Wow, it's not even November, and New York Times is in full frothing at the mouth mode

Check out today's New York Times editorial, calling Newt Gingrich a lying racist.  I'm sorry, it's one of those things where I understand the individual words and sentences, but not the meaning of anything they are trying to say.

...Mr. Gingrich has made racial resentment an integral part of his platform...presenting African-Americans with the great revelation that they should prefer paychecks to federal handouts. 

Is "great revelation" praise, or sarcasm?  If it is meant as praise, the section is self-contradictory, because where is the racial resentment?  And, if is it sarcasm (as I suspect), it means that the editorial writers are seriously proposing that federal handouts are preferable to paychecks.  In conclusion, this section literally makes no sense.

Newt blames Obama for putting lots of people on food stamps (SNAP).  Now, one could legitimately argue that it was Bush's policies, globalization, and/or the financial crisis that really caused this, not Obama.  But, to my great surprise, the NYT does not blame Bush or Wall Street for this,  Instead, they quibble.

The fact is that Mr. Obama has “put” no one on food stamps. People apply for food assistance...because they’re poor or out of work...

Puhleese.  Presidents get praised or blamed for job creation, inflation, whatever all the time.  Even if they have little to do with it.  Imagine the following argument in an editorial:  "Obama/Bush has not 'put' anybody on unemployment.  People apply for unemployment when they get fired..."  I can't.

The NYT editorial goes to great pains to mention that whites far outnumber blacks receiving SNAP benefits.  Duh!  Whites far outnumber blacks in total.  The relevant number is percentage, which the NYT does not provide.  In any case, why is this relevant?  As quoted by the NYT, Newt said "The fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president...".

The editorial continues

But these are inconvenient details to Mr. Gingrich, who implied that the rise in federal aid was a sad indication of the insufficient work ethic of black Americans.

None of the quotes attributed to Newt in the editorial even mention black Americans.  Even if the NYT Editorial Board now includes Matt Parkman from the Heroes TV series and can read Newt's mind and knows that he is a racist, it is factually incorrect, based upon the quotes presented, to write that Newt said or implied that black Americans have a poor work ethic.  He did nothing of the sort.

Newt then proposes that poor children (not "black children") be employed in jobs such as school janitors.  He cites his daughter doing so and benefiting from the experience.  The editorial responds:

Don’t try to follow any kind of logical thread of why the president wouldn’t want the jobless rate to decrease...

Don't try to follow any kind of logical thread in the editorial, because children don't count in the jobless rate!  But this kind of talk from Newt is "divisive".

For the record, I'm not a big Newt fan.  But this editorial is absurd in its criticisms, which are not supported by a single iota of evidence.

Oh yeah, check out the comments, which are even more wildly hostile and hateful.  I'm just going to mention the first two I saw.  MJR calls the Republican Presidential Debate a "KKK rally".  And has 35 "thumbs up" votes.  Julieanne Wozniak says "Newt is rich white trash...Newt is an odious, possibly narcissistic excuse for a human being, a waste of breathable air."  And earns 43 thumbs up.

Enjoy November.  It's going to be an incredibly hostile and bitter campaign.

A slightly useful Paul Krugman Editorial

A recent Paul Krugman editorial takes Mitt Romney to task for some arguably misleading statements about jobs lost or created by Romney and Obama.  I agree that Obama inherited a mess and it is unfair to count jb losses from, say, February 2009 against him.

Krugman then takes issue with Romney's claim of 100,000 jobs created by Staples, Sports Authority and Dominos.  True, not all the jobs were created under Romney's tenure.  Krugman asks, rhetorically, "Can he claim credit for everything good that has happened to the company in the past 12 years?".  Of course not.  But he can claim credit for some of it, by putting the companies on a good path to growth.  And, let me point out, that the 2000s were an overall bad time for the US economy.  Obama inherited a mess and deserves some credit for starting the economy back on the right track.  But, to be fair, Krugman should give Romney credit for his companies doing well even through the lousy 2000s.  Of course he won't.

The rest of the editorial is more of the recent Krugman sophistry similar to his recent column "well, the debt is not a problem, we owe most of it to ourselves".  And well, if Staples did well, maybe Office Depot didn't, so Romney must take the blame for their job losses.  Sorry, I'm calling B.S. here.  You aren't going to blame your pitcher for lowering the batting average of the other team, are you?  "Sorry Gio, you got us 3 extra wins but that came at the expense of the Baltimore Orioles who had three extra losses.   So, overall wins for the league were equal, no raise for you."  Like that would work...

