Register Puuuussshhh Pull

Ah, the good ol' Red Star Register has released the results of it's latest poll on how the President is doing.

It, of course, shows that Iowans don't like the President, with a full 61% saying that the nation is on the wrong track and 59% disaprove of the President's job performance. And, then there's obligatory question on "domestic spying". The register claims that "one-half" of Iowans disapprove of tapping domestic calls.

A couple-three points, from least important to most important:

1) Does anyone else find it odd that while they provide numerical percentages for all the other questions, the writer describes this result with the phrase, "one-half"? Sure, I could trust the Register and assume that the results really did come out to 50%, but somehow, I suspect that it was actually about 49%, or a little less, and they are fudging it for the article.

2) Polls around the nation have shown about sixty-five to seventy percent of Americans support the President's tapping of phone calls originating with terrorists in other countries made to people here in the states. So, it's a bit surprising that only 43% support it in Iowa. That is, its surprising until you realize that the Register is pulling a fast one. They don't ask, "Do you support tapping the calls of terrorists who are calling from abroad to people here in the U.S., which would accurately describe the program. Instead, they ask:

Do you consider the wiretapping of domestic telephone calls and e-mails without court approval an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism?

That question is a total misrepresentation of the program. The Register could claim that they are asking a theorhetical question, I suppose, except that they hint that this is, in fact, the Bush program just a couple of sentences later.

43 percent of Iowans say the surveillance program involving phone and e-mail monitoring is a legitimate tool to combat terrorism. (emphasis added)

This, I believe, is a form of push-polling.

3.) The Register obviously asked for party identification. They breakdown a couple of numbers by party identification. Yet, in the sidebar column telling us about the number of people polled, random phone numbers, and margins of error, they conspicously leave out what percentage of those polled belonged to which party.

Care to guess that if they were to actually show the party breakdown that this poll oversamples Democrats by a wide margin.

Hey, I could be wrong. But, the problems I've identified above are easy to look out for, easy to correct, and easy to include in a column. That they didn't do so speaks volumes about the Register.

Blogger Bash Reminder

Remember, the next Iowa Blogger Bash is Saturday, February 4th at the Raccoon River Brewing Company in downtown Des Moines.

Be sure to be there.

You Gotta Wonder....

...about Rekha Basu sometimes. Today she is railing against Iowa City agreeing to sell 21 acres of land to Wal-Mart.

Iowa City must be stealing people's homes to do this, right. Maybe condemning large tracts of land in a largely minority part of town. Nope. Nothing like that is mentioned.

Well, the town council must just be giving it to Wal-Mart. Nope. It's being sold to them.

Hmmm...so, it must be some sort of sweetheart deal. Only if you consider a pricetag of $147,000 per acre a sweetheart deal.

So, why is Ms. Basu upset? Because she believes that that Iowa City shouldn't give up it's purity that way. Iowa City shouldn't, and I quote, "prostitute" itself that way.

One problem. Iowa City already has a Wal-Mart. And Coralville has a Wal-Mart Supercenter. Oh, and there are eight other Wal-Marts within about a forty minute drive, too.

In all fairness, Ms. Basu does admit that Iowa City already has a Wal-Mart, but she keeps that little fact under wraps until the ninth paragraph. But in any event, that doesn't really matter, you see, because Wal-Mart is really bad and this will be a Wal-Mart Supercenter. So that's like an extra special kind of bad. The column then descends into the typical complaints. Wal-Mart drives out small retailers. Wal-Mart sells products made by child labor. Wal-Mart doesn't pay very well. Sam Walton came to my house and strangled my puppy when I was a kid. Wal-Mart threw my grandmother down the stairs at her rest home. Wal-Mart ate my children. You know, the standard stuff. (okay, I may have made up those last two or three.)

But, anyway, where was I? Oh yes. Let's summarize.

