Good article today from a columnist who gets it. He is arguing for the legalization of drugs for budgetary reasons. He writes,
"How many police officers and sheriff's deputies are involved in investigating and solving crimes involving illegal drugs? And arresting and transporting and interrogating and jailing the suspects?
How many prosecutors and their staffs spend time prosecuting drug cases? How many defense lawyers spend their time defending drug suspects?
How many hours of courtroom time are devoted to drug trials? How many judges, bailiffs, courtroom security officers, stenographers, etc., spend their time on drug trials?
How many prison cells are filled with drug offenders? And how many corrections officers does it take to guard them? How much food do these convicts consume?
And when they get out, how many parole and probation officers does it take to supervise their release?"
A Harvard economist estimates that the war on drugs costs 44 billion while potential tax revenue is 33 billion. Essentially the war on drugs costs us 77 billion dollars a year.
Now, there are 303 million people in the US and according to the IRS, 140 million people paid taxes in 07 (and presumably a similar number in 08). This means that the cost of the war on drugs is $254.13 per person and $550 per taxpayer. Violence in Mexico and the US would decrease if drugs were sold in liquor stores and not in back alleys street corners to be fought over. The temptation for public officials to accept bribes and aid in the drug trade in Mexico, the US, or anywhere else is gone.
We've been reading about what lousy shape our economy is in and how no one has any money, wouldn't it be nice if everyone had an extra $254.13 in their pockets?
Its time to cut our losses in the war on drugs. No one wins.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Bank Bailout
Big news out of the Obama administration yesterday. The Treasury announced the bank bailout details. I've always had mixed feeling on bailing out banks. Its important that banks don't seal themselves in and protect against more losses by not lending, a fluid credit market is super important.
This is the plan. Banks will offer the assets (risky home loans) they don't want up for auction. Assume that the loans were worth a million dollars if there was no risk. The collection of assets will go to auction where asset management companies can bid on them.
The banks only want to clear the riskiest assets so the assets will be worth considerably less than the million dollars because of the high risk of default. Let say the bidding reaches $100,000. The government will pay over 90% the whole cost of the loan while the private company assumes only minimal risk.
Now I don't know all the details, but I assume the asset management company would be allowed to renegotiate the terms of the loans the acquire.
Now if the assets turn out well and they end up collecting 200,000 on the loans. The government and private company split the 200,000 evenly. Everyone goes home happy especially the asset managers, they invested less than 10,000 of their money and were able to collect 100,000. If the assets fall in value, the government (taxpayers) takes a pretty big hit.
Now the plan is obviously very controversial. Here are the positives: It takes the bad assets off the banks balance sheets and hopefully frees them up to loan more money. It leaves the asset management to professionals and keeps open the possibility the government can make a profit.
The cons: If the plan fails, it falls hard and the taxpayers bite the bullet yet again. The government is buying the riskiest assets and though auctions are usually the best way to accurately price something, the fact that the government is footing the bill will inflate prices because the companies know they are assuming minimal risk.
I'm still very so-so on the plan. The banks with the bad assets have an incentive to work directly with the lendees to work out a plan without the need for government intervention. However, if your number one priority is to get banks lending, the plan will accomplish that.
This is another arm of the Obama's overall strategy for the economy, we'll all have to see together if it works.
Another opinion
This is the plan. Banks will offer the assets (risky home loans) they don't want up for auction. Assume that the loans were worth a million dollars if there was no risk. The collection of assets will go to auction where asset management companies can bid on them.
The banks only want to clear the riskiest assets so the assets will be worth considerably less than the million dollars because of the high risk of default. Let say the bidding reaches $100,000. The government will pay over 90% the whole cost of the loan while the private company assumes only minimal risk.
Now I don't know all the details, but I assume the asset management company would be allowed to renegotiate the terms of the loans the acquire.
Now if the assets turn out well and they end up collecting 200,000 on the loans. The government and private company split the 200,000 evenly. Everyone goes home happy especially the asset managers, they invested less than 10,000 of their money and were able to collect 100,000. If the assets fall in value, the government (taxpayers) takes a pretty big hit.
Now the plan is obviously very controversial. Here are the positives: It takes the bad assets off the banks balance sheets and hopefully frees them up to loan more money. It leaves the asset management to professionals and keeps open the possibility the government can make a profit.
