December 3, 2008
Bureaucracy at its best
The New York Daily News reports:
In one of the biggest heists in American history, the Daily News "stole" the $2 billion Empire State Building.And it wasn't that hard.
The News swiped the 102-story Art Deco skyscraper by drawing up a batch of bogus documents, making a fake notary stamp and filing paperwork with the city to transfer the deed to the property.
Some of the information was laughable: Original "King Kong" star Fay Wray is listed as a witness and the notary shared a name with bank robber Willie Sutton.
The massive ripoff illustrates a gaping loophole in the city's system for recording deeds, mortgages and other transactions.
The loophole: The system - run by the office of the city register - doesn't require clerks to verify the information.
Less than 90 minutes after the bogus documents were submitted on Monday, the agency rubber-stamped the transfer from Empire State Land Associates to Nelots Properties LLC. Nelots is "stolen" spelled backward. (The News returned the property Tuesday.)...
...Of course, stealing the Empire State Building wouldn't go unnoticed for long, but it shows how easy it is for con artists to swipe more modest buildings right out from under their owners. Armed with a fraudulent deed, they can take out big mortgages and disappear, leaving a mess for property owners, banks and bureaucrats.
I think I will just let that speak for itself.
But they will excel at providing health care and choosing our country's best energy sources.
Posted by: jk at December 3, 2008 11:27 AMNovember 5, 2008
Perfect for Gub'mint work!
Don Luskin highlights the resume of the new bank regulator for the NY Fed, Michael Alix:
Most recently, Mr. Alix worked for the Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., where he served as chief risk officer from 2006-2008 and global head of credit risk management from 1996-2006.
October 6, 2008
Having "Fixed" Mortgages, Congress Moves On
By conceding the true causes of the Panic of '08 -- thanks to our populist Presidential candidate -- Republicans block the road to repairing the real problems, while paving the road to repetition. The same, damn, week.
A WSJ editorial points out that they will now do for credit cards what they did for home mortgages:
The freedom to manage risk has resulted in an unprecedented expansion of the credit card market. According to a Government Accountability Office study, 75% of the population possessed a credit card in 2005, up from only 30% in the 1980s. "The movement towards risk-based pricing for cards," said the report, "has allowed issuers to offer better terms to some cardholders and more credit cards to others."Under the Maloney bill, such risk-sensitive pricing would be severely curbed. With few exceptions, companies would be prevented from raising interest rates on existing balances, even if the cardholder has become less creditworthy. This is anathema to responsible lending, which is about making sound assessments about the ability to repay a loan. It's also a major reason mortgage lenders are in their current predicament -- think subprime and "liar loans." So it's ironic that Democrats want to punish credit card companies for taking into account the changing risk of the borrower.
The Maloney bill would also dictate how creditors allocate payments against balances. Where credit balances are subject to different interest rates -- e.g., zero-percent interest for a balance transfer, but 12% for new purchases -- the legislation would ban the current common practice of directing payments toward the lower interest rate balance first.
I think of Dr. Zhivago: "Yes, Comrade that is much more...fair." It's fair to make me pay the same interest rate as an unemployed jazz guitarist who's just come home from bankruptcy court (guitar players, sheesh!) It's not fair to allow a credit card company to entice me with a 0% balance transfer, because some idiot doesn't understand it.
Actually, it's not Dr. Zhivago, it's Santayana: those who cannot learn form history are doomed to repeat it. But in the same week?
September 20, 2008
For A Bailout, Press One
You've had a tough week of politics and Wall Street. Have a little fun:
"Hello! You've reached the United States Treasury's automated bailout hotline. Please listen carefully, because our options have recently changed. If you're too big to fail, press or say 'one.' If not, hang up and dial 1-800-FOR-FEMA.' "
Hat-tip: Professor Mankiw
August 13, 2008
Energy Freedom Day
Sign the petition created by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) calling on Congress to let the drilling bans expire on October 1, 2008.
The related blog page can be accessed here.
Hat Tip: Human Events via Wayne at jeremiahfilms.com
July 12, 2008
Nanny State, Government Power
Blog sister Dagny hits one of my favorite topics in a comment below: all government power is enforced at the point of the gun. I almost posted this video last week because Drew Carey does such a good job with that. If you sell fries with trans-fats, you get a fine; don't pay the fine, you get a summons; don't show up for the summons, they'll come get you. No matter how small the infraction, it is always enforced at gunpoint. Take it away, big man:
Indeed. And it's not just at the barrel of a gun, but ultimately with the threat of government *killing* you. Walter Williams wrote in 1999, in the foreword to "Your Money or Your Life: Why We Must Abolish the Income Tax" by my friend Sheldon Richman:
"Some might consider Richman's title to be hyperbole, but it accurately describes what is at stake. We can readily see this by asking, What is the endgame of the following scenario? Suppose an American told the U.S. Congress, 'I am an emancipated adult. I wish to be left alone to tend to my own retirement needs. If I fail to do so adequately, let me either depend on charity or suffer the consequences; however, I refuse to pay into the government's Social Security retirement program.' If that person refused to fork over part of his earnings as Social Security 'contributions,' the IRS would fine him. If that person rightfully concluded that he has not harmed or initiated violence against another and therefore refused to pay an unjust fine, he would be threatened with property confiscation or imprisonment. Suppose he then decided to use his natural or God-given rights to defend both his physical property against confiscation and his person against aggression? More than likely, he would suffer death at the hands of the U.S. government. The moral question Americans ought to ask is whether they can produce a moral argument that justifies a citizen's being subject to death by his government when that citizen has initiated violence against no one and simply wants to privately care for his own retirement needs? I know of no standard of morality that yields an affirmative answer."
I mentioned that on my own blog (A tale of two thieves), but I incorrectly attributed Williams' writing to Richard Ebeling. I was blogging on vacation and didn't have the book with me, and Richard is one of those remarkable people whose writings on freedom could easily be confused with Williams'.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 12, 2008 11:53 AMjohngalt knows of "a standard of morality that yields an affirmative answer" to Williams' question: Marxist-Leninist morality.
Williams surely knows this too. I think he meant to write, "I know of no standard of morality consistent with 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' that yields an affirmative answer."
Posted by: johngalt at July 13, 2008 12:47 PMYou're splitting hairs again. Perhaps WW's wording can be more precise, but the intimation is that we're talking about *true* standards of morality. Sure, collectivism has standards of "morality," however incorrect. It's "right" to serve the state, "wrong" to live for yourself. But we know what WW is talking about.
"Moral" is a word that cannot be used in a relative sense. It has deep implications that something "moral" is correct and just, and there's no room for opinion. So a Marxist-Leninist may argue his own "moral" perspective, but it will never be true "morality" no matter how much force he applies.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 14, 2008 3:29 PMJuly 8, 2008
Protecting Borrowers From -- Loans!
Great bit from the esteemed political philosopher, Emily Dickenson:
The surgeon must be very careful,
When to use the knife.
For underneath his fine incision,
Lays the culprit, life.
(From memory, so don't complain if I missed a comma or something)
Fed plans new rules to protect future homebuyers When I read the headline, a shiver went down to my feet in sort of a reverse Obama-Matthews. Reading the story did not make it go away. Broad new powers for the Fed (expanding our services because we rock so much at our other tasks) to regulate home loans.
Under the proposal unveiled last December, the rules would restrict lenders from penalizing risky borrowers who pay loans off early, require lenders to make sure these borrowers set aside money to pay for taxes and insurance and bar lenders from making loans without proof of a borrower's income. It also would prohibit lenders from engaging in a pattern or practice of lending without considering a borrower's ability to repay a home loan from sources other than the home's value.
Government comes up with some hare-brained ideas now and then but I think this one will indeed work. If you make it too expensive or perhaps impossible to get a loan, that should inhibit defaults.
Mortgage crisis solved! I knew getting a Princeton Man in would be a good idea!
June 23, 2008
jk Was Wrong!
I suggested, on January 5, 2007 that a Sirius -XM Merger was a good idea, but that "I cannot imagine getting approval for such a merger in the 110th. Democratic committee chairs and TR Republicans are not going to allow a monopoly in Satellite Radio. Even though, as usual, the FTC is not capable of seeing whom a firm or technology actually competes against."
Six weeks later, I said that I was not backing off but that "Against prescience points, however, I am hoping for the deal to succeed. I don't think either firm is strong enough to compete and innovate by itself. A strong satellite provider could bring new offerings to the market. (Maybe I'll even get my beloved Luna back.)"
Well, I was wrong. The 110th will approve the merger. But Don Luskin enumerates the costs of having the government "allow" something it has no moral or Constitutional right to preclude:
...* set aside 4 percent of their spectrum capacity (what now amounts to 12 channels) for non-commercial educational programming;
*lease another 4 percent to groups like minorities and women who are underrepresented in broadcasting...
Luskin says:
It’s a free country so we can’t complain that activist groups such as Public Knowledge agitate for the special interests of the left, but we ought to bitch and moan that they succeed at their game of policy piracy. Not many know that groups like this get funded by corporations who want to use them as a weapon, or, worse yet, as a form of protection money.
This is the Bush FCC. While it has some well documented intransigents on it, hands up those who believe that President Obama or McCain will staff it more liberty-friendly or business-friendly members.