Iowa City already has a store and this one will replace it. Therefore, the standard "it'll drive out all the small businesses" is a non-starter because, even if that was the case, the damage was done long ago. Moreover, even if you keep it out now, will shoppers on Iowa City's south side drive downtown to the Ped Mall, drop quarter after quarter into the parking meters, and then fight through hordes of trust fund rastafarians playing hackey sack just to pick up their deordorant? Not likely. They'll go to the existing Wal-Mart up by Coralville. Duh!

The other arguments against Wal-Mart are also lackluster.

* Wal-Mart sells products made by child labor. Yes. And so does every small retailer in the world if they sell anything made in China, or Thailand, or most of the rest of Asia. That pair of sneakers you bought was made by children whether you got it from Wal-Mart or whether you got it from Ye Olde Small Towne Cobbler. That package of widgets that says "made in Laos" has the same label on it at the University Bookstore as well.

* Wal-Mart doesn't pay well. Well, Grandma's Ice Cream and Soda Fountain doesn't either. Starting jobs are just that: starting jobs. It doesn't matter whether you are working a cash register at Wal-Mart or a strip mall pet store, you'll make bupkus. At least at Wal-Mart, if you hang around for more than six months, you'll probably get a raise. And, if you hang around for a couple of years, you can become a manager in charge of a team of eight or ten people. Try getting that management experience at Ye Olde Small Town Cobbler 'cause you'll have to rub out Ye Olde Cobbler himself to get it.

Oh, and does anyone else find the following sentences internally inconsistent?

When Wal-Mart replaces existing stores with Supercenters, it has a tradition of abandoning the closed ones to keep out competition instead of selling them. So they become eyesores and blights on the neighborhood. As of last March, according to the documentary, there were 356 Wal-Mart buildings listed for sale or lease — a total of 26,699,678 million square feet of empty stores. (emphasis added)

So, they abandon it, except when they are trying to lease it. And they won't let anyone else use it, except when they are attempting to sell it.

Whatever.

Iowa City, go ahead and get that new Wal-Mart built. It'll do more to keep your town livable and prosperous than just about anything else.

RE: Floating Television Stations

Jeff, surely you jest. In the America of 2006, you are suggesting that our military could set up a floating (therefore hidden, i.e. secret) facility to dispense propaganda? Why the New York Times would be all over this blatant attempt to influence the democratically elected government of a sovereign nation. You would have our military actually paying people to broadcast the “news” when you know anytime people have to be paid to do something, the activity is fraudulent, if not illegal?

Furthermore, even if you could set up such a facility, Tom Harkin would demand that it include Air America to balance the right-wing rants masquerading as news. This would only make it that much easier for Zarqawi, Ahmadinejad and the late Osama bin Ladin to get their talking points already translated into their native languages.

No, better to leave well enough alone and let CNN, al Jazeera and the BBC continue to supply the region with its regular fake, but accurate newsfare.

Canada Elects Conservative Minority Government

Our neighbors to the north are having an election today. The Canadian Broadcasting Corp has announced that the Conservative Party is set to win about 120 to 125 out of 308 ridings (their term for the parliamentary districts) in the Canadian parliament. The Liberal Party is on pace to hold onto about 105 or so. The Quebec Bloc should hold about 50 seats, and the leftist NDP will get just a touch over 30.

Being a minority government, the Conservatives will have to locate some help from one of the other parties, none of whom are natural allies. It's hard to see the Conservatives putting aside what was a pretty ugly campaign to form a unity government with the Liberal Party. And, the NDP is pretty far to the left, pretty much diametrically opposed to where the Consevatives would like to go.

That leaves the Quebec Bloc. My understanding of the Quebec Bloc is that their big issue is utilizing nationalist/separatist sentiments in Quebec as a means to aggragate power in Quebec. While the Conservatives are interested in devolving more power to the individual provinces, I don't think that they are all that supportive of the Quebec separatists.

On the other hand, the Quebec Bloc did lose several seats to the Conservatives. They will likely be drawn to the Conservative plurality. If I were to guess, I would suspect that the Conservatives will join with the QB to form the next, somewhat tenuous, government.

