My Crazy Cat (Part II)

Ah, a morning with a crazy cat...

3:30 AM: Cat snuggles up under a blanket by my legs, waking me up. When I pet the cat she pretends to be asleep.

4:00 AM: Now stuck awake, I ponder whether to get up and start my day. No, I'll try to sleep more.

4:40 AM: I'm getting up. I turn over. The cat notices and walks over my body twice to make sure I'm awake. Then she stands by my head, purring. It's "pet me or else."

4:45 AM: After petting the cat I get out of bed and put on running clothes. The cat pounces on something in the bathroom--a bug. The cat eats the bug.

4:50 AM: The cat starts going, :"Huh, huh" and gurgling. Uh oh! The cat throws up in the bathroom and then runs back into the bedroom. I grab the cat as she throws up again, splattering liquid everywhere. Then she takes off into the kitchen. I run after the cat and and she throws up once more.

5:00 AM: I finish cleaning up after the cat and set off on an early morning run.

5:30 AM: I'm just about to get in the shower when I notice the cat staring at something through my bedroom window. I look. It's a feral cat lying on my balcony. My cat starts yowling and hissing. The tired outdoor cat slinks away. My cat watches out the window for ten minutes to make sure we are all safe.

6:00 AM: Feeling very dominant after frightening off the intruder, my cat perches on top of the refrigerator and swings at anyone who comes close.

6:30 AM: Off to work. What a morning! See more pictures of this cat here.

Teenagers with Money

In the highly recommended history book, The Fifties, author David Halberstam states that

A new young generation of Americans was breaking away from the habits of its parents and defining itself by its music. There was nothing the parents could do: This generation was armed with both money and new inexpensive appliances with which to listen to it (P. 473).

The consuming class of teenagers, such a part of popular culture today, first came of age in the mid 1950s. Close to 60 years later teens are buying much more than music. Business advertises for teen dollars in the computer hardware and software, movies, clothes, fast food, cell phone markets as well.

Compare this situation to my grandparents' adolescence. Any money made by the teen was given to the family fund.

• So are we teaching teens the value of money or enjoyment of cheap thrills of consumer culture?
• The value of helping out one's family and community or the ephemeral pleasure of spending on oneself?
• Deferred or immediate gratification?
• The value of a good reputation or the cost of an Ipod?

What do you think?

How Berkeley Changed My Political Philosophy

Berkeley Heroes

I came into this world surrounded by liberal Democrats. My parents are Democrats as were their parents and grandparents before them, all the way down the line to Ellis Island. My parents empathized with the disenfranchised and poor. The family faithfully subscribed to the San Francisco Chronicle and before I was a teenager my dad encouraged me to write a letter to the editor, castigating Nixon for  his "enemies list." As a high school student I was committed (and stupid) enough to wear a Carter button to school in 1976. When I went off to college a few years later I was unprepared for the inevitable challenges to my worldview and political philosophy. The university was a very liberal place. How could it change my belief system?

Berkeley in 1978 was trying to get over the fact that the 1960s were over. The place was desperately looking for a cause, and until the all-knowing people there found a good one they kept busy hating everything about bourgeois American life. They sneered at a suburbanite like me because I wanted to get my undergraduate degree and get out. Berkeley political correctness meant high density living, Trotsky lookalikes snarling on the street, dirt, drugs, grittiness, and poverty--and not the clean and cheery suburbs I grew up in. Berkeley wanted the year 1969 to go on forever. I wanted to graduate and pursue a career.

What I found most off-putting, however, was the intolerance of the place. Anyone with views other than those of the hard left was shouted down. Despite the students' 1964 free speech movement, conservatives rarely received the benefits of free speech at Cal. So it stands today.

Midway through my undergraduate experience I had a political science class with professor William Muir. I had never experienced lectures from a professor, an intellectual, who admitted working for Republicans, even (gasp) Governor Ronald Reagan. Professor Muir was bright, charming, and reasonable. His tactic for getting us to do the reading, "Do it or I'll call on you and embarrass the hell out of you" worked and I use it with my own students. I thought all Republicans were selfish boors. How could this guy be a Republican?

My cognitive dissonance didn't end there. Professor Muir gave us a reading by a prominent liberal that criticized using a meritocracy to reward people. People shouldn't receive wealth because they worked harder or did things better, the liberal argued. The liberal's argument made no sense to me. Perhaps I wasn't a Democrat after all.

It was time to explore and find what resonated inside me. I read and enjoyed Hayek, Will, Hirsch, von Mises, and Sowell. I learned that to be successful you must give something of yourself, something society wants. By my late 20s I considered myself a Libertarian-Conservative. My family was shocked. The university had indeed opened my eyes.

Do Politicians Give Charity?

