The ACLU recently filed a Freedom of Information Act requesting government policies pertaining to text messages. The response was fifteen pages, entirely redacted. Yes, you heard that right, entirely redacted.
ABC News Article
NY Times Article
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Friday, May 10, 2013
GGNRA reveals it priorities
A recent letter (and reply) in the Half Moon Bay Review, concerning the GGNRA's recent anti-dog policies, (here's a recent and fairly balanced article) is revealing. The GGNRA reply says
You can rest assured that there are many many more dog owners that horse owners. But, apparently, the horse owners, who are much more organized, have figured out which government officials to bribe with campaign donations.
The decisions to temporarily permit or restrict areas for dogs until the Dog Management Plan is complete were based primarily on conversations with the equestrian community regarding conflicts between horses and dogs...I'm sorry, I have no issues with the local equestrian community, indeed, some of my close friends are equestrians :-) , but why the heck do equestrians take the primary lead in determining dog policy??? That's even more insane that the actual dog policies.
You can rest assured that there are many many more dog owners that horse owners. But, apparently, the horse owners, who are much more organized, have figured out which government officials to bribe with campaign donations.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Our Government isn't just wasting money, it's deliberately spending it to buy votes.
Last Friday's New Your Times had a lengthy article "U.S. Opens Spigot After Farmers Claim Discrimination". It described how many Hispanic and female farmers had claimed bias by federal loan officers, and the US Department of Justice had been successful in defending against almost every claim, including cases at the Supreme Court.
But then they gave in to the tune of $1.33 billion. This is more than double the air traffic controllers expenses recently "fixed" by Congress. And the total will probably rise, and could top $4.4 billion. It sure feels like a political payout to groups (Hispanics and women) that the Democrats are courting. Oh yeah - law firms. And the article supports my gut feeling.
In something of a surprise to me, since the New York Times certainly leans left, their analysis was blunt. My favorite quote is "“You couldn't have designed it worse if you had tried.” But below are more. It's a long article, please read it, but below are some highlights. Italics are mine for emphasis, and words in brackets are added for clarification. Note that some of the quotes concern the earlier case where African-American farmers had claimed and won bias.
But then they gave in to the tune of $1.33 billion. This is more than double the air traffic controllers expenses recently "fixed" by Congress. And the total will probably rise, and could top $4.4 billion. It sure feels like a political payout to groups (Hispanics and women) that the Democrats are courting. Oh yeah - law firms. And the article supports my gut feeling.
In something of a surprise to me, since the New York Times certainly leans left, their analysis was blunt. My favorite quote is "“You couldn't have designed it worse if you had tried.” But below are more. It's a long article, please read it, but below are some highlights. Italics are mine for emphasis, and words in brackets are added for clarification. Note that some of the quotes concern the earlier case where African-American farmers had claimed and won bias.
the Obama administration’s political appointees at the Justice and Agriculture Departments engineered a stunning turnabout: they committed $1.33 billion to compensate not just the 91 plaintiffs but thousands of Hispanic and female farmers who had never claimed bias in court.
despite the vehement objections — until now undisclosed — of career lawyers and agency officials who had argued that there was no credible evidence of widespread discrimination. What is more, some protested, the template for the deal — the $50,000 payouts to black farmers — had proved a magnet for fraud.
an examination by The New York Times shows that it became a runaway train, driven by racial politics, pressure from influential members of Congress and law firms that stand to gain more than $130 million in fees
Agriculture Department reviewers found reams of suspicious claims, from nursery-school-age children and pockets of urban dwellers, sometimes in the same handwriting with nearly identical accounts of discrimination.
Delton Wright, a Pine Bluff justice of the peace, recalled what happened after word of the settlement reached his impoverished region: “It just went wild. Some people took the money who didn’t even have a garden in the ground.” He added, “They didn’t make it hard at all, and that’s why people jumped on it.”
Claimants described how, at packed meetings, lawyers’ aides would fill out forms for them on the spot, sometimes supplying answers “to keep the line moving,” as one put it.
