"Put Michigan First"

Below is an editorial on the FRONT PAGE of the Detroit Free Press yesterday.

It may just seem to be a naive, simplistic, "let's just get ANYTHING" done statement which completely ignores the entire differences between the two sides - it does lead me to wonder why the two sides can't at least work together to bridge part of the gap. Why can't the two sides get together and piece together a set of spending cuts which will at least get the government part of the way to their goals? If they can chop between one-third and one-half of the budget, then it will at least shore up how drastic the cuts have to be later. There has to be SOMETHING the two sides can agree on. Getting a partial package in place immediately is a critical first step.

Put Michigan first - now
April 1, 2007

Two crises grip Michigan: economic and leadership.

The forces behind the first are, in part, global and national. There are no such excuses for lack of leadership. Governor Jennifer Granholm and her political counterweight, state Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, have done next to nothing to resolve a budget mess that creates a great uncertainty in business, schools, and local governments.

This stalemate threatens to wreck Michigan's credit rating, saddle the state with a reputation for fiscal buffoonery and suck away more tax dollars to higher interest payments.

Granholm and Bishop have thrown competing plans on the table and declared the other's dead. That's not leadership. That's gamesmanship, and the situation in Michigan is too critical for games.

Now the governor is running around to her constituent groups telling them to send letters and e-mails to the Legislature backing her position. She's imposing small, overdue spending controls and announcing plans to shut down state government next month. House Republicans are leading a petition drive against tax increases, and the Senate is taking the next two weeks off.

For whom are these people working? Not the taxpayers of Michigan, that's for sure.

The Detroit Free Press rarely in the last century has given front-page space to its editorial opinions. But when people ask us, "What on earth is going on in Lansing?" we feel compelled to say in this prominent way "nothing much" except partisan hissing.

It's shameful.

After some small-change cuts and accounting gimmicks, the state still has a $686-million budget shortfall for a fiscal year with only six months to go. The longer it takes to fix that, the more drastic the solutions and the more damage done to the state's already deteriorating reputation among investors.

Whether it's the spending cuts Republicans demand or combined cuts and tax increases as the governor proposes, it has to be something. Right now, folks, we have nothing.

A basic negotiating tactic: Find one common principle and build on it with hard give-and-take that's considered successful if everybody leaves the table a little unhappy. Why isn't this happening in the Capitol?

How bad must things get before this state's so-called leaders realize whom they signed on to work for -- and lead?

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the President, to communicate on foreign policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without the authority of the United States" to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States."

- Robert F. Turner, former Assistant Secretary of State, in The Wall Street Journal

Three words...

...ethanol, diesel, & biodiesel.

Strong Possibility Gas Will Rise to $4
Oil Prices Ease as Iran Hostages Are Freed, But Analysts Say High Demand to Keep Prices High

April 4, 2007 - For the past two weeks, Iran has not just been holding 15 British soldiers captive, it's been holding the world's oil markets hostage, too.

"There's been a $5 or $6 premium that's been built into the price of oil over this," said Phil Flynn, vice president and energy analyst at Alaron Trading. "Even though this crisis has ended, the oil market is still on guard that the tensions in the Middle East are going to continue."

But by the end of Ahmadinejad's television appearance it was apparent that the soldiers were heading home, and the price of a barrel of oil started to retreat from recent highs, giving up more than $1 to drop to about $64.

Analysts say that the price reduction should hold during the coming days but won't translate into lower prices at the pump.

"Things are looking pretty bad for the upcoming summer driving season," said Flynn, citing a new government report showing that the U.S. stockpiles of gasoline fell by 5 million barrels in the past week, much more than analysts were expecting.

Flynn said he believes gasoline prices will head into record territory - currently a nationwide average of $3.07 - by the height of the summer season.

"This is the time of year when we're supposed to be building supplies, but it seems like the refiners just can't get ahead of what has been very, very strong demand," he said.

Today's report shows that the national supply of gas is at the low end of its average range for this time of year, meaning the United States will have less gas in the tank before the peak summer driving season in the coming months.

Analysts said that puts the country on the edge, making any disruption in supply - such as a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico refining regions or an expansion of the crisis in the Middle East - that much more dangerous.

"Everyone asks me, will we see $4 a gallon? And the answer is, there is a strong possibility that we may see $4 a gallon," said Flynn.

