So this has been making the rounds on Facebook lately. You may have seen it yourself; I've been hit from several sides by it:
Salary of retired US Presidents ………….$180,000 FOR LIFE
Salary of House/Senate …………………..$174,000 FOR LIFE
Salary of Speaker of the House …………$223,500 FOR LIFE
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders …… $193,400 FOR LIFE
...Average Salary of a teacher ……………. $40,065
Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN $38,000
I think we found where the cuts should be made! If you agree… Copy and RE-POST
The sentiment expressed by this... what do we use to describe it? Chain post?... is pretty obvious: if we're going to be making budget cuts, "I think we found where the cuts should be made".
Only one problem: are those facts and figures actually accurate? We need to figure that out before we get out the torches and-- oh, screw it, you lit the torches long ago. Well, it'd be a nice thing to know regardless. We wouldn't want to have our facts wrong and look stupid, would we?
There are two main things we have to cover: first, are these salary figures accurate and where did they come from. Second, we need to settle the 'FOR LIFE' side of the equation. This, it can only be assumed, refers to the pension that those officeholders receive upon leaving their respective bodies. We need to find out if they actually get a pension equal to their active-duty salary; and if not, what the pension actually is.
First, we'll handle the President. A current President's salary, most recently revised in the administration of Bush 43, is $400,000 per year, up from $200,000 previously. He also gets a $50,000 non-taxable stipend. But current Presidents aren't on the list. We want retired Presidents. While $180,000 is a commonly-given answer, their pay- their pension- is actually not a fixed amount. It is indexed to match the salary of current Cabinet members. That salary, along with many others in the highest levels of the executive branch, is part of something called "Executive Schedule". Executive Schedule covers top-ranked Presidential appointees, sorting their salaries into five levels, given Roman numerals I-V. I is highest. Everyone at a given level gets the same salary.
Everyone in the Cabinet sits at Level I. Which means, by extension, retired Presidents also get Level I pay. The salary there, currently, is $199,700. That's actually MORE than the angry chain-post claims by $19,700.
Just for fun:
*Also at Level I are the Director of National Intelligence, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, and the directors of the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
*Level II salary is $179,700. Sitting here, among others, are the Joint Chiefs of Staff and deputy secretaries.
*Level III pay is $165,300. Undersecretaries sit here. Yes, that is a different thing from deputy secretaries. Also sitting here, among others, are the Solicitor General, the directors of the FBI, DEA, Peace Corps, Office of Government Ethics, and Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and chairmen for the FCC, FTC, SEC, FDIC, OSHA, Consumer Product Safety Commission, National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
*Level IV gets $155,500. Assistant Secretaries go here- yes, that's another level- along with various Inspector Generals. Also here are the heads of the Bureau of the Census, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Office of Science, Food and Drug Administration, Bureau of Prisons, and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
*Level V gets $145,700. Among the people here are the Archivist of the United States, and heads of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Geological Survey, US Bureau of Mines, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History.
The other governmental figures, the members of Congress, match the figures shown here, at least, while they're actively in office. That isn't in dispute. However, the pension is not full. Nor is it immediate, or even automatic. In order to get any Congressional pension at all, members of Congress must first earn it by having served a bare minimum of five years in civil federal service. So if you serve two terms in the House and then lose out on a third term, you're out of luck unless you find some other governmental position in which to get that other year.
There are other restrictions as well. In Congress, you are not eligible for a pension until your 50th birthday, and even to get it then, you have to have served for 20 years or be part of nine Congresses. Other than that, generally speaking, you qualify either on your 62nd birthday, or upon having served for 25 years.
Your pension is figured combining your years of service with the average of the three years in which you earned the highest salary, along with factoring in (PDF file) which of two federal retirement plans you have. (They introduced a new system in 1987, the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) and employees who started prior to 1984 were given the option of which plan they preferred, FERS or their current one, the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS).) However, your pension is not indexed, like former Presidents, and your initial pension amount cannot exceed 80% of your final salary. CSRS sees you max out after your 32nd year. There is no maximum under FERS, but we'll calculate at 32 years there as well for comparative purposes.
Congress currently gets an annual pay raise unless Congress votes it down. This is a different pay structure than the retired President. At no point in time do Congressional salaries and pensions of retired Presidents meet up in the way they do in the chain-post. The poster had to have gotten them from two different sources that were working on two different timeframes.
