big Brother apparatus that measures the miles you've driven, when you've driven them (peak vs. non-peak) and where you've driven them (highways/secondary roads). You'd then pay this at the gas pump. It'd be pretty transparent, I'm sure. A half a cent doesn't seem like a lot, but it's higher than the quarter of a cent tax proposed in North Carolina.
Using a baseline of 12,000 driven per year, you would pay roughly $60 in mileage taxes in Rhode Island. I'm still not clear on whether or not you'd pay Rhode Island tax for miles driven outside of the state, or if you'd pay taxes in neighboring states for miles driven there, or what. Compare this to the gas tax. If your vehicle were to get 24 miles per gallon, you would pay for approximately 500 gallons of gasoline. In Rhode Island, you pay the 18.6 cent federal gas tax, plus the 30 cent Rhode Island gas tax per gallon. That's 48.6 cents in tax, or roughly $243 per year. Would you rather pay the mileage tax or the gas tax? That's easy. The mileage tax. Unfortunately, you would probably pay both.
I've read a lot about mileage taxes, and I've never seen an instance where someone proposes a mileage tax and simultaneously proposes dropping the gasoline tax. Why would they, since the whole issue is lack of sufficient revenue (or inability to manage a budget, I'm not sure). So, contrary to LaHood's logic, this is technically a tax increase. It worse though. You would pay for the infrastructure to enact this plan, either in your role as a tax/fee-payer or as a consumer. It's also likely that you would pay both federal and state mileage taxes. And if I may indulge in conjecture, you might even have to pay a higher tax is your yearly mileage exceeds a certain threshold, just like you pay a higher tax if you make more money; I'm sure as is the case with most tax codes, this wouldn't be as simple as a flat tax. Your $243 yearly tax just got a little bigger. This, of course, ignores the ethical/philosophical issues of tracking citizens, which we discussed previously.
Census is Among-us:
Gerrymandering is the deliberate modification of electoral districts in order to influence future elections one way or the other by securing numerical advantage, generally for the incumbent. While named after Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry, a notorious practitioner of redistricting, it didn't die with Gerry in 1814. As recently as 2006, the US Supreme Court upheld most of the Texas electoral map engineered by then House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and went so far as to say state legislatures may gerrymander districts at any time, so long as they do not harm ethnic minorities. Take a look at this map of Congressional District 4 in Illinois, or Congressional District 28 in New York, designed, I say again, designed to connect to heavily Democratic cities. Coincidentally, or not, the district has been represented by Democrat Louise Slaughter since 1993. It's also interesting that the number of votes her Republican challengers have received has significantly declined in the past 13 years. Perhaps it's because she does a bang up job. Or perhaps it's because gerrymandering has diluted the Republican block in NY District 28 to the point of being irrelevant.
Sometimes though, the opposing factions agree to redistricting in order to preserve the status quo. In California in 2000, the two parties decided to redraw districts to prevent unpredictable voting by the electorate. The results will astound you. Not one single state or federal legislative office changed party in 2004, this despite the fact that 53 congressional, 20 state senate, and 80 assembly seats were at risk.
We've seen that gerrymandering can be effective, and that gerrymandering has been deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court. That's good, because I'd hate to see politicians violating the constitution. The Court says, basically, that politicians, who have to be voted into power, can rearrange districts whenever they want, rather than just after a census (when they're constitutionally required), in order to stay in power. Call me a cynic, but that sounds like a conflict of interest. Of course, this is the same group of people who arranged a yearly raise, based not on performance or job approval, but one which automatically occurs provided they don't vote against it. As you can see, conflict of interest isn't such a big deal when you make the rules.
And when you're the incumbent, you generally make the rules. This is an issue now because President Obama has recently stated that the White House will take a more active role in the 2010 census, which is the purview of the Commerce Department. As the census helps determine congressional districts, the census is always an issue of contention between the left and the right. Conservatives favor a "door-to-door" approach to the census, while Liberals tend to favor statistical sampling because minorities and homeless are less likely to be counted in the door-to-door approach. The Obama's Administration's desire to have officials in the Commerce Department report directly to the White House doesn't seem like it would result in less gerrymandering. Being the skeptic that I am, it sounds like the possibility for further consolidation of Democratic power in the two chambers of Congress would be increased were Obama or his loyalists take an active part in "guiding" the census process.
