Vets for Freedom, a non-partisan organization of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, will launch its MN chapter on Thursday, August 2. The MN chair, David Thule, a recently returned Iraq veteran from Owatonna, MN will serve as MN's chairman.

Thule had this to say, "Veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan can provide a view point that no pundit, paid MoveOn.org protester or poll company can compete with (honestly). We (vets) know the joy on children's faces when we drive by, the exhilaration of a successful project completed, and the exhaustion of keeping watch in our humvees through early morning."

Vets for Freedom produced a "Thank You" ad with several Iraq veterans. This ad will run in the Mpls-St. Paul, Duluth and Rochester markets.

Vets for Freedom founder, Iraqi vet Pete Hegseth, said, "...we want to set the record straight and ensure that General Petraeus has the resources, time and support he needs to complete the mission." The ad can be viewed at Vets for Freedom at 6:00 PM beginning Wed., August 1.

Labels: American Heroes

Larry Kudlow is a pretty smart guy, and he's emphasizing profits as the mother's milk of the economy.

The economy has found its legs with a 3.4 percent GDP growth report for the second quarter, a much-needed surge from only 0.6 percent in Q1. Moreover, core inflation came in at a rock bottom 1.4 percent.

Most importantly, second quarter corporate profits are flowing in two to three times better than expected. Much of this reflects the huge global economic boom that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson describes as the greatest worldwide surge in his professional lifetime. These rising profits inject new value into the stock market.

I read earlier, but was reminded when I looked at the Bloomberg economy page over my mango smoothie lunch. Top line:

Consumer confidence in the U.S. jumped more than forecast this month to the highest level in almost six years, suggesting the June slowdown in spending may be temporary.

So are all the doom-and-gloomers wrong? I think not entirely.

First of all, slide further down the page: Personal spending came in below expected for June. Yes that number's already cooked in the second quarter numbers, but the expectation should have been moved down already too. Home prices down 2.8% in May, and construction spending down 0.3% in June. Think all those effects are already cooked in? No, me neither. And the NAPM Business Conditions Index is down near where recessions begin, and again it's unexpected.

What does it mean? I think, first, that there may be some reaction to the fact that prices in housing are not falling as fast as some might have feared. Calculated Risk notes that housing slumps tend to be long in terms of price declines, so this may be the beginning of a long decline. The increase in GDP in the second quarter came from sources other than consumption, so if personal spending is really going to rebound in July and August, the evidence so far is just an increase in confidence.

I run for St. Cloud a model much like that James Hamilton uses for the US, or perhaps more like Alan Gin's for San Diego -- I'm still writing up the documentation, it will be available next month -- and like San Diego St. Cloud has had a heavy reliance on construction, and the probability reading I had last time had a point estimate of 28.3%. (I've been surprised by the volatility of the number, so I've been looking to see whether I can get this fixed before I release the measure to the public.) I have received no information in the past thirty days since our last report went public to change my mind on that measure.

Labels: economics

Excuse me, I'm on pins and needles about KG (I love this, as a Celtic fan living in Minnesota), but meanwhile there's a blog to write.

I found this story quite interesting. In short, a university's lawyer can simply wait for the graduation of a student who is suing for, say, First Amendment violations after being tossed off the university newspaper for criticizing the university's president. Now graduated, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals says, the student no longer has his free speech rights limited by the school and therefore the case is moot. So if you really want to pursue that case against the school, you should stay in school and not graduate. That's just weird.

Let's say that population really is the biggest problem: we'll agree for the sake of argument. So, what should we do about it? Well, the biggest yet piece of economic modelling of the future says that we should be intensifying globalization. Get everybody rich and population will peak and then fall. We can always add a carbon tax or cap and trade on top if we should so wish.

Tim Worstall. Fertility is as subject to supply and demand as any other human behavior.

I thought the line went that nobody is safe when the legislature is in session. So why in the world would the Duluth News Tribune think it's a good idea for the legislature to ALWAYS be in session?

“The biggest problem of not having a full-time Legislature is that the Legislature doesn’t end up running as much of the state government as it should. The governor gets more power if the Legislature is not in session,” Massachusetts state Rep. Byron Rushing told the News Tribune editorial page staff Friday of checks and balances provided by his state’s full-time Legislature.

You think car registration is bad now, wait until the Legislature is in session year-round! For Minnesota, particularly for the party that couldn't finish its work, giving them another six months seems like rewarding poor performance.

Now, however, let me put on my economics hat...

Most of the research I've seen on legislature size and expenditures is positive. Time is an input; legislation is an output. (See Crain, 1979.) Is an increase in the amount of legislation produced a good or bad thing for a state or country? That's a very good question -- I know most of the research on rule of law and economic growth, but if we looked at two countries where the "rule of law" was equivalent, would the one with more laws grow faster or slower than the one with less? I tend to think the one with more laws grows slower, because I think each law has to increase the amount of inefficiency in the economic system. What are the counterarguments?

Labels: economics, legislature, Minnesota, politics

The local paper has run a Monday insert of local-interest stories, and the lead this morning is of a mother and daughter making a CD of music for the son-in-law and husband that serves in Balad. I've been blessed to have been on stage with Patty McLaird, a woman of great spirit and a delightful voice. I am glad to hear from the story that she is better:

Wagner eventually finished mixing the CD when McLaird was in the hospital, and the pair has sent about 250 copies to military personnel serving overseas. McLaird and Wagner did not name the CD, but they refer to it as “The Servicemen’s Project.”

There are 16 tracks on the CD, including seven with vocals and two poems with music in the background. The rest are instrumentals. McLaird sings, plays guitar and wrote some of the tracks. Wagner plays guitar, violin, mandolin, harmonica, sings and wrote some of the tracks. Her brother, Lucas McLaird, an Army veteran, plays piano on the CD.

Wagner, 24, was married seven months to Ryan, 26, before he was sent to Iraq. Ryan Wagner is a full-time employee of the National Guard and is currently stationed as a helicopter flight engineer in Balad, Iraq.

She had a tough time with his deployment and decided to do something about it.

“Summer said it pretty well when she said, ‘You’ve got two choices — you can cry and worry all the time or have faith and do something about it,’” said Patty McLaird, who works for the St. Cloud school district as a paraprofessional for the deaf and hard of hearing. “She said we have to try and be positive for the men we come in contact with.”

There's a sample and information on how to get the CD to a serviceman in the article. If you have someone still there, give it a thought, and a prayer for Ryan.

Labels: American Heroes

Doug Giles is trying to "brace you for the liberal Kool-Aid crunch" that faces college incoming freshmen.

In a couple of weeks you’re going to have your liberal campus and its professors shove more crap down your throat than Rosie does her gullet during Chili’s Monday Night Nacho Monster Blowout Special.

