I'm a reasonably well-informed person. I pray daily for peace. I try to act charitably, socially, and politically, based on my understanding of major world tragedies, such as wars, to help relieve suffering.
However much as it pains me to say this, I completely sick and tired of this particular corner of the world's problems. I know I'm supposed to care. I know that this is a tremendous problem on the world's stage, and the cause of many problems that affect me directly, but FOR CRYING OUT LOUD - ENOUGH ALREADY! 2000 years at least, 60 years since the first war, more than 40 years since the '67 war, and they can't work it out?
I now firmly believe there are no victims here, except the everyday folks who want to make a buck and be left alone. Both sides share the blame, and until we lock them in a room, with Dr. Phil for example, I could go the rest of my life without hearing the phrases, Gaza, West Bank, Two-State Solution, Hamas, Likud, Oslo Accords..........if neither side wants a solution, and I'm starting to believe neither side does, then enough already.
Am I the only person who feels this way?
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Monday, December 29, 2008
Baptists and Bootleggers and the Gas Tax
I always worry when elites on both sides of an issue agree. And worry turns into terror when it's two complete opposites like the editorial page of the New York Times and the friggin Wall Street Journal's auto reporter both think we should increase taxes. I mean from the Times calls for tax increases are like restaurant reviews - they appear almost daily. But from the WSJ's guy in Detroit? What's going on?
Bruce Yandle, an economist who used to teach at Clemson, coined this awesome phrase, baptists and bootleggers, to describe the unusual, and unlikely political alliance that maintained blue laws (the prohibitions on alcohol sales on Sunday) in the South. Both groups were opposed to each other publicly, but on this one issue their interests converged. And the South kept Blue Laws in place.
We're seeing a classic example of this phenomenon right now with the gas tax. There is this growing consensus among elites that a gas tax is a nice behavioral modification device - sort of like this one. It's based on the seat-belt laws/cigarette tax argument and freaks me out because everything I read about it seems to suggest these folks know what's good for me.
This particular confluence of arrogance has brought together at least four groups I can see. The first one is obvious - environmentalists and coastal liberals who are not as dependent on automobiles as the rest of the country. Hard core folks like these just believe we should be driving Prius' or walking. The second are Neo-Cons who say Arabs in general are bad and by cutting our dependency we'll improve our national security concerns. However when I see simple statistical analysis from the U.S. Department of Energy like this that shows we are more dependent on Canada than Saudi Arabia for oil it makes me wonder why we want to destabilize Quebec.
Third are the boys from Detroit who would probably trade a gas tax for the elimination of CAFE standards for a gas tax in a second - especially if it involved a deal for government cash. Finally, fourth are politicians who are saying something like "Look at all the money that a gas tax would make!"
We know what Candidate Obama said about a gas tax holiday during the election, and it suggests that he is not an avid opponent of it.
It would be a good bone to throw to environmentalists, and if it were linked to the elimination of CAFE standards, Detroit would probably get behind it, but what would it mean? Well part of it would depend on the rate, and a huge part of it depends on the impact on behavior.
Cost during a recession? Not as much as you'd think with declining gas prices and decreasing use of cars, so it has short term appeal as well, especially if it's sold as a way to "pay for" the 2 trillion or so we are going to spend next year on fiscal stimulus............2 trillion............WOW.
My concerns are four fold. First, as Krauthammer argues, it should come as a revenue neutral proposal. I just don't believe that will come through the sausage making machine. I also really, really, really doubt that Neo-Cons understand the economics of tax increases.
Second, this pretty smart guy argued that we have to be aware of unintended consequences of government action. That always sits in the back of my mind when I hear people with Ivy League educations explaining to me how public policy x will only lead to outcome y that they have predicted. It never seems to work that way. This is a good example of that.
Third, any tax increase spreads price increases throughout an economy. Milk, eggs, and Wii's don't get delivered by mules - they get delivered using trucks and trucks use fuel. And some trucks don't use diesel........you get the idea.
Finally, fourth is it not the case that real estate market is in the dumps? How does punishing folks who have to drive a lot influence all the excess housing in suburban areas like FL and CA? How willing are both parties to screw the developers stuck with excess housing in Ex-burbs?
Bruce Yandle, an economist who used to teach at Clemson, coined this awesome phrase, baptists and bootleggers, to describe the unusual, and unlikely political alliance that maintained blue laws (the prohibitions on alcohol sales on Sunday) in the South. Both groups were opposed to each other publicly, but on this one issue their interests converged. And the South kept Blue Laws in place.
