Advise on Fiscal Discipline

Roger Kimball lists some things the Federal government could do without, specifically "the two National Endowments, the one for the Arts (so-called) and the one for the Humanities;" the Department of Education (especially after this); and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

I actually disagree in part--the National Endowment for the Arts performs one useful function: insuring loaned art that would otherwise make traveling art exhibits impossibly expensive. But I endorse Kimball's other ideas.

Pre-blog, I once made this suggestion: there are 15 Cabinet-level departments of the Executive Branch, plus the EPA (which is nearly that rank), along with literally hundreds of "independent" agencies. Write the name of each department and agency--exempting only the Department of Defense--on a ping pong ball, and put all the balls in a randomizing lottery machine. Every September 30th (the end of the fiscal year), draw one ball--the agency listed gets zero-budgeted. If, within a year, if the majority of the electorate misses the agency, it's restored; if not, it's terminated. Regardless, next September 30th, draw another ball.

Impractical? Sure! But it's more "fiscally responsible" than Obama's budgets.

(via Instapundit)

Recruiting Update

Lefties and libertarians routinely slander our military as unintelligent, unemployable and disproportionately drawn from minority communities. They also disparage the prospects for military recruiting. I've repeatedly shown both are wrong--our recruits resemble the rest of America, albeit better educated and more fit, and military service recruiting has been steady and successful.

So how's military recruiting and retention now? Just fine. For fiscal year 2009, which ended last September:

All four services met or exceeded their [active duty] recruiting goals for fiscal 2009.

-The Army had 70,045 accessions, making 108 percent of its 65,000 goal.

-The Navy had 35,527 accessions, making 100 percent of its 35,500 goal.

-The Marine Corps had 31,413 accessions, making 100 percent of its 31,400 goal.

-The Air Force had 31,983 accessions, making 100 percent of its 31,980 goal.

Active Duty Retention. Retention was successful for all services in fiscal 2009.

Reserve Forces Recruiting for Fiscal 2009. All six Reserve components met or exceeded their goals for fiscal 2009.

-The Army National Guard had 56,071 accessions, making 100 percent of its 56,000 goal and the Army Reserve had 36,189 accessions, making 105 percent of its 34,598 goal.

-The Navy Reserve had 7,793 accessions, making 101 percent of its 7,743 goal.

-The Marine Corps Reserve had 8,805 accessions, making 122 percent of its 7,194 goal.

-The Air National Guard had 10,075 accessions, making 106 percent of its 9,500 goal, and the Air Force Reserve had 8,604 accessions, making 109 percent of its 7,863 goal.

Reserve Attrition. Losses in all Reserve components are among the best in recent years.

In July 2010, the most recent month for which figures are available, only the Marine Corps missed its active duty recruiting target, and only by one percent, and only the Army National Guard and Marine Reserves fell significantly below reserve recruiting goals (likely because most recruits want to serve immediately).

Why don't we hear more about this? Well, complaints about recruits and recruiting have abated somewhat -- its signature outrage was in 2006 -- partly because such missiles no longer can be aimed at George W. Bush. But it's also because the current recession and high unemployment make the military even more attractive. This is especially true because military pay has risen far faster than civilian compensation. And the benefits are better too.

Suddenly, some lefties look at Defense as just another jobs program--the stimulus package in uniform (presuming the stimulus worked). Though not former Labor Secretary Robert Reich--he would rather fund "things we really need" such as "light-rail trains" and "non-carbon energy sources".

Personally, I prefer national security. Guns and butter aren't necessarily incompatible--though guns and goofy green schemes may well be.

(via Carpe Diem)

Headline of the Week

From an August 25th Reuters article:

Cuba's subsidized cigarettes going up in smoke

Cuba is phasing out its longstanding monthly allotments of subsidized cigarettes as President Raul Castro works to jump-start the island's sputtering economy.

As TrogloPundit at Right Wing News says:

Communism worked real good as long as a Big Mommy Russia was paying the bill. It might still be working real good, if Momma'd had somebody paying her bill, too. But she didn't, so she's buh-bye.

No more grilled-cheese sandwiches and free cable for you, Cuba. Time to get a job.

Agreed.

Three Newspapers In One

1) New York Times editorial, June 15, 2010:

Since June 1, when federal unemployment benefits began to expire, an estimated 325,000 jobless workers have been cut off. That number will swell to 1.25 million by the end of the month unless Congress extends the benefits. The Senate, so far, has failed to act. . .

The right thing to do is obvious. The House and Senate should immediately extend unemployment benefits.

2) New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, March 5, 2010:

So the Bunning blockade is over. For days, Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky exploited Senate rules to block a one-month extension of unemployment benefits. In the end, he gave in, although not soon enough to prevent an interruption of payments to around 100,000 workers. . .

