As usual, Barry Ritholtz gets it right:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/03/what-were-the-actual-losses-in-madoffs-fraud/
Love the example about the trillion dollars. Doesn't it seem that "trillion" will be 2010's word of the year?
"And if an epitaph be my story, I'd have a short one ready for my own: I had a lover's quarrel with the world." -- Robert Frost
Monday, March 8, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
Fiscally Conservative Democrats -- Not Necessarily a Contradiction
During one of the worst recessions in modern history, the senior citizens' lobby wanted to take $250 from working people and put the money into their own pockets. The measure failed, because the following Democratic Senators exercised restraint:
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennet (D-CO)
Carper (D-DE)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Nelson (D-NE)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Udall (D-CO)
Warner (D-VA)
Both of Colorado's Senators appear to have good financial sense.
Dianne Feinstein seems to have enough job security to vote against the lobby's demands. Sadly, Barbara Boxer voted for the bill and seems to be doing everything she can to lose to Republican Tom Campbell in the next California election.
Russ Feingold did the right thing (he seems to do that a lot).
To Bernie Sanders from Vermont, who sponsored the bill: you need to go back and re-take basic math. No cost-of-living adjustment means there was no significant reported inflation. If prices in general didn't go up, why do benefits for senior citizens have to go up? We already expanded prescription drug coverage under the Bush administration, and senior citizens are eligible for Medi-care. What, exactly, is the problem, as long as senior citizens don't spend excessively? If you have a beef with the reported inflation numbers, then you go and address that issue, but please don't run straight to the taxpayers every time you get a harebrained idea.
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennet (D-CO)
Carper (D-DE)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Nelson (D-NE)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Udall (D-CO)
Warner (D-VA)
Both of Colorado's Senators appear to have good financial sense.
Dianne Feinstein seems to have enough job security to vote against the lobby's demands. Sadly, Barbara Boxer voted for the bill and seems to be doing everything she can to lose to Republican Tom Campbell in the next California election.
Russ Feingold did the right thing (he seems to do that a lot).
To Bernie Sanders from Vermont, who sponsored the bill: you need to go back and re-take basic math. No cost-of-living adjustment means there was no significant reported inflation. If prices in general didn't go up, why do benefits for senior citizens have to go up? We already expanded prescription drug coverage under the Bush administration, and senior citizens are eligible for Medi-care. What, exactly, is the problem, as long as senior citizens don't spend excessively? If you have a beef with the reported inflation numbers, then you go and address that issue, but please don't run straight to the taxpayers every time you get a harebrained idea.
Teaching Kids (and Adults) about Natural Gas
Even though the following webpage is for kids, I think it's an excellent way to explain natural gas to anyone, including adults. More after the jump, courtesy of the federal government:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=natural_gas_home-basics
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=natural_gas_home-basics
Thursday, March 4, 2010
34K for Kindergarten Tuition?
The rich are not like you or me. $34,000 for kindergarten tuition? More after the jump:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20603037&sid=aMSOxnqW3VQs
Tuition at Dalton [Kindergarten]...is rising 3.5 percent to $35,300 for the 2010-11 school year. If you ask me, these kids would do just as well if they went to a private Montessori school.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20603037&sid=aMSOxnqW3VQs
Tuition at Dalton [Kindergarten]...is rising 3.5 percent to $35,300 for the 2010-11 school year. If you ask me, these kids would do just as well if they went to a private Montessori school.
RIP Theresa Pfeiffer, Esq.
A good woman and a good lawyer, Theresa Pfeiffer, recently died. I saw her in court and in seminars several times, and she was always so dignified--gentle yet strong. When we talked, she always left an impression with her beautiful blue eyes and soft voice. I couldn't read the obit, because I started to tear up.
RIP Theresa Pfeiffer.
RIP Theresa Pfeiffer.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Day of Action for California Public Schools? Seriously?
Apparently, there's going to be a Day of Action for California public schools tomorrow, March 4, 2010. Here's a response I wrote regarding this so-called "Day of Action" to someone who was protesting "public education cuts":
Correct me if I'm wrong, but California's Constitution still requires that public schools receive first crack at any state revenues, right?:
From all state revenues there shall first be set apart the moneys to be applied by the State for support of the public school system and public institutions of higher education.
