*The New York Times Favors Greater Income Equality: *Except for
employees of the New York Times
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blogid=95&entry_id=59084>.
The New York Times laid off 100 people and cut pay for most
employees last year for a nine-month period. All employees except
two: Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Chief Executive Janet L.
Robinson. According to The Wall Street Journal, both Arthur
Sulzberger Jr. and Janet L. Robinson got huge increases. Janet L.
Robinson's overall pay jumped 32 percent to 6.3 million; Arthur
Sulzberger Jr.'s pay rose to $6 million, double the $3 million of a
year before.
What's alarming is Sulzberger and Robinson took these raises while
asking their employees to suffer pay cuts and job losses. In May
of 2009, Vanity Fair's Mark Bowden wrote that a "doomsday clock" was
ticking for newspapers, and Sulzberger was "struggling to keep his
family's prized asset alive." Yeah, he's really working hard to do
that, huh?
The New York Times laid off about 100 employees and asked editors and
reporters to take 5 percent pay cuts. (Their employees at the Boston
Globe took almost 6 percent pay cuts.)
Did Mr. Sulzberger earn his job through hard work and talent? Not
exactly. (And if you have an innocent friend who wonders how he did get
his job, you can give them this hint: He has the same last name as the
previous publisher.)
And I would have to say that his career is one of the best arguments for
an estate tax --- assuming you could devise one that would get by his
lawyers and accountants.
- 9:16 AM, 17 March 2010 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/March2010_3.html#jrm8491>
*Lehman Brothers And The Regulators: *Remember Lehman Brothers? The
collapse of that firm helped set off the financial panic in 2008. As
investigators have dug through their books, we have learned that Lehman
was far too leveraged, and was concealing that from the public with an
accounting gimmick. Where were the regulators while all this was
happening? On scene
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/business/16sorkin.html?dbk>.
Almost two years ago to the day, a team of officials from the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York quietly moved into the headquarters of Lehman Brothers.
They were provided desks, phones, computers --- and access to all
of Lehman's books and records. At any given moment, there were as
many as a dozen government officials buzzing around Lehman's offices.
A report from Lehman's bankruptcy examiner, Anton R. Valukas,
revealed the firm was taking a creative approach to valuations and
accounting.
These officials, whose work was kept under wraps at the time, were
assigned by Timothy Geithner, then president of the New York Fed,
and Christopher Cox, then the S.E.C. chairman, to monitor Lehman in
light of the near collapse of Bear Stearns.
. . .
Indeed, it now appears that the federal government itself either
didn't appreciate the significance of what it saw (we've seen that
movie before with regulators waving off tips about Bernard L.
Madoff). Or perhaps they did appreciate the significance and
blessed the now-suspect accounting anyway.
That story doesn't increase one's faith in regulators, does it? (Or in
Timothy Geithner and Christopher Cox.)
- 1:19 PM, 17 March 2010 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/March2010_3.html#jrm8492>
*Will ObamaCare Pass The House? *Keith Hennessey, who is about as well
informed as anyone who isn't actually counting the votes can be, says he
doesn't know <http://keithhennessey.com/2010/03/16/inside-game/>.
Yesterday I guessed a two in three chance the President would have
legislative success, which I now define as at least signing the
Senate-passed bill into law.
In the past I have at least been able to fool myself into thinking
there was a rational basis for my projections. Now I'm just
guessing. I will stick with two in three for the moment, but I am
now just picking numbers out of thin air based on some slightly
informed guessing. This prediction will be out of date by tomorrow,
if not sooner. And I do not anticipate updating it.
That's because this is now entirely an inside game into which I have
extremely limited visibility. If the Speaker can get 216 votes for
two bills, then it's over. But only a handful of people really know
how far she is from that goal.
Having said he doesn't know, he then offers twelve sensible
observations, including this one:
12. So much for transparency. Bill #2 is being drafted in the
Speaker's office. So much for regular order in the legislative
process, or open debate, or amendments . . . As recently as two
weeks ago the President was admitting that they"could have done
better" on transparency. We will never know the extent of side
deals being cut to lock down votes, since many of them will be
delivered outside this legislation.
If the public knew about those side deals, the odds in favor of passage
would be lower.
(See this post
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/March2010_2.html#jrm8482> for
some of the tactical complexities in the voting.)
- 9:42 AM, 18 March 2010 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/March2010_3.html#jrm8494>
*Will EPA Rules Cause Blackouts In California? *Maybe. EPA rules are
likely to cause the closing of many power plants in California, and it
is almost impossible to build new power plants there --- of any kind
<http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/11/you-stay-classy-sacramento>.
