Month: May 2006

Solve the costs first

Perhaps the proper definition of frivolous spending should not be based on price or culture, but should include some provision for a cost-benefit analysis:

The debt of the typical American family earning about $45,000 a year rose 33.1 percent from 2001 to 2004, after adjusting for inflation, according to a study based on data compiled from the Federal Reserve Board’s most recent Survey of Consumer Finances. The Fed report, released in February, gave raw numbers on debt levels. The new study analyzed the data more closely to determine the sources of debt. It was conducted by the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank that describes itself as progressive and is run by former Clinton White House chief of staff John D. Podesta.

Real wages, after adjusting for inflation, have been flat since 2001, according to the study, while the cost of big-ticket items for which families pay the most rose. In the past five years, the costs of medical care, housing, food, cars and household operations rose 11.2 percent, the study said. Many families are trying to make up the difference by borrowing, according to Christian E. Weller, author of the report and a senior economist at the center.

“Very little can be explained by frivolous consumer spending,” Weller said. His views were echoed in a news conference by Elizabeth Warren, a law professor at Harvard University who analyzed the sources of debt that emerge in bankruptcy filings and reviewed the results of Weller’s study.

That’s a lot of build up to show that for me to deliver the punchline. Maybe Mr. Weller and Dr. Warren should’ve talked before the press conference, since they clearly didn’t. Rule number one when dealing with an accomplice is surely “get your stories straight”:

Many families, particularly middle-income households, aren’t acknowledging that declining incomes mean they must radically adjust their standards of living, according to Weller and Warren. Warren suggested that families that can no longer realistically afford their single-family houses should move to condominiums, consider limiting their families to a single automobile, get second jobs to pay off debt, or move to less expensive school districts that may not have the highest test scores but where children perform acceptably well.

Ah, yes. The same way we’re perpetually struggling to get ahead financially the way our parents did because everything is just so much more expensive. We ignore that we now consider an 1,800 square feet home unacceptable, even though we grew up in a home with only 800 square feet and no central air conditioning. When expectations and demands grow ahead of income, something will go wrong. How is debt a surprise?

Of all the examples attributed to Dr. Warren, none clearly indicate anything other than the average American family’s view of reality is askew. Exactly the same way Congress is driving us to bankruptcy, a family that sees its excess spending problem as most immediately solved by more debt should not be surprised by the trouble it encounters. When I spent myself into credit card debt in college because I needed to have the things I didn’t need, and couldn’t afford, I paid for it throughout my twenties with fewer luxury items. When all the cool kids in my income bracket had cell phones, I didn’t. When they had BMWs, I had a Volkswagen. When they lived in the hip, urban part of Northern Virginia, I lived in the lower middle-class neighborhood. Eventually I paid those debts off, which would allow me to catch up materially. I haven’t done it, which was a useful lesson. And I got it without waiting for someone to rescue me from myself.

More thoughts at Cafe Hayek

I’m picturing Dom DeLuise as president

Count me among those not surprised by this news:

The Army Reserve, taxed by recruiting shortfalls and war-zone duty, has adopted a policy barring officers from leaving the service if their field is undermanned or they have not been deployed to Iraq, to Afghanistan or for homeland defense missions.
…

At the heart of the controversy is whether a law stating that commissioned reserve officers are appointed “for an indefinite term and are held during the pleasure of the President” gives the government the power to force them to serve permanently — as Army lawyers say — or only to discharge them against their will.

It’s an interesting debate, and if we are to continue with an all-volunteer army in which people actually wish to volunteer, the proper interpretation of that phrase seems clear. A reserve officer who has met his obligation should be allowed to resign.

That said, a court will decide, as it must whenever ridiculous, unclear language is used to craft legislation. Is “during the pleasure of the President” the worst phrase ever rendered by a legislative body? Legislative language surrounding obscenity probably trumps that, so let me be more specific. Could there be another law more tailored to fit the grandiose power ambitions of the current administration? I imagine Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzalez commenting that “during the pleasure of the President” is a particularly wonderful phrase. I’m sure it’s being added to all future signing statements. All that’s left to wonder is whether or not they feed grapes to President Bush upon command.