What can one do about it?

The options are:

1. You can drink the campus Kool Aid and do the Dhimmocratic do-si-do.
2. You can run from the conflict to a likeminded conservative ghetto group and hide on the curb with your little cowering crowd.
3. You and your concurring buddies can get prepped and be a conservative crew that enters campus life and joyfully, earnestly and courageously challenges the purveyors of the anti-American propaganda.

Hold on there now, cowpoke. Things are not quite that bad.

First off, let's understand that much learning that happens in college occurs within groups that study together. Referring to them as "likeminded conservative ghetto groups" may help gather a few more lonely readers for Giles' radio and book, but if that's what was needed for education why go to college?

And there are departments where at least you have a slightly greater chance finding more conservative thought. As I mentioned on Tony Garcia's show yesterday, while the social sciences run Democrat by about nine to one, the ratio in economics is closer to three to one. (I highly recommend listening to the EconTalk podcast with Bryan Caplan for that particular point.) There are good conservative faculty in the humanities if you look.

You'll need one or two, but you don't need the whole school to be that way. Gary has been fulminating over the attempt of liberal groups to organize boycotts of Fox News advertisers. (I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing -- it might drive the price down enough for me to advertise the Final Word on the local cable during FNC programming. Even better, if they boycott the goods produced by FNC advertisers, there are more of those goods for me. Another argument for another day.) Gary points out something we say here often:

Let’s also recognize that Democrats aren’t willing to venture into the ‘hostile territory’ of conservative talk radio or into debates and forums sponsored by conservative organizations. Here in Minnesota, Patty Wetterling didn’t participate in any debates sponsored by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce against Michele Bachmann.

State Sen. Tarryl Clark told KNSI talk radio host Andy Barnett that she doesn’t do “entertainment talk radio.”

Compare that with how conservatives don’t think twice about going onto liberal TV shows like Chris Matthews’ Hardball, Meet the Press or NPR. Frankly, conservatives are used to doing battle with liberals whenever they’re invited.

Yes, and where better to prepare for that than in a university? So you can't just hide in the "ghetto" and nobody who is a sincere adviser to conservative students would have you do so.

But one of the lessons you will learn is how to pick which battles to fight. Conservative freshmen do not cower, Mr. Giles; they err towards many quixotic adventures that leave them bloodied and chastened. They become like Mark Twain's cat that has stepped on a hot stove, choosing not to get into any further adventures, keeping their heads down and just wanting to get their degree in accounting or biology and get the hell out of college. And they will not engage outside of college either.

You can increase your chances of finding your Hogwarts for the journey through school by finding a school that has a classical liberal education available to you. The ISI College Guide is a fine place to start. A good bit of Thomas Sowell's Choosing a College is outdated now, but the parts on what to look for in a classroom are helpful. And for those entering, his conclusion includes this sage advice:

It may be tempting to go to a college where your friends are going, but the long-run consequences have to be kept in mind. In the short run, it will be good to know someone the first day you step on a college campus, but chances are you are going to make new friends there anyway. Moreover, these are years when people grow personally and intellectually, by great amounts and in very different directions. That is part of why you go to college. It can be more than ironic to realize in your sophomore or junior year that you chose the wrong college because of someone you seldom spend time with any more.

Better that you approach your first year in college that way than deciding to tilt at the liberal windmills. Learn first; the windmills will be there when you're ready.

*If you thought I was going to write about my health, here's all you need to know: It appears there was no problem with the gallbladder. I spent Friday and Saturday alternatively fevered and chilled and mostly in bed. Sunday felt like I had been on a three day bachelor party cruise -- headache, really thirsty, but otherwise normal. Walked last night, talked to Mr. Upmann, and feel a little sheepish about seeing my doctor this morning in an hour. But I will go.

Labels: higher education

Today is a HUGE day for Iraq. Those of you who follow soccer know that it is the biggest attended sport outside the USA. Today was the last day of the Asian Games - Iraq was playing Saudi Arabia for the Asian soccer championship.

The Iraqi national team is comprised of Kurds, Sunnis and Shias. This is the first time they have played in the Asian cup in their history. (Iraq was set up as an independent kingdom in 1921 after WWI and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire).

In addition to this being the first time Iraq has played in the Asian Cup, there is another factor: One of Saddam's now deceased sons was so intent on winning that he would physically torture the players if they lost.

Despite history and troubles, the Iraqis persevered. They upset teams all through the playoffs to reach the championship game. They WON!! Iraq the Model a blog established by two men since the downfall of Saddam has the detail. I'm sure the Americans in Iraq as well as those who have come back understand the importance of this victory. Please read the entire post but if not time, Iraq the Model's authors' last line says it all:

The fear is gone, the curfew is ignored, tonight Iraq knows only joy..

Friday, July 27m a bright, sunny, breezy day, familes and friends welcomed home 99 of Minnesota's finest, members of the Red Bull National Guard Unit in Anoka. These true American heroes had served 22 months in Iraq, one of the longest assignments taken on by an NG unit. The welcoming was large, heartwarming and patriotic. Thanks, guys, thanks a ton for all you did!

Thanks too, to the MN Patriot Riders who make a point of being there for our guys' returns from deployment and provide a respectful final tribute for those who have died for freedom.

The welcome to Minnesota's finest was heartwarming, tearful and incredibly happy. These families, kids, spouses, significant others, friends, etc. had an absolutely wonderful day. Please enjoy these photos as well as the others

Welcome home, heroes!

Thank you one and all!

The fishing stories are true. Though the river bottom was very rocky and I had trouble keeping balance and I tumbled into the water four days straight, persistence pays.
Our friends, Diana and Mike, caught 28 salmon between the two of them, I caught four. All fish not yet consumed or given to friends are resting comfortably in our freezers. (Yes, I caught the one pictured below but I was not keen on holding it through the gills.)

I apologize for light posting, but I have been to the emergency room twice in the last 24 hours. What they thought might be a gallbladder attack isn't, and it appears we're going to chalk it up to a viral infection for now. So it's water and rest for me this weekend.

Michael drives solo on the Final Word tomorrow, but if you can't get enough of my dulcet tones, you can listen to Taxpayers League Live at about 10:15am CT for discussion of my post on the Wisconsin health care plan. This vacation from FW coincides with Littlest's first day as a teenager. I am trying to store enough energy to do some geocaching with her.

In previous posts I've discussed the ability of Americans to look at a problem, define it and find a solution. We take this trait for granted and possibly, unconsciously, assume that all other cultures can do this. This capability is not cross-human. This excerpt from Michael Yon's latest post clarifies a lot. The quotes below come from the last four paragraphs in the long post.