The cons: If the plan fails, it falls hard and the taxpayers bite the bullet yet again. The government is buying the riskiest assets and though auctions are usually the best way to accurately price something, the fact that the government is footing the bill will inflate prices because the companies know they are assuming minimal risk.
I'm still very so-so on the plan. The banks with the bad assets have an incentive to work directly with the lendees to work out a plan without the need for government intervention. However, if your number one priority is to get banks lending, the plan will accomplish that.
This is another arm of the Obama's overall strategy for the economy, we'll all have to see together if it works.
Another opinion
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Crazy Religous People
WOW
I don't know what Oklahoma is trying to prove here. State legislators wasting time and money with crap like this. I want to tear my hair out.
I don't know what Oklahoma is trying to prove here. State legislators wasting time and money with crap like this. I want to tear my hair out.
Friday, March 6, 2009
I may have changed my mind
As important as it is for people to have a voice in governing themselves. The pro prop 8 groups are fucking retarded.
"I believe if you travel down this path you will open Pandora's Box," said Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, who said same-sex marriage would create a strong legal argument for polygamy.
FUUUUUUUCK YOOUUUU. I've also heard people say this opens the door to beastiality as well. You people make me furious. You feel this strongly about the bible that you are going to resort to saying that allowing same sex marriage would also open the door for polygamy Ironically, mormon (I'm not going to capitalize the "m," they don't deserve it) groups were some of the strongest supporters and bankrollers of prop 8.
"I don't see this as a fundamental rights issue but redefining the definition of marriage," said Sen. Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar (Los Angeles County).
Technically he's right, dictionary.com's definition of marriage all include "man" and "woman"
The initiative "does not erode any of the bundle of rights that this state has very generously provided," he said, but merely "restores the traditional definition of marriage."
"Very gererously provided?" Who the fuck are you (it was Ken Starr again btw). Hes basically saying, "damn, you gays don't stop asking for stuff, we already let you outside in the daytime, what more do you want?"
The sacrifices I make for blogging. I read articles like these and comment on them for you even though it will put me in a bad mood for hours.
"I believe if you travel down this path you will open Pandora's Box," said Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, who said same-sex marriage would create a strong legal argument for polygamy.
FUUUUUUUCK YOOUUUU. I've also heard people say this opens the door to beastiality as well. You people make me furious. You feel this strongly about the bible that you are going to resort to saying that allowing same sex marriage would also open the door for polygamy Ironically, mormon (I'm not going to capitalize the "m," they don't deserve it) groups were some of the strongest supporters and bankrollers of prop 8.
"I don't see this as a fundamental rights issue but redefining the definition of marriage," said Sen. Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar (Los Angeles County).
Technically he's right, dictionary.com's definition of marriage all include "man" and "woman"
The initiative "does not erode any of the bundle of rights that this state has very generously provided," he said, but merely "restores the traditional definition of marriage."
"Very gererously provided?" Who the fuck are you (it was Ken Starr again btw). Hes basically saying, "damn, you gays don't stop asking for stuff, we already let you outside in the daytime, what more do you want?"
The sacrifices I make for blogging. I read articles like these and comment on them for you even though it will put me in a bad mood for hours.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Prop 8 in the news again
Prop 8 was in the news today as the California state supreme court met to hear arguments from lawyers though not about whether gay marriage should be legal but about the legality of voters deciding what is and isn't a "right."
Its an interesting question to discuss. Does the populous get to decide what a right is or should it be left to judges who are "legal and constitutional experts?"
The same judges who decided that outlawing gay marriage was unconstitutional are having to decide again on essentially the same issue even though we just had an election to decide it.
Kenneth Starr, the lead lawyer for the yes on 8 side says, "The people do have the raw power to define rights," Starr told the justices. "The people are sovereign and they can do very unwise things, and things that tug at the equality principle." (Sidenote: Kenneth was the lead prosecuting lawyer in Clinton's impeachment trial and obviously missed the attention)
Shannon Minter, lead lawyer for the No on 8 side argues, "A simple majority cannot be permitted to take away rights from a historical disadvantaged minority without substantially altering the very operation and purpose of equal protection and the court's ability to fulfill its core constitutional function of enforcing equal protection."
Honestly, I'm really torn. Obviously I want gay people to be allowed to get married but that is not technically the issue. I do believe that the people can help decide what are "rights" and what aren't. We always here about the constitution being a "living" and "evolving" document so shouldn't we always be discussing and debating what a right is?