Some do more than others.In addition to the chart above USA Today reported that Joe Biden gave $369 out of a $319,000. All the politicians named here make a lot of money.  The winner is Mitt Romney. Look at his charitable giving as reported by Fox:

Tax year    Taxable income          Charitable donations Donations as % of income 2010           $21.7 million                $2.98 million                13.73% 2011 (est)   $20.9 million                $4 million                     19.14% Romney not only gives the most; he gives the highest percentage. McCain's income doesn't reflect millions from his wife. The Clinton's figures are the most interesting. According to the New York Times the Clintons made $109 million from around 1999-2007. And perhaps you thought Romney was the only rich guy! During this time, the Clintons "claimed deductions for $10.2 million in charitable contributions. The contributions went to a family foundation run by the Clintons that has given away only about half of the money they put into it, and most of that was ...after Mrs. Clinton declared her candidacy" (NYT source above). Now, dear reader, it's up to you to decide who is the bigger hypocrite--the politician that requests sacrifice from you and doesn't give away much money himself or the politician that says that private charities are the best way to support the poor or the cleanest way to fund religious expression but doesn't give much to them.

Europe Needs Creative Destruction

Adam Davidson, in the article The Crisis You Don't Know (link here), shows that the United States' per capital GDP is in much higher than Europe's. I was surprised to find this article in the New York Times Magazine (January 8, 2012), since the paper prefers reporting about the evils of income inequality and Europe has less of that. Kudos to the Times for printing Davidson's piece. It shows that in the long run, economic growth through free markets works better than socialism in promoting the most good for the most people.

According to investopedia, creative destruction is

A term coined by Joseph Schumpeter in his work entitled "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy" (1942) to denote a "process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one."

America is the land of creative destruction, willing to let the withering die to allow capital and labor to be available for new and more profitable and efficient enterprises..

Davidson argues that Europe is unable to compete on global stage. Its economies lack the flexibility to fire workers when their industries are no longer viable. Thus those workers and the capital maintaining them are not available to move on. Instead, Europe is left with a "permanently unemployed underclass" and inability to stay competitive. The adoption of the euro ossifies the economy of the Continent even further, since the poorer countries can't devalue their currency.

Davidson concludes that Europe is headed for a two-tiered society, the older enjoying generous benefits and the younger stuck with low-wage, short-term work in stagnant industries.

Vote or Go To Jail?

Should mandatory voting laws be implemented in the United States? That was the Perspectives question in the January/February 2011 Social Education (the official journal of National Council for the Social Studies).

Political scientist Norman Ornstein favors compulsory voting laws. He believes that mandatory voting would reinforce the political middle.

“The two parties are [currently] too tied to their activist wings to do anything to reduce the power of the electromagnetics pulling candidates and elected officials to the edges and away from the middle…or to change the extreme rhetoric and scare tactics used to frame the issues (P.12)”

Ornstein prefers the Australian model, where mandatory voting is enforced by the threat of a modest fine, about $15 or $20. “That small nudge has over time boosted Aussie turnout from less than 60 percent before the process was implemented in 1924 to well over 90 percent” (P.13).

Australian politicians try to appeal to persuadable voters in the center of the political spectrum rather than trying to excite the base on the fringes. The same would occur here in America if we had mandatory voting.

Author and graduate student Vassia Stoilov argues “that more participation in elections does not automatically translate into more legitimacy for the elected government or into more representativeness in its policies and priorities.” For example, many totalitarian and authoritarian regimes such as the Soviet Union and Iraq under Saddam Hussein enforced compulsory voting. No one would argue that compulsory voting made these regimes legitimate democracies (P. 16).

Equally important, Stoilov writes that compulsory voting violates First Amendment rights to refrain from speaking (P.16).

Ornstein is willing to fun roughshod over civil liberties with mandatory voting in order to moderate political discourse. Stoilov doesn’t address the dangers haunting American democracy--power going to fringe groups-- because the process of mandatory voting violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Fascinating Political Comeback of Alcee Hastings

There have been 17 impeachment trials held in the Senate. Most of the time, when the accused was convicted, the public ignominy led to the end of his career. Federal judge Alcee Hastings was found guilty of bribery and perjury and removed from office in 1989. Yet, in "1992 Hastings was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida (source: Ritchie, Donald A. and JusticeLearning.org, Our Constitution, Oxford, 2006, P.81). More specifically, the local South Florida newspaper, the Sun Sentinel reported

in 1983, Hastings was acquitted of conspiracy to solicit a $150,000 bribe while a federal judge; six years later, Congress took up the issue, concluded he lied in his trial, and impeached him [and convicted him, using the lesser standard of "clear and convincing evidence"] after 10 years on the bench.

So let me make sure I understand this state of affairs. Representative Hastings was convicted by the Congress of the United States for lying and taking bribes. Three years later the people of a Florida congressional district elected him to represent them in that very same Congress that impeached and convicted him a short time earlier. Then they reelected him an additional nine times.

How could the people of Florida's 23rd District find this candidate attractive?

If you examine Hasting's general record of public service, it looks quite strong if you overlook the impeachment and conviction. Unsurprisingly, Hasting's posted official biography does not mention the reasons he was forced to leave the bench.

Known to many as “Judge,” Alcee Hastings has distinguished himself as an attorney, civil rights activist, judge, and now Member of Congress.  Appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, he became the first African-American Federal Judge in the State of Florida, and served in that position for 10 years.  Since his election to Congress as the first African-American from Florida since the post-Civil War period, Congressman Hastings has been an outspoken advocate for Floridians and our nation as a whole.

