Today’s Proof That Obama is a Socialist

According to the Associated Press, Pfizer was fined $2.38 billion, including a $1.2 billion criminal fine, for the paltry indiscretion of marketing a drug for off-label use.  The Associate Attorney General Thomas Perelli evidently prosecuted the case, illustrating our socialist regime’s obvious intent of rationing our health care by preventing pharmaceutical companies from marketing drugs for uses they aren’t approved for.  Next thing you know, the Administration is going to insist on lengthy and expensive research regimens before drugs are approved for any kind of use.

And this coming only one week after I received my new “machine-readable health plan beneficiary card” in the mail.  Those commie bastards!!

By the by, did you read the text for Obama’s “school speech” to be delivered today?  Obviously a ploy to indoctrinate our children into his evil socialist agendas.  The only thing a President should be reading to our children is The Pet Goat.

Debunking the Myths, Lies, and Slander of the Health Care Bill

A friend of mine sent me an email with an interesting Twitter feed, from a guy (fleckman) who had perused the new “Obamacare” Health Care Bill.  It should be noted that this is not the final bill coming before a vote in the House, but is probably the most likely to form the mold upon which the final bill will be cast.

I see he has expanded upon his tweeter feed to include the last couple hundred or so pages of the bill.  The email I got was only good up to page 500.  Still, this post seemed long enough . . .

Now, I don’t want to give too much credence to this Fleckman.  But he obviously spent a lot of time reading the bill and coming up with his, ahem, “interpretation”, and I appreciate that.  Plus, it gives a very handy outline of all the myths, misinformation, and downright lies which will be spread about the bill.  (Some of it reads like he copy and paste sound bites from the newest Gingrich primer.)  So hopefully when somebody starts talking about all the rotten things this bill is going to do, you’ll be able to give them a factual account of its actual verbiage.

Please note that this is not a compilation of articles written in support of the bill; rather responses were given by actually reading the portions of the bill he addresses.

Finally, I don’t want to imply that I feel this is a perfect bill.  I don’t.  But it’s a good compromise between single-payer and individual plans which will allow universal coverage.  And it’s leaps and bounds over that status quo.  If people don’t like this method to universal coverage, then fine.  But I can’t stand by and let it be defeated by blanket propaganda and irrelevant claims based upon scare tactics or hot-button issues completely unrelated to the topic.

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

The government is not proposing to “audit books”.  They will examine the “financial solvency and capital reserve levels of employers that self-insure by employer size.”  This information is already provided to the government (the IRS and SEC).  The purpose of this examination is to complete a report looking into the ability of self-insured companies to meet the obligations they assign themselves by being self-insured.  This report is to be submitted “not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.”  The above statement implies that the government will be conducting additional accounting oversight, and on a long-term scale, neither of which is accurate.

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill – THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benes u get

The government committee will not decide what treatment or benefits you get.  The panel, which is mandated to represent both the medical field and employers, will recommend (i.e. not mandate) two things:  an ”essential benefits package” (that is, minimum coverage), and cost-sharing levels for “enhanced plans and premium plans” (which would ensure a maximum individual medical expense).  Not only would this committee not mandate the coverages in those plans, it would not mandate which plan is offered or which plan a person must buy.  This in no way effects choice of the individual, only attempts to ensure standards under which an individual is guaranteed a certain level of care.

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill – YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!

Page 29 deals with cost-sharing.  This does not ration healthcare, it sets maximums for the amount an individual has to pay for medical under an insurance plan ($5000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family, with automatic increases based upon increases in the Consumer Price Index).  Either this guy doesn’t know what cost-sharing is, or he is being intentionally misrepresentative.

Pg 42 of HC Bill – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!

Commission sets standards for minimum coverage.  It does not mandate specific coverage.

PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill – HC will be provided 2 ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

Talk about grasping at straws.  Here’s the exact verbiage of the text:  “Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related service.”  Oh my God!  Those evil bastards!!

Pg 58HC Bill – Govt will have real-time access 2 individuals’ finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued!

This says nothing about access to an individual’s finances, it’s an individual’s “financial responsibility at the point of service.”  Not even close to the same thing.  Obviously disingenuous here.  It does not mandate a national ID health card, but “may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card”, which is already provided by most insurers.  Nowhere does it say that these cards would stop being issued by the insurer and begin being issued by the government.  (Talk about paranoid.)

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 ur banks accts 4 elect. funds transfer

This does state the desire to enable EFT’s “to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice.”  However, it does not stipulate the government’s access to bank accounts, and EFT’s would not be required.  There’s a difference between “enable” and “allow” and “required.”  The wording seems to imply a vehicle to allow people to pay via EFT, which most people are all to happy to do online with a variety of vendors.

PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan 4 retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).

Section 164 is a temporary subsidized reimbursement plan to help off-set costs of insuring retirees who participated in employment-based insurance plans, which would include any plan “maintained by one or more employers, former employers, or employee associations, or a voluntary employees’ beneficiary association, or a committee or board of individuals appointed to administer such plan.”  Technically he’s right that it will help people in unions and community organizations, though it will also pay money to employers who do not hire union workers.  Obviously, the purpose of his line was to prey on the negative connotations some people have of unions or ACORN, specifically, even though the language is not targeted towards these groups.

Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange 2 bring priv HC plans under Govt control.

This will create a health care exchange, and would include a public health insurance option.  You can debate the merits of such a policy, but that’s a far cry from bringing private health care plans under government control.

PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill – Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs 4 priv. HC plans in the Exchange

This says nothing about mandating benefits packages in the health care exchange.  It merely states that in order to be in the exchange, an insurer must offer a basic plan in the exchange.  In order to offer an enhanced plan, an insurer must offer a basic plan, and in order to offer a premium plan, an insurer must offer an enhanced plan.  This increases a consumer’s choice by ensuring there are less expensive basic plans a person can buy, instead of being forced into a higher priced plan at the sole discretion of the insurance company.

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill – Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration ur Healthcare!

Standards within the plans will be mandated, meaning a guaranteed minimum level of coverage.  However, standards do not limit the amount of insurance above these minimums which a company may offer.  So if you wish to purchase more insurance than the standards offered, you would still have that option.  This is the exact opposite of rationing.

PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill – Govt mandates linguistic approp svcs. Example – Translation 4 illegal aliens

A more appropriate example – translation for legal residents.  I guess the theory is that if you don’t speak English you don’t deserve adequate health care.  The author is using the “illegal immigrant” debate to scare people away from a completely unrelated topic.  Common, but no less inappropriate or bigoted.

Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps 2 sign up indiv. for Govt HC plan

This section does stipulate the use of outreach programs to educate “vulnerable populations” about health care options.  While, in theory, this could include groups such as ACORN, he’s again obviously using a completely unrelated hot-button topic to evade the health care issue.  Besides, why is it so bad that ”vulnerable populations, such as children, individuals with disabilities, individuals with mental illness, and individuals with other cognitive impairments” be educated about this health care?  I guess if a quadriplegic with a learning disability doesn’t take the initiative to learn the finer points about the program then that’s his concern.

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill – Specs of Ben Levels 4 Plans. #AARP members – U Health care WILL b rationed

He already mentioned this three examples ago . . . not sure why he brought it up again.

-PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill – Medicaid Eligible Indiv. will b automat.enrolled in Medicaid. No choice

The exact wording is:  “an individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan (emphasis added) is automatically enrolled under Medicaid.”  So there is a choice.  Unless, of course, the choice is whether or not to be insured.

pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No “judicial review” against Govt Monop

There is no judicial review for premiums or pay rates established for the public health insurance plan.  Technically, the above statement would be correct, if one assumes that the government is going to set up a public plan with the sole intention of losing enough money to drive private insurance companies out of business.

pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill – Doctors/ #AMA – The Govt will tell YOU what u can make.

