Don't Hate Favre Because He's Winning

It used to be that living well was the best revenge, but if you happen to be Brett Favre, it's pretty clear that playing well is actually a better one.

No Packer fan enjoys seeing the Vikings succeed, but there are a substantial number that are glad to see Favre do well, wherever he plays. On the other hand you have those Packer fans for whom the 10-1 record that Favre and the Vikings have amassed is nothing less than the worst kind of insult one man could inflict on a town.

These types are driven nearly insane with hatred for Favre, their blind rage increasing with every touchdown. My facebook feed is littered with their early Sunday afternoon rants, bad vibes, and ill-wishes for Favre and the Vikings. Which almost weekly, has been replaced by late afternoon laments following another Viking Victory. Even the mild-mannered Mrs. RWC has conjured up a dislike for Favre, which transforms her otherwise cheery disposition into something almost monstrous and barely recognizable.

This phenomenon even has some Packer fans sounding like Oliver Stone, seeing a conspiracy in every completion. The latest theory that I was assailed with was that Viking head coach Brad Childress, who was in favor of acquiring Favre, has been skewing his offensive mix toward passing in order to make the deal seem like a great one for the Vikings. Never mind the fact that the Vikings have a balanced offensive attack, I say just look at the record.

At 10-1 Childress doesn't need Favre to have more yards, touchdowns, or attempts to seem like a genius. When you have 10 wins in 11 games, most of the decisions you make will look pretty good, no matter what you do. Besides, there's no need to wonder why Adrian Peterson has a tendency to disappear from the offense, Childress has a habit of inexplicably dropping him from the game plan. This was a habit that existed before Favre was a Viking.

Look, I'm sick of the clearly phony aw-shucks good ol' boy persona. How many good ol' boys does Barbara Walters interview? But if I could be so bold as to offer my adopted hometown a few words of advice: Revenge is a dish best served cold, so until the Packers can deliver on the Frozen Tundra of Lambeau Field, there is no sense in hating Favre. You don't have to root for the Vikings, just grit your teeth, guzzle your beer, stop yelling at the TV and recognize Favre for what he is, one of the all-time greats.

Besides, in Green Bay, he'll only ever be one of many great players; if he manages to lead the Vikings to a Super Bowl, he might become the greatest Viking ever after only a single season. So even in victory, Viking fans will know that we have had so many great players we've got at least one to spare, and it took a Packer to finally lead them to victory.

No News in WI-8 is Good News for.........whom?

The crowded Republican primary field for Wisconsin's 8th Congressional District was the subject of both an article and an editorial in the Green Bay Press Gazette today.

Unfortunately, both were remarkable for saying so little*. As anybody with an internet connection and a free blog could tell you there are at least seven Republicans and one independent running for Steve Kagen's seat. The PG's coverage in this case didn't add much to that. I don't think they even mentioned that a quick check of the WI GAB website indicates that as of 11-16-09 Kerry Thomas was the only officially registered candidate.

The Press Gazette also included this anti-Kagen piece, which I think was a letter to the editor, but it isn't very well marked as such.

I didn't notice any talk of the field getting bigger, so perhaps the current list will be the group to make the final run to the primary and then on to November.

The news in WI-8 this week will be dominated by coverage of Roger Roth and his promised announcement on December 1st. Based on my totally unscientific analysis of google searches that end up on this blog, Roth seems to have the current lead in "buzz". This is probably due to his being the latest entrant in the race and the compelling aspects of his personal story, chief among these his relative youth and his military service.

So in my judgement this quiet time in the 8th isn't exactly good news for anyone in particular, but certainly the proliferation of opponents can't be good news for Kagen.
__________________________________
The editorial listed Andy Williams as being from Ashwaubenon. I'm pretty sure Andy lives right here in De Pere.

About that trade agreement we had...........

The Cap Times reports on the Wisconsin congressional delegation's position on H.R. 3012:

Wisconsin House members Tammy Baldwin, Gwen Moore and Steve Kagen, all Democrats, are co-sponsors. They’re on the right side of history. The other members of the delegation — Democrat Ron Kind and Republicans Paul Ryan, James Sensenbrenner and Tom Petri — are not.

H.R. 3012 is the Trade Reform, Accountability, Development, and Employment Act of 2009, The TRADE Act. (Who spends all the time to come up with these acronyms anyway?)

In a time of economic insecurity and with the Congress and White House controlled by the Democrats it's no surprise that international trade might come in for more than the average amount of scrutiny. But according to the bill's official summary, this act:

Requires the President to submit to Congress a plan for the renegotiation of existing trade agreements to bring them into compliance with such standards.

That is it requires the President to go back over previous agreements and modify them so that they are in agreement with new standards passed by a Democratic Congress and White House.

Changing the rules after the game is underway is not only anathema to the American spirit it is an incredibly bad way to do business either at home or abroad. But it is more than that. It is also a great way to undermine a free society. Restrictions on the ability of those in power to change the rules is instrumental in maintaining freedom.

Perhaps there are some trade deals that were negotiated that are in fact not in our interests. If that is the case, then those specific agreements which appear problematic should be publicized and there should be a debate about how to correct the damage. If the TRADE act is little more than an attempt to score points with a powerful constituency simply because the political winds have shifted in the Democrats favor, then those listed above as being on the wrong side of history are right to oppose it.

The China Syndrome

Much has been made of the United States' indebtedness to China. This discussion usually revolves around the questions of just how much is too much debt given our economic circumstances and what happens if China decides to stop lending us so much money.

This second question assumes that China's lending decisions are matters of their willingness rather than their ability. This shows up as speculation that China may hold fewer dollars and more euros, for example.

In the New York Times, Tyler Cowen, economics professor and blogger, has an alternate narrative about just how the relationship between the U.S. and China could change, and not for the better:

China uses American spending power to enlarge its private sector, while America uses Chinese lending power to expand its public sector. Yet this arrangement may unravel in a dangerous way, and if it does, the most likely culprit will be Chinese economic overcapacity.

And the consequences of overcapacity?

In economic terms, the prices of Chinese exports will probably fall, as overextended businesses compete to justify their capital investments and recoup their losses. American businesses will find it harder to compete with Chinese companies, and there will be deflationary pressures in both countries. And even if the Chinese are selling more at lower prices, they may be taking in less money over all, so they may have less to lend to the United States government.