So when you refer to "cuts," you mean that in the midst of a recession, tax revenue declined across the board, right? Not just for teachers, but for most government programs, right? (The less taxes/revenue a state receives, the less money it has to fund all government programs, including education.) That means in order to maintain education spending at the same levels as last year or the year before, some other government program has to be cut, right? So if you really think about it, anyone complaining about "cuts" to education is really asking people outside the public education sector to give public school teachers and public schools preferential treatment, even when the money to maintain other government programs and services doesn't exist.
Without spending cuts, including cuts to education, California has only two other options: raising prices (i.e., UC tuition increases); or forcing other people to pay more taxes (e.g., the higher sales tax, which disproportionately hurts the poor). Am I missing something here? I'm sure we all wish we could fund wonderful government programs, including education programs, but if the money isn't there, then what do we do? How much more can we expect individual taxpayers in California to pay so that teachers, schools, and teachers' unions benefit?
FYI: according to the California Budget Project, "In 2007, more than four-fifths (82.9 percent) of statewide spending for schools went to pay for the salaries and benefits of teachers and other staff."
Another example: let's assume like the state of California, I have no savings. If I make less money in 2009 than I did in 2008, and I want to maintain the same level of spending I had in 2008, what do I need to do? I have to borrow money, i.e., use my credit cards. A state, however, has no credit cards. If it wants money, it has to issue bonds, sell assets, or get loans to raise revenue. Unfortunately, California is in the hole $20 billion, and it can't sell $20 billion worth of assets. It needs to borrow money, which is another way of saying it needs to borrow against the future income of its residents, namely, the kids.
When educators say they want more money to help the kids or to invest in children, remember: they are actually saying they want to take money away from the next generation of kids to help themselves. When someone says, "Think of the children," you should say, "Darn right, we need to think of the children. That's why we need to cut spending, so we don't have to borrow money from our kids to fund government programs." I'm just sayin'.
Counterpoint: California Spends Less on its Students.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but California's Constitution still requires that public schools receive first crack at any state revenues, right?:
From all state revenues there shall first be set apart the moneys to be applied by the State for support of the public school system and public institutions of higher education.
So when you refer to "cuts," you mean that in the midst of a recession, tax revenue declined across the board, right? Not just for teachers, but for most government programs, right? (The less taxes/revenue a state receives, the less money it has to fund all government programs, including education.) That means in order to maintain education spending at the same levels as last year or the year before, some other government program has to be cut, right? So if you really think about it, anyone complaining about "cuts" to education is really asking people outside the public education sector to give public school teachers and public schools preferential treatment, even when the money to maintain other government programs and services doesn't exist.
Without spending cuts, including cuts to education, California has only two other options: raising prices (i.e., UC tuition increases); or forcing other people to pay more taxes (e.g., the higher sales tax, which disproportionately hurts the poor). Am I missing something here? I'm sure we all wish we could fund wonderful government programs, including education programs, but if the money isn't there, then what do we do? How much more can we expect individual taxpayers in California to pay so that teachers, schools, and teachers' unions benefit?
FYI: according to the California Budget Project, "In 2007, more than four-fifths (82.9 percent) of statewide spending for schools went to pay for the salaries and benefits of teachers and other staff."
Another example: let's assume like the state of California, I have no savings. If I make less money in 2009 than I did in 2008, and I want to maintain the same level of spending I had in 2008, what do I need to do? I have to borrow money, i.e., use my credit cards. A state, however, has no credit cards. If it wants money, it has to issue bonds, sell assets, or get loans to raise revenue. Unfortunately, California is in the hole $20 billion, and it can't sell $20 billion worth of assets. It needs to borrow money, which is another way of saying it needs to borrow against the future income of its residents, namely, the kids.
When educators say they want more money to help the kids or to invest in children, remember: they are actually saying they want to take money away from the next generation of kids to help themselves. When someone says, "Think of the children," you should say, "Darn right, we need to think of the children. That's why we need to cut spending, so we don't have to borrow money from our kids to fund government programs." I'm just sayin'.
Counterpoint: California Spends Less on its Students.
Bill Simmons is Right
THIS Bill Simmons article on the NBA's woes is spot on. David Stern and the NBA's owners need to sit up and pay attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)