Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
They call the left "radical"?
I found a book entitled "Catastrophe" that has the following editorial review:
"[The authors] Morris and McGann take a hard look at America in free fall—and at how Obama is transforming a vulnerable America into a socialist state.
They [the authors] tell the truth about Obama and his radical policies:
Seriously? This is a book for adults?
"[The authors] Morris and McGann take a hard look at America in free fall—and at how Obama is transforming a vulnerable America into a socialist state.
They [the authors] tell the truth about Obama and his radical policies:
- He will destroy our health care system so that no one gets adequate care.
- He designed his bank rescue plan to pave the way for nationalization of the banks and socialization of the economy.
- He firmly believes in government control of our major industries—he's already commandeered the banks and the automobile industry.
- He plans to reshape the political landscape to keep the left in power for decades by cooking the census, enfranchising illegal immigrants, muzzling talk radio, and coercing workers into unions.
- He is attacking those who fight terrorism while letting the terrorists go free.
- He has repealed the Declaration of Independence and put us under a worldwide, European-dominated financial regulatory system."
Seriously? This is a book for adults?
Monday, February 01, 2010
Is the economic stimulus plan working?
Recent campaign ads argue that the fiscal stimulus package hasn't helped at all. Now I know that unemployment is still too high and many people are still searching for work so I'm not trying to say that economic conditions are great. However, I'm sick and tired of people saying that the Democrats are wasting money. What irks me most is that Republicans pretend that they would have done nothing to help the economy when in fact they proposed almost as much spending (the final price tag for the Obama plan was about $790 billion while the Republican alternative was $710 billion). And the gigantic deficit is not only because of government spending, but it's also because tax revenue is way down due to the high unemployment numbers. (Getting sidetracked: why won't Republicans LEAP at Obama's suggestion to freeze government spending? Isn't that a no brainer?)
Anyway, I didn't see a lot of news coverage on last week's economic numbers that should help illustrate the immediate impact of the stimulus package. Last Friday, the government released the numbers for economic growth in the 4th quarter of 2009. To help put the number in perspective, let's look at some historical numbers of quarterly GDP growth. (Source: the Bureau of Economic Analysis at http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls)
Some technical details on the numbers: Though economic growth (GDP) is reported quarterly, it is often expressed as an ANNUAL number and is adjusted for inflation. This is called the real rate of growth as it is a measure of goods and services in the US economy. Here is what it has looked like over the last 25 years - to go back more than 25 years ago just doesn't make much sense to me since our economy is so very different than it was in the 1950s.
Look at how quickly the numbers have turned around since Obama became president. Obama came in at a time when the economy was at its WORST - the 4th quarter 2008 and 1st quarter 2009 were the two worst quarters for economic growth in the last 25 years! Yet, in less than one year, we've swung to +5.7% growth!
I'm not arguing that Obama is our economic savior, especially since unemployment must improve. But how can someone say that the stimulus package didn't help? Seriously?
Anyway, I didn't see a lot of news coverage on last week's economic numbers that should help illustrate the immediate impact of the stimulus package. Last Friday, the government released the numbers for economic growth in the 4th quarter of 2009. To help put the number in perspective, let's look at some historical numbers of quarterly GDP growth. (Source: the Bureau of Economic Analysis at http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xls)
Some technical details on the numbers: Though economic growth (GDP) is reported quarterly, it is often expressed as an ANNUAL number and is adjusted for inflation. This is called the real rate of growth as it is a measure of goods and services in the US economy. Here is what it has looked like over the last 25 years - to go back more than 25 years ago just doesn't make much sense to me since our economy is so very different than it was in the 1950s.
| Time Period | Quarterly Growth Rate |
| 1984-2009 (Last 25 years) | 2.8% average |
| 2000-2009 (Last 10 years) | 1.8% average |
| 1993-2001 (Clinton) | 3.8% average |
| 3rd quarter 2008 | -2.7% |
| 4th quarter 2008 | -5.4% |
| 1st quarter 2009 | -6.4% (stimulus package signed on 2/17/09) |
| 2nd quarter 2009 | -0.7% |
| 3rd quarter 2009 | +2.2% |
| 4th quarter 2009 | +5.7% |
Look at how quickly the numbers have turned around since Obama became president. Obama came in at a time when the economy was at its WORST - the 4th quarter 2008 and 1st quarter 2009 were the two worst quarters for economic growth in the last 25 years! Yet, in less than one year, we've swung to +5.7% growth!
I'm not arguing that Obama is our economic savior, especially since unemployment must improve. But how can someone say that the stimulus package didn't help? Seriously?
Friday, September 11, 2009
The double standard is Bush vs. other Republicans
I'm no political scientist, but I've made an interesting personal discovery over the last few months. Lately we've been hearing a lot about a "double standard" for Democrats. The most recent incident is when Joe Wilson, the congressman from South Carolina screamed "You Lie!" to President Obama during a joint session. Republican pundits argued the Democrats were feigning disgust at Wilson in spite the fact that they had booed Bush during a previous State of the Union address. "There is a double standard for these communist, liberal, whackjobs" paraphrases much of what you heard on Fox News and the Rush Limbaugh show.
Anyway, as I listen to Republicans complain that Democrats gave no respect to Bush, it hit me like a ton of bricks. I do have a double standard because I make a sharp distinction between George Bush and other Republicans. As quick evidence of this, at the start of the 2008 presidential election, I was convinced that John McCain was the best candidate (note: that says the best candidate, not the best Republican candidate). In fact, early on I actually thought I was going to vote for him, especially if Obama was nominated. My initial criticism of Obama was that he simply lacked experience relative to other candidates, most notably John McCain. But in addition, I remember John McCain as the "Straight Talk Express" and I really enjoyed his candor during the 2000 election run. In terms of political stances, he was much less conservative than other Republicans and he had always highlighted the budget deficit as a top concern which I tend to think is the most important issue. At a minimum, if the government is going to do anything, they should make sure they pay for it over the long term. Despite the rhetoric of Republicans, they have not been fiscally conservative at all.
But then came the South Carolina primary debacle and it totally changed John McCain and his view on politics. When he ran again for president in 2008, John McCain's hands were tied by supporters of George Bush. He had to adopt positions that were incredibly unpopular among independent voters. These independent voters wanted change - in fact, they wanted anything that resembled the opposite of George Bush. But John McCain did not want to distance himself from the conservative base - his experience from 2000 told him that. His choice of running mate absolutely ended his chance for appealing to independent voters, while at the same time strongly solidified his conservative base.
But over time, I think he began to realize what he had signed onto. I think it struck him as he went to rallies across the country and he ran into crazed supporters calling Obama an Arab. On election night, I'll never forget his exasperation as he addressed an Arizona audience who booed President-elect Obama.
The problem was that John McCain did not want to alienate the devout supporters of George W. Bush. But for the life of me, I have never understood why someone of sound mind would ever approve of the job done Bush did. All presidents have made mistakes, no question. Richard Nixon had Watergate, George Bush 41 had no new taxes, and Bill Clinton had Monica Lewinsky. However, I would argue that while these were serious political mistakes, these things did not have a dramatic effect on the continuing path of America's success (though I'm sure some would debate this.)
Anyway, George Bush was responsible for what I believe are three of the biggest cases of presidential ineptitude seen in my lifetime: (1) he claimed Iraq had WMDs and pissed off the entire world by attacking a defenseless country (oops...sorry people of Iraq), (2) he presided over the biggest economic downturn since the great depression, and (3) in three years, he squandered a federal budget SURPLUS and quickly tallied the biggest deficit ever. Aside from real issues, the man could not give a speech without sounding incompetent. After #1, I was seriously stunned that Bush was ever reelected. Then after #2 and the confirmation that Iraq did NOT in fact, have WMDs (I guess the rest of the world was right), I really began to question how someone could defend Bush.
