January 2008 – Shortwoman.com

A Modest Proposal

Campaign season is too darn long.

It’s too long for a number of reasons, including this modest list:

“Voter Fatigue” — Joe and Jane Average get so tired of hearing about politics that they lose interest in voting altogether. Particularly since it looks like candidates will be finalized something like 9 months before the elections. That’s an entire human gestation period.
Circular Firing Squad — Candidates have such a grand time ripping on one another during primary season that they hand the opposing party ammunition for the general election.
Too expensive — The long campaign season means it costs a lot more money to mount a credible campaign. It’s not possible to really run without being on the hook to special interest groups. That is to say nothing of the insanity of spending millions of dollars to try and get a job that earns $400,000 that you only get to keep 4 years. Sure, there are perks like free housing, security, and riding a private 747 around the world, but you see the point.
Day jobs — The people trying to become President are almost all current elected officials. They should be doing the job their constituents elected them to do instead of going off on a year long job interview. Seriously, there have been some important votes in the Senate lately.

This year, the Democratic Convention is in late August; the Republican Convention is in early September. That’s fine! It allows a good solid 2 months of plain old campaign afterwards. What really needs to be shortened is primary season. The various states have tried to get their primaries and caucuses earlier and earlier so that they are still relevant. Various states use the process to flex political muscle in a race that would otherwise bypass them. It has gotten to the point that the Democratic Party has told Michigan and Florida that their primary is too darn early and doesn’t count! By the time Super Tuesday has come and gone, the fat lady is singing.

So yes, the Presidential campaign season isn’t just too long, it’s way too long. It was probably too long back before candidates could travel by airplane and have their comments on the TV within minutes, and it’s even worse in the “internet age”. I have an idea to fix that. It will never happen, because the Powers That Be seem to like things the way they are.

So here’s my idea.

Let’s keep the conventions and the general election cycle exactly where it is, but reduce primary season to 12 weeks. This is a full month longer than the period of time between the conventions and Election Day. Furthermore, let’s break this down into six sections, each 2 weeks long.

Let Iowa and New Hampshire continue the traditional kickoff to the season in weeks one and two.

By my count, there are 8 states (including the District of Columbia) that each have 3 electoral votes. They can all do their primaries in week 3. By now, one out of 5 states have done their thing, and several weaker candidates should be seriously considering dropping out of the race.

Another 9 states (excluding New Hampshire) have 4 or 5 electoral votes each. They all go in week 5.

An additional 10 states (excluding Iowa) have between 6 and 9 electoral votes (inclusive) each. They get week 7. In an ideal world, we are down to a half dozen candidates on each side.

The 13 states with 10-15 electoral votes all have their primaries in week 9.

So by week 10, 41 states and the District of Columbia have had primaries, caucuses, straw polls, or whatever else they do. In weeks 10 and 11 the remaining nine states — our nine most populous states — finish out the roster. Ideally, we have three or maybe even 4 candidates for each party still in play, even if some are regarded as longshots. Since at the moment these nine states control 226 electoral votes, they are still very much relevant to the outcome. They can still make or break a candidate’s chances.

Needless to say, after the 2010 Census, the Electoral Votes will be shuffled, and this order will have to be slightly adapted. I consider this a minor tweak. Even we we take a few weeks off before the conventions, we can still start the process in May!

Can anyone tell me why this would be bad for the voting public? Anyone?

Another Way to Boost the Economy

It occurred to me this morning that nobody has discussed the economic impact of Iraq beyond what it does to the national debt. What would happen — economically speaking — if we were to bring the troops home?

First, up to 158,000 military personnel and perhaps as many as 180,000 contractors would come home. Those that were with the National Guard would return to their home states and go to work. They and their families would then spend their money here in the United States, stimulating the economy.

