Where's your editor?

From the San Francisco Examiner Parenting blog:

The best baby grinder.

Now, I know San Francisco isn't kid friendly, but I had no idea. But really, it's a story about making your own baby food, but I guess the title was just too good to change.

Long time gone

Was out on paternity leave. . .but, wanted to pose this question:

Perhaps this is the reason why Senator Kent Conrad is holding up health care?

Despite their denials, influential Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd were told from the start they were getting VIP mortgage discounts from one of the nation's largest lenders, the official who handled their loans has told Congress in secret testimony.

Conrad, hoping to get re-elected, is trying to make good with his constituents, who likely oppose government-run health care. If he can water it down enough to make them happy, perhaps they won't vote him out when he's up again. Sen. Dodd, on the other hand, has no idea what you are talking about ("Dodd still maintains he got no preferential treatment.").

The quest for stimulus money

The S.F. Chronicle has an article today that notes that if California, in attempting to close a $16-21 billion deficit cuts too much funding from education and health care programs, it will lose additional stimulus money.

How ironic.

The stimulus bill requires that state spend a minimum amount of money on certain projects, and if the state cuts spending below that amount, they will have violated the terms of the stimulus agreement, and will have the money taken away. So, California, trying to cut spending in the face of a dramatic deficit, will be punished for trying to do what Washington can't do: live within their means. The states are required to have a balanced budget, Washington is not. Congress passed a stimulus bill earlier this year that directed funds to states and cities for specific purposes, which was the first mistake of this whole mess. Instead of directing the money to be used for specific purposes (and threatening states and cities to abide or else), Congress should have just given each state a lump sum and let them decide what's best. Instead, we get Congress dictating to states how to use the money, which ends up causing a big mess. From labor groups lobbying the Administration in protest of previous wage cuts, to not allowing cities to swap transportation funds, even if they have no projects to fund, to governor's rejecting stimulus money because it creates a future unfunded mandate on certain programs.

The OMB has noted that stimulus money cannot be used to pay down debt, but only for spending on specific programs as directed by Congress and the Administration. So, what happens if a state has to cut money from these programs below the requirement set by the legislation in order to balance their budget? Will the Federal government really take away that stimulus money because states are bound to balance their budget?

California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass has already said that she doubts this deficit can or will be met through tax increases, and she also notes that spending cuts will be severe, especially if Propositions 1A through 1E fail next week, which is likely. Instead, Bass was in D.C. to get the Federal government to provide a guarantee on new "Revenue Anticipation Notes" that she hopes will get the state through whatever length of time is needed.

What in the world is going on here? California needs to make spending cuts to balance their budget. Those spending cuts, however, may impact the ability of California to receive stimulus money, money that is being relied on by California to help off-set that budget deficit; if the stimulus money gets pulled, that would make the deficit situation even worse. So, California wants to issue short-term borrowing notes, backed by the Federal government, so that it can borrow even more money, at much higher interest rates than before, to balance the budget today but at at the likely loss of revenue in the future due to interest payments. This is nothing short of an unmitigated disaster.

You know what, screw the stimulus money- it's a sham anyway that is not even coming close to meeting anything that this economy is "so urgently" needing. Furthermore, the Administration has admitted that unemployment will still likely rise this year, even if the economy meets the Administration's wildly optimistic and unlikely growth expectations this year. Even before the stimulus was passed, the Administration said that unemployment without the stimulus would hit near 8.8% by the end of next year, guess what, we're at 8.9% right now. California should just reject all of the stimulus money, and be thankful that it will not be beholden to the wishes and whims of this Administration as it dictates to states how to run their own business. After all, it's worked so well for the auto industry and their creditors.

Someone will pay for this

This is amusing.

An Environmental Protection Agency proposal that could lead to regulating the gases blamed for global warming will prove costly for factories, small businesses and other institutions, according to a White House document. ... The document, labeled "Deliberative-Attorney Client Privilege," says that if the EPA proceeds with the regulation of heat-trapping gases, including carbon dioxide, factories, small businesses and institutions would be subject to costly regulation.

"Making the decision to regulate carbon dioxide ... for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities," the document reads.

Someone, somewhere inside the Administration apparently didn't get the memo that the Federal Government must step in do something about this, costs be dammed. According to the Administration, that view came from an unnamed agency inside the Federal government.

I'm guessing that whoever wrote that memo is not long for his job. After all, who cares about science when there's a special interest group to cater to; I mean, look how the Administration caved in on Yucca Mountain- I'm gonna bet that the Administration has no plans of reimbursing ratepayers for those lost costs that were recovered from ratepayers to fund studies and move forward on building the repository at Yucca Mountain. It's only about science when they agree with the science.

Update- Environmental Capital has more on the memo and EPA's new position on carbon (endangerment doesn't mean regulation). It also notes that the Administration admitted that the document was prepared by someone at OMB and is based on a multitude of opinions from throughout the government. According to the post, the memo notes: “The amount of acknowledged lack of understanding about the basic facts surrounding [greenhouse gases] seem to stretch the precautionary principle to providing regulation in the face of unprecedented uncertainty." In other words, the EPA, and by extension the Administration, went ahead with a policy based on politics.

There is a word for this type of activity

It's called extortion.

From the L.A. Times:

"The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget."

As part of the budget deal passed earlier this year, the legislature cut
$74 million from its budget that would have helped pay workers that care for low-income and elderly Californians. The Department of Health and Human Services, at the request of, surprise, the SEIU, sent a letter to the Governor saying that if he didn't reinstate those lost wages, California would see $6.8 billion less in stimulus money. Nevermind that the state is already facing a $23 billion shortfall in revenues this summer and could go "broke."

Yes, this is nothing short of extortion- the Federal government, at the request of the union, is threatening the state to comply or else. The Federal government is threatening to withhold a significant amount of money to the state, all to show how far this Administration will go to bend at the will of the unions, the economy be damned. They've already catered to the unions on Chrysler, so it's no surprise that they would cater to the unions on this.

Not to mention allowing GM to simply stop the Saturn line, which, as the Newsweek article explains, was once the next big step in U.S. automaking, but soon found itself mired and stuck in union anti-competitiveness assurances (or, as Mickey Kaus puts it, "Could it have been that Saturn's success--in a plant where workers traded inflexible work rules for responsibility and job satisfaction--threatened the hide-bound Wagner Act rulebooks of all of the UAW's other locals? So that the UAW pressured Saturn to build cars outside of its Spring Hill, Tennessee home--while it supported GM in systematically starving Saturn of new products? Just asking!"). Once GM announced the end of the Saturn line, as part of their post-bailout plan, the Administration quickly bestowed upon them another batch for federal funds to keep GM going.

Again, not that the Administration really cares about the viability of the automakers, all the Administration cares about is the continued support of the unions, at the expense of the automakers, and the American public at large, who will be on the hook for all of this.

Street sweeping leads to drop in revenues

Earlier this year, the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency decided that a good way to save some money would be to change the street sweeping rules in parts of this city. What that meant was that some neighborhoods would start seeing their streets swept twice a month, instead of every week. Muni projected roughly $1 million in savings by not sweeping as often. Plus, as a resident of one of those neighborhoods, it was quite tiring to have to move your car twice a week just to avoid getting a ticket- couple that with limited street parking and tourists taking up those spots over the weekend, I would spend upwards of an hour sometimes just driving around trying to find a parking spot.

Well, it turns out that by not sweeping and not issuing parking tickets to those unlucky people who forget to move their car is costing the city $3.8 million a year in lost revenue from parking tickets. As usual, the geniuses that make up the Board of Supervisors want Muni to go back to revisit this decision, noting the loss of revenue.

Just so I'm clear here- Muni made a decision that it could save some money by not running street sweepers as often, not to mention that some streets just don't need to swept every week. Case in point- the numbered streets in the Inner Sunset went from every Monday and Wednesday to the 1st and 3rd Monday and Wednesday's of the month (except for 9th, which is a business district; they still sweep twice a week), but streets like Lincoln and Irving kept their sweeping schedule. So, Muni appeared to have done some amount of homework on what streets were being over-swept. But, due to the lost revenue from parking tickets related to street sweeping, the city wants Muni to go back and see if they should re-institute some of these inefficient sweeping schedules, solely because of the lost revenue.