Solving the gas crisis, one giveaway at a time

Congress is putting our money where its mouth is:

Scientists, inventors and entrepreneurs will be able to vie for a grand prize of $10 million, and smaller prizes reaching millions of dollars, under House-passed legislation to encourage research into hydrogen as an alternative fuel.

Legislation creating the “H-Prize,” modeled after the privately funded Ansari X Prize that resulted last year in the first privately developed manned rocket to reach space twice, passed the House Wednesday on a 416-6 vote. A companion bill is to be introduced in the Senate this week.

Yay? From a budgetary impact, the prize is only $10 million. When the government spends almost $3 trillion, who will miss it? (That’s not a sufficient reason, of course, as there are many “no one will miss it” appropriations.) But here’s a question: what if hydrogen isn’t the eventual best solution to switching from oil? In that scenario, either this incentive pushes entrepreneurs and scientists into sub-optimal research, or the prize is ignored or awarded to the best of the worst ideas to solving the energy crisis. At least Congress did something. No doubt subsidies for hydrogen access (supplies, stations) will follow.

Naturally, many grandiose statements must flow from the hallowed halls of Congress, since no politician wants to avoid credit for the inevitable success.

“This is an opportunity for a triple play,” said bill sponsor Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., citing benefits to national security from reduced dependence on foreign oil, cleaner air from burning pollution-free hydrogen and new jobs. “If we can reinvent the car, imagine the jobs we can create.”

I am imagining them. And so are the entrepreneurs most likely to take the investment risk necessary to create a viable alternative to the gas engine. And so are the automotive unions who will lobby Congress to protect their jobs when the technology changes on them. A rational person understands that economic and technological growth is not a zero-sum game, but he also understands that it’s not an infinity-sum game.

“Perhaps the greatest role that the H-Prize may serve is in spurring the imagination of our most valuable resource, our youth,” said co-sponsor Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill.

Really, I have nothing insightful to say on that, other than score one for Rep. Lipinski for finding a creative way to insert “for the children” into the discussion. I should’ve anticipated it, but I’m not sure I would’ve come up with that. Granted, my view is tainted by my brother, who will enter college in the fall, and his desire to be an engineer. Amazingly, that desire grew without the influence of a $10 million prize from the federal government. I’m sure he’ll study harder because of this, so it’s worth it.

The Ignorant Society creates real unhappiness

In an otherwise interesting article examining how vibrant, growing societies should expect unhappiness as a useful by-product and driving force, Robert Samuelson slips this nugget into his refutation of John Kenneth Galbraith’s “The Affluent Society”:

It’s often said that only the rich are getting ahead; everyone else is standing still or falling behind. Well, there are many undeserving rich — overpaid chief executives, for instance. But over any meaningful period, most people’s incomes are increasing. From 1995 to 2004, inflation-adjusted median family income — for families precisely in the middle — rose 14.3 percent, to $43,200, the Federal Reserve says. People feel “squeezed” because their rising incomes often don’t satisfy their rising wants — for bigger homes, more health care, more education, faster Internet connections.

We feel like we’re falling behind, when in fact we’re progressing rapidly. Whatever the reason we accept the lie, be it politicians, academics, or our own intellectual laziness, the myth about the “good ol’ days” doesn’t die. So, why is it that we must accept, without any other objective criteria, that chief executives are a) overpaid and b) undeserving of the incomes they earn? Perhaps an example from Mr. Samuelson would be useful. Without one, I can only assume he wishes to fall into the trap of believing whatever media story appears on the morning paper’s front page. Why?

Everything else he wrote in the article suggests that the free market works best for satisfying (and creating) needs. This is deemed “good”. But how can we accept that it’s good if the we toss around negative adjectives with only subjective criteria as support? The chief executives negotiated a contract with their employers. We must assume both sides are happy. To a country’s citizens who are not shareholders of the company, the results should count for squat. Don’t like the executive’s pay? Don’t do business with the company. That might even work towards filling unhappiness associated with prosperity.

Making baseless claims about the exception that proves the rule only provides the statists with incorrect ammunition.

Conclusion: The journey means nothing

I love theories:

Several colleges and universities are reporting significant declines in average scores on the new SAT test, leading many high school counselors and college admissions officers to conclude that the longer exam is wearing out test takers and hurting their performance.
…

USA Today, which reported the score drops in today’s edition, said some colleges reported no score declines but others reported large drops, such as 28 points at Lebanon Valley College in Annville, Penn., and 23 points at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Tex.

