Well at least they were candid… (rianjs.net (Hanser)) by Rian

From change.gov:

Q: "Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?"

- S. Man, Denton

 

A: President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.

I'm happy to see that the administration didn't skip over this kind of question. I think it shows an unusual level of political inclusiveness.

Personally, I am in favor of legalizing marijuana — and I believe it's only a matter of time — but now isn't the time or place. Doing such a thing would have very little overall benefit, while burning copious amounts of precious political capital. (Which I believe Obama will use to push through his green programs and his healthcare proposals.)

I also disagree with the assertion that marijuana will create a multi-billion dollar industry, because once you let supply and demand function more freely, the scarcity premium is minimized. (Though this slack may be taken up by higher bureaucratic costs.)

In terms of demand, I see marijuana more like the cigar business than the cigarette business: while there is doubtless a large number of regular users, I suspect they are the relative minority in the pot-smoking demographic.

On that note, I think I feel a larger drug post coming on soon in the next couple of days…

Posted in: drugs , economics , marijuana , politics

Brokaw quizzing Obama on Pigovian gas taxes (rianjs.net (Hanser)) by Rian

Right around the 7 minute mark on this past weekend's Meet the Press. (The video should start playing just as Brokaw asks him about it.)

Obama's response pretty much jives with what I said last week about now not being the right time, but when Brokaw pushed him, he kind of waffled on the possibility of a gas tax hike in the future. Impossible to read into his response at all because it'd be detrimental politically to do so. (Though if he slipped it in at the beginning of his term, it might be forgotten at the end of four years.)

Apologies if there are any ads. I would have embedded a YouTube video, but there don't seem to be any of decent quality/responsiveness up, yet.

Posted in: economics , gas tax , meet the press , obama , pigovian taxes , politics

Now is not the time for a Pigovian gas tax (rianjs.net (Hanser)) by Rian

Wrote this a little while back. The macro policy bits in the second to last paragraph may or may not remain my opinion in the light of some of the data that Mankiw has posted here. Let's just say my thinking is… fluid on the more Keynesian bits I've referenced. I'm going to have to read the whole paper (PDF) in the near future.

Several weekends ago, the Washington Post editorial board came out in favor of a Pigovian gas tax. A guest op-ed in the New York Times advocated essentially the same thing. For those unfamiliar with the concept, a Pigovian tax is a fee levied on a particular good or service designed to reduce consumption of that good or service to compensate for a negative externality. Even if the revenue raised from the tax is returned to the public in the form of an income subsidy, it has a real tendency to reduce consumption of that particular good or service, even though an individual has experienced no real drop in income. (They have not dropped to a lower indifference curve.)

In the case of gasoline, the tax has many reasons: pollution generated by the combustion of fossil fuels isn't accounted for because clean air never enters a market system, therefore it has no market price so we treat it as free. (Obviously clean air has value even though we don't buy or sell it.) Another externality is the US's reliance on foreign oil, often provided by otherwise hostile nations who derive their economic power from US petrodollars. There are several other, more wonkish reasons for desiring a Pigovian gas tax as well.

In general, I consider myself a bandwagon fan of the Pigou club. I agree with their aims, and Pigovian taxes have demonstrated a remarkable ability to meaningfully compensate for externalities otherwise unaccounted for in a free market system. However, now is not the time to institute such a tax. At a time when the federal government is considering a large-scale stimulus package that certain Keynesians think needs to be in the neighborhood of US$600 billion to have any chance of working — a figure that jives with China's US$585bn package — the tremendous drop in gas prices is equivalent to a US$318 billion stimulus package that Uncle Sam doesn't have to ultimately borrow from China or sovereign wealth funds to put into play in the here and now.

This trumps any marginal environmental benefit that might be gained by instituting a Pigovian tax at this moment in time.

Recession economics suggest that when all normal tools of correction have been tried, the government should increase spending and/or cut taxes. Trying to close a budget deficit while in the middle of a recession will only exacerbate the economic turmoil, and you run a very real risk of pushing a recession into a depression. (Though a nation's long-term stability obviously requires fiscal responsibility, which the US has been lacking in recent years.) Raising taxes takes money out of consumers' pockets, and cutting government spending tends to lead lead to lost jobs. Obviously lost jobs and decreased consumer buying power are undesirable. Doing nothing can cause the recession to deepen, and doing too little is no better than doing nothing at all. The question isn't whether we need a stimulus package, the question is how big it needs to be. Therefore we should take what the burst petroleum speculation bubble has given us, and let it ride until the current economic crisis has passed.

It would have been better for the WaPo and NYTimes to have published these pieces back in the spring and summer — not in the middle of a recession. During the Democratic primary, Senator Clinton suggested rolling back the federal gas tax, which was a pretty bad idea. Ironically, if we still had $4/gallon gas prices today, her ideas might make more sense, except that a temporary reprieve of the relatively small federal gas tax wouldn't amount to very much. However given petroleum's relatively low cost right now, rolling back the gas tax temporarily wouldn't amount to much in the way of meaningful consumer relief. ($31.46 billion on the generous side — an amount in the same ballpark as the recent Citigroup bailout.) When the seas are calmer, then we should discuss nifty tricks like Pigovian taxes and other consumption taxation vehicles as part of a responsible long-term fiscal policy.

Now is not the time to balance the budget. While there will always be arguments over timing, it seems obvious to me that instituting a Pigovian gas tax today — or even this year — isn't in the US's, or the world's best interest. Let's revisit this idea sometime in 2010. Hopefully by then, we'll have weathered the worst of this recession.

Posted in: economics , externalities , gas tax , keynesian , microeconomics , pigou club , pigovian taxes , politics , recession , stimulus

Massachusetts: a less than perfect healthcare model (rianjs.net (Hanser)) by Rian

I will have a large writeup on real, honest-to-God ways we can reform healthcare in this country without resorting to re-distributionist tactics in the next couple of days. No hand-waving. No pie-in-the-sky. I promise. But until then…

By Frank Micciche from the New America Foundation/Providence Journal:

439,000 people have acquired health insurance since the reform became law — an astonishing 9 percent increase in coverage at a time when the national rate increased by one-half of 1 percent.

