Disingenuous.

dis·in·gen·u·ous: adj, lacking in candor; giving a false appearance of simple frankness

A new report from the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement suggests it would cost almost $100 Billion ($100 Thousand Million) “to find, detain and remove all 12 million people believed to be staying illegally in the United States.” She went on to point out that this princely sum did not actually include “the cost of finding illegal immigrants, nor court costs — dollar amounts that are largely unknowable.” Even CNN admits these are “very rough calculations.”

Clearly, we are supposed to think that’s a lot of money that shouldn’t be spent. It’s more than double the entire Department of Homeland Security budget. We’ve already got a huge budget deficit in the Federal budget. There’s a war on, miles of bridges and other infrastructure to repair, and concerns about a possible recession. Surely it would be more cost effective to develop some sort of program to give them legal status. We can’t call it amnesty; how about a “guest worker program.” I will be utterly shocked if some variant of this does not get floated around by conservative commentators by this time tomorrow.

I find both these calculations and the resulting logic disingenuous. The fact of the matter is we don’t have to find, detain, and deport all these people. Mass deportations are a supply-side solution to what is fundamentally a demand-side problem. The city of Phoenix, AZ has already found that as their economy has slowed, “[Illegal immigrants] come for jobs and when there are no jobs they leave.”

All we have to do is insist that employers follow the law, paying a decent wage with decent conditions to legal American workers. When there are no jobs for people with no right to be here, they leave. Not only does that not cost billions of dollars, the Federal government stands to bring in more tax money as documented workers pay their taxes.

In closing: Why lead in toy paint? It’s cheaper could be retitled “Why we need consumer protections”; anti-corruption efforts at the World Bank aren’t going so well, with Paul Volcker saying part of the problem is “getting the entire bank on board with the importance of an anti-corruption effort”; health care costs for businesses are increasing at a slower rate because more costs are being shifted to consumers; thanks to Pete Abel for linking to this article on health care; the Senate is talking about doing something about prepayment penalties on subprime loans, something which is normally regulated on the state level (if it is regulated at all), so let your Senator know what you think; and finally, a must read for young men and college administrators, rapists have the power to prevent rapes.

Capricious and Arbitrary

Before I get started, I promised I would link to my thoughts after the official BLS job creation numbers were released. Of course I promised that before we all found out they were really job deletion numbers.

Anyway….

In the last 2 weeks, every schoolkid in the nation has brought home a packet of stuff from school that outlines the school rules, including dress code. This is over and above the fact that in our modern world, you could almost certainly find these rules on the school or school district website. Some of these rules are sufficiently important they warrant also being posted on a visible sign at the school; signs of this type are usually posted for rules aimed at visitors, or newly implemented rules.

If you think about it, within the last 2 weeks, you have passed (looked at, read, maybe forgotten) signs that say things like “No skateboards or rollerblades”; “No pets allowed except service animals”; “Please do not use your cell phone at the counter”; “No shoes, no shirt, no service”; “Signature gathering and passing out of literature by non-employees prohibited”; “No smoking within 50 feet”; “No solicitors”; “Hard hat zone, protective gear must be worn past this point”. The list goes on, but the point is that a certain behavior is either required or (more often) prohibited, so somebody put up a sign to let everyone know what the rule is.

And that brings me to yesterday’s story of the Southwest Airlines Fashion Police. Honestly, there are points on both sides of the issue that roughly boil down to “who wants to see that, and a business has a right to regulate itself” vs “why are you looking, she wasn’t breaking any laws, and who the heck is the employee to ruin somebody’s travel plans and cost them a lot of money.” Personally, I don’t have a problem with Southwest Airlines — or any other business — having a dress code, as long as it is clearly posted and can be known ahead of time. After all, many nice restaurants require gentlemen to wear at least a sportcoat, and most such restaurants will gladly rent you a sportcoat for the evening to help potential customers comply.

Standing in the airport terminal, with your baggage (and spare clothing) already on the plane, is the wrong time to find out that your clothing does not meet muster.

But why limit this posting requirement to Southwest Airlines? Let’s go elsewhere in the airport. The TSA could sure benefit from some signage, and so could the flying public. Imagine the capricious and arbitrary things that could be prevented if the “Things You Should Know” from their traveler’s page were a clearly posted series of signs near the entrance of the airport. These could be simplified down to a few numbered signs such as: “Things you must do” (take off your shoes, put your bags on the conveyor, etc.); “Things you must not do” (argue with the screener, joke about bombs); “Prohibited items”; “Exempted items” (medication, breastmilk, etc.); and “Your rights and responsibilities” (including and particularly your rights should you require special screening, specifically addressing the needs of the handicapped or children).