May 27, 2008
Raw Milk
On May 1, Pennsylvania state troopers arrived at the home of Mennonite farmer Mark Nolt, seizing a reported $20,000 to 25,000 worth of farm equipment and placing Nolt under arrest. His crime? The illegal sale of unpasteurized milk and other dairy products. And Nolt isn't alone. In February, federal investigators subpoenaed two employees of Mark McAfee's Organic Pastures Dairy in California. Though the subpoenas do not indicate the purpose of the investigation, McAfee told me the feds were seeking evidence that his dairy was selling unpasteurized milk for human consumption across state lines.
I could go for a couple pieces of sashimi right about now.
But raw milk? A crime? C'mon.
When Milk is outlawed, only outlaws will drink Milk.
Posted by: jk at May 27, 2008 10:32 AMIt's for your own good. Them Amish farmers are like crack dealers, with the guns and the violence and the ruined families. The humanity!
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at May 27, 2008 1:34 PMMay 5, 2008
Tale of Woe
Convinced that private lenders were making too much profit on federally insured loans, Democrats enacted changes last fall that rendered most new student loans unprofitable. As numerous firms abandoned the market amid the credit crunch and just before the peak of college financing season, the anxious pols realized their blunder and are now seeking a bailout of the same lenders they had just finished punishing.I suggested Ethanol subsidies were a perfect, archetypal microcosm of government intrusion into free markets. I blogged that our grandchildren would study the folly and tease us about it. But why wait? The WSJ lead editorial (quoted above) captures it perfectly well today.
No need to worry about the risk for taxpayers in direct lending, however. Congressman Miller is so confident that the bureaucrats can manage everything this time that he is now trying to amend the law to eliminate some regular audits of the program. This auditing refinement, which has passed the House but not yet the Senate, specifically eliminates the requirement to report how much the program contributes to the national debt. If no one is counting, then no one can say it costs the taxpayers any money, right?From start to finish, it is hard to imagine a more thorough example of Congressional blundering while covering its tracks by blaming everyone else and getting the Fed and taxpayers to clean up the mess. Enjoy the free lunch while you can.
I'd encourage a thoughtful reader to read the whole thing.
profit motive
–noun
The desire for profit that motivates one to engage in business ventures.
[Origin: 1930–35]
-adjective
A modifier to the proper noun "evil."
[Origin: environmentalist economics circa 1968]
Posted by: johngalt at May 5, 2008 3:33 PMApril 29, 2008
We've Got The Public to Protect!
The good people of Pennsylvania (I am not piling on, it just happens to be the location) will be protected from the ravages of cheap medication:
A 67-year-old law is preventing Pennsylvania residents from obtaining the full list of $4 prescription drugs sold at Wal-Mart.Will it take that many years to decide if the 1941 law is doing more harm than good?
A bill that would allow the $4 prescriptions has lingered in the state Legislature for 13 months, with no debate and no action scheduled.
In late 2006, Wal-Mart began selling 331 medications for $4 for a 30-day supply.
The drugs are generics -- cheaper equivalents of brand name drugs.
The $4 offerings include medications for many common illnesses, including infections, high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease and depression.
Because of the 1941 law, 56 of the drugs have to sell for $9 in Pennsylvania.
Club for Growth links to the story and wonders "So...if you're a liberal, what side of the argument do you support? Do you defend Wal-Mart (God forbid) and repeal the law so that people can get their much-needed drugs at "an everyday" low price? Or do you side with the mom-and-pop pharmacies that supposedly can't compete against the big, bad Wal-Mart?"
Nothing happens in the Square State (not to be confused with Wyoming)?
Hey... did you see South Park? ;)
Posted by: AlexC at April 29, 2008 7:15 PMColorado and Wyoming are good places to find a nice, calm dentist and get $4 perscriptions. Pennsylvania seems to be having better luck in the Stanley Cup playoffs. I'd be tempted to trade.
Posted by: jk at April 29, 2008 7:36 PMGlobal Food Crisis
Not content with helping Senator Obama to a victory in Pennsylvania, Senator Casey turns to solving the global food crisis.
How?
Government.
President Bush had previously requested $350 million for the year. Durbin and Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) held a press conference Monday calling for an additional $200 million in food aid to be added to the upcoming war supplemental bill.“This global food crisis now risks creating a series of failed states, as anger at inadequate food stocks spur riots and political instability,” said Casey. The Democrats said the additional $200 million would go primarily to the U.N.’s World Food Program, which provides emergency food aid for up to 78 million people annually.
Earlier in the day, White House press secretary Dana Perino said the administration is monitoring the situation closely; the administration recently announced it was releasing an additional $200 million in wheat reserves to be sent to developing countries.
Oh, and let's give it to the UN, of all people. A model of efficiency.
The President doesn't escape blame, but is anyone in government willing to look at the real cause of the global food crises?
Government.
... specifically the US and EU mandates for Ethanol production and consumption.
When it pays better to burn food for fuel than it does to sell it for food, is anyone, outside of Democrats and liberal do-gooders, really surprised?
April 16, 2008
Life Would Suck Without Regulators
Prof. Reynolds links to a cool car on the Amazon Car Lust blog, the Toyota Sera.
It's worth a click if you like cars, but what caught my eye was this little government intrusion gem:
The United States allows non-U.S.-certified automobiles to be imported once they are 25 years past production date. This has allowed a few enterprising souls to import older cars like the Chrysler Valiant Charger, but it will be some time before the exotic Kei cars will be eligible for import. The situation is somewhat different in Canada, however; our northern neighbors require only a 15-year wait, meaning some of the interesting Japanese-market cars from the early 1990s are now fair game. There are quite a few dealerships in Vancouver, B.C., that do a strong business in such formerly forbidden fruit.
I'm thinking of brave Americans who dare to make Canadian bootlegging runs to import high- volume, non-Senator Albert A Gore approved, toilet tanks.
How much richer our lives and our bank accounts would be if we didn't have a Federal government protecting us from small 16 year old Japanese automobiles and four gallon toilets.
February 11, 2008
All The World's A Stage
Group Gets Around Smoking Ban By 'Acting' The Part
Barnacle's Resort in Lake Mille Lacs turned its normal Saturday night business into a play, testing a loophole in Minnesota's smoking ban. The production included programs and buttons that said "Act Now!""You are looking at a stage. You are looking at a playhouse," said Mark Benjamin, a nonsmoking lawyer who worked the bar dressed in Shakespearian garb. "Those are not cigarettes -- those are props."
The law allows actors and actresses to light up in theatrical performances -- but it doesn't define what that means. The idea of stretching the definition came to Benjamin at the Renaissance Festival, an annual event where people dress up in costumes.
Hat-tip: Rick Sincere
UPDATE: Thanks, Brett, here's video
See www.millelacsmessenger.com for video of the event.
Posted by: Brett at February 11, 2008 9:44 PMDecember 6, 2007
Spirit of 1776
The CATO Institute reports another, grim milestone:
It turns out that the federal government currently operates 1,776 subsidy programs. These include subsidies for states, cities, individuals, non-profit groups, and businesses.
They end with a swipe at President Bush: "He's no Thomas Jefferson." While I can't make an impassioned defense, it seemed odd to single him out. We've had 220 years and a lot of not-Jeffersons to get where we are.
Hat-tip: Josh at Everyday Economist
November 26, 2007
With Republican's Like These...
That should probably be a category -- or a whole new blog: with Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?
I wrote about Michael Powell in May of 2003:
Chairman Powell is Colin Powell’s son. As much as I respect Dad, Michael’s policy and beliefs comport better with mine, and he clearly is the better for spending fewer years with the striped-pants crowd at the State Department. He is pushing to bring FCC Regulations into the 21st Century. Regulations on ownership that were crafted when America got its news from Eric Sevareid can be relaxed now that many get news from Andrew Sullivan. Chairman Powell understands the effect of cable TV and Internet information sources and he believes in the free market enough to fight for a more modern approach.
Come home, Michael, we need you. Today, the WSJ Ed Page takes a few whacks at his successor, Kevin Martin (paid link until Rupert gets the keys...):
At a meeting scheduled for tomorrow, Chairman Martin plans to push a slew of new regulations on cable operators. Among other things, he wants to force cable companies to reduce, by as much as 75%, the already regulated rates they charge to lease channels to programmers. He also wants to require cable operators to settle carriage disputes, like the current one involving the NFL Network, through an arbitration system set up by the FCC. Apparently Mr. Martin, a Republican appointee to the agency no less, has lost faith in the free market's ability to handle commercial disputes. Either that, or he has some personal animus against cable.
Mr. Martin says more regulation is needed because monopolistic players are dominating the cable industry. But his premise doesn't remotely square with reality. Comcast, the nation's largest cable provider, recently reported a drop in subscriptions. Cable share prices generally are getting hammered, trading near 52-week lows. According to a report last week in Broadcasting & Cable, since Comcast's last earnings report its stock is down 17%; Time Warner is down 21%; Cablevision is down 16.5%; and Charter Communication is off 47%.
[...]
To justify his meddling, Mr. Martin describes a marketplace that doesn't exist. He pretends there's no DirecTV and EchoStar option. He pretends that Verizon and AT&T's video offerings pose no threat to Comcast and Time Warner. But if the FCC chairman is most concerned about costs, the goal should be more competition via different platforms. In other words, he should want current trends to continue. His odd and untimely proposals are more likely to retard them.
