The Wombat’s Blog

Government Mandated Mores0

In our paper this article proposing that the government should not be in the business of censorship of violent news, was titled “Is C-SPAN too violent?”

Information is just too readily available. Instead of blocking the flow of information (which you cannot), you should be focusing on education so that people now how to read, interpret and process that information. Perhaps young children would be too naive to understand this information, but that’s where the guardians come in.

The State should not be the guardian, perhaps not even for those guardians that neglect their responsibilities, because the state cannot be an effective guardian.

(Original found here.)

Would C-SPAN count?
Once again, Congress is flirting with the idea of censoring violence on TV. Once again, its efforts are misguided.
February 19, 2007

Just what, exactly, constitutes a program that’s too violent for kids to watch on TV? How about the story of a gun-blasting bounty hunter destroying a neighborhood as he tries to kill or capture his nihilistic offspring? That, after all, is what one sees in Walt Disney’s “Lilo & Stitch,” a hit movie for … kids, and a perfect illustration of the fundamental problems posed by Congress’ flirtation with regulating violent TV programming.

Responding to a request from lawmakers, the Federal Communications Commission has drafted a report outlining what Congress might do to curb excessively violent programs. Objectionably violent shows, it says, could be banned during the hours that children are most likely to be watching TV (6 a.m. to 10 p.m.), just as indecent programming is. Congress could force cable operators to sell channels on an a la carte basis, rather than bundling them into packages that can’t be customized. And the difficult task of defining excessive violence could be done by the federal government without violating the 1st Amendment.

There’s plenty of evidence that television shows are more graphically violent than ever, both on cable networks and on free over-the-air TV. Simply noting this problem, however, doesn’t prove that government censorship can solve it.

Requiring programs such as “24″ to be aired after 10 p.m. wouldn’t stop kids from watching a recorded version the next afternoon. Nor would it have much effect on the Internet, where networks are posting a growing number of reruns for viewers to watch on demand. And it’s hard to imagine Congress barring news programs before 10 p.m., and there’s no shortage of violence on the news.

A similar problem underlies the proposal to mandate a la carte cable pricing. It would be a boon to consumers if cable and satellite TV operators did business this way. But even in an a la carte regime, the channels with programming that distresses anti-violence activists are likely to be among the most frequently bought, simply because their programs are in high demand.

What censorship would do is deter networks from airing valuable but bloody shows that don’t quite qualify as news, while generating lawsuits over what inevitably will be inconsistent standards for judging violence on TV. Would cartoons be treated the same way as live action? How about realistic historical fare? Would “Saving Private Ryan” get a pass? Then how about “The Passion of the Christ”? What about psychological violence?

The government shouldn’t be making these calls; parents should. Online, there’s plenty of help for parents trying to identify inappropriate shows for their kids, and there’s technology in every TV set, cable converter box and satellite receiver to help screen out violent programming. If they still don’t like how much violence their TV is bringing into their home, they should just turn it off.

Posted: social/culture, politics, media

Being Made to Holiday-ize0

So a woman on the bus asks me if I’m celebrating Valentine’s Day. Yeah sure. What again was required (repeat after me): flowers, chocolate covered strawberries, fancy dinner, lingerie, diamonds … Just kidding.

Why do you need a special day to celebrate love? Shouldn’t you celebrate love every day? And why do you need to spend all this money to profess it. By focusing everything on just one occasion and one expensive gift, aren’t you cheapening the rest of the year. It’s like Valentine’s Day becomes an easy way out out of our guilt for inattention.

It is way too commercial, and way too guilt inducing. And really, it’s just another “holiday” we’re being made to celebrate. The day after, the pink cookies in the store were green, because, even if you’re not Irish, you have to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day next. But that holiday only exists, because it would be kind of early to put the Easter Bunny on display already. That can wait another two weeks.
(Original found here.)

I’m with Cupid
There’s love, then there’s Valentine’s Day.
Meghan Daum - LA Times
February 10, 2007

WHAT HOLIDAY is dreaded more than Valentine’s Day? Not enough of an excuse to eat a big meal or take a day off from work, but more than just a vehicle of the greeting card industry, it’s an anxiety trigger of the most insidious order. So cloaked in cheesy packaging it makes Groundhog Day look downright sacred, this annual nod to Cupid is a cultural mandate not only to have a nervous breakdown but to feel like an idiot for doing so.

