Buy WILLisms

XML Feed
WILLisms.com on Twitter

Featured Entries

The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM

Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM

Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM

Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM

Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM

Idea Majorities Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM

Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM

The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM

From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM

Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM

Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM

Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM

Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM

Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM





December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004

Social Security Reform Thursday.
January 29, 2008

Caption Contest Archive
Jan. 21, 2009

The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006

Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008

Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007

Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006

A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006


Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori

WILLisms.com January 2009 Book of the Month (certified classy):

The WILLisms.com Gift Shop: Support This Site


This Week's Carnival of Revolutions: carnivalbutton.gif

Carnival Home Base: homebase.gif


« February 2009 | WILLisms.com | April 2009 »

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 565 -- Government Debt Not Just Federal Problem.

Some States Are Borrowing Way Too Much-

The national debt held by the public is staggeringly large these days. Its growth has been robust and persistent. It is also projected to nearly double over the next decade, according to many forecasts.

State and local government debt is also on the rise in some places and on average (.pdf):

From the perspective of average taxpayers, debt financing should be minimized. It is more costly that payas- you-go financing because of the interest payments incurred. It also comes with an overhead cost in the form of the large municipal bond industry, which employs tens of thousands of lawyers and finance experts in underwriting, trading, advising, bond insurance, and related Wall Street activities.

Another problem with debt is that mixing big
government with big finance usually causes corruption.
The municipal bond industry has had many scandals. In
“pay-to-play” schemes, bond underwriters use bribes or
campaign contributions to win bond business from state
and local officials. There are federal laws to prevent such
abuses, but violations are common. A recent pay-to-play
scandal in Philadelphia resulted in criminal sanctions
against the city’s treasurer and allegations that the mayor’s
office often chose the bond firms for big debt issues.

The existence of some debt is not a bad thing at all. Zero debt would signal a dysfunctional and unhealthy economy, but we've passed the point of healthy debt in most states and locales, as well as the federal government:

Who do you think is more reliable—the full faith and credit of the United States backing up Treasury bonds, or the McDonald’s Corporation, backed only by “billions and billions served”? By some market measures it is the latter, and for good reason. The price of credit defaults swaps guaranteeing payment on 10-year Treasury bonds has risen by 1000 percent since December 2007, with an implied 12 percent probability of default on government debt over the next decade. In the view of the markets, this makes U.S. government bonds a more risky proposition than debt issued by McDonald’s.

Why? Trillion dollar annual short-term budget deficits due to the recession and financial crisis will soon merge with even larger deficits generated by government entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. While a large short-term deficit to stimulate the economy can be absorbed, large deficits running for decades simply cannot be. Over the next decade, the combined costs of the big three entitlement programs will rise by 2.1 percent of gross domestic product; over the following decade, entitlement costs will increase by an additional 3.1 percent of GDP, with costs continuing to grow thereafter.

Issuing bonds, much like earmarking money for pork projects, may seem somewhat innocuous, but in the same way that earmarking goes hand-in-hand with corruption, lots of municipal bonds can do the same thing. Often the two-- earmarks and bonds-- go hand-in-hand.

Imagine if a United States Senator slipped earmarks into a bill, and that Senator's husband issued the bonds associated with the earmarked projects. Imagine if this happened time and time again, over the period of many years.
earmarks and the bonds might start to waft out of the Trinity River into television and radio ads in the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary.

In Texas, notwithstanding the hypothetical example above, our state and local debt per capita is 49th in the country. Only Tennessee has a lower rate of outstanding debt per capita. Number one: Massachusetts.


Previous Trivia Tidbit: Punitive Coke Taxes.

Posted by Will Franklin · 31 March 2009 08:55 AM · Comments (0)

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 564 -- Fat Taxes.

Taxing Sugar-

In an attempt to balance their state budgets, some Governors around the country have suggested new creative fees and taxes on cigarettes, iTunes downloads, strip clubs, and soft-drinks. The tax on soft-drinks would also mitigate obesity and therefore cut down on diabetes and other soaring health care costs, we are told. The Tax Foundation points out that the impact of a 58% tax on soft-drinks (which is similar to the tax level we have on cigarettes) would have a tiny impact on BMI:

According to Jason Fletcher, David Frizvold and Nathan Tefft, taxes on soda do appear to affect obesity, but the effect is very small. They estimate that a 1% increase in the soda tax rate decreases mean adult body mass index by 0.003. So, even if sodas faced a 58% tax rate (similar to the average effective tax rate on cigarettes) the authors estimate that mean BMI would fall by just 0.16 points. For contrast, mean American BMI has risen by 2.3 points between 1990 and 2006.

