Grog
Semper Gumby
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2000
- Messages
- 5,033
Ummm, my "bat signal" is experiencing technical difficulties. Is anyone else have trouble locating it? Seriously.
Same here. It's not just you Breezy.
Ummm, my "bat signal" is experiencing technical difficulties. Is anyone else have trouble locating it? Seriously.
Coming as far north as Seattle is troublesome for me during the week, because I'd be risking a potential disaster trying to get back to meet my kids' school bus. Getting out of Seattle and past Boeing is always a gamble, and then there's the Narrows. Traffic is much better now that we have the second bridge, but there is no way around a problem if there's a wreck on the span. Well, there is a way around...but it involves driving all the way down to Olympia and back up the other side of the Sound.On the other hand, if you're willing to stay in Bellevue and drive down as far as Tacoma, I'll gamble on just the bridge any time.
![]()
I saw feety PJ's at Target this weekend in ALL sizes. I considered getting a pair but when it's that could out and I have to go to the bathroom, I thought it would be too.
Good idea! What'll we do?
Awwww....JB, Jacob looks so cute!![]()
I love the quilt. What are the four things in the corners - I see one's a flag - what are the other items?
Same here. It's not just you Breezy.
I know.......must be cuz I say Dude so often......![]()
![]()
hi guys... thought i'd share a couple of pics today. I've been a member of an online quilt group for about 4 years now, and we have members from all over the world. Today i received a gift from several members who worked together to make a quilt for Jacob and thought I'd share. It is too cute!! This is just slightly larger than a crib quilt to give you some perspective... Second picture is a gift from one of the members in England who knitted the tiniest little sweaters for him. They actually fit!! (They're too small for an AG Doll to give you reference
I could come down to Tacoma.![]()
We could go to the glass museum I guess or something. Or the Point Definace Zoo/Aquarium thingie.
Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- A politician is a person who says one thing, does the opposite, and fails to acknowledge the contradiction. A leader is a person who does the right thing, no matter the consequences.
Every president must decide, on balance, which he will be.
When you look back at past presidents, the most successful ones, like Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, often led regardless of the political risks.
The less successful ones, like Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, operated without any clear compass and sailed with the political winds. Bush, for example, flip-flopped from tax-cutting conservative to prescription-drug peddler, all with an eye toward building a permanent majority. (He was right about the majority part, but he got the party wrong.)
Let's assume that most politicians want history to view them as leaders. As Barack Obama is already finding out, it isn't easy. We are already learning a good deal about his leadership style, and for those hungering for a post-partisan direction, his performance has been disappointing.
Take the proposed bailout of the U.S. auto manufacturers, a policy that has been tirelessly advocated by the president-elect and sadly seems to be gaining support from enough members of both parties to have a chance of passage.
Economics 101 suggests that the government shouldn't bail out the automakers. They are saddled with enormously high costs relative to the competition and have been unable to deliver a product that is attractive enough to earn big markups and make up the difference.
Creative Destruction
When the manufacturer of a product has trouble in the marketplace, it needs to change its product or its cost structure, and government intervention can only slow the adjustment process. The fastest and most efficient path to economic growth is through the reorganization that generally occurs in bankruptcy.
So what arguments might cause one to reject the Economics 101 answer? The first is that there will be a contagion if the U.S. automakers enter bankruptcy. They are too big to fail.
This analysis is indefensible. Firms operate in bankruptcy all the time. The airlines seem to do it as a matter of habit. Forcing the unions and automakers to make tough choices in bankruptcy court isn't the same as shutting down the factories. Factories usually continue to operate in such circumstances. And if a few plants are shut, it will allocate workers and resources toward more efficient uses. That is a plus, not a minus.
The Little Guy
The second argument in favor of the bailout is that it serves social justice. In this view, Washington politicians are here to fight for the little guy, and now is their chance. Those poor blue-collar workers in Detroit didn't have a voice in Washington, and now they do.
This argument is worse than the first. The U.S. automakers are hemorrhaging money, it's true, and a big reason they are doing so is they are shoveling it out the door to the workers.
Times are tough, and people all over the country have been losing their jobs. When an auto worker at one of the U.S. automakers who has worked at least 10 years loses his job, he gets a severance payment of $140,000. Most everybody else in the U.S. gets a minimal severance or nothing.
And those who don't lose their jobs are compensated richly. The average cost of an hour of United Auto Worker member work is about $73. The average cost for an hour of work for a Honda Motor Co. worker in the U.S. is about $43.
Higher Pay
Some of those higher costs are attributable to the great retirement benefits that are provided to UAW members, who on average have a retirement that is about twice as comfy as the typical senior relying upon Social Security.
Even excluding the rich benefits, a typical Chrysler assembly worker had an annual salary of $64,100 in 2006, compared with $49,568 for the average American household. Including benefits, the UAW worker is solidly encamped in the upper third of the income distribution.
Bailout proposals all have the effect of fueling this gravy train for the auto workers. It is difficult to see how anyone could claim that this serves social justice. If you take general revenue, which is collected from everyone in the U.S., and transfer it to high-salaried auto workers, then you aren't serving social justice; you are subverting it.