Let’s face it, Valentine’s Day is a consumer ploy, but we take the bait anyway. The National Retail Foundation estimates that in 2006, the average consumer spent $100.89 to commemorate Feb. 14. The U.S. census has found that 15% of women send flowers to themselves on Valentine’s Day, and it’s even been reported that 3% of pet owners buy valentines for their pets, making the phrase “be mine” a bit redundant.

If you’re like me, you’re probably feeling pretty cheated — $100.89? That’s a lot of flowers, Mylar balloons or cat treats. You’d have to move the decimal point one notch to the left to represent how much I’ve ever spent — or been the beneficiary of — on Valentine’s Day. But I suspect that figure accounts not only for roses and chocolate-covered cherries purchased by the side of the freeway but for the grand dame of Valentine’s Day gifts, the diamond engagement ring.

I’ve been thinking about those little stones because I recently saw the movie “Blood Diamond” (I know, I’m a little behind; I hear “Talladega Nights” is good too). This is a gory, quasi-political thriller that suggests (in terms that its target male audience can understand and then choose to ignore) that the relationship between diamonds and romance is rooted not in ancient mating rituals but in Machiavellian marketing techniques. And it’s right. Not that Zales would ever admit it, but most diamonds are neither particularly rare nor particularly precious. As for that “two months’ salary” rule of thumb? It’s not advice from Grandpa. It’s ad copy from the 1980s.

But romance and propaganda have long made steamy bedfellows, and besides, the whole notion of bling-crazed bachelorettes is as much a media creation as the aura of the ring itself. Are all women chasing a rock as if it were the last bus out of Fresno? Of course not. Still, in matters of the heart, most of us, regardless of our material aspirations, romantic situations or even genders, have a tendency to sweat the small stuff — like the need for, not to mention the size and shape of, a diamond ring — because the big stuff (even if it’s really good stuff) is just too scary.

Along with the existence of God, the meaning of life and “Scooter” Libby’s former job description, love is one of those concepts that becomes more confusing and intangible the harder we think about it. That’s doubly true of romantic love, which is built around the illogical premise that infatuation can be shoehorned into a permanent state of being. It’s no surprise, then, that we channel our romantic passions not only into the object of our love but the objects that represent love.

Diamonds, of course, are the flagship of this franchise. More than just a girl’s best friend, they’re trinkets that a girl’s other friends can compare and analyze to the point where the trinket’s procurer is all but irrelevant. That’s been especially true in the last 20 years or so — as feminism softened its stance, the economy boomed and a flashy diamond became less a symbol of patriarchy than a sign of class status. There are even “right-hand” diamond rings now, such as the “Ah ring,” for single women. (”Ah” stands for “available” and “happy,” but I suspect “affluent” and “hyper-competitive” would work too.)

But whether we’re longing for an engagement ring, an Ah ring or an end to this lunatic ring cycle altogether, it’s almost inevitable that the blustery sales weeks leading up to Valentine’s Day intensify our fixation on the accouterments of love rather than on love itself.

Sure, we’re intellectually capable of seeing the flowers, the candy and even the diamond for what they are — expressions of the inexpressible. We know this is an assembly-line holiday. But we’ve also been conditioned to see it as a day of romantic reckoning, an occasion to take stock of our own lovableness. And that’s a big responsibility for a holiday when the banks don’t even close.

Excited yet? I know I am (and so is my pet). As for the shiny gems, just remember this: A diamond may be the gift of a lifetime, but Mylar balloons are non-biodegradable. What says “forever” better than that?

Posted: social/culture

Environment or Emotion - Precious or Perilous0

One of the most sacred cows in Hawaii, well maybe in the country because of what it stands for, turns out to be a significant environmental hazard, 500,000 gallons worth of hazards. Yet because it is sacred, it’s hard to do anything about it. As they say, the oil brings back 1941, and that removing the oil would be akin to desecrating the tomb.

Argh … ok, say this was Bhopal, or a Concentration Camp, or any other site of a big human disaster - I guess with the condition that the victims are still buried there. The stated position would be: Don’t remove anything because you’d be committing a sacrilegious act. I just hope that keeping the oil in there doesn’t deteriorate the memorial faster than taking it out, because who would that serve long-term? Does this become a different story once the last living survivors has passed away?
(Original found here.)