To put that into visual perspective, the brown is what the American BMI has risen by since 1990. The green is the anticipated BMI impact of a really aggressive and punitive coke tax:


That BMI impact is clearly not worth the drastically higher prices on sugary drinks.


Previous Trivia Tidbit: Measuring Political Corruption.

Posted by Will Franklin · 30 March 2009 11:56 AM · Comments (1)

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 563 -- Chicago Newspaper Says, "Hey, Look Over There!" On Corruption.

Measuring Corruption-

People in Chicago are upset that the Blagojevich situation has reminded Americans that their entire political establishment is woefully corrupt, so they got some Chicago Tribune interns to research corruption convictions around the country and prove that other states have it a lot worse:


Is this REALLY the best measure of corruption? Has Senator Chris Dodd been convicted yet? What about Congressman David Obey? Some of the most truly corrupt states and cities and political machines probably let certain people in power get away with whatever they want to get away with. In Minnesota, they pride themselves on being a "good government" state, meaning clean and open and so forth, but you just have to know that in Duluth and up in the Iron Belt, unions and political shenanigans just feed off of each other.

While I don't doubt that Louisiana has a lot of corruption or that Nebraska has very little of it, I just don't find a lot of value in this map.


Previous Trivia Tidbit: Medicare.

Posted by Will Franklin · 27 March 2009 10:06 AM · Comments (1)

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 562 -- Medicare.

Our Entitlements Are Out Of Control-

Watching a TiVo'd Frontline last night about our national debt, Forrest Sawyer seemed to place most of the blame on the Bush administration. The gist: Bush cut taxes, which starved the government of money, all while fighting a big war and signing the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit.

There is some truth to that criticism, but not much.

Tax relief did not starve the beast, as many hoped/feared. Tax collections were hitting record highs until we entered this housing bubble-caused recession. Revenue was abundantly flowing into the federal government. Revenue was not the problem.

Nor was military spending, or even the Medicare Prescription Drug plan. The cost of Afghanistan and Iraq have been staggering, but a) they are not permanent annual costs and b) our defense spending as a percentage of GDP is still historically low. While adding prescription drugs to Medicare will have a major negative impact on our fiscal picture over the long run, it has had very little impact on our deficits today. Drugs for seniors are such a minor drop in the bucket to this point.

So what's the deal?

Well, revenues were way up until the recession hit. Military spending was certainly up, but not by enough to account for our current deficit. Same with prescription drugs in Medicare. So why do we have these huge deficits? Surely, it's pork, right?

Nope. Not even pork. Pork is also a drop in the bucket, relative to the absurdly large spending leviathan we have created in Washington.

No, the biggest spending increases during the Bush administration were auto-pilot increases in Social Security, Medicare at-large, and Medicaid. Social Security is the largest individual spending program that Washington has right now. Bigger than war. And according to Chuck Blahous, the so-called surpluses are drying up a lot sooner than anyone imagined (watch starting at the 2:30 mark, through about the 7:00 mark).

But what about Medicare? Right now, Medicare is not the biggest problem. Social Security is much bigger. But over the long-term, Medicare as a whole (prescription drugs being a small part of that whole) dwarfs pretty much everything:

It has not always been this way. In 1985, Medi­care drew only 0.4 percent of GDP ($17.9 billion) from the general fund to cover its excess costs. Ten years later, this had increased slightly to 0.5 percent of GDP ($37.0 billion). By 2007, Medicare's draw had more than doubled to 1.3 percent of GDP ($179 billion).

And it's only going to get worse... MUCH, MUCH worse.


Previous Trivia Tidbit: Schools.

Posted by Will Franklin · 26 March 2009 12:43 PM · Comments (2)

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 561 -- Funding Our Schools.


Everyone wants good schools for their kids. Schools are often something people cite when they decide where they want to locate themselves, their capital, and their businesses.

There is an impression out there that the path to good schools is the result of "more funding." That may be true in some cases, but let's examine the data:


We have seen massive increases in spending, even adjusted for inflation. We have also seen massive increases in per pupil spending.

Have we seen higher test scores, higher graduation rates, higher attendance rates, better discipline, higher achievement in the classroom, or any other tangible evidence of success?

No. We really haven't. We've been throwing money into a broken system, dominated by unions and bureaucrats.


