Penn State received more contributions this year than last, beating every school record except one for contributions. The school reports that there was "a slight uptick in the number of alumni" contributing to the school, "reversing two years of declines."
Apparently the alumni of Penn State don't care about the football program harboring coaches who rape young boys, so long as the team wins games.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
High Speed Rail Update
San Diego County, it turns out, will get about $100 million of the newly approved high speed rail funding. It will be used to upgrade our trolley system under the rather absurd concept that the trolley will eventually be absorbed into the high speed rail system.
So the tracks in the middle of our downtown streets, which currently have trolley trains rumbling down them at about 15 mph, will someday have bullet trains flying down them at 200 mph. Hopefully, I will not be driving my car downtown by then.
So the tracks in the middle of our downtown streets, which currently have trolley trains rumbling down them at about 15 mph, will someday have bullet trains flying down them at 200 mph. Hopefully, I will not be driving my car downtown by then.
Changing the Subject
President Obama is, according to CBS News last night, trying to “talk about something more favorable for him than jobs.” Indeed; when you are losing the argument, change the subject.
Obama says that we should raise the tax rates for “the rich” back to the rates that existed when “Bill Clinton was in office and they were doing very well.” He does not explain why we should not raise the rates for the middle class back to that same era, when the middle class were also “doing very well” and were spending money like it was water from a bottomless well. It wasn’t until Bush was in office that the great debt explosion began.
I love politicians who keep talking about what they want to talk about, about things that will make them look good, instead of what people care about. The real problem is not about the tax rates being paid by people who have jobs, it’s about the zero tax rate being paid by people who are jobless, and the big problem which needs to be addressed is jobs. But talking about tax cuts makes him look better and gives him a better chance to get reelected.
The man does have his priorities, you know.
Obama says that we should raise the tax rates for “the rich” back to the rates that existed when “Bill Clinton was in office and they were doing very well.” He does not explain why we should not raise the rates for the middle class back to that same era, when the middle class were also “doing very well” and were spending money like it was water from a bottomless well. It wasn’t until Bush was in office that the great debt explosion began.
I love politicians who keep talking about what they want to talk about, about things that will make them look good, instead of what people care about. The real problem is not about the tax rates being paid by people who have jobs, it’s about the zero tax rate being paid by people who are jobless, and the big problem which needs to be addressed is jobs. But talking about tax cuts makes him look better and gives him a better chance to get reelected.
The man does have his priorities, you know.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Is It a Tax?
Is the "individual mandate" a tax increase? My answer: I don't care. It may be un-American or something, but I don't think tax increases, even on the middle class, are necessarily a bad thing.
And even after 3+ years in office, Obama has offered no comprehensive tax policy of his own. He has temporary patchwork tax cuts to "stimulate the economy" and is still talking about tinkering with various parts of the Bush tax cuts. I cannot remember a president in my lifetime who has not even tried to promote some sort of overall tax policy.
And even after 3+ years in office, Obama has offered no comprehensive tax policy of his own. He has temporary patchwork tax cuts to "stimulate the economy" and is still talking about tinkering with various parts of the Bush tax cuts. I cannot remember a president in my lifetime who has not even tried to promote some sort of overall tax policy.
California High Speed Rail
The California legislature approved the first leg of our $98 billion high speed rail project, allocating $4.5 billion for construction of the segment from Bakersfield to Madera. It’s claimed that it will reduce the three-hour trip to one hour, but why that is of value has not been determined. It’s also questionable, since the distance is only 131 miles and Amtrak schedules show trains presently making the trip in 2 hours and 20 minutes.
Madera is in the northeastern portion of the San Joauquin Valley and is noted primarily for “the notable and historic Madera water tower and the city's fully operational drive-in movie theater,” according to Wikipedia. It is 25 miles north of Fresno, and 40 miles south of Merced on Highway 99. That’s state highway 99.
