Category Archives: Current Affairs

Be Not Afraid

1 Reply

Lex has an excellent post about the bombings in Boston and what our reaction to it says about us as a society :

The cowards who planted the bombs want us to be afraid. But so do many of our leaders. “Be afraid,” they told us after 9/11. “Be afraid,” they told us after 7/7. “Be afraid,” they told us after 3/11. And why not? For the more afraid we are, the more of our freedoms they can take, and the more they have taken already. If you doubt me, look at what has happened to the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments after 9/11. And yet we worship the Second as if it were some Aztec idol into whose bloody maw the still-beating hearts of our countrymen must be thrown for appeasement, even as we know that no number of firearms could have prevented what happened today.

But no. Let us not be afraid. Not this time, and never again. This time, let us bury our dead, minister to our wounded, and comfort our bereaved as best we can even though we know for some there is no comfort and never will be. And then let us go live as the best Americans and the best human beings we can be, knowing that the time may come when any or all of us might have to run into the fire, like the cops and firefighters and EMTs did today, whether that fire be caused by a bomb or by the sociopathy of those, domestic and foreign, who would destroy what is best about America and who have run wild for far, far too long.

From the Boring But Important Files: Chained CPI

Leave a reply

This post marks the launch of a new category for this blog called Boring But Important (BBI). Today's BBI story is about chained CPI and why it might be responsible for decreases in social security. The details from Atlantic Wire:

The budget that President Obama introduced today calls for "$230 billion in savings from using a chained measure of inflation for cost-of-living adjustments throughout the Budget." Because the measure of inflation is so important when it comes paying Social Security benefits and setting tax rates, a minor technical change could have a huge ripple effect on the economy…

CPI is the Consumer Price Index, which is the most basic measure of inflation. It's an official, government-approved number produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and all kinds of government and private programs rely on the CPI to make yearly adjustments for the cost of living.

Early in the last decade, economists began to argue that CPI is not the most accurate measure of inflation, because it merely aggregates prices and doesn't take into account how people spend their money in the real world. Specifically, it doesn't account for consumers' ability to substitute one product for another when prices change. (For example, if the price of butter goes up, people can switch to margarineand save money. Click here for more discussion of the "substitution effect.") So in 2002, the BLS createdthe Chained CPI, which many experts say is a better measure of the actual "cost of living." (For some people, anyway. We'll get back to that in a bit.) That's why it's also known as Superlative CPI.

Not only is the Chained CPI more accurate, it predicts that inflation grows at a slower rate than regular CPI. In any given year, the difference between the two numbers is minor—only about one-third of one percent—but over time, the effect on budgets can be massive. Because each year's CPI is based off the previous year's number, the effect compounds, meaning a small change now creates a huge difference in the final number 10 or 20 years down the road. Switching from regular to Chained (again, a 0.3-percent difference each year) would save more than $200 billion in inflation-mandated spending over the next decade.

Anyone who's been paying attention knows that we average Americans suck at math. Maybe that's what they're counting on.

They’ve Got B.O. and Heartburn and Gas

1 Reply

Former Republican US Senator Alan Simpson, quoted in an interview by the LA Times in reference to "tea party-inspired Republicans":

He reserved his greatest contempt for the tea party-inspired Republicans who equate compromise with capitulation and view obstruction as progress. "Some of them," he said, "are as rigid as a fireplace poker, but without the occasional warmth."

He leaned forward, stabbing a bony finger into a wood conference table. "Let me tell you something, pal: If you are a legislator and you can't learn to compromise an issue without compromising yourself, get out of the business. In fact, don't ever get married, either. You don't want any part of that."

Compromise is the only way anything has ever gotten done, he went on, going back to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both of which amounted to more give than take. "They don't like that," he said of the tea partyers’ unwillingness to bargain. "They get nasty. They smell bad. They've got b.o. and heartburn and gas. They're seethers."

HT to Fec for the link.

$22 Trillion Here, $22 Trillion There

Leave a reply

The GAO was tasked with studying the impact of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law to help determine what it's economic impact would be. So what did they find?

The 2008 financial crisis cost the U.S. economy more than $22 trillion, a study by the Government Accountability Office published Thursday said. The financial reform law that aims to prevent another crisis, by contrast, will cost a fraction of that…

The report, five years after the collapse of mortgage-focused hedge funds in late-2007 set off a yearlong banking panic and a deep recession, was published as part of a cost-benefit analysis of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law of 2010. The GAO tried to determine if the benefits of preventing a future economic meltdown exceeded the costs of implementing that law.

"If the cost of a future crisis is expected to be in the trillions of dollars, then the act likely would need to reduce the probability of a future financial crisis by only a small percent for its expected benefit to equal the act’s expected cost," the GAO concluded.

Obviously the banksters disagree.

Land of the Free, Home of the Afraid?