Some people still wonder why so many businesses donate to Democrats. Some of it is explained by rent-seeking and staying close to power -- but how can you ask business to donate to the GOP when their Cabinet Chairs think like Mr. Martin?
UPDATE: Never give up hope. The vote may be in trouble:
WSJ
WASHINGTON -- A vote Tuesday on a proposal that could lead to stricter regulation of the cable industry was in jeopardy Monday, as internal squabbling at the Federal Communications Commission and outside pressure from Congress and the White House threatened to delay, if not completely derail, the plan.
Should the federal government have prevented Apple from releasing the iPod until there were enough competitors to make a "market"?
Actually, only one seller is required to make a market. It's unadulterated bullshit that, as the interventionists claim, "markets require competition." Even if there is only one seller of a good or service, consumers always have a choice: they can choose not to buy.
The only reason cable companies are "monopolistic" is because local governments give them the monopolies. Cablevision is the only cable company that Westchester County permits to operate, even though RCN would be more than happy to get my business (and I'd be more than happy to give it to them). Cablevision's service is atrocious enough, but I can't imagine how much worse it would be without satellite competitors.
I stick with Cablevision for its cable modem service, but even then it's recently given me so many problems that I'm about to get Verizon's FIOS. And there would be many, many more people offering high-speed connections of all types, if only government would stop sodomizing the market.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at November 27, 2007 2:44 PMThat's the best thing about government intervention: when you ruin the market with regulation, you can claim the market doesn't work and regulate further.
It's one thing when Rep Barney Franks tries to over regulate the mortgage industry at the start of a housing slump, his constituents expect that. Seeing a Bush appointee go this far is disheartening.
After I wrote that essay that lauded Michael Powell, he showed a regulatory streak on language and "wardrobe malfunctions" that I didn't cheer, but it was at least in character.
September 29, 2007
Whose Fire Is It?
A private fire crew dispatched by a national insurance company that caters to wealthy clients is guarding 22 high-end homes threatened by the Castle Rock Fire, a blaze that has forced the evacuation of hundreds of million-dollar homes west of Ketchum.The crew will protect only homes insured by AIG Private Client Group, an insurance company that offers "loss-prevention services" to its wealthiest customers. A truck and two-man crew sent by AIG from Montana arrived in Ketchum about 2 p.m. Wednesday to start dousing properties with Phos-Chek, the same fire retardant dropped from U.S. Forest Service aircraft.
"We're not going out there to fight the fire," said Dorothy Sarna, vice president and national director of risk-management services and loss prevention for the New York-based company. "We're out there to protect our clients."
Veteran fire managers now working the Castle Rock fire say they've never heard of a private fire crew protecting individual homes in the midst of a wildfire, said Dave Olson, a spokesman for the Forest Service.
The private crew has been granted access to areas closed to residents, but not all officials with public fire agencies were thrilled by the sight of the truck scooting through a smoky web of government fire crews.
"That sounds ridiculous to me," said Kim Rogers, a Ketchum Police Department spokesman, "especially since we haven't lost any structures. I mean, this is a Forest Service fire, not a private fire."
Would she rather they let them burn? Here is the whole story.
My only concern is that the indigent people who own million dollar vacation homes in the Wood River Valley will lose their homes.
There really are two Americas.
September 19, 2007
Competing with Coke & Pepsi
Sometimes you have to wonder.
Ray Murphy @ YoungPhillyPolitics is incensed, incensed, that Coke and Pepsi are taking (well paying for) regular ol' Philly tap water, putting it in a bottle, slapping a label on it, and marking up the piss out out it.
Half a cents worth of tap water is now worth a dollar and a half.
According to the Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Company website, our local plant is the fourth largest nationwide with over half a billion dollars in annual sales. Both Pepsi and Coke have reported that bottled water sales are among the fastest growing in their companies and may soon catch up or even overtake the sale of carbonated beverages. That means there are a lot of potential water consumers in Philadelphia.The simpler way to profit off of water is to tax Pepsi and Coke at a higher rate for their water usage. I had some trouble figuring out the PWD’s business tax rate (hello Philadelphia, can we get some good city websites up or what?), but for consumers, it costs about $17 in taxes for 600 gallons of water. Philly Coke’s website says it serves about 5 million consumers a year. If one-third of these people buy one 20 oz. bottle of water a year, we’re talking at least 278,437 gallons of water sold annually.
I don’t really care how we make money off of water, but the point here is that in these cash strapped times, we are stupid if we don’t.
Our water supply is currently being exploited by Coke and Pepsi. As the largest municipality collecting and cleaning water for drinking in the region, Coke and Pepsi can’t really get the tap water they need for Dasani and Aquafina anywhere else but Philly (and shipping tap water from other places would likely cut too deeply into their bottom line). That means that whether we tax them more, or bottle our own water, Philadelphia is in a good place to be able to better take advantage of a natural resource.
Admittedly, I am not a degreed economist, but I'm sure this is a catastrophically bad liberal idea, but I repeat myself.
I'll say it slowly. (Please read along slowly for full effect)
1) If the city of Philadelphia can not control crime within it's own boundaries, how in the hell is it supposed to compete with two massively global companies that have had their horns locked for years?
2) If the city of Philadelphia charges big soda more for water, they can go bottle tap water somewhere else. There is nothing special about what Trenton flushes into the Delaware River. Really. Nothing.
Bonus part of that is when they close their bottling plants in the city and move them outside of the city limits, the city loses wage tax collection, property taxes, etc... a win-win!
Never mind that whole issue of a government specifically targetting two industrial consumers of water to the exclusion of the other industrial consumers. How many gallons of water go into a box of Oreos from the Nabisco bakery? ... what about my precious Tasty-Klair Pie? or a case from the Yards Brewery? *
Ideas like this are nicely nucleated examples of liberal progressive thinking.
... and it goes without saying that if you buy bottled water that's municipal sourced, you're a dope, no matter who puts a screw top on it.
Get a Nalgene bottle and fill it before you leave the house... and use the bottle again, and again, and again. It takes two liters of water to make a one liter plastic bottle, btw.
See? You can be conservative and environmentally conscious!
* Note: I'd list more water consuming businesses within city-limits, but great business friendly ideas like this have chased most out into the suburbs, or the south or Mexico.
I read somewhere that the City of Pittsburgh almost saved the world from bad beer when they tried to close Iron City because the brewer wasn't paying their water bill. (Water being the source and closest taste to IC).
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at September 19, 2007 11:19 PMI love it. He goes to the Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Company website and finds everything he needs, goes to the city website and can't find anything -- then says that government should tell private business how to operate.
Posted by: jk at September 20, 2007 10:32 AMSecond-best-case scenario: the companies stay put despite the taxes, but they must pass the additional taxes on to consumers. Instead of paying $1.50 for bottled water, consumers must now pay $1.65 or whatever, so sales will decrease. Thing is, the Laffer Curve can also work in reverse, so those sales could very well drop and take the tax revenues along with them.
Best-case scenario: the companies stay put, they pass the additional taxes on to consumers, and sales remain the same. But because a consumer now spends $1.65 on a 20-oz. bottle water when he spent $1.50 before, that's 15 cents taken away from other purchases. By definition it must come from *somewhere*, and it adds up to anything from a supersize option on fast food to a notepad to a restaurant meal. Now *those* companies will experience an equivalent sales decline, which means they must cut back on man-hours. Of secondary importance is the lost tax revenue. Now, this is the absolute best possible scenario, and it's also the most improbable. It won't happen for a simple reason: economies never, ever shift toward industries or sectors that are taxed higher.
A lot of people subscribe to the economic fallacy that charging more can be good, because it means the sellers (and in this case, government as a tax receiver) has more money to spend, and this supposedly spurs economic growth. On the surface it looks good, but it cannot avoid the fact that buyers have finite incomes. If I spend $1.65 on bottled water instead of $1.50, or when Henry Ford paid workers enough to afford the cars they made (an economic urban legend), that money must come from somewhere else. I'll spend less on other purchases if I'm to buy bottled water in the same quantity and frequency, and because Henry Ford's customers must spend more on the cars, they'll spend less on other things. True economic output does not increase -- unless the central bank prints more dollars so we can spend more, which is, of course, inflationary.
The lesson, as always, is to remember what Bastiat taught us. Look for the unseen.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 20, 2007 11:22 AMI should add that I stick to bottled water, even if it's ultimately tap water, as a matter of taste and sanitation. I prefer spring water, but I'll still buy Dasani. To me, there's no choice between "free" water from a Grand Central Terminal fountain and paying $1.65 at any of the vendors. When government says it purifies, filters and UVs tap water, I wonder how well. When Coca-Cola says it does those, I actually trust it more, not because it's interested in protecting me, but because it wants to keep my business.
Oh, and by the way, liberal idiots like Murphy and Gavin Newsom can give themselves edemas with plain old tap water.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at September 20, 2007 11:33 AMWho drinks brand label water? Progressive elitists ... I'm with W.C. Fields on this one. My hydration comes from a bottle of scotch, thnx.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at September 20, 2007 12:47 PMI think it's a mistake to compare bottled water to tap water. The substitution is bottled water vs. Coke. The price comparison is a lot less extreme and it represents substitution better: convenient, disposable, &c.
