Medical Myths

TW: An NYT blog put together a list of relatively trivial health myths. I show my favorites below.

From NYT:
"1. Cold weather makes you sick. In studies of cold transmission, people who are chilled are no more likely to get sick than those who were not. It may be that cold weather keeps people indoors, where germs are more likely to catch up with you...

3. You lose most of your body heat through your head. There is nothing special about the head and heat loss. You will lose heat through any uncovered body part...

5. Cracking your knuckles will cause arthritis. Knuckle-crackers are no more likely to have arthritis than those who don’t make annoying popping sounds with their fingers...

9. You should poop at least once a day. A half-truth, say the authors. Regular bowel movements prevent discomfort and constipation, but a perfectly healthy person may not move their bowels every day. Constipation is defined as having fewer than three stools per week.

10. It’s okay to double dip in the chip dip. In one study, scientists took a bite of cracker and then dipped it into salsa, cheese dip, chocolate syrup and water. They did the same test with a fresh, unbitten cracker. Then they measured bacteria in the dips and the volunteers’ mouths. On average, three to six double dips transferred about 10,000 bacteria from the eater’s mouth to the dip. And each cracker picked up between one and two grams of dip. Salsa picked up the most germs from double dipping.

11. Food quickly picked up from the floor is safe to eat. Scientists have put the commonly-cited five-second rule to the test. They found that food that comes into contact with a tile or wood floor does pick up large amounts of bacteria. Food doesn’t pick up many germs when it hits carpet, but it does pick up carpet fuzz."
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/11-health-myths-that-may-surprise-you/

Finally!!

TW: So I am at the club, on the big screen is CNN. CNN managed somehow to squeeze in sandwiched literally between "Michael Jackson's will found" and "What Happened to Bubbles?", the fact that Norm Coleman finally conceded the MN Senate race after the MN supreme court unanimously ruled in Franken's favor.

Therefore, the Dems will have a theoretically filibuster proof majority. But as you know with two senators ailing (Kennedy and Byrd), zero Republican cooperation and some red state Dem senators always wavering; the filibuster threat will remain. Nevertheless, have been waiting months to post my Stuart Smiley photo, so here goes. Congrats Al!!! I actually think he will be a fine senator.

The Cap n'Trade Quandry

TW: I oppose cap and trade for two reasons- there are better ways to effect carbon reductions (i.e. an explicit carbon tax) and cap and trade to me is highly susceptible to regulatory capture and congressional manipulation (even more than the usual shenanigans). The bill that passed the House reflects the latter challenge in spades.

The one aspect of cap and trade I like is that at least something is being done. If conservatives were out there beating the table for a carbon tax alternative I would be supportive but their alternative is to retain the status quo (and for some go off on climate change denial rants).

Cap and trade is an energy tax. Some support energy taxes because they believe the negative externalities (i.e. pollution, deploying troops in Middle East, supporting folks like Putin/Chavez/Ahmadinejad/Wahhibists etc.) associated with carbon based energy should be reflected in the prices paid by consumers. Other see carbon taxes as a huge potential revenue source.

The cap and trade bill passed by the House raises little revenue and hence does little initially to curb the negative externalities associated with carbon energy. The reason is circular. If the bill would have raised revenue then it would have gone down in flames as a "tax" bill, but now folks say it does not do enough to curb carbon emissions.

You do not have to believe in climate change in order to support a carbon energy tax of some support, the other negative externalities are sufficient from my perspective. Alternatively if you are interested in long-term fiscal security an energy tax is a powerful tool to deploy whilst addressing negative externalities.

The only wrong choice is the status quo. Cap and trade is deeply flawed but it does create a structure to raise revenues and curb negative externalities if at some point in the future the political will is created to act.

Tranistions In Iraq

TW: To relatively little ado (a good thing), Americans forces are completing their withdrawal from Iraqi cities. To me this is a great thing. Not without some risk but like everything else in life one must take risks, otherwise one ends up with a Cheney/Bush policy of chasing demons in the night at all costs and regardless of consequences.

Will there be violence in Iraq? Of course. Will the country blow apart? I doubt it. Military occupations inherently must end, why not now for the U.S. in Iraq? The Iraqis must figure out how to co-exist more or less peacefully. There will be bumps in the road but the process must accelerate. Today is a step on that path.

From Economist:
"...As the deadline looms, people are again asking whether Iraq’s forces will be able to cope on their own...

Yet...the recorded figures suggest that the violence is still in retreat. Fewer civilians were killed in May than in any month since 2003. Both Iraqi and American officials had predicted a surge in attacks as the deadline for withdrawal neared.

...But the Iraqis are slowly realising that Mr Obama really does intend to remove the bulk of his troops before 2011. So they may at last be starting to focus on passing long-delayed bits of important nation-building legislation, such as an oil-and-gas law, constitutional amendments, and even a law governing elections. Without a modicum of cohesion at the heart of government, how can Iraq’s security forces stick together in the face of sectarian or ethnic tension? Iraqis know that establishing a more cohesive and broader-based government is at least as important as beefing up the Iraqi security forces.

A crucial general election is due in January—and everybody knows that the Americans want to witness a peaceful poll leading to a stable government before they can withdraw completely. So there is a fresh ferment of political horse-trading and alliance-testing. Mr Maliki is trying to buff up his image as the strongman who can provide law and order. He is exploring the possibility of new ties across sectarian divisions as well as sounding out possible partners for a grand Shia coalition similar to the one that won last time. Even the “Bands of the Righteous”, an offshoot of the Shia militia movement led by a radical cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, may want to take part in peaceful politics. As a gesture of goodwill, it released the bodies of two long-dead British hostages who had been kidnapped two years ago.

Yet, whether the Americans stay or leave, Iraq still suffers from its worst failing. There is still no party or leader that can reach across the country’s divisions and appeal to Iraqis of every ethnic and sectarian hue."
http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13927318

Things I Like - Art

A suggestion for the real White House:

Now that the Obamas have settled into the White House, the First Family is focusing on what art to hang on the walls.. What pieces Barack and Michelle decide on has wide-ranging implications about what art and artists should be on the public's radar, and could affect what those artists' work is worth. While the couple can hang anything they want in their residence and offices, pieces hung in public places must be approved by the Committee for the Preservation of the White House, which consists of the White House curator and advisory board.

The decision is a tough one, so we thought we’d give the Obamas a hand. We asked 21 of our favorite artists, dealers, curators, and bloggers to tell us what pieces they think should grace the White House walls.
~Art Info

Some of the recommendations:

Shepard Fairey, street artist,
designed Barack Obama “Hope” poster
Barbara Kruger’s ‘We don’t need another hero’ (1987)
Courtesy Mary Boone Gallery, New York

Agnes Gund, president emerita,
Museum of Modern Art, New York
Jasper Johns’s ‘Three Flags’ (1958)
Courtesy the Whitney Museum of American Art, New York

Edward Winkleman, owner,
Winkleman Gallery, New York
Edward Hopper’s ‘Early Sunday Morning’ (1930)
Courtesy the Whitney Museum of American Art, New York

Simon Watson, co-founder,
Scenic art advisory firm
Gonzalo Lebrija's ‘Entre la vida y la muerte (blanco y negro)’ (2008)
Courtesy Travesia Cuatro, Madrid, and I-20, New York

See the link above for the full portfolio and commentary.

