Blog of Jeff

Despite all the coverage the immigration bill is getting, I haven’t seen anything about the employer side of the question. When an illegal immigrant presents a pay stub for a visa, it will give the government proof that an employer has been hiring illegal immigrants. Since the theory is that at least a percentage of these immigrants are being paid less than minimum wage, will the employers be responsible for backpay or making up their part of any payroll taxes.

And how will businesses respond if they are now responsible for paying a minimum wage to these employees? Will they accept that as the cost of doing businesses or will they secretly exert a preference for immigrants who have not filed for a visa and are staying in the dark? What will be the good of filing for a visa if it means the immigrant will get fired?

I can’t figure out the bill well enough to tell if it does anything to employers, but that seems to be a big piece of analysis that is missing. 

It’s kind of fun that Hillary was on the Wal-Mart’s board of directors. That might be an issue that haunts her a bit in terms of getting that usual pro-democrat union support and as the base seems to be criticizing the retailer more and more. And now she is suggesting that Wal-Mart is a negative influence on America in some ways to please the base.

 But it is pretty hard to separate yourself from a corporation where you were on the board. Those issues with discrimination against women, increasing America’s import-export balance and fighting unions may become big thorns in her side with her party as campaigns move forward.

Mitt Romney has an advertisement out already saying that he doesn’t like the new immigration bill. I don’t know much about the bill yet, but I am impressed with how quick Romney’s campaign moves. The bill comes out late Thursday evening and he has a polished ad against it on TV within a few days.

I disagree with a lot of Romney’s positions, but I think he is running the fastest and sharpest campaign by far. The biggest criticism of him is his flip-flops over the years, but he is just so smooth and polished about those flips that it doesn’t seem to be hurting him nearly as much as John Kerry. I think Romney’s better oratory and presentation skills may be the big factor. He doesn’t have the “I voted against it before I voted for it” kind of gaffes to go with his flops.

A retired general spoke on “Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer” on Iraq and made two great points today. I’ll add some links and name the general when the “Face the Nation” website gets updated. It was the more right-wing criticism on the war and focused on two points. First, we have not increased the size of the military over the past four years to a level that could support the Bush’s foreign policy objectives in Iraq. This is where Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and company really made horrible mistakes in the war’s implementations.

They refused to accept the reality that conditions on the ground were escalating beyond the numbers of troops they sent and continued to try and prove the false theory that all modern combat will require a smaller, nimbler force without the need for the large numbers of “boots on the ground” types that traditional wars used. Well, occupying Iraq is absolutely the proof that providing security for a large country requires those boots on the ground.

Even the surge shows the lack of preparation over the past years. Many generals have indicated there are still not enough troops and we just don’t have any more. Win or lose, we don’t have any more troops to send. And, if any other conflict takes place, we have no troops to commit anywhere.

The second issue the general addressed was the we have not committed nearly enough resources for the political and economic parts of the war. He expressed his opinion that the president had not done nearly enough to mobilize the country to win the war. I agree completely and would add that no other president has ever even attempted to have both “guns and butter” as much as this president. Tax cuts at a time of war?!?

Other people have pointed out the growing divide between classes of people who serve in the military and classes of people who send the military into places like Iraq. At least tax policy in the past made the upper class feel the financial consequences of the war.

This president likes to talk about history judging his actions far down the road. Not only will the history books be judging Iraq, but so will our grandchildren as they work to pay China back for all the money we borrowed for the war.

Several recent articles have talked about Americans becoming more tolerant of higher gasoline prices. In the past, Americans indicated that $3 a gallon would change their behaviors (buying hybrids, driving less, etc.) but it now seems that the pain threshold has moved upwards. Some polls even show people being willing to go up to $5 per gallon without changing their behaviors.

My thought question on this issue is whether or not low interest rates and the convenience of paying for gasoline with plastic has played a major role in that change. I’m sure there are a number of people who just pay with plastic and don’t even think about it. But even more important, my theory is that plastic is also encouraging the more responsible amongst us (people who actively work at living within a budget) to pay the higher gasoline prices at the pump and simply reduce some other part of the monthly spending. They substitute anything, a fancy dinner for example, to make up for the higher gas prices.

Another big part of this argument is that paying for everything with plastic delays the pain of the gas price until the credit card payment for due. It is basic behavioral psychology that the pain  for any behavior needs to be immediately after the behavior to effectively discourage that behavior. It hurts to pay an extra $50 for gasoline in a month, but not nearly as much as paying that extra $10 immediately at the pump on each fill-up.

I’m sure there is some research on this development and I’m going to look around for some more myself. I know there is some about it being pschologically easier to make big purchases on credit cards than paying cash, but I’m not so sure there is some specific to gasoline price elasticity.

The reason I think this theory matters a lot is because some politicians and environmentalists advocate a gasoline tax to encourage consumer conservationism. That tax won’t help if gasoline prices have truly become irrelevant to American consumerism.

A good policy solution might be to involve credit card companies. Instead of adding taxes to gasoline and taking a bite out of the entire economy (because of that substitution factor), why not give tax breaks to credit card companies for highlighting fuel expenditures and printing conservation tips on credit card statements? Even printing a running total of annual expenditures at gasoline stations might make a small impact as more Americans might notice the pain a little more.

