Entitlements Part II

 Posted by  Uncategorized  4 Responses »
Oct 152009
 

Just a few weeks after I complained about giving away free money to kids, now Obama comes up with a program to give away free money to the elderly. The issue at hand is that social security payouts didn’t increase this year for the first time in recent memory. So, Obama wants to help seniors who are struggling because of that lack of increase. Here’s the problem:

Social Security is pegged to inflation. Imagine for ease of calculation that seniors get $365 a year for food. If last year a loaf of bread cost $1, seniors could buy a loaf a day and be fed and have no surplus dollars. If this year prices rise to $1.05, seniors can only get 347 loaves, and would be hungry 18 days of the year. So, we up the amount they get to $383, and now they can still get a loaf a day and have no surplus dollars. Makes perfect sense. However, this year, inflation actually went down because of the economy. So, in my hypothetical a loaf of bread costs only 95 cents. This means that seniors could buy the loaf a day, and still have $19 surplus. Social security doesn’t go down when inflation goes down, so seniors are wealthier in terms of purchasing power this year than they have been in recent memory.

But this is the year Obama wants to give out more money in handouts. From a political perspective it may get democrats more senior votes in the midterm election, but at the cost of the stability of the country. After all, where will this money come from given that we’re already seeing record deficits?

Obama, you need to show some fiscal restraint. Everybody is going through tough times. Because of how inflation works, seniors on social security are actually doing comparatively better than almost any other group. This is not the right place for an entitlement program.

Blaming the Dog

 Posted by  Business And Regulation, U.S. Politics  4 Responses »
Oct 142009
 

Imagine that you own a watchdog. You’ve tasked this watchdog to watch your house and to prevent theft. You paid a lot of money for the dog and for the expert who trained the dog. And over the years, the dog has managed to chase away a couple of would-be thieves. Then, some nice old gentleman comes to the house. You invite him in. He asks to see your rare and valuable collection. You show them to him. You’re watchdog, who is normally pretty good at sniffing out troublemakers, does nothing. Just sits there. And of course, the man returns that night, gets by the watchdog who recognizes him as a friendly and acceptably approved presence in the house, and robs you blind. Is that the dog’s fault? Oh, maybe the dog needs to be better trained that just because someone’s presence is acceptable in the middle of the day, doesn’t mean that his presence is acceptable late at night. But ultimately you lost your things because of your own gullibility, not the dogs… right?

Well, it seems to me that this is exactly what’s going on in a lawsuit filed today. Two victims in the Madoff Ponzi scheme are suing the SEC for failing to catch Madoff before they invested. Continue reading »

Criminalizing Harassment

 Posted by  Crime  3 Responses »
Oct 132009
 

There is an article in the New York Times today that I think raises an interesting question: how many times must a harmless act be repeated to become hurtful?

Here’s the background information on the lawsuit: In Minneapolis area there are two elite private high schools, Breck and Blake. They are both small, extremely expensive, and highly selective private schools. They are also where the rich and famous send their kids. In 2007, one of the heirs to the Dayton fortune (his great-grandfather founded a department store chain and his uncle was a United States Senator from Minnesota) transferred, as a high school junior, from Breck to Blake, despite having gone to Breck since kindergarten. The article doesn’t say why, but shortly before then he had reported harassment from fellow classmates–harassment that escalated after the transfer and including repeated phone calls at all hours of the day and small scale vandalism to his house (eggs thrown, human excrement and used tampons left behind, etc.). Continue reading »

Why Conservatives Are Liberal (But Not Vice Versa)

 Posted by  Legal Philosophy, U.S. Politics  3 Responses »
Oct 092009
 

I believe that the two most confusing and misunderstood words in the English language are “conservative” and “liberal”. I’ve talked about this before, but given that I had to clarify this for my wife last week, I realize that maybe I should revisit it. Both phrases have multiple, often contradictory, definitions, so let’s just take this slowly:
Continue reading »

Obama… nobel… what the???

 Posted by  Uncategorized  8 Responses »
Oct 092009
 

Ok, I like Obama. I don’t agree with everything he’s done, but I do like his emphasis on diplomacy, and his willingness to compromise and consider data in policy making. And maybe someday, if his initiatives are successful, he would deserve this. But now? Before he’s accomplished anything?

There are so many people who have done so much more. Its like Gore and Carter before him… the Nobel committee seems to be using this more to snub Bush (“look – we’re giving it to your rivals, opponents and successors, but never to you…”) than to actually recognize the people who have done so much to alleviate suffering.

Sort of devalues the prize some in my eyes. Let’s hope that Obama’s record in the next few years justifies the decision…

 Older Entries  Newer Entries
© 2012 leftfielder.org login Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha