Politics

[illini80]

Originally Posted by Illest

California's fundamental issue is government by referendum. Their populace has voted for a system that guarantees all kinds of goodies that must be paid for but also makes it very difficult for the legislature to raise taxes.

From the perspective of fairness, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to California receiving a bailout, since California has contributed substantially more money than it's gotten back from the federal government for many years. But there are major moral hazard issues associated with bailing out a state government as well. It would be an awfully dangerous precedent to set.

The state of Illinois would be next in line with their hand out.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by Illest

California's fundamental issue is government by referendum. Their populace has voted for a system that guarantees all kinds of goodies that must be paid for but also makes it very difficult for the legislature to raise taxes.

From the perspective of fairness, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to California receiving a bailout, since California has contributed substantially more money than it's gotten back from the federal government for many years. But there are major moral hazard issues associated with bailing out a state government as well. It would be an awfully dangerous precedent to set.

Welcome back illest. You were missed.

Great post. I agree completely about the moral hazard. Unfortunately California has too often acted as its own country (perhaps with the best of intentions). Their over the top (IMO) environmental lobby (see banning plasma screens) has created a less than idea business situation. Add to that a fairly large outflow of wealthier families (I cringe as you try to refute that as you did with the NE outflow) and being one of the 4 epicenters of the housing bubble and you end up with a somewhat predictable mess.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by illini80

The state of Illinois would be next in line with their hand out.

Has anyone analyzed the budget deficits of the states by Red State Blue State yet?

[Illest]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Welcome back illest. You were missed.

Thanks, my friend. Though I should point out that I was only gone from the board for less than a week. Perhaps it's a bad sign about how much time I spend on here that less than a week away from IL, coinciding with Christmas, is viewed as an absence.

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Great post. I agree completely about the moral hazard. Unfortunately California has too often acted as its own country (perhaps with the best of intentions). Their over the top (IMO) environmental lobby (see banning plasma screens) has created a less than idea business situation. Add to that a fairly large outflow of wealthier families (I cringe as you try to refute that as you did with the NE outflow) and being one of the 4 epicenters of the housing bubble and you end up with a somewhat predictable mess.

I think you know what I'd say to most of that. I'd just point out that a huge part of their problem is that their tax system isn't designed to be resistant to busts -- hence their current fiscal crisis. Also, they should've seen the problems with housing-dependent state revenues; as you may be aware, LA experienced a huge housing bubble not too many years ago.

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Has anyone analyzed the budget deficits of the states by Red State Blue State yet?

I haven't looked, but I'm not sure it would tell you much. Most states have a requirement to basically balance their budgets. Some states may build in more countercyclical spending, like on unemployment benefits, which makes their budgets messier during recessions. Different states have different amount of clout per population in Washington which gets them different amount of budgetary help from the federal government, which is obviously not constrained to maintain a balanced budget. Different states were hit to different degrees by the recession. So, with the obvious exception of California, which is in a fiscal crisis that surely does not serve its citizens, I'm not sure you could get much meaningful sense of how well state legislatures have been serving their citizens by looking at those numbers.

I will also say that, in an environment like the one today in Cali, a failure to raise taxes is damaging to the business environment. My brother who I mentioned in the other thread and his wife are at UC schools. Though my brother's funding situation really depends on outside grants rather than the university, I think both of them are worried about the situation and the future of their departments and are thinking hard about getting the heck off the Titanic. Surely businesses realize that tax increases are coming. By failing to cover the deficit now, the state of California is pursuing a policy that is distortionary and discomfiting to its citizens because of the uncertainty surrounding how ends will be made to meet in the future.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by Illest

I haven't looked, but I'm not sure it would tell you much. Most states have a requirement to basically balance their budgets. Some states may build in more countercyclical spending, like on unemployment benefits, which makes their budgets messier during recessions. Different states have different amount of clout per population in Washington which gets them different amount of budgetary help from the federal government, which is obviously not constrained to maintain a balanced budget. Different states were hit to different degrees by the recession. So, with the obvious exception of California, which is in a fiscal crisis that surely does not serve its citizens, I'm not sure you could get much meaningful sense of how well state legislatures have been serving their citizens by looking at those numbers.