The Madoff Whiners

TW: Completely agree with this Nocera piece. If it were up to me, Madoff would be drawn and quartered in Central Park. But, the whining from his investors is pathetic. Should some of the investors be pissed at their advisors who took a fee while doing lame diligence? Yes. Were they smug thinking they were in a "special" fund? Frequently. Many people have had their asses kicked in this market. Most of all they should be pissed at themselves. Nut up and move on.

From Joe Nocera at NYT:
"...Let’s dispense first with the idea that the S.E.C. should be reimbursing Madoff victims. Why? Government agencies make mistakes, treat people unfairly, and do all sorts of things we all wish they wouldn’t. But by law, the federal government cannot be sued when it carries out an unjust prosecution or, for that matter, when it fails to uncover a giant fraud. Government negligence led pretty directly to the recent financial crisis. Does that mean the feds should be reimbursing us for our stock market losses? Of course not. Because it’s not really the S.E.C. that would be paying out the money — it would be the taxpayers. Why should my tax dollars go to helping Madoff victims? This is not 9/11.

Besides, as I’ve argued before, the S.E.C.’s negligence notwithstanding, shouldn’t the Madoff victims have to bear at least some responsibility for their own gullibility? Mr. Madoff’s supposed results — those steady, positive returns quarter after blessed quarter — is a classic example of the old saw, “when something looks too good to be true, it probably is.” What’s more, most of the people investing with Mr. Madoff thought they had gotten in on something really special; there was a certain smugness that came with thinking they had a special, secret deal not available to everyone else. Of course, it turned they were right — they did have a special deal. It just wasn’t what they expected.

Outside the courthouse today, television reporters interviewed victims, all eager to tell their tales of woe. And their stories, in many cases, truly are heart-wrenching. Hopes and dreams have evaporated. Homes have been lost. Retirees are having to take minimum-wage jobs. Their anger at Mr. Madoff is understandable, to say the least. But to see them lash out at Irving Picard, the bankruptcy trustee, made me realize that too many of them still seem to think that someone should have to make them whole. The whole point about Ponzi schemes is that there is not enough money to make anybody whole — they were robbed, pure and simple, and the government is not in the business of reimbursing for robberies. Not even when the cops stumble across the robbers and then mistakenly let them go."
http://executivesuite.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/madoff-victims-get-over-it/

Um, Um, Good

TW: New lows in American advertising.

Don't Be a Trade Patsy

TW: Free trade is a good thing. Free trade helps grow the economic pie for everyone. But Americans have this naive view that we exist in a world of free trade. Free trade is no longer about tariffs and other explicit trade barriers. It is about currency valuations, domestic subsidies, domestic credit policies and a host of more esoteric measures.

Many pundits (conservatives especially) immediately squawk if the U.S. government initiates an explicit trade barrier (i.e. the "buy American provision in the original stimulus bill) but our international competitors are aggressively implementing their own measures.

One of my greatest worries is that governments will slide into very aggressive anti-free trade measures. These things become prisoner's dilemmas very quickly (i.e. if you create barriers then I must as well otherwise you benefit at my expense).

But understand the trade deficit with China will not come down without their explicit participation. Americans working harder will not be enough. Americans saving more will help much though.

From Business Week:
"...Beijing has recently introduced a host of policies aimed at boosting exports while making it harder for foreign companies to sell in the mainland. China has renewed steps that keep its currency undervalued against the dollar, reinstated tax breaks on exports, and told government entities to buy Chinese products. With efforts to boost domestic consumption flagging, Beijing remains reliant on the "narcotic" of export-led growth, says former U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab. "Accumulating surpluses makes [China] feel strong and powerful."

On June 23, Washington filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization alleging that Beijing has reserved key raw materials such as magnesium and zinc for its own companies. U.S. and European experts say that gives Chinese industry an advantage over foreign manufacturers who need those materials too.

...The U.S. may have a more solid case regarding Chinese efforts to restrict sales of scarce minerals. The fact that Chinese companies can buy these materials while foreigners can't violates WTO rules, U.S. and European experts say. There is a good chance Beijing will back down on this issue "because they don't have a leg to stand on," says Lardy.

Whether or not Beijing is within its rights, the appearance of protectionism is likely to fuel pressure for retaliation. Before 2007, China enjoyed trade surpluses with the U.S. but had a deficit with other countries. By last year, China's surplus with the entire world had passed $400 billion, notes University of Maryland Robert H. Smith School of Business economist Peter Morici. And with the yuan still undervalued against the dollar by at least 20%, the U.S. deficit could start ballooning when Americans start buying again. "We cannot grow with the kind of trade deficit we have with China," Morici predicts. "And we'll continue to have that trade deficit as long as China keeps changing the rules." The policy dilemma for Washington, meanwhile, will only grow more wrenching."
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_27/b4138000378178.htm

European Legislators Putting Their Noses To the Grindstone...So To Speak

TW: I know it is not really 7 pm but these are too special

Things I Like - Humor

It's not often that you can please animal lovers and Star Wars geeks at the same time -

Star Wars figures and chipmunks by Chris McVeigh

Chewbacca makes a friend

He looks so betrayed...

See the entire portfolio at Telegraph UK

The Health Care Cost Experience In China

TW: Fistful of Euros is a good place to track European economics but occasionally they pull in some rest of world analysis as well. Wags like to describe China as the most "capitalist" country in the world, in some ways they may be right. But as I like to say, pure anything (i.e. capitalism, democracy etc.) can be tricky. Some food for thought for those advocating pure "free market" approaches. I repeat- health care is not a normal good.

From Fistful Of Euros:
"...In the 1970s, China had a cooperative medical system that provided coverage to 90 percent of the rural population. A series of reforms since then have introduced fee for service and health insurance schemes. These reforms have increased costs, but it is hard to see much impact on improved levels of health. Per capita health spending increased seven-fold in rural areas over the period 1990-2002, but rates of progress in health outcomes have dramatically slowed.

That’s in part because the quality of care provided can be pretty grim, not least because of the incentives of the fee for service model. Over-prescription of drugs is a particularly big problem. In 1999, a study of eight village clinics in Chongquing and Gansu provinces found less than 0.06% of prescriptions handed out were deemed reasonable by the doctors in the survey team.

China isn’t the United States, of course. But it does provide stark evidence that health care reform can have a dramatic impact on the efficiency of provision –for good or ill."

Further Evidence That He Is U Know What...

From Tom Rick's blog at Foreign Policy Mag:

"I didn't know that President Obama knows how to make South Asian food. From an interview with Dawn of Pakistan apparently overlooked by the American media:

I had Pakistani roommates in college who were very close friends of mine. I went to visit them when I was still in college; was in Karachi and went to Hyderabad. Their mothers taught me to cook," said Mr Obama.

