The Solution Is Simple

Proving Reagan wrong
02/23/09 - BobKrumm.com by Bob Krumm

"Why are they doing all this when they have to know that it isn’t going to work?” was the question my wife asked about the stimulus package.

I answered: “It’s not about fixing the economy; it’s about proving Reagan wrong.” It’s about proving that an enlightened government is superior to a country led by tens of millions of individual sovereign decision makers.

A comment by Joe Y
An insight into the simple view that many people have of the world. An explanation why hope and change is so attractive. An evaluation of President Obama's abilities.

[edited] The oddest thing about this election, was the continual leitmotif of Obama’s genius, from people that should have known better. People like Obama, of which I know and am related to far too many, are unable to seriously consider that there is any job (oil company CEO, football coach, running the local post office) that they cannot do as well or better than the person currently in the role, should they ever exert the effort to do so. It’s not a matter of faith, as faith requires a conscious effort; rather, it is a prejudice in the true sense of the word.

They believe that the government is better at running the country, because the solution to the problem, whatever the problem, is just so obvious. From their point of view, for example, the comprehensive national medical database in the Stimulus Package is obviously a good idea.

The person I was talking to said “Only idiots, paranoids, and Republicans - to repeat myself - want to stop this.” She then gave the several well-known and excellent reasons for the database, concluding with “Who could be against that?”

I replied that no one could, but what about the hundreds of thousands of medical personnel who have potential access to the database? What about the innumerable terrifying stunts that hackers, and not just American hackers, have been able to pull off in attacks on supposedly invulnerable networks? What about people not reporting medical conditions because they don’t want a record of them? What about erroneous data being mistakenly entered? What about erroneous data being deliberately entered? Of course, that was just a start.

To her credit, she got what I was saying, particularly when I applied it to our respective teenage children. A few minutes consideration revealed many problems which answer the question “It’s so obvious! What could go wrong?”.

These considerations were foreign to her, not because she was stupid (quite the opposite), but out of a prejudice that she and people like her can see the solution to any problem. That is why they attack people who disagree with them as stupid, morons, and idiots.

There is one major exception to this attitude, which is in the person's area of knowledge. Then, they are as smart and good as advertised, but rarely anywhere else.

This brings us to the President. Obama is clearly a very bright man, as anyone who becomes president has to be. But, there are a lot of smart guys around. He gives a marvelous television performance of an intellectual, but I would be grateful for a link to any genuine evidence of such.

Like most Ivy leaguers, he’s a smart operator and a dedicated hustler obsessed with accomplishment. Like almost all Harvard men and women, he lacks an aptitude for self-doubt and humility, which people usually, and a bit unfairly, mistake for Harvard arrogance. He is superb at his chosen field; but that field is not being President, it is becoming President.

-----
Dunning-Kruger effect: The hubris of the incompetent
10/31/09 - Neo-Neocon

Quip: I could do that better than you, if I wanted to.

Wikipedia [edited]: The Dunning–Kruger effect is a bias in thinking. People may make bad choices, and be incompetent to realize it.

The unskilled overrate their own ability as above average. The highly-skilled underrate their abilities, often below the self-rating of the unskilled.

Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, because competent individuals wrongly assume that others are also competent. The incompetent misjudges himself, whereas the highly competent misjudges others.

Incompetent individuals:

• Tend to overestimate their own level of skill, and do not recognize their true inadequacy.
• Fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
• Can come to recognize and acknowledge their previous lack of skill, if they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level.

-----
Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect
12/08/09 - Chicago Boyz - comment by Michael Kennedy
Quote by Michael Crighton at GoodReads

We give too much credit to people who speak with authority about subjects we don't know well.

[edited] You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article actually presents the story backwards, reversing cause and effect. I call these “Wet Streets Cause Rain” stories. The paper is full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

This is The Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect.

Where Did Barbers Go?

Of Plumbers And Barbers
02/23/09 - RiehlWorldView by Dan Riehl

Barbers were regulated out of existence.

[edited] In the 70's and 80's many states merged their Barber and Cosmetology Boards into one. A young man who could make a decent living as a Barber couldn't do a partly paid apprenticeship, taking just months to learn a career that could serve him for life. He had to pay to attend a Community College or private tech education program that could last two years, while making him learn a variety of skills he'd never employ. And he, or she was also taught to charge much more for the service.

Costs of a haircut more than doubled, and businesses saw their overhead costs rise dramatically. All because the government was just looking out for you, or perhaps they were paid off by the tech education and cosmetic industries. Maybe they found a clever way to extract more dollars from a male public that never actually needed them in the first place

The Department of GDP

The stimulus plan from the bottom up.
You can spend, or the government will do it for you.

(a large waiting room in a giant federal building)

Desk Clerk: Ticket 363. Is ticket 363 here?

Joe: I have number 363.

