Category Archives: Money

More on continuing friendship of Haley, Kitzman

I missed this a couple of days ago — a freelance piece, apparently, by Corey Hutchins of the Free Times. It elaborates on a piece about Nikki Haley’s secretive out-of-state fundraising that ran in The State Oct. 11. An excerpt:

Texas Insurance Commissioner Eleanor Kitzman has been on the job less than three months, but it appears she already has an affinity for the pay-to-play political culture of Gov. Rick Perry’s administration.

On Sept. 20, Kitzman headlined a political fund-raiser where she helped tap the insurance industry—the very companies she’s charged with regulating—on behalf of long-time friend and former boss, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, according to a copy of an invitation obtained by The Texas Observer.

The event—held at the corporate headquarters of the auto insurer Ethos Group in Irving, Texas—attracted a number of insurance executives ready to open their checkbooks, according to Gov. Haley’s campaign records. It also included Barry Goldwater Jr., president of a Washington, D.C., consulting firm that represents the insurance industry, according to the invitation. It’s rare for a political appointee—Kitzman was appointed by Perry in late July—to participate in raising campaign money from the industry he or she regulates.

“It stinks. There’s no doubt about it,” says Alex Winslow, director of Texas Watch, a consumer protection watchdog group that has advocated for tighter regulation on the insurance industry in Texas. “It is completely inappropriate for the insurance commissioner to be headlining a fundraiser hosted at an insurance company headquarters.” He likened it to a shakedown operation.

Kitzman didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment. She was out of state on Friday, Oct. 14, according to her assistant, Laverne Chase. When asked where, Chase said, “I’d rather not say.”

The Kitzman event raised money for Haley, but it may have benefited Perry as well.

Haley, the nation’s youngest governor, has yet to make an endorsement in the South Carolina’s critical first-in-the-South presidential primary. She has said that she will. A Haley endorsement would be a major boost for Perry’s sagging presidential campaign. As she ponders it, the insurance commissioner—who Perry appointed just three weeks before launching his presidential bid —is helping make Haley comfortable in the Lone Star state…

Ms. Kitzman just can’t do enough for Nikki Haley, can she?

Duke Endowment gives $11.25 million to HSSC

Jay Moskowitz speaks at the news conference.

I am running through so much stuff today (most of it non-blog) that I don’t have time to say much about this very development, but it’s a big deal, that could lead — among other things — to real-time information being available statewide for doctors and hospitals to better treat their patients.

There was quite a crowd at the announcement, including Commerce Secretary Bobby Hitt (the second of three times I would see him today; he was an active guy, too), and such other luminaries as ex-Spartanburg Mayor Bill Barnet and Minor Shaw President of the Micco Corporation, both members of the Duke Endowment board — as well as board chair L. Neil Williams of Atlanta — to give you an idea of how far people came to celebrate this important investment in health research and implementation in South Carolina:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 19, 2011

Health Sciences South Carolina lands an $11.25M grant from

The Duke Endowment

Major gift can result in health care innovation, boost economy, and translate into healthier citizens in SC.

Leaders from Health Sciences South Carolina (HSSC), The Duke Endowment, and the state gathered in Columbia today to announce significant news for the future of health care in South Carolina. HSSC, a statewide biomedical research collaborative, has been selected to receive a major grant from The Duke Endowment totaling $11.25 million.

“This grant will help us continue to improve health, health care and health research in South Carolina,” said HSSC President and CEO Dr. Jay Moskowitz. “HSSC, through the support of The Duke Endowment, can translate research discoveries into improved delivery and care models and healthier lifestyles that will benefit not only South Carolinians, but all humanity.”
Today’s grant marks the second time that The Duke Endowment has invested in HSSC’s work. In 2006, HSSC received $21 million from The Duke Endowment, the largest grant for a health care initiative in the foundation’s history. As a result of The Duke Endowment grants, HSSC, through research grants and proposals, has brought another $50 million into South Carolina.

“From the beginning, Trustees of The Duke Endowment were impressed with Health Sciences South Carolina’s vision and commitment from its partner organizations to share knowledge and to work together,” said Neil Williams, chair of the Endowment’s Trustees. “Through this new investment, we believe South Carolina has a chance to bolster leading-edge programs and impact pressing health issues. It will help HSSC continue its vital role in making good health possible in South Carolina.”

The Duke Endowment funding will enable HSSC to build on its existing infrastructure and move in a new strategic direction focused both on research and on translating that research into better clinical care in all parts of the state.
For example, the grant will support HSSC in its efforts to continue to build and implement a health care information technology and clinical trials network in South Carolina. The central feature of this effort is a statewide clinical data warehouse, which will compile real-time clinical data from across HSSC’s collaborative hospitals. The statewide IT and clinical trials network not only will make research more efficient, but also will allow medical teams to use clinical data to make evidence-based decisions, resulting in better patient care. In addition, it will help South Carolina attract clinical trials, which can benefit patients and bring economic activity to the state.

Furthermore, the new funding will enable HSSC to improve the pace at which health care quality and patient safety innovations are integrated into practice in South Carolina. By translating research into clinical practice faster, HSSC believes it can significantly improve how some of the state’s most critical chronic diseases, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity, are treated.

While the grant will help HSSC foster research and translate that research into better health care, it also can strengthen South Carolina’s economy by leading to the development of new products, new jobs and new industries. Additionally, with the support of the grant, HSSC can play a role in containing and reducing health care costs in South Carolina.

“In 2004, HSSC set out to develop a health care model that was unique in the U.S. and, through it, to improve the health of all South Carolinians,” Moskowitz said. “Through HSSC’s ongoing initiatives and the support of The Duke Endowment, we are realizing the promise of new treatments, methodologies, tools and discoveries. We believe that this grant, ultimately, will translate into healthier citizens in every part of South Carolina.”