This is doubly troubling since it may represent another deflationary pressure on the global economy, which could result in additional economic chaos; on the fiscal front it represents the possibility of an abrupt reduction in the flow of the funds we are counting on to continue federal expenditures. A reduction that is imposed by economic conditions in China and that may not be easily reversed even if the Chinese leadership desired to do so.

Cowen ends imploring us not to be lulled into a false sense of security by the current low borrowing costs. He also warns that for all the worrying we have done lately about a rising China and a fading America, a weakening of the Chinese economy may be more dangerous.

Palin, Clinton, and the Voyages of Sinbad

Illusory Tenant directs our attention to Andrew Sullivan's blog wherein he exposes Sarah Palin's sinister deception about her days playing Scrabble. Yes, Scrabble.

Apparently she claims in her book that her family games included the hoarding of K's and Q's. Which, of course, is impossible since there is only one of each of these letters in a Scrabble game.

What a great piece of hard-hitting investigative journalism.

This reminds me of the time that Hillary Clinton misspoke about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia. Of course, that means Andrew Sullivan is now Sarah Palin's Sinbad.

*Update - Marginal Revolution explains why Palin's Scrabble strategy is no good.

Successful Blogs Have Links

Items to NOT buy during this holiday weekend (hopefully it's not too late).

I pledge that if I ever become President, there will be no Thanksgiving turkey pardon.

Unofficial list of problem banks from Calculated Risk Blog (includes some AZ and WI banks)

Set back for jet packs.

A scene from The Matrix reproduced in Legos!

Who says you can't write a 4 minute rock song that includes an unexpected plot twist?

What is Political Correctness?

Political Correctness is a term and concept that is often invoked by those on the right when they detect an attempt to restrict speech or other discourse that those on the left find objectionable. It has been invoked so often though, that it occasionally becomes cover for those who have no deeper desire than to be provocative or promulgate hateful views.

This ubiquity also results in a general haziness when it comes to defining exactly what Political Correctness is or is not; so much so that many have no notion of it beyond restrictions on using speech that is racially charged or telling jokes that in a previous generation would have been known as off-color. The fact is that Political Correctness is much more, and much more dangerous, than that simple notion.

William S. Lind writing at the @TAC blog:

Political Correctness is cultural Marxism, Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.

But what, exactly, does that mean? Marxists thought that war between the working classes from different nations was impossible. World War I proved just how wrong they were about this. In response, Marxist thinkers cast about for an explanation.

They said that Western culture and the Christian religion had so “blinded” the working class to its true (Marxist) class interests that Communism was impossible in the West until traditional culture and Christianity were destroyed...destroying traditional sexual morals would be a major step toward destroying Western culture itself.

In the middle part of the twentieth century, this thinking entered into books and curriculum for college students and then became the dominant mode of thinking. Lind describes just how deeply this cultural Marxism penetrated the generation that came of age during that time and how little this phenomenon is recognized today, saying it was injected,

into the baby boom generation, to the point where it is now that generation’s ideology. We know it as “multiculturalism,” “diversity” or just Political Correctness.

That is the dirty little secret of Political Correctness, folks: it is a form of Marxism. If the average American knew that, I suspect Political Correctness would be in serious trouble.

Lind's post is a short but informative narrative of how cultural Marxism came to be, and came to dominate the thinking of much of the left in this country. He reminds us that Political Correctness has an agenda much broader and more dangerous than the simple notion of protecting the feelings of others. An agenda that should be resisted by those who recognize the value in our traditions and wish to preserve them.

Happy Thanksgiving

The two that got away.........


The two that didn't....

On Malthus and Children as Accessories

Even if you don't know who Thomas Malthus was, you can recognize his present-day descendants in those that claim human beings should restrict reproduction due to the danger of over-population. Predictions of dire consequences for an earth burdened by too many people have been around a long time. That alone should tell you about the quality of their predictive ability.

Brendan O'Neill at spiked has a witty and withering take-down of Malthusians new and old:

What this potted history of population scaremongering ought to demonstrate is this: Malthusians are always wrong about everything.

The extent of their wrongness cannot be overstated. They have continually claimed that too many people will lead to increased hunger and destitution, yet the precise opposite has happened: world population has risen exponentially over the past 40 years and in the same period a great many people’s living standards and life expectancies have improved enormously. Even in the Third World there has been improvement – not nearly enough, of course, but improvement nonetheless....

The language used to justify population scaremongering has changed dramatically over the centuries. In the time of Malthus in the eighteenth century the main concern was with the fecundity of poor people. In the early twentieth century there was a racial and eugenic streak to population-reduction arguments. Today they have adopted environmentalist language to justify their demands for population reduction.

If you hear this argument about the population scare and are inclined to believe it sounds reasonable, stop and go read all of O'Neill's piece. If you are one of those folks that has restricted reproduction out of fear of global over-crowding, I'm glad to hear it. I don't think YOU should have any more children on whom you can inflict your muddled thinking.

Perhaps it's just a coincidence, but I couldn't help but see a connection of some sort between the need to put the Malthus hysteria to rest again and Slate blogger Mickey Kaus' coverage of the new trend in child-bearing:

Pink Is the New Blue: Maybe I'm out of it, but I was unaware that parents now want girls, not boys. That's the buried lede in Ruth Shalit Barrett's mildly horrifying Elle piece on "Gender Disappointment":

Seventyone percent of American families who use MicroSort—which is still in clinical trials—want a daughter. ...[snip] ... “The era of wanting a first-born male is gone, not to return,” founder Ronald Ericsson, MD, has said....

“The way society is now—I feel there’s a preference for girls,” says Linda Heithaus, a marine biologist from Hollywood, Florida, who has two sons and is contemplating doing IVF/PGD in the hope of getting a girl. “They can do everything a boy can do, plus you can dress them up. It’s almost like, to fit in, you need to have one.” Girls, in other words, are boys plus. They can play sports and have careers, and you can dress them in pink and take them to tea at the American Girl café. What’s not to like? [E.A.]

Others link the yearning to women’s belief that they’ll have a richer lifelong relationship with a daughter than a son. ...

Girls are boys plus? That's one way to look at it. I don't quite believe this trend (though some of my Westside yuppie friends confirm it).

At least Kaus demonstrates a shred of sense when he highlights the crucial portion of the text and calls such a notion "horrifying," even if he does modify if with the capitulatory "mildly."