Captain's Quarters is liveblogging the results. The Good Captain also indicates that the Quebec Bloc will cast its lot with the conservatives:

The Bloc Quebecois has already cast its lot with the Conservatives and is widely expected to form a government with the Tories if Harper can't win a majority in the new Commons. That has actually been the expectation all along; only in the final days of the election has the possibility of a majority win appeared within reach. Ipsos still says that its polling shows it could happen, while SES puts the Tory win somewhat lower. BQ will exact some concessions from the Tories for its partnership, probably in exemptions from some of the reforms Harper has espoused on the campaign trail, in exchange for a lowering of rhetoric on separatism.

Floating Television Stations

Here's something that I've long wondered about. In the Michael Ledeen column I linked to in the previous post, he mentions that Tehran had pressued some nations into stopping Persian-language broadcasts.

In recent weeks, Tehran forced the government of Dubai to cancel all live satellite TV broadcasts in the Persian language. Just a year ago, the mullahs had similarly intimidated the Dutch government, even though parliament in the Hague had appropriated funds for the project.

Why doesn't our navy have what amounts to a floating broadcast center? Think about it. One of the biggest problems we have with so many authoritarian regimes is that they control so much of what their people can hear and see on the news. For years, we had Radio Free Europe broadcasting along the edge of the Soviet Union. Well, in the 21st Century, it seems that our enemies will be more mobile and found in more places. We can't just depend upon a few stationary broadcasting points. So, why not have a floating broadcast platform that has, say, two or three television studios and two or three radio studios. Then, we could float up and broadcast news in a couple of languages just about anywhere on the planet.

The Soft Underbelly of the Middle East

Over at National Review, there's an interesting column by Michael Ledeen which postulates that part of the solution to the problem with Tehran's nuclear ambition rests in Syria.

Ledeen postulates that Damascus and Tehran have a longstanding relationship of working together through Hezbollah. Further, Tehran has used Damascus to ship problems into Baghdad. So, if the regime in Damascus was to fall, it would effectively isolate Tehran as the last major terrorist-sponsoring state in the middle east.

More importantly, it might free up troops we have in western Iraq to monitor the eastern border that Iraq shares with Iran.

The question Ledeen seems to be asking is: how long could Tehran hold out as the last rogue?

Sorry

Sorry for the lite posting this week. Travelling for work cost me a couple of evenings.

There is no loss for interesting topics this week. See:

1) bin Ladens new tape (from last December?).

2) We might have missed Zawahiri in that stirke last Friday, but we got Zawahiri's top chemical weapons guy.

3.) The three-way scrap for Majority Leader in the U.S. House of Representaties has not yet worked itself out.

4.) The election is a long ways off, but it has got to worry the Democrats that a conservative African-American is ahead in the polls for the governor's office in Ohio.

Hopefully, here in the next few days, I'll have some time to get back on track.

Refineries, Cow Butts, and...Trees? Oh, My!

Scientists have long believed that methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas. Accordingly, the primary sources of methane that can be tied to human activity--1) animal husbandry and 2) extraction and refining of fossil fuels--have long been targets of environmental activists.

Generally, the environmentalists would have you believe that all that must be done is to quit producing and burning fossil fuels, quit raising so many head of cattle for beef, and get to planting some trees to mop up the excess CO2 that's in the atmosphere.

But the earth keeps proving to be a far more complex system than we realize. The latest example is that your friendly neighborhood forest, woods, or grove is likely churning out a pretty considerable amount of methane. No, really, trees produce methane.

So, what does that mean? Well, the environmentalists are hoping that further research will prove that the study in question is incorrect. And maybe it will be. But, what it should tell us is that we don't really understand how changing one variable will affect all the others. We've spent more than a generation promoting the idea that trees are essentially a universal benefit under all conditions. However, it appears that may not be the case.

