Coyote Blog

From the New York Daily News, quoting VP Biden: (via Maggies Farm)

Every single great idea that has marked the 21st century, the 20th century and the 19th century has required government vision and government incentive

Wow, its hard to believe that even a hard core statist believes this in the face of historical evidence, but there it is.  The example  (and remember even a single correct example does not support the word “every”) is an interesting one:

“In the middle of the Civil War you had a guy named Lincoln paying people $16,000 for every 40 miles of track they laid across the continental United States. … No private enterprise would have done that for another 35 years.”

I am actually stunned that he is historically literate enough to get the second part of this right, that there was in fact a single transcontinental railroad, James J Hill’s Great Northern, that completed its line without government subsidies or land grants.  He even gets the date about right.  A few thoughts:

• Not mentioned by Biden is the emergence of the entire rest of the US railroad industry, which by 1860 had about 30,000 miles of track, mostly via private initiative.
• I think the original transcontinental railroad has interesting parallels to the Apollo program — certainly government action got us into space and a transcontinental railroad faster than private action, but it could be argued that both delayed private initiative in these areas longer than would have occurred without the action.
• For Lincoln in the Civil War, the transcontinental had as much to do with cementing Union control of California as it did promoting commerce or any other values

Here is my favorite fact — Every single transcontinental railroad went bankrupt at least once before 1925, except one.  Can you guess which one did not?  Yes, it was the Great Northern, the only one built entirely with private capital.

Maybe its because I live in Phoenix, but the local food movement has always seemed silly to me.  To somehow argue that food grown in our 6 inches of annual rainfall is better for the environment than trucking product in from more suitable growing regions has always struck me as crazy.  Russ Roberts links several good articles on the local food movement, one of which included this nice snarky observation:

The result has been all kinds of absurdities. For instance, it is sinful in New York City to buy a tomato grown in a California field because of the energy spent to truck it across the country; it is virtuous to buy one grown in a lavishly heated greenhouse in, say, the Hudson Valley.

In this week’s episode, your tax money goes to subsidizing low cost, low down payment loans for New York luxury condo buyers.

From New York Magazine

The wrinkly old men that we elect to Congress are so horny and gross that the American taxpayer shells out on average $1 million a year in settlements to sexually harassed Hill staffers, according to the Office of Compliance. The level of perviness fluctuates from year to year — in 2007, 25 staffers were paid a total of $4 million.

Kids Prefer Cheese comments

Wouldn’t such settlements possibly be of interest to voters, the media, and opponents of the crotch-grabbing perv-boys? It sure would! And that is why Congress passed a law saying that no one can obtain this information!

Via the South Bend Seven.  The New York article also makes this observation:

According to the same Office of Compliance, which is on a roll today, “the Capitol and other congressional buildings are rife with fire traps and other pervasive problems of age and dangerous design, with an estimated 6,300 safety hazards lurking on Capitol Hill this Congress.” Congress has exempted itself from federal workplace safety regulations, so it isn’t legally obligated to repair any of these hazards, many of which will be expensive. It’s the kind of short-sightedness we’ve all come to expect from our lawmakers.

It is irritating that they exempt themselves from the same laws everyone else has to follow, though I can’t say I am too worked up at the thought of some Senator slamming his or her head on a low doorway.

Unless you are from Mars, you probably know LeBron James is a free agent, being courted by a number of teams, ultimately deciding on Miami over his home town and former team in Cleveland.

This has been an odd auction for his services, because except for some tax issues (which certainly may have been a factor in going to Florida), price controls in the league effectively cap how much James can be paid.  And given his talent, it was clear that every team would be willing to pay him the max.  This has led to offers based mostly on non-monetary factors, with Cleveland mainly taking the Glenn Close approach from Fatal Attraction, basically saying it would have to commit suicide if LeBron breaks up with the city.

Many have commented on how much Cleveland, economically, had riding on James and that it may well get the biggest economic benefit, bigger certainly than Miami which has fairly indifferent and easily distracted fans, of any of the teams in the auction.  But with price controls, Cleveland lost because it was not able to bid for LeBron’s services what he was really worth  (in fact, it was pretty clear that all the teams involved expected to have a huge consumer surplus from LeBron’s acquisition, since his value to any team seems to be higher than the salary cap).

By the way, speaking of surplus or lack thereof, my belief is that New York has continued its tradition of offering long-term lucrative deals to disappointing players.  Having watched Amare Stoudemire for seven years, I can say that he is fully poised to be the next Stephon Marbery for the Knicks.  He can be brilliant, and he is very talented, but he has focus issues that are not going to be enhanced in New York and at times was thrown off-kilter by the media pressure in Phoenix where the press is a cupcake compared to New York.  He is not even much of an upgrade from David Lee, but he gets paid a lot more guaranteed money.