Now, for a truly out-of-the-box, free-market solution,  auto manufacturers should advertise hybrid vehicles through credit card companies by having them include advertisements in bills that have high expenditures at gasoline stations. It wouldn’t be a privacy issue if the credit card company is sending the advertisement. It would be niche marketing at its finest to encourage those who use the most gasoline to switch to a more efficient vehicle. The credit card company can even include advertisements for auto loans. It would be a win-win without any government intervention at all.

I’m pretty sure this idea is brilliant, but I don’t happen to know any credit card company marketing folks who can implement it. I don’t think this idea needs anything other than a “Toyota marketing guy, meet the Capital One marketing guy. Let’s talk advertising rates …”

A recent poll has 71% of Americans viewing America as being on the wrong track. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18612770/) Congress and Bush both have approval ratings in the 30’s.

Maybe it is time to invent some sort of process to declare a governnmental mulligan and replace all 3 branches of government at one time. In order to avoid the corruption problems of running for office, we’ll just randomly select people across the nation. It would be an exciting new type of lottery. “Hey, my PowerBall hit and I just won a senate seat!” “Lewis Dickerson, a peanut salesman from Georgia, just won Chief Justice of the Supreme Court!” There would be excitement everywhere as the government is reset with all sorts of new dynamics and untainted amateurs.

It is kind of hard to picture a random assortment of people getting any worse than 30% approval ratings. Considering there is always about 20% of the population willing to support crazy ideas (thinking Gonzales is a dandy AG, for example), they would only need to scrounge up an additional 15% to top the current group.

The White House has voiced its confidence that the World Bank can continue to be an effective organization with Wolfowitz at the helm. (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2007-05-08T143916Z_01_N24441992_RTRUKOC_0_US-WORLDBANK-WOLFOWITZ.xml)

Is there anything better than a vote of confidence from a president with an approval rating in the 20’s who has also given votes of confidence to Alberto, Harriet and Donald? This reminds me of the school principal announcing the winners of the weekend chess tournament over the PA system and how he thought he was helping them achieve the respect of their peers. In reality, he tagged a big old “hit me” sign on their backs.

If I was Wolfowitz, I think I would be working on my own “Bush is worst president ever book” with the “he never listened to me” spin that all the other former Bushies have written. He doesn’t have a chance in an international setting unless he gets some distance from the president.

It does make an interesting wager opportunity. Who will resign first, the Wolf or the Gonzo? (Sounds like characters from a muppet fairy tale …)

Last night, Jon Stewart took it pretty easy on George Tenet after reviewing every other news interviewer absolutely hammering Tenet. You can view the clip at http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml.

The left wing blames Tenet for actively conspiring to lead us into the war. The right wing blames him for being incompetent in getting Bin Laden, finding WMD’s and preventing 911. Depending on how right wing, some there also blame him for the results of the war.

The history of Tenet is one that really shows how hard someone can fall. He managed to convince both Clinton and Bush that he was a good man for the job, which couldn’t have been an easy task considering Bush’s proven animosity toward the vast majority of Clinton’s ideas and policies. He even racked up that Medal of Freedom. Technically, that means he was one of the greatest American civilians just a few years ago. But today, Tenet gets hammered by Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Wolf Blitzer and every other pundit every time his name or book enters the conversation.

Makes me wonder what kind of reception Gonzales will get when he is out of the administration and has a book to sell. He’s not even a Medal of Freedom winner. (Though he could be due for one, considering how this President seems to think …)

Don Imus has decided to not ride disgracefully into the sunset. (MSN story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18439618/?GT1=9951) He is suing CBS Radio for the bulk of the $40 million dollar salary he would have been paid for the remainder of his 5 year contract.

The quote I like from the MSN story is from Imus’ attorney, Martin Garbus.

“Garbus cited a contract clause in which CBS acknowledged that Imus’ services were “unique, extraordinary, irreverent, intellectual, topical, controversial.” The clause said Imus’ programming was “desired by company and … consistent with company rules and policy,” according to Garbus.”

From the beginning of this story, the part that has bothered me the most was everyone putting all the blame and punishment on Imus. He was merely the front man for a multi-million dollar insult machine. CBS Radio paid him to be offensive, audiences listened to him because he was offensive and sponsors ran ads on his show to reach those audiences. Everyone involved, including the audience, enabled and encouraged Imus to use insults for entertainment. His severe punishment for one offensive statement doesn’t cleanse the thousands of people that had no problem with his years of previous offensive statements.

I think Imus winning this lawsuit would be a fantastic win-win. His critics will be happy that he is off the air and a bigger villain in this story, CBS Radio, will foot the bill. CBS Radio set the rules of this game and then pretended that they were innocent bystanders. Losing $40 million dollars to Imus, as well as the high ratings and advertisement dollars that his show would have made is a great way to get this punishment moved to a much bigger culprit that Imus. He gave voice to obscenity, but CBS Radio gave it a home.

There was a very sad story of a heroic little puppy today on MSN (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18440403?GT1=9951). It’s about a little Jack Russell terrier in New Zealand. He was playing with some small children when two pit bulls rushed into the area without an owner. The terrier kept the pit bulls away from the children until some adults arrived. He was severely wounded and had to be euthanized.

It’s just one of those stories that makes you feel good about the loyalty and bravery of our four legged friends out there.