I don't know, but I was unaware the certain municipal activities, like street sweeping, were supposed to be revenue earners for the city. I thought street sweeping was supposed to, you know, clean the street of debris and other safety-related reasons. But the city, never missing an opportunity to reach into the pockets of its residents (who, pursuant to City housing rules, likely do not have adequate on-site parking), want to figure how Muni can recover that lost revenue, and potentially re-institute Muni's otherwise wasteful and inefficient use of its property and personnel.

Since I no longer have to drive around twice a week to find a parking space, I can only wonder how much emissions I'm no longer emitting due to these new rules. Not to mention the emissions from the street sweepers and the little parking ticket vehicles that fan out in front of the street sweeper, writing $50 tickets. You'd think that if the City truly did care about emissions, these rules would be welcomed; instead, all the city really cares about is money. And if an otherwise good program ends up costing the city in lost parking ticket revenue, well, by-golly, that can't be right.

My random baseball suspension post

Josh Beckett had his 6 game suspension for throwing at Bobby Abreu reduced to 5 games today by Major League Baseball. It means that Beckett won't miss his next start.

Forgive me, but what's the point of suspending him in the first place? He is a starting pitcher, which means he only plays every 5th to 6th day in the first place, all those other days he's sitting on the bench or doing his otherwise scheduled workouts. So, he's suspended for 5 games, which doesn't mean anything to him because he's a starting pitcher, and we're supposed to assume that that taught him a lesson? It didn't teach him anything, as the article notes, Beckett didn't think he deserved even a game suspension.

If an everyday player gets suspended for 5 games, he misses 5 games (unless you're Milton Bradley who tends to get hurt and wasn't going play in those games anyway); if a starting pitcher gets suspended for 5 games, he doesn't miss anything. How does that make any sense? Baseball needs to figure out this suspension policy as it affects starting pitchers, because if the goal is to show how a starting pitchers' actions can harm a team, then they need to tie it to starts and not to games. As the Beckett example shows- 5 games is still a serious suspension, for an everyday player, but it doesn't harm a starting pitcher who doesn't miss a turn in the rotation.

Challenges ahead

In a surprise move that has basically been telegraphed since the day after he said it last year, President Obama said they he will not re-open talks on NAFTA. In the Democratic primary debate on February 16, 2008, Obama was crystal clear on his view of NAFTA:

"I will make sure that we renegotiate [NAFTA], in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. ... I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far."

It didn't take long for the campaign to offer whispers to Canada that Obama didn't really mean what he said about NAFTA. In fact, members of the campaign allegedly met with Canadian officials 8 days before the debate to re-assure Canada that whatever candidate Obama said publicly about NAFTA was simply for show to get nominated.

Backing down from this promise is good news for markets and for all three countries involved. The article also notes that there are positive steps in getting the free trade agreements with Panama and Colombia moving forward, after the Democratic congress shamefully refused to hold an up or down vote on these agreements solely for political posturing on behalf of labor unions during the final days of the previous administration.

There is an interesting article from Yahoo news today talking about whether couples who make $250K a year are rich. The conclusion: probably not. The problem, the article finds, is that as these couples' wealth have increased, education and health care costs have skyrocketed beyond their income growth. The article notes "data show that over the last 10 years, education costs have risen 5.91% annually, and health- care expenses have gone up 4.16% annually, while wages and income have risen only 3.7% over the same time span. That means many families are seeing a greater percentage of their income going toward those two areas." Additionally, that wealth may also be tied up in their house, and with falling housing prices, their wealth may also have suffered as a result. Then there are those who live in states with high costs of living and high tax rates, such as California. That is to say, the tax code does not take into account standards of living. As San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed said, "a family earning $250,000 a year can't buy a home in Silicon Valley." Yet, the Obama budget plan seeks to increase taxes on just those people, based on an arbitrary definition of "rich."

One can only wonder what other tricks this charlatan has up his sleeves in his attempt to pull another fast one over on the American people? Carolyn Lochhead at the Chronicle has an idea: "Obama hopes we can't count."

Why am I not surprised

So, the San Francisco City Council wants to pass an ordinance that would require businesses to turn off all non-essential lights at night. The idea behind this is to not waste energy and, ostensibly, to show just how gosh darn green this city is. The legislation would give building owners one year to upgrade their facilities to make them more energy efficient, but after that, they would be subject to fines for keeping on unnecessary lights in the building at night.

San Francisco BOMA is opposed to the legislation as currently written because 1) city buildings have already done a lot towards reducing lighting at night, and 2) thinks that building owners don't need more onerous rules put upon them by the city council.

I have my own reasons- California is night-time wind peaking state. In other words, the majority of our wind blows at night, thus, most of our wind-based generation occurs at night. The goal of this ordinance, as well as the other stupid idea Earth Hour, where everyone turns off their lights for an hour, is to show how green they are, how much they care about the environment and other such smuggery. The problem with it, as it pertains to California, is that the majority of electricity you are most likely consuming at night comes from non-GHG emitting resources, like hydro, nuclear and wind. For all the carbon savings you'd like to go out and claim for this, I'm sorry, but this little stunt isn't likely to produce very much in California.

The "Earth Hour" nonsense makes even less sense to do since it is occurring in winter/early spring when there's no benefit to the grid, rather, the grid operator will have to deal with a sudden drop in usage, causing frequency variations, then have to deal with a sudden increase in usage as everyone turns on their lights again. To me, this simply shows that the people who dream up these fantasies have no idea how electricity actually works. Not to mention is a terribly inefficient way to run power plants, which increases emissions.

On the other hand, if these events were marketed as a way to show businesses how they can save money on their electricity bill, that would be a far different case and easier to sell, in my opinion. By simply not consuming, that customer is going to be saving money from their electricity consumption. If turning off some lights reduces that company's consumption, that is an economic benefit to the customer- and is good. We should be encouraging energy efficiency, not threatening or forcing energy efficiency upon customers- this simply leads to opposition, foot dragging and, worse of all, increased costs to customers to comply.

Instead, the folks above don't care that you save money, they want to bash you over the head, call you names, and threaten you with fines if you don't agree to their environmental mandate of reducing emissions from power plants. It is a huge irony of environmental and energy policies in this state that we a) don't want to argue that doing simple things like turning off the lights can save people money, b) don't want new sources of cheap and clean power like hydro or nuclear to meet the expected load growth in the state, but, instead, wants to c) fine you, threaten you and harass you into not consuming because of environmental concerns and d) instead wants to build exceedingly expensive power projects like solar, wind, and tidal energy.

In other words, California policy is to increase the costs of electricity then force businesses to reduce for environmental reasons. But not residential customers. The legislature refuses to remove a rate cap that has been in effect since 2001 upon residential customers; thereby removing an economic incentive for residential customers to reduce their consumption. That is, since half of all residential customers in this state do not consume above a certain amount to trigger higher rates, they still see 2001 rates, and only have a reason to not go above their baseline. If the rate cap were lifted, then residential customers would be able to see a more accurate cost of electricity, and have an economic incentive to reduce and/or change their usage patterns. Ironically, it's the state's electricity goal to push consumption to off-peak hours where power is cheaper and potentially cleaner (nights and early mornings), yet we end up with stupid ideas based on environmental policy to show how much we care about the environment by turning off power at night. This stuff just boggles my mind.

Points for honesty

The California Legislative Analyst's Office has released some updated budget numbers for California, and it's not good:

"[t]he state’s economic and revenue outlook continues to deteriorate. Even in the few weeks since the budget was signed, there have been a series of negative developments. Our updated revenue forecast projects that revenues will fall short of the assumptions in the budget package by $8 billion."

$8 billion!!!

But the state just passed a budget that dealt with these shortfalls, right?

"[t]he Legislature and Governor will need to adopt billions of dollars in additional solutions in the coming months to bring the 2009–10 budget back into balance. Moreover, a number of the adopted solutions—revenue increases and spending reductions—are of a short–term duration. Thus, without corrective actions, the state’s huge operating shortfalls will reappear in future years—growing from $12.6 billion in 2010–11 to $26 billion in 2013–14."

D'oh!