Leave a reply

On Facebook a friend recently shared an article from The Atlantic titled "A Repbublic Demands Courage From Its Citizens" that essentially calls into question most Americans' perception that America is indeed the Land of the Brave. The piece focuses on our willingness to set aside the values that have largely defined our society for generations – basically we're against torture and for civil rights – in reaction to threats that aren't really as bad as we perceive them to be. From the article:

We have suffered several thousand casualties from 9/11 through today. Suppose we had a 9/11-level attack with 3,000 casualties per year every year. Each person reading this would face a probability of death from this source of about 0.001% each year. A Republic demands courage — not foolhardy and unsustainable "principle at all costs," but reasoned courage — from its citizens …. To demand that the government "keep us safe" by doing things out of our sight that we have refused to do in much more serious situations so that we can avoid such a risk is weak and pathetic. It is the demand of spoiled children, or the cosseted residents of the imperial city. In the actual situation we face, to demand that our government waterboard detainees in dark cells is cowardice…

Look at it this way. 

There were almost 10,000 drunk-driving fatalities in 2011 alone. That's the equivalent of three 9/11s in people killed, plus many more seriously injured, every year. Is a majority of Americans ready to lower the blood alcohol limit to 0.01 and to mandate breathalyzers on all ignition switches? Nope. That would be an onerous government intrusion on liberty. I'm fine with that. But it vexes me when the same citizenry faces the significantly lower risk that terrorists pose, spends far more on prevention, and still insists that targeted killings in Yemen and Somalia can't be constrained, because taking more care to save innocents would threaten us. 

These concerns are very real. Simply ask yourself this question: If Canada's  Security Intelligence Service were to fly drones into Michigan and fire missiles at well-armored SUVs that they had strong evidence were carrying gun runners who were directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Canadian citizens, and in the process they accidentally killed four American families who happened to be traveling in the vicinity on their way home from a church picnic, how would you as an American feel about it? Horrified? Terrified? Incensed? You bet. Now ask yourself this: After an episode like this how would we Americans react to Canada insisting that we do something to take care of our gun problem? Would we see the Canadians as a well-intentioned society trying to be the world's "good cop" or would we see them as vigilantes willing to suspend any semblance of due process and recklessly endanger innocents in an effort to protect its own citizens? 

The point is that many of America's practices during its War on Terror have eroded our moral standing in the world, and while our "hawks" would like us to believe that our practices convey an image of strength to the world the reality is that our society is exhibiting cowardice.  Don't confuse that notion with the notion that our armed forces are perceived as weak – to the contrary they've exibited a great deal of courage and fortitude over the last decade after being put in some very tough positions – but our society can only appear weak when we overreact to a threat that is not as great as it's perceived and when we abandon core principles that have always defined our society.  As the first paragraph in the excerpt makes clear it's not that we shouldn't fight back against terrorists, it's that we should do so in a way that's proportional to the threat and without sacrificing our principles. 

In a nutshell we need to grow some you-know-whats and we should demand our elected leaders do the same.

Priorities

Leave a reply

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), a.k.a. Obamacare, is starting to kick into gear and states are having to make decisions about how they are going to participate. Here in North Carolina the state legislature is considering opting-out of the expansion of Medicaid called for by the ACA:

Legislation is moving forward in the General Assembly to opt out of the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. The expansion would provide health insurance to people living in households with incomes below 133 percent of the poverty line. The federal government would cover 100 percent of the costs for the first three years and 90 percent of the costs thereafter.

Besides extending coverage to about 400,000 poor NC residents who wouldn't get health insurance otherwise, the expansion would bring in $40 billion on net (about $50 billion in total spending), which would jolt the economy and create jobs.

A new report by Regional Economic Models, Inc. forecasts that the expansion would add nearly 6,000 jobs to the NC economy in the first year of the expansion, as participation in Medicaid starts to grow, and 20,000 to 25,000 jobs in subsequent years, as participation stabilizes at a higher level.

It's no secret, or a surprise, that the newly empowered Republican majority in the NC legislature is opposed to the ACA. Most conservatives I've talked to would like to see entitlements of all varieties cut rather than expanded, and if you avoid getting all hot and bothered and really listen to them you realize it's not out of meanness. Many of them truly believe that we're robbing an entire generation of any incentive to improve their own lot. Most I've talked to absolutely believe we should help the truly helpless, but defining who the truly helpless are and determining how best to help them can get you into some heated debates faster than you can say Obamacare.

On the flip side most liberals I know truly believe that as a society it's in our best interest to make sure that all people have access to good health care. Most I've talked to view it as a moral issue – we should do it because it's right. 

Here's where I get frustrated: I think there's a middle ground between the two groups. I too think there's a moral obligation to do everything we can to make sure all members of our society have access to health care, but I also think there's a solid "business case" to be made for it. A healthy society by definition will be more efficient than a sick society, and the resources tied up in caring for very sick people could be better spent elsewhere.

Put simply sick people have a hard time working or contributing to society in a meaningful way, and if you want to institute reforms in other areas of our entitlement programs – for instance requiring X hours of community service in return for Y dollars of aid – then you need to make sure they are healthy at a bare minimum. We can debate the details all day long, but in terms of priorities I don't know how you can put health care anywhere below the very top tier.

