Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Grand Bargain.
As you loyal readers know, we've long advocated ditching the U.S. Senate altogether. If we can't get the votes for that, can we at least agree Louisiana should forfeit one Senate spot for 6 years as a penalty for Mary Landrieu's free checked bag idiocy?
The case against Democracy.
Dear Sen. Landrieu:
I saw a story in the Washington Post where you introduced legislation to protect Americans' inalienable right to one free checked bag.
You were quoted as follows:
“Many airlines consider checking a bag not to be a right, but a privilege — and one with a hefty fee attached,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who has introduced legislation that would “guarantee passengers one checked bag without the financial burden of paying a fee, or the headache of trying to fit everything into a carry-on.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/bill-targets-airline-fees-for-checked-luggage/2011/11/21/gIQAl5pHjN_story.html
Hey, great idea Senator. I tell you what else - I am sick and tired of restaurants charging for cheeseburgers. It is my RIGHT as an American to at least one free cheeseburger. Particularly in this economy, Americans should not have to bear the financial burden of paying for cheeseburgers. Too many restaurants consider me getting a cheeseburger not a right, but a privilege. And one they get to charge me money for - or as you might say it, "with a hefty fee attached." It's time for justice.
Now Senator, you probably think I'm not serious, and you're thinking to yourself that free cheeseburgers and free checked bags are completely unrelated. If so, please explain. Really, I want you to tell me how it's different. Otherwise, I look forward to pulling through the drive-thru and exercising my Constitutional right to a free delicious cheeseburger!
Regards,
luridtransom
Sen. Landrieu: Americans have Constitutional right to one free checked bag.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/bill-targets-airline-fees-for-checked-luggage/2011/11/21/gIQAl5pHjN_story.html
Too much carry-on luggage toted by other passengers recently emerged as the No. 1 complaint of air travelers, and with the Thanksgiving travel crush underway, Congress might consider limiting the bag fees that airlines can charge.
Those per-bag fees that airlines have been charging for checked luggage have led passengers to push the carry-on limits, slowing down airport security checkpoints and creating a mad scramble to lay claim to overhead bins once people board.
“Many airlines consider checking a bag not to be a right, but a privilege — and one with a hefty fee attached,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who has introduced legislation that would “guarantee passengers one checked bag without the financial burden of paying a fee, or the headache of trying to fit everything into a carry-on.”
The bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), would allow passengers to check one bag for free and prohibit fees for regular-size carry-on bags. It also requires that airlines tell passengers about restrictions on size, weight and number of bags before they arrive at the airport. And it mandates that airlines make public their fees for all types of baggage and for preferred seating.
Too much carry-on luggage toted by other passengers recently emerged as the No. 1 complaint of air travelers, and with the Thanksgiving travel crush underway, Congress might consider limiting the bag fees that airlines can charge.
Those per-bag fees that airlines have been charging for checked luggage have led passengers to push the carry-on limits, slowing down airport security checkpoints and creating a mad scramble to lay claim to overhead bins once people board.
“Many airlines consider checking a bag not to be a right, but a privilege — and one with a hefty fee attached,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who has introduced legislation that would “guarantee passengers one checked bag without the financial burden of paying a fee, or the headache of trying to fit everything into a carry-on.”
The bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), would allow passengers to check one bag for free and prohibit fees for regular-size carry-on bags. It also requires that airlines tell passengers about restrictions on size, weight and number of bags before they arrive at the airport. And it mandates that airlines make public their fees for all types of baggage and for preferred seating.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Big XII Time.
If Texas had to replace Mack Brown from within the ranks of Big 12 coaches, here's my list in order of preference:
1. Bob Stoops - The obvious choice. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
2. Mike Gundy - He wasn't ready for the HC gig when T. Boone hired him, but he's got OSU in perenial Top 25 country, and his Pokes have a legitimate shot at the NC this year.
3. Art Briles - This is a tough one. I think Briles can coach, but how does he translate to Texas? How much success can you really have at Baylor? Could be a disaster, but Briles has "tons of upside" per Mel Kiper, Jr.
4. Tommy Tuberville - Is Tubs a Poor Man's Mack Brown? Not much wow factor. Tubs would excel at winning 9 games at Texas.
