Planet Utah

Making good on a threat

I'm done with Sean Hannity. I said before the election that if he didn't shut up about Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, I was going to stop listening. Well, the election is over, and Hannity is still talking about those guys. He's now become the worst thing a talk radio host can become: a bore.

Beyond that, he has a major, undisclosed conflict-of-interest regarding General Motors. GM is a sponsor of Hannity's show, and he does endorsements for their products. It's interesting, then, to hear Hannity's decidedly un-conservative views on the proposed automaker bailout. Hannity says that the automakers are in trouble because of over-regulation and lousy trade deals, so they are due a bailout.

Now, maybe he really believes this, and maybe the fact that GM effectively pays a chunk of his salary and lets him try out their cars for free has nothing to do with it. Even so, he has an obligation to mention his financial relationship with GM when he discusses the bailout. I have not yet heard him do so. This leaves the impression that his opinions are for sale.

A guy like that isn't a guy I'm going to waste my time on any more.

If liquidity is the problem...

...why doesn't the government just lend the money directly? Instead of writing a check for $25 billion to a bank that made lousy investment decisions, why not take that same $25 billion and lend it directly to consumers, businesses, state and local governments, families, me--whomever, whatever--that did NOT make lousy investment decisions, but that now need credit and can't get it? Doesn't this approach still get the necessary liquidity into the economy?

Economists and other people with business smarts, please tell me where I'm wrong.

How about a gift tax deduction?

Everybody knows that if you give money to charity and you itemize, you can claim a tax deduction. A lot of people know, too, that if you give money in the form of a gift to a friend or family member, that money is not taxed as income to the recipient (subject to certain fairly liberal limits). So, if I give you $5,000 next year just for being you, you don't have to report that or pay taxes on it. I, however, DO have to pay taxes on it when it passes through my hands (just like any other income).

I'd like to see a tax deduction on gifts to friends and family members that works the same way as the deduction on gifts to charity. Why? Well, let me give you a real-life example. On a couple of occasions I've had friends tell me that they were a few hundred dollars short of being able to pay for something very important: tuition for a child in one case, and fees related to professional licensure in another. The consequences of failure to pay were pretty significant. So, in both cases I scratched out a check and the problem was solved. To me, that's no different from writing a check to a charity, and letting the charity decide who really needs the help. If I had written these checks to charity, though, I would have been able to deduct them. Because I wrote them to people I know, I couldn't deduct them.

Does that make any sense? It seems to me that the best kind of charity isn't really what you'd consider charity it all. It's friends helping friends, and family members helping family members. The government has an interest in promoting this, just as it has an interest in promoting charitable giving. Why? Well, if people aren't getting help from other people, they will likely turn to government. Plus, you might find that people would be more willing to make charitable contributions if those contributions could be made directly, to friends, or family members, or others in their community that they know and want to help.

So, I say we adopt this as public policy, and let's not worry about the inevitable problem of me writing you a check for $5k and you writing me a check for $5k and both of us getting a $5k tax deduction without either of us being out a penny.

The GOP could be better at the one thing it does well

What's the one thing that Republicans do really well? There are a few choices here. You might answer, "Run the economy into the ground, thereby delivering the country to young, attractive, charismatic Democrats with slightly creepy wives?" Close, but not exactly what I'm looking for. How about this: "Elect guys named Bush who start unnecessary wars with Iraq that in some respects leave the situation in the Middle East worse than it was before?" Also an excellent guess, but still not what I'm after. Maybe this one: "Nominate candidates for president who talk as if they were doing stroke rehab?" Mmmmm, no. And there's always this: "Run up massive budget deficits?" Getting very close...

Okay, here it is: They cut taxes. It's the one ostensibly "conservative" thing that any Republican knows he's gotta promise to do, and knows that he will be expected to deliver on. It's just a given.

As long as that's the case, though, why don't Republicans do tax cuts differently? Specifically, instead of offering relatively small tax cuts to 80 percent of families and relatively big tax cuts to 20 percent of families (the top 20 percent in terms of income), let's forget the top 20 percent and give monster tax cuts to the other 80 percent.