This is incredibly misleading.  The bill sets up payment terms for physicians under the public insurance plan, based upon whether they are preferred, participating, or other providers.  That’s what insurance companies currently do.  The government is not telling physicians what they can make any more than State Farm or Blue Cross currently does.

Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE

The auto-enrollement actually specifically legislates the choice of the employee to determine what plan they may enroll in.  The auto-enrollement is not designed to automatically enroll an employee into the public plan, but rather to enroll an employee into an insurance plan, specifically, “the plan option with the lowest applicable employee premium.”  This does not predicate enrollment into the public plan at all.  Further, the employee has an option to opt-out of automatic enrollment if they chose to enroll in another, more expensive employer plan or another plan not offered by the employer.  The employer must, by law, accept this opt-out and “under no circumstances” may automatically enroll the employee.

It should be noted that in cases where an employee is currently forced to enroll in a specific insurance plan as a condition of employment, this will actually increase the employee’s choice.  At any rate, it will not decrease the choice of another employee at all, unless (again) it is the choice of the employee to simply not have health insurance.

Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay 4 HC 4 part time employees AND their families.

This is actually on page 146.  This is accurate that the employer must provide health coverage for part time employees as well as full-time employees.  However, the employer is allowed to pro-rate the coverage for the employee based upon the difference between the hours they work and the hours of a full-time employee.  And as the purpose of the bill is to mandate universal coverage, this should not be surprising.

Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Emplyr w payroll 400k & above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll

This is disingenuous.  The 8% tax is required of any employer who does not offer insurance coverage.  While this includes the public plan, the statement makes it sound like an employer will be subject to this fine if they offer private insurance but not the public option.  This is a false statement.

pg 150 Lines 9-13 Biz w payroll btw 251k & 400k who doesnt prov. pub. opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll

This is the same as the above argument.  The bill allows for small employers to pay a smaller tax for not offering health insurance than larger ones.  But, again, this only pertains if they do not offer any coverage.  If they offer private insurance coverage they will be exempt from this tax, even if they do not provide the public option plan.

Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesnt have acceptable HC accrdng 2 Govt will be taxed 2.5% of inc

It is true that an additional tax will be levied on an individual for not having any health care coverage, as part of Congress’s decision that coverage be a shared responsibility between the government, the employer, and the individual.  However, it is not true that this tax will be levied against every individual.  There are exemptions.  In fact, in direct contrast to the above statement, he identifies one below:

Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from indiv. taxes. (Americans will pay)

Nonresident aliens are already exempted from most taxes, including Social Security taxes, as they are generally not eligible for US Government services.  And the taxes that are levied are only for certain incomes.  Furthermore, many nonresident aliens don’t even preside in the United States, making it absurd that they should pay for services they won’t receive.  However, this isn’t really a fairness issue; this is a tax policy issue which extends far beyond the subject at hand.

Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access 2 ALL Americans finan/pers recs

This is not universal access.  It only applies to certain information (which is already provided to the IRS) which can be used to determine if a person is financially capable of paying for insurance.  And it’s not available for “all” Americans, only those whom have filed taxes.  This is so that people who cannot afford insurance are not subjected to the, we’ll call it, “punishment tax”.

PG 203 Line 14-15 HC – “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax” Yes, it says that

It actually says:  ”The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as a tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55.”  Mildly amusing, but not absurd.

Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician svcs 4 Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected

This does not reduce anything.  This refers to the Social Security Act, and changes limitation already present from being effected under a target growth rate computation to a physician fee schedule.  In other words, it merely changes the calculation used to determine certain limitations.

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill – Doctors, doesnt matter what specialty u have, you’ll all be paid the same

That’s not exactly true.  This establishes (or changes) conversion factors based upon service categories.  While it is accurate that these changes apply “without regard to the specialty of the physician furnishing the service,” certain service categories are going to apply either in whole or in general to certain specialties.  For example, though it would be technically accurate that conversion factors for treatment of cancer would be the same whether you’re a podiatrist or oncologist, there’s not really a very high likelihood of you getting treated for cancer by a podiatrist.  Unless, of course, it’s foot cancer.  But in that case, I think it’s fair that the podiatrist should be paid for treating your foot cancer the same as the oncologist would have. **note – this only applies to Social Security benefits (i.e. Medicaid or Medicare)

PG 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of Dr’s time, prof judg, etc. Literally value of humans.

This applies to payment schedules of doctors providing Social Security benefits.  Remember what I said about State Farm and Blue Cross dictating doctor’s pay?  The same is applicable here.

PG 265 Sec 1131Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries

Which do not already incorporate such improvements.  If you read the section, it’s a list of amendments to the Social Security law.  Most of the amendments seem to be regarding dates certain things take effect.

PG 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs

This is another amendment to the Social Security law.  It actually doesn’t change any regulation, just changes the verbiage from “power-driven wheelchair” to “complex rehabilitative power-driven wheel-chair recognized by the Secretary as classified within group 3 or higher.”  Those liberal bastards!!!

PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS – Cancer patients – welcome to rationing!

I don’t think he actually read this section.  All this section does is set up a study to determine how much ambulance rides cost to the hospital.  Then, if it costs a certain hospital more money to send out an ambulance, then the government will increase Social Security payments to that hospital.  So far from “rationing” services, it actually would help ensure that hospitals are not losing money on ambulance rides for cancer patients covered under Social Security. Which actually sounds like the exact opposite of rationing.

Page 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals 4 what Govt deems preventable readmissions.

I don’t understand this guy.  First he complains that the government wants to ration health care, then he complains when the government wants to ensure that people don’t go home from the hospital before they are supposed to.  Which is it, dude?

Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Drs, treat a patient during initial admiss that results in a readmiss-Govt will penalize u.

How dare the government expect doctors to appropriately diagnose a patient?  The nerve!!  This is not a penalty for when a doctor admits a patient and then they have to be readmitted.  This is a penalty when the originally admission is so errored that it results in a second medical problem required readmission.

Pg 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.

What this section does is stipulate that referrals made by a doctor receiving Social Security payments to him or herself can not be used to increase any ownership in their hospital.  This seems to be a technique to stop a doctor from using self-referrals to increase his bill to Medicaid more than it would have been if he would have just preformed the procedure he referred himself to do.

Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand

The government is not prohibiting hospitals from expanding.  As I explained above, it is forbidding that doctors refer patients to themselves and use the extra money to expand hospitals.  It’s prohibiting doctors from ripping off the government.

pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have oppt to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can u say ACORN?!!

This provides for an exception to the above prohibition, provided the community supports the expansion.  He’s just looking for a tie-in to ACORN – jingling keys over here to take your attention off the subject over there.

Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 – Govt mandates estab. of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing

What are some of the outcome based measures, you might ask?  Rates of admission and readmission to a hospital, measures of prevention quality, mortality following surgeries, health functioning and survival for patients with chronic diseases, and measures of patient safety.  These measures are used to ensure that patients are getting adequate care to eliminate future complications while avoiding potentially dangerous care.  Insurance companies do this all the time.  And, again, this only applies to Social Security patients, which is a form of insurance.

Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority 2 disqual Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing peeps in2 Govt plan

So, what the author is saying is that the government is trying to force people out of a federally subsidized plan so they are forced into a federally funded plan.  Okay, then.  At any rate, it doesn’t say anything about HMO’s.  Though it does disqualify Medicare Advantage plans which, you know, don’t work.

Pg 354 Sec 1177 – Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs ppl! WTF. My sis has down syndrome!!

This section does not restrict anything.  What it actually does is change the date of the Social Security law restricting certain enrollments from January 1, 2011 to January 1, 2013, or to January 1, 2016 for certain plans.  Plus, it grandfathers certain people in.  So it’s doing the opposite of restricting coverage – it’s increasing coverage times for special needs.  Your sister is safe.

