Ron Paul Should Run as a 3rd Party Candidate

Listening to progressive radio, I heard a lot of callers voicing support for Ron Paul. The next day, he was interviewed on NPR. Again, he got a lot of support from the callers. This is a guy who finished a close second to Michele Bachmann in Iowa, and he has loyal followers who listen to progressive radio and NPR. Wow.

His only appeal to me is his opposition to our military adventures, but that seems primarily driven by his crank economic views. On NPR, He actually claimed that the financial crisis is a validation of Austrian economics. That blows me away. The government can still borrow money at record lows and inflation is below 2%. That's not validation. That's utter repudiation.

Still, there are obviously a lot of Paul supporters from both sides. This makes me wonder about a third party run. He did well in 2008 and his supporters tend to be very enthusiastic. He doesn't get much love from his fellow Republicans, and he's not running for re-election to his house seat. Therefore, he shouldn't fear pissing off the party establishment. The media ignores him now, which they couldn't do if he ran as a third party candidate. Furthermore, if he really thinks the future of America depends on returning to the gold standard, how can he not run?

Note, this is not a prediction. Logically, I can't see why he wouldn't run as a third party candidate, but Ron Paul's logic is very different from mine.

Sometimes the High Road is a Dead End

Trying to find a good radio station while driving through Chicago, I came across someone that sounded like Rush Limbaugh. He was calling someone un-American, not for being a Kenyan socialist, but for wanting to cut spending. I was intrigued. Who is this guy? It turns out that it was Ed Shultz. I had heard of the Ed Show on CNN, but I didn't know he also did radio. He is one of many talk show hosts on a progressive radio network that we heard in Chicago and again in Madison.

I have mixed feelings about what I heard. I have long complained about Democrats tying their own hands behind their backs, so I like the idea of having a progressive radio network to counteract Fox and Clear Channel. At the same time, it irritated me that Shultz was labeling some American citizens as un-American. Another host used the term "Republicon" so frequently you'd think he was earning royalties each time he said it. It's easy to make a strong progressive argument without resorting to these juvenile tactics, so what's the deal? Is there really a market for left wing values wrapped up in the rhetoric of the right? If so, I'm not sure I want those people on my team--either the hosts or their listeners. Then again, that's just the attitude the right wants me to have. It's a classic ends versus means dilemma. Hmmm...

If the choice is between manipulating people to get them to support policies that ultimately benefit them versus manipulating people to get them to support policies that ultimately hurt them, I'd obviously prefer the former. However, I worry that I am presenting a false dichotomy. I would certainly prefer a third option--an option where people demand solid arguments and respond rationally, but then I think about Iraq, the health care debate, and the focus on the national debt instead of unemployment. Sadly, it seems there really are only two choices. Sometimes the high road is a dead end.

For Labor Day

Following a summer of extensive manual labor, I am annoyed with the push for more Americans to go to college. It's not that I think going to college is a bad thing, but it's just not the answer to our economic woes. College is not a panacea. A college degree may give one applicant an advantage over another, but that advantage disappears when everyone has a college degree. Furthermore, if everyone had a college degree, we'd still live in a country where we need people to pick fruit, roof houses, fix roads, repair cars, etc.

Instead of pushing a one-size-fits-all college solution, we should be ensuring those doing the physical labor can make a decent living, but we are doing just the opposite. Leaders on both sides of the aisle think we should be increasing the retirement age. They say this is just common sense, as people are living longer. I've heard this argument over and over, but it is highly misleading. People are living longer, but it is mostly the financially stable people that are living longer. From 1977 to 2006, life expectancy for 65 year old men rose by 6 years for those in the top half of the income distribution, while increasing a mere 1.3 years for those in the bottom half. That itself is a disgrace in the richest country in the world. And which half do you suppose is doing the physical labor? It's not fair to ask those people to spend their extra 1.3 years on the job.

It's Krugman's Fault

My blogging has really dropped off this summer, partly because my frustration with politics has left me nearly speechless, but mostly because Paul Krugman keeps expressing my thoughts before I do...and better!

He's been on fire all summer. Lately, he made a great point about why CEO's do not have magical powers to address the broader economy , but my favorite was his comment about people who make economic arguments based on prejudices instead of models.

I’m basing what I say on a model; the model may not be right, but it does represent some hard thinking conditioned by evidence. If you have a different model, fine; but if all you have to counter my model is a set of prejudices, you don’t have an argument.

... if you just can’t believe I’m saying the things I say, at least consider the possibility that you’re the one who just doesn’t get it.

This has been a point of frustration for me for awhile. This is why Very Serious Persons like David Brooks, George Will, and Thomas Friedman drive me crazy...crazier than people like Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Michele Bachman, Rick Perry, or whoever is next in line. The impact of these Republican savior du jours is fleeting, as they are eventually dismissed as the crazy people they are, but the careers of these media VSP's span decades, as they are stealthy. They don't foam at the mouth while doing so, but they endorse the same economic policies as the crazy brigade, and those policies are never based on mathematical models. Instead, they just say things that sound true. Things that tell a good story. Things that just so happen to support the policies they've supported for decades.

People lacking in basic math skills, or even the slightest bit of cynicism, are easily mislead by these confidence-men wearing suits, bow ties, or ridiculous moustaches. This is how we end up with people who view historically low interest rates as a great time to take out a mortgage to buy a house, but a terrible time for the government to borrow money to invest in infrastructure. They love the low interest rate on their mortgage, hate the low interest rate on their savings account, but never consider that the two might be related. They complain about Chinese currency manipulation, but also complain about a falling dollar. They worry about the national debt, but can't fathom how higher inflation would help. They follow the daily ups and downs of the stock market, but couldn't tell you anything about the bond market. If they're aware that it even exists, they'd prefer it to go up, because up is always better.