Bakersfield doesn’t have much, but it does have several movie theaters, with air conditioning even, and however historic Madera’s water tower is, I doubt anyone is going to travel even an hour to see it more than once. If I was in Bakersfield, I would certainly leave as soon as possible, but I damn well would not be going to Madera.
I’m not opposed to high speed rail, but I do not think that you should be taking money away from schools, colleges, and health care for the indigent elderly in order to build it, which is what California is doing. All of these services are being cut, with threats of yet further cuts if voters don't agree to raise taxes in November, so now is not an ideal time to be adding $228 million per year in bond payments to build high speed rail in the least populated portion of the state.
And, if you’re going to spend enormous sums building high speed rail, you should at least build it where people might ride it, not in the area of the state which is about as far as you can get away from the major population centers. They’re building it there because only a tiny portion can be built with the money allocated, and land is cheaper out there in the empty desert, which allows more miles of right-of-way to be obtained. The stupidity of that argument simply defies description.
The argument is made that it will provide jobs, and certainly I applaud that, but the logic of eliminating permanent state jobs which provide needed services to the people of the state while borrowing money to provide temporary jobs which… Well, what purpose do they serve when they create 131 miles of 200 mph trains which connect cities of less than 1% of the state’s population?
Claiming to reduce a three-hour trip which actually only takes 2 hours and 20 minutes is fairly typical of claims made by the high speed rail authority. Virtually every claim it has made for ridership and pricing has been thoroughly debunked, some of them even by itself when it has been forced to admit that its numbers were “overly optimistic.” The initiative passed by the voters two years ago required that the project be able to operate entirely on ridership fees. No study has shown that it can even come close to doing that, and the initial cost of the project is now more than triple what was approved by the voters. Yet our legislature moves ahead, undaunted.
If a homeowner who could not meet his monthly mortgage payment went out and borrowed money to buy a new Rolls Royce, you would say that he was irresponsible, at best, or perhaps insane. California cannot pay its present bills, and our legislature is indulging itself in a $98 billion fantasy called high speed rail.
Madera is in the northeastern portion of the San Joauquin Valley and is noted primarily for “the notable and historic Madera water tower and the city's fully operational drive-in movie theater,” according to Wikipedia. It is 25 miles north of Fresno, and 40 miles south of Merced on Highway 99. That’s state highway 99.
Bakersfield doesn’t have much, but it does have several movie theaters, with air conditioning even, and however historic Madera’s water tower is, I doubt anyone is going to travel even an hour to see it more than once. If I was in Bakersfield, I would certainly leave as soon as possible, but I damn well would not be going to Madera.
I’m not opposed to high speed rail, but I do not think that you should be taking money away from schools, colleges, and health care for the indigent elderly in order to build it, which is what California is doing. All of these services are being cut, with threats of yet further cuts if voters don't agree to raise taxes in November, so now is not an ideal time to be adding $228 million per year in bond payments to build high speed rail in the least populated portion of the state.
And, if you’re going to spend enormous sums building high speed rail, you should at least build it where people might ride it, not in the area of the state which is about as far as you can get away from the major population centers. They’re building it there because only a tiny portion can be built with the money allocated, and land is cheaper out there in the empty desert, which allows more miles of right-of-way to be obtained. The stupidity of that argument simply defies description.
The argument is made that it will provide jobs, and certainly I applaud that, but the logic of eliminating permanent state jobs which provide needed services to the people of the state while borrowing money to provide temporary jobs which… Well, what purpose do they serve when they create 131 miles of 200 mph trains which connect cities of less than 1% of the state’s population?
Claiming to reduce a three-hour trip which actually only takes 2 hours and 20 minutes is fairly typical of claims made by the high speed rail authority. Virtually every claim it has made for ridership and pricing has been thoroughly debunked, some of them even by itself when it has been forced to admit that its numbers were “overly optimistic.” The initiative passed by the voters two years ago required that the project be able to operate entirely on ridership fees. No study has shown that it can even come close to doing that, and the initial cost of the project is now more than triple what was approved by the voters. Yet our legislature moves ahead, undaunted.
