Fox news has put on several Republican to complain that Obama and the democrats have not consulted with them over the content of bills, in particular the super spending stimulus bill.
These complaints are childish. "They won't let me play with them". The Republicans ought to be pointing out how little of the $819 billion dollars is "stimulus" and how much is pork. They ought to be exposing the port by name, rank and serial number. They ought to be pointing out how little of the money will be spent immediately. And how $819 billion is $2730 for every man woman and child in the US. There are plenty of real arguments against the super spender bill. Don't waste your air time with procedural complaints. We voters don't care about the procedure, we care about results. Like how much is this going to cost me. And what's in it for me?
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
NH state income tax sneaking in the back door
First on the NH House list of bills is constitutional amendment CACR1, "relating to taxes. Providing that all revenues raised by a state income tax shall be dedicated to funding public education."
Sponsored by three Democrats, Charles Weed, Jessie Osbourne, and Barbara Richardson.
Last time I looked, I thought an NH state income tax was off the table. They fooled me, this is a back door way of slipping an income tax thru.
Since we don't have a state income tax (yet!) this bill to earmark income tax revenues for school funding is clearly an attempt to make a state income tax look virtuous, and perhaps over come some of the opposition to such a tax.
This is a bad bill and ought to be defeated for several reasons.
1. It encourages Concord to slap us with an income tax.
2. It gives school spending priority over the other responsibilities of the state. As incomes rise, income tax receipts rise, and education funding automatically rises. This earmark will channel more and more money into schools, without requiring the educators to justify their expenses. Nice work if you can get it, I'm sure the teacher's unions approve. But it is undemocratic. Democratic means we vote appropriations every so often, and the Legislature can allocate money where it is needed most. This amendment favors schools over everything. Schools are important, but they are not THAT important.
3. Earmarks don't belong in the state constitution. The constitution states general principles and assigns powers. This amendment is an attempt to lock in a priority for schooling and deny the Legislature the power to allocate state funds.
Sponsored by three Democrats, Charles Weed, Jessie Osbourne, and Barbara Richardson.
Last time I looked, I thought an NH state income tax was off the table. They fooled me, this is a back door way of slipping an income tax thru.
Since we don't have a state income tax (yet!) this bill to earmark income tax revenues for school funding is clearly an attempt to make a state income tax look virtuous, and perhaps over come some of the opposition to such a tax.
This is a bad bill and ought to be defeated for several reasons.
1. It encourages Concord to slap us with an income tax.
2. It gives school spending priority over the other responsibilities of the state. As incomes rise, income tax receipts rise, and education funding automatically rises. This earmark will channel more and more money into schools, without requiring the educators to justify their expenses. Nice work if you can get it, I'm sure the teacher's unions approve. But it is undemocratic. Democratic means we vote appropriations every so often, and the Legislature can allocate money where it is needed most. This amendment favors schools over everything. Schools are important, but they are not THAT important.
3. Earmarks don't belong in the state constitution. The constitution states general principles and assigns powers. This amendment is an attempt to lock in a priority for schooling and deny the Legislature the power to allocate state funds.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Europe, A History by Norman Davies
A one volume history of Europe, from Neanderthal times to the fall of the wall in 1365 pages. Fairly current, copyright 1996. I borrowed it from the town library 'cause it looked interesting. The author spends the entire introduction nattering about just what constitutes Europe, and are the Russians Europeans, and the importance of countries other than England and France.
I got some 500 pages into it and gave up. Davies doesn't believe in narrative history, where the historian tells the story of kings and peasants and nations and religions. Half the text is little one page monographs, set off in boxes, discussing interesting little details, but otherwise unconnected from the main text. Each monograph breaks the continuity of the main text.