I don't want partisan politics to be a part of the census at all, quite frankly. I would prefer it be pure, cold science. But I can understand that that is impossible. However, we can avoid, to some degree, gerrymandering and its imbalancing influence on the electorate's voting power. In Iowa, a nonpartisan Legislative Services Bureau (LSB) determines electoral districts. Political factors cannot be considered in drawing district lines. Districts follow county lines. Why not take the power out of the hands of politicians, who are interested solely in reelection, and make them more accountable to the people? Of course, we can then talk about term limits and the such...
Fundraising, Recession-Style:
Certainly there are those among you who believe that politicians genuinely desire to serve. I would love to believe this, but I think that the prime desire of virtually all persons in power, save the rare George Washington or Cincinnatus, is to remain in power ad infinitum. This is why no serious discussion of mandatory term limits has taken place in Congress since the early days of the Republic. Then, the high Congressional turn-over of the period was not mandated, but was the result of inherent distrust of political power, even among officeholders themselves. Despite this prevailing sentiment, Thomas Jefferson and George Mason saw the potential danger of not mandating term limits in the Constitution. Mason said, "nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation." Richard Henry Lee envisioned the lack of limits on tenure as leading to a "most highly and dangerously oligarchic" state. You don't say, George...
James Fennimore Cooper said that, "contact with the affairs of state is one of the most corrupting of the influence to which men are exposed." Eventually rotation of office simply became taking turns and sharing political wealth. Simply put, those in power simply agreed to continue sharing power amongst themselves. This practice was eventually phased out, not by a return to genuine idealistic sentiments of limiting one's own power, but by turning to a professional, ruling class. And in order to stay in power, one had to raise a lot of money. This aspect dominates a politician's life.
I could ramble ad nauseum about term limits, but I wanted to use it as a tie in to discuss the recent fundraising activities of our ruling class. While always present, these fundraising activities grate on me even more in these economic "times of trouble." One would think that there would be less money to be had by politicians looking for cash to run their next big campaign. This isn't the case. For 2008 campaigns, House and Senate candidates have raised $1.4 billion. This is $400 million more than they raised in 2000. A lot of the money raised is tied to fairly swanky activities like a ski resort get together for Democrat Congressman Ed Perlmutter or a "Weekend of Aloha" fundraiser held for Democratic Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii. Republicans aren't innocent either, though I think the two aformentioned individuals do enough to illustrate my point.
Also, please remember that fundraising never stops for these people. The finance director for Perlmutter's campaign, Julie DeWoody says, "Almost every member of Congress is fundraising all the time. It's the reality of running for office and how expensive campaigns are." She also said that the ski resort getaway was a way to give "supporters a different way to interact with him and have fun." All you had to do to "interact with him" was donate $2,400. About 20 donors, each of whom raised or gave $5,000, attended Inouye's Hawaii...thing. His fundraising expert, Helen Milby said, "some were lobbyists; some were not." But, he would "never" allow lobbyist contributions to shape his decisions in his day job. Wait, his not so day job, since his day job is to raise money to support his off-duty job representing Hawaiians.
You cannot buy your Senator an expensive meal, but you can attend what is basically a party and donate a bunch of money that is ostensibly used for the sole purpose of keeping that individual in power. Interesting. Inouye "took home" about $100,000 from his weekend fundraiser, which will buy a decent amount of radio, print, or TV advertising. This is money that any challenger will not likely have at his disposal. By merit of being an officeholder, he holds an extreme advantage in terms of capital, and the ability to generate or regenerate said capital.
Remember, most aspects of my ideas of political reform tie together. That being said, the enactment of term limits would, to a large degree, nullify the need for campaign finance reform. Perhaps if we had term limits, politicians would not feel so tied to never-ending fundraising. Then they could work more. However, were we to implement some sort of comprehensive, crippling campaign finance reform, we could, at the very least, return to rotational offices by limiting the amount of money an incumbent can generate, perhaps over his lifetime. Certainly, I will concede that unlimited money does not guarantee reelection, but it does help. What's more, incumbents enjoy other advantages not available to challengers. Regardless, I would prefer that if we cannot have term limits, despite the overwhelming support for such limits by the general population, we at least have the possibility of perpetuity in office based largely on ability and results in executing the duties of of an office rather than the ability to raise cash and glad-hand with lobbyists.
Having said all that, I'm going to go attend a fundraiser for the cause "Getting Uncle Joe Koba's Student Loans Paid Off Before He Dies So He Can Save Money for His Retirement and Help Stimulate the Economy by Buying a New Computer Monitor and Drum Kit." It's a great cause, and you can donate by visiting THIS SITE.
