Politically active Evangelical Christians continue to insist that there is a right to public prayer. They rely, in great part, on the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which provides for Freedom of Religion.
Specifically:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" (emphasis added)
Many authorities, including the Supreme Court, have interpreted this to mean not only the freedom to practice your own religion - or none - but also the freedom to avoid involuntary exposure to other religions and their practices. The case put forward by these Christians is, hypocritically, entirely secular since it relies on a document that specifically rejects the primacy of any religion or sect.
The level of noise and unpleasantness would be markedly reduced if they were to take into account the words of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in Matthew 6 verses 5-6:
6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Complex problems and simple solutions
In considering proposed policies, every politician should keep in mind this gem from H.L. Mencken:
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."
Unfortunately, the level of political debate has been dumbed down to something less than a discussion between two elementary school students. Compare the Lincoln-Douglas debates with the modern joint press conferences that are laughingly described as Presidential Campaign "debates".
To communicate at this dumbed down level, politicians are almost forced to pretend that there are simple solutions. Since the reality is that there are few simple solutions, it is hard to see how politicians can look themselves in the mirror each morning.
Or do they have mirrorless houses and aides or family members to help them brush their hair?
I am unsure whether lying or self deception is worse for our country. Unfortunately, the outlook is gloomy unless the Presidential candidates are willing to treat us as adults - capable of adult level reasoning.
Senator McCain has shown that he can do so but not consistently. Senator Obama has done nothing to convince us that he is more than a good looking arm-waver with few well thought out policies and no executive experience.
There are still five months to go until Election Day. Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised but I am not optimistic.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."
Unfortunately, the level of political debate has been dumbed down to something less than a discussion between two elementary school students. Compare the Lincoln-Douglas debates with the modern joint press conferences that are laughingly described as Presidential Campaign "debates".
To communicate at this dumbed down level, politicians are almost forced to pretend that there are simple solutions. Since the reality is that there are few simple solutions, it is hard to see how politicians can look themselves in the mirror each morning.
Or do they have mirrorless houses and aides or family members to help them brush their hair?
I am unsure whether lying or self deception is worse for our country. Unfortunately, the outlook is gloomy unless the Presidential candidates are willing to treat us as adults - capable of adult level reasoning.
Senator McCain has shown that he can do so but not consistently. Senator Obama has done nothing to convince us that he is more than a good looking arm-waver with few well thought out policies and no executive experience.
There are still five months to go until Election Day. Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised but I am not optimistic.
Friday, June 27, 2008
On getting old
A brief thought for the weekend:
There's nothing wrong with getting old. It is an interesting journey and there is a lot of fun to be had along the way.
Being old is a different matter!
There's nothing wrong with getting old. It is an interesting journey and there is a lot of fun to be had along the way.
Being old is a different matter!
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
U.S. Sugar and the Florida Everglades
Theodore Roosevelt, creator of the National Park System, can reasonably be described as the first environmental President. Perhaps it is worth noting that he was a Republican in a time when unrestrained exploitation, rather than preservation, of the environment was standard practice.
Regrettably, most Republicans now fall on the side of exploitation but Governor Charlie Crist (R) of Florida, in a venture worth of TR, has negotiated a deal with U.S. Sugar to buy some 300 square miles (approximately 192,000 acres) of land in the Everglades. The cost is $1.75 billion and, after a six year transition period, U.S. Sugar will stop growing sugar cane and turn over the land to be restored as wetland, swamp, and a very slow moving very shallow river - much the way it used to be before out of control development and industrial scale agriculture became the norm.
In a true deal, both sides come out ahead. Certainly this outcome is better than some of the regulatory schemes that have been proposed for preservation of the Everglades: the objective is achieved, lawyers are denied vast fees and evasion of regulations (at vast cost to all) is avoided.