5. Mike Sherman - Most of these coaches come with the question: But how would he do at Texas, with all the resources and attendant expectations? Not Sherman. I think I know exactly how he'd do at Texas. Now watch Sherm make me look the fool when he rattles off five straight SEC championships.
6. Paul Rhoads - It's easy to deliver a fiery locker room speech when your Cyclones beat the Longhorns. What about when your Longhorns beat the Cyclones? Rhoads is easy to like, but I have no idea how he'd fare at a high pressure gig.
7. Bill Snyder - Without a doubt, he's among the all time great college coaches. But he'd HATE the Texas job and would retire after Year 1. Wonder if he'd beat K-State? If I thought he was a fit at Texas and would coach for another decade, he'd be at #2.
8. Gary Pinkel - Is Pinkel a Rich Man's John Mackovic? He's had some success at Mizzou, but I don't think he's maxed Mizzou out, like Leach did at Tech, for example. I'll admit one reason for his low ranking is he rubs me the wrong way, bad.
9. Turner Gill - Just imagine DeLoss introducing Turner Gill as the next head coach.
Yahoo! is also home to Dan Wetzel and Charles Robinson.
That's more like it, media. Zachary Roth, blogger at The Lookout, a Yahoo! Blog, actually bothered to look at Perry's plan to ditch the Departments of Commerce, Education and Energy. We still need to find out how much the FEDS would save if Perry actually eliminated these departments, as opposed to reassigning everybody to other federal agencies. Is Perry saying we're just not going to have a Patent Office? Not going to take another census? Or is he proposing moving water around while spouting zingers about Washington bureaucrats and Federal Red Tape? I hope he's proposing to eliminate these departments AND their functions altogether. At least that would be a real reform, not to be confused with desirable reform. But merely reassigning government offices to different federal agencies is a total waste of my time. Not to mention ironic, coming from a devoted hater of bureaucracy.
Anyhow, here's Zachary Roth's article:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/rick-perry-wants-scrap-three-government-departments-mean-212919120.html
Rick Perry's excruciating brain freeze as he tried to remember which government department he wants to eliminate was clearly the YouTube moment of last night's debate. But lost in the hilarity was the question of what Perry's plan would actually mean.
Perry said he wants to scrap the federal Departments of Commerce, Education, and Energy (even though that last one eluded him for a while). So it's worth asking: What do those departments do?
The Department of Commerce contains the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which runs our system of intellectual property. Without it, America would have no way to ensure that inventors could fully profit from their inventions, giving them little incentive to spend the time and money needed for breakthroughs. The pace of American innovation would likely take a huge hit.
Commerce also includes the Census Bureau. The accurate count of Americans that the department provides each decade lets leaders and policymakers know how to allocate resources--housing, roads, utilities--around the country. And Commerce also encompasses the National Weather Service (NWS), which issues crucial warnings about severe weather like hurricanes and floods. When state and local officials make decisions about how and when to evacuate, they're generally going off NWS information.
The Department of Energy, created during the Carter administration, protects U.S. nuclear weapons from accidents or terrorist attacks that could release dangerous radioactive material, killing thousands. Without the oversight that the Energy Department presently provides, it would be difficult to maintain a nuclear weapons program at all. The Energy Department also plays a key role in funding and promoting the civilian use of nuclear power.
As for the Department of Education--likewise created under President Carter--its role is more limited, because the U.S. education system is highly decentralized. Indeed, Perry is hardly the first conservative to pledge to abolish it. The Education Department does have a role in shaping education policy, however, by handing out funds to states that adopt its preferred reforms, and it also enforces privacy and civil rights laws in schools.
Of course, Perry could eliminate the departments but maintain all these functions, by simply shifting them into different agencies. The Pentagon, for instance, might take over management over nuclear weapons. His economic plan, "Cut, Balance, and Grow," doesn't mention his plan to eliminate specific departments. Some agency functions might also devolve to state or local authorities in Perry's plan, but it's hard to see how major initiatives could get funded at the state or local level--particularly in rough economic times like the present. But we'll learn more about Perry's plan next week when he plans to give a speech on "government reform," a Perry spokesman told Yahoo News.