The ideal result would be that 9 out of 10 disputes at a TSA checkpoint should be reduced to one or the other party pointing to a sign and saying something like “Number 4”. I believe such signage would sharply curtail both actual abusive behavior by TSA officers, and the perception of such abuse in cases where the TSA is just doing its job.

Oh, and an official complaint form should be freely available in every terminal without having to ask an airport/airline employee, with an anonymous drop-box.

In closing: oh gee, maybe that crap we put in food after testing it on a bunch of inbred rodents isn’t so good for human children after all; sound familiar?; all this talk of reducing emissions within a few decades is great, but the Arctic icecap may not have more than a couple decades; Sen. Dr. Bill Frist actually doing something I can support (alert the media) but he shouldn’t forget the health of children in this country (you know, the one he’s licensed to practice medicine in?); Shine on you crazy tesseract, Madeleine L’Engle has passed away; the Financial Times is concerned about a possible “wave of evictions” in the United States; the Market Oracle argues the subprime problem is too big for a bailout, even if that were morally desirable; some Foolish advice for getting out of financial trouble; statistics, educational achievement, and the reality hiding underneath NCLB; and finally, way to kill another children’s franchise, G.I. Joe film in the works. Hopefully it won’t suck as badly as most people agree the Transformers film did.

The Economy for the Rest of Us

Not a lot of people paid attention to the fact that GDP growth has had little impact on wages during the Bush Administration. In fact, CNN glossed over the fact that most families saw income and earnings decline.

Admittedly, everyone is fixated on housing and mortgages, mortgages and housing: How are Joe and Jane Average going to fare? What can be done for them? Do we need a rate cut? I mean really? Can housing really trash the whole economy? Is there precedent for that? How bad will things be for the guys holding the mortgage paper? With home sales tumbling down to 2001 levels, will commercial real estate fare any better than residential?

As for the Fed, although a lower interest rate will (at least theoretically anyway) stimulate more loans — which would be good for housing — to do so means they will have to ignore inflation. What inflation, you may say. The official numbers have been stable for quite some time. That may have to change. Food prices have been rising at the commodity level. Wheat is at a record high, milk prices have doubled in the last two years (making it pricier than gas in some areas). Other agricultural commodities are up as well. Since food is specifically not included in the “core inflation” number, economic gurus feel safe ignoring it. At some point, these rising prices must be considered by the Fed.

But the unkindest cut was barely covered outside the financial news, and frankly isn’t as obvious as the rising price of a loaf of bread and a jug of milk. Our economy only added 38,000 jobs in August, the lowest number since June of 2003 (ironically, the month I began writing ShortWoman). That’s far, far below the 150,000 jobs we would need to keep up with new people entering the job market, and even far far below the 120,000 jobs expected. These figures are admittedly from payroll processing firm ADP and not the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but it seems to me that ADP ought to have a pretty good idea of how many people are taking home a paycheck in August who weren’t in July. The ADP number is always lower than the BLS number, so there is controversy about which is more accurate (does ADP undercount, or are the BLS numbers inflated?). The BLS number is only expected to be 65,000. This is despite the fact that there were more help wanted ads in August, and despite the fact that workers actually feel comfortable negotiating better terms with their bosses.

The only bright spot is that these numbers should reflect the official layoff numbers, released monthly by Challenger, Grey, and Christmas. Corporate layoffs were up 85% to 79,000, including over 30,000 in financial services and housing, each. Yes, each. Forbes put the whole situation very succinctly: Good Luck Finding A Job.

I am planning a piece on “service jobs” in the next few days, probably after the BLS version of the job creation numbers are released. It will probably be posted over at Central Sanity with a pointer over here.

In closing: wrong house, sorry about the threatening to shoot you in the head, ma’am; a must see chart; Andrew Sullivan on banned books; the money quote is “Anyone who objects to single-payer health care on the grounds that it’s ‘bureaucratic’ is invited to navigate the phone tree at my HMO. Kafka would consider it ‘over the top.'”; new research suggests that when we are told that something is false, we only remember the “false” part for a little while; if you haven’t seen it yet, check out Pete Abel on Project Vote Smart; definition of irony; follow-up on Tony Snow; bipartisanship? Isn’t that where you kiss and make up and then act surprised to find a knife in your back? And finally, if only it were a nice Tom Clancy novel, New Book Details Cheney Lawyer’s Efforts to Expand Executive Power.

Whatever Happened to Shorties Jane?

Harry? Wrong time for compromise, Senator Reid.