"I have wondered now for two years why is it that American military leaders somehow seem to naturally know what it takes to run a city, while many of the local leaders seem clueless......Our military is, in a sense its own little country, with city-states spread out all around the world. Each base is like a little city-state....

We live far better on base here in Baqubah than many people who are living downtown (though there are some very nice homes), and it’s not all about money. Not at all and not in the least. When Americans move into Iraqi buildings, the buildings start improving from the first day. And then, the buildings near the buildings start to improve. ....

"The Greatest Generation called it “the can-do mentality.” It’s a wealth measured not only in dollars, but also in knowledge. The burning curiosity that launched the Hubble, flows from that mentality, and so does the revenue stream of taxpayer dollars that funded it. Iraq is very rich in resources, but philosophically it is impoverished. The truest separation between cultures is in the collective dreams of their people."

A writer in Africa declares the world must say goodbye to cheap food.

The price of corn (maize) has doubled in a year, and wheat futures are at their highest in a decade. The food price index in India has risen 11 percent in one year, and in Mexico in January there were riots after the price of corn flour (used in making the staple food of the poor, tortillas) went up fourfold.

Even in the developed countries, food prices are going up, and they are not going to come down again. Cheap food lasted for only 50 years. Before the Second World War most families in the developed countries spent a third or more of their income on food (as the poor majority in developing countries still do). But after the war a series of radical changes, from mechanisation to the Green Revolution, raised agricultural productivity hugely and caused a long, steep fall in the real price of food.

For the global middle class, it was the Good Old Days, with food taking only a tenth of their income. It will probably be back up to a quarter within a decade, and it may go much higher than that, because we are entering a period when three separate factors are converging to drive food prices up.

Those factors are demand from population growth in Asia (and the Middle East, if you believe Mark Steyn), bio-fuels competing for arable land, and global warming. This reminds me of nothing so much as the days in the 1970s when the Club of Rome was declaring our imminent starvation. Luckily then we had Julian Simon:

Rising population did not mean less food, just the opposite: instead of skyrocketing as predicted by the Malthusian theory, food prices, relative to wages, had declined historically. In the United States, for example, between 1800 and 1980, the price of wheat plummeted while the population grew from 5 million to 226 million. Accord-ing to Malthus, all those people should have been long dead, the country reduced to a handful of fur trappers on the brink of starvation. In fact, there was a booming and flourishing populace, one that was better-fed, taller, healthier, more disease-free, with far less infant mortality and longer life expectancy than ever before in human history. Obesity, not starvation, was the major American food problem in 1980. Those were the facts.

The price of corn on the futures market is currently about $3.50/bushel. Now that's well above these historical figures, but when adjusted for the effect of inflation these rates are not that far above the 1995 levels. And that's not even the current price. Just like Simon, you could go look it up, or you can just sit and write and worry.

Your call.

Labels: economics

A previous post talked about the fish that almost got away. In this series of photos, you will see the one the bear got.

Background - we usually fished on the side of the river where the black bear appeared. We saw it and crossed the stream. You can see our blue backpacks on the right side of the photos. The distance between us and the bear was 10-12 yards. Click on photo to enlarge.

The bear came over the hill:



The bear spots our fish in the water strung on an 8' log.



With one motion, the bear pulls the 8' log onto the hill, helps him/herself to one of the salmon and marches back over the hill. These salmon weighed 8-9 pounds. We kept them alive, in the water until ready to clean. During the entire time, the bear had rocks thrown at it and everyone, including Diana (whose fish the bear took), was yelling and screaming at the bear. "Hey, I'm hungry; here's a fish; tough luck!"

Dani Rodrik:

Most people think academics get to take the summer off to vacation as they please. Even some of the better informed think the summer is just for research--with students and teaching as far from the mind as possible. The fiction is also reflected in academic salaries, which are paid for nine months of work. In principle, we do not get paid over the summer since we are not supposed to be doing any work for our institutions.

If it were only so! ... I am busy preparing my course syllabus for the Fall. We have to turn in our course reserve lists in early August, and if you are revising your course in any way--as I am--this means getting busy right about now.

Same here, plus catching up some writing that needs finishing by summer's end. I don't consider myself unemployed in the summers; while many summers I will work overseas on a project, this year I'm working on a book so not traveling. Nevertheless, even when I'm not doing those things, I'm still thinking about classes as Rodrik does in the rest of his interesting post.

So no more today; I need to get some things done. Indeed, I'm hiding at Panera trying to do so. Summer is also not the time for "honey-do" lists. (Mrs. S is so understanding...)

Labels: economics, higher education

Monday I spent an hour on CQ Radio with my good friend Ed discussing a poll result on media bias. (Ed's discussion.) Yesterday I got the new NBER Reporter, which had as its lead article a summary of the paper by Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse Shapiro titled, "What Drives the Political Slant of Daily Newspapers?" They compared the language used by newspapers and the language used by politicians, arguing that newspapers that favor liberals will use phrases that are used by liberal politicians, and newspapers that favor conservatives will use phrases used more often by conservative politicians.

An illuminating example is the partisan divide over the tax on inherited wealth. In 2005, congressional Republicans, who generally oppose the tax, described it as a "death tax" 365 times, using the term "estate tax" only 46 times. Democrats did the reverse, saying "death tax" 35 times and "estate tax" 195 times. Similarly, the more liberal Washington Post used "estate tax" 10 times more often than it used death tax; the more conservative Washington Times used "estate tax" only twice as often.

Examining over 400 newspapers they find something quite interesting. The ideology of the owner of a newspaper doesn't seem to matter as much as the political views of the community the newspaper serves:

When a single owner owns multiple papers, the authors find that each paper's language is tailored to its own market, rather than toeing a single, corporate line. Their data also show no significant relationship between a newspaper's slant and the political contributions made by its corporate owner. What instead has a big impact on newspaper bias is readers. The study found that the political outlook of a paper's readers explained about 20 percent of the variation in slant that the authors uncovered. No other factor showed such a strong correlation.

The reason for this is that owners find it more profitable to reflect the views of their readers than to impose their own perspective, the authors conclude. And, most of the newspapers studied were close to the ideological "sweet spot" that would maximize their profits, the authors calculate. Even a small deviation from this ideal bias would cut circulation by some 3 percent, so newspapers hew closely to the ideological stance that makes them the most money. "Our work shows that consumers play a fundamental role in determining the ideological positioning of media outlets," the authors write.

I don't find this result too surprising. It is hard for me to imagine that a newspaper can long ignore the median voter in a market (I would call this a Stiglerian or Peltzman-ian view of newspapers -- they are in the end as much subject to pressure groups as are elected officials.) One can always indulge a preference at some cost, but as the competition from other media sources increase these papers have to move towards the market median.