Hastings represents a poor liberal district. Constituents seem to care more about bringing home the pork than his record as a judge 30 years ago. Even local Republicans don't care about Hasting's past. The Sun Sentinel (link above) reported:

"Alcee is a good, patriotic American, and he's a capable guy, and he's a friend of mine," said U.S. Rep. Clay Shaw, R-Fort Lauderdale. "Alcee could certainly do the job." Shane Strum, chairman of the Broward Republican Party, said local party members don't devote much energy to rehashing events of the 1980s, though it might help fire up the Republican base elsewhere."It's something from long ago," Strum said. "I don't think that's going to play here locally."

Most of the 23rd District is not Republican, but rather, very poor, liberal, and Democratic.It's a perfect fit. The Sun Sentinel states that Hastings is a liberal (and opponents say very liberal) advocate for civil rights and oppressed Haitians in one of Florida's most desperate districts, "where one in five residents live in poverty." He has won all his reelection contests easily.

Yet, Hastings' career may be winding down. He is 75 years old. The Sun (link above) insinuates that he may have to work harder to be reelected.

During nearly two decades in office, Hastings has never faced a serious challenge at election time, a safe position that could be shaken when Florida's districts are redrawn next year.

 Publicly, Hastings says that redistricting wouldn't affect him.

"There is no geographic territory in South Florida they can draw where I don't start with high name recognition and having impacted the lives of the individuals who live there," he said.
"I am satisfied with what I'm doing," he said. "I believe I do it well. And I will continue to do it at least three or four more terms."

Hastings has survived impeachment and conviction, old age, and may be reelected despite redistricting. But can he survive another scandal?

As reported by Politico:

The House Ethics Committee announced on Monday [November 28, 2011] that it will take another 45 days to determine whether to launch full-scale investigations into allegations against Reps. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) and Don Young (R-Alaska)....Winsome Packer, a former staffer on the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which Hastings chaired, claims that she was the victim of “unwelcome sexual advances” and “unwelcome touching” by the congressman. Packer has filed a lawsuit against Hastings asserting that he retaliated against her when she objected to his behavior. Packer has been aided by the conservative group Judicial Watch in her lawsuit against Hastings.

Update: Well, the House Ethics Committee declined to pursue the full-scale investigation. See "Alcee Hastings escapes House Ethics Committee judgment" here. 

The House Ethics Committee has voted not to conduct a full-scale investigation into allegations that Rep. Alcee Hastings sexually harassed a former aide and retaliated against her when she complained about his actions, but a federal civil lawsuit over the case is still pending.

The above Politico article makes a strong case for Hastings, and the lawsuit may be without merit. (In a May 16, 2012 update) Judicial Watch dropped Hastings' accuser. Still, I think Hastings will retire or lose a primary battle. His district will be competitive and the scent of scandal means the vultures will be circling around him, drawing in young ambitious Democratic challengers. Additionally, younger voters would probably like to see somebody closer to their generation representing them. And the television crews aren't showing up. Is the media already bored with him or just his causes?

A less positive media attention has emerged in early June, 2012 showing links to Hastings from for-profit colleges and donations from those colleges to Hastings (here). While there is nothing unethical about that, the relationship does raise eyebrows since Hastings promotes liberal causes, and these colleges' practices often seem predatory.

To be continued...

The Real Reason Why Obama Rejected the Canada-Texas Oil Pipeline

Alaska Oil Pipeline

President Obama "declared it was in the national interest" to nix a proposed oil pipeline from Canada to Texas refineries. See the article here. More specifically he

on Wednesday [January 18th] rejected plans for a massive oil pipeline through the heart of the United States, ruling there was not enough time for a fair review before a looming deadline forced on him by Republicans. 

Don't let the thought that there "was not enough time" enter your mind. Obama's decision involved a political calculation. Instead of pulling toward the center, Obama is trying to energize his liberal base, taking the side of the Occupiers in speeches, adopting a populists stance on taxes, and now, by halting the pipeline, giving a nice gift to the environmentalists.

Bill McKibben, an environmental activist who led opposition to the pipeline, praised Obama's decision to stand up to what he called a "naked political threat from Big Oil." 

The pipeline rejection is a red meat issue for conservatives. Republicans were enraged, which will delight the liberal base still further. Politically it made short-term sense for Obama to oppose the pipeline--it will help him hold onto majorities in blue states such as New York, Minnesota, and California. He doesn't care if he loses votes in Texas. Long-term, however, Obama made a poor decision. We have soured our relations with our biggest trading partner, Canada, who may decide to sell their oil to more accommodating Chinese rivals.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said Canada is serious about building a pipeline to its West Coast, where oil could be shipped to China and other Asian markets. Harper on Wednesday told Obama he was profoundly disappointed that Obama turned down the pipeline, Harper's office said.

See also Canada pledges to sell oil to Asia after Obama rejects keystone pipeline.

Economically, Obama's decision makes even less sense. We have to buy oil. The United States does not have enough domestic supply even if we double our conservation efforts. Should we buy oil from Canada or from Saudi Arabia? Saudi oil money supports Wahhabi Islam, an extremist and militant form of Islam, throughout the world. I think we can say that buying Saudi instead of Canadian oil works against American interests. "Canada accounts for more than 90 percent of all proven reserves outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, according to data compiled in the BP Statistical Review of World Energy" (above link).

