finknottle

Good distillation.

Given a choice between tackling Climate Change and spending money on the poor, another voice for the bottomless pit. Just what we need. There will always be poor people. There may or may not always be a habitable earth.

Can you imagine what it must be like to sit at a desk for hours, without a computer? Of course, being the president he can probably requisition a deck of cards... But seriously, that's the political class for you - it's all yackety-yack briefings and meetings and reading one page summaries. You don't write your own legislation, you don't actually read what you are voting on, and you don't write out your own positions. And you certainly don't have to understand any of it. You just herd the staffers and convince others to support things that they have not read either.

Interesting find. Suprisingly, it bears out my point. My fear is a banana republic situation where it becomes the norm for the rich to cheat outright rather than the current unsavory but legal way of doing it (hire a good accountant to find you all the tax breaks he can). People don't cheat because their corporate taxes are too high. A CEO simply sends a letter to the shareholders explaining their company's lack of expansion. People start cheating when their personal taxes are too high. That's when they start hiding assets overseas, not reporting income, and not even filing at all. In any event, think about your numbers. Corporate income tax declining as a percentage of revenue does not mean that the rates are falling. It simply means that the companies are not as profitable. Of course, this factors in tax breaks, so we would need to see what portion of the GDP they would be without the breaks. But if it still showed a decline, than that would support the argument that the tax rates on corporations are too high.

There has been plenty of discussion of bailing out the automakers, mostly because of the number of workers they and those who rely on them employ. Some have pointed out that one of the root causes of their trouble are the labour contracts negotiated with the unions, in particular the crippling pensions and benefits. I'm guessing Obama doesn't buy this - here is why. On the campaign trail he has frequently railed against the outsourcing of federal jobs. Outsourcing doesn't exist just in Iraq and Afganistan, where it gets the most attention and contract support is almost 1:1. It exists in almost every agency - data entry, food service, custodial work... Wherever you have a mindless, repetative soul-grinding crap job, you will find a contractor doing it. And some good jobs as well - the reason you find so many civilians deployed with the military is that the military cannot retain enough people with cutting-edge technical skills. The biggest source of contract employees for decent jobs are the retired federal employees themselves who want to use their experience but are fed up with the career BS. If I had to guess, the number of workers whose companies depend on outsourcing is now quite substantial, certainly in the millions. But what is the real advantage to the USG? When you outsource, you are not responsible for the pensions and benefits accrued. You are paying fee-for-service, with no ticking time bombs down the road. So when Obama says he wants to roll back the outsourcing, assuming he doesn't get the light shown to him when he assumes office, I see two ramifications. First, a great expansion of the federal workforce, completely reversing the gains of the Clinton Administration (the Bush administration was roughly flat I believe, owing to the war). Second, the government commits itself to yet more pension and retirement obligations - not to mention the fact that the federal workers union becomes all that more powerfull a lobbyist for higher inflation adjustments every year. I'm not trashing federal employees here, we've had more than enough of that from the Republicans in decades past. I am only pointing out that Obama seems to want to do to the federal workforce what the big 3 automakers have done to themselves - take on a bloated workforce, with employment guaranteed for life, and lock yourself into generous retirement and benefits committments that will cripple the books of the government later on.

Better qualifications would be to ignore the consensus of your experts, or - if you followed it and their estimations turned out wrong - to apologize profusely and vow never to listen to experts again?

Assuming of course that she doesn't have a phone. Or a neighbor.

I'm thinking SecDef for the Obama Administration?

This was true 40 years ago, but it's the 21st century now. All you need is an educated workforce and a power grid. Buffalo has those. There should be software and biotech companies popping out left and right, like Houston or NoVa or Silicon Valley. Ok - you need one more thing: a business-friendly climate and tax policy. And not just friendly to Big Business - you need a government that recognizes that small business startups are the engines for creating jobs and the companies of the future. WNY doesn't have that, they are locked in the GM & Unions mindest.