Also, let's not forget that the budget that was passed is contingent on a May special election where the voters will vote on several of the budgetary tricks used by the legislature to balance the budget; namely through creative borrowing from various programs. If those propositions fail (and I think at least one of them might), then it's back to the drawing board for the legislature and the Governor. However, the LAO did offer some advice- "While seeking to offset 2009–10 General Fund costs is the most immediate concern for the use of federal funds, the Legislature should also seek to preserve as many federal dollars as possible to help balance the budget in future years—as opposed to committing them now for augmentations."

What's that you say? We should use federal "stimulus" funds to balance the budget and not spend them on specific programs as demanded of us by the Federal government? Why shouldn't a state be able to, say, use the stimulus money to help balance their own budget? South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford is preparing to ask the Administration that South Carolina be allowed to spend some of the stimulus money in other ways than as directed by the Federal government. The states most definitely should be allowed lee-way in spending this money in ways it sees fit, I mean, I am of the belief that the Federal government should just have given states a lump-sum of money based on population and let them spend it as they saw fit. Plus, states aren't allowed to run deficits, unlike the Federal government, so if they are forced to expand certain government programs in order to receive Federal funds, once the Federal funds are gone, their gone, and the states are left to fill the missing obligation.

There's an amusing story out of L.A. in regards to transportation-related stimulus funding. Apparently, the L.A. County transit authority is to receive $215 million in transportation funds and was going to split it up amongst the 88 cities in the county. However, many of the cities otherwise don't qualify for receiving funds for transportation because they are either too small or don't have qualifying transportation projects. So, some cities would be getting money to spend on transportation projects that aren't being built in their city; instead, the agency initially recommended that they swap transportation funds with other cities and use that money on other projects, according to that city's needs. As the City Manager of Irwindale, which does not have eligible transportation projects, put it, "we probably would have used it to avoid people getting laid off." But the transit agency clarified their position and said that all money must be used for transportation purposes. What's a city going to do with money for transportation projects when they don't have any qualifying transportation projects to begin with? I suppose they could just create a new project out of the blue solely for the purpose of not losing this funding- I don't think that's how government is supposed to operate.

Back to the LAO. Additionally, the LAO says-

"Our current economic forecast projects a recovery beginning in the first quarter of 2010. Over the next five years, however, our forecast projects relatively slow growth compared to past recoveries. In our view, weakness in the finance, housing, and export markets are likely to keep the national economy from expanding at rates that typically occur after a recession. While our forecast is similar to the economic outlook shared by many economists, some see recovery taking even more time."

Why you don't say. Recovery won't start until next year and will likely be slow? Furthermore, the LAO says that employment won't likely begin to increase again until 2011. Wait, 2011. . .Hey, that's when Obama's tax increases are supposed to take effect, along with a whole slew of other new government spending programs and regulatory regimes, like cap and trade. And that's supposed to be his second year of 4.5% growth in the economy. Raising taxes, increasing government burden upon businesses and individuals- hey, that's just what a recovering economy needs, more hurdles. And a barely recovering economy at that.

Yes, I realize that there's an abundance of sarcasm, but sometimes, it just has to come out.

Oh, I forgot to include a link to this story about how an increasing number of banks are looking at returning funds it received from the government due to the number of restrictions and requirements placed upon those banks in order to receive the funds. Specifically, there are requirements upon these banks to further certain social and economic goals of this Administration, like allowing people to re-negotiate their mortgages, put those banks into weaker positions- that is, the bank renegotiates a mortgage based on a lower value when the owner has already lost their equity. These policies simply force a bank to replace one bad mortgage with a worse one, from their extent; but since they continue to receive federal funds, they are able to remain in operation. As one of the people interviewed for that story put it, "keeping insolvent banks in operation does not benefit the system."

All of this is to say that there is finally a reaction to these policies put forth by the Administration to consolidate control at the federal level. The carrot of federal funding in return for increased federal oversight is becoming less and less appetizing.

Phony war

David Ignatius in today's Washington Post:

The government is talking about sacrifice and solutions, but it hasn't yet made the tough decisions that will put the economy back together. Economist David Smick had it right in The Post this week when he said the administration had a three-pronged strategy: delay, delay and delay. The administration announces a rescue package but doesn't deliver details; it promises budget discipline but saves the hard decisions for later.

One reason this season feels so political is that Obama has stacked his administration with politicians and former government officials. You might think that with the greatest financial crisis of his lifetime, the president would want a few business leaders with experience managing large organizations in crisis. But no.

Ignatius wonders why the Administration is so reliant on government officials instead of business, but stops short of the obvious answer: the Administration doesn't want to hear from business because it wants to impose more government onto business. This is an Administration that claims the cause of this current crisis is too much deregulation, ergo, the solution is to bring back more government regulation. The Administration doesn't care about the market, not that the previous administration did all that much for the market either. The administration's answer to nearly every question so far is that only government can solve these problems; that's why his administration is filled with career government officials.

Course, it doesn't help that he keeps having potential appointees withdrawing- today it's H. Rodgin Cohen, who was going to be nominated as Deputy Treasury Secretary. This is getting ridiculous.

By the way, this is awesome:

There is nobody there...

A lower British cabinet official succinctly summed up the actions of this Administration on the economy:

"There is nobody there. You cannot believe how difficult it is." (Or, as Camille Paglia puts it: the "dazed lost lambs in the brave new world of federal legislation and global statesmanship.")

This quote was made in response to a meeting that is being planned for next month for countries to get together and figure out a way to fight the current economic situation. The British official quoted above expressed his frustration at being unable to find anyone at the U.S. Treasury to talk to about attending. This meeting is also important because this Administration is adamant that running up huge deficits and allowing government to run rampant over state governments and individuals is the only way to successfully combat this situation. In typical European technocrat speak, this suggestion was rejected: “The 16 euro-area ministers agreed that recent American appeals insisting that the Europeans make an additional budgetary effort to combat the effects of the crisis was not to our liking.” In other words, we don't need you to tell us how to spend our money. Mind you, there would be nothing more to my liking than having the Euro fail; but the gall of this administration to declare itself sole arbiter of all knowledge on how to respond is beyond belief.

In echoing a statement made in Obama's message to Congress, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said: "We want to bring together a new consensus globally on how to strengthen this financial system, so that a crisis like this never happens again."

Two things- 1) Is this Administration saying that it can stop recessions from happening ever again? 2) I thought this Administration was also supposed to have a better and friendlier foreign policy. When 50 days into your Administration, you're already telling other countries how to handle their economy, I don't think you're likely to get a very positive response. Furthermore, when one of the balancing partners in moving a worldwide economy is the EU, running up deficits on purpose is not necessarily in their best interests. According to the Financial Times, "France, Germany and Italy, the eurozone’s three biggest countries, are anxious that the 16 countries sharing the euro should not run up ever-bigger budget deficits and public debt, potentially threatening the stability of the single currency area." I suppose it goes without saying that those countries also have center-right parties in power right now.

Additionally, these countries are increasingly concerned about this Administration's commitment to free trade and open markets. I don't know about them, but when the President wants to make sure that "this never happens again," that for sure means an increase in regulation. What is clear is that this Administration clearly believes that it is right in its response to this situation and is willing to openly criticize other countries for failing to respond to his directive. While Obama rightly observes that globalization has tied worldwide economies together, he fails to reckon that other countries might not want to (or are simply unable to) cobble together as large a "stimulus" package as passed by Congress to address the current economic situation. Certainly it's possible that other countries may not want to cripple future productivity and earnings with disastrous large-scale government run programs, or burden future budgets with large amounts of debt. That wasn't a leading statement at all.

My question is: why do we think we're doing it right? The stimulus package that was passed had very little to do with stimulating the economy, and was more about directing new money towards more government programs that won't encourage the economic response that's needed. If a county decides, hey, you know what- let's just see how our own response works, that is entirely within their rights as a sovereign country. I'm pretty sure this "you're with us or against us" mantra was ridiculed when George W. Bush was saying it in regards to fighting terrorism. Why shouldn't we ridicule it now when talking about a U.S. directive to other countries on economics?

More on that terrible SEIU contract

Ok, so I've already gone over the terrible job SEIU did on behalf of its members who are not covered under the Governor's furlough executive order, such as me. The proposed contract now subjects me to one day a month furlough to which that I was not otherwise subject. It has now come to our attention that not only are we now subject to the furlough, but it's retro-active to February 1, which means that since we weren't subject to the furlough, but for SEIU's crack negotiating strategy, we will have to give back 4.6% of our pay to cover those months where we were exempted. Please, please, please, someone explain to me how on earth SEIU adequately represented our issues?

