what if?

"I Stand with Israel"

Glenn Beck's show is not one that I watch.  Probably a combination of the time slot, and, I do side with some of his critics who claim that Beck can be somewhat "over the top" in presentation and belief.

Nevertheless, when a friend sent me this video today, all I could think was:  "Well said, sir.  Very well said."

Keeping America Safe

If I served in the government, then there would be plenty on my mind about keeping our nation secure.  Start with uprisings in the middle east, a host of concerns vis a vis the Japanese disasters, violence and illegal drugs on our shores, crime from illegal immigrants, the security of the dollar and our economy, energy concerns .... uh, enough to worry you, too?

Not quite.  I forgot to list those dangerous - basketball hoops in Delaware.

Yes, not kidding, though I wish I were.  If you wish to see a microcosm of what is wrong with government today, examine this.

And - the money line:

“What a waste of taxpayer money. They had six trucks and five police cars. Don’t they have something better to do?”

Don't they, indeed!!!

Happy Anniversary!

 
When they first got married, their friends placed bets.  Would the quarreling Kaplans last one year?  Two or three?  Everyone thought Mom and Dad would be the couple to split.

How wrong they were....

Today, Mom and Dad celebrated 63 years together.  Though most of those years have included fights, feuds and bickering, their marriage nevertheless is held together with love far stronger than any disagreement.

I'm also glad beyond words that Dad is doing vastly better than he was several weeks ago!  So - the happy couple was able to go out for dinner and a bit of shopping, too.

Happy anniversary, Mom & Dad!  I love you!

Our Paper's Shame

Last week, Geraldine Ferraro died.  At the conservative and libertarian blogs that I read, posts were thoughtful and comments the same.  This sort of sentiment was repeated, over and over:

She had class and strength. I didn’t agree with her polical views, but she was a great lady.

In Minnesota last week, a city worker was killed in an unfortunate accident.  One of the Star Tribune writers saw fit to write this column about his death.  It begins like this:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker never met Mike Struck. Nor have most of the politicians who are demonizing public employees in order to advance their own careers and agendas.

Some legislators like to portray anyone who has a government job as lazy, incompetent and overcompensated. It's too bad they didn't know Struck, because it's important to remember that for every construction worker you see leaning on a shovel, for every nonchalant clerk at City Hall, there are many guys like Mike Struck, who showed up every day, worked his butt off, made your roads safer and cleaner, and ultimately gave his life doing his job.

And he did it all for $44,000 a year.

Jon Tevlin goes on later to bash those who believe we need some changes in public unions:  "That's why the current backlash against public workers riles them now."

I don't blame other liberals for this disgusting column.  I do, however, blame this columnist and the editors at the paper for printing it.  First of all, it is factually incorrect.  No one is "demonizing public workers."  President Roosevelt thought that public unions should have to play by different rules than private ones.  Believing this and thinking that we need reform is not "demonizing."  Second of all, when a man's life is lost in a tragic accident, we should be remembering the man; who he is and what he has accomplished.  The last thing a story about that man should be is an opportunity for political bashing.

I am very sorry for Michael Struck, his family and his friends.  Shame on Tevlin for using this man's death for cheap political digs.

 

And - Not Taxing At All

The problem of too much government in our lives?  Even our tax code becomes corrupt.

Don't think so?  Read this.

What General Electric has in common with the guy who runs Obama’s IRS: not paying taxes. That New York Times report on G.E.’s remarkable ability to avoid paying U.S. taxes has been getting a lot of attention today, but there was one paragraph that reminded me of why I’m a flat-tax guy:

G.E.’s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax law firm. Indeed, the company’s slogan “Imagination at Work” fits this department well. The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.

As government extends its reach over every aspect of the economy, this sort of corporatism will only become more deeply entrenched in fields like health care and energy. What G.E. has done with taxes, the insurance giants will do (and have done) with Obamacare.

The upside of the fiscal crisis that our country insists on marching toward is that it will give us the opportunity to enact radical reform of some of our most important institutions, and the tax code should be high on the list. A federal/state/local system that produces a $3.2 billion tax benefit for G.E. but taxes the pants off of poor people to fund useless schools that do their children very little good (and a great measure of harm, in many cases) is an unbearable burden. It has to go.

Taxing the Rich

More reasons why too much government dependence upon the wealthy harms more than gains.