However, if we admit that people can decide what rights are, the people have made an odd choice with this election. The yes on 8 lawyers, by arguing that people get to decide what are rights, are basically saying that it is a right to sit anywhere on a bus but not to marry any person you want. There seems to be a disconnect there.
Ultimately, I think the Yes on 8 side will win and while I'll be disappointed in what the significance of the decision means, I do think that people have the right to have a hand in deciding what are rights and hopefully we'll see a proposition to overturn 8 in 4 years (and I can pretty much guarantee there will be).
All this means is the people who believe gay people should be allowed to get married have to get out there and convince people of it.
Its an interesting question to discuss. Does the populous get to decide what a right is or should it be left to judges who are "legal and constitutional experts?"
The same judges who decided that outlawing gay marriage was unconstitutional are having to decide again on essentially the same issue even though we just had an election to decide it.
Kenneth Starr, the lead lawyer for the yes on 8 side says, "The people do have the raw power to define rights," Starr told the justices. "The people are sovereign and they can do very unwise things, and things that tug at the equality principle." (Sidenote: Kenneth was the lead prosecuting lawyer in Clinton's impeachment trial and obviously missed the attention)
Shannon Minter, lead lawyer for the No on 8 side argues, "A simple majority cannot be permitted to take away rights from a historical disadvantaged minority without substantially altering the very operation and purpose of equal protection and the court's ability to fulfill its core constitutional function of enforcing equal protection."
Honestly, I'm really torn. Obviously I want gay people to be allowed to get married but that is not technically the issue. I do believe that the people can help decide what are "rights" and what aren't. We always here about the constitution being a "living" and "evolving" document so shouldn't we always be discussing and debating what a right is?
However, if we admit that people can decide what rights are, the people have made an odd choice with this election. The yes on 8 lawyers, by arguing that people get to decide what are rights, are basically saying that it is a right to sit anywhere on a bus but not to marry any person you want. There seems to be a disconnect there.
Ultimately, I think the Yes on 8 side will win and while I'll be disappointed in what the significance of the decision means, I do think that people have the right to have a hand in deciding what are rights and hopefully we'll see a proposition to overturn 8 in 4 years (and I can pretty much guarantee there will be).
All this means is the people who believe gay people should be allowed to get married have to get out there and convince people of it.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
More on the Stimulus
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/03/stimulus.money/index.html
More detail on how the stimulus package will be spent.
The biggest portion of the stimulus is 141 billion of the 317.2 billion going to education.
More detail on how the stimulus package will be spent.
The biggest portion of the stimulus is 141 billion of the 317.2 billion going to education.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Strange But True
http://www.ketv.com/news/18838874/detail.html
Uhh, I don't know what to say. This guy seems like hes really going places in his life.
Uhh, I don't know what to say. This guy seems like hes really going places in his life.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Book Review: The Tales of Beedle the Bard
Many have you have followed and loved the Harry Potter series like I have. Last year, JK Rowling published a book of wizard fairy tales that accompany the main books titled, "The Tales of Beedle the Bard." Some of the short stories in the book were referenced in the Harry Potter series before "The Tales of Beedle the Bard" were actually written.
The book itself is 5 short stories that, like most other fairy tales, have a moral or lesson but these stories all involve wizards and magic.
Maybe I expected too much because the Harry Potter books were so good but I was disappointed. The stories seemed too short to actually get involved in the story. The best story was the "Tale of the 3 Brothers." Unfortunately, that was also the one that had been told in it's entirety in another Harry Potter book (the story that explains the how the invisibility cloak came to be).
Unfortunately, I finished the book and thought to myself, "what was the point of publishing that?" The last page describes the charity for institutionalized kids for which the proceeds of the book were heading and I felt like a jackass. So buy the book, just don't expect much when you read it.
The book itself is 5 short stories that, like most other fairy tales, have a moral or lesson but these stories all involve wizards and magic.
Maybe I expected too much because the Harry Potter books were so good but I was disappointed. The stories seemed too short to actually get involved in the story. The best story was the "Tale of the 3 Brothers." Unfortunately, that was also the one that had been told in it's entirety in another Harry Potter book (the story that explains the how the invisibility cloak came to be).
Unfortunately, I finished the book and thought to myself, "what was the point of publishing that?" The last page describes the charity for institutionalized kids for which the proceeds of the book were heading and I felt like a jackass. So buy the book, just don't expect much when you read it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)