So I admit it, I actually do have a double standard - one for George Bush and another for other Republicans. Please don't argue that Democrats were not nice to Bush - instead, let's ask why Republicans protect him. To defend Bush's incompetence is like buying a new Hummer for a kid on his 16th birthday, despite the fact that he took out his parent's car (without permission) just two weeks earlier and smashed it up while drinking a case of beer.
Here's my point...If you want to talk about a double standard, your point would be best made by giving me some other example that doesn't involve Bush.
Anyway, as I listen to Republicans complain that Democrats gave no respect to Bush, it hit me like a ton of bricks. I do have a double standard because I make a sharp distinction between George Bush and other Republicans. As quick evidence of this, at the start of the 2008 presidential election, I was convinced that John McCain was the best candidate (note: that says the best candidate, not the best Republican candidate). In fact, early on I actually thought I was going to vote for him, especially if Obama was nominated. My initial criticism of Obama was that he simply lacked experience relative to other candidates, most notably John McCain. But in addition, I remember John McCain as the "Straight Talk Express" and I really enjoyed his candor during the 2000 election run. In terms of political stances, he was much less conservative than other Republicans and he had always highlighted the budget deficit as a top concern which I tend to think is the most important issue. At a minimum, if the government is going to do anything, they should make sure they pay for it over the long term. Despite the rhetoric of Republicans, they have not been fiscally conservative at all.
But then came the South Carolina primary debacle and it totally changed John McCain and his view on politics. When he ran again for president in 2008, John McCain's hands were tied by supporters of George Bush. He had to adopt positions that were incredibly unpopular among independent voters. These independent voters wanted change - in fact, they wanted anything that resembled the opposite of George Bush. But John McCain did not want to distance himself from the conservative base - his experience from 2000 told him that. His choice of running mate absolutely ended his chance for appealing to independent voters, while at the same time strongly solidified his conservative base.
But over time, I think he began to realize what he had signed onto. I think it struck him as he went to rallies across the country and he ran into crazed supporters calling Obama an Arab. On election night, I'll never forget his exasperation as he addressed an Arizona audience who booed President-elect Obama.
The problem was that John McCain did not want to alienate the devout supporters of George W. Bush. But for the life of me, I have never understood why someone of sound mind would ever approve of the job done Bush did. All presidents have made mistakes, no question. Richard Nixon had Watergate, George Bush 41 had no new taxes, and Bill Clinton had Monica Lewinsky. However, I would argue that while these were serious political mistakes, these things did not have a dramatic effect on the continuing path of America's success (though I'm sure some would debate this.)
Anyway, George Bush was responsible for what I believe are three of the biggest cases of presidential ineptitude seen in my lifetime: (1) he claimed Iraq had WMDs and pissed off the entire world by attacking a defenseless country (oops...sorry people of Iraq), (2) he presided over the biggest economic downturn since the great depression, and (3) in three years, he squandered a federal budget SURPLUS and quickly tallied the biggest deficit ever. Aside from real issues, the man could not give a speech without sounding incompetent. After #1, I was seriously stunned that Bush was ever reelected. Then after #2 and the confirmation that Iraq did NOT in fact, have WMDs (I guess the rest of the world was right), I really began to question how someone could defend Bush.
So I admit it, I actually do have a double standard - one for George Bush and another for other Republicans. Please don't argue that Democrats were not nice to Bush - instead, let's ask why Republicans protect him. To defend Bush's incompetence is like buying a new Hummer for a kid on his 16th birthday, despite the fact that he took out his parent's car (without permission) just two weeks earlier and smashed it up while drinking a case of beer.
Here's my point...If you want to talk about a double standard, your point would be best made by giving me some other example that doesn't involve Bush.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Update on Obama economics
How's this for six months of progress under Obama? For the doubters, see the sources cited below. (HT to Jared Bernstein for consolidating the stats)
1: Real annual growth rates, 2009q1 and 2009q2
2: Payroll employment declines from January 2009 and July 2009.
3: Monthly percent change, Jan 09 and July 09
4: Case-Schiller, monthly percent change, Jan 09 and June 09
5: Monthly percent change, Jan 09 and July 09
6: Conference Board Index, 1985=100, Jan 09 and Aug 09
Indicators | Then | Now |
Real GDP (1) | -6.4% | -1.0% |
Job Losses (2) | -741,000 | -247,000 |
Industrial Production (3) | -2.2% | 0.5% |
Home Prices (4) | -2.1% | 0.7% |
New Home Sales (5) | -10.2% | 9.6% |
Consumer Confidence (6) | 37.4 | 54.1 |
1: Real annual growth rates, 2009q1 and 2009q2
2: Payroll employment declines from January 2009 and July 2009.
3: Monthly percent change, Jan 09 and July 09
4: Case-Schiller, monthly percent change, Jan 09 and June 09
5: Monthly percent change, Jan 09 and July 09
6: Conference Board Index, 1985=100, Jan 09 and Aug 09
Pump Room Review
This weekend, Ter and I went to Chicago to celebrate our 16th year anniversary. The Ambassador East was giving rooms away for $99 a night, which is ridiculous for Chicago when the Cubs are in town on a weekend. Anyway, for those of you familiar with the Ambassador East, they have a well known restaurant called the "Pump Room". I can remember hearing about this place when I was a kid. It always sounded like you were really cool if you went to the Pump Room. Perhaps I never knew why - was it the food, the atmosphere? I don't know, it just sounded swanky. (Side note: apparently Phil Collins's album "No Jacket Required" was titled after he was refused entry into the Pump Room because he was not dressed appropriately.)As Ter and I were looking for places to eat, I considered the Pump Room, but its menu was just too "conventional" for us. Usually, if we are on vacation, we want something that's really different from what we can get in restaurant-starved central Illinois. That criterion usually eliminates continental cuisine from our restaurant choices (like the Pump Room). But nonetheless, I was still curious about the mysterious place I'd heard of since I was a kid.
As we checked into the hotel, we walked past the entrance to the restaurant which had literally hundreds of pictures of "celebrities" lining the hallway. What immediately struck us was how "has-been" the celebrities were. Now back in the 1970s and 1980s, these people were probably in their hey days. The pictures were of Shirley Jones, a young Rob Lowe, George Kennedy, etc. Immediately, we thought it strange that these pictures still graced the entrance to the Pump Room. We asked ourselves, "don't they have any pictures of recent celebrities?"
Apparently not and the place seems to really enjoy the has-been image. We went in there on Friday night and we thought we walked into 1970s night. The restaurant room seemed nice enough (though the restaurant was closed at the time) but the bar reminded me of a place in Bloomington called Jim's Steakhouse, which we affectionately have dubbed the "Regal Beagle". These are the people who apparently loved the year 1980 and have dedicated their lives to reliving those times every night.
The music underscored how much the people were embracing the old days. We were joking that they still had the same 8-track tape playing over the speakers as they did 30 years ago. The shape of the room did not allow us to notice that there was actually a band playing. Initially, it was just instrumentals (some 1970s jazz guitar and a saxophone!), but later there was a singer who was the epitome of lounge acts. Ter joked that the SNL skit with Will Ferrell and Victoria Jackson was likely making fun of the Pump Room.
On Saturday, we thought about going back, just to see if we were unlucky... to see if every night swings like that. I reluctantly agreed, but as we were walking into the hotel, there was a group of people walking into the lounge who fit the profile of the previous night's guests. I couldn't do it again and was thankful that our room had a mini-bar.