It is my sense that a consumption tax is less prone to fluctuation than an income tax. Also, a property tax is often not very fair in that valuations are often somewhat capricious. They are often easily influenced by wealth (lawyers) and of course unfair to homeowners that can build their own homes at much lower than market rates.

Given that, it seems to me that low income tax states seem to be having less difficulty right now than the high income tax states (California, NY, Ohio, etc.).

I will also say that, in an environment like the one today in Cali, a failure to raise taxes is damaging to the business environment. My brother who I mentioned in the other thread and his wife are at UC schools. Though my brother's funding situation really depends on outside grants rather than the university, I think both of them are worried about the situation and the future of their departments and are thinking hard about getting the heck off the Titanic. Surely businesses realize that tax increases are coming. By failing to cover the deficit now, the state of California is pursuing a policy that is distortionary and discomfiting to its citizens because of the uncertainty surrounding how ends will be made to meet in the future.

Sorry about your brother's situation. Doing nothing is often the best move in situations of economic gloom as the cyclical nature of the economy is hard to bet against.

Tax uncertainty is paralyzing as a business owner. We have been in a hiring freeze at work for about a year. I have given bonuses rather than raises while we wait for Washington to get its act together. I would have hired 12-15 people over the past year if not for governmental uncertainty. If Washington could complete whatever economic damage they intend, I think the economy could start moving a bit. There has to be a large number of companies in the same shape as mine. I find it hard to believe that I am somehow unique.

[Illini1956]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...826272498.html


Ben Nelson's Purgatory
The Nebraska senator's health-care vote has killed him politically.


The scriptures refer to reaping the whirlwind. That certainly describes Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson after the first state-wide poll since the controversial deal he cut in exchange for his deciding vote on the Senate health care bill.

A new Rasmussen Reports poll shows that if he were running for re-election today, Mr. Nelson would lose to Nebraska's GOP Governor David Heineman by a stunning 61% to 30%. Only three years ago, Mr. Nelson won his current term with a solid 64% of the vote.

Clearly, the senator's fall in public esteem is a direct reaction to his having voted for the health care bill as part of a deal in which Nebraska was exempted from the costs of new federal Medicaid mandates. The ObamaCare bill was already unpopular enough in Nebraska but became even more so when state residents discovered they would be saddled with it anyway, plus exposed to national ridicule over Mr. Nelson's sweetheart deal. Now 53% strongly oppose the bill, while another 11% somewhat oppose it. Only 17% favor the deal that Mr. Nelson struck in order to vote for the bill.

[bmb777]

Originally Posted by Illini1956

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...826272498.html


Ben Nelson's Purgatory
The Nebraska senator's health-care vote has killed him politically.


The scriptures refer to reaping the whirlwind. That certainly describes Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson after the first state-wide poll since the controversial deal he cut in exchange for his deciding vote on the Senate health care bill.

A new Rasmussen Reports poll shows that if he were running for re-election today, Mr. Nelson would lose to Nebraska's GOP Governor David Heineman by a stunning 61% to 30%. Only three years ago, Mr. Nelson won his current term with a solid 64% of the vote.

Clearly, the senator's fall in public esteem is a direct reaction to his having voted for the health care bill as part of a deal in which Nebraska was exempted from the costs of new federal Medicaid mandates. The ObamaCare bill was already unpopular enough in Nebraska but became even more so when state residents discovered they would be saddled with it anyway, plus exposed to national ridicule over Mr. Nelson's sweetheart deal. Now 53% strongly oppose the bill, while another 11% somewhat oppose it. Only 17% favor the deal that Mr. Nelson struck in order to vote for the bill.