SEIU blames the Department of Personnel Administration, who negotiates on behalf of the Governor's office. DPA says SEIU didn't bring it up- SEIU said that DPA was going to take care of it. What it boils down to is that SEIU, along with DPA, included a batch of employees that should have remained exempt from these provisions on the furlough- that SEIU failed to strongly advocate for a part of its membership is unsurprising. SEIU routinely fails to be a strong advocate for us in negotiating sessions with the Governor's office.

So, to sum up- the Governor ordered 2 days a month furloughs and layoffs for state employees at agencies under his direct control, but was forced to exempt state employees at certain agencies that were not under his direct control, i.e., those agencies that are created via the State Constitution (which is where I work). The Governor also ordered that layoffs would take place, with the same exemptions. The budget as passed by the legislature did not include layoffs or furloughs. SEIU reached an agreement with the Governor's office that would reduce furloughs to 1 day a month and not call for layoffs. This agreement, however, failed to maintain the exemption as included in the Governor's executive order. So, unless a complaint is lodged somewhere, we have had our exemption negotiated away by SEIU, without so much as a whisper as to our concerns, and will be forced to pay the state back for days we already worked. Yeah, that's some good negotiatin'.

Oh how I long for the day where state employees are not required to be represented by a union.

Who is running this thing?

Warren Buffet on CNBC (courtesy of Mickey Kaus):

But how fast we get there depends enormously on not only the wisdom of government policy, but the degree in which it's communicated properly. People--when you have a Pearl Harbor, you have to know the nation is going to be united on December 8th to take care of whatever comes up. And we have little squabbles, otherwise we put them aside and everybody goes to work on defense plans, we start building planes, we start building ships, even though they're not going to be ready tomorrow, people join. The Army doesn't blame the Navy because there were too many ships in Pearl Harbor, and it shouldn't have happened. The Army doesn't say, `Well, it was your fault, so we're not going to send our troops.' None of that sort of thing. We got united, and we really need that now.
...
if you're in a war, and we really are on an economic war, there's a obligation to the majority to behave in ways that don't go around inflaming the minority. If on December 8th when--maybe it's December 7th, when Roosevelt convened Congress to have a vote on the war, he didn't say, `I'm throwing in about 10 of my pet projects,' and you didn't have congress people putting on 8,000 earmarks onto the declaration of war in 1941.
...
[y]ou can't expect people to unite behind you if you're trying to jam a whole bunch of things down their throat. So I would--I would absolutely say for the--for the interim, till we get this one solved, I would not be pushing a lot of things that are--you know are contentious, and I also--I also would do no finger-pointing whatsoever. I would--you know, I would not say, you know, `George'--`the previous administration got us into this.' Forget it. I mean, you know, the Navy made a mistake at Pearl Harbor and had too many ships there. But the idea that we'd spend our time after that, you know, pointing fingers at the Navy, we needed the Navy. So I would--I would--I would--no finger-pointing, no vengeance, none of that stuff. Just look forward.
...
It's just a mistake, I think, when you've got one overriding objective, to try and muddle it up with a bunch of other things."

Jim Cramer:

President Obama's team, unlike Bush's team, demonstrates a thinness of skin that shocks me. When I somewhat obviously and empirically judged that the populist Obama administration is exacerbating the crisis with its budget and policies, as evidenced by the incredible decline in the averages since his inauguration, I was met immediately with condescension and ridicule rather than constructive debate or even just benign dismissal. I said to myself, "What the heck? Are they really that blind to the Great Wealth Destruction they are causing with their decisions to demonize the bankers, raise taxes for the wealthy, advocate draconian cap-and-trade policies and upend the health care system? Do they really believe that only the rich own stocks? What do they think we have our retirement accounts in, CDs? Where did they think that the money saved for college went, our mattresses? Do they think the great middle class banks at the First National Bank of Sealy and only the wealthiest traffic in the Standard & Poor's 500?
....
I am always glad to have any allies and defenders, but I do favor almost all of Obama's agenda, right down to having the rich pay more of their freight in this great country. It's just not the right time. We need to declare a war on unemployment and solve it before we let it get out of hand. We need to stop house-price depreciation. Neither the pork-laden stimulus plan nor the confusing mortgage proposal put forward by Obama will defeat either enemy. When Obama trounces both unemployment and house-price depreciation, he will have the power to enact anything he wants. But all the initiatives he wants to rush, like tax hikes, changes in health care, tinkering with the mortgage deduction -- good grief, right now in the midst of the worst housing downturn ever -- and the tough cap-and-trade rules, will derail any chance we have of turning this economy around. Instead, they put the Second Great Depression smack on the nation's table. The markets thought he could stop it; hence the giant relief rally when he was elected. But in fewer than 50 days of his ascendancy, the markets' hopes were totally dashed and the averages are now forecasting the worst decline since the Great Depression. As someone who listens to what the averages are screaming, I think they are accurately predicting the future.

Jonah Goldberg, who gets at the heart of the matter:

Numerous commentators, including me, have pointed to this never-waste-a-crisis mantra as ideological evidence that Obama's budget priorities are a great bait-and-switch. He says he wants to fix the financial crisis, but he's focusing on selling his long-standing liberal agenda on healthcare, energy and education as the way to do it, even though his proposals have absolutely nothing to do with addressing the housing and toxic-debt problems that are the direct causes of our predicament. Indeed, some -- particularly on Wall Street -- would argue that his policies are making the crisis worse.
...
Well, now we have the president, along with his chief aides, admitting -- boasting! -- that they want to exploit a national emergency for their preexisting agenda, and there's no scandal. No one even calls it a gaffe. No, they call it leadership.

It's not leadership. It's fear-mongering.
...
In other realms of life, exploiting a crisis for your own purposes is an outrage. If a business uses a hurricane warning, for example, to price-gouge on vital supplies, it is a crime. When a liberal administration does it, it's taking advantage of a historic opportunity.

Obama's defenders respond to this argument that Obama's motives are decent, noble and pure. He wants to help the uninsured and the poorly educated. He wants to make good on his vow to halt those rising oceans.

But this is just a rationalization. Every president thinks his agenda is what's best for the country; every politician believes his motives are noble. The point is that scaring people about X in order to achieve Y is fundamentally undemocratic.

This was transparently obvious to Bush's harshest critics, who alleged that 9/11 was merely a convenient crisis for devious neocons who wanted to topple Hussein all along. But it's now clear that many of these critics simply objected to the agenda, not the alleged tactics. Now that it's their turn, they see nothing wrong with doing what they so recently condemned.

That's a lot to digest. . .I will only point out that when Warren Buffet is taking you to task for mis-handling this recession, then I think you better listen.

The British press take on Obama over something else:

British diplomats insist the visit was a success, with officials getting the chance to develop closer links with Mr Obama's aides. .... But they concede that the mood music of the event was at times strained. Mr Brown handed over carefully selected gifts, including a pen holder made from the wood of a warship that helped stamp out the slave trade - a sister ship of the vessel from which timbers were taken to build Mr Obama's Oval Office desk. Mr Obama's gift in return, a collection of Hollywood film DVDs that could have been bought from any high street store, looked like the kind of thing the White House might hand out to the visiting head of a minor African state."

Further on, the article notes:

"[An] American source said: "Obama is overwhelmed. There is a zero sum tension between his ability to attend to the economic issues and his ability to be a proactive sculptor of the national security agenda.

"That was the gamble these guys made at the front end of this presidency and I think they're finding it a hard thing to do everything." ....
The real views of many in Obama administration were laid bare by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key.

The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment." The apparent lack of attention to detail by the Obama administration is indicative of what many believe to be Mr Obama's determination to do too much too quickly."

Yes, what's the big deal about only our strongest ally for the past 150 years or so. I mean, really, we're already in the process of selling out Poland and the Czech Republic to Russia, so why not dump England along the way.