About Health Sciences South Carolina

Established in April 2004, Health Sciences South Carolina (HSSC) is a statewide public-private collaborative of research-intensive universities and major health systems possessing the shared vision of using health sciences research to improve the health, healthcare and economic wellbeing of South Carolina. HSSC includes Clemson University, the Medical University of South Carolina, the University ofSouth Carolina, Greenville Hospital System University Medical Center, Palmetto Health, Spartanburg Regional Healthcare System, McLeod Health, Self Regional Healthcare and AnMed Health.

For more information, visit www.healthsciencessc.org.

About The Duke Endowment

The Duke Endowment, a private foundation in Charlotte, N.C., seeks to fulfill the legacy of James B. Duke by enriching lives and communities in the Carolinas through higher education, health care, rural churches and children’s services. Its founder is the same Duke behind Duke University and Duke Energy, but they are all separate organizations. Since its inception in 1924, the Endowment has awarded nearly $2.8 billion in grants. For more information, visit www.dukeendowment.org.

More than one of the business and research leaders present for the announcement later said it was good to see some of that North Carolina money flowing into South Carolina — particularly since that amount can move the needle here more than it can there.

Obama swamps would-be opponents in fund-raising — in SC, of all places!

Maybe it’s always this way. I don’t recall having looked at fund-raising numbers in quite this way before, at this point, in a campaign shaped like this one. Cindi Scoppe probably has — she compiled The State‘s first campaign-contribution website if I recall correctly. She’s into stuff like that. As for me — well, it’s about money, so MEGO.

But this got my attention:

Rick Perry is the leading Republican presidential fundraiser in South Carolina, and he did most of it on one day in August.

The Texas governor took in $55,000 of the $103,000 that he has raised in South Carolina on Aug. 25. Katon Dawson, who is advising Perry’s S.C. campaign, confirmed Perry held an S.C. fundraiser that day but told a reporter, “I can’t tell you anything about it.”

While languishing in the polls, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania also is popular among S.C. donors. Santorum has raised $80,080 in the state, the second-highest of any Republican candidate, just ahead of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who raised $75,230.

President Barack Obama, a Democrat, actually was the top fundraiser in South Carolina, collecting $238,291. However, Obama is not expected to carry South Carolina, which last went for a Democratic presidential candidate in 1976.

Say what? Repeat that last?

Yeah, I get it. He’s the incumbent. But he raised way over twice as much money as the richest fund-raiser among all GOP candidates, and he raised it in South Carolina — a state he doesn’t have a prayer of winning in 2012. Which is why his bus tour somehow magically appeared in North Carolina on a trip northward without having passed through South Carolina, far as we could tell. (Did you hear his teleprompter got stolen in Virginia?)

He’s raised $238,291 in our state — more than 90 grand of it in Richland County (three times as much as all Republicans combined in the capital city) — and has spent… $2,385 (that’s according to a graphic in The State that I couldn’t find online). Yep, 1 percent.

You realize this makes South Carolina a Democratic Party donor state? So much for Democrats being all about what Washington can send to them… I guess this is payback time, huh?

Who are these rich Columbians? And how come they aren’t buying ads on bradwarthen.com? (If I were still at the paper, I’d get Cindi to go find out for me. I didn’t find names in a cursory Web glance at the data Adam drew his story from. Of course, if I were still at the paper, I wouldn’t get to sell ads and keep the money, so… Anyway, more as I know more. I just wanted to go ahead and get something up on this before the day was out.)

Meanwhile, over on the fiscally conservative side, Jon Huntsman has raised $2,550 here, and spent $277,744 in SC. According to the FEC’s website, which is where Adam’s numbers come from. Michelle Bachmann has raised $23,197 and spent $83,156. Others, such as Perry and Santorum, are staying within their SC-raised means in SC.

All told, if young Adam did his sums right, presidential candidates have raised $382,902  from SC sources and spent $719,276 here. So on the GOP side, SC is a beneficiary of political welfare — which makes sense, we being an earlier-primary state than the places where their money likely came from.

Which depends. For Perry, it’s Texas. For Obama, it’s California and the Northeast. For Romney — well, the map looks kind of the way it does for Obama, except the Republican is getting a larger proportion from Florida. Here’s where you can look all that up. Now you don’t need me. Let me know if you find the names of those donors. Get their contact info…

The USC biomass “travesty”

Hats off to Wayne Washington (and his editor — I always like to remember the editors) for a rather overwhelmingly thorough report today on the mess that is the University of South Carolina’s biomass-to-energy project. An excerpt from the lengthy package in The State today:

On June 28, 2009, an explosion rocked the biomass-fueled power plant on the campus of the University of South Carolina.

The force of the blast sent a metal panel some 60 feet toward the control office of the plant at Whaley and Sumter streets, according to documents obtained from USC by The State newspaper through a Freedom of Information Act request.

No one was hurt, but USC officials were concerned enough about the “potentially lethal accident” that they ordered an independent safety review and, in a strongly worded letter to the company that had built the plant, made it clear that university staff would not be allowed back into the building until the review was completed.

The blast underscored what some USC officials privately grumbled about for years: That the plant has been a $20 million disaster, a money pit that was poorly planned and built by a company that had never constructed such a cutting-edge “green energy” power plant before.

Interviews with USC officials and a spokeswoman for the company as well as a review of more than 1,800 pages of documents show that…

Rich material for a discussion. Here’s how it is likely to go, although I look forward to unanticipated variations:

Some of you: Yet another example of USC wasting time and money on unproven, pie-in-the-sky energy alternatives and leaving us in a financial hole with little or nothing to show.

Others of you: What a classic case of the private sector not delivering — a Fortune 500 company that takes millions from a  public institution and doesn’t get the job done…

To me, the whole mess is too complex for simple conclusions, but here’s a stab: Some USC officials under the last administration made an unwise, expensive deal, while at the same time trying to insulate us from loss by getting the company to guarantee savings. Then after that, everything went wrong.

But tell me what y’all think.

