Daily Archives: January 28, 2009

That whirring noise…

Posted on by

… is of Abraham Lincoln rotating in his grave. This from Good Morning Silicon Valley.

Congress may have steaming heaps of crises spilling off the edge of its plate, but that doesn’t mean no one is paying attention to the issues somewhat farther down the priority list. One of those is the way ubiquitous and unobtrusive camera phones help perverts pursue their peeping in dressing rooms and public places with less chance of detection. Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y., has found time not only to think about this one, but to come up with an answer: follow Japan’s lead and require camera phones to make a retro shutter-click or comparable noise. His Camera Phone Predator Alert Act would mandate that “any mobile phone containing a digital camera that is manufactured for sale in the United States shall sound a tone or other sound audible within a reasonable radius of the phone whenever a photograph is taken with the camera in such phone. A mobile phone manufactured after such date shall not be equipped with a means of disabling or silencing such tone or sound.”

Nice to find a legislator with a proper sense of priorities.

Bad Faith Economics

Posted on by

Paul Krugman on some of the Republican arguments against Obama’s stimulus package.

But the obvious cheap shots don’t pose as much danger to the Obama administration’s efforts to get a plan through as arguments and assertions that are equally fraudulent but can seem superficially plausible to those who don’t know their way around economic concepts and numbers. So as a public service, let me try to debunk some of the major antistimulus arguments that have already surfaced. Any time you hear someone reciting one of these arguments, write him or her off as a dishonest flack.

First, there’s the bogus talking point that the Obama plan will cost $275,000 per job created. Why is it bogus? Because it involves taking the cost of a plan that will extend over several years, creating millions of jobs each year, and dividing it by the jobs created in just one of those years.

It’s as if an opponent of the school lunch program were to take an estimate of the cost of that program over the next five years, then divide it by the number of lunches provided in just one of those years, and assert that the program was hugely wasteful, because it cost $13 per lunch. (The actual cost of a free school lunch, by the way, is $2.57.)

The true cost per job of the Obama plan will probably be closer to $100,000 than $275,000 — and the net cost will be as little as $60,000 once you take into account the fact that a stronger economy means higher tax receipts.

Next, write off anyone who asserts that it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money.

Here’s how to think about this argument: it implies that we should shut down the air traffic control system. After all, that system is paid for with fees on air tickets — and surely it would be better to let the flying public keep its money rather than hand it over to government bureaucrats. If that would mean lots of midair collisions, hey, stuff happens.