the tindog coffeehouse

Father’s Day may just be another holiday manufactured by the greeting card companies (and sponsored by Home Depot), but it could just be the key to ending poverty as we know it.

According to a new study by the Heritage Foundation, having a married father in the household “has the same effect in reducing poverty as adding five to six years to a parent’s education level”:

About two of every three poor children live in single-parent households. Yet if poor single moms married the fathers of their children, nearly two out of three would be lifted out of poverty. …

It’s not as simple as young men “manning up” and becoming the lawfully wedded husbands of their girlfriends, live-in or otherwise. These unmarried mothers tend to be in their 20s, without much income or education. They come to depend on public assistance; many learn how to work the welfare system.

Research shows that a child raised in a home where Dad is married to Mom is much less likely to live in poverty, get arrested as a juvenile, be suspended or expelled from school, be treated for emotional or behavioral problems, or drop out before completing high school. Taxpayers foot the bill for more than $300 billion a year in means-tested government spending on low-income single moms – and, in relatively rare cases, single dads.

So Happy Father’s Day to all the married dads out there. You’re not just saving your kids’ lives, you just might be saving the entire economy.

Previously:
Defining ‘manhood’
Economist: Marriage is ‘necessary for good economic development’
Single parents cost taxpayers $112 billion

Just in time for this year’s census, Radical Cartography has published a bunch of amazingly detailed (and beautiful) maps and charts from the census of 1870.

The data essentially reinforce what you would expect to find in the first census since the end of the Civil War: The North had a higher population overall, more foreign-born residents, much fewer African-Americans, and was much wealthier than the South. The percentage of men in the West (California, Nevada, Idaho, etc.) far exceeded the percentage of women. And the federal government, whose expenditures were almost completely limited to the military, saw the national debt explode in order to pay for the Civil War.

Below: The Constitutional Population (“Excluding Indians not taxed”).

Below: The “Colored” Population. Almost exclusively located in the Deep South along the Mississippi River and Southern plantations.

Below: The Foreign Population. Notice that the foreign immigrants flocked mainly to the upper Midwest but also to Central Texas. The influx of German and Czech immigrants to Texas is responsible for the incredible barbecue we still salivate over today. In California, of course, most of the immigrants were Chinese.

Below: Church Accommodation. Almost 50% of the total population was either Methodist or Baptist (red striped area and green area, respectively), with smaller numbers in Presbyterian or Roman Catholic churches (blue and maroon areas). In New England, Congregational churches were more dominant (light blue striped area), while the Southwest was divided between Catholics (maroon) and Mormons (black).

Below: The National Debt. Almost non-existent before the U.S.-Mexican War (1846-1848) but then exploding during the Civil War, reaching a height of about $2.7 billion in 1866. It’s interesting to note that only a few years later the Panic of 1873 would plunge the nation into a major economic depression.

Check out all the maps in full size and stunning detail on the Radical Cartography site.

Previously:
Tonight we’re gonna panic like it’s 1873
A presidential view on debt

In an interesting turn of events, Senators Maria Cantwell and John McCain have proposed reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act, which — among other things — prevented commercial banks from merging with investment banks. That restriction, first passed in 1933 at the height of the Great Depression, was repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and it was that law that set in motion much of the financial meltdown that we’re still dealing with today.

“I want to ensure that never again we stick the American taxpayer with another $700 billion or even larger tab to bail out the financial industry,” Mr. McCain said, referring to the Treasury bailout program of financial firms.

Mr. McCain said he isn’t opposed to investment banks taking risks to pursue greater returns, but he doesn’t believe these risks should be taken using retail banking depositors’ money.

As the Wall Street Journal points out, it’s unlikely that the call to separate the banks will go very far in Congress, and Newsweek has compared it to “unscrambling an egg”. So why is it so interesting? Because McCain voted for Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999 and because one of the authors of the bill, Phil Gramm, was McCain’s chief economic adviser during his presidential campaign. Which makes me wonder if McCain would be making the same call had he won the election. My guess is, probably not.

Previously:
The root cause of the subprime meltdown

Texas Monthly’s Paul Burka recently quoted a report on ProPublica.com, which indicated that (according to the Treasury) the federal government would actually make about $15 billion profit from last year’s $700,000,000,000 bailout rescue plan known as TARP. Burka’s point was that even though gubernatorial candidate Kay Bailey Hutchison has since renounced the plan, she may have done the right thing in initially voting for it.

But did she?