And the greater lessen is that we should not turn over large chunks of the economy to environmental regulations that will hamstring our ability to grow and adapt.

Bold new business plan

State 29 has come up with the one-stop quickie solution to Iowa's hardest problems. One brilliant masterstroke that will increase state government revenue, attract the tourism dollar and provide employment opportunities for young people. What a concept! It's as if the convenience stores were named with this idea in mind.

First They Came for the Smokers. They They Came for the Fast Food Eaters...

...Now, they're coming for the beer drinkers?

According to both Rehka Basu and David Yepsen, Governor Vilsack proposed raising the tax on beer from $.19 to $.29 per gallon! That's more than a fifty percent increase. On beer. Per gallon.

Now, perhaps we should take this story with a grain of salt as, from what I can tell, the printed version of the Condition of the State speech doesn't mention this horrific idea. So, maybe it was just a trial balloon that the Gov slipped in after the speechwriters got done.

This must not be allowed, under any circumstances, to become the law.

My Chariot Awaits

Okay, I'm nominally in the market for a new vehicle. My lovely spouse, Mrs. Talon, believes that our existing ride isn't quite up to snuff. I'm sympathetic to this line of thought, but, being somewhat financially savvy, I've calculated that parking that sweet new set of wheels in the drive will cost me roughtly double the current outlay.

Ouch!

Accordingly, I've been dragging my feet somewhat. However, I can assure you that if Chevy had this bad girl on the lots right freakin' now, I'd be far more interested. (Whether Mrs. Talon would be interested in this particular model is another matter. For some reason, I think she has an entirely different class of vehicle in mind.)

Interesting Post at Insureblog

Our reader, HG Stern has gotten into an interesting discussion over at his blog regarding who pays for insurance benefits with Kate Steadman over at the Health Policy blog.

What we've got here is, a failure to communicate. Ms. Steadman is talking about the "legal incidence" of the cost of the premiums. The employer has retained the insurance carrier and is legally obligated to make payment to the carrier for the coverage purchased. In this she is absolutely correct. However, the estimable Mr. Stern is not talking about the legal incidence as such matters are generally only of concern to scum-sucking bottom dweller attorney types involved in litigation or collection.

Mr. Stern is referring to the "economic incidence" of the cost of health premiums, i.e., who actually pays for it. (As alluded to, similar arguments play out in the arena of tax policy for obvious reasons.) Economic incidence tries to identify who was actually deprived of economic value. In most circumstances economic incidence of health insurance premium depends on the price elasticity of labor and of the company's goods or services.

For instance, a salt mine sells a commodity, salt. It is incapable of raising the price to pay for a benefit mandate (very inelastic). Salt miners are generally pretty unskilled so it is likely that they wages can be stagnated or cut to pay for a benefits mandate (very elastic). The economic incidence of such a mandate will fall almost entirely upon the employees of said mine.

Taking the opposite situation, say benefits consulting. Here benefits consultants can generally raise or lower their pricing within a broad range (very elastic), however, they have very little control over the wages paid to their highly skilled and highly compensated employees (very inelastic). In such circumstances, the costs of a benefit mandate would fall most squarely on the customers of said consultant as they raise their prices (and likely lose customers).

If one takes the contrapositive, movie production companies can both alter the price of their goods to distributors (very elastic) and, where big name actors demand too much salary, hire quality starving actors (very elastic). Here the costs of a benefit mandate will be shared more equally between the customers and the employees.

Finally, if one takes the converse, subsistence level family farmers have no control over the price of their product because pricing is arbitrarily set by the government through its subsidy programs (totally inelastic), nor can they alter the subsistence wages they pay themselves or their farm hands (very inelastic). Here a benefit mandate does the most damage. It likely forces such a farm to engage in a "reduction in force" or bankruptcy.