Yes, this post is quote heavy, and I apologize for that- but I think it far more important to use the actual words from the people above, instead of me summarizing and condensing their points. But, what is interesting is what all of the quotes above are talking about- Obama wants to move fast on a lot of issues. However, he does not seem to really want to take a lead on the financial situation in this country. I mean, he left the stimulus bill up to Congress to write, he's blaming the current stop-gap budget on the previous Administration and is letting Congress get away with runaway spending and earmarks, and he's blaming the previous Administration for what's happening in the markets since he's been elected. The market doesn't just react to numbers, they react to words just as much, and when the President, frankly, doesn't know what he's talking about, the market reacts. When the Secretary of Treasury offers more of the same solutions to new problems, the market reacts. He can say that this all 8 years in the making, but this sell-off over the past 2 months is all his. When his new budget gets roundly derided by both Democrats and Republicans, and offers no real concrete solutions to moving forward, other than taxing "rich" people, how does that help anything? When his budget says we're going to have 4%+ growth in 2010 and 2011, but when talking about current economic conditions, he's warning of depressions, how can anyone take what he says on this topic seriously? And that is without talking about cap and trade and the negative effects it will likely have on this economy- especially one that will have just come out of a recession.

Anyway. . .more on that topic for another post.

Update on Obama budget proposal

Two things-

1) This article from ABC News notes something that I noted in my previous post; that people are going to try to reduce their income to under $250,000 by reducing their productivity. As a dentist from Boulder, Colorado put it- "The motivation for a lot of people like me – dentists, entrepreneurs, lawyers – is that the more you work the more money you make. But if I'm going to be working just to give it back to the government -- it's de-motivating and demoralizing." Remember, Obama's plan to cut the deficit is to increase taxes on those who make above $250,000 a year, or the "rich" people in Obama's lexicon, coupled with an absurd projection of 4%+ growth over the next two years. When the economy doesn't recover in two years, plus the damage that will be wrought on the economy from the stimulus bill, there will be only one way for Obama to meet his goal of reducing the deficit- dropping the floor on the tax increases. That means he will have to raise taxes on more than just the top 2%.

2) One way that people try to reduce their taxable income is by giving to charity, especially those who make more than $250,000. One aspect of the Obama budget is that he proposes to begin limiting the ability of people to deduct charitable donations on their taxes. The purpose of this is to reduce the amount of charitable donations from individuals so that the government will have a bigger pile of money to tax from to use it to pay for the Administration's goal of a government-run health care system. So, let me get this straight- we are in a recession, which means charitable giving is already down, the Administration proposes tax increases on those who make more than $250,000 a year, and who often give more to charity, and the Administration is proposing to limit the amount of money that people who make more than $250,000 a year can give to charities which would raise nearly $180 billion over the next 10 years (even though it wouldn't take effect until 2011). How does this help charities already struggling? It doesn't- it just makes the govenment a charitable organization.

Of course, this is just one of many terrible proposals by this Administration in the budget. Charities are important institutions in the United States, and this proposal by the Administration to cut off important individual donations simply so the government can take a larger slice of it is wrought with peril. What is clear in this proposal is that the Administration 1) could care less about the good work that charities do across this country (especially religious-based charities), and 2) whatever good work those charities do, the government should do instead. As OMB Director Peter Orszag noted, the government will make up the difference in giving. Why should the government be reimbursing charities for money it took away? How does that make any sense? Other than increasing the number of people and groups that will becoming increasingly reliant on the government. I don't seem to think that that is a good thing.

Anyway. . .I suppose this is my own little page where I can rant and rave all I want. Not that it does much good, which I can live with. Yes, I'd much rather write about bunnies and flowers, but I do need an outlet for my thoughts on this mess. And it is a mess.....I can't say that I have any confidence in this administration at this time. His economic proposals are a recipe for disaster- increasing taxes to pay for more government spending at a time when we are in a recession. And that's without mentioning the stimulus bill which will do almost nothing of the sort in the time-frame it's expected; instead, all it will do is take money from future growth and use it to pay down the deficit created by this incredible mis-use of government spending.

I'm borrowing this chart from Instapundit which shows how the market has responded since the passage of the stimulus bill:



That doesn't look good. At least baseball season is approaching, and I look forward to this summer when I get to take my newborn little girl to a day game.

Obama to "rich" people: Go to hell.

Obama has released his budget proposal which is basically a soak the rich budget. He is requesting nearly $1 trillion in tax increases over the next 10 years, with 2/3 of that coming from individuals making over $250,000 a year. I must have missed that day in economics class where they discussed the benefits of raising taxes during recessions. Plus, it seems plain that there is no way that simply raising taxes on only those individuals who make more than $250,000 a year will be able to pay for all of this.

Oh ho, you say, those tax increases only start in 2011, giving us 2 years before taxes impact taxpayers. Two points- 1) the stimulus bill is supposed to allow the american worker and investor do what it's supposed to do, create jobs and products. Now, what sort of incentive do you have if you know that in 2 years if you make more than $250,000 a year, your taxes are going to go up? Wouldn't you, instead, just do enough so that you don't break that barrier? And wouldn't that slow down any potential growth that the administration expects over the next two years? Why would someone make a much needed investment today when in two years they may see their taxes go up if the investment is successful?

To that point, 2) the Administration's budget expects growth to occur over the next two years so that they can raise taxes, increase government spending, and cut the deficit. As the AP acknowledges, "if recovery doesn't materialize as quickly as the White House has forecast, Obama will be unable to make good on meeting his spending targets while also keeping a pledge to try to significantly reduce the annual deficit — expected to be a staggering $1.75 trillion for 2009 — to $533 billion by the end of his term." The administration can blame the Bush years all they want- at some point the Administration is going to have to own up to their own misguided attempts on the economy and its so-far disastrous effects.

In total, the administration's budget runs a deficit of $1.75 trillion for FY 2009, with a $1.17 trillion deficit for 2010. This all comes on the heels of Congress passing a $789 billion porkulus bill. Nevertheless, Obama claims that he will cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, thanks to all of that mis-guided spending. Wouldn't a good starting point have been to not pass a bill that simply adds more debt to the future? Not to mention all of his new spending proposals for mortgage holders and his ill advised march to universal health care? I don't know. It seems to me that if your goal is to cut the deficit, wouldn't not increasing spending in the first place be the logical first step? All this trickeration comes to is that the administration is stealing revenue and growth from the future to pay for their big government spending programs now.

If the american consumer and their spending is the main driver behind the economy, isn't it a good idea to let the consumer keep more of their money, instead of the government taking it away? Why should we think that the government is any more capable at solving this than the people? As John Maynard Keynes once said: "It is a mistake to think businessmen are more immoral than politicians." And the batch of politicians that currently make up the Democratic majorities in Congress more than prove Keynes' point.

In fact, Congressional Democrats don't seem at all inclined to live up to their rhetoric- case in point, "Leading Democrats on Wednesday appeared to brush aside President Obama’s suggestion that they sacrifice earmarks in the federal budget, arguing Congress knows better than “faceless bureaucrats” how to spend taxpayer money." Yes, it would have just been easier to say Roland Burris, Chris Dodd, Charlie Rangel, and John Murtha, to name a few.

Finally- while I'm loathe to generally link to him, Dick Morris makes some very good points in this column in The Hill:

Instead, Obama has been instrumental in purveying fear and spreading doubt. It is his pronouncements, reinforced by the developments they kindle and catalyze, that are destroying good businesses, bankrupting responsible people and wiping out even conservative financial institutions. Every time he speaks, he sends the markets down and stocks crashing. He doesn’t seem to realize that the rest of the world takes its cue from him. He forgets that he stands at the epicenter of power, not on the fringes campaigning for office. This ain’t Iowa.

Why does Obama preach gloom and doom? Because he is so anxious to cram through every last spending bill, tax increase on the so-called rich, new government regulation, and expansion of healthcare entitlement that he must preserve the atmosphere of crisis as a political necessity. Only by keeping us in a state of panic can he induce us to vote for trillion-dollar deficits and spending packages that send our national debt soaring.

....

So, having inherited a recession, his words are creating a depression. He entered office amid a disaster and he is transforming it into a catastrophe, all to pass every last bit of government spending and move us a bit further to the left before his political capital dwindles.

For someone who was elected under a banner of hope and change, he's sure has been doom and gloom ever since he was elected. As Robert Samuelson noted: "Politics cannot be removed from the political process. But here, partisan politics ran roughshod over pragmatic economic policy. Token concessions (including the AMT provision) to some Republicans weakened the package. Obama is gambling that his flawed stimulus will seem to work well enough that he'll receive credit for restarting the economy -- and not be blamed for engineering a colossal waste." There is nothing new or hope-worthy about partisan politics, other than a new politician is moving their lips.

