Kyle Wingfield rails on the minimum wage increase and healthcare reform this morning. He uses a local man who runs 11 subways to show how disastrous these plans by the democrats are to real America, or something to that effect. Apparently Mr. Wingfield would prefer if most Americans had jobs paying $3.50 an hour. Great, 0% unemployment but now you have to work 7 jobs to have a decent standard of living.

The guy has 11 Subways, come on. Fast food jobs really need to be replaced anyways as all the money flows upward exponentially. The article is almost well crafted, but are we really to consider someone who runs 11 Subways small business? Perhaps we are, but we need healthcare for everyone in this country (unless we want to force feed people vegetables) and it’s not going to magically happen and pay for itself.

If a sweatshop was going out of business I hardly think it would be appropriate to cry about all the unemployment created, that sounds like the Will Ferril argument from Zoolander.

On the heels of Atlanta’s inability to spend money comes a post about our nations inability to save. I.O.U.S.A is a recent documentary on the growing problem of the national debt. It’s well done and features some people I find interesting, notably Alan Greenspan and Warren Buffett. The national debt could certainly become a major problem, as they highlight with the growing costs of healthcare and social security, and the film does a good job of just trying to get people to act and think about the consequences of our actions.

So the overall message is pretty good, but they miss a few key things. The first is that running a deficit is not that bad if you’re investing in education or useful infrastructure, much like having a mortgage on a house. The corruption they highlighted is perhaps the scariest part, but the debt/GDP level now is not as high as it was after WWII, which resulted in the biggest growth period in American history. That could mean nothing, but it is not inherently evil as it is sometimes portrayed. If people never bought things they didn’t have the cash for then we’d have a pretty stagnant economy.

Another problem with the video is their cry to save money. Maybe they don’t realize, but wages in this country have gone down since the early 80’s, and the minimum wage has also been declining. Even with the most recent hike it’s nowhere near the level of the 60s. Bottom line is that it’s actually gotten tougher to get by in the country and there are hardly any jobs for people who don’t go to college. Since you have to go to college to make a decent amount of money, you’ve also got to pay for college. Enter Student Loans, credit cards, and why people have trouble saving. Sure people don’t always make wise financial decisions, but the gap between rich and poor is growing, and it’s hardly permissible to insist everybody save more when they are making less and being forced to spend more to get by.

When they address the trade deficit the first sad thing is how many adults have no clue what it even means, but hopefully they just left out the people who did know for good effect. Besides that, they leave out that China buys U.S. bonds and securities for multiple reasons. The popular perception is that they are intent on taking over the world, but more realistically buying up our bonds keeps the value of our dollar high, which means that Chinese goods continue to appear cheaper to us. If China were to stop or sell off some then Chinese goods would not look quite as good and our own goods would appear cheaper along with exports increasing.

We should be worrying about how our money is spent, but we should not be on a kamikaze mission to stop spending.

All of this can pretty much be traced back to Ronald Reagan or, more recently, the Federal Reserve. Reagan sure could sound good in a speech, but his policies were a very visible hand helping big business and the wealthy to get richer. There is plenty more about Reagan, but the Federal Reserve is more relevant. I have a lot of respect for Alan Greenspan, but he really messed up. Even he recently said something to the effect of his entire foundation of beliefs have been turned upside down by our recent crisis, namely the belief in free markets. The lack of regulation by the Fed has plunged us into a situation where we probably have to spend a ton of money to get back to where we were before the housing bubble hit.

Managing the debt is admirable, but it should not get in the way of helping Americans in a difficult time.

On a related note see my post on the Stimulus

And to close here is a line from George Bush II that made me laugh out loud during the movie

“I think I got a B in Econ 101, I got an A, however, in keeping taxes low.”

If you haven’t heard, Atlanta received a federal grant of about $100 million to aid the area a few years ago. Now the deadline for spending that money, the end of the year, is approaching and there is still $30 million left to be spent. At a meeting at City Hall last night citizens went to voice their disapproval. It’s not hard to see why Atlantans are angry at sending $30 million dollars back, but the program seems to have caused the difficulty in doling out funds. The funds are only given out through reimbursement, and there’s no way smaller groups can afford to spend the money and wait as much as six months to be reimbursed. This has understandably made it difficult to distribute the full amount.