In 16 ZIP codes in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi and North Carolina, the number of successful claimants exceeded the total number of farms operated by people of any race in 1997, the year the lawsuit was filed. Those applicants received nearly $100 million.
nearly everyone in two adjoining apartment buildings had filed
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Obama’s support [of the settlement] led him to throw the backing of his 109,000-member black farmers’ association behind the Obama presidential primary campaign.
[A quote from one government expert, professor Gordon Rausser] "It was simply buying the support of the Native-Americans."Anyway, please read the article and reach your own conclusions. And maybe $4 billion is small potatoes in out immense deficit, but the entire year-long sequester that is causing a lot of grief is only $85 billion.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Fantasy Draft Results 2013
We just held the draft for our 10 team, head to head points league. In a points league, scoring is quite different than the more traditional Rotissery 5x5 league, as explained here in a summary of an ESPN points mock. We use nearly the same points as they do, with 12 starts allowed per week. We also have a limit of 5 transactions per week, which limits the ability to stream pitchers.
My general strategy is to draft at least seven good pitchers, and focus on power and on base percentage in hitters. I typically delay / punt on saves, picking up a couple of late round, mid-quality closers. For this year, I also decided to delay on catcher and middle infield positions. Catcher is quite deep this year, especially in our 1 catcher league. And middle infield is pretty week overall - with a few exceptions (Cano, Tulo) the points difference between a good one (e.g. Brandon Phillips) and a late round one isn't all that large. I'd rather get the big boppers in the OF and corner infield. I live in the SF Bay Area and am a huge As fan, and a big Giants fan, so I like drafting a few of them, and avoid Yankees, Angels, and Dodgers.
Our league is half fun and half competitive. A few of the teams were on autodraft, which made things interesting. You knew that some players were unlikely to make it to you the next round cause the auto-drafters might get them. But a couple of the autodrafters had modified their list, in particular, it was clear that Mommy Monsters (henceforth M-M), last year's champion, had done a great job (IMO) arranging their list. Most of the players were drafting live. Displaced Braves Fan (BRVS), SF Marauders (SFM) and I seem to have similar tastes. I had the #1 pick, which means that I have a very long wait between picks, then get to pick two. This gives a long time to plan ahead, which I liked. But you also have to look pretty far ahead. If somebody you like is in the next 20 players, they are likely to be gone, so sometimes you have to reach to get them. In my summary I goupr by my pairs of picks.
Round 1: I briefly considered Cano, and happily picked Cabrera. Cano went #2 to M-M. The rest went largely as one might expect.
Rounds 2,3: I was targeting Price or King Felix, but was surprised that Stanton fell so far. He was rated #11 IIRC, which might be a bit high with such a weak team around him. I grabbed Price, thought a bit, and decided that Stanton was a steal at #21. EE, one of my 1B targets, went next to M-M.
Rounds 4,5: Billy Butler, one of my 1B targets, went to Falcons. I like Wonderbolts pick of Harper at #30. I didn't expect Cain or Hamels to fall this far, and they didn't. But Ben Zobrist did. He takes walks and scores well in our system, rating as a top SS and 2B, plus a decent OF. With this flexibility, he was worth breaking my "wait on MI" strategy. I considered CC and Yu, but settled on Zobrist and Gio Gonzalez. M-M took CC right after.
Rounds 6,7: Three OF I had targeted, Holliday, Cespedes, and Gordon were picked before me this round. I'm not a big fan of the next tier, guys like Bourn, Jennings. I considered Austin Jackson, then went with two more great pitchers, Bumgarner and Greinke. M-M took Jackson right after! It was pretty eerie how her autopick was reading my mind. :-)
Rounds 8,9: With EE off the board, I was considering Allen Craig, Goldschmidt and Freeman for 1B, and Medlin or Moore for SP. But Saf Runs, SFM and BRVS took three of them, so I took Moore and Freeman.