"What can you cook?" "Oh, keema ... daal ... You name it, I can cook it. And so I have a great affinity for Pakistani culture and the great Urdu poets."I think half the country would be amazed and half the country appalled by this. Can you imagine President Bush saying such a thing?"

The Not So Big Education Gap Between the U.S. and the Rest Of the World

TW: This piece speaks to an area where I think the U.S. is under appreciated- the great leveling impact of our university system. Folks tend to see those educational aptitude tests which take snapshots of students in grade school and high school and lament how far behind U.S. students are relative to other nations. What is missed sometimes though is that many international students slow their growth post-high school as many international universities are not as rigorous as American universities. Americans on the other hand accelerate their educational growth during the college years. Or more simply many international students work their asses off in high-school then take a break. Americans may not spend as much time in school prior to college but continue working hard through college graduation. At the end the educational attainment has equalized.

European universities tend to be relatively under-funded, dogmatic in their approaches and less pragmatic than their American counter-parts.

From Economist:

"...German universities are underfunded by international standards (see chart). Professors juggle scores of students; at top American universities they nurture a handful. In switching to the bachelors-masters degrees prescribed by Europe’s standardising “Bologna process”, many universities tried to cram bachelors degrees into just six terms. Only six German universities are among the top 100 in the Shanghai rankings (Munich is highest, at 55th). Just 21% of each age cohort gets a degree; the OECD average is 37%.

...the federal and state governments approved an €18 billion plan to create more university places, boost funding for research and cultivate a small group of elite institutions. It is “a signal that research and education are being taken seriously,”

..In the past, universities were interchangeable, and most students chose one close to home. But since the early 1990s budget cuts have encouraged them to compete and specialise. Their state paymasters began to link cash to professors’ publications and their ability to attract outside money. The government’s new “excellence initiative” goads them to differentiate still more, showering €1.9 billion on research programmes and nine “top universities” with promising “future concepts”.

...Goethe University is in the vanguard. Last year it became a “foundation university”, loosening its ties to the state of Hesse, and expanding its freedom to hire and manage staff, and to raise money from private sources. “We can now pay competitive salaries,” says Mr Müller-Esterl. The university has hired 50 new professors, including some from foreign rivals. No longer a state agency, the university now finds it easier to raise money from private donors who want to know how it will be spent. Mr Müller-Esterl hopes the university will build its puny €125m endowment up to €5 billion-6 billion.

...The main gap in university financing is not the contribution of the state, which matches America’s, but in private funding and fees. Tuition fees, as the student protests suggest, are politically explosive...Most western German states allow tuition fees of a meagre €500 per term, but universities “can’t plan long term because they don’t know if the next government will take it away,” says Ms Wintermantel.

...Still, these pressures push German universities in the right direction. World rankings tend to underrate them, partly because non-English-speaking laboratories are penalised. They would do better if research at non-university institutes like the Max Planck Society were brought into academies, adding teaching to research. That is happening: an example is the merger of Karlsruhe University and the Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe to form Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, modelled on MIT. “In ten to 15 years a few universities will have a place in the top international league,” says Matthias Kleiner, head of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, which funnels money to research. Perhaps Goethe University will be among them. "

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13914669

Sunday Funnies

To Burqa Or Not To Burqa

TW: You would be hard pressed to find someone more adamantly secular than me. But I find things like banning burqas counter-productive and destructive. The above cartoon frames the challenges of the state determining acceptable expressions of taste, morality and religion. A burqa to me is not an attractive expression of religion, taste or morality but that is me. In the U.S. we tend toward permitting individuals to make these decisions within limits of safety and certain moral constraints (i.e. prancing around nude in generally restricted).

If the state intervenes regardless of the grounds, it opens a pandora's box best left closed in my opinion, where does it stop? Furthermore, I suspect like most cultural bans, folks will only be motivated to embrace the use of the burqa as a protest if for no other reason.

From Economist:
"...Now Nicolas Sarkozy has sparked another by calling the burqa, a head-to-toe Islamic garment, “a sign of subjugation…of debasement” that is “not welcome on French territory”.

Mr Sarkozy’s comments came after a group of deputies, led by André Gerin, a Communist, had called for a parliamentary inquiry into the wearing of the burqa, with a view to a possible ban. This would mean in all public places, since it is already banned in state institutions under the 2004 law. The deputies called burqas “veritable walking prisons”.

France’s strict secularism, entrenched by law since 1905, keeps religion firmly out of the state sphere. There are no religious studies (let alone nativity plays) in state schools, nor may public workers sport the headscarf. The government denies that such policies constrain religious freedom or are especially aimed at Islam. France welcomes private Muslim schools. Mosque-building is widespread. The 2004 headscarf ban outlawed “conspicuous” religious symbols of all faiths. Yet there are growing worries about the spread of hard-line Islamism in the heavily Muslim banlieues.

...In fact, few women wear the full garment in France. But mayors of cities with big Muslim populations report a steady increase in numbers, due not to immigration but to its adoption by French-born women—often from North African countries where the burqa is not traditionally worn.

Mohammed Moussaoui, head of the official French Council of the Muslim Faith, has suggested that the inquiry would itself stigmatise Islam. A ban might be misunderstood abroad, and not only in the Muslim world. In his recent speech in Cairo, Barack Obama said that “it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practising religion as they see fit—for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.”

Not so, say many French politicians—including such prominent Muslims as Fadela Amara, the cities minister. The founder of a women’s-rights group, Ms Amara has called the burqa “a coffin that kills individual liberties”, and a sign of the “political exploitation of Islam”.
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13925890

Things I Like - Odds & Ends

I just don’t understand this.

Why Healthcare Economics ARE Different (cont.)

From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"As example, Liam Yore, an emergency room doctor, notes that emergency rooms pay a lot more for procedures than for so-called "cognitive medicine" like diagnoses and medical management. "Sewing a facial laceration pays far better than accurately diagnosing a heart attack," he writes. "The same principle applies to any procedure — from angiograms to colonoscopies." Start with that insight and it's not hard to build a model in which the ranks of doctors slowly fill with the sort of people who prefer surgical interventions to cognitive medicine because the other people drop out or don't have enough revenue to advertise, popularize, and modernize their practices. Changing that is hard. And Dr. Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein aren't saying anything particularly controversial when they write that "there are a variety of bad ways of paying doctors, but no particularly good ones."

TW: When someone can articulate to me how this challenge can be resolved, is when I will seriously listen the the person explaining their health care reform bill. Again health care providers are rational, like the rest of us they will follow the revenues. It goes without saying though that in the meantime we not only spend our ourselves towards oblivion and provide shaky health care (to those than can afford it).

You Can Come Out Now

TW: I waited over 48 hours.

The Climate Debate: A Couple Of Approaches

TW: Obviously this is over-simplified but in my view reflective of the opposing approaches to climate change debate. Who are you going to believe?

From Paul Krugman at NYT:


From Washington Monthly:
"National Review's Victor Davis Hanson [TW: VDH is a very conservative columnist and historian] explained his rationale yesterday for denying evidence of global warming.


