Tim Kern, Talking Sense

Why all the fuss about Arizona's SB 1070?

2010-05-03T08:33:00.000-07:00

I'm astounded at the May Day rallies in support of illegal immigration, both on the streets and in the media.

I do agree with some of the ideas behind these rallies, though. For instance, I agree that the US policy on this has been wrong for decades, and that Mexico's is right. We should clearly do what Mexico does: send Mexican criminals across the border, rather than encourage them to stay.

Mortgage Meltdown?

2007-03-16T21:06:00.000-07:00

Nobody Would Do Such a Thing on Purpose!

The smart economics of writing second-tier mortgages

While listening to one of many radio experts, on another of the Dow’s down days in March, the host asked an expert about the perceived raft of mortgage defaults, estimated at 5%, among so-called second-tier mortgage holders. The guest started to explain that, “Well, no one would do such a thing on purpose,” hinting that such action would be obvious economic suicide.

I wondered. After thinking about this for a while, I arrived at the economists’ answer: “It depends.”

If, as seems to be the case through some empirical telephone-calling, these “second-tier” buyers were moving into predominantly in lower-cost homes, the dollar values of the defaults are low, compared to the dollar values of the better-performing mortgages on the higher priced homes, and on the remaining 95% of the second-tier homes that are performing.

Why would any lender deliberately take over-market risk? Clearly, that’s the case, if lenders (and their investors) are worried. If the returns correlated to the risks, there would be no concern.

So, why take these risks? That depends. The first unknown is the price elasticity of homes, and that would require separate evaluations of higher-priced first homes and second homes (likelier to be purchased by safer borrowers), as well as mid-market homes (one would expect a mix, tending to safer borrowers), and entry-level homes (where one would suppose the most-risky borrowers would live).

What would have to happen, to make loaning relatively small amounts of money to somewhat-riskier groups attractive? Call it a loss-leader for the big mortgage houses. If setting oneself up to lose on 5% of small loans enabled one to collect on 95% of small loans, while pocketing closing costs up front and recovering the homes that, at the time of the loan, may have had 10% equity, then the risk may be worth the stimulation to that market alone.

Further, if easier money allowed purchases of entry-level homes by the marginal borrowers, it would encourage solider borrowers to move out of those homes and up a notch in their home market – equal numbers of bigger loans, with more equity, to better credit risks. With 95% of the entry loans’ performing and more mortgages (with bigger fees) being written on larger homes (backed by better-credit borrowers and higher equity in the homes), the seed money that the 5% are reneging on seems like small potatoes. It’s even smaller, when the higher-dollar, higher-credit-rating loans are considered, in the next step of up-market homes.

Could a case be made for seeding the housing market with a little easy money, money that is quickly recovered in fees, somewhat recovered in sales of repossessions, and totally covered by the performing 95%?

Could a case be made for those losses’ encouraging upmarket loan activity, with higher equity, higher closing costs, higher payments, and a higher ratio of larger, performing loans?

Well, then, it depends on who’s getting worried, and who’s getting flushed out of the market. Gee – is it easier to sell a lower-priced home, or a high-priced one? Is it easier to rent a lower-priced home or a high-priced one? If the debtor in the low-priced home defaults on the mortgage, the lender can repossess the home, pay off any existing equity, and rent the home. There should be plenty of prospective tenants – those people, former renters-turned-home-buyers, are looking to get out of their murderous mortgages and property taxes!

It’s not a gravy train for the lenders, but it’s a long way from disaster, even at this (the worst) level; and the losses there are dwarfed by the performing big-ticket loans that these seedlings made possible.

Oh – and speaking of those property taxes: because the home’s market price likely has fallen, the new owner of the home will likely face lower taxes than the one who defaulted, along with lower mortgage payments.

-end-

EPA, for Example

2007-01-20T19:44:00.000-08:00

This is old, but the tactics are used increasingly, by governments and others whose facts are too thin to make a legitimate point: they make an illegitimate point!
This was first published in 1996, by The Independence Institute, run at the time by now-Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, so I am including all of the Institute's references.

EPA Skidding Out of Control

Tim Kern
Opinion Editorial March 6, 1996

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is trying to scare Colorado, and it is resorting to distortions and apocalyptic predictions to make its point. A recent Denver newspaper headline read, "Faster speeds would worsen air, EPA says." The article warned that "nitrogen oxide in the air could increase by as much as 6.6% if speeds are raised on rural highways not already posted at 65 mph."

The claim is nonsense. First, the number of total vehicle miles (TVM) traveled on such roads is small, compared with the number of TVMs traveled overall. The amount of time spent driving those roads is an even smaller percentage of the overall time spent . Also, how many cars on those roads are already ignoring the 55 mph limit, and would not be affected?

Even if the EPA's prediction were correct, the pollution increase would be trivial. For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has a strict standard for prolonged exposure to nitrogen oxide in the workplace: 25 parts per million (ppm). If tailpipe emissions really did raise the current levels 6.6%, the metro air concentration would rise to only 0.0175 ppm - roughly 1/1400th of what OSHA says is safe.

The EPA claims to be concerned about our health. This should include concern over our quality and length of life, as well. Example: A two-hour round-trip commute, during which only half the time is spent at 55 mph, could be shortened by 15 minutes, if the 55 mph segment could be driven at 75 mph. That amounts to more than a week's work in a year. (If your work itself involves driving long distances, you could increase your productivity by a week each month - or more!) If you waste "just" a week each year, that adds up. In ten years, you will have wasted time equivalent to your kid's entire summer vacation. Moving along your personal timeline, would you like to live a few extra months, or would you rather save a few dollars a month on gasoline?

If people are on the road longer each day, this adds to congestion, requiring more roads to be built (or causing more pollution from the traffic jams). While people are driving, they are not able to sleep that additional time; they are less alert, and could be dangerous.

The EPA also says that higher speeds could produce more carbon monoxide (CO), because these emissions increase above 48 mph, according to one study. The EPA then makes a leap of faith and says, "Using the same reasoning, particulate matter (PM) emissions may also increase." PM tailpipe emissions are insignificant compared to PM pollution. The former are small particles of stuff coming from the engine; the latter are visible dust, the "brown cloud" we know too well. PM pollution is mainly caused by traffic - tires slowly disintegrating, cars rolling over sand and gravel, crushing it and flinging it into the air - and traffic effects are not discussed in the EPA papers. PM pollution has almost nothing to do with tailpipe emissions.