Funny how things change. On yesterdays talk shows, the conservatives were uniformly (but grudgingly) applauding her. They described her as a foreign policy hawk, far more in sync with the Republicans than anyone other plausible nominee, and - most importantly in their eyes - voted for the war and had the backbone not to apologize for it.

We are a hell of a lot closer to a taxpayer revolt than we are the poor revolting. Lets look at the poor. No federal income tax. They do pay social security taxes, but their money is calculated with a higher return than the wealthy get. They have a safety net of welfare, food stamps, unemployement, etc. Yeah, they are real close to armed rebellion.

How much money does the Drug Czar, our oldest Supremo, control? I'm guessing it is just enough to run a 100-person policy group. I don't recall them ever handing out money.

Actually no - tha's the point. A Czar is given a vague mandate to solve a problem, but not control of the beaucracies required. He gets a staff, not an actual organization. The Drug Czar, for example, heads a ~100 person policy office. He does not lead the organizations you think he would, such as the DEA, nor Customs or Education.

Trouble always comes from lack of empowerment. If enough people like you sing their tune, the 5% class will be unable to defend their interests and become alienated from the political system. They'll simply stop paying taxes - it will be cheaper to seek protection from the politicians by paying them directly. It's no great mystery. What do you think happens in the reverse situation, when the wealthy have all the power, pay no taxes, and the entire burden is on the poor? Armed rebellion, eventually.

I think the whole rule book needs to be simplified and streamlined. To someone not raised in the US, the accumulated baggage of special rules looks retarded, haphazard, and impossible to learn. Special rules about brushing up against the punter? Special rules about forward fumbles inside the two minute warning? Failure to report being pass eligible if you have a linemans number? C'mon, the list goes on and on... One of the big reasons is philosophical - we demand that officiating be perfect and that there be no bad calls. So we fill the field with officials, and now have instant replay... if a situation happens in a game that upsets people (the infamous tuck), the NFL feels it has to address it, usually by adding yet another special rule... Just let them play, with a minimum of officiating. If somebody gets burned by a bad call, the controversy is good for the sport - it gets people talking.

I think Drug Czar came first, probably during the Reagan Administration? As an alternate title, there is a great episode from 'Yes, Minister' in the 70's where Jim Hacker is assigned the special position of 'Transportation Supremo.' He's given the impossible mandate of creating and implementing a sane and efficient national transportation policy over the opposition of the competing air, rail, and roadway interests. Really funny. You really can learn all you need to know about government from that show. Like our President's creating various Czar's, if a Prime Minister want's to show he is committed to addressing a controversial problem but doesn't actually want to touch it with a ten foot poll, you have a big ceremony and solemnly hand the problem off to the Supremo. If he fixes it you take the credit, and if he makes a pigs ass of it and pisses everybody off (are you listening, Proconsol Bremer?) you can disown him.

I think the problem is deeper than just outsourcing workers. Our society thinks lawyers and MBA's should run government and industry. How many members of congress have scientific or technical backgrounds? In a technology-oriented world, are these the guys we want making decisions about climate change, star wars, nuclear power, the internet, the airwaves, copyright in the digital age, cyberwarfare and infrastructure defense, cloning and stem cell research... And we wonder why they all have lobbyists whispering in their ears - they would have no ability to form an opinion otherwise. Industry is not much better. I've seen many technical companies, usually mid-sized and above, which are led by technically illiterate CEO's. It's embarrassing. Of the countries you cited, the President of China has a degree in Hydraulic Engineering and the Premier has a postgraduate degree in Geological Engineering. The President of India was an Aeronautical Engineer Ph.D who led their missile and space programs and made India's emergance as an information technology superpower his priority. The Prime Minister is an Economics Ph.D. This all translates into a healthy respect for science within those countries, and among their decision makers. It's no coincidence that both countries have been making technological leaps along with their economic ones. Russia, on the other hand, looks like the US. President Putin and Prime Minister Medvedev are both lawyers. I would argue that Russia also suffers from the same malady as the US: it is clear to anyone growing up there that science and engineering are not the paths to getting ahead, it is law school and the business world, an orgy of murky networking and influence peddling. I think it is no accident that despite a well-educated workforce, Russia's prospects for technological innovation and leadership in the century ahead looks dismal.