Pg 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy – Telehealth Advisory Cmtte. Can u say HC by phone?

Well, this section does create a Telehealth Advisory Committee, so I guess it’s hard to argue with the “creates more bureaucracy” statement.  But the committee doesn’t actually establish a telehealth program.  It merely exists to recommend policy regarding telehealth practices.  Telehealth already exists and is run by private industries.

PG 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life

This amends Social Security law to pay for advanced care planning consultations.  Which is technically what he says.  But his implication is clear – this will set up a system whereby the government decides what appropriate advanced care and end of life options are.  This is not even remotely accurate.  It only pays for services already available but currently not paid for.  And these services won’t be provided by the government, anyway.

Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!

Completely false.  The government will not instruct and/or consult regarding living wills and powers of attorney.  Social Security will merely pay for these services.  And these services are not mandatory.  Social Security payment for them if the patient desires them is.  There’s no way anybody who read this section could possibly come the the conclusion that the government will force government-provided consultations on people.  Not even by mistake.  He’s arguing for choice by arguing against it.

PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides apprvd list of end of life resources, guiding u in death

The “end of life resources” are not government approved; they are national and State-specific.  Big difference (as in, not even close to the same thing).  The practitioner has to give a list of resources which may further aid the patient; there’s no government “death guiding” involved here.  Again, arguing for choice by arguing against it.

PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program 4 orders 4 end of life. The Govt has a say in how ur life ends

This is an especially ironic statement, because this particular piece of the legislation says that Social Security will only pay for advanced care or end of life consolations which include “a program for life sustaining treatments.”  So it’s really saying that the government should not have any say in how early your life ends.  The specific lines he addresses are a prequel to standards of such “life sustaining treatments,” which are virtually entirely left to the States to decide.  It does not force such life sustaining treatments on the patient, only forces their availability.

Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An “adv. care planning consult” will b used frequently as patients health deteriorates

Again, Social Security will pay for them.  They are not required.

PG 429 Lines 10-12 “adv. care consultation” may incl an ORDER 4 end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV

Again, the order is not from the government.  It’s an order from the patient.  The government merely pays for the consultation to legally formulate the order.  The government does not conduct the consultation, and does not require it.

Pg 429 Lines 13-25 – The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

This is a definition, not a limitation. It does not specify which doctors can write an end of life order, only that doctors must write an end of life order.  If that is not possible, certain other health practitioners, also defined in the section, may do so.

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment u will have at end of life

This does not stipulate what kind of treatment will be delivered, but (again) rather stipulates that Social Security will pay for a consultation as to what kind of treatment will be delivered.

Pg 469 – Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Svcs here!!?

So, every time the word “community” is mentioned we have to hear about ACORN?  What a weak argument.

Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. 1 monthly payment 2 a community-based org. Like ACORN?

Jesus Christ.

PG 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt in2 ur marriage

Having the government pay for marriage and family counseling doesn’t mean anything other than people will be able to have coverage for marriage and family counseling.  Why is this a bad thing?  I thought the Republicans were supposed to be the ‘family party’, anyway?  They think the government can step in and say who can or cannot get married, but the government has no role in helping pay for services which might preserve marriage?

Pg 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Svcs including defining, creating, rationing those svcs

These pages actually sate that the government will pay for mental health counselor services and treatment.  In then defines whom an appropriate mental health counselor is (needs a masters or above, at least two years of supervised practice, and a State license or certification).  It doesn’t actually define the services, offers no guidance on creation of these services, nor does it place any limitations on the payment of those services, other than the fact that the services have to be performed in accordance with State law.

The World Baseball Classic – Where’s the Love?

With the passing of the second quadrennial World Baseball Classic, it’s once again time to crown Japan as the champions. And an exciting WBC it was! The United States shook off a poor showing four years ago, and staked a stunning come-from-behind victory against Venezuela, to proceed to the semi-finals before losing to Japan (no shame in that). And the championship game between Japan and North Korea would rival any playoff or World Series game you’ll see in October. When the two teams, whose baseball programs enjoy a pretty strong rivalry anyway, met in the championship, they had already played four times, splitting the games two apiece. It was a classic baseball contest, requiring exemplary defense, solid pitching, timely hitting, and even a tenth inning to decide. Seiichi Uchikawa made just about the best play you will ever see in the outfield. And when the passion both countries posses for baseball is coupled with the historical political tensions between the Japanese and Koreans, this game can easily be seen as more than just a mere contest of skills on the diamond; a comparison of the 1980 United States/Soviet Union Olympic hockey game would not be a specious analogy, even if the animosity isn’t quite as severe.

I was sad to see the United States lose to Japan. But I couldn’t say I was disappointed with Japan winning the championship. The intrigue of a Japan vs. South Korea game aside, I love the way the Japanese play baseball. They play the game the way it’s supposed to be played; hit for average, run when you get a chance, pull the ball to right with a man on first – pretty much just a small-ball team with an emphasis on defense and pitching. I do enjoy the current makeup of the game, but American baseball has turned into hitters swinging as hard as they can at pitches thrown as hard as possible. I understand the irony of this coming from a fan of the Cubs, a team which in recent history has relied a bit too much on strikeouts and homeruns (pop quiz – when was the last year Cubs pitching did not lead the Majors in strikeouts? 2000; and they came in fifth), but I prefer the old-school style of play. Joe Morgan commented that one of the big differences between Japanese and American pitching is the Japanese trust their off-speed pitches in hitter’s counts. As a guy who always preferred Greg Maddux to Roger Clemens, those are the kind of pitchers that I enjoy watching. It’s smart baseball, not just muscle baseball. And baseball really should be more chess than wrestling.

In short, they play the game the way Ryne Sandberg says it should be played.

Certainly the tournament made me long for exuberant discussion – if only I could have found someone to discuss it with.

By all accounts, it was a smashing success; everything that Major League Baseball had hoped it would be . . . if you look at its impact internationally. For Monday night’s championship game, over 40,000 baseball fans packed into a stadium in South Korea to watch the game on the JumboTron, and almost 55,000 showed up for the actual game in LA’s Dodger Stadium. There were some anemic crowds for some contests. Less than 10,000 people showed up for the Japan vs. Cuba semifinal game last Wednesday, but that game was played in the United States, so some tepid reaction is excusable. And just a touch over 13,000 fans showed up for one game featuring the United States in Dolphin Stadium last week, but that could rival any other baseball game played in Dolphin Stadium (one reason the Florida Marlins may leave Miami).

The goal, however, was not to breed further interest in the sport at home (though I’m sure MLB wouldn’t decline the offer), but rather to garner interest across the world in an effort to make baseball a truly global sport. And the truth is it is a global sport. Of the four major sports in the United States, football and basketball don’t share near the international intrigue of baseball and hockey, though basketball has become very popular in some Mediterranean and Eastern European countries.

The problem is, while hockey’s international appeal has a direct benefit on the sport in the United States, as the lack of pronouncability on player’s jerseys will quickly prove, baseball’s appeal has relatively little economic value for Major League Baseball outside of the United States and the Caribbean. The market for players is starting to expand into Japan and Southeast Asia, and clubs are spending more than ever evaluating talent in those areas. But that is sadly being offset by a tendency of youths coming from economically challenged backgrounds in the United States, whom traditionally looked towards baseball to gain wealth, shifting focus to basketball and football instead. MLB is trying to deal with this problem through programs such as RBI, but the sad fact is the only thing keeping baseball from once again becoming a “white” sport is the influx of major league ballplayers from Central America and the increasing number of players from Japan and Southeast Asia.