Second, some of those people would not have jobs to which they could return. Yes, yes, it’s the law that employers must find work for returning servicemen; but the fact is that some of these guys have been gone a long time now, and their employers needed somebody to actually do the work. It’s not fair to the soldier to deny him work, but it’s not fair to fire the new guy who’s actually been doing the job either. While it is a sad fact that some of these brave people face unemployment, some of them will use what they have learned in Iraq to start their own businesses, stimulating the economy.

Third, we would no longer be spending billions of dollars each month — $275 Million every day — to wage war in Iraq. If you are an old-school conservative who believes in things like low deficits and fiscal responsibility, these figures had better make you think long and hard about the war.

Fourth, we would no longer have the ongoing cost — both in terms of VA spending and in human terms — of creating more wounded Iraq War veterans. Not to be cynical, but healthy vets take jobs and not disability checks; this is better for our bottom line, for our communities, and even more importantly for their families.

But what about the Iraqis, you may ask. Well, with our troops and contractors gone, they are no longer a flashpoint for violence. Without our people putting their noses where they do not belong, they will come up with an internal peace plan. And that brings me to the fifth and final way that bringing our troops home will help our economy: with an internal peace plan and no meddling from Western interests, oil production will rise. Rising oil production will result in lower petroleum costs and lower prices at the gas pump.

In closing: an amazing piece by Dennis Sanders on social conservatives; stupid job interview questions aren’t good for anybody and often skate the edge of being illegal; it’s FISA D-Day so call your Senators; two from BondDad; two on Food Stamps; and finally, a suggestion about what to do with your tax rebate check. Read it all to find out Nancy Pelosi’s plan for what happens if this doesn’t work (hint, Benjamin Franklin said that would be crazy).

Stimulus Package Round-Up

Last week, when President Bush outlined his proposed stimulus package, someone asked me what I thought. My reply:

First, it will raise the national debt and deficit during “wartime”. FDR was more fiscally conservative.

Second, as it sits 40% of people won’t get the whole “rebate” because they didn’t pay enough taxes. Those 40% of people are the same people most likely to have a really good way to spend $800-1600. Like the rent or mortgage.

Third, as if sending a bunch of checks in *June* (at best) is going to fix the recession we have *now*. A check in June doesn’t help Joe Average find a job in February.

Well, now we have a “compromise” in the works, and just like Solomon proposing to cut the baby in half, this one isn’t really good for anybody.

The International Times Herald notes that the Fed may have already done all they can do, and tells us that the compromise reduces the “rebate” to $300 for individuals and up to $1200 for families. Oh, and some vague business tax incentives and homeowner relief measures. To round things out, here’s coverage from the Associated Press and CNN. If you’d like to get more into the details, please check out TheStreet.com‘s coverage.

They’d better shake a leg, because the Christian Science Monitor points out that the “Economic Outlook Dims Sharply.” Japan’s Mainichi Shinbun (or, “Daily Newspaper”) points out that this emergency relief would cause the deficit to balloon further. If you think the deficit has anything to do with our current financial woes, then you must think this would be bad.

Onward to the opinions of actual economists! Paul Krugman is inclined to cautiously agree that maybe the Fed has run out of ammo unless they haven’t, and furthermore the compromise stimulus bill will be a disappointment. Stephen Dubner of Freakonomics shares my insight that stimulus 5 months from now hardly helps us today. EconoSpeak calls it “Little Bang for the Buck“. The Economic Policy Institute says it is “Missing the Target” on multiple levels.

He’s no economist, but Jim Cramer has some opinions about how this package may effect the markets. And in the interest of fairness, I conclude with several other opinions: Dave Johnson of Seeing the Forest notes that normally conservatives are all for “cutting spending” — although he does not point out that this package is in fact more spending; John Aravosis of AmericaBlog accuses Congressional Democrats of “giv[ing] away your stimulus check”; and the ArchCrone of The Crone Speaks points out that the people who could most use a few hundred bucks probably won’t get a darn thing.