When I grew up in Houston, we told Aggie jokes, like others might tell blond jokes or fill-in-disfavored-ethnic-group jokes.  Anyway, way back in the 70′s a joke went around something like this:

Did you hear about the Aggie who was caught in the New York blackout?  He was stranded on an escalator for three hours.

I remember this only after seeing this story via overlawyered:

Kim Kreis, et al. v. American Multi-Cinema Inc.; AMC Entertainment Inc., No. CGC-10-501102 (San Francisco Super. Ct. filed June 25, 2010).

Trip and fall lawsuit. The plaintiffs injured themselves on a stationary escalator at the defendants’ movie theatre, as there was no sign posted warning them that it was not moving.

Is there any unwelcome outcome nowadays, however trivial, that can’t spawn a lawsuit?

I offer as the irritating story of the day, this one on sales tax audits of restaurants in New York.

The state also recently started using desk audits, in which they use third-party information to scrutinize whether businesses may be making more money than they’re reporting. For example, the state can look at how many pizza boxes a vendor has sold to a pizzeria and if the number of boxes is more than the number of pizzas the company said it sold, the state can look closer to find whether tax evasion is the source of the discrepancy.

“If the state went through a normal audit process and determined that we owed money, we wouldn’t fight it. We’re not opposed to paying taxes,” said Panaro.

Instead, he said he was told all of his paperwork checked out, but he didn’t meet the state’s standards for keeping “adequate records.” The restaurant had failed to keep every paper copy of each guest’s order receipt for the entire three-year period. That opened the door for the auditor to use “indirect audit methods” to estimate what he thought the restaurant owed.

The method of estimation the state used was to observe the restaurant’s sales for a day, then compare it with the same date on a previous year. The previous year’s reported sales were 25 percent lower, so the auditor took that percentage and multiplied it over each day’s sales of the three-year period, deciding the restaurant did enough unreported business to owe an additional $330,000 in sales tax….

Joe Giafaglione, owner of Bar Bill Tavern in East Aurora, has been audited twice in the past four years. His purchase of ground hamburger raised suspicion when it was found there were no hamburgers on the menu (it was being used as an ingredient in chili).

“It’s totally ridiculous the way they come up with figures without any evidence,” said Giafaglione. “They say they need 20 [documents], so you give them 19 and they say, “Ah, you don’t have that? Well, now we’ll have to estimate.’‚”

A similar situation occurred with our company a number of years ago on a contract where some of the work had to be done using Davis-Bacon type mandated wage rates.  These rates, for those who have never seen them, come in two parts.  They might say, for example, that the minimum for such and such a job is $12.10 per hour plus $3.07 per hour cash instead of fringe benefits for a total of $15.17.

Using these figures, we gave folks an offer letter saying you will be paid $12.10 base pay plus $3.07 fringe for a total of $15.17 an hour.  Then on the paycheck, they just got one line for their total hours times $15.17.  Well, said the Department of Labor in an audit, you are not paying them the fringe, you are just paying the base pay — we only see one number on the pay check.  So you owe $3.07 times 20,000 or so hours, pay up.

Well, I was pretty surprised.  I said it was pretty clear I was paying the fringe – why in the heck else would I pay someone an oddball wage like $15.17 that just so happened to be equal to the sum of base plus fringe.  You can see the calculation in each offer letter.  No dice, they said, the law requires that the payments have to be broken out on the pay stub.

This was back in my younger, naive days, when I thought the “expert” auditors actually knew the law.  Now I know they are sometimes just making stuff up, but I was smart enough at the time to ask them to show me the legal requirement that these two payments be broken out on the pay stub — show me something in writing.  Nothing was forthcoming.   My attorney later educated me that there is hierarchy of quality to what might be in writing:

This is where I began to learn about the hierarchy of labor law. As I understand it (and remember, I am not a lawyer) it is something like this, from strongest to weakest:

1. The actual statute as written by Congress, e.g. the Fair Labor Standards Act
2. Court rulings and precedents
3. Approved regulations what have been through the public comment and approval process
4. Formal DOL rulings
5. Internal DOL guidelines and manuals
6. Informal DOL rules of thumb

Numbers 1, 2, and 3 have a lot of legal force. Five and six may or may not – they represent the DOL’s opinion, but that opinion has not been vetted by a regulatory hearing or court decision. These get overturned by courts all the time.

When the DOL tells you can or can’t do something, they likely will say it with equal authority if it comes from 1 or 6. For example, in this case, the DOL said with total authority that the wage and fringe have to be split on the paycheck.

Anyway, I read the actual law myself.  The only mention of anything even related to this was the need for adequate record-keeping to prove we had foll0wed the rules.  I searched as far as I could through labor department regulations online and found no more detail.  So I argued that unless they could produce something different, my position was that the offer letter plus the pay stub was adequate record keeping.

