Here's an interesting thought, though:
I've been listening to people harp about the Dept of Justice wasting taxpayers money for paying $16 per muffin and $8 per cup of coffee. Certainly, a foolish oversight.
But where is the press criticism and coverage of the private contractors who charged this? What about the military contractors who literally cheated the taxpayers out of $400 for an ashtray?
Certainly, a failure of govt oversight. But why is no one calling out the corrupt companies who are literally the ones screwing the taxpayers?
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
REM - Thank You and Good Night
My adolescence was defined by three bands - U2, The Police, and REM. They all took the music of the 1980s in a fascinating new direction that changed the future and defined Rock-n-Roll for me. U2 continues to innovate, the Police have long since disbanded, and REM, until today continued to define post-punk music that inspired me. Alas, the band from Athens, Georgia has gone the route of the Police and formally ended their career together. They were one of my first concerts, and I was mesmerized from that moment on for the next twenty-five years.
Thanks.
Thanks.
What Are the Independents to Do?
Two interesting points of view today regarding the future of the Obama Administration and the question of whether what the GOP is selling is preferable. Certainly, there is much to criticize about the current state of the nation, and change must come. Yet, when Obama puts out jobs plan that most Americans don't think will work, and statistics reveal that most secretaries don't, in fact, pay more in taxes than Warren Buffet, and David Walker, the respected former comptroller of the United States blasts Obama's deficit plan for not using CBO numbers, there is reason for independents to look for in new directions for answers.
The GOP offers cuts in spending and no new taxes on the "job creators."
Thomas Friedman and Dana Milbank take those two limited positions to task. Friedman offers a convincing argument about what true conservatives would do to address the financial stagnation and job slowdown - and it ain't just cutting. While clearly the tax code is in desperate need of review and reform, there is a need for the code to actually still generate revenue. Additionally, as Friedman notes, Countries that don’t invest in the future tend to not do well there. Real conservatives know that.
On the tax front, Dana Milbank identifies himself as a "job creator" who will never create jobs no matter how much the GOP cuts his taxes and offers him incentives. Milbank's analysis reveals the secrets of the 27 million small business owners in this country. Most of them are single employee businesses that are not designed to expand. Thus, more evidence arises about the "snake oil" argument that GOP leaders are continuing to peddle. They have no more ability to spur hiring than Obama does.
So, keep looking, Independents. Keep looking. Obama's basically got nothing ... but the GOP appears to have even less.
The GOP offers cuts in spending and no new taxes on the "job creators."
Thomas Friedman and Dana Milbank take those two limited positions to task. Friedman offers a convincing argument about what true conservatives would do to address the financial stagnation and job slowdown - and it ain't just cutting. While clearly the tax code is in desperate need of review and reform, there is a need for the code to actually still generate revenue. Additionally, as Friedman notes, Countries that don’t invest in the future tend to not do well there. Real conservatives know that.
On the tax front, Dana Milbank identifies himself as a "job creator" who will never create jobs no matter how much the GOP cuts his taxes and offers him incentives. Milbank's analysis reveals the secrets of the 27 million small business owners in this country. Most of them are single employee businesses that are not designed to expand. Thus, more evidence arises about the "snake oil" argument that GOP leaders are continuing to peddle. They have no more ability to spur hiring than Obama does.
So, keep looking, Independents. Keep looking. Obama's basically got nothing ... but the GOP appears to have even less.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
It's About Housing and Lending - Not Taxes
Jose Nocera of the New York Times is making the same argument about the economy that I just did. It's about a lack of cash in people's pockets which resulted in the housing meltdown. Having screwed up their job of lending money, banks have shut down and are not lending money. Without it, no new business, no new houses or buildings or highways or products. It's not about taxes, people, because businesses and individuals don't expand business or build new houses with their own money. It's always borrowed. Thus, cutting taxes will certainly gut the government and explode the debt and deficit. But it ain't gonna grow new jobs because it was never about that.
It's the lack of funds on the demand side - and that comes from the housing and banking crash.
It's the lack of funds on the demand side - and that comes from the housing and banking crash.
