Federal Reserve of San Francisco blames Obama Tax Hikes

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2531410

Obama is to blame, says the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. His tax hikes are causing the economy to fail to recover.

June 28, 2013: How big the document dump?

Prof Rahe speculates on perjury in the hearings. http://ricochet.com/main-feed/A-Smoking-Gun?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

In my family, we tend to have mini-family reunions that last for days over July 4th week. If you want to catch us unawares, have big news on Friday, June 28, 2013. We will not see the news or think about the news we get until July 8th. 

That leads me to wonder whether other families are like ours. If many, wouldn't Obama try to hold all his IRS and DOJ dirty laundry until June 28th? Then when Republicans get the documents and get no traction for a week, the Democrats will say on July 8th, "Why are you raising the issue now? You are just playing politics. This is 10-day old news."

Smart Republicans should start asking questions about the list of documents that will be dumped on or after June 28th. Make the point about Democrats playing games. Then when it happens, the July 8th conversation will be I-told-you-so. 

If no dump occurs (highly unlikely), the question is what is being hidden must be so bad that the Dems missed the summer dump cycle. They will have to wait for Thanksgiving or Christmas for a similar opportunity.

Cost per pupil

New Jersey has created a debate http://www.eiaonline.com/intercepts/2013/04/11/new-jersey-school-stats-stir-the-pot/ about how to measure the costs of a student in public education. They have changed the definition of "per-pupil costs." Well I am not familiar with the lingo of education policy, it would seem to me that a valuable number for public education would be to come as close as possible to measuring the cost of the student. It would make public education more like private business. It would allow families seeking a private education to truly understand what the real cost of an education is.

Hey family seeking to place a child in private school or parochial school will better be able to see what the cost of education really is. It would allow them to understand better what they would choose to spend.

It would allow the public sector to better assess its cost versus private costs. While we do not expect government expenditures on any subject to be cheaper than private expenditures, it does allow some reality check as to what better performing schools can do with less money.

Viewing the debate from the wrong end of the barrel

Obama once again has started to debate about solutions that do not address the correct problems.

Currently we are entering a season of heavy debate over gun-control. The Democrats had given up on this area of debate over the past 10 years. Their lust for the renewed debate is palpable.

Whether due to lack of information or a desire to make a showy argument, Democrats once again focus on the wrong end of the debate. They wish to restrict "assault rifles."Many writers of done a better job of describing the problem with definitions. A recent New York Times article describes the problem of definitions, too.

The Democrats have desired to get rid of guns that look mean. They look at the stock. They look at the barrel. They look at the grips. They look at the magazines. What do they not look at?

I am not a marksman. I am not a specialist on guns. I do believe that I know a bit more about guns than the average Democrat.

What I'm looking at a gun, the first question that comes to my mind is "What do I want to do with it?" Do I want to shoot squirrels? I want to shoot deer? Do I want to shoot quail? Do I want to shoot a home intruder? Do I want to shoot an intruder on my farmland? Do I want to shoot a mugger? Do I want my wife to be able to protect herself from a rapist?

Each one of these seems to describe a different gun or configuration for lawful use of a firearm. Some require shotguns. Some require large bullets out of powerful guns. Some require short barrels. Some require long barrels with telescopic sights. Some require easy concealment. Some require being able to be placed in a woman's hand bag.

And then the question becomes, "What defenses do I have available?" Am I able to hide behind a wall? Do I have time to react and target carefully? Do I need to stop the movement of a person? Do I need to put a hole through a person? How long do I need to wait for additional assistance from police? How long do I need to wait for assistance from family members or neighbors?

I would be a fool to take a heavy gun used for deer to shoot squirrels. There would be no squirrel left. I would be an equal fool to shoot at deer using a squirrel gun. I would merely annoy the deer.

If I am in fear of my life, do I want to put one bullet into an intruder or attacker? Do I want to put on entire clip into the attacker? Do I trust that my aim would be true on the first shot? If I am running away from the attacker, as many states would require, would I be able to hit my target?Is the attacker shooting back?

How does a military grip answer these questions? How does a folding stock answer any of these questions? How does a small clip solve these problems? How long am I willing to wait for police to arrive to discover my dead body? As one joke says, "When seconds count, the police are minutes away."

Selecting the right gun for the correct problem is an important step.

Equally to avoid problems using guns, proper identification of the guns that are the problem is important.

The biggest problem with guns in crimes is that a human being picks it up. Until the gun is put into action by a human being or set up in a trap by a human being, the gun is merely an inanimate object. The fastest way, then, to identify the gun that is likely to be a problem, is to identify the person holding the gun that is a problem.