Word of the Day: Nocuous (NOK-yoo-uhs): (adjective): Very hurtful; noxious.
On This Day in History: George Washington was born (1732). Jefferson Davis is inaugurated for a six-year term as President of the Confederate Statees of America (1862). The Confederate President was only allowed to serve one six-year term. Woolworth first opens in Utica, NY (1879). Calvin Coolidge becomes the first President to deliver a radio broadcast from the White House (1924). Germany starts unrestricted submarine warfare (1915). The US hockey team defeats the Soviet Union hockey team at Lake Placid, NY. Called the Miracle on Ice, it is considered to be one of the greatest upsets in sports history, and spawned the "USA!" chant (1980). Aldrich Ames and his wife are charged by the US Justice Department with spying for the Soviet Union (1994).
"Lying through your teeth again, [motherfucking] imbecile. Think about it. You're pounding on a fault line. What will it take to get through you precious? I'm over this, why do you want to throw it away like this? Such a mess. Why would I wanna watch you?" - A Perfect Circle, "The Outsider", Thirteenth Step. A fitting, if slightly modified, line.
Edit: Apparently, I had a fourth grader take diction. Apologies for the spelling/grammar errors.
22 February 2009
08 February 2009
Part I: Who's to Blame for the Crisis, or More Briefly, Everyone
I'm pleased to present the Logician once again. To refresh your memory, I had asked him to write to help us understand certain aspects of the financial crisis. He did so HERE. This is part one, so he/we will be writing more about this in the near future.
Edit: Blogger software is mucking up formatting and failing to paste things where they belong. Apologies.
*********************
A while ago, I promised our host the Brew Master I'd write at greater length on the economic meltdown. In short, the problem arose from decades of pride, greed, stupidity, shortsightedness, willful blindness, naivety, dishonor, selfishness, and pride. Remember the vulgarization and glorification of greed? Remember "greed is good" and "greed works"? Greed is the foundation of capitalism, they said. Of course, none of them ever bothered to read Adam Smith's classic, and they were too blinded by lust of money to acknowledge a difference between greed and self-interest. (Nice explanation, here.)
I digress. Let's go back to the beginning. Before we discuss the greedy, dishonest, stockjobbing, maneuvering, conniving, angling real estate & finance professionals, let's discuss the borrowers.
THE BORROWER
The naïve, the willfully ignorant, the dunces, the lazy, the gamblers
Sally and Bob want a house so they meet the realtor who helps them find their dream house in Los Angeles. At half a million bucks, it's a great deal, even has a porch! Bob does pretty well as a contractor, sometimes making more than six figures, and Sally pitches in. Between them they're pulling in $125,000+ a year. Sally figures she'll quit her job and become a full time mom after they qualify for the loan.
Sally and Bob have a mortgage professional working for them to get a loan, so it absolves them of all personal responsibility. Remember second grade math? Multiplication? The social program that prepares you for your responsibilities as a citizen? In today's world, remember that the borrower is always the victim. If I say I'm no good at math, it absolves me from the responsibility of doing second grade math to figure out if I can afford something.
For fun, let's do Sally and Bob's math for them. Hell, we don't even have to do the math, go here. Let's say I borrow the full amount (no shit, some of these loans were for 120% of the property value) of $500,000. In 30 years, Sally and Bob will pay $1.4M, or just under half of Bob's salary, if he can sustain his six figures. Of course he'll lose a $30K each year in taxes, if he even pays them. So taxes & payments together, Sally and Bob have $20K each year to live on in Los Angeles. It might be a tough decision, y'know? You have to hope you can maintain or increase your present salary for the next 30 years, especially if Sally plans to stop working after they qualify for the loan. It never occurs to Sally and Bob that the bank's requirement for demonstrable income is there because the bank knows that if the income isn't there, the house isn't getting paid off.
Fortunately, the housing market always goes up. Everyone knows this, it went up for over 20 years now, eh? Sally and Bob listen to a pep talk from their realtor, who tells them they can flip the house in five years to another buyer. Not only will they pay off the loan with the sale, they'll profit from the sale, maybe pull in a couple hundred thousand. You'd be a moron not to buy the house, they figure. It's not hard to find Bobs and Sallys. You can find a hundred financial exhibitionists on the internet bragging about these schemes (like here).