Economic Inequality in Wealthy Marin County

Ah, my home, Marin County, the land of BMWs, doctors, lawyers, and CEOs, and plenty of liberal guilt over all this wealth. The January 18th top story in the Marin IJ, Economic disparity revealed (link here) explored the gap between rich and poor, mining that nagging rich liberal guilt.

"A Portrait of Marin," produced by the American Human Development Project, an extension of the nonprofit Social Science Research Council, draws distinctions between towns such as Ross and Tiburon — where residents enjoy long lives, high incomes, extensive educations and access to healthy foods — and those such as the Canal area of San Rafael, which the report compares to rural West Virginia.

I've been to West Virginia; I spent a week outside Morgantown, and the comparison is patently ridiculous. In  many areas of West Virginia poor unemployed whites live in houses on rolling green hills outside a small town or in rural coal-mining areas. There isn't a bustling city close by. In the Canal, Mexican immigrants live in high density apartments a mile from downtown San Rafael, Whole Foods, Safeway, farmers markets, Dominican University of California, bookstores, music shops, and art stores. West Virginian life at its worst resembles characterizations from Steinbeck's  The Grapes of Wrath (West Virginia taking the place of Oklahoma), a generational cycle of poverty and few opportunities for betterment. In comparison, life in the Canal boasts of all the opportunities small city life has to offer--good schools, and plenty of job opportunities. Most people that live in the Canal haven't lived in the country for long and certainly for less than a generation. Just about everyone is working.

Certainly there is great income inequality between rich neighborhoods such as Ross and the Canal.

According to the report, the top fifth of Marin's taxpayers earn about 71 percent of the county's total income, while the bottom fifth earns only 1.3 percent — and life for those bottom-earners is extraordinarily stressful, the report suggests.

Last time I saw my specialist, he charged me $500 for 10 minutes of his time. My lawyer charged me $450/hour and my accountant half that. It's true. Canal bricklayers are not in the one percent and don't make that kind of money.

"It's no surprise to me that the population of the Canal neighborhood would be rated way below that of Ross," said Tom Wilson, director of the Canal Alliance, which serves Marin's low-income immigrant populations. "It's not only an immigrant community, but a self-selected group of immigrants: people who came here because they were fleeing oppression, poverty, war and any number of other traumatic events. And about half that population are indigenous peoples, who might speak Spanish as a second language or not at all. It's a unique group."

Anyone with a pulse knows that poor Mexican immigrants wait on Canal neighborhood street corners for work and provide cheap labor for anyone willing to pay. May we mention what the Marin IJ and the director of the Canal Alliance refuses to say: the Canal has more than its share of illegal immigrants that came here for a better life. As bad as life as an uneducated laborer is in the Canal, it's way better than that of an uneducated laborer in Mexico.

The article states that less than half of the Canal residents received a high school diploma. If you never finished high school, speak little English, and have an undocumented status, it is likely that your earnings will place you in the bottom fifth in the United States, whether you live in Marin or Los Angeles. The answer to the problem lies in a rational immigration policy and in education. (See my previous blog on education as a weapon against poverty here.)

Obama's College Transcripts

Transcripts for Obama's Mother

It is clear that President Obama will not release his college transcripts for public scrutiny anytime soon. He  demanded that his rivals release their tax returns, which was much more pertinent and embarrassing, but he won't reciprocate with his grades earned 30 years ago. See link

 Why won't he release his college grades? I have three theories:
1. He is an intensely private individual
This statement does not make sense after reviewing the man's history. Obama is perhaps the most important person in the world. He has written two books about himself. He is a politician. Those actions yell out, "Look at me!" They don't communicate, "Leave me alone."Since the president is so important, all aspects of his life deserve scrutiny, especially his understanding of the world, measured by college grades. My employer has a copy of my college and graduate school grades, and the American people are Obama's employer.

2. He wants to distract the Republicans
The controversy over Obama's long birth certificate distracted Obama's political enemies from more important and relevant issues. The "birthers" ended up looking like extremists and fools. The transcript controversy has less power to demonize the Republicans. Everyone agrees Obama has a transcript, and many of us feel we have the right to see it.

3. He has something to hide
Ironically, he doesn't really. He probably has a transcript somewhat like mine--mostly A's with a few B's and maybe a C here and there. However, he thinks he has something to hide, because the transcript will make him look like every other moderately bright professional, no better and no worse, and not an elite thinker. Richard Nixon and Hillary Clinton probably had better grades. Mitt Romney certainly did.

I think it is unlikely that his grades were less than impressive, and he was accepted to Harvard Law School because of affirmative action. It is more probable that his grades were very good but not perfect, and that is why he wants to hide them.

Update (May 28, July 8, 2012): According to David Maraniss, Obama's cumulative GPA after Columbia was 3.7, an A minus average, though no source is given. His grades at his first university, Occidental, are still unknown. There is some controversy over the time he spent at Columbia, because the records are corrupt, and few professors remember him besides the one that wrote his recommendation for law school.
Update (August 6, 2012): A Columbia classmate makes the more outlandish  and completely unsubstantiated claim that Obama really does have something to hide: he was a foreign exchange student who rarely attended classes. See that article here. I personally met an Obama Columbia classmate, a father of one of my son's teammates, so I know that Obama was a student there.
Update (October 24): Donald Trump, in what he called a "bombshell" revelation, offered to donate five million dollars to Obama's favorite charity (probably not including the Obama reelection campaign) if he released his transcripts, application paperwork, and passport application. The media was not impressed, and there was no serious reply from the White House.

