Month: March 2007

Carefully chosen words are not an accident.

I haven’t tracked the developing scandal involving the Bush administration’s Justice Department’s firing of eight U.S. attorneys for what appears to be little more than insufficient prosecutorial partisanship at Rolling Doughnut, but I’ve paid enough attention to figure out that something’s rotten. I have no confidence that it won’t get swept away and ignored from the viewpoint of consequences. Still, I’m stunned that those involved think we’re this stupid:

At a Justice Department news conference, [Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales said he would find out why Congress was not told sooner that the White House was involved in discussions of who would be fired and when. He did not, however, back away his stance that the dismissals that did take place were appropriate.

“I stand by the decision and I think it was the right decision,” Gonzales said.

The White House said President Bush retains full confidence in the attorney general. “He’s a stand-up guy,” White House counselor Dan Bartlett said in Mexico, where he was traveling with the president.

Let me know how well that investigation into the delay goes. I bet it’ll be carried out with the same expediency with which the Bush administration’s connection was revealed. Until then, we have assurances from both sides that each side is filled with nothing but upstanding statesmen. Yeah, right.

For example, a semi-skilled individual could read this statement from the Attorney General and get the impression that he feels he’s above such demeaning tasks as keeping the Congress informed.

“Obviously I am concerned about the fact that information _ incomplete information was communicated or may have been communicated to the Congress,” Gonzales said. “I believe very strongly in our obligation to ensure that when we provide information to the Congress, it is accurate and it is complete. And I very dismayed that that may not have occurred here.”

He’s making zero claim that he’s obligated to report such information, only that when he decides to provide it, it should be accurate and complete. Thanks for the clarification, but I’ll take a little more regularly-scheduled oversight with my Department of Justice government.

Which cellular service will each candidate endorse?

If it walks like a duck…

What’s the closest thing in politics to a religious experience? The ethanol conversion.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) experienced one in May of last year. Long opposed to federal support for the corn-based biofuel, she reversed herself and endorsed even bigger ethanol incentives than she previously voted against. Now running for president, Clinton is promoting a $50 billion strategic energy fund, laden with more ethanol perks.

Political opponents depict Clinton’s about-face as pandering to Iowa Democrats, who will cast the first votes of the 2008 nominating season. …

That’s the most obvious explanation, and the one that came to my mind first. But it doesn’t really matter what reasoning she used. In the best analysis of her switch, she believes that the free market can’t figure out a viable solution to our dependence on oil. If ethanol is so wonderful, it will succeed without government help. If it needs government help to succeed, it isn’t the solution. Senator Clinton’s opinion is irrelevant, other than to broadcast how she would treat the economy as president. If this is any evidence at all, I’ll pass.

Further into the article, the reporter claims that a candidate having an opinion on how to use ethanol is now expected, so it gains little for anyone. Essentially, we now expect our political candidates to inform us which products we should choose. Forgive me for having a brain and an independent streak, but I’m more than qualified to figure out how to choose for myself. I also trust other individuals and businesses to search for opportunities in the marketplace, whether or not that marketplace exists today. Human history is full of examples. That includes energy sources. No politicians necessary.

I don’t know which part to praise most.

This is the most sensible article I’ve read concerning circumcision as an HIV prevention tool. It’s brilliant from start to finish. An excerpt:

All of a sudden a quick and cheap solution to reducing the ravages of AIDS seemed at hand; line up all males, nip off their foreskins, and voila, you have reduced the possibilities of future HIV infections by half!

Among the few voices that expressed caution was that of Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni, who said he didn’t think it was that simple. Museveni should know. Uganda, after all, has Africa’s — and one of the developing world’s — best record in reducing HIV infections. In the 1990s, Uganda had among the highest infection rates in Africa of well over 30 percent. In the last eight or so years, it has sliced that down to just under 6 per cent. The awards Museveni has received for this achievement can fill the State House garage.

I don’t know anything about the science of this study to fault or laud it. But its politics are very troubling.

Read the whole thing. It’s worth your time.

Good Luck Collecting This

Here’s one more inconvenient blip on the ethical radar:

The world could have a new vaccine designed to kill the AIDS virus in as little as three to four years according to an Atlanta-based group working on the vaccine.
…

The vaccine works using a one-two pharmaceutical punch to prime the body then kill the virus.

“It raises both antibodies that can block the virus and it raises white blood cells called t cells that can kill the virus infected cells,” said Dr. Robinson. “So it really has two methods of controlling an HIV/AIDS infection once it enters the body.”