Eventually, the DOL let the issue drop – petulantly, they never actually dropped the claim, just told me they were choosing not to go to court against me at that time.  Of course I am only a glutton for so much punishment, so in the future we split the payments out on the pay stub.  It creates more work doing payroll, but what is government for, after all?

PS, if its helpful, I have a three part series on my interactions with the Department of Labor beginning here.

Gwyneth Paltrow learns that human beings did not evolve in caves.

Gwyneth Paltrow learned that staying out of the sun could have health consequences when she was diagnosed with a severe Vitamin D deficiency.

Like many stars, the “Iron Man” actress insisted on staying out of the sun and covered up for summer trips, but then she learned her caution was costing her good health.

…”This led my western/eastern doctors in New York to test my Vitamin D levels, which turned out to be the lowest they had ever seen (not a good thing). I went on a prescription strength level of Vitamin D and was told to … spend a bit of time in the sun!

“I was curious if this was safe, having been told for years to stay away from its dangerous rays, not to mention a tad bit confused as we are all well schooled in the dangers of overexposure to the sun.”

Next up — an increase in anorexia from the obesity panic?

Yours truly, talking to a New York audience on private management of public parks.   Much more at this site.  Dave Kimmel, who is running for the New York Legislature, hosted the discussion.

Keeping State Parks Open With Private Management from Warren Meyer on Vimeo.

By the way, if you are still publishing on YouTube, fine… they have a very large audience.  But if you only just need a platform and not YouTube’s audience, you should be on Vimeo.  Higher quality and no length restrictions.

Back in January, I wrote about both ethanol and the stimulus bill, observing:

I have decided there is something that is very predictable about the media:  they usually are very sympathetic to legislation expanding government powers or spending when the legislation is being discussed in Congress.  Then, after the legislation is passed, and there is nothing that can be done to get rid of it, the media gets really insightful all of a sudden, running thoughtful pieces about the hidden problems and unintended consequences of the legislation

My emerging theorem about the media is that they want to be on the record as having predicted problems with legislation, but that for leftish legislation they personally support, they defer their most insightful analysis until after the law has passed.  That way, their favored legislation gets on the books, but they are also on the record as having spotted potential problems and can make the argument later that they were not rubes or useful idiots.

We are seeing this yet again, as the New York Times questions some obvious flaws with the Dartmouth health savings data (ht Insty)

Of course, the article misses the most obvious point — while the Dartmouth data was certainly used to try to sell Obamacare, nothing in the actual legislation does anything to capture these supposed potential savings.  The $700 billion in waste number is more of a sort of happy thought that lets politicians sign the ridiculously expensive bill while pretending that some mythical savings are somehow available in the future through unidentified mechanisms to pay for the program.

It is a beautiful day here, so I really don’t have the time or desire right now to summarize the absolute mess that is the FTC discussion draft for the “reinvention of journalism,” reinvention being a synonym apparently for government takeover.  Almost every proposal is fraught with unintended (or perhaps intended but hidden) consequences, faulty economics, and unprecedented attacks of the first amendment.  If you don’t have the time to read it, I will try to summarize it next week, but just open it and scroll the bold headers with the proposals.  Its really outrageous.  Here are just some quick highlights:

• Substantial narrowing of fair use, with particular focus on how search engines and other online sites (e.g. blogs) use and/or have to pay for access to news sites
• Expansion of news copyrights on breaking news – ie certain papers will own the copyrights to certain news events if they are the first mover on it
• Increased government funding of news organizations along multiple vectors, from subsidies to guaranteed loans to income tax checkoffs to lower postal rates to Americorps programs for for journalists.
• Simultaneously reduce private funding of journalism through taxes, including a tax on advertisers
• Shift the organizational model of journalism from profit corporations (which rely on satisfying individuals to get their revenue) to non-profit organizations dependent on the government for funding
• New taxes on and licensing of the Internet.   New taxes on broadcast spectrum to subsidize print media (shifting money from media that are more hostile to the administration to print media and non-profits that are more sympathetic to the administration).

Here is the intro that was missing from the report:  “The New York Times and Newsweek can’t figure out a profitable business model in the Internet age.  We propose the government step in with all means at its disposal to limit competition to these print media companies and create new government subsidies for their business.  Once their companies’ profitability is absolutely dependent on these government mandates and subsidies, the Federal government will have a powerful source of leverage to protect itself from criticism in these outlets.  Once we have this situation in place, we will have a strong inventive to quash more independent outlets and maximize the market share of media companies beholden to the government.  In a large sense, our recommendations build off the success of the tobacco settlement experiment, where a few large companies agreed to pay the government large percentages of their future profits, and then the government worked diligently to quash new tobacco competitors to maximize the market share of those companies paying it settlement money.”

Update: South Bend Seven makes an interesting comparison to campus newspapers.

