A Fair Comparison

WBTV reports that "A report from the watch group American Forests and commissioned by the City Council found between 1985 and 2008 Mecklenburg county lost 33% of its tree canopy; the city of Charlotte lost 49%."

In response, the city is reported as studying a increase in the required percentage of trees to be saved during construction, from 10% to 15%. Developers have stated that it would make development too costly.

A justification to the increased cost is then presented: "The city doesn't require private developers do anything it doesn't do. Each year the city plants and maintains tens of thousands of trees along city streets, in the right of way."

Wait...is this a fair comparison? Developers, who are responsible for profit and loss in meeting their payroll, based their response on cost. What is the basis the city used? Probably not the same profitability standard.

Don't get me wrong. I really like the tree canopy myself and would like to see it preserved. However, free market solution and logical reasoning would be nice too.

Collected Entropy - 2010.05.14

Collected Entropy since the last post with this title. No particular order, rhyme or reason. Too long* to tweet.

• Buying local and talking directly to growers are just some of the reasons to visit a farmer's market (several times) this season. The Charlotte Observer created an interactive map of all the Charlotte area markets to help find one nearby.
• The phrase "world class city" is starting to be tossed around again as Charlotte has simultaneous events with the NRA, MAC and NASCAR happening this week. The list of comparisons to features of other "world class cities" such as New York or Los Angeles for example inevitably follow. Funny how the first light rail mugging recently isn't included in the list.
• USA Today reports taxes are at the lowest levels since the 1950's. The key is the how "level" is defined. In late 2009 the US passed the tipping point where over 50% of the citizens don't pay taxes, due to our progressive tax system. Taxes are higher for those that pay taxes but for the larger number who pay no taxes, they're (obviously) lower. Fun with statistics - and your money.
• "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." -- Margaret Thatcher
• This is not a late April Fools joke: YouCut A proposal to text your vote to the government on which spending programs to cut. I think the House has lost sight that our system of government is a republic. Then again, for a culture that knows more about American Idol than American election candidates, it might get more people tuned in.
• The end is beginning for the US Space Shuttle program. Only three more launches remain for this program. I've seen Saturn V launches from across the Banana River. There is nothing like it. If you've ever wanted to see one of these launches in person, time is almost up.

(*) OK, so one was short enough. But it fit here better in context. Have a great weekend.

Collected Entropy - 2010.05.07

Collected Entropy from the previous week. No particular order, rhyme or reason. Too long to tweet.

Quote from Brig. Gen. H.R. McMaster "If you divorce war from all of that, it becomes a targeting exercise" when speaking of how using PowerPoint removes interconnected political, economic and ethnic forces from military decisions.

South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster times release of ten month long investigation the day before elections. Probably just conicidence. That and McMaster's candidacy for governor. Good coverage from the Observer, likely since it showcases a Republican rift.

Quote from a political commentator's radio program on Tuesday: "There is not a solution to every problem, but there is a villian". Made in reference to the nature of politicians to address only problems which further their agenda.

Stephen Hawking claims time travel possible and aliens may have existed. His belief that we cannot currently "...know the mind of God." apparently still unchanged. (A Brief History of Time, pg 175)

Escaped emu runs loose in Rock Hill, SC. Seems Rock Hill is using a string of animal antics to stay in the news. About two weeks ago it was one man assaulting another with a snake.

Airline Security

President Obama held a press conference earlier this evening to assign responsibilities for security failures such as the failed Christmas Day airline bombing. His top counter terrorism aide John Brennan took the blame for that event and promises were made to more effectively link intelligence reports together. The President also acknowledged "the buck stops with me". All good measures for as far as they go and I sincerely hope they do move our nation into a better position to thwart terror plots that would attempt to rob us of our freedom. However, no specifics where given on elements of effective physical security.

What airport security measures are really effective? We've spent literally billions of dollars effectively only avoiding repeat incidents. Restricted container sizes, removing shoes and now staying seated in the last hour of flight are all examples. How effective are these things in really making us safer? How much of this is just "security theater", as Bruce Schneier might say, designed to make us only feel safer?

Without debating if absolute security is possible (I don't think it is), why not focus on something that worked? Have Jasper Schuringa, who subdued the terrorist during the detonation attempt, assist in updating the flight cards that are shown at the beginning of every flight. In addition to seat belt usage and exit locations, passengers could be instructed on what to do if someone intentionally sets fire to their crotch.

