The Mild Obama

I often wonder how much Obama and his staff read actual liberal opinion pieces like Krugman's column, and, more, if they pay them any mind whatsoever. It seems like if they do, the reaction is more along the lines of "Ok, [liberal pundit X] just said [something sensible] so we need to go and do/say the opposite to prove that we aren't liberal!" And then there is cake.

However it plays out, Obama has been an excellent Republican president. A pretty horrible Democrat, but an excellent Republican. So, unless you agree with the "Moral Relativism" argument (I don't) I don't really understand how any Democrat can be even a little excited about 2012. Since Obama is going to be the "Democratic" candidate for president we already know that our options are going to be: Crazy Republican or Sensible Republican.

More on Banking

As much as I tend to hate on banks, I feel like I should occasionally say, "Banking is a necessity in our (indeed in any successful) economy."

We need banks and banking. What we do not need is a financial industry with so much clout and, one could argue, collusion that it becomes the massive GDP machine that it is. The large number of banks combined with the relatively do-little approach to earning money that they operate on should mean that profits are razor thin.

The basic principle is: take money from one person/group, lend it to another, charge interest on the loan, get profit in the form of interest. This is such an easy way to make money that the field should be packed...and it is! Now, I'll grant that figuring out how much to keep vs. lend out and the need to determine whether a borrower is worthy of credit are somewhat more complex, but by this point in time those calculations have been done over and over (not that they are spot on, see the financial crisis), and any new entrant banker can just take the safest approach to start.

The fact that there are many banking options out there and that banking is very profitable are at odds, and the resolution of these two things is that banks are evil...despite the fact that they are necessary and, in fact, good for the economy as a whole.

The "Energy" Discussions We Should be Having

The word "energy" is a bit of a problem in the whole discussion of energy that is forming up in this country. Scientifically, a Joule is a Joule, and whether it comes from oil, gas, wind, coal, solar, wave, geothermal, hamsters running in hamster wheels, doesn't really matter. But in practice it does, and absent a revolution in politics we need to be having 2 almost completely separate energy debates.

Whenever you hear someone talk about "energy independence" they are actually talking about oil. Oil is an all-by-itself discussion that has almost nothing to do with "energy" as people often think about it otherwise (the wall outlets in your residence). Our oil consumption is almost entirely dedicated to transportation, that is to say, petroleum based fuels (like gasoline and diesel). We certainly use petroleum for other things, but they are beyond secondary.

In this discussion, the single most important thing to know is that it is not possible for us to drill our way out of this. We don't have enough oil reserves to EVER be independent, unless we dramatically reduce the amount of oil we consume. This problem is then all too often tied to renewable/alternative energy, but this is also a huge mistake. A wind turbine cannot refill your gas tank...unless you drive an electric vehicle.

The only way for the US to ever be independent in terms of energy (oil) is to reduce fuel consumption by close to 90%. This is not possible without some pretty serious changes in driving/vehicles/infrastructure. Any time a politician talks about "energy independence" they are using talking points and not being serious (I mean any time, and any politician). Energy independence is a rouse, because the only serious answer is to stop driving petroleum burning vehicles, and no politician would ever dare suggest that.

The second discussion has to do with energy in the form of electricity generation. This is where renewable and clean energy come into play. This discussion has nothing to do with energy independence (we produce lots of coal and natural gas and do our own nuclear and harness our own wind and geothermal and sunshine) but about environmental and economics issues.

Dealing with this side of the energy coin is not as straightforward. When it comes to oil and independence it's pretty easy: we don't have enough so the only way to become independent is to use much less. On this other side of the energy equation, we have a massive economy, and lots of resources, but we also have environmental concerns and a potentially larger economy and the real problem of sustainability going forward. The ideal solution would be to transition "dirty" power generation to "clean" generation in a nice seamless way. Of course that isn't possible, and seamless would mean very slow and that may not be a good idea.

There are arguments about what "clean" energy is and can be with some people claiming coal can be clean (probably not), others who complain that dams destroy ecosystems (they do, but may not need to...and it may not be too bad anyway), and still others who think that wind turbines kill birds (seriously?). Just to be clear, there is no such thing as zero impact energy generation. If we claim energy from some source that is removing some fraction of the energy that would have been dissipated/taken up differently.