We're seeing a classic example of this phenomenon right now with the gas tax. There is this growing consensus among elites that a gas tax is a nice behavioral modification device - sort of like this one. It's based on the seat-belt laws/cigarette tax argument and freaks me out because everything I read about it seems to suggest these folks know what's good for me.
This particular confluence of arrogance has brought together at least four groups I can see. The first one is obvious - environmentalists and coastal liberals who are not as dependent on automobiles as the rest of the country. Hard core folks like these just believe we should be driving Prius' or walking. The second are Neo-Cons who say Arabs in general are bad and by cutting our dependency we'll improve our national security concerns. However when I see simple statistical analysis from the U.S. Department of Energy like this that shows we are more dependent on Canada than Saudi Arabia for oil it makes me wonder why we want to destabilize Quebec.
Third are the boys from Detroit who would probably trade a gas tax for the elimination of CAFE standards for a gas tax in a second - especially if it involved a deal for government cash. Finally, fourth are politicians who are saying something like "Look at all the money that a gas tax would make!"
We know what Candidate Obama said about a gas tax holiday during the election, and it suggests that he is not an avid opponent of it.
It would be a good bone to throw to environmentalists, and if it were linked to the elimination of CAFE standards, Detroit would probably get behind it, but what would it mean? Well part of it would depend on the rate, and a huge part of it depends on the impact on behavior.
Cost during a recession? Not as much as you'd think with declining gas prices and decreasing use of cars, so it has short term appeal as well, especially if it's sold as a way to "pay for" the 2 trillion or so we are going to spend next year on fiscal stimulus............2 trillion............WOW.
My concerns are four fold. First, as Krauthammer argues, it should come as a revenue neutral proposal. I just don't believe that will come through the sausage making machine. I also really, really, really doubt that Neo-Cons understand the economics of tax increases.
Second, this pretty smart guy argued that we have to be aware of unintended consequences of government action. That always sits in the back of my mind when I hear people with Ivy League educations explaining to me how public policy x will only lead to outcome y that they have predicted. It never seems to work that way. This is a good example of that.
Third, any tax increase spreads price increases throughout an economy. Milk, eggs, and Wii's don't get delivered by mules - they get delivered using trucks and trucks use fuel. And some trucks don't use diesel........you get the idea.
Finally, fourth is it not the case that real estate market is in the dumps? How does punishing folks who have to drive a lot influence all the excess housing in suburban areas like FL and CA? How willing are both parties to screw the developers stuck with excess housing in Ex-burbs?
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Wolves in Non-Profit Clothing?
Perhaps because Ohio has one of the worst tax climates for business in the nation its governor, Ted Strickland, is begging the Obama people even before they get in office for 5 billion bucks.
Now honestly I don't know Ted Strickland. I've got an Uncle in Ohio who is a nice guy. I know LeBron James plays in Cleveland, and they have the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, so in sum, I'd say Ohio is probably in my column of places I don't really mind all that much. But 5 billion bucks seems a little high compared to the bargain price of 7 billion the Governator wants for California.
But I do have a major problem with people quoted in a piece for the Washington Post who are, at the very least, disingenuous, and that's what this budget expert for these guys is being when he says that increased federal government help is the only possible solution to Ohio's problems. And the president of this "non-profit" agreed and said without federal assistance they won't be able to pay the state's Medicare bills.
Ah, but here's the rub.........those two "non-profits" both receive MORE THAN HALF OF THEIR OPERATING REVENUE FROM THE STATE OF OHIO!!!!!!! Check out the financials here and here (I did, and it's not pretty).
Is it worse than giving grants directly Halliburton? I'm not sure, but it sure annoys me as someone who works at a non-profit that actually is not a government lackey organization to see these people cited as dis-interested community experts. THEIR JOBS DEPEND ON GOVERNMENT FUNDING!!!!!!
Isn't part of journalistic responsibility to be asking questions about why people say what they say to reporters? After all, the Washington Post is more than happy to give readers a heads-up about the fact that Cato is staffed by "50 or so small-government and individual-liberty scholars." Why not call out these "non-profits" for what they are - government agencies masquerading in sheep's clothing.