A Famous Battleship’s Portentous Cargo
Oil seeping from the USS Arizona is a poignant reminder for tourists — and a potential environmental hazard.
By Tony Perry, LA Times Staff Writer
February 11, 2007

PEARL HARBOR, HAWAII — The 1.6 million visitors a year to the USS Arizona Memorial are told by their guides about the legends surrounding the oil that still bubbles up from the sunken battleship.

One legend holds that the oil represents the tears of the 900-plus sailors and Marines entombed below decks since the Japanese attack of Dec. 7, 1941. Another says the oil will continue to surface until the last Arizona survivor dies.

But the fact is that 500,000 or more gallons of fuel oil are estimated to remain aboard the Arizona. Now the National Park Service and the Navy, which jointly maintain the memorial, are in the early stages of a comprehensive study of the ship and the possibility that its oil might someday spill into Pearl Harbor, fouling the shoreline and hampering naval operations.

When 100,000 gallons of jet fuel spilled from a pipeline in 1987 — unrelated to the Arizona — it disrupted the Navy base here for two months.

A 2005 report for the Park Service said a spill of 500,000 gallons from the Arizona “may be catastrophic.”

Though the scientific consensus is that such a spill is unlikely, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Response and Restoration late last year updated its emergency plan just in case.

“It’s a far more complex situation than we ever imagined,” said James P. Delgado, a noted shipwreck explorer and the executive director of the Institute of Nautical Archaeology. He wrote a 1989 report that led to the Arizona’s being named a national landmark.

A day before the attack that plunged America into World War II, the Arizona had taken on 1.2 million gallons of fuel oil.

Much of it spilled into the water after an armor-piercing bomb from a Japanese warplane struck the battleship’s forward magazine.

An enormous explosion lifted the ship out of the water.

It sank within nine minutes — the time it now takes a Navy launch to transport people from the Arizona Memorial Visitors Center to the memorial, which bestrides, but does not touch, the ship.

As part of the Park Service study, computer modeling at the National Institute of Standards and Technology — using data from divers and remote-control cameras — aims to see how the oil may be moving inside the wreckage and how soon corrosion may collapse the steel hull, allowing the oil to push to the surface.

Preliminary results suggest the oil movement is modest and corrosion has been slowed by the mud at the bottom of the harbor, said Timothy Foecke, a metallurgist at the institute.

Delgado believes the study on the Arizona will provide a key to the future of the hundreds of other ships sunk during World War II and how soon oil inside those ships may escape into the water.

Although the oil may — or may not — pose a serious environmental risk, there is no disputing that for many, it adds to the memorial’s emotional power.

Visitors walk the 184-foot-long memorial and scan the “shrine room” wall that contains the names of the 1,177 men who were killed aboard the Arizona. Many visitors stare down at the rusted remains of Gun Turret 2 and the small rainbow-colored ringlets of oil that reach the surface — several quarts a day.

“When people see and smell the oil, they’re brought back to the world of Dec. 7,” said Daniel Martinez, the Park Service historian at the memorial.

“The oil is a reminder that the Arizona is a wounded and dying ship.”

The public attachment to the Arizona and the memorial also poses problems regarding the oil, experts said.

For any other wrecked ship, punching holes in the hull and pumping out the oil would be relatively easy, particularly for a ship that is so close to land and sits in only 40 feet of water. But for the Arizona, such an idea is considered unthinkable, except as a last alternative.

Along with being told the legends, visitors are assured that nothing so intrusive will happen to the Arizona.

Actor Ernest Borgnine, who served in the Navy during World War II, is the narrator of a self-guided audio tour that visitors can rent at the visitors center. Near the end of the tour, Borgnine says many people believe that “to remove the oil would be to desecrate the tomb.”

When the Park Service approaches the wreckage, it makes sure to discuss its plans with the USS Arizona Reunion Assn., a survivors group.

“We are very, very conscious of the sanctity of the Arizona,” Martinez said.

Posted: general stuff

What if There was Amnesty and Nobody Cared?0

More local laws of unintended consequences. Because of the construction boom and the lack of available contractors people build unpermitted structures. That’s a safety issue. So the county issues an amnesty program to allow people to come into compliance without a fee.

