Hidden Costs Might Save Money

Here is a fun column on Slate that I recommend: The bizarre economics of the hotel minibar.

American Drug Use

I'm not talking about MaryJane or Special K or any of the other illicit drugs the kids are taking these days - I am talking about prescriptions, over-the-counter meds and even dietary supplements. As report in the New York Times article "How Two Rights Can Make a Wrong":

"In 2004, 82 percent of the United States population reported using at least one prescription drug, over-the-counter medication, or dietary supplement in the previous week, and 30 percent reported using five or more of these during the same period, according to a study by the Sloan Epidemiology Center at Boston University. Among senior citizens, 75 percent of all Americans over the age of 65 took roughly four prescription drugs on a daily basis in 2005; the average 75-year-old in the United States swallowed eight different prescription medications each day. That same year, approximately 1.6 million American teenagers and children (almost 300,000 of whom were under 10) were given at least two psychiatric drugs in combination, according to an analysis performed by Medco Health Solutions for The New York Times."

The theme of the article, that we should be careful about what chemicals we are mixing in our bodies, is an important one. We each need to take responsibility and keep an eye on our health care professionals so that we do not become one of the statistics. But, the more alarming information from the article was the sheer number of pills that are being popped by Americans on a daily basis. I would expect that the numbers have likely increased from the 2004 stats presented in the article. Take a step back and think about what you put into your body. Make a list for your doctor. And, above all, everyone should consider the costs and benefits of each and every pill they ingest.

Has the President read the US Constitution?

I wondered today if the president of the United States has ever read (and understood even on a basic level) the Constitution he has sworn to protect and defend. I listened to the Justice Talking show on presidential signing statements. In short, it seems to me that the use of presidential signing statements by the current president is a blatant disregard for the concept of separation of powers and checks and balances. They have been used by this administration more times that all other administrations combined.

The show got me wondering about whether Dubya (a) is blatantly trying to skirt the separation of powers to give himself more powers or (b) is ignorant of the concept and so sees no need to limit his own power. Either way, I take no comfort in the capability or honesty of the man currently tasked with leadership of the country. This is just another issue to add to the long list of problems.

The Other Side of War

I am opposed to the war in Iraq. I have been opposed to the war ever since they started making the arguments about weapons of mass destruction. I would have been against the war even if they had located the mythical WMD. None of the arguments for invading Iraq even came close to meeting the requirements of just war. I think we were driven into this war by the manipulation of the current administration. I am outraged and upset at the lives of American soldiers that have been lost. I am sorely ashamed of the behavior of my country. But none of these things are the purpose of this post.

In this great mess, it is easy to lose sight of the real victims in this crisis - the Iraqi people. It is so easy to get caught up in pointing the finger, finding the many flaws in the politicians, and just keeping up with the body count that we do not think about the real impact on their daily lives. I do not doubt that life was not great under Saddam, but it certainly did not include the daily bombings and mass murders that are taking place today. In this war, as in every war, the victims are the innocent civilians whose lives are ripped apart.

Throughout our world, there are women and children suffering the effects of war. I know there are many organizations that are working to help them. One such organization that I was reading about today is Women for Women International. Women for Women won the 2006 Hilton Humanitarian Prize for being an organization that significantly alleviates human suffering. We should all support organizations like this that seek to reduce the suffering inflicted by wars. I hope that we will all seek to spread peace as much as we can.

Sojourners is hosting a Christian Peace Witness for Iraq on March 16, the fourth anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq. This is a good time to come together to show support for peace and opposition to the current war and any future wars that may be brewing.

A Ray of Hope

Stories abound about how bad it has gotten in New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina. In the Lower Ninth Ward and surrounding areas, the rampant crime and demolished homes highlight the large group of people who have been seemingly forgotten and left behind. I read recently that the district attorney considered the crime an almost insurmountable problem. The murder rate is alarmingly high.

In all of this sadness and violence, at last there is a sign of progress. Two new houses were unveiled this week in the Lower Ninth Ward, built with a combination of loans and volunteer service as described in a NYT article. It is a small beginning. But at least it is a beginning.

I hope that this step will inspire others to pitch in - either financially or physically - to help keep things moving.

Taxes and Social Policy

Today, I found two interesting articles on AlterNet about what some consider a dreaded topic: Of course, I am not one who dreads taxes. They are where my bread is buttered, so to speak. I am fascinated with how taxes are used as a tool in social policy and development. I find it more interesting that I would care to share at parties (except perhaps parties with other CPAs). But really, it is an important topic. One aspect of politics that hits everyone right in the pocketbook.



The first article in question is "Why All Tax Credits Should Be Refundable". The basic premise is that because those who have less tend to pay little or no taxes, the wealthy disproportionately benefit from tax deductions or credits. Although the author's heart is in the right place, his theory is based on the idea that all tax incentives are designed to benefit the poor. While it is true that certain incentives, including the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit, are geared specifically at the working poor, these credits are already refundable. Personally, I would advocate increasing the amount of the EITC but that is a separate discussion.