More importantly, a company has freely given up its property in exchange for a fair payment rather than having been coerced by a government exercising its powers of eminent domain. That is important to those of us who are disturbed by the way in which governments believe that they can circumvent the clear limits on their powers as spelled out in the United States Constitution.
Sometimes the market works better than we think it can.
Regrettably, most Republicans now fall on the side of exploitation but Governor Charlie Crist (R) of Florida, in a venture worth of TR, has negotiated a deal with U.S. Sugar to buy some 300 square miles (approximately 192,000 acres) of land in the Everglades. The cost is $1.75 billion and, after a six year transition period, U.S. Sugar will stop growing sugar cane and turn over the land to be restored as wetland, swamp, and a very slow moving very shallow river - much the way it used to be before out of control development and industrial scale agriculture became the norm.
In a true deal, both sides come out ahead. Certainly this outcome is better than some of the regulatory schemes that have been proposed for preservation of the Everglades: the objective is achieved, lawyers are denied vast fees and evasion of regulations (at vast cost to all) is avoided.
More importantly, a company has freely given up its property in exchange for a fair payment rather than having been coerced by a government exercising its powers of eminent domain. That is important to those of us who are disturbed by the way in which governments believe that they can circumvent the clear limits on their powers as spelled out in the United States Constitution.
Sometimes the market works better than we think it can.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Worrying about American Democracy
Our politicians have become followers rather than leaders.
In their slavish devotion to opinion polls, they have abandoned their duty to form public opinion and, thus, to lead. As a result, the likelihood that necessary, although not always comfortable, policy changes will be adopted is low.
With Republicans mindlessly chanting "no new taxes" and Democrats spinning plans to "tax the rich", the serious issues - entitlements, health care, education, immigration, the Middle East and Iran to name some of the more significant - are shuffled off to the next Congress, or the next President, whose willingness to take action is vanishingly close to zero.
The job of a leader is to persuade the nation to act. The electorate opposes leaders by its desire to enjoy the present without facing hard choices. Since we now have so few true leaders, the natural desires of the electorate prevail: a situation that is likely to be devastating in the not so short run.
Those who claim leadership - by virtue, I suppose, of having pandered to a sufficient number of voters to win election - should think long and hard about these remarks by Edmund Burke who, in a 1774 speech to the electors of Bristol, said:
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion".
Once more, there is little new under the sun!
In their slavish devotion to opinion polls, they have abandoned their duty to form public opinion and, thus, to lead. As a result, the likelihood that necessary, although not always comfortable, policy changes will be adopted is low.
With Republicans mindlessly chanting "no new taxes" and Democrats spinning plans to "tax the rich", the serious issues - entitlements, health care, education, immigration, the Middle East and Iran to name some of the more significant - are shuffled off to the next Congress, or the next President, whose willingness to take action is vanishingly close to zero.
The job of a leader is to persuade the nation to act. The electorate opposes leaders by its desire to enjoy the present without facing hard choices. Since we now have so few true leaders, the natural desires of the electorate prevail: a situation that is likely to be devastating in the not so short run.
Those who claim leadership - by virtue, I suppose, of having pandered to a sufficient number of voters to win election - should think long and hard about these remarks by Edmund Burke who, in a 1774 speech to the electors of Bristol, said:
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion".
Once more, there is little new under the sun!
Sunday, June 22, 2008
A good reason not to vote for a politician.
Ever since the post-Watergate "reforms", there have been limits on contribution to political campaigns. The latest version is the McCain - Feingold Act passed in 2002. While many, including this writer, have doubts about the constitutionality of this law, most of it has been accepted by the Supreme Court.
Give the almost ridiculously low limits on contributions, a well financed campaign needs to sell many contributors on the merits of the candidate. Senator Barack Obama has proved that he can do it - very well.
Senator Clinton, on the other hand, has come up $22 million short and has chosen to use large amounts - $11 million according to reports - of her (and her husband's) own funds to finance the campaign. Her campaign also appears to have another $11 million - at least - in debt.