"Freakonomist" Steven Levitt has an interesting piece discussing that Coca Cola now advertises that Diet Coke is 99% water -- after trying to hide that fact for years.
August 8, 2007
Populism and Transportation
In the wake of the bridge collapse in Minnesota, The New York Times recently published a piece on the bizarre spending habits of the government when it comes to transportation:
Despite historic highs in transportation spending, the political muscle of lawmakers, rather than dire need, has typically driven where much of the money goes. That has often meant construction of new, politically popular roads and transit projects rather than the mundane work of maintaining the worn-out ones.Further, transportation and engineering experts said, lawmakers have financed a boom in rail construction that, while politically popular, has resulted in expensive transit systems that are not used by a vast majority of American commuters.
Representative James L. Oberstar, Democrat of Minnesota and the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, sent out a news release last month boasting about Minnesota’s share of a recent transportation and housing appropriations bill.
Of the $12 million secured for the state, $10 million is slated for a new 40-mile commuter rail line to Minneapolis, called the Northstar. The remaining $2 million is divided among a new bike and walking path and a few other projects, including highway work and interchange reconstruction.
Reading the article, I could not help but to be reminded of this:
The light rail system was a major boondoggle that will be mentioned over and over again in the coming election cycles.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at August 9, 2007 10:02 AM"Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken." Awesome!
Sadly, the I35 bridge will be used to demagogue a huge increase in Federal spending and control. Even Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard said last week that "small government conservatives are going to have to support increased taxes for infrastructure needs." Et tu, Fred?
July 25, 2007
Why Government Can't Succeed.
I read hb's charming post on the success of private efforts to help Katrina victims, complete with his admonition that "the inability to provide ample support is not confined to the administration, but rather to government itself."
Shortly after that, I read this editorial, Union Doozy, in the Wall Street Journal. The contrast is explicit. The State of Indiana contracts with private companies to deliver state welfare services, using the efficiency of the private sector. Unfortunately for AFSCME, the program is a mad success and they have to get their Democratic lapdogs in the 110th Congress to overrule the State law (so much for laboratories of democracy, Justice Brandeis!)
Indiana's goal is to deliver welfare benefits more efficiently to those who qualify for them. Its reform aims to save $500 million over 10 years by moving some 1,400 government jobs to the private sector -- which AFSCME likes to call "domestic outsourcing." But while this could mean fewer dues-paying union members, the state contract with IBM specifically requires that all current employees be offered work on the new system. And what do you know? More than 99% chose the private sector. Adding call centers and online resources will also help reduce welfare fraud: In December, a federal-state investigation found more than 1,000 ineligible drug felons collecting welfare in Marion County alone.But no effort to make government more accountable goes unpunished. Under the House provision, the Hoosier state would be forced to cancel the $1.16 billion 10-year deal with IBM, while taxpayers would have to shoulder the more than $100 million in additional costs to bring the operation back into the bureaucracy. Worse, the money to make up the shortfall would likely come out of the same purse that's been funding an increasing number of child-welfare caseworkers -- which was another goal of reform.
There are a hundred good arguments against government running things, but the best to me is the Hayekian preference for distributed control and knowledge. Allowing a few Senators to have veto privileges over innovation will guarantee inefficiency every time.
The program is likely safe for now, but won't be under a Democratic administration. And why would the next IBM bother to get involved with such a program?
July 24, 2007
Summer Jobs in New Orleans
The Times-Picayune reports:
They could just as easily do what young people typically do during their precious summer free time: work various odd or part-time jobs, lounge around a beach or do nothing at all.But for thousands of young people from across the country - in a few cases, other countries - this summer has been different.
Despite tales of thick, suffocating summer heat and entire neighborhoods still scarred with floodlines and wrecked seemingly beyond repair, young people continue to flock to New Orleans. They come not to revel in the neon glow of Bourbon Street, but to continue the cleanup nearly two years after Hurricane Katrina.
Many of the young volunteers have never been to the city and team up with local organizations, such as the well-established Catholic Charities or the newer Beacon of Hope Resource Center, to fill the voids in neighborhoods where the need for help remains great.
On a recent afternoon, a group of high school students from Westlake, a town just outside Lake Charles, spent part of their day in Mid-City, hand scraping old paint from the porch of a white shotgun double and applying a fresh coat to the inside walls. Even though the house is raised about 3 feet, a waterline remains about 2 feet high on the screen door.
"Something as simple as a fresh coat of paint can do so much," said Sam Turner, 16, who was in town to work with other young members of his church, First Baptist Church of Westlake.
The homeowner, Chareen Black, 41, said the volunteers have made a major contribution.
"Imagine without the volunteers - the house would still be in disarray, and I can't do it myself," said Black, who was welcoming a second group of volunteers to her home. "It's been a big help, a huge blessing."
Those who criticized FEMA and Bush in the same breath fail to realize that the inability to provide ample support is not confined to the administration, but rather to government itself. This story is free of the rhetoric and is a great example of human compassion and the free market.
May 24, 2007
Bush as John Galt
It's no secret that United States President George W. Bush Continues to Support Bipartisan Immigration Proposal. There is a mystery, however. Why?
Conservative icon Rush Limbaugh has struggled with this question, arriving speculatively at the conclusion that the religious president considers it one of his "good works." I've pondered the root cause myself over the past many months since the original Senate proposal last year, with no defensible theory having come forth - until today.
I've defended the concept of unfettered immigration on these pages many times, including once with a checklist of prerequisites. Unfortunately, the single most important prerequisite is also universally understood to be nigh on impossible: Entitlement reform to eliminate the welfare state and end government enforced transfer payments amongst individuals. But now, I think the president has figured out how to actually make this happen.
By adding millions upon millions of new dependents to the American welfare state the system will collapse under its own weight, with massive shortfalls of capital. Future congresses will have only two options: Increase the money supply, creating hyperinflation and economic collapse or, cancel most entitlement programs outright. Brilliant! Life imitates art as Ayn Rand's epic 'Atlas Shrugged' provides the template for productive Americans to demand the second option, leaving the government with no choice but to comply.
Having chosen 'johngalt' as my blog pen name it would be hypocritical of me to continue opposing such a strategy. I just hope Dubya and JK will forgive me for taking so long to come around.
So .. .you're saying he wants the system to collapse, so he's trying to make it happen?
In the long term, with the divisiveness of the party system, if the collapse did happen, the Left would blame Pres. Bush and the Right for letting it happen. Anything short of Socialism would be called 'radical Right Wing'; this would help the nation?
I can't explain Mr. Bush's idea, either; but this doesn't wash with me.
Posted by: Charlie on the PA Tpk at May 25, 2007 8:48 AMCharlie,
This was a joke. JG's bizarre sarcasm. He doesn't really think that Bush wishes the end of the welfare state. It is only wishful thinking.
Posted by: dagny at May 28, 2007 11:02 AMI concede to being guilty of a high degree of "tongue-in-cheekness." My point was that the welfare state is currently in a delicate balance between how much government theft of individual wealth can be perpetrated (through the prevailing moral code of altruism) before enough individuals stop "participating" (effectively going on strike as producers) that the system collapses.
I personally consider Dubya to be far more intelligent than he's credited for (except in the area of altruism) so it logically followed that his steadfast position on legalizing an enormous additional demand on the welfare state is founded in an intentional plan to destabilize it. (Except for the president's unintelligent obedience to the code of altruism.)
I contend that such a crisis would lead to massive reductions in entitlements. Charlie seems to believe the Democrats and their ideas could escape culpability for the crisis. He may well be right, but such a strategy holds more actual promise for my predicted outcome than any other I've yet contemplated.
Posted by: johngalt at May 28, 2007 12:57 PMApril 15, 2007
Tax Day Coffee Smelling
Officially, tax day isn't until Tuesday (due to the 15th being on a Sunday and the 16th being an official holiday in D.C.) but the well known and lamented date of April 15th mustn't go by without some discussion of the state of taxation in America.
"Work hard. Be faithful. You'll get your just reward."
Those words appear on a statuette my father was given on the occasion of the closing of the College of Engineering at the University of Denver, where he had tenure. (The statuette was of a conscientious gentleman with a giant blue screw through his torso.) They can just as well be applied to American taxpayers who have earned a high school diploma or better in their educational career.
The preceeding chart comes from a fascinating April 4, 2007 study report by Robert Rector et. al. of The Heritage Foundation entitled, 'The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer.' The report summarizes the chart this way:
Chart 7 compares households headed by persons without a high school diploma to households headed by persons with a high school diploma or better. Whereas the dropout-headed household paid only $9,689 in taxes in FY 2004, the higher-skill households paid $34,629— more than three times as much. While dropout-headed households received from $32,138 to $43,084 in benefits, high-skill households received less: $21,520 to $30,819. The difference in government benefits was due largely to the greater amount of means-tested aid received by low-skill households.Households headed by dropouts received $22,449 more in immediate benefits (i.e., direct and means-tested aid, education, and population-based services) than they paid in taxes. Higher-skill households paid $13,109 more in taxes than they received in immediate benefits.
OK, so you're probably wondering, what's new? What's new is the trend in dropout households in the U.S. According to the World Net Daily article that cites the study:
About two-thirds of illegal alien households are headed by someone without a high school degree. Only 10 percent of native-born Americans fit into that category.