I wouldnt be surprised if he voted against the bill when the final bill is up for a vote. I would imagine they couldnt take away everything he got to vote to end debate on the bill and put it up for a vote. so he could still get that, and vote against the final bill.

[ilphotog]

If you are in Canada and are going to fly to the U.S., you are forbidden to bring on a book or magazine unless you buy it at a shop once you are through security.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1420232/

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by ilphotog

If you are in Canada and are going to fly to the U.S., you are forbidden to bring on a book or magazine unless you buy it at a shop once you are through security.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1420232/

Are you kidding? That is hilarious. I have always known that the government is a massive joke but this one takes the cake.

Let's just admit that if they want to blow up a plane they can and there is not much we can do about it. It is obvious that they could hit a subway or train or other soft target where we have ZERO security. Why devote so much ridiculous energy to this?

[DaytonIllini]

The top official in charge of analyzing terror threats did not cut short his ski vacation after the underwear bomber nearly blew up an airliner on Christmas Day, the Daily News has learned.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...#ixzz0bvq2p8TC

It appears that the sacrificial lamb has been found.

[bmb777]

Originally Posted by ilphotog

If you are in Canada and are going to fly to the U.S., you are forbidden to bring on a book or magazine unless you buy it at a shop once you are through security.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1420232/

good idea. id hate to see someone crash a plane by throwing a magazine at someone. :rolleyes:

[illinirazorback]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

It appears that the sacrificial lamb has been found.

Yep, probably. The media will run with it, too. Nevermind that his ski vacation had absolutely nothing to do with the event, or even the aftermath, since the problems were BEFORE the event. Days and weeks before.

Wonder how long before he blames Bush for the intelligence failures that occurred in HIS administration?

3....2....1....

[DaytonIllini]

I thought today's press conference was oddly frightening.

First, you had this old geezer (Brenner?) telling us that after a thorough review, the systems to share information worked, we were just too stupid to put the dots together. He almost was bragging about it. I kind of preferred the old, "we have a system in place that prevented sharing of info but we can fix it quick". Somehow bragging about how dumb you are was not getting it done for me.

Next, you had Napolitano. As an aside, I am guessing there is a Y chromosome in there somewhere. That whole bit about Obama recently appointing the first transsexual (oops transgender - what the hell is that anyway?) individual was obviously a smokescreen (not to mention Janet Reno - oops I just mentioned her...er him...it?). Be that as it may but (s)he (sic) clearly has some kind of neurological condition. That set of facial grimaces and looking up and to the left is very disconcerting. She somehow won a governorship I think. I cannot imagine her winning a student council race. Maybe democracy IS fundamentally flawed.

[Champaignillini]

Originally Posted by illinirazorback

Wonder how long before he blames Bush for the intelligence failures that occurred in HIS administration?

8 years after 9/11, there is no excuse for such a breakdown in the intelligence apparatus.
Instead of taking such low partisan potshots, we should instead be asking the tough questions about why such a glaring failure occurred, and put pressure on our elected officials to quickly address the shortcomings of the current system. Installing full body scanners might give us a false sense of security at the airports, but it doesn't rectify the intelligence failure that occurred on Christmas day.

The news conference that I watched (rather listened) had Obama saying something to the effect of 'buck stops with me'. I'm not sure which news conference you watched.

[uiba99]

Originally Posted by illinigrad

8 years after 9/11, there is no excuse for such a breakdown in the intelligence apparatus.
Instead of taking such low partisan potshots, we should instead be asking the tough questions about why such a glaring failure occurred, and put pressure on our elected officials to quickly address the shortcomings of the current system. Installing full body scanners might give us a false sense of security at the airports, but it doesn't rectify the intelligence failure that occurred on Christmas day.

The news conference that I watched (rather listened) had Obama saying something to the effect of 'buck stops with me'. I'm not sure which news conference you watched.