Personal responsibility. Even when it costs something personally. What a concept. Something that the 289 persons aboard Northwest Flight 253 certainly can appreciate. Possibly something Washington should consider as effective - in many areas.

National Debt Made Easy

I had a conversation with a friend last night who is way ahead of me in his tax planning. He has already reviewed the 2009 instructions and called me to let me know of some additional deductions and credits he thought my family might be eligible for this year. He was right on one and I'll have to do some reading to determine at least one other. I appreciated the call even if it did give me a vague sense of being "behind". I have to keep reminding myself that he has an earned doctorate in statistics and therefore might be more interested in numbers, financially based or not.

He called while I was reviewing our family budget (on GNUCash) from 2009. Just doing some basic things like cleaning up the backlog of entries from the end of the year when I took a couple of weeks off, insuring all the relevant entries are tagged for tax status and looking at cash flows to adjust some budget accounts for 2010. Standard stuff.

In the midst of all the year-in-review type activity though, its natural (necessary even) to determine if you're better or worse off, monetarily speaking, at the end of the year than at the start. The next natural progression of thought is for the new year, for your family and the country as a whole. As I followed that progression a number of thoughts came to mind on socialism, constitutionality and debt. Which reminded me of an article by the Heritage Foundation that I read before my vacation and intended to write about them. So yes, everything up to this point has been an introduction while getting to the real point.

No matter how much planning you do in providing for your family and keeping out of debt, the government apparently has other ideas.

The Heritage Foundation article on The Debt Limit discusses the raising of the national debt limit (slipped in for an initial vote on Christmas Eve, after the Heritage article was written). In a short one page article, they state what that really means for the country and individuals in clear terms. They then present four brief suggestions on how to take real action against the debt.

It's not the most in depth or comprehensive article on national debt, but one that makes it easy to have a real understanding on some key points. Which is exactly the goal. It can provide some new thinking and discussion points even for those who normally turn away from financial discussions, preferring the easier path of trusting career politicians.

So as you set your personal budget for 2010, just remember that you're not the only one spending the money you've earned or creating debt that you'll have to repay.

How Much Is Enough?

The EPA has declared carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide?!!! Before examining the politics and science behind this, lets set some perspective through a simple question: Is this a good or a bad thing? Seriously. Some may state that it is really a complex question, with too many factors to consider.

One test I like to apply in situations where a simple question isn't so easy to answer, is to "test it at the extreme". Often there is clarity in extrapolating the action in question to a larger scale. So for example, if carbon dioxide is a pollutant, pollutants are bad and we want to eliminate all of them - what happens if we eliminate all the carbon dioxide?

Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring substance on the Earth. It is required for all plant life. If it is completely eliminated, all plants die. If all plants die, no more oxygen is produced and we die. Sounds like a bad thing to me.

Not so fast you say? Its not that simple? Just reduce it by some amount? To all those questions, I would respond - how much is enough?

This is not a science question. This is a political question that will claim science as its justification. We will now be faced with the question of who do we trust to set that amount? The answer will drive governmental fines, penalties and fees (taxes). Fairness and justice will be tossed around as ideals not to be opposed, upon fear of character assassination. The funds collected will be redistributed to those "in need".

The basis of the original question has now changed from CO2 to dollars.

Domestically, the EPA bureaucrats, government funded scientists and elected politicians will now attempt to create new regulations to transfer funds from the private sector to the government. On the global level, the Copenhagen Climate conference is attempting to function as a world government and transfer wealth, using a similar rationale.

It might again be a good time to ask - how much is enough?

Rights and Requirements

A question struck me as I heard a radio advertisement earlier today. The ad was for the taxpayer funded give away, which started in August 2008, of the SafeLink cell phones to qualifying citizens residents.

The question that came to mind was - has the government now decided that owning a cell phone is a right and that buying health insurance is a requirement?

Maybe because the reality is that one is about vote buying and the other is about expanding the role of government in daily life. Then again, in different ways, maybe they're really the same thing.

Higher Taxes Mean More Savings?

The title of this post reflects the thought I had when reading the Charlotte Observer's article in today's paper, entitled: Higher NC sales tax means larger break for holiday as shown below:



So does this imply that we should somehow be thankful that we're being allowed to keep more of our own money, rather than paying it in tribute to Rome? Only if we buy what the government wants us to, when they want us to of course.

On a completely different level, it is always interesting that politicians realize real stimulus involves cutting taxes, rather than giving money (obtained through taxes) away. They ought to try it for longer than just one weekend.

Does Motive Trump Truth?