Quick Update

1) State Sen. Abel Maldonado provided the third Republican vote to finally pass the budget, one day after my posting about the budget. As part of the agreement he reached with the Governor and legislative Democrats, there will be a vote on having an open primary system, where the top 2 vote getters face off in the general election, got the elimination of the $.12 increase in the gas tax, which will be offset by an increase in income tax, cutting spending and presumed money coming to the state from the stimulus bill signed earlier this week, amongst other items. Good for him, regardless of whether any of his proposals pass.

2) Wanted to add something that I forgot in my previous post on the union contract. What I forgot to include is that budget did not call for furloughs or layoffs. The only person calling for layoffs was the Governor, who claimed he had authority to force layoffs and furloughs. However, as noted in his Executive Order, where I work is exempted from layoffs and furloughs. In sum, my agency would otherwise not be subject to the Governor's furlough and layoff orders, and the budget did not call for furloughs or layoffs, yet the union negotiated for furloughs, including where I work, which is exempt from Governor-ordered furloughs and layoffs. So, but for this union negotiated contract, I wouldn't have my pay cut by 4.6% (that's the equivalent of having 1 day of pay cut from my salary). How the union expects this contract to be approved by workers is beyond me.

Speaking of dissatisfaction

Today I received the following email from a co-worker:

Subject line- CONTRACT VICTORY! Agreement reached - no furlough this Friday - URGENT: Please read and forward!

Dear Local 1000 members:
Your bargaining team has delivered a major victory, and winning a much better deal than expected. After nine months of hard work a marathon two-day bargaining session, agreement was reached on a new contract which reduces the furlough by half and defeating most of the governors other takeaways.

For the latest update, go to channel 1000 news at:
http://www.channel1000.org/.
More details will be posted soon on the SEIU local 1000
website.

It goes on to explain the various "benefits" from the labor agreement reached between the Governor and the state employee union (SEIU). The Governor had sent out layoff notices and required mandatory furloughing of state government employees. However, where I work is exempted from the Governor's various orders because we are created in the state Constitution. In other words, because we are a creation of the Constitution and not the legislature, and are not funded by the state general fund, we employees are not subject to the Governor's furlough and layoff notices. Indeed, if you read the Governor's executive orders he notes "IT IS FURTHER REQUESTED that other entities of State government not under my direct executive authority ... assist in the implementation of this Order and implement similar mitigation measures that will help to preserve the State's cash supply during this budget impasse." Where I work is one of those "other entities."

So, where I work is specifically exempted from the Governor's order, HOWEVER, since we are represented by the union, we are now subject to the agreement reached by the union. So, even though I am not subject to the Governor's orders on furloughs, the union has, on my behalf, made me subject to those orders.

Which means that, if ratified, I will now be furloughed one day a month, have my pay be reduced by that amount (~4.6% a month), but will be able to use them at a later date as sick leave, whereas before I wasn't being furloughed and I wasn't having my pay cut (I could do it voluntarily, however, as part of a program instituted in response to the Governor's executive order). Great, the union has negotiated away a benefit that people who work at my agency enjoyed.

I accept that for probably over 90% of the people represented by the union, this is better than what the Governor was going to do, no matter that I personally agree with him that the size of government has gotten too big and could use some trimming. But it appears that the union is saying for the other 10%, "Eh, tough luck; Solidarity!" That doesn't help me at all knowing that you've negotiated away a protection that we enjoyed through the state Constitution.

And if you want to know why I think whatever tax increases this state agrees to should be in the form of sales tax and not income tax, well, the union has now negotiated a pay cut that, if the budget is passed as written, will be met with an increase in my income tax. So, my paycheck won't just reflect that 4.6% pay cut, it will also reflect that income tax increase as well. At least I have an extra
$13 to look forward to from the just signed pork/stimulus bill.

All Hoped Up

John Kass lays it out:

But who is responsible for Illinois being represented by a lying weasel in the U.S. Senate?

Though Blagojevich appointed Burris, that was just the beginning of our descent into madness. Like I said, there are two others who deserve credit.

Obama could have demanded a special election to fill his own vacated Senate seat, the one that Blagojevich allegedly tried to sell to the highest bidder. Obama also pressured Senate leaders to seat Burris, in the hopes of ending the fiasco before his inauguration.

And, after Burris tried to fix the lie he told to Durkin in the impeachment hearing—that he had no contact about fundraising with Blagojevich people other than one aide named Lon Monk—Burris sent an affidavit to a Madigan flunky, state Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Madigan), dated Feb. 4.

Currie held that affidavit in her desk, conveniently, until after Burris voted last week for the near trillion-dollar Obama pork/stimulus package. Now Madigan is demanding an investigation of possible perjury and has sent the documents to a Springfield prosecutor.

Yet the deed has been done. Obama's porkulus was passed. Obama got Burris' vote, and Madigan has an excuse to attack Burris because he doesn't want Burris leading the 2010 Illinois Democratic ticket when Madigan's daughter runs for governor.

See how it works? They get what they want. And we get Tombstone Burris.

They talk about transcending politics, but all we can hear are the flies.

I don't know what else to say about this. . .I mean, what else could possibly come out to make Illinois look like an even bigger joke? A governor that's been impeached and removed from office, an appointee to the U.S. Senate that has apparently lied about his contacts with the impeached Governor, a member for the Illinois legislature conveniently holding onto an affidavit that revises previous remarks regarding those contacts and the former holder of that Senate seat benefiting from all of the above? How convenient is too convenient? Or, as someone once said, "I don't like coincidences."

On the other hand, there's this article:

"President Barack Obama is seeking to assure Canada, the largest U.S. trading partner, that he has no interest in disturbing the two countries' economic relationship. That message, for now, trumps any push by the U.S. to renegotiate a North American trade pact, as Obama has suggested."

It would be a huge mistake, even in the best of times, to force open talks to re-negotiate NAFTA. As much as Congress and Obama may think they have a reason to re-negotiate over the environment and labor, Canada and Mexico a) don't want to re-negotiate (the Canadian PM Stephen Harper is no fan of either the environment or labor to begin with), and b) if they were forced, the U.S. would come out in a far weaker position due to what Canada and Mexico would want taken out of NAFTA (i.e., allowing the U.S. to be the first buyer of their oil). While progressives would probably view that as a success- force other countries to accept our socially "good" programs and take less of that nasty oil- the effect on our economy would be disastrous. By putting these new and expensive requirements on products made in Canada and Mexico would obviously increase the costs of the product itself, making companies less likely to want to sell those products to the U.S. market (since they would be bound by the NAFTA requirements, instead they could ignore NAFTA and just sell them somewhere else). And by not allowing the U.S. to be first buyer of oil, we would be subject to more market fluctuations in the oil market and also be potentially subject to purchasing our oil from less friendly countries.

Finally, I want to say to California legislative Republicans- Quit.

The shenanigans that are going on in the State Senate are ridiculous and are making this party look like a joke. Ousting former Minority Leader Dave Cogdill in the middle of the night is childish and stupid. At some point the party is going to have wrench itself from the grips of the stalwart conservatives and come back to some sort of reasonableness. Do I think that increasing taxes in a state that already has the second highest sales tax in the nation and one of, if not, the highest income tax in the nation during a recession is a good idea? Of course not. And do I think that legislative Democrats are themselves being stubborn in the face of much needed spending cuts- again, of course they are. However, that doesn't change the fact that simply holding up the budgetary process to satisfy the conservative base may be good for talk radio, but is not good for us, the citizens.

I understand that Republicans are against taxes, but that battle is not one that should be fought today. That is a much larger battle that can be set aside for this budget solution. Am I happy with the budget solution, no. Honestly, I think I'd rather see it all show up in sales taxes rather than be split up between sales and income taxes, as long as this is all temporary. (Nevermind a larger belief that once you increase taxes, it becomes harder to bring them back down, however "temporary" they are, especially when the party in charge of the legislature likes nothing more than to spend money frivolously.) Hell, there's a lot of things in this state that I'm not happy with, starting with the state's desire to destroy what manufacturing and agriculture industry we have left in this state under the guise of the environment.

