Goal: Social Security should be sufficient in providing a "secure" retirement (in tandem with auto-enrolled 401k?)
How to improve social security and make it stable over the long-term (stolen from William Novelli georgetown professor, former CEO of AARP).
Revenue side:
- raise taxable raise base. Currently millionaires only pay SS tax on 10% of their earnings, while 94% of all workers pay SS tax on all earnings
- expand SS to all workers. Currently a lot of state/gov't worker are exempt because they have other pension systems; change this for newly hired employees.
- put a small percent of the funds (15% [or less]) in an index fund
Benefit side:
- index benefits to longevity
- peg retirement age (and early retirement age) to life expectancy
- scale benefits back for mid-high wage earners; means testing
Andrew Biggs (AEI and former ~'SS administrator')
- means testing
- auto-enrollment in 401k's
- increase retirement age
- don't increase tax side because it discourages people
Friday, April 2, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
a pro-market liberal
Ezra Klein had a piece on Monday talking about the difference between being pro-business and being pro-market. I hadn't really thought about this distinction before but I'm starting to think that it's near the core of my current economic thinking. I've collected a bunch of semi-coherent, related thoughts below.
-------------------
I've been a liberal for as long as I can remember, and quite a few years before understood what that means. There were only few issues I had thought much about at that point, but on all of them I sided with the liberals: war, I wanted less of it; gays, I didn't necessarily want more of them but I certainly wanted more of them to come out of the closet into a safer and more equal nation; and religion, I thought Christianity was unfairly raised above others in the national discourse.
The problem is that I live in Seattle, a place where even liberals are not liberal enough. As I've studied politics and policy over the last few years I've become even less sure of my place in the spectrum. I'm not usually comfortable calling myself a liberal (for instance, I have a hard time reading the Daily Kos or watching MSNBC) but I'm definitely not a Republican.
Maybe that means I'm cut from the same cloth as Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln? Absolutely not, there must be something I'm missing in this analysis. Is it possible that the political spectrum is not really 1 dimensional (or two dimensional if you include a libertarian/authoritarian axis), but really n-dimensional with n going to infinity? (this should probably be an entire separate post)
Eventually I stumbled across The Daily dish and Andrew Sullivan's brand of conservatism. I discovered that not only could I call myself a conservative (at least in private) but that I could still be a liberal! (this could also be a separate post) This was a satisfying revelation, but it still didn't explain enough. My interpretation of Andrew's definition was primarily concerned with temperament and the way I viewed progress (I'm a trimmer), but it did not reconcile my views on the means of advancement, which are what put me in the most awkward positions with my more-liberal plans. I think I'm ready to accept that I am pro-market.
I truly do believe in the power of markets but I'm also unafraid of big government. My favorite one-liner is "free markets". I use it every time someone is surprised to find an example of markets working, to rub it in the face of my big hippie coworkers, and I use it as a joke whenever an absurd markets fail in obvious ways. But in political debates I often end up trying to defend markets to people who are relatively anti-business, and the Klein observation noted above, and subsequent thought, will hopefully help me out here.
I like the idea to imagine the interactions between markets and government in terms of evolution/biology (there are good links somewhere about this idea), and since I still tend to think of things as a programmer this means genetic(*) algorithms. The government's goal is to set up the best environment possible into which the power of markets can be released.
That means setting up metrics and regulations, and constantly ensuring that the market is optimally designed. You want to have as much government as possible in setting up the markets so that as little government as possible is needed to maintain it. Primary metrics (on core business/market goals) are good, tertiary metrics are bad. Strong regulations are good, complex regulations are bad. Simple, strong and straightforward are they goals. In a perfect world we would also eliminate any discretionary power given to regulators that would lead to value judgments. We want our bureaucracy to be idiot-proof, to be able to survive a Palin-Dean administration.