Rounds 10,11: Many of the top relievers were picked just ahead of me this round, e.g. Papelbon, Motte, Rodney. One of them would have been interesting. I though long and hard about Granderson. How long will he be on the DL and how good will he be when he returns? I considered Mo Rivera and Ian Kennedy. Finally, did a bit of a reach for two of my targets, Brett Anderson and Beltran.
Rounds 12,13: M-M grabbed Swisher just ahead of me, and way ahead of his ranking! I thought long and hard about Lincecum, who had dropped a lot from his "ranking". Eventually picked Anibel Sanchez and Konerko. M-M picked Adam LaRoche, another guy "on my list".
Rounds 14,15: Lincecum and Jarrod Parker were gone. Considered Romo and Holland as closers. Went with Morse and Hudson.
Rounds 16,17: Two hometown picks that made sense, Reddick and Balfour. I have a quality closer, and my major hitters are in place.
Rounds 18,19: Nerds picked Moustakis, and SFM took Vogelsong, two guys I considered. Time to fill in MI and C, with two late round picks I think will work out well: Simmons and M. Montero.
Rounds 20,21: Aoki and a second closer, Grilli. SFM picked Cuddyer, and Underdogs picked Morales, two guys I was considering here.
Rounds 22,23: Profar for MI made sense. Our league added a second Utility spot this year, and I wasn't sure how many boppers would last, so I reached for Brandon Moss. In retrospect, this is one pick I'd change, to pick Wilhelsen instead. Hopefully for me and the As Moss will continue his breakout from last year, but it's risky.
Rounds 24,25: Adam Dunn for Util made sense. Our league doesn't count batting average. Round 25 became the "hot prospect" round. I took Gyorko, M-M picked Eaton, and Obey the Pug took Wil Myers. At the end of the year we will see who guessed the best.
Rounds 26,27,28: Here we are mainly filling in depth and guessing on prospects. I like my picks of Shelby Miller, Rutledge, and Carpenter, but it's all a gamble down here.
Summary: Like my eight starters, plus Miller, and my batters. Wish I had one more reliever, but they come and go during the year. Should be able to pick one up, or else pick up a good setup man for a few points. I probably have one too many hitters on the bench, but right now it isn't clear who should go. It will depend on how they perform and who gets hurt. If Matt Carpenter sticks, between him and Zobrist I have a ton of positional flexibility. Especially if Carpenter gains 2B eligibility and Gyorko 3B. I have a few older players (Hudson, Konerko, Beltran, Dunn) who need monitoring for injuries and decline, but most of the team is young.
Should be a fun year!
My general strategy is to draft at least seven good pitchers, and focus on power and on base percentage in hitters. I typically delay / punt on saves, picking up a couple of late round, mid-quality closers. For this year, I also decided to delay on catcher and middle infield positions. Catcher is quite deep this year, especially in our 1 catcher league. And middle infield is pretty week overall - with a few exceptions (Cano, Tulo) the points difference between a good one (e.g. Brandon Phillips) and a late round one isn't all that large. I'd rather get the big boppers in the OF and corner infield. I live in the SF Bay Area and am a huge As fan, and a big Giants fan, so I like drafting a few of them, and avoid Yankees, Angels, and Dodgers.
Our league is half fun and half competitive. A few of the teams were on autodraft, which made things interesting. You knew that some players were unlikely to make it to you the next round cause the auto-drafters might get them. But a couple of the autodrafters had modified their list, in particular, it was clear that Mommy Monsters (henceforth M-M), last year's champion, had done a great job (IMO) arranging their list. Most of the players were drafting live. Displaced Braves Fan (BRVS), SF Marauders (SFM) and I seem to have similar tastes. I had the #1 pick, which means that I have a very long wait between picks, then get to pick two. This gives a long time to plan ahead, which I liked. But you also have to look pretty far ahead. If somebody you like is in the next 20 players, they are likely to be gone, so sometimes you have to reach to get them. In my summary I goupr by my pairs of picks.
Round 1: I briefly considered Cano, and happily picked Cabrera. Cano went #2 to M-M. The rest went largely as one might expect.