Quote of the Day

Drew Lane, WRIF -

Why is it that the person who raises the most money is automatically the front-runner, even if they're not a good candidate?

How the surge can work

In dilbertblog today, Scott Adams asks how the surge can work:

How the surge can work:

1. Various leaders of Al Qaeda and insurgent groups are captured or killed. This has already happened in at least one situation, in the case of Ahmed Farhan Hassan, who was captured last week.
2. Allowing diplomacy an opportunity to work. Having a peaceful Baghdad and Anbar allow the Iraqi government and U.S. diplomats to work with local leaders to sway their support from insurgents and Al Qaeda to the Iraqi government. This has already happened in Anbar province, where many local tribal leaders have repudiated Al Qaeda and have persuaded many of their people to join the Iraqi military or police forces.
3. Imposing a cease-fire between the Sunni and Shiia militias which have been engaging in revenge killings with each other. There's a hope that an imposed cease-fire will allow the individuals and opportunity to honorably allow the Iraqi government and U.S. forces to protect their populations which they felt were threatened by the other side.
4. Give the local economy a chance to rebuild. As people see that having the Iraqi government and U.S. forces a peace that allows them to go to work, open their shops, and try to find a normal way of life in a freer Iraq they will see a strong difference between what the Iraqis and U.S. are trying to impose - safe, normal life - and what Al Qaeda and the militias are trying to impose - violence and lawlessness. This will sap local support from the militias and Al Qaeda.
5. Give the Iraqis a chance to build up. The entire U.S. strategy to this point has been "Stand down as the Iraqis stand up." This has been difficult, to say the least, as untrained, green Iraqis and recruits are killed by insurgents an Al Qaeda. giving the Iraqis time to fully train and equip their military and police forces without having their recruits and raw forces killed by terrorist attacks will put them in position to maintain the peace.

Since when is that a protest?

1) When you're throwing objects at people, that's not a protest. That's a riot.
2) When you're throwing objects at people, that's not peaceful. That's assault.

If you want to protest, get a sign and shout some slogans. Don't engage in violence.

Students Pelt Karl Rove In Protest

WASHINGTON - White House Advisor Karl Rove was the target of a protest on the American University campus Tuesday night, News4 reported Rove was on the campus to talk to the College Republicans, but when he got outside more than a dozen students began throwing things at him and at his car, an American University spokesperson said.

The students then got on the ground and laid down in front of his car as a protest. The students said security officials picked them up and carried them away, so Rove could leave. Police said they have dealt with a lot of protests on campus and this one was handled peacefully. No one was arrested.

Seriously...?

What? You mean that when they said that , "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration," they mean that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes? Note: This is the FULL text of the amendment, not an excerpt. I honestly don't know what these "tax protesters" are thinking.

Tax protester gets more than 2 years

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - A man who contended that he was not required to pay income tax, and whose case led to an indictment against actor Westley Snipes, was sentenced Tuesday to 27 months in prison.

Arthur L. Farnsworth, 43, of Sellersville, was also fined $500 and ordered to cooperate with Internal Revenue Service investigators in documenting his finances and beginning to pay his tax debt of almost $83,000, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported on its Web site.

He told the jury that his own research had convinced him that federal tax payments were voluntary. Prosecutors argued that his research was created to cover his political beliefs.

Prosecutors said Farnsworth transferred his money to overseas bank accounts and put it into bogus trusts to try to hide his income. A raid on his home in 2002 found documents detailing some of the trust funds, leading to a nationwide probe of fraudulent trusts. That led to charges against other people, including Snipes, the star of the "Blade" movies.

Snipes, who is awaiting trial, has said he is a scapegoat and was unfairly targeted by prosecutors, and he has suggested he was taken advantage of.

Quote of the Day

John Bolton, Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations on CNN -

"If I were sitting in Tehran, I would say, 'I played this card against the Brits and they did everything but plead with me to give these people back.' I think that tells the Iranians quite a bit about European resolve."

I will reiterate my position:

1) State vociferously that the seizure was an invasion of Iraqi territory and an act of war against the U.K. I would give them 48 hours to hand over the captives unconditionally.

2) If this does not happen, order the seizure by SAS / SBS of the Iranian oil refinery port and institute a naval embargo on the nation. I would give them 48 hours to hand over the captives unconditionally. I would invoke the NATO treaty at this point, indicating that the initial seizure of U.K. marines and sailors is a military strike against a NATO member and, thus, a strike against all NATO nations.