Eating Dog

Caged in China

"It's very simple. Each country has its own culture, and here we eat dog." Dao Van Bien, Hanoi, Vietnam (WSJ Classroom edition, link here).

Personally, I find the custom of eating dog abhorrent. I wondered why the idea bothered me so much. Many dogs are housed and treated poorly--locked in small cages without food or water. Some are slaughtered using cruel and painful methods as well. However, most of us that oppose eating dogs do not oppose eating other animals. If we are against eating dog because it is an animal rights issue, we should all be vegetarians. Check out a big ag-business cattle slaughterhouse or poultry processing plant and you will see a lot of unhappy poorly-treated animals, although conditions have improved in the last few years.

Most of us don't think of the slaughterhouse when eating a hamburger or chicken teriyaki dinner. Our reaction against dog eating is personal and emotional, not based on avoiding cruelty to animals. Many of us grew up with dogs and saw them as individual personalities, maybe even as members of the family. In a sense, they have become people. Eating dog would be cannibalism.

Additionally, dogs are qualitatively different from other animals. A dog cares about its owner. A dog is sad when the owner is away and happy and excited when given attention. A pack animal, a dog is loyal to owner and family. (My cat, on the other hand, is much more of an opportunist.) It feels wrong to eat a creature that adores you, perhaps loves you, and is loyal to you forever.

 If Vietnamese dogs were pets, they would not be eaten.

Infrastructure Funding

I asked history teacher and former colleague and department chair, Mike Vice, to explain his ideas about taxation and funding infrastructure projects. Mr. Vice explains his strategy below. I have lightly edited his remarks.

I have grown more and more frustrated lately over the inability of our political system to stop arguing and try to do something for the American people.  The extremists on both sides shout that only they have the solutions to our problems and so nothing gets done.  A good example of this is the arguing over President Obama's "American Jobs Act", which Republicans loathe, and corporations and banks off-shoring trillions of dollars of profits to avoid taxes, which Democrats loathe.

So, a Modest Proposal:

Congress will create an American Infrastructure Bank, which money will be used for three distinct purposes, described below.  The funding will come not from taxes, but from repatriated profits.  The government will allow corporations/banks to repatriate their profits at some substantially reduced interest rate, say between 5% and 10% instead of the current incremental rate of 35%.  Courtesy of the largesse of Congress in screwing with tax policy, corporations and banks only pay between 5% and 6% on average today anyway, with several major corporations paying zero taxes on their profits.  We should reject Republicans' claims that the money should be tax-free, since that sends the signal that off-shoring profits is a great way to "beat the system."  Likewise, we should reject Democrats' claims that the rate should be 35%, since that would result in all of the money staying offshore.

The reduced tax rates will only be granted IF AND ONLY IF the money is used to purchase infrastructure bonds sold by an American Infrastructure Bank.  The corporations/banks would benefit from the lower tax rates and the prospect of interest income revenues from the bonds purchased.  The American people would benefit from improved roads, bridges, and more, plus, of course, the jobs that would be created.  The cost to the Treasury of the interest paid on the bonds would be made up by the increased tax revenues created by the new jobs.

The money put into the fund would be allocated to three distinct pools, with the percentages or amounts to be negotiated by the parties in some fashion.

                1.  The first pool, perhaps 70% of the total, would be reserved for traditional infrastructure.  Ours is crumbling, with the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) rating it at a grade of D/D- overall.  To avoid federal government meddling and "picking winners," the entire amount would be block-granted to the states.  This would not be done via some "pork barrel" list, but based on the studies of the ASCE, which has not only identified the infrastructure that needs repair, but also the ranking of the repairs.  States would get Infrastructure Bank funds based on some weighted average of need according to the ASCE's studies.  Once allocated to the states, however, governors could have some discretion in how they use the money, as long as it is spent on infrastructure.  Thus, Jerry Brown in California could spend the money on reducing congestion on our roads or whatever, whereas Rick Perry in Texas might decide to use his allotment for creating the electrical transmission system to support T. Boone Pickens's wind energy proposals.  Right now, "T-Bone's" proposal sits idle because his planned electricity-generating wind towers have no way to get the power to market.

            2.  The second pool, perhaps 20% of the total, would be reserved to the states to fund start-up businesses or new technologies.  Example:  Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan used federal dollars to invest in new battery technology and the result has been a cutting-edge industry that has created some 66,000 new jobs and sets Michigan on the road to being the premier site for perhaps trillions of dollars of worldwide electric car production.  The funds could possibly be allocated to the states based on some kind of bidding process similar to the recent education funding for Race to the Top.  Anything, just so the politicians keep their mitts off it.

                3.  About 10% of the money, up to a maximum of $100 billion (10% of the first trillion dollars that gets repatriated) would be retained by the federal government; this is the only pool that the feds would control.  "When We Were the Cutting Edge" of world technology development the government spent about 2%+ of GDP on R&D; we have now fallen to less than 1% and the Indians and the Chinese are laughing in their tea as they pass us by!  This R&D money would be reserved for research and development projects and allocated to universities, private corporations or individuals or retained by the government for DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency.  (Unlike what the name seems to imply, this agency has produced for us such things as the beginnings of the internet, the GPS system, and many other projects that are now in the public domain.)  Details of how the money not retained for DARPA would be allocated would be worked out later, but, to prevent politicizing the fund, it would be overseen by some independent board of scientists and private industry leaders.