First, the ProPublica report goes on to show that even if some parts of TARP make money, overall the government is still in the red when you factor in the rest of the program as well as all the other bailouts (AIG, Fannie Mae, GM, etc.). So Burka’s point is moot.

But let’s assume the government did actually end up profiting from all the various bailouts. Does that make them OK? Or are they still unacceptable based on principle alone?

Senator Hutchison wrote in September 2008 that:

With every bailout, each American taxpayer becomes more invested in these markets. And we all have the right to ask the question, why is one firm rescued, when another must face the consequences of its actions? In a capitalist system, some risks will yield big rewards and some will lead to failure. When possible, it is better to let free market economics pick the winners and losers, not the federal government. Corporate bailouts set a dangerous precedent and stand to negatively impact market dynamics over the long-term.

So do big government bailouts still set a dangerous precedent if they not only help the market stabilize and recover but also yield a profit for taxpayers?

Again, that’s just a theoretical question since we have yet to see (and almost certainly won’t see) a return on our investments. But in my opinion, a bailout’s potential profitability doesn’t make it right. Otherwise, the government simply becomes a massive investment manager whose motives are driven more by the bottom line than the public good. Which would make it just as “evil” as the Wall Street firms that the bailouts were designed to save us from.

Previously:
Report: Bailouts hurt the government’s credibility
TARP is the financial equivalent of the Vietnam War
Actual cost of TARP bailouts: $2.9 trillion

Last month I pointed out how The Dallas Morning News told us that Texas had simultaneously both gained and lost jobs.

Now we get the sequel.

First, we find out that Texas employers hired 41,700 new employees in October (a number almost identical to the jobs lost a month before). But then in another article (also from the DMN), we find out that Dallas-Fort Worth “lost about 60,000 jobs in October compared to a year earlier.” Both stats, conveniently, come from the Texas Workforce Commission.

OK, so I guess you could argue that the DFW area lost 60,000 jobs while other parts of Texas gained 101,700. If so, how do you explain the unemployment rate rising from 8.2 percent in September to 8.3 percent in October? Something’s not adding up.

Further, the first article states that “Dallas-Fort Worth lost 59,100 jobs between October 2008 and last month”, while the second article (quoting the Dallas Federal Reserve) says that DFW has “lost almost 115,000 jobs this year”.

Huh?

Have we lost 59,000 jobs in the last year or 115,000? Did we gain 41,000 jobs in October or lose 60,000? Honestly, I don’t think anyone really knows.

And that’s why our economy is so screwed up.

Previously:
Texas gains jobs, Texas loses jobs
‘Stimulus’ spending could cost Texas 171,900 jobs

A new report claims that the $700,000,000,000 bailout rescue plan known as TARP may have saved the economy (debatable), but it also severely damaged the credibility of the federal government:

The mixed and blunt assessment by Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general in charge of oversight for the bailout fund, appears in a quarterly report scheduled for release Wednesday. Barofsky said the Troubled Asset Relief Program has come at great cost to taxpayers, to the integrity of the financial system and to the public’s perception of the federal government.

“Despite the aspects of TARP that could reasonably be viewed as a substantial success,” he wrote, “Treasury’s actions in this regard have contributed to damage the credibility of the program and of the government itself, and the anger, cynicism and distrust created must be chalked up as one of the substantial, albeit unnecessary, costs of TARP.”

Of course, the report assumes that Americans had any faith in the government in the first place, which is questionable.

There’s a reason our currency says “In God We Trust”.

Previously:
‘Dude, where’s my $700 billion?’
TARP is the financial equivalent of the Vietnam War

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke thinks the U.S. should try to cut its budget deficits before Asia completely destroys us with its super economy-rebounding powers.

“As the global economy recovers and trade volumes rebound, however, global imbalances my reassert themselves,” Bernanke warned. For the United States’ part, “the most effective way” to boost national savings in this country “is by establishing a sustainable fiscal trajectory, anchored by a clear commitment to substantially reduce federal deficits over time,” Bernanke said. He didn’t suggest ways to do so.

Bernanke may not have any ideas for how to cut the deficit, but I have a few suggestions. How ’bout no more bailouts for starters? Maybe stop buying banks, auto companies, and insurance companies? Also, we could stop paying people to trade in their old cars. And — call me crazy! — maybe we should abandon plans for a massive, multi-trillion-dollar health care overhaul.

Just a few ideas off the top of my head. You’re welcome.