Nearly 200,000 of the newly insured acquired private, unsubsidized coverage, mostly through their employers.

Written another way: "More than half of the individuals are subsidized with taxpayer money."

Libertarians will have a field day with the other piece of puzzle: many individuals would rather pay the fine associated with forgoing the mandatory medical insurance than pay the premiums. Why? The fine costs less. Many healthy people simply don't want to buy health insurance. The original projections for the number of unsubsidized signups ended up being wildly optimistic:

Massachusetts' financing challenge emerges from its success in covering the state's neediest residents. Enrollment in the fully subsidized Commonwealth Care program has been higher than expected, while enrollment in the unsubsidized Commonwealth Choice plans has been lower than anticipated. Therefore, costs to the state have risen dramatically.

Micciche spins it another way:

The state's success enrolling lower-income households in the subsidized "Commonwealth Care" program has driven overall costs above original projections, but the actual cost per person covered is lower than expected, as is the average premium.

From an economic standpoint, enrolling lots of lower-income households is not success unless it is offset by sufficient numbers of unsubsidized enrollees.

Obviously it follows that the average premium is lower than anticipated because the majority of enrollees are subsidized and therefore pay lower premiums.

This isn't rocket science econometrics, folks.

In the fiscal year before passage of health-care reform, Massachusetts spent $710 million to reimburse hospitals and community health centers for unpaid bills. 81 percent of these costs were incurred by individuals without insurance.

Now we spend that money getting these people the insurance they need so when they go to the ED, they aren't "uninsured". Instead we buy these people insurance with taxpayer money so we don't have to spend taxpayer money reimbursing hospitals directly.

What's not mentioned is that this is good for the hospitals. A lot of "free care" ends up not being reimbursed at all, meaning hospitals have to eat the costs of treating those who cannot afford to pay. The upside for hospitals is that now that these folks have insurance — subsidized though it may be — hospitals can get reimbursed for services they provide that wouldn't have been reimbursed in the past. It will be interesting to see if there's an effect on the number of hospital closures and bankruptcies going forward from here.

Costs aside, all agree that sporadic treatment of the uninsured through emergency rooms and clinics is much less effective medically. The commonwealth took on the problem by diverting much of its uncompensated care pool dollars into subsidies to buy private insurance by lower-income individuals and families. Quarterly costs for free care have subsequently dropped 40 percent.

From one money hole to the next. Yes, that has "sustainability" written all over it. Payments to hospitals have dropped by 40%, and that's a good thing. Except that that money went to the Commonwealth Care program instead. Instead of being red ink in one set of books, it's red ink in another.

Clearly there's a difference between red ink and politically-acceptable red ink. At the end of the day, though, the same people end up paying the piper:

The subsidized insurance program at the heart of the state's healthcare initiative is expected to roughly double in size and expense over the next three years - an unexpected level of growth that could cost state taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars or force the state to scale back its ambitions.

State projections obtained by the Globe show the program reaching 342,000 people and $1.35 billion in annual expenses by June 2011. Those figures would far outstrip the original plans for the Commonwealth Care program, largely because state officials underestimated the number of uninsured residents.

Back to Micciche:

And the individuals who acquired private insurance now receive coordinated, cost-effective care that will improve overall health outcomes and reduce the need for more expensive late-stage intervention.

An oversimplification. Many of the patients that are now insured — both subsidized and unsubsidized — cannot find primary care physicians because the program didn't even attempt to solve one of the major problems with healthcare today: there aren't enough practicing primary care physicians to handle the influx of new patients. Why? Because being a PCP isn't a financially attractive proposition. Attempts to alter the landscape of our medical system are continually undercut by talk of reducing Medicare reimbursements to primary care physicians — the very people who will bear the brunt of that manufactured demand. This, in turn, sends the wrong signals to medical students weighing a career in primary care as opposed to a more lucrative specialty.

This dearth of PCPs isn't unique to Massachusetts, either.

Look, I'm all for increased access to healthcare when it makes sense, and I don't think ED overusage and overcrowding is sustainable or desirable. I know that health outcomes are worse when non-emergent cases are seen in the ED. ED care is also inherently more expensive. In short, you get less bang for more bucks — and it potentially endangers those who are at the ED for real emergencies by diverting the limited resources to non-urgent cases.

I would like to think that everyone in this country can have their own primary care doctor, but I know that our infrastructure cannot support it. I am not a Darwinian capitalist. I don't hate poor people. But I do know what is sustainable and what isn't.

It worries me that if the nation looks to Massachusetts as some kind of prototypical model to be copied, we're going to be manufacturing big problems, because coverage is only a superficial issue.

Healthcare coverage is not the same thing as healthcare access, even though it is politically expedient to conflate the two concepts.

Universal health coverage will manufacture healthcare demand in dramatic fashion, and the existing healthcare infrastructure isn't equipped to deal with the kind of patient influx that that kind of universal program would create. We don't have the human capital to meet that demand. We need to work on our healthcare infrastructure before we dump millions of new patients into the system overnight.

–

The most interesting thing that strikes me when you look at these numbers is what they say about real demand. Demand for universal health coverage by those that can afford to pay for it is less than our models predict. Even by making health insurance mandatory and enforcing it with a fine, many people are still opting out; they find that their money is better spent in other ways.

Maybe we need to revisit our models and (certainly) our cost projections.

Posted in: economics , healthcare , massachusetts , medicine , politics , primary care

Obama and farm subsidies (rianjs.net (Hanser)) by Rian

From Greg Mankiw:

Like President-elect Obama (but unlike candidate Obama), I am all for getting rid of farm subsidies. But why would you want to use taxpayer funds to encourage large, efficient, profitable farms to break up into smaller, less efficient, less profitable farms? Isn't that precisely what you do if you maintain subsidies only for small farmers?