I know it sounds cold to put the situation into such nondescript socio-economic and racial terms, but the truth is the best athletes tend to come from economically challenged backgrounds, and money is spent by fans where players are being produced. This is an issue that affects both the integrity and quality of the game played, as well as the economic value of the sport. So the World Baseball Classic was established, in part, to try to expand the market globally, producing an increase in both the quality of players entering the league and the markets in which Major League Baseball can financially tap into.

After only two tournaments over four years, it’s hard to tell if this will have any real impact on either of those goals. As for me, personally, even if it is a failure in that regard it would be a measure of pride that my favorite sport is increasing its global appeal.

I love the World Baseball Classic. I love what it represents for the game. I love watching other countries and nationalities compete in the sport outside of the Olympic venue. And yes, I love seeing how the Americans stack up against players from other countries. And even though there was little representation outside of North America and Asia (The Netherlands, Italy, and South Africa were the only three of the 16 not from those two continents), I honestly believe that this is going to be instrumental in spreading the popularity of the game.

But I don’t understand why this love is so seldom shared among my US brethren. I would think millions of baseball fans would jump at the chance to watch good, quality baseball games in March. (Have you seen Spring Training games?? They’re painful!)

One excuse I’ve heard for the bland response is that it competes with March Madness. This is undoubtedly true, and I don’t think you can reasonably expect it to achieve its full potential in the US during this time frame. But that doesn’t explain the complete lack of enthusiasm. If there was any excitement for it, then it would fare well right along side March Madness; they could even compliment each other. Bud Selig said he’d like to eliminate a lot of the off-days during the tournament, which would increase the number of games played on the weekdays (when the NCAA tournament is dormant) and also lessen the amount of time it has to compete against the NCAA tourney. That will help. Some suggest changing the timing, but to when? To November, so they can play baseball in the snow? To July so they can suspend the regular season for three weeks? March is the only logical time to play the WBC, and so fans are going to have to learn to multitask. It shouldn’t be asking a lot. You don’t ignore the Winter Olympics because of the NFL playoffs.

To be fair, there would probably be a lot more enthusiasm in the United States if the United States baseball team was more successful. The American team, while doing well overall, was hardly the dominating force one would expect them to be. And winning breeds enthusiasm. Without Lance Armstrong’s dominance, the Tour de France is just a bunch of people in stupid outfits riding bikes. And who actually thinks the US swimming team would have received constant national attention if it wasn’t for a certain Michael Phelps?

It is possible, of course, that the Japanese are just a better team. That “old-school” baseball really is a superior game and Japanese dominance reflects this. And it’s possible that we are overestimating the superiority of American ball players to other countries. Still, when considering the bad performance of the team in 2004 and the level of play against some countries in earlier rounds, it’s obvious the American team did not perform up to par.

There are a lot of excuses for the American team not playing as well as one would expect. I’m not sure I buy many of them, mostly because the Japanese team played so well. People say that there wasn’t enough time for players to prepare, and that the team couldn’t jell the way other teams could, or that commitments to their Major League teams kept players from being utilized appropriately or playing as hard as they otherwise would have. But there were several MLB players on most teams, and the rest of the Japanese team was comprised of top-tier professionals from a very successful major league program in Japan. There’s no reason why the Japanese could work around these problems but the Americans couldn’t. To me, it was obviously an issue of attitude.

I don’t want to take anything away from the players who decided to play. I know the players who participated in the WBC felt honored to do so, and seemed legitimately disheartened when they lost. Particularly, Derek Jeter obviously really took the tournament to heart, and I appreciate that. However, the overall reaction from Major League players and their teams to the WBC has been lukewarm, at best. Many of the game’s top players seemed to jump at the chance to wiggle out of the tournament. Look, if CC Sabathia doesn’t want to play, he shouldn’t have to. But practically nobody turns down a shot to play in the All-Star game (though I have seen some pretty lame injuries keep players out). Players should view this as another form of the All-Star game, except instead of representing your league, you’re representing your country.

Much of this attitude seems to stem from the ball clubs. They don’t want to take the risk that their players will be injured, or that the early training and stress will wear them out towards the end of the season. This is understandable, but baseball is notoriously a marathon sport, and there should be ways around this without meaningfully affecting your team’s play in September or October. And I don’t think that competing against a team in international play is any more hazardous to a player’s health than competing against another team in spring training. I have no way of knowing for sure, but I’d also be inclined to believe that many ballplayers probably see this as little more than a run through minor-league all-star teams, so what’s the point? We don’t need the WBC to tell us we’re the best in the world (even though we’ve yet to prove it in that venue), so why break our backs for it?

Culture is a hard thing to change, and I’m not sure I know how to do it. My first thought would be to provide monetary incentive to teams for winning games, but that would seem to fly against the spirit of the tournament, and I’m not sure you could award financial incentives large enough for ultra-competitive multi-millionaires to use it as any more of a motivating factor than winning would otherwise be.

Bud Selig said owner’s need to realize this tournament is ultimately good for baseball, and they may have to make some sacrifices for the greater good. I think these sacrifices would actually be quite small, and agree that the ball clubs should fall in line. But I think he’s missing the point. As long as the majority of Major League Baseball continues to see the WBC as a sacrifice teams need to make, they will not have the enthusiasm for the tournament it deserves.

Progressive is Pragmatic, Not Punishment

There has been a lot of talk about taxes lately, as in a desperate attempt to regain control in the election John McCain is accusing of Barack Obama of raising taxes on the middle class while simultaneously claiming that his tax cuts on the middle class, which he insists won’t exist, paid for by rolling back tax hikes of the Bush administration, which he was originally against, are some form of socialism.

Of course, the American tax system has been a progressive tax system since the passage of the 16^th Amendment in 1913. There were two income taxes prior to that, during the Civil War and the 1880’s, which had flat rates. However, both of those taxes were only levied on the wealthiest of individuals in America, and therefore still adhered to the principle of the progressive tax which claims that those who make the most should shoulder the largest burden.

The historical battle between America and communist/socialist governments has made throwing around the terms “communist” and “socialist” very attractive. But I don’t know anybody in this country who is completely against any government program which dabbles in socialist ideology. I would have very little respect, and suspect very, very few Americans would oppose this view, of those who wanted to eliminate some of our programs which are quite socialist in operation, such as Social Security, Medicare, the postal service, the military, or Major League Baseball. But I digress . . .

There are two prevailing arguments against any sort of tax increase on the wealthy. The first is that the rich already pay far more than their fair share. You hear all sorts of statistics like “the wealthiest six Americans pay more in taxes than the rest of the US population, the crew of the Starship Enterprise, and every Chinese person since the beginning of time combined.” The part they leave out is that they make much more money than everybody else. So I set out to find some statistics which compare income distribution with tax burden. And I stumbled upon a very cool Excel spreadsheet (if there was ever a such thing) made up by the Congressional Budget Office. Check it out here. Unfortunately, it evidently takes two years to come up with this data (as a government employee, I should not have been as surprised as I was), because the most recent data was compiled in December 2007, but is only through 2005. Still, more recent data would actually prove my point better, because Bush helped push through another tax cut on the wealthy in 2006, as one of the Republican Congress’s last actions.

Instead of spouting a mountain of numbers, I decided to create some graphical evidence that our tax system is merely progressive and not some punishment for making money (click on the graphs to see a larger, more legible size):

I stumbled on another interesting little tidbit. Since the other popular argument among the right is that decreasing taxes for the rich increases wealth for all individuals, al la trickle down (I prefer the term “voodoo,” originated by someone whom I’m sure was ultra-liberal) economics, I decided to see how damaging increasing tax rates on the wealthiest individuals was for their earning power. Turns out, it’s not much damaging at all. In fact, their pre-tax income follows their tax rate much more proportionally than inversely:

And mean tax rates vs. mean income follows the same trend:

So it looks like demand side economics isn’t such a bad idea after all.