I don’t know WHAT I think about the ‘Chinese currency manipulation’ thing. You?

I don’t know what I think about the issue that Lindsey Graham keeps going on about:

Graham Responds to Chinese Government Criticism of Senate on Vote over Currency Manipulation

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) made this statement in response to criticism from the Chinese government’s Central Bank, Foreign Ministry and Ministry of Commerce over Senate legislation to crack down on Chinese currency manipulation. (Articles below.)

Last night, the Senate voted to proceed to debate on legislation cracking down on Chinese currency manipulation.  The procedural vote was 79-19.  The Senate continues to debate the legislation today.

Graham said:

“China’s threats to the United States Senate should fall on deaf ears.  We should be examining their business practices, not their rhetoric.  China should be rewarded and engaged when they play fair and we should push back when they continue to cheat.

“The Chinese government’s criticism of our efforts to bring about long-overdue currency reform is ill-advised.  We all want a healthy trading relationship with China, but their business practices – from intellectual property theft to currency manipulation, has created an unhealthy business relationship.

“China’s pegging of the yuan to the dollar and keeping it consistently undervalued continues to create a competitive advantage for the Chinese.  China has too big of an economy to allow them to continue creating an unfair trade advantage.  Chinese currency manipulation has resulted in 2 million jobs being lost in the United States and over 40,000 in South Carolina.  China must stop cheating.”

#####

How would I know? Like I’m an international currency expert or something.

I know what my gut reaction is — to be mad at the Chinese for being all unfair to us and everything. But what does my gut know about fair currency policy?

From what I hear, what they do is fairly standard practice for developing economies. And they DO have a developing economy — a humongous, planet-eating developing economy, but still…

That’s it. I just exhausted by expertise on this.

Fan suggests Spurrier take pay cut for Saturday

I mentioned breakfast at the Cap City Club back on my last post, which reminds me… Some of the guys at the regular round table this morning were talking about the Gamecocks-Auburn thing on Saturday, and one of them said, “I didn’t see any football over the weekend.”

What he meant was, he was there at Williams-Brice. He just didn’t see any football.

He’s not bitter or anything. He blames Coach Steve Spurrier for it, but he’s willing to forgive — if the Old Ball Coach will take a 1/12th cut in his pay for that one.

Intriguing. Since his salary is $2.8 million, that would mean a reduction of … $233,333.33.

Someone else at the table suggested that he could donate the amount to academics.

I am neither endorsing nor rejecting the idea. It’s one thing to deal in political controversy here on the blog without making suggestions about other people’s religion.

As for the rest of you… discuss.

Welcome new advertiser Palmetto Citizens FCU!

When I first went to work at The State in 1987, I immediately opened an account with the newspaper’s credit union. In our old building there in the shadow of Williams-Brice Stadium (it now houses part of S.C. ETV) it was located in what I remember as practically a closet in the Human Resources department — a cubby behind a sliding glass door and curtain.

Perhaps my memory exaggerates. In any case, it was small. But it wasn’t there for long. The company credit union soon merged with Columbia Teachers Federal Credit Union — which had been formed in 1936 when 10 individuals all chipped in $5 apiece. Columbia Teachers opened a branch just down the street from us near the intersection of Shop and George Rogers (or is it Assembly there? hard to tell), and put an ATM in the basement of our building.

By this time, the credit union had expanded well beyond just Columbia teachers, and in 2001 changed its name to Palmetto Citizens Federal Credit Union.

They’ve still got my money — what there is of it — including the account where I put revenues from the blog. Which will, for the next year, include payments from the credit union itself, for the ad you see at right. Which has a neat sort of circularity to it…

In any case, I’m pleased and proud to welcome a very fine community organization, Palmetto Citizens Federal Credit Union, to bradwarthen.com.

USA Today plays up SC lawmaker pensions

Cindi Scoppe just got a little help.

For years, Cindi has been writing at least annually about the outrageous pensions that SC lawmakers give themselves. She just got some reinforcement in that crusade, with a front-page story in USA Today, which begins:

At age 55, South Carolina state Sen. David Thomas began collecting a pension for his legislative service without leaving office.

Most workers must retire from their jobs before getting retirement benefits. But Thomas used a one-sentence law that he and his colleagues passed in 2002 to let legislators receive a taxpayer-funded pension instead of a salary after serving for 30 years.

Thomas’ $32,390 annual retirement benefit — paid for the rest of his life — is more than triple the $10,400 salary he gave up. His pension exceeds the salary because of another perk: Lawmakers voted to count their expenses in the salary used to calculate their pensions.

No other South Carolina state workers get those perks.

Since January 2005, Thomas, a Republican, has made $148,435 more than a legislative salary would have paid, his financial-disclosure records show. At least four other South Carolina lawmakers are getting pensions instead of salaries, netting an extra $292,000 since 2005, records show.

And so forth and so on.

Increasingly, national media are discovering just how wild and wacky South Carolina is. On the one hand, it’s embarrassing. On the other, it’s nice to get the attention.

Who knows? Maybe the added exposure will help here at home. After all, last year, laudatory national coverage got Nikki Haley elected governor.

Expect Cindi to write about it more.

USC athletic director’s message to Rotary today

USC Athletic Director Eric Hyman spoke to the Columbia Rotary Club today. Eric’s a smart guy with a big job, but since I’m not much of a sports fan a lot of what he said went right by me. But this jumped out, and I shared it on Twitter:

Eric Hyman, USC athletic director, tells Columbia Rotary, “We do not get any state money.” He adds, “We. Do. Not. Get. Any. State. Money.”

Yeah, you knew that. I knew it, too. But it’s worth repeating, because a lot of people don’t know it. I’ve already heard from one on Twitter. She was incredulous. (Did I already say “incredulous” once today? Seems like it. Good word; don’t want to overuse it.)