Krugman then goes into a complete non-sequiter.

"In any case, it makes no sense to look at changes in one company’s work force and say that this measures job creation for America as a whole."

True,  But need I point out the obvious?    Romney wasn't responsible for America as a whole.  Nor did he claim to be.  This is a complete Red Herring, ascribing a ridiculous false argument to your opponent then tearing it down.  Listen to Obama and you'll hear a lot of the same.

Krugman claims that Romney destroyed good jobs.  Maybe Romney did.  Perhaps Krugman, Nobel Prize Laureate economist with access to lots of data and papers, could cite a number?

California Coddles Lobbyists and Opposes Small Business

In a previous blog post, I showed how California has by far the highest yearly fees of any state for small-business LLCs.  $800 per year, plus a share of the gross.  The vast majority of states charge no yearly tax at all, and those that do typically charge $200 or less.

By contrast, California has some of the lowest fees on lobbyists.  $25 a year.  Many other states charge a bit more; here's an old (2003) compilation of lobbyist fees and here is a more recent one.  As you can see, many states charge more like $100/year, with Massachusetts at the high end at $1000.

To his credit, CA State Senator Leland Yee proposes to raise the lobbying fee.  To a whopping $50 a year.  Puhleese.  Well, he has to worry some, cause the lobbyist lobby defeated Proposition 15 in 2010, which would have, among many other things, raised fees to $350.  But $50 a year is pathetic.

This increased fee is not going to raise much revenue for California.  Prop 15 was estimated to raise $1.5  million a year.  So it wont fix our budget.  But nor would it impact the big lobbyists, for whom a million dollars, split multiple ways so it more like a thousand dollars, is chump change.  For example, PG&E is estimated to have spent $45 million in 2010.  Akin Gump et. al., a top lobbying firm (they boast of it here), made $25 million in lobbying income in 2011.

So, why does California impede small business with huge small business LLC fees, while coddling lobbyist groups?  Yes, that's a rhetorical question.  It's due to our system of government, which is corruption.  Our state representatives don't want the people to get money from the lobbyist groups, they want themselves to get money from lobbyists.  And the cheaper the fees, the more lobbyists, which means more for them.

David Schoenfield makes great case for Edgar Martinez for the Hall of Fame

A recent blog by David Schoenfield looks at the production one could expect from Albert Pujols over the next ten years.  Assuming that Albert will remain elite, the post looks into the past, finding the best players  (highest WAR), at his position (1B / DH), at ages 33, 34, ... up to age 41.  As one would expect, there is a general decline from ages 32-34, where the top WARs are in the 6.2 - 7.2 range, through ages 35-38 where top WARs average 5.6, and beyond age 38 they rapidly decline into the 2.5 - 3.5 range.  Based on this, the Angels may regret their deal after seven years.

But I was pleasantly surprised to see Edgar Martinez appear so often on the list.  For four of those ten ages (if you include age 32 which for some reason Schoenfield doesn't) Edgar was the best 1B/DH in baseball. For five of those ten years he was the second best player, by WAR.  And for two of those the "best" was Mark McGuire who deserves a large asterisk.

So, if you discount McGuire, from age 32-41, for six of those ten years, Edgar Martinez was the best first baseman / DH in baseball.  And for three he was the second best in baseball.  This is dominance over an extended period.  And Edgar wasn't too shabby in his younger days either, posting OPS+ well above 100 in 1990, 91, 92 and 1994.

Hopefully the Hall of Fame voters will take notice.  Last time he received a paltry 33%.  Which is actually a slight decline from 36% the previous year.

A Short Illustration of Why America is in Decline

USA Today ran a short article on how we could save $5.6 Billion by switching from the paper $1 bill to longer lasting $1 coins.  (An older Business Week article is here).   Just like most other western economies use coins.  As a frequent visitor to Canada, I know that Canadians are especially proud of their pretty $1 coin, the Loonie, and reasonably accepting of their $2 coin, the Toonie.  I like the British pound £1 coin cause it is hefty and really feels like you have something valuable.  So, how does the USA fare with the idea?  There's a proposal in Congress, with the cute name "Currency Optimization, Innovation and National Savings (COINS)Act" to replace the $1 bill with a coin.