Regardless of your views on religion, family size, gay marriage, or any other of those cultural questions, I would hope that you could agree that children are not an accessory.

They are not to be trotted out and paraded around for your own aggrandizement, regardless of where you stand on the issues. They are individual human beings. Deserving of all the respect that status entails.

I hope that the long efforts of those, like Malthus, who seek to diminish life haven't taken so deep a hold that their effects are irreversible. Comments like "you need a girl to fit-in" though, make me wonder if that isn't the case.

Republicans would be wrong to limit their options now.

The Journal Sentinel (h/t Fox Politics) takes a look at the Republican race for governor and concludes that Scott Walker is off to a quicker start than Mark Neumann's.

While that is certainly accurate, I'm not sure it amounts to much. The article goes on to note that:

The worry among Republicans is that an expensive primary would leave only six weeks for the victor to go head to head against Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett before the general election. Barrett is the only major Democrat in the race....

Another potential candidate for governor this year was Sen. Ted Kanavas (R-Brookfield), who dropped out, in part, because Walker was so strong. He now supports Walker.

"He's put years into this - he's more organized," Kanavas said. "And there is this kind of a feeling that we need to get behind one person if we have a chance to win."

This seems like entirely wrong way to think about the race at this point. We are about a year away from the election and it would be a gross understatement to say that a lot can happen in a year.

Also, isn't there the possibility that a competitive primary would keep the names of Republican candidates in the news? Especially if no Democrat makes a serious run at challenging Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. Admittedly, there can be a drawback to this if the primary devolves into excessive mud-slinging, but there has been little evidence of that at this point.

The JS article misses entirely any of the other candidates for governor such as Mark Todd. They spend more time talking about Barrett.

A spirited, but principled debate about whom the Republican candidate for governor should be and what principles they should espouse would be a good thing for Republicans and a good thing for Wisconsin.

Sense out of the Senseless: Healthcare Edition

Megan McArdle produces a great and short summary of the arguments surrounding the healthcare debate on both sides. The incoherence is staggering.

First up the Republicans:

Medicare costs too much, and also, shouldn't be cut.

I realize why this is politically popular (old people vote) but you can't be against unsustainable spending on entitlements and against cuts to make the spending sustainable, unless John Kerry switches parties when I wasn't looking.

Then the Democrats:

Small- and medium-sized businesses are groaning under the weight of their health care costs. Also, starting next year, we're going to force them to give you much more generous coverage from your employer, such as coverage for non-dependent "children" up to the age of 26.

The President has committed to turning his attention to jobs. From this approach though, it seems they are going to work on killing more jobs before they get around to saving or creating any. Or maybe they are going to kill them just so they can bring them back. Either way I don't think this is the change we've been waiting for.

Go read the whole thing. McArdle's got nine points. Each of which would be a laugh riot if the consequences of this entire enterprise weren't so deadly serious.

Successful Blogs Have Links

Chopstick fan and other crazy Japanese inventions.

Leggo my eggo. It might be the last one.

Uphill, both ways, in the snow - Sparring over meager beginnings.

There's no Klingon word for diaper?

A dance to the tune of economic decline
Is when you do the bottom line
Nagging questions always remain
Why did it happen and who was to blame?

Roger Roth to Run for WI-8

OK, with this post, I think I am up to date on the candidates. Of course, by the time I wake up tomorrow, two or three more people may have joined the race.

Wis Politics (H/T Lakeshore Laments):

State Rep. Roger Roth, a Republican from Appleton, has sent out a fundraising appeal announcing his intention to seek the GOP nomination to take on U.S. Rep. Steve Kagen in the 8th CD.

Under a header that reads "Roger Roth for Congress," the letter blasts Democrats for taking the United States down the wrong path. Roth will make an official announcement on Dec. 1 on whether or not he will enter the race.

Here is the link to Roth for Congress.

The most interesting part of this announcement for now at least is what Kevin has to say about who benefits by Roth's entry into the race:

On a short-term matter, this announcement probably helps Roofing Company Owner Reid Ribble the most. With Roth in, he takes away "The Establishment Candidate label" (if such a label exists in a seven-way primary) from Ribble and takes the pressure of the bulls-eye off him and onto Roth now since many people -- myself included -- likely view Roth as the first "real choice" to enter the race.

McCormick Seeks WI-8 Seat

A little late, I know, but I've been busy this week. I also realize that I am at least one other candidate behind at this point.

Post Crescent:

Former state Rep. Terri McCormick, R-Greenville, announced Tuesday she would join a host of Republican hopefuls in the 2010 8th Congressional District race....

"The mess we're in is generally because of a lack of leadership," McCormick said.Referring to the government's involvement in using bailouts for economic recovery as "perpetual meddling in the free market," McCormick said limiting government spending and encouraging private sector growth are key. Job recovery and growth are her No. 1 priority, she said.

Here's a link to Terri McCormick for Congress.

I don't personally wish to wade into the intraparty sniping that seems to surround McCormick, but I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that it existed. If you don't have any idea what I'm talking about and want to get up to speed in two minutes, go read this post and the comments.

I'm not exactly a "let a thousand flowers bloom" type, but I think we have room for at least 8 or 10 flowers. In any case, this is going to be an exciting race.

Consider the Levy

Jo Egelhoff writing at Fox Politics reminds us that at budget time you should always remember the levy:

If there’s nothing else you remember about your property taxes, remember this: It’s the tax levy, friend, the tax levy. (“Stupid” is memorable, but perhaps a little too harsh and Clinton-esque.)

An individual’s tax payments, are ultimately determined by two things:

1. Total tax levy required by the community
2. A property’s value, relative to the rest of the property in your community.

Given even these couple of numbers, the very best way to judge a community’s budget is to look at the increase in the TOTAL TAX LEVY. (well, I suppose in the history of the world, a decrease has been registered - somewhere!)...

At budget time, look for information about the increase in new construction in your community. This is really important and often a hard number to find in print.

Because unlike increases in value from reassessment of existing properties, new construction is real growth in a community. And if the TAX LEVY rises by less than the increase in new construction, then on average, an individual property owner’s taxes really are going down.

So remember the levy compare it to new construction.  Got it.  So how does my city, De Pere, stack up?

