Venus transits the Sun

This is the last transit in our lifetimes.  Do not stare at the Sun with your naked eyes or view with a telescope or binoculars.  Use welders’ darkest goggles.  I have never trusted the smoke colored plastic they give out for solar eclipses.  The safe way to view is with an old fashioned homemade pinhole “camera”.  See:

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2443-solar-eclipse-viewer.html

 

Begins 5 PM CDT.

NBA Playoffs

The Western Conference Championship is of interest to me and Okiegirl.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/blog/eye-on-basketball/19160679/western-conference-finals-preview-san-antonio-spurs-vs-okc-thunder/rss

I have some additional observations about the Spurs.

1]  They are very deep.  They have twelve reliable players, even if they can only play 9 in a given game.

2]  They are flashy when Ginobili and Parker are on the floor at the same time because of the passing game. If you like no-look find the open man, or pick and roll, or give and go, or fast pass-touch pass basketball, this is where to see it.

3]  Ginobili and Duncan will not be on the floor more than 32 of 48 minutes.  Depth allows this.  The two can play as if “young” for 30 minutes, but not for 37.

4]  They do not defend as tenaciously as the Robinson-Duncan era team, or in the same way.  The team defense is good and smart, but neither great nor spectacular.

5]  Parker absolutely abused Westbrook last time these teams played, but I would not expect that to repeat.

6]  This may be the best shooting team in history, and the fast passing provides comfortable looks.

7]  This team is relaxed even when down 24 points, as they were to the Clips in game 3 of that series.  They won by double digits.  No nerves.

8]  No one on this team can stop Durant, or really slow him down, one-on-one.

Okie, what about the Thunder?

*************************

Mark and all, I’m a big basketball fan but not much of an analyst.  I write this without having read any “expert” analyses, but here goes.  [Michi, cover your eyes.]

1]  Thunder are deep too!  After all, we have Harden, the 2012 NBA 6th Man of the Year.  “Fear the Beard” t-shirts are selling well locally.  That should be a great match-up with Ginobli.  But Collison and Mohammed also get the job done.  I think Collison in particular is underrated.

2]  Thunder aren’t particularly flashy, and I think the pick and roll might be a problem for them defensively.

3]  Hahahahahaha.  There is not a team in the NBA that can hang with the Thunder’s “young” legs.  Rest all ya want; it just means the starters are not on the floor and, subtle as the difference may be, there’s a reason the starters are starters.  Thunder starters can stay on the floor longer.

4]  Kevin Durant will be a problem for the Spurs.  I look for him to have some big games.

5]  This could be a key to the series.  But Westbrook has been on a roll.  We’ll see.

6]  As a Thunder fan, this concerns me.  Offensively, Spurs may pick them apart.  But don’t forget the defensive value of Durant’s speed and 7’5” (or whatever) wingspan.

7]  Ditto for the Thunder.  This actually has been a surprise to me, given their youth.

8]  Bingo.  See number 4.

I have to note how much I love the fact that it is two small market teams in the west finals.  The teams seem to have similar philosophies and values that I find wholesome.  I know someone who came here with the team from Seattle and still works in the Thunder organization, and reportedly the players love being in OKC and the way they are treated both by the organization and by the community.  I have seen nothing locally to indicate otherwise.  Win or lose, you never hear Thunder players blaming teammates a la Kobe.  As far as I know, it’s the same for the Spurs.  Mark, any thoughts on that?

Now for a little local color.  Since it was national news, I suspect all have heard about the shootings that marred the final win over the Lakers (although reportedly having no connection at all to the game).  There is a small plaza in front of the arena where the Thunder play.  There are concessions, bleachers, a jumbotron, etc., and hundreds all this season and in prior years have gathered for pregame festivities (been there myself when I had tickets).  For the first time, for this year’s playoffs they have showed the game in entirety on the jumbotron instead of shutting down at tipoff.  This drew thousands instead of hundreds.  If you watched the Thunder-Laker series you probably saw some cool shots of it on TV.  If not, not as cool but see this or [aarrgghh, cannot get link to work].  Hmmm, 5,000-10,000 people packed into a very small area with no controlled access and where alcohol is sold, what could possibly go wrong?  Due to the recent shootings, the City and the team immediately discontinued Thunder Alley for “public safety reasons” due to the actions of two punks.  Locals are furious.  Hopefully they will find an alternative venue.

