Obama on income inequality and Minimum wage

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/22/fox-news-poll-voters-say-addressing-income-inequality-is-not-government-job/

This article is about a poll from Fox news saying that President Obama doesn't see eye-to-eye with Americans about income inequality. According to the article 62% of Americans think that income inequality is basically part of life. Yet President Obama has said that fixing it is one of his biggest priorities. The article also says that much more americans are concerned with jobs (40%) and with government spending (36%) than they are about income inequality (12%).

I am disappointed with the President. I would put myself in the 36% of Americans worried about government spending. It's not like the President has never spoken about the other two issues but it worries me that he is putting more emphasis on income inequality. It appears that perhaps he doesn't think that government spending is a problem or that he has no idea what to do about it.

I think perhaps he feels that he can more efficiently win people over with talking about income inequality. It's not too hard to craft an argument with that some large percentage of money is held by a small percentage of people (logos). He'll happily quote Warren Buffet on how his secretary pays a lower tax rate than he does(Pathos). He can tell the story of how some struggling person from Ohio, Florida, or Colorado, trying to increase their opportunities(Ethos). It's hard to win over someone's emotions with the phrase "quantitative easing."

And he hopes that he can somehow persuade enough of that 62% to join the 13% who feel that the government should do something about income inequality. It seems that he is trying to get support by doing something that is not practical but will hopefully appeal who don't understand that his idea is bad.

I think he is doing something similar thing with the minimum wage. The Federal minimum wage is 7.25$. He and the democrats want to raise it to about 10.00$. The highest state level minimum wage in the U.S. is in Washington at 9.32$. So even for them it would be a pretty large increase.

And I'm very doubtful that raising the minimum wage is really the best way for people to be better off. For example a lot of the people earning between 7.25$ and 10.10$ (the proposed new minimum wage) are college students. Many of them might loose their jobs if their employers were not able to afford those wages. But even if everyone all those students had more money they would then have more money to spend on groceries, other food options, second run movie theaters, rent, gas, recreation, etc. If they had more money to spend on those things then those who are selling this and that would charge more money. And before too long people are basically back where they started. I've taken a college class on economics. But not everyone has. Not everyone understands that raising minimum wage can actually hurt the low wage workers and it seems to me that Obama is trying to take advantage of people's ignorance. If they loose their jobs it won't be too long before Obama is trying to make the case for more stimulus spending.


Some of my thoughts on the State of the Union. I thought it was kind of boring. I was on a website where you could click whether or not you agree. But the entire speech was crafted so that you could never really disagree with the words coming out of his mouth. I did like the Republican response and even the TEA party response wasn't bad either. But Obama said one thing that I thought was kind of pathetic. He said something like "let's not take another 40 something votes to repeal Obamacare." I'm thinking, "so you can pass unpopular massive reform through and obscure back door (reconciliation) that nobody has ever heard of, but taking a vote of repeal is somehow out of the norm of policy making." He seems to think that he is authorized to do such things but the republicans are somehow not.

Did Obama contradict himself

Without even reading any further than the title some might say, "of course he did." But I just recently read an article from NBC quoting the President making a statement about how race affects his popularity. What the President said just recently seems like a blunt contradiction of what he has said before.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/19/22360951-obama-pot-not-more-dangerous-than-alcohol?lite

“There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black President,” he said. “Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black President.”

Now think back to a few years ago during the health care debate. President Obama was addressing a joint session of Congress on his agenda for health reform. In the Speech congressman Joe Wilson shouted "you lie." Former President Jimmy Carter said that some of the opposition to the president was due to racism. The white house press secretary released a statement saying, "[President Obama] does not believe that the criticism comes based on the colour of his skin."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8260109.stm

So did the president change his mind or does he contradict himself to get across the point he wants. I'll let you be the judge. But there's a difference between saying "there's no doubt that there is," and saying "he does not believe that there is."

Patrick Star of the TEA party

Just the other day I thought of an analogy of the Tea party.

There's an episode of Spongebob where Spongebob and Patrick get paint on Mr. Krabs' precious first dollar and are worried about the consequence. There's a scene where Patrick suggests that if they put another dollar in its place nobody would know the difference. Spongebob suggests that Patrick do just that but Patrick is so dumb that he doesn't understand why spongebob is suggesting he pull out his dollar. He ends up using his dollar on a vending machine. Patrick had the right idea and the resources to make it happen, but what he lacked was the ability.