This should not cause any comfort for conservatives in Minnesota. The Twin Cities market is represented by two elected officials -- Betty McCollum and Keith Ellison -- that are to the left even of the median Democratic voter in national elections. The StarTribune, reacting to the market, should keep their paper to that left if the Gentzkow and Shapiro results are correct. Interestingly, when I discussed this paper with some liberal non-economist friends of mine, they argued that the STrib has moved a little to the right since being bought by McClatchy. I don't know that this is wrong -- if what Gentzkow and Shapiro have identified is a market test for newspapers, and if the previous owners were quite liberal themselves, then the paper might have moved a little to the right. What I would disagree with my friends about is that it's the result of corporate purchase. Just because the paper was owned by an ideological family rather than a corporation doesn't make the loss of revenue any less important. They might have moved less, but they still would have moved.

is still tasty: Ward Churchill has hit the bricks.

The University of Colorado Board of Regents voted to terminate controversial professor Ward Churchill on Tuesday evening.

The Board of Regents passed a motion to accept the recommendation from CU President Hank Brown to fire Churchill from his position in the Ethnic Studies department.

The measure passed with an 8 to 1 vote. The vote was made just after 5:30 p.m. and Cindy Carlisle was the dissenting vote.

Immediately after the decision was announced people in the crowd booed and some swore at the board members.

Churchill and his supporters then participated in a Native American ceremony outside of the building.

There's coverage of the event at Drunkablog and Pirate Ballerina. (Is Jim done blogging now?) Congrats to those two bloggers for providing continuous coverage.

I fully expect some sympathy event on our campus. I'll let you know if and when.

Labels: higher education

[C]onservatives should chip in to buy Ms. Clinton and her political allies each a copy of the newest expansion pack of Civilization. It's fabulous. It would keep them busy for months at a time. And they would get what they have always wanted: a chance to run the world. And we would get what we have always wanted: that they would leave our economy alone.

Pareto improving. Win, win. What more can you ask for?

Nothing at all. From Craig Newmark, after reading of Hillary Clinton's desire for a new industrial policy. In comments, David Tufte notes that half of all macroeconomic problems come from the desire to "do something". I'd offer to take the over on that line, but out of respect for David Stern...

Labels: politics

Let Wisconsin go Sicko and pass this health care plan.

The legislation, part of the budget approved by the Democratic-controlled Senate, would provide health insurance to nearly everyone in the state. That would include the estimated 276,000 people - 38,000 of them children - who have been without coverage for more than a year.

It would be financed by a 9% to 12% tax on employer payrolls and a 4% tax on workers' wages.

In exchange, employers would be freed of the cost and hassle of providing health benefits to their employees. Instead, people would have their choice of health insurance plans overseen by a state authority.

The Wall Street Journal opines that this will cost them more than they realize.

Proponents use the familiar argument for national health care that this will save money (about $1.8 billion a year) through efficiency gains by eliminating the administrative costs of private insurance. And unions and some big businesses with rich union health plans are only too happy to dump these liabilities onto the government.

But those costs won't vanish; they'll merely shift to all taxpayers and businesses. Small employers that can't afford to provide insurance would see their employment costs rise by thousands of dollars per worker, while those that now provide a basic health insurance plan would have to pay $400 to $500 a year more per employee.

The plan is also openly hostile to market incentives that contain costs. Private companies are making modest progress in sweating out health-care inflation by making patients more cost-conscious through increased copayments, health savings accounts, and incentives for wellness. The Wisconsin program moves in the opposite direction: It reduces out-of-pocket copayments, bars money-saving HSA plans, and increases the number of mandated medical services covered under the plan.

So where will savings come from? Where they always do in any government plan: Rationing via price controls and, as costs rise, waiting periods and coverage restrictions. This is Michael Moore's medical dream state.

The plan has both an HMO and a fee-for-service component. The latter is needed for the areas where HMOs do not exist, such as southeastern Wisconsin. But who sets the rate? Even the proponents have no answer to this.

The plan has been rushed forward by the state's senate Democrats, who may not be serious about passing this but rather wanting to get health care on page one in Wisconsin during a slow news cycle. Still, it's not the kind of news they should want. Sean Hackbarth notes the WSJ editorial:

Company executives who read the editorial are putting notes in the backs of their minds to remind themselves not to bother moving to Wisconsin. That’s what happens when politicians threaten to almost double state taxes in an already high tax state. You almost wonder if State Senate Democrats are on the payrolls of Chambers of Commerce for Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, and Michigan. Passing “Healthy Wisconsin” would be a boon for those states. All at Wisconsin’s expense.

Oh but Sean! Nobody ever moves because of taxes! They love your state. They'll gladly stay and have their wealth confiscated pay taxes.

China is moving towards capitalism, Wisconsin is running away.

Labels: economics, taxes, Wisconsin

There's a primary going on today in House District 28B. The DFL-endorsed candidate, Linda Pfeilsticker, is facing off against Wes Moreland. Moreland, it turns out, was studying in Oxford until this past weekend, but appears to be well-known. Michael reports that Pfeilsticker is supported by people close to the Keith Ellison campaign; Drew says she also draws support from Education Minne$ota. Moreland says he's more conservative and a better fit for a district represented by Republican Steve Sviggum for many years.

Local election officials say this primary is costing taxpayers as much as $15,000. Who should pay for this? The Winona Daily News editorial says it's the price of democracy:

What’s great about living in this country is that anyone who meets some very minimal qualifications can run. The ballot can be a great equalizer, just as one vote for every one person also has a positive effect in governing.

We would do well to remember that it’s not necessarily about what kind of family you’re born into, where you’re from or how well connected you are that qualifies you as a candidate. It’s about every person who’s interested having an equal shot, even if sometimes candidates are poorly qualified or seem to show little interest beyond getting their name on the ballot.

Keep in mind much of the criticism on the national political scene comes because of the massive amount of fundraising and cash it takes to be a viable candidate. Now, presidential candidates as well as those running for the House of Representatives, have to raise millions just to compete. The common person has a much harder time getting into the race at the federal level.

But not so on the state or local level (thankfully). Most can throw their names into the political ring with a couple of signatures and a filing fee. Sometimes, it creates lopsided races. Sometimes, it gives voters an odd choice of characters to represent them. Other times — when the system works best — it gives voters at least two great choices to represent their interests.

So while some whine about how limited their choices are for the U.S. Senate (more on that in the next post) in one breath, with the next they may whine about how some people just are wasting our time. Hurrah for the Winona Daily News editorial board. To paraphrase Churchill, the system looks wasteful until you see what the other systems have to offer.