Now honestly I don't know Ted Strickland. I've got an Uncle in Ohio who is a nice guy. I know LeBron James plays in Cleveland, and they have the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, so in sum, I'd say Ohio is probably in my column of places I don't really mind all that much. But 5 billion bucks seems a little high compared to the bargain price of 7 billion the Governator wants for California.
But I do have a major problem with people quoted in a piece for the Washington Post who are, at the very least, disingenuous, and that's what this budget expert for these guys is being when he says that increased federal government help is the only possible solution to Ohio's problems. And the president of this "non-profit" agreed and said without federal assistance they won't be able to pay the state's Medicare bills.
Ah, but here's the rub.........those two "non-profits" both receive MORE THAN HALF OF THEIR OPERATING REVENUE FROM THE STATE OF OHIO!!!!!!! Check out the financials here and here (I did, and it's not pretty).
Is it worse than giving grants directly Halliburton? I'm not sure, but it sure annoys me as someone who works at a non-profit that actually is not a government lackey organization to see these people cited as dis-interested community experts. THEIR JOBS DEPEND ON GOVERNMENT FUNDING!!!!!!
Isn't part of journalistic responsibility to be asking questions about why people say what they say to reporters? After all, the Washington Post is more than happy to give readers a heads-up about the fact that Cato is staffed by "50 or so small-government and individual-liberty scholars." Why not call out these "non-profits" for what they are - government agencies masquerading in sheep's clothing.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
A Small Addendum
Teddy will be happy with this. To my piece on state governments. I noticed this post from Greg Mankiw via Tyler Cowen..........of course neither one of those guys apparently remembers this and hence they both miss the point that whether or not something is efficient hasn't mattered to a politician since 1905. Hell, that sounds like something you'd see on an old Miller Beer bottle. "Corrupt as Hell since 1905!"
While I respect Mankiw's work, I still have to say to him that questions of efficiency when it comes to giving away almost a trillion dollars still doesn't matter to a politician today......even if you are at Harvard.
Please excuse the short post - the holidays and all..........
While I respect Mankiw's work, I still have to say to him that questions of efficiency when it comes to giving away almost a trillion dollars still doesn't matter to a politician today......even if you are at Harvard.
Please excuse the short post - the holidays and all..........
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
State Governments Belly Up to the Bar
Like at least one former Reagan aide, I don't doubt that, with a bunch of caveats, government spending in the private sector can create some demand side help and promote certain policy objectives. I'm not agreeing that it's a good idea, but that empirically you can do it.
But waaaay more troubling to me is whether or not giving state governments 1 trillion dollars with this plan is a good idea.
1 TRILLION DOLLARS. That's a thousand billion. To state governments, which, as I noted in this post have not been especially good balancing their budgets during economic prosperity. Now Robert Kuttner says that the interest on a trillion bucks would "only" be 2.5% which is relatively cheap and shows the markets don't anticipate inflation.
2.5% annually on 1 trillion bucks is still 25 FRIGGIN BILLION DOLLARS in the first year. That's not my idea of cheap unless we are going to generate a lot more than 25 billion in economic growth minus the "carrying charges" that the 10 most corrupt state governments are going to charge.
So let me ask a question here. Setting aside the corruption issue, why does the thought of transferring a lot of the stimulus package to the states worry me? Well two reasons. First, a lot of states are facing huge deficits as I've noted before. And those deficits are partially the result of really bad politically motivated spending like this political jobs bank in California for unemployed state legislators.
Second, as Steve Erie's excellent book Rainbow's End shows, New Deal spending programs were captured by political machines throughout the country and used reward the friends of the powerful - not exactly the kind of stimulus you want. So it's actually a bit worse than just giving the money directly to Dick Cheney's old employer because some of it will probably get stolen by state politicians first.
Libertarians are just naively whining about the wasteful spending. That's a waste of intellectual resources because the government is going to do something. Fish gotta swim..... Conservatives seem to understand that some big stimulus package is coming, but want to put pressure on Obama to make some hard choices.
Frankly, I think the idea of an income tax holiday is both the best way to address the problems associated with passing the money through the hands of corrupt politicians before it gets sent to the companies that donate the most money to government officials...........which means we almost certainly won't get it.
But waaaay more troubling to me is whether or not giving state governments 1 trillion dollars with this plan is a good idea.