 

Edit by Okie:   My prediction:  Spurs in 7 cause they are playing absurdly well right now.  Reserve the right to change the prediction if Thunder manage to steal one of the first two in SA.

I Recommend WaPo’s ‘Spring Cleaning’ – 10 articles for conversation starters

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-time-to-toss-the-all-volunteer-military/2012/04/19/gIQAwFV3TT_story.html?sub=AR

I liked Milbanks’ take on the Cabinet –  except for the Big Four, they don’t do anything.  The Departments may be important, but the Cabinet members are mere figureheads, he claims.  He may have exaggerated (what else is new?), but I got the thrust of it.

TRES FAUX MORNING REPORT

Vital Statistics:
Last Change Percent
S&P Futures 1381.3 8.8 0.65%
Eurostoxx Index 2311.0 26 1.1%
Oil (WTI) 103.58 1.31 1.3%
LIBOR 0.466 0.000 0.00%
US Dollar Index (DXY) 79.55 .01 0.00%
10 Year Govt Bond Yield 1.977% .0277%
Odds Texas will sign Pollard unknown
Bloomberg offers that there is a jump in German confidence, US Airways and AMR are closer to merger, and that Microsoft and GE posted good profits.
FT reports that Wall Street has enjoyed its best quarter for bond trading in two years, rounded off with a surge in revenues at Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, in spite of a steep decline in risk-taking and the introduction of new regulations.
The new Economist leads with the digitalisation [their word] of manufacturing.

Secession Today – a Texas scenario

March 30, 2012

It’s a popular idea in Texas that the Lone Star State — once an independent republic — could break away and go it alone. A few years ago, Texas Gov. Rick Perry hinted that if Washington didn’t stop meddling in his state, independence might be an option. In his brief run for the White House, he insisted that nearly anything the feds do, the states — and Texas in particular — could do better.

So we’re putting Perry’s suggestions to the test — NPR is liberating Texas. We asked scholars, business leaders, diplomats, journalists and regular folk to help us imagine an independent Texas based on current issues before the state. (Though, to be clear, no one quoted here actually favors secession.)

We begin our exercise in Austin, capital of the new Republic of Texas, where the Independence Day party raged until dawn to the music of Austin’s own Asleep at the Wheel. Lead singer Ray Benson announced to the crowd, “We have severed the ties with the United States of America. Texas is free!” and the masses roared in response.

The former state has reinvented itself as a sort of Lone Star Singapore, with low taxes, free trade and minimal regulation. It enters the community of nations as the world’s 15th-largest economy, with vast oil and gas reserves, busy international ports, an independent power grid and a laissez-faire attitude about making money.

Texas Is ‘Open For Business’

The Texas Association of Business advertises the new nation’s economic potential with a radio ad that declares, “Texas: Now it is a whole other country — and it’s open for business … C’mon over. Be part of our vibrant free-market nation.”

Driving around Texas, it’s not uncommon to spot bumper stickers that tout the idea of an independent Longhorn nation.

“What we have been able to do since we threw off the yoke of the federal government is create a country that has the assets necessary to build an incredible empire,” says Bill Hammond, the association’s president.

Imagine airports without the Transportation Security Administration; gun sales without the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; land development without the Endangered Species Act; new congressional districts without the Voting Rights Act; and a new guest-worker program without Washington gridlock over immigration reform.

Indeed, new immigration laws sailed through the Texas Congress. Immigrant workers are now legally crossing the border to frame houses, mow lawns and clean hotel rooms.

“We now have a safe and secure guest-worker program that allows immigrants to come and go as the jobs ebb and flow, and fill the jobs that Texans are unwilling to do,” Hammond says.

The new normal is a leaner government that bears little resemblance to the full-service nation it left behind. The Tea Party faithful who embraced nationhood early on say it’s a lot better than being beholden to Chinese bankers.

“What is the Republic of Texas charged with actually doing? [It’s] charged with defense, charged with education, charged with a few things that you have to do, and the rest is wide open,” says Felicia Cravens, a high school drama teacher active in the Houston Tea Party movement. “Liberty may look like chaos, but to us it’s a lot of choices.”

Under statehood, the U.S. government contributed 60 percent of all Texas aid to the poor. In an independent republic, federal benefits like food stamps, free school lunches and unemployment compensation would disappear, according to two Dallas Tea Party leaders.

“Liberty may look like chaos, but to us it’s a lot of choices.”