New Minority Leader Dennis Hollingsworth said today that he wants to reopen budget talks with no new taxes. While I generally sympathize with the belief that no new taxes are needed, the fact is some amount of taxes are going to have to be raised- this is what happens when you have balanced budget requirements and can't simply run a deficit, not that I would endorse running a deficit, but it's understandable. Sen. Cogdill believes that he's made the best deal possible considering the Democrats' own intransigence on cutting spending. All this showboating and chest-thumping of Republicans on no new taxes makes the party look foolish and increasingly marginalized. Get over it. Pass the budget and take your case to the voters this summer. Senators Cox and Maldonado- show some backbone and show that you won't be bullied: vote for the budget.

One more for the day

Last night in the car listening to Lou Dobbs (wife likes to listen to CNN on XM) and was amused by my reactions to three consecutive discussions he had-

1) Was talking about all the waste and non-stimulus spending in the stimulus bill, and completely agreed with him on it.

2) Criticized Obama for supposedly caving into foreign companies, Republicans and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over the "Buy American" provision in the stimulus bill. Completely disagreed with him.

3) Had a report on the SCHIP bill, and the report noted two groups that opposed it- Republicans fearing that it would allow for illegal immigrants to receive medical attention (Democrats had rejected an amendment that would have required identification to receive health care) and a group representing lower income people opposing the $.62 cents increase in cigarette taxes. Of course, I agree with both of those groups.

Weird. Not that I plan to make Lou Dobbs a regular part of my listening habits though.

Thought of the day....

What to do when your a libertarian and you're being subjected to false attacks:

If you’d like a taste of what it feels like to be a libertarian, try telling people that the incoming Obama Administration is advocating precisely those aspects of FDR’s New Deal that prolonged the great depression for a decade; that propping up failed and failing ventures with government money in order to save jobs in the present merely shifts resources from relatively more to relatively less productive uses, impedes the corrective process, undermines the economic growth necessary for recovery, and increases unemployment in the long term; and that any "economic" stimulus package will inexorably be made to serve political rather than economic ends, and see what kind of reaction you get. And trust me, it won’t feel any better five or ten years from now when everything you have just said has been proven true and Obama, like FDR, is nonetheless revered as the savior of the country.

I haven't posted much recently because it feels worthless to go on and on against something that so many people think is needed. . .At my job I have been responsible for providing analysis and recommendations on the Smart Grid language in the stimulus bill and I have found it incredibly difficult to hide my utter disdain for the entire bill and process. We are simply replacing a debt-ridden consumer driving the economy with a debt-ridden government driving the economy- tell me how that's better?

Or, as Tom Coburn pointed out- "As a nation, we got into this mess by spending and investing money that didn't exist. We won't get out of it by doing more of the same. Yet this is precisely what this bill proposes we do. .... The bill's selling point is that three million jobs will be created or saved by this package. What's alarming is that each job will cost $286,000 to create or save. Moreover, one in five will be a government job."

Of course, it's no surprise that, according to Rasmussen, 26% of government employees think the stimulus bill will make things worse. I'm surprised the number is that high.

Maybe I'll start writing about this again. . .

In the meantime, apparently state employees that are being furloughed are eligible for partial unemployment benefits. I'm gonna guess the Governor's office didn't think of that. . .so, shouldn't pay just be cut across the board? Isn't that a more effective and efficient means of reducing government employee spending, instead of forcing 2 days a month furlough, which can then be recovered by the employee through unemployment benefits? Oh wait, silly me. . .the unions run this stuff, and unions don't care about the long-term health of any organization, except themselves.

Hall of Fame

I want to congratulate Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice on their election to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Henderson was named on 94.8% of the ballots- somehow 28 voters thought that Rickey Henderson was undeserving of their vote. Rice made it on his final ballot- players can only be on the ballot for 15 years, after that their case moves to the Veteran's Committee, which has come under fire since its controversial election of Bill Mazeroski in 2001; the Veteran's Committee has not elected a player since, despite the widespread public support for Ron Santo's induction.

Anyway, congratulations to both of them. I have been holding a sneaky suspicion that players from the 80s would be overlooked, other than the obvious ones, because of the rise in player statistics since 1993 expansion. So, while I tend to agree with those against electing Rice to the Hall of Fame, it's also nice to see that we aren't necessarily ignoring players' accomplishments as they were perceived at the time.

The next two highest vote totals belong to Andre Dawson (67%) and Bert Blyleven (62.7%). I would fully expect both of them to requisite 75% in the next few years. For Blyleven, induction is far overdue. Amongst the notable statistics in favor of Blyleven:

- At the time of retirement, Blyleven was 3rd all time with 3,701; he's been surpassed since by Randy Johnson and Roger Clemens. All other pitchers in the Top 20 are either in the Hall of Fame, will be in the Hall of Fame, or have a good argument to be in the Hall of Fame, except for one- Mickey Lolich.

- He has 242 complete games over 22 seasons. With the retirement of Greg Maddux, the active leader is Randy Johnson with 100.

- He has 60 shutouts, which ranks 9th all time; 9th!!!!!! The only other pitcher in the top 20 that's not in the Hall of Fame is Luis Tiant, and he had 49. The active leader is Randy Johnson with 37.

All of this is to say that how Bert Blyleven is not in the Hall of Fame is a mystery.

Anyway, with the election of Henderson and Rice, I can't help but look to see how's up for election next time. Of importance in the 2010 election are: Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin, Edgar Martinez and, my favorite baseball player, Fred McGriff.

I realize that McGriff is probably a borderline, at best, Hall of Fame candidate. He didn't hit 500 home runs, and he isn't normally considered as one of the "dominant" first basemen of his time, often overshadowed by the likes of Frank Thomas, Jeff Bagwell, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro and Jim Thome. His adjusted OPS+ is the same as Al Kaline and higher than Hall of Famers Orlando Cepeda, Eddie Murray, Dave Winfield, Jim Rice, not to mention Rafael Palmeiro. He's top 50 in extra base hits and has more of them than Willie Stargell, Willie McCovey, Mark McGwire, Orlando Cepeda; he's only 11 behind Bagwell. He finished 6 times in the top 10 MVP voting, with 1 top 5 finish. For perspective, Jim Thome has 4 top 10 and only 1 top 5, Palmeiro has 3 top 10 and 0 top 5 and McGwire had 5 top 10 and 1 top 5. McGriff is in the top 40 of RBI's, 5 behind McCovey, ahead of Stargell, Bagwell, Thome, Rice, McGwire, and Cepeda. Basically, if McGriff had been playing in the 70's, he'd be almost automatic. However, he played in the 90s at the time of the explosion in offensive numbers.

What he didn't do? He didn't win an MVP, he never had a 40 HR season (he likely would have had that, along with his 500 career home runs had the 1994 season not been cut short due to the strike), but he did have a fairly lengthy and productive run. He hit 30 or more home runs in 7 straight seasons and 10 seasons total; he hit 20 or more in 15 of 16 straight seasons; the one blip- he hit 19 in 1998, but he followed that up 4 seasons of more than 27 home runs and over 100 RBI's. He was in All-Star in 5 seasons, winning the All Star Game MVP in 1994.

I will root for him to make the Hall of Fame, but while I think he'll hang around for his 15 years, I fear that he will ultimately fall short. That will be a shame- he quietly put up numbers, year after year, worthy of the Hall of Fame, only to be overshadowed by brighter names and numbers that may or may not have been aided by various substances. Not only that, but discussion of his merits for the Hall will likely continue to be overshadowed by a discussion as to the merits of Alomar and Larkin amongst those who write about this stuff. Even in retirement, he can't catch a break.

But none of that should diminish his contributions to baseball- after all, let's not forget that it was his trade to Atlanta in 1993 that galvanized the Braves forward into the playoffs as they beat the Giants by 1 game in what's called the last pennant race; or that Atlanta's one World Series title in the 90s came with him on the roster. And that's all without mentioning his fantastic nickname- the Crimedog, or his appearance endorsing the Tom Emanski videos.

So, here's to you Fred. Should you be lucky enough to join the Hall, I'll be there in Cooperstown, cheering you on. . .

Your Fan.

The next bailout?

Apparently, it's the inauguration.