Knowing that is one reason why I don’t write all that much about the Gamecocks here. If I thought it was costing us money, I’d go ahead and fight the tide and say we have better things to spend the money on. But since that’s not the case, since this a case of misplaced public priorities, I have few opinions to express. And since I know Gamecock success actually does boost the local economy, I’ll say “Go Cocks!”

I don’t have to understand why so many people are so football-crazy. I just have to acknowledge the fact.

By the way, there were some other interesting facts that Mr. Hyman threw out: that football generates 70 percent of the athletic revenue, that basketball generates 18 percent, that baseball (while he is deeply, deeply appreciative of our back-to-back national champs) is actually “expensive.”

At least, I think he said those things. The only thing I wrote down (and I had to borrow a pen to do it, having left mine at the office) was the above quote.

Madness has taken hold of Netflix

Did you get an email this morning from Reed Hastings, head honcho at Netflix? I did. Here’s an extended version of it on a Netflix blog. I am spared the trouble of writing a full response, because an NPR blog has spoken for me:

Netflix has figured out that people are very upset about its decision to split streaming video and DVD delivery — a decision that got it in huge hot water earlier this year. Customers who had previously gotten both streaming and DVDs for a single price would now have to pay separately. If you only use one or the other, you could pay less, but if you still wanted both, you’d pay more.

The Netflix response? Separate the businesses even more. In a new blog post, Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings explains that for some reason, he has concluded that separating the businesses completely is going to help people understand what’s going on. Thus, Netflix will not send DVDs at all anymore but will only provide streaming, while the company’s DVD business will happen under the new “Qwikster” brand.

Hastings seems to be operating under the premise that customers don’t really understand what’s going on; that they are angry because they think that a single business has increased its price when in fact it has merely split into two businesses that charge separately. Presumably, the idea is that making the split more definitive will make people slap their foreheads and say, “Oh, now I see. Netflix actually lowered its prices, as long as I don’t buy Qwikster! And new Qwikster is cheaper than old Netflix! I’m coming out ahead, sort of, if I don’t want all the services I used to get!”

The only problems with this approach are that its underlying assumptions are almost certainly wrong, and that it ignores major inefficiencies that will be introduced for customers who do, indeed, want to continue to use both streaming and DVDs. Now, if you want both, you have to go to two different sites with two different queues, you have to pay two different charges to two different entities, and in general, you have to have two different memberships. That’s not psychologically better for consumers. That’s buying two things which are both less helpful than the single thing you could get before.

It’s like a shoe company deciding to sell right shoes and left shoes for 12 dollars each where pairs of shoes used to be 20 dollars and thinking that consumers will notice the lower 12-dollar price but not the fact that it buys only one shoe….

Good response, and I hope NPR will forgive me for quoting it so extensively (please go to NPR and fully experience its services).

Lemme ‘splain somethin’ to you, Mr. Hastings: Neither your DVD service nor your streaming service stands alone; they are complementary. OK, so maybe the DVD service is complete in its way, as a fine service if this were the year 2001. But you and I know (or think we know) that Web streaming is the way the business is going to go, so if you are survive you have to get into that business big. Which you have done.

But here’s the critical point you’re missing: Your streaming business (which you laughably call “instant”) does NOT stand alone. It is not complete. Perhaps you’ve noticed that you are unable to get permission to stream most popular, recent titles. Therefore if your customers want a full service that will provide them with a full selection of the movies and TV shows they want to see, they have to supplement their streaming with DVDs. Which you seemed to get until, quite suddenly, recently.

If I weren’t so dependent on you, I’d drop your service now. But I got rid of my cable (or all of it except local stations, which almost amounts to the same thing), so almost all of the video content I ever watch now comes from you. It’s not the added cost, although that’s not pleasant (I dropped the cable because you were such an economical alternative). It’s the way you’ve done this.

I used to think that Netflix was a company that knew what its customers wanted. Not so much now.

… But the Repubs have better production values

Now we see what Ron Paul’s doing with all of that money. Or some of it, anyway.

He certainly has been able to afford better production quality than what the Democrats are churning out. Here’s what Politico had to say about Rep. Paul’s attack on his fellow Texan:

EXCLUSIVE — NEW PAUL AD HANGS AL GORE ON PERRY — Ron Paul takes the fight to Rick Perry today, releasing a new 60-second TV ad hammering Perry for supporting the Democrat’s 1988 presidential campaign. From the script of the ad, backed by a six-figure buy, which Paul’s camp is trying to place during Wednesday’s debate: “The establishment called him extreme and unelectable, they said he was the wrong man for the job. It’s why a young Texan named Ron Paul was one of only four congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan’s campaign for president…After Reagan, Senator Al Gore ran for president, pledging to raise taxes and increase spending, pushing his liberal values. And Al Gore found a cheerleader in Texas named Rick Perry.” See the ad: http://youtu.be/kUHlIPJTMIg

Apparently he couldn’t find actual video footage from Perry’s Gore days. Neither could I, at least on YouTube. Has anyone seen any?

Not that it matters to me. But it could certainly matter to those Tea Partiers.

No, James, you’re not a bit sorry to say it

Yet another of these stir-’em-up fund-raising notes that I get (two or three times a day, it seems) from the Democrats.  This one is ostensibly from James Carville:

Brad —

I’m sorry but these Tea Partyin’ fools in Congress have got to go.

They’re trying to gut the New Deal, attack workers, and end Medicare. But when it comes to tax breaks for their billionaire and Big Oil buddies, it’s hands off.

The Republicans may have Karl Rove’s secret donors and the Tea Party ditto-heads on their side but we’ve got committed grassroots folks like you to help get out the truth.

And boy do we need you right now. Democrats’ campaign to kick the Tea Party right outta Congress is just $38,701 short of their $500,000 goal before the August FEC deadline hits in 24 hours.

Contribute $3 or more today and your gift will be matched dollar-for-dollar by a group of House Democrats.

The media and pundits will use our grassroots fundraising totals to judge our will to call out the GOP on their hypocrisy and lies — so I’m asking you to act right now.

