Tuesday, March 02, 2010

Cruising the Web

Professor Phil Jones, the man at the center of the climategate email scandal, says that it is "standard operating procedure" not to release data to scientists who question and challenge his work. That's sure a different understanding of how the scientific community is supposed to work.

Mickey Kaus is going to try to get his name on the ballot to run against Barbara Boxer in the primary for the Democratic nomination for Senate. Good for him. He says that he wants to argue "against the party's dogma on several major issues" and give an opportunity for Democratic voters to register their dissent against the path that the party and Boxer have taken. He's an independent thinker who is willing to adopt positions such as support for welfare reform and skepticism of labor unions and affirmative action that are not where the party is. If he ever got into debates with Boxer, that would certainly be worth listening to. He'd certainly have the blogger vote.

Megan McArdle makes the unwelcome point that there is little that the government can do about long-term, massive unemployment. It's a sad fact that frustrates the obvious desire of politicians who want to be seen as if they're doing something, anything when people are distressed.

Harold Ford says he's not running in the Democratic primary against Kirsten Gillibrand because it would be a divisive and help the Republicans. However, he thinks that the Democrats are doing a lot of wrong stuff and he's ticked about that and he's ticked about those Democrats who tried to muscle him out and have now succeeded. Translation: he had no chance of winning and knows it.

Meanwhile, there are stronger rumors about Mort Zuckerman making a run in the Republican primary to oppose Gillibrand.

Ross Douhat sings the praises for Mitch Daniel. He'd certainly win in a landslide among conservative pundits.

Read Gail Heriot and Peter Kirnasow
on the absolutely awful Akaka bill that the House recently voted for to give Hawaii the power to set up a separate governing authority within the state for ethic Hawaiians that would have "the power to tax, to promulgate and enforce a criminal code, and to exercise eminent domain. Hawaii will in effect be two states, not one." There is no history within Hawaii for ethnic Hawaiians to have been a separate tribe and the island kingdom was, in fact, a multi-ethnic country that welcomed all immigrants. Now, over a century after it became an American territory, politicians want to create a separatist entity within the state. This is an absolutely terrible idea and would create an awful precedent of recognizing as a tribe what was never a tribe in order to confer political benefits. Our only hope is that there are 41 Senators who would vote against this atrocity.

Jeremy Marks has an intriguing essay at Pajamas Media arguing that it would not be in the party's interest to gain control of either house of Congress in 2010. The only benefit to the party's controlling the Senate would be in blocking awful nominations. It's a strange world we've come to when it would actually be in a party's benefit not to be in power on Capitol Hill.

Peter Beinart says that a photo of Charlie Rangel sleeping in the Caribbean could be the photo that sinks the House Democrats since Pelosi can't pull loose from Rangel.

Of course, we shouldn't celebrate the end of Rangel's leadership on the all-important House Ways and Means committee. The guy behind him isn't much better when it comes to ethics and is certainly no prize on his personality. When Congressional ethics investigators came to interview him, he was rude and hostile. And, it seems, not entirely truthful.

Cheers to Obama for supporting
the school superintendent and school board who fired the entire staff at the low-performing Central Falls High School. The President endorsed the idea of accountability. The union is furious, but it is their own fault for refusing to approve the additional 25 minutes a day of teacher-student contact time that the school superintendent was asking them to put in with students where only 7% of the high school students were performing at grade level on math.

Victoria Toensing explains the history of granting civilian trials to terrorists and why we should not do so for KSM. He would be able to have access to all evidence gathered against him and to object to any evidence that resulted from his capture since there was no warrant and no Miranda warnings. The Supreme Court has approved military commissions. Why not use them for the man who planned 9/11?

Bret Stephens explains
why Chile should be very thankful to Milton Friedman. And Anne Applebaum contrasts the situation in Haiti after their 7.0 earthquake to that of Chile after their 8.8 earthquake and, while not mentioning Milton Friedman, credits the rule of law, democracy, and economic reform for determining that the results from Chile's disaster are not as catastrophic for its people as Haiti's was.

Max Boot pays tribute
to Colombia's Alvaro Uribe who turned a narco-terror state into a thriving democracy with a growing economy. Unfortunately, because he has been friendly to the United States he won't ever receive the proper respect worldwide that he should or that national platform that Hugo Chavez commands.