Alberto and Rosa wanted a house too. These poor migrant workers have a deeply moving story. Struggling as $15,000/year strawberry pickers, they pool with other migrants to qualify for a $720,000 house in San Francisco. Yes, that's right, really. Short story this time – they're victims to predatory lending. Yeah, it'd take over 48 years just to pay the principal, so long as they can pay their entire annual salary to the mortgage payments for 48 years. But this is division, it's neither fair to ask them to do their own division nor expect them to ask anyone else with a 2nd grade education. Alberto and Rosa probably don't speak very good English, and they probably have limited education. Based on everything that happened at this time, I'd guess they were presented a SISA loan application (Stated Income/Stated Assets, or "what I write is what I make, no proof required" loan). The broker likely reported their income as $200K, told them everyone does it, it's cool, and they went ahead and signed.
07 February 2009
Morning Coffee (151)
Where to begin? Certainly, there are dozens of places to begin, right? Dozens of places about which to lament and criticize; to wonder why. It's really amazing. If you watch or read the news, the world seems to be crumbling around our heads, doesn't it? So much so that even stories that would normally leave us aghast, seem but a blip on the radar screen. Perhaps they even seem like a welcome respite from the bludgeoning news of our shattered economy; the shattered American dream; the shattered facade of American global domination. I'll lead in with one such story (and it's not even political - well, maybe it is).
Czech This:
The Czech Republic surgically castrates convicted sex offenders, if these offenders request the procedure, according to a 1966 law. At first glance, this seems rather reasonable. But it always goes deeper. Investigators from the Council of Europe have found that many of those castrated were pressured into the procedure under fear of long-term incarceration. Offenders are being told that castration is the only option available, and that refusal could result in their detention for life. Even first-time, non-violent offenders are being castrated, and investigators found that those castrated in at least five instances were mentally handicapped. Investigators also state that offenders received information too technical for them to understand or no information at all about the procedure.
The Czech government insists that it is a voluntary procedure, with proven results in reducing repeat offenses, and performed on men who "cannot manage their sexual instincts and are sexually aggressive." The Council of Europe, however, debates castration's reduction in recidivism, pointing to three instances in which castrated offenders had committed serial rapes and other crimes.
The Czech government states that the Council of Europe failed to convince the country to cease castration.
In principle, I have no problem with convicted sex offenders opting to be castrated, so long as they're able to make an informed decision that they believe will help them live a more normal life (i.e. not rape or molest people). Clearly, there is no guarantee that the procedure works in the manner it is intended to, but the option should be there. However, a punishment should not be optional if authorities coerce criminals into it by threats of life in prison. Further, it isn't clear whether or not those who are mentally handicapped can make an informed decision. It isn't even clear if those who weren't mentally disabled were able to make informed decisions. For first-time offenders of a non-violent nature, such as exhibitionists, I do not think that castration is a viable punishment.
There are, I think, various degrees of sex offenses, and some are more vile than others. For example, in the US, an 18 year old male or female could be a convicted as sex offender for having consensual sex with a 16 year old female or male. Some will argue that the 16 year old cannot give consent legally, and this would be true. But is this 18 year old in the same class as a serial rapist or a pedophile? In many cases, legally he or she is. The law often has no categories, as it does with murder, and that 18 year old will forever have to register as a sex offender and be shamed forever.
But the issue here is castration. To make it clear, I am not against castration as a punishment, provided that it is viable for rehabilitating some offenders, but against the application of castration in the Czech Republic as described above. Some might wonder if I would be a proponent of forced castration. I would say no. Being as though there is no guarantee that castration would work as intended, I could not be for forced castration. We as a species generally hold reproductive rights in very high regard. To suggest that someone is so capable of heinous crime that he must be forcibly castrated is saying a great deal. And since castration, forced or otherwise, does not guarantee that the individual will not commit another crime, I posit that the individual must be incarcerated for life without the possibility of parole or release. Further, since we require sex offenders to register wherever they go, it seems that we view sexual crimes as more offensive than even murder, and reasonably so. With that being the case, I have no problem with the death penalty being applied to cases in which the offender shows a propensity for violent sexual crime and no potential for rehabilitation.
Cher = Absurd:
With a mom and a dad like mine, both audiophiles, I grew up listening to a lot of different music. My mom was always a big fan of the female singer Cher, who allegedly retired in 2005, but has since announced that she's working on her 26th studio album and is presently performing in Las Vegas. I usually liked the songs she sang, and was awestruck by her 1989 video for the song "Turn Back Time" in which she cavorted semi-nude around the battleship USS Missouri. While the whole album, Heart of Stone, was pretty good, I was a boy of 9 at that time, and was far more taken by the massive 16 inch guns of the Mighty-Mo than I was of Cher's fishnets. I suppose my point here is that even though Cher made some good music and forever imprinted in the mind of a young boy the image of one of the most impressive pieces of military gear in history set to music, it does not mean she's not an idiot. (Sorry Ma.)