Patrick, on the other hand, has figured it out. Senator Patrick “Go **** Yourself” Leahy has said what I have been telling you Senator Reid should have said: we can talk about Mr. Gonzales’s successor once we’re done investigating Mr. Gonzales.

Some ideas worth considering: Alternet offers 10 reasons they feel pot should be legalized.

Maybe we can pass a hat for him. Dan Brown comments on Poor Tony Snow, making $168,000 annually and that’s just not enough to support the lifestyle to which he has become accustomed. Yeah, I wonder if he gets to keep his federal health benefits as he battles cancer.

Is he actually a licensed, you know, Doctor? It turns out that the latest nominee for Surgeon General is even a controversial figure in his own church.

Short Version: “It’s Icky!” isn’t reason enough to say it’s immoral, so how about we stay out of one another’s bedrooms. A conservative offers a truly conservative view on homosexuality and Senator Craig’s little mishap.

We don’t want no help around here. Have you ever seen a child stubbornly refuse too accept assistance, insisting he or she “can do it myself!”? Well, turns out the Feds are refusing help too. On one hand, one can see where officials might not want Joe Average offering “negative help” — help that creates more work or actually does harm. On the other hand, it sure looks like a small group of motivated helpers can, in the right circumstances, do more than the pros.

Baka hashi wo suru no hito. [stupid chopstick-using person] Ill-mannered ways to use one’s chopsticks.

Chancellor. CEOs. Queen. Secretary of State. Executives and Ministers, Judges and Senators. Forbes presents the 100 Most Powerful Women in the World.

Just because I like to eat them doesn’t mean I hate animals. Neil the Ethical Werewolf offers this commentary on being omnivorous and still doing your part to reduce cruelty to animals.

Take MaxSpeak off your favorites lists and add Econospeak. I will miss Max, no question. But his co-bloggers have already set up shop at Econospeak. Check out this item on a possible Middle Way in Iraq.

Um, when was the last time you saw a movie on an airplane? In my case, that would be never. I have never, in all my [REDACTED] years been on a flight that had a movie. Never ever. But apparently I could be watching some really racy and/or violent films. Parents are shocked, just shocked I tell you. Apparently they never got the memo that they are responsible for seeing to Junior’s entertainment on the plane.

Happy Labor Day. I have two items for you, one from Kim Pearson and one from the always eloquent Maya’s Granny.

Obligatory Housing Posts. Matthew Yglesias asks if real estate is such a great investment, how come the government has to give us tax breaks to buy it? Elsewhere, BondDad evaluates the possible upcoming scenarios. Next up, a fellow who feels the Bush plan is a bad joke.

Welcome Back Congress. Have a good vacation? You realize that’s more than Joe and Jane Average get, right? Good. Now get back to work and clean up that FISA mess you left on your desk.

Contractors Helping Contractors. I hesitate to point out that the Army may have to hire contractor medical personnel to take care of the other contractors in Iraq, because the fact of the matter is that there are many many medical contractors working on military bases right here Stateside. Maybe they ought to look into why they are having a hard time recruiting enough medical personnel in the first place, eh?

Making America Safer for Criminals. The Department of Justice has been “hollowed out” over the last few years, pushing experienced people out in favor of rookies that will toe the party line and Do What They Are Told.

I hope our President is as logical. If you have been poking around the Leftosphere this weekend, you have heard rumblings of invading Iran within a week. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn’t think so. In fact, he says that he’s an engineer, and he’s used his science and math skills to determine that America does not dare attack his nation. Oh yeah, and he’s got faith in Allah to that effect as well. It seems clear to me that he thinks our nation will act rationally, and I’m just not sure that is true anymore.

You mean people will pay good money for a book of ads? Someone did the math, and determined that over 700 of Vogue’s 800-someodd pages are advertisements.

At least he’s being honest about it. John Edwards has announced that his mandatory health insurance plan will include mandatory preventative care. Hey, kudos for calling it a “mandatory” plan instead of a “universal” one. But I must say I don’t like the idea of mandatory preventative care. First, how dare “the government” say I have to get X test done. Some of these tests are expensive and controversial. I assume that if I decline any of these tests — or simply don’t have the time to get them done — I will be on my own should something serious come up? This is the kind of thing people point to when they accuse liberals and progressives of favoring a “nanny state.” Frankly, as long as I pose no health hazard to others, it should be my choice what preventative care I choose to avail myself of. Second, I don’t see where he’s mandating that our employers give us the time off to make these mandatory appointments and have our mandatory care done. I hope Mister Two-Americas has thought that far ahead Corrected: I have now read the Edwards proposal as it appears on his website. I should have read it before saying anything, and I apologize for not having done so. I still don’t like that employers are the cornerstone of coverage, but here’s what it says about preventative care:

Health Care Markets will offer primary and preventive services at little or no cost. Incentives like lower premiums will reward individuals who schedule free physicals and enroll in healthy living programs. Edwards will also support community efforts to improve health, such as safe streets, walking and biking trails, safe and well-equipped parks, and physical education programs for children.