Desk Clerk: (without looking up) Go to office 26, through the gate, turn right, left down the corridor, on the right.

(Joe finds his way. The water fountain doesn't work.)

Official: (behind desk, seated, remains seated) Please close the door and have a seat.

Joe: (sits down)

Official: Do you know why you are here?

Joe: Something about GDP?

Official: As you can see from the sign on my desk, I am a case officer for the new Department of GDP Oversight and Improvement. The government, your government, measures it's success through GDP. Higher GDP is better. We want to talk to you about how you can do your part to increase GDP. Your government is absolutely committed to increasing GDP. It would be unpatriotic not to. Do you agree?

Joe: Uh, sure. I'm patriotic. May I ask, what is GDP?

Read more ...

Official: GDP is Gross Domestic Product. That is the market value of all goods and services produced in the U.S. It is the total of all the things that society can eat, drink, and work with. You can also think of it as the total income of the U.S. The government wants everyone to have more income.

Joe: I support that.

Official: Good. (flips through manila folder) Now, I see that you don't go to restaurants enough. Why is that?

Joe: My wife is a great cook. We eat at home most of the time. I even like cooking with her sometimes, and the kids help too.

Official: Yes, that comes up a lot. People are denying themselves the pleasures of fine dining. You can see how this decreases employment and GDP. From now on, you will dine out at least twice per week, with the kids please.

Joe: That is going to cost me a lot of money! I really don't see how ...

Official: (writes a note into the file) We all have to do our part to employ others, and restaurants are a huge employer of the less educated. You earn a good income, you should spend more. It is the patriotic thing to do.

Joe: But, I won't be able to save as much for my kid's college and my retirement.

Official: I know it seems that way, but a better economy in the future will pay you back. I'm no economist, but our department has done the analysis, I can assure you. You see, savings are a selfish, lazy way to use money. You should understand that many people don't have any savings. What good are your savings if the economy suffers?

Joe: I am depending on my savings to ...

Official: No need to answer, that is what we in the department call a rhetorical question.

Joe: I thought my savings support businesses and home ownership.

Official: I don't mean this as an insult, but you are very ignorant about economics. The department has a giant computer to figure out the effects of spending, savings, and employment. And, we will have that figured out when we have entered all of the details, approximately 5 billion data points per month. This is in progress.

In the meantime, we have an estimate under the "one transaction" rule. We track things for one transaction. When you get your salary, that is GDP. When you pay a restaurant, that is GDP. When you put your money in the bank or invest in stock, we lose track. It's an estimate.

Joe: (confused)

Official: Now, under our Direct Employment program, we are assigning you a gardener and a family care worker. You will find them a wonderful help, freeing up a lot of your time for relaxation. You will be responsible for paying them. I see that you have plenty of income if you don't save anything. Savings are bad for the economy, so you won't miss them.

Joe: (restraining himself) That is not possible! I don't need a gardener or a home worker. I need to save for the future. I don't need all that leisure and don't want to pay for it.

Official: (writes a note into the file) I don't really understand. I myself love leisure. I have many plans for my pension. But, if you feel you have extra time, the department can arrange more work for you.

Under our Neighborhood Exchange program, you will mow one of your neighbor's lawns in Summer, and shovel his driveway and sidewalk in Winter. Another of your neighbors will do the same for you. You will all pay each other at the GFR (Government Fair Rate). This will produce a lot of measurable GDP that was hidden in the old way of doing things, and you won't have so much non-GDP leisure. This also generates valuable tax payments on the extra income.

Joe: (a bit upset) What if I don't cooperate?

Official: (writes a long note into the file) There is no need to be upset. I should have emphasized that this is a voluntary program, for now. You don't have to cooperate, but there may be unfortunate consequences for you and the economy if you don't. You certainly have the time until your next appointment to think about it. Find out what other non-cooperators have experienced. I certainly would not want to question your patriotism at this time.

Joe: (sits quietly)

Official: In any event, we must proceed with our task of raising GDP, so we have arranged to borrow money against your future tax payments, and your children can do their part too when they are older. Taxes will probably increase a bit. This costs more than the voluntary program we have talked about, but we are happy to add on the interest and processing costs. We'll tell you how to figure the increased taxes and pay them. There is no need to pay anything now.

Joe: What if I can't pay the increased tax?

Official: We will take that into account. First, we will get the taxes from the people with more money and savings than you have. We will only increase your taxes if we can't get the money from them. They are currently saving a lot of money that is bad for the economy, so there is a lot of money available for our programs.

In a short time, we will eliminate all of that lazy and selfish saving, and turn it into much increased employment for the good of us all. GDP will rise substantially, which is the important thing.

Joe: (doesn't know what to say)

Official: (closes folder, writes on a form, hands form to Joe) Here. Take this to the Appointments Manager at the front desk, and he or she will set up your next appointment. I really hope you can change your attitude and support this program. Without total and enthusiastic support, we are afraid that we won't meet our goals, and we would hate to blame you for that.