The working class may be taking a beating from spending cuts used to close a cavernous deficit, Mr. Williams said, but the root of California's woes is its reliance on taxing the wealthy.

Nearly half of California's income taxes before the recession came from the top 1% of earners: households that took in more than $490,000 a year. High earners, it turns out, have especially volatile incomes—their earnings fell by more than twice as much as the rest of the population's during the recession. When they crashed, they took California's finances down with them.

Mr. Williams, a former economic forecaster for the state, spent more than a decade warning state leaders about California's over-dependence on the rich. "We created a revenue cliff," he said. "We built a large part of our government on the state's most unstable income group."

New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Illinois—states that are the most heavily reliant on the taxes of the wealthy—are now among those with the biggest budget holes. A large population of rich residents was a blessing during the boom, showering states with billions in tax revenue. But it became a curse as their incomes collapsed with financial markets.

 

Liberal Humor

Liberal humor is the best.  And - you know what is almost the sweetest part of it all?  They have no clue how funny they are.

See here.

Hey, did you know that the Huffington Post strives for civil discourse? Just ask ‘em!

The Huffington Post is committed to fostering a lively and often provocative debate about the issues of the day and encourages a wide range of voices from all perspectives to participate. Andrew Brietbart’s false ad hominem attack on Van Jones in The Daily Caller violates the tenets of debate and civil discourse we have strived for since the day we launched. As a result, we will no longer feature his posts on the front page.

Breitbart called Jones a “commie punk,” a “human toxin,” a “cockroach,” and a “cop killer-supporting, racist, demagogic freak.” Oh, and for good measure, he called Color of Change “left-wing freaks.” That’s the reason HuffPo is giving for pushing him off their front page. That’s the violation of HuffPo’s “tenets of debate and civil discourse.”

This is great news for fans of comedy, because now people get to dig up examples of all the HuffPo front-pagers who’ve indulged in vicious ad hominem attacks over the years. Nelson follows up with a good recap of ad hominems by HuffPo contributors like John Cusack (Republicans are “a league of bastards”; Iraq war supporters are “human scum”), Alec Baldwin (Cheney is a “lying, thieving Oil Whore”), and others. Mickey Kaus looks at HuffPo writer Jason Linkins, who by their own rules should be thrown off the front page. And of course, Breitbart’s Big Journalism site is getting in on the action, pledging to help HuffPo enforce their “ad hominem” rule and providing evidence of such from none other than Van Jones.

New and "Improved" Laws

That seem destined to harm the already suffering and fragile real estate and credit markets.

The Wall Street Journal expounds on why "too big to fail" is a phrase that should strike fear into all our hearts.

The identification of firms as too big to fail is a mad policy: It will signal to the world, removing all doubt, that the government will take steps to prevent the failure of these firms, giving them advantages in the marketplace. If the funding advantages that have already appeared in banking are spread to other industries, large companies will be put in a position to drive smaller rivals out of business.

We've seen this movie before. Because of their perceived government backing, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to borrow funds at rates that enabled them to drive all competition from the secondary mortgage market.

There is no compromise solution to the problem created by Dodd-Frank. Either the process of designating firms as too big to fail stops with the banking industry, or competition in the entire U.S. financial system will be substantially transformed for the worse. Once nonbank firms are declared to be too big to fail, there will be no opportunity for a do-over.

Stop Welfare

At least, stop it for wealthy corporations. 

In America today, the biggest recipients of handouts are not poor people. They're corporations.

"Jeff Immelt is perhaps the CEO who is most cozy with President Obama," says journalist Tim Carney. "General Electric is structuring their business around where government is going ... high-speed rail, solar, wind. GE is lining up to get what government is handing out."

Businesses love to have government as their partner. There's safety in it. Why take chances in a marketplace full of fickle consumers and investors, when you can get secure money and favors from the taxpayers? It's an old story, and free-market advocates as far back as Adam Smith warned against it. Unfortunately, too many people think "free market" means pro-business. It doesn't. Free market means laissez faire—prohibit force and fraud, but otherwise leave the marketplace alone. No subsidies, no privileges, no arbitrary regulations. Competition is the most effective regulator.

Let the free market reign.

No Left Turns

Via my Realtor-buddy Christopher Fountain, a left handed eye opener:

Bob Stoffel, Senior VP of UPS, revealed an unusual way to save time and money to Fortune:

Stop making left-hand turns.

Engineers map out every route, he says, and provide right-turn only directions to drivers.