However, Atlanta officials have declared that they will do all that is possible to see that the $30 million gets spent. That’s a nice idea, but do we really want a mad dash to hand out $30 million in cash? That does not sound very promising for smart decisions. Obviously the aid money was riddled with stipulations, but that still doesn’t excuse officials for not using it all wisely and in a timely manner. Maybe the council should have focused on getting support for extending the deadline instead of promising to give money away as fast as possible. Surely the large sum of money would make a bigger difference if used wisely.

This brings me to a relatively unrelated topic – the construction of a new bridge between Marietta St. and Northside Dr. at Ivan Allen College Jr. Blvd. There is now a brand new 4 lane bridge there for no reason I can see. The area is never crowded except for 10 Sundays a year when the falcons are in town. The road was actually better than most in this area, and the lanes at the respective intersections at the moment have turned from two regular lanes to one right turn only and one regular lane. This obviously is a disaster for traffic backup trying to go West if there ever actually is the ghost traffic that surely justifies this ridiculous expenditure. Admittedly I have done little to investigate why they are building the bridge, but I see no obvious reason to spend what must be a lot of money on a bridge in an area that never has traffic backups and is not all that well traveled.

So the Metro Atlanta Water issue got a couple articles in today’s AJC and has been getting significant press since the Minnesota judge decided to cut our water off from Lanier in three years if we don’t work something out to change the law in place. Quite a weird thought that the metro area could experience a severe water shortage surpassing(?) the drought. Jim Galloway thinks that the issue may not get public attention until the 2012 election, which would be when the service would stop.

Bob Barr also wrote an opinion that ended by comparing our situation to Andrew Jackson’s encounter with Supreme Court Head John Marshall. When the Marshall court decided that Georgia could not force Cherokees to comply with Georgia Law on their land, Jackson said reportedly said something to the effect of, “Marshall made his law, now let’s see him enforce it.” Maybe he said that, maybe not, but the important thing is the ridiculously poor taste shown by Barr in quoting a case where Jackson was forcing Indians from their land. Otherwise it’s a good article, and the sentiment itself is fairly reasonable although if we really have that much public action we could surely see political results.

Also a Notable Vent from today (speaking of poor taste):

“I didn’t get her pregnant, I’m not giving her my seat.”

Basic human compassion issues notwithstanding, that is some serious laziness.

ADDITION: Ok this was too good to pass up. I think this was probably someone poking fun at the situation, but maybe not.

“Well, I think we need to get old Sonny and some preachers out on the capitol steps and do for this water thing what they done for the drought: pray. It worked for the drought. They got out there for about a hour and in about six months the drought was over.

We don’t need no water plan. Prayer is the GA Water Plan. We can show this Minnesota activist judge he can’t mess with God.”

Thomas Oliver manages to propose a relatively sane argument for more time to analyze the health care bill, but he uses it to cloak attacks on the stimulus, Medicare, Social Security, and even young people to a certain extent, although that may be warranted. He says, “The last time we were here… we passed a $787 billion spending bill that promised to stimulate the economy. We know better now.”

Do we?

Apparently since the economy is not in full recovery mode the stimulus was a complete failure. The merits of the stimulus are up for debate. Most of the money has yet to be released, but the effects should be felt now. That does not make it a failure. In all likelihood we need to spend more money to turn the economy around. People are fond of saying it will come around on its own. Sure, but if we are interested in minimizing negative effects action is preferable to turning our livelihood into a spectator sport.

Health care is an issue that obviously needs to be addressed. The United States ranks worst among industrialized nations in preventable deaths, which is inexcusable. Obama’s urgency is understood, and it is an issue that we need to get serious about.

Of course Oliver does not mention the one way to bring health care costs down (his main concern) – abolition of the patent system. Drug companies get rich by selling drugs that sick people need at ridiculous prices. In matters of life or death how sick is it to determine the ability to obtain help by ability to pay? Take away patents so we can manufacture drugs cheaply. The incentive question can be taken care of in another way. This line of thinking should at least be considered.

This New York Times article talks about how the recently vanquished President Zelaya of Honduras started to re-enter the country from Nicaragua but thought twice as he was crossing the border. If you are unfamiliar with the situation, President Zelaya was overthrown and exiled from the country. This Washington Post article is a good summary. Zelaya violated the constitution blatantly by seeking to eliminate term limits and certainly should not have remained president. Was this the best way for Honduras to achieve that? Probably not, but if that is the will of the people then all other countries, including the United States, should let the government in Honduras reflect that. Hard to believe all of the West is supporting Zelaya’s reinstatement, at least they are admonishing him for being reckless and trying to re-enter Honduras when the likeliest outcome involves bloodshed.