Until then, it's fair to say that doing what Perry recommends would mean either scrapping, or fundamentally reassigning, some key government functions.
The Media & Democracy.
So at last night's GOP debate Rick Perry has a brain fart and can't remember the name of the third federal agency he wants to shut down when he takes the reins at the White House (a/k/a presidential office).
He wants to shut down the Dept. of Commerce, Dept. of Education, and the Dept. of Energy. And on NPR and in the newspapers, the story is that Perry went blank on stage. Nowhere to be found is any discussion of his proposal.
Is that because Perry's so far out it we regard his proposal as irrelevant, and unworthy of discussion? Or is it because talking about what these departments do, and how much they cost, and the ramifications of dissolving them is toooo boring?
He wants to shut down the Dept. of Commerce, Dept. of Education, and the Dept. of Energy. And on NPR and in the newspapers, the story is that Perry went blank on stage. Nowhere to be found is any discussion of his proposal.
Is that because Perry's so far out it we regard his proposal as irrelevant, and unworthy of discussion? Or is it because talking about what these departments do, and how much they cost, and the ramifications of dissolving them is toooo boring?
It's my money, and I want it now.
We hear repeatedly how parts of the Affordable Health Care Act (a/k/a Obamacare, like Sharpsburg/Antietam) are popular with Americans, while others are not. Specifically, Americans like the part where insurers can't turn you down for a pre-existing condition. Americans don't like the part where everybody has to buy insurance (a/k/a Unconstitutional Mandate).
Shocking. Hey, I like the part of my job where they hand me a paycheck. It's the part where I have to work that I don't like.
Look, here's the option. Would you prefer:
(a) No denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions AND a requirement that all Americans must purchase coverage; or
(b) No requirement to purchase coverage, but insurers can deny you for pre-existing conditions (i.e. status quo).
That's the choice. You have to pick one of those two options. But, I guess it's just us and the rest of the 1% who understand that.
Shocking. Hey, I like the part of my job where they hand me a paycheck. It's the part where I have to work that I don't like.
Look, here's the option. Would you prefer:
(a) No denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions AND a requirement that all Americans must purchase coverage; or
(b) No requirement to purchase coverage, but insurers can deny you for pre-existing conditions (i.e. status quo).
That's the choice. You have to pick one of those two options. But, I guess it's just us and the rest of the 1% who understand that.
Wednesday, November 09, 2011
This Is Spinal Tap.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/jonathan_gurwitz/article/Turning-up-the-volume-on-federal-spending-2252487.php
Dear Mr. Gurwitz,
I read with interest your Nov. 5th op-ed column titled "Turning Up the Volume on Federal Spending." (See link above) As a Spinal Tap fan, I appreciate the Nigel Tufnel reference. That reference serves as a fitting introduction to your commentary on federal spending levels under the Obama Administration. The sophistication of your analysis is about what I'd expect from Nigel. It's not your conclusion I have a problem with, it's how you get there. Perhaps you are correct that deficit spending under the Obama Adminstration could lead to a Greek-style crisis in this country. (Obviously, the long-term debt/deficit problems and structural deficits existed prior to Obama taking office. You don't mention this, but I assume you are aware of this fact.)
In reaching your conclusion, however, you provide anecdotal evidence rather than analysis. Talking points over substance. Let's look at your discussion of the economic stimulus package of 2009, which you call an "$800 billion monstrosity." You note the stimulus package didn't hold unemployment under 8 percent as "stimulus fans" claimed it would, and it paid for iPods for Utah high school students. Therefore, I'm left to conclude, the $800 billion stimulus package was a total failure. You seem to suggest we'd be better off with no stimulus at all, though you don't explicitly offer any solutions of your own. You don't even attempt to address the ramifications of having no stimulus. Economists across the political spectrum agree that increased government spending during an economic downturn increases demand, mitigates the effects of the downturn, and speeds recovery. What would the unemployment rate be without the stimulus? That's up for debate. Was the stimulus package poorly executed? Also up for debate, though you get zero points for telling me about the iPods. Was the stimulus package a simply bad idea, or too large, given the already high deficits? Should the Obama Administration and Congress have let the economy hit bottom on its own, as we'd be better off in the long run despite any negative short term consequences? How would the current debt/deficit picture be different had there been no stimulus? Again, up for debate. But you didn't bother touching on any of these questions.
