From Mary Elizabeth Lease:
Wall Street owns the country. It is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street...Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags.
The full speech, in all its American glory, is below:
This is a nation of inconsistencies. The Puritans fleeing from oppression became oppressors. We fought England for our liberty and put chains on four million of blacks. We wiped out slavery and our tariff laws and national banks began a system of white wage slavery worse than the first. Wall Street owns the country. It is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street. The great common people of this country are slaves, and monopoly is the master. The West and South are bound and prostrate before the manufacturing East. Money rules, and our Vice-President is a London banker. Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The [political] parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us. We were told two years ago to go to work and raise a big crop, that was all we needed. We went to work and plowed and planted; the rains fell, the sun shone, nature smiled, and we raised the big crop that they told us to; and what came of it? Eight-cent corn, ten-cent oats, two-cent beef and no price at all for butter and eggs-that's what came of it. The politicians said we suffered from overproduction. Overproduction, when 10,000 little children, so statistics tell us, starve to death every year in the United States, and over 100,000 shopgirls in New York are forced to sell their virtue for the bread their niggardly wages deny them... We want money, land and transportation. We want the abolition of the National Banks, and we want the power to make loans direct from the government. We want the foreclosure system wiped out... We will stand by our homes and stay by our fireside by force if necessary, and we will not pay our debts to the loan-shark companies until the government pays its debts to us. The people are at bay; let the bloodhounds of money who dogged us thus far beware.
Did you catch the part about the national banks? This speech was delivered around the year 1890. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Monday, July 13, 2009
The FT on IQ
The FT On IQ:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/4add9230-23d5-11de-996a-00144feabdc0.html
The last time the debate flowered in full was in 1994, on the publication of The Bell Curve by the psychologist Richard Herrnstein and the conservative political scientist, Charles Murray. They argued that intelligence test scores were both a good indicator of social success and strongly determined by our genes. The implication, that an unequal society was inevitable and fair, and that a black, inner city “cognitive underclass” was having too many children, made it seem as though eugenics had never gone away. “Mr Murray can protest all he wants,” wrote Bob Herbert, a columnist for The New York Times, “his book is just a genteel way of calling somebody a n*gg*r.”
More on The Bell Curve here.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/4add9230-23d5-11de-996a-00144feabdc0.html
The last time the debate flowered in full was in 1994, on the publication of The Bell Curve by the psychologist Richard Herrnstein and the conservative political scientist, Charles Murray. They argued that intelligence test scores were both a good indicator of social success and strongly determined by our genes. The implication, that an unequal society was inevitable and fair, and that a black, inner city “cognitive underclass” was having too many children, made it seem as though eugenics had never gone away. “Mr Murray can protest all he wants,” wrote Bob Herbert, a columnist for The New York Times, “his book is just a genteel way of calling somebody a n*gg*r.”
More on The Bell Curve here.
Too Soon to Judge Current Stimulus Package
The WSJ's Corey Boles brings some common sense to the table:
According to the report, 90% of the money distributed has come in the form of increased federal education and health-care grants to state governments...[but] most of the spending money from the stimulus plan had yet to go out, and so it was too soon to tell whether it was working.
The author says that $29 billion out of the $787 billion stimulus package has been given to state governments. The WSJ author also writes that of the money that has been spent, almost all of it has gone to state governments, presumably to prevent layoffs and the stoppage of essential services.
Unless I'm missing something, the $29 billion number does not represent the total amount distributed so far. The federal government's own website states that a total of $60.4 billion has been paid out. The government's website is quite interesting, because it shows several non-U.S. states receiving millions of dollars from the Recovery Act. For example, Palau is receiving about $2 million. I don't necessarily mind these smaller outlays--it's good to have friends all over the world--but why did it have to part of the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009"?
In any case, although we still have hundreds of billions of dollars to go, many people, including Paul Krugman, are already recommending a second stimulus plan. A second stimulus plan seems premature at this stage. Hundreds of billions of dollars have yet to be distributed. Haven't these second-stimulus people heard the (sarcastic) remark, “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money”? Sarcasm aside, shouldn't we wait a little longer for the current stimulus money to work its way through the system before devising a Plan B?
According to the report, 90% of the money distributed has come in the form of increased federal education and health-care grants to state governments...[but] most of the spending money from the stimulus plan had yet to go out, and so it was too soon to tell whether it was working.
The author says that $29 billion out of the $787 billion stimulus package has been given to state governments. The WSJ author also writes that of the money that has been spent, almost all of it has gone to state governments, presumably to prevent layoffs and the stoppage of essential services.