Over the next few months I hope to be able to cobble together a reasonably coherent policy platform based on these pro-market ideas. I imagine these policies will be most palatable to liberal Democrats, but maybe not. The foundation of this platform will likely consist of:
- tax reform
- intellectual property reform
- government efficiency (small gov't, big reach)
-------------------
I've been a liberal for as long as I can remember, and quite a few years before understood what that means. There were only few issues I had thought much about at that point, but on all of them I sided with the liberals: war, I wanted less of it; gays, I didn't necessarily want more of them but I certainly wanted more of them to come out of the closet into a safer and more equal nation; and religion, I thought Christianity was unfairly raised above others in the national discourse.
The problem is that I live in Seattle, a place where even liberals are not liberal enough. As I've studied politics and policy over the last few years I've become even less sure of my place in the spectrum. I'm not usually comfortable calling myself a liberal (for instance, I have a hard time reading the Daily Kos or watching MSNBC) but I'm definitely not a Republican.
Maybe that means I'm cut from the same cloth as Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln? Absolutely not, there must be something I'm missing in this analysis. Is it possible that the political spectrum is not really 1 dimensional (or two dimensional if you include a libertarian/authoritarian axis), but really n-dimensional with n going to infinity? (this should probably be an entire separate post)
Eventually I stumbled across The Daily dish and Andrew Sullivan's brand of conservatism. I discovered that not only could I call myself a conservative (at least in private) but that I could still be a liberal! (this could also be a separate post) This was a satisfying revelation, but it still didn't explain enough. My interpretation of Andrew's definition was primarily concerned with temperament and the way I viewed progress (I'm a trimmer), but it did not reconcile my views on the means of advancement, which are what put me in the most awkward positions with my more-liberal plans. I think I'm ready to accept that I am pro-market.
I truly do believe in the power of markets but I'm also unafraid of big government. My favorite one-liner is "free markets". I use it every time someone is surprised to find an example of markets working, to rub it in the face of my big hippie coworkers, and I use it as a joke whenever an absurd markets fail in obvious ways. But in political debates I often end up trying to defend markets to people who are relatively anti-business, and the Klein observation noted above, and subsequent thought, will hopefully help me out here.
I like the idea to imagine the interactions between markets and government in terms of evolution/biology (there are good links somewhere about this idea), and since I still tend to think of things as a programmer this means genetic(*) algorithms. The government's goal is to set up the best environment possible into which the power of markets can be released.
That means setting up metrics and regulations, and constantly ensuring that the market is optimally designed. You want to have as much government as possible in setting up the markets so that as little government as possible is needed to maintain it. Primary metrics (on core business/market goals) are good, tertiary metrics are bad. Strong regulations are good, complex regulations are bad. Simple, strong and straightforward are they goals. In a perfect world we would also eliminate any discretionary power given to regulators that would lead to value judgments. We want our bureaucracy to be idiot-proof, to be able to survive a Palin-Dean administration.
Over the next few months I hope to be able to cobble together a reasonably coherent policy platform based on these pro-market ideas. I imagine these policies will be most palatable to liberal Democrats, but maybe not. The foundation of this platform will likely consist of:
- tax reform
- intellectual property reform
- government efficiency (small gov't, big reach)
Monday, March 15, 2010
easy lunch from home
3/15/10 - crackers, string cheese (1, 2 next time), granola bar, frozen chimichanga.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
spicy meatballs
spicy meatball steps:
- fry jar garlic, olive oil and spices (garlicP, cayenne, chili, onion[, red flake]) in biggish pan
- add chicken/turkey meatballs
- cook high heat until crispy
- (maybe there should be a step here with some sort of bread/grain)
- add sweet baby rays bbq sauce, sriracha and some more spices
- cook covered, on low, for a long time (15-20+)
options:
- different meat
- fry pepper and onion chunks
- put on bread
- put in soup
- put on noodles
Monday, January 18, 2010
random recipes
fried chicken
roasted potatoes
roasted pepper (queso's, pizza)
bratwurst on pizza
steak with rub
spicy (sweet) pork chops
rub: equal parts
chili powder,
cayenne pepper,
pepper (black and white),
garlic powder,
onion powder,
red pepper flakes.
pinch of salt.
a bunch of brown sugar.
thin pork chops.
brush with oil, then rub, then cast iron skillet medium-high for ~3 minutes per side.
options:
slice on bun (with sauted peppers and onion);
with potatoes and white gravy
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)