In catching up on the weekend news, something caught my attention in a article on the reactions to an insurance industry health care report. In the second paragraph, Linda Douglass, communications director for the President's Office of Health Reform is referred as having said: (italics added)

...that the timing of the study, released just hours before the Senate Finance Committee is set to vote on its bill, raises questions about its legitimacy.

This infers that the timing of the report is sufficient grounds for it's dismissal. Certainly there is political strategy in some cases which dictates the timing of releases. The spokesman for this study simply stated that it was only finalized over the weekend. Which is the reason in this case isn't really important. The illogical progression of thought, simply presented as accepted wisdom, is important. A head on attack of the facts presented in a counter proposal or a critical analysis would be more in order.

The goal of any position paper is to persuade its intended audience. All sides in a debate have that as the common goal. So if the stated or even perceived motive of a position statement does not align with the preset agenda of its recipients, is it fair to summarily dismiss it? This makes mind reading guessing the motive more important than understanding the content.

Maybe that is really the political insight into all of this. Particulary if members of Congress regularly vote on bills that don't exist yet.

Does motive trump truth? Just asking...

A Distinction Without A Difference

How can we hear so often that there will be no tax increases, but trillions of dollars in new entitlements and future obligations (aka debt) are being proposed? How will it all be paid for? Are politicians lying? Or is this simply a massively expensive word game, about to be played well into the future of every tax paying citizen of this country?

In the world of government taxation, there are multiple different categories of tax deductions, tax exemptions, tax preferences, tax benefits, tax credits and more. Quickly it can become overwhelming, even confusing for the average citizen. Enough so that distinctions can be made without actually honoring the original meaning.

Here is just a partial list of the ways that regular taxes can be stated as not increasing, but the total tax bill being paid does:

• Installing automatic increments based on Consumer Price Index (CPI)
  
• Failing to renew tax credits
  
• Repealing of tax breaks and incentives
  
• Allowing of automatic tax increases to occur
  
• Adjusting tax brackets (bracket creep)
  
• Calling the increase temporary
  
• Indexing to something other than inflation (indexing higher)
  
• Enacting surtaxes with special conditions
  
• Increasing the sources (of income) subject to taxation
  
• Decreasing Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) exemptions (overrides regular tax rates and breaks)
  
• Doubling taxation of businesses and individuals (via dividends and interest)
  
• ...
  

So in politics it may be considered truthful to say one thing and then subvert that statement with indirect, conflicting actions. Possibly the politicians themselves have been duped by their subculture to believe in a different form of honesty (if it can be called that). Maybe what isn't said is just as, if not more important.

Determining what the words in a political speech mean can be difficult. Citizens must keep themselves informed and diligent concerning issues affecting the nation. If we don't, we risk electing politicians who are being honest in a dishonest way.

Now how our European allies will reconcile the US dropping support for the missile defense shield after pledging to support it "As long as the threat from Iran persists" given recent knowledge that Iran is "...on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead..." might require a different analysis.

Regardless, words have meaning. When they're coming from people who have the power to affect entire nations for generations to come, people everywhere need to listen and remember them.

Retroactive Tax Increases

Those not concerned about paying income tax or whose sole interest is in getting an income tax "refund" (loaning the government part of their earnings interest free for a year) probably should skip this post. Others, particularly those that live in North Carolina, may be interested to learn that the state just approved a retroactive income tax increase last month. Yes, retroactive.

It is identified as a "surtax". The relevant section of Senate Bill 202 is 27A.1(a) and reads as follows (emphasis added):

PART XXVIIA. TAX CHANGES
CORPORATE AND INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX SURTAX
SECTION 27A.1.(a) Part 1 of Article 4 of Chapter 105 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:
"§ 105-130.3B. Income tax surtax.
(a) Surtax. – An income tax surtax is imposed on a taxpayer equal to three percent (3%) of the tax payable by the taxpayer under G.S. 105-130.3 for the taxable year. This tax is in addition to the tax imposed by G.S. 105-130.3 and is due at the time prescribed in
G.S. 105-130.17 for filing a corporate income tax return.
(b) Sunset. – This section expires for taxable years

Note that this bill was signed into law on August 7, 2009 (scroll to the bottom of the list of actions). Retroactive over seven prior months of tax planning, now invalidated. Governor Perdue was sworn into office on January 10, 2009 (scroll to the bottom of the media releases). Retroactive nine days earlier than even the Governor's taking of office.