This seemingly silly strategy has paid off: UPS's routing software shaved 20.4 million miles off their routes last year* while delivering 350,000 more packages.  It also diminished CO2 emissions by 20,000 metric tons.

Don't believe it? Myth Busters tried it out. The show had drivers take the same route, only some made right turns while others turned left. The results were similar.

Freedom of Religion?

Or special dispensation for one religion?

Safoorah Khan had taught middle school math for only nine months in this tiny Chicago suburb when she made an unusual request. She wanted three weeks off for a pilgrimage to Mecca.

The school district, faced with losing its only math lab instructor during the critical end-of-semester marking period, said no. Khan, a devout Muslim, resigned and made the trip anyway.

Justice Department lawyers examined the same set of facts and reached a different conclusion: that the school district’s decision amounted to outright discrimination against Khan. They filed an unusual lawsuit, accusing the district of violating her civil rights by forcing her to choose between her job and her faith.

As the case moves forward in federal court in Chicago, it has triggered debate over whether the Justice Department was following a purely legal path or whether suing on Khan’s behalf was part of a broader Obama administration campaign to reach out to Muslims.

What about employees who work in a pharmacy or hospital, yet do not wish to dispense birth control because it is against their religion?  Should they get permission?  What about cab drivers who do not want to take fares who have a dog or alcohol because their religion forbids it?  Should they receive protection?

What if this particular teacher needed five weeks off?  Or two months?  Who decides if and then where a cut should be made?

We're All Nazis Now

My childhood was during the 50's & 60's in the northwest suburbs of Chicago.  As such, I had more than a cursory familiarity with the effects of Hitler's Nazi Germany.  More than a few of my classmates had parents with numbers etched into their skin.  More than a few were the "second" family of their parents.  Too often, these parents were the "lucky ones" who escaped the Nazis - as their children, parents, siblings and spouses were tortured and murdered.

As a result, calls of "Hitler" or "Nazis" don't sit too well with me.  As they say - compare any American politician, irrespective of party, and in virtually all cases, there simply is no comparison.  Thus, this post by Anne Coleta surely touches a nerve:

Elizabeth Taylor

 
Many - including yours truly - think Elizabeth Taylor to be the most exquisitely lovely movie star ever.  Violet eyes, luminous skin, sexy and sensual - Taylor raised the bar on beauty to unmatched heights.

Yet, Taylor was no slouch when it came to acting.  Whether still a child in National Velvet or a temptress in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Taylor radiated emotion, power and mesmerized audiences.

From her career to her many marriages, her charitable work to her health battles, Taylor was indeed a Hollywood legend.  With her death at 79, she is now for the ages.

Limping Home

Although my tournament in Louisville had its moments, overall the memories are definitely not sweet.  My bridge results were, let us say, far less than stellar.  Halfway through my tournament, I caught a wicked cold.  It's tough enough to play when you're in peak condition.  When you find yourself hacking, sneezing and sniffling, aching all over and having your brain work in slow motion, championship competition becomes even more difficult.  While it may sound like I'm making excuses, I am not.  I've had plenty of tournaments where I've been in fine shape, with mediocre results.  Nevertheless, this tournament was more challenging as I really did feel punk too much of the time.

Right now, I'm typing away in my hotel room as I await an early evening flight.  Somehow, spending almost $900 to go 6 hours earlier didn't seem wise; go figure!

A number of my friends did get "Lucky in Kentucky."  Here are a few shots of them.

 
 
 

 

Two Tadashis

 
Tadashi Yoshida and Tadashi Teramoto are Japanese friends of mine.  Tadashi Teramoto has frequently been a teammate of mine, and a few times a partner.  (A very fine one, I might add!)  Tadashi Yoshida and I have been teammates a few times.  My heart breaks for them and their nation.  This photo was taken today right within one of our playing areas.

Nearby, players from around the world battle away in the prestigious team event at our spring tournament:  the Vanderbilt. 

 
And - last year's winners, along with our League's CEO.

 

I'm exhausted, got the sniffles - and my bridge results have been only mediocre.  Nevertheless - having a great time!

Japan - In Our Hearts and Minds

For a few years, I competed on bridge teams with mostly Japanese players.  One very talented fellow has been a partner of mine on and off.  They're great friends; smart, quiet, incredibly polite and super competitors.