Rounds 2,3: I was targeting Price or King Felix, but was surprised that Stanton fell so far. He was rated #11 IIRC, which might be a bit high with such a weak team around him. I grabbed Price, thought a bit, and decided that Stanton was a steal at #21. EE, one of my 1B targets, went next to M-M.
Rounds 4,5: Billy Butler, one of my 1B targets, went to Falcons. I like Wonderbolts pick of Harper at #30. I didn't expect Cain or Hamels to fall this far, and they didn't. But Ben Zobrist did. He takes walks and scores well in our system, rating as a top SS and 2B, plus a decent OF. With this flexibility, he was worth breaking my "wait on MI" strategy. I considered CC and Yu, but settled on Zobrist and Gio Gonzalez. M-M took CC right after.
Rounds 6,7: Three OF I had targeted, Holliday, Cespedes, and Gordon were picked before me this round. I'm not a big fan of the next tier, guys like Bourn, Jennings. I considered Austin Jackson, then went with two more great pitchers, Bumgarner and Greinke. M-M took Jackson right after! It was pretty eerie how her autopick was reading my mind. :-)
Rounds 8,9: With EE off the board, I was considering Allen Craig, Goldschmidt and Freeman for 1B, and Medlin or Moore for SP. But Saf Runs, SFM and BRVS took three of them, so I took Moore and Freeman.
Rounds 10,11: Many of the top relievers were picked just ahead of me this round, e.g. Papelbon, Motte, Rodney. One of them would have been interesting. I though long and hard about Granderson. How long will he be on the DL and how good will he be when he returns? I considered Mo Rivera and Ian Kennedy. Finally, did a bit of a reach for two of my targets, Brett Anderson and Beltran.
Rounds 12,13: M-M grabbed Swisher just ahead of me, and way ahead of his ranking! I thought long and hard about Lincecum, who had dropped a lot from his "ranking". Eventually picked Anibel Sanchez and Konerko. M-M picked Adam LaRoche, another guy "on my list".
Rounds 14,15: Lincecum and Jarrod Parker were gone. Considered Romo and Holland as closers. Went with Morse and Hudson.
Rounds 16,17: Two hometown picks that made sense, Reddick and Balfour. I have a quality closer, and my major hitters are in place.
Rounds 18,19: Nerds picked Moustakis, and SFM took Vogelsong, two guys I considered. Time to fill in MI and C, with two late round picks I think will work out well: Simmons and M. Montero.
Rounds 20,21: Aoki and a second closer, Grilli. SFM picked Cuddyer, and Underdogs picked Morales, two guys I was considering here.
Rounds 22,23: Profar for MI made sense. Our league added a second Utility spot this year, and I wasn't sure how many boppers would last, so I reached for Brandon Moss. In retrospect, this is one pick I'd change, to pick Wilhelsen instead. Hopefully for me and the As Moss will continue his breakout from last year, but it's risky.
Rounds 24,25: Adam Dunn for Util made sense. Our league doesn't count batting average. Round 25 became the "hot prospect" round. I took Gyorko, M-M picked Eaton, and Obey the Pug took Wil Myers. At the end of the year we will see who guessed the best.
Rounds 26,27,28: Here we are mainly filling in depth and guessing on prospects. I like my picks of Shelby Miller, Rutledge, and Carpenter, but it's all a gamble down here.
Summary: Like my eight starters, plus Miller, and my batters. Wish I had one more reliever, but they come and go during the year. Should be able to pick one up, or else pick up a good setup man for a few points. I probably have one too many hitters on the bench, but right now it isn't clear who should go. It will depend on how they perform and who gets hurt. If Matt Carpenter sticks, between him and Zobrist I have a ton of positional flexibility. Especially if Carpenter gains 2B eligibility and Gyorko 3B. I have a few older players (Hudson, Konerko, Beltran, Dunn) who need monitoring for injuries and decline, but most of the team is young.
Should be a fun year!