The surtax affects corporations and what the press would term "high income" individuals. Regardless of if this particular action has immediate personal application or not, every taxpayer should consider what principle is being demonstrated by issuing retroactive tax increases. Here are just two.

1. Is tax planning is useless? Any scheduled planning, giving or investing based on the tax rates at the start of the year are certainly now reduced in effectiveness. Businesses planning investments in the state will surely take this into consideration in the future.


2. What guidelines exist, or should exist, regarding enactment of retroactive laws? The paying of taxes has a clean yearly boundary due to the payment cycle. If the discussion was over issuance of licenses or permits what would the boundaries be?

FWIW - this is not an indictment of Governor Perdue or any political party. It is however of politicians and politics in general. It is an amazing display of the politics of power and money, this time at the state level. Be careful of the change you vote for. It can change the future - and the past.

Values and Freedoms

Christians are still being martyred for their faith. North Korea provides the latest example in the execution of a woman last month, for distributing Bibles. Why don't Western cultures based on Christian values and freedoms stand up against these atrocities? Maybe they're too busy with art shows.

These stories made the mainstream media, but sadly there are many more.

Ideas have consequences. When will we start making choices accordingly?

Which is the Imitation?

I'm a fan of (selected) comics. Not the type that are called graphic novels these days, but simply the small amusement from those in the daily paper. Some like Family Circus are cute, or funny like Garfield, or simply amusing like Frazz.

The best ones to me take a piece of daily life and find something amusing in it. Although I don't agree with many of their political views, Non Sequitur can be like that. Their recent series on Non Conceptual Scientists is a case in point. The last strip in the series contained the following quote:

...as a Pre Conceptual scientist, you reach a conclusion to a theory first then just ignore all evidence that proves you're wrong...



That was amusing to me from a number of worldview perspectives, but then I didn't think too much of it until I saw a feed today from The Times. It reports on one in seven scientists faking data to support a pre-conceived conclusion, usually in order to secure funding.

Life imitates art?

Hyphenated-American

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is going to draw out all sorts of opinions.  Those on judicial activism vs strict constructionism are to be expected.  The focus on her race as part of her selection, even her suitability for the Supreme Court, are not.  That focus reflects poorly on many attitudes in America and how our leaders are chosen. 

Many persons, particularly in public service, seem to prefer a hyphenated label to identify themselves.  The labels typically indicate a country of origin for one's ancestors and in practical use become an implied racial designation.  Does it bother anyone that these labels always precede the term American, almost taking on primary importance?  I'm reminded of the following quote by one of our former presidents:

"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all... The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic... There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else."

Teddy Roosevelt, Addressing the Knights of Columbus in New York City,  October 12, 1915

A good friend of mine recently became an American citizen after being legally in America for the required length of time, passing all the required exams and background checks.  He is highly educated, having multiple masters degrees and an earned doctorate in statistics.  With those credentials and speaking (I believe) five languages he could live and be successful in any part of the world he desired.  He chose to come to America and has become very succesful professionally and personally here.  The pride he now exhibits in being an American citizen exceeds that I've seen in some new parents!  There is no hyphenation for him.  He is an American now and nothing else.

Judge Sotomayor herself will effectively be on trial for some number of weeks to come.  The views and prejudices of America, from both sides of the political fence, likely will be too.

Are We Or Aren't We?

A Christian nation that is. Not that every citizen is a Christian, but that this country was founded on and still operates on a rule of law that is derived from Christian beliefs. This historical foundation is the basis of our freedom today.

The question is particularly relevant as President Obama continues to state that America is no longer Christian. Holding to that worldview has a definite impact.

A guest columnist on OneNewsNow.com puts an excellent perspective on the President's knowledge of history in an article titled "Arrogant Americans, Mr President?" which contains the following quote:

Barack Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States has confirmed the naiveté so many of us feared during the election cycle. But worse than that, it has also demonstrated that our president suffers from either a complete misunderstanding of our heritage and history, or an utter contempt for it. Neither is excusable.

There are a lot of things going on right now in Washington that I believe are detrimental to our country. But it is our country. Why does our President continually see fit to condemn it?

A Fair Vote

Our family was selected to participate in an Arbitron radio survey. The poll lasted a week and consisted of simply recording when and what we listened to (individually) on the radio. We were selected by a random dialer as part of a nationwide survey. The results will be used to rank radio stations which no doubt will drive advertising campaigns and rates - although probably not on listener supported stations such as WRCM.

Maybe I'm just naturally suspicious or have let myself be influenced by national news reports on voting scandals (such as the fraud occuring in Minnesota with Al Franken since November). However in this case, I'm trusting Arbitron to administer the results fairly and then represent my preferences as part of the bigger picture.