Every dollar you give goes right back out the door to help take the fight right to Republicans on their home turf with targeted advertising, grassroots organizing, and rapid response research.

Give today and help Democrats stand strong at this critical deadline.

James Carville

“I’m sorry?” No, James, you’re not a bit sorry. You’re happy to say it, and you’d be thrilled if it turned out to be true. Just as I’d be happy to stop getting so many of these emails.

No Starbucks for you! (Or at least, no Starbucks money)

A screen grab from an official Starbucks video...

Perhaps that headline was a bit too alarmist. Because that would be TOO cruel — cutting anyone off from the black nectar. But to politicians, if not to normal people, being cut off from the cash flow would be as bad as losing the coffee itself. Because, you know, their priorities are seriously out of whack.

Thanks to Steven for reminding me of this item I meant to post a day or two ago (it was first brought to my attention by ADCO’s Lanier Jones:

Starbucks CEO to DC: You’ve been cut off

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is fed up with Washington.

And he is doing something about it.

Spurred by what he describes as a failure of leadership on the part of lawmakers, Schultz is mounting a one-man bull rush against apolitical culture that has “chosen to put partisan and ideological purity over the well being of the people.”

What does that mean? No more political donations — not for anybody.

And he’s recruiting other CEOs to join him…

If only Starbucks could run Washington. It would, at the very least, smell much nicer. And imagine if we could address the nation’s problems in the efficient, pragmatic way in which baristas fill orders. I’d want to hang out in Washington all the time. And then, and then… we could open more Starbucks governments in the state capitals! And so forth…

Why hasn’t the Coffee Party been pursuing this idea? Must the UnParty do everything?

This ultimate libertarian fantasy could make super-gory Reality TV — IF they’d allow the cameras

I'm picturing sawed-off shotguns -- but no federal marshals like Sean Connery to stop you from using them as you like!

Bart had to know he was going to set me off on a laugh-fest when he shared this:

Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.

Thiel has been a big backer of the Seasteading Institute, which seeks to build sovereign nations on oil rig-like platforms to occupy waters beyond the reach of law-of-the-sea treaties. The idea is for these countries to start from scratch–free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place. Details says the experiment would be “a kind of floating petri dish for implementing policies that libertarians, stymied by indifference at the voting booths, have been unable to advance: no welfare, looser building codes, no minimum wage, and few restrictions on weapons.”

Wowee. If you want to read the whole story, here’s where Bart got it. And here’s where they got it.

the part that really cracked me up about this particular libertarian fantasy is where they envision “looser building codes.”

You’re going to be living on, essentially, an oil platform — an extremely physically limited space — in the middle of the ocean? You’d better have the strictest building codes in the history of the world. In fact, while you’ve got me going — “building”? Really? You’re saying that these Überflakes would be able to take it into their heads to build new structures, according to the whims of each Ayn Randian individual, in a shared space that exists on the oceanic equivalent of the head of a pin?!?!?

For the engineering even to be feasible, you’d have to design the whole sovereign city-state all in advance, on shore. I’m talking physics here, not political philosophy. Sure, you could allow for expansion, but only within the context of the original design, or the whole thing would become untenable. A desert island, maybe — if it’s really huge, so these cranky individualists can spread out and not get on each others’ nerves. But on one of these tiny things? Really? You mean, somebody thought about this for more than five seconds, and is still considering it? And this guy gave them a million and a quarter?

But yeah, let’s roll with this! Go ahead and eliminate building restrictions entirely! Stick planks out over the edge like on a pirate ship and put condominiums on them! Who’s to stop you?

Combine that with the “few restrictions on weapons,” and these few individuals should be able to make a lot of money in the Reality TV market by putting cameras in every nook and cranny (if they can suppress their strong libertarian prejudices against such things — which I think they could for enough moolah, which libertarians crave). As entertainment, it would rival anything the Roman Colosseum ever dreamed up. And it would be perfectly legal! No one could say thee nay?

Imagine it, those of you who have actually been paying attention to the way humans behave in reality. Surely we’ve all encountered the phenomenon of neighbors suing each other over minor infractions of the neighborhood covenant. The ill will gets to bad that people move away from their dream homes. Imagine the tensions in this super-tight space — no rolling lawns to act as a buffer — with “looser building codes” and everyone packing an arsenal!

Sawed-off shotguns. That would be my weapon of choice in such tight quarters.

Anybody ever see “Outland,” with Sean Connery? It’s “High Noon” transferred to a mining colony on one of the moons of Jupiter. No ray guns, but sawed-off shotguns. (That was the touch that made the movie.) Awesome.

That’s what a Seastead would be like, as envisioned. Only without the federal marshal, which was Sean Connery’s role (and don’t ask me how a Scot got to be a federal marshal — it’s the future!). I suspect Thiel knew all this when he gave them the money. It’s pocket change to him, and maybe he thinks it would be fun to watch.

Oh, no! I appear to be part of a trend…

Tim brings this to my attention:

NEW YORK (AP) — The weak economy is hitting Americans where they spend a lot of their free time: at the TV set.

They’re canceling or forgoing cable and satellite TV subscriptions in record numbers, according to an analysis by The Associated Press of the companies’ quarterly earnings reports.

The U.S. subscription-TV industry first showed a small net loss of subscribers a year ago. This year, that trickle has turned into a stream. The chief cause appears to be persistently high unemployment and a housing market that has many people living with their parents, reducing the need for a separate cable bill.

But it’s also possible that people are canceling cable, or never signing up in the first place, because they’re watching cheap Internet video. Such a threat has been hanging over the industry. If that’s the case, viewers can expect more restrictions on online video, as TV companies and Hollywood studios try to make sure that they get paid for what they produce…

Tim was sympathetic in his comment about it, saying, “Don’t you hate it when you feel like just part of a trend?”

Yes, I do. Makes me feel… common. Low. Might as well start watching “reality TV” on my few remaining channels. That appears to be about all those channels show, anyway.