It seems that people were willing to vote for her but that she failed to sell her voters on the product - at least to the extent that cash contributions were required. Governor Romney's campaign for the Republican nomination failed as badly or worse.
The fact that a politician is unable to sell citizens on making contributions to his campaign is just another good reason for considering him unworthy of my vote.
Give the almost ridiculously low limits on contributions, a well financed campaign needs to sell many contributors on the merits of the candidate. Senator Barack Obama has proved that he can do it - very well.
Senator Clinton, on the other hand, has come up $22 million short and has chosen to use large amounts - $11 million according to reports - of her (and her husband's) own funds to finance the campaign. Her campaign also appears to have another $11 million - at least - in debt.
It seems that people were willing to vote for her but that she failed to sell her voters on the product - at least to the extent that cash contributions were required. Governor Romney's campaign for the Republican nomination failed as badly or worse.
The fact that a politician is unable to sell citizens on making contributions to his campaign is just another good reason for considering him unworthy of my vote.
Friday, June 20, 2008
How many sets of books?
Most privately held companies only have one set of books. Their accounts are set up to minimize the tribute extracted by tax collectors of all stripes. The unfortunate side effect is that poor decisions are made, and opportunities passed up, to achieve the goal of the lowest possible tax bill.
Many publicly held companies have two sets of books. The first, and most important, contains the happy lies that GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) and SEC Regulations permit to be told to the shareholders. These happy lies are used to justify the gigantic bonuses and massive stock option grants awarded by senior management to itself.
See also conflict of interest and failure of management to act in the interests of shareholders.
The second set of books contains the gloomy lies that the company is legally allowed to tell the tax collector. In this set of books, the company claims not only that it should not pay any taxes this year but that it should be refunded all - and more - of the taxes unfairly extracted in previous years.
Just a few, very well managed, companies have a third set of books. The objective of this set of books is to answer the question: "what the *&^$%% is going on around here?"
If management does know - as opposed to just thinking that it knows - what is going on, then chances are that the company is well managed and capable of rebounding from the inevitable bumps in the road.
Although he was talking about scientists, and the process of doing theoretical physics, this quote from Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman is applicable to management:
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional sort of way."
Many publicly held companies have two sets of books. The first, and most important, contains the happy lies that GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) and SEC Regulations permit to be told to the shareholders. These happy lies are used to justify the gigantic bonuses and massive stock option grants awarded by senior management to itself.
See also conflict of interest and failure of management to act in the interests of shareholders.
The second set of books contains the gloomy lies that the company is legally allowed to tell the tax collector. In this set of books, the company claims not only that it should not pay any taxes this year but that it should be refunded all - and more - of the taxes unfairly extracted in previous years.
Just a few, very well managed, companies have a third set of books. The objective of this set of books is to answer the question: "what the *&^$%% is going on around here?"
If management does know - as opposed to just thinking that it knows - what is going on, then chances are that the company is well managed and capable of rebounding from the inevitable bumps in the road.
Although he was talking about scientists, and the process of doing theoretical physics, this quote from Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman is applicable to management:
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional sort of way."
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Privately owned mass transit
There was a time when mass transit systems were in private hands. And a time when they were profitable without subsidies from the long suffering taxpayer.
Now, it seems that every mass transit system is government owned and loses money. Bus, rail, light rail, and subway systems are all plagued by high capital costs, appallingly low productivity, high costs, and massive losses.
How can this be so? Much of the problem is a result of municipal, city, and state ownership.
Abysmal contracting practices result in excessive capital costs; political power on the part of unions leads to high wages and low productivity; and abject cowardice on the part of politicians leads to ticket prices that are too low to support decent service - even with massive subsidies from the unwilling taxpayer.
It is hard for a commuter to calculate the real cost of driving to work. After all, the car is already paid for and the extra cost of insurance caused by commuting to work is barely visible. Nor is it easy to measure the additional costs of maintenance and replacement parts. The only really visible cost is for gasoline and, in some places, tolls.