“The nation of Texas is a living experiment into what we call the empowerment society. It is no longer a caretaker society,” says Ken Emanuelson, founder of the Grassroots Texans Network.

Texas Tea Party member Katrina Pierson adds, “There’s a safety net that’s always been out there. We don’t have that anymore. You will be a productive member of society and our environment doesn’t allow for people to not be productive.”

Southern Methodist University political scientist Cal Jillson imagines that low-wage Texas would become a new magnet for assembly plants that might have considered setting up shop in Mexico or Malaysia.

“Since Texas has become independent, we are surprised — and some are pleased — to see that maquiladora [or foreign-owned] plants are springing up on the south side of the Red River and on the Sabine [River],” Jillson says. “The American South is complaining because some plants are moving to Texas.”

With independence, the epic battles between the state of Texas and the Environmental Protection Agency would finally be over. The state sued the EPA repeatedly for telling Texas how to run its refineries and coal-fired power plants. Business experts say the new republic would rely on voluntary pollution controls with minimal oversight — a boon to the industrial sector. But how would that go over with residents of refinery towns who have to breathe the air where they live?

“I am very, very skeptical that the nation of Texas will do a good job at protecting the health and safety of the people, because the EPA is no longer in the equation,” says Hilton Kelley, founder and director of the Community Empowerment and Development Association in Port Arthur. “It’s all about petroleum; it’s all about money.”

‘Peeling Back The Onion’ Of Texan Independence

As an independent country, Texas’s red granite capitol building would no longer fly the American flag, only the Lone Star. The new nationalism that breaks out inside the new government would soon be tempered by an independence hangover.

“Every day we’re peeling back the onion and finding another level of complexity that I don’t think anybody initially anticipated,” says Harvey Kronberg, longtime editor and publisher of the Texas political newsletter Quorum Report.

According to Kronberg, a modern sovereign nation requires more — not less — government than a state would. Consider all the new departments it would need to monitor things like foreign affairs, aviation and nuclear regulation. And then there are all the expenses Washington used to take care of — things like maintaining interstate highways, inspecting meat and checking passports.

“Reality is beginning to stagger the folks in the [capitol] building,” Kronberg says.

Public education is a good example. In 2011, the Texas state Legislature slashed billions of dollars from school systems at a time when Texas was already 43rd among the states in per pupil spending and dead last in the number of adults who completed high school.

Steve Murdock, the former Texas state demographer and current director of the Hobby Center for the Study of Texas, expects that things would not improve under the budget of a struggling infant nation.

“For Texas to be the competitive nation that we would all wish it would be, it has to make major improvements in education,” Murdock says, “because right now it’s falling short.”

Texas writer Joe Nick Patoski sits on a bench in downtown Austin, ruminating on the hassles of self-rule.

“You can’t get in the car and go to New Orleans [and] be there in six hours anymore,” he says. “Listen, have you been to the Louisiana checkpoint in Vinton? They’re extracting some kind of revenge, the way they treat us as Third World citizens.”

Patoski imagines losing a number of friends to the post-secession “Texodus,” when U.S. citizens fled Texas for the Upper 48 states. He says he’s rooting for the republic, but he’s anxious for its future.

Today, all that marks the state line between Texas and Louisiana are welcome signs. After independence, those signs would most likely be replaced with the customs and immigration checkpoints that come with any border crossings.

“I’m still proud to be a Texan,” he says, “but I wish they would’ve thought this through before they jumped and cut the cord.”

Step 1: Don’t Go To War With Oklahoma

During the state’s first run as a republic, from 1836 to 1845, Texas established diplomatic relations with England, France, the Netherlands and the United States. Today, the modern nation of Texas would find even more countries eager to build embassies in Austin, says Carne Ross of Independent Diplomat, a New York firm that advises fledgling nations.

“Because of Texas’ wealth — [it’s the] 15th-largest economy in the world — [foreign nations] do not want to have bad relations with Texas,” Ross says. “There are many countries, China for instance, that want to preserve their ability to access countries with major oil and gas reserves, so Texas fit into that.”

Unlike the first republic, a modern nation of Texas needs to have positions on things like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“But what was interesting was that Texas’ positions were often quite different from the remaining United States,” Ross says.

What would Texas’s foreign policy entail? Country singer and humorist Kinky Friedman imagines what he would do as the Texas secretary of foreign affairs.