For “the Wire” fans, here is a real life episode of a recurring theme on that show — arrest quotas and metrics creating incentives for bad behavior by the police.

The new recordings obtained by the Village Voice reinforce both sets of allegations made last March. The implications are pretty startling: As a matter of policy, NYPD seems to be encouraging its officers to harass innocent people, even to the point of arresting and detaining them for non-crimes (the city had a record 570,000 stop-and-frisk searches last year). At the same time, the department may be pressuring some officers and citizens to downgrade actual crimes–even serious ones–or to not report them at all.

In short, officers are rewarded for petty harassment, but punished for documenting felonies. Here is one irritating practice among many:

About those numbers: While only about one tenth of 1 percent of the stops yielded a gun (at present it’s nearly impossible to legally carry a gun in New York), the practice has helped drive up the city’s marijuana arrests from 4,000 in 1997 to 40,000 in 2007. Marijuana for personal use was actually decriminalized in New York during that period. But you still can’t display your pot in public. So the police simply stop people, trick them into emptying their pockets, and then arrest them for displaying marijuana in public.

Read the whole thing in Reason.

In the movie Wag the Dog, and American president and a movie producer faked a war in Albania to divert political attention form a domestic scandal.  They created fake but riveting film of desperate Albanians caught up in the war.  I always wondered how confused the people of Albania, sitting in their peaceful homes, were by these images if they saw them on CNN.

I live in Arizona, not Albania, but I am just as confused.  I have lived in Phoenix for 10 years.  I run a public contact business all over the state, including at least one location in sight of the Mexican border. And I am confused as can be when I read stuff like this:

Nevertheless, here it goes from a supporter of legal immigration: how are we to make sense of the current Arizona debate? One should show concern about some elements of the law, but only in the context of the desperation of the citizens of Arizona. And one should show some skepticism concerning mounting liberal anguish, so often expressed by those whose daily lives are completely unaffected by the revolutionary demographic, cultural, and legal transformations occurring in the American Southwest.

WTF?  I read this all the time.  I am told there is a war going on around me and people are being devastated, but I never see it.  And nobody I know ever sees it directly.  It is always a “someone else”  (maybe, as I suggested in an earlier post, it is all happening to that lady who put her cat in the microwave to dry.”)

I won’t spend all day with VDH’s post, but there are a couple of other things he writes that seem nuts, given his reputation for being pretty smart

Why Wave the Flag of the Country I Don’t Wish to Return To?

Have you ever been to a Saint Patrick’s Day parade in Boston or Chicago? To Columbus Day parade in New York?  So its OK for Europeans to show some affinity for the mother country even as they reside in the US, but not Mexicans?

Look, I get irritated to no end by people who come here for freedom and prosperity and then immediately start advocating for and voting for steps that undermine both.   But that’s not an immigrant issue, its a Constitutional one, where we have allowed courts to rewrite protections against government encroachment.

Substitute New York in 1860 for Arizona in 2010 and Irish for Mexican, and you would see the exact same dynamics at work, except that Arizona in 2010 is a lot more peaceful than New York in 1860.

California’s meltdown is instructive. If about half the nation’s illegal aliens reside in the state, and its problems are in at least in some part attributable to soaring costs in educating hundreds of thousands of non-English-speaking students, a growing number of aliens in prison and the criminal justice system, real problems of collecting off-the-books income and payroll taxes, expanding entitlements, and unsustainable social services, do we wish to avoid its model?

Really?  One word:  Texas.  Texas has the same immigration issues and a MUCH longer border than California.  California’s problems are its profligate and anti-business government, something that Conservatives tend to point out a lot in about a million comparisons with Texas, except of course when they want to blame it all on immigration instead.

First, there is the simplicity of the argument. One either wishes or does not wish existing law to be enforced. If the answer is no, and citizens can pick and chose which laws they would like to obey, in theory why should we have to pay taxes or respect the speed limit? Note that liberal Democrats do not suggest that we overturn immigration law and de jure open the border — only that we continue to do that de facto.

This is hilarious in the context of Arizona.  While the AZ legislature has been passing this law, it has been passing a series of other laws to give the big FU to federal law.  These bills include not enforcing federal insurance mandates in AZ, not enforcing EPA CO2 regulations in AZ, ignoring federal law on commercialization of rest areas, ignoring the REAL ID act etc.  For God sakes this is the state whose Republican governor in the 1990′s sent the national guard to take over the Grand Canyon from the feds.  To piously assert this is all about enforcing federal law and that it is wrong to ignore some laws but enforce others is absurd.  This country has a long history of popular nullification of bad laws — the 55-mile an hour speed limit was nullified by rampant non-compliance long before it was repealed.