Then there are arguments about what it will mean to the economy. Transitioning energy generation and transmission in this country will create new jobs/industries and we will destroy existing jobs/industries. The actual impact is a lot easier to figure in the destroy category, since we know what those industries are, who they employ and how much GDP they generate. Any attempt to figure how big the new industries will be is a guess. It may be a good guess, but it is still a guess. More it isn't concrete. You can't point to a 5 year old and say "That child will have a six figure salary in the new energy economy, but will be lucky to get a $40k/year job otherwise," but you can look at some child's father and say "You will be without a job in x years if we go forward, and you will need to figure out how to do something different."

Those are the two overarching discussions 1) Oil, 2) The Grid. The first is easy enough to deal with in principle, but no one in a position of power is or will do anything about it. The easiest thing to do here would be to have gasoline cost $8/gal...again easy from the "fix" perspective not the people perspective. The second is difficult in all aspects. It is hard to lay out the problems and the solutions. It is hard to determine which way forward is/would be best, and it is very hard to figure out how to deal with the negative consequences either way.

Ah, Moral Relativism

I'm not sure if Mark really gets what he's saying or not, but, if he is himself a liberal, then his advocacy in this column represents a huge win for conservative ideology.

Short explanation: you can play his game and substitute Mitt Romney for Obama against a whole slew of other potential GOP candidates and your conclusion would be the same "The others are so bad that really Romney is a blessing for liberals!" Again, I don't know if he doesn't understand this or just doesn't care, but it's about the best guaranteed losing strategy the left in this country could go with.

How to fix the mortgage mess?

If you are John Stumpf of Wells Fargo the answer is: well, never actually given, despite that being, you know, the title of the piece.

He talks around why you can't just hop back to the way things were done 30+ years ago, but that's it. He says government should do something. OK...like what? And that banks and homebuyers should all have more "skin in the game"...probably, but he won't actually say to what extent.

Why Religion Sucks

This.

Ok, it may be a bit over the top for a headline, and is very Bill Mahr in tone, but one bigoted hateful pastor in Florida burns a Quran, and then a whole slew of violent protests result that basically give credence to what bigoted hateful pastor says about Muslims.

Here's an easy guide to are you, as an individual, an evil representative of religion or a good representative of religion.

Have you ever burned the holy book of another religion? (Yes = evil)

Have you ever attacked/destroyed people/cars/buildings because some jackass burned your holy book? (Yes = evil)

Have you ever held congressional hearings on how members of one particular religious group are out to destroy your country? (Yes = evil)

Note: answering "No" to the above doesn't make one a good representative of anything, just not an evil one.

Down Payment

I do not like the idea of bigger profits for banks, but I also do not like the idea that a large swath of the US population would be forever locked out of home ownership (if they want it) because of the difficulty associated with saving up a down payment while paying rent. Zero/low % down mortgaging makes it easier for people to enter the housing market.

The one thing about places like Patrick.net that really bothers me is the notion that many have that people who can't save up a down payment are deadbeats or spendthrifts and don't deserve a house.

Saving is not easy, especially on lower incomes. One of the benefits of buying a dwelling is that it becomes a forced savings tool. Especially if the total monthly payment for purchasing is similar to what rent was/would be, then purchasing wins. Low barrier for entry combined with proper due diligence by banks means that buying a house can be, for many people, the best way for them to save and prepare for retirement.

But not everyone should buy. Purchasing a house is something to be done only by people who plan on staying there for an extended period of time...the longer the better. A house is not an investment in the same way that stocks are. You can't really cash out (and to the extent that banks allow you to, you shouldn't). The "growth" potential is really limited to inflation only (though this is also the exact reason that people staying a while should buy...no rent increases).

In the end the way we have been purchasing houses on the social side has been bad. It was encouraged by banks that didn't see any downside, and realtors who didn't have any downside. That needs to change, but to raise the barrier for entry will exclude large segments of the population from home ownership...and not the right segments. People that move around shouldn't buy. People who live in one place their whole life should...the latter category is generally lower income.

20% Down on a House?

I don't know whether or not home ownership should be part of the "American Dream" but there is quite a bit of talk about getting back to the 20% down model for home buying. I don't think it's as neat as it seems. First let's look at this in a market without securitization...