But, alas, that’s not how it would be expected to go, because …

somebody apparently didn’t think this through.

(Original found here.)

Permit Amnesty Program Flops
by Jason Armstrong
Stephens Media

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 8:20 AM HST

Hilo — Hawaii County has issued just two building permits under an amnesty program it started last October to encourage construction compliance.

Ten applications have been generated by the penalty-free program that runs through September, Building Division Chief Brian Kajikawa said Monday.

Of those, five are pending approval, two more are under review and the other has been rejected, he said.

“We’re trying to get it through, but it’s very slow,” Kajikawa said of the program local lawmakers and county administrators had expected to be far more popular.

Under the amnesty law, owners of unpermitted residential or farm structures completed before Jan. 1, 2006, may apply for after-the-fact approval. The county waives the normal penalty, which is equal to the cost of a building permit or $20 per 100 feet of floor space.

Participants must meet all building, plumbing and electrical standards. They also must have a structural engineer or architect, along with a plumber and electrician, verify compliance with the Building Code.

That requirement can be more expensive than the fine, Kajikawa said when asked about the program’s poor participation.

The owners also may need to do costly construction or renovation work to make their properties meet current building standards.

The program excited Holualoa bed-and-breakfast owner Ken Smith, who in September told Stephens Media that he would seek amnesty for his unpermitted property.

But Smith said he later discovered that his commercial operation made him ineligible.

“It was a shock to me,” said the 75-year-old Smith, who wants to legitimize his combination home and B&B to spare a future owner that hassle.

“I’m a little bit concerned because it seems to me like it shouldn’t matter if it’s in a residential area,” Smith said of his property.

Smith said he’ll now go through the normal process, which has been delayed by what he said was the Building Division’s loss of his construction plans and its inability to provide the site inspection he requested five years ago.

“I’ve got to go through the hoops, but they’re not making it easy,” he said.

Just one of the program’s 10 applicants sought approval for an entire home, said Noelani Whittington, the Department of Public Works’ community outreach specialist.

All the others requested approval for an unpermitted living room, carport or some other form of residential expansion, she said.

She said that most of the applicants’ properties are in East Hawaii, noting West Hawaii landowners had called for the program.

The law’s author is former South Kona Councilwoman Virginia Isbell, who last year lost her re-election bid and left office in December.

Reached Monday, Isbell said requiring owners to meet current building codes is discouraging participation in the program.

“Lots more people” want to enroll, but have found the process too cumbersome, she said.

“Why make it so difficult?” she said. “It should be based on what was required at the time (the home or farm dwelling was built.)”

Some older homes withstood the Oct. 15 earthquakes fine, while new ones meeting today’s tougher standards suffered more damage, Isbell said.

“So, it doesn’t necessarily mean being new is better,” she said.

Isbell, who also mentioned it’s hard to get an architect’s approval since most are very busy with the island’s building boom, said the requirements were not part of the legislation she drafted.

Rather, the goal was to help people legitimize their illegal homes and farm structures, she said, not for the construction methods and materials to be brought up to current standards.

“And that’s what we should have put in the bill,” Isbell added.

Jason Armstrong can be reached at jarmstrong@hawaiitribune-herald.com.

Posted: social/culture, politics, local

Science for Sale0

If Science shows that your approach to Global Warming is not the ideal approach, fight fire with fire and get yourself some Science to support that you are correct. I mean, it must be way worse admitting “oops, made a mistake, ok let me change course.”
At this point nobody disputes that there is Global Warming. But we’re still not doing anything because it may hurt our business (though probably will hurt less than doing nothing). Also, we are still not sure that we’re causing it (yeah right), so not sure that we can actually do anything.

By now the evidence becomes overwhelming, so we need to fire back. The American Enterprise Institute is now offtering $10,000 to scientists to criticize what everybody knows to be true. And I’m sure there will be people taking up that offer, because $10,000 is not small cash.

And that’s how you find out that Science is no more objective than any other field. You have to be careful who you listen to.
(Original found here.)

Science for Sale
St. Louis Post Dispatch
Wednesday, Feb. 07 2007

Global warming threatens our planet and our species, in particular the human
subspecies of professional obfuscators in the Hot Air Industry.

