Spending Like There's No Tomorrow (The Cliff is Coming!)

The last US budget cycle ended September 30, 2012.

The facts as reported by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) appear in the table above/right (the table is from this WSJ opinion piece).

During the last four years tax revenue has increased.

Outlays by the government jumped in 2009 (a result of Bush addressing the financial crisis) and have stayed elevated ever since.

The real problem is the bottom line as it were.  Under all but the last year of Bush the deficit was a few percent of the GDP.  Now in 2008/2009 there was a crisis (which was averted) in the automotive, banking and insurance industries.

But the funds that were spend by the Federal government were largely repaid by 2012.

Yet the deficit and outlays have remained and now represent some 10% of GDP.

(To my knowledge the Senate has not provided a budget in the last several years.  These numbers are calculated after the fact and reflect what actually happened.)

Note that this spending is not like spending on, say, a house or other collateralized loan obligation where there was some asset to back up the borrowing.  No, this is like borrowing 10% of your income each year or month on a credit card.

Now what I find interesting is how these facts are twisted.

A financially illiterate fellow I know posted a link to this Forbes article.

This article in turn references a MarketWatch article here.

On first glance these articles appear to claim that the last four years of spending (including the last one of George Bush) show that the present Administration has been the most frugal in the last fifty or so years.

But a careful reading of the fact shows that this measurement of frugal spending is measured relative to the crisis year of 2008 (and the 2009 federal budget).  So you take the crisis year of Bush and then, when you spend a little less (a percent or two) you wildly claim to be the most frugal government spender ever.

During the financial crisis government spent on things like AIG stock, GM and propping up banks hit the federal budget deficit at about 10% of GDP.

But the crisis financially only proceeded on for a year or so.

Today all these funds are being (or have been) paid back.  And we don't need to continue outlaying money is if the crisis is not over - but we are.

During the campaign the current Administration claimed to have generated five million new jobs and that things "were getting better" and that it "just needed more time."

But the government spending has not declined even though revenue is increasing.

So only if you consider the current Administration relative to the peak the financial crisis is it actually spending less.

Clearly you could measure the spending of this Administration relative to World War II as well - in which case they would look cheap.

So a good crisis never goes to waste.

In this case the arterial blood of Lady Liberty is pumping out onto the floor unchecked through a severed limb.

But some cry "It's Only a Flesh Wound!"

The current Administration next plans to appeal to the populace for a tax increase (see this).

Revenue is already increasing (even though the financial crisis).

The problem is not that tax revenue is not expanding (its in fact expanding faster than the economy is growing).

The problem is that the spending is remaining at crisis levels without a crisis.

Most money spent has been repaid or is on track to be repaid.

So why are we still spending like we are in a war or crisis?

So the current Administration has fooled people like my friend into believing its the most frugal ever.  Mostly by making only clever relative arguments that focus on the fact that no one thinks about history any more - even history only a few years old.

My friend owns a business so I would have hoped he wasn't that financially ignorant.

But I guess I am wrong...

The reporting elsewhere, MarketWatch and Forbes, are simply what's called spin.  Spin relies on ignorance of the facts to change or maintain your way of thinking.

It relies on the reader not bothering (or being too ignorant) to check the facts.

The only firewall left between US and Greece is now the US Congress.  US debt is compounding at 10% per year while interest rates are at effectively zero percent (0%).

This means that financing these astronomical deficits is cheap.

But the Administration is doing this with short term (two year notes).

Eventually the notes will have to be refinanced at much higher rates.  (Like borrowing 10% of your salary each month or year on "0%" credit cards only to find that in four or more years down the road the "rate" jumps up to a more realistic rate (anywhere from 5% to 30%).

Oops!

But by then you're out of office and forgotten.

The cliff is coming!

Indicent Exposure: Perpretrators Controlling the Definition of Crime

 Last week I ran across an interesting situation in the state of Washington.

The story comes from KIRO TV on the Olympic peninsula (see this on the same story also from Fox News Radio and the Gateway Pundit).