The older pension plan, CSRS, is figured as such:
High 3-year average X years of service X .025 = Annual pension
The newer plan, FERS, is figured as such:
[High 3-year average X .017 x years of service up to 20] + [High 3-year average X .01 x years of service past 20] = Annual pension
In 2006, the most recent year available, the average CSRS recipient was getting $60,972 annually. 290 people had retired under CSRS The average FERS recipient, of which there were 123, was getting $35,952 annually; this is the average newly-incoming members of Congress should look at. Individual figures are not given.
Let us assume, for theoretical purposes, the 32-year scenario for all, with three-year averages all locked at current levels:
House/Senate: $174,000
Speaker of the House: $223,500
Majority/Minority Leaders: $193,400
This means that, under CSRS, they would each get in annual pension:
House/Senate: $174,000 x 32 x .025 = $139,200 annual pension
Speaker of the House: $223,500 x 32 x .025 = $178,800 annual pension
Majority/Minority Leaders: $193,400 x 32 x .025 = $154,720 annual pension
And under FERS, there is no maximum, but it would take 66 years in Congress- which has never been done- to achieve 80%. After 32 years, it works out to 46% of that same salary:
House/Senate: [$174,000 x .017 x 20 = $59,160] + [$174,000 x .01 x 12 = $20,880] = $80,040 annual pension
Speaker of the House: [$223,500 x .017 x 20 = $75,990] + [$223,500 x .01 x 12 = $26,820] = $102,810 annual pension
Majority/Minority Leaders: [$193,400 x .017 x 20 = $65,756] + [$193,400 x .01 x 12 = $23,208] = $88,964 annual pension
Remember, those are theoretical, perfect, absolute-maximum pensions that someone could get, today, by leaving Congress. Not only is it nowhere close to the claimed amount in the chain-post, even in a perfect scenario, but the newer plan, FERS, which newly-elected members are placed into, gives them LESS money, significantly less, than the plan that the older members get. So the chain-post is way off here.
Next, we have the teachers. Their average is pegged at $40,065, but this number appears dubious. This number is overwhelmingly seen only in repostings. The most relevant things I could find that uses $40,065 as an average are here, the Elk River Public School District in Minnesota, where $40,065 is the median male income; here, Upper Little Caillou Elementary in Chauvin, Louisiana, where $40,065 is the average faculty salary in 2006-07; and here, Blanket High School in Blanket, Texas, where $40,065 is the average base salary for Blanket High's entire district. Frankly, these appear to be nothing more than lucky shots, because there are so many numbers thrown around in so many districts in so many categories that any given dollar amount is bound to match something somewhere. I shifted the average one dollar lower, to $40,064, and came up with schools in Cape Girardeau, Missouri and New Albany, Indiana. One dollar higher, $40,066, matches the average base salary for a district in Amarillo, Texas.
Blind luck.
As it happens, it's pretty hard to get a blanket figure for "teacher" if you're not really paying attention. When you look for it, you'll find they're usually parsed out by state, by experience, or by type of teacher, and while $40,065 never shows up, the numbers work out to where that comes pretty close to an average of some sort. (Although most of the groups show that $40,065 would skew a few thousand dollars low of average.) It may have been that someone took all the salaries in one of the lower-paying groups shown, smashed them together as a mean average with total disregard as to weighting, and used the result in the chain-post. However, it's almost impossible to tell what group they used.
The first Google result for 'average salary' takes us to salary.com, and the most popular search there is for teacher salaries. An average person needing to smash an average together would most likely go here to do it.
Smashing a mean average together from the 10 categories shown produces $43,934.20, a little less than $4,000 short of the given average. So that's not what the originator did, not precisely. But it is close enough to imagine that this was done somewhere or other. Just not at salary.com.
An actual average, however, is available via the National Education Association. (PDF file.) The average for all classroom teachers was estimated, for 2010-11, to be $56,069, up from $55,202 the previous year. The chain-post's number now looks fairly wildly off.
As for a soldier in Afghanistan, $38,000 matches the number given in the fourth Google result for "average annual salary troop afghanistan", something on Yahoo Answers talking about one specific rank in one specific branch- a tech sergeant in the Air Force.