De Pere Unified School District passed a levy increase of 3.36%.
The City of De Pere passed a levy increase of 2.49%.
Brown County passed a levy increase of 2.5%.

OK, so what about new construction?  The Wisconsin Department of Revenue provides Net New Constrution figures for 2008-2009.  The report dated 8/14/09 shows that net new construction added 1.133% in De Pere.  For Brown County the number was 1.469%.

Seen in light of those net new construction numbers, the levy increases passed by De Pere City and Unified School District and by Brown County are even more disheartening.  And by Jo's rule of thumb above, taxes are increasing even faster than the levy percentages seem to indicate.

De Pere Adopts 2010 Budget

Press Gazette:

Overall, the council unanimously adopted a $15.35 million general fund budget for 2010, up about 1.41 percent from $15.14 million for 2009.

Members approved a $10.56 million total tax levy to support the budget, up 2.49 percent from $10.30 million from last year. The increases mean the owner of a home valued at $150,000 will owe about $898.50 in city property taxes, compared to $885 a year ago.

They discussed worker furloughs, but didn't take action on this.  They also reduced brush pick up.

Death Panels (Yes, Again)

With the political blogosphere going practically all Sarah Palin all the time I think it is worthwhile to revisit the "death panel" debate. Particularly since I see it repeatedly mentioned as being ridiculous, beyond belief, and proof that somehow Palin is unfit for office. She may well be unfit for office, but her death panel claim isn't the reason why.

As I wrote back in August, are rumors of death panels greatly exaggerated? Here's an excerpt of an interview of President Obama (h/t Slate's Kausfiles):

THE PRESIDENT: So that's where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that's also a huge driver of cost, right?

I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

LEONHARDT: So how do you - how do we deal with it?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that's part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It's not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that's part of what I suspect you'll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now. [E.A]

The President is talking about a panel to make medical treatment decisions in order to reduce costs.

You may not want to believe the U.S. government would ever do such a thing, but listen to the words. Palin's fitness for high office has no relevance in this debate. She has in rather stark terms made clear what is at the heart of Obama's consideration of what he concedes are "difficult moral choices."

Labor Pains for Barrett, Wisconsin

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has only recently announced his intention to run for governor, but already there are those arguing he can't both run for governor and push forward on a plan for mayoral control of the Milwaukee Public School system. This criticism though, isn't originating from Republicans, but rather from Barrett's fellow Democrats.

The Milwuakee Area Labor Council argues (H/T Fox Politics):

Members of his own party describe Tom Barrett’s decision Nov. 15 to run for governor while still struggling to rule the Milwaukee public schools as a calculated cynical gamble in opposition to the progressive forces he needs to turn out Democratic voters in Milwaukee.

While agreeing that Barrett is their best and best known chance in the race, they still blame the public divisiveness that will result on both the mayor and the governor who decided not to run, Jim Doyle.

I have argued previously that workers ought to have the right to organize and that union representation can play an important role in helping workers negotiate for market wages. A single worker faces difficulty in judging the market value of his labor and can be in a weak bargaining position relative to a potential employer.

I fear though that what we see these days from organized labor, especially in states like Wiscosin where it historically has been strong, is the last gasp of a decaying institution. Not an institution that changed so much as one that didn't realize times had changed. The exchange of our best working years for lifelong income and benefits has come and gone. As someone too young to have participated in that phase of our history there are times when I wish this were not so, but it is.

This example of labor opposition to a well-liked Democratic politician's plan to reform a troubled school district is just the latest example of labor moving beyond that vital role for which it was made and into protecting itself as an institution. It isn't the most egregious example, but a telling one nonetheless.

Regardless of who the next governor is, the labor movement in Wisconsin is going to have to decide if it wants to be forward-thinking and serve a leading role in transforming our economy to match the changing circumstances, or if it prefers to cling to what power it has left. The former could revitalize Milwaukee and Wisconsin, the latter will simply forestall the inevitable change and we will all suffer for it.

Civilian Trial for Terrorist is a Mistake

News that Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed would be tried in a civilian court in New York was met with no small amount of pushback, and for good reason.  It's a bad idea.

Some Obama supporters have claimed that a civilian trial is exactly what the country needs to prove to the world that our values can withstand the horrific act that took place on 9/11.  Such a trial could, in my opinion, do the exact opposite.

I believe that if you asked President Obama if there was any chance that Mohammed would be found not guilty at this trial and then released, the answer would be a definitive no.  In that case, what is the point of the trial?  This isn't a criticism based on a military solution being superior to a law enforcement approach when it comes to terrorism.  This is a criticism of a criminal trial whose outcome is known in advance - the exact opposite of what the American legal system purports to be.

If the Obama administration thinks they have the right guy, and all indications are they do, then let them put forth the evidence that they are ready to produce at a trial.  If it is in our national interests to incarcerate or execute Mohammed, the Obama administration should do so.  If they have the courage of their convictions there really is no need for a show trial at which the outcome is known ahead of time, but our enemies get one more chance to do us harm.

Do you still think home schooling isn't a great idea?

What no one wants to admit on either side of this debate is that it takes 15 to 20 years to find out if an educational idea works, be it mayoral control, outside charter schools or voucher schools.

This from the Milwaukee Area Labor Council an AFL-CIO organization.

What of the poor student who happens to spend all or most of his K-12 years during the 15-20 years that these ideas are being worked out?

Price Controls in Health Care Bill

The Open Congress Blog reports on a provision of the House health reform that hasn't received much coverage.  It requires that insurers to return a portion of premiums to customers when claims are below a certain level.  A level, by the way, specified by the Secretary of Health & Human Services.

Once the bill is enacted, all health insurance plans would be required to spend at least 85 cents of every dollar paid in premiums each year to providing actual health care. If, in a given year, an insurer doesn’t spend that amount on health care, they would have to give their extra profit back to their customers in the form of rebates. Only 15 percent of premiums max could be used for marketing, administration, underwriting and profit. And the HHS Secretary could up the ratio from 85-15 if she saw fit.

The provision “almost totally strips the ability of insurance companies to combine cherry picking and premium increases to continue the huge profits they garner today,” writes Webb at the Angry Bear blog. “In a word this [section] automatically limits profits by establishing indirect price controls,” he adds.

It might make one feel good at night to think that price controls limit the profits of evil insurance companies, but that is not all price controls do - they cause shortages.