But that’s not how Republicans see it. Here’s what Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, had to say when defending Mr. Bunning’s position (although not joining his blockade): unemployment relief "doesn’t create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work."

In Mr. Kyl’s view, then, what we really need to worry about right now -- with more than five unemployed workers for every job opening, and long-term unemployment at its highest level since the Great Depression -- is whether we’re reducing the incentive of the unemployed to find jobs. To me, that’s a bizarre point of view -- but then, I don’t live in Mr. Kyl’s universe.

3) New York Times Economix blog, August 16, 2010:

Danish studies show that the longer a person goes without a job, the harder it is to find work. Many people get a job within the first three months of entering the system, but many more wait until just before benefits expire to take anything available.

"So you need to have a period of unemployment that is as short as possible," Claus Hjort Frederiksen, the finance minister, told me recently in Copenhagen.

Consider this 2009 chart from Denmark’s Labor Market Commission:


source: New York Times Economix blog

It shows that between 2005-7, the number of people who got jobs during their four years of benefits -- the green line -- rose at the beginning before dropping sharply, then spiked as benefits were about to run out, only to plummet after. The red line shows similar behavior in 1998, when Denmark’s benefit period was five years.

Conclusion: As Steve Adcock at SmallGovTimes says:

Denmark is not alone. Many European nations are struggling with similar budgetary concerns as governments continue to pay their citizens during times of unemployment. The United States’ recent extension of unemployment benefits is the latest example of, as the NYT apparently just learned, social entitlement programs being used to exacerbate these very problems.

Agreed--because incentives matter. But see MaxedOutMama.

(via John Stossel, EconLog)

Lawsuit of the Day

Ohio lawyer Kristin Ann Stahlbush has been disbarred for one year for misconduct (para 2):

Respondent, a solo practitioner in Toledo, Ohio, limited her practice primarily to court-appointed work in the juvenile and general divisions of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. In early 2007, court personnel discovered that respondent’s billings in the juvenile court were very high and that she had billed the juvenile court for more than 24 hours per day on at least three occasions.

The Supreme Court of Ohio declined to impose a two-year sanction because (para 7) the lawyer was "known by clients, peers, judges, and magistrates as a competent, hard-working attorney who represents her clients zealously."

No wonder we lawyers have a bad reputation--"fraud, deceit, dishonesty [and] misrepresentation" is considered zealous.

(via Instapundit)

"Oceania Was Always At War With Eurasia" of the Day

Remember when President Obama promised to "restore science to its proper place"? Remember when he vowed to "restore fiscal discipline"?

Well, based on this August 20th New York Times op-ed by former Times magazine senior editor Paul Tough, liberals no longer care:

Head Start, which provides preschool programs to poor families, is a prime example of the Senate committee’s true attitude toward evidence-based decision-making. In January, the Health and Human Services Department released a study of Head Start’s overall impact. The conclusions were disturbing. By the end of first grade, the study found, Head Start graduates were doing no better than students who didn’t attend Head Start. "No significant impacts were found for math skills, pre-writing, children’s promotion, or teacher report of children’s school accomplishments or abilities in any year," the report concluded.

And how did the Senate panel react to this dismal evidence? They set aside $8.2 billion for Head Start in 2011, almost a billion dollars more than in 2010. Of course, the fact that Congress spends billions of dollars each year on unproven programs does not itself argue that the government should start spending hundreds of millions of new dollars on new unproven programs. But it does undercut the argument that federal education dollars should be reserved only for conclusively proven initiatives.

Got that?--a study showing wasted spending is evidence favoring funding further un-verified programs.

I reported on the Head Start study here. I just never imagined it could be inverted to justify increased government spending. Must be the new "science" of "fiscal discipline."

(via Maggie's Farm via Samizdata)

Chart of the Day, Part II

Six months old, but still frightening:


source: Veronique de Rugy in the March 3rd American magazine


(via The Corner)

Chart of the Day

From the August 12th Market Watch:

Greece's long-running recession deepened in the second quarter while unemployment rose as government austerity measures took hold, official statistics showed Thursday.

Greek gross domestic product contracted 1.5% compared to the first quarter, the statistics agency said. GDP declined 0.8% in the first three months of the year.



The Greek economy has contracted on a quarterly basis for seven consecutive quarters. Second-quarter GDP dropped by 3.5% compared to the same period last year.

Economists had forecast a 1% quarterly drop.

The statistics agency also said the unemployment rate rose to 12% in May from 11.9% in April.

Is Greece (and other similar countries) a leading indicator for California? Don't count on being saved by the stimulus package.