Previous Trivia Tidbit: Regulating Carbon.

Posted by Will Franklin · 25 March 2009 10:33 AM · Comments (2)

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 560 -- Al Gore Gets His Wish.

Environmentalism Taking Precedent Over Economy-

Obama's EPA is on the verge of heavily regulating carbon dioxide. Their move will have a variety of impacts on the American economy, namely slower growth:


Economic losses, job losses: it looks like we're putting the environmental cart before the economic horse.


Previous Trivia Tidbit: Jobs Under The Democrats' Tenure.

Posted by Will Franklin · 24 March 2009 12:16 PM · Comments (2)

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 559 -- Democrats In Control.

Not Pretty-

Pretty amazing coincidence that we started tanking right around the time the Democrats took over Congress:


Elections matter.


Previous Trivia Tidbit: Spending Per Household.

Posted by Will Franklin · 23 March 2009 05:29 PM · Comments (3)

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 558 -- Obama's Anti-Family Policies.

Obama's Tax Hike-

Cue the Howard Dean scream sound effect:

The 2009 federal spending surge is nothing short of historic. The 25 percent spending increase repre­sents the largest non-war government expansion since the New Deal. Domestic discretionary spend­ing (including stimulus funds) has been hiked over 80 percent over 2008 levels. As a result, Washing­ton will run a budget deficit of 12.3 percent of GDP, by far the largest since World War II.

Some justify this spending as a necessary, tempo­rary response to a recession. Setting aside the flaws in that argument, excluding the recessionary period does not improve the fiscal picture. In 2007, before the recession, Washington spent $24,172 per household. By 2019, the President's budget would spend $32,463 per household—an inflation-adjusted $8,000 per household expansion of gov­ernment. In 2007, Washington spent 20 percent of GDP. President Obama would permanently elevate federal spending to nearly 23 percent of GDP by 2019—a level reached only three times since the end of World War II.



Previous Trivia Tidbit: Obama's Big Tax Hike.

Posted by Will Franklin · 20 March 2009 04:56 PM · Comments (0)

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 557 -- The Largest Tax Increase In American History.

Obama's Tax Hike-

Between 1953 and 1982—a period of high tax rates, spending growth, and applied Keynesian eco­nomics—the economy was in recession 21 percent of the time, inflation reached 13 percent, interest rates hit 19 percent, and the stock market grew only 5.4 percent annually.

However, beginning around 1982, tax rates were dramatically reduced, and federal spending began decreasing as a share of the economy. In the 26 years following this major policy shift, the economy has been in recession only 10 percent of the time (including the current recession), inflation has never topped 5 percent, interest rates have never exceeded 12 percent, and the stock market (despite increased volatility) has soared 7.0 percent annually, even including the recent 50 percent drop.



Previous Trivia Tidbit: Obama's Budget.

Posted by Will Franklin · 19 March 2009 09:56 AM · Comments (2)

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 556 -- Obama Budgeting.

Government Growth On Steroids, Here We Come-

In the short run, this surge of debt would increase interest rates. The United States govern­ment would find itself competing with other deficit-ridden nations to borrow massive amounts of money from a shrinking pool of global savings. Although U.S. Treasury bills are a popular invest­ment for domestic and international investors in these uncertain economic times, investors will shift out of them when the economy recovers, thereby raising interest rates. The steeply higher govern­ment debt levels will likely accelerate that increase in interest rates. These will slow down the economic recovery by making it more costly for businesses to invest and more difficult for families to afford home and auto loans.

In the long run, Washington is dumping a colos­sal amount of debt into the laps of our children and grandchildren. Between 2008 and 2013, the budget will add $5.7 trillion ($48,000 per U.S. household) in new government debt. The annual interest on this debt would nearly equal the entire U.S. defense budget by 2019. Moreover, given the unsustainable costs of paying Social Security, Medicare, and Med­icaid benefits to 77 million retiring baby boomers, the federal debt will continue expanding after 2019. Without real reforms, the result may be devastating tax increases for decades to come.

Obama must be a one-termer. Republicans must retake at least part of Congress in 2010.


Previous Trivia Tidbit: Texas Leads In Openness.

Posted by Will Franklin · 18 March 2009 11:03 PM · Comments (1)

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 555 -- Texas Leads Nation In Transparency.