The problem is that the "me first" mentality of a lot of the intelligence agencies in our country is not controlled by politics OR common sense. They are reluctant to change their ways and share information...much like a lot of governmental agencies.

I mean, jeez, even within my office we have problems communicating with one another. It obviously is not of the same magnitude but I think that's true of most large organizations, particularly those in the public eye.

They really need to give that competitive BS up. Ultimately, we're all on the same team. Army and Navy fight like hell against each other in every sporting event at Annapolis and West Point but at the end of the day they work together for the betterment of the country. Why can't grown people in sensitive agencies do the same?

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by illinigrad

8 years after 9/11, there is no excuse for such a breakdown in the intelligence apparatus.
Instead of taking such low partisan potshots, we should instead be asking the tough questions about why such a glaring failure occurred, and put pressure on our elected officials to quickly address the shortcomings of the current system. Installing full body scanners might give us a false sense of security at the airports, but it doesn't rectify the intelligence failure that occurred on Christmas day.

The news conference that I watched (rather listened) had Obama saying something to the effect of 'buck stops with me'. I'm not sure which news conference you watched.

Right after Obama spoke, Brenner and Napolitano gave a lengthy explanation with questions and answer (mostly dodges from Napolitano). The upshot was that there was no failure of the system. People just failed to draw the proper conclusions. All of the data was there staring them in the face. That is not a quote, just a synopsis.

I have said before that I don't think you can lay this on Obama solely anymore than you can lay 9/11 on Bush solely. I think it is legititmate to question whether the appearance the administration gives that terror is a criminal act much like drug running is appropriate. Whether the emphasis on political correctness is wise (and I am not saying it is not). Whether it is even reasonable to waste time with these bizarre security measures (vaguely reminiscent of the duct tape and plastic wrap advice from the past administration).

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by uiba99

The problem is that the "me first" mentality of a lot of the intelligence agencies in our country is not controlled by politics OR common sense. They are reluctant to change their ways and share information...much like a lot of governmental agencies.

I mean, jeez, even within my office we have problems communicating with one another. It obviously is not of the same magnitude but I think that's true of most large organizations, particularly those in the public eye.

They really need to give that competitive BS up. Ultimately, we're all on the same team. Army and Navy fight like hell against each other in every sporting event at Annapolis and West Point but at the end of the day they work together for the betterment of the country. Why can't grown people in sensitive agencies do the same?

Brenner insisted that this was in no way the problem. That all of the data was shared.

[DaytonIllini]

This guy skewered Republicans mercilessly for the past several years. He sure can be an equal opportunity ripper. Man this is brutal.

[illinirazorback]

Originally Posted by illinigrad

8 years after 9/11, there is no excuse for such a breakdown in the intelligence apparatus.
Instead of taking such low partisan potshots, we should instead be asking the tough questions about why such a glaring failure occurred, and put pressure on our elected officials to quickly address the shortcomings of the current system. Installing full body scanners might give us a false sense of security at the airports, but it doesn't rectify the intelligence failure that occurred on Christmas day.

The news conference that I watched (rather listened) had Obama saying something to the effect of 'buck stops with me'. I'm not sure which news conference you watched.

Oh get over yourself. It wasn't a potshot, it was a prediction based on a well-documented pattern. Go back and look through all the "potshots" by you liberals on this board, then we'll talk.

Besides, I didn't watch the press conference, and even if I had, I'm pretty sure my post was before it.

We have been asking the "tough questions" on here. I actually give Obama credit for taking responsibility and saying the "buck stops here". Because it does. He didn't follow his "blame Bush" pattern this time, and for that I'll give the man credit.

You're right, there is no excuse, so let's see some action this time instead of the typical partisan bickering. Not holding my breath, but maybe I'll be wrong again. Hope so.

[Champaignillini]

Originally Posted by illinirazorback

Oh get over yourself. It wasn't a potshot, it was a prediction based on a well-documented pattern. Go back and look through all the "potshots" by you liberals on this board, then we'll talk.