Leave the door open on your way out.
 

------------------
Why Spending Stimulus Plans Fail
The money isn't free. It is taken from the people who plan and invest in productive organizations. This destroys jobs and lowers income.

A Tested Stimulus Plan
The economic crisis is the result of a giant six year stimulus provided by housing loans.

Stimulus Does Not Cure a Recession
Jobs change when people change what they want to buy or can afford.

All articles about Stimulus.

Obama Challenges Us
Jamie at TheLipstickRepublican explains why the government should not be planning our lives.

Nurse Practitioners

Bilateral Queckenstedt's sign
02/20/09 - Throckmorton's Other Signs by Throckmorton

It seems that nurse practioners (NP's) are not a good replacement for doctors in an emergency room. But, they are "cost effective".

[edited] Nurse practicioners are nurses with 17 months of extra training. They replace an MD or DO who has 4 years of medical education plus 3-4 years of speciality emergency medical training.

ER cases that a doctor could treat and release can not be handled by NP's who either can't or don't know how. Worse, I am often called in for one problem and find that there is something totally different wrong with the patient. I wonder how many of the patients have been sent home with something badly wrong!

I asked a hospital administrator why the NPs are not discussing patients with their supervising MD's. He informed me that the supervising MD only reviews patient's charts. Further, the NPs can act independently.

Why don't they hire MD's? MD's cost too much because of their liability insurance. Nurse Practicioners are cheaper, with minimal insurance, because they are not held to the same standards! With EMTALA in the mix, I get called in for everything.

Elevator Lawsuit Safety

Elevator Logic
02/18/09 - Throckmorton's Other Signs by Throckmorton

I suppose the legal theory of "attractive nuisance" is used here. Escape doors are so attractive and dangerous that people must be protected against themselves. There could be a sign "Warning: Only professionals should attempt to escape from this elevator." I have wondered, if I am supposed to escape, where is the ladder?

[edited] The hospital has fancy ceilings in their elevators, and I wondered what I would do if I got stuck. The maintenance man explained that the escape door was behind the lighted panel in the ceiling. It was almost impossible to get to, and the escape doors are locked from the outside. Someone has to let you out.

There have been lawsuits when people stuck in elevators have hurt themselves climbing out or when the elevator starts moving. So, the escape hatches are locked from the outside. If you are trapped in the elevator in a fire? He said, "Hope someone can get you out before you burn!"

It is even code to have the escape hatches locked! I wonder if the glass in the fire alarm box that states "break glass in case of fire" is unbreakable to prevent lawsuits because of people cutting themselves!

Medicare Witch Hunt

Dear Mr President, Medicare Stinks
02/03/09 - Distractible.org by Dr. Rob

Medicare is controlling waste, fraud, and abuse by driving doctors out of Medicare. We can wonder who will be left to treat Medicare patients "for free".

[edited] I am a primary care physician. About 20% of my patients are covered by Medicare. I consider it an honor to be a doctor to the elderly. The complexity of a person’s medical problems goes up exponentially as they near the end of their life. I spend more time per patient for my Medicare population - which is OK if I can be paid for my extra time and effort.

If Medicare auditors find “problems” with our charting we will be told to send money back to CMS for our whole Medicare population. We are obligated to prove that we did not defraud Medicare to reclaim the money for the work we did. We will be presumed guilty unless we can prove that we are innocent.

They are looking for inconsistencies in the charting and the billing. These can be little things like:

• Failure to mention in the note the EKG we ordered, even if it is in the chart.
• The appearance of a “cookie-cutter template” in our notes. If all of our physical exams, review of systems, or impressions look similar, then it will be assumed we are trying to defraud Medicare.
• Forgetting to document a discussion about a diabetic eye exam.
• Certain ICD-9 codes will be accepted, but will “flag” that we are possibly trying to cheat Medicare. We need to be specific in our coding to avoid immediate suspicion.

We practice very good medicine and probably save money for the system, as a higher percentage of primary care in a community means lower cost. We use an EMR and are NCQA recognized for our diabetes care, and I think that our quality of care and documentation is in the top 10%. Yet we fear that your government employees are going to use us as scapegoats for the out-of-control costs of Medicare and put us out of business in the process.

We see what is being done to the hospitals by not accepting “No Pay” diagnoses (Never Events). That debacle is irrational and unfair, but the hospitals have no recourse.

That makes us extremely pessimistic about our odds when facing the hit-men from CMS. If a hospital with its lawyers and other resources can be hung out to dry, what chance does a primary care physician have?

We have never considered our acceptance of Medicare as something that actually makes business sense - we just like to care for the patients. But the increasing hostility we are seeing from the witch-hunters with their torches and angry mobs is making us really consider whether we can afford to stay on board.