Jim Wooten has dialed in the quote machine this morning. My favorites…

“Global warming won’t kill us; terrorists will.”

“Which is more important – the F-22 or paid jobs among the non profits?…The Arts are important, sure…but the F-22 jobs, when abandoned, leave us less secure. The “stimulus” will funnel another $342,000 to Georgia’s arts related nonprofits.”

The first one is just laughable, but the second one shows two things.
1) Wooten is subscribing to the F-22 = our security dogma.
2) He is not a fan of the state supporting the arts

I think the $342,000 figure is supposed to be his bomb drop at the end, but he must not realize that that is a paltry amount compared to any discussion of the F-22s. That money could get you about 7 hours in an F-22. I’m sure many share his sentiment about the state supporting the arts. That goes back to the 60s and 70s (and earlier) as I’m reading in the research I’m doing now, so it’s no surprise, but it is a rather lame attempt to get people riled up.

Roger Ebert’s review of 500 Days of Summer give it an A (really four stars by his rating), which is way too high. I think he is tired of watching so many bad movies that he wants to encourage filmmakers to shake things up a bit. The movie does offer a different take on the generic romance, but not that different. It’s basically an excuse for indie lovers to watch a mainstream romance. I saw the movie largely because I wanted to see Zooey Deschanel, but she did not deliver. They did not make her look very good at many points, and she hardly delivered her lines. She was certainly trying to capture the character, but in my mind ended up with a weak performance. Of course she’ll still be the darling of the counter-culture.

It’s worth a look because it is funny, but I’d give it a B-

A health article in this morning’s AJC reported that, thankfully, moderate carb diets have been proved best over the evil low-carb diets that obviously cause heart disease and kill people. The framing of these articles is so sad. The author refers to a study that shows correlation but still acts as if the evidence is conclusive. People with a carb intake between 47 and 64 percent of overall calories had the lowest rates of obesity. To conclude that it is possible to eat a moderate amount of carbs and not become obese is the only message to be taken here, but O’Neil tries to vilify low-carb eating. Nevermind that we ate relatively low-carb for the better part of the last 4 million years and that low-carb diets encourage large amounts of vegetables.

She gives the example of Kevin Rathburn of Rathburn’s Steakhouse who went on a low carb diet, lost 125 pounds, gained it back, and has now lost 100 pounds on Weight Watchers. Woo hoo. Then she makes another scientific doof-move and cites one case-study as evidence of how going low-carb is dangerous. She is a registered dietitian but draws conclusions from the least reliable types of study – survey and case. One person means almost nothing unless we know everything about the specific case, which is impossible.

Her message that it’s ok to eat some carbs and best to eat fruits and vegetables is great, but why do people focus on trying to demonize low carb and citing cholesterol and saturated fat? The science of what happens in the body is not hard to understand at a basic level, and it’s sad that we have had the cholesterol theory shoved down our throats for so long. Sure, four double cheeseburgers from McDonald’s isn’t great for you, but is it only because of the fat? Maybe, but probably not if you realize that the fat is stored by high levels of insulin, which is produced from eating carbs. People seem content to keep spouting anti-saturated fat wisdom without considering any other factors. Regardless of your diet conviction, a basic attempt at understanding scientific principles would be appreciated.

Apparently Agra, Oil, Tobacco, and Pharma have a new addition to the Big Business/ Lobby team.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/07/21/cellphone-driving.html

A cell phone study revealing the dangers of driving while using the device was suppressed because congress did not want the agency to start lobbying. Great, so when we finally have useful topics that should be heard they are suppressed for fear of looking like lobbyists. Most people should realize that talking on the phone while driving isn’t a very good idea, but by far the worst is texting. Would it even be possible to limit cell phone use while driving? Perhaps if we finally realize that teens are not the only problem drivers and do not magically learn how to drive while talking on the phone or texting as soon as they turn 19. A teen only law would be hard to enforce, but if a law applied to everyone it would be more obvious. Oh, and there is relatively no difference between hands free and normal talking; the conversation is what distracts the driver.

The obvious conclusion that no one will reach is that cars are no longer good for us. We need massive public transportation additions and overhauls so that thousands won’t die just traveling peacefully in their cars. It is quite difficult to go car-less in America now, but if we put the infrastructure in place we could help the environment, save lives, and maybe even cut down on health care costs.