I have advocated on these pages (and stand by it today) that immigration should be free and unlimited to non-criminal aliens, provided that citizenship (and voting rights) must still be earned and that entitlement programs that make immigrants a burden on the taxpayer are first reduced or eliminated.
The Rector report explains the realities we face.
Politically feasible changes in government policy will have little effect on the level of fiscal deficit generated by most low-skill households for decades. For example, to make the average low-skill household fiscally neutral (taxes paid equaling immediate benefits received plus interest on government debt), it would be necessary to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, all 60 means-tested aid programs and cut the cost of public education in half. It seems certain that, on average, low-skill households will generate deep fiscal deficits for the foreseeable future.
Hat tip: The Canadian Sentinel
Click continue reading to see the report's conclusion in its entirety.
Conclusion
Households headed by persons without a high school diploma are roughly 15 percent of all U.S. households. Overall, these households impose a significant fiscal burden on other taxpayers: The cost of the government benefits they consume greatly exceeds the taxes they pay to government. Before government undertakes to transfer even more economic resources to these households, it should have a very clear account of the magnitude of the economic transfers that already occur.
The substantial net tax burden imposed by low-skill U.S. households also suggests lessons for immigration policy. Recently proposed immigration legislation would greatly increase the number of poorly educated immigrants entering and living in the United States.[12] Before this policy is adopted, Congress should examine carefully the potential negative fiscal effects of low-skill immigrant households receiving services.
Politically feasible changes in government policy will have little effect on the level of fiscal deficit generated by most low-skill households for decades. For example, to make the average low-skill household fiscally neutral (taxes paid equaling immediate benefits received plus interest on government debt), it would be necessary to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, all 60 means-tested aid programs and cut the cost of public education in half. It seems certain that, on average, low-skill households will generate deep fiscal deficits for the foreseeable future. Policies that reduce the future number of high school dropouts and other policies affecting future generations could reduce long-term costs.
Future government policies that would expand entitlement programs such as Medicaid would increase future deficits at the margin. Policies that reduced the out-of-wedlock childbearing rate or which increased the real educational attainments and wages of future low-skill workers could reduce deficits somewhat in the long run.
Changes to immigration policy could have a much larger effect on the fiscal deficits generated by low-skill families. Policies which would substantially increase the inflow of low-skill immigrant workers receiving services would dramatically increase the fiscal deficits described in this paper and impose substantial costs on U.S. taxpayers.
Mmmm coffee.
Bastiat talks about "the seen and the unseen." With all due respect, you -- and my brother in law -- and a lot of other people whom I highly respect -- love to point to a datum in the "seen" category and say "See?"
Lower income households provide less revenue and use more government services. Who is surprised? Those without a diploma will earn less than those with; illegal immigrants tend to be less educated than native born citizens, yup.
I contend, still, that the "unseen" value that these workers and consumers bring to the economy more than compensates for the increased use of public services. The educated in your table are able to earn what they do, in large part, because there is a less educated work force (stop him before he says "comparative advantage" -- too late!).
To allow the educated (or ambitious dropouts like me and AlexC) to get ahead and innovate frequently requires allowing them to leverage less-educated labor. As Ricardo showed, both will be wealthier.
April 4, 2007
Minimum Waging
Supporters of having the government, instead of the private market, determine wage rates have said that there has been no solid evidence supporting claims that increasing the minimum wage leads to lost jobs. But just tell that to the roughly 70 Kennywood Park employees who were laid off as a result of the recent increase in the state’s minimum wage. The southwestern Pennsylvania amusement park was forced to lay off these workers – largely high school and college students – and raise ticket prices to make up for increased labor costs. Another 20 workers were laid off at nearby Idlewild Park.Other examples:
- The fitness chain store operator in the Lehigh Valley who laid off 100 part-time workers
- The central Pennsylvania business that reduced its work force by three “marginal” workers; will attempt to automate additional work and will consider a reduction in health-care benefits
- The central Pennsylvania business that runs an apprenticeship program for engine repair had to reduce available opportunities to just one
- The large multi-state food retailer that will raise prices to consumers to cover additional costs
- The eastern Pennsylvania-based retailer that cut hours back in its stores and still surrendered profits
- The western Pennsylvania manufacturer that laid off two employees
- The business owner with a young family who must now work 15 more hours a week at his pizza shop because he cannot afford the financial hit of the increased minimum wage
None of this is a surprise, naturally.
(tip to Chris)
March 25, 2007
The Yoke
In case you were wondering...
[The Tax Foundation] find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41. Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state and local taxes. In 2004, between $1.03 trillion and $1.53 trillion was redistributed downward from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest income quintiles through government taxes and spending policy.
It still ain't fair... the poor hardly pay any taxes!
March 2, 2007
And they say government cannot innovate
Postal Service fixes long waits by removing clocks | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Hat-tip: Andrew Roth at Club for Growth
February 21, 2007
The Tax Bite
This is an interesting calculation.
Taxes take a bigger bite out of the Big Apple than any other urban area in the nation, according to an analysis released Wednesday.The Independent Budget Office report said local government taxes absorb $9.02 of every $100 of taxable resources here. The rate is 47 percent more than the $6.16 average for the most populous U.S. cities.
"No other large city comes close," the report said.
After New York, Philadelphia rated next highest, with $7.16 per $100, and Los Angeles followed with $6.88. Of the nine cities, Dallas had the lowest rate, with $5.20 per $100.
To reach those numbers, analysts estimated each city's gross taxable resources, made up of city household incomes and business surpluses , in other words, the main spending power used to pay taxes. For New York, that number is $502.1 billion. The portion of tax capacity being used by government was calculated using direct municipal taxes, estimated state collections within a city, and any overlapping local governments like counties.
The deductibility of local taxes and the AMT conspire to make this an opportunity for tax reform. Democrats in those blue areas seek AMT reform for their constituents, there might be a deal to extend the Bush tax cuts.
Posted by: jk at February 22, 2007 11:59 AMFebruary 9, 2007
Geno's Still on Meat Hook
The highly charged dispute over the speak-English sign at Geno's Steaks is about to heat up.The Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations notified Geno's owner Joey Vento this week that it had found probable cause that his sign urging patrons to order in English is discriminatory. The next step is to schedule a hearing to settle the dispute or to escalate the charges against the owner of the South Philadelphia sandwich stand.
Vento, who argues that the sign expresses opinions protected by the First Amendment, has enlisted the support of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, a conservative public-interest law firm in Atlanta that last year won a settlement for an Ohio bar owner who faced similar charges.
"I'm shocked the city is pursuing this," said Albert G. Weiss, Vento's attorney in Philadelphia. "You'd think they have more important things to deal with."
Heaven forbid Joey Vento cater to his choice of customers.
I suppose that soon the "no shoes, no shirt, no service" signs will be coming down. They're discriminatory to leg amputees.
Shoe stores, you've officially been warned.
Heaven forbid Joey Vento cater to his choice of customers.
I suppose that soon the "no shoes, no shirt, no service" signs will be coming down. They're discriminatory to leg amputees.
Shoe stores, you've officially been warned.
LOL,..Yup Alex. Vento is violating people's rights, but Mayor John and his "Department of Street" are killing what little life still exists in this town!
Has anybody checked if this request has driven business over to Pat's Steaks?
John F. Kerry (did you know he was in Vietnam?) put the Swiss Cheesesteak on the map at Pat's.
Posted by: Guy Montag at February 10, 2007 3:34 PMFebruary 7, 2007
Banning iPods
First they came for your cigarettes... then they came for your trans-fat.
Now they're coming for your iPod.
From my cold, dead hands city fathers!
Posted by: jk at February 7, 2007 4:05 PMWhat about bluetooth ear pieces ... or Secret Service Ear pieces. And finally, hearing aids. I cannot wait to see that.
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at February 7, 2007 9:56 PMFebruary 2, 2007
Government Accounting
Here's a story that's hard to believe...
- A recent audit of cash-strapped Camden, N.J. school district's finances found it was paying an employee $130,000 annually — and he's been dead for more than three decades.
City officials were shocked by the discovery.
No!! Not as shocked as the poor f*cker is going to be who's been cashing those checks....
- Camden has been plagued with scandal and is known as the nation's poorest city.
The audit also found outside vendors have been overpaid more than $17 million. In one case the district forked over $953,000 for copy equipment even though the purchase order was for only $55,000.
So who got the $900K?
This is criminal.
A lot of people need to be hauled into a courtroom. Outrageous.
Come on, ac, you worry too much. The dead teacher probably did a lot less damage to the children than his living peers, didn't overuse the health care benefit -- don't always look on the dark side.
Posted by: jk at February 3, 2007 11:14 AMIt isn't criminal, Alex,..its ops-normal in Camden ( and probably in Philly, too, if we ever get a chance to dig a little).
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at February 3, 2007 12:05 PMJanuary 4, 2007
Haste Makes Waste
Opinion Journal looks at the Democrats rush to get things done in the first 100 hours and their motivations for doing so.
Namely, their ideas won't stand up to scrutiny.
- The need for scrutiny is even more compelling on price controls for Medicare prescription drugs. Under the Medicare Part D benefit that took effect last year, private companies negotiate prices. Democrats want to allow the government to deal directly with drug companies. They argue that this would lead to lower prices for medicines, but the more likely outcome is fewer drug choices and price controls.