The EPA's study says that heavy traffic - heavy trucks and buses - would remain at 55 mph; but its "max-case" figures show dramatic increases in nitrogen oxide from these vehicles, from 32,384 to 45,069 tons per year in Colorado. That's a 39% increase, and it's due to... nothing. No speed increase, no population increase, presumably no emission increase; yet somehow more pollution.

In the past, the EPA, Congress, and the rest of the federal establishment have withheld federal highway funds, and thus dictated all kinds of state issues: speed limits, construction permits, motorcycle helmet laws, seatbelt use laws, child seat standards. The feds' intrusiveness and arrogance chafed citizens and state legislators alike.

The federal bureaucracy, having now lost the battle about how "speed kills" (facts don't support that idea), having lost the battle to control the states through highway-fund blackmail (states have rediscovered the Tenth Amendment), and noticing that the American people put value on their time (and are therefore willing to pay for a little more gasoline), has resorted to that time-honored federal tradition: lying with figures. Who knows what they'll try if that fails!

Tim Kern is Special Projects Coordinator for the Independence Institute, a free-market think tank in Golden, Colorado.

This article, from the Independence Institute staff, fellows and research network, is offered for your use at no charge. Independence Feature Syndicate articles are published for educational purposes only, and the authors speak for themselves. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action.
Please send comments to Editorial Coordinator, Independence Institute, 14142 Denver West Pkwy., suite 185, Golden, CO 80401 Phone 303-279- 6536 (fax) 303-279-4176 (email) webmngr@i2i.org

Ethanol: The Unmentioned Drawbacks

2006-08-21T05:33:00.000-07:00

It's tiring to hear just half the story about ethanol as our salvation, and an article in the online aviation publication AvWeb (to which I am a sometime contributor) was another cheerleading exercise. Not being able to keep my mouth shut, I sent the following letter to the editor (and it was published: http://www.avweb.com/news/avmail/193001-1.html).
----
Ethanol
All the hype about ethanol, so far, has ignored several facts. One (and you finally mentioned it -- AVwebFlash, Aug. 17) is that it's low on energy, requiring 20-30% more fuel to go the same distance. The problem is that, even having mentioned that little drawback, the quick answer your crusaders mentioned is that ethanol is cheaper, so it's a wash. (Not if you need a 30% bigger fuel tank, or have to make extra fuel stops en route, it isn't.)

The power deficit of ethanol is more troubling. We'll need longer runways for takeoff, our MTOWs will probably have to be reduced (and this, while carrying more fuel), and climb performance will suffer.

As your story also mentioned, the U.S. can't supply enough ethanol to meet all its fuel needs. Big deal; we don't produce enough oil to do that, either. What your story failed to mention is that ethanol's prices are kept high by the lobbying efforts of ADM and other agri-giants and their Congress. The U.S. has (up to) a 100% tariff on imported ethanol.

Further, the U.S. subsidizes domestic crop production for ethanol, crowding out natural (market-driven) crop production and raising prices of other crops, while using everybody's tax dollars, again, to help the agri-giants.

If ethanol's so good, let's have it find its own way; and if it's too expensive to become interesting on its own, let's cut the tariff.

Then the biggest problems we'll have to worry about are dramatically reduced range, lower payload, and crummy performance. And the inconvenient fact that most of our existing engines and fuel systems would be grounded.

If it were only about fuel costs ... hey, if we flew 20-30% less, we'd have fuel cost savings, too. Problem solved.

Nationalism vs Patriotism

2006-04-18T07:14:00.000-07:00

Enough Nonsense! (Response to September 11, written in 2001)

[This editorial was previously published in Aero-News, and reprinted in the Federal Observer. Note: all the cited articles (from ANN) were also authored by Tim Kern. The publisher has a habit of non-attribution of peoples' work.]

~ Federalize everything in sight ~

Politicians are calling for federalization of airport security, saying things like, "Security at airports is handled by people who make less than the McDonald's employees at the terminals they are supposed to protect." That is insulting to the security people, for one thing -- how much they make doesn't necessarily reflect on their intelligence or dedication -- it just reflects on the degree of discretion they can exercise. Secondly, these folks are being beaten up by politicians that think that the security people did something wrong, something which can only be remedied by a bunch more taxpayer expense (shifting the expense from those who use air travel, to those who don't), and federal supervision. Patronage, in other words -- the same program that gave us the great surveillance and intelligence the FBI and CIA and INS used, to identify and track the hijackers -- all the way onto the planes.

~ The airport security people didn't do anything wrong ~

The people who screened the hijackers didn't do anything wrong; they followed the federal and airline guidelines in place at the time, guidelines effective only in disarming people who could have helped short-circuit the hijackings. The hijackers apparently didn't break any laws in the airports, at all. Think about this: if 200 passengers have, say, knives, and five hijackers have knives, who wins? On the other hand, if 200 people have nothing, and five hijackers have knives, who wins?

~ We're getting military involved in airport security ~

Strangely enough, we don't have enough military to patrol the borders and check other ports of entry, to keep illegals from entering the country; but we have plenty of military, to put them in charge of supervising the legal activities of citizens in our airports.

~ We want student pilots to pay for their own background checks ~

This is somehow supposed to make a difference. As we've detailed ("Knee Jerks: Student Pilot Background Check Bill," 09-27-01; "Knee Jerks: Another Anti-Flight-Training Bill," 09-28-01, ANN), some in Congress are saying that student pilots, before they start training, should pay to have their own backgrounds investigated -- by the CIA and FBI, through the FAA. Not only is this impossible to do, an any timely way; but the FAA can already make student pilot applications available to the FBI or CIA whenever the snoop agencies want them. How much should such a background check cost? How much, and what kind, of information, would be assembled? Why finger student pilots? (How about doing to same for, say, truck drivers, or just regular drivers? Does anyone's presumption of innocence still hold? Shouldn't we require this every year or so -- peoples' beliefs could change, you know!) When will we start requiring invasive psychological testing for the military, who could really do damage, if they got out of hand? [If that sounds unreasonable, why, then, would testing civilians --who don't have ready access to sophisticated weapons -- be reasonable?]