Unless I'm missing something, the $29 billion number does not represent the total amount distributed so far. The federal government's own website states that a total of $60.4 billion has been paid out. The government's website is quite interesting, because it shows several non-U.S. states receiving millions of dollars from the Recovery Act. For example, Palau is receiving about $2 million. I don't necessarily mind these smaller outlays--it's good to have friends all over the world--but why did it have to part of the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009"?
In any case, although we still have hundreds of billions of dollars to go, many people, including Paul Krugman, are already recommending a second stimulus plan. A second stimulus plan seems premature at this stage. Hundreds of billions of dollars have yet to be distributed. Haven't these second-stimulus people heard the (sarcastic) remark, “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money”? Sarcasm aside, shouldn't we wait a little longer for the current stimulus money to work its way through the system before devising a Plan B?
Sunday, July 12, 2009
John Stuart Mill and Freedom of Speech
From John Stuart Mill's On Liberty:
Society can and does execute its own mandates, and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough. We need protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them.
Mill is promoting absolute freedom of speech. How can we actually enforce such unfettered freedom without being tyrannical? If you have an idea, please post a comment.
Society can and does execute its own mandates, and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough. We need protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them.
Mill is promoting absolute freedom of speech. How can we actually enforce such unfettered freedom without being tyrannical? If you have an idea, please post a comment.
TSA = Totalitarian, Sadistic Agents?
For anyone who's ever had to deal with an unreasonable TSA agent, here is some good news:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204556804574261940842372518.html
A federal judge in June threw out seizure of three fake passports from a traveler, saying that TSA screeners violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Congress authorizes TSA to search travelers for weapons and explosives; beyond that, the agency is overstepping its bounds, U.S. District Court Judge Algenon L. Marbley said.
Finally, we have a judge who does his job--keeping the government in check when it unreasonably and arbitrarily exercises power over American citizens. Maybe now TSA agents will focus on doing their job--searching for weapons, explosives, and other harmful items--instead of acting like Interpol officers. For more TSA incompetence, check out this link.
Also, if you haven't heard about what happened to Steven Bierfeldt, google his name and do some reading.
Bonus: here is comic writer Mark Sable's deliciously ironic TSA experience.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204556804574261940842372518.html
A federal judge in June threw out seizure of three fake passports from a traveler, saying that TSA screeners violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Congress authorizes TSA to search travelers for weapons and explosives; beyond that, the agency is overstepping its bounds, U.S. District Court Judge Algenon L. Marbley said.
Finally, we have a judge who does his job--keeping the government in check when it unreasonably and arbitrarily exercises power over American citizens. Maybe now TSA agents will focus on doing their job--searching for weapons, explosives, and other harmful items--instead of acting like Interpol officers. For more TSA incompetence, check out this link.
Also, if you haven't heard about what happened to Steven Bierfeldt, google his name and do some reading.
Bonus: here is comic writer Mark Sable's deliciously ironic TSA experience.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
California's Education and Pension Costs Out of Control
From AP writer Judy Lin:
Funding for K-12 schools and community colleges accounts for roughly half of annual state spending.
Funny how we haven't gotten smarter, but we've definitely gotten poorer. Meanwhile, California's state worker pension fund--which includes teachers' pensions--is still worth $177.7 billion. (Yes, that's billion with a "b.")
After years of staying mostly neutral, the San Jose Mercury News (July 7, 2009) finally issued an editorial opinion asking Sacramento to enact pension reform:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12772192
The unfortunate truth is that the Democrat-controlled Legislature has been too quick to increase pension benefits and will resist reconsidering them unless it's forced to. Now is the time to do that...
Now, because of stock market declines and rising costs of health care, retirement costs are already siphoning $3.3 billion from the state budget, just when California is facing substantial cuts in education and services to the poor. That cost is expected to rise steeply. [Emphasis added]
By the way, in case you're wondering, state workers get the following benefits: "3 percent of pay for every year worked, up to 90 percent maximum after 30 years for safety officers and 60 percent for other employees." Where can non-government workers get 60% of their salary guaranteed in retirement? If you discover a place that allows non-executives to claim the 60% retirement bracket, let me know. I won't be holding my breath.
Update on July 12, 2009:
For the record, I favor increasing teachers' salaries as long as pension costs are eliminated. Why not replace teachers' pensions with 403b plans (the public-sector equivalent of a 401k)? If a 401k/403b is good enough for a Google/Apple/Target employee, why isn't it good enough for a government employee, too?
The average government worker should not have better retirement benefits than the average non-government worker. Is a secretary or lawyer who works for the government "better" than a secretary who works for Pfizer or Pepsi? I don't think so, especially not when the modern economy is so inter-connected.