Delayed Medical Tests

Emergency Primary Care (Not)
02/18/09 - DocsOnTheWeb by 911Doc

The Stark law (below) "stops" waste, fraud, and abuse by eliminating effective services. The government favors one-stop, no-other-choice shopping when the government provides medical services, but they require private doctors to fragment and delay their services.

[edited] Doctor's clinics are no longer allowed to provide on-site lab and Xray. The "Stark" law comes to mind. I witnessed a combination of poor primary care skills and the heavy hand of government.

An old man went in to his physician's office yesterday for a checkup. He 'wasn't feeling well' and the doc took him off one of his anti-hypertensive meds. Today he feels worse and WOW! the labs drawn at his checkup were resulted today and showed kidney failure and high potassium.

When the patient got to us in the emergency department, he was 'almost dead' with a pulse of 30. We brought him back from the precipice. I asked his primary doctor why the labs took so long to be resulted. He said, "We have to send out all labs".

This adds another pressure point to ER medicine. People know that their primary physician will not get answers that day. In this case it was almost a day late and a dollar short. Thanks Uncle Sam, you have prevented primary care physicians from committing fraud by over-ordering tests. Good job. Bunch of freaking putzes.

---------
Physician self-referral

The Stark law governs physician self-referral for Medicare and Medicaid patients.

Self Referral is a physician referring a patient to a medical facility in which he has a financial interest, be it ownership, investment, or a structured compensation arrangement.

Critics of self-referral allege an inherent conflict of interest, because the physician can benefit from the referral. They suggest that such arrangements may encourage over-utilization of services, in turn driving up health care costs. They believe that it would create a captive referral system, limiting competition by other providers.

Others say that some problems may exist, but are not widespread. Physicians are responding to a need which would otherwise not be met, particularly in a medically underserved area.

Most laws are not written with a delicate hand. Instead of auditing abuse, our government eliminates efficient services, including standard lab tests, for all of the patients and doctors who are not defrauding the system. Broad-brush laws have real consequences.

AGW Scientists Can't Predict

The Caine Mutiny Teaches Us about Global Warming Scientists
02/17/09 - PajamasMedia by Frank J. Tipler

Academic degrees mean nothing if you can't say what is going to happen. Watch out for global warming scientists who can't predict the details. And watch out for "economists" who fiddle some equation as a reason to take your money to improve your life.

[edited] Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is justified via argument from authority: a consensus of "experts" holds that humans are responsible for the increase in the Earth's average temperature.

I was once a leader in forming a scientific consensus based on expert opinion. In the late 1970s, most cosmologists believed the universe could not accelerate, based on very weak experimental evidence. In the late 1990's, we discovered that dark energy is accelerating the universe. I now regard "scientific consensus" as a synonym for "wrong."

I am struck by the lack of accomplishments by the leaders of the AGW consensus. In fact, it is the leading opponents of AGW who have genuine scientific achievements in climatology. Reid Bryson was the "father of climatology," a leading AGW skeptic, and had the achievements of a genuine scientist.

A true scientist demonstrates his knowledge by making predictions which can be confirmed or refuted. What counter-intuitive predictions have the Global Warmers ever made? I invite you to look.

I could not find a single counter-intuitive prediction made by any major Global Warmer. But, I have found cases of them trying to cover up failed predictions.

No Sports Economic Multiplier

Evidence against the multiplier
02/17/09 - CafeHayek by Russell Roberts

[edited] Almost all academic economists agree about the impact of subsidies and spending on sports stadiums. Building a stadium "creates" jobs, but the best estimates of NET job creation are ZERO.

From the survey paper "Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Subsidies for Sports Franchises, Stadiums, and Mega-Events?" (PDF), 09/2008 :

Sports subsidies are unwarranted, based on economic intuition, a survey of economists, and a review of the literature on the economic impact of professional sports. There may be some local economic benefits, but the empirical findings strongly reject sports subsidies due to a lack of economic benefits.

There is a large and growing peer-reviewed economics literature done by economists, as opposed to that of scholars in public policy, urban development, and planning departments. This research is almost unanimous that stadiums, arenas, sports franchises, and sport mega-events have no consistent, positive impact on jobs, income, or tax revenues for the associated communities.

Teleprompter President

In All Fairness
02/16/09 - American Spectator by The Prowler
Via RiehlWorldView.

It seems that Obama gets real-time advice on what to say, along with scripted settings to say it.

[edited] A former Obama communications advisor has been giving notes and suggestions to the White House team, and worked with them on the inauguration.

The press conference speech looked scripted beyond the scripted part. Every president uses some pre-arranged questions or journalists to be called on, but this press conference was pretty ham-handed.

The White House wants to install a small computer screen into the podium for press conferences and events in the White House. The screen would indicate whom to call on, seat placement for journalists, notes, and points to hit. It would make it easier for the communication guys to pass along information without being obvious.

