Scott Bradford: Off on a Tangent

Deficit Architect Bernanke Now Opposes Deficits?

Posted

According to The Washington Post, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke thinks that the United States government should reduce the federal deficit.

Bernanke, originally appointed by President George W. Bush (R) and recently reappointed by President Barack Obama (D), is a bit perplexing as the new cheerleader for reductions in the federal deficit. Bernanke was one of the architects of last year’s bailout bonanza, where the federal government wrote billion-dollar checks to all sorts of random financial and automotive businesses, seized control of banks, shredded the United States Constitution, and more. After he and other officials from the Bush and Obama administrations created the largest deficits in the history of the United States—four times larger in 2009 than the previous record [from last year]—now he says large deficits are a bad thing.

This is reminiscent of when Bush, fresh off of ‘saving’ the auto industry [which went bankrupt anyway a few months later] with 10 billion dollars of your and my dollars, told foreign leaders not to abandon the free market economy. He had just abandoned it himself! Like Bush had no right to talk about the value and importance of the free markets that he spent his last three months in office trying to dismantle, Bernanke has no right to talk about how bad federal deficits are when half of those deficits are, at least in part, his fault.

Of course, we all know now that former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Bernanke lied to us about last year’s bailouts, and we all know that the new administration (which came in promising ‘change,’ remember?) immediately accelerated the same mindless spending (and reappointed Bernanke). How long do Obama and Bernanke and others in this administration expect us to keep believing them when they say they don’t believe in deficit spending or government waste?

Bernanke is right, of course . . . we do need to reduce the federal deficit, and we need to do it now. But where was this Ben Bernanke last year when he was running up the deficit he now decries?

Sick [and Expensive] Cat

Posted

Vincent, our youngest of two cats, has always had occasional . . . digestive issues. Nothing too serious, but sometimes he gets a little backed up and his rear end gets sore for a day or two. This seemed to be happening again, but it didn’t clear up after a couple days and was really bothering him so we took him to the emergency vet yesterday afternoon.

Long story short, he’s doing okay now. They had to keep him overnight and do a procedure (complete with anesthetic) to clear out his system. We picked him, his stool softener, his pain medicine, and his butt cream up this morning. The poor guy was glad to be home. And oh boy, does he love his medicine (sarcasm).

Of course, the $800 it took to cover all of this could have gone to other use . . . but that’s just part of pet ownership, I guess. Got to love those large, unexpected expenses, especially right around the time we’re buying a house! Maybe next week one of our cars will break down, now that mine is a few hundred miles out of warranty!

Share to:

Send to:

Posted in: Life

Tagged:

‘Balloon Boy’ Isn’t News

Posted

Let me put this very, very clearly for the ‘mainstream media’: The so-called ‘Balloon Boy‘ isn’t news. Perhaps, for the brief period of time on Thursday that officials thought the boy was actually stranded on a giant Mylar balloon, maybe then it was news . . . of the passing ‘random thing happening now’ variety on the 24-hour cable networks. In-depth reporting on this story would really be more appropriate for a local broadcast than for, say, NBC Nightly News.

Once it became clear that the so-called ‘Balloon Boy’ hadn’t actually been on the balloon, but had been hiding in a box at his house, the story was over (even for local media). Even if it gets passing mention in the days to follow, well, he isn’t a ‘Balloon Boy’ and shouldn’t be called one. Turns out he’s just a ‘Cardboard Box Boy.’

When ‘Cardboard Box Boy’ gets interviewed on television the next day and pukes in front of millions of viewers, guess what, that isn’t news either. Nor is it news that the kid said something cryptic about the event being ‘for the show.’ Nor is it news when the boy’s father calls a press conference to announce another press conference. Nor is it news when, at the second press conference, the father asks the media to put its questions in a box. None of this is relevant to anything for anybody. Can we please take it off our front-page news sites now?

Even on the slowest slow-news-day, there are more important things to cover than ‘Cardboard Box Boy’ and ‘John & Kate + Eight.’ I get that people like to have a little escapism now and then, but really, there are other things going on in the world. Who in their right mind would rank ‘Cardboard Box Boy’ above health care reform, an earthquake in Java, or any of the other important stories over the last few days? Are our priorities really this out of whack?

House: Closing on November 20

Posted

I just realized that I neglected to mention we now have a date set for closing/settlement on the house. It will become officially and legally ours on Friday, November 20. This is good, since it’s (as they promised) before the $8,000 tax credit goes away on December 1. We really want that tax credit.

We’ve been warned that we should begin our wrist exercises now, since settlement apparently requires us to sign more paperwork than all previous life events combined. I found that hard to believe (do you have any idea how much paperwork is involved in buying a car?), but friends and acquaintances who have been through this process confirm it. I think I might just have a signature stamp made ;-).

We’re also embarking on all kinds of other fun (sarcasm). We have to get quotes for the windows treatments, for the security system, for the move itself, arrange for utility hookups, make sure we have Internet access arranged for, put in change of address forms, get a new UPS Store mailbox, and probably a lot more things that I’m forgetting. We’ll also have to change banks (there is no Wachovia in a reasonable distance from where we’re moving . . . go figure). For the record, I really hate moving. It’ll be worth it though.

Tentatively, we’ll have all the utilities and stuff ready to go before the twentieth so they’ll all just click on at the right time on that Friday. The weekend will mostly be getting stuff installed (blinds, security system, etc.) and moving some key items we want to do ourselves (like the cats; they dislike being packed in boxes and moved by movers). Then on Monday and/or Tuesday the real move will happen and that will leave us a few days to get everything buttoned up at the apartment.

Of course, any and all of this can change. It’s exciting, but it’s also very stressful and a lot to plan.

Share to:

Send to:

Posted in: Life

Reducing Road Rage With Correct Speed Limits

Posted

I think there are a lot of contributing factors to road rage, and the road infrastructure is one of them. Artificially low speed limits, poorly timed traffic lights, and poorly designed interchanges all add to driver frustration. I was reading in the National Motorists Association blog today that Michigan authorities have started to address this problem by setting reasonable speed limits on some of their thoroughfares.

On Interstate 496 outside of Lansing, Michigan, the speed limit had been 55 miles-per-hour. Some drivers drove the speed limit (and probably some in the left lane). Some drove above the speed limit at speeds that were probably safe, despite being illegal. This differential resulted in people jumping around between lanes, tailgating, and exhibiting other hallmarks of aggressive driving. When authorities raised the speed limit to 70 miles-per-hour, all these behaviors stopped because everybody was going roughly the same speed (and the number of accidents decreased too).

Contrary to what the fear-mongers will tell you, increasing speed limits has negligible impact on average speeds. It does, however, have a positive impact on flow. Most traffic engineers agree that speed limits should be set at the 85th percentile of free-flowing traffic in good conditions (i.e., if 85 percent of cars on a road on a clear day are going 65 miles-per-hour or under, the speed limit should be set at 65 miles-per-hour). Most states, however, set their speed limits much lower than this so they can raise more revenue from punitive speeding tickets.

Speed limits should be set for safety reasons, not to generate revenue . . . and the evidence suggests that higher average speed limits are, in most places, safer.

Scott Bradford is a writer and technologist who has been putting his opinions online since 1995. He believes in three inviolable human rights: life, liberty, and property. He is a Catholic Christian who worships the trinitarian God described in the Nicene Creed. Scott is a husband, nerd, pet lover, and AMC/Jeep enthusiast with a B.S. degree in public administration from George Mason University.