“I think the first thing we would do is go to the Third World countries and teach the women how to grow big hair and give the men Rick Perry wigs,” he says. “I will keep us out of war with Oklahoma. And one of the first countries we’ll open free trade with is Cuba. We will be opening cigar stores all over Texas. We’re not supporting their economy; we’re burning their fields.”

From Texas To La Republica De Tejas

Texas might see itself as culturally akin to its former fatherland, but as time goes on, the nation’s destiny would be determined by its genetic ties to the south. If current demographic growth continues, Texas will become majority Hispanic within a generation. The prospect of Texas as the newest Latin American nation amuses Austin cultural marketing consultant Mando Rayo.

“Texas becomes La Republica de Tejas,” Rayo says. “The panhandle city of Amarillo becomes Amarillo, and our national pride, the Dallas Vaqueros, win the Super Bowl.”

But would the U.S. let Texas go or would there be a constitutional standoff and opposition from the remaining united states? University of Texas, Austin, presidential scholar H.W. Brands doesn’t anticipate a painful separation.

“The Texans were all set for a fight,” he says. “I don’t know, maybe they were a little bit surprised — maybe they were miffed — that much of the rest of the country said, ‘Well we’ve had enough of the Texans, let ’em go. We’ll be better off without ’em.’ ”

The premise of an independent Texas isn’t actually all that popular in the Lone Star State. Last year, Public Policy Polling asked Texans if they favored secession, and fewer than 1 in 5 were for it. As for the 18 percent that said yes — they can just consider our simulation food for thought.

John Burnett is an NPR national correspondent who lives in Austin and plays in a band, so he is not atypical of Austin. He put this together for NPR at the end of March.

Weekend Report

Fix income inequality with $10 million loans for everyone!

By Sheila Bair, Published: April 13

Are you concerned about growing income inequality in America? Are you resentful of all that wealth concentrated in the 1 percent? I’ve got the perfect solution, a modest proposal that involves just a small adjustment in the Federal Reserve’s easy monetary policy. Best of all, it will mean that none of us have to work for a living anymore.

For several years now, the Fed has been making money available to the financial sector at near-zero interest rates. Big banks and hedge funds, among others, have taken this cheap money and invested it in securities with high yields. This type of profit-making, called the “carry trade,” has been enormously profitable for them.

So why not let everyone participate?

Under my plan, each American household could borrow $10 million from the Fed at zero interest. The more conservative among us can take that money and buy 10-year Treasury bonds. At the current 2 percent annual interest rate, we can pocket a nice $200,000 a year to live on. The more adventuresome can buy 10-year Greek debt at 21 percent, for an annual income of $2.1 million. Or if Greece is a little too risky for you, go with Portugal, at about 12 percent, or $1.2 million dollars a year. (No sense in getting greedy.)

Think of what we can do with all that money. We can pay off our underwater mortgages and replenish our retirement accounts without spending one day schlepping into the office. With a few quick keystrokes, we’ll be golden for the next 10 years.

Of course, we will have to persuade Congress to pass a law authorizing all this Fed lending, but that shouldn’t be hard. Congress is really good at spending money, so long as lawmakers don’t have to come up with a way to pay for it. Just look at the way the Democrats agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts if the Republicans agreed to cut Social Security taxes and extend unemployment benefits. Who says bipartisanship is dead?

And while that deal blew bigger holes in the deficit, my proposal won’t cost taxpayers anything because the Fed is just going to print the money. All we need is about $1,200 trillion, or $10 million for 120 million households. We will all cross our hearts and promise to pay the money back in full after 10 years so the Fed won’t lose any dough. It can hold our Portuguese debt as collateral just to make sure.

Because we will be making money in basically the same way as hedge fund managers, we should have to pay only 15 percent in taxes, just like they do. And since we will be earning money through investments, not work, we won’t have to pay Social Security taxes or Medicare premiums. That means no more money will go into these programs, but so what? No one will need them anymore, with all the cash we’ll be raking in thanks to our cheap loans from the Fed.

Come to think of it, by getting rid of work, we can eliminate a lot of government programs. For instance, who needs unemployment benefits and job retraining when everyone has joined the investor class? And forget the trade deficit. Heck, we want those foreign workers to keep providing us with goods and services.

We can stop worrying about education, too. Who needs to understand the value of pi or the history of civilization when all you have to do to make a living is order up a few trades? Let the kids stay home with us. They can play video games while we pop bonbons and watch the soaps and talk shows. The liberals will love this plan because it reduces income inequality; the conservatives will love it because it promotes family time.