Buyer's putting at least 20% down have more "skin" in the game. That is: if the house purchase goes south they are out a good chunk of their own money, so they are less likely to make a bad buy or to stop payment if house values collapse. Of course, if banks were to do their job properly then those risks should be mitigated anyway. That is: the lender, having lots of skin in the game themselves, should be unlikely to lend to someone who won't be able to pay or to lend for the purchase of a house with an inflated value. The caveat is that if a house goes into foreclosure then the lender gets a better upside (up to the loan balance), and is, in theory, less likely to lose as much as the borrower. So the house purchase is a lower risk to banks...and gets lower still as the buyer makes a larger down payment. In this market banks like buyers with more money down.

When securitizing loans becomes the norm, however, things flip. Now banks make a loan then turn around and sell it off to others. Banks are middle-men (middle-people?) who effectively make money proportional to the size of the loan (and the interest rate). In this market, more money down means smaller loan values, and more money down requirement means fewer potential buyers. Moreover, it is even possible for banks to make extra profits off the foreclosure. In this market banks have very little interest in making sure that the house value is appropriate or that the buyer can afford the loan...they have next to zero downside risk (compared with above). The buyer in this market (which is what we have now) is better off putting as little as possible down, since any investment they put in is risked and banks are not well incentivized to make sure the house is worth the "assessed" value.

Changing the requirements for securitization nominally protects everyone. People putting down 20% are less likely to buy recklessly. Banks loaning to people putting down less, when they cannot securitize them, are more likely to do their due diligence. So securities become safer, house prices come down, and people get mortgages they can afford. Banks don't like this model, and I'm not sure I do either.

Banks don't like it because they will need to do more work and take on more risk for less money.

I'm not sure because, while I like a more stable housing market, and lower priced homes, and safer investment opportunities, I don't like the barrier for entry. Now things could work out well in that low/zero money down options will still be available through mostly huge banks, and at higher interest rates--the latter of which I have no problem with--and the house prices should eventually adjust to the new reality and all would be well. I worry that banks will, instead, pretty much stop lending to 0/low down buyers.

I'm not too worried about this crippling the market (it might, I just don't care), but I am very worried about it pushing the wealthy and everyone else further apart. The median home price is ~$200k. For an average person to save up $40,000 for a down payment (never minding other closing costs) is, to say the least, hard. It is proportionally harder still in "affordable" markets (i.e. markets where the rental rates are about the same as the mortgage+tax+ins payment on the same dwelling). In essence the easiest way to get that type of down payment is to already have a house you can sell that yields enough extra to cover it--getting into the market becomes hard.

A housing market that really benefits cash buyers is a bad market for most people.

Not a Great Article

Kind of as a follow-up, I was reading this article on how bank and interchange fees are levied against the poor and pay up to the rich. I kind of get it, but there are a couple things that make the argument fall apart.

1. Banks make money by having money. When a well off person has $10k in a checking account then the bank invests that (nominally by loaning it out, though more recently by gambling on Wall Street) earning a return and, possibly, paying a pittance to the account holder. A 5% return generates $500 for the bank on that account. If they pay 0.25% to the account holder (common) then they are out $25 of that and only make $475 on the account--enough to service the account, and still profit. When a lower income person who has an average of $25 in their account, then the investment return to the bank likely doesn't even cover the cost to service the account. Yes, overdraft fees more heavily impact people with less money, but in the balance it is people with lots of $ deposited that pay for people with little...not the other way around.

2. If you really believe that evil banks are robbing the poor to give to the rich then the argument isn't that everyone needs to pay for checking, but that people should get the hell out of the worst offending banks. Might I suggest credit unions?

Banks are for-profit institutions. They profit from wealthier people by investing that money. They can't do that for the poor so they profit from fees. Credit unions are similar, but with the important note: they do not profit! Therefore their fees can be lower, and their returns often higher.

Interchange Fees

I know I repeatedly post here about banks being evil. I don't have as strong an opinion on the interchange fees charged for use of credit/debit cards though.

In general it seems that the duopoly of Visa/MC is a problem, and that AmEx/Novus (Discover) aren't really angling to beat them, but to ride their dominance...maybe because they don't service banks that stamp their network logo onto cards. But a federal limit to how much they can charge has the potential to damage the business in an unfair manner...one that will lead to my credit/debit cards being less useful in the future.