Texas Best For Open Government-

Over the past couple of years, the issue of government transparency has ascended to the forefront of the conservative movement. In many states and locales, there is a strange reluctance to let taxpayers see what they are paying for. There is a sense that bureaucrats, elected officials, and the like ought to escape the clutches of the pesky and counterproductive oversight process.

In Texas, though, Governor Rick Perry, Comptroller Susan Combs, and the panoply of think-tanks and watchdog groups have propelled Texas to the front of the line when it comes to governmental transparency:

The only state found to provide information online in all 20 categories was Texas. New Jersey was second with 18, North Carolina third with 17.

Texas leads the nation in a lot of areas. Unfortunately, Texas still has a lot of work to do at the local (city/county) level with regard to taxation and spending transparency. Even though the state government is a great example, many of our local governments, including our school districts, need to open up their books for taxpayers to examine.


Previous Trivia Tidbit: California's Big Government Employee Bonanza.

Posted by Will Franklin · 17 March 2009 11:58 AM · Comments (1)

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 554 -- California Keeps Digging.

When You're In A Hole, STOP DIGGING-

Even as California grapples with its 40+ BILLION dollar budget deficit, the number of government employees just keeps going up:


California state government's full-time work force continues to grow despite Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's order to freeze hiring amid a historic budget shortfall.

From June 2008 to February 2009, most state agencies either increased or kept the same number of full-time employees, according to a Bee analysis of personnel data. The state also failed to lay off as many part-time employees during the crisis as promised by the governor.

While legislators and Schwarzenegger debated how to close a $40 billion budget deficit, 66 state agencies saw a net gain of full-time employees, 35 kept the same number of employees and 55 lost employees, data from the state controller's office show.

California, you really need to get a handle on your spending... you helped bring down the national economy. Now it's your responsibility to restore your fiscal balance sheet so the rest of us aren't paying for your problems.


Previous Trivia Tidbit: Declining Economic Freedom.

Posted by Will Franklin · 16 March 2009 12:31 PM · Comments (1)

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 553 -- American Economic Freedom Declining In 2009.

Losing Economic Freedom-

The Index of Economic Freedom shows that the United States is losing ground:


Let's get our act together.


Previous Trivia Tidbit: Card Check & EFCA Consequences..

Posted by Will Franklin · 13 March 2009 02:23 PM · Comments (0)

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 552 -- Card Check & EFCA Consequences.

Card Check Crud-

The United States Congress is flirting with passage of the Orwellian Employee Free Choice Act, which would end secret ballots for union organizing. This would have disastrous consequences for America.

Anne Layne-Farrar has a great study on the likely consequences.

Unions declined almost every year, year after year, until the Democrats took over Congress in 2006. Since then, we've seen a slight uptick in union density.


What would a major uptick in union density mean?

It would mean a lot more unemployment:

Overall, the cumulative effect of 1.5 million additional union members per year for 10 years will increase unemployment between 5.3 and 6.2 million with union density settling at just under 23%.

Don't do it, Congress. Don't do it, Obama. Leave us alone. Let us prosper.


Previous Trivia Tidbit: Too Many Emails.

Posted by Will Franklin · 12 March 2009 04:51 PM · Comments (2)

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 551 -- Email.

Have You Cleared Your Inbox Yet Today-

Email Growth Graph WSJ.07.gif

Email! It's 6:18 PM, and I am just now finishing sending the important emails for today.

Sound familiar?


Previous Trivia Tidbit: Obama's Approval Ratings Nothing Special.

Posted by Will Franklin · 11 March 2009 06:19 PM · Comments (1)

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 550 -- Approval Ratings.

Pretty Average Showing For Obama-

I keep hearing about how Obama is so popular and this and that. In reality, he's about average for this point in an administration:


Obama: pretty marginal.


Previous Trivia Tidbit: Corporate Taxes Are Too High In America.

Posted by Will Franklin · 10 March 2009 05:13 PM · Comments (0)

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 549 -- Taxes Too High.

Cut Taxes To Stimulate Real Growth-

For quite some time, the United States had a strong competitive advantage relative to other countries because of our low taxes. In recent years, however, nations all around the world have methodically lowered their tax rates to become more attractive for people, capital, and businesses. Now, Japan is the only country with a higher overall corporate tax rate than the United States. And many states in America have higher corporate tax burdens than even Japan:


It should be noted that these numbers are not total tax burden. Many of the other countries have higher personal income taxes, higher sales or VAT taxes, higher tariffs and fees, etc. Still, the fact that France has a lower corporate tax rate than Texas is disgusting. The United States corporate tax rate is dragging down Texas' competitive advantage.