Will this work out? No one can know for sure, but if it does work within 15 years or so, many people will owe a significant apology to millions of boys around the world. The apology wouldn’t be worth much, but they’d still owe it.

Via Fark.

Reducing spending should be step two.

I’m not optimistic:

Key House leaders are pushing to sharply limit the scope of the alternative minimum tax, providing relief to many families who already pay the unpopular levy as well as millions more who would be hit for the first time next year.
…

“This system originally designed to catch millionaires who were avoiding taxes with excessive deductions has gone seriously awry. It is my intention to offer a permanent solution to AMT,” Rep. Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on select revenue measures, said yesterday during the first of two hearings on the issue.

No good solution will arise from an underlying assumption that adds excessive to deductions. If a deduction is excessive, Congress is to blame for creating that deduction. It is to blame for complicating the tax code with social engineering garbage. It sold the tax code to willing bidders and now we’re supposed to believe it wants to fix that at the same time it places blame on “the rich”. For example:

“We may be talking about redirecting those tax cuts,” [Rep. Charles] Rangel said this weekend on “Fox News Sunday.” “Within the system, there can be more equity without increasing the tax burden.”

Let’s just write the non-solution’s script now. Include the rich, the poor, income inequality, fairness, working taxpayers, middle class, economic uncertainty, job insecurity, and family values. Agitate. Pour during October. Repeat in 2008.

The worst part is the reality that this diversionary scheme works.

Buying Anti-Competitive Protection

Here is a perfect example of why I would never join a labor union:

Leaders of the AFL-CIO pledged yesterday to consult more widely with workers before making a decision about endorsing a candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination and strongly urged individual unions not to back any candidate until later in the fall.
…

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, outlined the evaluation process at a news conference in Las Vegas.

“The breadth and depth of our effort to engage union members and their families in the 2008 presidential endorsement process will be unparalleled,” Sweeney said.

He means the 2008 Democratic president endorsement process, of course. What about those union members who wouldn’t vote for a Democrat? If they would vote Democrat, what about those who support a different candidate? Too bad, I guess, except their money is compelled. That’s obscene.

Congress legislates against fixing a problem it created.

What is the government qualified to do?

Stored in such places as the vacant land near an airfield in Hope, Ark., an industrial park in Cumberland, Md., and a warehouse in Edison, N.J., are the results of one of the federal government’s costliest stumbles in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina — tens of thousands of empty trailers.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency hurriedly bought 145,000 trailers and mobile homes just before and after Katrina hit, spending $2.7 billion largely through no-bid contracts. Now, it is selling off as many as 41,000 of the homes, netting, so far, about 40 cents on each dollar spent by taxpayers.
…

FEMA cannot sell unused mobile homes directly to the public because of legislation passed by Congress in October at the industry’s urging. Instead, the agency must now go through a time-consuming process of trying to donate them first to federal, state and local agencies and public service groups, according to the Manufactured Housing Institute’s Web site.

Remind me why I should be enthusiastic about government-managed health care or schools or . Every process becomes politicized and designed to protect he who lobbies hardest and with the most cash. This is not the fault of the money. Politicians are corrupt. They should not be allowed near any task that isn’t in the Constitution.

“While FEMA has 8,420 brand new, fully furnished, never-used mobile homes in a cow pasture in Hope, Arkansas, they refuse to provide the people from Desha, Back Gate and Dumas counties with help. This is crazy,” said Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.). “If this is the new and improved FEMA, I don’t want any part of it.”

Fair enough, but if it worked as Rep. Ross wants, I wouldn’t want any part of it. That’s the point of not having the government meddle in things it’s not capable of doing. Someone will be abused. Keep out, expect people to be responsible, and let the private market take care of those who can’t or won’t. It’s rough, but it can’t be worse than the mess we have now.

Introducing Economic Breezefalls

Here’s a bit of personal finance advice from the Washington Post:

Here’s another reader’s debt dilemma: “I got a huge tax refund that would . . . pay off a good chunk — about half — of my credit card debt. But I am embarrassed to say that I have no savings at all aside from my 401(k). I am wondering if I should divvy up my refund between establishing an emergency fund and paying down my credit cards. I need your common sense advice.”

The sensible thing would be to establish an emergency fund. The ideal is to have between three months and six months of household expenses in a rainy day fund. In this case just one month’s worth will do. Use the rest of the refund to reduce your credit card debt.

I disagree, partially. Keep enough cash aside to cover one month of expenses that can’t be paid with a credit card. Use the rest to pay down credit card debt. If trouble arises, run the card back up. Groceries can be purchased with a credit card, for example. Even if the break in interest is only one month, it could be significant.