I recently made these points to some Tea Party types. These are people that respect my intellect. People that acknowledge that I spend way more time studying these issues than they do. Even though they couldn't make a counter-argument, they still couldn't accept an argument that contradicted their prejudices. Maybe I needed a suit, bow tie, or a porn star moustache. Maybe all three. The situation depresses me to no end.

Self Aware Much?

In response to Obama's speech on the debt ceiling negotiations, David Brooks says:

His appearance was suffused with that “I’m the only mature person in Washington” condescension that drives everybody else crazy. Obama lectured the leaders of the House and Senate in the sort of patronizing tone that a junior high principal might use with immature delinquents.

That's right. David Brooks, who makes his living by pretending to be the only mature person in Washington, starts his column with, "Some of us like to think big", and then criticizes Obama for being condescending. This is like Donald Trump accusing someone of having a big ego. Or Sarah Palin claiming someone is unqualified...for anything.

Of course, per usual, being condescending and lacking self awareness isn't enough. Brooks is also inconsistent (this must be in his contract). He starts the column arguing that Obama's patronizing tone has jeopardized the possibility of a grand bargain, but then concludes:

John Boehner and Harry Reid will continue to verbally abuse each other. But there’s a script to their taunts. Nobody’s feelings are hurt. The old pros are perfectly capable of exchanging clichéd volleys in the morning and then going off and negotiating with each other in the afternoon.

So, John Boehner is simultaneously an old pro who can take some verbal abuse from Harry Reid, yet not enough of an old pro to handle a patronizing tone from Obama. Thanks David. Your insight is as valuable as ever.

America's Best Scam

Anyone who jumps through the annual hoop to get an eye exam and a prescription for glasses or contacts probably knows what a scam it is. It had been a few years for me, so maybe I just forgot.

I ended up at America's Best Contacts & Eyeglasses, where they advertise a free eye exam with 2 pairs of complete glasses for $69.95 with single vision plastic lenses. That sounds like a great deal, but magically, my actual cost would have been over $200!!! How is that possible?

Well, first off, if you want an eye exam for both glasses and contacts, it's not free. By itself, an eye exam for glasses is $45. An eye exam for contacts is $69. You might expect that they'd just add the difference of $24 if you're buying glasses and also getting a contact exam, but you'd be wrong. You also might expect that "complete glasses with single vision plastic lenses" would actually include single vision plastic lenses, but you'd be wrong again. That's just for the frames.

I decided to take my eyeglass purchase elsewhere, and to just pay for the $69 contact exam. Except, they tried to charge me $99!!! What the hell? Well, the optometrist recommended that I have my eyes dilated. She failed to mention that this was an additional $30. I protested, and they agreed to charge me only $15, the cost of the visual field exam. I had already declined the visual field exam.

Like a car salesman pushing a rust protection package, the technician rattled off a bunch of fine print before the visual field exam. When I asker her to repeat everything, I realized it was an extra $15. After declining, she presented me with a refusal form. The form described the benefits of the visual field exam, but it also indicated that I was not in the demographic that really needs the visual field exam. Furthermore, there was no reason this form couldn't have been included with all the other forms I filled out in advance, except they were trying to scam me.

When I went back for the follow up for my contacts, the optometrist sent me to the front desk to "order my contacts". When I told the clerk that I wasn't going to order contacts, but wanted my prescription, she had to go back to the optometrist to get it. The optometrist was going to keep it on file at their office without giving me a copy of my prescription. I know this is standard procedure at these places, but it still disappoints me that so-called medical professionals are willing to whore themselves out for the big-box eyeglass pimps.

The upside of this whole experience was that I got online and started searching for alternatives. That's how I found glassyeyes and Zenni optical. It turns out that most of the big players in the eyeglass business are owned by the same monopoly. If you're tired of getting screwed over by them, try ordering eyeglasses online. I ended up getting a pair of prescription sunglasses and a pair of prescription glasses with polycarbonate lenses shipped to my door for a total of $51!!! I had my doubts, but they provided excellent communication, including a tracking number when the glasses shipped. I couldn't be happier. Stick it to the man.

Good Government in Action: IRS Edition

People like to complain about the government, especially the IRS, so I want to share our recent experience.

Several months ago, the IRS notified us that we failed to report a stock sale in 2009. They were right. Living in Australia, we didn't get the form, so we didn't report it. The IRS proposed a tax increase of $8000 plus a $1500 penalty.

Acknowledging our mistake, we quickly sent in the $8000, begging for mercy on the penalty. Later, the IRS represenative pointed out that their proposed increase assumed a zero cost basis--hint, hint.

Sure enough, in our haste to rectify our mistake, we missed their not-so-fine-print assuming a zero cost basis. We had obviously overpaid. No problem. Just send the cost basis information.

That was easier said than done. Our employee stock purchase plan changed agents 3 times. Over two months passed before we could establish the cost basis. We sent it in just before the IRS deadline.

A week later, we got a notice of deficiency and instructions for petitioning our case to the US Tax Court. Doh! Figuring that our cost basis information was lost in the mail or sitting in queue, we called the IRS.

No problem. We gave them our cost basis and capital gains information over the phone. They recalculated our taxes, determined that we owed nothing, and said they'd be sending out a check to refund our $8000.

Four weeks later, we got a check for $8000 + interest. The whole ordeal was our fault, yet they didn't even charge a penalty! In a world where everyone seems to be trying to screw you out of your money--more on that later--it's nice to know the IRS is not.