We refer to the handful of far-right think tanks fronting for American
corporate interests, such as the American Enterprise Institute and the
Competitive Enterprise Institute. They’ve spent years — and millions of dollars
in energy company contributions — trying to manufacture doubt about the reality
of global warming.

Now comes the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
It was prepared by 600 international climate experts. The report, released
last week, lays out in sobering detail how global warming already has begun,
how effects such as rising sea levels and acidity and warmer temperatures will
continue over the next century or more with disastrous ecological and economic
consequences, and how continued inaction will exacerbate the problems. There is
at least a 90-percent certainty human activity is the cause.

Sheesh. How do you spin news like that? That’s where amateurs who wish upon a
star are separated from true masters of the dark arts.

The spirit of enterprise is working overtime at the American Enterprise
Institute. Before the ink was dry on the latest global warming consensus
statement, the institute was soliciting scientists willing to contribute to a
book-length critique pooh-poohing the report and its conclusions on the perils
of global warming in return for a $10,000 “honorarium” (perhaps we should call
it a “dishonorarium.”)

Scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change aren’t paid.
That’s to protect against conflicts of interest. But that’s apparently not a
concern at the American Enterprise Institute. It’s searching not for the best
science that money can buy, but the most plausible-sounding way to forestall
action on global warming.

Don’t think of those $10,000 payments as bribes. They’re “campaign
contributions” in the Hot Air Industry’s never-ending war on inconvenient
truths.

Posted: politics, science

Macro vs Microeconomic Views0

So is the economy doing well, or not? The stock market seems to be doing ok, but the people seem to be doing less ok. Republicans say things are good, Democrats say things are not so good. Who wins this war of perception? And what’s important for an economy to be successful?
(Original found here.)

Bush, Democrats paint contrasting views of economy in lead-up to 2008 races
By Tom Raum
ASSOCIATED PRESS

11:45 a.m. February 1, 2007

WASHINGTON – The booming economy that President Bush paints is a far cry from the worrisome one increasingly portrayed by Democratic presidential candidates and party leaders.

To them, there are worker insecurities, stagnant wage growth and soaring costs for health care and college.

The vision of rival economies already is a main issue for the 2008 presidential and congressional races. Economists say both sides are right – and wrong. It just depends on what numbers you summon.

Bush is trying to nudge the national focus away from Iraq and is offering a rosy picture of the economy ahead of his presentation Monday of a financial blueprint he says will lead to a balanced budget by 2012.

Congressional Democrats have embraced the same timetable. The course the rival camps chart to get there is bound to be the domestic-policy battle royal of the current congressional session.

“Workers are making more money. Their paychecks are going further. Consumers are confident. Investors are optimistic,” Bush said in a speech Wednesday at Federal Hall on Wall Street. It was his second on the economy in as many days.

“I’m not surprised that some of the good economic news is overshadowed by the difficult news out of Iraq,” Bush told Fox News later Wednesday.

The president credits his first-term tax cuts for much of the upbeat news, ignoring the $10 billion-a-month drain on the government’s balance sheets from the unpopular war in Iraq and military actions in Afghanistan and elsewhere to fight terrorism.

Bolstering Bush’s outlook was a new Commerce Department report showing that the economy gained speed in the final three months of 2006. The economy grew at an annual rate of 3.6 percent, much faster than the 2 percent increase of the previous three months.

Stocks soared after that report and after the Federal Reserve’s decision to leave interest rates steady.

But hold on.

Here comes this from Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, reprising the “two Americas” rich-poor divide he depicted in 2004 as a presidential and vice presidential candidate: “We cannot stand by and watch 37 million people wake up and not know how to feed and clothe their children.”

Other Democratic presidential hopefuls are echoing the theme.

Also, freshman Sen. James Webb, D-Va., built on it when he gave his party’s response to Bush’s State of the Union address last month. “It’s almost as if we are living in two different countries,” Webb said.

To William Galston, a domestic policy adviser in the Clinton administration who now is the Brookings Institution, “We have the president’s story of the economic aggregates and we have Jim Webb’s story of economic anxiety and inequality.

“That tale of two economies will be argued out, not only between the parties but within the parties,” he said.

The Democratic contenders are not shy about weighing in.