'I just spent a few days in the Sierra in May during freezing cold temperatures and snow; a week ago it was quite cool and raining in New York; each time I have passed through Phoenix this spring it seemed unseasonably cool; and just gave a talk on the Russian River and about froze. Meanwhile the grapes look about ten days behind due to unseasonably cool temperatures. Any empiricist would be worried, as Newsweek once was, about global cooling. Will the planet boil, if we slow down a bit, review the science and dissenting views, and consider the wisdom in a recession of allotting nearly a trillion dollars to changing our very way of life (while the Chinese absorb market share)?'

It's items like these that help explain why our political discourse is so routinely stunted. If the left and right disagreed on how best to address policy challenges, that would at least open the door to constructive dialog. But we're still stuck in a political environment in which prominent conservative voices at high-profile conservative outlets a) don't recognize the difference between climate and weather; b) find meaningless anecdotes compelling evidence of global trends; and c) are entirely comfortable delaying necessary solutions while an already-completed debate continues."

This Week In 1930

TW: The 1930 WSJ headlines are too ironic to only dip into once. We have a new feature for Saturdays for awhile at least- "This Week In 1930". The thing that impresses me most is how the rhetoric has barely changed over the past 80 years.

From June 24, 1930-
"J. Westerfield of the NY Stock Exchange lectures civics clubs of Yonkers on the causes of the current business recession. Says the effort to attribute it to any single cause is superficial; criticizes sanguine statements of “new era” economists that “the vast amount of reliable statistical information had practically abolished the old-time evils of large inventories and overproduction.” Concludes that an illusion grew popular that “paper profits in ... quoted values for real estate, commodities, securities, and other forms of property increased fortunes and thereby spending power.”

Current speculative sentiment is bearish, but the conditions are there for a strong bull market in the future. While commodity price decline is serious, many are selling for record lows or below cost of production, which can't continue forever. Inventories are low. Wages have not gone down with deflation, leaving workers with more buying power. Businesses generally have good balance sheets and are operating efficiently; those that need to borrow can do so cheaply.

From Wednesday June 25th
"Oregon voters in November will decide on a Constitutional amendment outlawing manufacture, sale, or possession of cigarettes."

From Thursday June 26th
"Washington officials will be looking carefully at whether the record-low 2.5% discount rate will revive business. So far easy money hasn't affected the credit picture much, with demand for commercial credit continuing down. However, the lower rates and longer duration now in effect should give a fairer test. Also hoped that easy credit together with lower commodity prices will encourage businesses to restock."

"Conventional wisdom is that stock market moves anticipate business conditions, so stocks should go up soon if predictions of a fall improvement in business are true. Skeptics note that the market kept moving up last fall even though business started turning down in July. "

Jim Demint And Why the Republicans Are Poseurs On Health Care

TW: I frequently point out the lack of solutions from the Republicans on issues such as health care. They are good at complaining but not so much at solving. So here is an attempt from a Republican at health care reform. A taste (kinda) great, less (very much so) filling effort to say the least.

Sen. Demint of SC suggest giving vouchers to Americans for use in buying health care. At a superficial level it sounds like a "free market" type action instead of perfidious government led reform. The concept breaks down rapidly. Furthermore it is highly cynical as Demint claims it would not raise the deficit, but he "achieves" that goal by gutting the primary government measure to avoid GD 2.0 (TARP). So as the piece points out, it does not raise the deficit because TARP has already been funded (not to mention if one guts the primary measure against GD 2.0, perhaps the odds of GD 2.0 go up).

The fundamental challenge with vouchers is that it basically channels more money into health care with no measures to contain costs. Classic economics tells one that if you push more money into a good (think of oil prices) without increasing supply or limiting costs increases, all one gets is inflation. Demint's plan does not nothing to address folks with pre-existing conditions or merely sub-optimal demographics (i.e. being say 50 instead of 20 years old).

This is a nice example of a simple-minded "free market" approach to a market that is neither "free" nor normal.

From Slate:
"...The plan, basically, is for the federal government to give out annual vouchers to Americans which they can spend on any health care insurance offering they want: $2000 dollars for individuals, and up to $5000 for families.

Under the Health Care Freedom Plan, Americans would be able to keep the care they have now, but if they are uninsured or unhappy with their current plan, they could access a voucher to purchase health insurance anywhere in the country.

...And at no cost to the taxpayer!...

How, you might wonder, could the U.S. government offer a $5000 health care voucher to every uninsured American family without adding a dime to the deficit? The answer is brilliant: Pay for the program with TARP money! Yes, "The Health Care Freedom Plan" is paid for by requiring banks to pay back all their TARP money within five years, and then use that money for the vouchers.

Frankly, I am in awe. Nothing will be added to the deficit because we will be re-using money that was added to the deficit last September.

So what happens when TARP runs out? How would succeeding allocations of vouchers be funded? There's not a whisper of an answer to that question in the DeMint press release or summary.

Two other questions.
First: If the government is offering vouchers to anyone unhappy with their current coverage, why should businesses bother offering health care coverage to their employees at all? There's a built-in incentive here for employers to abandon their own
health care offerings, which would surely send the cost of the government program skyrocketing in short order. (Yes, this would be a potential problem with any government-subsidized health care reform, but the incentive seems particularly stark in this case.)

Second: How exactly would this plan work to bring down health care costs? At first glance it would seem to do exactly the opposite. A massive transfer of taxpayer dollars almost directly to the HMOs would seem inherently inflationary. What incentive does anyone have to cut costs when the government directly subsidizes the HMOs?"

Things I Like Chicago

Yesterday was the opening day of the 29th annual Taste of Chicago. According to the Mayor’s office, this 10 day festival which starts the Friday before the 4th of July and runs through the following Sunday is the 2nd largest tourist attraction in Illinois (they don’t mention what attraction is at the top of the list).

The Taste started as a one day food extravaganza in 1980 and took place on Michigan Ave near the river. The huge turnout and overall success of the event prompted the city to move it to Grant Park the following year. They also extended the event to its present 10 day schedule and added musical performances. In fact, the free music has become almost as big a draw as the food. In addition to local bands (The Lovehammers, Chicago Afrobeat), the main stage gets some big names. This year has the Wallflowers, Buddy Guy, Booker T, Counting Crows and Barenaked Ladies. See a full schedule here.

But back to the main event. In the beginning, the Taste was a great opportunity to sample a variety of ethnic and regional specialties local to our city. Unfortunately, the ‘bigger is better and humongous is best’ approach soon took over and food portions became ridiculous. It’s hard to sample more than a couple items when each ‘taste’ is a meal in itself.

Add in the average July temperatures combined with huge crowds and the experience can be unpleasant if you don’t do it right. In the mid-80’s my office building was on Michigan and Jackson, directly across from Grant Park and the Taste. I went just once during the workday. Wearing a suit is not recommended while pushing your way through crowds of sweaty people walking around with giant turkey drumsticks dripping barbecue sauce and slabs of oozing pan pizza. I quickly learned to take advantage of the relatively empty restaurants on Michigan Ave for lunch and do the Taste in the evening when the sun was down and I could wear clothing that didn’t need to be dry cleaned.