Democrats point to the Department of Veteran Affairs as a model, but we doubt seniors will like that story when they learn about it. The government already negotiates drug prices directly with the VA. But as Robert Goldberg wrote last month in The Weekly Standard, "Far from negotiating prices, the VA imposes them. Federal law requires companies to sell to the VA at 24% below wholesale price. If they won't, they are banned from selling medicines to Medicaid, Medicare and the public health service."
The VA has created a list of approved drugs for its patients. Companies that don't pay the VA price don't make the list, and a slew of drugs fall into that category. They include Azilect and Tysabri, two of the newest therapies for Parkinson's and multiple sclerosis, respectively. That's what happens when keeping prices down takes priority over getting the best available medicines to patients. Both drugs are available through Medicare Part D, by the way. Maybe Congress ought to debate this.
December 18, 2006
Air Quality
- More than a dozen states sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today to lower soot levels from smokestacks and exhaust pipes, a move the state officials argue would save thousands of lives.
The states argue that the Bush administration is ignoring science and its own experts in refusing to slightly reduce the allowed threshold for soot. The "fine particulate matter" in soot contributes to premature death, chronic respiratory disease and asthma attacks, said New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. The pollution also leads to more hospital admissions and other public health costs, he said.
Officials from Pennsylvania, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and the District of Columbia joined New York in the action filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.
"It is unfortunate that this coalition of states must resort to legal action to get the EPA to do its job — protect the environment and the public health," said Spitzer, the Democratic governor-elect.
EPA lied, people died.
- The states want to reduce the current limit of 15 micrograms of soot allowed per cubic foot of air. States say even a reduction of 1 microgram would save as many as 11,000 lives. They don't agree on a specific amount to cut the limit.
It's not clear how much the states want to lower it. But if one is good enough, why not five?
I mean there's lives at stake here.
How about 10?
Do I hear 15? I read that John Kerry promised that, if elected president, he will reduce the allowable level of soot in industrial air emissions by TWENTY MICROGRAMS per cubic foot from its current level.
Posted by: johngalt at December 19, 2006 3:09 PMDecember 15, 2006
Your Tax Dollars at Work
Folks still clamor for public finance of elections. I always ask "who decides who gets to run?" There are only two reasons to oppose public finance of elections: those who run and those who don't.
It doesn't seem right that a long shot would have to compete with a publicly financed candidate, and if Senator McCain gets his way, anybody who spends more than $300 would be thrown in jail.
We need to seriously rethink the amount of money we currently provide. It's not enough for legitimate candidates, all of whom eschew the funds to avoid the attached strings. So, who is getting this money? The Charleston Daily Mail lists a few:
EVERYONE who laughed when the elfin Dennis Kucinich threw his hat in the ring to run for president in 2004 should realize why he smiles.He had 2,955,963 reasons to smile. That is how many bucks federal taxpayers gave his ridiculous campaign for president.
Kucinich had no chance.
Yet under the bizarre federal election rules, taxpayers had to give this fool $2,955,963 just to humor his vanity.
Ralph Nader took $798,827 from taxpayers in 2004 to indulge his fantasy of being elected president. Consumers beware. I look for this demagogue to run again.
Lyndon LaRouche is another likely candidate. Last time, he squeezed $1,456,019 from taxpayers.
In 2000, Pat Buchanan hit the jackpot, drawing $16,635,624 in federal matching funds. He drew just 0.4 percent of the popular vote.
Do you want $3 of your taxes to go to ending this travesty? Why, yes.
Hat-tip: Instapundit
UPDATE: Remember, it's the price of five weeks of Wii sales, and one-twentieth what we spend on potato chips.
I was going to bring this up on the watercooler, regarding Pa's laws. (there are no limits)
But that doesn't mean Philadelphia doesn't want to do it's own thing.
Here's an opinion from the other side.
Naturally there's no discussion of how the money gets distributed or in what amounts.
Posted by: AlexC at December 16, 2006 12:10 PMColor me unswayed.
Are we free of not? There was a discussion on Samizdata of the French belief that freedom is within natural boundaries. Who gets to choose and define these interstices? You're free or you're not.
Good for Philadelphia, cradle of freedom, to allow free speech. I'd love to know what Rep. Chaka Fattah does to extort -- I mean raise -- huge contributions, but the solution is not to limit them.
Of course we're not free. That's why one of the commenters had the guts to write:
"Public financing is the solution. (Mandatory low-cost tv advertisements on cable would help too, if only by reducing the cost of public financing. But it is not enough.)"
When more government is the answer to every problem, you're a slave to it.
Posted by: AlexC at December 16, 2006 2:25 PMOctober 31, 2006
Environmental Reactionaries
As Great Britain prostrates itself over the urgency to save the world from Global Warming [all caps because this is a proper name, not an actuality] David Cox writes in The Guardian that we're "back on the road to nowhere."
So off we go. But are we going anywhere? This is not the first time that the peoples of the world have been mobilised to confront a common danger. Success has usually proved elusive. You may remember the "war on drugs", or, if memory fails you on that one, the "war on terror". Ten years ago, a hundred countries, including Britain, pledged to halve global hunger. During the following decade, the number of starving people rose by 54 million, and that was with pop concerts, TV pictures of starving babies and Bob Geldof leading the charge.
Cox's conclusion is encouraging, however:
So all the curbs on free flights, higher motoring taxes and increased fuel bills which Mr Juniper has in mind for us would be unlikely to do the planet much good. In due course, this is likely to become apparent to both our politicians and to voters. Sacrifice that is clearly pointless soon loses its allure. So we need not be too fearful that the harsh measures currently being canvassed by the likes of David Miliband will actually materialise.
September 29, 2006
Social Security Statement
Happy Days.
I got my statement today in the mail.
- If you continue working until your full retirement age (67 years), your payment would be about $2,178/month.
age 70, your payment would be $2,701.
Wonderful!
The only thing this stupid document for is to make me realize how much of my money has been pissed away ($61,534) thanks to our government.
That and I made $187 dollars in 1994.
That's when the nanny state is most pernicious. Get EVERYBODY on the dole and entitlements are popular.
That's the failing with President Bush's Medicare drug benefit. It is cheaper and has more market incentives than a Democratic plan would have, but it was a mistake to put everybody on it. Means testing. If everybody’s collecting, we turn into France pretty quickly.
September 28, 2006
Just call me Cassandra...
Here's a rare (first ever, actually) guest blog from dagny:
A few days ago in a comment I noted that:
"When the smoking is all banned, next they will decide that bacon is a crappy habit and I will not be so happy waiting in that restaurant since I will not be able to get an avocado, bacon burger to go with my fries. Maybe no fries either and the burger won’t be beef!"
As if on cue, New York and Chicago legislators are discussing ideas to ban the use of trans fats in restaurants.
From the NY Times:
The aldermen voted in April to forbid restaurants to sell foie gras. They have weighed a proposal to force cabbies to dress better. And there is talk of an ordinance to outlaw smoking at the beach.Even Mayor Richard M. Daley, who often promotes bicycle riding and who not long ago appointed a city health commissioner who announced he was creating health “report cards” for the mayor and the aldermen, has balked at a trans-fat prohibition as one rule too many.
“Is the City Council going to plan our menus?” Mayor Daley asked.
And, from Scientific American:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York City's Health Department on Tuesday proposed a near ban on the use of artificial trans fat at restaurants, likening its health danger to that of lead paint.The proposal would limit the use of the artery-clogging fat, which is often used in fast foods, to 0.5 grams per serving. The proposal comes after a year-long city campaign to educate restaurants on the effects of such fats and encourage them to stop their use.
The city said the voluntary campaign failed and while some of New York's more than 20,000 restaurants reduced or stopped using artificial trans fat, overall use did not decline at all.
This falls into my official category of, “WHAT’S WRONG WITH PEOPLE?” I would really like to know what happened to the concepts of individual rights and personal responsibility in this country.
"Then they will start on whatever YOUR crappy habit is so watch out!"
Welcome aboard, Dagny. Let me know if you'd like a login.
It causes one to tremble for the idea of self-rule. If we're going to vote these little tin-pot dictators into office, we might as well be slaves or subjects.
My hometown of Lafayette, CO is trying to take over recycling. We have two vibrant firms who do trash collection and both offer curbside recycling. But both charge extra (something like $2/month). Our Nazis have decided that is unacceptable, the city will take it over so it is "free."
I wonder what the French Embassy has to say about this. Banning foie gras? How anti-French!
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at September 28, 2006 11:04 AMSeptember 14, 2006
"Lead-Free" - The International Environmental Boondoggle
In honor of today being the unofficial "L day" I'm posting this item that came to my attention last Monday.
In case you wonder what might have happened if the Kyoto Protocol had been adopted and implemented world wide, consider what happened when the EU unilaterally determined that the lead in solder used to produce electronic devices is a "hazardous substance" and mandated its elimination from all products marketed in Europe by the July 1, 2006.
On Monday a colleague emailed several of us a list of issues related to lead-free electronics manufacturing that was provided to him by our assembly vendor. Before reading the attachment I had no idea just how disruptive this lead-free process business is. Why would we voluntarily evolve into a process that is less reliable, more expensive, fraught with extra hoops to jump through and, by the way, is WORSE for the environment?