Example: "Republicans almost killed me." She wasn't specific in how exactly Republicans killed her. As far as I can tell, she did pretty well for herself the past eight or so years. Having a deal to perform 200 shows over three years in Vegas doesn't usually mean that you're being slowly killed by the political party in power at the time. Perhaps she was being dramatic. Still, it makes her an sort of dumb. Especially when, after asked to explain her comment that Republicans almost killed her, she says,
Look, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, but I'm not entirely sure Cher is a leading expert on what a Republican is. She probably doesn't even know what makes up Liberal ideology, presumably her political bent, let alone the ideology of the party she clearly despises. I wonder how many "Republicans" she knows...It's almost like a racist saying, "I'm not racist, there are good black people; I have black friends." Good try, Cher. Stick to singing and rolling around in your massive treasure trove of cash...provided to you by many a Republican, to be sure. Some not even born-again-Christians.
The Issue You've All Been Waiting For:
The Economic Stimulus. It appears that our elected officials in the Senate, in their supreme wisdom and 19% approval rating, have come to an agreement on the stimulus package and are set to vote on it early next week. For all the uproar from them that this is a national emergency, which is the crux of their argument that this bill needs to be passed RIGHT NOW without going through all the normal procedures, it seems odd to me that the vote on the bill would be put off until early next week, whenever that might be. Presumably Monday through Wednesday sometime. Regardless, Democratic leaders hope to push the bill to Obama by the end of next week. The fact that these officials have been telling us for weeks that this is an emergency, but are willing to wait to vote shows the hypocrisy and ineptitude of that elected body. How so many members of a political body sporting a collective approval rating of below 20% by some polls got reelected I do not know. Perhaps this best illustrates the ineptitude of the American voter.
Certainly, my fellow Americans and loyal Coffee drinkers, you realize that it's best to rush through the passing of a bill worth $780-819 billion. Do I need to tell you why? Easy, because then emotions take over, and the majority can batter down any opposition before that opposition might begin to make sense to some of the more easily swayed members of the body. Also, less oversight. When you want to push through a bunch of frivolous spending that has nothing to do with stimulus, the faster you do things, the better.
Much has been written about this stimulus bill, and by better qualified people than I, so I won't go into a whole lot of detail. But there are a few things that perplex a mind as simple as mine. Other than the comments made by many regarding the amount of money actually going to stimulus (12 cents for every dollar) and how wasteful the bill is, one thing that sticks out to me as evidence of a fraud being committed by our elected officials is the comments by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) regarding how much of this stimulus will be spent and when. In addition to saying that this stimulus bill is harmful over the long haul, CBO states that only 15% of the funding will be spent in 2009. Only 64% will be used during the next 19 months. This is contrary to Obama's proclamation that 75% will be doled out in the next 19 months. For something that allegedly needs to be done immediately, with limited discussion, it seems strange that much of the "stimulus" will not take place until at least 2010. And we're told daily that Americans are struggling and need relief now. And for all the good it will allegedly do, like create three to four million jobs at the cost of $275,000 per, the CBO projects that it will actually lower the national gross domestic product (GDP) over the next ten years.
But Obama says, "But broadly speaking, the package is the right size, it is the right scope, and it has the right priorities to create 3 to 4 million jobs, and do it in a way that lays the groundwork for long-term growth." I love how Obama uses a variation of hendiatris, a rule of three, to sell this to the public. "Right this, right that, and right the other thing." But that's not the point. The point is, this is somewhat contrary information than that presented by the CBO. A lower GDP does not indicate growth. Perhaps he's talking really long-term, as in 40 or 50 years. I don't know. He goes on to say, "These numbers demand action. It is inexcusable and irresponsible for any of us to get bogged down in distraction, delay or politics as usual while millions of Americans are being put out of work. Now is the time for Congress to act." Let me clarify for those who those who don't speak Politician: "Get bogged down" = closely scrutinize. "Distraction, delay" = have public discussions. "Politics as usual" = anything contrary to my own wishes.
