Chicago To Host G8 Summit Next Year

This should be fun.

bin Laden

I'm trying to sort through my feelings about the assassination of Osama bin Laden.  To say the least they are complicated.  I couldn't even really organize them the way I wanted.  I tried to create a narrative but I ended up ennumerate them instead.

1.  I remember a conversation back in '02 or '03 with a friend of mine about the hunt for OBL.  I said there was no way he would be taken alive.  Even if he surrendered what 20-something soldier isn't going to put a bullet in this guy's head?  And apparently, that was never going to happen.  Giving what I know, if I had been the one sitting in the White House I would have given the same order. Note, as I'm typing this NPR reports that Obama issued a statement that bin Laden would have been taken alive if possible.  I'm taking a few grains of salt.

2.  Obama said in his speech last night that "justice has been done."  No, it wasn't.  I'm happy that bin Laden is no longer a threat to our nation. I'm happy that he no longer provides leadership - be it real or symbolic - to al Qaeda.  Justice, however, is meted out via an unbiased legal system.  Assassinating a man in his home is revenge.

3.  Bin Laden was staying in a million dollar compound built 5 to 6 years ago in a city near a Pakistani military base.  A city that is a favorite of retired military leaders.  It seems unreasonable to say Pakistan did not know he was there.  They seem to have looked the other way for years while he lived in their midst.  And they seem to have looked the other way as our helicopters flew within miles of their military base and took him out.  Again, on NPR as I'm typing, Pakistan is saying they believe OBL moved in only in the last week or two.  Time to take a few more grains of salt.

4.  While I'm happy bin Laden is gone, while I would have given the same order in Obama's place, I find the celebrations over the death of human being, no matter how vile and repugnant, somehow perverse, vile and repugnant itself.

5.  Bin Laden's body was reportedly burried at sea and predictably is being criticized by some imams.  Once killed this was a no win situation for the U.S. and I'd say they did the best thing.  They burried the body within 24 hours as Islamic tradition dictates and they did so in a way that made sure his grave could not become a rallying / pilgrimage location.

6.  Bin Laden's body was positively identified when DNA was matched against that of a deceased sister.  The deceased sister's died of brain cancer in the Boston and the U.S. government has possession of the brain.  As far as I know, DNA is DNA, so I have no idea why they kept her brain versus some other tissue sample.

7.  The same people that say slaying bin Laden is a great victory for the U.S., in the same breath, say that the U.S. is still in danger and must remain on constant vigilance against terrorist violence.  These two statements are at least partially contradictory.  If bin Laden was such a grave threat his killing should reduce the terrorist threat to our nation.  If it doesn't then his death isn't all that strategically important.  See #2, justice vs. revenge.

8.  Bin Laden's death will have only a minimal impact on the 2012 elections.  Gas prices and the economy will the be the ultimate arbitors deciding winners and losers.

9.  The stock market proves again that it is driven entirely on emotion,  mostly fear.  We kill a man who only released one amateur video tape a year threatening The West, but hasn't successfully followed through in 6 or 7 years, and has been hiding in a non-oil producing country for a decade, and oil prices plummet.  Nevermind that the a civil war continues in a country that actually produces a large amount of oil.

10.  I've heard claims that victims of U.S. torture gave up information that lead to finding bin Laden. I remain dubious of these unsourced claims.  My taste buds are being overpowered by salt.  Even if true it does not make torture right.  Even if you accept the 'imminent threat' excuse for torture - and I don't - bin Laden was not about to launch an attack.  We are better than what they are.  Or we should be.  And we should never, ever torture.

11.  Another quote from Obama's speech, “Today’s achievement is a testament to the greatness of the American people.”  Talk about lowering expectation.  A team of some of the most highly trained warriors the world has ever known killing a 54 year old on dialysis makes a nation great?  Off the top of my head here are a some other ideas: the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights,  going to the moon, humanitarian relief after the Aceh earthquake and tsunami, rebuilding Eurpoe including Germany after WWII.

No Document In The World Can Make Obama White

Texas birther bill

"What I've seen online, what they produced today, still says certificate of live birth across the top," she told me. And she's right.
But why isn't that just a nomenclature issue? Why does it matter?
"We want to see a 'birth certificate,'" Guthrie explained. "The one that we have that says 'birth certificate' is from Mombassa, Kenya, with his footprint on it. He has still not produced an American birth certificate."