Previously:
The real ‘death panel’? The federal budget

The Dallas Morning News would like you to know that 1100 jobs in Texas have either been saved or created because of federal stimulus money. Hooray! They would also like you to know that Texas lost 44,700 jobs in September.

Wait, wha?

Have we gained jobs or haven’t we?

See, this is why you should never let politicians do math.

Previously:
‘Stimulus’ spending could cost Texas 171,900 jobs

It’s official: Hybrid cars cost more than fuel-efficient non-hybrids.

OK, so you knew that already. But now with an online calculator from the Rocky Mountain Institute (the independent, entrepreneurial, nonprofit think-and-do tank™), you have proof. With graphs!

For example, compare a (base) Toyota Corolla, which gets between 26 and 35 mpg, to a Toyota Prius, which gets between 48 and 51 mpg. At $2.61/gallon for gas, if you drive each car 15,000 miles for 5 years, the total cost of ownership of the Corolla is $5400 less than the Prius.

(Click to enlarge.)

And even with gas prices at $5.00/gallon, the Corolla would still be over $3400 cheaper.

In fact, at $5.00/gallon, you’d have to drive the Prius 27,625 miles a year for 5 years before it begins to be a better bargain than its non-hybrid competitor.

Of course, with any calculator like this, there are all kinds of caveats, not the least of which is the fact that no one would ever buy the base-model Corolla with no additional options. But still, it drives home the fact that hybrids are great for tree-huggers with money to burn, but not necessarily for those of us watching our monthly budgets.

Previously:
What the auto mileage bill really means for consumers

Forget any talk about rationing or “death panels” or whether the government is gonna rifle through your wallet before deciding whether you’re worth saving. That’s irrelevant. You want a simple answer as to why ObamaCare is bad for America?

We can’t afford it.

Wednesday night President Obama claimed that his health care plan would (only) cost $900,000,000,000 over 10 years while not increasing budget deficits.

In the words of Congressman Joe Wilson, “You lie!”

The Congressional Budget Office’s initial estimate of the cost of Senator Ted Kennedy’s health care plan estimated that it would cost about $1.3 trillion over 10 years and still leave 37 million people uninsured. The CBO also noted that the House plan would increase the deficit by $239 billion over that same 10-year time period. And then from 2019 to 2029, the CBO says, spending would increase by 8% while revenue would only increase by 5%, creating even larger deficits over time.

Further, writes Martin Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Ronald Reagan:

The House health-care bill gives a large subsidy to millions of families with incomes up to three times the poverty level (i.e., up to $66,000 now for a family of four) if they buy their insurance through one of the newly created “insurance exchanges,” but not if they get their insurance from their employer. The CBO’s cost estimate understates the number who would receive the subsidy because it ignores the incentive for many firms to drop employer-provided coverage. It also ignores the strong incentive that individuals would have to reduce reportable cash incomes to qualify for higher subsidy rates. The total cost of ObamaCare over the next decade likely would be closer to $2 trillion than to $1 trillion.

The administration’s claim that the health-care plan would be “self-financing” is both false and irrelevant. It is false because it would only be self-financing if one counts a variety of President Obama’s proposed tax increases—and even those would produce much less revenue than is assumed in the budget calculations. The claim is irrelevant because those tax increases have nothing to do with health care and could be used instead to reduce other projected deficits.

(Emphasis mine.)

(Ah, remember the good ol’ days when $700 billion seemed like a lot of money?)

So forget debating about whether the government is gonna kick grandma to the curb because she’s too old to treat or whether the public option covers illegal immigrants. The simple reality of President Obama’s health care plan is that it is too expensive.

Period.

Yesterday I touched on the BCS in college football and whether its complicated system of bowl selection, which heavily favors six major conferences to the detriment of others, is fair. Of course it’s not. Meanwhile, this question of fairness is at the core of another more serious debate going on right now, that of health care reform.

President Obama and congressional Democrats are pushing hard to pass a massive overhaul of this nation’s health care system, instituting a government-run universal health care program that would provide medical coverage for every American. Proponents of the program criticize the high cost of private insurance and medical care and point out the millions of Americans who can’t afford it. And in fact, Texas has the highest rate of uninsured citizens in the country (about 25% of Texans have no insurance, including 40.5% of Hispanics). They argue that providing a government-backed program in addition to private plans is the only way to keep people from falling through the cracks.

Sounds fair, right? And fair is good, isn’t it? Well, no.