False Answers to Recovery
The following post is a rehash of comments from the past - because it is relevant and timely. Concerning the argument over what will lead to economic recovery and growth and the return of job creation. The dispute is about taxes - though it's complicated by concerns over the debt and deficit and the need for more or less regulation. As I've noted before there is a correlation - and even a degree of causation - between lower taxes creating better conditions for growth. That is why in the early 1980s dropping marginal rates from 70% (or originally 89%) to low thirties or high twenties was significant. But fiddling around between 28 and 38 has no discernible impact - See Mankiw and Feldstein for clarification.
Additionally, naive Republicans like Palin and Bachmann like to call upon the Reagan growth as only about taxes - and they neglect the importance of Volcker breaking inflation and then dramatically dropping interest rates. That alone freed up tons of cash for economic growth. And with the expansion of credit card lending, the money infusion in the economy came on the demand - NOT supply side. Add to that the dramatic drop in oil prices following discoveries in the North Sea and Central America - which broke OPEC's hold - and lower gas prices also freed up tons of money on the DEMAND side. The economy is far more complex than simple tax rates - though lower is certainly better. And there is no reason not to broaden the base, flatten the rates, lower the corporate rate, and close the deductions - especially at the top level. Then, by means testing Social Security and Medicare and lifting the cap to at least $250K, the government and the economy will move toward solvency and fluidity.
Finally, you must keep in mind that the 2008 Crash and subsequent economic drag was not caused by tax issues. It simply wasn't. It was not caused by regulation. The current slump is not continuing because of a drag on tax issues - because there have been no changes - other than the cut taxes more. So, it's not about taxes - and anyone who thinks it is has been asleep for about the last decade - or perhaps a Hannity-induced coma. This economic problem is about cash on the demand side. Period. It was about lost wealth from a housing crash that imploded the lending industry. And that came from deregulation. This is not about taxes - it's about no cash. It's about loss of spending power from lost housing money and decreasing wages impacted by rising insurance rates.
Additionally, companies aren't hiring for one simple reason now - because they don't have to. Demand is not going up. They don't need workers - except for the skilled labor ones for which there are tens of thousands of vacancies. They are making money and increasing dividends and it's that simple. It didn't start with taxes (at lowest rates in 60 years) and it won't be solved by tax cuts - because they aren't the problem.
An overall review and reform of taxation is a great idea - and necessary. But blaming the current problems on taxes is simply foolish.
Additionally, naive Republicans like Palin and Bachmann like to call upon the Reagan growth as only about taxes - and they neglect the importance of Volcker breaking inflation and then dramatically dropping interest rates. That alone freed up tons of cash for economic growth. And with the expansion of credit card lending, the money infusion in the economy came on the demand - NOT supply side. Add to that the dramatic drop in oil prices following discoveries in the North Sea and Central America - which broke OPEC's hold - and lower gas prices also freed up tons of money on the DEMAND side. The economy is far more complex than simple tax rates - though lower is certainly better. And there is no reason not to broaden the base, flatten the rates, lower the corporate rate, and close the deductions - especially at the top level. Then, by means testing Social Security and Medicare and lifting the cap to at least $250K, the government and the economy will move toward solvency and fluidity.
Finally, you must keep in mind that the 2008 Crash and subsequent economic drag was not caused by tax issues. It simply wasn't. It was not caused by regulation. The current slump is not continuing because of a drag on tax issues - because there have been no changes - other than the cut taxes more. So, it's not about taxes - and anyone who thinks it is has been asleep for about the last decade - or perhaps a Hannity-induced coma. This economic problem is about cash on the demand side. Period. It was about lost wealth from a housing crash that imploded the lending industry. And that came from deregulation. This is not about taxes - it's about no cash. It's about loss of spending power from lost housing money and decreasing wages impacted by rising insurance rates.
Additionally, companies aren't hiring for one simple reason now - because they don't have to. Demand is not going up. They don't need workers - except for the skilled labor ones for which there are tens of thousands of vacancies. They are making money and increasing dividends and it's that simple. It didn't start with taxes (at lowest rates in 60 years) and it won't be solved by tax cuts - because they aren't the problem.