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Fascinating White House Analysis of the Republican Fiscal Cliff Proposal
Here's a link to an Official White House analysis of the Republican proposal on the Fiscal Cliff. The Republicans propose to cap tax deductions at $25K. The White House analysis concludes that this would raise revenues by $1 Trillion, but only if the deduction limit applies to all taxpayers, not just the rich. Excluding those making less than $250K from the cap lowers the revenue to $800 Billion. Exactly what I'm hearing the Republicans claim. (Note: These numbers are over 10 years)
The analysis argues that this cap should be phased in over a few years to lessen disruptions. Sounds fine, and I agree. Though I don't think the Democrat's proposal to revert to pre-Bush tax rates will be "phased in". Hypocrites. Anyway, assuming a gradual phase in to make the changes more "fair" limits revenue to $650 Billion. Sounds very reasonable.
I find section 3 of the article most fascinating. They argue, quite correctly, that capping deductions will reduce charitable giving. They estimate $10 Billion a year less to charities. Since I believe that the revenue numbers are over 10 years, to compare apples to apples this number then becomes a $100 Billion decrease in charitable giving. The analysis assumes that we don't really want this, and that therefore charitable gifts will not be capped. With this assumption, revenues decrease to $450 Billion.
See something wrong here? In order to support $100 Billion in charitable giving, the analysis proposes to give up $200 Billion in revenue. This makes no sense. I suspect that the numbers and assumptions are flawed, but, if true, this is no reason to "uncap" charitable giving.
The analysis argues that this cap should be phased in over a few years to lessen disruptions. Sounds fine, and I agree. Though I don't think the Democrat's proposal to revert to pre-Bush tax rates will be "phased in". Hypocrites. Anyway, assuming a gradual phase in to make the changes more "fair" limits revenue to $650 Billion. Sounds very reasonable.
I find section 3 of the article most fascinating. They argue, quite correctly, that capping deductions will reduce charitable giving. They estimate $10 Billion a year less to charities. Since I believe that the revenue numbers are over 10 years, to compare apples to apples this number then becomes a $100 Billion decrease in charitable giving. The analysis assumes that we don't really want this, and that therefore charitable gifts will not be capped. With this assumption, revenues decrease to $450 Billion.
See something wrong here? In order to support $100 Billion in charitable giving, the analysis proposes to give up $200 Billion in revenue. This makes no sense. I suspect that the numbers and assumptions are flawed, but, if true, this is no reason to "uncap" charitable giving.
Monday, December 3, 2012
The Fiscal Cliff talks should be more transparent
One frustrating part of the current "fiscal cliff" talks is that I can't really tell what's being proposed. Both sides are being coy, because they don't want to get called out for actually proposing any real solutions like raising tax revenues or cutting entitlements.
For example, Geitner's / Obama's first proposal included 1.6 trillion in tax increases, plus at least 50 billion in additional spending, with the proposal to "somehow" find 400 billion in savings in Medicare at some unspecified later time. If you really think a Democratic administration will find and implement 400 billion in savings in Medicare, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. This proposal isn't serious or specific. The New York Times, hardly a right-wing bastion, calls it "loaded with Democratic priorities and short on detailed spending cuts". It points out that the proposed tax increases go beyond what the Democratic Senate approved, such as taxing capital gains at regular rates and potential increases the Estate Tax. Some of the "savings" Obama is trumpeting include "savings" from the military withdraws from Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody was planning to spend any money to stay there, so it's hard to count that as savings.
From what I can tell, the Republican counter-proposal calls for 800 billion in enhanced tax revenues, through unspecified cuts in deductions. As an aside, I like the Economist's proposal (loosely based upon one of Romney's few good proposals) to skirt the issue of targeting any particular deductions, which will draw way too much controversy from special interests, by just limiting deductions to $50,000 total a year. About 300 billion of these possible savings are investigated by Paul Krugman. And his ideological opposite, the National Review, is calling for the negotiations to be held in public.
I agree. Let's have the negotiations be, at least more public so both parties will be more accountable for what will happen. Now, it seems painfully obvious to me. On the revenue side, any 5th grader could look at the situation and say "o.k., 800 billion in enhancements through less deductions, 800 billion in tax increases". Unfortunately, our Congress isn't that smart, nor apparently is Obama very serious about fixing our fiscal problems.
