Thursday, May 25, 2006

30 hours

Just over 1 day until the end of my first year of med school. And, wow, I need a break...but what an amazing year. I never thought I could learn so much in so little time.

Time for sleep. Tomorrow will be a really busy day...doctor's appointment, exam review, studying until late...wish me luck!

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

"Tax relief for all Americans"




I'm thrilled the president extended the tax cuts today. The sign at his signing ceremony was so inspirational -- "tax relief for all Americans." All Americans!

(ahem)

Let's say I was still in the working world and made, say, $50,000 per year. Bush's tax cuts would save me about $112 per year, or about 0.2% of my income.

Let's say I'm well-paid businessman who makes just over $1 million per year. Bush's tax cuts would save me $42,776, or about 4.2% of my income.

It's a good thing we decreased the top-bracket tax rate. I mean, I want to make more money, but I realize that working hard to earn more money is pointless because the government will increase my taxes! And if I make more money, my taxes will increase! Life is so unfair, especially when you're making over million dollars a year. Rather than trying to advance my career and earn more money, I'm going to just stay in this job, just so the government won't increase my taxes.

Well, if everyone is getting tax cuts, it's a good thing that we have a federal budget surplus. Oh, wait, there isn't a budget surplus! We're spending $350 billion more each year than we bring in. Don't worry, though, we're working hard to make sure that government funds aren't wasted on silly programs such as student loans and health insurance for poor mothers. Congress cut $12.6 billion from these silly programs and raised the cap on student loan rates by about 1.5%. But that doesn't affect real people does it? Not really. I'll only have to pay an extra $25,000-$40,000 in loan interest. Too bad I'm not a millionaire...that $42,776 in tax relief would really help with these student loan payments. And poor mothers? Don't worry, it's not like they can't get health care if the government slashes Medicaid funding. Oh, wait, they can't. Well, it's not like they will actually die if they don't have health insurance. Oh, wait, research shows that's not true either. If we have to sacrifice students and poor mothers just to give tax cuts to the wealthy, then that's what we have to do.

Well, even though there is a budget deficit, it's a good thing we're not that much in debt. Ahhhh, that's right - the president has asked Congress to increase the debt limit four times! Now we only owe $8.3 trillion, and we can borrow up to $9 trillion. I'm glad the president took the approach of starting a war, cutting taxes repeatedly, and just borrowing money to cover the different. I mean, it's not like the current generation of American leaders can really afford to pay down this debt...you know, we're in a war! And multi-millionaires keep having to pay taxes to the government! Every time millionairs have to pay taxes, the terrorist win! Only those people who hate America will be unwilling to make a personal sacrifice during the War On Terror. (Millionaires automatically exempted from this requirement.)

It's a good thing that my generation will be able to afford to pay off the billions of dollars in interest on the national debt. Just keep passing responsibility to the next generation...

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Thinking on your feet is an important job skill...

Let's say you're interviewing for a job. A technical job, something relating to database management, at a TV station. You arrive at the office of your prospective employer and are directed to a room -- one of the studio sets -- for your interview. An employee, presumably your interviewer, walks in and introduces herself, then asks if you're ready. You say yes. You become slightly alarmed when another employee appears, clips a microphone on your shirt, and disappears. Before you have time to ask what's going on, bright lights turn on and your "interviewer" begins speaking to the cameras on the other side of the room. And now you're live on TV.

Welcome to the BBC.

As I read about the incident on CNN:

LONDON, England (AP) -- An applicant for a job at the British Broadcasting Corp. who accidentally found himself on live television recalled his moment of fame, returning -- on purpose -- to the program on which he inadvertently appeared.

Guy Goma appeared on the News 24 program after a mix-up led his being mistaken for an expert on Internet music downloads. The network put Goma back on the air after he became a news story unto himself.

"I was very shocked," Goma said after watching a replay of his interview Tuesday on the BBC's all-news channel. "But I think now it is all right."

The confusion occurred on May 8, when Britain's High Court awarded a victory to Apple Computer in a lawsuit against Apple Corps, The Beatles' commercial arm.

The BBC had intended to interview computer expert Guy Kewney, but after a mistake at a reception desk, employees brought Goma to the studio. Goma was waiting in a reception area for his interview.

After BBC News 24 consumer affairs correspondent Karen Bowerman ostensibly welcomed the apparent expert, there was a Kafkaesque moment in which Goma winced and tried to open his mouth as if to explain.

When Bowerman asked if he was surprised by the verdict, a befuddled Goma managed to offer that he was "very surprised."

But his performance later swept the Internet in part because he simply pressed on, offering the best answers he could and growing more confident in his punditry as the interview progressed.

Meanwhile, the real Kewney watched the exchange in shock from outside the studio. During Tuesday's program, the BBC also interviewed him by telephone.

When offered a chance to speak directly to Kewney, Goma shook his head.

"I just want to say to him, sorry," Goma said.

Goma told the BBC that he didn't know yet if he got the tech job he sought.

But Britain's industrious tabloids have already put him to work. The Sun newspaper offered Goma a punditry platform beneath a story headlined the "Big Bluffer."

Goma, who has offered to speak on a variety of subjects, offered snap assessments on Saddam Hussein's trial ("He deserves to face justice"); Prince Harry ("It is difficult for him as everything he does is watched") and Britain's Human Rights Act ("We should treat each other as we wish to be treated.")