Talk about leaping over the shark! Dancing with the Stars has released its 2010 lineup. How many people want to see people like Buzz Aldrin, Kate Gosselin, Pam Anderson, or Shannen Dougherty dance? Ugh! And just when you thought it was safe to venture out into a world where you weren't being bombarded by pictures and story of the Gosselins? Double ugh! And I used to enjoy that show, but this is just shudder-worthy.

27 comments:

equitus said...

The next guy after Rangel, "Pete" Stark, is quite a piece of work. Stand him next to Pelosi and Barbara Lee and you get a good idea of the sewer that is SF Bay politics. Must make TV proud!

Re: Dancing with the Stars. Well, I for one look forward to Buzz Aldrin taking advantage of 1/6th Earth's gravity. Should be spectacular. Unfortunately, gravity has not been so kind to Gosselin, Anderson, and Dougherty.

Oxmyx said...

Great job, as always! And your last item gave me a good laugh.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

sorry to make yet another off topic comment, but i wanted to haul this response up here in case our esteemed tfhr missed it before the post below that it originates in goes stale and disappears:

from the cbo forecast:

As we can see, this trend reverses itself temporarily from 2012-15, but the surpluses are minimal. By 2016, the deficits return, and begin to accelerate again. By 2019, the primary surplus runs $63 billion in the red, almost triple the deficit in 2017, showing the rapid decline of the Social Security system.

so, by the figures you've supplied to me, in the middle of this decade, SS is predicted to actually be back in the black again, for a few years

and then the prediction is that nine years from now it will be running deficits that will amount, in inflation adjusted dollars, to about half of what we've been borrowing every year since 2003 to run the iraq and afghanistan war

so, no, i'm still not terribly impressed with your predictions of doom

tfhr said...

TV,

Do the math yourself. More people drawing benefits and living longer v. fewer people paying into the system. Are you going to wait for the system to collapse before you finally decide that pyramid schemes don't work?

Tacitus Voltaire said...

Do the math yourself. More people drawing benefits and living longer v. fewer people paying into the system

please, by all means, tell us exactly what is going to happen in all aspects of the american economy, government, and demographics over the next forty years, since you claim to be able to predict the future

oops, let's see... there are these people we call "immigrants". you've heard of immigrants, right? why, i bet that way back there, some people in your family were immigrants from somewhere, too! imagine that!

well, you see, these here immigrants are the major source of growth in the american population the last few decades. and they continue to come here, get jobs, and pay taxes. all kinds of taxes, including social security taxes. oops - forgot about them, eh? too bad for your all seeing vision of the future

so, you see, other predictions show the population of the united states continuing to grow - adding more taxpayers, despite domestic demographics - for many decades to come

facts! there are more than one of them!

anyway, you said a few comments back that the overwhelming popularity of SS and medicare are not the same as financial viability. except that it turns out that this is not so. because, in the same way that we have been finding a way to borrow 100 billion or so every year for the past eight years to fund the war in iraq (and not paying back the principal), we will find a way to deal with the projected shortfall of 60-odd billion dollars that SS might face in the year 2019

and washington will be highly motivated to fix it no matter what exactly because it is so overwhelmingly popular

Do the math yourself. More people drawing benefits and living longer v. fewer people paying into the system

here's a hint: you have to consider all the relevant variables before you can make an intelligent prediction!

Tacitus Voltaire said...

Do the math yourself. More people drawing benefits and living longer v. fewer people paying into the system. Are you going to wait for the system to collapse

and, from a financial point of view, why wouldn't your logic apply equally to the military pension you are, i think, counting on as income currently?

or is it magic money that doesn't depend on taxes?

Pat Patterson said...

It certainly would be a problem if the military kept everybody for twenty years but they don't. Something like over 60% of servicemen never make it to retirement and are not eligible for any benefits except in a few delineated cases. And the pension payments are not income but are considered capital gains and are taxed accordingly.

tfhr said...

Pat Patterson,

Good answer but I fear it bounced off of TV's antennae. Clear reception is not his strong point.

TV might have an argument if immigration were controlled and if most of those coming here were able to take high paying jobs that would allow each of them to pour thousands upon thousands of dollars into Social Security over a long life time.