First, some background.  In Washington there is a statute for "indecent exposure."  It's defined as follows (see this for the full details and exceptions for breast feeding):

"A person is guilty of indecent exposure if he or she intentionally makes any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the person of another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm." [ underline mine ]

Secondly Washington state also has an "anti-discrimination" law passed in 2006 (see this for links to the actual law as passed) that defines discrimination based on both sex (in the traditional external genitals sense) and "sexual orientation."

The law defines "sexual orientation" as "

2. "... heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender expression or identity. As used in this definition, "gender expression or identity" means having or being
   
3. perceived as having a gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned to that person at birth;"

and grants persons of any "sexual orientation" as defined above "full enjoyment" of  what is effectively all public facilities including public locker rooms.

The issue here is interesting because prior to 2006 Washington's anti-discrimination law prevented discrimination based on "sex" - which would mean whether or not your were "externally" a male or a female.

So in the case of using a locker room, for example, it would be clear that any person appearing to be a woman would be allowed into the woman's locker room and any person appearing to be a male would allowed in the male locker room.

Within a given locker room of either gender there is the expectation that everyone in that locker room would be of the same gender.

In the KIRO news story a person who is externally a male was discovered by the parents of a number of female children in the Evergreen college woman's locker room.  The parents were parents of children on a local Swim team that rented space from the college.

The issue here is based on the "sexual orientation" definition.  The "male" in the story "identifies" her/him self as a female.  "Identify" here apparently means believes to be because externally this person is a male and has male DNA.

The parents, alarmed to discover their underage girls viewing what to the girls appeared to be a naked man in the woman's locker room asked the "man" to leave.  The "man" claimed that he/she was being discriminated against under the Washington state "anti-discrimination" law because he/she "identifies" himself as a woman.

From the parents perspective they viewed the actions of this "man" as "... conduct [ is ] likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm."

Which clearly it did based on the subsequent actions of the parents - to remove the children from the situation, to complain the administration of the college, and to engage lawyers to make their position clear to the college.

Prior to this law external appearance determined the legal "sex" of a person. 

After the passing of the law the "sex/gender/sexual orientation" of a person is now determined by the person's "self image."  So while still appearing to the rest of the world as a man a person could now have access to woman's locker rooms by merely "believing" they are female.

There is no time frame or means "test" to determine this for anyone but the person making the determination for themselves.  So, for example, the person in the story could have "decided" to be a female minutes before the event occurred or years. 

There is no age limit either - so, for example, twelve-year-old boys could simply change their self image for access to the girls locker room - clearly based only on their own self interests.

Clearly parents of small children have no access to this process and would likely be suspicious of persons found in this situation.

The college's subsequent actions was to move the "swim team" to another, smaller and private locker room where only the swim team would have access.

The purpose of the law is to provide anyone of any sexual orientation "full enjoyment of" all facilities and to prevent them from feeling "... treated as not welcome, accepted, desired or solicited."

So one has to wonder if the female children in this case felt "not welcome" in this environment.

What's patently clear is that these two laws are clearly in conflict.

The new 2006 changes to the anti-discrimination law removes "objectivity" from all law, such as indecent exposure as defined above.

The standard of "affront or alarm" is now dependent not on the disposition of the "victim" but on the perpetrator's "self image."

For example, I could imagine myself to have no gender what-so-ever and walk through the world stark naked and expect "full enjoyment of" virtually everything society has to offer.

With the perspective of the perpetrator the focus of such situations there is no longer the possibility of, for example, an objective jury in a criminal action.  The "facts" are new by definition one the "self image" of the perpetrator which can only, surprise, be defined by the perp his- or herself.

Hence "guilt" in a crime cannot be determined by actions because the actions are relative to the perpetrators "self image" alone.

The result is that gender and "sexual orientation" are devalued by this law.

Clearly the college directly created a situation (by renting the pool to the swim team knowing full well that small children could be exposed to these situations) where a naked person of the opposite gender created "affront or alarm" (the children reported this to their parents as a problem).

What about the "sexual orientation" (or lack of it in small children as the case may be) of the children and their "right" to "full enjoyment."

Clearly that "right" was by design taken from them - hence it is now less valuable because they no longer enjoy it.

These laws are clearly logically inconsistent now and, because this law is new, there exists no case law regarding how to handle these situations.