I should point out that Obama ran a successful campaign largely on the premise of Hope, while denouncing the use of fear and "politics as usual." But fear is a useful tool, and I don't see how anyone can deny that he is using it in order to get this stimulus passed quickly. He said, "A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe." This isn't hope. This is fear. He is telling you that if this bill isn't passed right now, then your life is going to be worse in the future. This from a man who told us that "we have chosen hope over fear." Maybe hope only belongs on the campaign trail. If so, you've been bamboozled yet again by buying into his rhetoric. (For a fun side trip, check out the Truth-o-Meter from PolitiFact.com. You can see how much horse sheisse our politicians are selling you. Some of them actually tell the truth.)
Remember, Obama also recently said that his administration will "save or create" some-odd million jobs. Well, technically, as a candidate Obama was all about creating jobs, and now he's largely content with just saving them. Saving jobs. Ignoring the fact that the US will lose 500 million jobs a month, according to Nancy Pelosi, how can anyone say with any degree of seriousness in their voice that they've saved any number of jobs? One would think that, at the end of the day, everyone who has a job at that point - job saved! If you thought that the market created and/or saved jobs, you were wrong. It's Obama and his team of government that does that now. Obama is saving my job right now! Yours too, if you have one. If you don't, well, stand by for the creation of four or five or six million of the little buggers! They'll be yours for the taking. (Brewer Comment: In July 2008, the US population was estimated at 303.8 million people. Thus, every man, woman, and child in America has, if Pelosi's facts are straight, at LEAST four or five jobs at any given time.)
See Charles Krauthammer's article in the Washington Post for more on Obama's urgency. Also, see Read The Stimulus so you can, well, read the stimulus.
I Forgot to Pay my Taxes:
For those looking for me to comment on the inability of some of Obama's appointees to pay or remember to pay their taxes, I will point you to my friend and fellow blogger Publius' recent article about that very issue. We both agree on this one. I think that all members of Congress, the Cabinet, and Directors and senior staff of government agencies should be audited, just to make sure they're in compliance.
And thus ends another Cup of Joe. Tomorrow, the Logician will present to us part one of his "Barney-style" explanation of the current economic environment. Look forward to it and give him some feedback.
Word of the Day: Denigrate (verb): To attack the character or reputation of; defame. Our faithful public servants have denigrated Common Sense to the point of our abandoning it.
On This Day in History: The 11th Amendment of the US Constitution is ratified (1795). Charles Dickens was born (1812). Laura Ingalls Wilder was born (1867). The last heavyweight bare-knuckle fight takes place in Mississippi City (1882). The Mud March, the first large march organized by the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) took place (1907). The US bans all Cuban imports and exports (1962). The Beatles arrive in the US for their first tour (1964). The Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party agrees to give up its monopoly on power (1990).
Czech This:
The Czech Republic surgically castrates convicted sex offenders, if these offenders request the procedure, according to a 1966 law. At first glance, this seems rather reasonable. But it always goes deeper. Investigators from the Council of Europe have found that many of those castrated were pressured into the procedure under fear of long-term incarceration. Offenders are being told that castration is the only option available, and that refusal could result in their detention for life. Even first-time, non-violent offenders are being castrated, and investigators found that those castrated in at least five instances were mentally handicapped. Investigators also state that offenders received information too technical for them to understand or no information at all about the procedure.
The Czech government insists that it is a voluntary procedure, with proven results in reducing repeat offenses, and performed on men who "cannot manage their sexual instincts and are sexually aggressive." The Council of Europe, however, debates castration's reduction in recidivism, pointing to three instances in which castrated offenders had committed serial rapes and other crimes.
The Czech government states that the Council of Europe failed to convince the country to cease castration.
In principle, I have no problem with convicted sex offenders opting to be castrated, so long as they're able to make an informed decision that they believe will help them live a more normal life (i.e. not rape or molest people). Clearly, there is no guarantee that the procedure works in the manner it is intended to, but the option should be there. However, a punishment should not be optional if authorities coerce criminals into it by threats of life in prison. Further, it isn't clear whether or not those who are mentally handicapped can make an informed decision. It isn't even clear if those who weren't mentally disabled were able to make informed decisions. For first-time offenders of a non-violent nature, such as exhibitionists, I do not think that castration is a viable punishment.
There are, I think, various degrees of sex offenses, and some are more vile than others. For example, in the US, an 18 year old male or female could be a convicted as sex offender for having consensual sex with a 16 year old female or male. Some will argue that the 16 year old cannot give consent legally, and this would be true. But is this 18 year old in the same class as a serial rapist or a pedophile? In many cases, legally he or she is. The law often has no categories, as it does with murder, and that 18 year old will forever have to register as a sex offender and be shamed forever.