All Connected

After volleyball last night my brother and I stopped at a bar for some food and drink.  The Blackhawks game was just into the 2nd period at that time.  There were a handful of people there watching.  Early on my brother and one of the guys were talking about sports.  In reference to basketball and the NBA specifically, one of the guys said, "I can't stand that African monkey ball."

I guess the on positive side he didn't just go ahead and call it "nigger ball."  Anyway, I've got my measure of these guys at this point.  I just flat out refuse to engage them for the rest of the night.  Over the course of the night I hear the three guys make the following comments

• Obama got "owned" by a local Dallas reporter.  (Um, no. The reporter asked some challenging questions and Obama answered and asked not to be interrupted.  Both men did their jobs.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.)
• It's cold outside.  "But we know global warming is real because Al Gore told us so."  
• "The same people that believe in global warming voted for Obama."

I think it is both amazing and sad how the majority of people in this country have come to hold one of two sets of beliefs and there is no thinking outside the box.

Lybia

I'm listening to Obama's speech on Lybia right now.  I'm still skeptical.  I have to leave the house soon and tomorrow's going to be a very busy day.  Still I hope to get something posted about it tomorrow.

What's Got You So Scared?

Oh, that's not you?  Funny.  It seems like that's all of us.  All of us in the United States.  How else to explain our defense budget?

• The defense budget is almost 60% of discretionary spending.
• We spend more on defense than almost every other country in the world.  Combined!!
• By our own estimates the defense R&D budget (&80.4B) is more than any other country's defense budget
• US Special forces outnumber the total military of some 100 countries.

And we're not on track to reduce it any time soon. The budget submitted by the Most-Liberalest-President-Ever^TM looks to continue military expansion well into the future.

This guy's dead, though.

For that matter, so's this guy.

This guy?  Vanguished!

So who scares us so damn much that we have to outspend every other nation combined on defense?

People are continually saying they are upset about the federal deficit.  But they aren't at all interested in reducing defense spending, nearly a 1/4 of the budget.  Admittedly the budget can't be balanced on the back of Defense. Even if the U.S. were to magically stop all spending money on Defense the budget would not be in balance.  However, if we're really serious about tackling it - and I don't for a moment really believe that - then the sacred cow of Defense has to be put on the butchers block.

The Cost Of Serrvice

 I've started reading Overhaul by Steven Rattner. It details the Obama administration's efforts to save GM and Chrysler.   So far (page 60) I've found it a very interesting read.  This on his vetting process gave me more than a moments pause.

Bering vetted can be a full-time job.  At Josh's [Steiner, Obama transition adviser] suggestion, I had begun talking to my attorneys in mid-December [2008], in part to ascertain whether public office was feasible for me.  Every senior appointee has to complete two massive documents: the SF-86, an impossibly tedious security-clearance statement that requires listing - just for example - every foreign trip an applicant has taken in the previous seven years, and the SF-278, which involves the disclosure of every financial interest and obligation.  Like most recent administrations this one had added its own questions, derived from past debacles, such as Zoe Baird's failure to become Bill Clinton's attorney general after neglecting to pay the so-called nanny tax.  I can't count the hours I spent complying, but I do know that the honor of working for the federal government cost me more than $400,000 is legal fees.

Rattner is millionaire that made his money in investment banking on Wall Street.  In theory he can afford those legal fees.  Still, even for a millionaire that's a substantial sum of money.   Still, if one has to front your own legal fees how can any one who is not millionaire serve at high levels of government?  If only millionaires can serve how will the highest level government officials ever understand the other 95% of the population they are serving?

Proposed Taxes Rates

There is often confusion about marginal tax rates. When people talk about being in one tax bracket or another they often think they are paying a flat tax rate on all their income. This just isn't true. Everyone pays the same rate on the first taxable dollar they make. Everyone pays the same rate on the 35,000th taxable dollar they make. Those rates are 10% and 15% respectively.

And I say "taxable dollar made" because everyone gets some form of deduction. It could simply be a personal deduction or it could be deductions for dependents or mortgage interest or charitable donations.