Words Are Important

Leave a reply

Have you seen the latest Volkswagen commercial? If not take a look:

As you can see it's basically a funny take on the whole laid-back/chill island thing that most of the world associates with Jamaica. No problem right? Wrong. Apparently some people think that it's racist:

The controversy got its start on CNN yesterday when Jamaican-born Christopher John Farley of the Wall Street Journal said: "Although I love you featuring Jimmy Cliff in the ad, a terrific Jamaican performance, the Jamaican accent did sort of strike me as Jar Jar Binks-ish." The New York Times's Charles Blow had a more intense reaction, saying the accent was "like blackface with voices." The commercial was discussed this morning on the Today show and their "ad expert" Barbara Lippert, the editor-at-large of MediaPost.com, said "this is so racist." 

It's probably not surprising that someone would take offense to the ad – What doesn't offend someone these days? – but that last statement in particular is just ridiculous. How is it racist? Jamaicans aren't a race, they're a culture.  As is pointed out later in the post linked above, there are plenty of white Jamaicans.  If this ad is racist then so are all of the Lucky Charms ads that play on Irish accents, Leprechauns and all of our cultural preconceptions about Ireland. And the Swedish Bikini team? Don't even go there.

While it may seem like splitting hairs to call out critics for saying the VW ad is racist when at most it's a cultural charicature, there's really an important point to be made. Calling something racist when it isn't distracts us from the truly racist acts that occur every day. Folks like Barbara Lippert, whether they mean to or not, are acting like our society's Chicken Littles, screaming racism so often that no one will pay attention when the real thing happens.

Teach the World to Sing in Perfect Harmony

Leave a reply

Seven years before Coke aired its iconic peace-and-harmony I'd Like to Buy the World a Coke  TV ad, the company's CEO staked out a controversial position in Atlanta, GA, the home of the company's headquarters. From Now I Know:

The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was born in Atlanta, Georgia on January 15, 1929. On October 14, 1964, he became the youngest person to ever win the Nobel Peace Prize.  And his home town of Atlanta wanted to throw him a party: an inter-racial banquet, with official invitations going to the city’s leaders and titans of industry.  The invites were signed by the city’s mayor, religious leaders from across faiths, a university president, and the publisher of the major area newspaper.

Unfortunately, Atlanta was still racially segregated, and while King had many fans, he also had many enemies.  Many whites were upset that King had been honored by the Nobel committee… Invitations to the highly exclusive event came back with many more declinations than one would expect…

Mayor Allen and J. Paul Austin, the chairman and CEO of the Coca-Cola Company, called together a meeting of the Atlanta’s business leaders, and Austin threw down the gauntlet.  According to the Atlanta Constitution-Journal, Austin told those assembled that “it is embarrassing for Coca-Cola to be located in a city that refuses to honor its Nobel Prize winner. We are an international business. The Coca-Cola Company does not need Atlanta. You all need to decide whether Atlanta needs the Coca-Cola Company.”

They decided.  Within two hours, all of the tickets were sold…

For your viewing pleasure today we have two videos – the Coke ad mentioned above and Dr. King's I Have a Dream speech. Enjoy.

Is the NRA Really All That?

Leave a reply

The National Rifle Association's political clout has long been feared by politicians in the US, but that fear may be misplaced. From an interesting piece at The Atlantic Wire:

Much of the decline in the clout of the NRA is traceable to what has changed in American politics generally and the Republican Party in particular. The NRA is often cited as the reason the Democrats suffered massive losses in the 1994 midterm elections, by both reporters and even Bill Clinton. But a lot has changed since 1994. Democrats may have lost most of the South in those midterms and those southern Republican states are still where the NRA is strongest. As The New Republic's Nate Cohn explained, "pro-gun voters are lost to Republicans, and probably for good." Put simply: no one thinks NRA members would vote for a gun-toting Democrat. The NRA's political fortunes are tied up with the Republican Party's and the NRA's campaign donations reflect this: it supports vastly more Republicans than Democrats. (A comment from an October 2012 Hot Air post: "I’m still PISSED because the NRA endorsed Harry Reid. There’s ‘stupid’, and then there is ‘absolutely stupid’." The endorsement, in that case, does not appear to have delivered a vote.) And yet since the NRA's asendancy, Democrats have still managed to win national elections and congressional majorities. When Obama won Ohio and Virginia, it was by focusing on the cities and suburbs, not rural voters. "To win nationally, Republicans will need to reclaim the socially moderate suburbs around Denver, Washington, and Philadelphia where gun control is at least a neutral issue, if not a real asset to Democrats," Cohn writes.

In other words if you're a Democrat the NRA can't help you and they can only minimally juice the numbers of the voting block you've already lost anyway. In the larger national picture the NRA holds sway in places that are already heavily Republican so why should the Democratic Party worry about it at all since the group has minimal influence in areas that sway elections these days – those being the suburbs in large metro areas?

Here's a thought: the NRA is more afraid that it's losing its clout than it's afraid of a ban on assault weapons. That might help explain the craziness emanating from NRA HQ these days.