Is it possible that the average student applying to some of these schools is different than in the past? More people being enticed to apply to college, the football team is winning, or some other factor? Probable? Who knows, and really, who cares… What’s important is the simple fact that standardized tests shouldn’t be such a huge factor in the application process. If the test is too exhausting, imagine what four years of high school is like. Or, the admissions offices could just look at the transcript of those four years that (allegedly) filter into that test.

The result could also just be the result of our nationalized education system dumbing our students into being able to regurgitate facts without any critical thinking. Perhaps that has something to do with this:

Charles A. Deacon, dean of admissions at Georgetown University, said the average applicant for his freshman class had a score on those two sections 7 points below last year’s average. He said his own study of the old and new tests suggests the drop may be explained by more emphasis on reading in the new test, which has for years gotten lower scores than writing.

When in doubt, resort back to the most basic assumption of what education should be. In the business world, I don’t care if someone knows a few trivia questions. A thinking person could find that in under a minute with Google and a few keystrokes. Give me someone who knows how to analyze and solve problems. I don’t believe I’m alone. Athletes don’t train for marathons by driving 26.2 miles every day. Learning is no different.

Perhaps a Madison descendant, instead?

Dynastic arrogance is one reason, among many, that I will not vote for Hilary Clinton in 2008 if she wins the nomination. So what does President Bush have to gain with the same thinking, especially at a time when America seems to be disinclined to buy the Bush brand name.

“I would like to see Jeb run at some point in time, but I have no idea if that’s his intention or not,” [President] Bush said in an interview with Florida reporters, according to a story on the St. Petersburg Times Web site.

If that sounds familiar, the Bush brothers’ father, former president George H.W. Bush, made a similar statement last year, telling CNN’s Larry King that Jeb Bush would be “awfully good” as president.

“This guy’s smart, big and strong. Makes the decisions,” the first President Bush said then.

Can we please have a viable third party candidate in 2008? Some sense of a respect for America would be helpful.

Should death certificates cite “Insufficient Socialism”?

I don’t know if this is the alleged cause as determined by the study or if it’s a bias slipped in by the journalist reporting on the study, but this bit from a story on infant mortality rates, and how America is second only to Latvia among the industrialized world in infant deaths. Consider:

The researchers also said lack of national health insurance and short maternity leaves likely contribute to the poor U.S. rankings.

Saying that lack of national health insurance is a cause is the same as saying that I still have student loans because I didn’t have a rich benefactor when I graduated from college. It’s one possible argument, but it’s preposterous to think of it as causative, or even related, really. I have student loans because I racked up credit card debt during college. Where many people my age paid down student loans, I paid Visa.

In the case of this study, health insurance affordability and access may (and probably do) have a significant contributory impact to high infant mortality rates. Preventive care works wonders, as we surely know by now. But there is no way to realistically gauge that national health insurance is the solution to reducing infant deaths. Any reasonable study of economics suggests it could reduce the rate, but at the likely expense of some other group. What trade-offs shall we start making to get the preferred ideological solution to health care in America? Or would it make sense to say that inadequate health care access and affordability are contributing factors, and work to find a solution to that conundrum that leaves open a much broader range of options? Remember, keeping kids alive and healthy is supposed to be the goal.

Day 18 of D-E-Double Hockey Sticks

Over the last eighteen days, I’ve begun to understand “Dell Hell.” Currently, my laptop is in Memphis for repair for the third time since it died in April. During its first repair attempt, Dell replaced the fan and heat sink. When I received the laptop back, I was able to recreate the problem in 50 minutes. When I called, Dell admitted that its staff turned my computer on and let it run for 45 minutes before sending it back. They didn’t bother to examine the laptop to determine a cause. The hardware technician did not diagnose anything beyond what the phone representative imagined as the cause, hence the limited, ineffectual repair.

On its second attempt, Dell replaced the fan, heat sink, and CPU. I do not understand why they believed that a part they replaced a few days before would be the cause of the original problem. The phone representative noted in my case that the next repair attempt should include the motherboard. This did not happen, as I said. When I received the laptop from the repair depot, I managed to kill it in 35 minutes, replicating the original problem by playing a DVD.