Which exposes small children to even more jeopardy in this sense.

Must "full enjoyment" literally expose children to naked persons of the opposite physical gender?

These children were lucky that they were not exposed to a person that felt it necessary to self identify with some sort of violent sexual orientation - an orientation which is not prohibited or banned and clearly could be construed as physically threatening.

Like my posts on the failure of education and debt its clear that this situation is a similar failure.

Whatever you're beliefs are relative to discrimination laws that create purely "subjective" means to determine discrimination based on the "state of mind" of a potential perpetrator is pure insanity.

The Blue Skys of Mars

NOTE: For those that are interested in or have followed the content of this blog I am moving forward with the more intellectually challenging aspects of it at a new location.  Please contact me for information if you are interested.

I found a new group that's well beyond the ancient astronauts in terms of being out there.

One element is the "Mars has a blue sky" group.

There are a lot of other weird pictures of Mars but this crew thinks there is a NASA conspiracy to paint the sky red (as its often shown below).

Who knows.

But there is a related group that thinks there is instant and direct transport to mars.

People Who "Voted" Yesterday at the Polls (Not in Advance)

Check out these voters who voted yesterday (Monday):

Tough Thinking = Physical Pain: Does it Impact Voting?

There are some interesting reports out about mathematics.

It has been shown that in some cases the anticipation of doing complex mathematics (not  your 2 + 2 type of problems) can actually cause physical pain.

Its not doing the math that causes the problem but the anticipation of it.

The mathematics study was developed after those who conducted it reviewed a report that showed in some cases people felt physical pain in the face of social rejection.

Imagine this: as a child, for example, you are excluded from a family or school event for some reason - you're too small, too young, etc. - and as a result you feel physical pain.

You have to wonder how far this extends...???

What if a truck full of live fish overturns killing the fish?  Does someone feel actual pain on behalf of the fish? (This actually happens - see this about a similar incident in California.)

This explains a lot when you think about it.

I know people who are this way - they literally imagine their way into misery over what they think might happen.  Not over what does happen and not over actual evidence.

Of course on the other side there are people who don't feel as much, very little or nothing at all about involvement in social situations.

I suppose too that some people feel pleasure over mathematics problems.

In another area we now are faced with a critical criminal and social crisis: false tweets.

Yes, indeed, though its not even possible to imagine apparently not all people tweet the truth!

There is an article here.  The genesis was some idiot who tweeted about the NYSE being under three feet of water and the governor being taken to a secure shelter during hurricane Sandy.

The reaction was "OMG! False tweeting during a crisis!"

Its apparently associated crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

I wonder who's going to police this?

And what about the "re-tweeters?"

In the case of the NYSE tweets various news sources repeated them (re-tweeted).

Of course, the information on twitter is free - so I suppose its "worth what you pay for it..."

I suspect that tweeting is tied in with how people feel about things, such as math as I wrote above.

Nice happy tweets make you feel good.

Unpleasant ones (or ones that require your brain to actually work as it does with a math problem) probably hurt.

I suppose like the "depression hurt's" ads on TV a while back.

Which makes you wonder even on the political front:  Do people who's head's hurt with hard problems face them or run away?

What kind of problem solvers will you find - those who's head hurts when hard problem or those who's head's don't?

This is rather scary.

Would an electorate filled with those who's head's hurt with "hard problems" be able to vote for "hard solutions" without pain?

What about political tweets that make your head hurt?  Literally...

Do you run away from them or hone in on them?

Do you want people who's head's hurt from hard problems in charge of hard problems?

It also explains why "hard news" that is thought provoking turns so many away:  it literally makes their heads hurt.

Sandy: Freezing Citizens and Politics of Ignorance

There are more troubling aspects of hurricane Sandy and lack of preparedness.

One is the fact that tomorrow there is an election for President of the United States.  There seems to be a great interest in politicizing the hurricane in support of the current Administration.    For example, this article from the Huffington Post says that "... strongly suggests that it is the failure to stabilize the climate that creates the greater risk of an enormous growth in governmental power."

The meaning here is that left to range "out of control" the climate will force a larger government on the people than today's attempts at climate law.