Using a screen is nothing new for Obama. Almost everything he said in supposedly unscripted townhall campaign events was scripted, down to many of the questions and their answers. Teleprompter screens showed his opening remarks, and also statistics and information he could use to answer questions.

Stimulus and Terpentine

The Stimulus Bill Smells of Turpentine
02/16/09 - AmericanThinker by Paul Shlichta

[edited] A farmer had a sick horse and wanted to call in a veterinarian. His neighbor said "You don't need no vet. Just feed him turpentine: two spoonfuls a day."

The farmer tried it, and the horse got sicker. The neighbor said, "You're not giving him enough; double the dose." The farmer followed the advice, increasing the dose several times, until the horse finally died. The neighbor drove by while the farmer was burying it. The neighbor hissed, "You didn't give him enough," and drove away.

The turpentine ploy provides politicians with a win-win situation. If their project succeeds, it's because of their brilliant leadership. If it fails, it was inadequately funded and needs more money.

No Need For Earmarks

Phone calls are enough when your party controls Congress and the Presidency

From my post The Political Dictionary:

earmark   n.   From cattle ranching, where a mark on its ear would direct each cow to its buyer. It is the same for government spending.

Directing federal money to specific local projects in the US goes back to 1817, and further back to the Roman empire. Anyone for Bread and Circuses?

The Congress is supposed to appropriate money for the public good. It is illegal to hand out money in repayment for political support. Earmarks were and are a way to pay contributors and voting groups.

Eliminating earmarks was a major theme in the presidential election. I see earmarks as services delivered for political bribes contributions, and I am amazed that people accept the self-serving arguments made for them.

Congressmen argue that earmarks are their way of developing the most needed projects in their districts. They say their knowledge is better than a federal bureaucrat's. That is beside the point.

• The federal government is not authorized to collect taxes to distribute favors for congressmen. Developing particular projects is not the goal. The federal government should not develop any project that could be developed by a private company or by the individual state.
• The federal government is a burden undertaken to provide the most needed, public benefits that only a federal government could provide. It is supposed to operate on as little tax as possible, because taxes are collected by force from productive people.
• Earmarks increase demands to raise taxes, and earmarks promote corruption by giving congressmen the means to routinely pay off political and financial contributors.

Earmarks have always been with us, by that name or not. But, they were only tolerated as back-room deals. Current earmarks are published, but that does not make them right. They are appropriately seen as a public display of political corruption.

Read more ...

I think the modern increase in earmarks is an adaptation to mixed party government. A Republican majority in congress under Democratic President Bill Clinton wanted assurance that their spending would go to the correct narrow purposes (contributors), congressional districts, or states, and their Democratic colleagues wanted the same. A president has wide discretion on how to spend funds unless legislation specifically restricts him.

The political problem is to avoid any direct payment that says "here is your money". The solution is to allocate money for worthy causes and government agencies. The causes are implemented through the research and development of private companies, and government agencies give contracts to private companies. "Non-profit" companies have presidents and pay salaries, so they are just as useful as ordinary companies. Coincidentally, the preferred companies get the money.

"Green" research and new technologies are quite valuable in this process. An earmark may be for research into (say) "Self-Replenishing Hydroponics". Conveniently, there may be only one company in the country, located in the congressman's district, that is developing that process, so it gets the contract. A phone call can clear up any confusion.

New technologies are not directly comparable to current markets. This makes it harder to say that an earmark is wildly uneconomic, or that the developing company is wasteful. It is research into something new, and much failure is to be expected. It is much safer to deliver no product than to skim money and deliver a sub-standard product.

Legislators claim that earmarks don't increase spending because they merely direct already allocated money to particular purposes. This happens after discussions behind closed doors about how much to allocate in the first place.

Earmarks increased under Republican President Bush, and greatly increased after the Democrats gained control of Congress in 2007. They couldn't trust Bush to distribute money as they wished; they had to write specifics into the law.

Now, Democrats have the Presidency and majorities in the Congress and Senate. Specific earmarks are no longer needed, and Democrats have declared to a grateful public that there are none.

The Democratic announcement was decisive:

[edited] House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI) is the chief author of the $800 billion stimulus bill. National Public Radio asked Obey about the lack of direction from Congress about how the money would be spent.

So what? This is an emergency. We've got to simply find a way to get this done as fast as possible and as well as possible, and that's what we're doing. We simply made a decision, which took about three seconds, not to have earmarks in the bill. With all due respect, that's the least important question facing us on putting together this package.

He said that Congress is not responsible if money is misspent, but rather, whoever spends the money poorly is responsible.

Here are some new-style earmarks in the bill:

[edited] A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers, to deduct 50% of the production cost for movies and TV shows made in 2009.

$70 million for supercomputer activities related to climate research. This may be for the National Center for Environmental Prediction in Camp Springs, MD.