(via Exchequer)

QOTD

Though linked to on Sunday, it's worth quoting BBC's Jane Corbin's interview with Bülent Yildirim, president of the IHH (the Turkish "charity" that sponsored the Gaza blockade-busting ship flotilla this summer). It was aired on an August 16th BBC Panorama broadcast "Death in the Med," as transcribed on Just Journalism (emphasis added):

Panorama exhibited footage taken from the Mavi Marmara showing IHH head Bülent Yildirim saying the following:

We’re going to defeat the Israeli commandoes--we’re declaring it now. If you bring your soldiers here, we will throw you off the ship and you’ll be humiliated in front of the whole world.

Corbin:

You said that if they board the ship you would throw them into the sea. Isn’t that a provocation, saying that to your supporters on the ship?

Yildirim:

I spoke correctly there. I spoke beautifully. I watched it again afterwards. Israel stole these images from us, but we’re not denying it. If we organised another boat, and Israel attempted to illegally invade it, we’d use our right to passive resistance. We’d throw them into the sea.

Naturally, the Beeb's rare honesty provoked ethics complaints from pro-Palestinian groups annoyed that the network was less anti-Israel than usual.

(via The Corner)

Global Warming Illogic of the Day

One reason I don't poll filmmakers for politics is because they're incoherent. Take this report from the recent American Renewable Energy Day Summit in Aspen Colorado (emphasis added):

"A lot of really good American people are being lied to," added Peter Byck, the director of an upcoming climate change documentary called "Carbon Nation."

Byck stressed that Americans' hearts are in the right places, but that skeptics of climate change have such a vast infrastructure in getting what he called their false message out, many don't know whom to believe. . .

They also criticized the media for giving half of its attention to a very small -- less than 1 percent, they said -- portion of scientists who say global warming is not caused by humans.

So which is it? Skeptics are a "vast infrastructure" or "less than 1 percent"?

Another reason to ignore movie directors--they're obnoxious:

James Cameron doesn't mince words when talking about people who are skeptical that humans are causing global warming.

"I think they're swine," the renowned filmmaker told an audience member Sunday on the final day of the American Renewable Energy Day summit in Aspen.

Cameron, by the way, promised to debate warming skeptics, then canceled at the last moment.

I'm not surprised (emphasis added):

Greene, Cameron and a host of other climate-change activists said there needs to be a broad educational campaign, one aimed at convincing voters and politicians that not being able to prove that fossil fuel-produced carbon is changing the temperature of Earth is not a license for inaction.

Really, why debate when syllogism and support are scorned?

This is what the left means by "restor[ing] science to its rightful place."

Lawsuit of the Day

WELCOME DOUG ROSS READERS -- hope you look around at other posts.


A Macomb county, Michigan, Judge recently refused to stop a suit by two former "Hooters" waitresses alleging "weight discrimination." The restaurant sought to dismiss the case claiming the servers had signed agreements obliging arbitration, not legal action, for employment discrimination claims.

The lead plaintiff says she was put on "weight probation" and told to join a gym, which she equated to being fired. She claims to be 5 foot, 8 inch tall, and weigh 132 pounds -- 13 pounds, she says, less than when Hooters recruited her in 2008. For what it's worth, she's pictured here--and, in my view, is well-qualified to work at Hooters. Not that I've ever been.

To be fair, the ruling can't really be blamed on the judge. Rather, Michigan is the sole state to prohibit discrimination based on weight. Hooters argues the law does not apply to "entertainers," and denies setting a weight limit--but vows to keep fighting the suit in order to uphold the restaurant's "image".

This suit largely is stupid, based on an over-broad law. But on such heavy matters are our judges stretched, the jurisdiction of our courts expanded and our legal system weighed-down.

QOTD

Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.) chairs the Finance Committee and was one of the chief authors of the healthcare law. Apparently, his role was "write-only," as he admitted when answering constituent questions in Libby, Montana:

Judy Matott asked Baucus if he would work to improve Libby’s image, and then asked him and Sebelius, "if either of you read the health care bill before it was passed and if not, that is the most despicable, irresponsible thing."

Baucus replied that if Libby residents assembled an economic development plan, he would do what he could to help, and he took credit for "essentially" writing the health care bill that passed the Senate.

"I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill. You know why? It’s statutory language," Baucus said. "We hire experts."

For the job of not reading, Baucus makes $174,000 per year.

Given how bad Obamacare turned out, I wonder if the expert Baucus hired was Nancy Pelosi.

(via Don Surber)

Media Bias of Five Years Ago

UPDATE: see also W. Joseph Campbell and the fractured media.


On the five year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, Instapundit recalls Lou Dolinar's 2006 expose of biased media coverage of the disaster:

Remember the dozens, maybe hundreds, of rapes, murders, stabbings and deaths resulting from official neglect at the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina? The ones that never happened, as even the national media later admitted?