I've thought about this, too. A lot. The answer is pure politics wrapped in an age-old economic battle: equity vs efficiency. Doing what's efficient vs doing what's "fair". (Fairness being a subjectively ambiguous term.)

I'm all for getting rid of farm subsidies to everyone and letting the market sort out who wins and who loses. This places smaller farmers a distinct disadvantage because an industry like wheat farming is the almost-perfect definition of perfect competition. Neither side has market power. The only way for a farmer to increase their income is by producing more wheat. As the big guys are bigger, they have economies of scale, especially in terms of capital investment on their side. In a price-taking market, this advantage is the only business advantage possible.

Subsidizing the little guys makes them more competitive with the big guys, but this is a distortion of market efficiency. Sometimes this makes sense, but not in the case of farming in the US: we produce more food than we could ever consumer, so why are we subsidizing anyone? (Food shortages are not a production problem, they are political and logistics problems.) Subsidizing smaller producers can be done to encourage competition, but we're already in a perfectly competitive market, so distorting the market in some way is entirely counterproductive.

Alas it is politically unacceptable to make a move that favors the big guy over the little guy. Even though doing so would ultimately better for society. Let us not fall victim to the broken window fallacy that we're keeping smaller farmers in jobs by subsidizing them. We could just as easily be spending that money more efficiently by putting other people to work in areas that actually make sense: infrastructure repair and long-term capital investments in green energy technology, for example. We need these two things more than we need greater quantities of domestic farm products.

Posted in: economics , farm subsidies , politics

UChannel on iTunes (rianjs.net (Hanser)) by Rian

Fantastic:

Some of the players include:

• The London School of Economics
• University of Chicago
• NYU
• Cornell
• Vanderbilt

There's some great stuff here. I sucked down probably 50% of the LSE's offerings to listen to in the car.

While I'm on a similar line of thought, I've currently watching Eric Schmidt on policy priorities for 2009 on YouTube. Wish it was encoded better. He's incredibly well-spoken and conversant on an incredibly wide range of topics — clearly an out-of-the-closet intellectual in the way GM's Wagoner could never hope to be, as well as being a visionary and a dollars and cents kind of guy. It's pretty clear that Larry and Sergei made a good choice.

Posted in: economics , itunes , itunes u , politics , uchannel

Thoughts on this citizen's mind (rianjs.net (Hanser)) by Rian

The Obama transition team has a website up at change.gov, as many of you may know. Specifically, they have a section where you can share your thoughts with the transition team. I don't know if they are actually reading these submissions, but I wrote one up anyway. I'm sharing it here…

I'm going to set aside my inner cynic that someone will actually read this, and talk about what has been worrying me as a concerned US citizen. I know that there is only so much an administration can do to solve the myriad problems we face, and that trying to tackle too much at once is a recipe for universal failure. Therefore prioritization is obviously key.

My primary overarching concern over this country has been any lack of a long-term strategy. I don't mean for one specific area like the economy or healthcare, but I mean *any* kind of long-term strategy for *anything.* Thus far, it seems as though we've been shifting aimlessly from one priority to the next, dictated to us often by market prices of various commodities and shifting popular wants.

That's no way to run a country.

This list is not in any kind of prioritized order because I think all are equally important at the end of the day:

1) Education: The US has been falling behind in the ability of our high school graduates to afford and go to college. This is happening even as the entry-level requirement for many jobs is having a college degree (even though the particular job may not actually warrant it).

Almost universally, my college professors have publicly lamented the fact that high school graduates are not prepared for the intensity of the material that they face as freshmen in college. As a smart, in-touch individual, I know for a fact that my math was not up to par, and I went to an excellent public high school and graduated in the top 10% of my class. Our state colleges and institutions do a spectacular job, and we should continue to invest in them, but if a student is incapable of succeeding there thanks to a poor secondary education, something is wrong. Accountability in secondary schools is very important. Maybe we need better ways to measure student performance, I do not know. Something must be done, however, because we are falling behind countries like India whose high school students are better prepared for college than ours.

The gap between boys and girls continues to widen. While we've done very well by our girls in the last 20 years, our boys have languished. Education should not be a zero-sum game wherein one sex succeeds at the expense of the other. We have neglected boys and focused all of our efforts on girls, and this is neither fair nor desirable. Both sexes can succeed together, and our educators need to remember this, and not just recommend a visit to a pediatrician or psychiatrist for our boys because stimulant ADHD medication isn't the universal diagnosis and answer.

2) Healthcare: The US lacks any kind of long-term healthcare strategy or vision. While I believe that some form of universal healthcare coverage is both necessary and desirable, President-Elect Obama should stop saying that every person will be able to get health coverage like members of Congress have because this is not possible, nor is it desirable. When and if universal coverage happens, there will still be two tiers of healthcare. A basic, public tier, and a second private tier that citizens may opt to use if they desire to pay more. Please keep in mind that I say this with no malice toward the currently uninsured. My dad had a heart attack this past spring and waited 36 hours before going to the ER — because he knew that he would end up $50-80K in debt. (And he did.)

Secondly, politicians need to stop conflating the idea of universal health coverage with universal health access. The two are not the same. Just because you are covered doesn't mean you can see a doctor. We don't have enough doctors and physician extenders (Nurse Practitioners, Physician Assistants) in this country to see everyone, and going to the ER is not the answer either: they're already overcrowded.

Massachusetts is experiencing this now. While we are often looked to as some kind of model for the rest of the country, the reality is that our system is far from perfect. It's costing the taxpayers boatloads of money because healthy people that can afford to pay are NOT signing up at nearly the rates that the unhealthy poor are. After all, if you're healthy, you don't need preventative care, the colloquial thinking goes, and even if you do, it's cheaper to pay out-of-pocket to see a doc than it is to pay a high monthly premium. In Massachusetts, the accounting math isn't working out as expected because of this particular adverse selection catch-22. Complicating the financial problem, there are not enough primary care physicians in this state to see the massive influx of new patients which highlights the second point I made: coverage does not guarantee access. That means they go to the ER, which is inherently more expensive than an ambulatory office visit.