The fact that employers often provide free parking - as an untaxed "fringe benefit" - is yet another disincentive to understanding the true costs of commuting by automobile.
Employers may pay up to $220 per month in parking costs without creating taxable income for an employee but may provide no more than $115 in mass transit subsidies without creating a taxable event. Just another distortion imposed on our economy by a dysfunctional tax system.
Given that it is in the interests of all to reduce traffic on the roads, it would, if you believe in subsidies, be appropriate to abolish the exemption for parking and double the exemption for mass transit.
For those who abhor subsidies and wish to allow the economy to give and respond to price signals, it would be better to abolish subsidies whether the subsidy is in cash or in the form of pretending that income is not "income" and therefore is not taxable.
It would be more interesting to see if, after too many years of government ownership, there are private buyers for mass transit systems. Better yet would be to find private buyers who are capable of making profits without the benefits of subsidies.
Now, it seems that every mass transit system is government owned and loses money. Bus, rail, light rail, and subway systems are all plagued by high capital costs, appallingly low productivity, high costs, and massive losses.
How can this be so? Much of the problem is a result of municipal, city, and state ownership.
Abysmal contracting practices result in excessive capital costs; political power on the part of unions leads to high wages and low productivity; and abject cowardice on the part of politicians leads to ticket prices that are too low to support decent service - even with massive subsidies from the unwilling taxpayer.
It is hard for a commuter to calculate the real cost of driving to work. After all, the car is already paid for and the extra cost of insurance caused by commuting to work is barely visible. Nor is it easy to measure the additional costs of maintenance and replacement parts. The only really visible cost is for gasoline and, in some places, tolls.
The fact that employers often provide free parking - as an untaxed "fringe benefit" - is yet another disincentive to understanding the true costs of commuting by automobile.
Employers may pay up to $220 per month in parking costs without creating taxable income for an employee but may provide no more than $115 in mass transit subsidies without creating a taxable event. Just another distortion imposed on our economy by a dysfunctional tax system.
Given that it is in the interests of all to reduce traffic on the roads, it would, if you believe in subsidies, be appropriate to abolish the exemption for parking and double the exemption for mass transit.
For those who abhor subsidies and wish to allow the economy to give and respond to price signals, it would be better to abolish subsidies whether the subsidy is in cash or in the form of pretending that income is not "income" and therefore is not taxable.
It would be more interesting to see if, after too many years of government ownership, there are private buyers for mass transit systems. Better yet would be to find private buyers who are capable of making profits without the benefits of subsidies.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Security and Freedom
Freedom is risky. In a perfectly controlled society, we could have perfect security but at the price of almost all of our hard won freedoms.
Those who wish to tilt the balance towards perfect security should consider these two quotations:
Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.
Benjamin Franklin
Isn't it clear that terrorists want to destroy our freedom, and when we trash our liberties, we do their work for them?
David Cameron - Leader of the British Conservative Party
There isn't much else to say!
Those who wish to tilt the balance towards perfect security should consider these two quotations:
Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.
Benjamin Franklin
Isn't it clear that terrorists want to destroy our freedom, and when we trash our liberties, we do their work for them?
David Cameron - Leader of the British Conservative Party
There isn't much else to say!
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Does your money belong to you or does it belong to the government?
In remarks this week, both Senator Obama and Senator McCain made clear their opinions on who owns your money.
Senator Obama believes that all of your money belongs to the government and that you should be grateful for what it lets you keep. He attitude reminds me of the lyrics in the song 'Tax Man' written by George Harrison of the Beatles in 1966:
Should five percent appear too small,
Be thankful I don't take it all.
I am the taxman. Yeah
This is reminiscent of the bad jokes about flat taxes and two line tax forms:
How much money did you make last year?
SEND IT IN.
Senator Obama clearly doesn't understand either the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution. Did no one teach him about that quaint phrase "We the People"?