I'm not trying to be condescendingly simplistic, but it is amazing the number of people who are totally unfamiliar with these concepts. Where a corporation's goods or services are relatively price inelastic and the cost of labor is price inelastic (a relatively rare circumstance) it could be argued that the corporation suffers both the legal and most of the economic incidence of the tax or benefits expense. However, corporations are a fiction. They do not value money or heat or shelter or food. Therefore depriving them of such things is economically meaningless. Corporations act as a way of aggregating the economic value its shareholders place on such economic goods. Accordingly, even where the economic incidence does not fall on the customers or employees, the individual shareholders lose economic value. This is why Mr. Stern is absolutely right that corporations don't pay taxes or pay for benefits, individuals do, every time, unequivocally.

Iowa's Engergy Producing Future?

Earlier this week, a group of investors announced plans to build a plant producing bio-diesel from soybean oil in Keokuk.

Now, I didn't know a whole bunch about what bio-diesel, so I did a little bit of research at wikipedia.

Interesting.

I've never been enthralled with those that advocate building vast wind farms in north central and northwest Iowa so that we can sell electricity to our neighboring states. Moreover, I've always thought that the salespitch for ethanol plants was just too good to be true.

But this actually sounds promising. Given how many sources there may be for producing bio-diesel, if Iowa does want to get ahead of the game, maybe we'd better build another couple of these plants.

(H/T State 29)

Blogger Bash

Last summer, we tasked Joe from the Roth CPA Tax Update with hosting the next blogger bash.

And Joe has come through. He's just announced the date, time, and location of the next blogger bash.

Date: Saturday, February 4, 2006
Location: Raccoon River Brewing Company in downtown Des Moines.
Time: Approximately 7:00 PM.

Be there or be square.

Reflections on our bowl game predictions

Neither Lance nor I fared too well on our picks. I’m recommending we avoid sports bookies.

The only real commitment I made was that TCU should have been favored over ISU by more than 4 points, and they didn’t even cover that as it turned out. For the ‘Clones, the game was like the Cliff’s Notes version of the season – gritty performances that turned into lost opportunities.

The most notable feature of the bowl season was the total failure of the review system to prevent officiating mistakes. The Nebraska – Michigan game was the worst officiated game ever, until Florida – Iowa. A Texas knee on the ground did not end a play that led to a touchdown against USC. Conversely, an apparent Iowa State first down was negated when replay officials saw the ball carrier’s “forearm” touch the ground. (Apparently a few blades of grass brushing his wrist was conclusive evidence.)

Not that I’m whining about it. TCU, Texas, Florida and Nebraska did what they had to do to win. ISU, USC, Iowa and Michigan put forth the best efforts they were capable of and simply came up short. There’s a line in a movie, North Dallas Forty maybe, that applies perfectly. “One thing I learned about football a long time ago. What could have happened, did.”

My only point here is that the play review system, as used in the college game, should be scrapped. It failed for a variety of reasons to prevent officiating errors. It added to the length of the games; many of them lasted a full four hours. I’m not even sure that it didn’t contribute to bad calls. Knowing that all their calls were subject to being second-guessed overruled at any time must have been somewhat unnerving to the zebras.

The system used by the NFL in which a coach must call for a review when he feels very strongly about it, is vastly better. This limits to four the number of times it is used, and has a penalty for being wrong that self-limits overuse. I contend it also increases the pressure on the refs to get the call right in the first place.

But questionable officiating did not reduce the excitement and drama of the games. There were very few blowouts and a whole lot of great games. May next year's games be as good.


UPDATE:
Lance adds:

Iowa got close to winning, but lost by 7 points. The score was 31-24. The last flag of the game was an anti-Iowa call and a very bad call. Iowa was trying for the onsides kick, and Iowa recovers. The officials call offsides. Even in the replay he was onsides! There were other bad calls, but that was the worst.

Iowa didn’t score in the first quarter. Florida blocked Iowa’s punt and returned it for a TD. The extra point wasn’t missed. In the second quarter a 21yard field goal and two TD scored by Florida. Iowa scored a TD. Third quarter one TD was scored. It was scored by Florida. Fourth Iowa scored two TDs and a FG.