~ We're turning the threats around ~

If the purpose of all these new actions by our military and police is to prevent another September 11, we might ask why the facts of September 11 have been perverted. Military base commanders are now closing civilian GA (General Aviation) airports that are "too close for comfort" ("Navy's Duplicity Kills Coastal Airport in Georgia," 09-28-01, ANN). Let's see: the commercial airliners were used to attack civilian targets (the Pentagon was a secondary target, we're told). Therefore, the paranoia goes, non-commercial, small planes will attack military targets. That's '180-degree reasoning,' in the name of seizing more power, and expressing the military's paranoia about being able to protect its submarine bases against C-172s, and allowing politicians like Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley to kill Meigs Field ahead of schedule (because it's 'too close' to Navy Pier -- Hey, neither the airport nor the pier has moved, Mr. Mayor!).

~ We're asked to give more power to the entities that screwed up ~

Far from asking why the INS and the FBI and the CIA (all of which knew something of the hijackers and their activities) didn't do anything about these terrorists, we are asked to take authority from the airlines and their contracted security firms (which didn't make mistakes in this series of events), and give even more discretion and power to the very entities that screwed up. If the FAA's rules for disarming passengers were insufficient, why blame the security people? If the rules weren't any good, why trust the people who made them up?

~ We want stronger cockpit doors ~

The argument goes, that the cockpit doors need to be hijacker-proof ("ALPA's President Wants Stronger Doors, Even Stun Guns," 09-21-01, ANN). As far as we know, the doors weren't a problem; they were opened during the hijackings because of threats of atrocities, and actual atrocities being carried out in the cabins. They were also opened because the pilots had been trained, again by the FBI and FAA, to submit, rather than to resist, when a hijacking was in progress. If the FAA and FBI were so wrong in their counterintuitive mandates, what makes anyone think they'll be right the next time?

~ We won't arm the flight crews ~

Yes, it's been a law all along, that flight crews could carry heat, if the airlines and FAA would agree on the training they should receive. As soon as this law (14 CFR 108.11) was made well-known, by ANN and others ("Feds: Airline Employees May Pack Heat," 09-18-01, ANN), the FAA said it would continue its policy of not honoring it, and would, in fact, circumvent the very law that could have helped, on September 11 ("FAA To Rescind Federal 'Crew Carry' Rule," 09-21-01, ANN).

As more pilots and rational citizens realized that the pilots were indeed the last line of defense against these types of terrorist activities, a public clamor was made to allow pilots, on a voluntary basis, to defend themselves and their ships ("Duane Woerth: Allow Pilots to Defend Selves, Aircraft -- with Firearms," 09-26-01), a talking-head clamor for 'calm' was heard across the non-aviation media.

The argument against self-protection goes something like this: "Pilots have their hands full with flying the aircraft, and turning them into some kind of 'Flying Wyatt Earp' won't help." First of all, if pilots want to keep flying the airplanes, they may need something stronger than just regulations, as bloodthirsty terrorists break into the cockpits and slit their throats. Secondly, a large percent of our pilots are military-trained, and already understand firearms and their proper use. Third, simply putting out the word that some pilots may be ready and able to defend their ships would be a major deterrent. [Marshal Earp, because his presence meant law and order would prevail, was in very high demand, we might do well to remember... --ed.]

~ We need more Air Marshals ~

That's true. The FAA won't say how many Air Marshals were flying, on a typical day, prior to September 11; only that there was always an Air Marshal presence. Since the FAA can hide behind "security reasons," and not tell us -- or Congress, for that matter -- how many of these off-budget air police there were, it's a safe assumption that the FAA, always crying for more money for its regulators (but never for its engineers and controller training, it seems), was using every available penny of Air Marshal money to fund other things. The mere and obvious fact that the FAA is scrambling now to recruit and train so many new Air Marshals says there couldn't have been many to begin with.

~ If you want to be safe, count on yourself ~

The Air Marshals, had they actually existed, could have gone a long way toward saving planeloads of submissive pilots and disarmed passengers -- but they weren't there, were they?

~ Don't mistake Nationalism for Patriotism ~

Patriotism is founded on understanding the things that make the nation great, and a commitment to them. Things like religious freedom, the sanctity of contracts, the protections against unwarranted searches and seizures -- these are some of the principles on which the United States of America was founded, and these are the things that Patriots support. They love the USA, and will stand for her, because they believe in the things she stands for.

Nationalism, however, is a purely emotional phenomenon. It is a tool of tyrants, and counts on co-opting Patriotism, and perverting it, so that anything that questions the absolute power of the government, is viewed as treason. Nationalism re-labels political opposition, based on principle, based even on the Constitution, as treasonous thought. Nationalism turns free people into slaves in their own countries. Nationalism represents the end goal of centralized, unlimited power -- tyranny -- cloaked in the name of Patriotism. Let's not let our patriotic feelings be stampeded into nationalistic programs.

~ The lesson is clear ~

The culture of submission is suicidal; the only protection you can count on, is what you provide, yourself. For the government, which screwed up in its regulations, its training, its intelligence, and its screening; its procedures, its engineering, and its risk assessment, to say, "Now, we'll protect you," is patently absurd.

Freedom, as they say, isn't free. A free society, if that is what America still wants to be, needs to remain vigilant; independent people cannot delegate their most basic need -- self-protection -- to a bureaucracy.

Finally, a Thank You!

2006-03-20T06:59:00.000-08:00

Although the original and my reply were tongue-in-cheek, the exchange proves the adage that many a truth is spoken in jest.

The original Anchorage Daily News editorial ("Thanks, Taxpayers") ran on March 9, 2006: http://www.adn.com/opinion/view/story/7515978p-7427776c.html

My reply was printed on March 18: http://www.adn.com/opinion/letters/story/7542775p-7454257c.html

Here it is, with the adn's cutline:
Having anyone thank a taxpayer departs from business as usual

Regarding your editorial "Thanks, taxpayers" (March 9):
Well, thank you.

Your editorial marks the first time that I, as a taxpayer, have been thanked by any recipient of my hard work.