Relive 1980 every weekend at... the Pump Room.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
A public view of Obama's economic policies
I'm not sure why there has been a lot of criticism over Obama's economic policies lately, but recently I've seen many people complain about the way that he has handled the economy and seen people go as far to say that Obama is actually ruining the economy. Many of these opinions come right wingers who simply want to bash any Democratic president.But these arguments hold no merit whatsoever and never have any credible evidence to back the claim.
The best forward looking indicator of economic activity is the stock market. Economists call this a "leading indicator" since it is a prediction of near term future activity. Measures like unemployment are lagging indicators - they simply reflect recent movements in the economy. Stock prices are based on professional money managers forecasts of FUTURE activity. In fact, investors support their predictions by "putting their money where their mouths are" - when they think things are looking good, they buy stocks.
Three common measures of stock market activity are the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the S&P 500, and Nasdaq. Without getting into much detail, these indexes simply capture different segments of the stock market. Dow and S&P look at large companies while Nasdaq looks at newer and smaller companies. Many right wingers might try to argue (without any supporting evidence) that Obama's decisions are bad for small business. To look at small businesses, I also review the Russell 2000 which captures the stock performance for the smallest publicly traded companies (not exactly Mom & Pop shops, but nonetheless an indicator of small business performance).
Let's look at what the investing public feels about Obama's economic policies. I provide some historical reference too, not to bash Bush, but to give people some perspective.
Dow: 10,578 in Jan 2001; 7,949 in Jan 2009; 9,211 today (+16%)
S&P: 1,343 in Jan 2001; 805 in Jan 2009; 991 today (+23%)
Nasdaq: 2,758 in Jan 2001; 1,441 in Jan 2009; 1,989 today (+38%)
Russell 2000: 490 in Jan 2001; 433 in Jan 2009; 558 today (+29%)
The bottom line is that the investing public is literally making a bet that Obama's decisions are good for the economy. I'm interested in a Bill O'Reilly "no spin zone" explanation as to why people would be buying stock if they truly believe the economy is ruined.
The best forward looking indicator of economic activity is the stock market. Economists call this a "leading indicator" since it is a prediction of near term future activity. Measures like unemployment are lagging indicators - they simply reflect recent movements in the economy. Stock prices are based on professional money managers forecasts of FUTURE activity. In fact, investors support their predictions by "putting their money where their mouths are" - when they think things are looking good, they buy stocks.
Three common measures of stock market activity are the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the S&P 500, and Nasdaq. Without getting into much detail, these indexes simply capture different segments of the stock market. Dow and S&P look at large companies while Nasdaq looks at newer and smaller companies. Many right wingers might try to argue (without any supporting evidence) that Obama's decisions are bad for small business. To look at small businesses, I also review the Russell 2000 which captures the stock performance for the smallest publicly traded companies (not exactly Mom & Pop shops, but nonetheless an indicator of small business performance).
Let's look at what the investing public feels about Obama's economic policies. I provide some historical reference too, not to bash Bush, but to give people some perspective.
Dow: 10,578 in Jan 2001; 7,949 in Jan 2009; 9,211 today (+16%)
S&P: 1,343 in Jan 2001; 805 in Jan 2009; 991 today (+23%)
Nasdaq: 2,758 in Jan 2001; 1,441 in Jan 2009; 1,989 today (+38%)
Russell 2000: 490 in Jan 2001; 433 in Jan 2009; 558 today (+29%)
The bottom line is that the investing public is literally making a bet that Obama's decisions are good for the economy. I'm interested in a Bill O'Reilly "no spin zone" explanation as to why people would be buying stock if they truly believe the economy is ruined.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Big Green Egg
Last year I got a gas smoker and I was pretty happy with it. It made good ribs and I even got a pretty good brisket out of it. But temperature control was difficult. In particular, on windy days I didn't even try to use the smoker since I knew it would be much more difficult to keep a nice constant, low temperature for 6 hours or more.
I stumbled across the Big Green Egg (BGE), which at first glance sounded pretty good. It is advertised as a combination grill and smoker - the all-in-one backyard appliance. As I did more research, virtually every review raved about the thing and I quickly decided my three current grills were not satisfying me. What put me over the top was my neighbor, who said, "If it were stolen this evening, I'd go out and buy a new one tomorrow morning."
The BGE lives up to the hype. It cooks in a lot of different ways. Outside of being able to use it to grill steaks or burgers, you can definitely use it as a great smoker. It's made of ceramic, so it retains heat really well and acts like a convection oven so you can even bake in it. I hope to get a pizza stone soon to try it out as a brick pizza oven.
I am truly amazed at how well it maintains temperature for long periods of time, which is absolutely perfect when used for BBQ/smoking. I had heard stories about BGE owners starting their food the night before and having the temperature stay constant for over 12 hours. While skeptical, I had the same experience when I cooked my first pork shoulder roast for pulled pork sandwiches. I started the BGE at 11pm one night (while it was raining) and stayed up to about midnight making sure that the temperature stabilized. I awoke at about 5am the next morning and quickly ran downstairs to check and lo and behold the thermometer was still stuck at the same temperature that I left it the night before. When all was said an done 16 hours later (without refilling the charcoal at all!!), I had the most tender pork shoulder I've ever cooked. I tried to lift the meat off the grill with tongs, but it literally just fell apart because it was so tender!
I'm always looking to cook some ribs, but no one in my family has the same rib appetite. Anna used to claim she loved ribs, but she's hit or miss. She's a fairweather fan. If you like ribs and want a BGE demonstration, give me some advance notice and maybe I'll give you a sample!
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Finishing the backyard
Given my recent grant of tenure (yeah!), it appears that I will be staying in Bloomington. I was reluctant to make major additions to the house, especially as the tenure decision got closer. After all, why sink a bunch of money into the house if I won't be around to enjoy it? I already did that once - in Peoria, I barely finished my basement just as I made the decision to leave Bradley and come to ISU.
So I put up a manly sized maintenance free deck. While I participated marginally in the process, Aaron (my brother-in-law, or at least my sister-in-law's husband) helped design and build the deck, along with his brother. At first I thought the final deck was too big, but now I'm getting used to it and have enjoyed just relaxing on our new outdoor furniture. What a difference! We literally had nothing in the backyard previously, so now I'm hoping that this will get us to spend more time outside. Unfortunately, the weather hasn't been that nice for us to really enjoy it as of yet. But summer hasn't officially started yet either.
The railings had to be special ordered and once they get installed, I'll get to work on stage two - landscaping around the deck. If anyone wants to help out, I could use the extra hand. I've convinced myself that by doing the landscaping myself, I'll clearly save some extra money. And with that money, I'm going to buy a new cooking toy for myself - the Big Green Egg. More on that another day.
So I put up a manly sized maintenance free deck. While I participated marginally in the process, Aaron (my brother-in-law, or at least my sister-in-law's husband) helped design and build the deck, along with his brother. At first I thought the final deck was too big, but now I'm getting used to it and have enjoyed just relaxing on our new outdoor furniture. What a difference! We literally had nothing in the backyard previously, so now I'm hoping that this will get us to spend more time outside. Unfortunately, the weather hasn't been that nice for us to really enjoy it as of yet. But summer hasn't officially started yet either.
The railings had to be special ordered and once they get installed, I'll get to work on stage two - landscaping around the deck. If anyone wants to help out, I could use the extra hand. I've convinced myself that by doing the landscaping myself, I'll clearly save some extra money. And with that money, I'm going to buy a new cooking toy for myself - the Big Green Egg. More on that another day.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Song suggestions?