“There’s something wrong when you have more bankruptcies in America last year than college graduates,” Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York said in Iowa.

A 2008 rival, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, said, “Our economy is changing rapidly, and that means profound changes for working people.” He cited “skyrocketing health care bills,” lost pensions and struggles to pay for college.

The cutback in building has led to thousands of layoffs in the construction industry, Democrats note.

Such observations conflict with the glowing picture Bush and his aides present of a vibrant economy humming along at near-full employment.

“They’ve both got a point, and they’re both trying to make their case” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com.

“The president is right. The economy in aggregate is performing very well. So he’s right to claim that the economy, looking from above, looks very good,” Zandi said. “Democrats are also right. The fruits of this strong economy have largely accrued to higher income wealthier households.”

The multifaceted state of the economy was reflected in a mixed bag of government economic reports issued Thursday.

The Commerce Department reported that people spent more than they made last year, resulting in a negative 1 percent personal savings rate – the lowest since the Great Depression. Meanwhile, the Labor Department reported a 20,000 drop in claims by newly laid off workers for unemployment benefits, a sign of a healthy labor market.

David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor’s in New York, said that “any rational way you look at this, the economy is doing pretty decently. You’ve got a 4.5 percent unemployment rate, productivity growth is solid. And inflation is by historical standards pretty reasonable.”

Still, Wyss said, “We’ve got a couple of big problems out there, and some long-term imbalances. The top 20 percent is doing fairly well and the bottom 20 percent is doing better. If there’s a hole, it’s in the middle, which frankly are those old blue-collar jobs that the Democrats say are leaving the country. And they’re right.”

The president’s approval on handling the economy was at 43 percent in early January’s AP-Ipsos poll, up from December and higher than his overall job approval of 36 percent. The economy, along with Iraq, terrorism and health care are all seen as important issues by the public.

The White House and Democrats battled with dueling economic “fact sheets.”

The Democratic headlines: worst job recovery on record; manufacturing jobs continue to disappear at historical levels; share of national income going to wages and salaries see record lows; household income declined by nearly $1,300 under Bush.

On the White House list: The economy has created more than 7.2 million jobs since August 2003; the unemployment rate was 4.5 percent in December; real wages rose 1.7 percent during 2006; real after-tax personal income per person has increased over $2,800 – or 9.6 percent – during this administration.

The president did concede a point to Democratic rhetoric on Wednesday.

After Webb emphasized the growing and yawning gulf between salaries of chief executive officers and rank-and-file workers in his Jan. 23 Democratic response, Bush took aim at lavish salaries and bonuses for corporate executives. Corporate boards should “step up to their responsibilities” and tie compensation packages to performance, he said in his Wall Street speech.

EDITOR’S NOTE - Tom Raum has covered Washington for The Associated Press since 1973, including five presidencies. 

Posted: politics, personal finance

We’re Saving Negative 1 Percent0

Not good news, but not a surprise. Savings really isn’t officially encouraged, because it’s counter capitalism. Whatever you don’t spend does not raise profits for somebody else, etc. Yes, what will happen when 78 million baby boomers will retire without adequate savings?

Kind of strange that even a negative number is still considered a savings number, a -1% savings rate. Instead of saying that everybody on average is taking out more than they’re putting in, meaning that on average every single person will be in trouble … So by the law of averages, if one guy saves $1, another loses $1.01. But it’s more likely that if a rich guy saves $1000, 1000 people must lose $1.01 each. If he saves $1 mio, 1000 people must lose $1010 each. If he saves a billion … So what is the correct cash flow distribution here?

This is much more serious. We’re not just concerned about 1% of your income …
(Original found here.)

U.S. savings level lowest since Depression
February 2, 2007
BY MARTIN CRUTSINGER

People are saving at the lowest level since the Great Depression, and that could be a problem for the millions of baby boomers getting ready to retire.

In fact, the Commerce Department reported Thursday that the nation’s personal savings rate for all of 2006 was a negative 1 percent, the worst showing in 73 years.

The savings rate is computed by taking the amount of income left after taxes are paid and subtracting the amount people spend. The fact the rate is negative means people are spending all of the money they have left after paying taxes — and then some. They are dipping into savings or increasing their borrowing to finance current spending.