An overall review and reform of taxation is a great idea - and necessary. But blaming the current problems on taxes is simply foolish.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Obama's Recovery
David Brooks offers a pretty clear and critical analysis of the "recovery" that is being defended by Obama and criticized by the Republicans. Ultimately, the return of job growth after a recession always lags by years - and government policies rarely have the immediate impact of generating growth and returning economies to sound footing. Clearly, not all agree, as evidenced by Investore.Com in this analysis. As an independent voter, I'm not happy with Obama's leadership - especially on the economy as well as basic "politics."
However, this recession seems different. Obama didn't have an inflation problem that the Fed could just break, and there wasn't an oil shock that could be relieved. Downsizing of companies and increased productivity haven't existed like this before either, and Obama simply couldn't count on a tech boom or a housing bubble to grow the way out. That sums up the post-recession growth for the past several decades. So, I'll cut him some slack there.
Additionally, I'm of the mind that there's not a lot Presidents and DC can actually do to create jobs - other than infrastructure, public service, cash rebates, and tax credits for actual hires. That's why I won't give Perry too much credit for jobs in Texas, nor will I knock Romney for stagnant growth in Massachusetts. Thus, Obama has been pretty weak in terms of national leadership - that is no doubt. But Perry and Boehner are full of it on cutting taxes for "job creators" as a guarantee of creating jobs and generating economic growth.
So, we'll see. I think Brooks pretty much nailed it. And he may be the only one.
However, this recession seems different. Obama didn't have an inflation problem that the Fed could just break, and there wasn't an oil shock that could be relieved. Downsizing of companies and increased productivity haven't existed like this before either, and Obama simply couldn't count on a tech boom or a housing bubble to grow the way out. That sums up the post-recession growth for the past several decades. So, I'll cut him some slack there.
Additionally, I'm of the mind that there's not a lot Presidents and DC can actually do to create jobs - other than infrastructure, public service, cash rebates, and tax credits for actual hires. That's why I won't give Perry too much credit for jobs in Texas, nor will I knock Romney for stagnant growth in Massachusetts. Thus, Obama has been pretty weak in terms of national leadership - that is no doubt. But Perry and Boehner are full of it on cutting taxes for "job creators" as a guarantee of creating jobs and generating economic growth.
So, we'll see. I think Brooks pretty much nailed it. And he may be the only one.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Be Very Afraid of Dr. Watson
Here's food for (disturbing) thought:
WellPoint Insurance plans to use the IBM super-computer "Watson" to assist doctors in diagnosing illnesses. Watson, of course, is the computer known for beating the top Jeopardy! champions at the game of trivia. Now, a major insurance company is counting on the computer's vast resources and lightening speed to provide guidance to doctors as they seek diagnosis and treatment options.
The company spokesperson was quick to assure consumers that patients need not fear that WellPoint will deny care if in making a diagnosis of choosing a treatment option a doctor chooses to ignore the advice of the computer. In those cases, the insurer "will have a clinician review the case." A "clinician"? What the heck does that mean?
Is this an example of "trivializing" health care? Or is that just redundant at this point?
Be afraid people. Be very, very afraid.
WellPoint Insurance plans to use the IBM super-computer "Watson" to assist doctors in diagnosing illnesses. Watson, of course, is the computer known for beating the top Jeopardy! champions at the game of trivia. Now, a major insurance company is counting on the computer's vast resources and lightening speed to provide guidance to doctors as they seek diagnosis and treatment options.
The company spokesperson was quick to assure consumers that patients need not fear that WellPoint will deny care if in making a diagnosis of choosing a treatment option a doctor chooses to ignore the advice of the computer. In those cases, the insurer "will have a clinician review the case." A "clinician"? What the heck does that mean?
Is this an example of "trivializing" health care? Or is that just redundant at this point?