I understand there are complexities in immigration, the most important of which is the conflict between a generous safety net and open immigration.  But note that while many Conservatives will say this, none of them are proposing any changes to safety net eligibility vis a vis immigrants.  When all they ask for is for the borders to be locked down, then all these arguments just seem like window dressing to the true desire to say “my family got in, now its time to lock the door.”

Why does supposed housing advocate Bertha Lewis celebrate a man’s eviction so his land can be given to a wealthy private developer?

Bertha Lewis, a housing advocate who supported the project, bid Mr. Goldstein “good riddance.”

“Low- and moderate-income people had to wait years for housing while he obstructed the Atlantic Yards project,” she said.

Maybe because her organization cut a deal to provide the developer a patina of public service in exchange for big bucks for her organization.

Of course, Lewis is much more than just a “housing advocate who supported the project,” she was the CEO of ACORN, a group that signed a contract with Bruce Ratner “to publicly support the [Atlantic Yards] Project by, among other things, appearing with the Developer before the Public Parties, community organizations and the media as part of a coordinated effort to realize and advance the Project.” In return, Ratner pledged to include a certain amount of “affordable housing” in the project, units that ACORN stood to make a fortune from marketing and managing. As the New York Post reported, “Anita MonCrief, a former ACORN official-turned-whistleblower, estimates the anticipated deal could bring the group $5 million to $10 million annually over multiple years.”

And the money didn’t stop there. In 2008 Ratner bailed ACORN out to the tune of $1.5 million dollars after the news broke that Dale Rathke, brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke, had embezzled nearly $1 million from the group back in 2000 and the national leadership had covered the crime up for eight years. The financial fallout from that scandal threatened to ruin ACORN until Ratner stepped in with a $1 million load and a $500,000 grant. This desperately-needed cash kept ACORN alive and allowed it to keep providing cover for Ratner’s corporate welfare and eminent domain abuse.

Lewis’s role reminds me a lot of money laundering.  Call it progressive laundering.  The Brooklyn Yards project is simply a total money grab by a powerful developer who got the state to seize land and hand it over to him for development.  To hide the naked cronyism here, the developer cleverly cut a deal with ACORN such that about 0.1% of the development was dedicated to low-income housing and ACORN was paid off to advocate for the project as a low-income housing project, when in fact it is 99% an upscale development to benefit a politically-connected developer.

More here.

Update: Wow, you have to check out this email from Bertha Lewis.  Just remember, when reading it, that she is talking about a man who just wanted to stay in his own home that he owned, and didn’t want to be evicted just so the New Jersey Nets could have a new stadium in Brooklyn at taxpayer expense.

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Bertha Lewis <[EMAIL REDACTED>
Date: Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 8:04 PM
Subject: Daniel Goldstein and the 7 year itch
To: [RECIPIENTS REDACTED]

Finally, the itch that was Daniel Goldstein has been scratched and scratched out.   After almost seven years of flawed strategies, smear campaigns, stupid tactics, disingenuous rhetoric and total disregard for people who have lived in the downtown Brooklyn community for years before he even thought about coming here; finally he got what he really wanted.  A Deal.  Not for the community he claimed to love so much, but for the only beneficiary of his community of one, himself, Double Dealing Danny Goldstein.  How utterly despicable for him to be in the newspaper  today whining that he did not have enough time to move, and had nowhere to go because he was being stiffed by the State and Forest City Ratner, when low and behold, all the time, he was negotiating, not for the community , but for himself.  Well good riddance and don’t let the door hit ya’.  Low and moderate income people have had to wait years for housing while he obstructed the Atlantic Yards Project that could have been well over half done by now.  He never had to worry about housing so he did’nt care how long other people had to wait.  Behold, the Gentrifier.  He has slandered and denigrated not only me but my organization and my members relentlessly.  What benefit has he delivered to the community?  None except for his own pocket.   Well, the housing at Atlantic Yards will be built, and the day after he moves out, which I hope will be sooner rather than later, the building that he squatted in these past years should be razed to ground immediately, and salt poured into the soil, so that never again can the likes of one of the biggest shakedown artists in Brooklyn return.  We will still be here, we will still be fighting for the all the people that Danny spurned and used for his own enrichment.  We hope that now everyone in Brooklyn and New York can see him for what he really is and can see what his actions cost Brooklyn.  I hope whatever he settled for was worth the pain and misery he caused to so many people who just wanted a decent place to live in Brooklyn and who just wanted a decent job and a place for their family.  Now that the flim flam man is gone, they can finally see it on the horizon.

–

Bertha Lewis

I am endlessly fascinated by the architecture and infrastructure of Manhattan.  I am probably one of the few non-locals who owns this book, as well as others in the series.  I highly recommend the Scouting New York blog for those of you who love the hardware of Gotham more than its software.  This post is a good index to many of his best features.

