Mindless Philosopher

Short version: I made this coaster out of scrabble tiles. The eight words (across and down) are all obliquely about beverages and/or water.

Long version: I was visiting my brother and his expecting wife recently and part of the weekend was spent at the local fair. While touring the booths, we saw two knick-knacks that caught our collective eye.

The first was a hand-crafted, double-layered puzzle for kids. We discussed how to cut the pieces out of the wood while leaving a border. (I offered that that the puzzle could actually be separate layers glued together, but some challenges to crafting the pieces still remained.)

The second eye-catching ware was a variety of 4-by-4 scrabble-tile coasters. These coasters didn’t actually spell out words across and down; thus, the above challenge was born.

While I was in the midst of figuring out how to fit drink-related words together in a 4×4 grid, my brother and his wife were busy showing me up:

Yep, my bro and sis decided to tackle the double-sided puzzle problem head on. I’m still not sure how they cut the pieces out of the wood while keeping the pieces intact. Whatever the answer, I can definitely say this: Their kid is going to have very cool parents.

Poli sci attracts the kids with world domineering obsessions

Then they quit since its just theory plus multivar regressions

The Web does so much for me; today, I want to give back. First, here’s a music video that I think is astoundingly creative and beautifully executed, and which you may not have seen:

(Thanks to Pandora for introducing me to Lisa Hannigan.)

More to the point of giving back, Pandora introduced me to another song — Beautiful Things by Mary Johnson Rockers — and I had trouble deciphering some of the words. Since Pandora didn’t have the lyrics, I Googled and … nothing. I don’t think I’ve experienced such a blatant Google miss since…2003? After listening several times and successfully Googling for flower names, I think I’ve sleuthed out all the ambiguous phrases. The song can be purchased on Amazon; below are the lyrics — my gift to the Web.

Beautiful Things
by Mary Johnson Rockers

Mary said “Slow down, ease off the gas.
We got some time and we’re gonna make it last.
This afternoon, going nowhere soon.

“The day is exhale.
Got an open road
for the story tellin’.
Got a tale or two
You can listen to(o).”

Oh, beautiful things
Oh woah beautiful things
in this tangled up thicket world

Look for Queen Anne’s lace
in regular places:
Tennessee highways
by the exit ramps.

Look for Black-eye Susans
where they have room to move in
and she knows where the wildflowers bloom.

Well Willy asked Mary for her hand;
And Mary asked the Lord “Should he be my man?
He’s a baptist boy–I’m a good catholic girl.
But oh Lord I love him so;
Give me a sign so I can know.”
And it rang clear and true
in a parking lot on Dixie Avenue.

Oh, beautiful things
Oh woah beautiful things
in this tangled up thicket world.

Look for Queen Anne’s lace
in regular places:
Tennessee highways
by the exit ramps.

Look for Black-eye Susans
where they have room to move in.
And she knows where the wildflowers bloom.

Mary said “Slow down, ease off the gas.
We got some time and we’re gonna make it last.
This afternoon, we’re going nowhere soon.

“Oh, The day is exhale.
Got an open road
for the story tellin’.
Got a few more hours
for the wildflowers.”

Oh, beautiful things
Oh woah beautiful things
in this tangled up thicket world

Look for Queen Anne’s lace
in regular places:
Tennessee highways
by the exit ramps.

Look for Black-eye Susans
where they have room to move in.
And she knows where the wildflowers bloom.
She knows where the wildflowers bloom.

At the Supreme Court this week, the Obama Administration will defend its Health Care Reform Law. I have two pieces of advice for the Solicitor General.

1. State a limiting principle. The Administration has been shockingly blasé about defining exactly why a the health insurance marketplace is unique such that non-participation can be regulated. This led to some scary sentences in the circuit court rulings. From the 11th Circuit:
   

   From a doctrinal standpoint, we see no way to cabin the government’s theory only to decisions not to purchase health insurance. If an individual’s mere decision not to purchase insurance were subject to Wickard’s aggregation principle, we are unable to conceive of any product whose purchase Congress could not mandate under this line of argument….Ultimately, the government’s struggle to articulate cognizable, judicially administrable limiting principles only reiterates the conclusion we reach today: there are none.

   And from the DC Circuit Court:

   The Government concedes the novelty of the mandate and the lack of any doctrinal limiting principles; indeed, at oral argument, the Government could not identify any mandate to purchase a product or service in interstate commerce that would be unconstitutional, at least under the Commerce Clause

   While the Government did “stress that the health care market is factually unique,” I really think the Government should close the door on this attack by doctrinally stating a limiting principle.