Open Congress goes on to report there is some confusion about the measure since it currently appears to phase out, just as most of the reforms get started.  It's not clear if this is intentional or an oversight at this point.

Either way, Tyler Cowen reminds us this morning:

The laws of economics have not been repealed.  I know fully well how hard it is politically, but until the supply side (and I mean the supply of services, not health insurance) is more competitive, the proposed reforms will make the core problems of U.S. health care worse not better.

Despite the Democrats nearly relentless chant of choice and competition, there is little in any of the current reforms that actually improve the status quo in these areas.

Successful Blogs Have Links

Super Special Saturday Bonus edition. If you only click one link, make it the Hudson River landing simulation.

Video simulation of Hudson River plane landing

Breast-feeding as exercise.

Probably fake, but still a great prank.

Best of the decade lists (books, music, movies & more)

"...We like lists because we don't want to die."


No Eddie Van Halen, but it does have a tiny xylophone.....

Successful Blogs Have Links

Gernerations on Arizona's Mogollon Rim.

Redesigning the helmets of the Redskins, Bucs, & Patriots.

Tour the classic architecture of the Green Bay Correctional Institution.

The Daily Beast's list of hot jobs.

1 in 3 chance of another bubble.

Pop music about the fall of the Berlin Wall. Couldn't embed the original, so here's this version:

Joe Stern for WI-8

I realize I'm a little late to this party, but thought I would join anyway (it was all that econ blogging this week.)

Former Niagra Mayor Joe Stern will run for Wisconsin's Eighth Congressional District against Steve Kagen.

I can't help but think that the proliferating opponents has to be a sign of weakness for Kagen.

Here's Berry Laker on Stern. Here's the CQ story on Stern (H/T Fox Politics)

So by my tally in addition to Stern we have Williams, Thomas, Trager, Savard, & Ribble. Oh yeah, and McCormick.

Should be interesting.

WI-8 District Prediction: McCormick Will Run

I know that's not exactly big news for those in the know, but I am convinced that is the case. This is not based on any special or insider information (I don't have either) but it is based on an email I received from McCormick a few days ago.

Last Saturday I took a few minutes to email some folks that have been mentioned as possible challengers to Steve Kagen in 2010. Within two hours of my email to McCormick I received a quite lengthy and thorough response. As much as I would like to believe she wrote it in response to my inquiry, I don't. McCormick began:

We have scheduled a decision – as to whether or not I will announce on November 17, 2009 in Green Bay at the Former Rock Gardens/ Club 1951. We will hold a reception from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00a.m.

And continued:

How a person has acted in and out of public office- is usually an indicator of how they will lead at times of great crisis and conflict. It is easy to stand up and make promises – it is far more difficult to show a track record that supports their promises.

I believe that I may be the Right Leader at the Right Time in 2010 – we all know that there are federal obstacles with candidates that are favored more by political machines than others – It has never been my goal to work for machines from out of state – rather to continue my legacy for working for the people I represent.

The planned announcement, the level of detail in her response, and the slogan-like language which was italicized in the email all make me think that she is definitely in.

So perhaps I have just embarked on a career as a political prognosticator that will end almost as soon as it began or the race for Wisconsin's 8th Congressional District is about to get even more interesting (as if that were possible!). Either way we will find out on the 17th.

With Friends Like These - Healthcare Reform Edition

With the House vote last weekend approving a healthcare reform bill, it seems everyone is concerned about the implications which are admittedly hard to grasp from a 2,000 page document written by lawyers.

It's only natural that people might turn to other sources in the media to help them anticipate the results of this effort and exactly what those results might look like. It's also the case that there are many people with a favorable personal view of President Obama and a negative view of right-wing commentators like Limbaugh and Beck. I get it, you don't believe anything these guys say. In fact, you are inclined to believe the opposite of whatever Glenn Beck says. Fine. I'm not going to change your mind in one blog post.

So how about listening to what some who are supportive of healthcare reform have to say about the current proposal?

First, here's David Leonhardt of the New York Times:

Making the medical system more efficient is, in short, about saving lives and giving Americans a long overdue raise. It is arguably the single most important step that the federal government could take to improve people’s lives.

And the bill that the House of Representatives passed last weekend simply does not get it done.

And John Cassidy of the New Yorker*:

So what does it all add up to? The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment to help provide health coverage for the vast majority of its citizens. I support this commitment, and I think the federal government’s spending priorities should be altered to make it happen. But let’s not pretend that it isn’t a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won’t.

Both men are convinced that the current reform will do nothing to reduce medical costs and despite massive increases in spending. But wait, you say, every Democrat on television takes great pains to tell us this bill is paid for. Here's Cassidy:

Look a bit more closely, and you find that more than half of the Medicare savings (two hundred and twenty-nine billion dollars) come from cutting payments to providers of services under the regular program; most of the rest (a hundred and seventy billion dollars) come from changing the way payments are set in the Medicare Advantage program. Does anybody really believe that these savings will materialize? For decades now, Congress has been promising to reduce the growth of Medicare outlays, and yet every year they continue to go up. The reasons are straightforward: the population is aging; seniors are politically active; and health-care treatments, particularly for the aging, continue to evolve in complex and costly ways.

From non-existent cost savings to mythical revenue sources that will never exist. The health reform proposal has some serious critics even among those that are in favor of reforming the current system.

Don't take my word for it, or Glenn Beck's. Go to the links and read what Leonhardt of the New York Times & Cassidy of The New Yorker have to say. Then try to come back and explain to me exactly how this proposal is supposed to help.

_______________________________
* I blogged about Cassidy's piece a while back but thought it was worth revisiting after the House vote.

Our Looming Fiscal Disaster

Think that's overstated?  Well here's CBO Director Elmendorf:

I concluded the talk by emphasizing that fiscal policy is on an unsustainable path to an extent that cannot be solved by minor tinkering. The country faces a fundamental disconnect between the services the people expect the government to provide, particularly in the form of benefits for older Americans, and the tax revenues that people are willing to send to the government to finance those services.

This is our problem in a (incredibly tough and bitter) nutshell.

Returning our finances to a state approximating fiscal sanity will be the dominant domestic policy debate for the foreseeable future.  This may at times be crowded out by remarkable circumstances at home and abroad, but it will persist.  If not dealt with, it will eventually swamp all other concerns.

