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

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.

Headlines for the New Year Meme

I got tagged.

The ArchCrone has asked me to submit my own Headlines for the New Year. The idea is from David Cohen. So here goes!

Headline I’m most fearful of seeing in 2008: (at the risk of riffing on ArchCrone’s theme) In wake of tragic attack on President Bush, President Cheney declares martial law, delays elections indefinitely.

Headline I most want to see in 2008: Congress overrides vetoes; SCHIP expanded to all children and orderly withdrawal of both troops and security contractors from Iraq begins.

Headline I most expect to see in 2008: Wages fail to keep pace with inflation for the 4th straight year.

Headline I least expect to see in 2008: Both parties realize election cycle too long; primary season designated as the April before a November election; campaigning prior to New Years Day prohibited.

So, who wants to add their own headlines? Don’t be shy, step on up!

Cross-posted at Central Sanity.

Obligatory Diet Post Part One: Who the Hell am I to Say That?

Let me tell you a little about myself.

I was never an athletic child by any stretch of the imagination. Being short compared to my classmates, I usually scored poorly on any physical fitness test that measured my cohort by age as opposed to height: my legs were shorter so I couldn’t run as fast; my arms were shorter so I couldn’t climb as well. I was in 5th grade before it dawned on our Phys Ed teacher that setting the chin-up bar for “average height for xth grader” skewed his results for anyone on my side of the bell curve. He added one of those folding gym mats to make up for the difference, and suddenly 6 girls could do the flex arm hang that never could before! He probably took credit for improving our strength too.

Through Junior High and the first year of High School, I did bike a lot. There were actually places I could go on my bike, such as the library, park district, a grocery store, several friends’ houses, and a small shopping center. This was no longer true when we moved to Texas. My physical activity was largely limited to walking around the school. Nonetheless, my BMI on graduation day was 21.2* — well within normal range.

I went to college, and had a bigger campus to walk around. I also had to take a few PE classes, which is where I met the first truly competent coach I ever personally encountered. At the time, she was the head Women’s Volleyball coach, and she took the time to point out what I was doing wrong, and more importantly how I could do better. I was still not very athletic, but at least I wasn’t a hazard in the gym. However, like most other college students, my diet was not what anyone would consider spectacular. Somehow, I managed the 4 years only gaining 5 pounds, for a BMI of 22.2. This is, by the way, my current weight and BMI.

A year later — in the middle of grad school — I got married. By then my BMI was up to 23.6 — still normal, but I was still getting heavier. Then one night, I got home from choir practice to find my new husband watching one of those talk shows, and I became familiar with the work of Joyce Vedral. She’s looking pretty good for a senior citizen, isn’t she? Trust me, she looked terrific then too. Within days, I bought one of her books, the one she wrote with Jean Claude VanDamme’s wife. Well, I started weightlifting. And because we had a number of activities, we ate more fast food than was really good for us. I bulked up, but not in a good way. I moved on to one of Dr. Vedral’s other workouts, but not before my BMI was up to 25.4. I was able to delude myself that a lot of it was muscle. And hey, BMI is a crock, right? Right? Besides, I’ve got one of those relatively wide Eastern-European frames and will never ever be model-skinny. Right?

I got out of school and started working full time. I ended up in one of those apartment offices that always has some sort of food thing going on: cookies for guests; popcorn with the manager in the afternoons; lunch with “the girls”; stopping for a snack on the way to make bank deposits. Oh, and then we’d all decide to diet together — which usually meant a trip to Sam’s Club where we would buy a big salad bag and a monster sized bottle of reduced fat ranch dressing. By the time the lettuce got brown and disgusting, we had usually given up anyway. I still walked some, and we had fencing class once a week. We probably had fast food of one flavor or another 4 days a week for dinner. During this time, my BMI fluctuated between 26.3 and 28.1. I looked like a little sausage, especially in that “modular clothing” that places like “Units” used to sell. I had become convinced that diets were a waste of time. And then I got pregnant.

My official post-pregnancy weight is only 3 pounds more than my official pre-pregnancy weight. That sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, my BMI was still way too high at 28.7! Like Scarlett O’Hara and many other women, I resigned myself to the idea that most women don’t get their old bodies back after having a baby. I bought size 12 jeans and decided to live with it. For most practical purposes, I had stopped working out except for an occasional walk around the block pushing the stroller — weather permitting.

One fine morning, my husband arrived home from work — he was by then working in an Emergency Room — and announced we were going on a diet. He had been keeping track of the progress made by the head of the local Nephrology residency (a kidney specialist) on one of those low-carbohydrate diets. Here’s my husband’s results. Frankly, he looks even better now. I got back down to college weight, and we did not do any kind of exercise at all.

We didn’t add exercise to our routine until several years later in 2001, when we bought a decent stationary bike. Although I was skeptical at the time, it has more than paid for itself since we didn’t have to buy a gym membership (or two). I started doing Joyce Vedral’s Fat Burning Workout and some flexibility training while he biked. I have since switched to a military workout, and experimented with the shovelglove. I tend to develop some less-than-feminine-looking muscles, so back to the military workout for me. He uses weights while I bike. We both watch CNBC while we work out.

I lost the weight, and I kept it off long enough to make me (according to a prominent “fat acceptance” blogger) “literally a freak of nature.” Although my BMI did creep back up to 24 for a bit — still “normal”, still lookin good, just not as firm as I’d like — I’m now back down to college weight and in better shape than I have ever been. Because I have much better muscle tone than I did in college, I wear a size 2 jean now. Frankly, I don’t think I have ever worn a size two before, even in Junior High! And we’re about to step up the workout routine; maybe I’ll get back to High School weight.

Next time, I hope to talk about being a freak of nature, the truth about fitness, and why most diets fail.

In the meantime, a little background reading in lieu of “in closing”: Children who sleep less weigh more; inexpensive recipes for the New Year; I hate to say it but Kate’s right about Weight Watchers and Jill has some insights of her own to add, too; BlogHer on the diet rabbit-hole; and heck, she’s still big but she looks like she lost 20 pounds just by getting a bra that fit! Thanks, Carson!

* I realize BMI is a controversial measurement. I am using it to avoid this kind of reaction. By expressing my weight as a ratio with my height, you can start to think of it in terms of what you would weigh at these levels instead of focusing on my relative lightness.