Basic Income: Not All It's Cracked Up to Be

Image obtained from Colorado Peak Politics

After I had published my previous post reacting to an article at FiveThirtyEight extolling some benefits of a Universal Basic Income, Michelle Ray (the same GaltsGirl) tweeted a link to an article at The Bloomberg View, by Paula Dwyer. Interestingly, the tweet for the article shows as something like “Basic Income might be the next big thing”, but the article is actually titled “A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing” (emphasis mine in both cases). But I digress.

Dwyer begins with a short description of the idea of UBI, then talks about trials and studies around the world. She links to an article from Boxing Day, 2015, in the English publication The Guardian, that talks about a pilot program in The Netherlands. That program is limited to 20 municipalities, and will include only “small groups of benefit claimants”, to be qualified by their current income. It is not universal, and the amount is only around $950/month. It is apparently intended to be a supplement to whatever odd jobs they can get, rather than the envisioned substitute for a meaningless job while the citizen pursues education, training, or practice to follow a higher calling.

Dwyer then explains that some see UBI as a way to reduce poverty and inequality. But how can that be? If every citizen gets the same amount from the government, but is still free to have any other career and make any amount of money they can on their own, the same inequality of income will exist. And poverty? It will just be “defined upward”—the poverty level income will go from $12,000 to $25,000 to $40,000 and beyond. People receiving the UBI and nothing else will still be considered poor, and people who find a lucrative market for their skills and work hard to sell themselves will still be considered rich, and people who raise an outcry against this inequality will continue to cry out.

Dwyer also mentions the “about $1 trillion” of current US welfare spending, and admits to the approximate $3 trillion price tag I came up with (even with a US citizen population of only 322 million, rather than the 350 million I presumed). She then attempts to reduce the expense by eliminating segments of the population: Social Security recipients, households earning more than $100,000 annually, children. Now I agree with this last, because a “citizen” must be an adult who is capable of fulfilling the obligations of citizenship in order to partake in its pertinent rights and benefits. But when you start excluding other groups, even high earners, not only is it not universal, it is not equal. It is no longer something that every citizen can enjoy, but once again simply a wealth-transfer program. (Not that it ever was not intended to be.)

Dwyer does write about how a UBI program could be designed to eliminate the multiple, overlapping assistance programs at the federal and state levels, and acknowledges that some totalitarian collectivists—whom she calls “liberals”—object to it because of this. She says they “worry” that the bureaucrats currently administering all those programs could lose their jobs. I say, oh, but then they would be receiving the UBI, and maybe they could get better private sector jobs, or even become artists, writers, and the like! (But they would no longer be dues-paying public-sector union members, and the size of the bureaucracy, and some administrators’ domains, would shrink. I suspect those are bigger worries for some.)

In conclusion, Dwyer expresses hope that perhaps this isn’t so fantastic, this approach she calls “Social-Security-for-all”. Well, all but those evil rich folks.

Universal Basic Income

A Utopian Success Story*

On or around the 24th of April, 2016, a rather long piece about Universal Basic Income (UBI) was posted at FiveThirtyEight (Where did they come up with that name, anyway? And why don’t the articles bear a posted-on date?) by Andrew Flowers. I have just a few comments about it.

One of the big questions throughout the article is, just how much is required to make up a “basic income”? Flowers cites a proposal in Switzerland to pay each citizen a suggested 2,500 Swiss Francs per month, which he explains is about $1,700 “after adjusting for the cost of living.” In real dollars as of this writing, it’s around $2,586, but that doesn’t really matter.

Flowers states that the United States government spends nearly $1 trillion dollars annually on public assistance programs, both direct assistance at the federal level and transfers to state programs. At the bottom, this total is explained and clarified to be a little under $900 billion a year.

So, taking the author’s figure of around $1,700/month, that amounts to about $20,000/year. Multiply that by 350 million citizens^†, and the total is $7 TRILLION. EACH YEAR.

Later in the article, Flowers states that advocates of UBI often propose a starting figure based on the current per capita welfare expense of the nation (or state/province, or city) in question. For the United States, that’s around $700/month. Doing the same math as above, that adds up to nearly $3 trillion. Still a bit higher than current spending.