If a homeowner who could not meet his monthly mortgage payment went out and borrowed money to buy a new Rolls Royce, you would say that he was irresponsible, at best, or perhaps insane. California cannot pay its present bills, and our legislature is indulging itself in a $98 billion fantasy called high speed rail.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Negative Campaigning
Paul Krugman began a column on July 4th with a statement advising the Obama campaign to “go after” the Bain Capital performance of Romney. It’s an interesting statement.
There is something in the Bible about living in glass houses and throwing stones but, while Obama professes to be a Christian, I don’t think Krugman does, so that may not to be applicable to the advice that Krugman dispenses. There’s a certain lack of wisdom in that practice as well, but I’m not sure it applies in politics, where the public pays very little attention to much of anything beyond the immediately spoken word. Krugman may, therefor, be entirely comfortable advising that Obama ignore the role played by his own Treasury Secretary in the economic collapse of 2008 and attack Romney’s role in that debacle.
There’s also something in the Bible about “casting out the mote in one’s own eye” before poking someone else in the eye, or something like that, which would hint that maybe Obama should notice Krugman’s “Democrats with Wall Street ties” before he starts taking really major swings at any form of capitalism. Americans in this Christian nation only read the parts of the bible than ban homosexuality, though, so they don’t even know what a “mote” is and certainly would not recognize one in the President’s eye.
Since Krugman put the word “queasiness” in there, though, I suspect he is not saying that Obama should ignore the fact that many Democrats have Wall Street ties; I’m pretty sure that Democrats having ties to Wall Street is completely unremarkable to Krugman. I suspect he’s saying that Obama should ignore the fact that his attacks on Bain Capital are making those Democrats queasy.
I don’t know why he thinks Obama needs that advice, because Obama has pretty much made a career of pissing off his fellow Democrats, such as by making a deal with Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts for two full years with telling them in advance, and by saying of the “public option” that it “would be nice to have” instead of actually supporting it. When it comes to securing his own advantage, he will throw the Democrats and liberalism under the bus in a heartbeat.
And his present campaign is a case in point. In his first campaign for president he was filled with noble ideals of eschewing the negativity of “attack politics” and insisted on campaigning purely on a positive message of “hope and change.” He clearly recognizes that principles like that are going to get him nowhere this time around, so has adopted the more traditional “attack dog” role to win a coveted second term.
Principles are all very well; but power is a whole lot more satisfying.
It appears that the Obama campaign has decided to ignore the queasiness of Democrats with Wall Street ties, and go after Mitt Romney’s record at Bain. And rightly so!
There is something in the Bible about living in glass houses and throwing stones but, while Obama professes to be a Christian, I don’t think Krugman does, so that may not to be applicable to the advice that Krugman dispenses. There’s a certain lack of wisdom in that practice as well, but I’m not sure it applies in politics, where the public pays very little attention to much of anything beyond the immediately spoken word. Krugman may, therefor, be entirely comfortable advising that Obama ignore the role played by his own Treasury Secretary in the economic collapse of 2008 and attack Romney’s role in that debacle.
There’s also something in the Bible about “casting out the mote in one’s own eye” before poking someone else in the eye, or something like that, which would hint that maybe Obama should notice Krugman’s “Democrats with Wall Street ties” before he starts taking really major swings at any form of capitalism. Americans in this Christian nation only read the parts of the bible than ban homosexuality, though, so they don’t even know what a “mote” is and certainly would not recognize one in the President’s eye.
Since Krugman put the word “queasiness” in there, though, I suspect he is not saying that Obama should ignore the fact that many Democrats have Wall Street ties; I’m pretty sure that Democrats having ties to Wall Street is completely unremarkable to Krugman. I suspect he’s saying that Obama should ignore the fact that his attacks on Bain Capital are making those Democrats queasy.