            Sounds like a win-win to me!  We get rid of some of our political deadlock and accomplish something for American business and the people while, at the same time, providing impetus for the continuation of America's role as world leader.

Comments? 

Jimmy Carter's Mind

When I listed the worst presidents in history (here), I didn't put James E. Carter in the top five, though he certainly would have made my top ten. As president he was best known for rationalizing an American economic decline and leading a toothless foreign policy against the Soviets and Iranians. Like a carton of milk left too long in the refrigerator, his thinking has grown more rancid with age. His 2006 book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid,has been embraced by those on the far left and far right who believe that Israel's settlement policy after 1967 is the main obstacle to Middle East peace. Israel's neighbors have been trying to destroy her since 1948 and the Palestine Liberation Organization was formed in 1964, so Carter's thesis is not only one-sided; it is also wrong. (See my take on the Arab-Israeli peace process here.)

Never afraid of coddling the most despicable dictators, "Former President Jimmy Carter has sent North Korea a message of condolence over the death of Kim Jong-il and wished "every success" to the man expected to take over as dictator, according to the communist country's state-run news agency" (link here). This after serving as Bill Clinton's emissary in the 1990s and "stopping" North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

Now Carter has weighed in on the recent Egyptian elections. The article, Carter Pleased with Egypt Polls, found here, states that he

gave the thumbs up on Tuesday to Egypt's parliamentary elections, saying the people's will was "expressed accurately." "We have been very pleased," Carter told reporters during a tour of a polling station at the Rod al-Farag girls' secondary school in a working class district of the Egyptian capital. He said the election -- a three-staged process launched in November to choose the first parliament since mass protests forced former president Hosni Mubarak to quit -- had been peaceful despite "some problems. But in general the will of the people has been expressed accurately," he said on the eve of the end of the polls. 

OK. Well and good. The elections were fair. But now look what he says! "Asked about Islamists coming to power, Carter said: "I have no problem with that. The US government has no problem with that either."'

Carter has no problem with the end of civil liberties in Egypt. He has no problem with women and non-Muslims treated like chattel. He has no problem with Egypt turning into another Iran. And since when does he speak for the U.S. government?

He needs to keep up his good work building houses with Habitat for Humanity. He needs to stop propping up dictators and theocratic regimes. In sum, he needs to stay out of politics.

Update October 22, 2012: But he hasn't. He's back with his usual crew of Israel haters, blaming Israel for Middle East tensions as the missiles from Gaza rain down on Jewish cities. See the latest here.

The Twinkie Defense Lives!

Assemblywoman Mary Hayashi, D-Hayward was sentenced to probation after pleading guilty to shoplifting in the Stockton Street San Francisco Neiman Marcus department store. She "pleaded no contest Friday to a misdemeanor charge and her attorney said a benign brain tumor might have led to the incident" (link above).

Defense attorneys never cease to amaze me by creatively finding ways to avoid culpibility. A brain tumor that destroyed part of the frontal cortex (as in the famous and partially mythical case of Phineas Gage) might increase impulsivity. However, if Hayashi had a tumor anywhere else her tendency for kleptomania would be unlikely. Counsel stated that the tumor had been successfully treated. It's size has been diminished, and so, according to Hayashi's counsel, her propensity to take things without paying for them has also shrunk--a happy ending.

Less happy was Dan White's murder of San Francisco mayor George Moscone and gay activist Harvey Milk in 1978. White was convicted of the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter rather than first degree murder. Wikipedia recounts:

White's defense team claimed that he was depressed, evidenced by, among other things, his eating of unhealthy foods (inaccurate media reports that White's defense had presented junk food consumption as the cause of his mental state, rather than a symptom of it, would give rise to the legal term "Twinkie defense"). The defense argued that White's depression led to a state of mental diminished capacity, leaving him unable to have formed the premeditation necessary to commit first-degree murder. The jury accepted these arguments, and White was found guilty of the lesser crime of voluntary manslaughter.

The Hayashi and White cases have much in common. Neither suspect is "all there," either due to a brain tumor or depression. Thus it was not a premeditated crime.  Do not misunderstand me. An insanity defense is a necessary component in a just society . Daniel N. Robinson writes in The Great Ideas of Psychology (The Teaching Company) that  there "is no time in the recorded history of Western jurisprudence when there has not been an insanity defense. You will find it as early as the homicide laws of Draco in the ancient Greek world." More importantly in the development of English and American law, the Romans regarded a defendant as insane if he acted like a wild beast, "beyond the reach of reason." What "criteria have to be satisfied to qualify one as insane"? These "criteria have had a quite shifting history" (Robinson).

The shift has gone too far against the idea of personal responsibility. Today, depression, schizophrenia and other psychiatric ailments, brain tumors, child and spousal abuse, and systemic racism are used by defense attorneys in the courtroom, all with the expressed purpose of demonstrating either diminished capacity or justifiable reason for committing the crime. It is time to shift closer to the Roman ideal. We have seen some shift after the 1982 Hinkley case (trying the would-be assassin of President Reagan).