The TEA party reminds me of Patrick. I feel that we might need to raise the debt ceiling a few more times before we lower it but to let the debt get bigger and bigger without having any intention to turn it around is unacceptable. I think the TEA party understands this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/6-key-obamacare-dates-to-watch-for-in-2014/

The above article says that Obamacare's open enrollment will start about a week and half after the midterm elections. It quotes Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) saying "if premiums go through the roof in the first year of Obamacare, no one will know about it until after the election."

Remember when the government was shut down because some politicians were demanding that Obamacare law be changed. Well what Senator Grassley said seems to be a very solid reason to make a few changes to the legislation. And if the TEA party had said this I think a lot of americans would say "that's not right."

But no. We didn't hear that. Instead of hearing about this we heard Senator Cruz reading from Dr. Seuss.

So what I'm saying is that the TEA party might have the right idea, but what I don't think they have is someone who's going to make it happen. Should someone like this end up in the White House, they might have the right idea but I don't think they'll be able to make it happen.

What was he supposed to do?

This last week Governor Christie made the news for probably his first scandal. Had it happened to any other governor it would not have been nearly as big a story. But after his 60% reelection victory and his lead in polls to be the next GOP nominee for president people are going to watching his every move. Whether he accepts bribes, or forgets to start the dishwasher, people are going to be watching his every move.

In my opinion I think this story highlights outcome bias. Outcome bias is evaluating the quality of decision making based on what happens as a result of the decision. Governor Christie may have hired a few staff members who did corrupt things. He has said that he takes responsibility for what has happened. I think this is sound logic but is it really his fault that this Lane closure incident happened. I think the only way to really give him fault is to suppose that he was so cocky and excited about winning that his staff members also got cocky and decided to play political retribution.

What could have stopped this from happening. Perhaps if he had already seen the email correspondence before everyone else did. So that's the scandal? Governor Christie is in trouble because he didn't spy on the correspondence between his staff members? Then why are we giving the NSA such a hard time?

Now back to outcome bias. Another way that Governor Christie could have prevented this from happening would be if he had never hired these staff members. One of them, ironically, was named Bridget. Should he have done more to know that these people would never harm his administration like this? I think he'll do more in the future and hopefully others will learn from his example. If he had increased the state revenue by buying a lottery ticket that so happened to be the winner would that have showed wise decision making and strong leadership? The answer is no, this is the textbook example of outcome bias.

Former Governor Barbour of Mississippi made some interesting comments about the incident that I recommend discussing. In essence he said that Governor Christie accepted responsibility for this incident whereas Hillary Clinton said "what difference, at this point, does it make" when asked if a phone call could shed light on whether or not the attacks in Benghazi were a planned attack or a protest.

Here's the article

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/01/haley_barbour_defends_christie_in_bridge_scandal_lashes_out_at_liberal_media.html

More over analysis of Disney's Frozen

I also thought that the movie was kind of ignorant of economics. At the end of the movie the older princess cuts of trade with their biggest trade partner. My thought was, "that's going to kill their economy." My next thought was, "I'm probably the only person who's going to watch this movie and then think that."

There is such thing a an economic sanction. But those decisions are made very carefully, especially when it's with their biggest trade partner. But Frozen was a family movie. The audience, at least the youth, does not think about economic consequences. They think about how an antagonist got a punishment they didn't want.

Let it go

Has Disney written it's song about coming out of the closet or accepting alternative lifestyles. Take a look at the lyrics to Let It Go from Disney's Frozen and you will find yourself saying "oh my gosh."

Early in the movie the two princesses are taken to some obscure place because one of them was affected by her older sister's condition that it even acknowledges she was "born with."

Not long later she is 'outed' if you will and has to leave the place she grew up in. She then starts singing a song that I think has some striking parallels to how a gay young adult growing up in a religious family would feel after being told for several years to "conceal don't feel."

The first two verses are about how she couldn't keep 'it' in even though she had tried. It then goes on to say that she can't keep up the masquerade and she doesn't care what others are going to say. And she does say that there is no right or wrong or rules for her.

I won't give a one-to-one analysis of every line of the song, but if you take a look at the lyrics and consider my point your jaw just might drop.

If Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga, Elton John,  or a host of other artists puts this song into their concert with a visual presentation of love and equality then remember. You heard it here first.