3) If this does not work, bomb strategic military assets, including the nuclear material centrifuge, military air bases, anti-aircraft positions, and army barracks. Also, I would patrol the Iraqi-Iranian border and annihilate any military unit which comes even remotely close to the border.

That's just me, though. The world is probably better off that I am not in charge of the U.K.

Quote of the Day

Don Luskin, National Review Online -

"Global warming 'deniers' are attacked, not because they stand against a scientific consensus, but because they stand against a powerful liberal special interest group: the environmental lobby. Meanwhile, free-trade 'deniers' are lionized, despite the fact that they stand against a scientific consensus and because they stand with a powerful liberal special-interest groups: unions."

Put Michigan First

Below is an editorial on the FRONT PAGE of the Detroit Free Press yesterday.

It may just seem to be a naive, simplistic, "let's just get ANYTHING done" statement which completely ignores the differences between the two sides - it does lead me to wonder why the two sides can't at least work together to bridge part of the gap. Why can't the two sides get together and piece together a set of spending cuts which will at least get the government part of the way to their goals? If they can chop between 1/3 and 1/2 of the deficit off the whole then it will at least shore up how drastic the cuts have to be later. There has to be SOMETHING the two sides can agree on. Getting a partial package in place immediately is a critical first step.

Put Michigan first - now
April 1, 2007

Two crises grip Michigan: economic and leadership.

The forces behind the first are, in part, global and national. There are no such excuses for lack of leadership. Gov. Jenifer Granholm and her political counterweight, state Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, have done next to nothing to resolve a budget mess that creates great uncertainty in business, schools and local government.

This stalemate threatens to wreck Michigan's credit rating, saddle the state with a reputation for fiscal buffoonery and suck away more tax dollars to higher interest payments.

Granholm and Bishop have thrown competing plans on the table and declared the other's dead. That's not leadership. That's gamesmanship, and the situation in Michigan is too critical for games.

Now the governor is running around t her constituent groups telling them to send letters and e-mails to the Legislature backing her position. She's imposing small, overdue spending controls and announcing plans to shut down state government next month. House Republicans are leading a petition drive against tax increases, and the Senate is taking the next two weeks off.

For whom are these people working? Not the taxpayers of Michigan, that's for sure.

The Detroit Free Press rarely in the last century has given front-page space to its editorial opinions. But when people ask us, "What on earth is going on in Lansing?" we feel compelled to say in this prominent way "nothing much" except for partisan hissing.

It's shameful.

After some small-change cuts and accounting gimmicks, the state still has a $686-million budget shortfall for a fiscal year with only six months to go. The longer it takes to fix that, the more drastic the solutions and the more damage done to the state's already deteriorating reputation among investors.

Whether it's the spending cuts Republicans demand or combined cuts and tax increases as the governor proposes, it has to be something. Right now, folks, we have nothing.

A basic negotiating tactic: Find one common principle and build on it with a hard give-and-take that's considered successful if everybody leaves the table a little unhappy. Why isn't this happening in the Capitol?

How bad must things get before this state's so-called leaders realize whom they signed on to work for -- and lead?

Quote of the Day

From kf on slate.com:

"Kabuki Watch? Here's the question: If it's

a) in the Congressional Democrats' interest to try but fail to use their
funding power force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq (it shows the antiwar left Pelosi is trying without giving Dems responsibility for a messy Iraq outcome),

and it's

b) in the Bush administration's interest to have Congressional Dems' try but fail to use their funding power to force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq (it lets Bush continue the "surge" while giving him the threat of a Dem-forced pullout with which to pressure the Maliki government),

then

c) isn't it true that what probably will happen in that the Congressional Dems try to fail to use their funding power to force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq?

Just asking!

I hope it's just an elaborate political dance. Even if it is, though, I know how demoralized it made me to know that the House of Reps had sold out the troops. I can't imagine how demoralizing it was for the troops in the field. The surge was just starting to show results - based on statistical evidence (troop deaths were down), first-hand Iraqi accounts (such as through Iraq the Model), and reports from the military commanders in charge - and just as things were finally getting better, here they have an Unconstitutional surrender order come from Congress. It had even been couched in the same sort of "Peace with honor" garbage that precipitated the retreat from Vietnam in the face of the Khamer Rouges massacres. I just hope that this provision gets stripped out or the President vetoes it and we get a legitimate bill through rapidly so we can make sure that the troops have sufficient quantities of armor, ammunition, equipment, and supplies.