And it sounds like the Taste might be getting back to its original purpose:

This year, Taste vendors are required to offer at least two "Taste portion" items, small-scale nibbles...(Last year and some previous years, vendors made only one Taste portion available.) And all vendors have been asked to include at least one healthy-eating item on their menus; you'll find a few that strain the definition of "healthy," but the number of sensible-eating options will be greater than ever this year.
~ The Chicago Tribune

My advice is to go in the evening, be ready for huge and messy crowds, and take advantage of the tasting portions. You’ll be comfortable and well fed.

And don’t forget the 4th of July fireworks display which, or course, takes place on the evening of the 3rd.

Quiz Later

From Tom Rick's Blog:
"I refuse to support ANY attempt to pivot the narrative unless the pivoter is willing to offer enough granularity and fidelity to truly allow the end-user some insight on the effects-based targeting it will foster. Otherwise, we're chasing our tail down a rabbit hole filled with self-licking ice cream cones.

We're dealing with a large delta and a steep learning curve here, so we need to get comfortable being uncomfortable, recognizing that the only constant in this environment is...change.

I believe that Clausewitz once said that Sun-Tzu once said that victory in one thousand battles will be complete only when we have swallowed the dominant paradigm wholesale and then made sure that we've all boarded the bus to Abilene!"
TW: This was a comment on Rick's blog, he did not understand it either.

Working For Obama v. Bubba Clinton

TW: Another example of why I think our current POTUS might just be able to get some things done. Obviously the sausage making process currently underway relative to climate and health care reform shows an almost super-human person is needed in order to have any chance of actual reform occurring.

As for Bubba C., an unbelievable talent ultimately diminished tremendously by the lack of discipline. He was a very good POTUS who could have been so much more. Discipline in his governing style and discipline in his personal life would have made him a real force. It took Bubba a couple of years to really figure out the governing piece. Then he f'ed it all up with the Monica thing. He should have resigned btw. If he had, Gore would have been POTUS instead W. Bush, leaving the world in far better shape than it was on Jan 23rd, 2009.

From Christian Science Monitor interview with Rahm Emanuel:
"EMANUEL: I think President Obama has one of the most disciplined minds and styles I've ever seen. And I think of my – I exercise every day. I've been doing it for umpteen years. I read a book, one every three weeks, I think I'm personally pretty disciplined. This guy is incredibly disciplined. And not only, structured, but his mind is unbelievably disciplined.
Q: For instance?

EMANUEL: He goes into a meeting and he'll have read the brief the night before, and have the crux of his argument written down that he wants to drive that discussion to basic points. And he goes right to either the assumptions, the presumptions of the case. Now, I mean, I loved, as you know, working for President Clinton, who had an unbelievably creative mind. And I think was, for a host of reasons, was a very significant president. I was honored to work for him. Their contexts are different, so while every president has a domestic issue and an international issue, etc., I mean, President Obama has what President Clinton had, but, I don't want to say, it's not appropriate to say on steroids, but by a quotient of 10."

Why Healthcare Economics ARE Different

TW: Conservatives wave many bloody shirts ("free market!!!", don't socialize medicine!!!) in the health care debates but propose few if any actual solutions. Understanding the dynamics of health care economics is crucial to defining what programs and policies to support. What most everyone appears to agree on is that health care costs are threatening to grow so fast as to crowd out other needed spending (have you noticed most new construction in the burbs appears to be medically related?).

Okay so costs are exploding. What do you want to do about it? Continue the status quo that is failing?

From Jim Kwak at Baseline Scenario:
"In a capitalist economy, the thing that is supposed to keep prices in check is the buyers. If someone offers me a product that costs more than it is worth to me, then I won’t buy it. But we can’t count on patients to play this role in health care, because there is no way to make patients internalize all of the costs of their care; they simply don’t have the money.

Furthermore, most people don’t understand the health production function (the relationship between treatments and outcomes), so they don’t have the ability to select treatments that provide benefits that are worth their costs. (And, in many cases, it’s not obvious even to professionals that a treatment isn’t worth the cost; it’s only obvious when you look at the data in aggregate.)

What about payers (health insurers?) A “market” solution would be to change the reimbursement rates for different procedures – increase payment for things that doctors should do more of and reduce payment for things that doctors should do less of. Theoretically, payers should be doing this already. However, in the current situation, a private payer who tried to reduce the rates for popular, expensive procedures would find itself unable to attract providers. The only payer with any real negotiating power is Medicare. The private payers have little ability to control costs. Or, if they have the ability, they aren’t exercising it.

In short, prices will only go up. As a result, the cost of health insurance goes up, and the market finally kicks in in the crudest possible form: people who can’t afford it become uninsured. At some point, if we have enough uninsured people, the health care industry will hit a point where it cannot increase revenues anymore, because it has fewer and fewer paying customers.

The proposed public health insurance plan would have the power to negotiate lower rates with providers. That’s why some providers don’t like it. That’s also why private payers don’t like it; they would be at a cost disadvantage to the public plan. (They can live with Medicare because Medicare leaves them the entire under-65 market.) Maybe that’s unfair. But the current situation isn’t working."

What You Can Do...

From Robert Reich's blog:
"Someone recently approached me at the cheese counter of a local supermarket, asking "what can I do?" At first I thought the person was seeking advice about a choice of cheese. But I soon realized the question was larger than that. It was: what can I do about the way things are going in Washington?

People who voted for Barack Obama tend to fall into one of two camps: Trusters, who believe he's a good man with the right values and he's doing everything he can; and cynics, who have become disillusioned with his bailouts of Wall Street, flimsy proposals for taming the Street, willingness to give away 85 percent of cap-and-trade pollution permits, seeming reversals on eavesdropping and torture, and squishiness on a public option for health care.

In my view, both positions are wrong. A new president -- even one as talented and well-motivated as Obama -- can't get a thing done in Washington unless the public is actively behind him. As FDR said in the reelection campaign of 1936 when a lady insisted that if she were to vote for him he must commit to a long list of objectives, "Maam, I want to do those things, but you must make me."We must make Obama do the right things. Email, write, and phone the White House. Do the same with your members of Congress. Round up others to do so. Also: Find friends and family members in red states who agree with you, and get them fired up to do the same. For example, if you happen to have a good friend or family member in Montana, you might ask him or her to write Max Baucus and tell him they want a public option included in any healthcare bill."

TW: As you can imagine, I fall into the truster camp. But the FDR quote is the point. Politicians are executing the views, biases, ignorance and hopes of their constituents. They are the means not the end. If folks want change and reform they must burn through the roadblocks (i.e. entrenched interest groups, professional lobbyists, general societal apathy and ignorance) via their own initiatives. This tiny micro-blog is one attempt to do so. What are you doing?
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-can-i-do.html

Things I Like - Sciences

For the Women: Pardon my asking, but do you have really smelly armpits? What about wet, sticky earwax? If yes, please make sure to do your monthly self breast exam and get an annual mammogram.