I used to be addicted to Guitar Hero, spending too much time mastering fake guitar. I convinced myself that playing the real guitar would be slightly more useful or slightly maybe more satisfying. Therefore, I bought a guitar last December. I took a month of lessons, but I wasn't sure what I was supposed to get out of it. I was just so horrible when I played, I felt there was very little the instructor could actually teach a brand-spanking-new player. I decided to just try to learn on my own until I felt I could get more value from a teacher.
It's been about five months and I definitely have improved, though that doesn't really say much at all. My fingers are still very weak and uncontrollable. In my life, I have never played the guitar or any stringed instrument and let me say that I find it significantly more difficult than the piano. I've described the piano as linear, but the guitar is two-dimensional. Right now, I can play basic chords and barre chords, though changing chords comes very slowly.
I'm always looking for "fun" songs that are easy enough for me to play so that others could at least identify the song, but challenging enough to help me to improve. Most are simplified versions of more complex guitar playing, usually involving basic chords that don't change too quickly.
Here are the songs that I can pretty much get through right now.
It's been about five months and I definitely have improved, though that doesn't really say much at all. My fingers are still very weak and uncontrollable. In my life, I have never played the guitar or any stringed instrument and let me say that I find it significantly more difficult than the piano. I've described the piano as linear, but the guitar is two-dimensional. Right now, I can play basic chords and barre chords, though changing chords comes very slowly.
I'm always looking for "fun" songs that are easy enough for me to play so that others could at least identify the song, but challenging enough to help me to improve. Most are simplified versions of more complex guitar playing, usually involving basic chords that don't change too quickly.
Here are the songs that I can pretty much get through right now.
- Wonderful Tonight by Eric Clapton (my wedding song)
- Audioslave songs
- I am the Highway
- Like a Stone
- Be Yourself
- Hotel California
- (The first half of) Free Bird
- In My Head by Queens of the Stone Age
- February Stars by Foo Fighters
- Your Touch by the Black Keys
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Flock is interesting
Flock is a new browser that appears to consolidate lots of sources of info, including email, Twitter, Facebook, feeds, and even blogs. In fact, this is my first blog post directly from Flock.
The question is, does blogging work? I'll let you know how Flock works out.
The question is, does blogging work? I'll let you know how Flock works out.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
A new day brings more of the same
Alas, the election is over and a new president is now in office. The politicking has long been over and for many of us, getting up in the morning is less exciting because of it. The inauguration was the last day for Obama supporters to gloat and many wanted to stay home to watch the historic event. But alas, the transition is now behind us and we will waste less time surfing the web for news stories, videos, and opinions that have led up to one of the most watched elections ever. We will have to channel our addictions to the news cycles by doing something else. As we detoxify, I am struck by the bitterness of the losers (don't read too much into this...McCain lost the election, so he is a loser. Not in the Beck Hanson "Loser" kind of way, just in the way that he had less votes than Obama and therefore is not the winner.)
The antipathy amazes me. Seriously, I was not an early supporter of Obama, but you got to like his style, don't you? Even if you don't believe in his policies, when was the last time you were inspired by a George Bush speech? Even McCain admits that as a person, Obama is genuinely a good guy. Yes, we are not entirely sure what the new presidency will bring, but can we at least all agree that changing the individual in the Oval Office is at least a change for hope. I am nottrying to fan the flames that separate the two parties but to acknowledge that there are difficult times ahead for this president and think that during a difficult time, there needs to be some constraint to give Obama a chance to set the new direction. And I hope that I am not misunderestimating him.
This stands in stark contrast to the election of 2004, which was an eye-opener for me personally. To be fair, let me say that I was strongly opposed to the Iraq war before we ravaged their country and created a breeding ground for the growth of anti-American sentiment. Unlike the Persian Gulf war, we clearly did not have as much international support for a new war and it was clear to me that by going in by ourselves, we would isolate ourselves from the global community. We clearly did not have enough evidence that Iraq had WMDs, or was in the process of making them, since few countries were convinced enough to jump on our war bandwagon (my apologies if I forgot Poland).
Anyway, when Bush beat Kerry in 2004, I was honestly, in a word... stunned. I could not believe that George W. Bush beat John Kerry. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying John Kerry was the greatest candidate Americans could ever hope for and that we all missed the boat when we didn't elect John Kerry (hmmm...was it a Swift Boat?) But John Kerry did have one strong characteristic that made him the better candidate in the 2004 election which was the distinguishing feature when I stepped into the voting booth: John Kerry was not George Bush and that was good enough for me. Just about anyone else would have done just fine - if the name on the ballot said something different than "George Bush" it would have gotten my vote.
For most elections, or at least the ones that I've been available to vote in, it is often a choice of the lesser of two evils. I have told my wife that I usually vote for president by asking myself a simple question: who am I least likely to break my television when I see them on the screen over the next four years. Al Gore could not pass that test in 2000 for me (Don't take this too far, I also did not vote for George Bush in 2000. For the uninformed, there are other options on the ballot.) Anyway, as disappointing as it was, George Bush won in 2004 and I began to have major concerns that I would be breaking my TV every time he showed up on my screen. The election result was eye-opening since it clearly meant that the country I was living in did not see the world as I did. This was a crushing personal defeat since, as a professor, I live in my own theoretical world and if you change the starting assumptions, my artifical construct becomes rubble. This was a pivotal moment in the US and the world was just as confused as me as hope in the future began to erode significantly.
Anyway, do I have a point? Not really... but keep reading.
I remember election night 2008, when I was struck by the differences in the crowds of supporters at the Obama camp (in Chicago's Grant park) and for McCain (at the Biltmore hotel in Arizona). Aside from the sizes of the crowds (I suppose a ritzy hotel can't hold 250,000 supporters), I was amazed by the reaction of Obama supporters. This was hope personified. How many people did you see crying because Obama WON? Those same people would have been crying if Obama lost because he represented change and hope which people were desperate to believe could exist. Argue what you want about McCain vs. Obama, it was clear that Obama was a different direction and for many, many, many people, different meant a shot at something good, especially during these troubled times.
However, at the McCain camp after the election, there was no crying, but rather a lot of angry yelling criticizing the election outcome. Even John McCain seemed genuinely surprised by the negative mentality of the crowd and he really looked like he wanted to divorce himself from the kind of people who call Barack Obama an Arab.
This same hatred reared its ugly head over the last few days as the inauguration drew near. I'm not sure why it so surprising to me because it is exactly the kind of rhetoric that began before the election. Look at the kind of lies that people have swallowed:
The inauguration was the last straw for me. It brought out the last bastion of neocons who criticize the new president before the first step has been taken, before he had even moved his personal belongings into the White House.
I suppose that my comment is this: I am not trying to persuade you to support what he has done as president - after all, I admit that in less than 24 hours, he has done absolutely nothing. But for at least one day, can't you at least have hope?
The antipathy amazes me. Seriously, I was not an early supporter of Obama, but you got to like his style, don't you? Even if you don't believe in his policies, when was the last time you were inspired by a George Bush speech? Even McCain admits that as a person, Obama is genuinely a good guy. Yes, we are not entirely sure what the new presidency will bring, but can we at least all agree that changing the individual in the Oval Office is at least a change for hope. I am nottrying to fan the flames that separate the two parties but to acknowledge that there are difficult times ahead for this president and think that during a difficult time, there needs to be some constraint to give Obama a chance to set the new direction. And I hope that I am not misunderestimating him.