Usually, those who suck away the lifeblood of the working people are too busy lobbying to get more (or complaining that they're not getting enough) that they don't take the time to give us workers a simple "thank you."

I'm touched, really, even though I no longer live in Alaska (but with that amount of loot available, maybe I'll quit working and move back).

---- Tim Kern
Eagle Lake, Fla.

The Ultimate Victimless Crime

2006-03-06T12:21:00.000-08:00

For as long as I can remember, we libertarians and constitutionalists have been railing about "victimless crimes," such as private drug use and prostitution. We always run up against the same arguments: "You should be in the family that's been broken up because of a prostitute's STD," and suchlike.

Explaining that drunk driving is a victimless crime (as long as no one's life or property is actually harmed -- situations where other criminal laws take over) is another losing cause.

How about a completely, totally victimless crime: carrying a concealed weapon? If the weapon is properly concealed, no one is affected by it, in any way. If the weapon is brandished, or used in a threatening way, or if it is actually misused -- then we have laws to handle that.

But why -- with a "crime" that no one would even know about (lacking a search -- or magnetometer), should anyone be concerned?

I would think that, using such a politically-incorrect example, rational civil libertarians could back unrestricted concealed carry. (Irrational opponents, by definition, cannot be reasoned with, and thus must be dismissed. I hate manipulating anyone into an irrational reaction, even if it's favorable to my position. An irrational person's "conviction" is too tenuous, as well as being effectively meaningless.)

Note: I can't tell you how many people I know who have committed this "crime" for years, never once committing any other "crime," and never once displaying their weapons.

Fool Me Once, Twice, Three Times...

2005-10-11T05:39:00.000-07:00

Idiocy rises to the top, bouyed by greed and selfishness. That seems to be one explanation for FEMA's continued support of building in flood-prone areas.

A Washington Post Oct 11 front page story by Gilbert Gaul said, "The pattern of federal flood payments on Dauphin Island [AL] illustrates the growing share going to properties that get hit over and over. Federal data show that 300 buildings with multiple losses account for more than two-thirds of all flood payments the town has ever received -- $21.3 million. Katrina claims could add tens of millions."

He continued, "Nationally, properties with multiple losses account for about 25 percent of the flood program's losses while representing 2 percent of all insured property."

Now, if we are learning lessons at all, we shouldn't be insuring two-time loser properties, especially when those risks are underwritten by the very people who have enough sense to stay away from hurricane magnets like Dauphin Island.

If the builders on that island (and countless other coastal properties) can't get private insurance, they need to reassess their plans. They have no right to expect "the federal government" (the rest of us) to pay for their folly. Sure, they pay premia to FEMA, but those payments are obviously below market value (or the market would take care of the insurance). The government has no right to subsidize insurance payments for anyone; and it's irresponsible to use our money to effectively encourage already-stupid people to do ever-more-stupid things.

Beyond the obvious, the federal government's insuring anybody for anything is a conflict with what's left of free enterprise in the insurance sector. Private insurers provide a measure of 'concept-checking,' as people consider building in risky places; cheaper insurance than experience shows would be prudent (FEMA insurance) merely encourages uneconomic behavior.

I have no problem with anyone's building wherever he or she wants; I just don't think it's my job, as a taxpayer, to make it easier for them to set themselves up for a fall. Further, I don't see where there is any constitutional permission for the federal government to be doing anything like getting into the insurance business.

If the economies (government coffers) of Dauphin Island and other flood-prone places suffer because people don't rebuild there, that's too bad. With fewer residents and properties to regulate, they wouldn't need so much money, anyway.

And maybe people should pay their own way to live where they want, whether it's in a sensible place, or some risky venue like, um, places where it floods all the time.

Let's All Believe Clinton, This Time

2005-10-09T05:37:00.000-07:00

Bill Clinton's upset about what former FBI director Louis Freeh is saying: that Clinton went easy on the Saudis over the Khobar Towers bombing in return for a contribution to his presidential library fund.

Clinton still owes Freeh, big-time, for deflecting public wrath and for his splendid planning, execution, and coverup of the mass murders at Waco. (Hillary, too, should be in his debt, for providing the dirt on her 900 favorite political enemies and thus keeping her in position to move to the Senate.)

This little dust-up over the Saudi - Clinton library contribution is ridiculous.

First, nobody should believe Clinton about anything, as he has never told the truth, even when it didn't matter if he did.

Second, any observer would know that such a quid pro quo is totally in the nature of politics in general and the Clintons in particular.

Third, finding more people who can swear to the ex-president's probity is no big deal. I remember when he paraded his whole cabinet out, like a jury being polled, and had them say they all believed him on Lewinsky. Of course, even after Clinton was proven to have lied, none of those cabinet members' judgment was questioned. [If, for instance, Madeline Albright, who dealt with the Pres daily, couldn't tell when he was lying, how could she possibly have understood the affairs of State? How good would her judgment have been, dealing with people whom she barely knew, and on whose statements she had little background?]

Fourth, Berger is a documented crook, who would do/say anything to stay in Clinton's good graces. (He probably remembers what happened to James MacDougal and Vince Foster, among others.)

Unfortunately, the media will believe Clinton, and keep scrubbing the poop off his carcass. He's just such a lovable lug, you know...

Padilla Held Without Due Process

2005-09-10T04:55:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post has its knickers in a knot of the 4th Court's upholding of the unlimited detention, without charges or trial, of Jose Padilla. The following are my comments on the issue.

Jose Padilla is quite likely a bad guy, and probably deserves to be in prison; but he also deserves a trial.

Saying that the President has such extraordinary powers in wartime begs the question: when did Congress declare war, and against whom? (Only Congress has the power to declare war, at least according to our late, lamented US Constitution.)

The Constitutiuon has been ignored for so long, by so many, that it is just a dead reminder of how great a country could be.

Other little Constitutional setting-asides:
Interim appointments. The President may make such only when the vacancy occurs during congressional recess, not make them behind the Senate's back, whenever he feels like it. (If the latter were so, why doesn't President Bush just appoint John Roberts?)

Kelo v New London. The Supreme Court said that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says, "public purpose," rather than "public use," which is what it actually says. When the explicit words and meanings of the Constitution are corrupted, the meaning is also corrupted.