Dog Trainers Wanted. Open Left is looking for people to profile a few so-called Bush Dog Democrats. As you know, I prefer to call them Democrats in Name Only, or DINOs. Of course Liebermensch, my original DINO, has already been neutered. I also like that DINOs make it easy to distinguish DEAN-ocrats.

Two years later, we are still talking about this. Cleaning up New Orleans, that is. Mind-bogglingly enough, guys like Tom Tancredo are in essence saying “Ok, Waah Waah. Clean up your own mess and stop playing the pity card already.” Frankly this attitude boggles my mind when you consider everything that was done to thwart people from cleaning up and getting things back to normal. There are people who are still trying to get their insurance companies to cough up the money they are owed so they can clean up and get things back to normal (while still paying the mortgage I might add). And that’s to say nothing of the fact that almost no funds have gone towards rental housing, that some people have cleaned up the best they can only to find their homes bulldozed, that in some cases people have been physically prevented from returning to their homes at all. Mr. Tancredo? You want to stop “helping” these people? Good, stop preventing them from helping themselves, and help them line up the resources to rebuild it themselves instead. It sure is easy for some guy with “reported assets of between $530,000 and $1.1 million” to talk about not waiting for other people to help out.

I could be wrong, I could be right. Last but not least, a lengthy interview with Johnny Rotten.

Why Wall Street Matters in the Mortgage Mess

Over the last couple weeks, I have seen many accusations that government — the Fed, Congress, the President, the FHA, etc. — are going to bail out investors and leave delinquent mortgage holders to drown in debt. Even Jimmy Carter has been accused of caring more about investors than homeowners; I challenge you to show up to a Habitat for Humanity work site and say that. While I see the frustration that leads to this conclusion, it neglects certain realities of our mortgage mess.

As most of you know, in the old days Joe and Jane Average would save money for a sizable downpayment before even looking at real estate. Then they would go down to the bank with a couple years worth of tax forms and a few months of bank and brokerage statements. The bank would look at a credit report and call their boss to make sure they make enough money (according to “Modern Real Estate Practice”, housing expenses should not exceed 28% of monthly income, and other debts combined with housing should not exceed 36%), and even call the current landlord to make sure they pay on time. The money came from the bank’s depositors, so the bank was careful.

FHA guarantees changed the picture by being an “insurance policy” for certain buyers — but these buyers still had to have certain qualifications, and a host of disclosure laws apply to any loan that FHA touches. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac took advantage of the fact that mortgages can be sold and assigned. They basically said to the bank “Listen, you can wait 30 years for that mortgage to mature, or we can pay you a hefty percent of the interest you would have earned today, taking a lot of risk off your books, letting you book a profit on the mortgage now, and giving you enough money to write a new mortgage to somebody else.” Of course they would only buy loans that met certain criteria: loans below a certain amount; interest rates below a certain rate; a certain amount of equity; a bunch of disclosure forms that had to be signed by the borrower before the loan even closed. They also have (in theory anyway) the ability to blacklist lenders that they consider “abusive.” These rules have eased and tightened over the years. Since the loans were still backed by real houses, lived in by real people who met real qualifications, nobody saw a problem.

Fannie and Freddie weren’t the only ones buying mortgages and mortgage backed securities. But the new players — banks, brokerages, institutional investors, hedge funds — were held to lower rules than Fannie and Freddie. They figured that the paper was still backed by real houses occupied by real people, so what’s to worry about? The housing bubble continued to grow larger, fed by mortgage brokers who only cared about closing the next deal, because after all somebody else would be holding the bag when it blew.

I would be remiss if I did not address the demand side at this juncture. Rising prices convinced Joe and Jane that they needed to act quickly; they didn’t want to be priced out of the market, and they didn’t want to miss what was increasingly presented as a sure-fire investment opportunity they could live in. However, the economy being what it was, they didn’t have a large downpayment. And they qualified for a mortgage based on their combined incomes, regardless of the fact that one of them could easily lose their job (or in Jane’s case, require maternity leave). No problem, said the friendly loan officer.