Cross-posted from Park Privatization

Len Gilroy of the Reason Foundation links my Glenn Beck interview and then goes deep on park privatization issues.  Check it out.  Potentially the biggest benefit to the public:

Appropriation risk: State parks operating under a concession no longer bear the appropriation risk that we’re seeing play out in real life across the country, as parks get axed from state budgets amid rampant state fiscal crises (some examples include California, New York and Louisiana). Really, this is more of a risk that’s eliminated, rather than transferred to the concessionaire (see revenue risk discussion above), so revenue/demand risk and appropriations risk are really two sides of the same coin.

Via the Telegraph:

The American blogosphere is going increasingly “viral” about a proposal advanced at the recent meeting of the Davos Economic Forum by Craig Mundie, chief research and strategy officer for Microsoft, that an equivalent of a “driver’s licence” should be introduced for access to the web. This totalitarian call has been backed by articles and blogs in Time magazine and the New York Times.

As bloggers have not been slow to point out, the system being proposed is very similar to one that the government of Red China reluctantly abandoned as too repressive. It was inevitable that, sooner or later, the usual unholy alliance of government totalitarians and big business would attempt to end the democratic free-for-all that is the blogosphere. The United Nations is showing similar interest in moving to eliminate free speech.

I called this one back in 2005.  This isn’t the first attempt by the UN in particular to throttle free speech via licensing way back in 1985.

Many states managed to grow state spending in the last decade far faster than inflation and population growth, soaking up every new dime in bubble-generated tax revenue they could.   It may seem like states were forced to make a lot of hard decisions last year, but in fact they were sheltered from really dealing with the full measure of their own fiscal problems by large influxes of Federal “stimulus” money.  As I demonstrated way back in January of 2009, most of the stimulus was actually ear-marked not for the mythical shovel read project, but for “stabilization” of state and federal budgets.  This is a couple of months old, but still applies:

A historic nosedive in state tax collections extended into the third quarter of the year, and only an infusion of federal economic stimulus money has averted widespread program cuts and worker layoffs.
Tax collections from July through September dropped an average of 8.3% from a year earlier in the eight states that release up-to-date monthly tax figures, a USA TODAY survey found. New York’s tax collections fell 8.9%, despite an income tax hike earlier this year. States reporting partial third-quarter results showed a similar downward spiral in tax collections, including 13.2% drop in Arizona.

Federal stimulus money has protected states from making big cuts in the number of government workers, in aid to schools or in spending on Medicaid, the health care program for the poor. But most federal stimulus money ends in December 2010.

This is not a new trend, from Tad DeHaven of Cato:

According to the Goldwater Institute, over a third of the AZ state budget is federal money.

How can there possibly be any accountability for how this is spent, though it actually is larger than the amount raised by state taxes?  If we want the government to buy us goodies in this state, we should at least pay for them ourselves and not take money from others.  By the way, every time I raise this argument, someone says “well our state pays more federal taxes than it gets back.”  First, every state says this so it can’t possibly be true in every case.  Second, it’s a terrible practice from the standpoint of accountability.

Related, via Matt Welch:

The biggest single national political donor in the country during the 2007-08 election cycle, according to OpenSecrets.org, was the overwhelmingly Democrat-supporting teachers union the National Education Association. What category of worker was the biggest single beneficiary of stimulus spending? Public school teachers. Who, according to Vice President Joe Biden, accounted for 325,000 of the first 640,000 jobs “created or saved.” While it’s true that teachers are Americans (even my brother), in the vast majority of these cases, the jobs in question weren’t “created,” just maintained, since it is nearly impossible to fire public school teachers.

Ilya Shapiro:

Well of course they aren’t — but that’s constitutionally irrelevant:  Corporations aren’t “real people” in the sense that the Constitution’s protection of sexual privacy or prohibition on slavery make no sense in this context, but that doesn’t mean that corporate entities also lack, say, Fourth Amendment rights.  Or would the “no rights for corporations” crowd be okay with the police storming their employers’ offices and carting off their (employer-owned) computers for no particular reason? — or to chill criticism of some government policy.

Or how about Fifth Amendment rights?  Can the mayor of New York exercise eminent domain over Rockefeller Center by fiat and without compensation if he decides he’d like to move his office there?

So corporations have to have some constitutional rights or nobody would form them in the first place.  The reason they have these rights isn’t because they’re “legal” persons, however — though much of the doctrine builds on that technical point — but instead because corporations are merely one of the ways in which rights-bearing individuals associate to better engage in a whole host of constitutionally protected activity.

That is, the Constitution protects these groups of rights-bearing individuals. The proposition that only human beings, standing alone, with no group affiliation whatsoever, are entitled to First Amendment protection — that “real people” lose some of their rights when they join together in groups of two or ten or fifty or 100,000 — is legally baseless and has no grounding in the Constitution. George Mason law professor Ilya Somin, also a Cato adjunct scholar, discusses this point here.