The original proposals for $1 coins came from Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz.  Not because it was a good idea or would save money, but as "a way to help Arizona mining interests".  At least he is honest.  By now we have two PACs formed, a pro-coin group, the Dollar Coin Alliance, (of which Kolbe is honorary chairman) and an anti-coin Americans for George.  The former is supported by mining interests, vending machine companies, and the United Steelworkers Union.  You can guess why.

Tom Ferguson, former government employee (Director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing), probably drawing a large pension, and now a (probably) well-paid consultant and lobbyist, represents Americans for George and claims that "A nation's currency is more than just paper. It is iconic. It is emblematic. It signifies the economy".  Other groups oppose the coin.  Larry Sabbath of the National Armored Car Association has a valid concern, the increased weight.  John Kerry, D-Mass, along with rival Scott Brown, R-Mass, show bipartisanship in opposing the move to coins.  Their reasons?  All paper for U.S. currency is made in Massachusetts by Crane and Co.

In the grand scheme of things, $5.6 billion isn't that much, but this issue really illustrates the fundamental nature of our current government.  Selfishness and Corruption.

Newspaper Vice President Complains about Free Speech

Lincoln Millstein wrote an unbelievable editorial in the Monday Oct 10 San Francisco Chronicle.  In which he complains about the free press in Taiwan.  It's "unfettered", it's "free speech run amok".

From the cracks about Fox News and Sarah Palin, it is clear that Millstein is liberal.  Fine.  But apparently he is not liberal enough to favor free speech.  For any American to complain about too much free speech is wrong.  And a senior newspaperman should know better, for him to complain about too much free speech should be a firing offense.  This guy is a Senior Vice President at Hearst Newspapers.  Who wants to limit free speech.

As for the Taiwan/China politics, here I must plead a lot of ignorance.  Millstein decries Tsai Ing-wen, opposition party leader of Taiwan, as an extremist for not attending the Double Ten National Day ceremonies, a "shocking rebuke".  Do another Google search.  I quickly found this editorial, which seems to present a balanced view, revealing that this is not a rebuke, it is not the first time that a Taiwanese political party missed the ceremonies.  The editorial decries a lack of political consensus on Taiwan (hmm, we don't have any of that problem here, do we?) and says that the invitation to Tsai Ing-wen was a "ruse" and calling her "shrewd" for declining.  For a couple of more articles, none blaming Tsai for anything, see here and here.  According to the second article, she did attend the ceremony!


A quick Google search on Millstein brought up some other incidents where he overstepped his editorial bounds, and digressed from Gernwich CT local politics into Taiwanese politics.

SEIU Editorial in WSJ almost convincing

Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, writes an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal supporting the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters.  She makes many good points.

It's been three years since Wall Street CEOs crashed our economy. When Wall Street was on its knees, the American taxpayers came to their rescue with trillions of dollars in bailouts and promise from the big banks that they'd invest in our recovery.

One could argue if it was solely Wall Street CEOs that crashed the economy.  Whatever.  We did bail them out.  And we have received little in return.  They have returned to their bonuses and excesses.  They sit on hordes of cash and layoff workers.  I'm pissed at them.  I agree with David Brooks, neither of us a left-wing firebrand, that banks that are "too large to fail" should have been broken up during the bailout.  Instead they got even larger.

But she then digresses into bald-faced politics.

And this week House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor again turned their backs on the American people by refusing to even bring the American Jobs Act up for a vote.

A fair-minded observer would also criticize Harry Reid who, two days ago, triggered a "nuclear option" to prevent a vote in the Senate on the American Jobs Act.  But SEIU can't criticize Democrats, cause they are in bed with them.

Ms. Henry argues that Congress should pass the American Jobs Act and put Americans back to work.

to keep teachers in our classrooms, police on the beat, health-care workers at our hospitals and clinics, and ensure that we have enough firefighters to protect our communities.

Fine.  If you are a teacher, health-care worker. etc.  Which happens to be pretty much what the SEIU represents. Taxing the rich to pay SEIU members will provide some job creation and provide some spark to the economy, but it is hardly a cure all for the private sector, and is certainly not a righteous stand by the president of their union.