$250 million to repair NASA facilities damaged by Hurricane Ike and for maintenance projects at NASA facilities nationwide. This may be for the Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX.

Senators Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas are on the Appropriations Committee. Their names are not listed with the projects.

"Stimulus Earmarks" lists 32 large earmarks identified by Republicans. These all lack detail. The Democratic majority is now working with a free-spending Democratic President Obama. They don't have to bother with specifics, because Obama will spend these funds according to the backroom wishes of the congress.

Phone Pork
02/13/09 - RiehlWorldView

[edited] Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) cited "Phone Pork" as a new invention in his floor speech. Open ended earmarking might be a better term.

He said that everyone who works in DC knows precisely what will happen after the stimulus bill is passed, because the Democrats simply made the earmarks a type of general aid to the states and federal agencies.

He said politicians will promptly get on the phone to those agencies and tell them what projects they are to spend the money on, threatening to give them trouble on their next round of appropriations if they do not.

Legislators must have detailed lists describing the earmarks, federal agencies, amounts, targeted companies, and donors. Such information could not be trusted to memory. Just one of these lists would shake congress to its foundations.

The Abuse of Earmarks and Needed Reforms
March 2007 - Citizens Against Government Waste by Tom Finnigan

[edited] The mangled and secretive appropriations process gives congressional staffers an enormous amount of discretion. Some Senators have nearly 100 staff members who earn taxpayer-funded salaries up to $160,000. Staffers write most of the appropriations bills and operate behind the same veil of secrecy as Appropriations Committee members.

There are no public records about who requests an earmark. Lawmakers submit written earmark requests to the Appropriation Committees, but all congressional correspondence is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. Appropriation Committees prohibit members from commenting about who requested specific provisions. It is difficult to establish a connection unless a member openly takes credit for a project.

See No Earmarks
03/05/09 - Online.WSJ Opinion

An earmark by another name smells just as sweet.

In theory and publicity, the $787 billion stimulus bill contains not a single earmark. That's true according to the new Democratic definition of earmark.

Before President Obama's inauguration, "earmarks" referred to the special appropriations that bypass the normal budget process to cater to special interests and protect the incumbents who inserted them. Now the politicians are much better at disguising their work and the projects are much larger.

Take the $2 billion originally devoted to "one or more near zero emissions power plant(s)." No recipient was named, but that parenthetical "s" is a wry touch, given that only the FutureGen project in Mattoon, Illinois meets the criteria.

This is a demonstration plant for carbon capture "clean coal" technology. It came out of Dick Cheney's 2001 energy task force. The idea is to trap carbon emissions, compress them into liquid, then inject it into the earth. Years of delay earned it the nickname "NeverGen". The Department of Energy ended the experiment last year after costs doubled to $1.8+ billion.

The Illinois Congressional delegation went to work, including Mr. Obama when he was a Senator, and Rahm Emanuel when he was in the House. Chicagoan Dick Durbin is the Senate's No. 2 Democrat and FutureGen's best political friend. He included $1 billion for the project in the final stimulus bill. That $1 billion is about one-eighteenth (5.6%) of all earmarks in 2008.

Consider the last-minute changes that added $8 billion in appropriations for high-speed rail projects in general. Republicans called this an earmark for a 311 mph magnetic-levitation train between Las Vegas, Nevada and Disneyland in California, a project favored by Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Strictly speaking, this wasn't an earmark, because the $8 billion will be divvied up on a "competitive basis," with the L.A.-Vegas route eligible for some portion.

Everything is an earmark when nothing is an earmark. A "competitive basis" in Congress does not resemble competition elsewhere. We might expect that Mr Reid, one of the most powerful men in Washington, will lean on the Obama Administration to benefit his business friends. That's the operation of earmarks, even if they are called something else.

McCain fumes over 9,000 earmarks in omnibus budget
03/03/09 - ThinkProgress by Faiz Shakir

Earmarks have not disappeared from the current $410 billion ominbus (general) appropriations bill. There are many excuses. The best one may be paraphrased "We worked on this bill in the past. We will get around to eliminating earmarks in the next bill. We promise."

Does Obama Have a Double Standard on Earmarks?
02/26/09 - Time by Jay Newton-Small and Michael Scherer

[edited] It may seem like yet another example of Washington hypocrisy, but the Obama Administration insists there is no contradiction between its words and actions. The $410 billion budget in question was passed to keep the government running for the rest of fiscal 2009.

Congressional Democrats crafted much of the bill after Obama was elected. Yet, the White House argues that the pork-laden bill, increasing general spending by 8%, is part of the prior Administration's legacy.

No Effect On Unemployment

The Obama-Geithner Bear Market
02/13/09 - Forbes.com by Robert Lenzner

[edited] The spectacle of nasty political infighting between Democrats and Republicans must be disturbing to investors everywhere. They question whether the $787 billion stimulus plan is sufficiently robust or properly focused.