I’m really excited! This is the best American financial innovation since liar loans and pick-a-payment mortgages. I can’t wait to get my super PAC started to help candidates who support this important cause. I think I will call my proposal the “Get Rid of Employment and Education Directive.”

Some may worry about inflation and long-term stability under my proposal. I say they lack faith in our country. So what if it cost 50 billion marks to mail a letter when the German central bank tried printing money to pay idle workers in 1923?

That couldn’t happen here. This is America. Why should hedge funds and big financial institutions get all the goodies?

Look out 1 percent, here we come.

outlook@washpost.com

Sheila Bair is a former chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and a regular contributor to Fortune Magazine.

Republican War on Women (RWoW)

This deserves a thread of its own.

Google the phrase.

  1. Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP’s War on Women

    pol.moveon.org/waronwomen/

    Stop the Republican War on Women. Redefining rape. Attacking the right to choose. Belitting victims of violence. The Republicans are on a rampage attacking 

This is quite clearly a freighted political catchphrase, intended so by sources like MoveOn and HuffPo.  Like the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Terror” it is intended to limit discussion of issues based on impugning motives.  Scott has been trying to make that point.

If we could define the Republican War on Women as the sum of these actions:

a failed conservative move to cut off U.S. government aid to Planned Parenthood + the Komen decision, since reversed + the attempted but failed roll back of contraception under employer health plans + the all male panel called to testify + the G’town student who was called a “slut” by Limbaugh + Santorum’s money guy’s “aspirin between the knees” comment + the vaginal insert sonogram, since abandoned in VA + the R opposition to extending the funding under the Violence against Women Act + personhood laws (thanks, Ashot), we could probably still talk about the cumulation without calling it war.

We could see it as R strategy to appeal to a fundamentalist base, that has become a bolder strategy as more and more of the active voting base of Rs claim fundamentalist religious principles, which often go far beyond the antipathy to abortion that many non-fundamentalists share.  We could see that fundamentalist faith actually does put women in a secondary role – this is true in all the Abrahamic religions.

We could see that some of the individual issues that have been tarred as part of the RWoW don’t derive their impetus from pandering to fundamentalist religion.  For example, some may derive from the desire to cut the budget.

We would not be surprised that moderate women would have no sympathy for any of the items I listed, and would be moving away from the Rs, unless some other set of issues took priority for them.

IMHO,  resisting the shorthand RWoW is worthwhile just in order to keep the issue conversation alive.  I think the same is true of other uses of the word “war” in a catchphrase intended to inflame emotions – like the WoD and the WoT.  It also cheapens the meaning of the word, fwiw.

Bartlett on Health Care in the Financial Times

Lapsed R Bruce Bartlett says government can do it better.  Hmmm.

 

America
The folly at the heart of the US healthcare debate

America is the only developed country that does not offer some form of national health insurance to all its citizens.

Those over the age of 65 have coverage through Medicare and the poor are covered through Medicaid, both established in 1965. Those who are neither poor nor old are expected to obtain their own health insurance or get a job that provides coverage. The federal government does subsidise private insurance through the tax code by allowing its cost to be excluded or deducted from taxable income. This reduces federal revenues by some $180bn per year.

In 2009, the Obama administration put forward a plan for extending health insurance to those who did not have it through an employer, those who could not afford it and those who could not obtain coverage due to a pre-existing medical condition. A complex system of subsidies was established to make coverage affordable to everyone and a mandate was put into place requiring people to get coverage or else pay a fine.

The mandate is by far the most controversial element of the Affordable Care Act. Its rationale is that insurance companies cannot be forced to cover those with pre-existing conditions without it, or else people will simply wait until they are sick before buying health insurance. Nevertheless, many Republicans view the mandate as an unconstitutional intrusion into the economy and they have brought a case before the Supreme Court to declare the legislation null and void for that reason. Court watchers believe the case could go either way, with a final decision expected just before the election in November.

Exactly what would replace the Affordable Care Act if it is found unconstitutional is a mystery. The Obama administration appears to have no back-up plan and Republicans have steadfastly refused to offer any proposal for expanding health coverage. One problem is that before Barack Obama became president, Republicans were the primary supporters of an individual mandate, viewing it is as a more market-oriented way of expanding health coverage without a completely government-run health system. Indeed, Mitt Romney, the likely Republican presidential nominee, established a healthcare system in Massachusetts, where he was governor, that is virtually identical to the national system created by Mr Obama.