Bennis v Michigan. Tina Bennis didn't let her husband use her car to go pick up a hooker, but the Court awarded the car to Wayne County (MI) anyway, saying that "innocence is no defense."

There's a lot more...

Post Writer Gets Facts, Blows Story

2005-08-11T06:14:00.000-07:00

Why do so many of the elites in this country assume there's something wrong with making a buck? The quest of self-improvement (profit) is what drives people to get out of bed in the morning, to provide what people want, and (ironically enough) to hold prices to as low a level as possible. Washington Post writer Greg Timberg, moved by one poor lady's quest for food for her baby in Niger, blames the 'market mentality' for her troubles, when those problems are quite obviously (according to his story) due to big players' getting into the game, buying up scarce supplies, and bidding up their prices. [ref: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001946.html?referrer=email&referrer=email]

He even laments that Niger is progressing to an approximation of the model in over-the-border "...Nigeria, where an aggressive entrepreneurial culture has created the economic powerhouse of West Africa." He's just against the formation of another 'economic powerhouse,' I guess; he'd like Niger to be forever impoverished.

Knowing that this letter will ever be published in the Washington Post, I wrote it anyway:

----------------------------------------------------

Craig Timberg (The Rise of a Market Mentality Means Many Go Hungry in Niger August 11, 2005; Page A17) got his facts and then blew the story. It’s not a “market mentality” that causes prices to rise, and it’s not high prices that make people starve.

He notes, “Some traders… have raised prices in anticipation of the arrival of aid groups, which often buy food locally to save on transport costs.” Additionally, “…the government has provided [he probably means, ‘purchased’ rather than ‘delivered,’ since his story is about starving people] 42,000 tons of free and subsidized food to ease hunger.” Worse yet for the poor people, “The United Nations is attempting to provide food to 2.7 million people in Niger.”

Here’s what happens when lots of money goes chasing limited supplies: prices go up, as those with money (the government, aid organizations, and the UN, in this case) try to buy lots of food. These organizations, well-intentioned as we must presume them to be, are making the problem worse.

It’s apparent that their efforts aren’t helping the lady in Timberg’s story: where is the food? The government’s monopolizing food has drawn many of her fellow rural dwellers into the cities, impoverishing the subsistence farmers, giving them the apparently false hope of getting (free) food. Now, these people are off their land (which will suffer from inattention) and homeless, totally broke (they spent their last money on bus fare, etc.), and still without food, unless those of the ruling classes deign to be generous!

On the flip side, Timberg notes that there is plenty of food available, for those who have money (like the government, the UN, and the wealthy foreign do-gooders). Without the money as an incentive, there wouldn’t be as much food available, at any price. Mr. Timberg needs to understand how things work before injecting his story with anti-free-market invective.

NASA and Accountability: Likely?

2005-08-05T06:42:00.000-07:00

[It's a sad commentary that NASA, today one of the most touchy-feely recipients of taxpayer dollars, is likely to do the bureaucratic thing, again showing that its long-standing policy of finger-pointing doesn't produce results, and that career NASA-ers will forever be protected from their actions. I sent this as a letter to the editor, to several newspapers, local and national. We'll see where/if it gets published. --TK
Note: it was published August 11, 2005, in Winter Haven (FL) News Chief: http://polkonline.com/stories/081105/letters_blame.shtml ]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a good thing that Stephen Robinson and the rest of the Discovery and Space Station crews are talented and patient, and that he removed two gap fillers that protruded an inch or so from the tiles. Otherwise, NASA says, the orbiter could have burned up on re-entry.

Now, I want to know which chowderhead NASA is going to fire.

Will NASA fire the technician who left the gap fillers in place, for not following regulations? Maybe NASA will fire the tech's inspector, or the inspector's supervisor.

Possibly, NASA's procedures don't mention removing the gap fillers. If so, whoever wrote, reviewed and approved the procedures should be axed.

Did anybody look at the shuttle before launch? If the gap fillers were apparent when the shuttle was in space, they should have been more so, on the ground. Let's fire the stream of people who looked, and didn't see -- or who should have looked, and didn't.

My guess: NASA will take the entire embarrassing incident (that required extremely dangerous and expensive in-flight remedial work) into some meeting room, whence they will issue a statement and then... nothing will happen. It's all about accountability, and today’s NASA doesn't do accountability.

Whence Judicial Power?

2005-06-23T07:07:00.000-07:00

Published Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Death Order: What Crime?

Now we know about poor Terri Schiavo, but the question that overrides the whole epic, and that no one asks, remains:

How can a judge order the death of someone who has committed no crime?

TIM KERN
Winter Haven [published in The Lakeland Ledger (FL)] at http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050622/NEWS/506220314&SearchID=73212035188756

The Rise and Fall of Airlines

2005-05-23T04:52:00.000-07:00

This is an article I wrote for publication on August 15, 2002, regarding commercial airline travel and its future.

As is the fact with most of my predictions (concerning things of which I know something), the trend has come pretty close to how I called it.

The publisher of Aero-News, where I was the News Editor and did nearly all the writing for over three years, doesn't like to let me show people my work. Regardless, I don't think he'd mind if I just show you where to find the original story:

http://aero-news.net/news/commbus.cfm?ContentBlockID=46b0c618-c8e0-4649-ac0d-1cfe47c5b160&Dynamic=1

(He gets bent out of shape when I even offer a link, so you'll have to paste it.)

Let me know what you think -- did I call this one?

Tim

Social Security Newspeak

2004-12-21T19:12:00.000-08:00

Talk of “privatizing” Social Security is a modern application of George Orwell’s “newspeak,” where words (in his novel, 1984) conveyed their opposite meanings.

The idea is simple, and will temporarily mask the real problems in the system.

Some in D.C. purport to have the ideas and ability to keep Social Security from going broke, which is now scheduled to happen about the time baby boomers start retiring.

The idea is that funds collected for Social Security should be invested in the equity market. Some of our rulers call for a degree of individually-directed investment; others look to a new agency to provide investment direction. What they all advocate is our mandated investment in the stock market.

The amount of money is significant, possibly 10% of the value of the publicly-traded equities. Ignoring the Constitutional problems surrounding such a plan (and those of Social Security itself), there are several practical dangers here.