Labels: Minnesota, politics

What are the best-paying blue-collar jobs? Forbes reports:

While the U.S. economy remains strong, factory jobs are being outsourced, a slowing housing market has killed construction jobs over the past several months and manufacturing employment has been on a downward trend in recent years.

Yet, there's still good money to be made in the labor and service industries, commonly referred to as "blue-collar" jobs. That is, if you can overcome the long odds of landing a job as an elevator installer and repairer, a gig that could pay more than $63,000 a year.

While some people might not immediately associate blue-collar occupations with higher-level formal education, some of these managers and supervisors must have extensive knowledge of business or sciences to perform the tasks of, for example, power plant operator or agricultural manager.

Power plant operators earn a median annual wage of $55,000, or $26.44 an hour. These workers control, operate or maintain machinery to generate electric power keeping your home or business juiced.

Farm, ranch and other agricultural managers make an annual wage of $52,070, or $25.03 an hour, to supervise the farming activities, get their hands dirty on occasion and handle some of the business and marketing. They perform all these tasks with the owner's consent, of course.

It will come as good news to one economist that two of the top ten happen in railyards. The data on all occupations is here: Economists are listed at $35.61 an hour.

Labels: economics

The Tax Foundation has a very funny observation about a very unfunny situation. Remarking on the use of state power to coerce a minority of individuals -- smokers -- to fund health care, Gerald Prante writes,

Why not impose a special excise tax on people who have two vowels in their last name? It's makes about as much sense as arbitrarily choosing smokers to fund various government programs that have nothing to do with smoking.

We'd tax Colbert too, then. I'm just glad Prante doesn't have three vowels in a row in his last name, or else I'd be in big trouble.

Labels: taxes

That's what The Examiner wants to know.

Here are the earmarks identified for Minnesota, which total $7,155,000. Check out the earmarks for your state and then call your congressman and ask if he or she sponsored any of your state's earmarks. If the answer is yes, ask why the congressman's name isn't on the earmark. If you recognize the institution designated to receive the earmarked tax dollars, call them and ask them what they intend to do with your money.

There's one for the other states, so if you're not in MN there's a list for you. On this list is $400.000 for "St. Cloud State University for the Science Initiative of Central Minnesota for curriculum development." That would be this organization, which has helped our university create a new masters in regulatory affairs; that's right, you can get a masters degree in how to navigate the Federal regulatory system to get your medical device to market. Bureaucracy has created a new field of study.

I am inquiring to see who our benefactor is and have dropped a note to . Who knows? We might throw them a party! I'll let you know if I get any response.

Labels: earmarks, higher education, SCSU

I will join Captain Ed Morrissey at 2pm CT on Blog Talk Radio to discuss his post on the Rasmussen poll about media bias. Call 646-652-4889 to join the conversation!

Labels: Media

I highly recommend reading David Berri's post on whether the referee scandal in the NBA is going to bring down the league. After reviewing the effects of the Black Sox scandal on league attendance and the fact that the NBA has had very high attendance, he doesn't think the Donaghy Debacle going to matter that much.

That the NBA is setting attendance records should be surprising to the “doomsday” voices in the media. Long before the referee scandal broke academic research had already questioned the integrity of the NBA’s contests. Beck Taylor and Justin Trogdon published research in the Journal of Labor Economics in
2002 detailing how NBA teams were systematically losing to enhance the team’s draft position. The research of Joe Price and Justin Wolfers suggested that the calls NBA referees made were influenced by the race of the player.

The research of Taylor and Trogdon –to the best of my knowledge – has never been addressed by the NBA. The NBA did commission a study to contradict the Price-Wolfers story. Initially it was reported that the NBA’s study refuted the Price-Wolfers research. Later on, though, it was revealed that the NBA’s results could be interpreted as being consistent with the Price-Wolfers study.

What has been the impact of all this research questioning the integrity of the NBA? My sense is nothing has happened. The NBA either ignores it or dismisses its claims.

And why does the NBA take this action? The NBA is not in the “truth” business. The NBA is in the “entertainment” business. Because providing entertainment is the actual game the NBA is playing, these stories – which clearly question the integrity of the game – are swept under the rug.

And these efforts are largely successful. Again, the NBA set an attendance record in 2004-05. This was followed by another record in 2005-06 and 2006-07. Taylor and Trogdon have found evidence that the NBA’s losers were not doing their best to win games since the 1980s. But like the Black Sox scandal, the NBA’s integrity problems have had no apparent impact on consumer demand.

Bill Simmons disagrees.

If you're a diehard NBA fan, you're horrified but strangely hopeful, because we needed a tipping point to change a stagnant league that was headed in the wrong direction ... and maybe this was it.

Look, we already knew the officiating needed to be improved. We knew the NBA needed to solve the problem of nonplayoff teams tanking down the stretch and shelving stars who could have played (and yet continuing to charge fans full price for these games). We knew the NBA needed to solve a lottery system that hasn't quite worked for 20 years. We knew the NBA needed to solve a screwed-up playoff system that only works when the conferences are perfectly balanced, and more importantly, we knew the league needed to start taking some chances. This is a league that hasn't swung for the fences with a major change since 1979, when it brought in the 3-point line from the old ABA. For nearly three decades, it has been making cosmetic changes here and there -- the draft lottery, zone defenses, hand-checks, the charging semicircle, improved rating systems for officials, flagrant fouls, the leaving-the-bench rule, the dress code -- while continually ignoring the bigger picture.

What's the big picture? Well, the regular season is effectively meaningless. Contenders can only improve to a point because of the luxury tax, so everyone searches for that same half-assed "we want to contend for a title, but we don't want to lose $20 million this season" competitive zone that leads to deals like Kurt Thomas and two first-round picks for a second-round pick and a 2006 trade deadline in which the biggest move involved Anthony Johnson. Fan interest peaks at three points -- at the start of the season, at the start of the first round of the playoffs, and right before the draft -- and dips at every other point. For seven of the past 10 seasons, the best two teams in the league played before the Finals -- which seems so incredibly shortsighted, I can't even begin to fathom how it's allowed to continue. And worst of all, when an NBA official was accused of fixing games, the prevailing reaction was "Which one?"

So yeah, they could make a movie about Tim Donaghy's story. And they probably will. Let's just hope we're not watching a documentary about the death of the NBA some day, because we're headed that way. Wake up, fellas. Rome is burning.

He calls this the Zapruder film of the Tim Donaghy Debacle.