And this figure is “just a floor.” Some advocates are proposing the UBI be as high as 60% of median income, which was $28,889 per capita in 2014, the latest year for which data are available. That gives us a potential UBI of $17,333/year, or $1,444/month. Obviously from the $700/month figure, the total will be somewhere around $6 trillion per year.

Basic income, indeed. Flowers states that a “huge increase” in revenues to the federal bureaucratic behemoth—oh, wait, that’s supposed to be significantly reduced by the elimination of myriad welfare programs—to the federal government. This naturally implies a “big hike in tax rates” for the admitted redistribution. What are you thinking, Mr. Flowers? Something on the order of 100% of all income over $30,000? Even that would run in the red. Maybe just 100% of everything?

Just a few more minor points—things that made me scratch my virtual head:

• As arguments in favor of UBI, Flowers says that a similar plan was outlined by Thomas Paine, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated something like it to combat poverty. But this does not say that Paine actually advocated this plan, only that he outlined it. And it is implied that Dr. King’s plan was not universal, but targeted at the poor.
• To investigate effects of a government-supplied UBI, a study is being organized in the United States—by a private organization. Nothing wrong with that, of course. If only the private organization could garner the funding to actually implement UBI nationwide.
• A government study was done in a few United States cities, looking at whether receiving a basic income affected people’s work habits. In that study, primary earners reduced their work by “no more than 5 to 7 percent.” Does this mean “no more than 7%”? Or does this mean the data were not clear enough to get an accurate measure?
• A Canadian study that Flowers calls the “closest research” to a true UBI involved only “eligible families”; i.e., the UBI was means-tested. In one municipality that was a “saturation site”, only 30% of all the families qualified to receive it. Other sites had lower participation rates. I would say this isn't nearly close enough to universal.
• Flowers starts one paragraph by stating, “A basic income could be any amount….” Really? It could be $1/year? I don’t think so. That statement is meaningless.
• The Swiss advocate, a gent named Daniel Straub, said, “The market economy is great, but…” and to me, the rest of that sentence may as well be, “it requires hard work to do well, and I’m lazy.”

The basic idea of a career hasn’t changed. The proponents of UBI at the beginning of the article ask, what do you really want to do, or what do you love to do? A career means someone somewhere is willing to pay you to do that. It’s up to you to find them. The internet should make that easier than ever before. Straub says he remembers his great-grandfather working ten hours a day, six days a week. (When I was a small lad, my grandfather was already in a nursing home. His family’s generations must have been awfully close together. But I digress.) I say, if he was doing what he loved to do, was it really a chore? Maybe he would rather have spent his time doing what he was doing than sitting down at the pub drinking beer with the old men.

Many thanks to Michelle Ray—Twitter’s (and Google +’s) +Galts Girl—for sharing the link to this article. As Michelle tweeted, it’s long, but you should read all of it. Also, be sure to check out the Czar of Muscovy’s thoughts on UBI over at the Gormogons blog. (As of this writing, permalinks are not working; it was posted on 06 April 2016 if you need to scroll back to find it.)

†It is true, there aren't 350 million adult citizens in the U.S. Still, even the lowest total here would be more than the current expenditures, even if we only used 175 million, or half.

*Remember that “Utopia” is derived from the Greek for “no place”.

UPDATE as of 2016/06/06, reports are that Swiss citizens have rejected the UBI proposal by a margin of nearly 4 to 1. And yet, when I searched Twitter for an article about that referendum, nearly all the tweets were of the nature, “Well, we lost one battle, but we must keep trying!” I must repeat an observation my DW has made several times: people will put untold effort into avoiding work.

“You may need to talk with your doctor about your prescriptions.”

I recently received a letter from my prescription drug insurance administrator with that sentence in bold above the body. The letter explains that as of 01/01/2014, the plan’s coverage of this particular (name-brand) medication will change. The administrator and doctor together must review the prescription to ensure it falls within the plan’s rules.

