Sunday, August 30, 2009
Japan Elects New Government
Indications are that the people of Japan have elected the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) to replace the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) of Japan. Story here. The score seems to be (300-326) DPJ to (97-106) LDP.
This is a huge shift because the LDP has been in charge for more than 50 years. The Wall Street Journal reports that among the DPJ's goals are: "reevaluation (of) (sic) Japan's historically strong ties with the U.S. and explore greater regional alliances."
Stew's View:
This is a significant development - Japan has had a "self-defense force" as permitted by their constitution since the end of WW2. The US has treaties that obligate us to provide defense for Japan - yet we seem powerless to defend them against the occasional missile shot from North Korea. This coupled with strong domestic difficulties (economic issues, aging population, and miniscule birthrate) means that the DPJ has a strong mandate for change.
BTW, the first offensive deployment of Japanese forces since the end of WW2 was to support the US in Iraq.
This is a huge shift because the LDP has been in charge for more than 50 years. The Wall Street Journal reports that among the DPJ's goals are: "reevaluation (of) (sic) Japan's historically strong ties with the U.S. and explore greater regional alliances."
Stew's View:
This is a significant development - Japan has had a "self-defense force" as permitted by their constitution since the end of WW2. The US has treaties that obligate us to provide defense for Japan - yet we seem powerless to defend them against the occasional missile shot from North Korea. This coupled with strong domestic difficulties (economic issues, aging population, and miniscule birthrate) means that the DPJ has a strong mandate for change.
BTW, the first offensive deployment of Japanese forces since the end of WW2 was to support the US in Iraq.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
From Fox News Sunday 7/19/2009
Updated due to Math Error(s).
Chris Wallace and Peter Orszag (Director of the Office of Management and Budget) are discussing health Care reform. Here is the full transcript.
Chris mentions taxes:
The money line: "that affects a very small percentage of the population, 1 or 2 percent."
Stew's View:
A. As of 22 July, 2009, according to the Census bureau, the population of the United States is 306,975,184.
B. 10% of that is roughly 30.7 million.
C. 47 Million uninsured account for 16% of the population.
Although 9.7 million of the uninsured are non-citizen immigrants (IBD Editorial quoting "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States," a census report), subtracting this number from the uninsured is poor categorization. (Remember the three rules for categorizing things. 1. Independent, 2. Mutually Exclusive, 3. Collectively Exhaustive.)
D. 17 Million live in households making more than $50K per year (same IBD editorial) - implication - they could probably afford some type of health insurance.
E. Leaving 30 million uninsured and probably unable to afford it.
F. That is roughly 10% of the population.
Back to the money line: "that affects a very small percentage of the population, 1 or 2 percent."
Orszag's implication seems clear to me, restated here "why should we care about being just to 1 or 2 percent of the population?" Indeed.
Stew's questions:
1. Why are we redesigning 17% of our 2007 gdp to close a 10% gap in coverage?
2. How many of the uninsured poor qualify for Medicaid and have not signed up for it? SCHIP?
3. How is the health insurance market like the auto insurance market (e.g. State mandates, federal regulation) - resulting in increased costs?
4. Why isn't private health insurance tax deductible, the way it is to employers?
5. Why can't private citizens have Health Savings Accounts?
6. What hidden costs of healthcare are driven by ineffective Government practices / regulations?
7. Tort reform?
Update: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal had an editorial in the Wall Street Journal today.
Chris Wallace and Peter Orszag (Director of the Office of Management and Budget) are discussing health Care reform. Here is the full transcript.
Chris mentions taxes:
WALLACE: Let's talk about taxes. The House would raise a half a trillion dollars to help pay for its health care program by imposing a surtax on top earners. As a result, combined with other Obama tax policy and local taxes, 39 of the 50 states would have tax rates over 50 percent.
I want you to take a look at this. The top rate in Denmark is 60 percent. It would be over 57 percent in Oregon, almost 57 percent in New York and California. That's higher than Sweden and Belgium.