1 TRILLION DOLLARS. That's a thousand billion. To state governments, which, as I noted in this post have not been especially good balancing their budgets during economic prosperity. Now Robert Kuttner says that the interest on a trillion bucks would "only" be 2.5% which is relatively cheap and shows the markets don't anticipate inflation.
2.5% annually on 1 trillion bucks is still 25 FRIGGIN BILLION DOLLARS in the first year. That's not my idea of cheap unless we are going to generate a lot more than 25 billion in economic growth minus the "carrying charges" that the 10 most corrupt state governments are going to charge.
So let me ask a question here. Setting aside the corruption issue, why does the thought of transferring a lot of the stimulus package to the states worry me? Well two reasons. First, a lot of states are facing huge deficits as I've noted before. And those deficits are partially the result of really bad politically motivated spending like this political jobs bank in California for unemployed state legislators.
Second, as Steve Erie's excellent book Rainbow's End shows, New Deal spending programs were captured by political machines throughout the country and used reward the friends of the powerful - not exactly the kind of stimulus you want. So it's actually a bit worse than just giving the money directly to Dick Cheney's old employer because some of it will probably get stolen by state politicians first.
Libertarians are just naively whining about the wasteful spending. That's a waste of intellectual resources because the government is going to do something. Fish gotta swim..... Conservatives seem to understand that some big stimulus package is coming, but want to put pressure on Obama to make some hard choices.
Frankly, I think the idea of an income tax holiday is both the best way to address the problems associated with passing the money through the hands of corrupt politicians before it gets sent to the companies that donate the most money to government officials...........which means we almost certainly won't get it.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Does Anyone Do Anything Privately Anymore
Public sharing of private matters by Hollywood stars, folks on reality television, and now politicians drives me nuts.
Call me old school, but if you have issues, either drink your way through them like Sinatra did or go to AA, or whatever, but don't tell me all about it and serve as some shining example. People in the public eye are flaky enough - I don't need to hear anything more about the challenges and heartbreak being attractive, rich and successful, and getting paid to go to parties.
By the same token if you start a wildly unpopular war that leads to a lot of people getting killed and does not have any clear objectively good outcome (although I'm not Carnac the Magnificent) while relying on your sense of doing what's right, then perhaps you should just leave office quietly, stop trying to justify the action and have faith in your principles.
Instead, this is on the front page of the Washington Times:
Way to be "private" and "out of the spotlight" putting it on the front page of a major newspaper and all. Next time I want my wife to not know something I'm calling Fox News so it can be broadcast.
Call me old school, but if you have issues, either drink your way through them like Sinatra did or go to AA, or whatever, but don't tell me all about it and serve as some shining example. People in the public eye are flaky enough - I don't need to hear anything more about the challenges and heartbreak being attractive, rich and successful, and getting paid to go to parties.
By the same token if you start a wildly unpopular war that leads to a lot of people getting killed and does not have any clear objectively good outcome (although I'm not Carnac the Magnificent) while relying on your sense of doing what's right, then perhaps you should just leave office quietly, stop trying to justify the action and have faith in your principles.
Instead, this is on the front page of the Washington Times:
EXCLUSIVE: Bush, Cheney comforted troops privately
Met with thousands of war injured, kin out of spotlight
Way to be "private" and "out of the spotlight" putting it on the front page of a major newspaper and all. Next time I want my wife to not know something I'm calling Fox News so it can be broadcast.
A Little Holiday Cheer - Chicago Style
Tons of columnists and media figures have been throwing around the phrase "The Chicago Way," lately. So since it seems trendy, I figure Chicago deserves one more post this year from its best writer during my lifetime - Mike Royko.
In 1967 Royko was writing for the Chicago Daily News and beginning a career that would last three more decades. He also did something virtually no other columnist in the world would do - write a column everyday. In other words - he was blogging.
Enjoy his take on Christmas the Chicago Way.
Everyone have a safe holiday and I'll be back online the day after Christmas.
PS - I have no relationship or previous knowledge of the blog I've linked to for this. It's just a way to get the column.
In 1967 Royko was writing for the Chicago Daily News and beginning a career that would last three more decades. He also did something virtually no other columnist in the world would do - write a column everyday. In other words - he was blogging.
Enjoy his take on Christmas the Chicago Way.
Everyone have a safe holiday and I'll be back online the day after Christmas.
PS - I have no relationship or previous knowledge of the blog I've linked to for this. It's just a way to get the column.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)