According to the article, President Bush has declared a State of Emergency in the District of Columbia so that the federal government can appropriate additional "emergency" funds to cover the skyrocketing costs of next week's inauguration. The extra money is to come out of FEMA's budget for this year. The Washington Post notes: "Officials said that the move reflected a post-Hurricane Katrina reform that allows the White House to predesignate areas that could become disasters, such as cities in the path of a hurricane."

I don't know which is funnier- having to bailout the inauguration or waiting this long before declaring D.C. a disaster area. What's more troubling is that the purported reason for bailing out the inauguration is that there's a belief that with so many people coming, D.C. will be unable to adequately protect its citizens. The White House noted that federal money will be available so that D.C. can institute protective measures "undertaken to save lives and protect public health and safety." I wonder how many cities, counties, and states will use that defense in asking for federal money to bail them out.

Downward spiral

Here's a question:

As a state worker, at what point should I just stop caring?

Headline from the Sacramento Bee:

"State to shut down first and third Fridays each month"

Awesome.

Now, I work for the state, but my agency is not under the direct control of the Governor, so we are ostensibly exempt from the Governor's various orders on state employees. However, there are other areas where we are not, and if the legislature steps in and passes a law that says we are included, well then, I'll get a 3 day, unpaid weekend twice a month.

So, again I ask, at what point do I stop caring? And I don't mean to insinuate that my desire to do my job, or the fervor with which I care about the issues I work on suffer, just my desire to show up and be productive. About the only productive thing I'll be doing is updating my resume. That being said, I'll certainly take a reduction in pay if it means that I'll keep my job, and this furlough order is basically losing a month of pay over the year; I doubt that the union that supposedly represents my interests agrees with me though.

I won't go into a big, long post about the problems between the Democrats, Republicans and the Governor in Sacramento, there's been enough about that. What I will say is that we can't meet this deficit simply by raising taxes, all that will do is depress spending and production even more; of course, we can't meet this by cutting spending, government does play some role and have a purpose after all. Someone needs to be willing to find that middle ground. That's about all I really feel like talking about on this- it's a mess.

A mess of things

In the course of yesterday's workday, two articles were brought to my attention, and I think it worthwhile to highlight them here.

The first is an article written by Eliot Spitzer (yes, that Eliot Spitzer) for Slate. In it he argues that the proposed Obama stimulus package is flawed by focusing on transportation infrastructure, like roads and bridges. Rather, he argues that the money should be spent on "transformative" projects, and that roads and bridges are "not transformative. These projects by and large are building or patching the same economy with the same flaws that got us where we are. Our concern should be that as we look for the next great infrastructure project to transform our economy, we might rebuild the Erie Canal and find ourselves a century behind technologically."

Spitzer believes that government spending would be better "spent on new investments that may not be quite as ready to go but are surely more important to our long-term economic viability." He then argues for government to spend money on installing smart electricity meters, coupled with additional smart grid investments (I'll get to this later), building new service stations that will be able to sell alternative fuels for automobiles, upgrade medical record-keeping, upgrade the internet "backbone", and fund "robotic teams" for schools. He concludes noting that "investing in the necessary public goods to support a post-hydrocarbon, information-based economy is a much better choice than using the stimulus to patch up the old economy."

There are two points I want to make about this article. One, he uses an analogy to the New Deal and says something surprising- "The New Deal probably didn't pull us out of the Depression; World War II did that. What the New Deal did was redefine the social contract—perhaps just as important an outcome." This is surprising because a) there is an admission that the New Deal may not have done what people still think it did and b) recognizes that the importance of the New Deal was not about the economy, but a government-run social engineering program. It is this social engineering aspect of the New Deal that Spitzer hopes Obama will emulate, and Spitzer argues that building new roads and bridges won't accomplish that. Needless to say, I think that government-sponsored social engineering is wrong and should be opposed at every turn. People should be given every chance to suceed and make the best of their lives, undoubtedly there are going to be people who choose not to use that chance and there are going to be people who find ways to better their odds; government should try to make a level playing field, but it is ultimately up to the individual to make their own choices, the government should not be stepping in and dragging the person along.

Second, in the section about smart meters he makes an unsurprising statement (but surprising for its breadth): "The problem with installation of smart meters has been both the cost and, often, state-by-state regulatory hurdles. Now is the moment to sweep both aside and transform our entire electricity market into a smart market." I agree that the problem of getting new meters installed are costs and state regulatory problems; but, we have a federalist system that gives a lot of power to the state. The second sentence is the breathtaking one- that the federal government should both pay for the meters and run roughshod over state sovereignty to accomplish this would be an extreme mis-use of federal authority. As someone who works on that issue, having the federal government step in and take control over this would be a huge mistake. I want smart meters in peoples' homes, but I want that decision and control to be left to the states. The federal government can incentivize this all they want, and they have been, but the ultimate decision should remain with the states.

I have been skeptical of each "stimulus" package that has been proposed, including the bailout packages approved last year. I remain wary of the long-term damage being done to the economy in order to focus on a short-term fix. Just today, the Congressional Budget Office released an estimate that the deficit for 2009 will be $1.2 trillion, with a T, and that does not include the spending in the proposed Obama stimulus package, which will reach nearly $800 billion. According to the article, "Democratic leaders in Congress described today's deficit announcement as stunning and warned of exploding debt in the future. But they said Congress must nevertheless pass a stimulus package quickly." In other words, yes, all this spending will likely cause untold damage in the future, but, in typical congressional fashion (that applies to both Republicans and Democrats), we'll deal with that later. The article estimates that if the Obama stimulus package is passed, the deficit will likely soar to $1.6 trillion, if not more. Astounding. I have little faith that the federal government will spending whatever batch of money that gets approved in the next stimulus package wisely or efficiently, despite having a "watch dog." That simply isn't what governments do.

The second article that warranted my attention was an amusing list of "Bad design trends we hope die in 2009" that was posted on the L.A. Times' web page. Number six is this statement:

CFLs: "To be green, you do not need to suffer with compact fluorescent bulbs, a light source that does not render color or texture and only turns on and off. Instead, do the planet a favor by using a combination of a halogen bulb, which does not use mercury or rare earth phosphors, and a dimmer. If you dim a halogen bulb to 50%, you will save over 40% energy and your light bulb can last more than 10 years."

The quote is attributed to a guy named Sean O'Connor from O'Connor Lighting. I find this fascinating that a) this somehow made it in the L.A. Times and b) why hasn't anyone made this argument before? All we get bombarded with is "Buy CFLs, Buy CFLs, Buy CFLs" and "Save money, Buy CFLs." When we moved into our new apartment in 2006, we filled the house with expensive CFLs that were supposed to pay itself back and last many years. Almost 3 years later, we've now had 4 CFL's burn out on us, and they can't simply be thrown into the trash because of their mercury content. And I really don't think that they have saved us as much money as promised. Of course, CFLs don't work with dimmers either. I can only wonder at what other energy efficiency tales the public has been sold on where other options are just as viable, but aren't as interesting. How much money has been wasted by consumers on products that ostensibly save money and reduce energy but are no better than what we already have. How much money and time has the government spent on devising rules when the market is already moving in that direction?

On that topic, I note the recent movement by the California Energy Commission to set up energy efficiency standards for televisions. In the article, the CEC already admits that 87% of television models (current and proposed) will meet the standards by 2011- so what's the point in making the standards to begin with? If the industry is already making them, and if consumers actively seek them out, then the remaining 13% will either not be sold, will be remade to meet market demands or will be bought by people who are willing to pay more on their energy bill. All three of them are valid market responses.

It is this type of government heavy-handedness that I fear will become more commonplace as we move into the next administration. The ability of the consumer to decide what they want will be pushed aside in favor of what the government says you should buy, all in the name of energy efficiency and the environment, regardless of the ultimate economics of it all.

Update- not 10 minutes after I posted this, I received an email from my friend Vansmack with a link to this article: "VIZIO Offers Complete Line of Energy Efficient LCD HDTVs." The important part of the article: "Currently, all VIZIO LCD HDTVs meet Energy Star 3.0 requirements for lower energy consumption. These seven new EcoHD(TM) models, however, exceed those standards by as much as 25%, which is good news for both the environment and value-conscious consumers."

Again, this simply points out that industry, tv makers and the market are already moving in the direction of making more energy efficient televisions.