Unfortunately, illegal immigration is a tax on our resources (over $1 billion annually in medical costs alone*) and does not provide the answer to the Social Security pyramid scheme. Underpaid illegal labor also lowers wages for Americans. You need look no further than the construction industry for an example and that has an impact on Social Security contributions across the board. (or above board, if you like)
*http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/56809.php

Worst of all, the abuse of illegal labor often means substandard work conditions for substandard pay. In addition to being a drain on resources, it is morally reprehensible to exploit illegal labor. That does not stop an unscrupulous employer that can undercut his competition as well as dodge contributions to Social Security. Those employers that have accepted fraudulent documentation can very well pay into Social Security but is that an acceptable solution?

Pinning hopes on immigration for a solvent Social Security system that already suffers from an enormous unfunded liability is as fanciful as it is reckless.

For TV's consideration:

"The 2008 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached $101.7 trillion in today's dollars! That is more than seven times the size of the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national debt. The unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits that have been promised to retirees and what will be collected in dedicated taxes and Medicare premiums. Last year alone, the size of the debt rose by $11.5 trillion. If no other reform is enacted, this funding gap can only be closed in future years by substantial tax increases, large benefit cuts or both." http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba616

Where is that money going to come from? I'm wondering if TV is planning on working it out so all of those hard working software engineers in India can come over here, legally of course, and help pay for his life of luxury on the Social Security dole?

Tacitus Voltaire said...

Where is that money going to come from?

is your understanding of how the u.s. government manages the budget that poor? where did the 800 billion emergency dollars that we just spent on the iraq war come from?

Worst of all, the abuse of illegal labor often means substandard work conditions for substandard pay

oh, now you are on the side of us "socialists"?

Social Security system that already suffers from an enormous unfunded liability

well, tfhr's magic 8 ball that allows him to know exactly what is going to happen over the 40 years is really cool, but let's check in in 10, 20, 30, and 40 years from now to see if it is in full working order

in the meantime, tfhr, you do yourself a favor a learn a little bit about the way the government works

and, by the way - where does the money for your military pension and socialized medicine VA medical care come from? magic dollars that don't depend on the tax base?

tfhr knows all socialism is bad and will certainly collapse disastrously - after all, this must be true, because so many people have been predicting for so many decades that it will happen next year -

except for socialism that tfhr benefits from

oh, that's different!

Tacitus Voltaire said...

i mean, the irony of this is priceless! here is tfhr, a lifetime government employee, who says he is "retired", and therefore is now totally dependent on taxes and government to pay his rent and give him medical care, and here i am, projecting another 10 - 15 years of working, as i have done almost my entire life, in the private sector, and then communicating with my customers and working on further building my own business when i come home after my regular job

but tfhr is warning me about the imminent collapse of tax revenues!

well, you better get off your duff and get busy then, eh, buster?

politicians and others have been complaining for decades about how the government has been raiding the social security trust fund surpluses to make up for shortfalls in the regular federal budget. maybe SS will get a little back, now

Tacitus Voltaire said...

The other common prejudice is that immigrants abuse the welfare system. However, according to an analysis of the 1980 U.S. Census, 8.8% of immigrant households were receiving welfare compared to 7.9% for native Americans (Borjas 198). Is the difference of a few percent so significant? Besides that, "Some 11 million immigrants are working, and they earn at least $240 billion a year, paying more than $90 billion in taxes. That's a lot more than the estimated $5 billion immigrants receive in welfare" (Mandel 114).

http://www.letitbe.org/Immigration.html

and in the past 30 years, skilled engineers have been pulled (by businesses who can't find enough american engineers) into this country by the tens of thousands

it seems that about a million people immigrate to the united states every year. this has been for a while the major source of the continued increase in the population of this country

the UN predicts the decline of populations worldwide in the future. the united states may feel this sometime in the next twenty years, just at the time it needs to fund the pensions of baby boomers like me and tfhr (who still seems to think that his pension is different than other people's pensions)

the expected effect of this labor shortfall is higher wages for the people that do come here, and pressure and incentives for skilled professionals, such as engineers, to come out of retirement

tfhr said...

TV,

Your 2:07 post line by line:

1. Increased taxes

2. I resent that, TV. Conservatives believe that laws are meant to protect people and illegal immigration hurts both sides - citizens and aliens. Given your view, I guess Dems were in favor of slavery and still are. Hmmm, maybe I've stumbled on something there. Government dependency is a plantation all its own.