Be afraid people. Be very, very afraid.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Douthat on Obama's Do-Over
Ross Douthat offers one of the most clear and insightful breakdowns of the hopes and shortcomings of the Obama administration in his piece The President's Do-Over in the New York Times today. By focusing on a targeted stimulus without guaranteeing recovery, working on the deficit sooner rather than later by reforming entitlements, and focusing on the Recovery Act rather than attacking the health care issue by both horns, the President could have been that moderate voice of steady guidance in the storm of the 2008 recession's wake.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Disney's Prom a Pleasant Surprise
It's not often that I have kind words for the company of Disney, but with the release of this summer's teen film Prom, the company that generally rubs me the wrong way has put out a surprisingly enjoyable and sweet teen film about the most mythical night of high school - Prom.
Prom, a Disney original from a screenplay by Katie Wech, examines the final big night of high school in all its promise of drama and magic. Nova (interesting name) the senior class president of Brookside High has planned the perfect prom to finish off the perfect senior year. All is going well with the decorations and the theme, and the night will be perfect if only fellow student and committee member Brandon asks her to the dance they've been planning.
The movie is fleshed out in standard ensemble cast with various couples and their prom story lines filling out the opening scenes of the movie. A clever play - with music - of the tradition of asking a person to prom sets up the first act with all going according to plan. Standard stock characters like the perfect king/queen couple, the couple who've been "together forever," the lovable loser without a date, the underclassmen desperate to be a part of the magic, and, of course, the teen rebel with an air of mystery who is too cool for prom fill out the cast.
Certainly, the perfectly planned night will be anything but, and it only makes sense that the heroine Nova will be inadvertently thrown together with the anti-prom loner. Many obstacles will challenge Nova to carry out her mission of providing the perfect night for her classmates, even as she tries to ignore the personal conflict she has over who she's going to spend the evening with. Director Joe Nussbaum cleverly strings his scenes together building the drama over prom night in an engaging way. Additionally, there are enough nods to 1980s teen cinema that it's clear Nussbaum was paying homage to the Golden Age of teen film.
I was particularly pleased by how pleasant - and not over the top - this teen film was. It was engaging and funny and insightful, and also really sweet. Wech and Nussbaum manage to capture all the significant drama of the genre and the night without resorting to anything sordid or gratuitous. In fact, it was refreshing to be engaged in a teen film for 90 minutes with no scenes of teen drinking and literally no mention of teen sex. The drama was real and honest - but it very effectively focused on the simple emotions of adolescence, rather than the standard mediums of sex and alcohol. This film simply didn't need to go there.
Overall, Prom is an enjoyable film, and definitely worth the rental if you enjoy the genre. It's certainly not the best teen film in recent years - that honor goes to Easy A. However, it's a nice take on a traditional genre, and it gives me a little hope for the ability of Disney to provide quality and wholesome entertainment.
The Sandwich King Has Moved?
Looking for information on the Food Network's Jeff Mauro and his show The Sandwich King? Check out my first entry after he won the Next Food Network Star.
Having enjoyed The Sandwich King Jeff Mauro's first two shows, I sat down at 10:30 Mountain time to check out Jeff's third show. It was probably a great one - Cod Sliders with fennel slaw and sweet potato fries - and I will certainly check for the recipes. Alas, I tuned in to a repeat episode of Chopped because Jeff's time slot was apparently 9:30 Mountain, not 10:30. While I am certainly OK with the time, as I am more likely to be home, I am disappointed to have missed the show. So, for sandwich afficianodos - and fans of the Sandwich King - Jeff's show is now on Sunday mornings at 11:30 Eastern, 10:30 Central, and 9:30 Mountain.
Check it out for more great ideas on how to "turn any meal into a sandwich and make any sandwich a great meal."
UPDATE: At this point, it appears Jeff's show has gone into a bit of a hiatus. Not much news on the website. So, we'll have to assume he is simply on a break and not cancelled.
Friday, September 2, 2011
GOP Offers Nothing After Jobs Report
The Affordable Care Act did not cause the 2008 Crash and recession.
Regulations on business permits did not cause the 2008 Crash and recession.
Regulations on the finance industry did not cause the 2008 Crash and recession.
Regulations on the energy industry did not cause the 2008 Crash and recession.
None of these caused the economic downturn, none these is preventing companies from hiring people, none of these is the key to dismal jobs report in August, none of these is the answer to the struggles of the economy.
So, why are these the only ideas the GOP offers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)