Davies clearly believes the cliche "there are no facts in history". He constantly throws doubt upon generally accepted historical facts but never offers an explanation for his doubts. For instance he says "If it really happened" right after Luther's posting of the famous 95 thesis on the cathedral door. Great. He offers no evidence that the generally accepted history is false, he just casts doubt and moves on. If he really thought that Luther didn't do what most historians think he did, he ought to offer a reason for his doubts, or quote a contrary source, or something. The book is full of revisionist stuff like this but with no backup. I'm as ready as the next man to accept revisions, but I want some evidence in favor of the revision.
Or, he will pass over an important, controversial, historical thesis like the relationship of the Protestant work ethic to the rise of capitalism in a single sentence. I'd like a page or two discussing that one.
So, bottom line. Read another historian.
I got some 500 pages into it and gave up. Davies doesn't believe in narrative history, where the historian tells the story of kings and peasants and nations and religions. Half the text is little one page monographs, set off in boxes, discussing interesting little details, but otherwise unconnected from the main text. Each monograph breaks the continuity of the main text.
Davies clearly believes the cliche "there are no facts in history". He constantly throws doubt upon generally accepted historical facts but never offers an explanation for his doubts. For instance he says "If it really happened" right after Luther's posting of the famous 95 thesis on the cathedral door. Great. He offers no evidence that the generally accepted history is false, he just casts doubt and moves on. If he really thought that Luther didn't do what most historians think he did, he ought to offer a reason for his doubts, or quote a contrary source, or something. The book is full of revisionist stuff like this but with no backup. I'm as ready as the next man to accept revisions, but I want some evidence in favor of the revision.
Or, he will pass over an important, controversial, historical thesis like the relationship of the Protestant work ethic to the rise of capitalism in a single sentence. I'd like a page or two discussing that one.
So, bottom line. Read another historian.
Global Warming Part 3
Vermont Public radio was giving air time to the global warmers yesterday. Walking thru a Massachusetts state forest, and wailing about the terrible things that global warming was doing to the forest. It was eight below zero that night and it's still damn cold today. What global warming?
Plus, this is a forest. They grow just fine from Georgia to Maine. Even if global warming were to make Massachusetts are warm as Georgia (unlikely) the forest would thrive.
Plus, this is a forest. They grow just fine from Georgia to Maine. Even if global warming were to make Massachusetts are warm as Georgia (unlikely) the forest would thrive.
Banks, need therefore
Last year Bush and Congress decided that banks were so important to the national economy as to deserve $750 billion "Troubled Assets Recovery Program" (TARP for short) to bail them out. So far, we taxpayers have given out half of that ($350 billion) to banks. The banks have put the money into the vault, to make themselves look solvent as their piles of mortgage backed securities, credit default swaps, and other dodgy paper have steadily lost value. They haven't been lending it much.
If we really want want money lent out, let's authorize the Fed to directly lend money to US corporations. The commercial banks are shot. They are loosing money as their trash securities fall in price faster than Uncle Sam can pour taxpayer money into them. Why bother to bail out Citi's bad investments. Bypass the banks, and lend taxpayer money directly to US companies that need it. Let the banks sink or swim.
If we really want want money lent out, let's authorize the Fed to directly lend money to US corporations. The commercial banks are shot. They are loosing money as their trash securities fall in price faster than Uncle Sam can pour taxpayer money into them. Why bother to bail out Citi's bad investments. Bypass the banks, and lend taxpayer money directly to US companies that need it. Let the banks sink or swim.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Stimulus vs Pork
$850 Billion is enough money to choke a hog (but not a congress). Skimming shows the bill full of all kinds of stuff, medicare, money for TV converter boxes, welfare, unemployment.
In my book, stimulus ought to be limited to investment in real assets that make the US more productive. Building dams, power plants, oil and gas pipelines, airports, bridges, power lines, wifi hotspots. Things that produce wealth, or facilitate producing wealth by improving transportation and communication and basic utilities count.
Paying medical bills, paying routine maintenance costs, repaving, repainting, buying "energy efficient" vehicles don't count. They just consume money that could be better spent.
Also, we need it now, this year, next month. Spending targeted for 2010 and the outyears isn't stimulus, its special interests locking in their funding so they don't have to worry about lobbying for money next year.