There is nothing in the letter specifically mentioning the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), although one sentence does mention information that is “FDA-approved”. The FDA is, according to Wikipedia, part of Secretary Sebelius’s DHHS. Nevertheless, the effective date of the new policy is, I am certain, no coincidence.

Fortunately for me–and I am a fortunate person–this medication was for a specific short-term purpose, and I am no longer using it. I empathize with those who may not be so lucky.

Use the Power of Language, Part III



Well, Rhino-sized, anyway.

Apparently on Tuesday, the Senate Democrats decided to take the “SQUIRREL” of the poorly- or non-functioning HealthCare.gov site and inflate it to elephant proportions, to distract us from the story of millions of individual medical insurance policyholders having their policies cancelled because they do not meet the requirements of “Obamacare”, and this phenomenon being known to the Obama administration as early as 2010. This led to a whole bunch of tweets (on Twitter) that continually irritated me, because opponents of this law were using language promoted by proponents of it, rather than words that accurately describe what we’re talking about.

I sent out a few tweets about it, and I’ve decided to repeat and expand on those here.

1. The law that has been dubbed “Obamacare” is not the “Affordable Care Act” (ACA). It is the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (PPACA). Please don’t forget both empty promises when writing or tweeting about it.
2. What the law requires individuals to buy is not a “health plan”. It is a medical insurance policy.
   A health plan is a course of action intended to promote and maintain the health of an individual, created by that individual usually in cooperation with physicians and other advisors.
   A medical insurance policy is a contract wherein the buyer pays a premium in consideration of the risk that the insured will incur expenses due to certain treatments, which the insurance company will bear at least most of the cost of.
   The health coverage required by the PPACA is not so much a medical insurance policy as a pre-payment contract for scheduled services. Actually, many employer-sponsored “health insurance plans” are also that–especially the HMO type.
3. The arrangement where all medical services are provided by the State is not “single payer”. It is an “everybody pays” arrangement. Except, of course, for those who do not pay in to the system. People who receive benefits paid for only by other people are called “Free Riders”.
   (In my tweet, I mistakenly attributed my awareness of this term to The Czar of Muscovy, of the Antient and Noble Order of the Gormogons. It was actually this entertaining and informative post by GhettoPuter. I apologize to ’Puter–and as appropriate, to the Czar–for this error.)
   Considering what employer-sponsored group health plans have become, each one is a sort of micro-everybody-pays system. Not so bad, as long as they are voluntary. But what if participation were mandatory, and everyone were forced to pay for everyone else’s pre-existing conditions and routine personal maintenance, like contraception? Welcome to the PPACA.

Addendum: I also saw some video and quotes from Barack Obama being shared where he said that nothing in this law will force people out of their current policies, with the claim that he was lying. Technically, though, it appears that his claims may be true; it was the rules and regulations written by the Department of Health and Human Services that forced insurers to cancel those policies, rather than having them grandfathered in as acceptable. However, this is just another case of lawyer-ese, saying something that is technically true, while knowing the end result will be different.

Yet Another Reason to Dump the IRS

From a congratulatory email to me upon reaching an employment milestone:

In the United States, service awards are considered tax exempt and therefore can only be used for tangible awards. They cannot be redeemed for certain gift cards  or travel and tickets due to IRS restrictions.…

So if I win one of our contests, or get an award for performance, I can get a VISA® or Walmart* gift card (which is taxable), but as a reward for years of hard work, I get a golf bag†. And I don't even play golf!

Thanks, IRS!

†For example.

Use the Power of Language, Part II

Logo from Boston.com

Earlier today, Laura Walker tweeted a link to a post about forensic analysis of the bombs used at the Boston Marathon:

Excellent, detailed guide to analyzing the remnants of the IEDs used in the Boston Bombings: http://www.trackingterrorism.org/article/examining-improvised-explosive-devices-how-did-boston-bombers-do-it/introduction via @spearheadbroken

People in the media understand how subtle connotations can be used to shape opinion. Laura's tweet hit me today as an example of just that. The phrase “Improvised Explosive Device” and its abbreviation “IED” have become so commonplace that it seems any non-military explosive is designated as such. But is it accurate?