To reform healthcare meaningfully, you need to do it in a multi-phase manner:

1. Attract the best and brightest back into medicine. That means making the idea of practice attractive which means real, honest-to-God tort reform, not lipservice. When a physician is paying more to medmal companies than s/he is taking home, there is a very serious problem. Talk about a disincentive to practice.
2. Along those lines, we need more primary care physicians. That means paying them more. Right now, the RVRBS is stacked in favor of specialists, and members of the committee are appointed for life (stupid idea). PCPs do more patient visits than specialists on the order of 8:1, but they are not represented in anywhere near this ratio in the RVRBS committee. That means that procedures are over-valued and cognitive specialties (primary care, rheumatology, endocrinology, etc., etc.) are undervalued because it is difficult to measure the relative value of a cognitive visit. As a result, medical students are gravitating towards specialties which pay more, and the free market is not allowed to compensate for the relative lack of PCPs because the way reimbursement is calculated is fundamentally flawed. In the long-run, this means more expensive healthcare because patients will be seeing specialists instead of PCPs, simply due to lack of PCP supply.

Senator Obama has advocated investing in technology, which is very necessary, but electronic medical records and other efficiency concerns are not a panacea, either. The entire system is broken from top to bottom and improving efficiency in a superficial fashion will NOT solve the huge, underlying problems. A study recently published estimated that only 50 cents of every dollar spent in the name of healthcare is spent on patient care. That's a bigger problem than mere technological inefficiency.

3) Energy independence: Senator Obama has promised energy independence, and his message has not changed since his 2004 DNC keynote speech. Right now, our government is listing from priority to priority. Gas prices go up, and all of a sudden the public is clamoring for the government to "do something." Prices go down, and people stop caring, but we know that petroleum supplies are fixed and demand is effectively infinite. That means that eventually prices will go back up, and we need a long-term solution. Keeping the country's eye on the ball is the government's job, because it's clear that most private citizens cannot or will not.

Command and control government regulation is sexy and it makes it look as though government is "doing something" about our dependence on foreign oil, but a more progressive Pigovian tax is probably a better way to accomplish the goal of getting our automakers on-board with the next generation of propulsion than is mandating fuel efficiency and carbon emissions standards. Even if the money is returned in the form of an income subsidy, modifying demand is more effective than trying to legislate supply.

We need government intervention because energy independence and a healthy environment cannot be achieved by individuals acting by themselves — bless their hearts. It needs to be broad and bold in scale and impact. Replacing the light bulbs in your house and planting a few trees might be part of A solution, but it's obvious that it's not the ENTIRE solution.

4) Iraq: Iraq is the only US priority that seems to have a strategy under the Bush administration. While I believe firmly that the Iraq war was "dumb," like Senator Obama, we cannot simply leave and end up with a power vacuum in that nation. We messed it up, and now we should be on the hook to fix it. I am reminded of the lessons from the 70s in Afghanistan which allowed us to defeat the Soviets covertly, but ultimately paved the way for the Taliban because the US "wasn't in the business of nation-building". Money for war, but not for education and infrastructure-building. We can see the disastrous long-term consequences of these policy choices that we are dealing with even today.

5) Outsourcing and Globalization: O&G will continue under any administration, and we should not try to stop it. In the long run, it is good for our economy anyway. However we cannot forget the workers that have lost their jobs. Suggestions run the gamut for re-training builders and makers for the healthcare and technology sectors, but we cannot ignore the fact that people are not cattle to be herded in one direction or another. Many of these individuals don't want these jobs because building and making things is part of who their identity. They don't want to be nurses, phlebotomists and IT technicians. And they shouldn't have to be.

Instead we should gently nudge them in the direction of infrastructure repair (which needs to be a priority in the new administration) and the new renewable energy economy. With a focus on renewables and infrastructure repair, President-Elect Obama can employ the tens of thousands who have been laid off in fields that are not dissimilar to where they came from, which will keep them happier and more productive.

(Of course, if these people want to change careers completely, they should have these educational opportunities available as well, which ties into my thoughts about education.)

6) Public Service: The best and the brightest need to see government as a worthwhile place to spend their energies. The politics of the last decade has been toxic for self-actualized smart people, and they haven't wanted to go into public service. I know Senator Obama knows this, and simply by being open-minded and obviously intellectual, he has done a lot to change the stereotype of politicians and public service. For that, I am grateful, and I can honestly say that I am considering public service as a long-term career whereas under the Bush administration, such an idea would have been laughable. I know that there are many other smart people in my generation who feel the same way. For that, I am thankful.

Posted in: culture , economics , education , globalization , healthcare , iraq , obama , outsourcing , politics , public service , strategy , transition

Wow, Keith Olbermann. Just… wow. (rianjs.net (Hanser)) by Rian

Fantastic.

Fulltext.

Posted in: california , culture , gay marriage , politics , proposition 8

conservative post-fight analysis (Super Dave's Mundanities (DaveChen)) by dave

From Some Guy With A Website.com via edminstond’s shared items.

Posted in: politics

I'm feeling optimistic about the next 4 years (rianjs.net (Hanser)) by Rian

Yes, another blogosphere election entry. I'm not here to gloat, though, but merely to point out that I am feeling really optimistic about an Obama administration. It is certainly landmark in this country's history, and it's something that I believe all rational Americans can feel proud of, regardless of who they voted for, if for no other reason than we've accomplished a few major things in one fell swoop:

1. We have elevated America's status in the world. This was very important to me when it came time to choose, and this map (preserved here against link rot) played no small part in my choice. Globalization is here to stay, and Americans need to think more about what's going on outside their borders.
2. We have broken the final racial barrier in this country once and for all. (I look forward to the day when we have a female Commander-in-Chief as well.)
3. We have undermined real terrorist — as opposed to made-up terrorist — ideology in the Middle East and elsewhere by demonstrating that a black man with the name Barack Hussein Obama can be elected leader of the free world, showing much better than words could ever tell that we are indeed a nation that looks deeper than skin color; a nation that sees past a foreign-sounding name.