But the issue here is castration. To make it clear, I am not against castration as a punishment, provided that it is viable for rehabilitating some offenders, but against the application of castration in the Czech Republic as described above. Some might wonder if I would be a proponent of forced castration. I would say no. Being as though there is no guarantee that castration would work as intended, I could not be for forced castration. We as a species generally hold reproductive rights in very high regard. To suggest that someone is so capable of heinous crime that he must be forcibly castrated is saying a great deal. And since castration, forced or otherwise, does not guarantee that the individual will not commit another crime, I posit that the individual must be incarcerated for life without the possibility of parole or release. Further, since we require sex offenders to register wherever they go, it seems that we view sexual crimes as more offensive than even murder, and reasonably so. With that being the case, I have no problem with the death penalty being applied to cases in which the offender shows a propensity for violent sexual crime and no potential for rehabilitation.
Cher = Absurd:
With a mom and a dad like mine, both audiophiles, I grew up listening to a lot of different music. My mom was always a big fan of the female singer Cher, who allegedly retired in 2005, but has since announced that she's working on her 26th studio album and is presently performing in Las Vegas. I usually liked the songs she sang, and was awestruck by her 1989 video for the song "Turn Back Time" in which she cavorted semi-nude around the battleship USS Missouri. While the whole album, Heart of Stone, was pretty good, I was a boy of 9 at that time, and was far more taken by the massive 16 inch guns of the Mighty-Mo than I was of Cher's fishnets. I suppose my point here is that even though Cher made some good music and forever imprinted in the mind of a young boy the image of one of the most impressive pieces of military gear in history set to music, it does not mean she's not an idiot. (Sorry Ma.)
Example: "Republicans almost killed me." She wasn't specific in how exactly Republicans killed her. As far as I can tell, she did pretty well for herself the past eight or so years. Having a deal to perform 200 shows over three years in Vegas doesn't usually mean that you're being slowly killed by the political party in power at the time. Perhaps she was being dramatic. Still, it makes her an sort of dumb. Especially when, after asked to explain her comment that Republicans almost killed her, she says,
"You know what? I have so - I try to be charitable and there are some really good Republicans, but I just don't understand how anyone would want to be a Republican. I just can't figure it. I don't understand. If you're poor, if you're any kind of minority - gay, black, latino, anything. If you're not a rich - I don't know. If you're not a rich born-again-Christian, I don't get it."
Look, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, but I'm not entirely sure Cher is a leading expert on what a Republican is. She probably doesn't even know what makes up Liberal ideology, presumably her political bent, let alone the ideology of the party she clearly despises. I wonder how many "Republicans" she knows...It's almost like a racist saying, "I'm not racist, there are good black people; I have black friends." Good try, Cher. Stick to singing and rolling around in your massive treasure trove of cash...provided to you by many a Republican, to be sure. Some not even born-again-Christians.
The Issue You've All Been Waiting For:
The Economic Stimulus. It appears that our elected officials in the Senate, in their supreme wisdom and 19% approval rating, have come to an agreement on the stimulus package and are set to vote on it early next week. For all the uproar from them that this is a national emergency, which is the crux of their argument that this bill needs to be passed RIGHT NOW without going through all the normal procedures, it seems odd to me that the vote on the bill would be put off until early next week, whenever that might be. Presumably Monday through Wednesday sometime. Regardless, Democratic leaders hope to push the bill to Obama by the end of next week. The fact that these officials have been telling us for weeks that this is an emergency, but are willing to wait to vote shows the hypocrisy and ineptitude of that elected body. How so many members of a political body sporting a collective approval rating of below 20% by some polls got reelected I do not know. Perhaps this best illustrates the ineptitude of the American voter.
Certainly, my fellow Americans and loyal Coffee drinkers, you realize that it's best to rush through the passing of a bill worth $780-819 billion. Do I need to tell you why? Easy, because then emotions take over, and the majority can batter down any opposition before that opposition might begin to make sense to some of the more easily swayed members of the body. Also, less oversight. When you want to push through a bunch of frivolous spending that has nothing to do with stimulus, the faster you do things, the better.