For the record, I have NOT moved home with my parents — yet. But I am one of those who is watching cheap Internet video instead of cable. I’m halfway through the first season of “Lost” on Netflix so far. The HD picture is awesome. “Lost” is… well, about like I thought “Lost” would be. I am not what you’d call enraptured. But at least I’m finding out what all the fuss was about. Sort of.

Way to go, guys: You made the Top Ten!

This just recently in from The Wall Street Journal:

Today’s rout ranks as the sixth-largest point drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average in history. Here is a list of the top 10:

Date and decline

9/29/2008 — 777.68 points

10/15/2008  — 733.08 points

9/17/2001 — 684.81 points

12/1/2008 — 679.95 points

8/8/2011 — 634.76 points

4/14/2000 –617.78 points

10/27/1997 — 554.27 points

10/22/2008 — 514.45 points

8/4/2011 — 512.76 points

I just want everybody involved in this achievement to get credit. So when I say, “Way to go, guys,” I’m including everyone. The SC5 and their spiritual brethren, of course — couldn’t have done it without you. No one played a bigger immediate role in recent days. But let’s have a big hand for Speaker Boehner and the Establishment crowd, for not standing up to them and keeping their caucus in line. And to President Obama for, I don’t know, for failing to magically make people come to the table. Or for the stimulus that didn’t help enough. Or whatever. And W. for creating the new prescription drug benefit without paying for it. And LBJ, I guess, for giving him the idea by creating Medicare.

And let’s not neglect the private sector, the engine of America’s lack of prosperity: There are, of course, all those scared-of-their-shadow investors. And all the corporations and others who have been sitting on cash and refusing to take the risk of investing it throughout this four-year crisis. And the American consumer for failing since 2008 to keep the economy afloat by spending like it’s going out of style, the way they did for the few years before that. (I did MY part, right up until this past weekend.)

Everybody give everybody a great big hand…

Tell Navin I’m not “somebody” any more

Somebody tell Navin Johnson I just fell off the grid. I’m guessing I’m not a real person any more, because I no longer have a landline.

On Saturday, we called AT&T and dropped our home phone service AND more than 90 percent of our cable TV. We had just recently signed up for Uverse, and it included three months free HBO and several other services, and I was watching a LOT of HDTV. Too much.

I won’t be doing that anymore. Now, we have the local broadcast channels (which I almost never watch), and a few random junk channels. There’s no HD (and I can hardly bear to watch standard def anymore), no 24-hour news channels, and no sports. The latter two aren’t much of a loss for me. I recently discovered I will watch sports in HD, when I didn’t before, just for the spectacle — about as clear a case of the medium being the message as one is likely to find. And y’all know how I hate 24/7 TV “news.”

What does get to me is losing all the movie channels. The things I tended to watch the most were American Movie Classics (“Mad Men!” — which I won’t get to see at all now!), Turner Classic Movies, TBS and TNT — along with FX and a few others. And the HBO selections were pretty dazzling. Since we signed up for AT&T last month (after dropping Time Warner), I had spent a LOT of time on HBO. When I wasn’t watching a movie, I was recording one, or two, or three, on the DVR.

But part of the point here was that I was spending too much time on TV, period. I’ve got shelves of books I want to read and haven’t touched. I need to get to them. What has worried me lately is that I didn’t even want to get to them, as much as I should. Sure sign of brain rot.

What else did we give up? The phone number we’ve had since moving to Columbia in 1987. The one our kids had growing up. The one that was the reference point for so many different kinds of accounts all over town. I’m bracing myself for the first situation in which someone is calling up my account and says “What’s your home phone number?” And I have to say I don’t have one. (I also worry that someone might NEED to reach me, and has no way of finding me other than through published listings.) Now, I realize that’s not any kind of deal to my kids or their contemporaries. None of them live at home, and not one of them has a land line. But a land line — as irritating as it was, since nothing came in on it but telemarketers — was one of those things that said you were a grownup, you were rooted, you were established. I think that’s why so many people who HATE answering their land lines on the rare occasions when they ring still pay that monthly bill. Not doing so would make them feel — insubstantial, ethereal, not really there.

But NOT paying a bill for something I wasn’t using just didn’t seem a smart option anymore, so we pulled the trigger on the service.

There were a number of factors in the decision:

  • Too much TV. The temptation to watch it was too great. I was losing sleep staying up watching it — that happens when what you’re into is movies.
  • I was paying for Netflix, and wasn’t watching it at all any more. And didn’t want to give that up. And since I still have the Internet, I can still stream that, and that provides more TV than I’ll ever need.
  • The upcoming deadline for dropping the AT&T service without penalty. We had 30 days since we signed up, and about a week left of that. So a decision needed to be made.
  • The S&P downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. OK, that’s an oversimplification, but that was sort of the last straw. It was really a) our failure really to recover from the 2008 crash; b) my getting laid off in 2009; c) the fact that, after a reasonably encouraging start, it seems harder to sell ads on my blog, which beyond the way it hurts my bank account, is indicative to me of people being tighter and tighter with their money; d) the political failure to come to grips with debt last week, and knowing that even if we had, it would have meant cutting more spending and raising taxes, which both tend to cool the economy; e) the turmoil in markets Thursday and Friday, which to me reflected less the usual fact that traders are feckless, fearful jitterbugs, and more the larger situation; f) the debt crisis in Europe and its long-term implications; and g) the downgrading of the credit rating. I didn’t figure any of us was going to be making any more money anytime soon, so spending all this on HD movies (as cool as they are) and telemarketing calls was ridiculous.

As you can see, it takes a lot to make me give up my HD.

I got up Saturday morning thinking that if we were going to move before the AT&T deadline, we had to move soon. And then, right after writing this post about the S&P thing, I told my wife I thought we needed to do it. She got on the phone immediately, because as far as she was concerned, we just had all that stuff for me, anyway.