Sure, we all remember the original reporting, if not the back-pedaling.

Here's another one: Do you remember the dramatic TV footage of National Guard helicopters landing at the Superdome as soon as Katrina passed, dropping off tens of thousands saved from certain death? The corpsmen running with stretchers, in an echo of M*A*S*H, carrying the survivors to ambulances and the medical center? About how the operation, which also included the Coast Guard, regular military units, and local first responders, continued for more than a week?

Me neither. Except that it did happen, and got at best an occasional, parenthetical mention in the national media. The National Guard had its headquarters for Katrina, not just a few peacekeeping troops, in what the media portrayed as the pit of Hell. Hell was one of the safest places to be in New Orleans, smelly as it was. The situation was always under control, not surprisingly because the people in control were always there.

From the Dome, the Louisiana Guard's main command ran at least 2,500 troops who rode out the storm inside the city, a dozen emergency shelters, 200-plus boats, dozens of high-water vehicles, 150 helicopters, and a triage and medical center that handled up to 5,000 patients (and delivered 7 babies). The Guard command headquarters also coordinated efforts of the police, firefighters and scores of volunteers after the storm knocked out local radio, as well as other regular military and other state Guard units.

Jack Harrison, a spokesman for the National Guard Bureau in Arlington, Virginia, cited "10,244 sorties flown, 88,181 passengers moved, 18,834 cargo tons hauled, 17,411 saves" by air. Unlike the politicians, they had a working chain of command that commandeered more relief aid from other Guard units outside the state. From day one. . .

"The Coast Guard, the National Guard, the military in general performed heroically," said Sen. Robert Barham, R-Oak Ridge, who monitored the Superdome operation from Baton Rouge as head of the Louisiana State Senate's Homeland Security Committee. His opposite number in the Louisiana House, Rep. Francis Thompson, D-Delhi, said, "They (the Guard) did a yeoman's job." Both said they were getting very different pictures from TV than they got from the Guardsmen at the Dome, and the state fish and wildlife department, another key player in the rescue operation.

(via reader Doug, Michelle Malkin)

Media Bias of the Week

No matter what happens in the Middle East, the press blames Israel. Here's the latest example:

• Former Israeli position -- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, May 24, 2006:

  On behalf of the state of Israel, we are willing to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority. This authority must renounce terrorism, dismantle the terrorist infrastructure, accept previous agreements and commitments, and recognize the right of Israel to exist.

• Reaction -- Associated Press, March 18, 2007 (emphasis added):

  Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday that peace talks with the Palestinian coalition government would be impossible as long as it refuses to renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist.
  
  In a break from the Israelis, the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem said the U.S. wouldn't rule out contact with non-Hamas members of the new government.
  
  The Israeli Cabinet endorsed Olmert's hard line, urging the West to maintain harsh economic sanctions imposed with last year's election of the militant Islamic Hamas.

• New Israeli position -- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, June 14, 2009:

  I appeal tonight to the leaders of the Arab countries and say: Let us meet. Let us talk about peace. Let us make peace. I am willing to meet at any time, at any place, in Damascus, in Riyadh, in Beirut, and in Jerusalem as well. . .
  
  I appeal to you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. Let us begin peace negotiations immediately without prior conditions.

  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, July 7, 2010:

  There are all sorts of impediments in negotiations that have been put up; all sorts of preconditions; all sorts of excuses. I suggest we do away with them. You either put up excuses or you lead. I proposed to lead. I want to enter direct talks with the Palestinian leadership now. I call on President Mahmoud Abbas to meet me in the coming days to begin peace talks so that we can have and fashion a final peace between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors.

• Reaction -- Associated Press, August 15, 2010 (emphasis added):

  Israel will not accept conditions for resuming direct negotiations with the Palestinians, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and top Cabinet ministers affirmed in a meeting late Sunday, reflecting a hard line just as invitations to the talks appeared to be near.

Got that? -- When Israel wants preconditions to negotiations, Israel is taking a hard line. When the Palestinians want preconditions to negotiations, Israel still is taking a hard line. In other words, whether the facts are (X) or not(X), Israel's at fault.

Talks between the two sides begin next month. Expect Israel to be blamed for any hiccup.

It's part of a wrong-headed myth of the poor, poor, Palestinians. Which elides their terrorist targeting of civilians.

This is neither logical nor objective. But the media seldom is when the topic is the Middle East (kudos to the normally biased BBC for getting it right for once). Lefty blogs and NGOs are no better; in contrast, former British PM Tony Blair is spot-on.

Is this humorous look-back-from-2016 the inevitable result?

(via reader Warren, Norm Geras, The Corner)