Maybe I feel this way, because I see a lot of cash only places around me. They are notably cheaper than places that take credit/debit. Now, they don't get as much of my business because I am less likely to have cash than I once was, but when I do, and when I need to get [food] then I certainly appreciate the lower cost.

Honestly I wish that a credit union like group would figure out how to push into the market as a non-profit competitor to Visa/MC, which I think could have a real impact on competitiveness.

NPR Thang

It would be far less frustrating if NPR was actually a liberal media outlet, but they spend so much time and effort going above and beyond to "balance" any actual liberal voice that shows up that it's laughable to consider them as a liberal outlet.

I know that when compared to the right wing crazies at Fox or the right of center CNN or the still slightly right of center MSNBC, NPR does seem liberal. Just like when compared with most of the GOP, the right of center Obama looks like a liberal. NPR isn't liberal. In fact, "Marketplace" is so overfull of right-of-center economic perspective that it tends to be a bit infuriating.

NPR is the closest thing we have in this country to real journalism available to the masses.

On the other hand, whether or not they are financed by tax dollars doesn't really get me either way. I think they need to be on the air, and I've no problem with tax dollars going to them, but if the tax dollars were to stop then maybe they would be able to focus more on the merits of a story rather than aiming for some false balance to keep a majority in Congress happy. (Note: I don't actually believe this will be the case.)

Follow Up...

If the hope for the future that was Barak Obama continues what were some of the worst things that the previous administration did, then I don't see much hope in his second term. Never mind the aquiescing to GOP talking points on issue after issue. Never mind that he has been at best a barely left of center president but all we hear about is "liberal overreach" when discussing the (barely left of center to just right of center to actually quite right of center) policies that he has signed into law. Never mind that a constitutional law professor has done a horrendous job of educating the public with respect to the duties of office, the responsibility of the legislature, the miserably broken failure that is the Senate (maybe because he was a member).

Most of those things can be discounted as politics and public ignorance. The treatment of detainees--including the not actually accused of anything terror suspects at Guantanamo as well as Bradley Manning and the pursuit of whistle blowers in general--is completely within the scope of "things Obama can do better" which is also true of Afghanistan. He needs little to nothing in the way of Congressional approval or support.

If Obama can't get this right (and based on my reading there isn't exactly a lot of fuzziness regarding habeas corpus, and the president--any president--suspending it is engaged in illegal activities) when there is nothing to stop him, when there is little to be gained by doing it wrong, then what hope is there for the future of a nation of laws?

If Obama can't get this right then we deserve whatever hell a GOP president would unleash upon us. Don't mistake my understanding of things. The present and recent past of the GOP demonstrates exactly what we would look forward to: economic stagnation for 90%+ of the population and the country, worse education, less preparation for the future, and a healthy dose of anti-science crap to fill it out. Humanity in this country and the world will be worse off with republicans in charge. No doubt. As things stand with Obama and Democrats right now, however, a faster death of the present means a closer rebirth to a new future.

Of course, I don't really believe that will happen in my lifetime, but as I've said about climate change in the past: if we are headed for a cliff, and one person wants to speed up and the other to slow but not stop, we are doomed either way, so go for the spectacle.

The other side note would be that this doesn't translate down ballot. As things stand, I can't vote for Obama...only Obama.

Disappointing

Considering his behavior since being inaugurated I'm not exactly surprised, but this is, frankly, despicable. One of the things I hated most about the Bush/Cheney administration was their treatment of terror suspects, including indefinite detention and torture.

I can't vote for Obama. I can't. I don't care who runs against him. He's lost me. This is more important than health care. This is more important than the economy. If we can't be a nation of laws, if people count so little, then all else is lost, so bring on Sarah Palin.

He Meant Fifth

This is an interesting perspective. Kevin Drum posits that there have only really been 3 GDP busting inventions in the past few centuries: steam, electrification, and computers. I agree, though I think he should add Germ Theory of Disease to that list.

I suppose it could be argued that it is a discovery and not an invention, but in terms of GDP it has been a monster. Longer, healthier lives mean more productivity, and then there's the entire health industry.