Here’s the really bad news in all this: You know how much I saved? About $64 a month. That’s all. Which is why so few people actually take this step. Our bundle — high-speed Internet, phone, TV — was $150 a month. You would think you could get Internet service and the local broadcast channels (which is probably about 5 percent of what I was getting) pretty cheap, right? But the new total is $86. My wife — who writes the checks at our house — is pleased with that. I am not. I feel like I’ve given up so much, they should probably be paying ME for the loss.

But I guess that’s not realistic.

What it cost me to go to college in 1973-74

I’m going through some old boxes of stuff, and ran across a wallet I carried in my college days. I scanned for you three of the items I found in it.

The first, above, shows what I paid for a semester at Memphis State University on Jan. 14, 1974. As you can see, the total cost for 16 credit hours — as usual, crammed with journalism classes I had to take, history and English classes I didn’t have to take but wanted to, and some PE to force me to get some exercise — was $174.00.

That’s one HUNDRED — not even thousand — and seventy-four dollars.

Me, at about that time.

Below, I include a receipt for my room and board for the previous semester — $235. This was not for a regular dorm. This was for a room in a private dorm, right on the edge of campus. Few people actually stayed on campus at Memphis State; it was a huge commuter school (a lot of people called it “Tiger High” because people just continued on there from high school without leaving their parents’ homes). Housing was such a low priority there that there were a lot of us who couldn’t find official campus dorm space at all, but who were willing to pay private rates (that is to say, my parents were willing to pay) for the experience of staying there.

Central Towers was two 10-story towers with the boys on one side and girls on the other, although the procedures were keeping us apart were not what you would call stringent. Making this an even more fun community was the fact that the dorm would periodically throw FREE beer busts with no limit. Enough said about that.

And all of that, including pretty decent food, cost $235 a semester.

Just for fun, I’ve included a ticket stub, also from that wallet, from when my then-fiancee and I went to see Elvis — Presley, not  Costello — on March 16, 1974. It was one of seven shows in a row he did at the Mid-South Coliseum. It was originally going to be fewer than that, but the hometown demand was so great they kept adding shows. It was the first time he had performed publicly in Memphis since 1961, and almost the last time ever.

I don’t know how much it cost, but in those days it was almost certainly less than $10. The usual price I remember paying for concerts then (Bob Dylan with The Band, Leon Russell, Joe Cocker, Joan Baez and the like) was $5.

Well, that’s good to hear — sorta, kinda

Just got this from the state Treasurer:

CREDIT RATING AGENCY MOODY’S REAFFIRMS SOUTH CAROLINA’S AAA CREDIT RATING

Rating agency’s negative outlook for US economy could impact South Carolina

(Columbia, SC) – State Treasurer Curtis Loftis issued the following statement in response to the action taken by credit rating agency Moody’s, who has reaffirmed South Carolina’s AAA credit rating but added a negative outlook similar to that given to the federal government.

“South Carolina has AAA credit for a reason,” Treasurer Loftis said.  “We live within our means and are constantly guided by sound financial principles. The negative outlook for the federal government has spilled over to the states and is a wake-up call that government must not spend more than it has.  The State Treasurer’s Office is monitoring this situation and is in constant contact with the rating agencies.”

South Carolina’s AAA credit rating means it costs less to borrow money for things taxpayers depend on like schools, roads and bridges.

Moody’s Investors Service will be conducting a credit review of select states including South Carolina within the next 90 days.  According to Moody’s, in order for South Carolina to earn a stable outlook, the state must maintain credit quality higher than that of the federal government in the event the U. S. government credit would be downgraded.

“The bottom line is simple: the action by Congress and the President causes uncertainty in the business community,” Treasurer Loftis said.  “We must demand fiscal conservatism and transparency from Washington.  South Carolina is doing its part and I ask D. C. to do the same.”

South Carolina, along with Maryland, New Mexico, Tennessee and the Commonwealth of Virginia, are the five states Moody’s confirmed AAA with negative outlooks with ratings indirectly linked to the U. S. government.  Those five states have a combined $24 billion of outstanding debt.

WEB/TV/RADIO: Click Here for a downloadable soundbite (.mpg) of the Treasurer on the debt issue.

###

Well, that’s good to hear. Because I was worried about the credit agencies not being pleased with the debt deal signed earlier in the week. (Hey, neither I nor anyone else was happy with it; why should they be?)

All along, the word had been that the credit rating was endangered less by the debt ceiling deadline, and more by the failure of the gummint to come to terms with the deficit. Which they still haven’t done, of course. But let’s embrace whatever good news we can get.

Yo, and stock markets… Please settle down, as I said this morning:

So calm down, already! Stock market, this means you: “@nytimes: NYT NEWS ALERT: U.S. Economy Added 117,000 Jobs in July; Rate Falls to 9.1%”

What am I supposed to do with these token things? Play video games?

Just spent the whole day at the Renewable Energy Conference at the convention center. It was interesting, and huge — loads of people there — and I’m not going to write about it right now because there was just too much to take in. Maybe later.

What I’m going to write about is these two Ulysses S. Grant coins that came into my possession, suddenly and without warning.

The free parking lot was full at the convention center — not only was this conference well-attended, but the bar exam was being given downstairs. So I had to park in the city’s for-pay parking garage across the street, attached to the Hilton. When the conference ended a little after 4, I paused to chat with Rep. James Smith, who had come in for a free beer at the post-conference reception (hey, I call ’em like I see ’em, James), then I headed for the parking garage, where I find myself in a horde of wrung-out would-be lawyers who had just finished the biggest exam of their lives. I told them they have my sympathy, because as one of them pointed out, “Now the waiting begins.” I lived through that with my daughter.

I’m giving you too much detail, right? Well, that’s because I haven’t blogged all day.

