Retiree Benefits

I guess the radar picked up this one. Now if only the Justice Department would look into everything else illegal that the administration is getting away with.

Fin

I can only hope.

Link.

Tommy Boy

Doesn't play by the rules.

Link.

OMG

That stands for oh my god. This is the funniest thing I have seen in a long long time. It might make me evil, evil for thinking so, but it's still hilarious. Be sure to read the comments.

I Lose

There's nothing going on today so I'm going to post on Schiavo. The reason that I'm so against this is because it's a non-issue that the GOP is trying to make more use of in their culture war, and it's totally irrelevant to anything important. Nevermind that 70% of the population (me included) think the government should stay out of this altogether. However, if the GOP wants to shoot itself in the foot I'll be cheering them on the entire way.

First is a diary from Kos, which details the Schindler's principled stand... on money.

Next is the WaPo's Howard Kurtz, who I think has things a little backward, accusing the Democrats of being divided while the Republicans are united. Sorry Howie, apparently you didn't check all the facts. Which is kind of annoying, because big media consistently gives the GOP byes again and again. Let me get this straight Kurtz, you trust Powerline?

The Asset Economy

Read it and weep. Link.

Summary-even though the fed has hiked rates we're still so far behind the curve that we'd need to boost rates to 6%, pretty high. The large problem is that America's high consumption economy is financed out of overvalued asset markets that are funded largely by Asian central banks. The Fed is also liable not to boost rates because its monetary policy is reckless, and therefore the decline will come in the form of a falling dollar. As Roach says, the real monster is

the asset dependent American consumer and a co-dependent global economy that can't live without excess US consumption

That's it. I'm saving at least 10% of my income.

Ownership Society

When Bush says ownership society he means "society in which big business owns you." Check this out this WaPo article for kicks. The most disturbing part:

In the end, the companies prevailed because the larger GOP majorities were joined by several pro-business Democrats, who were comfortable with the compromises they negotiated that limited the effects of the bill. Many of these Democrats also received substantial campaign contributions from companies concerned about class-action cases, the Center for Responsive Politics found. The story is the same for the bankruptcy bill, which recently passed the Senate and appears headed to easy passage in the House and to Bush's desk this spring.

This is exactly why we need campaign finance reform. Some politicians are too stupid to remember that they are civil servants and as such serve the public, not themselves.

Allies

Who needs them?

Wait, we need the ones who sell and distribute nuclear technology. Yay.

Link.

Language Check - Wallet

In election years we always hear that a sizeable proportion of the populace will inevitably vote its wallet. The explanation for this is that people only care about the amount of money they have in their bank account at the end of the day. This goes hand in hand with cutting taxes. If your top concern is about your disposable income then you will probably vote for the candidate who promises to give you the most tax cuts, who will usually be a Republican.

But let's think this through for a minute. Even though people have been receiving tax cuts and have more money in their wallets, they are becoming worse and worse off every year. Medical, education, and housing costs are rising and people are sliding more and more into debt. If they vote their wallets but their utility is not maximized at the end of the day then there must be a logical flaw in voting one's wallet.

I propose that what really maximizes people's utility is not necessarily their wallet (disposable income after taxes), but their household's utility. Sure, you might take a tax hike or two, but now you've got medical coverage for your family. That probably exceeds the cost of your tax hikes. Your local colleges can now offer more generous scholarships and you have more investment in your community.

So when someone (a Republican) says that the amount of money in your wallet is your measure of economic well being at the end of the day and that is why taxes should be cut, he is completely wrong. When Bush gets up and says that by cutting taxes you are better off, he is lying to you. The counter to these people who vote on narrow minded self interest is to remind them that instead of voting their wallet they should be voting their household, or their family, because that is really what they are trying to benefit by voting their wallet, but by voting their wallet they are clearly not maximizing their utility. If they try to argue with you, simply pose the question "What's more important to you, your money or your family's well being?" I think the answer is pretty obvious.

You Lose

Ha.