(Of course this debate rages as the temperature in the Northeast drops and those without shelter, food and heat are left to fend for themselves...  Funny how smart people like Bloomberg fail to think through these sorts of details.)

Of course there are many, many discussions of climate change, pro and con.  But today, sadly, we have the added political element of Sandy: "Oh my God! Climate change has triggered a disaster."  (For example, NYC mayor Bloomberg endorsing Obama because he will address "climate change"  - hint, hint, its why NYC is suffering).

Though I have posted it before I post it again here for discussion: the Wikipedia post-glacial "Sea Level Rise" chart.

I provide it here to go along with this (as one of very many) discussions about sea level over the last 10,000 or so years.

Please, please read, study and think about the pro and con arguments yourself and ignore the "factoids" offered by the political machines.

The truth is that no one has a clear idea, except at a very gross level as depicted in the chart above, what sea levels have done historically.

We can reasonably know that when much of the planet was covered with ice the levels were lower (perhaps 15,000 years ago).  But there are many reason we simply don't know what the exact levels have been - even since the times of the Romans.

For one thing, there is no "absolute" scale from which to measure sea level from.

Our seas and land exist on top of large tectonic plates that move.  Left, right, up and down.  They float on a sea of lava.  The pressure of the oceans, atmosphere, their own movement, the tidal pull of the moon, natural silting activities related to rivers and so on cause them to "flex" and, for example, earth quakes are a consequence of pressure release of this flexing.

Their scale of movement is a few millimeters a year (these plates an be thousands of miles across in both directions and miles thick).

All of the land from which we measure ocean level is on these plates as is the all the seas we are trying to measure the levels of.

So the very first problem you encounter when "measuring sea level" is that what standard do you measure it from?

The underlying land moves around as does the bottom of the sea.

So how can any measurement which is less than this movement be accurate?

The answer is it cannot be - certainly not within millimeters.

Like global temperature its not really a useful metric.

Yet this does not stop people from Bloomberg from using it in a political fashion.

Nor does it stop those ignorant of the science and big picture from believing it as simple gospel truth.

Historically, see this article, hurricane Sandy had a moderate impact on the northeast.

However, today's disasters seem much "larger" than those which were in fact far worse for several  reasons.

First, there is more to damage today.  More people, more infrastructure, "worse" choices as to where and how to build things, and so on.

Secondly, we have extended the coast lines by building "artificial" lands out into the rivers and seas - particularly around NYC.

Third, there is more "news" today - more companies vying for more notice and more ad revenue - so the disaster can profitably be made larger for the benefit of "big news" (on both sides of the political equation).

So any reasonably thoughtful analysis of the Sandy situation shows that Bloomberg hasn't one single leg to stand on when claiming "climate" is the reason for the misery in the northeast.

And, in fact, things he himself could control, i.e., building codes, expansion of land into the water, etc. somehow seem to escape his mind when having these discussions.

Which is worse, that Bloomberg foists this fantastical nonsense on the freezing masses or that they believe it even while freezing or walking up fifty-one flights of stairs after buying water?

The crime here is one of ignorance. 

Had the populous been taught to "think for themselves" instead of merely accepting random "factoids" as gospel truth things might be different.  Instead of having the latest fifty-one inch LED TV they might have had water, a generator, and gas handy.  (Or perhaps instead of $25K is student loan debt they might have had a vast disaster plan???)

The northeast has traded self-sufficiency for debt and comfort.

Climate blame is merely a hand-wave to distract the ignorant masses from grasping the fact that for the last few decades they've been sold a useless "bill of goods" relative to their safety and security.

Sandy: The Reality of Not Being Prepared Revealed

So yesterday I talked a bit about preparedness. 

So let's see where things are four days in after Sand (the 72 hour "grace" period of civilization has worn off)...

(In no particular order...)

FEMA, which has many large power generators, has managed to deploy one (yes, count'm one) in Connecticut (see this).  There are still some 300,000 people without power in Connecticut.  FEMA said some four power generators were installed in NJ as of Thursday.

In New York it will be ten more days until power is restored.  Hospitals are evacuating patients - apparently no FEMA generators have arrived (but don't worry, the FEMA bureaucrats are busy decided who can use what generators; that will only take another week or two...)