I find it amusing that there is alot of excited speculation on the left about making Al Gore the Climate Change Czar. As a firm believer in climate change, here is my take: - McCain was concerned enough about it that he bucked the consensus of his party. I believed he would have acted, but it doesn't matter now. - Obama never raised the issue, appeared to have no special enthusiasm, and never strayed from his parties position. I don't believe he really cares, and in his priorities it will take a backseat to social program, if it's allowed on the bus at all. IMO he'll say the right things to the Europeans, invest some money in 'green' research, and move on. There will be no real action. Hopefully I'm wrong about Obama, but suppose I am not, and all he really wants is for the (political) problem to go away. What's the best way foir him to proceed? With great fanfare, appoint Al Gore Czar, and wash his hands of the problem - any bitter medicine Gore advocates can be stifled within the administration. What's the worst situation for Obama? If Al Gore remains outside of his administration. Gore is the only advocate with the visibility, prickliness and gravitas to publically keep Obama's feet to the fire on the issue. So basically, if you believe that serious measures need to be taken, you had better hope that Gore does *not* get co-opted as czar and instead remains free to keep speaking out.

Correct. The problems take care of themselves. You learn pretty quickly not to use your head as a weapon and not to spear. In fact, it's one of the reasons why the tackling is 'better.' Proper form and instinctively knowing where to put your head when making a tackle is more important in rugby - when a guy is charging straight at you and you lower your shoulder to stick those pumping thighs, believe me you don't want your head in the wrong place. Anyway, greater discipline and form in tackling translates into both fewer highlights than the NFL (you see fewer people launching themselves for a highlight hit) but also fewer missed tackles. As a footnote, people generally don't realize that it is more dangerous being the tackler than being the tackled. Even in the NFL, with all the padding and equipment, linebackers have a higher rate of collision injury (ie broken bones) than running backs, and defensive backs have the highest rate of injury of all, much higher than receivers.

You had better hurry. If you wait too long, ACORN will hand you 71 index cards with signatures on them and *presto* the workforce is unionized (and presumed lawfully unionized during any appeals litigation). You'll have to go through the union bosses if you want to let anyone go.

If unemployment gets much worse, we'll start to look like the european economies that we want to emulate (historically over 10%, it dropped to about 9% as of last summer - not sure what it is now).

Wars end, and bailouts are one-time fixes (supposedly). Entitlements are paid forever. When exactly does this expenditure end? And if we decide it is a mistake or unworkable, how politically do we rescind the benifits and tax credits granted to the uninsured under the plan?

He wasn't here, I was there - that's the point. All I'm really saying is that while sitting ankle-on-knee is common in the US, it is rarer around the world. Even here is generally considered low brow.

You wouldn't cross your legs the way Bush is in many parts of the world. In the Middle-East, exposing your soles to somebody is an insult. You cross your legs at the ankle, or maybe leg-over-knee like Obama. Ankle-on-knee (US guy style) is generally seen as low-brow if not (as in ME) actually rude. I was in a cosmopolitian part of the ME once sitting in a Burger King type fast food restuarant. I was in a booth, leaning against the wall with one leg across the seat and the foot dangling. A random guy came all the way across the restuarant and started berating me in Arabic. Took me a while to realize what he was so upset about.

How's this for a proposal that will never fly: We all agree that the automakers are doomed - they shown no ability to turn things around long-term over the past two decades. The problem is that they are too large to fail - the reverberations throughout the economy will be too big. So instead wasting our intellectual energy on conditions like limits on executive pay, make a condition of their receiving the loans that they reduce their workforce at least 7% a year over the next 10 years. What the heck - call it a grant, or better yet a tax credit. Give them the money not under the illusion that they are going to turn things around, but so that they can have a soft landing. That way, when they come back for more money next time, maybe they will be small enough and the rest of the economy de-linkeded enough that we can finally let go.