On a tangential note: why is it that the Democrats are so quick to want to implement the 9/11 study group's recommendations but are anathema to the Iraqi study group's recommendations?

Quote of the Day

Editorial in the Daily Telegraph -

"There may be neither political will nor public support for an invasion of Iran, but we do have the power to hurt that country grievously without committing our forces to another long haul, and the threat must be made explicit: release these prisoners, or else."

Quote of the Day

Lorne Gunter, National Post (Canada) -

Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-like storm. Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years. And I swear, I haven't left my SUV idling on any of those planets or moons.

Quote of the Day

Christopher Hitchens, in today's Slate.com article "Mesopotamia Split?"

"At present, it seems that some Democrats are interpreting public disillusionment with Iraq as a mandate for isolationism and for treating a country that occupies a keystone position between Iran and Saudi Arabia as if it were negligible or irritating or an obstacle to plans for universal health care or the arrest of global warming. That this is a huge historical mistake is the least offensive way of putting it."

Dear God, I'm sick of talking about him...but Al Gore again

Taranto addresses Al Gore's "over-representation of factual presentations".

Now, I TOTALLY agree that this is EXACTLY what President Bush is accused of doing - trumping up the case of a threat he fully believes in order to bring about results which critics view critically. However, Taranto's light-hearted treatment of the costs is way off base. Currently, the U.S. auto industry and the economics of the various rust-belt states, our own in particular, are being devastated. Who's the biggest target of "global warming"? The auto industry. Not because they're the biggest emitters of CO2 (that's mother nature) or even the biggest product of human CO2 emissions (that's power production). No - it's because they represent the spread of capitalism and, with it, individual freedom.

So, what do you think the target will be of the "global warming" crusade? The auto industry. Why bother with building nuclear plants to replace heavily polluting coal and oil power plants when you can just ratchet up the CAFE standards (which, incidentally, have resulted in a substantial increase in fuel use)? Al Gore's exaggerations about global warming are helping to kill U.S. jobs and, in particular, Michigan jobs.

And, I've noticed that John Dingell isn't doing anything about it.

Quote of the Day

Iraq Study Group Report, pg. 30 (PDF)-

"Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for catastrophe, and the role and commitments of the United States in initiating events that have lead to the current situation, we believe it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitate withdrawal of troops and support. A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of the adverse consequences outlined above. The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return."

Stop the War

"If you want peace, stop funding the war." - Dennis Kucinich

That's the thinking behind the Democrats' inclusion of an Unconstitutional provision in a bill that passed the House today. According to their line of thinking, if the U.S. troops are removed from Iraq then magically the Sunnis and Shiites will stop trying to kill each other. After all, the only reason that they're killing each other is because the U.S. has troops in Iraq. Al Qaeda will just magically stop wanting to overthrow the democratic government of Iraq because the only reason they don't like having a democratic government in Iraq is because the U.S. has troops in Iraq. The Baathists will magically stop trying to put into power a Saddam-like dictator because the only reason they want a dictator is because the U.S. has troops in Iraq.

I could go on for hours on this because I'm that angry. Instead, I'll just say two words: Khmer Rouges.

More Al Gore...

Al Gore in his testimony:

The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don't say, "well, I read a science fiction novel that tells me it's not a problem." If the crib's on fire, you don't speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You take action.

I'll just also say this: if you have an issue which has the potential to either (1) cripple the economy while diverting funds from humanitarian threats such as African disease, poverty, and famine or environmental threats such as smog, acid rain, and heavy metal emissions; or, on the other extreme (2) destroy the world in a never-in-the-history-of-the-Earth-before-seen ball of fire then you don't say, "well, I saw a movie that tells me it's a problem" particularly when it's by a guy who admits he exaggerates the threat, uses pictures of expansion of the southern ice cap to demonstrate recession of the northern ice cap, and has absolutely no academic credentials whatsoever.