2. That limiting principle should not focus on how non-participation “impact[s] the cost of health insurance for other Americans” (Kliff) and “raises rates for everyone else” (Cortez). Nationwide price changes does not make the health care market unique. After all, not buying Broccoli lowers aggregate demand and changes the price for everyone else.

   Rather, health care is unique because you can’t avoid participating. We’ve decided, as a society, that hospitals should treat emergencies first, and ask about insurance second. There’s even an amicus brief filed in this case from Massachusetts hospitals because they process uninsured out-of-state skiers who get into accidents and are cared for by the Bay State’s health services. That phenomenon exemplifies the fact that everyone, whether insured or not, is part of the health care marketplace.

   The same is not true for broccoli, and the government needs to make that clear this week.

   (All that said, the High Court may very well take the view that the mandate is a tax to cover the expense of providing automatic emergency services to everyone — if so, this whole discussion would be moot for the time being. Update: Looks like we’ll find out whether the law stands this year.)

In browsing my Personal WaPo, I came across Ed Roger’s anti-debt rant. I call it a rant because rather than reasoned arguments, he tries to throw big numbers at you ($341,288!) and hope you’re sufficiently outraged. It occurs to me that people like Ed (i.e., his “top 25%” that “owe” that much) probably go into more debt than $341,288 when they buy houses. And if they think that debt load is worth it to live in a good neighborhood, then I think the same load is worth it to keep our country functioning.

His article did succeed in getting me to think more about our debt, specifically how long it will take to pull it down to sustainable levels. No doubt several years. We could hasten that day if the Federal Government could refinance its entire debt at today’s incredibly low rates. Rather than paying people at a 4% rate (that investors locked in back in 2003), could we give creditors some money upfront and start paying them back at the prevailing sub-2% rate? I would much prefer to spend money now, before the bulk of the baby boomers start retiring and save on the interest later when we’ll also have to pay for the boomers’ health care.

Perhaps the Fed did something akin to what I’m suggesting in 2009 to pump money into our then-depressed economy. If so, I can’t find it in this Wikipedia article on the subject; if not, they should now.

The New York Times has a head-turning story about a James Ross, whose “taxable income” rate is 102%. Before you take too much pity on Mr. Ross, I invite you to soak in these sentences:

That doesn’t mean Mr. Ross pays more in taxes than he earns. His total tax as a percentage of his adjusted gross income was 20 percent…

Since the article states that Mr. Ross makes more than $1 million dollars a year, he has at least $800,000 each year to do with what he pleases. The quirk that enables the Times to publish a sensationalist headline is that Mr. Ross takes the bulk that that $800,000+ and pays for items that are deductible for non-millionaires, but not tax deductible for the 1%. Namely, real estate interest payments.

Thus, I take strenuous issue with Mr. Ross’s 102% calculation. He would pay more in taxes than his “taxable income,” if he were allowed to take the usual itemized deductions and reduce his taxable income. But he’s not. Thus his true taxable income (i.e., income that is taxable) is much much greater than his “taxable income” (as defined by his accountants and the NYT) — about 4.6 times greater by my calculations. His truthful tax rate? 21 percent, which is lower than mine. (And I certainly don’t make millions of dollars a year.)

The article also mentions that since interest payments are non tax deductible for the super rich, Mr. Ross has to dip into his savings to pay his taxes. This logic is sound and I believe him, but I would hasten to add that rent, groceries, and prescription drug co-pays are also not tax deductible so I’m guessing that the author of the story, James Stewart, could find many people who need to dip into their savings to pay their taxes — none of whom makes nearly as much as Mr. Ross.

In sum: the system is not broken for Mr. Ross as he pays (what I believe to be) a reasonable amount of his income in taxes — the Times just a wanted a good headline.

Note: Apologies to linking to a non-free story; the free version is available through Google.

As the primary season continues, I wanted to review two of my earlier posts:

• I opined that Romney would place only a “strong second” in Iowa despite his increased effort in the state, a prediction that just barely came to pass. I admit that his strength in the state surprised me.

  I would venture that I was on the mark when I said that Romney would wish “he had the extra money he’s spending [in Iowa] to devote to South Carolina, Florida, and other races down the line.” On the flip side, Romney’s marginal dollar spent does not appear to be producing many votes for him — the debates, rather than paid media, seem to be driving this race. So perhaps Romney lacks not for cash, but for charisma.