So I get to the parking garage, and have to wait in a crawling line to get out, and then I pull up to the machine, stick in my ticket, and it tells me I have to cough up $8 or I’m not going anywhere (which kind of makes me think, as I type this, I would have been better off parking on the street and getting a $7 ticket). So I feed in two fives, and then I notice that the change dispenser is coin-sized. I just had time to think, “Does that mean they’re going to give me dollar coins?,” when the two objects above fell out.

These are the first I’ve seen. I think. Maybe I saw one of the Washington ones, and thought it was a funny-looking quarter. I was right away puzzled that these had Ulysses S. Grant on them. We’re to Grant already? I mean, I would think it would take longer than this if we were going chronologically, and if we’re going by favorites or something, I’m not sure Grant would even make most people’s list. Great general, lousy president.

In any case, what really strikes me is how phony and illegitimate these things look — I mean, aside from the fact that, like their Women’s History predecessors, they are about the size of quarters. They’re made of chintzy material and look really cheap. I could be wrong about this, because I don’t have any handy to compare, but I think the tokens you get for playing video games at the arcade at Garden City are heavier and look like they’re made from a higher-quality metal.

And that’s what these look like — cheap tokens. Like those aluminum medallions you used to get, also at the arcade, from a machine that would stamp your name on them.

But apparently, they are NOT cheap, at least not to us, the taxpayers. I heard a report on NPR a couple of days back that made these things sound like a bad deal indeed. Check this out:

Try to imagine over a billion $1 coins sitting in government vaults unused, a billion. Now, add to that pile about 200 million more dollar coins every year, wasting space and taxpayer money. That’s the finding of an NPR investigation.

David Kestenbaum with our Planet Money team joins me to talk about it.

And, David, let’s picture this: a billion dollar coins. Why aren’t they being used, and why does the U.S. government keep making them?

DAVID KESTENBAUM: It’s all due to a law that Congress passed in 2005. And the hope was that people would get excited about using dollar coins instead of dollar bills. The idea was we’re going to mint a new series of dollar coins. We’re going to put the faces of all the presidents on them. But it didn’t really catch on, and the law says you have to do all the presidents. So we’re busy marching our way down the list. We’re at Ulysses S. Grant so far, which means there’s still a long way to go.

And because the program is not catching on – it turns out the economy doesn’t need all the coins that get made – so some end up in the vault that way. The other reason coins are piling up is this clause in the bill that requires the minting of millions of those Sacagawea coins, a previous attempt at the dollar coin, and even though we already have way more of those than anyone wants.

We’ve estimated the government is wasting about $300 million so far making all these coins that no one wants…

It gets worse. Check this followup:

DAVID KESTENBAUM: One strange twist to the story was that some people had been using the Mint’s dollar coin mail order program to get free frequent flyer miles. Tim Brooks just got back from a trip to Hawaii, all on miles, thanks in part, to the U.S. Mint.

Mr. TIM BROOKS: The round-trip flights for me, my wife, and my son, four nights in Maui in a condo, and then the inner-island flights between Maui and Kauai, five nights in Kauai at a condo, and then two nights at one of the nicest hotels on the island there.

KESTENBAUM: You just order the coins with one of those credit cards that gives frequent flyer miles. The mint pays for shipping and when the coins arrived, you could just deposit the coins and use the money to pay off your credit card. Free frequent flyer miles. Brooks said he tries to spend the coins he gets.

On Friday, the mint announced it would no longer allow people to order coins with credit cards. Tom Jurkowsky, a spokesman for the mint, said it’s clear some people are just depositing the coins at the bank.

Mr. TOM JURKOWSKY (Spokesman, U.S. Mint): While this is not illegal, it’s a clear abuse and a misuse of the program.

KESTENBAUM: Jurkowsky said the program was intended for collectors or small businesses: car washes, laundry mats, or regional banks. The mint did try to address the frequent flyer problem a couple of years ago, he says, by limiting the number of coins people could order.

Mr. JURKOWSKY: We felt that that would solve the issue, and it obviously didn’t, and this should do it.

At least Tim Brooks had found a use for the things.

So anyway, they plugged that loophole that was encouraging abuse. But the coins are still being made, and still piling up. NPR went on to speak with a lawmaker who is trying to do something about it:

KESTENBAUM: The Mint has sent out 284 million dollar coins through the mail since the program began. The reason the mint has been trying so hard to get the coins out there, and the reason so many coins are piling up, is the law Congress passed in 2005: the Presidential Dollar Coin Act. The way the law is written, it basically forces the Federal Reserve and the Mint to make more coins than the economy needs. Representative Jackie Speier, Democrat from California, has introduced a bill to fix the program. The best way to fix it she says, by killing it.

Representative JACKIE SPEIER (Democrat, California): It was a grand experiment. It didn’t work, so it’s time to accept that fact and move on.

KESTENBAUM: You’re a Democrat. This would mean that the government would never make FDR coins or coins with Kennedy on them.

Representative SPEIER: Well, as painful as that is, the fact of the matter is that most of those coins would sit in vaults across this country.

KESTENBAUM: Speier says she’s only seen a presidential dollar coin in circulation once or twice.

Representative SPEIER: I only recall, vaguely, having this coin in my hand one day, thinking is this really a quarter, and then trying to use it in a meter — a parking meter — and finding out, not only didn’t it give me 25 cents worth of time, it gave me nothing.

I like that anecdote at the end. What are we supposed to do with them?

Don’t get me wrong. I think we should go to dollar coins. We just can’t seem to make any that anyone has any use for.

I thought it was awesome being able to use one and two-pound coins for all small transactions when I was in England. And they were good-looking coins, with a nice heft to them. The one-pounders aged well, taking on a nice, dull nickel-like finish over time that felt comfortable and reliable. They were coins you could respect. They didn’t look like they were recycled from Christmas-tree tinsel.

Why can’t the U.S. Mint make something that looks good, that feels good in the hand, that can be distinguished from other coins while still in the pocket, and that the American public would actually prefer to the dollar bill? Does no one in that organization know anything about design?