A Modest Proposal

I believe that Americans (as well as everyone else in the world) are incapable of relating to the size of the various sums of money that are tossed about in the media on a constant basis.

One minute a $100 million reserch project is denounced and in the next a trillion dollar bailout is discussed.

So what I propose is that every year the government publish on some arbitraty date what the average population of the United States is expected to be for that year. This number would be used by news organizations and government agencies and others to normalize all the big numbers. For example, let's say the average population is expected to be about 300 million people. Then an expenditure of a million dollars could be additionally characterized as a third of a cent per person. A billion becomes $3.33 per person and a trillion becomes $3333 per person.

I think that this might help put things into a better perspective than the incomprehensible numbers used today.

Why the AIG Contracts were Okay

Discalimer: This is based on stuff I know and not facts.

AIG is/was? the world's largest insurance company. Insurance companies sell insurance policies for all kinds of things but one thing is critical they have to take the premiums in and invest the money so that they will have enough to pay all the claims as well as pay all their costs (including employee salaries) and make money for their shareholders.

AIG like a lot of people invested in these so called subprime mortgage securities and when the market melted down (caused IMHO by $4/gas but that is another subject) they found themselves in a heap of trouble.

The government (which at the time happened to be the Bush Administration) decided that allowing AIG to fail was a bad idea. You can argue with that decision but it is a fact that they did.

Now here's the thing. If it becomes known that an organization is either going to disappear for sure or maybe disappear or maybe just become a lousy place to be, the best and brightest people leave. Sometimes the people on top who want the place to run at some level of performance for some amount of time will say to these people. Look, we know you want to look out for yourself and get out but we are asking you to stay. Stay, do your job and help us keep the place running. If you do, we will give you some money for your trouble. Contracts are drawn up, hands are shaken and life goes on.

So, I think that is precisely what happened. If you stay for a long as the contract stipulates you get the money. You can quit one day after the contract period and that is really fine. If they wanted you longer they would have given you more money and a longer contract.

The people who inherited this debacle (the Obama administration) were probably not really in a position to say: Oh, the Bush people were just kidding when they gave you all this money and told you to operate the company. Let 'er fail!

So they wrote the law and allowed these contracts to take place because it was the right thing to do. I'm not saying keeping AIG afloat was right. I am saying that once you make the decision to do so those contracts make all the sense in the world.

Now apparently if you go against public opinion, in the heat of the moment the government can just come in and take stuff from people who signed contracts and did the work!

And I swear this has spun so far out of control that a reporter almost said: We want to know what the president knew and when he knew it.

When a decision that was probably correct (despite the current blast of public opinion against it) starts sounding like a conspiracy to hide a felony something is out of whack.

Isn't there anyone who can stand up and explain why screwing these people is going to create a simply horrible mess and set a terrible precedent? (Yes, even more of a mess than we have now.)

What's more if the government takes 90% of 163 million dollars that means that there will be lots of lawyers that will want to fight to get it back cause they would stand to make like $40 million bucks. And if they do we, the taxpayers, will spend a pile of dough fighting it.

I've never seen or been in a lynch mob but I feel at this moment like congress is the next closest thing.

"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

I Don't Get It

A Democrat wins the presidency. Democrats take control of both houses of congress.

The economy is a disaster.

Classical Keynesian economics says when in recession, deficit spending by the government will help. People aren't spending cause they aren't working or they are afraid of losing their jobs. Companies aren't spending cause they can't get any credit and no one is buying, etc. So the government must spend.

Now it would seem to be that there is bad spending, good spending and great spending. Bad would be buying stuff from overseas, good would be any spending in the US (and the longer the dollars stay here the better) and great spending would create jobs, end energy independence, fix infrastructure, cure cancer and help one be a better lover, etc.

Spending and tax cuts are sort of the same thing.

Spending: the government goes out and buys something.

Tax cuts: the governement cuts your taxes then with the money you didn't send to the government you buy something.

Maybe you are smarter than the government. Or maybe you buy an expensive Swiss watch.

Who knows?

The Democrats were elected by people that tend to think that government (by and for the people) can come up with great ideas to make everything run well so they end to lean towards government spending.

The Republicans were elected by people that tend to think tax cuts are good because they put more money into the hands of private citizens that can use the money to innovate and create jobs etc.

The powerful Democrats put together an economic stimulus bill and every Democratic legislator with any brains at all will try and put all the spending he wants for his state and/or district into that bill cause it is going to pass.

The Republicans are against the bill because they want more tax cutting and less "pork"

The initial bill passes the house with EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTING AGAINST IT!

The news media seizes upon this as a sign that the "Obama Mystique" is dead, that bipartisanship can't work, that this is somehow amazing or newsworthy.

I don't get it.

Ask yourself these questions:

Did the bill pass? Well, yes.

Did the Democrats vote in a way that would tend to please their constituents (or should I say their constituents that voted for them?) YES

Did the Republicans vote in a way that would tend to please their constituents (or should I say their constituents that voted for them?) YES

If it works will anyone remember the Republicans voted against it? No.

If it fails will anyone remember the Republicans voted against it? Yes. And if no one remembers the Republicans will remind them.

Isn't this Dog Bites Man?

Why exactly is this news?