This all stems from an EU directive called the "Reduction of Hazardous Substances" directive, or "RoHS" adopted January 27, 2003. Here's what I found when I investigated.
From “The ultimate in fatuity” on EU Referendum blog (based in UK):
According to the authors, "The study presents extensive data that show that heavy metal concentrations in leachate and landfill gas are generally far below the limits that have been established to protect human health and the environment."By then, it was too late – the "train had left the station" and the momentum for new legislation was too great. But, by 2005, the US Environmental Protection Agency had got its act together and produced a 472-page report, assessing the full, life-cycle environmental impact of banning lead solder.
From this work, it emerged that when the impact of mining and refining substitutes was taken in to account, the higher energy consumption in using the lead-free solders, which require higher temperatures, and all the other issues were factored in, the banning of lead – far from having a positive impact on the environment (and worker health) – actually had a significant negative impact. Amazingly, though, this work had never been done by the EU and the legislation was, by then, already in place.
And then there are the long-term reliability concerns. Also from the EU Referendum blog:
On the basis of this charade, proprietors of firms not obeying this cretinous law can face unlimited fines and imprisonment yet, worryingly, there are still many serious doubts about the reliability and suitability of lead solder substitutes, so much so that military equipment has been exempted.
And this isn’t just some mad right-wing anti-environment rant. In the comments on the blog is a reference to this article from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch quoting a Canadian environmental scientist who doesn’t support lead-free:
But not all lead is the same. Lead in paint and gasoline is easily absorbed into human cells. Lead in metallic forms such as solder is not.In addition, evidence indicates that soldered lead, once inside landfills, does not leach out into drinking water, said Laura Turbini, a materials science faculty member at the University of Toronto.
Turbini has studied and tried to help diminish the impact of industry on the environment since the days of CFCs in refrigerators. Her presentations declare "humanity is off course" environmentally. She also strongly advocates recycling electronics. But she does not support lead-free.
"From cradle to grave," Turbini said, "lead-free soldering is not better for the environment." Replacements for lead solder cost more to mine and require more energy to use and produce.
As for “state mandated deadlines for compliance” are we sure there are, or will be, any? Consider this, also from the news article:
No U.S. firm is legally bound to use lead-free solder. Only California has any restrictions on lead, and no federal laws are pending. But not conforming to European standards means giving up a lucrative market, and potentially that of China and Japan. China is expected to announce a restriction policy soon.
But since our market is exclusively the U.S. and not even Canada, much less Europe or East Asia, it appears that we should do everything possible to avoid lead-free like the plague. The problem with this strategy is that component manufacturers, forced to comply with RoHS by customers who market products in Europe and eager to avoid the added cost of parallel leaded and lead-free product lines, are gradually discontinuing the leaded components.
And so we have a world-wide economic and environmental travesty all because one man, the EU minister of state for energy, Malcolm Wicks, signed the final RoHS document declaring, "I have read the regulatory impact assessment and am satisfied the benefits justify the costs."
And angry-left nutjobs worry that we are sliding into a monarchy!
Take the disruptions, cost increases and environmental unintended consequences of this and multiply them by ten, or even a hundred, and you'll have an idea of what Kyoto could have wrought.
(Click "Continue Reading" to see the list of issues related to lead-free soldering processes.)
Company x’s Lead – Free Process Issues
1. Lead-Free assemblies are less reliable: Company x says we should expect 30% more solder joint failures in a lead-free process.
a. Through-hole joints will not be filled up to IPC-Level 1, but should conform to the IPC Level-2 soldering standard.
b. Our QA group should expect to see less flow and poorer overall solder joints. These joints are more susceptible to mechanical stress and vibration.
c. Tin solder will “grow” thin shards (whiskers) over time. These whiskers can eventually short higher density designs
2. Lead-Free assembly processes cost more: You will see why as you read the issues here.
3. Gold PCBs: Company x prefers Immersion Gold on top of Nickel. Company x is having issues soldering to our Immersion Silver boards:
a. The silver oxidizes fairly quickly, so the PCB shelf life isn’t very long with silver
b. Company x uses a lot of cardboard, which is one of silver’s worst enemies. They try to be careful, but find they still set a lot of bare boards directly on cardboard.
c. The flux isn’t powerful enough to break down the silver oxide when soldered
d. The lead-free solder doesn’t adhere well to silver even when it is not oxidized
Company x prefers 180-200 micro-inches of Nickel over the copper and 3-8 micro-inches of Gold over the Nickel. This finish has a good shelf life, doesn’t react with materials used in handling and storage, and readily adheres to the tin solder.
It may cost us more per board up-front, but Company x is saying due to the soldering issues, it saves us money on the overall assembly.
4. High-Temp FR-4: Most assembly houses request a higher temperature rated FR-4 material for lead-free processing. Company x hasn’t seen any PCB issues due to the higher oven temperatures yet. However, de-laminating and warping may occur, especially on PCB areas with few parts. Data Circuits/Merix hasn’t charged us more for this material in the past, so I suggest we start using it on all of our PCBs.
5. High-Temp Parts: Company x has settled on 245 C as their lead-free oven temperature. Many aluminum electrolytic capacitors and connectors will be destroyed at these temperatures. I have found that many ROHS rated aluminum electrolytic capacitors aren’t specified to handle this temperature and are rated to only 235-240 C, especially the larger caps. All of the parts we want to run through a lead-free reflow process must handle at least 245 C, although 260 C is preferable, but hard to obtain in the larger caps. Due to the higher oven temperatures required for lead-free reflow, we must re-evaluate each part in the assemblies we want to become lead-free.
6. Hand soldering is difficult: Lead-free solder not only requires a higher temperature to flow properly, but it doesn’t wet, flow, or adhere as well as lead based solder. Interestingly, soldering iron tips only last 8-10 hours due to the aggressive tin reaction to the tips themselves. To increase the soldering temperature, the soldering iron tips are larger which makes it more difficult to solder small parts. Company x has asked us to change the following in our designs:
a. Increase annular rings around hand-soldered holes or anything we will want to ever be re-worked. 15-20 mil per side is desirable. Use elliptical holes for finer-pitch parts.
b. Try to always use thermal rings to connect pads (SMT and thru-hole) to ground planes and copper pours. The pads must get hotter for good reflow and direct plane/copper connections pull that heat away.
7. Wave Soldering:
a. Only boards stuffed completely with lead-free parts can run through a lead-free wave soldering process. Otherwise the lead will contaminate the solder, costing upwards of $50K to empty, clean, and refill the wave soldering pot. So we must be absolutely certain all of our parts are lead-free before we request a lead-free wave process. Lead-free wave soldering requires a higher temperature pre-heater for the board, which is not desirable.
b. Due to higher reflow temperatures, Company x does not want to run parts through the wave soldering process for a second reheating. Many parts won’t survive a second re-heating, which is 500C. To prevent damage to SMT parts on the bottom side of the PCBs, they are using “selective wave fixtures” that attach to the boards and only exposes the parts needing wave soldered. These fixtures costs $300-$400 although they may need several to allow them to continue running boards as other fixtures cool enough to be handled. The fixture rules are:
i. No SMT component on the bottom side of the PCB can extend more than 0.125" from the PCB surface. If they are taller, then a more expensive fixture can be built (double layer) or they will have to hand solder the parts. Either way costs us more for assembly.
ii. All SMT parts should be at least 0.100" away from the parts to be wave soldered. This leaves room for the fixture to fit tightly to the PCB. Obviously all of the parts can’t adhere to this rule. In these cases, we should provide build instructions to specify to either glue the intruding part to the PCB and wave solder it (indicating it can handle the heat for a second pass) or to have them hand solder the part to the PCB after the wave process.
8. Pre-Fabrication DFM Review: Company x wants 24 hours to review our PCB artwork before fabrication. This allows them time to review the board and suggest changes for better manufacturability. This also gives them time to look at some of the parts to see if they can handle the lead-free processes and high-pressure post-washing.
I'm fighting with the whole R22 vs R410A refrigerant issue right now with regards to getting a new AC unit. A lot of the seasoned HVAC guys want to eat their eyes over this knowing damn well that the replacement is so much less effective that it takes a lot more energy to gain the same benefits. This creates more damage than it avoids. DDT v2.0
Posted by: mdmhvonpa at September 14, 2006 11:19 PM...and I got one of those 1.75 gallon Al Gore Toilets. My contractor begged me not to replace the old contraband 3 gal unit but I wanted colored fixtures.
They should put the (then) Senator's picture on a plunger -- it's his fault you have to use it so often.
(Andrew Sullivan blazed the trail in bathroom plumbing blogging, I'm just a copycat.)
Posted by: jk at September 15, 2006 11:30 AMJK, you might want to add a little fiber to your diet. ;)
But the Al Gore plunger is a great idea!
August 16, 2006
TSA Snooping
When TSA searches your checked luggage they used to put a note in saying "Hey we opened your bag."
When did this policy end? Was there any official notice? Is it something that the TSA in Philadelphia decided to do on it's own?
Yesterday I checked a bag with some clothes and some fly fishing gear. The fishing gear included a hemostat (looks like scissors, but used like pliers), flies, hooks, and fly floatant. For those who don't know, fly floatant is a liquid/gel product that you put on the fly to keep it afloat. All of the fly fishing gear was stored in a glorified fanny pack, which was velcroed shut.