Since only the law-abiding will dispose of guns as gun-control is imposed, we leave the criminals armed and the citizenry unarmed.

The proper solution is to find ways to have citizens be better armed and better trained than criminals. The proper solution is to have more well-trained citizens carrying weapons. The proper solution is well-trained citizens able to use long guns to protect their homes and families at a safe distance from criminals. Short guns are for short distances. Long guns are for long distances.

The best criminals are dead criminals outside of a home. How many bullets does it take to achieve this goal?

Lessons for the GOP from Steve Jobs

We always hear from the mainstream of the Republican leadership that you need to win the independents by persuading them. The result of that seems to be that the GOP leadership believes that a principle of politics is that you move to the independents to persuade the independents. You make your thoughts similar to the independents' thoughts. The Reagan counterargument has always been to persuade the independents to come to the conservatives.

This sounds remarkably similar to Steve Jobs's description of how to move the computer marketplace. Even as a liberal, he leaves the GOP a lesson by analogy. He believed that you needed to find a message about computers and software that drew people to your product.

Jobs did not try and play Microsoft and find pieces and parts that IBM used to build the first PC. He made his own product. He did not always make the rest of the tech world happy to see the way he did it.  His consumers were often pleased with the results of his late career products.

The Republican Party needs to learn a lesson from Jobs. Make your own product. Do not imitate your competitor. Rise and fall on your own merits.

Don't compromise on refusing tax rate increases. Give up on matters that make your product stronger. Push Romney's caps on deductions and let the taxpayer choose the deductions he chooses. (It is not as good as really low rates. There is too much incentive to spend money on tax advisors to save this year's taxes, rather than on growing businesses and wealth for future growth.)

Push strong national defense. Period.

Fight Islamic terror and expansionism. Period.

Push for strong healthcare through encouraging abundant medical practices in small doctor-owned practices and by removing governmental involvement in all healthcare. Make Medicare a voucher system.

Push for educational reform by encouraging private and parochial schools over public union-run schools.

With those messages, there is no way you will look like you are hobbling together a PC-clone computer or Democrat-clone platform. You will be your product. Rise and fall on your own merits.

Presidential Debate and Defining Victory

Last night's townhall debate leads to the constant question: "Who won?"

In some respects it is like answering the question for a bunch of 8 year olds doing foot races across the yard.

The first boy is very short compared to the group and is known to be slow. The leader of the bunch decides that he gets a 10 yard head start.

The second boy hates that "unfair" advantage but is the fastest in the group. He complains wildly in fear that he will not cross the finish line first given the head start.

The third boy is the leader and is trying to make the race competitive. He knows he will be beat, but he stands next to the fast boy and prepares to be beaten. Even so, he runs hard through the finish line.

When it is all over, boy #1 crosses the finish line half a step before boy #2. The yelling starts again in earnest.

Who won? The boys turn to you to referee the dispute after the fact.

Do you decide for boy #1 because he crossed the line first?

Do you decide for boy #2 because he covered the greater distance in a nearly identical period of time?

Do you decide for boy #3 because he has shown the greatest moral character trying to create a competitive race given the characteristics of each competitor?

Notice one assumption that I did not make. I did not assume that the boys agreed on what the definition of "victory" was. The boys start by assuming that winning means crossing the finish line first. When the fast boy #2 discovers that he could not win that way, likely changes his argument to be that he ran the fastest with an unfair head start to his opponent.

This scenario is what presidential debates are like. There are no set rules about how to define victory. It is all in the eyes of the beholder.

Simply put, with no definition of victory before the debate (and I don't count, "The President did better than last time" as a definition of victory), it is hard to give a fair and reasonable answer.

The President is like boy #1. He was given a forum in New York, a very blue state, among undecided voters who wrote questions with a significant Democrat overtone to them. These undecideds will decide no election. If this debate would have been held outside of Cleveland or in Akron, I doubt we would have had as much uniformity in tone.

Romney is a bit like boy #2 in performance and a bit like boy #3 in attitude. He outperformed the President in content, but he was starting from behind given the questioners, the location, and the moderator. Yet, Romney never complained about this. He agreed to it far in advance.

Using the finish line standard of measure, it was a solid tie. Both men got to the finish line on their points.

Using the quality of performance and distance covered in the period of time offered, Romney outperformed.

Ultimately, the problem in debates is that we do not have judges like Len Goodman holding up paddles showing scores on paddles while we wait for the public to vote. He has no immediate gratification of who won. We will know, though, in just a few weeks.