I'm not claiming to know all the answers. But I know when I see a lazy, mailed-in column bereft of any actual analysis or thought. Perhaps your readers don't want numbers put into perspective, discussion of economic theory even at a basic level, critique of opposing views, or your suggestions of what federal spending should be, what you would cut to get to that level, and why it's preferable to the current level. Maybe they just want a few talking points, some buzzwords, and numbers in a vacuum. If so, that sure makes your job easier.
Regards,
luridtransom
Dear Mr. Gurwitz,
I read with interest your Nov. 5th op-ed column titled "Turning Up the Volume on Federal Spending." (See link above) As a Spinal Tap fan, I appreciate the Nigel Tufnel reference. That reference serves as a fitting introduction to your commentary on federal spending levels under the Obama Administration. The sophistication of your analysis is about what I'd expect from Nigel. It's not your conclusion I have a problem with, it's how you get there. Perhaps you are correct that deficit spending under the Obama Adminstration could lead to a Greek-style crisis in this country. (Obviously, the long-term debt/deficit problems and structural deficits existed prior to Obama taking office. You don't mention this, but I assume you are aware of this fact.)
In reaching your conclusion, however, you provide anecdotal evidence rather than analysis. Talking points over substance. Let's look at your discussion of the economic stimulus package of 2009, which you call an "$800 billion monstrosity." You note the stimulus package didn't hold unemployment under 8 percent as "stimulus fans" claimed it would, and it paid for iPods for Utah high school students. Therefore, I'm left to conclude, the $800 billion stimulus package was a total failure. You seem to suggest we'd be better off with no stimulus at all, though you don't explicitly offer any solutions of your own. You don't even attempt to address the ramifications of having no stimulus. Economists across the political spectrum agree that increased government spending during an economic downturn increases demand, mitigates the effects of the downturn, and speeds recovery. What would the unemployment rate be without the stimulus? That's up for debate. Was the stimulus package poorly executed? Also up for debate, though you get zero points for telling me about the iPods. Was the stimulus package a simply bad idea, or too large, given the already high deficits? Should the Obama Administration and Congress have let the economy hit bottom on its own, as we'd be better off in the long run despite any negative short term consequences? How would the current debt/deficit picture be different had there been no stimulus? Again, up for debate. But you didn't bother touching on any of these questions.
I'm not claiming to know all the answers. But I know when I see a lazy, mailed-in column bereft of any actual analysis or thought. Perhaps your readers don't want numbers put into perspective, discussion of economic theory even at a basic level, critique of opposing views, or your suggestions of what federal spending should be, what you would cut to get to that level, and why it's preferable to the current level. Maybe they just want a few talking points, some buzzwords, and numbers in a vacuum. If so, that sure makes your job easier.
Regards,
luridtransom
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
F the Riff Raff and Absentee LLCs.
luridtransom is AGAINST that Family Dollar crap store going in at 2500 Broadway. That's a cool old building. It would be a great spot for a funkyzeit art shop, with lots of metal art and furniture.
The property is owned by:
WINDELL CANNON INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC
30045 FM 3009
New Braunfels, TX 78132
Worst LLC ever. But, I guess that LLC lives in New Braunfels so it doesn't care. Except the LLC's not even really in New Braunfels but out at some Tuscan-style ranchienda on 3009, so it extra doesn't care. Shame on you, WINDELL CANNON INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC.
The property is owned by:
WINDELL CANNON INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC
30045 FM 3009
New Braunfels, TX 78132
Worst LLC ever. But, I guess that LLC lives in New Braunfels so it doesn't care. Except the LLC's not even really in New Braunfels but out at some Tuscan-style ranchienda on 3009, so it extra doesn't care. Shame on you, WINDELL CANNON INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC.
Red, White & Blue, Mofos.
Country music star and registered Democrat Toby Keith has broken ranks with his party to support Rick Perry.
The 50-year-old superstar donated the maximum campaign contribution of $2,500, Federal Election Commission filings show.
http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/11/democrat-and-country-music-star-toby-keith-donates-maximum-amount-to-rick-perry/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)