For example, Geitner's / Obama's first proposal included 1.6 trillion in tax increases, plus at least 50 billion in additional spending, with the proposal to "somehow" find 400 billion in savings in Medicare at some unspecified later time. If you really think a Democratic administration will find and implement 400 billion in savings in Medicare, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. This proposal isn't serious or specific. The New York Times, hardly a right-wing bastion, calls it "loaded with Democratic priorities and short on detailed spending cuts". It points out that the proposed tax increases go beyond what the Democratic Senate approved, such as taxing capital gains at regular rates and potential increases the Estate Tax. Some of the "savings" Obama is trumpeting include "savings" from the military withdraws from Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody was planning to spend any money to stay there, so it's hard to count that as savings.
From what I can tell, the Republican counter-proposal calls for 800 billion in enhanced tax revenues, through unspecified cuts in deductions. As an aside, I like the Economist's proposal (loosely based upon one of Romney's few good proposals) to skirt the issue of targeting any particular deductions, which will draw way too much controversy from special interests, by just limiting deductions to $50,000 total a year. About 300 billion of these possible savings are investigated by Paul Krugman. And his ideological opposite, the National Review, is calling for the negotiations to be held in public.
I agree. Let's have the negotiations be, at least more public so both parties will be more accountable for what will happen. Now, it seems painfully obvious to me. On the revenue side, any 5th grader could look at the situation and say "o.k., 800 billion in enhancements through less deductions, 800 billion in tax increases". Unfortunately, our Congress isn't that smart, nor apparently is Obama very serious about fixing our fiscal problems.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Just how big is our deficit?
The official number for US Federal debt is around $16 Trillion dollars, which is around 100% of GDP. That's getting up there. The highest previous number was around 120% at the very end of World War II. This is the official value of bonds owed by the U.S. Government.
However, Niall Ferguson argues that these bond debts do not reflect the unfunded liabilities of promises made to support future entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. According to this article, the net present value (NPV) of these federal liabilities is $200 Trillion. (States are on the hook for $38 Trillion) Attempting to verify these figures, a Google search finds other values for federal liability of:
However, Niall Ferguson argues that these bond debts do not reflect the unfunded liabilities of promises made to support future entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. According to this article, the net present value (NPV) of these federal liabilities is $200 Trillion. (States are on the hook for $38 Trillion) Attempting to verify these figures, a Google search finds other values for federal liability of:
- $45 trillion,
- $73 trillion ( in this excellent long PDF from BusinessWeek 2010),
- $128 trillion (Seeking Alpha, the article says "8x official debt").
- $75 trillion (Bill Gross, PIMCO manager)
- $120 trillion (CATO institute, libertarian/conservative think tank)
- $100 trillion (Christian Science Monitor quoting Bill Gross)
- "over $60 trillion" (in 2010)
- $61.6 trillion (USA Today)
- $39 trillion for Medicare alone, and that is "substantially understated"
- $110 trillion
Now, many (but not all) of these are from more conservative sites who would be prone to overestimate the problem. Nor do they give details of where the numbers came from. But, taking a middle ground, it looks like the federal unfunded liability is very roughly $100 trillion. This does not include states and municipalities. Like Stockton CA, which is going bankrupt.
One way to look at this problem is that, with a GDP of $16 trillion, it would take over six years of all of our GDP to "fund" this liability. Another way is to figure cost per person. There are about 313 million residents in the USA. To pay for the federal unfunded liabilities, that would be $319,488 each. Now the average net worth for an entire household (not an individual) is $77,000. The average household is, very roughly, 2.5. So, the average net worth for each US resident is about $30,000. So the entire net worth of all residents in the USA is less than 10% of the federal liability.
Even if you take a low estimate of the liability (USA Today's $61 trillion), that is still about $200,000 per person. A lot. It's very clear that Congress must make serious, serious cuts to entitlements, such as future Medicare and Social Security benefits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