Some good news after years of bad decisions:

New York’s Supreme Court Appellate Division (First Department) handed down a massive victory for property rights yesterday in the case of Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corporation. At issue was the state’s highly controversial use of eminent domain on behalf of Columbia University, which wants free rein over the West Harlem neighborhood of Manhattanville, where it plans to build a fancy new research campus.

As I discussed in an article last February, there is overwhelming evidence that the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC) actively colluded with Columbia in order to produce the very conditions that would then allow ESDC to seize property on the university’s behalf. At the time of ESDC’s 2006 blight study, for instance, Columbia owned 76 percent of the neighborhood and was thus directly responsible for the overwhelming majority of blight that the report alleged, ranging from overflowing basement trash heaps to major roof and skylight leaks. As numerous tenants have reported, the university refused to perform basic and necessary repairs, which both pushed tenants out and manufactured the ugly conditions that later advanced Columbia’s long-term interests. Preliminary findings delivered to the ESDC admitted as much, noting “Open violations in CU Buildings” and “History of CU repairs to properties” among the “issues of concern.”

Thankfully, the New York court recognized this shameful mess for what it is: eminent domain abuse. As Justice James Catterson wrote for the majority:

the blight designation in the instant case is mere sophistry. It was utilized by ESDC years after the scheme was hatched to justify the employment of eminent domain but this project has always primarily concerned a massive capital project for Columbia. Indeed, it is nothing more than economic redevelopment wearing a different face.

This, from the Court’s majority decision, was especially heartening post-Kelo:

The time has come to categorically reject eminent domain takings solely based on underutilization. This concept put forward by the respondent transforms the purpose of blight removal from the elimination of harmful social and economic conditions in a specific area to a policy affirmatively requiring the ultimate commercial development of all property regardless of the character of the community subject to such urban renewal.

This was pretty unexpected given how the Atlantic Yards case went.  I am not sure how to reconcile the two decisions.  Damon Root at the link above has the same concerns.

Via the WSJ:

His first impulse was to dismiss the ominous email as a prank, says a young Iranian-American named Koosha. It warned the 29-year-old engineering student that his relatives in Tehran would be harmed if he didn’t stop criticizing Iran on Facebook.

Two days later, his mom called. Security agents had arrested his father in his home in Tehran and threatened him by saying his son could no longer safely return to Iran.

“When they arrested my father, I realized the email was no joke,” said Koosha, who asked that his full name not be used….

In recent months, Iran has been conducting a campaign of harassing and intimidating members of its diaspora world-wide — not just prominent dissidents — who criticize the regime, according to former Iranian lawmakers and former members of Iran’s elite security force, the Revolutionary Guard, with knowledge of the program.

Part of the effort involves tracking the Facebook, Twitter and YouTube activity of Iranians around the world, and identifying them at opposition protests abroad, these people say.

Interviews with roughly 90 ordinary Iranians abroad — college students, housewives, doctors, lawyers, businesspeople — in New York, London, Dubai, Sweden, Los Angeles and other places indicate that people who criticize Iran’s regime online or in public demonstrations are facing threats intended to silence them.

Although it wasn’t possible to independently verify their claims, interviewees provided consistently similar descriptions of harassment techniques world-wide. Most asked that their full names not be published.

Steven Landsburg via Mark Perry

It’s always impressive to see one person excel in two widely disparate activities: a first-rate mathematician who’s also a world class mountaineer, or a titan of industry who conducts symphony orchestras on the side. But sometimes I think Paul Krugman is out to top them all, by excelling in two activities that are not just disparate but diametrically opposed: economics (for which he was awarded a well-deserved Nobel Prize) and obliviousness to the lessons of economics (for which he’s been awarded a column at the New York Times).

It’s a dazzling performance. Time after time, Krugman leaves me wide-eyed with wonder at how much economics he has to forget to write those columns.

In Europe, economies are run by a troika of politicians, leaders of large corporations, and major unions.  These groups run the economy to their benefit and against entrepeneurs, nwe competitors, foreign competition, low-skilled workers, upstart competitors, and (most of all) consumers.   Q&O discovered someone on the HuffPo of all places starting to see what is going on:

When I heard the word “corporatist” a couple of years ago, I laughed. I thought what a funny, made up, liberal word. I fancy myself a die-hard capitalist, so it seemed vaguely anti-business, so I was put off by it.

Well, as it turns out, it’s a great word. It perfectly describes a great majority of our politicians and the infrastructure set up to support the current corporations in the country. It is not just inaccurate to call these people and these corporations capitalists; it is in fact the exact opposite of what they are.

Capitalists believe in choice, free markets and competition. Corporatists believe in the opposite. They don’t want any competition at all. They want to eliminate the competition using their power, their entrenched position and usually the politicians they’ve purchased. They want to capture the system and use it only for their benefit.