Contrast that with this:

Another reader had a similar question. “I’m 25 and will receive an $8,000 tax refund this year as a new homeowner. My rainy day fund has two months’ worth of expenses, and I can’t decide between building it to a full three months first then putting the rest of the refund toward my biggest student loan, or paying the loan (9 percent interest) off entirely. I’d love to see that one loan (I have three more) disappear and not pay any more interest. But I worry that it would take another eight months to build up to a three-month reserve. What would you do?”

I would pay off the one student loan, entirely.
…

However, let’s get real. Most people won’t let the money just sit in a savings account. They end up spending it on a big-screen television, vacations, car repairs or whatever. Before they realize it, the windfall is gone, and yet the debt is still there.

I disagree completely. Even at 9 percent, the student loan is stable. If something happened and this person needed access to a rainy day fund, there’s nothing there. The student loan is paid off, but then the credit cards build. That’s not a reasonable trade.

I accept that both of those fit my personal preference more than anything, with a significant dose of experience in both included. Still, I find it odd to imply that a 25-year-old who can be responsible enough to buy a house and build two months of rainy day fund won’t let the larger rainy day fund remain in an account, opting instead for a big-screen television. That makes no sense, especially when looking at the previous advice to build a rainy day fund for someone who has revolving credit card debt. Without more information, who would you bet on to blow the money? That seems a no-brainer.

I know the unaddressed issue is that these people are getting large tax refunds. That makes my head explode. If you have debt that you want to pay off, and you’re getting a significant refund, you’re managing your money horribly. Stop lending it to the government for free for up to 16 months. Keep your money and use it to avoid building up (or not paying down) those debts that you then use the refund to fix. This is not hard.

Yes, I think the author should’ve pointed this out. If people will spend a huge “windfall”, why not suggest that they manage it as twelve tiny “windfalls” instead?

Contract every team except Boston and New York.

Major League Baseball finally announced its deal with DirecTV to air is Extra Innings package. It’s not an exclusive deal at this point, but it might as well be. The cable industry and Dish Network have until March 31st to match the terms agreed to by DirecTV. Cable would be hard-pressed to match that offer because DirecTV is insane. I can’t imagine a scenario in which Dish Network could agree, having only 50,000 Extra Innings subscribers last year. Still, this is over the top:

Dish Network assailed the new agreement. “When our customers are suddenly cut off from watching their favorite sports teams on TV,” the company said in a statement, “it is time to ask whether the market is working. This is both anti-competitive and anti-consumer.”

The deal is certainly anti-consumer, for all the reasons I’ve stated. But the market is not wrong. Two companies that reach a mutual agreement can’t be considered a broken market. Stupid, definitely maybe, but not broken.

As a perfect example of how stupid Bud Selig is in his patronizing claims that fans can still see lots of baseball, consider the 2007 schedule offered by Fox. Beginning April 7th, it will air a game every Saturday. In the first month we get these choices:

Saturday, April 14

  • Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim at Boston Red Sox

Saturday, April 21

  • New York Yankees at Boston Red Sox
  • St. Louis Cardinals at Chicago Cubs

Saturday, April 28

  • Boston Red Sox at New York Yankees
  • Chicago Cubs at St. Louis Cardinals

Saturday, May 5

  • Seattle Mariners at New York Yankees

My vision might be bad, but I see April 21st and 28th looking exactly the same, with only the stadium scenery changing. Whoopee. And the two bookend weekends present us with either the Red Sox or Yankees. That’s some amazing diversity. Well done, Bud. Thanks for looking out for fans.

Competition Over Central Planning

Over at Cafe Hayek, Russ Roberts has an excellent commentary on FCC Chairman Kevin Martin’s concerns about a Sirius-XM merger. I agree with Mr. Roberts entirely, and as a Sirius subscriber, I’ll pay more if I can get the same quality Sirius service I have now and Major League Baseball.

One bit of Mr. Roberts’ post struck an interesting thought:

Five years ago there was no satellite radio. When one company came along (I don’t know who was first, Sirius or XM), should the FCC have shut them down for daring to monopolize the market? So why is it now that there’s two going back to one we have a potential calamity that the government has to worry about?

That’s an excellent question. Sirius was formed first, but XM was the first to broadcast. For those who think the government has a legitimate function in regulating this way, the government should’ve mandated that the two companies begin broadcasting on the same day. That would’ve been the only fair way to have them compete on equal footing. It can artificially decide that two is the magic number of satellite radio providers. It should be able to dictate business conditions, too. No?