Are we using the word “improvised” to mean “home-built”? Because buying materials and learning methods to build a specific thing is not improvisation. In fact, the word “improvise” comes from a word that literally means “unforeseen”. Was McVeigh’s and Nichols’ truck bomb improvised? The materials they used were not designed to be an explosive, but they purchased those materials expressly to make an explosive. Hardly unforeseen. Acquiring skill and materials with intent to perform a specific action is not improvisation.

To me, this means that the term “Improvised Explosive Device” was invented, or at least more broadly applied, in order to disguise the fact that terrorist groups are at work. “Oh, he’s no terrorist! He just became angry at the US and threw together a little fireworks to express himself.”

Of course, the quick acceptance of the term may have had more to do with the catchy abbreviation and disregard for the actual meaning of the words, and no sinister plotting was involved. In fact, a variation on a theme admonishes us never to ascribe to malice what may be explained by mere stupidity. Ah, well, I guess I just wanted to rant.

A Symptom of the Problem

The Nevada Assembly passed Tuesday, and sent to the Senate (who sent to committee on Wednesday), a bill requiring a “cooling-off” period between the time a State Legislator leaves office and the time said former legislator becomes a paid lobbyist.

It passed the Assembly 40-1 with 1 vacant seat.

As I tweeted last night, I oppose this measure on principle. The chief principle being, that if our legislators had principles, lobbyists would never exist.

I’ve written before (although I can’t find it now) that the way our Republic ideally should work is that each candidate should say, essentially, either “I want the Government to take care of you,” or “I want the Government to leave you alone.” Then the elected representatives would stick to that principle on all proposed laws and policies. Rather than a representative saying “you sent me here, what should I do?” they’d say “you sent me here to do this, and that is what I’ll do.” Therefore, lobbying would be ineffective.

Idealism aside, I oppose the idea of a “cooling-off” period. Either the practice should be banned outright, or it should be unrestricted. It is illogical to have people wait a few months. It is even more illogical to make exceptions such as those included in Amendment No. 565 (which partially appears as Subsection 2 of Section 1 of the bill as passed by the Assembly).

I was going to conclude with a comment about sending this post to my State Senator, but realized that was against my principles. HA!

Call me Purist

OK, here’s a random thought spurred by a tweet.

First, the tweet contents. It was a joke: “Do you know the difference between a hunter and a fisherman? A hunter lies in wait. A fisherman waits and lies.”

This got me thinking about something that has bugged me for a while about the modern sport of hunting: blinds and stands. (And associated with those, things like lures and decoys.)

“Hunt” is an active verb. It is defined by my American Heritage Dictionary, as it relates to animals, as the act of pursuing, seeking out, searching for, or searching through (as in “I’ve hunted those woods many times”). It is not defined as “soaking a cloth with doe urine, fixing it to a post or a tree, and climbing the tree to sit on a seat built there and wait for a buck to come to you.”*

A good hunter is not necessarily one who comes home with the biggest set of antlers. A good hunter is one who actively seeks out the area where the game lives, then pursues the game as it moves throughout that area until a clean shot can be made (and is successful).

And I don’t really want to do that, which is probably why I’ve never hunted.



*Now, the taking of game for food with no consideration for sport is a different matter. When one’s survival is at stake, there is nothing wrong with fishing in a barrel, so to speak. As long as the owner of the barrel is OK with it.

Campaigns are Useless

At least in their current form–which if we are to believe reports, goes back to ancient Greece–campaigns are useless. That is, each candidate telling the public about all the things the other candidate stands for, or wants to do, is not persuasive.

You see, the reason this is useless is that all the things one side paints as the worst thing in the world that the other guy stands for, the other side actually supports. I'll use the Nevada Senatorial campaign as an example.

Shelly Berkley claims that Dean Heller wants to remove federal funding from things like PBS, Medicare & Medicaid, and the mortgage modification program, and to repeal the PPACA. Well, she's probably right, and I support all those positions.