This stands in stark contrast to the election of 2004, which was an eye-opener for me personally. To be fair, let me say that I was strongly opposed to the Iraq war before we ravaged their country and created a breeding ground for the growth of anti-American sentiment. Unlike the Persian Gulf war, we clearly did not have as much international support for a new war and it was clear to me that by going in by ourselves, we would isolate ourselves from the global community. We clearly did not have enough evidence that Iraq had WMDs, or was in the process of making them, since few countries were convinced enough to jump on our war bandwagon (my apologies if I forgot Poland).
Anyway, when Bush beat Kerry in 2004, I was honestly, in a word... stunned. I could not believe that George W. Bush beat John Kerry. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying John Kerry was the greatest candidate Americans could ever hope for and that we all missed the boat when we didn't elect John Kerry (hmmm...was it a Swift Boat?) But John Kerry did have one strong characteristic that made him the better candidate in the 2004 election which was the distinguishing feature when I stepped into the voting booth: John Kerry was not George Bush and that was good enough for me. Just about anyone else would have done just fine - if the name on the ballot said something different than "George Bush" it would have gotten my vote.
For most elections, or at least the ones that I've been available to vote in, it is often a choice of the lesser of two evils. I have told my wife that I usually vote for president by asking myself a simple question: who am I least likely to break my television when I see them on the screen over the next four years. Al Gore could not pass that test in 2000 for me (Don't take this too far, I also did not vote for George Bush in 2000. For the uninformed, there are other options on the ballot.) Anyway, as disappointing as it was, George Bush won in 2004 and I began to have major concerns that I would be breaking my TV every time he showed up on my screen. The election result was eye-opening since it clearly meant that the country I was living in did not see the world as I did. This was a crushing personal defeat since, as a professor, I live in my own theoretical world and if you change the starting assumptions, my artifical construct becomes rubble. This was a pivotal moment in the US and the world was just as confused as me as hope in the future began to erode significantly.
Anyway, do I have a point? Not really... but keep reading.
I remember election night 2008, when I was struck by the differences in the crowds of supporters at the Obama camp (in Chicago's Grant park) and for McCain (at the Biltmore hotel in Arizona). Aside from the sizes of the crowds (I suppose a ritzy hotel can't hold 250,000 supporters), I was amazed by the reaction of Obama supporters. This was hope personified. How many people did you see crying because Obama WON? Those same people would have been crying if Obama lost because he represented change and hope which people were desperate to believe could exist. Argue what you want about McCain vs. Obama, it was clear that Obama was a different direction and for many, many, many people, different meant a shot at something good, especially during these troubled times.
However, at the McCain camp after the election, there was no crying, but rather a lot of angry yelling criticizing the election outcome. Even John McCain seemed genuinely surprised by the negative mentality of the crowd and he really looked like he wanted to divorce himself from the kind of people who call Barack Obama an Arab.
This same hatred reared its ugly head over the last few days as the inauguration drew near. I'm not sure why it so surprising to me because it is exactly the kind of rhetoric that began before the election. Look at the kind of lies that people have swallowed:
- Obama is a Muslim
- Obama pals around with terrorists
- Obama will raise everyone's taxes
- Obama is a socialist
- Criticizing Michelle Obama
- Only some parts of the US are pro-America
- The WSJ published an opinion about how this election means that we have forgotten 9/11. This is almost as low a blow as you can give. The author intimates that by electing Barack Obama, we are essentially ignoring the devastating losses of that tragic day. The author legitimizes John McCain's claim that he is the only one that knows how to find Osama Bin Laden. The tone is disgusting: a vote for Obama means that you are allowing terrorists to get away with horrendous acts.
- There have been a series of articles that allege that George Bush has got no respect and therefore, for Republicans, treating Obama poorly is just payback for 4-6 years of Democratic disrespect. Of course, one HUGE difference between the two is that George Bush earned his disrespect on the job after one of the biggest errors in American history - attacking the wrong country - OOPS! Remarkably, even at the end of his term, 25% of the public approved of the job that George Bush was doing. TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT APPROVE!!
The inauguration was the last straw for me. It brought out the last bastion of neocons who criticize the new president before the first step has been taken, before he had even moved his personal belongings into the White House.
I suppose that my comment is this: I am not trying to persuade you to support what he has done as president - after all, I admit that in less than 24 hours, he has done absolutely nothing. But for at least one day, can't you at least have hope?
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
New Year's Resolution Week
The first couple weeks of a new year always bring delusions of what the year will bring. It seems like every year we all vow to eat better, exercise more, be more productive at home and at work, save more money, etc. So-called "experts" on making resolutions suggest several ways that might help you actually reach those goals. Two common suggestions are:
My second goal should have been ridiculously easy to do, yet I still failed miserably. Years ago, I bought a Cross Bow (the cheaper version of a Bowflex) in an effort to persuade me to do some resistance training. However, despite Theresa using it now and then, the Cross Bow has mostly gathered dust over the last few years. Last year, I simply wanted to start using it a tiny, tiny bit. And I didn't...at all.
Perhaps my goals were too varied. Perhaps making "extra" time for resistance training and running overwhelmed my tiny, lazy mind. While I still would like to do both this year, I will instead officially resolve to run 1,000 miles. I'm stating it publicly so that ya'll can make fun of me if I don't make it. You can follow my progress in the margin of my blog and help push me along. Note that, as I begin January, my weekly mileage is low (damn holidays!) so it will take some time before I can build to where I need to be (I need to average about 20 miles per week). Of course, if you plan on making fun at me at the end of the year, then you have to commit to buying me a beer if I do run 1,000 miles!
Feel free to add a comment and post your New Year's resolutions for all to see! It won't help you get it done, but if you are serious about it, I'll do my best to help you in any way I can. Even if that means a nice friendly e-mail reminder.
- to make your goals measurable and specific (exercise "more" is too vague - you should quantify this) and
- share your resolutions with others.
My second goal should have been ridiculously easy to do, yet I still failed miserably. Years ago, I bought a Cross Bow (the cheaper version of a Bowflex) in an effort to persuade me to do some resistance training. However, despite Theresa using it now and then, the Cross Bow has mostly gathered dust over the last few years. Last year, I simply wanted to start using it a tiny, tiny bit. And I didn't...at all.
Perhaps my goals were too varied. Perhaps making "extra" time for resistance training and running overwhelmed my tiny, lazy mind. While I still would like to do both this year, I will instead officially resolve to run 1,000 miles. I'm stating it publicly so that ya'll can make fun of me if I don't make it. You can follow my progress in the margin of my blog and help push me along. Note that, as I begin January, my weekly mileage is low (damn holidays!) so it will take some time before I can build to where I need to be (I need to average about 20 miles per week). Of course, if you plan on making fun at me at the end of the year, then you have to commit to buying me a beer if I do run 1,000 miles!
Feel free to add a comment and post your New Year's resolutions for all to see! It won't help you get it done, but if you are serious about it, I'll do my best to help you in any way I can. Even if that means a nice friendly e-mail reminder.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
A REAL guitar hero?
We all know that I spend way too much time playing guitar hero... I admit it. There are days when the kids get occupied - they are playing downstairs or when the weather is nicer, they might be outside. If the Bears aren't on, then there is likely just 200 channels of crap on TV so I will probably break out Guitar Hero or Rock Band and play for hours.
Yes, it's true, but let me point out that there are many times where Ter will pick up the other guitar and we BOTH play for hours (yes - we have THREE guitars, two for GH and one for RB). Despite playing together, somehow I get branded as the BIG loser and Ter skates by, nary a comment. Perhaps it's because, despite the amount the SHE plays, Ter still refuses to play on the "hard" level, because, well... it's just too hard. I get branded a loser because I progress to the "genius" level or whatever it's called. But I digress...