'well documented' ..looks like you're already in the mode of writing your thesis

Some of the blames that Obama casted on the Bush administration were pretty legitimate (in my opinion). But now that we are almost into the 2nd yr of this presidency, he no longer has the 'luxury' of blaming things on the previous administration. Afghanistan is now 'his war', and keeping the nation safe is now 'his #1 responsibility'. He signed up for the job, with full knowledge that the economy was in doldrums, and the country was involved in two wars.
I'm pretty sure that Obama fully appreciates this, and he reiterated it in his speech today.

Originally Posted by illinirazorback

You're right, there is no excuse, so let's see some action this time instead of the typical partisan bickering. Not holding my breath, but maybe I'll be wrong again. Hope so.

We are seeing 'action' on everything, be it stimulus, bailout, health, cap-trade, etc. You are mistaking policy decisions (that you don't believe in) with inaction.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by illinigrad

'well documented' ..looks like you're already in the mode of writing your thesis

Some of the blames that Obama casted on the Bush administration were pretty legitimate (in my opinion). But now that we are almost into the 2nd yr of this presidency, he no longer has the 'luxury' of blaming things on the previous administration. Afghanistan is now 'his war', and keeping the nation safe is now 'his #1 responsibility'. He signed up for the job, with full knowledge that the economy was in doldrums, and the country was involved in two wars.
I'm pretty sure that Obama fully appreciates this, and he reiterated it in his speech today.




We are seeing 'action' on everything, be it stimulus, bailout, health, cap-trade, etc. You are mistaking policy decisions (that you don't believe in) with inaction.

You may see it that way but I don't think he does. I don't mean this as a shot at the President. I think he really thinks that expanding the role of the federal government is the most important action at this time...OK expanding the role of government is a shot. He does put increased regulations, increased aid for the poor, and healthcare reform as number one though.

This isn't to say he doesn't care about our safety but Obama is much more like the people I live with than the people those of you in Ohio live with. I deal with the "educated elite" constantly and terrorism truly is not a priority. They view terrorism as an inevitability and they view much of the action against it as a waste of resources and an unfortunate sideshow.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Brenner insisted that this was in no way the problem. That all of the data was shared.

I'm with Uiba....Brenner is lying. Oddly his lie sounds worse than what I suspect the truth is as you noted.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by IntenselyOrange

I'm with Uiba....Brenner is lying. Oddly his lie sounds worse than what I suspect the truth is as you noted.

Yes. I don't really believe him either. Just quoting him. I guess when you have been in charge for almost a year admitting that there are serious information flow issues would beg the question, "sir, in the 12 months you have been in charge, what programs have you put in place to fix this problem?"

I thought your comments about the inevitability of terror were interesting. I think it is correct actually. Pouring resources into screening seems counterproductive to me. More of a game of "Whack A Mole" as you fix one weakness only to have another exposed. Make air travel safe? Alright the bad guys can start focusing on subways, buses or trains. It is simply impossible.

[Champaignillini]

Originally Posted by IntenselyOrange

This isn't to say he doesn't care about our safety but Obama is much more like the people I live with than the people those of you in Ohio live with. I deal with the "educated elite" constantly and terrorism truly is not a priority. They view terrorism as an inevitability and they view much of the action against it as a waste of resources and an unfortunate sideshow.

You are looking at "safety" from a pretty narrow context. Terrorism is definitely a big threat in our times, but that's not the only one.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by illinigrad

You are looking at "safety" from a pretty narrow context. Terrorism is definitely a big threat in our times, but that's not the only one.

Sure but look at the context of this thread....I think it's pretty clear that we're discussing a particular type of safety.

And Dayton, I like you agree with the left regarding the inevitability of terrorism. I don't support over-emphasizing planes...especially when I actually ride the subway. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't spend significant intelligence resources on the problem.