A capitalistic free market should be driven by consumer demand. Government intervention to "balance" something the market won't support (such as with the politically driven so called Fairness Doctrine) has never proven to be sustainable. Thats why buying locally in your community and "voting" with your dollars is the best way to support the economy where you live.

Indirectly, thats what we did by participating in the Arbitron survey. It seems like a fair vote.

Where Are We Going?

News story heard today:

Uncle Sam was discovered today wandering aimlessly through the wilderness, many miles from the main highway. He had no cash or valuables and was in the words of one official "severely confused and physically ill". Here's the man who found him: "It was like he didn't know where he was going or where he came from." Uncle Sam has been hospitalized and is reportedly in critical condition.

Credit to Just Thinking - this was the intro to their "Understanding the Spirit of the Age" podcast.

My $0.028

In 2007, Congress directed the Mint to produce four new commemorative designs for the Lincoln penny to be rotated throughout 2009, celebrating the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth. I'd forgotten about it until just a few days ago, when a link to a newspaper site reminded me. While not a coin collector myself, there was something generally fun in the 10 year schedule of the state quarter program, even if it was only the minor curiousity of what you might have just got back in change.

The timing of this years release of the Lincoln penny is a curiousity of sorts also. In the year we choose to redesign our smallest monetary unit, we are going to create our largest ever national debt. The irony of the government's actions is probably lost in Washington though.

It would be nice if politicians had a better sense of history. FDR's New Deal program is often cited as support for the current "stimulus package" but FDR's own treasury secretary is quoted as saying "...I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot." This isn't unique to the United States. The Heritage Foundation reports on a similar initiative in Japan, from which it concludes "...the Japanese government imple­mented such a program during the 1990s, and the consequence was two decades of economic stagnation."

What is the real solution? It seems clear that it has to be one built on real free market demand that creates sustainable jobs. Not one that it artificially supported by the government. The best way to do that? Let wage earners keep and therefore direct more of the money they earn. There are politicians that recognize this, such as Texas congressman Lou Gohmert, who proposed his own alternative plan. That is all academic now though, as the spending has begun.

One final economic thought as a footnote - due to increases in copper and zinc values it apparently now costs around 1.4 cents to make a penny. So I guess that makes this my $0.028.

Banning Books

Well, sort of. Not directly in the way that the phrase usually makes people think. However, there is a cause for concern and depending on your viewpoint - action.

The CPSC's ban on the sale of children's books printed prior to 1985 went into effect on Feb 10th. On the surface this has an admirable goal - keeping children from being exposed to lead. A side effect is that many children's classics that are out of print can no longer legally be sold in used book stores, thrift shops or any retail establishment. Public libraries also seem required to comply.

There don't seem to be any documented cases of lead poisoning via books on the web. The CDC doesn't even list books as a source of lead exposure on their web site. So how did books get included? They don't flake off edible chips like the old lead paint. They aren't "tasted" in the same manner or frequency as toys manufactured in developing nations can be. Its difficult to say. There is plenty of room for conspiracy theories, but I'm not interested in going there.

There are some efforts underway to modify (but not eliminate) the problems this will cause. The American Library Association, which raised an early warning on this issue, is staking out a position that "distribution" applies only to sales. Senator Jim DeMint has stated his intent to reform the CPSIA. There may be other efforts to mitigate the effect of this act, but in the meantime the danger to many classics is real as shop owners can't afford to risk the penalties they might face. Some might feel compelled to destroy the books rather than be fined.

So if you want to preserve classic children's books, many with a decidedly different religious, social, political value than those being produced today, you may want to consider purchasing a few of your old favorites while you still can. When and if you do, please don't treat them as museum pieces, loan them to others. They only have value if they're read.

Somethings Gotta Be First

This blog has been created for a while and yet there have been no posts. It could be that I was crafting the perfect initial post, or keeping true to the masthead and setting expectations low or maybe I'm overall just more interested in reading than writing. Could be some of each, it will have to be an exercise left to the reader - if there are any.

That having been said, something has to be first and so this post is it. Other than stating the obvious above, the only real purpose is to share the picture above, found on the pilgrim in a foreign land blog, which was in a list of sites recommended to me by a friend.

Which ever side of the political fence you lean to, I hope you found it at least slightly amusing. If not, you probably didn't make it this far anyway.

Disappointed? Oh, well - somethings gotta be first.