These comments usually pointed out that, while I was progressing through Guitar Hero or Rock Band, it was just a game. I'm not exactly sure what the exact phrasing was, but what I heard was something like "what type of freakish loser wastes their life perfecting a childlike arrangement of rainbow lights and noises? You are not a real man and you are not a real guitar hero!" I'm pretty sure there were some expletives used too. These tremendously hurtful comments caused me insufferable emotional pain, but somehow I have perservered (karate men bleed on the INSIDE).
After I composed myself from the verbal onslaught, I did recognize a bit of truth to these comments. My epiphany was the new version of guitar hero (World Tour) which had many songs that were significantly less fun than GH3... in other words, they sucked (e.g., "On the road again" by Willie Nelson). Why was I being forced to play these songs to progress through this game? Then I realized the strategy of the GH and RB manufacturers. Give people crappy songs on the game and force them buy/download additional songs that they actually want to play. Cha-ching$$..
So after careful reflection on what I wanted to do with my quasi-musical career, I decided that if I dedicated as many hours to a real instrument, this would be better than a game with blnking lights and fake crowd noises. I also rationalized that that playing a real instrument might inspire Allie and Anna to begin thinking about music themselves (can you say early retirement?). But which instrument? While the drums would have been fun, they'd definitely be too loud. So I decided to get an electric guitar (the exact package shown at the right).
After about two weeks, I've already invested many hours on this thing (notice I said "invested", not "wasted") trying to get anything that resembles music to come out of it. As of yet, very little has come out of it that would be intelligible. I have never played the guitar before and I am about as ignorant as it gets. To illustrate my guitar illiteracy, consider that I broke my first string less than five minutes out of pulling the guitar out of the box!
If you use iTunes, keep a look out for any of my recordings. Stay tuned for updates on my progress (get it? - stay "tuned"!!).
Yes, it's true, but let me point out that there are many times where Ter will pick up the other guitar and we BOTH play for hours (yes - we have THREE guitars, two for GH and one for RB). Despite playing together, somehow I get branded as the BIG loser and Ter skates by, nary a comment. Perhaps it's because, despite the amount the SHE plays, Ter still refuses to play on the "hard" level, because, well... it's just too hard. I get branded a loser because I progress to the "genius" level or whatever it's called. But I digress...
These comments usually pointed out that, while I was progressing through Guitar Hero or Rock Band, it was just a game. I'm not exactly sure what the exact phrasing was, but what I heard was something like "what type of freakish loser wastes their life perfecting a childlike arrangement of rainbow lights and noises? You are not a real man and you are not a real guitar hero!" I'm pretty sure there were some expletives used too. These tremendously hurtful comments caused me insufferable emotional pain, but somehow I have perservered (karate men bleed on the INSIDE).
After I composed myself from the verbal onslaught, I did recognize a bit of truth to these comments. My epiphany was the new version of guitar hero (World Tour) which had many songs that were significantly less fun than GH3... in other words, they sucked (e.g., "On the road again" by Willie Nelson). Why was I being forced to play these songs to progress through this game? Then I realized the strategy of the GH and RB manufacturers. Give people crappy songs on the game and force them buy/download additional songs that they actually want to play. Cha-ching$$..
So after careful reflection on what I wanted to do with my quasi-musical career, I decided that if I dedicated as many hours to a real instrument, this would be better than a game with blnking lights and fake crowd noises. I also rationalized that that playing a real instrument might inspire Allie and Anna to begin thinking about music themselves (can you say early retirement?). But which instrument? While the drums would have been fun, they'd definitely be too loud. So I decided to get an electric guitar (the exact package shown at the right).
After about two weeks, I've already invested many hours on this thing (notice I said "invested", not "wasted") trying to get anything that resembles music to come out of it. As of yet, very little has come out of it that would be intelligible. I have never played the guitar before and I am about as ignorant as it gets. To illustrate my guitar illiteracy, consider that I broke my first string less than five minutes out of pulling the guitar out of the box!
If you use iTunes, keep a look out for any of my recordings. Stay tuned for updates on my progress (get it? - stay "tuned"!!).
Friday, November 07, 2008
Town and Gown
On October 18th, Ter and I ran in the annual Town & Gown 5K run - Theresa's first race. Despite her concerns, I was trying to convince Theresa that she was adequately trained to run the race. I let her know that when I ran my first 5K, it was the farthest distance I had ever run! On the other hand, Ter had run the distance three times a week for at least a month. I wanted her to really run hard for the first time to prove that she was in great shape.
It was a bit chilly that morning and I planned to be her "pace runner" so that she could be pushed, but not push her so fast that she would completely vomit (which sadly, some people did - probably students who stayed out all night). Anyway, at the crowded starting line, Ter just took off - adrenaline going wild!
I knew that the first challenge would come at about the one mile marker - this is when the body is not quite warm enough to breathe easily but the body is working hard after running a mile. At this point, Ter pulled up with an aching look on her face saying "I can't do it at this speed." But after that initial test, she came around and finished at a consistent pace over the race. Hopefully that confidence will carry her to another race in the future.
Check out the results
The initial conversation about this race was started by Jeff and Heather Prall, who feigned interest in running early in the summer. The gauntlet was thrown down as they challenged us to complete the race and to get Ter to run. I also remember some time ago when Heather thought that 5K was too short and that she was more interested in a longer run (though she quickly brushed off the 4 mile race in the Dells). The Pralls' enthusiasm toward the run quickly waned. On top of that was a rough week with sinus problems, but Heather completed the race (though there are no photos that I know of that actually prove this). Alos I'm not sure if Jeff was one of the vomiters at the end :)
But we all made it. Will there be a next time for us? I mentioned to all the idea of the 5K at the Illinois Marathon, in Champaign, on the day before Easter. Can we all come up with combined times that are better than the Town & Gown? A new gauntlet is thrown...
It was a bit chilly that morning and I planned to be her "pace runner" so that she could be pushed, but not push her so fast that she would completely vomit (which sadly, some people did - probably students who stayed out all night). Anyway, at the crowded starting line, Ter just took off - adrenaline going wild!
I knew that the first challenge would come at about the one mile marker - this is when the body is not quite warm enough to breathe easily but the body is working hard after running a mile. At this point, Ter pulled up with an aching look on her face saying "I can't do it at this speed." But after that initial test, she came around and finished at a consistent pace over the race. Hopefully that confidence will carry her to another race in the future.
Check out the results
The initial conversation about this race was started by Jeff and Heather Prall, who feigned interest in running early in the summer. The gauntlet was thrown down as they challenged us to complete the race and to get Ter to run. I also remember some time ago when Heather thought that 5K was too short and that she was more interested in a longer run (though she quickly brushed off the 4 mile race in the Dells). The Pralls' enthusiasm toward the run quickly waned. On top of that was a rough week with sinus problems, but Heather completed the race (though there are no photos that I know of that actually prove this). Alos I'm not sure if Jeff was one of the vomiters at the end :)
But we all made it. Will there be a next time for us? I mentioned to all the idea of the 5K at the Illinois Marathon, in Champaign, on the day before Easter. Can we all come up with combined times that are better than the Town & Gown? A new gauntlet is thrown...
Monday, September 22, 2008
When is half of a tank of gas like a Cadillac?
For whatever reason, politicians love to spend most of their time on economics and finance. This is humorous to me since virtually all politicians are not trained in economics, finance, or even business. Politicians are lawyers - they draft and interpret legislation. Yet they constantly argue about dollars since (sadly) this is the universal language that motivates people to pay attention.
Listening to politicians talk about economics and finance is like nails on a chalkboard to me. Whenever I hear about promises of fixing this or changing that, there are never specifics. The current debate about the $700 billion bailout of failing financial firms is a good example. President Bush wants blanket approval for the money without identifying specific uses of the money.