In New Jersey non-union power crews who were specifically invited to Sea Side New Jersey were turned away because they are non-union (see this).

The bottom line is many are facing two weeks without power.

Next is looting.  And these days its not just a brick through the local TV store window. 

First there's grandma.  More than likely that senior high-rise is full of pain killers - lots of them.  Seniors fear being attacked for this reason.

Google "ny looters " for hundreds of thousands of links.

Looters have broken into pharmacies, food stores, and so on.

Residents of Staten Island (one of the five NYC boroughs) are pleading for food and clothing.

Then there are the miles-long gas lines (links to stories, images, info on fights, etc.).  Note that without power most gas stations cannot function so people move to stations along the NJ Turnpike that are known to be open.

Part of the problem is that like California NJ and NY require special gas.   This is refined locally.  However, Sandy has knocked out the power to these refineries.  Governor Christie has waved requirements that special gas be used but there are still shortages.

Perhaps 50% of gas stations in NY and NJ are open.

While the news calls this a "super storm" remember that Sandy was only a Category 1 storm when it made landfall.  (Katrina was a Category 4.)

NY and NJ are lucky the storm was not more intense.

People in NYC are left walking up 51 flights of stairs in high-rise buildings where generators are not present or have failed.  (You need to go out for water and so on.)

Seniors in these building have little choice regardless of their health.

Most stores have sold out of critical items like "C" and "D" batteries (see this).

At the end of the day big government is going to do little to help anyone in a timely or efficient manner.

So that leaves you to prepare for yourself if you can.

If you live somewhere where there is no hope of serious preparation, e.g., the 50th floor of NYC high rise, you really have only one option: leaving.

There was plenty of warning time so traveling to relatives or other "out-of-town" location would have been the best option - particularly if you lived where flooding was likely.

Similarly for coastal towns.

For those living further inland where storm surge is unlikely you have to assess what's going to happen locally: Will rivers rise from rain?  Will ponds or lakes overflow? ...

You need to decide if you can stay or go.

If you stay it seems clear that you need to be able to manage yourself for a couple of weeks without power (about the time it takes FEMA to get a generator to you area - and not that you could actually make use of it - I suppose you'd have to drag your fridge full of now-rotting food down to the local disaster center...)

This requires some planning and preparation.

(No one is laughing at "Dooms Day Preppers" in NY and NJ.)

There are all manner of related websites (see http://www.nycpreppers.com/).  Sadly this particular site requires you to be a member, i.e., have planned ahead, to use it. (I suppose all those nasty "preppers" are sitting smugly in their bunkers watching Fox News.)

In all seriousness.

People need to start thinking ahead about this sort of thing.  Hurricanes are not the only kinds of natural disasters: there are earthquakes, floods, storms, tsunamis, snow storms, bad water, bad food, and on and on.

Modern society cannot and will not save people - its mostly populated - at least from what I can see - with those that only think about themselves.

So you should too.

Not in the sense that you don't care about anyone else but instead in the sense that you must take care of yourself.

"No, No" you object, "I have no extra money..."

I doubt it.

Put away a few cans a week ($2 - $4 USD worth) in a safe place.  In a year you'll be prepared with food.  Ditto for water.

Don't have enough room? 

Then expect trouble in a disaster because yes, there is a price for you decisions...  Perhaps create a "bug out bag" with enough supplies to at least get out of town.

Big government wants you to feel comfortable with them in charge.  But remember, when the going gets tough no one at the government has any personal stake in things going well in the aftermath.  They are far away making decisions with zero input from you the victim.

And sadly, at least in NJ, your politico-union affiliation is going to have an effect as well.

I wonder, if anyone dies after the Alabama power crew is turned away will someone look to blame the local IBEW?

Nope - grandma will just die at home, frozen, and NJ will revel in its #48 out of 50 in creating new business rating...

(Note too that since at least 2005 there have been fewer than normal hurricanes.)

So on the one hand you can drive a Prius in the hopes that the carbon savings will prevent the next hurricane from damaging your home - and you may be right on there.

But I think the smart money is on much more direct and useful preparations.