Robert Albertson is a principal at Sandler O'Neill and a former Goldman Sachs banker:

[edited] After 18 years of record spending, much of it on credit, consumers must and will save the next $1 to $2 trillion of income to reduce their debt. Only private businesses create job multiplication and true future spending power. That requires a savings and investment program, not a doomed spending program.

Spending programs ate up resources for six years during the 1930s Depression, with little or no effect on unemployment.

SEC Workers Explain Failure

Morriss on Madoff and the S.E.C.
02/14/09 - Cafe Hayek by Don Boudreaux

It seems that the employees at the Securities and Exchange Commission belong to the National Treasury Employees Union. I didn't know that there is a special union to represent the workers at the Treasury Department. Does every government department have its own union?

Colleen Kelley is president of that union. She has bravely come forward to reveal that employees of the Treasury Department have too little resources, training, and direction to be effective investigating financial crime. If only they had revealed this before the Bernie Madoff scandal, maybe government could have done something about it.

Government makes a poor regulator, purchaser, and evaluator because no one loses their jobs when they fail. They don't have to be afraid. It is OK to mishandle a few investigations involving $50 billion dollars lost.

On the other hand, they did a great job prosecuting Martha Stuart. They did not claim that she did anything fundamentally wrong. They claimed that she misled them about the perfectly legal actions she took. She thought that she might possibly have done something wrong, and lied to them about what her stock broker told her. Lying to a federal agent is a crime, even if there is no previous crime involved. This is a subtle point that got Ms. Stuart 5 months in jail.

Read more ...

Now we know why they prosecuted Ms. Stuart. It seems that the SEC is easily misled and thrown off the track. They must act swiftly to punish anyone who tries this, because it is so effective.

Andy Morriss of Market Correction writes:

[edited] Colleen Kelley defends the SEC’s “front line” employees against charges that they ignored the Madoff fraud, right under their noses, by declaring that it is all the Bush Administration’s fault. (“Don’t Blame the SEC’s Employees,” Letters, Feb. 13).

There will be no more Madoffs if we give those “front line” employees “adequate staff and resources,” “appropriate regulatory authority consistent with the growing complexity of financial instruments and trading techniques,” and “leaders committed to the missions of their agencies”!

This is not just nonsense but self-serving nonsense on more steroids than all of our home run champions combined. The Madoff fraud was one of the oldest games in town, a Ponzi scheme.

Dozens of fund managers rejected investing with Madoff because they undertook simple steps, such as talking to Madoff and observing his unwillingness to provide information on his strategy, and his suspicious use of a tiny accounting firm.

We need to stop pretending that government can protect investors from people like Mr. Madoff and tell investors to do some due diligence themselves.

So, who needs government, and who can afford to depend on government?

Obama Praises Lincoln

Obama's Lincoln
02/14/09 - PowerlineBlog by Scott Johnson

[edited] Obama gave remarks on Lincoln's bicentennial in the Capitol rotunda. Obama struck a humble note at the opening, confessing that he "cannot claim to know as much about his life and works as many of those who are also speaking today." This humility quickly transformed into a personal tribute expressing a "special gratitude to this singular figure who in so many ways made my own story possible."

The medieval scholastics characterized themselves as dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants; they could see more and farther, not through any virtue of their own, but rather "because they were carried high and raised up." Obama omits any such self-assessment in his tribute to Lincoln. One wonders, does Obama think Lincoln is great because he made Obama possible?

A joke about some men on first dates.

Bruce had talked for ten minutes about his life, hobbies, and plans to move up at work.
Then, he paused and said: "Well, enough about me."
Sheila's eyes lit up in the hope that they could start a nice conversation.
He continued, "So, what you think about my plans?"

++++++++
Seduction and Politics
A politician on a first date.

They're Throwing a Party

Regarding the "stimulus" legislation, I need a cartoon to go with this caption:

Well, things can't be that bad. They're throwing a party.

Charming the Barbarians

President Obama Believes He Can Charm the Barbarians
02/11/09 - PajamasMedia by Phyllis Chesler

[edited] But what word other than “barbaric” describes the systematic incitement to violence that takes place in mosques and on television and which has led to mob rampages and episodes of “wilding”. Muslim girls and women are group-groped, gang raped, kidnapped into sexual slavery, set on fire, buried alive, and blinded by acid. This, for daring to go to school, work as a newscaster, a hairdresser, or for a foreign company, refuse to wear a shroud, or choose to marry someone of their own choice.

Beginning with President Obama, and including the American and western media, we had better start connecting the dots. We are not only facing “barbarians,” but we are facing barbarians who brilliantly and viciously employ non-conventional, asymmetrical, non-proportionate, and terrorist means of warfare–which unbelievably, our own media finds thrilling and romantic.