As reported earlier this month, a team of Japanese scientists led by Toshihisa Ishikawa

…found that a gene responsible for breast cancer causes these physical symptoms. Ishikawa and colleagues monitored the activities of a protein created by a gene associated with breast cancer, called "ABCC11." By studying this gene and its complex cellular and molecular interactions in the body, the researchers discovered a distinct link between the gene and excessively smelly armpits and wet, sticky earwax...This discovery could lead to practical tools…to rapidly identify who may have a higher risk for breast cancer.
~Medical News Today

And if your armpits and earwax are normal, you should still do the monthly exam and get an annual mammogram. There’s no need to take chances.

One more request – please say a prayer for my baby sister Amy today. She’s having a radical mastectomy at the age of 34. Thank goodness she found the lump when she did.

Plus ça Change, Plus C’est la Même Chose. (cont.)

"Next to kidnappers, politicians seem to be the most unpopular men in this great Republic. Nobody ever really trusts them. Whatever they do is commonly ascribed to ignoble motives. The country is always glad to see them humiliated. . .

As for the governors, they are so low-down that 2 or 3 of the 48 are always being impeached and there is always at least one who is on his way to the hoosegow. During the past 15 years no less than 20 governors have been charged with downright felonies, and 4 or 5 have actually gone to prison. The rest, though maybe honest enough, are mainly only demagogues and mountebanks. It would be hard to find any other class of presumably reputable men who show so high an average of rogues and charlatans."
---HL Mencken 1934
(via Floyd Norris at NYT)

TW: As I mention frequently, democracy is flawed just better than the alternative. Our system breeds hypocrisy and those comfortable with it. To run for office is to be an egotistical freak. But if we as voters acted differently, rewarded better behavior then perhaps the politicians would act differently. Or maybe those more pure would be even less effective...

R.I.P. Mr. Jackson

TW: The guy lived three lives: very talented child star of the Jackson 5; mega-star as big as they get; then freak, about as freaky as you could get. For those of us of a certain age his passing brings back many memories. My first album, a gift from my grandmother (vinyl thank you very much) was a Jackson 5 album. He was an integral part of that thing called American culture for better or worse.

Regulatory Capture: The National Assoc. of Fradulent Realtors

TW: Have posted before about how evil the Nat'l Assoc. of Realtors can be. NEVER trust anything their PR machine spews out. Here they are going for some good old regulatory capture in order to resuscitate the moribund real estate market by cooking the appraisals. I think most who have dealt with appraisers know they can be pliant. There are good ones for sure but without proper incentives and supervision it is a role ripe for abuse. Count on the NAR to try to make things ripe for abuse.

From Barry Ritholz at Big Picture Blog:
"I am beginning to suspect that the Realtor’s association and the Mortgage Broker’s association are pro-fraud.


...I noted the bizarre (and potentially corrupt) statement from NAR economists Lawrence Yun calling for appraisers “familiar” with local neighborhoods:
“Lenders are using appraisers who may not be familiar with a neighborhood, or who compare traditional homes with distressed and discounted sales. In the past month, stories of appraisal problems have been snowballing from across the country with many contracts falling through at the last moment. There is danger of a delayed housing market recovery and a further rise in foreclosures if the appraisal problems are not quickly corrected.”

I called that a thinly veiled hint for “friendly” i.e., “corruptible” appraisals.

I did some more digging, and I quickly discovered what this contemptible suggestion was all about: It is part of a broader lobbying effort by the The National Association of Mortgage Brokers (NAMB) and The National Association of Realtors (NAR) against honest appraisals.

...Appraisal fraud was an enormous contributor to the unsustainable run up in prices during the boom period. Many (but not all) mortgage brokers and realtors referred buyers to appraisers that ALWAYS hit the number of the home purchase price.

A Bernie Madoff-like 100% success rate is often cause for suspicion, but we have much harder evidence than a statistical fluke. For that, let’s go to the big book of real estate fraud, Bailout Nation:


Fraud in Real Estate, Mortgages, and Home Building Minor amounts of real estate–related fraud have always existed. During the housing boom years of 2002 to 2007, it became a pandemic. These various fraudulent actions helped make the housing boom much bigger—and the bust that much more painful:

Appraisal fraud: Historically, there was no incentive to inflate appraisals. But with the rise of the mortgage brokers—many working closely with real estate agents—the business of steering appraisals to the most generous rose rapidly. By inflating appraisals, many appraisers found they could attract more referral business; some even managed to always hit the target prices given by real estate agents, which contributed significantly to the huge run-up in home prices. In 2005, more than 8,000 appraisers—roughly 10 percent of the industry—petitioned the federal government to take action against such abuses. But both Congress and the White House did nothing, allowing this rampant fraud to continue unabated.

So the very people who were enormous contributors to the credit bubble (mortgage brokers), and their colleagues who helped feed the housing boom and bust via friendly (i.e., corrupt) appraisals (RE Brokers, appraisers), are now mobilizing to make sure that honest appraisal reform is thwarted.


The NAR and NAMB apparently have no ethics to speak of. Their shameless self-interest, regardless of the damage it may cause, disgusts me ."
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06/nar-namb-fighting-appraisal-reform/

Should California Be Bailed Out? NOOOO!!

TW: California is barreling towards its July 1 fiscal deadline without resolution. This should be interesting. California is a partial metaphor for the rest of the nation's fiscal situation. This piece's core point- "The [CA] public imagined that they could have world class government services with extraordinarily low levels of taxation" is applicable to the balance of the nation.

The California situation frames numerous issues:
1) Fiscally speaking Californians mouths are bigger than their stomach's and their system is good at feeding the mouth without digesting properly. The governance structure in CA can relatively easily initiate new spending programs (via referendums) but cannot raise the commensurate taxes (need 2/3 majorities for that and the state districts are gerrymandered to elect strident partisans from both sides).
2) CA creates systematic risk for the rest of the country. If CA were to default on its bond obligations, we would be talking about another cascading financial crisis as other muni bonds across the nation would come under new scrutiny (rates would rise etc.). A CA default is highly unlikely as I believe the bondholders are ahead of just about every stakeholder in CA but for education. In other words CA would have to stop paying firemen, police, health care expenses first before defaulting on the bond payments.
3) CA symbolizes the challenge of variable revenues amidst a demand contraction. As CA (or any other state) contracts is spending in line with its contracting tax revenues, it feeds the downward cycle of overall demand. States unlike the Federal government do not have the leeway to deficit spend to counter the overall demand contraction.
4) But for the federal government to "bailout" CA creates a major moral hazard. If states think Washington will ultimately bail them out then their incentives to address their own problems is greatly diminished.
5) Would the rest of the country support "bailing out" CA?

For these last two reasons, I do not believe Obama will "bail out" CA. The political support issue is important but should ultimately be secondary. The moral hazard issue should be paramount. There are ways for that issue to be overcome (i.e. by CA initiating governance reforms to prevent the deficit from recurring) but the only way those reforms will happen will be through a game of chicken with the federal government. While I support playing the game, these games are how disasters occur and depressions are created. Things should never get to this point.