Non-Scientific Garbage

I liked when Mark Bittman wrote "The Minimalist" column, but I think that his change over to more political-food commentary is mostly good. Still, one thing that really gets me is bad- or no-science judgments about things...and food politics comes loaded with it.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO's) are a real touchy subject. The whole of the objection to GMOs is emotional, anti-rational, paranoid fear-mongering, and Bittman is no exception. In this latest column on the subject he is complaining that they are not labeled so consumers do not have a choice in avoiding them. So let's look at his arguments...

His first argument is "It’s unlikely that these products’ potential benefits could possibly outweigh their potential for harm." Ok, this is a garbage argument..."unlikely"? For reals? Based on what? Your hunches? Your extraordinary knowledge of genetics? That he would write this is embarassing.

He continues, "[the U.S.D.A. doesn't] want to 'suggest or imply' that these foods are 'different'," which is a pretty sound argument for the USDA, especially when his next paragraph starts out: "They are arguably different, but more important, people are leery of them." So, they are only "arguably" different, and people are leery of them, so the USDA should reinforce that "arguable" misconception by labeling them and making people more afraid of something that the science so far (coming back to this) says they shouldn't fear even a little?

He is making the USDA's case for not labeling GMOs. This fear-mongering is what the USDA is worried about. But he does have some real arguments...

G.E. products may grow faster, require fewer pesticides, fertilizers and herbicides, and reduce stress on land, water and other resources; they may be more profitable to farmers. But many of these claims are in dispute, and advances in conventional agriculture, some as simple as drip irrigation, may achieve these same goals more simply. Certainly conventional agriculture is more affordable for poor farmers, and most of the worlds’ farmers are poor. (The surge in suicides among Indian farmers has been attributed by some, at least in part, to G.E. crops, and it’s entirely possible that what’s needed to feed the world’s hungry is not new technology but a better distribution system and a reduction of waste.)

So GMOs may reduce damage to the land and reduce our use of toxins/fertilizers. Good. Maybe not as much as some claim. Still good. Maybe other advances will get there too. Still good. Non-GMO maybe better for poor farmers (at least right now). Still good. Better distribution/waste reduction can do a lot to help with hunger. Still, GMO's don't take away anything here, the only effect throughout this paragraph is the first one, so GMO's are...good.

Note: I am not ignoring the Indian farmer suicide thing, it sounds bad until you realize that it has nothing to do with GMOs but everything to do with megacorps and pursuit of profits at the expense of poor farmers. I certainly agree that the way corporations are handling GMOs (and, really, tons of other things) is ethically dark, but that is unrelated to whether GMOs are, themselves bad. So this is a rather random, non-argument either way.

But wait, there's more:

To be fair, two of the biggest fears about G.E. crops and animals — their potential to provoke allergic reactions and the transfer to humans of antibiotic-resistant properties of G.M.O.’s — have not come to pass. (As far as I can tell, though, they remain real dangers.)

So the biggest fears bout GMOs seem to be a load of crap, but Mark doesn't like that so he will drop in completely unfounded and senseless commentary in parentheses so that people will ignore this and continue to be afraid. And this is fair how?

But there has been cross-breeding of natural crops and species with those that have been genetically engineered, and when ethanol corn cross-pollinates feed corn, the results could degrade the feed corn; when G.E. alfalfa cross-pollinates organic alfalfa, that alfalfa is no longer organic;

um...So?...*Oh noes, my alfalfa is no longer organic, the world as we know it shall end!* (Of course it still has the other "organic" benefits, if there are any.)

...if a G.E. salmon egg is fertilized by a wild salmon, or a transgenic fish escapes into the wild and breeds with a wild fish … it’s not clear what will happen.

This last scenario is impossible, say the creators of the G.E. salmon — a biotech company called AquaBounty — whose interest in approval makes their judgment all but useless. (One Fish and Wildlife Service scientist wrote in material obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, “Maybe they should watch ‘Jurassic Park.’ “)

Ok, there may be a point here. We don't know. We never really do until after we experiment. That's one of the things about science: there is always uncertainty, particularly when going forward with something new. The ignored (by Mark) counter point here is: we are depleting fish stocks, and faster. We've already done a number on Atlantic Salmon and there is a chance that GMOs could help. It doesn't mean that these getting out would be good, but again, there used to be lots of Atlantic salmon, now there are not, so if some get out, they could either help the population or further diminish it...or do nothing. In this case however, even the bad outcome would have next to zero ecological impact because this species already has been/is being decimated in the environment. Still, this could be either good or bad or neutral. Net 0, but unpredictability will cause a skew a little to the bad. Of course this is still fish specific.