The centerpiece of California's energy policy is really the absence
of energy.
If that sounds crazy -- and it is! -- consider this impressive web
of regulation that the government has spun: Elected officials
enacted a moratorium on new nuclear power plants. New coal plants
are illegal. Large scale hydro power is unthinkable for California's
environmentally sensitive voters, because it harms fish. Natural gas
plants emit half as much carbon as coal plants, but they are banned
in much of California because they cannot get air quality permits
for particulate emissions.
In 2006, the State Water Resources Control Board ruled that 19
coastal natural gas power plants were in violation of the Clean
Water Act for using a process called "once-through cooling," by
which ocean water is pumped into a power plant in order to condense
steam into water to be reused. This can harm aquatic wildlife, so,
at the behest of environmentalist groups, the SWRCB ordered coastal
power plants to make costly refurbishments. According to the Energy
Commission, "[I]t is likely that plant operators will choose
retirement in the face of costly retrofits."
(Warm ocean water helps some species, some times, and hurts some others,
some times. It is common for fish to be attracted to these warmer
discharge areas, as many fishermen could tell you.)
By way of Chicago Boyz
<http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/12046.html/comment-page-1#comment-332992%22%22>,
where there are many instructive comments. (Be sure to read the
comments by Joseph Somsel and Mike H.)
- 10:46 AM, 18 March 2010 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/March2010_3.html#jrm8495>
*Another Democrat Switches To Republican: *And this Democrat is exactly
the kind of recruit
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/nyregion/18levy.html?ref=politics>
that the New York Republicans need.
A governor's race that seemed all but settled is about to be upended
again, by a popular Democrat from Long Island who is set to announce
that he is switching parties. The move is certain to excite
Republican leaders pessimistic about their party's hopes this fall.
Those leaders believe that the official, Steve Levy, a blunt-spoken
fiscal hawk and contrarian who collected 96 percent of the vote in
his last re-election bid, can tap into the public's anti-incumbent
sentiment and frustration with Albany's overspending.
Mr. Levy, 50, the Suffolk County executive, said he wanted voters to
see him as "Scott Brown II," referring to the Massachusetts senator
who pulled off an upset against a heavily favored Democrat in
January. "There really seems to be a void out there that I can fit
perfectly," Mr. Levy said, describing Albany's political culture as
a "cesspool."
If you know anything about New York politics, you will probably agree
with his "cesspool" description. I'd add "dysfunctional' to his
"cesspool". It stinks, and it doesn't work.
(Levy has significant executive experience, since Suffolk County has a
population of 1.5 million.)
- 1:51 PM, 18 March 2010 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/March2010_3.html#jrm8497>
*"The Obama Administration Desperately Needs Adult Supervision" *That's
Taranto's conclusion
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704207504575129650173760756.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion%22%22>,
after looking at the fight over ObamaCare. (And some other
administration blunders.)
That's a harsh judgement, but one justified by Obama's record to date.
Defeating ObamaCare might get Obama the help he needs, says Taranto.
(Though both of us hope that this bizarre scheme can be defeated, I am
less optimistic that Obama would learn from that defeat.)
- 2:24 PM, 18 March 2010 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/March2010_3.html#jrm8498>
*Does David Leonhardt Believe In Demography? *That's what I began to
wonder, after reading his latest column
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/business/economy/17leonhardt.html>.
Leonhardt is making an argument for higher taxes, especially higher
consumption taxes, in a roundabout way.
This idea is known as Wagner's Law, named for the 19th-century
economist who came up with it. Citizens of richer societies
generally prefer more government services, Adolf Wagner explained.
With their basic needs met, they want a military to protect them,
good schools for their children, comfortable retirement for the
elderly, medical care even when it isn't profitable and a strong
social safety net.
Sure enough, the United States followed this path for most of the
last century. In 1900, federal taxes amounted to just 2 percent of
gross domestic product. By 2000, the share had risen to 21 percent.
(His discussion is misleading, to say the least. Although it is true
that government expenditures tend to rise in rich nations, it is also
true that they have risen less in the United States than in most other
well-to-do nations. Nations that have controlled those increases have
done better --- on the average --- than nations that haven't. Moreover
the United States had long periods in the last century when we held
spending constant as a share of the GDP, or even reduced it.)
But now we are having high spending, without the taxes to pay for it.
Leonhardt wants us to raise taxes, more than cutting spending. In
other words, Leonhardt thinks that we should raise taxes so as to be
more like the Europeans.