Friendly loan officer got them a loan, but at a higher interest rate. Or he got them an Adjustable Rate Mortgage that started off low, but would get higher — he reassured them that by the time it adjusted, they would surely be making more money, right? Or he got them a loan with a prepayment penalty — did you know that in some states it is legal to have a prepayment penalty equal to all the future interest payments?

But Joe and Jane weren’t making more money later. Between stagnant job creation, wages that never did keep up with inflation, rising health care costs, and skyrocketing gas costs, they were really behind the 8-ball. They couldn’t refinance because they were effectively making less money. They couldn’t sell the place because it was worth less than the mortgage amount. Even if they could sell or refinance, they faced a prepayment penalty of several thousand dollars they didn’t have.

It is also worth noting that in this environment, some unscrupulous people who never had any intention of owning a home committed fraud which left whoever owned the mortgage in trouble.

When the assorted investors who owned mortgage backed securities realized what was going on — that massive foreclosures were headed their way — the market for these products dried up. Because there was no longer a functioning market in which to sell mortgages, it became very difficult to write new mortgages almost overnight. This of course was very very bad news for people like Joe and Jane who — before this mess — actually had a chance of getting refinanced. Wall Street matters because they are the ones who can lend Joe and Jane the money to keep their home.

When Mr. Bernanke lowered the Discount Rate (not the prime rate, that is controlled by banks), he was effectively saying “Look, if you banks need to borrow some money it’s ok, we’ll lend it to you. When he authorized “injecting liquidity” he was saying “Here’s some money. There’s Joe Average’s loan application. You think you can figure this out?” So far, this is (slowly) working and markets are stabilizing. Mr. Bernanke still insists he won’t be bailing out investors who made bad judgements, but he stands ready to lower the rates that banks charge one another when they need to borrow short term.

And that brings me to Mr. Bush’s proposals, which — surprise surprise! — include a tax cut. Another component would be lowering FHA requirements. If it works as described, and helps people refinance into lower cost FHA loans without putting undue risk on the FHA, that will actually help. However, the most complete description I saw of the proposal would still require 3% equity and “steady employment”. This will absolutely not help people whose homes are worth more than they owe. Absolutely not on the table (at least from the Administration’s side) would be letting Fannie and Freddie increase their portfolios. For that matter, “not under consideration” is tightening rules on disclosure of ARM calculations or capping of prepayment penalties at the federal level.

The Seattle Times calls the proposal “limited“, and I am inclined to agree.

Cross-posted at Central Sanity.

More on Poverty and Health Care

I was not the only person looking at the newly released poverty and health care numbers yesterday. A number of labor activists are using it as ammunition in their activities, people are specifically discussing it in the context of Labor Day, although some cynically say that by the time Tuesday arrives, nobody will care until next August.

Before we begin, today’s economic figures show the American economy grew at an annualized rate of 4% in the second quarter — a pretty good number that exceeded expectations, particularly when you consider the housing sector. Speaking of which, BondDad says that won’t last. Nevertheless, new jobless claims “rose unexpectedly.”

For a very dry but extremely well informed commentary, look no further than the Economic Policy Institute. In fact, they found the figures so interesting and important that they followed up their original comments with “Economy’s Gains Fail to Reach Most Workers’ Paychecks” — the short version is in bullet-points near the beginning for those of you who use economic treatises instead of Ambien. These guys make a living looking at figures like this ([deity] bless them!) and then deciding what impact they will have going forward. Maybe that’s why everybody and their dog is quoting them.

Ezra Klein offers us only a single paragraph, but linked to two more lengthy essays. I must admit a little surprise that Mr, Klein did not focus on the health care aspects of the figures released, but there you are. If I may condense Mr. Klein’s brief missive to a single sentence: How bad poverty is in this country depends entirely how low one sets the “poverty line,” and that number is largely arbitrary.

By way of transition, I offer commentary from Alternet, where staff writer Heather Boushey reminds us that the ability to pay for health care is integral to the issue (Yes, Mr. President, we could all go to the emergency room for routine medical care, but that doesn’t change the fact that we can’t afford it). She points out that over 15% of Americans do not have health insurance at all — employer provided, privately purchased, or government subsidized — a record level. That works out to a little more than one out of every 7 people. If you honestly think a flu pandemic or any kind of epidemic is possible, this number should scare the mucus out of you. Don’t forget to look at the chart on page two, particularly the downward-sloping line representing employer-provided coverage. Given that line, it is easy to see why some politicians think requiring most businesses to provide coverage would fix the problem. However, that does nothing to fix the underlying problem that coverage is too expensive in the first place.