The 1 percent negative savings rate in 2006 followed a 0.4 percent negative rate in 2005. There have been only four years in history that the savings rate has fallen into negative territory. The other two were 1932 and 1933 during the Great Depression.

During the Depression, when as many as one in four people were out of work, households were exhausting savings in order to pay the rent and buy food.

Last year’s negative rate was attributed not to a lack of jobs but to good economic developments — including low interest rates that made it attractive to borrow money to make purchases and also to refinance home loans.

“We have to have things,” said Nancy Harvin, 44, of Washington, who said she struggles with saving.

Scott Cooke, 48, said he was starting an interior design business in the Washington area and didn’t have the resources to save. ‘’I'm living from check to check,'’ he said.

Surveys indicate the nation’s spendthrift ways are not likely to change any time soon. More than a third of 2,000 adults questioned recently by the Pew Research Center said they often or sometimes spend more than they can afford.

The young and the poor have the most trouble saving. Some 42 percent of people 18 to 49 said they are likely to spend more than they can afford. Among those with household incomes below $30,000, some 45 percent said the same.

The near-record low savings rate is occurring at a time when 78 million baby boomers are preparing to retire. The oldest of the boomers will turn 62 next year, the first year they will be eligible to collect Social Security.

As the nation’s largest generation retires, that will further depress savings because typically retirees are drawing down their accumulated savings in an effort to make up the difference between the salaries they earned on the job and their smaller Social Security and other pension payments.

Posted: social/culture, personal finance

60 Miles of Money Wasted0

A short side article on the auditors reporting on their findings on Iraq.

Not a total surprise that not all of the money used in the war in Iraq can be accounted for. But perhaps a bit surprising that $10 billion out of $57 billion has been squandered. If I would treat my money the way the government does, I’m sure I would be responsible to someone, not the least the IRS.

Now they didn’t review the whole $350 billion, just a portion of it.  So if you extrapolate, expect $60 billion of have been wasted. I guess that’s not too bad, that’s just $200 for every single citizen in this country.

But how much money is $60 billion. That’s 600 mio $100 bills.  A $100 bill weighs about 1 gram. So $60 billion weight 600 tons, so about 300+ cars. Yeah, but paper has a lower density that steel, so takes up more space than a car. So alternatively, 2000 $100 bills are about 1 ft thick, so this is a stack of money 300,000 ft thick, which is about 57 miles.

So we’ve wasted a 60 mile thick stack of $100 bills and have no idea where that money went. Where did it even come from?
(Original found here.)

Auditors: Billions squandered in Iraq
By HOPE YEN
Associated Press Writer
Thu Feb 15, 6:24 PM ET

About $10 billion has been squandered by the U.S. government on Iraq reconstruction aid because of contractor overcharges and unsupported expenses, and federal investigators warned Thursday that significantly more taxpayer money is at risk.

The three top auditors overseeing work in Iraq told a House committee their review of $57 billion in Iraq contracts found that Defense and State department officials condoned or allowed repeated work delays, bloated expenses and payments for shoddy work or work never done.

More than one in six dollars charged by U.S. contractors were questionable or unsupported, nearly triple the amount of waste the Government Accountability Office estimated last fall.

“There is no accountability,” said David M. Walker, who heads the auditing arm of Congress. “Organizations charged with overseeing contracts are not held accountable. Contractors are not held accountable. The individuals responsible are not held accountable.”

“People should be rewarded when they do a good job. But when things don’t go right, there have to be consequences,” he said.

Also testifying Thursday were Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, and William H. Reed, director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency.

The appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee came as Congress prepares for a showdown with President Bush next month over his budget request of nearly $100 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So far, the Bush administration has spent more than $350 billion on the Iraq war and reconstruction effort.

The Army, which handles most of the Iraq contracting, said Thursday it had not reviewed the latest contract figures.

“The U.S. Army, along with the Departments of Defense and State, continue to help thousands of Iraqis daily with reconstruction projects to provide them with better lives,” said spokeswoman Mary Ann Hodges. “We look forward to examining its findings and applying some of its recommendations in the future.”

Senate Democrats said recently cited cases of waste were “outrageous rip-offs of the American taxpayer” and introduced legislation Thursday to stiffen punishment for war profiteers and cut down on cronyism in contracting.