Lost decade, here we come. Unless we do something about it.


Previous Trivia Tidbit: Kay Bailey Hutchison & Earmarks.

Posted by Will Franklin · 9 March 2009 06:16 PM · Comments (543)

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 548 -- Earmarks.

Pork Doesn't Measure Up To Entitlement Spending, But It Drives Overall Spending Upward & Corrupts Congress-

Chuck Schumer infamously derided (via YouTube) "the chattering classes" for focusing so much of their attention on the "little porky amendments" in the stimulus package.

In some ways, he had a point. The "pork" or "earmarks" made up only a small percentage of the overall disaster of a bill. But to paraphrase Yogi Berra, when you take a billion here and a billion there, eventually you're talking about real money. And pork is bad for more than the sheer dollars figures involved. It does at least two really, really bad things:

1. It contributes to a culture of overall spending growth. There is a strong correlative link between pork growth and growth in non-pork programs.

2. It corrupts. It causes legislators to trade their votes to get their home project funded. It proliferates lobbyists' hands in bills. Pork eliminates competition and transparency. It's bad for a lot of reasons, even though entitlements are the real driver of government spending.

Just take a gander at government spending growth in 2009, which includes more than 9,000 earmarks:


The American people hired Obama to put out a fire. He showed up and sprayed a tank full of jet fuel all over it. It's no wonder that the stock market has completely tanked over the past month or two and the unemployment rate has jumped up to 8.1% (.pdf). Just for reference, Texas' rate is also climbing but remains 1.7% lower-- at 6.4%.

Interesting, too, that Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison wants to replace fiscally conservative Rick Perry as Governor, yet she is the 22nd biggest porker in the Senate, and she's the biggest porker in Texas:

WASHINGTON – Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison fought against earmarks this week, urging her colleagues to trim wasteful spending from a $410 billion bill and even voting to strip all 8,500 earmarks from the measure.

Yet Hutchison also was the state's biggest sponsor of earmarks – more than $150 million for Texas.

Actually, the Senator was responsible for 113 earmarks totaling $267,153,966. A little higher than the 150 million figure in the Dallas Morning News.

She also said:

I do think that earmarks are a legitimate role of Congress.

How is that fiscally conservative? How does she think she can win conservative Republican primary voters with that mentality, especially looking at the latest Rasmussen numbers showing Governor Perry's rising approval ratings?


Previous Trivia Tidbit: Top 10% Rule.

Posted by Will Franklin · 6 March 2009 11:53 AM · Comments (3)

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 547 -- The University of Texas' Top 10% Rule.

A Good Problem To Have-

The Texas legislature is currently weighing whether to change the "Top 10% rule" for Texas' flagship university, The University of Texas at Austin. The Top 10% rule currently guarantees admission into UT for students who graduate in the top 10% of their Texas high school class.

It wasn't a terrible idea when it was dreamed up, but the rule is in need of some serious changes:

The flagship campus in Austin is increasingly the school of choice for students in the top 10 percent. Eighty-one percent of UT's freshmen from Texas enrolled under the law this academic year, and Powers said he expected that figure to rise to 86 percent for the entering class this fall.

Under Shapiro's plan, UT would admit students ranking in the top 1 percent, the top 2 percent and so forth until half of the slots were filled. The remaining slots would be filled through what she called a "holistic" examination of the pool of applicants, taking into account leadership, musical and artistic talent, race, ethnicity and other factors.

Without some change to the law, UT will be forced to reject all Texas high school graduates who are not in the top 10 percent by 2013, according to a report by the university. By 2015, the report said, there will be no room in the freshman class for students from other states or countries.

Back in 1999, I probably would have gotten into UT one way or another due to test scores and extracurricular activities alone, but I was fortunate enough to benefit from the Top 10% rule. It was the easiest college application on earth. I was already in. Essentially, I just had to send in my declaration.

The Top 10% rule definitely provides high school students with certain incentives for performing well in class. It might also lead to complacency ("I'm in, even if I get straight Cs my entire senior year") in some cases, or defeatism ("there's no way I can get into the top 10%, so what does it matter?") in other cases.

In the past, I have bounced around the idea of a Top 5% rule for UT, while keeping the Top 10% for everyone else. The Top 10% rule currently applies to Texas A&M and other state schools, but they are not facing the same level of demand that UT now faces. At some point in the future, however, they may. In another decade or less, those other schools would need their own rule change.