Even worse, when candidates complain about each other, they often confuse voters through a simple strategy of deception and outright lies. As an example, I have heard John McCain say that Barack Obama will raise taxes for families and I wanted to see if it was true. Of course, FactCheck.org has already said that McCain is spreading lies about Obama raising taxes. But I wanted to dig deeper. So I reviewed the non-partisan Tax Policy Center analysis of both candidates' tax plans. In their analysis, they show the impact of each of the candidate's plans to after-tax income, organized by income level (see page 41 of their analysis). You can click on the graph here to get a better view.
One of the things that instantly struck me was that McCain's plan only proposes tax cuts - for everyone. In principle, it sounds real nice. In fact, why not make special promises in order to help get elected? - promise everything to everyone. However, let me point out that balancing the budget is infinitely harder when you cut everyone's taxes (see info on the $400 billion federal budget deficit).
Of course, one way to pay for a tax cut is to reduce spending and it used to be that Republicans were deficit hawks. But over the last 25 years, Republican presidents have done just the opposite - increase spending. As a result, take a look at this graph that shows the budget deficit over time. The picture shows that while Republicans lived in the White House, the deficit ballooned.
Obama actually offsets some of his tax cuts with increased taxes on the rich. In order to increase after-tax income of low income workers, Obama's plan reduces after-tax income of the top 20% of wage earners. This helps pay for (at lease some of) the income increases on lower wage earners.
The deficit is one thing, but let's look deeper into how the tax cuts proposed by McCain vary across income levels. The graph illustrates how after-tax income changes under the two candidates' tax plan. Looking at McCain's plan, it looks like tax cuts increase as income increases. At first glance, this made sense to me. After all, richer people make more money, pay more in taxes and therefore, their tax cuts will be higher. Of course, this would be true on an absolute dollar value. But looking at the graph again...I realized that the graph is showing PERCENTAGE CHANGE in after-tax income and I had to do a double take. McCain's tax strategy actually gives raises to people based on income - the higher your current income the higher the percentage increase in your after-tax income under the proposed tax plan. It's like giving you a 3% raise, giving your boss a 10% raise, and giving her boss a 40% raise!
Let me try to put this into perspective. The lowest quintile means the income level of the poorest 20% of all households. According the Congressional Budget Office, the income level at the 20th percentile is $15,300. Now look at the graph...under the McCain plan, the after-tax income of these households will go up 0.2%, or a whopping $30.60. For the middle quintile, the after-tax income of individuals will go up 1.0%, or an increase of $502, from $50,200 to 50,702.
Now look at people who make a lot of money. Under the McCain plan, the top 1% of earners get an increase of 3.8%. That's not a typo - that says 3.8%. McCain is actually proposing to give low earners a raise of 0.2% and to give rich people almost TWENTY TIMES that raise. I can't even believe that this is politically viable - to literally legislate more disperse incomes. According to the CBO, people in the top 1% of earners make at least $1,071,500. Therefore, an increase of 3.8% means ADDITIONAL after-tax income of $40,717.
In other words, the bottom 60% of earners in this country get (at most) an extra $500 while those at the top increase their after-tax income by over $41,000!
Here are alternate ways to interpret the McCain tax plan:
My employee benefits professor taught us that it is likely that 80% of employee benefit decisions are made due to "self interest of the decision maker". John McCain is easily in the top 20% of all earners and his wife is easily in the top 1%. Is his tax cut really in the interest of the country and the economy or is it practice employee benefits 101?
The story sounds eerily familiar... your company just gave everyone a bonus. Congratulations! You were awarded a half of a tank of gas while the CEO just got a new Caddy.
Listening to politicians talk about economics and finance is like nails on a chalkboard to me. Whenever I hear about promises of fixing this or changing that, there are never specifics. The current debate about the $700 billion bailout of failing financial firms is a good example. President Bush wants blanket approval for the money without identifying specific uses of the money.
Even worse, when candidates complain about each other, they often confuse voters through a simple strategy of deception and outright lies. As an example, I have heard John McCain say that Barack Obama will raise taxes for families and I wanted to see if it was true. Of course, FactCheck.org has already said that McCain is spreading lies about Obama raising taxes. But I wanted to dig deeper. So I reviewed the non-partisan Tax Policy Center analysis of both candidates' tax plans. In their analysis, they show the impact of each of the candidate's plans to after-tax income, organized by income level (see page 41 of their analysis). You can click on the graph here to get a better view.
One of the things that instantly struck me was that McCain's plan only proposes tax cuts - for everyone. In principle, it sounds real nice. In fact, why not make special promises in order to help get elected? - promise everything to everyone. However, let me point out that balancing the budget is infinitely harder when you cut everyone's taxes (see info on the $400 billion federal budget deficit).
Of course, one way to pay for a tax cut is to reduce spending and it used to be that Republicans were deficit hawks. But over the last 25 years, Republican presidents have done just the opposite - increase spending. As a result, take a look at this graph that shows the budget deficit over time. The picture shows that while Republicans lived in the White House, the deficit ballooned.
Obama actually offsets some of his tax cuts with increased taxes on the rich. In order to increase after-tax income of low income workers, Obama's plan reduces after-tax income of the top 20% of wage earners. This helps pay for (at lease some of) the income increases on lower wage earners.
The deficit is one thing, but let's look deeper into how the tax cuts proposed by McCain vary across income levels. The graph illustrates how after-tax income changes under the two candidates' tax plan. Looking at McCain's plan, it looks like tax cuts increase as income increases. At first glance, this made sense to me. After all, richer people make more money, pay more in taxes and therefore, their tax cuts will be higher. Of course, this would be true on an absolute dollar value. But looking at the graph again...I realized that the graph is showing PERCENTAGE CHANGE in after-tax income and I had to do a double take. McCain's tax strategy actually gives raises to people based on income - the higher your current income the higher the percentage increase in your after-tax income under the proposed tax plan. It's like giving you a 3% raise, giving your boss a 10% raise, and giving her boss a 40% raise!
Let me try to put this into perspective. The lowest quintile means the income level of the poorest 20% of all households. According the Congressional Budget Office, the income level at the 20th percentile is $15,300. Now look at the graph...under the McCain plan, the after-tax income of these households will go up 0.2%, or a whopping $30.60. For the middle quintile, the after-tax income of individuals will go up 1.0%, or an increase of $502, from $50,200 to 50,702.
Now look at people who make a lot of money. Under the McCain plan, the top 1% of earners get an increase of 3.8%. That's not a typo - that says 3.8%. McCain is actually proposing to give low earners a raise of 0.2% and to give rich people almost TWENTY TIMES that raise. I can't even believe that this is politically viable - to literally legislate more disperse incomes. According to the CBO, people in the top 1% of earners make at least $1,071,500. Therefore, an increase of 3.8% means ADDITIONAL after-tax income of $40,717.
In other words, the bottom 60% of earners in this country get (at most) an extra $500 while those at the top increase their after-tax income by over $41,000!
Here are alternate ways to interpret the McCain tax plan:
- According to the proposed McCain tax cut, the INCREASE in after-tax income for the richest 1% of the population is more money than half of the country's workers actually make in a year.
- The bottom 20% of earners get a whopping $30 thanks to McCain, which gets them about 7.5 gallons of gas - a little more than half a tank in most cars. In contrast, the richest 1% get a pay raise of $41,000, which is the price of a brand new Cadillac DTS. Those struggling get extra half of a tank of gas while top earners get another luxury car.
- Perhaps the fairest tax cut would suggest that everyone get the same percentage increase in after-tax income.