Is the president prepared to say that it is unacceptable to raise taxes that high?
ORSZAG: Well, first, look. You were — you were adding in state and local taxes in those calculations.
WALLACE: Well, that's what people are going to have to pay.
ORSZAG: Secondly, that affects a very small percentage of the population, 1 or 2 percent.
The money line: "that affects a very small percentage of the population, 1 or 2 percent."
Stew's View:
A. As of 22 July, 2009, according to the Census bureau, the population of the United States is 306,975,184.
B. 10% of that is roughly 30.7 million.
C. 47 Million uninsured account for 16% of the population.
Although 9.7 million of the uninsured are non-citizen immigrants (IBD Editorial quoting "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States," a census report), subtracting this number from the uninsured is poor categorization. (Remember the three rules for categorizing things. 1. Independent, 2. Mutually Exclusive, 3. Collectively Exhaustive.)
D. 17 Million live in households making more than $50K per year (same IBD editorial) - implication - they could probably afford some type of health insurance.
E. Leaving 30 million uninsured and probably unable to afford it.
F. That is roughly 10% of the population.
Back to the money line: "that affects a very small percentage of the population, 1 or 2 percent."
Orszag's implication seems clear to me, restated here "why should we care about being just to 1 or 2 percent of the population?" Indeed.
Stew's questions:
1. Why are we redesigning 17% of our 2007 gdp to close a 10% gap in coverage?
2. How many of the uninsured poor qualify for Medicaid and have not signed up for it? SCHIP?
3. How is the health insurance market like the auto insurance market (e.g. State mandates, federal regulation) - resulting in increased costs?
4. Why isn't private health insurance tax deductible, the way it is to employers?
5. Why can't private citizens have Health Savings Accounts?
6. What hidden costs of healthcare are driven by ineffective Government practices / regulations?
7. Tort reform?
Update: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal had an editorial in the Wall Street Journal today.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
How many key Geek thing can you do?
How many of the 100 essential skills for geeks do you know how to do?
At a quick glance I have about 45 out of 100. You?
At a quick glance I have about 45 out of 100. You?
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
The Rule of Law
We have all heard the phrase "Rule of Law". What does it mean, how does it work? For a short lesson on the rule of law, look here.
Stew's View: Rawls' method is more comprehensive (as opposed to the formulation by A.V. Dicey), but the use of item 6 (added by Mr. Solum) ought not be necessary. The better application of Rawls' framework is that it universally applies to all participants (including government).
Stew's View: Rawls' method is more comprehensive (as opposed to the formulation by A.V. Dicey), but the use of item 6 (added by Mr. Solum) ought not be necessary. The better application of Rawls' framework is that it universally applies to all participants (including government).
Monday, April 27, 2009
Learn about TARP
Here is an article from Powerline about the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
The moneyline:
Read the whole thing. $3 Trillion will not be the end number of this program, it will be higher.
Stew's View: It will not make a difference that TARP has been illegally expanded, since the US Supreme Court has been limiting the ability of taxpayers to bring suit against the government. This leads to a harm without a remedy and the timeline difference between TARP disbursement and the glacial pace of lawsuits means the money will be long gone before any action is taken. The only action that could have prevented this is to not do it in the first place.
The moneyline:
The Inspector General's report documents the stunning and at least partly illegal expansion of TARP from the $700 billion originally allocated by Congress to what is now a $3 trillion complex of programs.
Read the whole thing. $3 Trillion will not be the end number of this program, it will be higher.
Stew's View: It will not make a difference that TARP has been illegally expanded, since the US Supreme Court has been limiting the ability of taxpayers to bring suit against the government. This leads to a harm without a remedy and the timeline difference between TARP disbursement and the glacial pace of lawsuits means the money will be long gone before any action is taken. The only action that could have prevented this is to not do it in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)