That their nation and families are having to face this enormous natural disaster is a tragedy.  Tadashi, Kenji, Hiroki and others - please know you are in my thoughts.  Prayers for your safety and recovery for your nation.

Gone - But Not Forgotten

I'm going to be at my Spring NABC (North American Bridge Championship) for ten days.  Between playing bridge, reporting it, photographing its people, monitoring all my real estate transactions, checking in several times a day with my folks, reading a bit, doing a tiny bit of socializing, actually eating and sleeping some - blogging definitely will be light!

In the meantime, however, a good column about the principle of theory versus practice.

Advocates of government-run “universal” healthcare claim that it provides patients with the medical care they need in a timely, efficient fashion, without concern for ability to pay. However, a closer examination of these supposed utopias of government-run healthcare in Canada and Europe reveals the exact opposite.

According to the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute, “Canadian doctors say patients wait almost twice as long for treatment than is clinically reasonable, almost eighteen weeks between the time they see their family physician and the time they receive treatment from a specialist.”

These long waits for medical care naturally result in worse outcomes. A Canadian woman who discovers a lump in her breast might wait several months before she receives the surgery and chemotherapy she needs, while the cancer cells continue to multiply. If she lived in the United States, she could receive treatment within days.

Why is it apparently so difficult for liberals to understand this?  No matter how wonderful something may be, if legislating it does not work (and indeed makes the system worse) - then perhaps it is better to go a different route?

Liberty and Health Care

Charles Lane of the Washington Post may be a liberal and may be someone with whom I disagree on some issues.  Nevertheless, on some issues we do agree - and Lane always seems to be thoughtful, respectful - and - worth reading.

Here Lane weighs in on health care and freedom.

Starr proposed giving people a right to opt out of the individual mandate, if they agreed in writing to forgo all of the law's benefits for the following five years: no subsidies, no guaranteed issue, nada.

Seems fair to me: Those who really don't want to deal with "Obamacare" can preserve their freedom; without imposing a "free-rider" problem on everyone else. Indeed, given the magnitude of the penalties in Obama's bill -- too low to induce total compliance, too high not to be annoying -- Starr's method might even prove more effective at getting everyone into the risk pool.

Agree or disagree - some thought provoking points.

Framing the Question

The actions and words from politicians on both sides of the aisle vis a vis our debt too often have been woefully lacking.  As Jacob Sullum states,

In the context of federal spending that will total something like $3.8 trillion this year, $61 billion is a rounding error. Yet the Democrats resisting that amount in House-approved cuts say it will wreck the economy while leaving children unschooled, taking food from the mouths of the elderly, and casting disabled people into the streets.

Laughter is the only appropriate response to such predictions. In these absurd times, when both parties quibble over crumbs while the layer cake of debt rises higher and higher, laughter is a mark of fiscal seriousness.

How else should one greet a New York Times editorial that concedes the federal deficit, projected to be $1.6 trillion this year, is "too large for comfort" but calls $61 billion in cuts "ruinous"? Or a press release from the Every Child Matters Education Fund that deems them "harsh" and "extreme"?

The cuts represent less than 2 percent of the total budget, less than 4 percent of the deficit, and less than 5 percent of discretionary spending, which rose in real terms by 75 percent from 2000 to 2010 and by about 9 percent in each of the last two fiscal years. If the House-approved reductions would be "the largest one-year cuts in history," as the folks at Every Child Matters say, that is a sad commentary not on Republican cold-heartedness but on the fiscal incontinence of both parties.

What people - what all Americans must realize - is that fiscally we are in dire straits.  We cannot dither about cutting pennies from budgets when a tsunami of debt is poised to wreck everything if we do not make difficult, deep, serious choices.

Getting Serious

If you truly wish to get serious about our vast pit of debt, then what should you do?

Walter Williams advises this.

Some people might say, "Williams, the programs that you'd cut are vital to the welfare of our nation!" When someone says that, I always ask what did we do before. For example, our nation went from 1787 to 1979 and during that interval produced some of the world's most highly educated people without a Department of Education. Since the department's creation, American primary and secondary education has become a joke among industrialized nations.

What about the Department of Energy; how much energy has it produced?

From our founding in 1787 to 1965, our nation went from a Third World status to building the world's mightiest first-class cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit and Philadelphia without the benefit of Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). After HUD was created in 1965, many of our formerly great cities are in decline. No one is saying that HUD is responsible for the decline, but neither was HUD responsible for their rise.