In my book, stimulus ought to be limited to investment in real assets that make the US more productive. Building dams, power plants, oil and gas pipelines, airports, bridges, power lines, wifi hotspots. Things that produce wealth, or facilitate producing wealth by improving transportation and communication and basic utilities count.
Paying medical bills, paying routine maintenance costs, repaving, repainting, buying "energy efficient" vehicles don't count. They just consume money that could be better spent.
Also, we need it now, this year, next month. Spending targeted for 2010 and the outyears isn't stimulus, its special interests locking in their funding so they don't have to worry about lobbying for money next year.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
New Tube
Yesterday (Friday) my old faithful NEC Multisync 75 monitor croaked. Something let go in the vertical drive circuit resulting in all the video squozed into the middle third of the screen. The poor NEC is at least 10 years old, so it didn't owe me anything. I'll drop it off down at the "transfer station" (town dump) next trip.
The only place in Littleton with computer stuff AND open on Saturday is Staples, the office supply place. I spent a half an hour looking at the array of flat panel monitors (no CRT's anymore) wondering what to buy. There was a smallish Compaq for only $109, Samsungs, Acers, Dells, HP's and AOC (who ever they may be) for prices running from $175 to $279. I couldn't see any real difference in video quality and the sales guy didn't either. I finally settled on a 19" Dell 1908WFP. Dell was the only maker with a matte finish black bezel and screen, which I like 'cause it cuts down on reflections in the monitor. HP had a high gloss screen and bezel and I could clearly see every lamp in the store reflecting off it.
The instructions were mostly boilerplate to keep the lawyers happy. Not a word about what to do with the software CD. So I plugged everything in, monitor lit up and presto, video. Then I loaded the driver and wonder upon wonders, it was able to make my 4 year old Compaq SR 175oNx motherboard produce right shaped video. The Dell monitor is one of those wide 16:9 aspect ratio screens whereas the tried and true CRT monitors are all 4:5 aspect ratio. When I first powered up, the monitor worked, but the video was all stretched out sidewise. The clever driver loaded from the CD was able to work some magic on the "Radion 200" video driver on the Compaq's mother board and make things come out square again. That's kind of impressive when you consider that four years ago, when the motherboard was new, CRT monitors were common and flat screen monitors were rare and pricey.
So, success, I can use the computer again, and the new monitor is crisp, sharp, and bigger than the poor old NEC.
The only place in Littleton with computer stuff AND open on Saturday is Staples, the office supply place. I spent a half an hour looking at the array of flat panel monitors (no CRT's anymore) wondering what to buy. There was a smallish Compaq for only $109, Samsungs, Acers, Dells, HP's and AOC (who ever they may be) for prices running from $175 to $279. I couldn't see any real difference in video quality and the sales guy didn't either. I finally settled on a 19" Dell 1908WFP. Dell was the only maker with a matte finish black bezel and screen, which I like 'cause it cuts down on reflections in the monitor. HP had a high gloss screen and bezel and I could clearly see every lamp in the store reflecting off it.
The instructions were mostly boilerplate to keep the lawyers happy. Not a word about what to do with the software CD. So I plugged everything in, monitor lit up and presto, video. Then I loaded the driver and wonder upon wonders, it was able to make my 4 year old Compaq SR 175oNx motherboard produce right shaped video. The Dell monitor is one of those wide 16:9 aspect ratio screens whereas the tried and true CRT monitors are all 4:5 aspect ratio. When I first powered up, the monitor worked, but the video was all stretched out sidewise. The clever driver loaded from the CD was able to work some magic on the "Radion 200" video driver on the Compaq's mother board and make things come out square again. That's kind of impressive when you consider that four years ago, when the motherboard was new, CRT monitors were common and flat screen monitors were rare and pricey.
So, success, I can use the computer again, and the new monitor is crisp, sharp, and bigger than the poor old NEC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)