Will any of this matter? There's more to learn. A Q&A with gambler Brandon Lang (from Two for the Money fame) suggests how Donaghy could do it, and wonders why it hasn't happened in refereeing before. Worth noting: Yes, a referee could shave the line, but better might be to shave on the total points. Lang suggests getting a team to the penalty (for free throws) would be better if you were trying to shave a game to the over. Steve Levitt suggests that statistical investigation is already happening.

According to latest reports, Donaghy might not make it to tell his tale.

Labels: economics, sports

A successful fundraising campaign should be celebrated, and I'm sure the alumni and benefactors of Purdue are a generous bunch. But some celebrations can get a little out of hand.

Wow.

That's the response from many students and staff when told Purdue spent more than a half-million dollars for a party last month to celebrate the end of its Campaign for Purdue fundraiser.

"That seems like a big waste," said David Hoover, a junior studying actuarial science. "Pay for renovations to some of these buildings. A lot of the buildings need it."

The bill for the June 30 event, in which donors were thanked for $1.7 billion in contributions over the past seven years, totaled $576,778, according to documents gathered by the Journal & Courier. About half was paid for by the Purdue Research Foundation; the rest came from money raised through the campaign.

Joe Bennett, vice president for university relations, said the event had to be upscale to properly thanks donors, many of whom donated more than $1 million.

"It's part of what you do to raise money at that kind of level," Bennett said. "That's what the people who made contributions to us deserved."

The article goes on to other justifications. But you simply have to wonder whether the alumni who gave, say, $500 or $1000 -- for whom this is a significant donation -- would like to know that even a small fraction went to a bash so large that an event management firm was paid almost a half-million to run it. They act like it just got a little bigger than planned, but that fact should demonstrate it was planned all along. The article suggests these opportunity costs:

What [$576,778] could have paid for:

• Salary for almost seven full-time faculty members at average salary for a year.
  
• Rooms for 82 students for a year in a university dorm.
  
• Tuition for 81 students for a year at Purdue.
  
• Salaries for 41 graduate teaching assistants for 10 months.
  
• The debt of 30 graduating undergraduate students.
  
• Former Purdue President Martin Jischke's yearly base salary of $406,950.

Yes, former. There's a new president, who has no comment on this bash because it was planned by President Jischke.

Labels: higher education

There could be some studying needed by Patty Wetterling, who has taken a new job as coordinator of the state's sexual violence prevention unit (h/t: Andy Barnett).

The 57-year-old Democrat said she was exploring new opportunities after her narrow election loss to U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann in November and that she applied when the job was posted in March.

I guess it depends on the definition of narrow. The results say Wetterling lost by eight points, just as she did in 2004. May I suggest, Mrs. Wetterling, that you study a little statistics? These fine students would be willing to help you.



(Video from reader sf, posted on the campus discuss list.) While we're at this, I also want to use this humorous look at Mankiw's Ten Principles (which Greg himself seemed to enjoy):

Labels: Minnesota, politics, Wetterling

It's been awhile and I'd hoped to post more on our Alaska (AK) trip. Cropping photos is a learning experience and let's say, it's taken some time. One story has no photos. Here goes.

We fished on the Russian River on the Kenai Peninsula in AK. It is a snow melt river that runs fast and clear; the bottom is comprised of rocks, rocks, rocks; water and air temps were about 40 degrees. (The referenced photo is about 1/2 mile downstream from our location - we were in mid-thigh depth water.)

The salmon were running erratically. This was my fist time fishing. All those films of fish pulling out lines, flopping all over after landed, tugging against you when pulling them in are true. Couple the hooked fish activity with walking backwards over rocks you cannot see to get to dry land, well, let's say it gets real iffy at times. Despite good clothing, I had a hard time backing up to land my fish so when I got one on the line, I'd yell for my friend Mike to steady me.

I'd hooked a good 9-pounder. Mike and I were backing up to the sandbar when I lost my footing and plummeted into the river, taking Mike with me. He's yelling at me, "Hold the rod, hold the rod!" Sad to say, the fish jerked rod, reel and itself out of my hands. I was soaked from top to bottom and the pole was gone. Mike went downstream asking fishermen if they'd seen it but to no avail.

I'm on land, admittedly feeling sorry for myself, moping, etc. I'd caught one fish earlier and was debating to leave. About 20 minutes later, I hear this guy yell, "Anyone lose a rod?" He was fishing about 25' from where I'd been dunked, now holding two fishing rods.

"Hey, that's my rod! Can I have it back?"

"No problem," he says and hands me the rod. I go to pull in the line and the fish is STILL ON THE HOOK! I landed it - it's now in our freezer!

There is a relic of the Depression era in Wisconsin, called the Wisconsin Unfair Sales Act. Passed in 1930 it put a minimum on prices for goods and services in the state; you can't sell below cost. There are specific provisions for gasoline, however, which says you have to sell your gas at a markup over wholesale cost that can be 9.18%. In 2003 the Federal Trade Commission offered an opinion that this law is harming consumers by keeping prices high.

Unlike federal antitrust law, the Act protects individual competitors, not competition, and discourages pro-competitive price cutting. In particular, the Act subjects vendors to civil liability - including treble damages and a substantial fine per violation - for cutting prices even if there is no likelihood of harm to competition, and even if the vendors have no intent to engage in anticompetitive conduct.

If you need much more proof that it's protecting competitors, look at a position paper of the Wisconsin Grocers Association. they argue that minimum prices are good for consumers, without any explanation for why.

The Institute for Justice is now seeking to help Raj Bhandari, who is being fined $2,500 per gallon of gas he sells below cost. IJ is arguing that retailers like Bhandari are being denied their due process rights in two ways, first by singling out a good for disparate treatment (namely, gas) and second by blocking people engaging in a common commercial practice.

Our friend David Strom from the Taxpayers League will have Lee McGrath and Bob McNamara on their show, Taxpayers League Live, at 10am tomorrow to discuss the case. I suggest you tune in. If you are in Wisconsin, write to your legislators and get them to repeal this law. It would be a good example for us in Minnesota to follow, where there is also a minimum gas price law.

Labels: economics, gas, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Thanks for the interest in today's discussion of the civic center proposal. I read the report last night and one thing that I came away with was the neverending argument "we have to have this tax money to keep up." I called it "mutually assured taxation" on the air. (Check out the argument on this brochure for the new arena in Duluth -- it'll only add six cents to your $8 lunch.)

These things are a little tricky here in Minnesota. The money for the expansion would come from the food and beverage tax in St. Cloud. The tax was originally passed to pay for local civic buildings; at one time it paid for the civic center we now have. The money has more recently been used to pay for renovations in our arts district and at the local sports facility. Those bonds will soon be paid off. Rather than retire that tax, the move is now to find something else for it to pay for; thus comes the group supporting the new civic center expansion. The civic center proposal needs a state bond to make it happen, and so it needs state permission.