Two-thirds of the states that recognize the insanity defense now place upon the defendant the burden of persuading the jury that he or she was insane at the time of the offense, usually requiring proof by a preponderance of the evidence. A federal statute holds the defendant to an even higher standard, requiring proof of insanity by clear and convincing evidence (link here).

California Hopes to Tax Its way Out of Austerity

My union, the California Federation of Teachers (CFT), heads a coalition that proposes taxing millionaires to raise an estimated $6 billion annually. The article Act now to put Millionaires Tax on the November Ballot (California Teacher, Nov-Dec 2011, V.65, No.2) describes how the proposed "ballot measure will tax individuals earning $1 million per year an additional 3 percent and those earning $2 million or more per year an additional 5 percent." Three competing measures to raise taxes are also on the ballot but this is the one that focuses on taxing only the rich, and, as of February, 2012, is the most popular. "Under the CFT measure, the typical (italics mine) California taxpayer will have no increase in income taxes."

In late December, 2011 I sent an email to CFT President Josh Pechthalt, asking him to show me the numbers. Do we have enough millionaires in California to raise an additional $6 billion? I received no reply.

Assuming the CFT's math is correct, what is the likelihood the new tax will raise $6 billion, solving most of California's budget problems? Let's take a look at the history of other states that have tried the same thing.

Maryland reported only a slightly lower level of millionaires filing after they adopted their tax. The controversy over whether taxing millionaires drives them out is updated here.

Stanford professor Cristobal Young examined New Jersey tax revenue, finding that most of the wealthy don't leave when taxes on them are raised. However, he also said the millionaire tax make state budgets more sensitive to the business cycle.

This is particularly true in a state like California that tends to have deeper recessions than the rest of the country. States should either bank a significant portion of their millionaire tax revenues, or tie the millionaire tax to the unemployment rate. So, when the unemployment rate rises above average, the millionaire tax is triggered, and when unemployment falls below average, the millionaire tax turns off. This would do a lot to help stabilize state budgets.

Since politicians, not academics run the state, it is quite unlikely that California would bank a portion of their millionaire tax revenues or turn off the tax during boom times.  Instead, the State bureaucrats will  keep the tax permanent, raising it even more during recessions. This cycle can't continue forever. Eventually the wealthy really will leave--less millionaires will stick around to be taxed.

Updated, February 25, 2012 and July 8, 2012

Gun Control and Marin County, California

Our normally staid Marin Independent Journal, a bulwark against sensationalist news, printed the following mid-page headline yesterday morning:

2 Hospitalized in Gunbattle: Resident, 90, and suspect exchange fire in Greenbrae

Wow! Sleepy bedroom communities don't get much safer than Greenbrae in wealthy Marin County, California. Here's what happened. The victim, "a former member of the Marin County sheriff's air patrol, was able to get one of several guns in his home and shot the suspect." The suspect then shot the victim and drove off. Fortunately, both men were only mildly injured (see link). The suspect called for medical attention for the three bullet wounds he sustained and was arrested.


Greenbrae is full of limousine liberals. The victim lived only a few blocks away from the previous residence of Senator Barbara Boxer! What were the chances of the suspect burglarizing the home of perhaps the only Greenbrae resident carrying firearms? I am impressed with the courage of the 90-year-old man. May we all be able to defend our homes in our later years.

Obama Miscalculates on Recess Appointments

President Obama has badly miscalculated the public's reaction to his "recess" appointments of Richard Cordray as director of a new consumer protection agency and appointments to fill three labor board vacancies. The move is blatantly unconstitutional. The Senate is still in session based on Obama's own Justice Department calculations. Additionally, the Clinton White House considered the Senate in session if they met once every three days, which the Senate did. According to John Boehner (R), the Speaker of the House (link):

This is an extraordinary and entirely unprecedented power grab by President Obama that defies centuries of practice and the legal advice of his own Justice Department.  The precedent that would be set by this cavalier action would have a devastating effect on the checks and balances that are enshrined in our constitution.

The White House disagrees, saying the Senate wasn't really in session. They were not conducting business so they did not really meet.

Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said White House lawyers were confident Mr. Obama had the authority to make the appointment. “When pro forma sessions are simply used as an attempt to stop the president from making an appointment,” he said, then the president is within his rights to move ahead. (link)

Pro forma sessions are still sessions. The courts will decide whether Obama can make recess appointments any time he likes.

The Republicans refused to grant Obama his appointments because they ideologically oppose the creation of a new consumer protection agency, and they wish to keep Obama from claiming any "victories" in an election year. Obama probably felt that these Republican positions were politically unpopular, and he could weather any political storm by calling up his new-found Theodore Roosevelt-style philosophy of increased regulation of business. Indeed, he may win back some liberals that had lost faith in him. Thus a fight with Congress made sense.

Obama said that he just lost patience with Congress stonewalling him: “I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer. I am not going to stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people we were elected to serve” (link above). Do not let Obama's words enter your mind. This was a cold political calculation, earning political points by using Congress as the whipping boy. How do we know? The following headline says it all:  "Dem NLRB ‘recess’ appointments rushed, don’t appear on White House nominee list"  (link here).