Focusing further on the health care issues, we begin with John Sweeney, who believes “In America, No One Should Go Without Health Care”. And he is right. But remember, by and large the problem is not health care, but the ability to pay for it. He tells us “The annual premium cost for a family health plan has close to doubled since 2000, from $6,351 to an astonishing $11,480. Soaring health coverage costs are crippling U.S. companies’ ability to compete internationally….” Almost $1000 per month, just for insurance! Not including co-payments! Certainly not including deductibles! Do you realize that before the recent minimum wage hike, an employer could easily have spent more money insuring an employee than it paid him in wages? Gee, do you think that might be impacting job creation?

Robert Stein has an item up at The Moderate Voice pointing out what I have been telling you for a few years now, that lack of health insurance is part of a middle class health crisis. And to finish the topic, Eliot Spitzer is threatening to sue the Bush Administration over the new SCHIP rules and zero-interest health care loans. Now, I am more familiar than most people with these loans — I used to work in an office that accepted them. They are normally used for elective procedures that are not covered by insurance: plastic surgery; laser hair removal; vision correction surgery. On one hand, “The room for expansion looks ample, as rising deductibles, co-payments and other costs may force more of the nation’s 250 million people with health insurance to finance out-of-pocket expenses for even basic medical care,” but on the other hand “The zero-interest plans are not for everyone. In fact, they are available only to the creditworthy — meaning they offer no help to those among the nation’s 47 million uninsured who are in difficult financial situations.”

In closing: I was going to say something about Katrina, but JurassicPork said it all; Terrorism and Democrats; when FDR said that “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” he meant at least in part that the first step in handling any terrifying situation is keeping your wits about you; finishing a little terror trio, interesting “facts” about Bruce Schneier (don’t know who that is? he’s a security expert and author of Beyond Fear; and finally, a little problem with farm subsidies.

“Bah! You call this poverty??”

Well, it’s the end of August, and that means it’s time to consider the latest statistics for poverty in the United States. For the first time since the beginning of the Bush Administration, poverty is down compared to last year. However, if you counted up the number of times words like “but” or “however” were used in the article, you might come away wondering if that was worth mentioning. There are not actually fewer people living in poverty, just a lower percentage of Americans living in poverty; in other words, the poor are still poor and there are just as many of them as last year, it’s just that there are more Americans total. Furthermore, the percentage is still over 12% (just short of one in every 8 people). Another few “howevers”: both the number and percentage of Americans without health insurance is up to record levels; today’s numbers reflect conditions from a year ago, long before most people suspected a mortgage meltdown was on the horizon; and 29 states had median incomes below the national median.

The Washington Post has another round of “buts” and “howevers” to add, charitably calling the report a “mixed picture”. On the first page alone they note that “Although median household income, adjusted for inflation, rose for the second straight year, it has not reached the pre-recession high of 1999,” that increased houshold earnings weren’t because of higher wages — wages dropped by 1% — but rather because more people in the house were working (although apparently the Heritage Foundation chose to overlook that point), that the poorest families had the highest percentage gain (a fifty cent an hour raise is a lot bigger percentage of $6 than of $12), that income inequality is even bigger than last year, that the group for whom poverty decreased was the elderly, and that we still have higher poverty rates than we did during the last recession. Not before, during the recession.

On page 2 of the article, they tackle the health insurance side of the numbers. They do not point out the obvious, that there are more people without insurance than people in poverty — and people living in poverty qualify for insurance programs like Medicaid — which means lack of the ability to pay for medical care is now a huge problem in the middle class. The number and percentage of kids without health insurance grew for the second year in a row to 11.7%. That means pretty much every classroom in our nation has at least a couple uninsured kids on average. On a related note, I’d like to throw in Krugman on the dreaded socialism of schools and health care and The Glittering Eye’s rebuttal (ht to Pete Abel, who highlighted the story in his Center of Attention the other day). Even worse, fewer than 60% of people have employer-provided health insurance at all. This is the most important reason why I feel employer-based insurance is not the answer to our current health insurance crisis, and support at the very minimum a MediKids program, if not full-on Medicare For All.

In the end, these numbers must mean something real, or certain conservatives wouldn’t be arguing things like “but the poor are so much better off now!” with a straight face.

In closing: I’ve been meaning to talk about food and fat for a while, but there’s always something else to talk about, so here’s National obesity rates continue to rise and you can’t blame that on how BMI is calculated, you do have to eat to get flatter abs, diet might be the key to reducing violence, treating mental illness, and raising kids test scores, and so-called convenience foods often don’t save time; yes, Virginia, there are things the government does better than private industry; “The attempt to redefine woman-controlled contraception as “abortion” speaks volumes about both the anti-choice agenda (ban all female control over reproduction) and their understanding that their actual goals are so far to the right that they can’t be spoken out loud.”; this won’t help most of us, but here’s an item on how to fly a private jet for less; and finally, immigration raid on chicken processing plant. Interesting that they went after a relatively small player in the poultry game. Has Tyson cleaned up its act, or is this a political favor?