Those services that people have come to expect are a bipartisan affair; from the expansive Obama agenda (healthcare reform, cap & trade,  permanent expansion of government spending under the guise of stimulus) to the bizarre fiscal bulimia of massive spending coupled with tax cuts that was the W. Bush administration.

The question for me now is there any group of leaders within either party with the fortitude and sufficiently long view to tackle this seemingly intractable problem or is it the case that no permanent solution will be enacted until conditions become so intolerable that it is apparent to any and every citizen that we can't go on this way.  I hope for the former and fear the latter.

The Strange Shape of Senate Financial Reform

Today Senator Chris Dodd unveiled a plan for the Senate version of financial regulatory reform.

The big news is the changes in the power of the Federal Reserve and the FDIC.  The Fed would be restricted in its ability to make loans to financial institutions, which of late has become a major part of its activity.  It also takes away much of the Fed's role in regulating banks.

Dodd is up for re-election in 2010, but he's not running against Ron Paul, so this new found hatred for the Fed seems a bit out of character.

Then there's this:

Mr. Dodd also stepped into a debate about the governance of 12 regional Fed banks. These banks play a role in regulating private banks and have a say in the Fed's decisions on interest rates. Private bankers choose six of the nine directors on the boards of each of these 12 regional Fed banks, which critics say could be a conflict of interest.

The personification of this concern over banks choosing Fed directors is none other than Obama Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.  One of the major knocks on Geithner has been his cozy relationship with many of the giant, now failed, financial firms during his time as head of the New York Fed, but as far as I know Dodd has never called on Geithner to step down.

So by Dodd's logic the process of banks choosing Fed directors is so flawed that the Senate and the President need to take over that duty, but overseeing a global financial crisis while at the New York Fed makes you qualified to be Secretary of the Treasury?

With a Senate counterpart like Dodd, Barney Frank has to like his chances to stay in the lead on financial reform regardless of how many times he is present at a pot bust.

Brown County Approves Budget

By a 23-3 vote the Brown County Board approved the 2010 budget.  The Press Gazette reports:

The Brown County tax levy will increase by about $2.026 million for 2010 under a budget approved Monday by the Brown County Board.

The budget is about $589,086 lower than county Executive Tom Hinz's proposed budget and would increase the county's portion of the property tax about $6 on every $100,000 of property value.

The new tax levy, if signed by Hinz, will be $84,152,149 — about $2.026 million, or 2.5 percent — more than 2009. The tax rate would be 4.5801, up from 4.5444 this year.

Both the supervisors themselves and the non-union county employees get a pay cut under the approved budget.  There would also be furlough days for all employees with the details yet to be worked out.

The next step belongs to County Executive Tom Hinz:

Hinz has until the Dec. 16 County Board meeting to sign the budget or submit his vetoes.

"I'm going to sit back and look at it but not make any rash decisions," Hinz said following the 23-3 vote, with supervisors Adam Warpinski, Andy Nicholson and Dave Kaster voting against it. "The furloughs are something that has to be fine-tuned."

De Pere Police Turmoil. Who Knew?

I honestly didn't.

The Press Gazette dot Gov blog reports:

All is not well in the De Pere Police Department. Members of the police union took a nearly unanimous vote of no-confidence in police Chief Derek Beiderwieden. They've accused him of lying, delegating duties they feel should be his and mismanaging funds....

As with many stories, there likely are three versions: the city's, the union's and the truth....

It seems the city is trying to work things out. The union, chief and other city officials met in mediation sessions that ended in early September. Management and the union continue to meet, and the chief says things are better. But the union is pushing for more and may contact the Police and Fire Commission, which as the power to discipline Beiderwieden.

This is really too bad and hopefully can be brought to a resolution that insures the safety of De Pere citizens, is in the interest of taxpayers, and supports the great officers of the De Pere Police Department.

Ratings Agencies Reconsidered

Among the storylines that seem widely accepted surrounding the financial crisis is one concerning the ratings agencies. These are the businesses that evaluate and assign grades to securites (e.g. AAA, AA, etc.).

The standard narrative goes something like this: Investement banks like Goldman Sachs had a pile of mortgages that they wanted to "securitize" they would then bundle them all together and sell shares of the bundle. They would then make money selling the shares. One of the things they would do before they sold the shares is take them to a rating agency and get a grade. They would, of course, try to get the highest grade of AAA whenever possible. It was the investment banks that paid the ratings agencies for the service of grading. Therefore, the story goes, they were buying good grades. So instead of acting as an impartial judge of quality, the ratings agencies were "bought" by the fees they received.

It's a nice story, but maybe not the whole picture.

The fact of the matter is that it is the buyers of the securities (the shares in the pools of mortgage) that benefit from the high grades. Many buyers are institutional investors and they are governed by rules about what type of securities they can hold. Investors like pension funds are in some cases required by law to hold AAA securities. There are also regulations about how much leverage (borrowing) an investment fund can do based on the grades of the securities that it holds.

Buyers of these securities were in need of places to invest their funds that also fit the regulatory criteria to which they were subject, so they were the ones to benefit from the grade inflation just as much, if not more so, than the sellers of the securities. Even in cases where one of the rating agencies provided the highest rating and another did not, buyers of these securities didn't seem to be troubled by the conflicting signals. They had their AAA and that is what they needed. If things went sour, they could point to that as some proof of their diligence in money management, and we can all see how well that strategy has worked.

This is not to say that acts of sloppiness and perhaps even fraud didn't occur at the ratings agencies; it would be more shocking if they didn't. Taking the time to think through where the incentives lie and who was in the position to inject some sanity into the market can help shed some much needed light on these problems.

This notion of the ratings agencies and the buyer's incentives, comes from an episode of EconTalk featuring Charles Calomiris of Columbia. You can listen to the podcast or read a transcipt at econtalk.org. The ratings agency discussion comes at about 54 minutes.

Update - I was thinking about this after reading this post at Dad29. I should have linked it before, but didn't.

Abortion Ammendment to be Considered

Washington Post:

House Democratic leaders agreed Friday night to settle an impasse over abortion by letting the entire House vote on a proposed solution, a risky decision that could determine the fate of their trillion-dollar overhaul of the nation's health care system.