So my opinions from last week are more-or-less confirmed by both experts and other commentators: a big nothing that will cost a lot of money.

cross-posted at TheModerateVoice

Blog for Choice Day

It’s Blog for Choice Day. And although Maya’s Granny has written far more eloquently than I can on this topic, I will add my own comments.

I sincerely hope I am never in the position of having to make a personal decision to terminate a pregnancy. I don’t know that I could do it unless my health were at stake. But who am I to make that decision for anyone else? Why is my decision more valid than yours?

That’s the point of “Choice.” You are an independent human being; you can think for yourself. And contrary to what the so-called “Pro-Life” community would have you believe, sometimes people do “Choose Life.” My favorite story about just that — emphasis mine — is here:

Whoopi [Goldberg] was asked to contribute [to the book, Open the Unusual Door, True Life Stories of Challenge, Adventure and Success by Black Americans] and wrote about when her 14-year old daughter announced to her that he was pregnant. Even though she had supported and had spoken out in favor of pro-choice, her daughter’s situation gave “pro-choice” a new meaning. Choice to have a baby, not just choice to have an abortion. Whoopi wrote, “I had to take my beliefs out for a little test drive… It means women have the choice to do whatever they want..; even if it smacked into what my choice would have been for her… she taught me pro-choice is not just a phrase.” For me this is an important lesson. First it reminds me that I don’t want to be a parent so young. It also showed me how stating one’s beliefs or position about an issue becomes very different when you have to confront it personally. Facing it forces you to think about the issue differently. It’s one thing to state a belief; it’s another if you have to live it! It’s easier to talk the talk than walk the walk!

Obstacles like “waiting periods” and parental consent laws and spousal/paternal consent laws (which can sadly be used to force women to become gestation machines for rapists) are a nice way of saying “Oh now hold on a minute little lady! You aren’t smart enough to make this decision all on your lonesome! Don’t you know you’re havin’ a baby?”

Kindly leave aside for a moment the issue of whether a woman who is “not smart enough to know her own mind” should really be raising children.

I honestly don’t see how mainstream America can take the so-called Pro-Life movement seriously until such time as they denounce and expel the internal faction that thinks it is acceptable to enforce their opinions through violence, vandalism, and murder. By failing to do so, by actively spreading lies about birth control and abortion, they are showing their true colors: the Anti-Sex movement.

Make no mistake: I deeply respect efforts to minimize the number of abortions that take place around the world. The only way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. You prevent unwanted pregnancies by making sure women have access to birth control, by working to prevent birth defects that can turn a desperately wanted pregnancy into a tragedy, by reducing sexual assault, and by encouraging a social and economic environment conducive to the raising of children.

In Closing: Tim Iocono on Recession; the intersection of politics and health care; Henry Paulson sure looks scared about something; one way to get a raise?; ammunition the Democrats should be using but aren’t; and finally, Real ID Rebels.

News

I have some news to share.

Joe Gandelman has invited me to contribute to The Moderate Voice, a site that I have known and respected for some years. In asking, he wrote that he liked ShortWoman and my writing; he furthermore added “I’m five foot one and I am biased and MUST invite a short woman.” TMV is a huge site with readership that dwarfs mine — no pun intended — and I would be foolish to pass up this opportunity.

I absolutely will continue to post regularly to ShortWoman in addition to some posts (and cross-posts) to TMV, however it seems clear that I will have to step down from my duties at Central Sanity. There are only so many hours in the day.

Many thanks to all my readers for making this possible.

Update: my first TMV post is up! I wrote my thoughts on having participated in the Nevada caucus. Many grateful welcomes to any first time visitors clicking through from The Moderate Voice!