This applies to workers as well as employers — just replace capitalists with “free workers” and corporatists with “unions” in the above paragraph.  This helps to explain why Obama is not actually pro-labor, but pro-union.  Via TJIC:

Workers in Barack Obama’s new economic order fall into two categories — those who are worthy of the president’s energies, and those who aren’t. You may be surprised to learn where you rank.

Obama doesn’t weigh the value of workers based on their paychecks, what they do or whether they slip their feet into wingtips or steel-toed boots in the morning. His sole interest is in whether they have a union card in their wallet.

If they do, the president is in their corner, working hard to make sure they don’t get the short end of any stick. But if they are among the 88 percent of American workers who don’t belong to a union? Ask Delphi’s salaried employees what Obama thinks of them.

As part of Delphi’s restructuring in bankruptcy court, the Troy-based auto parts maker dumped its pension plan onto the federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp.

Advertisement

That usually means a continued pension check, but one that is much smaller. And for Delphi’s salaried workers, that’s what they can expect.

Delphi’s union-represented workers, however, will dodge that bullet. The Obama administration swooped in and, in an extraordinary deal, is forcing General Motors to make the 46,000 union workers and retirees whole. GM used to own Delphi, and relies on the supplier for much of its parts.

“The U.S. government is taking care of a select group of people and tossing the rest of us under the bus,” Peter Beiter, a retired financial manager for a Delphi plant in Rochester, N.Y., told the New York Times.

And it’s doing so with the tax dollars of those like Beiter who aren’t in the favored class of workers. GM is operating with more than $50 billion in government bailout money.

That gives Obama the freedom to force GM to subsidize the pensions of union workers it has no legal obligation to, and who are employed by an entirely different company.

If you want to see where we are going, read this (and this) about the National Industrial Recovery Act, which FDR modelled after Mussolin-style fascism, whose economic system he greatly admired.

One of the reasons for substantial variation in the cost of health insurance between the states is the variations in state “must-cover” health insurance mandates.  New York and Massachusetts, both known to have among the most extensive requirements, not coincidentally have the highest average premium costs.

I found this study the other day - it was put together by a health insurance group and is certainly self-serving;  but since it is just a summary of existing law, I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be mostly accurate.

Here is one example table from the report — it is the type of specialist care that must be covered in each state.  They also have much longer tables on the individual procedures that must be covered:

Gotta make sure that “naturopaths” are covered, don’t we?  You can picture the process of specialists marching into state capitals and making their pitch that their profession needs to be covered.

You can get a feeling for what goes on with one example.  One procedure, “Port Wine Stain Elimination,” caught my eye.  I assumed this was removal of some type of birthmark, but I was curious and looked it up.  I got this study near the top of the Google search, and in this link you can see the political process of mandates in a nutshell.  Here is the abstract (emphasis added)

background. Port-wine stains are congenital vascular malformations that can be disfiguring and may lead to psychosocial as well as medical complications. The 585-nm pulsed dye laser is very effective in treating port-wine stains. Laser treatment is often viewed by insurance companies as a “cosmetic procedure” and not “medically necessary.” Consequently many patients are denied coverage for treatment of their disfiguring birthmarks.

objective. To determine variability of insurance coverage for laser treatment of port-wine stains from state to state. Natural history, progression, and potential complications of port-wine stains arc reviewed and rationale for consistent insurance coverage for laser treatment of port-wine stains is given.

methods. A questionnaire was mailed to 40 dermatologic surgeons in 22 states and the District of Columbia. We reviewed the literature regarding port-wine stains and their potential complications, and health care policy guidelines regarding “medical necessity” and “cosmetic procedures.”

results. Insurance coverage for laser treatment of port-wine stains varies from state to state.

conclusion. Based on current health care policy guidelines, laser treatment of port-wine stains should be regarded, and covered, as a medical necessity by all insurance providers.

In other words, the study surveyed a bunch of cosmetic surgeons.  They were asked “should an expensive procedure you provide be covered by insurance.”  They all answered “Hell YES!”  Anyone want to bet whether the funding for the study came from the company that makes the laser equipment?

But today, they now have to run to 50 state houses (well, 48 since they have been successful in 2).  In the future, they will just run to Congress.  And we know how good Congress is at saying no to special interests.

Postscript: I would normally assume this is obvious, but after years of blogging I know that I must add that I have nothing against those with port wine stains, I am thrilled that a technology exists today to remove them, but I don’t want to pay for it in my policy.

Postscript #2: I am willing to bet that the Venn diagram of the 4 states offering “naturopath” coverage and the 3 states offering “Pastoral Counselors” don’t overlap.

Postscript #3: What does a naturopath (whose tools include homeopathy) charge an insurance company for a remedy consisting of at most one molecule of active ingredient in a glass of pure but well shaken water?  Speaking of homeopathy, this is classically funny.