Senator McCain, on the other hand, believes that the government should be much more modest in its demands on the taxpayer.
Senator Obama believes that all of your money belongs to the government and that you should be grateful for what it lets you keep. He attitude reminds me of the lyrics in the song 'Tax Man' written by George Harrison of the Beatles in 1966:
Should five percent appear too small,
Be thankful I don't take it all.
I am the taxman. Yeah
This is reminiscent of the bad jokes about flat taxes and two line tax forms:
How much money did you make last year?
SEND IT IN.
Senator Obama clearly doesn't understand either the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution. Did no one teach him about that quaint phrase "We the People"?
Senator McCain, on the other hand, believes that the government should be much more modest in its demands on the taxpayer.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Core inflation and other lies
The U.S. Government, in a ploy worthy of some economically mismanaged third world hellhole, has taken to emphasizing so-called core inflation rather than the higher "headline", or real, inflation.
Core inflation removes the prices of food and fuel from the calculation on the grounds that, since these can be very volatile, using them distorts the month to month comparisons. That is true as far as it goes.
The problem is that it doesn't go far enough.
First, the government persists in using "core inflation' for year to year comparisons. This is a gross misuse since the extreme volatility of prices for food and fuel, which is the excuse for deleting these staple of everyday life from the index, is much reduced when the comparison period is a year.
The second issue is that it is really hard to avoid paying for food and we are severely limited in our ability, at least in the short term, to reduce our fuel consumption.
Creating an index that tells the truth and nothing but the truth, but neglects to tell the whole truth, is not something that criminal courts, for example, look kindly upon.
The reality is that individual consumers have to deal with headline inflation - not core inflation or some other funny number dreamed up by government statisticians who, while they may not be playing politics, nevertheless seem to be wrong. Anecdotal evidence about the cost of food, fuel, clothes, travel, rent, medical care etc. etc. suggests that prices are rising much faster even than the headline inflation index.
Tell us the truth. The vast majority of us are mature enough to handle it and the politicians, if they ever tried speaking truth, would get an interesting surprise.
Core inflation removes the prices of food and fuel from the calculation on the grounds that, since these can be very volatile, using them distorts the month to month comparisons. That is true as far as it goes.
The problem is that it doesn't go far enough.
First, the government persists in using "core inflation' for year to year comparisons. This is a gross misuse since the extreme volatility of prices for food and fuel, which is the excuse for deleting these staple of everyday life from the index, is much reduced when the comparison period is a year.
The second issue is that it is really hard to avoid paying for food and we are severely limited in our ability, at least in the short term, to reduce our fuel consumption.
Creating an index that tells the truth and nothing but the truth, but neglects to tell the whole truth, is not something that criminal courts, for example, look kindly upon.
The reality is that individual consumers have to deal with headline inflation - not core inflation or some other funny number dreamed up by government statisticians who, while they may not be playing politics, nevertheless seem to be wrong. Anecdotal evidence about the cost of food, fuel, clothes, travel, rent, medical care etc. etc. suggests that prices are rising much faster even than the headline inflation index.
Tell us the truth. The vast majority of us are mature enough to handle it and the politicians, if they ever tried speaking truth, would get an interesting surprise.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Rules for voting
Now that the contenders for the American Presidential election appear to be set, it is time to offer some rules for deciding how to vote.
Rule #1. Vote against the incumbent.
Rule #2. If no incumbent, vote against the lawyer.
Rule #3. If no lawyer... naaah, that will never happen.
Throw the rascals out is always good policy.
While it might seem a good idea to have a few elected lawyers to perform a rigorous review of proposed legislation to ensure that it meets policy objectives, while minimizing unintended consequences, they have grossly failed to perform this task effectively.
And there are far too many lawyers in politics.
Rule #1. Vote against the incumbent.
Rule #2. If no incumbent, vote against the lawyer.
Rule #3. If no lawyer... naaah, that will never happen.