Stock prices are again rebounding and are historically high, whether measured by their price/earnings or -/dividends ratios, return on assets, or any other reasonable (though superficial) analysis.

Congress sees future problems for re-electability. Today’s indices are unlikely to climb forever, particularly as foreign investment slows. A new supply of money will be needed to have stock prices continue to rise, or even hold steady at these inflated levels. That’s how the idea of putting Social Security money into the market became so appealing to those fat cats and speculators who are already heavily invested (and who run the country).

Think of what Congress could say to us little people: “We’re giving you a piece of this great expanding pie. Your Social Security fund will now appreciate faster than ever before. The companies where you work will be adequately capitalized, giving you job security. Stockholders will use their earnings to buy your products, leading to more prosperity for all.”

What such a scheme would really be doing is something different. First, by introducing so much more money into competition for buying a limited supply of stocks, it would raise or support stock prices at high levels for a while, subsidizing the bailout of over-invested big shots. Second, whoever approved the investments for us little people would have heavy influence on Wall Street, because of the size of the “portfolio” he managed.

Firms and lobbyists would divert their efforts away from productivity, and towards influencing the governmental overseers, because the stocks the Social Security fund would buy (or would allow us to buy) would necessarily outperform others in the industry, a windfall for those investors on the inside track. By extension, the fund manager could greatly influence the decisions of the boards of their portfolio or target companies, or even those companies’ competitors. Even the largest companies’ boards would show little resistance to the wishes of the SSA fund manager.

Even better for short-thinking politicians, the influx of social security money will buoy stock prices for a while; but after those initial investments have been made, the best we could hope for would be moderate gains, which would again be based on productivity gains (rather than lots of new Social Security dollars’ chasing relatively few investments)… and that’s if we don’t have a repeat of what happened to the market in 2000.

When Social Security needs to start making withdrawals to pay the Boomers, this will trigger a radical, long-term sell-off, which will constantly bleed profits from the entire market. Timing and targeting SSA stock sales could become a gigantic political football game. Power would naturally consolidate in Washington. There, would-be demigods will play a high-risk game with other peoples’ retirements.

Sociologically, the outright ownership of so much stock by government, and therefore control of so many shares by bureaucrats, would have predictable effects. Yet powermongers, greedy professionals, and myopic amateurs still somehow want to introduce a high degree of state control (if not outright ownership) into one of the most-free areas of our economic society, the stock market.

Earlier, I said the government is involved in “newspeak,” calling something its opposite, to keep the aware members of the public confused, and the rest, contented. They call their baby, “privatizing the Social Security system,” while more accurately they’re setting out to control the stock market. Will we be fooled? Will we allow it? Will we deserve it? Will the economy survive it?

An Abortion Position on Which We Can All Agree

2004-12-16T16:14:00.000-08:00

...and Which Will Never Be Embraced

When I taught "the study of choices" (Economics), I often made note that there are seldom issues that have just "two sides." When I asked students for an issue where "both sides" would cover all possibilities, they invariably came back with "abortion."

There are more than two sides to that issue, too, and I believe I've found one facet of the issue that should be supported by all intellectually-honest proponents, from "either side" of the main issue.

State-funded abortions are limited by a watered-down Hyde Amendment, which allows for state funding of abortions in the case of the endangerment of the life of the mother; or in cases or rape or incest.

The first condition, while possibly a topic for lawyers and doctors, is not part of this discussion. For the purpose of this discussion, I'll simply assume the requisite medical knowledge and judgment are available, and infallible. That's admittedly unrealistic; but it's the only way to stay on-topic.

Criteria for state-funded abortions come through the Social Security Administration. The criteria for determining whether taxpayers should pay, put the doctor in an automatic conflict of interest.

What does it take to get taxpayers to pay?

What determines, for the purposes of state funding, if a mother were a victim of rape or incest? A conviction would likely take longer than nine months. An arrest and indictment would often be quick enough for action; but there is no guarantee that the rapist's apprehension, or even identification, could be made in time.

At least in the case of incest, identification of the perpetrator would be less-problematic, but other factors (would this be fair to those who committed incest, if rapists got a better deal?) could make indictment an impossible roadblock.

What, then, is required, to have the tax dollars flow to the abortion clinics?

A police report, at a minimum, would be expected, to at least allege that a serious crime had been committed; but it's not a requirement. Even so much as a private statement, sworn-to by the mother, alleging the rape or incestuous act, is not required (although it is sufficient).

All that is required, for the doctor to insure his payment, is to himself allege that the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. That judgment, as nearly as I have been able to determine from numerous calls and questions, is not reviewed by Social Security: thus the doctor's obvious conflict of interest.

What could be done?

To remove this unfair temptation from doctors, and to prevent fraudulent claims, I propose that, before payment for Hyde Amendment abortions is made, the mother must file an official police report. That way, a case will be opened. If the perpetrator is eventually caught and convicted, he could reimburse the state for the cost of the abortion, as part of his sentencing. If the victim withdraws the charge, she must reimburse the state.

Many victims of rape do not want to make any charges; police and social workers all tell me that. But it's not about the mother's feelings -- it's about taxation, money, and fraud. The taxpayers have a right to expect fiscally responsible treatment of their money, and putting someone who stands to benefit from the tax money, in charge of it -- even a doctor -- that's irresponsible.

If the victim wants to participate in taxpayer-funded benefits, she will need to fill out the forms; that's how it's done in every other case, and it's the price of doing business with government. For government to merely give away money with no evidence, other than the signature of a person who is in an obvious conflict, is irresponsible, and invites fraud.

Why it won't happen:

Nobody wants to look at this. "Pro choice" advocates see this proposal as an attack on the viability of abortion as a business, as it reduces the abortion industry's power and money. "Pro life" advocates generally believe that anything that even recognizes the possibility of abortion is satanic. Abortion doctors get huffy, saying that their ethics and judgment are beyond reproach, or even review. Police don't like it, because they don't want to increase their caseload, and because they see these rapes as very different from the rapes they already have on their blotters. City bosses don't like it, because their communities' serious crime statistics would rise. District attorneys don't like it, because they don't want to add a bunch of losses to their records; or on the other hand, they don't want to dismiss these cases, and be seen as "soft on rape." Social workers don't want the beneficiary of the tax money to be "re-victimized;" that is, to do anything to help prevent their rapist from raping another, especially while increasing the social workers' paperwork-load.

