If it displease the Court

The Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, The Hon. Eric Magnuson, is unhappy that the man who appointed him to office, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty, has asked him to cut his budget by five percent. To do so, the judge and the StarTribune allege, “could leave our courts in chaos.” Apparently the Chief Justice sees that the only way he can accommodate such a draconian request in a state facing a $6 billion budget deficit, is by

shutting down conciliation court, cutting hours and suspending prosecution of 21 types of cases, including property damage, harassment, probate, and more than 1 million traffic and parking cases a year.

That last step could interrupt a $200 million flow to local governments.

It appears that a $103 million budget, and a system that brings in $200 million in fines and court fees to the State, can’t absorb a five percent cut without dramatically reducing services in the most painful and attention-getting manner. Similarly, school districts always threaten to cut the most visible programs (or withdraw services, such as busing, that will create the biggest headaches for parents) if they don’t get everything they feel they are entitled to, and St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman threatens to take cops and firefighters off the street to balance his budget while while preserving redundant and less visible departments.

Very well. Since the Chief Justice favors the rule of law, let’s present the case and all the evidence. Where does the present budget go, and just how efficiently? The judiciary is a public service, fully-funded by public dollars, so show the public line-by-line where the money goes and why, and tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth then let a jury of the citizens of this state decide.

Furthermore, if the judge wants to try the case in the media, then the Star Tribune ought to at least make an effort to find some opposing witnesses or at least make an attempt to cross-examine the testimony. Calling only DFL House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher and DFL rep Michael Paymar to the stand suggests an agenda rather than a search for truth.

Here’s a fact: the State of Minnesota has a humongous deficit. Cuts are going to have to be made. If the Judiciary is spared, the burden must pass to another branch of government. Will we next week see the trash collectors saying they’ll only be able to collect every other week, or the dog-catchers saying they’ll no longer be able to afford to round up rabid dogs?

In my private-sector job, our business was recently forced to reduce expenses by nearly as many dollars as Magnuson has been asked to cut, on a budget only a fifth the size of the judge’s. Our mandate, however, was to make the cuts as invisible as possible to customers and to not reduce service to the consumers who are our lifeblood. Ironically, our “public servants” always seem to resort to doing just the opposite for their “customers”.

Adjusted for inflation

“A million trillion here, a million trillion there; pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”
— Everett Dirksen

$2 TRILLION?
White House’s $2.5 trillion plan draws criticism over lack of details.

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and STEPHEN LABATON, New York Times

WASHINGTON – The White House plan to rescue the nation’s financial system, announced Tuesday by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, is far bigger than anyone predicted and envisions a far greater government role in markets and banks than at any time since the 1930s.

Administration officials committed to flood the financial system with as much as $2.5 trillion — $350 billion of that coming from the bailout fund and the rest from private investors and the Federal Reserve, making use of its ability to print money.

But the initial assessment from the markets, lawmakers and economists was brutally negative, in large part because they expected more details.

Basic questions about how the various parts of the program would work — especially those involving the unsellable mortgages that banks are holding and preventing home foreclosures — were left for another day. Some Wall Street experts criticized the plan for relying too heavily on the same vague solutions proposed by the Bush administration.

The stock market, propped up for weeks on the expectation that Washington would finally deliver a comprehensive rescue plan, dipped almost as soon as Geithner began speaking in the morning.

A beast of a burden

Megan McArdle writing in The Atlantic

It seems to me that the burden of proof ought naturally to be on the stimulus proponents to satisfy the public that their highly theoretical models are basically sound, especially for the parts of the bill that aren’t tax cuts or transfer payments. Let’s recall that the evidence for this kind of stimulus working in this kind of situation basically rests on a single instance (World War II)–the other two times it was tried (Japan in the 1990s and America in the 1930s) the economy basically rolled along in the doldrums for the rest of the decade.

Proponents say that that’s because there wasn’t enough stimulus, which is possibly true, but not really satisfying, because first, how do we know this package is enough, and second, that leaves us with a belief in the virtues of stimulus that is essentially non-falsifiable. We might as well move macroeconomic policy to the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.