I will say, I don't really find the idea of an expansion egregious; the downtown area is about to lose its library and with restaurants closing all around the place, downtown is looking pretty shabby. We've spent money on worse. But that's the problem, isn't it? Rather than give us a tax break by letting us eat out for a half-buck less (on a $50 tab), it's easier to keep the tax in place and find some use, any use, for the bucks.

A similar attitude keeps showing up in this argument that we can tax the well-to-do more. Today's example from mnpACT! about a meeting in Red Wing where the local Chamber of Commerce gave its legislators some grief for supporting tax increases.

It would be a little difficult to satisfy this group on tax policy. After all, if wealthier citizens are looking for greener pastures, there are plenty of them. New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, and Wyoming have no income tax at all... Alaska gives its citizens rebates on oil revenues. Oregon, Montana, and Delaware have no sales tax. But, with the exception of Stanley Hubbard who left for warmer climes in Florida, most of Minnesota's "elite" have stayed.

Why? Because the overall business climate is good here. Although Minnesota ranks high in tax revenue raised, Forbes magazine (not exactly a liberal source) decided to study all aspects of business climate...setting up a ranking of The Best States for Business (September, 2006). The result? Minnesota ranks 14th in the nation overall. That's ahead of Iowa (25th), Wisconsin (39th), South Dakota (17th) and just behind North Dakota (13th). Minnesota was ranked 14th for our labor force, 20th for regulatory environment, and most importantly, Forbes ranked Minnesota #3 for quality of life.

Before the chamber starts counting the number of wealthy Minnesotans who would bail out on Minnesota because of taxes, they might want to look at the Forbes picture....life is not measured by taxes alone.

The old Colbert quote of public finance being how to pluck the goose the most with the least amount of hissing has become how to pluck the goose the most without having the goose fly away. The OECD notes that at the time, Jean-Baptiste Colbert was interested in getting feathers for the wars and friends of Louis XIV. How different from now, if we replace the Sun King with Pogemiller, Clark and Bakk? Not much.

No doubt Minnesota is a great place to live. (Played golf today -- which is why I'm only posting now -- and 80 degrees and enough sun to keep the bugs off made this by far the nicest day of the year so far.) And those who are here are those who have voted with the feet; they adjust to Minnesota's higher taxes by receiving compensating differentials in other areas, including the weather (!), good roads, good schools, etc. The beauty of the St. Cloud civic center proposal is its hidden nature: You won't notice the money you forgo because you never held it. Thus there will be little objection to the bonding request St. Cloud will make. But small changes in what you keep can have some substantial effects. It's an elasticity question; seems like most of the good questions are.

One of the people I golfed with today is a local lawyer who handles estates. What keeps him busy these days? Writing opinions for clients on the benefits and costs of moving. Be careful you don't keep ignoring the hissing; those geese have maps as well as wings.

Labels: economics, Minnesota, St. Cloud, taxes

I will be appearing (perhaps as a weekly gig now) on Hot Talk with Andy Barnett on 1450 KNSI around 8:10am. The topic is the proposal to expand the Civic Center in St. Cloud into the space currently occupied by the library (we passed a referendum to drop about $30 million into the library and sundry other public works awhile ago.) Since the proponents intend to have the state bond for us, I would hope those living outside St. Cloud will take notice of this proposal for another $15 million.

Labels: Media, politics, St. Cloud

I admit to liking fresh sheets and towels daily when I travel. When I travel with Mrs. S this is a problem, for she does not like the invasion of Housekeeping. (Part of this is because I usually am gone by the time they arrive; she has turned Getting Ready to Go Out into a three-act production with hors d'oeurves served between acts.) But I love the feel of a fresh towel.

I have always found the signs of "save the earth, reuse your towels" absolutely annoying, yet have also wondered if they work. Apparently not.

Nearly 70 percent of respondents said they open a new mini-bottle of shampoo each time they shower at a hotel, and 63 percent said they were more likely to leave the lights on at a hotel than at home.

Three out of four hotel guests believe it is important to have their sheets and towels changed each day — an environmentally unfriendly habit few practice at home.

I do re-use the shampoo at least. But I also take home the fresh one they leave the second day.

Frank Stephenson figures that when we don't pay for the water or the washing, we conserve.

(Which causes me to pause on a story my pastor friend told me the other day. He has a six-year-old son who likes to wear different pajamas to bed each night. This is nice except that at the end of the week the hamper has seven pairs of pajamas, causing extra washing. So he tries to talk his son into using fewer pajamas. Having spent much time with an economist -- right, I get to take credit for this, because it's my story -- he tells his son he will charge a quarter for washing. Come week-end, and the son brings his dad his hamper with the seven pairs. "I told you I would only do that if you gave me a quarter." His son carries the hamper out and back to his room, only to return a minute later with the hamper. "You still have all the pajamas there." The son smiles, places a quarter on top of the hamper and leaves.

When he told me this he wondered if he should raise the price. He feared his son would raid his piggy bank, which is one of those in which you teach kids to tithe, save, and invest. We agreed that increasing the amount of money he got for allowance would only cause inflation and not change behavior. What to do? I replied, "Well, you could simply destroy six pairs of pajamas. You'd solve your problem and your son would keep his money." A long silence followed. I'm not sure if he was awestruck for my brilliance or praying for God to forgive my depravity in suggesting the ruin of his son's pajamas.)

Anyway, back to towels. Some guy did a study suggesting that if you tell people what is expected of them in re-using towels, you'll get almost fifty percent of them to re-use a towel at least once. But a commenter on Freakonomics post on the same thing suggests that paying people to re-use sheets and towels (at about $5/day) was a much better mechanism.

In every other hotel I’ve stayed in that has encouraged me to forego linen changes, the hotel has done nothing to compensate me for the savings they get from my decision. Having experienced this in Tokyo done right, I almost never opt for this service. I do feel guilty, but it bothers me that the hotel is disingenuous in their appeals to my environmentalism (they’re doing this to save money/make profits, not to save the planet). If they cared about saving the planet, they would pass the cost savings from those choices back to the guests who made those choices.

Excuse me, I need to call my pastor friend...

Labels: economics

Michael and I are starting a series this week on the Final Word in which we will focus on one presidential candidate per week and ask callers to tell us specifically what they like or don't like about that candidate. This week we kick off with Rudy Giuliani as the focus. Do you like him or don't you and why? Do you think he'll win or not? I'll focus mostly on domestic policy -- since Steve Forbes has signed on with Rudy as an advisor, should I be treating Rudy as a Forbes/Kemp tax warrior? -- as that's what I know. Michael will offer some thoughts as well. But what will make this feature work or not are opinions on the candidates from you, the listener. Be sure to listen and call us Saturday at 651-289-4488 with your view.