Senator McCain's concession speech was graceful, and I hope that this election did a lot to heal the wounds inflicted by the last two cycles that were further deepened by lawsuits before finally being ended prematurely by the Supreme Court, in the case of the 2000 election. I sincerely hope that we don't see any more elections like those for a long, long time. Senator McCain, despite his disaster of a campaign is, and always will be, a very classy man, and a man to be admired and respected. It is a pity that I could not vote for him. (I was too young in 2000, and he wasn't the best candidate in 2008.)

I voted for Senator Obama for many, many other reasons than the three I've mentioned above, not the least of which was the innate curiosity and equanimity with which he has approached everything from real politics to his day-to-day campaigning. More surprisingly, his message has not deviated over the years. Go back and watch his 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention (part 1, part 2) and then go watch his acceptance speech at this year's DNC, and then watch his victory speech from a few nights ago.

His message hasn't changed in the last four years. That kind of consistency speaks volumes about a person and their convictions. No other candidate since I've been walking this earth has done anything even remotely similar. Every other candidate has been characterized by trying to find their voice and their message, but not Senator Obama. I like that.

Today Senator Obama gave his first news conference as President-Elect, and I watched the whole thing. It wasn't nearly as flashy or practiced as the speeches linked above, and this is to be expected: the audiences are different. What I was particularly interested in was the message, and it's not very similar to his campaign messages, except perhaps with more detail and less polish. Beginning at the 6 minute mark, Senator Obama begins taking questions from the reporters there, and it's clear that he intends to honor his campaign promises inasmuch as he humanly can in terms of policy, but more importantly, the promise he made about frank and honest communication with the public. This is in stark contrast to Bush in 2004 where he ran a campaign based on the premise of keeping America safe from terrorists, but instead went after gay marriage and aggressively tried to privatize social security after he won.

Back to Senator Obama's news conference, which I have embedded below. If you're not interested in the details, skip ahead to the six minute mark and listen to the questions, and the thoughtful and direct manner with which Senator Obama tries to answer them. This is a huge departure from American politics as usual, and it's this kind of behavior that leads me to believe even now, that Senator Obama is, and always was, the real deal. It's these kinds of subtleties that thrill me as a voter, and more importantly, as an American.

Posted in: communication , honesty , obama , politics , promises

Real America II (a salmon of doubt (shade1978)) by David

Clint Ecker shared this awesome photo he came across on Flickr this week:

The awesome thing about kids: they don’t give a damn about skin color until some jerk teaches them to. Now if we can just get people to stop doing that…

Posted in: personal , politics

Real America (a salmon of doubt (shade1978)) by David

During the recently-concluded Presidential campaign, quite a bit was said by one side about “real” America.

That’s why I found this article I came across today with letters from fourth graders so interesting. This was my favorite part:

Also I’m African American too and I might be just like you. When you get to the white house please try to stop the war for once and for all. Obama I’m very proud of you especially my mom. She’s really proud because she woke up 5:30 AM to go vote for you and I went with her.

THAT’S real America.

Posted in: inspirational , obama , personal , politics , real america

sarah’s shopping spree (Super Dave's Mundanities (DaveChen)) by dave

From a Newsweek article:

NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin’s shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain’s top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family—clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent “tens of thousands” more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast,” and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.

Posted in: politics

Live from Times Square (Stonetable) by Adam

We walked through Times Square earlier this evening, hours before the first poll closed. The crowd was large and people were still filing in. Hours later, after the post-trade-show meetings and work were done, I sat down and watched the acceptance speech in awe. A block and 31 stories away, I could hear the people cheering.

Fear of crowds be damned. I left the hotel and let the noise be my drummer.

In Times Square, the people cheered and cried. Chants of “Oh-bah-ma” and “Yes-we-can” rang clear. Cars honking. Passengers waving. Signs waving. Camera’s flashing. Strangers embracing in celebration and saying, “we did it.”. We. A victory for us all. Ethnicity, sexual preference, gender, citizenship, it did not matter.

Empowerment.

I was overwhelmed by the surge of emotion, of hope and possibility. I teared up several times, looking up at the digital billboards proclaiming the historic news: Barack Obama, President-elect. Never in my thirty-three years have I seen or experienced anything like this. It looks like my generation has its Lincoln or Kennedy. A catalyst for change, a driving force for prosperity. It’s about damn time. Maybe the US can shed it’s reputation as the biggest dickhead and start working with the world instead of trying to cram our ideologies down its throat.

Celebrate and cheer now. We’ve a lot of work to do. We still have bigotry and intolerance to fight and a long road to walk before we can hold our head high and be proud of our record of human rights. At least now, we’re on the right road.

Posted in: life , politics , uncategorized

My First Reaction: (Bandemax DOT net) by phouse

:)

My second reaction:   Like many Alaskans, I volunteered for the Obama campaign right here in Palin country.  I got the door slammed on, cursed at over the phone and many times I wanted to do other things.  I don’t know and I’m doubtful that Obama will carry Alaska but I’m glad that I contributed to the campaign.  Locally, I hope Berkowitz and Begich make it in as well.  Good luck guys!

Posted in: politics

In the Big Apple (Stonetable) by Adam

I made it to New York City with minimal difficulty today. Court went smoothly and traffic was light, so I made it to O’Hare with enough time to catch an earlier flight. One shuttle and subway ride later, I found the Westin and checked-in.

I met my co-workers for dinner at Quality Meats, followed by 40/40, where we co-sponsored a VIP party for the trade show. A fun night, and I got to meet several people I’d only known via email or instant message.