3. The numbers don't lie TV. All those baby boomers, like us, will be clamoring for the benefits they were promised and the sum total is enormous while the labor pool is not large enough to meet it. The trustees didn't lie about the size of the liability but there are those ready to lie about how it will be funded.

4. Read Pat Patterson's commentary on your pension snark. You should listen to me when I talk to you about the VA and TRICARE when I tell you that government medical care is expensive and has the additional financial burden of an enormous, costly bureaucracy and all the efficiency you might expect with that. Go visit Walter Reed and see your future on Obamacare. You really should trade your current coverage for the VA but before you do, make sure you take a big pay cut for the last twenty or thirty years. Live in rental houses for at least two-thirds of that and have your spouse restart their career every two years. Join the fun, TV! Uncle Sam wants you and with Obamacare, you won't even have to do a push-up!

TV, Before I joined the Army I worked in a savings and loan and I worked for the Department of Defense in a variety of non-appropriate fund positions. I even used to teach adults to swim. My life's experience is not limited to the military. Through it all I've managed to save and invest a lot of money. That's the money I live off now and in the future. My pension pays the mortgage and that's about it. That was the plan when I pulled the plug on this career. I'm getting bored already - and not just with you - so a new career will start when I find the right match in the right location. How have you planned for your retirement? You're not banking on illegal aliens to pay your way, are you? You don't seem that reckless but maybe unintentionally that callous.

TV, your post at 2:17 is incoherent unless you're saying that people serving the United States are not entitled to 50% of their base pay after they've served twenty years. I guess you'd better figure out how you're going to bring back the draft unless you plan to finance Social Security by gutting defense.

TV at 2:41 has found that the UN prediction of impending world population decline, said to be just as certain as it's perfect call on Global Warming, will enable him to collect his Social Security benefits on top of free medical care courtesy of the taxpayer because a million engineers will immigrate to America each year and their arrival will of course encourage experienced American engineers to "come out of retirement" to enjoy the windfall in place of the plans they've made to stop work at 65, 67, etc.

Maybe that's just a nice way of saying they will HAVE TO COME OUT OF RETIREMENT. Anyway, you need to set that notion to music because it already has a laugh track.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

the CBO estimates that the difference between SS taxes and SS outflow for the year 2019 might be as much as $63 billion. on the other hand, current projections also show that SS might begin to have problems meeting %100 of its obligations in about the year 2038

for homework, you can learn something about the way the SS trust fund works. if you manage to do that, then you will understand why the above can be true

remember - government and business finances cannot be understood with your 7-year-old's-piggybank view of budgets

Tacitus Voltaire said...

"The 2008 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached $101.7 trillion in today's dollars! That is more than seven times the size of the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national debt. The unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits that have been promised to retirees and what will be collected in dedicated taxes and Medicare premiums. Last year alone, the size of the debt rose by $11.5 trillion. If no other reform is enacted, this funding gap can only be closed in future years by substantial tax increases, large benefit cuts or both."

2008, eh? i wonder why the national budget hasn't disappeared into a black hole by now. any explanation for why that is?

and, i guess if ss and medicare owe more than the entire world, bush shouldn't have added on his medicare drug plan, especially with the provision guaranteeing that we pay as much as possible for the drug

please let me know when your predictions of the end of the world get close so i can get some popcorn

Tacitus Voltaire said...

1. Increased taxes

incorrect

3. The numbers don't lie TV

you merely don't understand them. maybe you shouldn't go see An Inconvenient Truth, tfhr - it's also full of GIANT NUMBERS and SCARY PREDICTIONS. i'm not sure i believe al gore any more than i believe other DOOM BY THE NUMBERS games

Go visit Walter Reed and see your future on Obamacare

what an "amazing" (*cough*) grasp of logic you have

TV, your post at 2:17 is incoherent unless you're saying that people serving the United States are not entitled to 50% of their base pay after they've served twenty years

nice of you to start right off by saying that you failed to understand it

what i am saying is this: SS is a pension plan funded by taxes. military pensions are a pension plan funded by taxes. if tax revenues are predicted DOOM! DOOM! DEMOGRAPHIC DECLINE AND DEFICITS!, what makes you think your pension is more exempt than SS?

oh, except i forgot - you still don't understand why the SS Trust Fund is more securely financed than the military pensions

Tacitus Voltaire said...

so, tfhr, i wonder what you think all the scary giant numbers mean? if you think that in the future there might be some tax increases and/or restructuring of medicare and/or SS benefits, well, that wouldn't be surprising since both things have happened in the past

so, please, go ahead - make some actual predictions about what will happen in the next 10 - 40 years. then we can test your theories against reality

i am often tempted to make predictions myself, but i stop myself since i can see that most of the predictions that people make turn out to be wrong

Tacitus Voltaire said...