Why would anyone propose such a thing? It might be that the proponents of the bailout are just mistaken about the first point and believe that bankruptcy is death, that a systemic economic calamity will follow if the automakers enter Chapter 11. Or they might not have understood the distributional consequences of their actions.
Simple Explanation
But it seems unlikely that President-elect Obama, surrounded as he is with brilliant economists, could have missed this point. The auto bailout is political payback, pure and simple.
After all, the Center for Responsive Politics reports that organized labor contributed a sum of $58 million during the 2008 election cycle to both parties. Republicans picked up $4.85 million; Democrats got $53 million.
It is clear that unions provide an important political advantage, and rewarding them is good for the Democratic Party even if it isn't good for the whole.
It is great politics to bail out the automakers. Just don't mistake it for leadership.
I have a question for all the debs here. I'm guessing all of our full names are the biblical spelling, Deborah? Are you finding that people keep spelling it wrong lately? WHen I was younger, people always spelled it correctly, now it seems its being shortened and cheapened!
So is it just me, or does anyone else think of the WKRP in Cincinnati Turkey Drop episode this time of year?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly!"
![]()
![]()
![]()
Ummm, my "bat signal" is experiencing technical difficulties. Is anyone else have trouble locating it? Seriously.
It seems eligibility is in the news today. Via Instapundit, I read two articles, one at DailyKos and one at The Volokh conspiracy, regarding Hillary Clinton's eligibility to serve as Secretary of State for the Obama administration. My reading of the story online indicates the DailyKos blog came first.
The source of the issue is something called the Emoluments Clause, which is a clause in the Constitution that essentially states that, while a person is serving a term of office to which they were elected, he or she may not be appointed to any civil office which was newly created, or for which the compensation was increased in that same term. So because there was a pay raise given to the position of Secretary of State during Senator Clinton's current term, she is ineligible for appointment to this office. Precisely: "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."
That's not all, either. This is not, apparently, the first time the issue has come up. Multiple examples are available at the sources above, but one in particular would be pertinent in the case of Hillary. When President Nixon wanted Sen. William Saxbe for his Attorney General, he had Congress reduce the wage, which had been increased and triggered the clause, in order to get around the restriction. The maneuver has been dubbed the "Saxbe fix".
The DailyKos article urges action soon, seeming to favor a Saxbe fix. The Volokh article features two legal experts who each arrive at a different conclusion, one favoring a Saxbe fix, one opposed. The grounds of their two positions are thick in the style of attorney's writing to attorneys, but worth reading anyway.
One thing does seem clear. It is, as John O'Connor put it, "beyond dispute that Senator Clinton is currently ineligible for appointment as secretary of State." After reading three articles on the subject, thick though they are with legalese, it's hard to argue with that assessment. Hillary Clinton is, under the emoluments clause, currently ineligible for the office of Secretary of State. What will be done about that status remains to be seen.
Update I: More from Volokh, an email from Constitutional Law expert Prof. Michael Stokes Paulsen is available here. Excerpt:
Thanks for alerting me to this fascinating (and fun) issue! I've played in this particular sandbox before [as to Lloyd Bentsen], and am amused to see it return in slightly different form.
So, "Is Hillary Clinton Unconstitutional?" In a word, Yes -- or, to be more precise, a Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be unconstitutional.
The Emoluments Clause of Article I, section 6 provides "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time." As I understand it, President Bush's executive order from earlier this year "encreased" the "Emoluments" (salary) of the office of Secretary of State. Last I checked, Hillary Clinton was an elected Senator from New York at the time. Were she to be appointed to the civil Office of Secretary of State, she would be being appointed to an office for which "the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased" during the time for which she was elected to serve as Senator. The plain language of the Emoluments Clause would thus appear to bar her appointment ... if the Constitution is taken seriously (which it more than occasionally isn't on these matters, of course).
Ummm, my "bat signal" is experiencing technical difficulties. Is anyone else have trouble locating it? Seriously.
hi guys... thought i'd share a couple of pics today. I've been a member of an online quilt group for about 4 years now, and we have members from all over the world. Today i received a gift from several members who worked together to make a quilt for Jacob and thought I'd share. It is too cute!! This is just slightly larger than a crib quilt to give you some perspective... Second picture is a gift from one of the members in England who knitted the tiniest little sweaters for him. They actually fit!! (They're too small for an AG Doll to give you reference![]()
![]()
![]()
subscribering![]()
I have a question for all the debs here. I'm guessing all of our full names are the biblical spelling, Deborah? Are you finding that people keep spelling it wrong lately? WHen I was younger, people always spelled it correctly, now it seems its being shortened and cheapened!
the corners each have a flag, the words "Air Force", the Air Force seal, and a Support Our Troops ribbon.
There are pills you can take for that.![]()
Uh, no, I haven't been dinking .... but maybe I should be..![]()
So is it just me, or does anyone else think of the WKRP in Cincinnati Turkey Drop episode this time of year?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly!"
Hillary Ineligible for Cabinet Post?
http://news.aol.com/political-machi...et-post/?icid=200100397x1213595214x1200840566
Great articles SM! The HC one is very interesting, what do you think will happen? Especially since I'm still waiting on proof that Hussein's eligible to take office![]()