Remember when…

Today is the birthday of Ronald Reagan; he would have been 98. We’re also just barely past the 29th anniversary of his first inaugural address. Some highlights:

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.

We are a nation that has a government–not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.

Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it’s not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work–work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.

On the eve of our struggle for independence a man who might have been one of the greatest among the Founding Fathers, Dr. Joseph Warren, president of the Massachusetts Congress, said to his fellow Americans, “Our country is in danger, but not to be despaired of . . . On you depend the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important questions upon which rests the happiness and the liberty of millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves.”

Amen.

Atlas shrugged, and smiled a knowing smile

I was talking to my sister-in-law the other day and she said her husband, who’s been at his job for more than 20 years, has been bumped back to the night shift by someone with even more seniority. “I’m trying to keep a good attitude about it,” she said, “because, after all, at least it’s a job.”

“You’re right,” I replied. “Jobs are important; only 9 out of 10 Americans have one.”

All right, I can be an incorrigible smart ass, especially around family, and that’s a trait that has barely mellowed over the years. Even I’ll acknowledge, however, the gathering economic storm building overhead as if the country were one large trailer park. My sense is that things are going to get worse before they get better and that this is no mere hiccup but more like a full-on bulimic purge. To keep mixing my metaphors, Dylan once said “You don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows,” and my “forecast” doesn’t require a special degree or even a Doppler. In fact, if you’d spent time in college reading “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand you could probably do the same. As the current winds increase it might be interesting, if not all that helpful at this point, to head for the basement with a copy of her book.

Stephen Moore made a similar point last week in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Atlas Shrugged: From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years”. In it he points out frightening prescience of this all-time classic.

For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises — that in most cases they themselves created — by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as “the looters and their laws.” Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the “Anti-Greed Act” to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel’s promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the “Equalization of Opportunity Act” to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the “Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act,” aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn’t Hank Paulson think of that?

These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act” and the “Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act.” Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan.” This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion — in roughly his first 100 days in office.

The current economic strategy is right out of “Atlas Shrugged”: The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That’s the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies — while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to “calm the markets,” another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as “Atlas” grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate “windfalls.”

I’ve been thinking about re-reading the book, especially since I’m sure I’ll understand it a lot more than I did 30-some years ago, but I’m concerned that I’ll get too angry (again) over the treatment of the individual in the story … and by the creeping sense that there’s nothing one can do to keep it from happening in real life. Of course, in the book, one man — the right man — can make a difference.

Ultimately, “Atlas Shrugged” is a celebration of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and the cultivator of wealth through human intellect. Critics dismissed the novel as simple-minded, and even some of Rand’s political admirers complained that she lacked compassion. Yet one pertinent warning resounds throughout the book: When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear — leaving everyone the poorer.

One memorable moment in “Atlas” occurs near the very end, when the economy has been rendered comatose by all the great economic minds in Washington. Finally, and out of desperation, the politicians come to the heroic businessman John Galt (who has resisted their assault on capitalism) and beg him to help them get the economy back on track. The discussion sounds much like what would happen today:

Galt: “You want me to be Economic Dictator?”

Mr. Thompson: “Yes!”

“And you’ll obey any order I give?”

“Implicitly!”

“Then start by abolishing all income taxes.”

“Oh no!” screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. “We couldn’t do that . . . How would we pay government employees?”

“Fire your government employees.”

“Oh, no!”

Abolishing the income tax. Now that really would be a genuine economic stimulus. But Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Washington want to do the opposite: to raise the income tax “for purposes of fairness” as Barack Obama puts it.

David Kelley, the president of the Atlas Society, which is dedicated to promoting Rand’s ideas, explains that “the older the book gets, the more timely its message.” He tells me that there are plans to make “Atlas Shrugged” into a major motion picture [A younger Glenn Close would make a dynamite Dagny Taggart, IMHO. NW.] — it is the only classic novel of recent decades that was never made into a movie. “We don’t need to make a movie out of the book,” Mr. Kelley jokes. “We are living it right now.”

Someone has a fever

They’re making Dr. James Hansen sweat again. From a Christopher Booker column in the Telegraph, The World Has Never Seen Such Freezing Heat (emphasis mine):

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS’s computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs – run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious “hockey stick” graph – GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic – in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen’s institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)

Yet last week’s latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen’s methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising “very much faster” than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.

Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world’s governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.

HT: The Lumberjack

In a related story; EU Facing Revolt Over Climate Change Enforcement:

The European Union is facing a revolt from poorer members over tough climate change targets at a time when the global economy is heading for recession.

Italy has teamed up with seven east and central European countries – Poland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia – to threaten a veto over Brussels legislation that implements an EU target to cut Europe’s CO2 emissions 20 per cent by 2020.

The long way

“I believe in the free speech that liberals used to believe in,
the economic freedom that conservatives used to believe in,
and the personal freedom that America used to believe in.”

— Doug Mataconis, Below the Beltway blog

The building where I work was envisioned by its famous architect to have two reflecting pools alongside it. Therefore it features two rectangular cement depressions on its west side. In the nearly 30 years that I’ve been coming to this site, “envisioning” the pools is about all you’ve been able to do because when they are filled with water they leak prodigiously and incorrigibly, despite many efforts over the decades to correct the problem. The property managers ultimately gave it up as a lost cause and left them empty, despite my suggestion that they would make wonderful planters.

Earlier this year, however, the building was sold to new owners who have taken up this grail. As a result workmen have been milling around for the last several weeks, measuring and marking and ultimately tearing up sections of the bottom of the pools; the short, repeated bursts of jackhammers on cement sounding just like the staccato ripping of a German MG42 in the WWII Brothers in Arms xBox game I like to play in my spare time. In the game when you hear that sound you get down or you die and I involuntarily ducked my head a couple of inches the first time I heard that rat-a-tat as I approached my office a couple of weeks ago.

The larger pool runs the length of the building, while the smaller is to the north, separated by a 30 foot wide plaza that leads to the portico at the front of the building. The plaza provides the path for me to get into the building as I walk from the light rail stop. A couple of weeks ago a tall, chain-link construction fence formed a parenthetical bracket along the north end of the large pool to keep gawking civilians out of the work area; for our safety, of course. Personally, I would be able to control myself and my curiosity enough to stay clear, but you know you can’t trust the masses.

A day or two later a similar construction framed the south end of the smaller pool, creating a fenced path across the plaza, still about 30 feet wide. As construction has proceeded, however, the fences have been moved closer to each other as the plaza itself is bisected to lay a drain pipe. Last week we were down to an 8-foot-wide access across the plaza. Ugly, and a little inconvenient, but at least we could get through.

Today when I walked up the 8-foot access was gone and solid fencing extended all the way across the plaza. To get in I had to walk a quarter of a block around to the north and come up on the building from the other side while the chill November wind continued to abuse my ears. Tomorrow I’ll come via the Skyway route from the train, which means, ironically, I’ll actually take an underground tunnel for the last block to reach my objective.

It’s been getting colder for some time now; it could be a long winter.

“I’m working so my grandchildren will have the same freedoms
my grandfather enjoyed.”

–Rev. Dr. Tom Jestus

Too funny…and too true

British comics Bird and Fortune explain the financial crisis in this clip entitled “How the Markets Really Work”. It’s a lot funnier than my last 401k statement … but just as painfully close to the truth.

An excerpt from this “interview”, discussing the sub-prime fiasco:

Surely the reality is that the people who have lent all this money have been incredibly stupid.

Oh no, no…the reality is that what is stupid is that at some point somebody asked how much these houses are actually worth. I mean, if they hadn’t asked that question everything would have gone on perfectly as normal.

Now some will say that this will lead to a financial melt-down. Can it be avoided?

It can be avoided provided the governments and central banks give us — the speculators and financial advisors — the money back that we’ve lost.

But…isn’t that rewarding greed and stupidity?

No, it’s rewarding what Prime Minister Gordon Brown calls “the ingenuity of the markets.”

I see….

We don’t want this money to spend on ourselves. We want this money to go into the market so we can carry on borrowing and lending money as if nothing had happened without thinking too much about it.

Well, if worst came to worst and you didn’t get this money, what then?

Well then, the market would crash and I would say to you what people like me always say, “It’s not us who will suffer, it’s your pension fund.”