Labels: AM1280, NARN, Northern Alliance Radio Network

Via Craig Newmark, a great story by Peter Gordon about the cost of the Subway to the Sea.

The Mayor wants to extend LA's Red Line subway another 12.5 miles so it goes all the way to the beach. (Why stop there?)

Planners are still $5 billion short but, the story reports, they do have $5 million for a study of the project.

The sharing part of me prompts me to do the study for free. So here goes.

The present 16 miles of the Red Line accounts for an annual loss of $286 million (even after considering all manner of external benefits from some riders not driving). So we are looking at augmenting this problem by about $223 million per year. The $5 billion to be spent has an annual value (using the governments favored 7.5% annual interest rate) of $375 million. So the bottom line is: forget about it.

In fact, as a bonus, I suggest the MTA shuts down the 16 miles of Red Line they now operate. In fact, if each of the 115,000 current daily boardings are parts of a round-trip, there are approximately 57,500 of them. We could ask them if a lifetime pension of $5,000 per year would make them whole. It's mostly a low-income ridership that now uses the Red Line and many might think that this is pretty cool.

Craig points out that Mayor Villaraigosa is not taking his own advice, being driven instead in his own Yukon. Ironman doesn't want to outfit the poor with Yukons, but rather a nice little ride for each person currently using LA's mass transit. I'd say either cash or the pension, which could finance a used car and some other bills those riders might have.

Labels: economics

As most observers now, Rep. Barney Frank is now chair of the House Financial Services Committee, which hears testimony from the Federal Reserve. RTE notes that he got a little excited today talking about income inequality and forgot to let Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke give his opening remarks in his legally mandated testimony to Congress.

Barney Frank spoke at length on growing income inequality, then, half an hour into the hearing, asked Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke for his thoughts. Mr. Bernanke began to reply when Mr. Frank sheepishly interrupted, “I apologize, you haven’t given your opening statement yet. If this had been my first hearing, I could explain that mistake a little bit easier. No good explanation comes to mind.”

Mr. Frank also praised Mr. Bernanke for devoting several pages of his testimony to consumer protection issues. His predecessor, Alan Greenspan, had little interest in consumer protection issues, much less mentioning them in his Humphrey-Hawkins testimony. “To me it is very clear this is not Uncle Alan’s semi-annual report,” Mr. Frank said.

It's not a mild-mannered Congress working with the Fed these days. How bad is this? Let me tick off two past Congressmen who probably were harder on the Fed than Rep. Frank has been so far.

• Wright Patman was a progressive from the Depression era. He introduced perhaps ten bills in his time in Congress to repeal the Federal Reserve Act. He thought the Fed was too powerful, exclaiming once that the Fed could veto everything the president does.
• Henry Gonzalez was chair in the 1980s and 1990s, overseeing the Fed during the savings and loan crisis, Mexican debt, etc. He felt the Fed was too secretive and pushed for taping and immediate release of all meeting minutes. If there is anyone Barney Frank would emulate as an overseer of the Fed, it's Gonzalez. But given the more open proceedings of the Fed, Frank may have more trouble seeking places to agitate as Gonzalez did.

Labels: economics, Federal Reserve, politics

In my continuing quest to figure out what Keith Ellison meant, I have now drawn two stories from which I have two statements:

In a written statement released Tuesday afternoon, Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, said his remarks had been misconstrued.

"In response to a question, I stated that the Bush Administration exploited post-9/11 fears to advance a policy agenda that has undermined our civil liberties. I stand by this statement. ...

"I want to be clear that the murderous Nazi regime is historically distinct and the horror of the Holocaust must be acknowledged as a unique event in human history. I did not intend any direct comparison between the totalitarian state of Nazi Germany and the current administration.

"I have taken consistent and strong stands against Holocaust denial throughout my life in public service," Ellison said. (Minneapolis Star-Tribune, July 17, 10:21pm)

OK, he stands by the statement and he did not intend any direct comparison by the statement he made. So we probably need to watch this again:
Now you don't get to see the part where he is reported to have said he can't really say that Bush staged the 9-11 debacle because doing that put you in "the nut-ball box." (It's not clear whether Hitler ordered the burning of the Reichstag either, but that's for the historians to debate.)

Now the second report, almost at the same time as this one:

The nation's first Muslim congressman said Tuesday that he erred in comparing the Bush administration's response to Sept. 11 to an event that led to Adolf Hitler's consolidation of power in Nazi Germany.

..."In hindsight, I wouldn't have used that [Reichstag] reference point," Ellison told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Tuesday. "It was probably inappropriate to use that example, because it's a unique historical event, without really any clear parallels."

Ellison said he remains harshly critical of the Bush administration.

"I believe that they have exploited the fears that grew from 9/11, in order to pass legislation and even start wars they could have never gotten away with but for that tragedy," he said.

Ellison said he had gotten a call Tuesday afternoon from the Anti-Defamation League, an international group that opposes anti-Semitism, regarding the Hitler comparison.

"They told me they understood the point I was trying to make, but they didn't think it was the right way to use that historical example, because they thought any sort of comparison to the modern world we live in in some way diminishes the horror of the Nazi era," Ellison said. "I told them I feel they're right."

Gary calls this an apology (that doesn't wash with him) but I don't see any regret or remorse expressed towards the person to whom the slur was made -- the president. Indeed, he goes further than the statement quoted by the StarTribune, not only accusing the Bush administration of undermining civil liberties but of starting wars. (Which ones? Does Ellison oppose the Afghan war against the Taliban?) Instead he just admits it was an error.

For a man that is supposed to say he's sorry, he doesn't seem to show much contrition.

Michael has been running a series of posts today of reactions to the now-better-publicized remarks.

Labels: Ellison, Minnesota, politics

Do you remember the yacht tax? Passed as part of a luxury excise tax on the rich in George H.W. Bush's tax increase in 1990, it produced much less revenue than expected and killed off 7,600 jobs in the boat building industry, according to a column by George Will. It was such a bad idea that by 1992, both Republicans and Democrats wanted it gone. It took a few years before the industry bounced back. Even principles of economics textbooks refer to it now as a disaster.

If only Congress would read those textbooks. For in their desperate search for money to pay for a new federal child health insurance program, the muttonheads in the Democratic Party are at it again. This time it's cigars.

The Democrat controlled Congress has sought an extra $35-billion to $50-billion for the state children's health insurance program. The program distributes payments to the states to help buy coverage for kids not poor enough for Medicaid.

(Note: Part of that money would go to expand SCHIP, the insurance program, to families at four times the official poverty guideline which, according to