There are a vast array of other credits and deductions designed to encourage individuals and businesses to behave in ways that were considered positive for society when the particular law was passed. Some of them do provide disproportionate benefits for the wealthy, but the answer is not to make credits refundable but to do away with incentives that encourage activities that are generally out of reach for the poor or middle class (for example, reduced tax rates on dividend income that is not in a retirement or education savings account).



The author asserts that it would be better to give a 30% government matching contribution rather than reduce taxable income for contributions to a 401(k) or IRA. Although the article indicates that this has been proposed by Brookings and MIT, it does not address what the potential incentive would be or how this would benefit society. First of all, 401(k) are specifically designed to be a deferred compensation plan - that is, you are encouraged to forgo earnings now (and reap the benefit of reduced taxes) so that you can have this income available in the future. The incentive for employees to participate is the immediate benefit of reduced taxes, which results in the societal benefit of increased savings rates and a lower burden on government support in the future. Although a government matching contribution may increase the future benefits to individuals, it would provide no immediate benefit and thus reduce the incentive for participating in the plan, particularly for younger workers who view retirement as an extremely distant and hazy concept rather than an immediate reality. Secondly, changes to 401(k) or IRA plans will not and are not generally designed to benefit the working poor. The working poor are not generally in a position to put away 15% of their income or drop $4,000 a year into an IRA - they are working to pay for food, housing and medical care. They are simply not the target market for these tax breaks.



I do agree with the first paragraph of the article that argues that tax deductions are not the way to increase health insurance to the many uninsured American. When your target audience are one of the lowest income groups in society, it is important to acknowledge that they are not paying taxes and therefore do not in fact benefit from tax deductions. From their own statistics, it is clear that the White House is aware of this. So, in my somewhat cynical view it seems that this is a proposal to make it look like they are trying to expand the availability of health insurance without actually putting any money where their mouths are. So much more needs to be done to fix the debacle that is the American health care system.



The article does not address credits for businesses that benefit society as a whole. Certain incentives for businesses indirectly benefit low-income or minority groups by giving employers credits for hiring certain employees, such as the Indian employment credit or the welfare-to-work credit. There are also a wide variety of credits and deductions that seek to move capital to areas that would otherwise be considered inefficient, such as alternative fuels and orphan drugs (drugs for rare diseases and conditions). But I digress. My point is that our tax policy is designed to promote a wide variety of benefits to society as a whole and are not completely focused on the poor and low-income families. Although this article takes too narrow a view, it is an important reminder that tax policy cannot be made in a vacuum and that if issues are worth government assistance then we should reason through the most logical and best way to achieve the goal. There is never going to be one single answer.





The next article on taxes highlights the misalignment of priorities that is endemic in the Bush administration. [Note: some language in the article may be offensive.] I find it infuriating the the Bush tax cuts so disproportionately favor the wealthy. In the current budget proposal, the tax cuts for the wealthy are balanced with cuts to social service programs. Although the traditional Republican philosophy has been for a small federal government, they are dramatically increasing spending, primarily for defense. It is hypocrisy and I find it sickening. I could go on, but if you have stuck it through this long I guess it is only fair to let you off the hook now. I will save more of my ranting for another time.

Germans are Funny

60 years on, many people still associate Germany with the Nazis. When Molly Ivins said that Pat Buchanan's speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention “probably sounded better in the original German", no one questioned what she meant. The truth of the matter is that most Germans are nice people, most with a truly unique outlook on life. Culturally, they may look like citizens of other Western nations (unless you check their socks) but they have many of their own special quirks.

There are too many uniquely German idiosyncrasies to go into in a blog entry. At some point, I actually need to get some real work done around here. So, for today I will limit it to some very entertaining points that I read in an article on Der Spiegel, proof that Germans can laugh at themselves just as much as the rest of us.

To entice you to read the article, here are some of the uniquely German illnesses discussed:

• Hörsturz - Sudden hearing loss apparently brought on by stress.


• Kreislaufzusammenbruch - Circulatory collapse that apparently just requires some rest for recovery, rather than the death or hospitalization you might expect.

The cause for these and other diseases may be the weather (see Biowetter) or just drafts.

Perhaps it is just the mystery of the unknown in such things as weather and drafts that strikes fear in the Germans. Apparently, those unfamiliar things called vaccinations are also cause for alarm. Apparently, rather than having such dangerous injections, Germans will have parties to make sure children get infected with measles or chicken pox.

Now that we have enjoyed the quirkiness of the Germans when it comes to ailments and illnesses, I recommend that you check out the German Survival Guide from Der Spiegel for many other quirks explained (or at least exposed). There is even a quiz if you get bored.

Funny every time:

We're #1?

Americans often have the perception that the United States is the best country in the world. We are the richest, the smartest, the most powerful...just generally better than everyone else. After all, we are the only nation blessed by God, aren't we? Few ever stop to question what the actual statistics are. Those that do can often tell you that American students are somewhere in the remedial section of most rankings and they may know that we have the infant mortality rates of a third world country. But, let's take a look and how the numbers really look.

We really ARE #1:

• World Competitiveness Yearbook - #1 out of 60. Proof that American capitalism is alive and well in America, at least relative to the rest of the world.
• Military Size - #1 out of everyone. That's one to be proud of.