This was really bugging me last night and, frankly, made it difficult to sleep. If there is such an overwhelming consensus among the "scientific community" (which, ironically, apparently includes economists and social scientists who just happen to agree with the idea and excludes geologists and meteorologists who happen to disagree with it) then why not have someone with actual scientific and academic credentials come in? I don't see why a guy with 30 year old degrees in journalism and law is any more reputable than the medical doctor he slams in the above quote. Was it really that difficult to find the phone number to the Union of Concerned Scientists? These are actual academics with actual credentials who actually study the issue who are purportedly on Gore's side. The difference, of course, is that even the extremists in the UCS aren't nearly as far flung as Al Gore.

Quote of the Day

Benjamin Wittes, writing in the New Republic (registration required) -

But, critically, judges shouldn't be in charge of stripping disfavored rights from the Constitution. If the courts can simply make gun rights disappear, what happens when the First Amendment becomes embarrassing or inconvenient? It corrodes the very idea of a written Constitution becomes, in practice, the opposite of what its text says. The great beauty of the Constitution is that, unlike, say, the treaties that form the European Union, you can actually read it. You can see how its language embodies principles that still animate the day-to-day operation of American political life. When that is no longer the case, American democracy suffers; it gets unmoored from its source of legitimacy.

Most interestingly, Wittes is writing an article in response to the Federal Appeals Court striking down a D.C. law stridently restricting gun rights where he agrees with the original gun-control law being struck down. However, unlike what has become standard in liberal elite circles these days where courts imagine things into the Constitution which aren't there or imagine things out of the constitution which are there, he flatly agrees that legal precedent and the text of the Constitution both provide for a right for the citizenry to bear arms - a right he feels the citizens should not have, incidentally. He feels, however, that the correct way to go about this is to amend the Constitution and appeal the 2nd Amendment, not to have courts imagine provisions out of the Constitution that are there. Another interesting quote, although taken so ridiculously out of context that I cannot be sure that this was the actual meaning of the author or an ironic means to get another's point across: "the people's right to 'keep and bear arms' may actually include an individual right to, well, keep or bear a gun."

Either way, it's nice to see people have a different view on a topic but not try to imagine things that aren't there.

Athletics Over Academics

Looks like the University of Michigan coach Tommy Amaker is finally on his way out. The only thing that might save him? His wife is a highly coveted professor at the school. Of course, not everyone agrees with the idea that the school should keep him in order to keep his wife. Drew Lane, of WRIF's Drew and Mike, this morning just made that point: he termed it "disgusting" that the school would consider keeping Amaker in order to keep his wife.

What a shame it is when a school like The University of Michigan might make a decision about the athletics department based on academics. Don't they know that the only purpose of the institution is to put out semi-pro athletes?

Quote of the Day

Scott Adams -

There are many things about North Korea. The national color is gray. Their Dear Leader is a cross between a Chia Pet and a douche bag.

National Disaster Relief

Trudy on WRIF's Drew and Mike was just commenting about the national disaster relief fund that's nearly bankrupt and asked what money would be available for people in the wake of a disaster if they need money to make repairs.

If people "need money to make repairs" in light of a natural disaster then they need to buy insurance. I am sick of these idiots who live in areas they cannot afford to live in, make up the difference by not purchasing insurance, and then expect the taxpayers to bail them out. The people in New Orleans choose not to buy flood insurance; it is not the responsibility of the taxpayer to make up for their stupidity. The people in southern California live right on a fault line. If they choose not to buy earthquake insurance, the taxpayer should not be responsible for covering their costs. If people want to live in these ridiculously dangerous areas then they need to either pay for insurance premiums or realize that when the inevitable natural disaster comes they will be on their own.

The moral of this story - if you live in a flood zone, buy flood insurance. If you live in an earthquake zone, buy earthquake insurance. If you live in a high-wind zone, buy windstorm insurance. If you cannot afford the insurance, don't live there. The cost of insurance is a part of the economic system that discourages stupid behavior. If society continues to bail people out or subsidizes their insurance when they build a mansion on a fault line or a house in a high flood zone, then we only encourage loss of life and property damage. If the cost of living there, including the cost of insurance, is high then these people won't live there and will move somewhere they can afford, thus saving lives and property.

Quote of the Day

From slate.com's kausfiles:

Great Moments in Public Employee Unionism:

Two L.A. traffic engineers have been charged with 'sabotaging intersection signal lights' on 'the eve of a two-day job action by members of the Engineers and Architects Assn., which represents 7,500 city workers,' according to the LAT. The Times says the two allegedly rigged computers to disconnect signal lights at 'four busy intersections.'