The Army base pay scale is shown here; the equivalent rank is staff sergeant. $38,000 is higher than any of the figures listed; the highest is $34,088 for a staff sergeant serving for over 6 years. (Privates are started at $17,611 for the first four months.) However, that is only base pay.
An average is even more problematic to track down than that for teachers, because of the sheer number of variables and bonuses that get in the way of producing that nice, clean single average. I was never able to get that straightforward average. The three most relevant are hardship pay ($225 a month, or $2,700 a year), combat pay ($150 a month in Afghanistan, meaning $1,800 a year), and family separation allowances ($250 a month, or $3,000 a year). Combined, that's $7,500 tacked onto your base pay right there if you have any dependents, or $4,500 if you don't. There is also food allowance, clothing allowance, hazardous duty pay, and various other factors.
There is one more, fairly major oversight made by the chain-post: when in a combat zone, a soldier's pay becomes tax-exempt. That provides a substantial boost to someone's salary. It's not going to get anyone swimming in champagne, not by a longshot, but it's nothing to sneeze at either.
Suffice to say, on what has been supplied, $38,000 is certainly one possible number, but a more responsible thing to do is give a range, and while it's a rough, broad estimate, an average soldier in Afghanistan could probably expect between $30,000 and $60,000, somewhere between 'pretty bad' to 'actually fairly decent'. Were I to venture a guess of my own, I'd settle on something around $50,000, give or take. But don't take that as gospel.
So where does this all leave us? Let's revisit the chain-post:
Salary of retired US Presidents ………….$180,000 FOR LIFE
Salary of House/Senate …………………..$174,000 FOR LIFE
Salary of Speaker of the House …………$223,500 FOR LIFE
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders …… $193,400 FOR LIFE
...Average Salary of a teacher ……………. $40,065
Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN $38,000
And now, let's revise it to reflect the actual numbers we've found.
Salary of retired US Presidents ………….$199,700 (and rising) FOR LIFE
Salary of House/Senate …………………..$174,000, then $35,952 FOR LIFE
Salary of Speaker of the House …………$223,500
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders …… $193,400
...Average Salary of a teacher ……………. $56,069
Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN depends on A LOT OF THINGS but is probably between $30,000-60,000, TAX-FREE
The sentiment of the chain-post- that elected officials make much more in comparison to teachers and soldiers- is accurate. However, the exact numbers are almost completely wrong, mostly in a direction that makes the differences more stark than in reality, and the Congressional pension numbers are ridiculously off. And the tax-exempt status of the soldier in Afghanistan gives a big boost to their entire pay structure.
This chain-post is an example of the phrase 'garbage in, garbage out'. It looks to have been put together very lazily, with bad and very possibly outmoded data. Someone probably got angry, had general, predetermined ideas of what the numbers were going to be, threw together the first numbers they could come up with that looked right, and made a post out of it. As such, the numbers only have the most threadbare of resemblances to reality.
To borrow Politifact's rating scale, I rate this chain-post Mostly False.
Showing posts with label statistics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label statistics. Show all posts
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Countries By Credit Rating
So... the US got downgraded by Standard & Poor.
Where does that leave us in relation to the rest of the world?
If you don't follow credit agency ratings regularly, the names of the ratings are likely to look a bit inflated. Every rating from the three major agencies- S&P, Moody's and Fitch- contain the letters A, B or C, often multiple times. Or at least, every rating that any country with a rating currently has.
For ease of comprehension, here, we're going to throw all those alphabet-block ratings in the garbage. We will rename them by their tier number: the best rating from a given agency will be reassigned the number 1, the second-best rating gets a 2, and so on. I figure that's something much more easily understandable. We'll also note the dividing line between "investment-grade" and "speculative-grade"; aka the junk bond line. For all three, the line happens to divide tiers 10 and 11.
As of today, here are the countries sitting on each rating. Note that not every country has ratings from all three, and some countries have no ratings at all.
In case you're wondering, one country currently matches the United States in all three ratings. That country is New Zealand.