All I'd like to do is get rid of the conflicts of interest, reduce the potential for fraud, and maybe help catch a rapist.

Pit Bulls or Camels' Noses

2004-12-09T13:22:00.000-08:00

Here's an exchange from December 9, with WFLA AM540 radio host Bud Hedinger, arranged chronologically. Bud replied almost immediately (and that was nice), with an emotional answer. It's too bad his fine voice isn't matched by an ability to think.
--------------------
From: Tim Kern [mailto:info@timkern.com]Sent: Thu 12/9/2004 2:40 PMTo: Hedinger, Bud (Orlando)Subject: Pit bulls

Hi, Bud.

I share your opinion of pit bulls, but I don’t like your whiney solution: having Big Brother ban them. Consider: if your arguments against these critters are so good (and they’re pretty good), why not try educating people about these dogs? Approach owners, and urge them to at least spay and neuter. Talk especially to prospective owners, and warn them of the ‘ticking time bombs.’

If you’d like to have a “safe” neighborhood, organize your neighbors, and go (en masse) to pay a visit on local pit bull owners on your street. Urge them to get rid of their dogs, or leave. Convince locals (who feel as strongly as you) to refuse service to pit bull owners, to put up anti-pit bull signs in their store windows – to demonize pit bull owners as if they were pedophiles or gun owners.

Too much trouble? You’re saying it isn’t important enough to do it yourself, because it’s too hard to make a good argument -- so you want the taxpayers’ hired guns to do it for you.
Having Big Brother force people to carry your water diminishes the power of communication, reduces the effect of neighborhood and community, and shows the elitist streak you harbor: YOU know what’s good for everybody… you just can’t convince them, so you want Momma to take their toys away.

Freedom: it isn’t free, ya know!

Tim KernWinter Haven, FL

"...error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." --Thomas Jefferson, first inaugural address, March 4, 1801
------------------------------------------------------------------

-----From: Hedinger, Bud (Orlando) [mailto:bud@540wfla.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 4:02 PMTo: Tim KernSubject: RE: Pit bulls

Tim, A four year old boy is dead.

How many more have to die at the jaws of these killer dogs? The boy is dead, Tim!

If you want to save the most lives in the future, the solution is elimination...not education!

Best regards,

Bud
-----------------------------------
Bud,

You’re right. 4-year-olds can’t protect themselves… not from pit bulls, not from car accidents, not from swimming pools, not from stupid parents. We need to first eliminate pit bulls, and then go after cars, swimming pools, and stupid parents, just for starters.

Your argument against pit bulls is the same argument “the liberals” use, when they want to eliminate something. The only difference is, this time, you feel strongly… so you’re right. It’s your method – sic Big Brother on them – that I find unconvincing, whiney, and cowardly.

That having been said…

a pit bull is a LOT more dangerous than a revolver that’s left around the house. You can leave a revolver alone, and be perfectly safe. You can’t do that with a pit bull. On that, at least, we agree.

Thanks for the speedy reply.

Tim

"It's true that one person can make a difference... but in most cases, I'm not really sure she should." --Marge Simpson

Safire Can't Find the Forger -- Does Anyone Care?

2004-11-17T18:01:00.000-08:00

Dear Mr. Safire:

You ask if anywhere there is a federal prosecutor who is interested in upholding the law (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/22/opinion/22safi.html?ex=1100840400&en=7cfe910c6a37bd0e&ei=5070&oref=regi).

The short answer is, I can’t find one. The longer answer concerns why I looked.

I looked because, during President Clinton’s “trial” in the Senate, then-recently-retired Senator Dale Bumpers lobbied his former fellows to let Clinton skate on the perjury charge.

In addition to being a modern, high-profile example of jury nullification, this charade served to point out that (at least) Senators, the President, his attorneys, and federal judges are above the law, even when the law, as written, specifically includes them.

I tried for several months to get the FBI to initiate action on this, or at least to tell me why they wouldn’t, as virtually all Senators, the President, his counsel, and Chief Justice Rehnquist blatantly disobeyed the law, setting a precedent on national television.

I cited the law. I provided direct quotes from Sen. Bumpers’s testimony, that clearly showed his intent, which was in contradiction of the law. I asked for prosecution; none was forthcoming.

I pointed out
* that Sen. Bumpers was clearly not long-enough removed from office to make this appearance.
* that his appearance, whether invited or subpoenaed, was not in keeping with the loopholes in the law (that specifically exempt the prosecution – the United States -- but not the defense)
* that his admitted purpose was to influence the official act of the Senate, and
* that all these conditions are in specific violation of the law.

Not only was Sen. Bumpers in trouble, the law’s penalties are actually more-severe regarding those who invited him (President Clinton, his legal team, and presumably the leadership of the Senate) and those who permitted the act (Chief Justice Rehnquist, Senate leadership, and the entire non-objecting Senate – in other words, all of them).

After a long and predictably fruitless battle, I met up with a sympathetic FBI agent/lawyer, who looked over what I had sent (references to the law, Sen. Bumpers’s testimony, and comments), and he agreed that I was right. He also explained that, no matter what the law says, there is a certain class of people in this country who can ignore it with impunity.

It’s not that most of the ruling class in the country deserves to be behind bars that bothers me – it’s that they know they won’t have to go.

I applaud your ‘never give up’ attitude. I, though, have given up. I’m 53, and all I want to do is die before the whole damn nation goes under, in a huge flushing of global socialism and global fiscal and moral bankruptcy. It’s not that we, as a nation, don’t deserve it; heck, we’re causing it. It’s just that, when I read the Constitution and my old civics books, I realize it’s not that hard to do so very much better.

Keep fighting – at least you can say you tried.

Tim Kern

The entire section (207 -- http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000207----000-.html) covers various federal officers and employees. What’s below is just a small part, directly concerning the Bumpers imbroglio.