So I looked up the tax brackets for 2000 and 2010 for a person filing singly.  Those are the last year of the pre-Bush tax rates and the last year of the Bush tax rates respectively. I applied those marginal rates to incomes in increments of $20,000 dollars less the standard deduction only ($5350).

I then applied the proposed Obama option of restoring the pre-Bush tax rates to those making over $200,000 a year, again less the standard deduction. For this rate I assumed there would be no adjustments to the bracket amounts other than inserting the cutoff at $200,000.  Above $200,000 I assumed the highest tax rate from 2000, 39.6%.  Those details could vary if actually enacted.

This is what you get.

click to embiggen

As you can see, everyone will be paying less in taxes than they did in 2000. People who make more than 200,000 (250,000 if you are married filing jointly) will pay more in 2011 than they do in 2010 but still less than they did in 2000. And that assumes that all the income is salary and not capital gains which are taxed at 15%.

It also important to note that a salary above 200,000 puts you in the top 3.5% of the population.  These people "suffering a tax increase" - and I don't readily accept that description - will still be keeping $0.60 of every $1.00 they make over $200,000.  The idea that this tax rate will de-incentivize people from working is ludicrous.

Eight Things The Public "Knows"

But don't

1. President Obama reduced the debt
2. President Obama reduced taxes.
3. President Bush and his Treasury Secretary (and former Goldman Sachs CEO) Paulson bailed out the banks.
4. The stimulus worked but would have been more effective had it been bigger.
5. Businesses need DEMAND for their products, not tax cuts, before they will start hiring.
6. Health Care Reform will save the government $138B (that's $138,000,000,000) over the next 10 years.
7. Social Security has run a surplus since its inception and is sound for the foreseeable future.
8. Government spending does NOT remove money from the economy.  It is We, The People spending on We, The People.

Election day is 8 days away.  Who are you voting for?
via

Elena Kagan

You're going to here many critiques of Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court nominee. One that is bound to have some traction is that she has never served as a judge before. Well, neither did William Rehnquist.

Personally, I'm not sure what I think. A lot of people on the left seem to think she is a compromise candidate. I certainly want the most liberal justice Obama can get through. She doesn't seem to be the most liberal that was on the supposed short list. Could any of the others get confirmed?

Maybe more on this later if I have time to do some reading.


UPDATE: When he named Kagan as his nominee this morning Obama mentioned that she is a fan of The Hated New York Mets. All Senators should weigh this sobering fact appropriately.

Good On Him!

Obama issued an executive order saying any hospitals that receive Medicare of Medicaid funding (damn near every one of them) may not deny visitation nor the right to make medical decisions to anyone designated by the patient. In other words, the partners of gay and lesbian patients will be allowed to visit their loved ones and make the medical decisions for their partners, just like husbands and wives of different genders.

Today's Stat - Teabagging Tax Day

At lunch we walked through Daley Plaza where the Tea Party movement was holding a rally. We wandered through about 11:40 before eating and then again 30 or 40 minutes later. Although not exclusive from my observations the crowd was overwhelmingly white and comfortably over the age of 40.

I think its good to point to this article at Forbes from about a month ago. David Frum, a former economic speech writer for W., sent out interns to ask questions of protesters at the time. They got responses from 57 of the 300 - 500 protesters present.

When asked how much tax money the Federal Gov't collects as a percentage of the GDP the average response was:
42%

According to the Congressional Budget Office. Federal Income Tax amounts to:
6.4%

Federal Income Taxes plus Social Security Payroll taxes amounts to
12.7%

Federal Income Taxes plus SS Payroll taxes plus all other federal taxes and fees:
14.8%

The highest percentage ever recorded, in 1944, during World War II
20.9%

Their guesses are 3 times the current rate for ALL federal taxes and double the highest ever recorded. Next they were asked how Federal income tax a family making $50,000 per year would pay. Their average answer was:
$12,710

According to the IRS tax tables the amount of taxes owed on $50,000 of taxable income for a SINGLE PERSON is:
$8,694
For a couple filing jointly:
$6,669

Of course those numbers are TAXABLE INCOME. A single person with no other deductions other than the personal deduction would have to make $58,350 to pay $8,694, or 14.8% of gross income and the couple would make $65,050 before paying $6,669, or 10.2% of gross income. (Damn! I got find a "wife" to file taxes with.) Of course, having dependents or owning a house would reduce the tax burden even farther.