Gaming the Economic Numbers

I have written before on some of the ways that the official inflation numbers are manipulated, and even hinted at some of the reasons why. I linked to this article back in 2004 which outlines some of the ways the numbers are gamed, and wrote this summary of Bill Fleckenstein’s analysis in 2006. For review:

They adjust price increases of anything “new” or “improved” (including cars and computers and even hand soap and cereal).
They don’t make the same sort of adjustments if the quality of a good or service declines.
They arbitrarily decide that food and energy “don’t count” when calculating the so-called “core” rate.
They assume homeowners pay themselves rent.
They use an artificial basket of goods, and feel free to “substitute a cheaper equivalent” if a price gets out of line (because you’re totally willing to buy hamburger when you want a roast, right?).

And truly, that’s just a short list. These little games allow the government to say that inflation is “nominal”, the economy is fine, there’s no need to raise interest rates, and — most importantly — we don’t have to give a big cost-of-living-adjustment to all those people on Social Security.

But wait, there’s more.

It also allows transparent manipulation of Gross Domestic Product, or GDP.

Here’s how: Let’s say Joe and Jane Average used to spend $300 per week (that’s roughly the take home pay of someone earning $7.50 per hour) 5 years ago. They buy things like groceries and clothing and gasoline and cable TV. They set money aside for the car payment and the rent/mortgage. According to the official low, low inflation numbers, they should be spending something like $335 every week ($300 x 1.02%, compounded annually over 5 years is $331.22). However, you and I both know that’s way low: gas prices were as low as $1.639 in 2003 (personal data, I can even tell you where I bought it); groceries cost more; don’t even get started on housing prices; almost anything that had to be transported has higher costs — and that would be just about everything.

We both know Joe and Jane Average aren’t spending $335 per week, they’re spending more like $375 or even $400. But that number is too high to be accounted for by the official inflation number, so Joe and Jane must be buying more goods and services in the eyes of the economists. And, since personal spending represents more than half of GDP, that bloated number artificially inflates Real GDP Growth too.

So now what? It is clear that inflation is on the rise, even using the official government figures. It is officially on the rise at levels not seen in 16 years, and some of these inflation hiding tools weren’t in use then. And — even though this number is not adjusted for inflation, real or stated — retail sales are down. Add to that the fact that unemployment is on the rise and we have good old fashioned Stagflation. It should be no shock that the middle class is being hit hardest; they have — had — the most to lose. In short, nobody can slather enough lipstick on this pig. This comic put it well. GDP growth is clearly at risk. Since negative GDP growth means a recession, I will outright shocked if this combination of factors does not officially put us in recession.

In closing: Expert Ezra spells out exactly why mandatory health insurance won’t result in universal coverage; the Justice Department is trying to figure out exactly what “immunity” the State Department gave to Blackwater (but not necessarily how the State Department came to have the authority to give legal immunity to anybody); battery life could improve tenfold; urban schools aim to send all students to college, completely devaluing not only their own diplomas, but also some college degrees (don’t get me wrong, I’m glad they have high expectations for their students, but this is ridiculous); Peace Ambassador binLaden?; and 5 things not to do in the Emergency Room.

No, Really, Everything is Fine… PANIC!!!!

How long have I been saying things like “If the economy is so wonderful, then how come we have pathetic job growth/oil prices are at a record high/gold prices are rising/Joe Average has it so tough?” Suddenly people agree with me.

First, Merrill Lynch said we entered a recession last quarter. Then Goldman Sachs said we aren’t there yet, but recession is coming. They noticed some disturbing trends in the employment and job creation numbers. Finally. Goldman Sachs is where people like Robert Rubin and Jim Cramer learned to play the game; they didn’t survive this long by not knowing what they are talking about. If you prefer lots of charts and analysis, here’s Menzie Chinn at Econbrowser. Non-economist Barbara Ehrenreich replied to the whole brouhaha with a resounding “Duh.”

In fact, the UN thinks a worldwide recession is on the way, and the Christian Science Monitor reports that the “credit crunch” might could indeed be bad for the economy all around the world.

Of course not everyone agrees. Some Wall Street economists still think everything is great (as long as, please, you don’t look at the financial sector). President Bush thinks everything is great, and we need to make sure of it by implementing more tax cuts.