Of course, video clips of the incident are also available. And while there were probably a ton of signs that should have alerted this guy as to what was going on, it's hard not to feel bad for him. Watch the video and notice his momentary deer-in-the-headlights look when the host introduces him -- with the wrong name. At least he "recovered" and faked his way through the interview...mostly. Apparently now he is enjoying his 15 minutes of fame in the UK. Of course, the real question is whether he got the job or not.

On an unrelated note, I just finished my Heme/Onc exam. Eight days and one exam left until the end of my first year of medical school.

Time for a nap...

Monday, May 15, 2006

The end of "The West Wing" and talk about tax cuts

Sadly, last night was the final episode of "The West Wing." While I'm getting over my personal loss, I figured it would be appropriate to post something on here to spark some political conversation and debate. Most people who know me wouldn't be too surprised to learn that I think the administration's recent tax cut extensions (along with most of their tax cuts in the last 6 years) have done nothing but transfer the tax burden from the rich to the poor and from their generation to mine. With that in mind, here is Sebastian Mallaby's op-ed from this morning's Washington Post:


"The Return of Voodoo Economics"
By Sebastian Mallaby

Nobody serious believes that tax cuts pay for themselves, as I noted last week. But most senior Republicans flunk this test of seriousness.

In January, George W. Bush declared that, "by cutting the taxes on the American people, this economy is strong, and the overall tax revenues have hit at record levels." Regrettably, this endorsement of what his dad called voodoo economics was not a one-time oversight. The next month, Bush told a New Hampshire audience, "You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase."

Bush is not alone in this. Dick Cheney, allegedly a serious person, asserted in February that the "tax cuts have translated into higher federal revenues."

Bill Frist is sometimes taken seriously, not least by himself. And yet the Republican Senate leader is capable of saying: "Many people in Washington have long known a dirty little secret about tax-cut measures: When done right, they actually result in more money for the government."

Chuck Grassley chairs the Senate Finance Committee and ought to know about this stuff. But he mouths the following nonsense: "There is a mindset in both branches of government that if you reduce taxes you have a net loss, if you increase taxes you have a net gain, and history does not show that relationship."

And just last week Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) celebrated the extension of the Bush tax cuts by saying, "We've put these tax provisions in place and they've raised money."

Okay, so let's review this issue with the help of some experts. I'd like to cite Richard Kogan of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, because his work inspired this column. But to win over reasonable conservatives, I'm going to choose N. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard, a proponent of tax cuts who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers in the Bush White House. Mankiw is a top-notch economist hired by Bush and Cheney to advise them. And last year he published a paper on how far tax cuts pay for themselves, reporting enthusiastically that this self-financing effect is "surprisingly large."

How large, exactly? Mankiw reckons that over the long run (the long run being generous to his argument), cuts on capital taxes generate enough extra growth to pay for half of the lost revenue. Hello, Mr. President, that means that the other half of the lost revenue translates into bigger deficits. Mankiw also calculates that the comparable figure for cuts in taxes on wages is 17 percent. Yes, Mr. President, that means every $1 trillion in tax cuts is going to add $830 billion to the national debt.

Let's engage in what Bush might call the soft bigotry of low expectations and cut Republicans some slack. Hey, maybe they just overlooked that Mankiw paper? Or maybe, despite hiring Mankiw to head the Council of Economic Advisers, they later acquired reasons to doubt his judgment? In that case they should at least have listened to Douglas Holtz-Eakin, another conservative economist who worked in the Bush White House and who went on to run the Congressional Budget Office.

In a study published under Holtz-Eakin's direction last December, the CBO estimated the extent to which a 10 percent reduction in personal taxes might pay for itself. The conclusions confirm that the free-lunch mantra is just plain wrong. On the most optimistic assumptions it could muster, the CBO found that tax cuts would stimulate enough economic growth to replace 22 percent of lost revenue in the first five years and 32 percent in the second five. On pessimistic assumptions, the growth effects of tax cuts did nothing to offset revenue loss.

So Mankiw isn't with them. Holtz-Eakin isn't with them. Which raises a question: When top Republicans go around claiming that tax cuts pay for themselves, which economic authorities are they relying on? None, is the answer. These people's approach to government is to make economics up.

The Republicans' only argument is that tax receipts have boomed in the years since the 2003 tax cut. But the question is whether tax receipts increased because the tax cuts worked some kind of magic or because the economy was headed up anyway after the recession, thanks maybe to low interest rates resulting from the Asian savings glut. Friends, the reason we have economists is so that they can solve these puzzles for us. Ignoring their solutions is like ignoring the judgment of medical science in favor of faith healers and quacks.

Politicians are always speechifying about how the United States must lead the world in research to maintain its edge. But having the world's best economics research isn't particularly helpful if those same politicians are silly enough to tune it out. The truth is that American business excels at turning university research into world-beating products; the paranoia on this score is overdone. But American government is often lousy at turning research into policies. That's what we should fret about.


And now, back to the books. 22 hours until my second-to-last exam of the year.

Mood: cautious
Song: Red Hot Chili Peppers, "By the Way"

Saturday, May 06, 2006

I don't like people...

...who don't pay their full portion when settling the bill after group meals.