Saturday, February 27, 2010
Earthquake in Chile - The Big Picture
via boston.com
Living in SoCal, and driving on highways that look quite similar this is a wake up call for all of here to have our earthquake kits prepped and at the ready.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 Newspad Boing Boing
via boingboing.net
iPredict that the iPad will be a total failure. Total. Good thing i will get mine ASAP so i have one when they stop making them.
Timothy Ferris: Conservative Is Not Opposite Liberal: That's Totalitarianism
Science, like liberalism, has no fundamental connection to the Right or the Left.
How to Control the Debt Without Touching Taxes - The Atlantic Business Channel
� Fed Raises Discount Rate And Minimum TAF Auction Rate | Main | Consumer Price Index Rose 0.2% In January, Core Declined �
Feb 19 2010, 8:59 am by Derek Thompson
How to Control the Debt Without Touching Taxes
President Obama secured the support of Republican leaders for his bipartisan commission to look at ways to reduce our long term debt, but the GOP insists that any solutions with tax increases will be dead on arrival. So what would a sensible budget reform plan look like if we refused to raise taxes? Or, for that matter, if we refused to cut spending, and only raised taxes?Rudolph Penner, former director of the Congressional Budget Office under President Reagan, has answers. With a team of academics, business people and public administrators, he answered those two questions in a monster report from the National Academies Committee on the Fiscal Future of the United States. I spoke to Penner about his debt-busting plans and the politics of deficit reduction.
Penner targeted a public debt-to-GDP ratio of 60 percent by 2020. With the debt-GDP ratio racing out to 100 percent by 2022 -- and possibly doubling again in the following 20 years when boomer entitlements explode -- that means he needed to go at the budget with a scalpel and a sledgehammer: putting entitlements on a budget and slashing defense until wars become nearly impossible expenditures.
Our interview is here:
Your team first drew up a budget to reach your 2020 target with all spending changes, and no new taxes. So what would a responsible budget look like in 10 years if politicians refused to raise the tax burden on Americans?
The answer is you have to do some very, very dramatic things. We reduced the growth of Social Security to the level of benefits that could be financed by the payroll tax structure and moved the full retirement age by five years. We dramatically reduced replacement rates -- benefits to earnings late in life, although we didn't reduce anybody's benefits below the purchasing power [inflation index] except for the most affluent.
On health we chose to slow the rate of growth of health costs ... Not speaking for the committee I think the only way to do it is to put Medicare and Medicaid on a fixed budget. That would require vouchers based on income for Medicare that could vary by geography and health. In any case we're talking about something very severe. Then with all other speding, we squeezed defense so that they couldn't invest in new weapon systems but could retain their personnel. You could have minor foreign interventions but nothing on the scale of Iraq and Iran. On infrastructure and reserach we also clamped down on. These are the draconian changes on the spending side if you keep taxes where they are.
A lot of Republicans -- and some Democrats -- are calling for even more tax cuts across the board for extended periods of time. But this budget picture is dismal enough already. Did you consider what it would look like with even fewer taxes?
The thought of actually cutting the tax burden is really quite implausible.
Now tell me what a reformed budget would look like if politicians decided to keep spending stable and make all the reforms on the tax side.
At the other end of the spectrum, we said let's keep our promises to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security while keeping the 60 percent debt-to-GDP figure. The tax increases are quite extraordinary.
We had two strategies for financing the package. We increased all rates proportionally -- including capital gains and the AMT -- until the top [marginal income tax] rate rose to 50 percent [from 35 percent, where it is today]. We did that for around 2020. At that point we introduce a VAT [value added tax, or consumption tax], first at one percent and growing to 8 percent by 2040. It had to grow fairly rapidly. For Social Security, we had to increase payroll taxes from 12.4 to almost 15 percent. And then we needed a surtax on top of all that. All this would take us from a total tax burden including state and local from below OECD average today to where by mid century we'd be considerably above average. Spun out to 2060 we'd be one of the highest tax burdens in the world right alongside Denmark and Sweden.
The other approach was to radically reform the tax system, getting rid of all tax expenditures [such as tax exclusions for employer health care and pension contributions ... see more here] like capping the employer health exclusion. It's really, really remarkable how much money you get back from tax expenditures, especially from capping the health exclusion. We could actually lower rates over time with that solution to the situation, while keeping the overall tax burden the same.
Why deficit reduction this so hard politically? Is it the current climate, or is that the things that need cutting are naturally politically intractable?
I've been watching the political scene for 40 years now and it's never been worse. We could talk for a long time about the reasons for that. Whatever the cause, at this moment we're marching hellbent for fiscal crisis. If you want to know what happens in fiscal crisis, look at Ireland and Greece. There comes a point when you have no choice but to reform the budget. Ireland can try to inflate their way out of the problem. We have one of the shortest maturity of debt in the world, so if we start to inflate, interest rates go way up.
You've argued that Obama's budget doesn't scare us enough about the debt. But he's running $1.6 trillion deficit next year. Surely he doesn't want to convince people that deficits are scary just yet, right?
A lot of people argue that's a conflict: that there's a conflict between a short term and a long run. But you can't deal with the long run until the recession is closer to being over. You don't want to hit incomes today, but you can pass a law today that makes the kind of Social Security changes we have in our book, and they would not be effective until 2012 and go into effect extremely gradually. You can do things with Medicare. I suppose in economic theory there are subtle problems if people are far-seeing and they see reductions in their benefits -- rational expectation economists would say they'd cut spending immediately. But I don't happen to think people are so far-seeing.