However, he gravely miscalculated the political fallout from a court decision that goes against him. And that is probable. If the courts rule that Obama's recess appointments are illegal and did usurp Congress' power, not only does he lose the appointments, but he comes off appearing like a frightening authoritarian to the moderate voters.

Since Congress was doing a great job of being unpopular without any help from Obama, this fight can only damage Obama in the polls. It is a miscalculation similar to Franklin Roosevelt's court packing bill of 1937. During the Great Depression the American people recoiled from the idea of an imperial White House, able to rule without checks from the other branches. They will react similarly now.

January 25, 2013 and July 17, 2013 update:
I was wrong on the public's reaction but correct on the appointments' unconstitutionality. See Obama recess appointments unconstitutional here. A third district appeals court overturned Obama's appointment here. This court looked at the history and Founders' intentions for recess appointments, and concluded that recess appointments may be made only when Congress adjourns for a long time. Next up, Supreme Court. To be continued...
June 26, 2014 update:
In a unanimous decision the Supreme Court viewed the recess appointments as unconstitutional. While the ruling was not as strong as the lower court ruling against recess appointments, the message was clear.

Imposter Taking SAT Test is Caught

The Long Island SAT cheating scandal was reviewed by the television program, 60 Minutes (see link here). The teenage perpetrator charged morally and cognitively challenged students $2500 per test and took tests for others twenty times. He concluded by saying it was easy to take the test for others and could do so easily today.

The College Board, the organization that administers and grades the SAT test requires that students bring picture identification to the test (see link). So the Long Island cheater must have counted on a perfunctory checking of identification. Since the cheater even took a test for his girlfriend, it seems in this case that the IDs weren't checked at all. I asked my own children about their experience taking the test, and they said that their IDs were checked. Perhaps the Long Island cheater wore disguises.

I phoned and sent an email to the College Board, and they replied that they are conducting an internal investigation.

Postscript, July 27, 2012: The College Board found that the Long Island cheater helped girls with gender-neutral names. This should not happen any more. Test takers nation-wide will be required to send in picture ID in advance, and the picture "will be printed on their admission tickets and the roster at the test center." The scores will also be automatically sent to the students' high schools. Failing students achieving top SAT scores will be investigated. I believe that the College Board has improved the "security of the process." Students will not get away with impersonating each other. Other types of cheating such as copying may still occur, though I believe incidents are rare. See the link to the story here.

The Five Best Presidents and the Five Worst

Washington

Listed below are the five most effective and five most destructive American presidents. Some were rich. Some grew up poor. Some were brilliant. Others had only average intelligence. These are my evaluations, based on my understanding and interpretations of history, economics, and human nature and do not necessarily represent the opinions of anyone else. Since all humans have weaknesses and strengths, I also gave a criticism of the policies of the best presidents and a compliment for the successes of the worst presidents.

Five Best

5. Thomas Jefferson: Not interested in serious military preparedness. Saw that the first transition between political parties was seamless. Promoted small farmers over moneyed interests. Expanded the country with the Louisiana Purchase. A genius.
4. Theodore Roosevelt: Put the country on the path to empire. Balanced the needs of capital with the needs of labor. Expanded conservation. Incredible confidence and energy.
3. Franklin Roosevelt: His New Deal was an abject failure but his personality prevented a more damaging lurch to communism or fascism. Successfully led the country through most of WWII.
2. George Washington: Cold and aristocratic. Universally respected. Led by example. A personality marked by moderation and selflessness. Created the office of presidency. Turned down the post of president for life.
1. The best--Abraham Lincoln: Greatly limited states' power. Rags to riches biography. Shepherded the country through its worst crisis, despite vicious political opposition and personal tragedy. Writer of timeless political prose. Embodied wisdom. Died a martyr.

Five Worst

5. Woodrow Wilson: Regulated big business and lowered tariffs. Promised his new income tax would only tax the rich. His Federal Reserve has overseen the loss of almost all of the dollar's purchasing power. Meddled in Mexico, accomplishing nothing. Curtailed civil liberties during WWI. Incapacitated during his second term, and his inability to govern was hidden from the American public.
*4. Barack Obama (as of January, 2012): Oversaw termination of Osama bin Laden. Attempted to reform a broken healthcare system. Pushed through a healthcare bill before it could be vetted. Wasted billions on an ineffectual spending scheme to reduce unemployment. As debt hit critical levels continued to promote deficit spending programs. Went on lavish vacations using the people's money during difficult economic times.
3. George W. Bush: A patriot and leader against Islamic terrorism. Turned the United States closer in spirit to imperial Rome and a police state. Wasted billions on war.
2. Andrew Johnson: Believed with all his being in the sacredness of the Constitution. An opponent of doing anything for the freedmen (ex-slaves). Used presidential reconstruction to get even with plantation aristocracy rather than to do anything for equality. Emotionally unstable.
1. The worst--James Buchanan: Potentially an antebellum president both North and South could trust. Overly sympathetic to the South's cause. Promoted the Dred Scott case as a resolution to North-South divisions. Failed to cool secessionist feelings or stop southern states from seceding.

* Based on lowering of AAA-credit rating and increase of debt, low GDP growth, and poor employment when compared to other post-recessionary periods.

Feel free to comment on who I should have included or left out.