Much has been written about this stimulus bill, and by better qualified people than I, so I won't go into a whole lot of detail. But there are a few things that perplex a mind as simple as mine. Other than the comments made by many regarding the amount of money actually going to stimulus (12 cents for every dollar) and how wasteful the bill is, one thing that sticks out to me as evidence of a fraud being committed by our elected officials is the comments by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) regarding how much of this stimulus will be spent and when. In addition to saying that this stimulus bill is harmful over the long haul, CBO states that only 15% of the funding will be spent in 2009. Only 64% will be used during the next 19 months. This is contrary to Obama's proclamation that 75% will be doled out in the next 19 months. For something that allegedly needs to be done immediately, with limited discussion, it seems strange that much of the "stimulus" will not take place until at least 2010. And we're told daily that Americans are struggling and need relief now. And for all the good it will allegedly do, like create three to four million jobs at the cost of $275,000 per, the CBO projects that it will actually lower the national gross domestic product (GDP) over the next ten years.
But Obama says, "But broadly speaking, the package is the right size, it is the right scope, and it has the right priorities to create 3 to 4 million jobs, and do it in a way that lays the groundwork for long-term growth." I love how Obama uses a variation of hendiatris, a rule of three, to sell this to the public. "Right this, right that, and right the other thing." But that's not the point. The point is, this is somewhat contrary information than that presented by the CBO. A lower GDP does not indicate growth. Perhaps he's talking really long-term, as in 40 or 50 years. I don't know. He goes on to say, "These numbers demand action. It is inexcusable and irresponsible for any of us to get bogged down in distraction, delay or politics as usual while millions of Americans are being put out of work. Now is the time for Congress to act." Let me clarify for those who those who don't speak Politician: "Get bogged down" = closely scrutinize. "Distraction, delay" = have public discussions. "Politics as usual" = anything contrary to my own wishes.
I should point out that Obama ran a successful campaign largely on the premise of Hope, while denouncing the use of fear and "politics as usual." But fear is a useful tool, and I don't see how anyone can deny that he is using it in order to get this stimulus passed quickly. He said, "A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe." This isn't hope. This is fear. He is telling you that if this bill isn't passed right now, then your life is going to be worse in the future. This from a man who told us that "we have chosen hope over fear." Maybe hope only belongs on the campaign trail. If so, you've been bamboozled yet again by buying into his rhetoric. (For a fun side trip, check out the Truth-o-Meter from PolitiFact.com. You can see how much horse sheisse our politicians are selling you. Some of them actually tell the truth.)
Remember, Obama also recently said that his administration will "save or create" some-odd million jobs. Well, technically, as a candidate Obama was all about creating jobs, and now he's largely content with just saving them. Saving jobs. Ignoring the fact that the US will lose 500 million jobs a month, according to Nancy Pelosi, how can anyone say with any degree of seriousness in their voice that they've saved any number of jobs? One would think that, at the end of the day, everyone who has a job at that point - job saved! If you thought that the market created and/or saved jobs, you were wrong. It's Obama and his team of government that does that now. Obama is saving my job right now! Yours too, if you have one. If you don't, well, stand by for the creation of four or five or six million of the little buggers! They'll be yours for the taking. (Brewer Comment: In July 2008, the US population was estimated at 303.8 million people. Thus, every man, woman, and child in America has, if Pelosi's facts are straight, at LEAST four or five jobs at any given time.)
See Charles Krauthammer's article in the Washington Post for more on Obama's urgency. Also, see Read The Stimulus so you can, well, read the stimulus.
I Forgot to Pay my Taxes:
For those looking for me to comment on the inability of some of Obama's appointees to pay or remember to pay their taxes, I will point you to my friend and fellow blogger Publius' recent article about that very issue. We both agree on this one. I think that all members of Congress, the Cabinet, and Directors and senior staff of government agencies should be audited, just to make sure they're in compliance.
And thus ends another Cup of Joe. Tomorrow, the Logician will present to us part one of his "Barney-style" explanation of the current economic environment. Look forward to it and give him some feedback.
Word of the Day: Denigrate (verb): To attack the character or reputation of; defame. Our faithful public servants have denigrated Common Sense to the point of our abandoning it.
On This Day in History: The 11th Amendment of the US Constitution is ratified (1795). Charles Dickens was born (1812). Laura Ingalls Wilder was born (1867). The last heavyweight bare-knuckle fight takes place in Mississippi City (1882). The Mud March, the first large march organized by the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) took place (1907). The US bans all Cuban imports and exports (1962). The Beatles arrive in the US for their first tour (1964). The Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party agrees to give up its monopoly on power (1990).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)