The subject is unquestionably complex. Few people outside of scientists working in the field — self included — understand much of anything about gene altering. Still, an older ABC poll found that a majority of Americans believe that G.M.O.’s are unsafe, even more say they’re less likely to buy them, and a more recent CBS/NYT poll found a whopping 87 percent — you don’t see a poll number like that too often — wants them labeled.

...and then more on this strain "we have a right to know" like Europeans or some such.

Non-scientists are, by and large, really, really, really bad at understanding science. This article is proof of that. If all the uncertainty was real and meaningful and there were sound reasons to not do GMO then the appropriate response is that the USDA should not allow GMOs to be sold to us, not to label them. Lables are appropriate to let people know what is in something, but if GM corn has the same thing in it as non-GM corn, there is NO DIFFERENCE to label.

Now there may be a real fear associated with whether the USDA is a capable arbiter of GMOs, but the fact remains that they are stocked with competent scientists, who could easily leak docs to the right people about corporations buying out the execs of the USDA and making non-science based decisions. I would jump all over that evidence.

As of now, however, the only REAL evidence out there is that GMOs are not different from the food perspective and that they confer some benefits to the environment over the standard crops. Inducing panic, and stoking Mark Bittman's and others' irrational fears by labeling them, in a total absense of bad evidence is wrong. Maybe GMOs are going to market with insufficient testing, and maybe Mark Bittman and 87% of the public don't understand science and GMOs and are being irrational paranoid nuts, but this article fosters bad science understanding and Mark should apologize to the scientists and researchers who are working hard to safeguard America's and the world's food supply.

Final note: no USDA requirement doesn't mean savvy producers won't start slapping "GMO-free!" labels on their food sometime in the near future. Then there will be the necessary USDA intervention to make sure that "GMO-free!" labeled foods actually are and a whole new fight will break out...

Budget Baloney

...or if you prefer: Bologna.

Lots of bait and switch. Military is practically untouched despite being double the rest of the discretionary pie. Increases some places are over-offset elsewhere meaning the only "investing in the future" this is really doing is net negative. Finally entitlements, particularly medicare, is untouched. I'm not sure that could be otherwise as making changes in mandatory spending would require additional laws be passed first (I think?), but others are huffy about it so maybe the presidential budget is the equivalent of a 12 year old's letter to Santa.

Lots of harping from Republicans about social security which is NOT a real problem, and from Democrats about cutting good things (heating assistance for the poor) while leaving other things (military) pretty much untouched.

Maybe it's a starting point and maybe Obama is being very clever and trying to tempt Republicans into actual governing, or maybe it's just more of the same politics crap where no one says what they want or mean and hope that people assume what they want rather than go with what's there. No matter what I don't like it. If Obama thinks the deficit is an issue he should have released a budget that actually did something about it. If he thinks that "investing in the future" is important he should have released a budget that DID THAT. This budget just tells me that he (still) thinks that political gamesmanship is more important than anything else. Particularly that it is more important than actually leading what with him being President of the United States and all.

Bicycle Commuting

When I lived in Chicago I bicycled to work just about every day. It was a commute of just over 3 miles and Chicago is about as flat as a city can get on a round planet. Depending on weather it would take me between 15 and 30 min to get to work (it wasn't really possible to go fast in some places and I had a mountain, not road bike).

I loved doing it. I would still love doing it except for a couple things: I now live near 10 miles from work and PA has hills. This isn't to say that it is a bad or a long bike ride, but that it would likely take me near an hour to get to or from work on a good day and could take over an hour and a half on a bad day. The route would also be more dangerous, and I would likely arrive in need of a shower and a change of clothes.

The biggest hangup is the time, though. One hour round trip commute on a train where I can read is good. 40-50 min round trip in the car where I can stop off at a store on my way home is good. 2+ hours round trip every day on a bike along with the prep/cleanup required would only work if I had zero other responsibilities. I don't.