STANDARD AND POOR'S
1- Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Isle of Man, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom
2- Belgium, New Zealand, South Korea, United States
3- Abu Dhabi, Bermuda, Kuwait, Qatar, Slovenia, Spain
4- China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan
5- Chile, Italy, Slovakia
6- Andorra, Czech Republic, Estonia, Israel, Malta, Oman, Ras Al-Khaimah, Trinidad and Tobago
7- Aruba, Botswana, Malaysia, Poland
8- Bahamas, Cyprus, Ireland, South Africa
9- Bahrain, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Mexico, Russia
10- Barbados, Brazil, Colombia, Croatia, Hungary, Iceland, India, Montserrat, Morocco, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Tunisia
----JUNK BOND LINE----
11- Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Latvia, Romania, Uruguay
12- Costa Rica, Egypt, Guatemala, Jordan, Macedonia, Montenegro, Philippines, Serbia, Turkey
13- Angola, Bangladesh, Cook Islands, El Salvador, Gabon, Mongolia, Venezuela, Vietnam
14- Albania, Bolivia, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Dominican Republic, Georgia, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Uganda, Ukraine, Zambia
15- Argentina, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ghana, Honduras, Lenanon
16- Ecuador, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica, Pakistan
20- Greece
MOODY'S
1- Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Isle of Man, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States
2- Belgium, Hong Kong
3- Bermuda, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Qatar, Slovenia, Spain, United Arab Emirates
4- Cayman Islands, Chile, China, Macao, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan
5- Czech Republic, Estonia, Israel, Malta, Oman, Slovakia, South Korea
6- Botswana, Poland
7- Bahamas, Malaysia, South Africa
8- Bahrain, Cyprus, Lithuania, Mexico, Russia, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago
9- Brazil, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Mauritius
10- Barbados, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Hungary, Iceland, India, Latvia, Panama, Peru, Romania, Tunisia
----JUNK BOND LINE----
11- Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Indonesia, Ireland, Morocco, Uruguay
12- Armenia, El Salvador, Jordan, Philippines, Portugal, Turkey
13- Angola, Bangladesh, Egypt, Georgia, Montenegro
14- Albania, Bolivia, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Lebanon, Mongolia, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Senegal, Sri Lanka, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Vietnam
15- Bosnia/Herzegovina, Cambodia, Honduras, Ukraine, Venezuela
16- Argentina, Belarus, Belize, Jamaica, Moldova, Nicaragua, Pakistan
17- Cuba
18- Ecuador
20- Greece
FITCH
1- Australia, Austria, Bermuda, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States
2- Belgium, Hong Kong, Spain
3- Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Slovenia, South Korea
4- Chile, China, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia
5- Czech Republic, Estonia, Israel, Malta, Slovakia
6- Malaysia, Poland, Ras Al-Khaimah, San Marino, South Africa
7- Cyprus, Thailand
8- Bahrain, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania, Mexico
9- Aruba, Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Morocco, Namibia, Peru, Russia, Tunisia
10- Azerbaijan, Colombia, India, Panama, Portugal, Romania
----JUNK BOND LINE----
11- Costa Rica, Egypt, Guatemala, Indonesia, Macedonia, Philippines, Turkey, Uruguay
12- El Salvador, Lesotho, Nigeria
13- Angola, Armenia, Cape Verde, Gabon, Kenya, Serbia, Sri Lanka
14- Bolivia, Georgia, Ghana, Mongolia, Mozambique, Seychelles, Suriname, Venezuela, Vietnam, Zambia
15- Argentina, Benin, Dominican Republic, Lebanon, Rwanda, Uganda, Ukraine
16- Cameroon, Ecuador, Jamaica
17- Greece
Where does that leave us in relation to the rest of the world?
If you don't follow credit agency ratings regularly, the names of the ratings are likely to look a bit inflated. Every rating from the three major agencies- S&P, Moody's and Fitch- contain the letters A, B or C, often multiple times. Or at least, every rating that any country with a rating currently has.
For ease of comprehension, here, we're going to throw all those alphabet-block ratings in the garbage. We will rename them by their tier number: the best rating from a given agency will be reassigned the number 1, the second-best rating gets a 2, and so on. I figure that's something much more easily understandable. We'll also note the dividing line between "investment-grade" and "speculative-grade"; aka the junk bond line. For all three, the line happens to divide tiers 10 and 11.
As of today, here are the countries sitting on each rating. Note that not every country has ratings from all three, and some countries have no ratings at all.