If W's first tax cut had been structured along these lines, instead of having $480 billion to spend on tax cuts for 80 percent of families, he would have had $1.6 trillion. With that kind of money, instead of giving a lower-middle income family a tax cut of $875 per year--or about 75 bucks per month--you could give that family something closer to $4k per year. That's pretty serious coin.

There are a few objections to this.

First, if you don't give the top 20 percent a tax cut, too, you're playing class warfare. Eh, I don't think so. I think you're playing class warfare if you raise their taxes and tell them they need to start paying their fair share. If you leave their taxes alone and say, "We'd like to cut your taxes, too, but we've got limited resources, and we want to cut taxes for people for whom it will do the most good," I'm not sure you'd run into too many problems.

Second, some people would be getting a bigger tax cut than what they pay in taxes, and that's socialism. No, not really. NOBODY would get a bigger tax cut than what they pay in combined payroll and income taxes. And you wouldn't be raising taxes on anyone to pay for income distribution to anyone else. And even if you did, that still wouldn't be socialism. Technically, though, because you wouldn't be changing payroll tax rates, you'd be doing an income tax cut and a payroll tax rebate. But I won't tell if you won't.

Third, cynics would say, "But Republicans are the party of big tax giveaways to the wealthy. If you stop giving rich people tax cuts, your party will come unraveled." I've got news for you, bub: the party's not doing so great anyway. Beyond that, the wealthiest people in the country actually vote Democrat; it's the NEXT wealthiest tier that votes Republican. So there's some of that rich guy vote that you're not getting anyway. And finally, I like the math here; reducing our electoral prospects with 20 percent of the electorate in exchange for boosting our electoral prospects with 80 percent of the electorate seems like a good play.

Footnote: Yeah, crazed conservative ideologues, I understand that governments don't "spend" money on tax cuts, and don't "give" tax cuts...they just let people keep more of their own income. But come on, this is a blog. I'm allowed to use a little linguistic shorthand.

Big Oil, Big Pharma, and now Big Supplement

I don't understand how it is that companies can make claims for their products that simply aren't true. If you watch television at all, you've seen that one company that advertises pills that "make a man larger." I've always wanted to be 6'1" or 6'2", so I gave the pills a try. Nothing.

Then there's the radio ad for "Ever Cleanse." This one pretty much tells you that it can't deliver what it claims to deliver, but it hopes you won't notice. The ad starts off talking about that stubborn belly fat we all have and can't seem to lose despite diet, exercise, and a daily dose of Adderall that we scored in Tijuana. Then it promises the answer: Ever Cleanse, which will dissolve 10 or 15 pounds' worth of undigested God-knows-what inside your colon. Here's the thing, though: even if there were stuff lingering inside your colon, which there isn't, and even if you could get rid of it with Ever Cleanse, which you can't, what does that have to do with belly fat? Nothing that I can see. And yet the ad says, "Bellies have been melting in record time..."

Why can't we shut these people down? Why can't we walk into the weiner pill people and say, "Okay, show me one guy whose weiner actually got enhanced as a result of taking your weiner-enhancement pills. Oh, you can't? Fine, then you're out of business. First, though, you have to sell all of your assets and give the proceeds to the millions of weiner-disadvantaged guys who have been writing you checks every month in exchange for a discreetly marked package that turns out to be full of nothing but you're-stuck-with-the-weiner-God-gave-you pills."

Why can't we do that with the colon spackle people, too? We did it with Kevin Trudeau, after all. That's why he writes books now; he's not allowed to sell products any more, just information. And he can't do infomercials for three years, either. How did that happen? The FTC said, "Hey, you can't go on TV and lie about this stuff you're selling. For example, coral calcium does not in fact reduce fine lines and wrinkles on Japanese sharks. So, why don't you stop selling all of your bullshit products, stay off of TV for a few years, and write us a check for $5 million while you're at it?"

How great is that? And why can't we give ALL of these hucksters the same treatment?

Footnote: Well, it turns out some of them are getitng the same treatment. See this Wikipedia entry on the makers of Enzyte (the "Smiling Bob" pill), and this LA Times story on ExtenZe ("Weiner Pill Marketer Faces Record Fine").

Should Janet go?

When I put myself in Janet Napolitano's sensible shoes, I think, "Boy, if I had a chance to leave AZ for DC, I would do it in an instant." If Janet stays in Arizona, she's looking at a more conservative legislature, a lousy economy, and massive budget deficits. What's more, she's already exhausted all of the tricks she could use to make the budget appear balanced. Now she'll be faced with real spending cuts, real tax increases, real borrowing, or all three. Given a chance to leave all of that behind and make a fresh start in a new job with a new administration, I'd be on the first flight out of town.

Up to this point, though, my Democratic friends have assured me it wouldn't happen. Why? Arizona is a state that Democrats think they can move into their column for good. J-No is a big help in that effort; she's showing that a Democrat can be centrist, successful, and tough. Plus, if you let her leave Arizona, the state is entirely in Republican hands...just as the Dems were starting to make real progress. Furthermore, Janet wants to run against John McCain for Senate. It's much easier to do that from the launching pad of the AZ governorship than from some cabinet post in Washington, D.C. Out of sight, out of mind. (Just ask Mary Peters. By the way, Mary running for governor in Arizona is one of the few things that could actually get me back there.)

Okay, maybe, but... If Janet stays in Arizona, not only won't it be much fun for her, it could be devastating for her reputation. She's already had a lousy year politically, with two of her initiatives not even making the ballot, and Republicans and conservatives showing gains in the legislature in what was supposed to be a big Democratic year. And now she has to face: a) a deep recession;      b) the continued decline of the housing market; c) the collapsed house of cards that was her most recent budget; d) nothing but painful choices in the next two fiscal years; and e) no money for any kind of progressive agenda. If Janet served out her full second term under those circumstances, she might end up with her popularity at all-time lows, and with little chance of beating John McCain in a Senate race.

Think, too, about her potential successor: Jan Brewer. I don't know much about Ms. Brewer, but my sense is that her taking over for Janet wouldn't be like Lou Gehrig taking over for Wally Pipp. In other words, I don't think the Dems would be creating a new Republican star by bringing Gov. Napolitano to Washington. The way things look to me, they might be saving a Democratic star from a premature political death.

Footnote: For those who are curious, my hope is that Janet does stay in Arizona. It doesn't seem fair that she should be able to leave without having to clean up the mess she helped make, and with her reputation largely intact.

Smart phones and PDAs

I'm a bit of a gadget freak, but I find that my favorite gadgets are things I can use in conjunction with my desktop and my laptop (and my other laptop). When it comes to smart phones and PDAs, I start having big form factor issues. Any device that I'm going to carry around has to fit inconspicuously in my pants pocket. At the same time, data entry needs to be easy, and the screen has to be large enough to replicate the computer monitor experience reasonably well.

Here's my experience to date: there are devices that pass the pants pocket test, and there are devices that pass the easy data entry/big screen test, but there are no devices that pass both tests.

I suppose I could just wait for the technology to come around--for someone to build an iPhone, or a G1, or a Blackberry Storm that will fit comfortably and inconspicuously in my pocket. But I'm also going to suggest a workaround: two separate devices.

The first device would be a very basic phone that needs only one smartphone feature: the ability to synch with my Outlook contacts. That's all I need. Shouldn't be difficult. (And in fact, such a phone may be out there already. The problem I found in the last go-around was that any phone smart enough to synch my Outlook contacts wasn't content to stop there. It wanted to be able to do a bunch of other things, too, which turned it into a big, bulky smartphone. You can, of course, turn a dumbphone into an Outlook-synching faux smartphone, but that requires the purchase of third-party software. So somebody just give me a phone that is generally dumb, other than the ability to synch with--or at least import contacts from--Outlook.)

The second device would be something like the iPod Touch. Unlike the Touch, though, it would need to come with a data plan that allows for 24/7 Internet connectivity (not just Wi-Fi). Then, wherever you were and whenever you needed it, you'd have the whole Web at your fingertips, and a big enough screen to make the Web worth having. It would also need to include productivity applications: a calendar, a to-do list, document/spreadsheet/presentation software, and GPS capability. To make data entry easy, it would need some kind of thumb-based keyboard. I don't care if it's a slide-out keyboard or a virtual, on-screen keyboard, but it needs to be thumb-based. Finally, there needs to be voice recognition software for times when I want to dictate a long email or create a new document. There's just no way I'm going to type a one- or two-page document with my thumbs.