The western liberal media is terrified to further offend the rampaging Muslims whose religion is, presumably, one of peace. But not telling the truth and keeping one’s head deep in the sand does not abolish the barbarism. It only makes it more difficult for us to name it and to defend ourselves against it. For example, despite all the liberal media cautiousness, in 2009, a Polish engineer Piotr Stanczak was kidnapped, then beheaded on video in Pakistan, near the border with Afghanistan.

The “barbarism” is hardly confined to Muslim countries. In Scotland there is an alarming pattern of Muslim or “Asian” murderous attacks upon young white boys.

Trusted Public Bicycles

The Great Parisian Bike Experiment
02/13/09 - CafeHayek by Russell Roberts

From the BBC two summers ago

[edited] The local authority in Paris has deposited 20,000 heavy-duty bicycles in 750 racks around the city. Users swipe an ordinary travel card and pedal off wherever they want to go.

There was no deposit involved with the bikes, just an inexpensive user fee. The outcome isn't pretty (via Jeff Bliss).

[edited] Over half the original 15,000 specially made bicycles are presumed stolen. They have been used 42 million times since their introduction but vandalism and theft are taking their toll.

The company JCDecaux says it can not afford to operate the city-wide network. Nearly all of the original bicycles have been replaced at a cost of 400 euros ($519, £351) each.

-----
Trusted Bicycles 2
10/31/09 - Don Surber

New York Times [edited]: 80% of the initial 20,600 bicycles are stolen or damaged. The program has hired several hundred people to fix them. This has dented the Paris budget and the self image of its residents.

Many of the specially designed $3,500 bikes are showing up on black markets in Eastern Europe and northern Africa. Many are being spirited away for urban joy rides, then ditched by roadsides with bent wheels and stripped tires. Many are vandalized without reason.

The company JCDecaux invested about $140 million to set up the system and pays a yearly fee of about $5.5 million to Paris, which also gets rental fees for the bikes. In return, JCDecaux may put up 1,628 billboards that it can rent.

Don Surber: There is a possibility that the company is making enough money from the billboards to offset the losses on the bikes.

That would make the city of Paris idealistic, and the JCDecaux company realistic.

How many utopian government programs have the same outline? Companies propose plans to achieve part of a glorious future. A "trusting" government grants money and privileges to those companies. The plan falls apart, but somehow the company and the politicians make money. Only the taxpaying public loses.

Audacity to Do Nothing

The Audacity of Doing Nothing
02/11/09 - Blogs.Law.Harvard.edu by Philip Greenspun
(via Peter G. Klein)

Our prosperous society is built on predictible law and consequences. This is already a shining accomplishment in an uncertain world. It does no good to, in effect, suspend the law and take extraordinary actions because some people made bad bets, lost money, and have political influence. Changing the rules and using naked government power makes things much worse. It removes predictability and rewards the people who took outrageous risks.

See also Rewarding Bank Management for Failure

[edited] The "real money" investors didn't want to invest alongside the government. If the bank loses money, they fear the government will take 100% of the value left in the bank and leave private investors with nothing, including recent ones. This happened to recent investors in Fannie Mae.

The "real money" investors didn't want judges to modify contracts, as when bankruptcy judges reset mortgage payments at a lower level and reduce the principal owed. A central tenet of the U.S. Constitution is that people are free to make contracts.

A foreclosure is greatly preferable to these folks than a modification. In a foreclosure, the most senior investors get what they expected, their money back. The holders of the most junior tranches [last to be paid], which carried a higher return and were known to be high risk, would get nothing. This is also what they expected. If mortgages are modified by government action, it is unclear how the obligations among the various private parties should be adjusted.

One money manager scoffed at the idea that the markets had failed. "The markets are working fine, but they're giving people answers that they don't like, so people cry market failure." Stocks and bonds low? That's because investors are afraid of a prolonged depression and continued government interference.

A house in a jobless region of Michigan is worth almost nothing. A place with 50% of its former jobs only needs 50% of its houses.

The government is a lot bigger and more powerful now than in prior recessions. Rich companies and people can put some of their wealth into lobbying. They demand that the government prevent them from getting wiped out or at least slow the process.

Non-Union Businesses Grow Faster

What Happened to American Unions?
02/12/09 - Econlog.Econlib.org by Bryan Caplan From Brink Lindsey's "Nostalgianomics":

[edited] Henry Farber of Princeton and sociologist Bruce Western of Harvard report that the main cause of declining union membership as a fraction of all workers, has been the slower growth of unionized workplaces compared to nonunionized.

Between 1973 and 1998, employment at
- nonunion companies grew at 2.8% a year
- unionized companies declined at 2.9% a year

Keeping up unions membership would have required organizing new workers at the rates of the early-1950s. But, organizing rates have declined steadily since then. Percent union membership has declined steadily since the 1970's.