When I unpacked, I noticed that the fly floatant wasn't in the pouch anymore. There's no way it could have flopped out of the pouch. It was laying loose in the suitcase, and the pouch was still velcroed shut.
I'm amazed that they found the floatant. I suspect that the hemostat showed up on an x-ray and figured that they opened it up then. But where's my note? ... and why not put it back where it belongs?
For what it's worth, a month ago, I carried the same setup on the plane. No problems... I wish they would profile frequent fliers and let us be.
We are supposed to be frightened by al Qaida's recent addition of "women and children" to the ranks of their homi-suci-cide squads. "Now ANYONE could be a terrorist," the media wails. But what is the big deal when our big, fancy, (bloated and bureaucratically hamstrung also go without saying) new federal agency created expressly for preventing terror attacks on airplanes vehemently REFUSES to profile terrorists?
TSA - "Thousands Standing Around"
Posted by: johngalt at August 16, 2006 2:49 PMAugust 6, 2006
Spending Database
One of the best political stimulants, is shame.
- U.S. Senator Tom Coburn has an innovative idea that will cost the federal government virtually nothing and provide the public with a depth of knowledge on government operations unparalleled in American History.
The Chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommmittee on Federal Financial Management has introduced a bipartisan bill to create a Google-like online searchable database of all federal spending. Currently, said Coburn, there is no way for taxpayers to find out what the federal government is paying individuals, groups, localities, and contractors. "This bill will empower citizens investigators to root out waste, fraud, and abuse," the Oklahoma Republican, a leading opponent of pork, told U.S. News.
He has earned a bipartisan group of co-sponsors including Republicans John McCain and Rick Santorum and Democrat Barack Obama. Since most of the information is already online or in digital data records that could be easily posted, the cost would be comparatively small.
This is a good thing. There's plenty of shame to go around.
Hopefully you can group it by Senator / Congressman and see what they've introduced... and give you a dollar total.
Yes! Transparency is the key, much better than creating some arcane "reform" rules that members will quickly find ways around.
Bloggers can play an active part in the shaming. Not that anybody around here would take pleasure in such a thing...
Posted by: jk at August 7, 2006 11:46 AMDevil's Advocacy time.
Why should we wait for government to fill this need? Why hasn't there been anyone in the think-tank/political agitator segment of society doing this?
Yes, Porkbusters et al is a start.
... my fear is that the government will find a way to make it suck.
Posted by: AlexC at August 7, 2006 2:03 PMThat was actually my first thought: fund a government program to see why government spends so much...
But I believe you might need their access to produce them with accuracy and timeliness. Go government!
Posted by: jk at August 7, 2006 3:16 PMJuly 18, 2006
More Farm Subsidies
Last month I posted a link to a WaPo story of non-farmers receiving farm subsidies. Today, the same paper finds, in the same state of Texas, that you don't really need a drought to get drought aid.
CHANDLER, Tex. -- On a clear, cold morning in February 2003, Nico de Boer heard what sounded like a clap of thunder and stepped outside his hillside home for a look. High above the tree line, the 40-year-old dairy farmer saw a trail of smoke curling across the sky -- all that remained of the space shuttle Columbia.Weeks later, de Boer was startled to learn that he was one of hundreds of East Texas ranchers entitled to up to $40,000 in disaster compensation from the federal government, even though the nearest debris landed 10 to 20 miles from his cattle.
No doubt if farmers had the time, Senators Harkin and Grassley would co-sponsor a bill to reimburse farmers for damage by extra-terrestrial debris. Willie Nelson and John Cougar could do a big concert.
July 6, 2006
Save Us From Spoiled Milk
New Yorkers enjoy an extra set of protection that we do not.
Perry at Eidelblog details a city ordinance to protect its vulnerable citizenry from spoiled milk.
In its benevolence, government at all levels has uncountable regulations and statutes just for what we ingest. It's the tip of the iceberg that the FDA's legions must approve pharmaceuticals and inspect and/or supervise food production. New York City, for example, has decided that milk's usual expiration dates are too long. Once fluid milk is pasteurized, it's legal to sell it only within 96 hours of 6 a.m. on the next day (which is about three days earlier than what most dairy producers stamp on the containers).
Perhaps Colorado doesn't care if its hardworkin' taxpayers drink sour milk. Or perhaps New Yorkers are considered too bashful to speak up and complain when a vendor has sold them something old.
Perry wonders about "The Freedom to Assume Risk." Finding some brave souls who dared to purchase raw milk from an Amish farmer in Ohio, before government stepped in to protect us.
And he quotes Bastiat's "The Law" essay more than I say "stunning exegesis." How can you lose?
Believe me, we're never shy about speaking up about bad food or service. :) I just wish others were more vocal about bad government.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 6, 2006 11:52 PMI understand that the date on milk means it's still good for seven more days.
But they're crazy. It starts tasting different the next day!
... I'm very particular. I only drink two kinds of whole milk.... Wawa & Acme. The rest... blecch.
Yes, I'm a milk snob.
Posted by: AlexC at July 7, 2006 12:48 AMI'm even more of a milk snob. I won't drink it unless it is Scotch.
Posted by: jk at July 7, 2006 11:06 AMConsumer tip for fellow Milk Snobs: We have our milk delivered weekly to our front door direct from a local dairy. I don't know if such services are available in PA but it sure is nice. It is better, and fresher milk. It is a little more expensive, but sure is nice never to have to send my husband to the grocery store for milk.
Posted by: dagny at July 7, 2006 2:20 PMDoes anyone else remember what Brando told Jean Simmons in "Guys and Dolls"? Bacardi is great to add to milk. It acts as a preservative.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 7, 2006 2:39 PMJuly 2, 2006
Farm Subsidies
"This was an unintended consequence of the farm bill," said former representative Charles W. Stenholm, the west Texas Democrat who was once the ranking member on the House Agriculture Committee. "Instead of maintaining a rice industry in Texas, we basically contributed to its demise."But, gosh darn it, we tried! This quote is from a WaPo story that details $1.3 Billion in farm subsidies which go to those who do not farm.
EL CAMPO, Tex. -- Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years.Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice.
Two things I do not understand:
- Will the Washington Post ever translate this abuse of government power and tampering with markets into opposing a new government program? Or will they just pat themselves on the back for "discovering and exposing" this failure? [Ummm, that was rhetorical, you don't have to answer.]
- As non-farmers outnumber farmers (though not at ThreeSources), why can we not kill these subsidies? Yeah, they have ADM and its lobbying Army, Willie Nelson, John Cougar Mellancamp, &c. But why cannot the urban liberals and small government rural conservatives team up to kill these market abominations. It would lower taxes for the rich and reduce food prices for the poor. Why does it not happen?
The second question is less rhetorical: why is the Ag lobby so strong?
June 20, 2006
Whipped Cream & Donuts Have Calories???
Grab a Cappuccino and watch this video.
Some do-gooder activist group is upset because the FDA does not have the authority to mandate nutrition labeling in restaurants. They've filed suit with KFC and now want to go after Starbucks.
It seems that a double chocolate chip mocha frappucino with a cinnamon doughnut has 990 calories. They want the government to require nutrition labeling. Starbucks makes this information available on its website and in printed brochures "But that's not good enough!" for the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
Does any sentient being really think that double-chocolate chip mochas with whipped cream and doughnuts are diet food? The ABC News video is, of course, quite deferential to the activists. "They're just trying to help us be healthy, right?" I guess John Stossel was sick that day.
Riza is making placards: "Government Out Of My Coffee!"
Posted by: jk at June 21, 2006 10:40 AMJune 9, 2006
No I.D. at the Airport
- At 6 a.m. the next morning, Harper handed this reporter a green, self-addressed stamped envelope[ with his ID] and entered the checkpoint line, which even at that early hour was filled with travelers facing a 20-minute crawl to the magnetometers.
Harper told the identification checker he had no ID, and the attendant quickly wrote "No ID" with a red marker on his ticket and shunted him off to an extra screening line -- generously allowing him to bypass the longer queue of card-carrying passengers.
There Harper was directed into the belly of a General Electric EntryScan puffer machine that shot bits of air at his suit in order to see if he had been handling explosives.
TSA employees wearing baby blue surgical gloves then swiped his Sidekick and his laptop for traces of explosives and searched through his carry-on, while a supervisor took his ticket, conferred with other employees and made a phone call.
Meanwhile, a TSA employee approached this reporter, who was watching the search through Plexiglas, and said, "It's pretty awkward you are standing here taking notes," but he did not ask for identification or call for a halt to the note-taking.
The TSA supervisor returned from her phone call and asked Harper why he didn't have identification and to where he was traveling. But she was satisfied enough with his answer -- that he had mailed his driver's license home to Washington D.C. -- that she allowed him to pass.
At 6:30 a.m., standing 50 yards away on the other side of the glass screen, Harper phoned to say he now had two hours to kill, having gotten through screening perhaps even faster than he would have if he'd shown ID. He guessed he was able to get through without much hassle by being polite and dressing well.
In the pre-9/11 world I knew this was possible. I've been tempted to try it a number of times, but since I rely on being able to fly to keep the rain of my kid's head.