So gas prices are down?! What?!

This guy at Forbes.com has a brilliantly simple way to show that gas prices are not high. The dollar is just collapsing under the weight of Obama.

So should we start a website of the average cost of goods and services against the ounces of gold that the spot market would require?

Bidding on teachers

I just saw this article on the faults of merit pay.

What struck me was the idea of bidding for next year's teacher. I would add the idea of sponsorship of vouchers and direct threats of non-renewal of contracts.

Lessons on media in Cain Kerfuffle

In this recent news blitz on Herman Cain's alleged sexual harassment case, I am again reminded about the news media's ridiculous notions of the rules of disclosure.

Since the reporter seeks a higher salary through satisfying thepowers that be in his news organization, we must understand the dynamics. The reporter has low standards of proof to put himself in front of the public with hos information. The target has high standards of proof to overcome bad news. This simply reflects the rules of the game that most likely increases the reporter's salary and income over time.

To understand how perverse this self-serving methodology is, let's pretend that these same rules applied in court. What would be the outcome.

To keep this example as close to a real lawsuit, let us pretend the reporter was filing a libel or slander claim against a private citizen. Under the rules that reporter claim should apply, once the reporter filed the lawsuit, he has the right to say anything he wants about the private citizen.

In the news reporter's world view, the level of proof the reporter must meet is simply, "I accuse you. Now disprove my accusation." The reporter need show no papers, no recorded statements, or no evidence that private citizen was even in the place where the accusation suggests the wrong doing occurred. The reporter believes Mr Citizen now has to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. Any flaw or hesitation means the reporter's flimsy accusations are true. No trial. No argument. Instant verdict in the court of public opinion.

The problem is that people seeking damageto their reputation have an incentive to keep their had down and protect their good name. The reporter's false promise is that playing by the reporter's arbitrary and capricious rules the citizen can end the problem quickly.

To truly fight and win this type of battle with the press is to be able to identify the self-serving nature of the reporter's rules and require the reporter do work before the response is forthcoming. It also requires persistent repetition of a strong statement of the rules of fair play:
1. I respond to specific allegations as to time, manner, place, and person.
2. I respond to corroborated evidence only.
3. If a judge wouldn't consider the case, I certainly won't.
4. I will sue for slander and libel.
5. Anonymous sources need not be disclosed to the public, but they must be disclosed to me before I will respond.
6. New questions do not demand instant responses. Instant responses only serve cameras. I serve the truth.

To fight the media this way means you will have days or weeks whee your message of the day is not served. PR consultants believe this is bad. In truth, those days will happen. It is better to have the battle early in a campaign. Set down a marker for the media. If you are clean, you will more message days than fewer. If you follow the reporter's preferred path, you are on their message when they choose.

Term limits reconsidered

Polipundit's post  makes me want to post a thought that has been bouncing around in my head for a month or so. Term limits on politicians are great, but what about employment limits for bureaucrats? Why not enforce a twenty year across the board limit on government employment? Force some of these lifetime government-employed people to find a new employer for 4-5 years.

Think about what that would do to government-school teachers or license branch functionary or tax collector. How many people in government are immune from having to worry about losing their jobs, yet those same people will lecture the rest of the world about how to live a life fully.

Imagine a government-school teacher who has just returned to his beloved teaching at age 47. He has just spent 5 years working as a lab scientists during his required 5 year break from government employment. He is now eager to be back with is beloved students, where he spent the first 20 years of his career. He has new life experiences to share. He has new insights into science. He has been gone longer than the limited and phoney 1-year sabbaticals that academia loves so that he has had to absorb worries about being able to return to the classroom. He is as fresh and excited as a first-year teacher, but he has the wisdom of an experienced family man.

That term-limit on government employment would be great.

What about the second teacher who chooses to disperse his 1-year breaks with 4-year visits to teaching. He, too, has more to offer the kids.

What about the third teacher that teaches in a private school for 5 years. He, too, will have experiences that challenge the assumptions in government schools of how education should work.

The license branch manager who has run a restaurant? The court clerk who has been in a small business worried about keeping expenses down?

Politicians need term limits, but they are at least exposed to the risk of losing their jobs. Their staffers' risk is similar but insulated. Those staffers may bounce from politician to politician, or politician to party organization. The full-time committee staff or institutional staff come to expect certain customs.

What if everyone in the building has had to step away from being in government for at least 5 years?

What if a Congressman went back into state government for 5 years? Or state politician back to local government?

This part from Thomas Paine that is posted at Polipundit.com makes my point about why. Forcing a change like that stated above is about how to do it.