How have you planned for your retirement?

what do you think? part of it includes not risking all of my savings in the stock market

you know, i come from a family of professionals - doctors, lawyers, and engineers. i was with my grandfather when he was 84 as he closed his MD office for the last time and finally retired. my father died at 77, and he continued to work as a lawyer until the last year. his brother worked as an oral surgeon until he was 80. my plan, which i recalculate every so often and go over with my wife, predicts that i can retire at 70 - earlier than anybody else in my family

professionals (non military professionals) don't get pensions. professionals don't get government provided medical care. professionals don't live on money from the government and get their healthcare from the government and then rant about how government pensions and government medical care are stupid and bad and will ruin us all

i'm really impressed with your ability to dump relentlessly on the system you live under and exemplify. nobody forced you to spend 20+ years as a government employee, so don't bitch to me about how much it sucks, ok?

remember, you are the epitome of the government and the socialized pensions and medical care that you hate

Tacitus Voltaire said...

Go visit Walter Reed and see your future on Obamacare

you know, i distinctly remember explaining what is in the health insurance reform bills to you, but you seem to have difficulty remembering things

the VA is true socialized medicine in that the government owns and operates the hospitals. the HCR bills that passed the house and the senate don't even propose to own or operate any health insurance companies, much less hospitals. the only "socialism" involved in them is that they propose to subsidize buying private health insurance for poor people, who have children who desperately need better health care

and who never seem to impinge on your self obsessed consciousness in the least way

do you think it might actually be possible for you to remember the actual content of the bills you are talking about? is that doable for you?

Pat Patterson said...

So none of your relatives in the field of medicine took Medicare, Medicaid or MediCal patients?

tfhr said...

TV,

These past couple of weeks have revealed some sort of anger and turmoil in you that we've not seen here before, at least not to the current extent. Every single comment you make is loaded with invective.

You dump on the military, suggesting that military service is not a profession or that we are not professionals, because you feel the need to insult me. You're so sad and surprisingly hateful.

You seem certain that the Social Security Trust Fund will last until 2038. Until then we just keep kicking the can down the road but then what? What do you tell the young people that are paying into Social Security ten or fifteen years from now but have no chance of receiving even a dollar for dollar return on their contributions? What do you think they're going to say about continuing to pay into a crumbling Ponzi scheme?

You asked for a prediction, so here it is:

This pot will come to a boil much faster than currently expected because the economy is weak and unemployment is high. Add to that the inevitable stress of millions of Baby Boomers, like us, reaching retirement, and you have a recipe for disaster. To stave off a certain collapse, the Congress will have to do one or more of the following:

1. Raise Social Security taxes.
2. Lower, freeze or delay COLAs.
3. Raise the minimum age to qualify for retirement.

Those aren't bold predictions because nearly everyone that has looked at this problem says the same thing and Congress has already done this before but now demographics render those measures to mean little more than band-aids.

By around 2040, the cost of running Social Security and Medicare is expected to consume about 60% of federal income taxes collected. You should consider what else needs to be funded while remembering that the US Government has made a practice of raiding the Social Security "Trust Fund" or Al Gore's "lock-box" when it has needed money. http://www.socialsecurityreform.org/problem/index.cfm

I guess all that matters to you is that you think you'll get your share before the house of cards collapses. You are a true pillar of Progressivism, TV.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

You dump on the military, suggesting that military service is not a profession

um, obviously not, eh? i took care to qualify "professional" with (non military professionals), since i specifically did not want to imply that military professionals were not professionals, but i guess this subtlety was lost on you. as for actually insulting the military, obviously i did not. since it so easy to see that this is not so, it must be the predictable symptom of your frustration with your own ignorance, which is amply demonstrated by this:

Ponzi scheme

i might have thought you were engaging in humorous exaggeration here before, but now i will take you at you word, and accept that you don't understand how pension funds like SS operate. this is believable, since you already admitted that you don't know how the iraq war was funded