• Second, when I wrote that a new candidate could enter the field in late March, I did not realize at all that many state primaries do not include a write-in option. I know South Carolina and Virginia do not afford GOP voters this basic right, but I’m not sure the write-in status of the other states. Since the filing deadlines will be well-passed by late March, this “feature” of the process would be a significant hurdle to the GOP finding a white knight.

If you’re an Arlington Democrat, you can vote this evening in the special primary election for county board. Or, if Saturday is more convenient, voting will be open then as well.

Exact info here.

I think I’ll probably vote for Libby Garvey, but there are several great candidates.

Silver just posted an entry in support of the Romney campaign’s decision to compete in Iowa. I respectfully disagree.

I recommend re-reading Silver’s excellent August piece on Iowa in which he examines the ideology of the Republican primary electorate in various states. Iowa tops the list in terms of conservatism, with self-identified conservatives clocking in at a time-travel-enabling 88%. I don’t think that 88% is going to be too fond of Romney, who has run as the moderate candidate this cycle.

Thus, I don’t think it’s likely that Romney will win Iowa. Coming in a strong second (much more likely) won’t help him much, considering that he’s been a perennial “front-runner” for the past year. And here’s where I completely agree with Silver: “The big problem with losing Iowa is that if you don’t win it, someone else will.”

Romney’s biggest advantage is his war chest. He shouldn’t want a quick, three-primaries-and-done campaign. Let this campaign go to Super Tuesday (March 6), when he can dominate the airwaves and crush his opponent(s).

My bet is that Romney does not win Iowa and wishes he had the extra money he’s spending there to devote to South Carolina, Florida, and other races down the line. Given the volatility of the race, I’m not certain of any of the above, but it’s my reading at the moment.

Nate Silver wrote a recent article explaining how it’s not “too late” for a fresh face to enter the Republican Presidential field. I completely agree with that conclusion but disagree on the timeline Silver proposes. Rather than enter the race early in the delegate-selection process, I think the best chance a new conservative Republican (e.g., Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal) has at capturing the nomination is to enter later in the process, after Mitt Romney has appeared to clear the field.

Silver recommends to the candidate in question (he uses Sarah Palin in his example): “Devote all your attention to Iowa.” I completely disagree — Iowa is where the other conservative candidates, like Perry, Cain, and Bachmann, are spending their resources. Even a celebrity such as Palin would have to fight for attention.

Rather, a much better strategy is to wait for everyone except Mitt Romney to run out of money. Some Republican stalwarts will coalesce around their apparent nominee, but I have no doubt that the far right will experience serious angst. If Romney thinks he has the nomination sewn up, he’ll start moderating his issue positions in preparation for the general, and the Tea Party base will get even more uncomfortable with their new leader. Throw in some gaffes (to which Romney is fairly prone — see “Corporations are people” and OH Issue 2), and even loyal Republicans will start to have buyers remorse.

If you’re Bobby Jindal, you want all of the above to come to fruition by about-mid March. Considering Super Tuesday is March 6th, that timeline is tight, but possible. You then want to enter around March 20th, compete in Louisiana as a write-in on March 24 (how convenient — your home state!), and start filing for the April races (which start April 3rd). If Romney crashed-and-burned as quickly as, say, Rick Perry did, running the table would not be out of the question.

The beauty of the April-June races is that they are all winner-take-all (by rule). If you won all contests post-April 3rd (plus Louisiana), you’d garner 1,110 delegates — just shy of a majority, but possibly more than Romney had gained. (Aside: Perhaps you wouldn’t win Utah on June 26th, but some to-be-scheduled territory nominations might occur after April 1.)

Another quirk in the nominating process that would play to your advantage is that many states do not actually pledge all of their delegates to the person who earned them through the ballot box. Despite being the first state to hold a meaningful caucus, Iowa doesn’t pledge any of its delegates to a specific candidate. In effect, all of Iowa’s delegates are “superdelegates” (a term usually reserved for the Democratic convention). There are 162 unpledged delegates available to any candidate in pre-April contests. Those free-to-chose delegates plus April’s winner-take-all delegates would be more than enough to secure the nomination in Tampa.

There are two main ways this strategy could fail:

• Romney has trouble clearing the field. Perhaps Cain is able to raise more money than the conventional wisdom suggests and he’s able to draw out the process — competing against Perry and Romney through the whole of March or later.

• A conservative candidate (e.g., Perry) consolidates the anti-Romney vote and wins. Thus, there’s no Tea Party backlash and no need for a new conservative candidate to enter.

But neither of those scenarios are destined to occur; I’d say both are fairly unlikely (especially the former). Thus, there are many months to go before the GOP process crosses the Rubicon and the field is truly locked-in.