Because Obama had congressmen over for drinks and asked them to vote for it promising to be their bff...and they didn't vote for it?

A bunch of people did exactly what one would expect and it's news?

I know people will say, "But the Obama administration promised bipartisanship."

Yes, but isn't bipartisinship when people from both parties put aside their differences to pass legislation that is needed for the good of the country?

THE BILL PASSED!

I mean if some Republicans had been needed to pass the legislation and they had voted against it that would have been news.

But the bill passed. The Dems and Repubs can tell their supporters they did what they were supposed to do.

So why is the news media acting as if this is so unusual?

I don't get it.

Defending the Automakers?

I can't believe I am defending the automakers and, in fact, maybe I'm not but there are some things that people are saying that bug me.

1. They lied about how much they are paying their workers. In reality, I think they were trying to explain that they are at a disadvantage because they have an older work force and a ton of retirees. Trying to take very complex situations and coming up with apples to apples comparison numbers sometimes might look like they were trying to mislead people.
2. CEO's make too much money. Yes, they do. It's our whole system of executive compensation that is out of whack. But thinking that someone who is asking for 8 Billion dollars to keep his company afloat that if only they wouldn't pay their CEO 15 Million dollars everything would be okay is nuts.
3. The CEO flew in a private jet. Give me a break. Do you want someone making that kind of money to be sitting around in the Delta Frequent Flyer Lounge having cocktails. No, you want him working every minute he can. That is why corporate jets exist to maximize the efficiency of highly paid executives. I have worked in jobs where I have flown on such planes. It was to save money not waste it.
   
4. Detroit deserves what they are getting for building gas guzzlers. Truth is that Detroit builds the cars that people want that have a lot of profit margin. It sort of makes sense. The problems they are having are the same problems that the Japanese automakers are having. Gas went to $4.00/gallon. The housing market collapsed. The economy went to hell. Just what kind of car should they have been making that would be setting sales records?
5. We should just let them fold to punish those highly paid CEO's. Are you kidding? Even if they never work another day in their lives they have riches beyond the wildest dreams of most of us. Allowing the auto companies to collapse would result in the cost of their pensions being paid for by the government (which is a code word for you and me). Their workers would be unemployed and it would just create a bigger mess than we have now.
6. Maybe I'm crazy but it seems like many of the bail outs (which were loans or the like) seemed to have worked?
7. My impression is that the auto companies feel that going bankrupt to reorganize would be a disaster since many buyers would be reluctant to buy a car from a bankrupt company. This seems like a reasonable fear to me.

If the big three can't compete they will eventually go away. But I don't think forcing that to happen due to an economic crisis that was largely not their doing is the wrong thing to do.

And I love my Honda.

I'm Voting for That One

I just don't get it. When George Bush's father was president, republican policies screwed up the economy and during the election republicans said don't vote for the tax and spend democrat. Enough of the American people ignored that advice and a democratic president balanced the budget and made the economy hum.

Then we elected Al Gore and the republicans somehow believing that they speak directly to God stole the election. More lies and falsehoods were used to keep the Bush presidency going and now once again the economy as well as damn near everything else is in complete chaos.

And once again the republicans are lying, cheating and stealing in an effort to again subvert what is right. I don't know what's worse that they do it or that we live in a country with so many stupid people that will believe no matter what as long as it arrives via the internet in an anonymous email.

If John McCain and Sarah Palin somehow get elected by deceit and trickery it will be the greatest disaster to ever befall this country.

I urge you to vote for Barrack Obama and Joe Biden. They might be inexperienced (they're not), they might be willing to raise taxes on some people (that can afford it) and they might be willing to spend money (on things that will bring manifold benefits). But no matter what they can't possibly be any worse than the current administration or their proposed successors.

Why I am voting for Barack Obama

1. He is smart as hell. Our society and our systems need more than catchy slogans to be made to work properly. They need someone that can understand them and make the right policy decisions.
2. We have a two-party system. Despite John McCain's best efforts to portray himself as somehow not being a member of the party that has screwed up America, he is and has voted with them most of the time. It is absurd to think that McCain will win and arrive in Washington with all new people. It will be business as usual. Bad business.
3. I believe for the most part that republicans are motivated by greed and democrats are motivated by a desire to serve all the people.
4. Obama has the vision to move America into the twenty-first century and to once again reestablish America as the shining beacon on the hill. McCain just knows how to say things that sound good like Mom and apple pie.
5. Men with experience have gotten us into the predicament we are in now so frankly I think that experience may be a little over-rated.
6. Sarah Palin.
7. I have two daughters. I believe Obama will institute policies and laws that will be much more helpful to them than anything McCain and his cronies will do. I think the record is crystal clear on this.
8. I listen to both sides and the republicans are liars. In fact, I think that is why they are always claiming media bias. The media calls them out more then the democrats because they lie more, a lot more.

Compare and Contrast

What policies will you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation?

Obama: My administration will increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade. We will increase research grants for early career researchers to keep young scientists entering these fields. We will increase support for high-risk, high-payoff research portfolios at our science agencies. And we will invest in the breakthrough research we need to meet our energy challenges and to transform our defense programs.

McCain: I'm going to use my Ronald Regan pen to veto pork and make these people famous.