Unfortunately, the Europeans are about to learn that their model will
not work for much longer
<http://www.joelkotkin.com/content/00188-what-american-demographics-will-look-2050>
Within the next four decades, most of the developed countries in
both Europe and East Asia will become veritable old-age homes: a
third or more of their populations will be older than 65, compared
with only a fifth in the U.S.
Even if you put children to work, there will be fewer than two European
workers to provide retirement benefits for each retired person, and
medical care for everyone. (And of course an aging population will
require proportionately even more medical care than the current
population. It is no wonder that many European nations are exploring
assisted suicide, and other ways of reducing their growing population of
old people.)
European actuaries are no doubt trying to solve this problem, but it
already looks too hard to have any easy, or even moderately difficult,
solutions. (I certainly can't think of any. They are already trying
some of the obvious fixes
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/business/worldbusiness/06pension.html?_r=2&ref=business&oref=slogin>,
but I don't see how those can succeed in the long run, unless Europeans
suddenly start having babies again.)
The problem will be less severe in the United States --- unless we
follow Leonhardt's advice.
(Retirement benefits and the shortage of children may be directly
related. Some economists believe that high retirement benefits lead to
low birth rates, as people decide that they do not need to have children
of their own to be supported in old age.
Here's my take on the "demography is destiny" argument
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/September2005_2.html#jrm3576>.)
- 3:37 PM, 18 March 2010 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/March2010_3.html#jrm8499>
*Do Diversity Training Programs Work? * Probably not
<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/03/07/whos_still_biased/?page=full>.
Now a few social scientists are taking a hard look at these
programs, and, so far, what they're finding is that there's little
evidence that diversity training works. A paper published last year
by the psychologist Elizabeth Levy Paluck of Princeton University's
Woodrow Wilson School and the Yale University political scientist
Donald Green comprehensively surveyed the literature on prejudice
reduction measures and found no empirical support for the idea that
diversity training programs change attitudes or behavior.
Similarly, a 2008 literature review paper by Carol Kulik of the
University of South Australia and Loriann Roberson of Columbia
University found that, on the question of changing behavior, there
were few trustworthy studies - and decidedly mixed results among
those. And research by a team of sociologists on more than 800
companies over three decades has found that the best diversity
training programs make little difference in who gets hired and
promoted, and many programs actually decrease the number of women
and minorities in management.
Many programs may even have negative effects.
But even the better programs led only to marginal changes. And
those that were mandatory or discussed lawsuits - the vast majority
of the programs the researchers examined - slightly reduced the
number of women and minorities in management. Required training and
legalistic training both make people resentful, the authors suggest,
and likely to rebel against what they've heard.
The programs have provided billions of dollars to diversity trainers.
Whether that is a good result depends on your point of view, I suppose.
(Full disclosure: You can count me among those who resent required
programs.)
- 8:19 AM, 19 March 2010 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/March2010_3.html#jrm8500>
*Maybe Hillary Clinton Should Press That Reset Button Again: *Since it
didn't work
<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/world/europe/19diplo.html?ref=world>
the first time.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Russia's foreign
minister clashed publicly Thursday over an announcement that Russia
would complete a nuclear power plant in Iran this summer.
Mrs. Clinton said the announcement, *made during her visit*, sends
the wrong signal at a time when the West is trying to curb Tehran's
nuclear ambitions.
(Emphasis added.)
The timing of this announcement was a deliberate, calculated insult. It
marks a new low in American-Russian relations. Putin has just told us,
as clearly as he can, that he wants conflict between our two nations,
that he is not, at present, interested in improving relations.
It is possible, perhaps even likely, that a McCain administration would
have had no more success getting cooperation from the Russians on Iran
than the Obama-Clinton team has --- but I doubt that McCain would have
been humiliated this way.
I will even speculate that a McCain administration might have done a
little better, simply because the Russians would see him as tougher, as
willing to act against Russia if diplomatic approaches don't work. On
the whole, American presidents whom the Soviets viewed as tough had more
success in negotiations than American presidents the Soviets viewed as
weak, and I suspect the same thing would be true with Putin and company.
(Has Putin concluded that the Russians will get more from the Obama
administration if they behave badly? Possibly. Obama has certainly
given them some reason to believe that, as Prime Minister Gordon Brown
could tell you.)
- 9:30 AM, 19 March 2010 [link]
<http://www.seanet.com/%7Ejimxc/Politics/March2010_3.html#jrm8501>
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to politicalforum+unsubscribegooglegroups.com
or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