Okay, technology companies, you have your assignment...

Footnote: I carry a Blackberry Curve now. It passes the pocket test, gets a B minus on the data entry test, and fails the screen size test.

In defense of "to be honest"

For about the billionth time today, I read a complaint about the use of the phrase "to be honest" in everyday speech. The complaint is always the same: "'To be honest' is a useless phrase, unless you're normally in the habit of being dishonest."

Correct in theory, wrong in practice.

In practice, "to be honest" is used in contexts in which the truth is normally avoided because it is considered too hurtful. By prefacing the truth with the phrase "to be honest," you are saying, in effect, "Okay, brace yourself...", or, "All right, you asked for it..." It's a way of saying to the listener, "I'm not a heartless son of a bitch. I know that what I'm about to say might hurt you, but I think it's important for you to know the truth."

For example, about 10 years ago a woman I had been dating--someone I liked very much--told me she didn't want to see me any more. I asked her why. She gave me some claptrap about how busy she was with work, how the timing was all wrong, etc. I said, "Please. Those are things you say when you don't want to hurt someone's feelings. I'm a big boy. I can take it. So why don't you tell me what's really going on?" Her response: "Okay, to be honest..."

She was saying, "All right. I'm going to be honest in a situation in which it would be easier for both of us if I were dishonest. But you asked for honesty, so I'm going to give it to you."

In that context--which is the context in which it is normally used--"to be honest" serves a very useful social function.

Footnote: Regular readers may recall a similar post on the use of the word "obviously." The standard complaint about "obviously" is that if something is obvious, you don't need to point out that it's obvious. Everyone recognizes its obviousness by virtue of the definition of "obvious."

I believe, however, that "obviously" is appropriate in contexts in which you want the listener to understand that YOU know something is obvious. Why? Because if you say the obvious thing without flagging it with an "Obviously...", your listener might think, "Geez, doesn't he know that's obvious?" For example, if I say, "This was a disappointing season for the New York Yankees," your average sports bar lunkhead will say, "OBVIOUSLY, Einstein." But if I say, "Obviously, this was a disappointing season for the New York Yankees," sports bar lunkhead will say, "You ain't kiddin', boss."

Weather must be totally subjective

We've finally hit hoodie weather here in Austin, by which I mean that it's cool enough at night and in the mornings to wear a hoodie over your t-shirt. Not cold, but cool. Brisk. Chilly.

Tooling around Austin, though, you'd think Old Man Winter had blown the house down: you see hats, gloves, scarves, and even the occasional parka. I kid you not. Right now, it's 69 degrees out. I just drove home from Krav Maga and saw a couple of people bundled up in full February gear. Weird.

Or maybe I'm the weird one for thinking that weather can be thought about objectively, using measures such as temperature, dew point, and cloud cover. On that note, before I moved to Austin, I studied the weather data for about 15 different cities. I found very little correlation between what the data showed and the way people from those cities described their city's weather. In general, the weather as described by inhabitants of a city is much, much nicer than the weather as documented by the National Weather Service.

Actually, that's true UNLESS you tell someone that something that is supposed to be bad really isn't that bad. For example, I've made the following remark to a few Austinites about the Austin summer: "You know, it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be." Whenever I've said that, the person has responded, "Well, you just got lucky; this summer wasn't bad at all. You shoulda been here the summer before!"

But in fact, this summer WAS bad...unusually hot, and every bit as humid as normal. I know because I checked the readings almost every day. But you can't tell that to people who take pride in enduring weather extremes.

Footnote: I found a similar phenomenon in the Midwest. Because of the snow, wind, ice, and cold, people in Michigan and Wisconsin thought themselves tougher than the candy-asses from Florida, California, and Arizona. Candy-asses like me.

$1.79

I can buy gas for that much today, just up the road from my house. This got me thinking...would it be possible to buy gas in bulk at this price? The answer is yes, in theory, though not yet in practice. See here, for example.