From Economist:
"...NPR interviewed two mayors from California cities—San Diego and Santa Anna—on the subject of the state's budget crisis and the state government's efforts to close the yawning gap between revenues and expenditures by taking or borrowing money from metropolitan budgets. The mayors were obviously not very pleased with this approach, but what surprised me was how sanguine they seemed about the crisis in general, and how unable they were to discuss the actual issues involved. The mayors appeared to believe that so long as their local budgets were sound, no amount of state level cuts would much affect them. They also stood firmly in the belief that California voters were entirely in the right in placing strict constitutional limits on tax increases, and they declared that the "literally bloated bureaucracy" needed to live within its means.

It's all well and good to talk about a bloated bureaucracy, but state legislators could cut government employment in Sacramento to the bone without making much of a dent in the budget crisis. It isn't the pencil pushers spending the money, it's the demands of the public, expressed through their elected representatives but also directly, in statewide ballot initiatives.

The public has imagined that they could have world class government services with extraordinarily low levels of taxation. This is a fantasy, and one is sorely tempted to let the state figure this out for itself. Presumably, after the sudden release of thousands of prison inmates has spurred a spike in crime, drastic cuts to top universities generate mass academic brain drain, and shortfalls in key social services lead to a wave of well-publicised suffering, Californians will begin to get the picture—you get what you pay for.

For now, the administration seems inclined to take this approach...presidential advisors have determined that California is not yet at the brink and ought to work harder to close its budget gap by itself. Obama officials are also nervous that a California bail-out will lead to a wave of requests from other states

...Structural budget problems in California and elsewhere are a major roadblock, and no aid should be forthcoming until binding negotiations have taken place between state and federal officials, establishing a path to long-run budget stability. But this is the wrong place to hold a line against bail-outs.

For one thing, countercyclical aid to states is entirely appropriate. Most state constitutions prevent their governments from running annual budget deficits. This means that in recessions, pro-cyclical tax increases and service cuts are necessary. There should be a federal aid automatic stabiliser in place to prevent this (accompanied by a "tax" on state budgets during boom times).

...But it is also clear to me that this is the next Lehman. This is the domino you can't let topple. There are no good options available. A default would roil municipal debt markets and could seriously harm both state budgets and financial markets. Solving the budget crisis without addressing the constituional issues would involve pro-cyclical and economically destabilising budget cuts. Solving the crisis while addressing the constitutional limits on tax increases would prevent dangerous cuts to services, but would still be pro-cyclical, and is at any rate impossible in the necessary time frame.

The downsides to intervention are clear—moral hazard, growing demands from other states, the risk that California may not fix the underlying issues, the use of scarce political capital to obtain funds from Congress, and so on. But the adminstration has gone to great lengths to put a floor under this economy, guaranteeing that no major financial institutions would fail and racking up a trillion dollar deficit. Letting California go would throw much of that work out the window. How one observes the failure of a middling investment bank creating global financial havoc and then allows the world's eighth largest economy to crater over a matter of $24 billion is beyond me. I remain convinced that the adminstration will not allow it to happen"
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/06/slipping_into_the_sea.cfm

We Shall See On Syria

TW: While some demagogue, hopefully something positive is stirring with Syria. Syria is the redheaded step child of the Middle East- little oil, not enough population to demand attention and a mediocre military. Its government garners attention asymmetrically by fomenting terrorism and generally causing mischief.

But if Syria could be pulled into a more integrated, more symmetrical diplomatic and economic posture, good things could happen. Lebanon's stability enhanced, Iran further isolated and one less sovereign nation left to foment terrorism. Obama sending an ambassador over is one of those little noticed but potentially very significant events that will hopefully bear fruit over time.



From Joe Klein at Time:
"The Obama Administration has decided to send a U.S. Ambassador back to Syria, for the first time since Margaret Scobie was pulled by the Bush Administration, which was protesting the likely involvement of the Syrian government in the assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. This is a wise move on several grounds. It is a reflection of productive negotiations between the U.S. and Syria just below the radar screen. It also sends an interesting signal to Iran, whose regime should begin to wonder if Syrians are shifting with the international tides, given the Iranian regime's public brutality and the recent defeat of Hizballah in the recent Lebanese elections. And it positions the U.S. as mediators in potential peace talks between Syria and Israel, which both sides have been pursuing through intermediaries for years.

The Syrians have been slightly uncomfortable with their Iran alliance for years, but they tend to move very slowly and cautiously in negotiations. This is a sign that something's bubbling in Damascus."

Things I Like - Books

The Time Traveler’s Wife is one of my favorite books. This first novel from Chicago-based Audrey Niffenegger is your basic boy meets girl love story with one major twist – the boy, Henry, is chronologically challenged. With no control over his random movement through time, Henry lives his life out of order – popping in and out of his own and other people’s lives. He is an adult when he meets Clare, his future wife – she is only 6 at the time. They meet again when she is 20 but he doesn’t know her, all of his trips to her childhood occur after this point. I know, it doesn’t make any sense but believe me, it all comes together, and beautifully.

I didn’t run across TTTW until it was out in paperback (some time in 2004) and I’ve been eagerly awaiting Audrey’s next book ever since. I was very excited to learn last week that my wait is almost over! Her Fearful Symmetry is due out in October this year.
Here's a quick synopsis:

Julia and Valentina Poole are normal American teenagers - normal, at least, for identical 'mirror' twins who have no interest in college or jobs or possibly anything outside their cozy suburban home. But everything changes when they receive notice that an aunt whom they didn't know existed has died and left them her flat in an apartment block overlooking Highgate Cemetery in London. They feel that at last their own lives can begin ...but have no idea that they've been summoned into a tangle of fraying lives, from the obsessive-compulsive crossword setter who lives above them to their aunt's mysterious and elusive lover who lives below them, and even to their aunt herself, who never got over her estrangement from the twins' mother - and who can't even seem to quite leave her flat. With Highgate Cemetery itself a character and echoes of Henry James and Charles Dickens, "Her Fearful Symmetry" is a delicious and deadly twenty-first-century ghost story about Niffenegger's familiar themes of love, loss and identity.
~Waterstones

Even more good news – the long awaited movie of TTTW is scheduled for release on August 14th. Starring Rachel McAdams and Eric Bana, the movie is set and was filmed in Chicago – even better!



via Omnivoracious

Is This The Best They Got?

TW: The Republicans unlike the Dems tend to identify their POTUS candidates early. They are struggling as potential prospects drop like flys (Jindal- childish public speaking, Ensign- winky issues, Sanford- one can assume Buenes Aires is now off limits to 2012 candidates, Newt- general ickiness and Palin- ummm...puhleeeze). Haley Barbour actually might make it though. He is southern, former lobbyist, white, old and very conservative; a perfect match for his party. He and Mitt Romney could have a fine face-off in late 2011, early 2012.

Neither will win. The next Republican POTUS (2016 or 2020) will be a female and/or Hispanic, count on it.