Retirement benefits like lifetime pensions and lifetime medical care are inherently unstable because you have to predict how long a worker will live--that's not an easy task. As a result, costs are unpredictable, which makes accurate budget planning difficult. Why not create a budget framework that allows us to definitively ascertain employee costs without worrying about the ticking time bombs of unfunded, unpredictable long-term liabilities?
Funding for K-12 schools and community colleges accounts for roughly half of annual state spending.
Funny how we haven't gotten smarter, but we've definitely gotten poorer. Meanwhile, California's state worker pension fund--which includes teachers' pensions--is still worth $177.7 billion. (Yes, that's billion with a "b.")
After years of staying mostly neutral, the San Jose Mercury News (July 7, 2009) finally issued an editorial opinion asking Sacramento to enact pension reform:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12772192
The unfortunate truth is that the Democrat-controlled Legislature has been too quick to increase pension benefits and will resist reconsidering them unless it's forced to. Now is the time to do that...
Now, because of stock market declines and rising costs of health care, retirement costs are already siphoning $3.3 billion from the state budget, just when California is facing substantial cuts in education and services to the poor. That cost is expected to rise steeply. [Emphasis added]
By the way, in case you're wondering, state workers get the following benefits: "3 percent of pay for every year worked, up to 90 percent maximum after 30 years for safety officers and 60 percent for other employees." Where can non-government workers get 60% of their salary guaranteed in retirement? If you discover a place that allows non-executives to claim the 60% retirement bracket, let me know. I won't be holding my breath.
Update on July 12, 2009:
For the record, I favor increasing teachers' salaries as long as pension costs are eliminated. Why not replace teachers' pensions with 403b plans (the public-sector equivalent of a 401k)? If a 401k/403b is good enough for a Google/Apple/Target employee, why isn't it good enough for a government employee, too?
The average government worker should not have better retirement benefits than the average non-government worker. Is a secretary or lawyer who works for the government "better" than a secretary who works for Pfizer or Pepsi? I don't think so, especially not when the modern economy is so inter-connected.
Retirement benefits like lifetime pensions and lifetime medical care are inherently unstable because you have to predict how long a worker will live--that's not an easy task. As a result, costs are unpredictable, which makes accurate budget planning difficult. Why not create a budget framework that allows us to definitively ascertain employee costs without worrying about the ticking time bombs of unfunded, unpredictable long-term liabilities?
Good Riddance: Peggy Rips Palin a New One
Someone finally summarizes why Sarah Palin is the wrong choice for the Republican Party...and it's a Republican! I've always liked Peggy Noonan's common sense--it's something the GOP desperately needs right now:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124716984620819351.html
[Palin] was not thoughtful...she was out of her depth in a shallow pool. She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them. She wasn't thoughtful enough to know she wasn't thoughtful enough...[s]he is a ponder-free zone...
For national elections, the Republican Party needs to attract more than just religious conservatives to win. Remember: most Americans now live in large cities, a group that is less Christian and more diverse and not particularly attracted to someone like Sarah Palin.
If the Republican Party wants to have any hope of winning national elections, it should ask Palin to create a religiously-inclined third party or handle Midwestern/Southern GOP fundraising efforts. At the same time, the GOP should cast out anyone within its ranks who does not adamantly support the separation of religion and state. Basically, unless Republicans re-affirm the Goldwater/Eisenhower philosophies--limited government and limited interference in other countries' affairs--it will have a tough time winning over voters in metropolitan areas. With these voters, the GOP cannot win the presidency as long as the electoral college system exists.
Ms. Noonan is trying to help the Republican Party. Republicans disregard her advice at their own risk.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124716984620819351.html
[Palin] was not thoughtful...she was out of her depth in a shallow pool. She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them. She wasn't thoughtful enough to know she wasn't thoughtful enough...[s]he is a ponder-free zone...
For national elections, the Republican Party needs to attract more than just religious conservatives to win. Remember: most Americans now live in large cities, a group that is less Christian and more diverse and not particularly attracted to someone like Sarah Palin.
If the Republican Party wants to have any hope of winning national elections, it should ask Palin to create a religiously-inclined third party or handle Midwestern/Southern GOP fundraising efforts. At the same time, the GOP should cast out anyone within its ranks who does not adamantly support the separation of religion and state. Basically, unless Republicans re-affirm the Goldwater/Eisenhower philosophies--limited government and limited interference in other countries' affairs--it will have a tough time winning over voters in metropolitan areas. With these voters, the GOP cannot win the presidency as long as the electoral college system exists.
Ms. Noonan is trying to help the Republican Party. Republicans disregard her advice at their own risk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)