Cross-posted at Central Sanity.

Ground Breaking Research?

In other news, kittens are cute.

Some Canadian researches have determined that ” Female tutors best for boys’ reading.” More:

Herb Katz, an education professor at the University of Alberta, took 175 boys in the third and fourth grades, identified as struggling readers, and paired them with a research assistant who worked on their reading skills for 30 minutes a week over 10 weeks.On average, the boys paired with female tutors felt better about their reading skills after the 10 weeks than those who were coached by a male research assistant, the study found.

That’s right, Mr. Katz did not actually determine that the boys read better, just that they felt better about their reading skills. Clearly an educational breakthrough. With educational “research” like this, who needs enemies?

In closing: evidence and supply-siders don’t mix; more on the haves and have-nots; more on wiretaps, one and two; the the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has a whole bag of SHHH! for you; Bruce Schneier is right about the importance of emergency communications; that bankruptcy “reform” bill in 2005 screwed today’s subprime mortgage borrowers; I like Mr. Kucinich too; and last, Congress is protecting that pedophile pervert @$$h47 Mark Foley. You remember him? The guy who was propositioning underage Congressional pages for a decade or so? Disgusting.

Have a great weekend!

A Little Message for the College Crowd

Hey guys. I know this is a pretty cool time in your lives: you are legally grown-ups; you are making new friends, some of whom are from wildly different places than you; you are either deciding what you want to do “when you grow up” or actively working towards it; some of you are living on your own — or at least not with mom and dad — for the first time.

Now don’t get me wrong. I know your point of view is very different from mine. I read that list Beliot College makes every fall, even if I think they could have made better points. I was in college when you were born! However, there are some things that don’t change, no matter how much they should change.

And the one biggest thing that hasn’t changed but should is that you will know people who drink too much. Some of those people will do really stupid things as a result. Some of those people will die. Some of them will sadly cause someone else’s death. Some of them will have other horrible results.

There is a very good chance that one of the people you know who will drink too much is you.

Hey, I’m not so old that I don’t know the score. What, you don’t think I drank my share of beer in college? I know. Your friends are drinking and you want to fit in. Or maybe you’re pledging a frat/sorority and hey, you are willing to do whatever the pledge captain says. And for the first time in your life, there’s nobody you have to call and check in with, nobody who will care if you don’t drag your butt into bed before 3 AM if at all. You control your own schedule — except for that one 8 AM class that you had to take — and you are responsible for your own decisions. Nobody is blaming you for saying “I can have a beer if I want to, and nobody is going to stop me!”

I’m not going to put on the holier than thou and talk about how the legal drinking age is still 21. That notwithstanding, you’re legally an adult at 18, and entitled to make your own decisions, no matter how stupid. Nor am I going to preach about drunk driving. If those gory films in driver’s education didn’t persuade you that it’s a bad idea that can get you arrested or get you into a horrible wreck, nothing I can say is going to change your mind.

What I am going to say is to please use your head. Moderation is a good thing. Unlike that casserole your mom used to make, there is no rule that says you have to finish that mug of beer or bottle of hard liquor. It’s ok to not “have seconds,” let alone thirds and beyond. It’s ok to say “I’m fine, maybe I’ll have another one later.” You can use that 8 AM class or your job — it turns out over half of you have at least part time jobs, good for you! — as a perfectly valid excuse for why you won’t be having another drink. Do you honestly think your Dad has never said something like “Sorry guys, I’d better not have another. Gotta work in the morning”?

Please. Don’t be the guy who made the papers by dying of alcohol poisoning. Or the girl who wrapped her car around a telephone pole and killed her best friend. Or the guy who fell down the stairs and broke his leg, but didn’t notice until he tried to walk away. Or the girl who woke up with no underwear and no memory of the prior evening. Or the guy who woke up with some girl he doesn’t even know. Or the girl whose friends and family are begging her to get help, at least go to an AA meeting. Or the guy who is flunking all his classes because he spends too much time drunk and not enough time studying.

These things happen every year on college campuses across our nation.

Please, don’t let it be you.

****

This has been my personal message to all the college students of the world. Please feel free to send a link to this article to friends, family, and other people you care about. If you choose to forward the text instead, please note that it is written by Bridget Magnus of ShortWoman.com and Central Sanity, all rights reserved by the author.