So now my laptop is on its third journey. I have no faith that my laptop will be fixed whenever it returns, but that’s mitigated by the knowledge that Dell must continue trying until the problem is resolved. Of course, I have to remind them of that every time I’ve called them, which is frustrating. Why no one at Dell can grasp the simple concept that, because my laptop failed during the warranty period, it is irrelevant that my warranty has since expired if the original problem hasn’t been fixed. Especially when they’ve admitted that they didn’t bother to run a thorough diagnostic or post-repair test.

I’ve learned a few things during this ordeal. Dell is clearly incompetent, which I think is all that works as an explanation. There is an upside to this: my laptop will have all new insides by the time this is resolved. It’s unfortunate that I’m not earning frequent flier miles for all the trips the computer is making to Memphis.

I won’t be buying anything from Dell in the future.

Post Script: Composing anything worth reading on a PocketPC is still virtually impossible, not to mention the hand cramping it causes. Regular blogging will resume soon.

Is this the exception to the general truth?

From today’s Opinion Journal:

Need an antidote to the Moussaoui verdict? Go out this weekend to see “United 93.”
Zacarias Moussaoui is lucky the jurors at his sentencing trial weren’t allowed to see the movie “United 93” the day before reaching a verdict. If they had, rather than handing him life in prison, it is likely that one or more of the jurors would have come out of the box to deliver the death sentence himself–just as the four doomed men on Flight 93 charged their hijackers to stop its fanatic pilots from flying the airliner into another American building.

I wonder if Peggy Noonan still believes that Americans are ambivalent about the death penalty?

Some will say the Moussaoui life sentence merely proves that we in the U.S. are beyond biblical justice, beyond an eye for an eye, even if our Islamic enemies do not bother to claim any grievance larger than resentment to justify the most startling slaughter of innocents all over the world. This argument–that the refusal to impose the death penalty on Moussaoui shows “we are not like them”–might have been entertainable before September 11. It may no longer be.

Guilty, I guess, but it’ll take more than saying that the world changed on September 11th to convince me my viewpoint is wrong. It’s the same excuse used for why we must give up some of our liberties in the pursuit of safety. The argument doesn’t work there, either.

… But perhaps you no longer know September 11 as well as you think. In this week of the Moussaoui life sentence, it is pertinent to ask whether the days and seasons we’ve traveled from the time of September 11 have returned the people of America to a routine that feels more normal than perhaps it should. Our sense of normalcy may not be in our best interest.

As an example, one thought that occurred in the hour after seeing “United 93” had to do with the recent debate in the U.S. over the warrantless wiretapping of suspected phone calls between terrorists. In that hour, this “debate” seemed quite otherworldly. It is unlikely that in the first six months after September 11 Sen. Arlen Specter would ever have thought to intone that the wiretapping program was “in flat violation” of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But he does now. Times change.

I’m blogging the essay as I’m reading it, so my response here is a mix of laughter and defeat. Can the Wall Street Journal’s editors become any more apologetic for the Bush Administration’s desecration of the Constitution?

There is reason to believe that pre-9/11 thinking will in time return and prevail.
Defenders of Moussaoui’s life sentence say he will “rot in prison.” Perhaps in a better world Zacarias Moussaoui would share a cell with Hannibal Lecter. But if our moral betters aren’t going to let Saddam’s torturers rot in Abu Ghraib, if they aren’t going to let the CIA’s most important al Qaeda captives rot in “secret” foreign prisons, they certainly aren’t going to let Moussaoui rot in Florence, Colo. He will be treated more than well.

I used the word “rot” this morning, so I’ll the criticism. But perhaps the editors should research the definition of “rot”. It is not synonymous with “torture”. So, again, I refer back to Ms. Noonan’s words I quoted this morning. People who deplore Moussaoui’s life sentence as a lack of testicular fortitude by the jury aren’t what I’d term “ambivalent” about the death penalty.

Not to mention the Moussaoui trial itself. … But our moral betters insist that the whole lot of Guantanamo detainees be given access to this same system of justice. They would diminish and crush it.

How weak is our justice system, really, if it keeps someone like Moussaoui from attacking America during the four years of his trial? Him making clearly ludicrous statements, proving that he’s a psychopath more than anything, is a threat to our country? I guess this is the part where I remember that words are dangerous, our Republic can’t withstand criticism, and might is right.