Dean Heller claims that Shelly Berkley wants to take money from profitable small businesses and give it to people who bought houses they couldn't afford, people who make television shows that teach children to depend on society for their basic needs, and people who cheat and game the welfare system so they don't have to work. He's probably right (except maybe on the particulars of the last point), and the people who support Berkley are all for it.

So you see, the problem is not the campaign; it's the diametrically opposed philosophies of the two major factions of society. The campaigns, and the ancillary phenomena like robo-calls, polling calls, pundits dissecting campaign commercials, and debates–and the endless ensuing discussions–are just annoyances. Huge annoyances, but merely annoyances nonetheless.

Shaking My Head (Part 2)

This was in front of the new fire station as it was being
built at one corner of the road in question.

Not even two weeks ago, the county road leading to our housing area was resurfaced. It took nearly a whole week, as the part of the road that was resurfaced is about 3 miles long. When it was finished, it was really nice; all the largish holes, dips, and bumps were gone.

Today as I left for work, there were flagman signs, and a work crew was busily drilling a hole in the new surface. Well, one guy was busily drilling a hole; four or five others were apparently supervising and standing ready to offer first aid should anything go wrong.

When I came home tonight, there was (thankfully) a sign warning drivers to the presence of “STEEL PLATES IN ROADWAY”. Sure enough, there were at least four spots in the brand new surface that had been removed and covered with metal plates, about 6'x8'.

Now why would a company be paid to do a resurfacing job, then either that same company or another one be paid to tear it up?

I want to scream. SMH

UPDATE: After a couple of days, the steel plates were gone and the road filled in. But now nearly all my old familiar holes that I'd learned to avoid are back. Winter will only make them worse.

It Worked, All Right

The Washington Examiner yesterday published a piece telling us about a campaign fundraising speech that Barack Obama gave in Oakland, CA Monday night.

Notice the jump in 2009†

In that speech, he contrasted George W. Bush’s policies of slower growth of federal spending and bureaucracy to his own. Of Bush’s policies–which he claims Romney would continue–he said, “We tried that and it didn’t work.” He went on to say that “…we tried our plan–and it worked.”

Spending vs. Growth†

The tone of the Examiner article seems to be one of incredulity, of belief that this shows how out of touch the MOOP* and his speechwriters and advisers are. Nearly all the tweets and blog posts I’ve seen referencing this story share this attitude.

The best laid plans…

I think there’s another way to look at this, and the only post I found even hinting at it begins a forum thread at Above Top Secret. It may be that “their plan” (to use the MOOP’s words) has indeed worked.

It may be that the plan that has been followed unfailingly by the Obama administration was intended to stifle the opportunity for individuals to create their own wealth, and encourage more and more Americans to become dependent on the federal bureaucracy for their every need. In that case, the Obama administration’s plan has worked on a scale not seen since the Great Depression.

*Man Occupying the Office of President
†These graphs are from a Mercatus Center white paper.

Shaking My Head (Part 1, probably)

As I was getting on the freeway this morning, in front of me was a late-model gold-colored Subaru Outback (NV plates 912-TKR) with a “Keep Tahoe Blue” sticker. For those who don’t know of the League to Save Lake Tahoe, it’s a local environmentalist group focused on water clarity, but also concerned with scenic beauty.

You can imagine my shock and surprise, then, when the driver tossed a blue cardboard package out the window.

Now, I do not know for certain that the driver was the owner of the car, and the sticker. It may be that he was borrowing the car, and didn’t want to forget to remove his trash when he returned it. I only know that he is a litterbug.

P.S. I had tweeted a couple of weeks ago about seeing a KTB sticker in Russian. It is an official product of the LSLT, as is the Spanish-language one.

So the Massachusetts Individual Mandate was to Promote Responsibility!

On On the Record Friday night, Griff Jenkins had a report on the differences between the Massachusetts medical insurance law (“Romneycare”) and the PPACA (“Obamacare”). Griff was talking to Eric Fehrnstrom of Gov. Romney’s campaign, and asked about how the individual mandate differed between the two laws. After mentioning the restrictions of the U.S. Constitution, Mr. Fehrnstrom said that the reason it was included in Romneycare was to address “a peculiar issue to Massachusetts.”