Ref: 18 USC 207 (bold italics added)…(e) Restrictions on Members of Congress and Officers and Employees of the Legislative Branch.—
(1) Members of congress and elected officers.—
(A) Any person who is a Member of Congress or an elected officer of either House of Congress and who, within 1 year after that person leaves office, knowingly makes, with the intent to influence, any communication to or appearance before any of the persons described in subparagraph (B) or (C), on behalf of any other person (except the United States) in connection with any matter on which such former Member of Congress or elected officer seeks action by a Member, officer, or employee of either House of Congress, in his or her official capacity, shall be punished as provided in section 216 of this title.

Ben Franklin, Discovered by Dan Thomasson

2004-11-17T17:56:00.000-08:00

Dear Mr. Thomasson:

Here’s a letter to the editor of the [name of paper inserted here -- it wasn't published], that probably won’t be published. I thought you’d like the background, however. Thanks for bringing up the subject!

Tim Kern
-----------------

Dan Thomasson got it right on October 15 (“US Needs a Good Dose of Civility” http://polkonline.com/stories/101504/opi_civility.shtml). Ben Franklin predicted it in June of 1787 [during the deliberations that spawned our late lamented Constitution].

Franklin opposed paying salaries to elected federal officials. He warned those writing the Constitution that, “…a place of honour that shall be at the same time a place of profit” would attract a bad class of highly-motivated men. “And of what kind are the men that will strive for the profitable pre-eminence…?” Franklin pegged it: “It will not be the wise and moderate; the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activities in their selfish pursuits.”

Even when somebody wins, the wise man warned, the common good will take a back seat to these avaricious and power-hungry men: “For their vanquished competitors of the same spirit, and from the same motives, will perpetually be endeavouring to distress their administration, thwart their measures, and render them odious to the people.”

History – or prophesy?

Tim Kern

Why Johnny Can't Read: Teachers Make Excuses

2004-11-17T17:37:00.000-08:00

In response to one teacher's howl for even less work (http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041006/NEWS/410060311&SearchID=73190274893535),
I sent the following letter to the Polk County (FL) Lakeland Ledger (where it was published below another, similar one http://theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041020/NEWS/410200322/1037/EDIT04):

A middle school teacher recently inadvertently explained why our schools fail: Teachers won't step up to challenges. She already has her excuses in line. We had hurricanes, so we should cancel this year's Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test.

School days were lost at the beginning of the year, she said. Those days will be made up. She blames stress, in the homes and in the classrooms. We should be in "full normal mode" long before the FCAT [Florida Comprehensive Achievment Test] comes around.

The FCAT isn't an end in itself; it's there to measure a general level of knowledge and ability. If she focused on education instead of teaching to a minimum-knowledge test, she wouldn't have to sweat the minimums.

It's really about her. She says teachers' morale is low because teachers "don't know if their students will be able to make the grade because of all of these outside influences." Blame the students, assume they can't -- and they won't.

Her own stress is higher too: "Will their teaching abilities be questioned?" (That shouldn't stress her out: It's nearly impossible to get rid of a merely lousy teacher, regardless how incompetent or lazy.) So, she says, solve her problem: Cancel the FCAT. Don't ask her to dig a bit deeper, to get her students through the test. She has already given up.

Her own example is to simply give up, and to teach our children to give up, every time there is a problem. When these kids grow up and face stress, what should they do -- deal with it, or collapse at its first appearance?

TIM KERN
Winter Haven

Teachers responded with vitriol, but did not address my points:
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041025/NEWS/410250343&SearchID=73190274216843
and
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041101/NEWS/411010317&SearchID=73190274134093

Interestingly, I replied to the first, by sending the letter below to the editor, who obligingly forwarded it:
Mr. Marston:

Thank you for printing my letter to the Editor about excuse-making teachers who want to dump the FCAT, and also for publishing the rebuttal letter from Holly Cooper, who invited me to spend a week in the classroom.

While I don’t have an entire spare week to devote to this, I’d be pleased to attend Mrs. Shattuck’s class for two days.

If you could make the connection, perhaps she and I could set this up, and we’ll see if I do, as she asserts, owe Mrs. Shattuck (whose name I did not use in my letter, by the way) an apology.

Please note for the record, that Ms. Cooper did not refute any of my arguments; she simply stated how devoted Mrs. Shattuck is. I make no quarrel with her devotion; it is her efficacy of which I am skeptical.

Thank you.

Tim Kern
PS. I am an active substitute teacher in Polk County, and I am certified 6-12 in Social Studies, as well. I taught high school through the 1998-99 academic year, and I currently teach college. I never make excuses for my students; they make plenty of their own!

If you would like to forward this to H.D. Childree (the other letter-writer who did not address my challenges, but used my letter as a pretense for lobbying for additional baby-sitting fees), as well, it might clear up any misunderstanding on his/her part.

---...and then

Three weeks went by without even an acknowledgment of receipt of my intent to take these teachers up on their public offer, I again contacted the longsuffering Mr. Marston:

Hello, Mr. Marston.

Just between us, I deserve an apology from these nasty teachers (Cooper and Childree).

Since they viciously attacked me by name (I had the professional decency to purposely omit Mrs. Shattuck’s name from my letter, figuring she’d already embarrassed herself enough) on your pages October 25 and threw down the gauntlet to have me attend classes, I assumed they were serious. I immediately accepted their invitation, and I haven’t heard from either of them.

I guess they’re just complainers and prevaricators. Their ‘invitation’ was evidently as thin as their effectiveness.

It’s been over three weeks since I replied and accepted their offer. Now, my schedule has closed in around me, and I will not be able to take them up on their phony invitation until after Christmas time. (Oops – I mean, “the holidays.”) On second thought, why should I go? They don’t have anything to teach me.

Phonies and cowards, all, and rude. Their inaction and lack of even a reply prove my original point.

I hope (new Superintendent) Gail McKinzie addresses this excuse-making pack of problems that receive teachers’ pay and benefits. (…and I’ll bet she won’t.)

If you would like to do a real story on ‘Why Johnny Can’t Read’ (offered originally to school board member Brenda Reddout, who also ignored my offer – she didn’t even answer), I’d be pleased to offer a few insights gained from many years of teaching in effective schools, my years as a turnaround consultant, and my experience with Polk County’s system.

Thank you again, for the courage to have run my original letter, and for forwarding my acceptance to these ladies.

Tim Kern