Feeling a little dead tonight. My original flight was canceled and American Airlines decided they needed to call me at 4:15AM and 4:45AM to make sure I knew about it. Between that and the flight I managed about four hours sleep today and tomorrow’s going to be another busy day. Here’s to hoping the beds here are comfortable.

It also looks like I’ll be staying over an extra day, so home again on Wednesday. I’m already missing Andrea and our menagerie of pets. I hear the dogs have been camping out at the front door all day and night, waiting for my return.

I sent in my absentee ballot a couple weeks ago. If you haven’t already, please go vote and make your voice heard. I think we’re on the brink of seeing some real change happen and that makes me feel pretty damn good.

Posted in: politics , travel , uncategorized , work

In the Big Apple (Stonetable) by Adam

I made it to New York City with minimal difficulty today. Court went smoothly and traffic was light, so I made it to O’Hare with enough time to catch an earlier flight. One shuttle and subway ride later, I found the Westin and checked-in.

I met my co-workers for dinner at Quality Meats, followed by 40/40, where we co-sponsored a VIP party for the trade show. A fun night, and I got to meet several people I’d only known via email or instant message.

Feeling a little dead tonight. My original flight was canceled and American Airlines decided they needed to call me at 4:15AM and 4:45AM to make sure I knew about it. Between that and the flight I managed about four hours sleep today and tomorrow’s going to be another busy day. Here’s to hoping the beds here are comfortable.

It also looks like I’ll be staying over an extra day, so home again on Wednesday. I’m already missing Andrea and our menagerie of pets. I hear the dogs have been camping out at the front door all day and night, waiting for my return.

I sent in my absentee ballot a couple weeks ago. If you haven’t already, please go vote and make your voice heard. I think we’re on the brink of seeing some real change happen and that makes me feel pretty damn good.

Posted in: politics , travel , uncategorized , work

Presidential predictions and endorsements (OnThePharm (Hanser)) by RJS

The NYTimes has an interactive map that you can set to how you think each state will go, and you can view each state's polling data from the last election by clicking on it, and what current polls are saying about local trends. It's pretty neat, and I've been playing with it for about two weeks now.

Here are my predictions. You'll note it's Obama by an electoral and popular landslide:

I have Nevada going red even though recent polling data suggests that it will go Obama's way. For some reason I'm thinking that it will go Republican.

I'm also fairly certain that the Republican party has some serious thinking to do, and you'll see two schools of thought emerge:

• A further rightward shift will solve all of their ills
• A more progressive, center-leaning strategy

A further rightward shift would be suicide for Republicans at this point, just like Governor Palin ended up being the boat anchor for Senator McCain. While the idea was to "re-energize the base" to compensate for Senator McCain's relatively moderate political views, this was the wrong choice because hardcore conservatives were never going to vote for anyone but the Republican candidate to begin with. Rather, he needed to attract those independents that have been left out in the cold these last 8 years, and he only further alienated these voters.

A center-leaning strategy is their best chance, but it's my view that even a radical reinvention of the party will take the full four years to make its way into the American consciousness. The Republicans will not capture the Oval Office again unless they win Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Neither can the GOP afford to ignore the Northeast and West Coast, either. Most of the economic and educational outputs in this country are from these areas, and they rightly wield enormous political clout. It is my hope that the party does some serious soul-searching in the next few years and comes to the conclusions that it needs to have the best interests of the country at heart rather than the interests of big business and a small subsection of the population consisting of the middling rich and radical conservatives. (The super rich tend to vote Democrat.)

Speaking for myself, I have no particular litmus test for a presidential candidate, though I did when I was younger and the world seemed more black-and-white. Or rather, I thought I didn't have a litmus test, but I discovered — rather unpleasantly — that I do indeed have a few basic criteria that a candidate must meet: competence, curiosity, and equanimity. Governor Palin fails all of these in spectacular fashion, and her incredibly tenuous grasp of Constitutional fundamentals frightens me a great deal. It gives the lie to the McCain campaign slogan "Country First." Fortunately for the country, this short-sighted decision has backfired, and hopefully Governor Palin will go back to Alaska and quickly be forgotten as the national embarrassment that she is. A McCain-Romney or McCain-Lieberman ticket would have been a stronger bet. Coupled with better campaign management, I could see myself happily voting for a Republican ticket on Tuesday, but no longer.

Of course, Governor Palin is not herself running for office, and I have not seen Senator McCain himself exhibit much curiosity or equanimity these last few months. Rather, I have seen an angry man who hops from one stance to the next in an effort to find the most popular footing possible. I've seen a man who has run an campaign characterized by exclusive rhetoric; a man whose running mate has tried to characterize parts of America as being more "real" than others. That is not what this country needs right now. I do not believe that Senator McCain is incompetent, and I don't believe that he wants to see this country further divided into Red and Blue. However he did not choose a candidate who complements him — his admittedly poor grasp of basic macroeconomics coupled with his own lack of curiosity on the topic — makes for a dangerous combination when coupled with the likes of Governor Palin. It is quite clear that Senator McCain's VP pick was entirely political, and not in the best interest of this country.

Senator Obama, on the other hand, has displayed a remarkable sense of curiosity and equanimity throughout the entire campaign, and while his resume is indeed rather thin on both foreign policy and economic issues, I am comforted by the people he has chosen to surround himself with. His off-the-cuff reaction (page 2) to Senator McCain's move to cancel the first debate was certainly Presidential, and entirely unscripted. Senator Obama's VP pick displays a careful consideration of his own real strengths and weaknesses instead of just his political weaknesses. Senator Biden has rich foreign policy experience and is a member of the National Security Council. In economic terms, while a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, Obama regularly spent time with professors from their renowned economics department, which demonstrates a necessary curiosity, and while lunchtime socialization does not equal real experience, Obama has surrounded himself with a team of economic advisors that's second to none. (Though I'm sure Greg Mankiw would disagree.)