In the immediate future, without a legislative change, the Top 10% rule will begin having serious negative consequences for UT. It's not an issue of whether the law should be changed, it's a matter of how and when it can be phased in/out.

Whatever happens, let's hope that we don't end up watering down the increasingly high-achieving UT student body. Let's make sure that we're not caving to the race card mongers on this issue by crafting rules that require quotas based on anything but achievement. Let's not take a step backward in our admissions selectivity. Let's promote diversity by seeking out the best and the brightest from around the country and the world, and let's reward only the very highest achieving Texas high school students with admission into our primary flagship university.

As someone with a vested interest in the value of my degree, I represent a lot of people out there who a) want to see a change and soon; but b) don't want to weaken the admissions criteria in the process.

So far, I like what I see from the legislature, but I am concerned that special interests on the left are lobbying hard on this issue and may try to undermine the very purpose of the change.


Previous Trivia Tidbit: Deregulation, Deschmegulation.

Posted by Will Franklin · 5 March 2009 11:03 AM · Comments (0)

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 546 -- What Deregulation?

The Myth Of Massive Deregulation Just Plain False-

There's this weird narrative out there that argues that we got into this economic mess due to negligent, wild west deregulation throughout the Bush administration. In fact, we got a lot more regulation over that period (much of it from unaccountable bureaucrats, but still):


For the most part, deregulation-- especially in the private sector-- was not the problem. Fannie and Freddie, being government-chartered entities run almost exclusively by former Clinton administration officials, should have been more regulated all along. Or they could have just let market forces (and true market risks could have been factored into the decision-making process) work all along. Imagine that.


Previous Trivia Tidbit: The Obama Economy.

Posted by Will Franklin · 4 March 2009 05:49 PM · Comments (0)

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 545 -- The Obama Economy.

Stop Blaming Others, Obama, This Economy Is Now Yours-

Obama and the Democrats are still blaming Bush for everything that is wrong with the world. Unfortunately for them, Democrats controlled Congress for more than two years now, and in terms of policy decisions, the past few years now have been guided mostly by left-of-center thinking. The alleged deregulation of the Bush years was largely mythical. The Bush tax cuts were mostly a first term phenomenon. Entitlement reform was kiboshed. Instead, programs were expanded, regulations added, and taxes in other nations began to make ours look high. With so much media attention on the Democrats' primary, the national policy mood was decidedly left-wing. There was no room for conservative ideas during that period.

More than that, regardless of who was in charge of turning the boom into the bust, Obama and Pelosi are now unequivocally in charge. And they are not inspiring confidence. At all.

Just take a gander at the market since Obama won:

As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem.

Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence -- and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth.

Obama and the Democrats need to stop blaming others. They need to stop uttering phrases like, "we inherited such and such recession, or such and such deficit."

Even if you did inherit it, it's now yours.

As any clever trust fund kid knows, any money your rich parents spend on you now is just money that you won't inherit later on.

With that philosophy in mind, let's examine what the Democrats in Congress drained from their own inheritance in just the past year:


Liberal ideas got us into this mess. Über-liberal policies won't get us out. Buyer's remorse is already creeping in. It's already time for change in Washington.

QUICK UPDATE: More buyer's remorse, from "moderate" David Brooks.


Previous Trivia Tidbit: Nuclear Power.

Posted by Will Franklin · 3 March 2009 10:42 AM · Comments (2)

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 544 -- Nuclear Power Is Green

Low Risk, High Reward-

An interesting graphic about the safety of nuclear power:


Of course, nuclear power is green, but NIMBYism creeps in when people factor in an improbable-but-possible catastrophe involving a nuclear power plant. As energy prices have cratered over the past six months, talk of viable alternatives has gone by the wayside. Unfortunately, although oil and gas prices are in what can really only be described as a bust, "punish the oil companies" talk has not subsided. The worst of all worlds with regard to longterm energy policy is upon us. We're eschewing nuclear and other viable alternative energy sources (because energy is cheap again), all while reversing "drill here, drill now" (which will = major fail and pain in the future).

When the economy does pick up steam again at some point after 2010 and demand for energy picks up accordingly, don't be surprised to see energy prices once again take their toll. And we still won't have viable alternatives in place.

So says the ant... to the grasshopper.


Previous Trivia Tidbit: School Choice.

Posted by Will Franklin · 2 March 2009 06:08 PM · Comments (0)