Here’s the problem with fairness: Fair is never really fair. In order to put everyone on an equal footing, you have to take from one group to give to the other. That means penalizing those who excel, those who have put forth the most effort, those who often have made the biggest sacrifices and taken the biggest risks, and rewarding those who have done the least. It sends the message that achievement will be punished while apathy will be praised. That’s hardly the spirit of innovation that built this nation, and it’s not the kind of attitude that will continue propelling it forward through the 21st century.

In complaining about the Mountain West Conference’s playoff proposal, Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe said that moving to such a system would be “communistic”, requiring conferences like the Big 12 who “produce more in the marketplace” to give up some of that production to others who don’t produce. That production, of course, is money. Why should the Big 12 or the SEC or the Pac-10 give up highly lucrative television contracts and major bowl bids to less-popular conferences like the Mountain West or Conference USA?

By the same token, why should Americans who work hard to pay for private health insurance and consequently enjoy a certain amount of freedom when choosing their doctors and level of care have to pay more in taxes and give up those freedoms in order to provide coverage for others? How exactly is that fair?

Fairness, at least as it’s defined by liberals, is not a matter of elevating those on the bottom to the same level as those on the top; it’s about bringing the ones on top down to the level of those on the bottom. We see that in tax reform (“soaking the rich” to help the poor), education (No Child Left Behind, which makes it harder for top students to excel), and cap-and-trade (which penalizes businesses and individuals for consuming energy while giving the poorest citizens another government handout to pay their electric bills). And we see it in the Democrats’ universal health care plan.

Does opposing universal health care mean I don’t care about uninsured Americans? Of course not. I think we can all agree that there’s plenty of room for improvement within the current system. But don’t pretend for one moment that “ObamaCare” is about fairness, because it’s not fair at all.

Listen, I’m a father of two young girls, and fairness is a big point of contention with them. If one gets slightly more than the other or even just something different, there are plenty of protests. But by taking something away from one girl to give to the other — especially something she worked for and paid for herself — what kind of lesson am I teaching them? Certainly not a good one. Instead, they’re learning to work hard for what they want without fear of penalty for their success.

I just wish Democrats in Washington could learn the same thing.

Previously:
The BCS: ‘Communistic’ or not?
The ‘savior-based economy’
$700 Billion bailout ‘letting’ the banks win?

Did Karl Marx, the Father of Socialism, invent college football’s Bowl Championship Series (aka the BCS)?  Or would he have approved of a “communistic” playoff system?

That appears to be the big question in college football (and even on Capitol Hill) these days.

First, during a hearing in May by the House Energy and Commerce Committee (because apparently they have nothing better to do), Congressman Joe Barton compared the BCS, which decides bowl placement based on several computer algorithms and human polls, to communism:

“It is interesting that people of good will — I think everybody on whatever side of the issue is a person of good will — keeps trying to tinker with the current system.”

“It’s like communism, you can’t fix it.”

But Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe disagrees, arguing that allowing lesser conferences to face off against “more productive” ones (i.e. the Big 12) in a playoff system is really the Soviet-approved option:

“My memory of when I studied history and Karl Marx was that a major tenet of communism involved taking from each according to their ability and giving to each according to their need,” Beebe said.

“It’s ironic we’re being labeled as communists when what was actually being asked of us was to be more communistic, taking from those of us who produce more in the marketplace and giving to those who don’t produce in the marketplace.”

Beebe may not have all his terms right, but his argument reveals exactly why he’s so adamantly opposed to playoffs.

Far from being the model of Marxism, the BCS really more closely resembles an oligopoly, an economic condition in which a small number of sellers control the market and consequently have the power to artificially manipulate supply.  In this case those small number of sellers include the six conferences with an automatic bowl bid: the ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-10, and SEC.  Teams from other conferences can and do make it to BCS bowls, but the spots are limited and there’s no guarantee.  Instead, the BCS is designed to reward teams from the six participating conferences, even if teams from other conferences are ranked higher.

Is that fair?  No.  Is it meant to be?  No.

Just like OPEC and other oligopolies, the BCS is designed to protect the interests of its members at the expense of other potential sellers (or conferences).  One of the reasons why conferences like the Mountain West are “less productive” is because they don’t get the same kind of national exposure that BCS conferences get.  They don’t get the same television contracts, they don’t get the same licensing deals, and they don’t get the same bowl invitations, even when the BCS’s own ranking system says they should.

So does that mean we should force the BCS into total equality or replace it altogether with a playoff system?  That would be ideal, but it’s clearly not going to happen.  At least not without a revolution.

Previously:
Yes, the BCS is flawed. What’s your point?
Longhorns Inc.