Of course, I’m not advocating for WWI tax rates, when the richest were taxed at about 70%. But it would appear that rolling back Bush’s tax cuts on the wealthiest while providing breaks for those who can least afford their taxes would hardly be the fatal mistake some would imply it would be.

Many argue for the flat tax as a way to eliminate the “redistribution of wealth.” But since we currently have a progressive tax system, doing so successfully could only result in one of two outcomes: either tax rates on the lower and middle classes would sharply increase, with the increase most severe on those making the least amount of money; or a drastic cut in government spending, inevitably targeting the most drastic cuts in programs designed to support the poorest individuals. Either way, it would also be a massive redistribution of wealth, this time from those most incapable of affording it to those who need it the least.

The Real Cause of Economic Discourse (Hint: It’s not socialism.)

I’d like to take a little time to address an issue which, I thought, was pretty much common knowledge – the way we got into the economic mess we now see ourselves in. I have been keeping at least a passing attention on the economy since, well, just about forever, and am astonished by the lack of respect some people have for the general population’s ability to retain information over the course of several years, but even more amazed by a general willingness to soak it up.

Mostly what I am referring to is the misplaced belief that somehow the economy was moving along swimmingly, and then Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae came out of left field and just messed the whole thing up for all of us. The truth is the economy has been struggling for quite some time. Heck, earlier this year Bush had to convince America that, based upon a very technical meaning of the word “recession,” we were merely in an “economic slowdown.” This was months before the bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. We don’t argue about technical meanings of the word “recession” when everything’s going fine. And meanwhile the American dollar was decreasing in value while American’s purchasing power was being decreased by, among other things, the high cost of energy and oil for a couple of years. So how people can believe that the economic mess is being caused by the collapse of the housing market, and not the other way around, is a little confusing to me.

But the reaction du jour for the far-right conservative movement has been to deny that any economic uncertainty was taking place, and throw the burden of the current economic crisis directly on the shoulders of 1977’s Community Reinvestment Act, with the proverbial back-breaking straw coming in the form of a Clinton amending bill in 1995. This does not seem to be done as a means to blame Bill Clinton for our current economic strife per se, but rather to shift the responsibility from the economic policies of the Bush administration to a much more wide-reaching ideology; that in an attempt to destroy American capitalism and replace it with a neo-socialist liberal agenda which rewards the lazy and indifferent at the expense of the hard-working, God-fearing aristocracy (a la the beautifully poetic dung slinger Ayn Rand), the liberal left has destroyed America’s economy under the name of – get this – equal housing legislation (poor people owning homes: how delightfully evil!!)

A succinct illustration of this argument is an article supposedly passed from an economic professor to a Republican State Senator and former Governor, to the fun loving people of the internet (probably not – these things are seldomly written by those whom it’s attributed to.)

First, it says that the base for this problem was first laid in 1977 with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).  It tells you to look it up, but doesn’t actually provide any evidence or reasoning to back up the claim.  Evidently, since it says to look it up we’re just supposed to blindly accept that this statement is true without any sort of validation whatsoever.  I called their bluff.

The bill was actually designed to prevent lending institutions from denying credit to deserving applicants based solely upon the location of the applicant or the general economic status of those in his or her area.  The bill specifically stated that these loans be “consistent with safe and sound operation.”  In other words, contrary to the implication of the article, the bill was not designed to provide credit to those who should not get it, but rather to force credit agencies to end discriminatory practices which denied credit to those who would have been approved if they lived in another area.

And as for that heinous 1995 adaptation?  Well, in 1995 both the House and the Senate was under Republican control.  So this wasn’t something those socialist liberals could have passed without Conservative agreement on the issue.  In fact, according to an article from 1995, most of the law was written by Republicans in Congress, and was almost vetoed by Clinton.  But again the argument damming the liberal agenda makes a claim that it doesn’t bother even attempting to substantiate, and hopes that it’s not checked out by making the assertion that you should.  I did.

The majority of the 1995 amendment was actually aimed at changing the regulatory practices to make them more streamlined, easier, and cost-effective for the lenders.  So the claim that it was targeted towards people who cannot afford to buy a house is patently false.  Contrarily, the biggest impact this bill had on the current economic crisis was the inclusion of subprime securities (which I’ll get to later).  Democrats were originally against these new rules, while the securities lobbyists fought hard for it.

We’re supposed to take it on faith that because the bill was passed during Clinton’s Presidency, he must be to blame for any problems it caused.  In reality, the bill that was passed was a mostly Republican bill with appeasements to Democrats to allow its passage and veto-less escape.

At any rate, CRA loans are typically profitable and safe for the companies which provide them, according the Federal Reserve.  Also, most of the sub-prime loans were not held under CRA oversight, so it couldn’t have been to blame, anyway.  According to an article in Business Week, over 50% of the bad loans were made by an independent lenders not privy to the CRA, and up to 30% were made by lenders associated with CRA institutions but not under CRA regulations.

Finally, it should be noted that CRA lenders were some of the most heavily regulated institutions, and these regulations were becoming more and more lax under the Bush administration.  Since virtually all of the loans which were bad were made during the lessening of the CRA, and not very many were even a part of this program, it’s simply not logical (never-the-less factual) to blame the mess on the CRA at all.

But I’ll let Ben Bernacke, the chairmen of the Fed who was put into place by George W. Bush sum up the “mess” caused by the CRA:

“The managers of financial institutions found that these loan portfolios, if properly underwritten and managed, could be profitable. In fact, a Federal Reserve study found that, generally, CRA-related lending activity was at least somewhat profitable and usually did not involve disproportionately higher levels of default.”

Now, as far as the Freddie and Fannie claims – it is true that some Republicans wanted to change the regulations but ultimately failed in part due to the opposition of some Democrats.  But just as in 1995, to blame this solely on the Democrats is to ignore the makeup of Congress.  As in 1995, both Chambers of Congress were under Republican control, so ultimately if the Republican Party had wanted these reforms they could have just outvoted the Dems on the issue and that would be that.

Also, the changes in regulation which Bush and McCain wanted would have changed the agency under which they would have reported, and would have been a far cry from guaranteeing the defaulted loans would not have occurred.

However, even ignoring that, and even if the claims that the CRA caused the high number of faulty mortgages are true (which they aren’t), it still doesn’t explain the mess that everything’s in now.  Why?  Because if that was the case then Freddie and Fannie would have been bailed out and that would have been the end of the story.  The truth is that, in an attempt to assign blame to the current economic problems on a specific ideology (the evil, communist idea that people in poor neighborhoods should be able to own their own homes, too), the argument misrepresents one major factor in the subprime mortgage crisis, and completely ignores the real crux of its effect on the economy as a whole.

The biggest problem here is not regulation, but deregulation.  The most guilty acts of deregulation fall under Bush’s terms, but also Clinton’s last term, so it is fair to say Clinton shares some of the blame.  In the late ’90’s, regulations put in place after the Great Depression started to be relieved due to a perception (real or imaginary) that American banks could not compete with European and East Asian banks.  This lead to two problems – speculation and securitization.

First, the problem started with the housing boom that began in the 1990’s and continued for upwards around a decade.  Some market correction was going to occur after a while, and that is neither the Democrats or Republicans faults.  But the economy never completely recovered from the tech-bubble bust in 2001 (and has a completely partisan comment, Bush’s economic policies caused downward trends to continue and increase), and interest rates were seemingly being lowered every quarter.  This had the very intended consequence of making credit exceptionally easy to obtain, which played a much bigger role in the ability of people to obtain mortgages they couldn’t afford than the CRA ever could.