Where we aren't #1, but still in the top 10

• Index of Economic Freedom - #7 of 155
• Save the Children: Best and Worst Countries to be a Mother - Tied for #10 of 125.
• Human Development Index - #8 of 177
• Program for International Student Assessment - #9 of 38 in science and #7 of 38 in reading. Not as bad as you might have expected.
• United Nations Study: #2 (after Brazil) in number of deaths from firearms. We would have been number one, but the 1995 Brazil numbers were particularly bad. Just missed it!

Where we are less impressive

• Worldwide Press Freedom Index - #44 of 167. Behind such bastions of freedom as Hungary, Namibia and Bosnia.
• Worldwide Quality of Life Index (the Economist 2005) - #13 of 111
• Environmental Sustainability Index - #35 of 146
• Corruption Perceptions Index - #20 of 163. Tied with Chile.
• Program for International Student Assessment - #24 of 38 in math and #20 of 38 in reading.
• Infant Mortality - #42 of 226. The rates are better in Cuba, Slovenia and the Czech Republic. The US came in between Taiwan and Croatia.
• UNICEF: State of the World's Children - #40 of 192 in Under 5 mortality rate. This time Croatia edged us out.
• Murder Rate per Capita: #24 of 62. It is true that South Africa and Kyrgyzstan are deadlier. We rebound to #8 of 62 in murder with firearms.

Obviously, there are probably hundreds of other rankings that we could find for the US. I highlight these because they highlight our priorities. We excel economically and militarily. We fall flat on our faces when it comes to caring for the youngest and most vulnerable among us and for our environment. Even the shining idea of American freedom seems to have been tarnished in the current day and age.

The Hypocrisy of Shrub & Co

Imagine this...a certain country [Country A] holds weapons of mass destruction (the infamous WMD), its leaders are openly hostile to another country [Country B] and they (the leaders) have a history of violence. Though once an elected leader, the head of state in Country A ignores the will of a majority of the population and has left a large portion of the population in poverty to fuel his war machine.

In this situation, some would argue that Country B has every right to attack Country A in an effort to prevent an attack by Country A on Country B. Some would say that this act of aggression, though seemingly against all international laws of war, was justified. Country A has it coming. Country B may argue that the potential results of the use of a weapon of mass destruction are so grave that preemption is warranted. In fact, Country B may argue that "military preemption" is legitimate when the threat is "emerging" or "sufficient," "even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack." After all, the posture and rhetoric of Country A make it clear that they have Country B in their sights. Why should Country B just wait around to be attacked?

At this point, you may think that I am talking about the US war with Iraq. After all, this clearly illustrates a situation in which the Bush Doctrine would be applicable. This was the argument our government made in convincing the country to go to war with Iraq. It also seems to be the argument that they are starting to build against Iran.

I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now. But, that is beside the point. The example I gave above was not a theoretical justification for the US to attack Iraq or Iran or any other nation. Rather, it was an illustration of the flip side of the argument - in this case, the US is Country A and the threatened nation is Iran. Could they not use our own logic against us? Not likely. Clearly, there is no chance of the Iranian army invading the US to preempt a US attack on Iran. But, under the Bush Doctrine such an attack would theoretically be justified. That is the great flaw of the doctrine. However, there is another aspect of the Bush Doctrine that is more subtle, making it less applicable to other nations: that is, only the US has the right to preemptive attacks and preventive wars. We would not tolerate any other nation trying to use this justification to invade another sovereign nation. And yet, we find ourselves again in a situation where the government has started to put together a story about a country bringing harm to US soldiers in Iraq. The writing is on the wall - the next step will be showing Iran as an "emerging" threat. I expect talk of nuclear capabilities will soon enter the fray if it has not already. I only hope that Congress and the American people can be stronger this time. We went to war based on flawed logic and bad intelligence once, I hope it does not happen again.

As our great leader would say, "Fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."

Church for the Homeless

In my small but on-going effort to bring good news, mainly news that highlights what people are doing to help those less fortunate, I bring you a NYT story of an outdoor church service for the homeless in Washington DC. A local Episcopal church offers Street Church with services in a park to reach out to the homeless where they are. After a short service, including a Communion (juice, not wine), they serve a small lunch to the group. It is good to see that people are actually thinking about what it must be like to be homeless and adjusting the offerings of the church accordingly. Most of us cannot fathom living on the street and we cannot relate to the challenges the homeless face even at the thought of entering a church.

The End is Nigh!!

The end of the Harry Potter series, that is. Year 7, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, is set for release on 21 July (see NYT article). I am not too proud to admit that I am one of the millions (billions?) of HP fans. Now I know that I only have about 6 months to decide whether I should preorder on Amazon or try to find the book in Hong Kong when it is released. The latest book will be released 8 days after the movie debut of Order of the Phoenix.

In honor of this very Harry year, here are a few fun and exciting links for other HP fans:

• Official Scholastic site - includes challenging quizes based on the books, not the movies.
• J.K. Rowling official site
• MuggleNet
• Official WB Harry Potter site

Lots to enjoy during the next few months of eager anticipation.