He described a situation where there was a “very small” group of people who refused to buy medical insurance, even though they could afford it. When those people went to the hospital or urgent care, the taxpayers would end up paying for it. Mitt Romney was so concerned with the principle of personal responsibility, that he took away their responsibility to decide to insure themselves by mandating that everyone do it.

What the hell would be wrong with just eliminating the State paying for people's medical care?! Make those people pay for their own services! If we wanted to promote personal responsibility, wouldn’t that be the way to do it?

Is it too late for me to get in the race?

Only Half the Story

A thought struck me this morning as I was reading some discussion about whether the individual mandate provision of PPACA is a tax (it isn't). I started thinking about the Constitutional requirement that “[a]ll bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House” rather than the Senate (Article I, Section 7, Paragraph 1). I briefly wondered whether PPACA was first introduced in the House (and I've seen other speculation along that line). But that isn't what this post is about.

The point of this post is that the Constitution established earlier in that Article (Secs. 2 & 3) that members of the House were to be elected by the people, but Senators would be chosen by the states. The idea, it seems, was to ensure that any taxes levied, that would ultimately be paid by the people–because corporations don't pay taxes–must be the people's idea (through their Representatives). The Senators had the responsibility of determining how any proposed tax would affect their respective states, and support or oppose it accordingly.

It is no coincidence that Amendment XVII, transferring the election of Senators to the people, was proposed after Amendment XVI, establishing the power to tax income. It was a progressive plan to undermine the states' check on how increases in tax rates would affect their businesses. Among other things, I'm sure.

URL UNAVAILABLE

THE WEB SITE YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO VIEW HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF USING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION. ACCESS TO THIS WEB SITE WILL BE SUSPENDED UNTIL INVESTIGATION IS COMPLETE. CHECK BACK IN, OH, ABOUT 3-5 YEARS.

Today, 18 January 2012, many sites on the internet are participating in a protest of the so-styled SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect Intellectual Property Act) legislation being considered in Congress. This post is my participation in the protest.

Just imagine if a site you really liked (not mine, one like TMZ or ESPN) were suddenly unavailable because they used a clip from REMEMBER THE TITANS, or THE DUKES OF HAZZARD, and someone accused them of piracy. Please contact your Representative and Senators and tell them SOPA and PIPA are bad legislation, and should be defeated.

Everyone Else is Doing It!

In Kerry Picket's story regarding Solyndra in the Washington Times yesterday is this statement from Secretary of Energy Steven Chu:

Mr. Chu added that Western Europe, Japan, Korea, and China are also supportive of seeing renewable energy be developed through government spending, so the United States should be as well.

I guess Secretary Chu's mother never said, "If everyone was jumping off a bridge, would you, too?"

Crisis Theater

Now that the so-called "debt deal" has been enacted, and the alleged crisis has been averted, I wonder what is really in the legislation?

For instance, I saw on Twitter yesterday that members of Congress who voted "no" would not be allowed to participate in the joint committee the law establishes to determine further action. I asked one of the people who posted that claim, and that person believed that prohibition was actually in the law. (If it is, wouldn't that be ex post facto, because the law would in effect be punishing an act committed before it were enacted?)

Remember the analysts and contributors on the news programs saying that even if a deal was reached by Sunday, it would take a lot of work to get it written into legislation by Tuesday? Never mind that legalese is probably one of the larger problems with our laws. I'm beginning to think that this legislation was already written and sitting in someone's desk drawer, just waiting to be introduced. When the PPACA (Obamacare) theater--er, debate was going on, Rush Limbaugh speculated that act was the Hillary Clinton plan that had been sitting in Steny Hoyer's desk for 15 years. It could be that those analysts' claims were red herrings.

I hope some people (who can read legalese better than I can) analyze this legislation, and we see the reports on Twitter. What is really contained in there?

Chris Christie: Man of the People, or Ruling Class?

Many praises have been heaped on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie by liberty lovers and opponents of the Obama administration. I'm beginning to suspect, though, that what attracts people to him is his blunt and unyielding manner in dealing with critics in the press and other generally left-leaning groups.