Under the agreement, anti-abortion Democrats will be permitted to offer an amendment on the House floor to the health-care overhaul bill. The amendment would prohibit a new government-run insurance plan created by the health-care bill from offering to cover abortion services, congressional sources said. It would also block people who received federal subsidies for the purchase of health insurance from buying policies that offered coverage for abortions.

The report goes on to state that the ammendment is likely to pass with Republican support combined to the forty anti-abortion Democrats lead by Stupak (D-Mich) and that passage of such language would allow the Catholic Bishops to support the health care bill.

Successful Blogs Have Links

The town that Google built. Sort of. (H/T Mrs. RWC)

If only King Lear had studied game theory. Then, of course, we wouldn't have King Lear.

Sorry about that whole Citibank thing.

Princess Leia between takes.

A backhanded compliment never sounded so good........

Waupaca Candidate Forum

The Waupaca County Republicans are hosting a forum tomorrow from 2-4 p.m. at the Central County Airport in Iola.

Top notch guest list includes Scott Walker, J.B. Van Hollen, Marc Savard, Andy Williams, Reid Ribble and others.

Free and open to the public. They even promise refreshments!

I can't go tomorrow, but you should. Then tell me how it was.

As an aside: Attorney General Van Hollen strikes me as rather...aspirational these days. He's featured in blogs, he's on WPR. Could someone who is much smarter than me about such things clue me in to the implications. Are we looking at a future Governor Van Hollen? Senator Van Hollen?

The Reluctant Warrior

OK, that title is a bit melodramatic, but how's this for the opening of a campaign announcement:

Okay, so I guess the cat’s out of the bag. One reporter from the Appleton Post-Crescent actually did her homework, checked the facts with the Government Accountability Board, and discovered that I am the first, and so far the only, person who is officially registered as a candidate for Congress in Wisconsin’s 8^th Congressional District race.

That is Kerry Thomas, a Republican candidate for Wisconsin's 8th Congressional district.  From that beginning he proceeds through the hall of shame that is the recent legislative record.  From TARP through the stimulus, cap & trade, and healthcare reform he ticks them off and reminds his readers that Kagen has supported each of these massive spending programs.

Thomas then provides this as his reason for running:

After bearing witness for the last five years to the debacle that has become the Republican Party, and to Members of Congress and the Executive Branch running roughshod over the Constitution, I felt I had to do something. The only way America will be able to undo the damage caused by those currently governing our Republic is for people of good character to step forward and replace those currently governing our Republic.

If you are interested in what is going in WI-8 and the nation more generally, go read the whole thing.

It's hard not to like a campaign kickoff, even one as low-key as this, that quotes Burke:

Most people are familiar with Edmund Burke’s 1795 quote that “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” But Burke, an Irish orator, philosopher, and politician, also said “No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.”

One quibble, if I may, is that while many may be familiar with the quote, I would guess most couldn't tell you its source.  Of those that could, I would suspect many couldn't provide any information beyond name and date.  While I haven't made it through Reflections, I did read this, and plan to dig even further.

If only more people were familiar with Burke's thought and its value in shaping a society, I suspect Mr. Thomas would be happier and the rest of us would be better for it.

New Candidate for Wisconsin's Eighth Congressional Distirct

Press Gazette reports:

The Republican field of candidates running to challenge U.S. Rep. Steve Kagen, D-Appleton, gets bigger today as Howard physician Marc Trager announces his run for Congress....

"Our campaign will target the economic and social issues important to families in the district, bringing new ideas and a fresh approach to the needs of Northeast Wisconsin," Trager said in a release.

This brings the total Republican candidates to five. If this week's special election in NY taught us anything it is that this cycle will definitely be about contested primaries, which it appears we have.

More Trager coverage from Berry Laker here; Lakeshore Laments here (Kevin includes a teaser about the possibility of more candidates.)

What's really going on with healthcare reform

This from the New Yorker: 

So what does it all add up to? The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment to help provide health coverage for the vast majority of its citizens. I support this commitment, and I think the federal government’s spending priorities should be altered to make it happen. But let’s not pretend that it isn’t a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won’t.

The author is a supporter of the healthcare reform effort.  In a few short paragraphs though, he manages to debunk the claims of reduced costs (which Congress will never enforce) and increased revenue (we can only soak the rich and upper middle class for so long, and we all know where a tax on the health plans of union workers is headed).

Many on the left have accused those opposed to the health reform of lying (death panels, anyone?).  They would do well in this case to follow their own advice and be honest about just what it is they are proposing.  If you think it is worthwhile to enact a massive new entitlement program for the purpose of insuring almost all of the currently uninsured, then say so.  Don't pretend this proposal is meant to cut costs because it won't.  And don't pretend this won't add to our fiscal burden, it most certainly will.

Sen. Mark Miller Channels Bobby Jindal

WisPolitics Budget Blog covers the letter that Senator Mark Miller (D) sent to Education Secretary Arne Duncan expressing concern about strings attached the Race to the Top education grants coming with too many strings: 

As much as I and other public officials want to improve public school performance, we can only do so if we can pay for it. Wisconsin will be gambling with our educational future if we make these financial and policy commitments and then fail to keep them," Miller writes. "Because so much is unknown about how Race to the Top grant dollars will be allocated and for how long, we feel like a gambler trying to draw to an inside straight.

Miller's concern is that the Wisconsin will enact new programs in order to get one-time federal government money and then be stuck with the bill for on-going expenses.  Seems to me I've heard this argument somewhere before.

This was the criticism many Republican governors were making with regards to the stimulus bill several months ago.  Arguments which Democrats summarily dismissed at the time.  I wonder what's changed?

This case seems like little more than Miller pandering to a powerful constituency that opposes some of the reforms attached to the Race to the Top grants.

Ribble Responds to his Critics

In the comments to my initial post on 8th CD Republican candidate Reid Ribble, an anonymous commenter left two items raising concerns about Ribble's candidacy. You can read the original post and comments here, but here is the crux of Anon's complaint:

Is Ribble just a a carpetbagger picked by the GOP elite for the 8th? I hope we get a fair primary this time around.

Yesterday Ribble left a response in the comments responding to these complaints:

I have heard the "carpet-bagger" claim too often. I do live in Sherwood and I have lived there for 10 years. It is about 2 miles south of the 8th district border. I have been honest and straight forward about this right from the beginning.

Also regarding the "legal requirement" alluded to by anonymous. The US Constitution is pretty clear about residency requirements. It states in Article 1 section 2 "No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the age of twenty five years, and been a citizen of the United States, and who shall not when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." Pretty clear.