According to their testimony, the investigators:

_Found overpricing and waste in Iraq contracts amounting to $4.9 billion since the Defense Contract Audit Agency began its work in 2003. Some of that money has been recovered. An additional $5.1 billion in expenses were charged without proper documentation.

_Pointed to growing Iraqi sectarian violence as a significant factor behind bloated U.S. contracting bills. Iraqi officials, they said, must begin to take primary responsibility for reconstruction efforts. That is an uncertain goal, given the widespread corruption in Iraq and the local government’s inability to fund projects.

_Urged the Pentagon to reconsider its growing reliance on outside contractors in wars and reconstruction efforts. Layers of subcontractors, poor documentation and lack of strong contract management are rampant and promote waste even after the GAO first warned of problems 15 years ago.

Walker complained that GAO investigators have difficulty getting basic detail about reconstruction contracts such as expenses and subcontractors involved because many Pentagon divisions fail to consistently track or fully report them.

“It’s absolutely essential if Congress wants to make an informed decision on authorizations and appropriations that we get this information,” he said. “We’re talking about billions of dollars and thousands of American lives at stake.”

Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., the committee chairman, has pledged scores of investigations of fraud, waste and abuse — with subpoenas if necessary — on the administration’s watch.

Of the $10 billion in overpriced contracts or undocumented costs, more than $2.7 billion were charged by Halliburton Co., the oil-field services company once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.

Noting that auditors still have $300 billion of Iraq spending to review, Waxman said the total amount of waste, fraud and abuse “could be astronomical.”

“It’s no wonder that taxpayers all across our country are fed up and demanding that we bring real oversight to the ‘anything goes’ world of Iraq reconstruction,” he said.

Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., the top Republican on the panel, pointed to ongoing, “systemic” problems in Iraq contracting. “This much is clear: Poor security, an arcane, ill-suited management structure, and frequent management changes have produced a succession of troubled acquisitions,” Davis said.

On the Net:
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee:
http://oversight.house.gov
House committee memorandum analyzing Iraq contracting costs:
http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070215105317-73621.pdf 

Posted: politics, personal finance

Facing the Law while Pursuing the Law0

Guy becomes famous doing an illegal act in a foreign country while in pursuit of the law. He is successful and escapes before being busted. Now the country is coming after him and wants him extradited to face justice.

This person has since played his cards well and used his action to kick start a TV career (on Arts & Entertainment of all channels) and become a famous TV star with a lot of supporters appreciating his approach and effectiveness. They are of course upset at the possibility of their hero being busted for busting somebody, so this is obviously wrong.

So what would happen if it was the other country that acted unilaterally. What if a Mexican bounty hunter came into this country to capture a Mexican criminal to take him back for prosecution without the U.S.’s approval? Would we complain that our sovereignty has been violated? Would it make a difference if the bounty hunter was the No. 1 TV star in Mexico?
(Original found here.)

Mexican Court allows TV Bunty Hunter to be Extradited
The Associated Press ason not to try him with the charge of deprivation of liberty of Mexico.

Guadalajara, Mexico - “We only just heard about the Mexican court’s decision to continue with the extradition proceedings, and are still in shock,” Chapman and his wife, Beth, said in a statement issued Thursday night in Honolulu.

“Our attorneys have not even been formally informed of the court’s decision, as of yet,” they said. “We are obviously deeply disappointed and fearful of what will happen, and are currently absorbing the news and discussing our options at this time.”

Mexican authorities had already asked for Chapman’s extradition from Hawaii.

Chapman’s lawyers argued he would not be guaranteed a fair trial in Mexico, Jara said.

The charges against the 53-year-old star of the A&E reality series “Dog the Bounty Hunter” stem from his June 2003 capture of convicted rapist Andrew Luster, the Max Factor heir, in Puerto Vallarta, 210 miles west of Guadalajara.

Chapman was arrested Sept. 14 along with his son and another associate and released on $300,000 bail. He faces up to four years in a Mexican jail if convicted.

Luster’s capture shot the Honolulu-based bounty hunter to fame and led to the TV series. His disappearance set off an international manhunt by police, FBI and bounty hunters trying to recoup some of the bond money. Luster is serving a 124-year prison term.

Posted: social/culture, legal