In case you're wondering, one country currently matches the United States in all three ratings. That country is New Zealand.
STANDARD AND POOR'S
1- Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Isle of Man, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom
2- Belgium, New Zealand, South Korea, United States
3- Abu Dhabi, Bermuda, Kuwait, Qatar, Slovenia, Spain
4- China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan
5- Chile, Italy, Slovakia
6- Andorra, Czech Republic, Estonia, Israel, Malta, Oman, Ras Al-Khaimah, Trinidad and Tobago
7- Aruba, Botswana, Malaysia, Poland
8- Bahamas, Cyprus, Ireland, South Africa
9- Bahrain, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Mexico, Russia
10- Barbados, Brazil, Colombia, Croatia, Hungary, Iceland, India, Montserrat, Morocco, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Tunisia
----JUNK BOND LINE----
11- Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Latvia, Romania, Uruguay
12- Costa Rica, Egypt, Guatemala, Jordan, Macedonia, Montenegro, Philippines, Serbia, Turkey
13- Angola, Bangladesh, Cook Islands, El Salvador, Gabon, Mongolia, Venezuela, Vietnam
14- Albania, Bolivia, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Dominican Republic, Georgia, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Uganda, Ukraine, Zambia
15- Argentina, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ghana, Honduras, Lenanon
16- Ecuador, Fiji, Grenada, Jamaica, Pakistan
20- Greece
MOODY'S
1- Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Isle of Man, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States
2- Belgium, Hong Kong
3- Bermuda, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Qatar, Slovenia, Spain, United Arab Emirates
4- Cayman Islands, Chile, China, Macao, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan
5- Czech Republic, Estonia, Israel, Malta, Oman, Slovakia, South Korea
6- Botswana, Poland
7- Bahamas, Malaysia, South Africa
8- Bahrain, Cyprus, Lithuania, Mexico, Russia, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago
9- Brazil, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Mauritius
10- Barbados, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Hungary, Iceland, India, Latvia, Panama, Peru, Romania, Tunisia
----JUNK BOND LINE----
11- Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Indonesia, Ireland, Morocco, Uruguay
12- Armenia, El Salvador, Jordan, Philippines, Portugal, Turkey
13- Angola, Bangladesh, Egypt, Georgia, Montenegro
14- Albania, Bolivia, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Lebanon, Mongolia, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Senegal, Sri Lanka, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Vietnam
15- Bosnia/Herzegovina, Cambodia, Honduras, Ukraine, Venezuela
16- Argentina, Belarus, Belize, Jamaica, Moldova, Nicaragua, Pakistan
17- Cuba
18- Ecuador
20- Greece
FITCH
1- Australia, Austria, Bermuda, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States
2- Belgium, Hong Kong, Spain
3- Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Slovenia, South Korea
4- Chile, China, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia
5- Czech Republic, Estonia, Israel, Malta, Slovakia
6- Malaysia, Poland, Ras Al-Khaimah, San Marino, South Africa
7- Cyprus, Thailand
8- Bahrain, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania, Mexico
9- Aruba, Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Morocco, Namibia, Peru, Russia, Tunisia
10- Azerbaijan, Colombia, India, Panama, Portugal, Romania
----JUNK BOND LINE----
11- Costa Rica, Egypt, Guatemala, Indonesia, Macedonia, Philippines, Turkey, Uruguay
12- El Salvador, Lesotho, Nigeria
13- Angola, Armenia, Cape Verde, Gabon, Kenya, Serbia, Sri Lanka
14- Bolivia, Georgia, Ghana, Mongolia, Mozambique, Seychelles, Suriname, Venezuela, Vietnam, Zambia
15- Argentina, Benin, Dominican Republic, Lebanon, Rwanda, Uganda, Ukraine
16- Cameroon, Ecuador, Jamaica
17- Greece
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Who Do You Trust?
(Edited to add additional names.)
One of the most important measures by which we judge our politicians is honesty. At the risk of being Captain Obvious, one would prefer that their elected officials not lie to them. But yet, when it actually comes time to vote, honesty never actually seems to play a part in the decision. No matter how untrustworthy a candidate seems to be, no matter how many years we spend screaming about the broken campaign promises of those who have come before, we seem to judge the new candidates, on some level, by what they have promised, disregarding the possibility that these promises may be lies. We almost never account for the possibility that the person we vote for might have something else up their sleeve-- although, given how things have gone in Wisconsin this year with Scott Walker, maybe that will change a bit.