Throw the rascals out is always good policy.
While it might seem a good idea to have a few elected lawyers to perform a rigorous review of proposed legislation to ensure that it meets policy objectives, while minimizing unintended consequences, they have grossly failed to perform this task effectively.
And there are far too many lawyers in politics.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Creating long term wealth.
"Rebate" checks from the tax man began landing in American bank accounts last month. The alleged purpose of these funds is to stimulate the economy.
To the extent that the checks are used to pay down consumer debt, the funds will do little to stimulate the economy although, by strengthening consumer balance sheets, it will be improved just a little bit. To the extent that the money is spent on flat panel TVs, toys for the kids, clothes and other "stuff", the economy most likely to be stimulated is China's.
The reality is that we have been on a debt fuelled consumption binge since 1985. That provides jobs and wealth in the short term but does not do much for the future. Investment has been sorely neglected.
One of the reasons that we are so rich today is because of past investment in public infrastructure: roads, bridges, airports, subways, dams, reservoirs and sewage systems. Too much of this public infrastructure is decaying for lack of maintenance; too little new infrastructure is being created to serve the needs of a still rapidly growing population.
Had the President and Congress been serious about stimulating the economy, in both the short and the long term, they would have voted to spend the necessary funds for maintenance of our existing infrastructure (short term stimulus) and the creation of new large infrastructure projects (long term investment).
Gordon Brown, now Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, established a principle, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it was OK for the government to borrow if the funds were used for investment but not OK if they were to be used for current spending and consumption.
Investing is one of the paths to wealth. Except in really ugly and unusual circumstances, like the Great Depression, giving citizens money borrowed by the government so that they may buy more "stuff" is not a road to wealth. Nor is giving citizens money, to reduce their debt load, anything more than a wash if the money must first be borrowed by the government.
Jean-Claude Juncker - Prime Minister of Luxembourg - put it well when describing the biggest problem faced by politicians:
"We all know what to do. We just don’t know how to be re-elected once we’ve done it."
The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 was simply a bad idea to make it appear that the politicians are doing something useful. The unintended consequences are likely to include little stimulus with increased government borrowing and inflation while giving the Chinese economy a modest boost.
To the extent that the checks are used to pay down consumer debt, the funds will do little to stimulate the economy although, by strengthening consumer balance sheets, it will be improved just a little bit. To the extent that the money is spent on flat panel TVs, toys for the kids, clothes and other "stuff", the economy most likely to be stimulated is China's.
The reality is that we have been on a debt fuelled consumption binge since 1985. That provides jobs and wealth in the short term but does not do much for the future. Investment has been sorely neglected.
One of the reasons that we are so rich today is because of past investment in public infrastructure: roads, bridges, airports, subways, dams, reservoirs and sewage systems. Too much of this public infrastructure is decaying for lack of maintenance; too little new infrastructure is being created to serve the needs of a still rapidly growing population.
Had the President and Congress been serious about stimulating the economy, in both the short and the long term, they would have voted to spend the necessary funds for maintenance of our existing infrastructure (short term stimulus) and the creation of new large infrastructure projects (long term investment).
Gordon Brown, now Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, established a principle, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it was OK for the government to borrow if the funds were used for investment but not OK if they were to be used for current spending and consumption.
Investing is one of the paths to wealth. Except in really ugly and unusual circumstances, like the Great Depression, giving citizens money borrowed by the government so that they may buy more "stuff" is not a road to wealth. Nor is giving citizens money, to reduce their debt load, anything more than a wash if the money must first be borrowed by the government.
Jean-Claude Juncker - Prime Minister of Luxembourg - put it well when describing the biggest problem faced by politicians:
"We all know what to do. We just don’t know how to be re-elected once we’ve done it."
The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 was simply a bad idea to make it appear that the politicians are doing something useful. The unintended consequences are likely to include little stimulus with increased government borrowing and inflation while giving the Chinese economy a modest boost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