Speaking of that pesky financial sector, it looks like Bank of America may rescue Countrywide by acquiring it. May we live in interesting times.

In closing: telecoms cut off FBI’s [warrantless] wiretaps for non-payment of bills not anything important like, say, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments; Blackwater needs lobbyists; how are the new Congressmen doing?; a Kindergarten security risk; most Americans don’t like globalization; trading tips from the BondDad; and finally, Neko City.

Other People’s Commentary

Let’s start our little tour with Sunny66 on The Crone Speaks, who wrote Universal Health Care Myths 101. Remember, I am a nut who thinks true Universal Health Care could actually stimulate the economy, not suck it dry as most conservatives would have you believe.

Next stop, JurassicPork at Welcome to Pottersville on a topic I wish were not important, Domestic Abuse.

Let’s swing towards the center and visit The Moderate Voice for Mark Daniels piece on Oil and Foreign Policy.

As long as we’re already here, stick around for Shaun Mullen on Civilian Casualties in Iraq.

Moving on, we have Tim Iocono at The Mess That Greenspan Made talking about Economic Reports. Be sure to scroll down to his charts and discussion on manufacturing and payroll.

Speaking of the economy, James Hamilton of Econbrowser has some things to say about Weak Auto Sales.

This brings us nicely around the other side of the world to see Elaine Meinel Supkis discussing Compressed Air Powered Cars Mass Produced in India.

No discussion of Other People’s Commentary today would be complete without none other than George McGovern’s piece in yesterday’s Washington Post entitled Why I Believe Bush Must Go.

And lets wrap things up with Kevin at Preemptive Karma discussing Marriage and Civil Unions, Church and State.

Have a great week, folks!

“Is America Ready for a Woman President?”

Please, do not mistake any of what I am about to say for any sort of endorsement of Hillary Clinton whatsoever. This is not about Hillary. The question of whether Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Dole or Nancy Pelosi is prepared to be our “Iron Lady of Politics” is another issue altogether.

You’ll hear it at parties, you’ll see it alluded to in blog posts and political cartoons. Everybody suspects it is something the political strategists ask themselves behind closed doors. It’s only happened on television. The question is “Is America Ready for a Woman President?”

I don’t like that question. I don’t like it any more than I like the assumption that a woman candidate would automatically get some substantial percentage of women’s votes. It’s shallow, sexist, and insulting.

If America is not ready for a woman to be our head of state, that means we are less modern than Great Britain.

If America is not ready for a woman to be our head of state, we are less progressive than Israel.

If America is not ready for a woman to be our head of state, that means we are more sexist than India, an ancient culture where it is still perfectly acceptable to light your wife or daughter on fire.

If America is not ready for a woman to be our head of state, that puts us behind Pakistan and Sri Lanka and Argentina, Bolivia, Germany, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Ireland, Bangladesh, France, Poland, Canada, Bulgaria, Liberia, Ecuador, New Zealand, Norway, Latvia, Panama, Finland, San Marino, the Philippines, Indonesia, South Korea, Serbia, Peru, Austria, the Ukraine, and Mongolia. Among others.

For that matter, if America is not ready for a woman to be our head of state, we are behind ancient Egypt.

Is that the nation I live in? I sure as hell hope not.

Cross-posted at Central Sanity.

Obligatory Diet Post Part Two: The Truth Isn’t Pretty

If you have been reading ShortWoman for some years, you have already read some of what follows. Yesterday, I explained why I probably know more about successful dieting than many people. That being said, I am neither a doctor nor a nutritionist nor any sort of personal trainer.