I take strong issue with the idea of American exceptionalism, the idea that the rest of the world doesn't matter, and that somehow America operates in a global vacuum. This clearly isn't the case, as the collapse of the American financial markets has had a domino effect on the rest of the world. China's output is slumping due to falling consumer demand from America; Iceland is bankrupt and subsequently decided to go back to basics (i.e. tourism); the UK is on shaky financial ground even as Gordon Brown has engineered a unique bailout of their financial system, and the credit crunch is beginning to make its way down into the real economy. Despite these recent setbacks, globalization will and must continue, and America must repair her tarnished relationship with the rest of the globe, and the world overwhelmingly favors an Obama administration, by margins much greater than my own predictions: 9,115 to 203 electoral college votes. While the rest of the world is not voting, we must take into account their opinion because we have lots of ground to cover as we begin to unmake the current administration's mess.

Healthcare is not an issue that will change dramatically in the next four years. The medical blogosphere, of which I am a part, likes to talk about it regularly, but healthcare is so insignificant in the big picture right now that I view it as a non-issue. This country cannot afford a new social spending program on the order of magnitude that the likely winner, Obama, is proposing. And America will not be in a position to do so until she gets her feet back on solid ground.

Likewise, the educational funding proposals put forth by Senator Obama will also likely take a back seat for several years. When considering the costs of funding large-scale federal programs, one must take into account not just direct costs and where the money will be coming from today, but what spending that money today will mean for tomorrow. We do not exist in a temporal vacuum, and in a time where middle-eastern Sovereign Wealth Funds and Chinese banks are already reluctant to lend the US money, we must strongly consider whether these should be high priorities.

In my opinion, they should not, and should remain further down the list until we've gotten the rest of the country back on track. We must also consider the future, not just the next four years. How do we allocate our capital and labor to achieve the best results both for today and for our children? I believe that Senator Obama's green energy plans are better than Senator McCain's, though his lack of overt support for nuclear power concerns me. I also believe that while the healthcare sector will remain relatively stable even during this recession, it's going to be renewable energy that's going to power us out of our decline. Senator Obama wants to fix the economy and get this country on a path to energy independence. At this point energy independence is the same as renewable energy, and it's inextricably linked to growing out economy.

There will come a time for rethinking the US healthcare system, but that time isn't now. And when that time does roll around, we'll need to be talking more about revamping the system from its educational roots right up to a renewed focus on primary care as a cost saver and then on to our fractured tort system with many smaller milestones along the way.

In the meantime, we need a leader who is inclusive rather than divisive; a leader who can inspire; a leader who will be welcomed (gallery) with open arms by the rest of the world; and a leader can do a great deal for the image of this country simply by taking the Presidential Oath of Office; and a leader who supports rolling back the abuses of Executive power. For all of these reasons and many, many more, I will be voting for Barack Obama on Tuesday, November 4.

Posted in: biden , economics , election , foreign policy , healthcare , macroeconomics , mccain , obama , palin , politics

Early voting in Akron! (a salmon of doubt (shade1978)) by David

This says it all for me, really.

It was absolutely packed at the early voting location.  A good 200 or so people there—lots of younger people—and it took around 45 minutes for them to work through the list.  All told, took me around an hour to get my ballot, fill it out, and have it sealed—I was out of there around 7:00.  Well worth the hassle, and now we just cross our fingers for Tuesday!  :)

Posted in: personal , politics

Alaska Women for Obama! (Bandemax DOT net) by phouse

Last Saturday, Alaska Women for Obama held another rally on the park strip and had a bit of fun doing it as well.  I’ve attached a video below of it.  I want to comment that there’s a very sizable group of voters (and vocal ones at that) here in Alaska that do not support McCain/Palin for president.  We support Obama.  The Anchorage Daily News and it would seem the national coverage that’s swooped down upon Alaska continue to ignore this.  One would imagine it’d be newsworthy that in Palin’s own backyard, the Obama movement is strong.  Our rallies continue to outsize our counterpart’s by a factor of 10.  I suppose that doesn’t fit into any sort of neat categorization though.

Here’s the video: 

Final note - awesome choice for background music.  Arcade Fire is pretty much still win.

Posted in: politics

538 report from North Carolina (Super Dave's Mundanities (DaveChen)) by dave

Recently I’ve become addicted to 538.com, an electoral projection site. Sean Quinn wrote a really moving report from Raleigh that ends as follows.

A young black boy, no more than eight years old, walked up to this man, who was at least eighty. The boy offered the man a sticker, probably an “I Voted” sticker, but I couldn’t see. The man took the sticker and paused. Silently, he looked down at the boy, who was looking back up at the man. The man put his hand gently on the boy’s head, and I saw his eyes glisten.

I didn’t ask the man for a quote. I didn’t need to. I walked over by myself, behind the community center, and I sat down on a bench next to the track, and wept.

Posted in: politics

49ers and Rice? (Bandemax DOT net) by phouse

Really, someone has got to be making this up.  The Niners are interested in Condi Rice?  Unlike our global strategic standing, the Niner standing in their world is low enough that I suppose it can’t be tanked any further.  I’d love to say I have more jokes about this; the situation certainly seems like it would be rife with them but I’m not picking any up.

Posted in: general thought , politics , wtflol

One more reason I'm voting for Obama (rianjs.net (Hanser)) by Rian

As if I even needed another reason…

"There are no real or fake parts of this country," he said, a reference to a Sarah Palin speech in North Carolina in which she said she was happy to be in "the real America" and praised "the pro-America areas of this great nation." Obama continued: "We are not separated by the pro-America and anti-America parts of this nation — we all love this country, no matter where we live or where we come from. There are patriots who supported this war in Iraq and patriots who opposed it, patriots who believe in Democratic policies and those who believe in Republican policies. The men and women from Indiana and all across America who serve on our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a red America or a blue America — they have served the United States of America."

From Slate.