Simultaneously, Republicans are keen to cut spending for Medicare and Medicaid, because they are among the most rapidly expanding government spending programmes. A plan supported by Republicans in the House of Representatives would effectively privatise Medicare, giving the elderly a government voucher to buy insurance or health services, in lieu of the pay-for-service system that exists now. Medicaid would be devolved to the states.

What neither party has made any effort to grapple with is the extraordinarily high cost of health, public and private. According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the US spends more of its gross domestic product on health than any other country by a large margin. Americans spent 17.4 per cent of gross domestic product on health in 2009 – almost half of it came from government – versus 12 per cent of GDP or less in other major economies. Britain spends 9.8 per cent of GDP on health, almost all of it through the public sector. The total government outlay is almost exactly the same in the US and the UK at 8.2 per cent of GDP. This suggests that for no more than the US government spends on health now, Americans could have universal coverage and a healthcare system no worse than the British.

However, the option of a completely government-run health system was never seriously considered in the US when the Affordable Care Act was debated in 2009. Americans are too convinced that everything government does is less efficient and costs more than if the private sector does it. The fact that this is obviously wrong in the case of healthcare has never penetrated the public consciousness.

At the moment, everyone is waiting for the Supreme Court to speak before moving forward on any serious new health reform plan. Whichever way the court rules, it is likely to give some push to further action next year regardless of the election outcome. Moreover, the growing governmental cost of Medicare and Medicaid is something that has to be addressed if there is any hope of stabilising the national finances. That alone would be an impetus for action even if the Affordable Care Act had never been enacted.

The writer is a former senior economist at the White House, US Congress and Treasury. He is author of ‘The Benefit and the Burden: Tax Reform – Why We Need It and What It Will Take’

Why Some States are “Donors” and others are “Donees”

Fix and PL commenters are quick to allege that R states are “donees” and D states are “donors”.  The reality eludes them.  But what is the reality?

In the map above, the deepest green states are the biggest donors and the deepest red states are the biggest donees.

The average state should be light green, that is, a small donor, to cover spending outside the USA.  We should look at the average states, the light green ones, like Texas, last.

We can quickly deal with some of the red states.  MD and VA house much of the federal bureaucracy.  They are understandably donees.  NM and AK have huge native American and national park and national forest burdens.  They are understandably donees.  Notice, btw, that of those first four, only one is reliably Republican.  That always falls on deaf ears at PL.

NJ, an industrialized state with plenty of manufacturing and commerce and limited support from AG subsidies or military bases or national parks or Indian reservations, is an understandable big donor.

I have more trouble understanding IL’s situation.  Like TX, it is big in industry and agriculture. IL should be light green, as far as I can see.   Why is it such a big donor?

Why is WVa such a big donee?  If I had to guess, I would think it was purely the legacy of Robert Byrd, but that is cynical, no?  Why is FL a net donee?  Indians and parks?  Could be the Everglades and Key West and the military are enough to explain it, coupled with AG subsidies.  Or are they counting where the social security checks are going?

I am curious as to y’all’s deep thoughts, this not being either The Fix or PL.

“…we would be wise to look upon arguments from fairness with a jaundiced eye.”

From The Economist –

The politics of fairness

Fairly confusing

Feb 2nd 2012, 14:31 by W.W. | IOWA CITY

FAIRNESS played a central role in Barack Obama’s state-of-the-union address, and I suspect it will play a central role in the president’s re-election campaign. But what does Mr Obama have in mind when he deploys the f-word? It may not be the case that fairness is, as Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, puts it, “a concept invented so dumb people could participate in arguments”. But it cannot be denied that fairness is an idea both mutable and contested. Indeed, last week’s state-of-the-union address seems to contain several distinct conceptions of fairness worth drawing out and reflecting upon.

Toward the beginning of his speech, as Mr Obama was trying to draw a parallel between post-second world war America and today’s post-Iraq war America, he offered this rather stark choice:

We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.

Here we have three distinct conceptions of fairness in a single sentence.