Bicycle commuting works under certain circumstances: one way distance of <5 mi (depending on route/hills/traffic), a relatively safe available route, the ability to change/shower at work (or the ability to be smelly), and the time to do this. I'll grant that there are likely people bike commuting 20+ miles one way to work, but they must have more flexibility in those other things.

No real point I guess...

"Green" Vehicles

I wish I could like the Smart cars. They are lightweight and have small engines. They are small in size making them easier to get around in, particularly in crowded cities. But despite the things I want to like about them they are way too pricey and their fuel economy (in the US) is awful. You will do better buying pretty much any other manufacturer's small vehicle (Fit, Cruz, Focus, Fiesta, Yaris, Versa, Elantra, ...) plus most of those others will be more fun to drive!

Part of the problem is the insanity of US "Safety Standards" that rewards massive SUV's and tank-like Volvo's but keeps some of the most fuel efficient cars in the world out of our markets (city cars in Europe, K cars in Japan) and when we do get one (like the Smart, and soon the Fiat 500) it has had so much extra weight added to get it to pass the safety bar, that its big fuel economy advantage is gone.

That said, I do agree that weight is a huge factor when it comes to how "green" a car is. More weight means more energy equivalent to manufacture and, at the end of its life, to recover/trash. Smaller, lighter weight vehicles are much better in terms of overall "green" level, and so, despite Chevy's top man scoffing, the Volt is exactly where it should be on this list: 12th. 3800 lbs is ridiculous. Good mileage is nice, but the total energy equivalent that a car consumes also includes manufacture and disposal.

Side note on the list: Civic GX in first place? Seriously? This is not a viable commercial vehicle and should not be considered. We will never have the natural gas infrastructure to support these. Fully electric vehicles are the future, and fuel-electric hybrids are the transition (so long as it is much easier to get gas than swap a battery pack out/charge up on a road trip).

Tax Breaks: Welfare for Higher Earners

I think one of the biggest reasons I get so pissed about tax issues is the various deductions and breaks offered and how people who are so strongly anti-welfare have no real problem taking their tax breaks.

I recognize that most of these people are anti-tax and anti-redistribution, but even still, the honest (or at a minimum those who can think at least a little) will acknowledge the need for some taxation. There are necessary government services, even if they think that is limited to the military. So some taxation is necessary (again, they may prefer it be a sales tax or tariff or business but meh...). But still, if you want taxes to be fair, then you have got to eliminate deductions.

Tax deductions are welfare for the wealthy. Someone earning $75k/yr doesn't need to get an extra $3k back in tax refund. That money could be much better spent either by the government using it to provide for the well being of the nation (building infrastructure) or by giving it to someone who is unemployed, can't find work, and doesn't have enough income to feed her family.

Actually, It's Self Interest

A lot has been made of the schizophrenic nature of people wanting deficit reduction but not actually wanting to cut any meaningful spending and not wanting to raise taxes. Krugman piles on. I've got two gripes with this.

While it is certainly true that people in general do not understand where tax dollars come from or go, the results of the polling don't really indicate that. They indicate that people are, by and large, very self interested. I don't want my taxes going up. I don't want the government spending lots of money on things I don't like, but I do want the government to spend lots of money on things I do like. That's about all the polls really say about the general public.

Second: deficit reduction requires one think about both taxes and spending, and it requires long term thinking, not just next year. As such it is possible that one needs to add up all the pro deficit reduction position percentages, not look at where majorities for each lie. i.e. if 25% believe in tax increases and 25% believe in serious spending cuts and 15% believe in serious long-term curve bending legislation that really is not exactly the same as spending cuts, then you could have 65% of the population serious about the budget deficit, but no simple majorities anywhere.

I don't think we really sit quite like that, but I wouldn't be remotely surprised to find that a large majority who favor more/higher taxes also want more spending, and vice versa. In the end I think it is mostly point one. Deficit/taxes/spending/growth is a complicated mix and even well learned people disagree about what to do. As such, the sensible position for random person A to take would be positions that most benefit person A, namely: lower taxes for person A, more spending on things beneficial to person A, and less spending on things not beneficial to person A. Altruism/Patriotism may factor in to some extent as well (see military spending) but mostly it's self interest.