I have lived in the Fox Valley (and obviously WI) my entire life. That is longer than Steve Kagen, Andy Williams and Marc Savard. My company is in Kaukauna, WI and has been for over a decade. For two decades prior to that it was on Manitowoc Rd just south of Appleton. That location has been in and out of the 8th district a couple of times depending on gerrymandering. So the location where I sleep at night should not be a concern....

Now, onto the claim about me being prepicked by the GOP. NO ONE FROM THE GOP STATE OFFICE OR NATIONAL OFFICE has encouraged me to run. In fact some of the opposite has occured. They seem to have someone picked and rest assured it is not me. (Even though it should be) So let's put that rumor to rest right now.

Finally, let's discuss the money accusation. Congressman Kagen has raised more money from PACs and special interest groups around the country than you can imagine. If we conservatives are serious about winning we need to approach our friends and supporters wherever they live to help. Would it be nice if I raised all of the funds needed in the 8th? For sure. If anonymous is really concerned he/she should send me a check and it will help. Talk is cheap. Raising funds is hard work.

Almost all of my funds have come from personal business friends of mine through out the US.

Again, you can go read the whole comment, the original post, and Anon's two comments here.

Since I'm relatively new to party politics, I will take Ribble at his word until I find out otherwise with regard to contacts by GOP leadership. This seems like a charge that is thrown about quite a bit these days, and, as such, may or may not have any validity.

I looked at Ribble's fundraising and there's nothing there to be concerned about in my opinion. Raising funds from business contacts is no cause for concern. Raising money from Florida sugar growers when you are on the agriculture committee, is another matter entirely.

It still seems early, but this race may turn out to be very exciting. I hope that all of the candidates work hard to make the primary process as valuable as possible and ultimately to defeat Steve Kagen.

California Thievin'

It appears the citizens of California have decided to go in to the short term money-lending game. Their only customer will be the State of California itself.

Did I say decided? I meant it was decided for them. McArdle:

California has come up with a novel way to close this year's budget gaps: it's increasing withholding from the paychecks of its citizens. No, the government didn't actually increase taxes; it just raised the withholding.

The only reason this is not literally a violation of criminal law is that the government is the perpetrator. As such, the citizens have almost no immediate way to respond.

Don Boudreaux of George Mason University had this to say about the enhanced withholding:

It’s fashionable today to accuse private businesses of being greedy, duplicitous, and larcenous. But no business could get away with such audacious seizures of other people’s property – seizures that governments, such as California’s, are escalating to a dreadful new level.

Resorting to such a scheme to paper over the continuing fiscal disaster that is the California budget is sad and frightening.

Crist Should be the Next to Go

Writing at Forbes, Reihan Salam has a withering critique of Florida Governor Charlie Crist and hits on the thing that, to me at least, lies at the heart of the struggle within the Republican party.

Charlie Crist is an extraordinarily gifted politician, known for his unpretentious and warm demeanor. He might also be America's worst governor. Given that there is a great deal of competition for this dubious honor, that's saying rather a lot....

When Marc Caputo and Steve Bousquet of the Miami Herald asked Crist about the virtues of the [stimulus] plan, he said, "I think it's fantastic. Are you kidding me? We don't have to raise taxes." Moreover, Crist continued, "we might be able to cut property taxes some more. We have more money for education, so we can increase per-student spending. We can spend more money on our roads and infrastructure. We can provide health care for our people. I mean, it's remarkable." Indeed, something is remarkable, namely Crist's rigid adherence to an ideology more pernicious than orthodox progressivism or conservatism or nudism or anarchoprimitivism. I'm referring, of course, to free-lunchism.

This isn't about enforcing orthodoxy, loyalty oaths, or allegiance to Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin.  This is about bad governance, end of story.

Coupling tax cuts and spending increases may have been Republican practice of late, but I don't think its accurate to say that it comports with Republican principles; therefore, opposing it is not wrong.  In fact, opposing such stupidity is imperative.  It's clear that the on the national level the Republican leadership is either unable or unwilling to do so.  The fact that the right-roots has taken up the cause, should come as no surprise.

Salam goes on to chronicle Crist's bad habit of using one-time funds to pay for on-going expenses and federal handouts to prop up his state's real estate market.  Something that Salam refers to as, "public policy as Ponzi scheme."

Anyone interested in what ails the Republicans and the nation more generally, should go read the whole thing.

The debate we ought to be having is between a state that appropriates a larger share of private income in an attempt to provide a larger share of services and a state that lets people keep more of the fruits of their labor and allows the market to provide what people desire.  Republicans though, can't begin to engage in this debate as long as their standard-bearers are addicted to government spending and control.  It's no wonder Democrats make a habit of lauding people like Crist, annointing them as moderates, and crying foul when they are rightfully shunned by Republican activists.

Quieting the tumult within the Republican party is an important step on the path back to power, but putting forth borrow and spend candidates like Crist isn't the way to go about it.

Fools for the Citi

OVER the past 80 years, the United States government has engineered not one, not two, not three, but at least four rescues of the institution now known as Citigroup .

Reports the New York Times. The article has a brief history of the various bailouts, including this eerily familiar item about the 1929 Crash:

Before the crash, industry practice allowed National City not only to underwrite securities but also to employ a sales army to peddle them to depositors. After Congressional hearings determined that this conflict of interest was a major cause of the debacle, lawmakers passed the Glass-Steagall Act, separating activities of commercial banks (which offered plain old savings accounts and loans) from those of investment firms (which trafficked in more highflying endeavors like stock trading and underwriting).

The Glass-Steagall separations were eventually eliminated, but restoring them has become a key part of the discussion over regulatory reform. Our current crisis saw banks like Citi underwriting mortgage-backed securities (those CDO's you hear about), selling them to their customers, and also keeping pieces of some of them on their own books. They often kept the most risky pieces, hence the so-called toxic asset problem (which, if I'm not mistaken, still persists).

While the history lesson is fun, it's not all academic. The current Citi bailout amounts to $45 billion in TARP money, plus $300 billion in FDIC guarantees. Getting this taxpayer money back, or realizing we never will and deciding on how to avoid repeating this mistake, is critical before we turn Ken Burns loose on the documentary of the Great Financial Collapse.