I don’t know why he thinks Obama needs that advice, because Obama has pretty much made a career of pissing off his fellow Democrats, such as by making a deal with Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts for two full years with telling them in advance, and by saying of the “public option” that it “would be nice to have” instead of actually supporting it. When it comes to securing his own advantage, he will throw the Democrats and liberalism under the bus in a heartbeat.
And his present campaign is a case in point. In his first campaign for president he was filled with noble ideals of eschewing the negativity of “attack politics” and insisted on campaigning purely on a positive message of “hope and change.” He clearly recognizes that principles like that are going to get him nowhere this time around, so has adopted the more traditional “attack dog” role to win a coveted second term.
Principles are all very well; but power is a whole lot more satisfying.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Penalty or Tax
Ben LaBolt, President Obama’s 2012 campaign Press Secretary, says that Obama disagrees with the Supreme Court on the issue of the payment for failure to comply with the individual insurance mandate, and that it is a “penalty” and not a “tax.” He goes on to insist that the entire Obama administration has never considered or referred to it as a tax, and has always called it a penalty.
When asked by the interviewer whether or not the administration argued before the Supreme Court that the mandate could be upheld as a tax, LaBolt claimed that they did not, but transcripts clearly show that “U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli very clearly indicated the individual mandate could be viewed as constitutional under Congress' powers of taxation.”
It’s called “having your cake and eating it too,” and Obama does it quite frequently. Here he argues in court that it is a tax because the argument is legally convenient, but speaks of it publicly as a “penalty” because the tax argument is politically toxic.
In court he claims that the drone program is so secret that not only can court proceedings regarding it not be considered, but the government cannot even admit (or deny) that the program even exists. The same week, he issues a press release that a “top Al Queda leader” has been killed by a drone, which is part of a program that is apparently no secret at all.
There are lots of other examples. Arresting and imprisoning Bradley Manning, for instance, while not pursuing whoever released details of the presidential “Tuesday kill meetings” which reveal what masterful control he maintains over the assassination program.
It doesn’t surprise me, I guess, that he does this. Politicians always want to make themselves look good and Obama is nothing more or less than our usual politician. What astounds me is the horde of Obama supporters who are decrying the degree to which Romney “lies and distorts truth” and who utterly ignore the doublespeak that Obama regularly employs. Sure, Romney may be worse, but that does not make it okay to absolutely ignore the “lesser evil” of your own. A lesser evil is still evil.
When asked by the interviewer whether or not the administration argued before the Supreme Court that the mandate could be upheld as a tax, LaBolt claimed that they did not, but transcripts clearly show that “U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli very clearly indicated the individual mandate could be viewed as constitutional under Congress' powers of taxation.”
It’s called “having your cake and eating it too,” and Obama does it quite frequently. Here he argues in court that it is a tax because the argument is legally convenient, but speaks of it publicly as a “penalty” because the tax argument is politically toxic.
In court he claims that the drone program is so secret that not only can court proceedings regarding it not be considered, but the government cannot even admit (or deny) that the program even exists. The same week, he issues a press release that a “top Al Queda leader” has been killed by a drone, which is part of a program that is apparently no secret at all.
There are lots of other examples. Arresting and imprisoning Bradley Manning, for instance, while not pursuing whoever released details of the presidential “Tuesday kill meetings” which reveal what masterful control he maintains over the assassination program.
It doesn’t surprise me, I guess, that he does this. Politicians always want to make themselves look good and Obama is nothing more or less than our usual politician. What astounds me is the horde of Obama supporters who are decrying the degree to which Romney “lies and distorts truth” and who utterly ignore the doublespeak that Obama regularly employs. Sure, Romney may be worse, but that does not make it okay to absolutely ignore the “lesser evil” of your own. A lesser evil is still evil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)