Wed, 31 Aug 2005

Government policy matters

What a surprise. And to see what happens when the people in charge of it don't believe in its value, ask yourself where FEMA is in New Orleans? Why can't the police communicate with each other? Why is it Wednesday before FEMA gets minimally involved? Read here

Indeed, the advent of the Bush administration in January 2001 signaled the beginning of the end for FEMA. The newly appointed leadership of the agency showed little interest in its work or in the missions pursued by the departed Witt. Then came the Sept. 11 attacks and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Soon FEMA was being absorbed into the "homeland security borg."

This year it was announced that FEMA is to "officially" lose the disaster preparedness function that it has had since its creation. The move is a death blow to an agency that was already on life support. In fact, FEMA employees have been directed not to become involved in disaster preparedness functions, since a new directorate (yet to be established) will have that mission.

FEMA will be survived by state and local emergency management offices, which are confused about how they fit into the national picture. That's because the focus of the national effort remains terrorism, even if the Department of Homeland Security still talks about "all-hazards preparedness."

Via Washington Monthly.

17:10 - 31 Aug 2005 [/y5/au]

Mon, 29 Aug 2005

The conflict between services and taxes...

... where it doesn't work.

14:25 - 29 Aug 2005 [/y5/au]

Katrina's economic effects

As we wait to hear about the terrible effects of Katrina in New Orleans, it's worth a moment to remember one of the curious things that happened to the economy of South Florida after much of it was flattened by Hurricane Andrew in 1992.

Andrew caused $26 billion of damage and killed around 60 people (depending on how you count), but the gross economic measures that people use to define the health of Florida's economy were largely untouched — or went up. After all, there were all these repairs to pay for in the aftermath.

This isn't meant to minimize the tragedy of Andrew (or Katrina); these are awe-inspiring storms, with truly awful effects. But it's worth pointing out that public policy these days is run to maximize a curious set of economic statistics that (1) are pretty much impossible to measure accurately, and (2) may not have that much to do with how happy the people in that economy are. If a storm like this makes the overall economic picture look better, isn't it time to re-think our reliance on these statistics?

12:21 - 29 Aug 2005 [/y5/au]

Wed, 24 Aug 2005

Why are there still monkeys?

From "Larry King Live" last night (transcript), and I hope he was wearing a smile at the time:

KING: All right, hold on. Dr. Forrest, your concept of how can you out-and-out turn down creationism, since if evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?

You're reading this on the internet, so apparently it is the 21st century. But sometimes it's hard to tell.

13:45 - 24 Aug 2005 [/y5/au]

Tue, 23 Aug 2005

Intelligent design, again

A piece in Slate points out that "teaching the controversy" about evolution isn't a half-bad idea, since, after all, the reason the vast majority of biologists believe in evolution is because the theory was proven so superior to the alternatives in the course of that same controversy.

The great set piece, which I was taught in school, involved the debate at Oxford between Darwin's supporter Thomas Huxley and Bishop Wilberforce... In front of a large audience, Huxley cleaned Wilberforce's clock, ate his lunch, used him as a mop for the floor, and all that.

15:59 - 23 Aug 2005 [/y5/au]

Economic outlook

The Bush administration is taking credit for an improved economy reducing the expected deficit this year. While reserving judgment about whether there's all that much to celebrate over a $331 billion deficit over a $365 billion deficit, especially given that we were in surplus not so very long ago, it is interesting to notice what's in the fine print. From the Congressional Budget Office's recent "Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update."

Revenues are likely to be $85 billion higher this year than CBO expected in March, primarily because of robust growth in corporate income tax payments.

This is what's making the deficit go down, apparently. And this is in the second paragraph of the executive summary, right up front. But down on page 24, there's this word of explanation:

The sources of the current strength in corporate tax receipts will not be known until information from tax returns becomes available in future years, but CBO anticipates that most of that strength will be temporary.

They go on to explain that only $1 billion of the estimated $53 billion increase in corporate tax collections can be attributed to improvements in the economy. They speculate that the burst here can possibly be attributed to companies deciding to "book" profits now.

Our interpretation: companies are figuring that grim reality can't be far away, and that, at least in budgetary terms, a day of reckoning is ahead. Because of this, the tax situation is as good for them now as it is going to get, so if there are profits in the offing, move them to the present, and take the tax hit now.

So look forward soon to reports of big companies recording favorable profits, and look forward to uncritical reporting of those profits.

Read the CBO document here, and read a critique of more than corporate profits here.

15:41 - 23 Aug 2005 [/y5/au]

Thu, 18 Aug 2005

Another entry

In the quest to explain our creation. I speak, of course, of the FSM, and his many millions of devout followers. Read more here.

01:42 - 18 Aug 2005 [/y5/au]

Tue, 16 Aug 2005

Roll Over

It appears the official Democratic strategy to the nomination of Judge Roberts to the Supreme Court has been arrived at.

Aren't you glad to know that Scalia will soon have such a good friend across the table?

Maybe someone can explain carefully to everyone why exactly a judge's judicial philosophy is not a valid basis on which to make a decision about whether that judge deserves elevation to a higher court? Strangely, I thought it was probably the most important consideration, but I guess that's just me.

10:03 - 16 Aug 2005 [/y5/au]

Ads and the like:

Rhode Island 101
(A funny book you should own)