As the economy started to tumble lower and lower in 2005, credit started tightening and interest rates rose.  The worsened economy caused many people in sub-prime mortgages to default, but the real killer was the adjusted-rate mortgages (ARM), which were given to many people who actually could have afforded their mortgages with higher, fixed-interested rates.  While it is true that the people who signed these mortgages have some culpability and should be held responsible, there is virtually unanimous consent that many or most of these individuals were at least somewhat victimized by unscrupulous lenders and policies whose risks were not made clear.  And as interest rates climbed and some of the sub-prime mortgages started to go bust, ARMs rates were getting unreasonable and forced many people who otherwise could have afforded their mortgages to default.  (I thought this was pretty well understood, but evidently I’m mistaken.)  This can in no way be attributed to the CRA, especially considering most of these ARM issues were centered in suburbia and were typically causing defaults by lenders not covered under CRA regulations.

When this occurred, housing prices started to plummet.  This caused an even larger problem because people now owed more on their houses than they were worth.  For the average homeowner, this is probably not a big deal because (assuming they have the more traditional fixed-rate mortgage) it doesn’t actually affect their ability to pay the bills.  But at this time speculation was a major wealth builder for many people, who viewed their mortgaged property not as homes, but investments.  When people could no longer turn over their investments for profit, they panicked and got out from under them, causing housing values to fall even lower.   This was a major contributing factor in the collapse of the housing market and since banks could no longer make up the loss on a faulted loan due to recessed pricing in the open market, ultimately helped create the necessity of a Freddie and Fannie bailout.

But even though all this is the case, it’s still not really what caused the extent of the wider impact on the economy.  The real reason why it hit so hard was the securitization of these loans.

Lenders were able to take these sub-prime and ARM mortgages, cut them into little pieces, pool them with other mortgages and types of credit, and then sell these pool on the open market.  This is called securitization, and due to Clinton and Bush deregulation, they were able to inflate the market value of these securities to make them more appealing.  In theory, this spread the risk of these mortgages along to several investors, but in practice some banks were either keeping the securities on their own books, or buying up large amounts of them, centralizing the risks.  And again, though this started under the Clinton administration, it was a Republican addition to the bill, not a Democrat.

In fact, during the Bush years, the percentage of these loans which were securitized rose from just over half to over 75%.

When the mortgages started to go bad, it was this centralization of the risks by the use of securities which caused the most trouble, not the defaulting of the mortgages themselves.  When these securities defaulted, credit froze, causing a halt on the issuance of corporate paper, which locked up the credit market.  The biggest impact on the market was not caused by the loan the bank made, but how they proceeded to package that loan to other investors.

But you don’t have to take my word for it.  A Mr. Alan Greenspan, nominated by Reagan and head of the Fed through the W. Bush administration, agrees, claiming not only that ”subprime mortgages are risky, but they are worth it,” but also that the economic downturn was caused by “not the subprime problem itself, but to the securitization of subprime.”

I tried to keep it relatively unpartisan.  (Note that my position is bolstered by the comments of two conservative Republican Federal Reserve Chairmen.)  But since I can’t resist, here’s the partisan timeline of events:

Bush’s failed policies cause the economy to falter.  This causes poor people to lose their homes.  This causes interest rates to increase.  This causes ARMs to become unmanageable.  This causes subprime securities popularized by conservative ideology (i.e. blanket deregulation regardless of original necessity of regulatory action) to fail.  This causes the credit market to lock up.  This causes the Stock Market to suck.

Was Kyle Orton the Drummer for Nirvana?

A big break from my usual posts, but this is HUGE news.

So I was on Metallica.com today to listen to “Tomorrow Never Comes” (they actually have six songs up in preparation for the release of “Death Magnetic” this Friday), and there was a picture of Dave Grohl, who was doing a radio show with the Metallicatz.  And I noticed he looks just like Kyle Orton (or rather, Kyle Orton looks just like Dave Grohl).

Seriously.  Check it:

Grohl:  

Kyle:  

This is my favorite Orton pick, though he doesn’t look quite as Grohlish:

Right now I’m a bigger Dave Grohl fan than Kyle Orton.  Though if he takes on linebackers like he did Sunday night I’m open to rethinking that position.

Palin’s Fiscal Hypocrisy

As (hopefully) everybody in America knows, McCain picked Alaskan governor Sarah Palin as his Vice President nominee.

I really did not think this was coming.  Word had been skewed about the political lair for a while, and over two months ago I wrote a response to a comment about why Palin would not be a very successful VP pick.  Which I stand by.

People asked me how I felt about Biden.  Excited I was not, but neither was I disappointed.  He is a safe pick, one that will help Obama in a general election in several ways, and who won’t convince any Obama supporters to defect to McCain.  I was going to write a post about the man, but didn’t.  Work has been busy lately, and they expect me to keep up at the expense of my blog.  Horrible.

But I am very excited about Governor Palin.  She’s given us more dirt in the last week than McCain and Obama have all summer.  As an Obama supporter, it’s hard to imagine a better McCain Veep pick to help achieve the goal of an Obama Presidency.

After watching highlights of the Democrat and Republican Conventions (the Cubs have been playing a lot of night games lately), I’m certain of two things.

1. If I hear the term “red meat” one more time I’m going to start systematically incorporating pundit carcass into the actual material.
2. Palin is a liar.

I don’t want to rehash on stuff that’s been said for a week.  So I won’t get into the vetting process that didn’t, or the irony of Palin’s pregnant daughter, or the ethics investigation which could conceivable recommend her impeachment less than a week before the election.

Though I have to point out that Palin named her children Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig.  Can you really trust this person’s judgment??

There’s not much material to pick through, as Palin has only had one real speech enter the national conscience, and that was Wednesday night.  But she spent a considerable amount of her time speaking of her grand accomplishments enacting fiscal responsibility in Alaska, which should work well in the party of fiscal responsibility.  Even though the U.S. Government reports Republican administrations seem to be the only ones which increase the national deficit, Bush’s tax “cuts” didn’t do anything for most people but were targeted towards the wealthiest individuals (linked figure taken from this story), and Obama intends to decrease taxes for most Americans.

And even though Palin wasn’t nearly so responsible.

First, she has talked in great lengths about killing the so-called “Bridge to Nowhere.”  Sounds good – it was turned into a symbol of government waste and McCain has used it on more than one occasion to show how bad earmarks are.

Problem is Palin was not only hesitant to cancel it, she supported it in the first place.  In a questionnaire by The Anchorage Times she said she supported using state funds to build the Gavina Island bridge.  Tonight she said she told the nation “I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere.”  But a year ago she said, “Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island.”  And she didn’t exactly tell the government “no thanks” on the money they were willing to spend, anyway, but rather spent half of it on other road projects before officially axing the bridge project.

In related news, it turns out that the pipe line she droned on about her Governorship created hasn’t actually been created yet.  It’s still in the planning stages.  And by “planning stages” I mean still awaiting approval from the people who are actually going to build the thing.  But if she works real hard, it’s estimated to come online sometime around the year 2020.  So worry not; McCain/Palin has energy assistance on the way – you just have to wait about twelve years.  No big deal.

She also got things a little fuzzy when she said she enacted massive budget cuts which brought the Alaskan budget to more responsible levels while creating a budget surplus.  This is not exactly accurate – Alaska had a budget surplus in 2006 (she was elected in November 2006 so you do the math).  The reason for the surplus?  Not budget cuts, but oil.  Oil taxes, royalties, and fees account for at least 80% of the state’s revenue.  This makes sense, since it’s the leading oil producer in the nation and its next best export is tundra.  Of course, it should be noted that gas prices in Alaska are the highest in the country, which could say something about McCain’s plan to drill to lower gas prices.

Oh, the surplus was also due to federal government spending, since Palin asked for more federal money to Alaska in earmarks per capita than any other state in the union.  Of course, Palin claims to be against these earmarks.  She just doesn’t mind asking for them, spending all the money before saying “no thanks,” and then taking credit for the surpluses they helped achieve.