I would focus assistance on safety net programs like food stamps. The institutional arrangements at state and local level means they cut back more than they need to and I can see some assistance there, and I would pay for it. I wouldn't mind short-term stimulus. That said, there's this idea for a payroll tax holiday for businesses that employ more people. I think that will be a lot of wasted money -- subsidies for people they will be employed anyway. In any case, my bottom line is that I don't see a conflict between short and long term.
Permalink :: Comments (5) :: TrackBacks (0) :: Share This
Comments (5)
rick jones February 19, 2010 10:39 AMIt's a beautiful day in the welfare state.
Taxes are up and my refund check's late.
Wouldn't you be.
Couldn't you be.
Won't you be my tax burden?Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare certainly seem to be the gifts that keep on giving - and taking - don't they? Now that it is no longer New the "Deal" certainly looks different today than it did in 1935 and one has to wonder how Great the Society looks 35 years later. Were their creators looking to get a camel's nose in the tent when they started, or did their creations simply elude their control and start taking orders only from the Law of Unintended Consequences?
Xavier February 19, 2010 11:56 AM"The other approach was to radically reform the tax system, getting rid of all tax expenditures..."
This is probably one of the more important passages from the entire analysis. Too often the focus is on either cutting spending or tinkering with marginal rates. But there are huge distortions in the existing tax code which promulgate deadweight losses (the study relies on some of the Feldman research). Says the author, " We could actually lower rates over time with that solution..."
Absolutely agreed. $900 billion of tax expenditures a year is unbelievable. And the exemptions create distortions that both liberals and conservatives can agree on, whether the result is uneconomic obsession with home ownership or rampant medical inflation because too much compensation is blithely transferred into health benefits instead of taxable wages...
Me, I also like the part where Reagan's CBO director says: "The thought of actually cutting the tax burden is really quite implausible."
How about cutting spending?
Both the federal government and many large state governments should cut money paid to government workers and - brace yourselves - to the rickly paid federal state and municipal pensioners.
That is where some real budget bleeding is. There are tens of thousands of people pulling six-figure pensions, even in rare cases $200k-$250k pensions from "public service" jobs. Plus, of course excellent medical coverage.
There are a hell of a lot more fat, dumb and happy public sector (and union) workers who have made out like bandits and in many cases never worked that hard than there are Wall Street bankers. (Many Wall Streeters lost their retirements)
People always say there's "no place to cut". I say nonsense.
Post a comment
Sign in to comment.
Why deficit reduction this so hard politically? Is it the current climate, or is that the things that need cutting are naturally politically intractable?
I've been watching the political scene for 40 years now and it's never been worse. We could talk for a long time about the reasons for that. Whatever the cause, at this moment we're marching hellbent for fiscal crisis. If you want to know what happens in fiscal crisis, look at Ireland and Greece. There comes a point when you have no choice but to reform the budget. Ireland can try to inflate their way out of the problem. We have one of the shortest maturity of debt in the world, so if we start to inflate, interest rates go way up.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Geocoded Art - Explore the Greatest Paintings of the World
Check out this website I found at geocodedart.com
very clever...
Friday, February 12, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room | Mark Lynas | Environment | The Guardian
A woman listens to Barack Obama's speech at the Copenhagen climate change conference on 18 December. Photograph: Axel Schmidt/AFP/Getty Images
Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.
China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.
All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries".
Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.
Here's what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.
What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".
Shifting the blame
To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China's representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. "Why can't we even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.
China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak "as soon as possible". The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.
Strong position
So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn't need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: "The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans." On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.
Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China's negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity ("equal rights to the atmosphere") in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.
With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. "How can you ask my country to go extinct?" demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.
China's game
All this raises the question: what is China's game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, "not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?" The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now "in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years' time".
This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China's growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.
Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.
via guardian.co.uk
Having spent the time i spent in China, I don't see how this couldn't be true. And after seeing what they have done to their country, we don't want them leading the discussion. The US is not much better in this regard, but there at least seems to be some positive steps int he right direction after 8 years of drill baby drill.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Sunday, February 7, 2010
LAPD Ups DUI Patrols and Checkpoints for Super Bowl Sunday - LAist
With the Super Bowl comes revelry that often involves alcohol, and in response the Los Angeles Police Department has been working hard this weekend to increase enforcement activities aimed at putting a stop to dangerous driving. Sobriety checkpoints have been running all weekend, and today the LAPD will be conducting what they're calling "a DUI saturation patrol," according to a press release, adding that the "LAPD encourages everyone to support their favorite team and enjoy the company of friends and family, but to always drink responsibility and use a designated driver." As a sobering reminder, those determined to have been driving while intoxicated will face "heavy fines and jail time."
via laist.com
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Palin Says Democrats Are 'Running Out Of Time' -- But Also Warns Of Primary Challenges For Republicans (VIDEO)
if this is the future of the country... there is not much sadder than listening to her ramble on in this video. Must watch internets.
Get Ready, Westside! Train from Culver City to Santa Monica Approved - LAist
via laist.com
Great. not my question why are there two stations almost right on top of each other? Oh and what is this taking 10 years to build? Are we inventing new trains for this?
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