Mortgage Carnage Round-Up

Before I get going, I’d like to let people know that until August 25, you can log your opinion about the focus for BlogHer’s Global Health initiative. You do not need to be a member to vote. But on to the round-up!

Barbara Ehrenreich starts the show with “Smashing Capitalism”, in which she amusingly shows us signs of the poor leading a revolution by not paying their mortgages and then failing to go shopping. At least at Wal-Mart. Somehow, Target is doing just fine thank you very much.

Speaking of mortgages, foreclosures are up 9% month-over-month and almost double year-over-year. the All Spin Zone says “duh.” Democrats are falling over themselves trying to propose solutions. Here’s a creative answer, converting foreclosures to “own to rent” contracts. I’m not sure it would work — state laws are in play — but it’s interesting.

Fed action is probably not enough to make the problems go away. And that is not just because Mr. Bernanke cannot wave a magic wand and cause thousands of homeowners to have enough money to pay the mortgage. It’s because the market for “commercial paper” — buying and selling bonds, mortgages, and other debts — is broken. And don’t get to thinking “oh boo hoo for the rich fat cats who trade that stuff!” The paper doesn’t trade as it should, so new money for new loans does not exist. That includes the new loan for equipment at your workplace that would mean adding people to the payroll to run it. That includes the refinanced mortgage on Joe and Jane Average’s place.

And that brings us to the Wall Street side of the problem. Jim Cramer arrives fashionably late to the party with advice “Don’t Buy Fannie Mae!” Really, Jim? Thanks, but I think a lot of us had figured that one out. Then we have Dave Johnson, who points out that “The unwinding of the housing bubble takes us way beyond mortgages and into the financial markets of Wall Street.” Speaking of which, investors flush a half a Trillion with a T dollars to bail out just one bond and loan fund. Does that give you an idea how big this problem could be? And coming full circle, the BondDad points out that a lot of real human beings who work in the financial services industry — Americans with mortgages of their own to pay — are going to lose their jobs before all is said and done.

As usual, I will watch the job “creation” numbers with interest when they come out.

In closing: reader Jukkou-san sent World Clock; amazingly enough the strangest thing you will ever read about Karl Rove, even if it is about his dad; it’s still the economy, stupid; George Lakoff seems to think that Centrist really means someone who is willing to pretend that cutting the baby in half makes everyone happy, and he is wrong; Steven Levitt on how things have changed in the beverage world; must read item on the United Nations Population Fund and the anti-contraceptive nuts who want to undermine them; the USDA, organic food, and you; I don’t know what to make of the Daily Show’s Iraq correspondent; Bill Nye booed for telling the truth about the moon…. wait for it…. in Waco; Daily Kos is late to the impeach Gonzo party; oh no! “Immigration crackdown threatens bumper U.S. apple harvest” and farmers may actually have to pay American citizens to pick apples!; so you want a DeLorean; sorry, Senators, you don’t get to pick the leader of a sovereign nation.

And finally, a bit of follow up from Friday Follow-up’s paragraph on Real ID. When it came up on David Farber’s Interesting People list, I offered the only reply, nothing I didn’t say before, but:

I read the CNN article about Real ID yesterday, and found it interesting. First, they point out that some Americans would need a passport “to have a picnic in a national park.” While that is an interesting issue, “for all federal purposes” means those same Americans would also need a passport to do business in person with other federal entities such as the Social Security Administration offices, federal courthouses, and IRS offices. Will they need a passport to pick up a registered letter at the Post Office? I sincerely hope there is not an impending catch-22 with the State Department, since strictly speaking one should need a Real ID compliant card to get a passport. All these things seem much more important than “a picnic in a national park” to me.

Second, why is CNN suddenly on about a law passed 2 years ago?

Corrente offered an interesting commentary called “When internal passport controls go into effect, will DHS “Behavior Detection Officers” profile us like DEA does now?” And more, alert the media, Bruce Schneier said something that shows he doesn’t get it: “This sounds tough, but it’s a lot of bluster. The states that have passed anti-REAL-ID legislation lean both Republican and Democrat. The federal government just can’t say that citizens of — for example — Georgia (which passed a bill in May authorizing the Governor to delay implementation of REAL ID) can’t walk into a federal courthouse without a passport. Or can’t board an airplane without a passport — imagine the lobbying by Delta Airlines here. They just can’t.” Sorry, Mr. Schneier. They already did. They can and did specify using a federally approved ID for federal purposes. If Congress can’t get its act together and get this thing repealed, our only hope is that some judge will realize it impairs citizen’s First Amendment right to seek redress in the courts.