Union officials were unavailable for comment Friday. Robert Aquino, executive director of the Engineers and Architects Assn., did not return repeated calls. But in an Aug. 21 interview with The Times about the pending two-day strike, Aquino noted: 'Los Angeles is not going to be a fun place to drive.'

A new era

The Democratic "100 hour" list:

• They vow to pass legislation implementing the September 11 panel recommendations: That's a whole lot of stuff to push through. Are they going to implement EVERY recommendation? Even the ones they have political differences with? I can't imagine that happening. Either way, this is just for show. They know that (1) they don't have time to read the entire report in 100 hours and (2) President Bush will veto this, as there are recommendations that just aren't good recommendations. The idea is a nice, get-us-elected sound-bite, but there's no way the Democrats are going to just rubber-stamp an appointed panel's recommendations. That's not how democracy is supposed to work. No one elected this panel - why should their recommendations be anything other than recommendations? We elect Congress so that the members of Congress analyze the merits of the recommendations and turn them into law where applicable - not to just rubber-stamp every idea an unelected body happens to put forth.

• Increasing minimum wage: I'm against increasing minimum wage. If the Democrats want to help the working poor, they can do it better by improving inner-city and rural education, fighting the drug problem, and ending the drop in wages due to the work done by illegal immigrants. Either way, this is bad for three reasons: (1) Artificially increasing wages leads to inflation. This will hurt all of those already making more than minimum wage and will mitigate the benefits that those making the minimum wage will see from the raise, (2) Higher minimum wages always yield greater unemployment. (3) The vast majority of people make over minimum wage. This is another show issue, and nothing more. The only people making minimum wage are those working at small businesses, many of which will be put out of business by this law.

• Expanding stem-cell reasearch: I'm all in favor of expanded stem-cell research, but I'm not generally one for governmental sponsorship for research to begin with. I'd rather see all government sponsorship of research ended in favor of private sector funding, but as long as that doesn't happen, I'd be in favor of the expansion of stem-cell research. Doesn't matter, though, as Bush will veto this.

• Allowing the government to negotiate prices for prescription drugs: Another show issue, nothing more. at best, this is a short-term fix to the problem. Long-term, it could cripple domestic development of drugs. At worst, it's the Democrats showing their arrogance by pandering to people with the expectation that if they slam on "Big, Bad Business" then it will help them get reelected. Either way, this is getting hit up with a veto.

• Cutting interest rates on student loans: The only item which has a chance of passing. Personally, I'm concerned that making college more affordable is only increasing the cost of college. Harvard, for instance, has an endowment which pays out about $75,000 a year per student (undergraduate, graduate, doctorial candidate) in education expenses. On top of that, they charge about $48,000 a year in tuition to those whose families who make at least $50,000 a year (because a family can afford to spend more than its entire income sending a child to college, of course). They can charge the tuition, so they do, although there's no reason why the school needs to spend $110,000 a year per student on education (the difference is due to those who receive need-based and academic scholarships). Decreasing student loan interest rates makes college more affordable, so students can borrow more, so the schools charge more. In the end, the students will be making the same payments for the same amount and most of them will be graduating with degrees which won't help them get jobs. The government would be better off giving grants/scholarships to students studying degree-programs which will end up helping the economy - engineering, medicine, nursing, law, business, education, computers, applied sciences, foreign languages, etc. - and less money on 'personal development' degrees.

• Ending subsidies for oil companies while expanding renewable energy exploration: Gonna get a veto, wo why even bother? I'm against all corporate subsidies, but the Democrats hate oil companies so they may as well nail on them. Of course, if this passes it will only increase the price of gas. Not sure if that's their goal, but I'd be hard pressed in our local economy to do anything to decrease supply and increase the production price of gas.

Quote of the Day

From Gregg Easterbrook's Tuesday Morning Quarterback column:

My Name is Bunk - James Bunk:

TMQ got around to seeing the new Bond flick, which left me longing for supervillians with master control rooms built inside an entire hollowed-out mountain without anyone noticing. Supposedly for the latest iteration of the Bond franchise, the new producers wanted something akin to realism. OK. But if the new premise is realism, why are Bond and M discussing state secrets over a cell phone? And how can the United Kingdom still exist if MI6 is so incredibly incompetent it assigns just two agents to assist Bond on a big mission and both of them are actually working for the other side?