- Redistribution of income would give bigger tax cuts to the poor and middle class than to the wealth on a percentage basis. Of course, even with this tax cut, most of the dollars would benefit the rich, but that's "fair" since they pay the most in taxes.
My employee benefits professor taught us that it is likely that 80% of employee benefit decisions are made due to "self interest of the decision maker". John McCain is easily in the top 20% of all earners and his wife is easily in the top 1%. Is his tax cut really in the interest of the country and the economy or is it practice employee benefits 101?
The story sounds eerily familiar... your company just gave everyone a bonus. Congratulations! You were awarded a half of a tank of gas while the CEO just got a new Caddy.
Monday, September 15, 2008
A tough course under tough conditions
On Saturday, September 13th, I completed the Wo-Zha-Wa half marathon in the Wisconsin Dells in a time of 2:02:55 (a 9:23 pace). Just looking at the time alone, I normally would have been slightly disappointed with the time. However, there were a number of factors that contributed to less than optimal performance.
First, the course conditions were difficult. If you follow the link of the previous posting on this run, you can see the elevation changes, which were significant. The hills were the steepest I've run - ever (remember I live in the flatlands of central Illinois). The course was beautiful, however. It ran through the backroads of the Dells and there's just something about the Wisconsin country that is much more attractive than Illinois. Dairy farmers seem to do better than Illinois bean/corn farmers as the barns are newer and nicer.
The second challenge was that it rained a good portion of the race. While the forecast seemed ominous, it didn't rain the entire time and even when it was raining, it wasn't a downpour.
The third challenge was simply how I felt - it was one of those days that I just didn't feel like running. In fact, based on what they were forecasting (heavy morning rains with thunder), I was actually hoping the race would be canceled. Or, if it was going to be raining heavily, I would have skipped out. When the weather seemed reasonable, I suppose I was a bit disappointed that I had to run (or at least I had fewer excuses to NOT run). At about the 3-mile mark, I could tell - I just wasn't into it. I was actually thinking I'd just turn around and call it a day. But then I realized that I had trained for the event and I'd just fight through it and give it my best.
In addition, race organization was poor. There weren't that many water stops - about once every three miles. Most races it's about every 1.5-2 miles. Plus, usually there are volunteers helping out at those stations, smiling and cheering you on. Not at the Dells - here, they set up unattended tables with water cups. Worse than that, one of the stops actually ran out of water which meant you had to go about an hour with no water. That is just unacceptable.
I felt I did do the best I could, but based on the above, it was certainly a challenging race for me.
A whopping 50 people completed the half marathon that day. On the country roads, you surely didn't have to worry about being crowded by the other participants. As I predicted, I came in dead last in my division (male 35-39). Of course, there were only four others in my division. Overall, I placed 30th out of 50 runners and 27th out of 35 men. Hey, don't make fun...this did appear to be a pretty fast group of runners. Based on the weather, it's also likely that only the diehards showed up.
Overall, the run was not an "event" and this made it much less fun. Unlike the Indy mini-marathon or Bloomington's Lake Run, there was absolutely NO crowd support (did the town even know there was a race?), there was no after race hoopla, etc. I know the weather had a bit to do with it, but come on. Didn't anyone want to celebrate completing the race?
I'll try to convince Ter to go to Vegas in December or to Memphis to make up for this poor experience.
But we did have fun at the Dells... more on this later.
First, the course conditions were difficult. If you follow the link of the previous posting on this run, you can see the elevation changes, which were significant. The hills were the steepest I've run - ever (remember I live in the flatlands of central Illinois). The course was beautiful, however. It ran through the backroads of the Dells and there's just something about the Wisconsin country that is much more attractive than Illinois. Dairy farmers seem to do better than Illinois bean/corn farmers as the barns are newer and nicer.
The second challenge was that it rained a good portion of the race. While the forecast seemed ominous, it didn't rain the entire time and even when it was raining, it wasn't a downpour.
The third challenge was simply how I felt - it was one of those days that I just didn't feel like running. In fact, based on what they were forecasting (heavy morning rains with thunder), I was actually hoping the race would be canceled. Or, if it was going to be raining heavily, I would have skipped out. When the weather seemed reasonable, I suppose I was a bit disappointed that I had to run (or at least I had fewer excuses to NOT run). At about the 3-mile mark, I could tell - I just wasn't into it. I was actually thinking I'd just turn around and call it a day. But then I realized that I had trained for the event and I'd just fight through it and give it my best.
In addition, race organization was poor. There weren't that many water stops - about once every three miles. Most races it's about every 1.5-2 miles. Plus, usually there are volunteers helping out at those stations, smiling and cheering you on. Not at the Dells - here, they set up unattended tables with water cups. Worse than that, one of the stops actually ran out of water which meant you had to go about an hour with no water. That is just unacceptable.
I felt I did do the best I could, but based on the above, it was certainly a challenging race for me.
A whopping 50 people completed the half marathon that day. On the country roads, you surely didn't have to worry about being crowded by the other participants. As I predicted, I came in dead last in my division (male 35-39). Of course, there were only four others in my division. Overall, I placed 30th out of 50 runners and 27th out of 35 men. Hey, don't make fun...this did appear to be a pretty fast group of runners. Based on the weather, it's also likely that only the diehards showed up.
Overall, the run was not an "event" and this made it much less fun. Unlike the Indy mini-marathon or Bloomington's Lake Run, there was absolutely NO crowd support (did the town even know there was a race?), there was no after race hoopla, etc. I know the weather had a bit to do with it, but come on. Didn't anyone want to celebrate completing the race?
I'll try to convince Ter to go to Vegas in December or to Memphis to make up for this poor experience.
But we did have fun at the Dells... more on this later.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Wisconsin Dells Half Marathon
I'll be running my only half marathon this year at the Wisconsin Dells. Based on last year's results for this race, I would have finished dead last in my age division. But this is a small race, so there really aren't too many in each division. I'm most concerned with potential hills on the course combined with the possibility of warm weather. Regardless of what happens, I know there will be a hot tub waiting for me at the Wilderness Resort. That will soothe my aching muscles! Plus, I know my kids will be having a good time at the Dells.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Our 20th reunion
Last Saturday, Ter and I went to our 20th high school reunion. I have to admit, I had virtually no desire to go since so many of the people that I would have like to have gone, did not actually go. Most of the people I knew were going were Ter's friends, who were going alone. But we both had a really good time. I can remember our 10th. After we left the big shindig, we got to the car and both looked at each other: "are you going to drive - because I have no business driving."
While I didn't think the 20th was going to be as hard on my liver, I'm very glad that they wound up planning the party right next to a hotel. Many people hung out afterward at the bar next door, which made for a very late, but very fun night. Despite the fact that I haven't seen virtually any of the people (except Ter) over the last 10 years, we all had a good time. While there was a little uncertainty as to whether or not we'd go to the picnic the next day, my headache told me that it would have been a bad idea.
Cheers to the Reavis High School class of 1988!
Monday, August 11, 2008
Fore!
My wife is not only extremely beautiful and the funnest person to hang around with, but she is also the most generous. Check out the new driver she gave me recently - the Nike Sumo Sasquatch 5000.
There is virtually no way I'd ever spend a reasonable amount of money on golf - I'm just not good enough, plus I'm just too damn cheap. Which is why this was a great gift and a tremendous surprise.
Golf technology and me usually are not mentioned in the same sentence, but now, unlike most of my clothes, I'm ultra-modern on the golf course with this thing. It's actually the 2008 year model despite the fact that I usually pride myself on being a cuppa too-tree generations behind in golf tech.
I'll be excited to try it out later this week. Right now, my handicap index is 18.8 - let's see if this thing makes any difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)