To get a “fair shot” is to be offered the opportunity to participate fully and succeed within the country’s institutions. This is, I think, the least controversial conception of fairness in America’s political discourse. Conservatives who strenuously object to the idea that the American system should aim at “equality of outcomes” will sometimes affirm “equality of opportunity” as an alternative. But this is a mistake. To really equalise opportunity requires precisely the sort of intolerably constant, comprehensive, invasive redistribution conservatives rightly believe to be required for the equalisation of outcomes. If one is prepared to accept substantial inequalities in outcome, it follows that one is also prepared to accept substantial inequalities in opportunity.

Getting a fair shot doesn’t require equalising opportunity so much as ensuring that everyone has a good enough chance in life. The content of “good enough” is of course open to debate, but most Americans seem to agree that access to a good education is the greater part of a “good enough” and thus fair shot. Naturally, there is strong partisan disagreement over the kinds of education reform that will do right by young Americans. And there is also disagreement over elements of a “fair shot” beyond education. For example, many liberals believe workers don’t have a fair shot at achieving a decent level of economic security without robust collective-bargaining rights. And many conservatives believe that an overly-strong labour movement invites outsourcing by raising domestic costs, and thereby deprives American workers of a fair shot at employment. There may be some fact of the matter about which policies are most likely to benefit students or workers. But if one is more fair then the other, how would we know?

What is it to do one’s “fair share”? In small groups, it’s clear enough. If my friend and I are shoveling the front walk, my fair share of shoveling, and his, is about half. Often we adjust for differences in ability. If I am big and strong and my friend is small and frail, his fair share may be as much as he can manage. That won’t mean that the whole remainder is my fair share, though. If we’re going to get the walk shoveled, I may have to do a bit more than my fair share. These things get complicated quickly. That’s why the question of what it means for an American do his or her fair share, qua citizen, is completely baffling.

Suppose I’m a surgeon pulling down six figures. Perhaps doing my fair share is to pay 33% of my income in taxes. But, hey, wait! My sister, who could have been a surgeon, chose instead to make pottery in a little hippie arts colony. She makes only as much as she needs to get by, works relatively short hours, smokes a lot of weed with her artist friends, and pays no federal income tax at all! If paying 33% of the money I make saving lives is doing my fair share, then it’s hard to see how my sister—who could have been a surgeon, or some kind of job- and/or welfare-creating entrepreneur—is doing hers. But if she is doing hers, just playing with clay out there in the woods, benefiting next to no one, paying no taxes, then clearly I’m doing way more than my fair share. Which seems, you know, unfair.

Are you doing your fair share? How would one know? Actually, I just made myself feel slightly guilty for not going to med school and joining Médecins Sans Frontières. But unless government can come up with a way of taxing the leisure of people who aren’t doing as much as they might for kith and country, I reckon I’ll just stick to part-time pro blogging and let all you 9-to-5 suckers finance the necessary road-building and foreigner-bombing.

Playing by the same set of rules—the president’s third notion fairness in the passage above—is at least as important to fairness as the sufficiency of a “fair shot” and the proportionality of a “fair share”. A political economy with rules as convoluted as ours is sure to fail by the “same rules” criterion. Why should people who prefer leisure to income face lower tax rates? Why should parents and homeowners get tax breaks single renters don’t get? Why should young black men get longer sentences than young white women who commit the same crimes? Why should some industries get subsidies unavailable to others? In every case, they shouldn’t. It’s unfair. But it is this sense of fairness I think Mr Obama cares least about.

At one point in his address, Mr Obama says “[i]t’s not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they’re heavily subsidized.” I agree. It’s not. But just a few paragraphs earlier, Mr Obama had said:

[N]o American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here in America.

… [I]f you’re an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you’re a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making your products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers.

So my message is simple. It is time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America.

On the one hand, Mr Obama argues it’s unfair when foreign government subsidise their manufacturers. On the other hand, he seems to think subsidising American manufacturing is not only not unfair in the same way, but is somehow required by fairness.

It’s this sort of confusion that tempts me to agree with Mr Adams when he argues that fairness is “purely subjective”. But I’ll resist the temptation. I don’t think judgments of fairness are entirely whimsical. It really is unfair to eat more than your share of the cake, or to do less than your share of the shoveling, or to get ahead by flouting reasonable rules to which others faithfully adhere. And it really is unfair that America wields so much geopolitical power; our government really does behave unfairly when it condemns other countries for doing what it does on the world stage. Of course, we didn’t hear the president complaining about this.

I would conclude not that judgments of fairness are purely subjective, but that the rhetoric of fairness is used so opportunistically that we would be wise to look upon arguments from fairness with a jaundiced eye.