My prediction was close (Bowl Game prediction). Only a TD and a two point conversion off (8 points). At least I picked the winner.

And he was right that the Rose Bowl was one whale of a game.

Reversing Iowa's Demographics

The Register's Editorial Page editor, Carol Hunter, has a column today letting us know that the Register will spend 2006 exploring the issue of Iowa's negligible population growth over the past years. [Or, to be honest, over the past century. Iowa is the only state in the Union which did not see at least 50% growth in population between 1900 and 2000. Forty-three of our ninety-nine counties reached their peak population before 1900, and all but thirty saw their peak before 1950.]

Unlike the Register, I'm note terribly worried about losing a U.S. Congressional District after the 2010 census. But, I'm am concerned about how the utter lack of growth in this state as well as the increasingly aged nature of the state's population affects Iowa's economic well-being. I'm very concerned that Iowa will go into a demographic death-spiral, similar to what Europe is on the precipice of experiencing. The death spiral goes something like this:

1. An aging population requires more services, which is perceived to require....
2. Additional government funding of healthcare, home-heating tax credits, property-tax breaks, etc., that assist the elderly retired, leading to....
3. Businesses and those of working age being forced to pay higher taxes, causing them to....
4. Look elsewhere for opportunities, leaving us with a smaller tax base and an even higher percentage of elderly individuals in our state's population....
5. Go back to step 1.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Now, I love Iowa. Accordingly, I'm intersted in finding ways to avoid this. I'm even willing to believe that the Register is actually intersted in avoiding this. However, I'll bet that the Register will advocate all of the government programs and building projects that it wants--in fact, they admit that they will do just that when they state:

Of course, we'll continue to write about longtime Register priorities: quality of life, access to affordable health care, top-notch schools and clean water.

But, that's exactly what is killing Europe right now. Europe has an abundance of all the things that the Register advocates, and yet they probably have a worse demographic problem than even Iowa. So universal healthcare and lots of government services don't encourage population growth.

The Register asks for ideas. So, here's mine. If you want to reverse Iowa's demographic problem, the first thing to do is to reverse this number: The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council ranks Iowa 43rd out of 51 (they include the District of Columbia) when it comes to places to start a business. Only New Jersey, New York, Maine, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Hawaii, California, and D.C. are worse. Number one on the list is South Dakota.

Iowa doesn't have year-round beautiful weather like southern locales. It doesn't have scenic mountains like Colorado or Wyoming. It doesn't even have large cities to act as incubators for businesses. So, we have to create a better business environment. There's really no way around it.

Traffic Cameras Likely Coming to Clive

Though there is quite a bit of evidence that attempting to enforce red lights with cameras in intersections actually causes more accidents than it prevents, the Des Moines suburb of Clive is apparently going to go forward with installing them.

And what's more galling is that the study they are using to support doing this was generated by the company who likely will be operating the system.

Council members have reviewed an accident history for some of Clive's high volume intersections and traffic violation data compiled with the aid of temporary cameras at those intersections. The traffic violation survey was conducted by Redflex, an Arizona company that Clive City Manager Dennis Henderson will consider contracting with for traffic signal enforcement operations.

Did I mention that Redflex also stands to make, under one payment option, as much as 65% of the value of the revenue collected from the violations caught on tape.

One option would give Redflex 65 percent of payments collected for the first 119 violations, 50 percent of the next 89 violations and 40 percent of all violations beyond that in the first year of a contract.

So let me get this straight. These guys come in stand to make a boatload of money off of this deal and you know, strangely enough, the report indicates that Clive really, really, needs their system. Stunner.

The likely outcome: The city will make a lot of money. The cameral company will make a lot of money. As an added bonus, residents of Clive zip codes will pay more for insurance due to the higher rate of accidents in their community.

Happy New Year!

The title of the post says it all. May all of our regular readers and occassional guests have a wonderful and happy 2006.