Christie drew fire recently for using a State-owned helicopter to travel to his son's baseball game. While family is important, his son was happy he could come, and a State spokesman said the helicopter would be in use for training at the time anyway, it still has the appearance of impropriety.

Now there's a report that Christie has ordered flags in the State of New Jersey to be flown at half-staff on Thursday, to honor deceased saxophonist Clarence Clemons's contributions to the state and its people. Personally, I don't mind honoring Clemons as a great and popular musician. On the other hand, such an order is beyond the provisions of federal law.

The federal law regarding "Position and manner of display" of the United States flag is contained in Title 4 USC, Ch. 1, Sec. 7. Subsection (m) lists the situations in which the President or a Governor may issue a half-staff proclamation. Note that "death of a popular musician" isn't one of them.

Of course, the report doesn't say that the US flag will be flown at half-staff. It may be only the New Jersey State flag, and that may be entirely consistent with law.

After all, isn't a consistent application of the rule of law something all lovers of liberty would want?

Huntsman: the Un-Republican

It appears the title of this article has been changed, because the title in the URL is "huntsman-to-enter-presidential-race-as-un-cola-republican-in-2012-field". Under the 4th subtitle down, "'No Mainstream Politician'", Mark McKinnon (why does that name seem familiar?) is quoted as saying, "He's the un-cola of the Republican candidates…."

I found the link to that article in this piece by James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal. A bit before the Bloomberg article is linked, Taranto discusses how Huntsman apparently believes in global warming--not necessarily human-caused--as reported in Time magazine by Alex Altman.

I had seen some discussion of Huntsman on Twitter, including the opinion that the simple fact of his working for the Obama administration was not sufficient cause for disqualification as a Republican candidate. After all, he speaks fluent Mandarin. I expect the reader to decide for himself or herself, but I don't think that I could work for this administration, no matter how well-qualified for a particular job I may be.

For what it's worth: another tweet I saw recently stated that one of the MSNBC anchors (I believe) said he preferred Huntsman to Romney.

Update: It wasn't a news anchor. It was Harry Reid, as reported in a tweet from @GayPatriot.

Follow the (Dirty) Money

It is way too late and I'm tired and cranky, so please forgive me if the tone of this post gets a little brassy. I couldn't sleep without getting this out, though, so here we go.

It hit the news Monday that the "eco-friendly" water-saving low-flow toilets that have been installed in San Francisco--heavily promoted by city/county government--have resulted in a backup of waste material in the city's sewer systems. This is because there isn't enough water flow, now, to push the sludge through the century-plus-old system before it sticks to the old sludge that's there. The backups cause a stench to rise to the streets, especially during the summer when it's warmer. If you've been to a Giants game at AT&T park, you probably know what I mean.

In both those articles, a spokesman for the Public Utilities Commission is quoted as saying that water consumption has been reduced by "about 20 million gallons", as if that is a significant amount. There is no mention of the total consumption, or what part of the total 20 million gallons represents.

Well, over at Lew Rockwell's blog, Jim Brownfield has references and shows his work, and comes up with a figure of 0.08%. Let me say that again. Water consumption in San Francisco has been reduced, since the installation of low-flow toilets began, by 8/100 of 1%, or 8/10,000 of the entire consumption. And that's rounded. The actual figure is around 0.078324%.

I'd also like to point out that Jim uses consumption figures from 2007-2008, which, if you still want to claim the low-flow toilets have had any effect, may already have been reduced. That means the actual reduction percentage would be less than what he calculated.

There could be any number of factors contributing to the reported reduction. It's been wetter than usual here in western Nevada the past few years, and the storms generally come through the Bay area first; maybe people just aren't watering their lawns as much. Or maybe people are getting sick of the nanny-city, or can't find work or afford the taxes, and are moving out. Maybe the toilets really have contributed to the reduction, which is statistically insignificant.

Oh, the articles also mention that over $100 million has been spent so far on sewer system upgrades, with more likely to come. I wonder if some of the same manufacturers or distributors of those low-flow toilets also supply sewer system parts? Or if some of the same people own large shares of companies that supply both?