Naming Rights?

On NPR this morning I heard one of the hateful Goppers (I don't remember which) refer to the recently passed “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” as ObamaCare. The Goppers have been using ObamaCare as a derogatory term. I suppose if you really believe that this law will be damaging and people will hate it then the strategy makes sense. Maybe the costs of the bill will be crippling in the future. Maybe.

In the immediate though people will not be denied coverage because they are already sick.

In the immediate they won't have coverage taken away because they get sick.

In the immediate college age kids (up to 26) will be able to keep coverage with their parents.

The law is structured to create immediate benefits for people. Giving credit to your opponent for something beneficial is not a good strategy. Then again people living on government disability railing against government assistance are not the brightest bulbs.

On a serious note Andrew Sabl over at Reality Based Community have a post up about what to call the bill. He's going with Matt Yglesias' suggestion of "Affordable Care Act" or the ACA.

Yes we did!

It took 100 years but Health Care Reform has passed.

It might be... It could be...

...

I thought it was and then I thought it wasn't. I haven't had much confidence the past several months. I couldn't think of anything useful to say and just kind of felt dejected when I thought about it.

Then Dennis flipped yesterday. He's whipping votes today.

And the CBO report (pdf) came out today.

• 31,000,000 more people covered. 95% of the non-elderly legal population
  
• No rescinding coverage if you get sick
  
• No denying coverage or excessive premiums for pre existing conditions
  
• $130,000,000,000 in deficit reduction in the first 10 years
  
• $1,200,000,000,000 in deficit reduction in the second 10 years
  

The bill isn't perfect and it hasn't yet been passed, but today, for the first time in a long time, I'm hopeful we'll actually get health care reform!

One Page Summary

Of our current politics from John Cole at Balloon Juice. This really should be required reading.

And then, quietly, the bill that James and I and the majority of the House, Senate, and American people all agree would be a good thing, slowly and without any dignity dies. The beltway pundits, feeling no shame for their part in amplifying the bullshit from the noise machine, would then begin 100,000 horse race pieces discussing how this is bad for Obama and good for Republicans, and what role this will play in the 2010 elections.

No one quote does it justice. As they say, go read the whole thing.

Obama's Accomplishments

Erik Loomis at Alterdestiny links to a list of Obama's accomplishments in the first 10 months of his administration. It is an impressive list. I'm still gathering my thoughts about the Afghan plan. My gut, although it may be necessary I don't like it. But, even when one disagrees with specific policy decisions of any politician it is good to keep in mind the good they've done as well.

Beer Summit

I've not commented on the so called Gates-gate because the whole story is being blown totally out of proportion for the wrong reasons.* And one of the main reasons it is getting so damn big is that President Obama, when asked about it at a press conference, made some ill advised comments. He admitted not knowing all the details but then went and called the actions of the police stupid.

Really, this curfuffle is way, way below his pay grade and he should have treated it that way. He could have said, "I've read the news articles about the arrest of Professor Gates. I don't know all the details of the encounter and therefore should not comment on them specifically. I'm sure the local police will be able to review the case and hope they will correct any procedural errors they may find."

Instead, he gave the statement he did. This lead to the inevitable issues, questions, accusations being leveled. Accusations of racism are flying. The blue wall of police nationwide are defending their perceived brother-in-arms. Its risen to the point where you have police officers on the other side of the country defending police abuse of power.

So tonight, President Obama is having an "informal beer" with the arresting officer and Professor Gates at the White House. This so called beer summit is to be a "teaching moment."

Meanwhile, health care reform flounders in Congress.




* This is being played as a racial issue and there are certainly racial undertones throughout the incident. The real issue here should be police abuse of power. It seems like a man was arrested in his home when the only "crime" committed was being mean to a cop. That's not a crime.

I Belong To Know Organized Political Party

Senate Democrats place gun in the president's hand and aim it at his foot.