And not only was Alaska’s surplus not due to Palin’s budget cuts, but Alaska’s 2007 capital budget was one of the largest in the state’s history, and the $6.6 billion operations budget escaped veto-free as the largest Alaska had ever had – despite a promise to cut $150 million from it.  But she had a good excuse; there’s not enough time between her becoming Governor and the passage of the budget.  So let me get this straight:  when she’s in Alaska she didn’t have enough time to adequately cut the budget, but when she’s in Minnesota she’s a shining example of how to do so?

Though to be fair, she did cut money from the capital budget in 2007 and 2008.  Programs that were cut included housing for homeless and runaway youths, grants to schools and nonprofit organizations, a learning center, a library, and a government transparency program (seems kind of counter to McCain’s government transparency arguments).  She also cut spending on youth sports, but allowed full funding for sport fishing hatcheries.  Probably because sport fishing brings money into the state, but youth sports only bring money into individual schools.

My two favorite program cuts?  A 20% cut in funding to help support teenage moms, and a 62% cut in special needs education funding.

So she may not be completely honest, but she seems to be winning major points for hypocrisy.

The Harden Trade Analysis

Haven’t blogged in a while, which is a shame because I have some big (or at least numerous) plans in the works, but things have gotten a bit hectic lately. But I saw this and I had to immediately put aside everything to write about it.

The Cubs traded for Rich Harden.

Wow.

I did not see this one coming. I was hoping we could get our hands on CC Sabathia (no more periods), as he was having a bit of a down year (a relative term, to be sure), the Indians are having a very down year, and he was in the last year of his contract, which is pretty much the Pillsbury recipe for trade-bait. After they fell out of the front-running, I probably stopped hearing the Cubs mentioned about a week or so before he was traded to the Brewers, I just figured that was that and moved on. Though I figured the Cubs would probably do something towards the end of the trade “deadline,” I thought it would be something like, say, getting a Jason Kendell or Steve Trachsel. I had no idea they would get someone this good this soon.

Harden has been besieged by injuries; injured six times in his six major league seasons, he’s already sat out a month this year. But when he’s on, he is on. So far he’s 5-1 with a 2.34 ERA in the hitter-friendly American League.

The move surprises me mostly because the Oakland A’s are not exactly floundering. They are seven games above .500, only six back in the AL West, and a scant 3.5 games behind the AL Wild Card leading Boston Red Sox. Throw in the fact that the Cubs have not been one in my lifetime to trade for high-class pitchers ever, let alone in the middle of the season, and this completely blindsided me.

The Cubs did not make out like bandits. They traded four players for Harden (oh, and Chad Gaudin was thrown in, as well), at least three of whom have the potential to be very good players in the Major League level: Matt Murton, Eric Patterson, Sean Gallagher, who have all played in the Majors this year, and low A-ball Peoria Chiefs’ catcher Josh Donaldson. Eric Patterson was shaping up to be better than his brother, Corey, who showed me two years ago that Felix Pie was going to be a bust (looks like I was spot on there). I’ve always liked Sean Gallagher, and I love Matt Murton. Though I’m very sad to see him go, he’s been getting a raw deal in Chicago, and I am happy to see him traded to a team which may appreciate his talents a little more.

This trade was really made possible, at least from the Cub fan’s point of view, for four reasons.

First, the Cubs are obviously thinking short-term. Though this trade is a positive boon for the rest of the season, it could end up being a negative long-term even if he stays with the Cubs for a while. Seeing as he is probably a “loaner” and will sign with the highest bidder at the end of the season, and with Gallagher, Murton, and Patterson all solid prospects, this is obviously not going to be of any help for the 2010 Cubbies. Much has been made of the fact that mid-season trades seldom work out the way the team thinking “this year” hope they do, but this is completely different. The Cubs are not making this trade to try and find the missing link to get into the playoffs. They are already in a solid position to do so, nobody will be able to argue that Hardin is not an upgrade over Gallagher, Murton and Patterson would not be instrumental in getting there, and once the postseason starts it’s pitching, pitching, pitching. With the pending sale, the Cubs have been blatant in their attempts to win a World Series under the Tribune’s watch, future-be-damned, and this will be of tremendous help in getting them through three series victoriously, while sacrificing practically nothing to get there.

Second, the acquisition of Jim Edmonds and Reed Johnson, both of whom came with huge question marks, made the Cubs’ outfield very crowded. Previously mentioned bust Pie has been sent down and probably will not return until the rosters expand, if he returns at all in 2008. But Soriano is due back shortly following the All-Star break, Fukudome has been all the Cubs (or at least I) had hoped, and the Cubs have two outfielders with major league experience in the minors: Sam Fuld and Jason Dubois. So though I would have loved to see a long Chicago career in store for Mr. Murton, he was not a needed part of the Cubs short-term plans.

Third, the unexpected play of Eric Patterson must have made him very appealing to a team needing a second baseman, and the Oakland A’s have a bunch of no-names lining up behind the pitcher. Mark Ellis is currently starting at 2B, and he owns a less-then-impressive .269 career batting average with an anemic .340 OPS, and is hitting under .250 so far this year. Eric Patterson’s numbers haven’t been fantastic, and his experiment in the outfield has been pretty much a failure, but he’s only played thirteen games with the Cubbies thus far. His minor league stats have been solid, a .300 hitter in 2007 and 2008 in AAA Iowa, and he has shown some great promise when he’s had the chance to play on the big league roster. The Cubs didn’t really have a place for him in the infield; Ryan Theriot looks like he’s going to be their shortstop for a long time, Mark DeRosa pretty much only gets a day off at second when he plays somewhere else, and there’s not a team in the league who wouldn’t like to have Mike Fontenot and Ronny Cedeno on their bench. Nobody’s going to supplant Ramirez or Lee in the next few years. So when Patterson looked lost in left field, he was an expendable but attractive part of the Cubs organization.

Finally, the Cubs starting rotation has been a mixed bag. The disappointing season of Rich Hill, who went all the way from the majors to struggling in A-ball, left an opening in the rotation they were not expecting and could ill-afford. Meanwhile, John Lieber has been solid out of the pen but was unpitchable in his only start, delegating him permanently to the bullpen this year. And Jason Marquis is Jason Marquis. However, there have been some pleasant surprises, as well. Ryan Dempster has been pitching better than anybody could have expected, and he’s headed to New York for the All-Star Game. Ted Lilly bounced back from a terrible start and, though he’s not really a surprise, has pitched well as of late. Sean Gallagher has pitched well this year, and has gotten better as the year went on. And probably most importantly, Sean Marshall has pitched very well since he’s come back from the minors to transition from reliever to starter, which ultimately allowed them to be able to send off a starting pitcher and absorb the loss.

A quick list of Cub players who did not suit up for the 2006 North Side season: Alfonso Soriano, Geovano Soto, Kosuke Fukudome, Ted Lilly, Mike Fontenot, Daryl Ward, Reed Johnson, and Jim Edmonds.

Can the Cubs be for sale every year?

Drilling is Not the Solution

The public outcry over $4 a gallon gas (and rising) has spurned somewhat of a college industry among the press in the woes and perils of high energy costs. The latest news is that unsigned bands will have to cancel national tours due to the high fuel costs. Heartbreaking, I know.

Actually, despite my sarcasm my second dream job was rock star. I found out I couldn’t throw 90 mph, so that ended my first, and then I found out that most rock stars spend years living on cheap beer and sand, which ended my second. So I support small bands and wish them the best. (I still think of you, Julie!! Hope Portland’s better than BFE, IL.)

And raised energy prices are nothing to disregard so lightly. After all, Hillary Clinton “heard from some folks” that things are getting rough. So both candidates are starting to showcase their plans for relief. For example, they both support closing loopholes which allow oil company speculations to drive prices up. Some are saying Obama is merely following McCain’s lead on this (thanks, liber.rhetoricae), but it’s good that both candidates agree.