Posted in: obama , politics

The Problem with this Election (Bandemax DOT net) by phouse

Voter turnout is estimated to be really high this election cycle and hopefully it will be in droves for my guy.  My issue is that usually when people vote in high turn out in a western nation that is as comfortable as ours, it means there’s at least the perception of trouble brewing with the economy.  As I understand it, nothing compels people to the polls like financial troubles.  And in economics, perception is everything.  That’s a little scary.

That being said, please vote early.  If you can’t vote early, please make sure to vote on November 4th.  And please, vote for Barack Obama.  I believe he is clearly the more qualified candidate to be our president.

Posted in: politics

Slow, slow, slow: First Week On The Job (tm) (Kilala.nl (Cailin Coilleach)) by Cailin Coilleach

The first week at any given assignment is always interesting and with each assignment it's completely different. Usually it's mostly spent on getting to know people and trying to get all kinds of paperwork done. Because yes, us in IT may gripe about it when others do it, we make the same mistakes when requesting new user accounts :)

So far my week's been pretty good and better than some other First Weeks(tm). So far I -do- have a desk of my own and I even found out whom I'll be working for. Now all I have to do is actually meet the fellow :) I even have a PC on my desk, which is a lot better than at $OTHER-PREV-CLIENT where I never had one and was expected to bring in my own laptop each day.

It's nice to be back in a familiar environment. The building hasn't changed at all and most departments are even still in the same spot. I trekked around the building yesterday and kept running into people I knew from before, so it's an odd feeling of coming home.

Now if only I could get all my user accounts set up so I could get to work! In the mean time I'll just bug people for manuals, documentation and I'll work alongside the team to help them where I can.

Posted in: first week on the job , paperwork , politics , red tape , slow

Standards? What? (Bandemax DOT net) by phouse

If one refused to make eye contact or shake someone’s hand, regardless of dispute, people would think there’s something wrong with that person.  If one refused to make eye contact or shake someone’s hand and they’re not white, people might suspect one might be racist.  Right?  Walks like a duck, sounds like a duck?  So why aren’t we asking this question?  Shouldn’t a presidential candidate be held to a standard at least as high as that of the average citizen if not higher?

The president will be asked to be put in situations where, for the good of the country, they need to make eye contact and treat their opponent with respect (think Reagan here).  We need a president that can be cool, calm, and collected; where emotion takes a back seat to the good of the country.  Emotion is a liability. We can’t have a president that’s a liability. We have a lot of investments to take care of and we need someone to look after them.  Give me a cool, steady hand not a fist of rage.

UPDATE:

I thought I’d highlight Eric’s disagreement to what I’ve said because I think it’s important.  I also want to highlight my response to it as well for the purposes of clarification:

Regardless of what the Huffington Post or DailyKOS claim, I have serious doubts that McCain is a racist. At least, not the kind of racist that wouldn’t shake his opponent’s hand on national television.
From the talking heads I’ve seen, it’s just McCain’s way of dealing with losing.

I’m an Obama supporter, but I think as such we need to rise above such talk. The need for leadership is great and McCain’s people (especially our Governor) is doing a fine job of attacking Obama, and their poll ratings are showing how effective it has been.

My response is as follows:   I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to turn a blind eye to McCain’s behavior. I’m not accusing him of being racist, I’m accusing him of behaving like one. I didn’t see him act this way in the Republican primary. It’s ugly talk and no one, especially white people, like to talk about the specter of racism. If we ignore it by not talking about it, we’re guilty of condoning that kind of behavior. I’m saying it’s unacceptable and we should be talking about it. I don’t read HuffPo or dKOS, so I don’t know what they’re saying. I imagine they’re saying more visceral things than I. I just want McCain to act like a big boy and answer to why he can’t act like one. Again, if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it’s a duck for all we know until additional evidence is given.

Posted in: politics

Really? You really think this? (Bandemax DOT net) by phouse

I get these chain letters and funny forwards from an acquaintance in Ohio. Usually, they’re pretty funny and I get a good chuckle. Right? Inbox like any other. This morning I got one that called Barack Obama the Anti-Christ. This is really neat. It goes down and says that people like Bobby Kennedy killed by a Muslim between the ages of 17-40 and so on and so forth. It then says, and this is really awesome, that the Anti-Christ is predicted by the Bible to be a Muslim between the ages of 17-40. It then says that Barack Obama is a Muslim between the ages of 17-40. Well. Barack Obama is 47 so we’re in the clear! Really though, emails like this are just plain awesome. They have to be closest one can get to unthinking without actually going brain dead.

Posted in: general thought , politics

Not your friend, “Maverick” (Stonetable) by Adam

Posted in: politics , uncategorized

The Cost of Telling Lies: (Bandemax DOT net) by phouse

$1.2 trillion or whatever they’re saying just vaporized out of the economy today.

Down here on the ground, we’re supposed to trust those that represent us.  But those that are supposed to represent us told us that the Patriot Act was in our best interest.  They lied.  They told us that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.  They lied.  They told us that the market is best left untouched.  They lied.

There might be valid reasons to bailout Wall Street but you and I wouldn’t know.  At some level, you just have to trust those making the policies because supposedly they’re listening to experts.  You can’t continue to lie to America and expect us to not grow suspect and this bailout is suspect.  Think about it, if George W. of four years ago or Bill Clinton said we needed this, there’d be hand wringing but if the economists said we needed we’d do it because we trusted them.  And if the Bush administration can subvert the mighty Colin Powell to lie before the U.N., how can we trust Ben Bernanke?  Suspect.  They’re all suspect!

Posted in: politics

Intellectual History (Bandemax DOT net) by phouse

Robert Harrison and Entitled Opinions kicked off another season last Wednesday.  You can get their latest podcast on their site or you can pick it up on iTunes.

A quick note about the Couric mess and the debate:  regarding Palin, the whole world now knows we elected an idiot for governor.  Nice.  I thought the debate was disappointing but only because each candidate really only spoke to their base.  What was up with McCain not making eye contact with Obama?  Can he not look a black man in the eye?

Posted in: general thought , politics