Obama has threatened to veto a military budget bill if it has funding for the F-22 Joint Strike Fighter. A great many people outside the military/industrial complex have decided the fighter has no use and is way, way too expensive. The current Pentagon Chief, Sec Def Gates, wants to kill the program. Obviously, the Commander-in-Cheif wants the program killed.

But not Congress critters. A trick employed by major contractors that build weapons systems put pieces of manufacturing in dozens if not hundreds of congressional districts. Each member of Congress has constituents that are employed by these programs. They never, ever want to kill a program because that costs jobs in their district.

Now, with a bloated unneeded program on the verge of being killed by the White House they've gone and attached an unrelated law to the funding bill. It's a bill that Obama has championed and wants to sign into law. He's been criticized from the left for not doing enough for gay and lesbian rights.

Now to kill off billions of dollars of wasted spending he's being forced to hurt his own political spending. And it is his own party that's doing it.

Emissions, Clunkers, and Global Warming

Yesterday, the Obama Administration announced new requirements for emissions standards for automobiles.

The agreement announced at the White House will lead to a 30% reduction in carbon dioxide and other emissions by 2016 from vehicles sold in the U.S.

To meet that standard, according to the White House, new vehicles sold in the U.S. seven years from now will have to average 35.5 mpg, up from 25 mpg today. The agreement, coupled with increased fuel-efficiency requirements Congress approved in 2007, would add $1,300 to the price of a new car in 2016, the administration estimated.

The plan does not spell out specific mileage requirements, but effectively would require them by capping the greenhouse gas emissions that scientists blame for global warming. The new limits are projected to reduce U.S. oil consumption by about 5% a year from 2011 to 2016. The nation currently uses about 7.1 billion barrels a year.

A couple of key things here to keep in mind. This is an EPA administrative rule, not a law passed by Congress and signed by the president. That means this could, in theory, be temporary. A new administration might change the rules. Now industry being what it is once this process gets moving forward even rule changes that favor less efficient cars aren't going to stop it completely.

More importantly, is "a 30% reduction in carbon dioxide and other emissions by 2016 from vehicles." This could be more accurately stated as "a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions per vehicle mile." Why the difference? Because an increase in the number of cars on the road and/or the number of miles being driven will offset the reduction in pollution per mile. And the increased fuel economy inherent in this change will lower the operating cost of driving a car, increasing the incentive to use a car.

We've seen the opposite before. High gas prices, equating to higher operating costs, drastically lowered the number of miles driven last year. Lower operating costs can therefore be predicted to increase the miles driven.

And as the White House admits this will increase the cost of a new car, by $1300 in their estimate. This will discourage some people from buying the cars and they will stay in their older, less efficient, more polluting cars. The administration and Congress are considering a program here as well. They have a Cash For Clunkers idea that will give money to a person trading in his/her car for a more fuel efficient new car. Germany has a similar program in place and it is the only country in the developed world to see an increase in new car sales last year.



This idea has some limits as well. First it is aimed at only new cars. Obviously this is also part of a stimulus plan to help jump start new car sales and hence employment in the U.S. However, the worst polluting cars on the road tend to be the really old cars owned by the poor. Many of those people cannot afford a new car no matter what, or if they're given a loan, are more likely to default. These people, and hence their high pollution cars, are likely not be involved.

If the ultimate goal of Cash For Clunkers is to reduce pollution, as opposed to boosting new car sales, a better idea may be to out-and-out buy these cars from the people for above market price. The former car owners could use the cash to buy newer (probably still used) cars that will pollute less.

Although I think both programs have room for improvement both should have positive effects. (Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good) If going forward new cars are more fuel efficient then even if more cars are sold to an increasing population the gasoline consumption and pollution creation will decrease compared to doing nothing. Even if the Cash For Clunkers doesn't remove the real clunkers from the road, if financially better off people take advantage of it more, better used cars will come on the market. That should reduce used car prices and more people will be able to afford better used cars. "Better" being defined as more fuel efficient and less polluting.

Everything helps. The new car emissions standards are a good down payment. Combine these two ideas with a Cap And Trade regime that Obama has proposed and/or a carbon tax to increase the cost of polluting directly and the U.S. could be making real progress towards combating climate change.