However, McCain has taken the extra step to try and end the 26-year moratorium on drilling off the U.S. coastlines, a plan that is even having a hard time convincing many coastline Republicans.

I think many people along the coastlines are having a “not in my backyard” type reaction. We get that a lot in central Illinois when companies want to start building wind turbines. But in this case I have to agree wholeheartedly with those who oppose it. It’s just not a smart, responsible way to deal with the fuel costs.

First, the Senate has already turned down such a measure, by a 56-42 vote. This is a plan championed by Bush, which means (fair or not) it’s not going to get a lot of air play in a Democrat-controlled Congress before January. So far from offering immediate help, it won’t even be approved for at least seven more months.

Further, though both Obama and McCain agree that at least part of the gas price problem is a lack of oil supply, even Bush admits that it will take years, as long as a full decade, for drilling to start pumping more oil into the U.S. economy, and hence years before any sort of relief at the pump.

When you couple this long time line with the increase in demand that will continue due to higher oil consumption from large countries such as China and Brazil, this is a plan that will bear no fruit for the average American consumer.

McCain has voted against such a measure before, and as little as three weeks ago stated that such actions “would take years to develop, [and] would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels.” This change of heart seems to be little more than the same political posturing used to champion the ill-advised gas tax cut.

(To his credit, he continues to express opposition to drilling in ANWR.)

The truth is, the time and resources spent drilling for oil in our coastline could be much better spent developing ways to alleviate our dependency upon oil, which is going to be the only way we can ultimately provide permanent relief from high gas prices. Ten years is along time to wait for help at the gas pump, but it’s also a long time to incorporate solar power, or find new ways to reclaim all the lost energy involved in driving a car, or establish a hydrogen infrastructure to power fuel cell or liquid hydrogen vehicles, or increase electric engines which run on American made energy using coal, natural gas, solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, or nuclear energy, or even something really cool that we haven’t even thought up of yet.

Working to expand the energy matrix, and not just our oil supply, also has an added benefit – it provides relief not just from the gas station but the electric company. Focusing our solutions on providing more oil does us no favors when the price of energy required to power our homes is also increasing. I must admit, McCain seems legitimately interested in helping expand our nation’s ability to provide cheap, clean, renewable energy. But framing the energy debate on the price of gasoline only limits the nation’s sense of expediency in accomplishing this goal by suggesting the problem is not the status quo, but rather our capabilities in sustaining it.

Many people are complaining that Obama’s opposition to this drilling is merely representative of a larger “can’t do” ideology of the Democrat party, if not liberal thought as a whole. Obama has an extensive policy of things we can do to help provide cheaper energy – at the pump and at the home. In fact, focusing our attention on increasing the oil supply is actually much more of a “can’t do” policy – we can’t increase fuel efficiency to levels already demanded in much of the world, can’t increase it in a financially viable manner, can’t create automobiles or technologies which rid us of our dependency on oil to begin with.

We can, we must, and it’s time that we do. For Julie’s sake.

The Two Ironies of Public Funding; How the Electoral Map Favors Obama

The big news over the last couple of days is Obama opting out of public funding for the Presidential Election. (Not Michelle Obama’s dress. I can’t believe this stuff gets on the air.) McCain has claimed this is evidence that Obama “is just another typical politician,” which is ironic because he’s the first to opt out of public funding since the system was established in 1972. By definition, that makes him atypical.

In fact, the biggest reason why Obama has opted out of the public funding is due to his unique ability to raise large sums of money from small donors. Truth is, there is absolutely nothing “typical” about this decision.

Of course, that is merely a point of irony, and not what McCain was referring to at all when he stated this is just an example of political expediency. Obama had famously stated that he would accept public funding if the Republican candidate and he could work out a reasonable system for doing so. But since he no longer needs to do so, McCain argues, he is going against his word and taking the path which will allow him the most money to spend come September and October.

Still, the decision to opt out of funding has few objective detractors in and of itself. And if the system is as broken as Obama believes it is, this decision may provide him with the perfect opportunity to scrap it and begin anew. Former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough presents the perfect illustration of the real issue the press has with Obama: opting out was the right decision, but he’s using the wrong explanation to justify it. Earlier this morning, he said the appropriate explanation would be to just say that due to the millions of small donors online, things have changed to a degree he just couldn’t have imagined a year ago. Dan Rather agreed, saying the reason why he did not do so is because politics at the top is like “dancing like you’re barefoot on August asphalt.”

You have to love Dan Rather.

Finally, Wednesday Quinnipiac University released an interesting poll which showed Obama ahead of McCain in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. The margin was all below ten points so, while they were all above the margin of error, the data’s not entirely useful this far from the election. However, it has to be comforting for Obama.

But the interesting data was not the leads in these three states, but the impact that Clinton has, or more to the point has not had, on the general election. In these three points, Obama leads McCain among women . . . by ten to twenty-three points. What’s more, when asked if Obama should put Hillary Clinton on the ticket, Democrats in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania say yes by margins of 57-33, 58-31, and 60-31 percent, respectively. However, independents in these two states oppose the idea by wide margins: 46-37, 47-31, and 49-36 percent, respectively. And the biggest Republican support she gets for the Veep nod in any state is 20%, in Pennsylvania.

So it would be safe to say the fact that Obama is not Hillary Clinton is not going to cause McCain to carry those states. But perhaps more importantly, it would actually be a detriment to him to put Hillary on the ticket.

If Obama carries all three states, it’s going to be virtually impossible for McCain to win. Quinnipiac seems to be generous to Obama in Florida. Realclearpolitics.com has an average polling line of +5% for McCain. And I’ll be honest; I don’t see Obama winning Florida. I didn’t think Kerry could win it, and I don’t think Clinton could have won it. It would certainly make things easier if Obama can grab it somehow, but I’m more than willing to concede it to McCain. However, the average line for Obama in Ohio is +5.3%, while in Pennsylvania it’s 7.3%. Ohio has 20 electoral votes, and Bush won that in 2004. If Kerry had carried Ohio he would have won. So hanging on to these two states means he doesn’t have to win Florida.

But looking deeper into realclearpolitics.com’s website reveals something even more interesting, and exciting for the Obama fan. It may not come down to Ohio after all. They list the battleground states for 2008 as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Virginia, Missouri, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. Of these states, the only ones McCain currently have a polling lead in are Michigan and Florida. Obama and McCain are tied in New Mexico and Nevada, though several others are virtual ties (leads of less than 2%). This includes Michigan, New Hampshire, Virginia, Missouri, and Colorado.

So let’s say that the map stays the same from 2004 to 2008 with the exception of these states and Iowa, which very narrowly went to Bush but Obama is currently leading. And let’s give Florida, New Mexico, and Nevada to McCain, let him keep Michigan, and throw Colorado and Virginia to him for good measure. Under this scenario, Obama would win the election by accruing 273 electoral votes.

And if the leads all hold up and McCain takes New Mexico and Nevada? Then Obama

wins easily, 295 – 243. With ten electoral votes up for grabs in those two states, Obama could win over 300 electoral votes.

In fact, if he wins any two out of the seven “tied” states he would win the election. More interesting, though, is if he wins only Michigan he could lose all the others and still get to 270. Of course, this is all predicated upon him winning Ohio and Pennsylvania. So the big trifecta for Obama is Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Win those three, and it’s in the bag. Win two of those, and it would be virtually impossible for McCain to win. McCain has to win two of those three in order to have a legitimate chance of winning the election (though at that point it’s unlikely he would lose).

With that in mind, I would not be willing to say at this time that any single state is going to determine the election. However, if it’s close, and certainly if McCain wins, I predict it will all come down to Michigan.

You heard it here first.