Most diets fail because we have unrealistic expectations. We think that if only we lost x pounds our lives would change; it’s not so. We think that we can deprive ourselves for a period of weeks or months and then go back to the way we’ve always eaten (or worse yet, reward ourselves with a big pig-out); the truth is that not only will our body hoard calories, we will go back to our old weight if we eat the old way — that is why most people who lose weight gain it back. We think our workout entitles us to a little treat; a little treat completely negates the average workout. We think a brisk walk around the mall is a workout; but what we actually do is a slow amble around the mall while sucking down a 600 calorie mocha. We think that we will magically lose weight by purchasing and eating chemistry experiments with labels that proclaim “low fat” or “low carb” or “lite”; the only thing that gets skinnier is our wallets. We think this weight loss plan will be the one that is different, the one that works; we ignore the small type about “results not typical” or “when combined with a reduced calorie diet and exercise.” We don’t stop to wonder how long Jared had to eat Subway Sandwiches 3 meals a day to lose all that weight; any doctor will tell you that 1-3 pounds lost a week is healthy — so losing 100 pounds should take 8-24 months. In short, we think there is such a thing as a magic pill.

Another major reason diets fail is that they are unsustainable. This needless to say overlaps with our unrealistic expectations. Do you really want to drink your lunch for the rest of your life? Because if you listen carefully to the ads on the TV, you will see that is their plan for you! Can you live on 1200 calories a day? Sure, for a while, but sooner or later hunger will catch up with you unless you have some sort of metabolic ace-in-the-hole. Since we have already established that losing a lot of weight takes time, sustainability is a huge factor. A diet that you can’t stand to keep doing for months — whether because of hunger or boredom — just won’t work. A sign of a good diet is that there is actual discussion of various stages of diet and a transition into a way of eating that will help us maintain a healthy weight.

The third major reason diets fail is lack of support. We have friends who say “Oh come on, just one cookie won’t hurt you!” (and we wonder if they say “Oh come on, just one drink won’t hurt you!” to recovering alcoholics). Or maybe we have friends who think they are being helpful by telling us what we can and cannot eat. Maybe we have husbands who tell the kids “Mom’s not having any pizza, she’s on one of her crazy diets again.” Even if our families, friends, and coworkers are supportive, we frequently find ourselves in a position where it is clear that we are eating diet food while everyone else is eating “normal” food. When we find that we have no supply of food that conforms to our diet, we do not engender the sympathy of those around us. At least Jared’s sandwich looked like a normal meal to everyone else. Even professional support groups like Weight Watchers have practices that are somewhat less than motivational.

The truth about fitness is that it isn’t easy. The human body was not designed to sit behind a desk all day. It is built to walk, to run, to carry things, to throw things, to swim, to climb, to move. And it is designed to do that all day, every day. Well guess what, most of us don’t have that ancient lifestyle. No, we sit at desks or on sofas, we ride in cars and buses and airplanes, we spend a lot of time on our butts. Even those of us who work on our feet generally walk no more than a few yards at one time. So we have to actually work out. And no, it isn’t fun. It isn’t supposed to be fun. Our ancestors didn’t hunt game and gather fruit because it was fun; they did it because it was food. Our ancestors didn’t run from predators because it was fun; they did it so they could live another day. Our ancestors didn’t haul wood back to the campsite because it was fun; they did it so there would be fire for heat and light and cooking. I do not work out because it is fun; I work out because I like the way my body looks when I do it regularly.

I am a freak of nature. I lost over 20% of my body weight almost a decade ago. I am my college weight, and in much better shape than I was then. There’s plenty in the archives, of course, but more of what I think about sustainable weight loss can be found in these 5 posts: one, two, three, four, five.

In closing: the market for liberty; lots of plastic bins are a symptom of a clutter problem, not a cure for it; USA Today reports on legal voters purged from voter registration lists; FedEx and the IRS are arguing about whether the delivery guy is an employee or a contractor (FedEx is going to lose); I like Hello Kitty and I think this is a bad idea; planes to nowhere; and remember the Massachusetts health plan? It turns out the fines for not having health insurance “could total as much as $912 for individuals and $1,824 for couples by the end of 2008….” Friendly reminder, the fine for a business not providing health insurance is $295. So much for Massachusetts being nigh unto socialists.