From Economist:
"THIS report on the possible White House dreams of Haley Barbour, the Republican governor of Mississippi, is funnier than it should be. Mr Barbour dined with top Republican strategists on Monday night at the Caucus Room, "a steak place that Barbour co-founded along with Democratic lobbyist Tommy Boggs". (Mr Barbour, too, was a lobbyist.) His guests included a political director for George Bush, a veteran of Bob Dole's 1996 campaign, and a vice president of the American Gas Association.

Chris Cillizza, who broke the story, writes that it's "smart to do these sorts of sessions since they ensure that the inside-the-Beltway buzz surrounding his potential candidacy will keep up." Sure, but in what country? Who thinks that support from the oil industry can lift a former lobbyist into the White House? A steak dinner to launch a presidential bid; in 2009, it's almost quaint."

Cover Your Mouth Already

(via Feingut.de)

The Dangers Of Living In an Echo Chamber: Red State As an Alternative State

TW: As Mark Sanford's political career blew up today I would point you to the following as an exhibit of blind obedience to ideological politicians whilst slamming around within your own echo chamber. Below was from Erick Erickson at the Red State blog, a place where that 20% or so of the electorate hangs out to be fed unadulterated Fox-like, right-wing propaganda.

At a minimum Dems know winkies are a powerful challenge for male politicians we are a bit more cynical on this front.

UPDATE: Mr. Erickson wrote a follow-up here...net net being a governor, Sanford probably did not have access to a proper bible study group to make him see the error of his sinning...give me a fugging break.

From Red State blog:
"The Lessons of Mark Sanford’s Hike
Posted by Erick Erickson
Tuesday, June 23rd at 10:23AM EDT 80 Comments

First, we need to be clear on the facts — not the media speculation:

Sanford did tell his staff and family where he was going.

Because he was traveling without a security detail, it was in his best interests that no one knew he was gone.

His political enemies — Republicans at that — ginned up the media story.

When confronted by a pestering media, things went downhill.

Again though, at all times there was no doubt that Sanford’s staff and family knew where he was.

Now, here is all you need to know about this whole entire story — the reaction from the erstwhile Republicans angry at Sanford for not being a fiscal squish and from the media all go back to their core belief that without Sanford manning the barricades of government at all times, the government will collapse and people will starve, die, and forget how to read and write.

That’s it.

But that did not happen. Life in South Carolina went on. The world did not end. Government did not go off the rails. That the media and politicians would react as they did says more about their world view than anything else.

It is refreshing that Mark Sanford is secure enough in himself and the people of South Carolina that he does not view himself as an indispensable man."

Our Space Program In Limbo

TW: Above are prototypes for our next manned spacecraft. The one on the left is the Ares I in which astronauts would be launched into orbit. The lower stage is a modified space shuttle booster rocket. The astronauts would launch into lower orbit where they would meet up with equipment carried into space by the vehicle on the right, the Ares V. The Ares V being a modified Apollo rocket assisted by a couple of the Shuttle booster rockets.

The Ares I allegedly will fly in 2015. Allegedly because if it did it would be about the first space program to stay on schedule since Apollo. In the meantime we will have no manned space launch vehicles after next year when the Shuttle is meant to be retired.

Jay Barbree has a nice write-up below on the genesis of the Ares.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31496353/ns/technology_and_science-space/

The Ares vehicles are meant to be precursors to an American return to the moon in 2020 or so (again I would emphasize the "or so" part). I strongly believe in the manned space program as it symbolizes technological excellence, leadership and exploration of new frontiers.

Unfortunately our POTUS does not share my enthusiasm. The entire program is up for review with an August report due that is meant to articulate whether Obama et al. will continue with the Ares approach, suggest a new one or greatly scale back our ambitions. We shall see. In the mean time the Chinese and others are quietly readying their own projects which I suspect will soon accelerate past our's.

The Wilkins Micawber Corrosion

TW: I concur with Meacham (as usual). His point- politicians have cried wolf about fiscal deficits so many times, the resulting attitude is a Micawberian cynicism that something will come along to solve them. This dynamic is not particularly useful. It is also ripe for political demagoguery.

The Republicans have adopted a woe is the deficit attitude of late (about the same day W. Bush left office). As I have posted numerous times, fiscal contraction amidst a demand contraction is Hooverian. But this is a slightly subtle point missed by many voters, hence the demagoguery. What is VERY real is the need to address the deficits in the longer run, yet few and certainly no Republicans are willing or able to do so.

As Meacham mentions, the powerful will find a way to get along regardless of the insidious cancer of deficits, the less powerful are the ones who suffer most. We need investments in education, infrastructure etc. Without an enlightened electorate we will get less investment, more demagoguery and more deficits.

From Jon Meacham at Newsweek:
"...two troubling figures that foreshadow political problems for the president and, more important, intractable problems for all of us: 48 percent disapprove of his handling of the federal budget deficit, and 51 percent are unhappy with his control of federal spending...


Research by Bill McInturff and Peter Hart cited by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation puts the matter in even more telling perspective: 66 percent of registered voters say the deficit and debt pose a "very big threat to our country and its future," more than twice as many as say global warming does.

Such findings reflect a point conservatives have been making for months that you now hear more and more moderates echoing: that the vast projected deficits and rising national debt are not incidental issues, but central ones.

...Exhortations about deficits and debt are worthy but unglamorous. Count the clichés in the following: we are in danger of mortgaging our children's future because of the ticking entitlement time bomb that will lead us to a dark reckoning because we are living beyond our means and—did I mention we were mortgaging our children's future?...When it comes to economics, many of us tend to the thinking not of Smith or Keynes or Galbraith or Laffer but to that of Wilkins Micawber, the character in Dickens's David Copperfield who, confronted by the challenges of life, always held that "something will turn up." Given the largely mysterious workings of the economy—as in politics, clarity about events in real time comes mainly in retrospect—Micawberism is a fairly rational philosophy. But there is optimism, and then there is wishful thinking, which Eleanor Roosevelt called America's "besetting sin."

The Micawbers among us have history on their side, or at least recent history. Living beyond our means was supposed to kill us in the aftermath of the Reagan years, but the 1990 budget agreement and the technology boom led to record surpluses. We were running huge deficits as the Iraq War wore on, but still managed to find the billions upon billions to rescue the financial sector.

All of which makes it difficult for people to take red-ink apocalypticism very seriously. I would argue that the disconnect between the rhetoric of fiscal discipline and the reality of spending is important not only for the obvious economic reasons, but for less evident political ones, too.
The most familiar critique of deficits and debt is that they divert investment from new ventures and sap creativity. A country that must spend money to service its creditors has that many fewer dollars to create jobs, build schools or defend itself. That is certainly true, but the more pernicious effect of huge deficits and significant debt is that they feed cynicism, for experience tells us that there is never money for a program or an interest—except when there is.
Often something does turn up—but only for the well connected and the well organized. The politically powerful will always find the ways and means to secure their benefits and protect their interests. The losers in an economy constrained by deficits and debt will be the unconnected and the disorganized. The result is resentment and, ultimately, conflict: a dearth of money may lead to a decisively fragmented politics conducted with an intensity of passion usually reserved for issues of war and peace. Then the Micawbers will look anew for something to turn up. And they may find that Mrs. Roosevelt was right after all."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/201967