By around 2040, the cost of running Social Security and Medicare is expected to consume about 60% of federal income taxes collected

:-) :-) :-)

now you went and made me laugh! i wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the above was so!! perhaps you could do yourself a favor and find out how much of the budget they consume now! geez, you are like some kind of ignorance generating machine!

listen, i'm getting really tired of trying to educate you and getting insults and temper tantrums in return. please do yourself a favor and find out for yourself:

1. how a pension fund operates
2. how the iraq war was funded
3. the meaning of deficit financing and how governments and businesses use it as a matter of course, with particular reference to
4. the history of the u.s. federal deficit, debt, and the percentage of the federal budget needed for debt service, especially from the time that the reagan administration began to use deficit financing on a gigantic scale, and how that ended up working well

DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE 'LIBERALS' WERE COMPLAINING AT THE TIME ABOUT HOW IT WOULD DRIVE US ALL INTO THE POORHOUSE

so, you see, i've been on your side of the argument and lost, 20 years ago now

jeesh

so, in addition to pitching a fit, you did answer exactly one question, which is your prediction about what will happen in regard to SS:

1. Raise Social Security taxes.
2. Lower, freeze or delay COLAs.
3. Raise the minimum age to qualify for retirement.


well, maybe. some (unpopular) adjustments have been made to COLAs over the years. the other two are unlikely, though, since these have proven to be extremely unpopular ideas when floated in the past. a much more popular idea, yet, still too unpopular to ever have implemented, would be to index SS benefits to income or assets. in any case, what you are predicting here is tinkering, which is a far remove from MASSIVE COLLAPSE, eh?

anyway, let me leave you this way, by restating the little homework problem that you ignored yesterday:

the CBO predicts that it is possible in 9 years that SS might be running a $63 billion dollar deficit of income vs obligations. yet, this statement is not incompatible with another government estimate the SS will no have trouble meeting its obligations until perhaps 2038, at which time it might have to find some money at the margins to meet %100 of obligations.

when you have understood and can explain why those two statements are not incompatible, you will have at last learned enough to stop embarrassing yourself

i'm out of space for this comment, but in the next one i'll quote and link an article that discusses exacly this

Tacitus Voltaire said...

This is the situation facing Social Security, and it is well known to those who have looked at the numbers. The program will take in enough revenue to keep all of its promises for over 30 years, without any changes at all. Thirty years is a long time—it’s hard to think of any other program that can claim to be secure for that long. Furthermore, the forecast of a shortfall in 2034 is based on the economy limping along at less than a 1.7 percent annual rate of growth—about half the rate of the previous three decades. If the economy were to grow at 1998’s rate, for example, the system would never run short of money.

But even if the dismal growth forecasts turn out to be true, and the program eventually runs a deficit, it’s not exactly the end of the world. For one thing, the Social Security system would be far from “broke.” While it would indeed be short of revenue to maintain promised benefits, it would still be able to pay retirees higher real benefits than they are receiving today. And the nation has managed obligations of this size in the past: the financing gap would be roughly equal to the amount by which we increased military spending between 1976 and 1986 (a period in which we were not, incidentally, at war).


http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/035468.html

Tacitus Voltaire said...

So none of your relatives in the field of medicine took Medicare, Medicaid or MediCal patients?

what makes you say that? of course they did, except that we weren't in california, so no medical patients

my cousin is currently a neurosurgeon in a hospital on the east coast, keeping up the medical tradition

Tacitus Voltaire said...

so, tfhr, i really enjoy attempting to debate with you, except that i'm getting tired of trying to introduce you to things like the actual details of bills, how pension funds operate, and deficit financing and the history of the u.s. federal budget.

so, do yourself a favor and learn about them, eh?

so, until then, take care of yourself, get a little education, and watch out for the ATTACK OF THE SCARY EDITORIALS AND GIANT NUMBERS FROM MARS

Pat Patterson said...

An eleven year old book review? Plus there is the minor problem in that during the period of 1976 to 1986 the military budget as a percentage was larger than military spending today. And that would mean that the Democratic congress of those years simply chose not to make the kind of reforms necessary.

Pat Patterson said...

Out of 25 comments here TV has posted 16. I think that is the eguivilant of yelling neener, neener, neener while someone else is talking.

Pat Patterson said...

Equivalent!