We do have a way to measure one candidate's honesty against another. At Politifact, they keep a record of the history of every person and organization whose statements they rate. We'll be using those histories today, as well at the ratings each statement has received. You know the ratings by now: True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True, False and Pants On Fire. We're going to assign each rating a point value, as follows:
True- 5 points
Mostly True- 3 points
Half True- 2 points
Barely True- 1 point
False- 0 points
Pants On Fire- -1 point
This point system is designed to give a little extra bonus for having all your lines crossed and I's dotted, with the jump from 3 to 5 points from a Mostly True to a full True. Neither False nor Pants on Fire are awarded any points- getting things totally wrong should not be rewarded- and if you've been given a Pants on Fire, the inclination is that you've made people measurably dumber for having listened to you. That is going to be penalized in a way for which you'd be better off never having opened your mouth.
Now, Politifact has issued some questionable ratings. A little bit of salt is to be taken along with the ratings. However, it's still the best we've got.
What we're going to do here is take all the Republican primary candidates for President, even the ones who have dropped out, and others who have been speculated into the mix, and measure their average rating per statement. We will also measure President Obama. The raw point total won't mean anything, as that is profoundly dependent on how often they are examined. (It will, however, be supplied to help show the math- total points divided by total ratings equals average points per rating, or PPR.)
To help combat small sample sizes, like a baseball batting title, we're going to ask for a minimum number of five "at-bats" to qualify for a PPR. We'll include the non-qualifying candidates, but they will be given separately, without a PPR.
A score will show up with the ratings, in descending order from True to Pants On Fire, shown in the format (0/1/0/2/3/0). This sample chart signifies one Mostly True, two Barely Trues, and three Falses. Followed will be the total points, and then PPR- in this case, 0.833.
As a control, the score for "chain e-mails" will also be given, as they are pretty much Politifact's resident butt monkey; the single least-reliable source Politifact regularly checks. Also included will be a variety of other notable people with at least 10 "at-bats".
Consider a PPR of 2.5 to be great, 2.0 to be good, 1.5 to be marginal, 1.0 to be bad, and anything below 1.0 to be awful.
Sound good?
First, we'll get the non-qualifying candidates out of the way...
Haley Barbour (0/0/0/1/0/0)
Jeb Bush (1/2/0/1/0/0)
Chris Christie (0/1/1/1/1/0)
Mitch Daniels (0/0/0/0/2/0)
Jon Huntsman Jr. (1/0/0/0/0/0)
Gary Johnson (0/1/0/0/0/0)
Fred Karger (0/0/0/0/0/0)
Thad McCotter (0/0/0/0/0/0)
Roy Moore (0/0/0/0/0/0)
Buddy Roemer (0/0/0/0/0/0)
Now that that's done, we'll introduce first Obama, the chain e-mails and the other notables, listed from highest PPR to lowest. A high PPR is, obviously, good. The higher the PPR, the more honest and truthful you are as scored by Politifact.
Dennis Kucinich (8/3/4/1/2/0) 18 at-bats, 58 points, 3.222 PPR
George Will (7/2/3/4/0/0) 16 at-bats, 51 points, 3.188 PPR
Hillary Clinton (32/8/22/15/8/2) 87 at-bats, 241 points, 2.770 PPR
Bob McDonnell (3/3/3/3/0/0) 12 at-bats, 33 points, 2.750 PPR
David Axelrod (2/3/4/2/0/0) 11 at-bats, 29 points, 2.636 PPR
Marco Rubio (8/7/5/4/4/1) 29 at-bats, 74 points, 2.552 PPR
Barack Obama (75/67/71/39/49/4) 305 at-bats, 753 points, 2.469 PPR
Charlie Crist (11/7/7/6/6/2) 39 at-bats, 94 points, 2.410 PPR
Joe Biden (10/9/10/8/5/3) 45 at-bats, 102 points, 2.267 PPR
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (2/3/3/2/2/0) 12 at-bats, 27 points, 2.250 PPR
Jon Kyl (1/3/4/0/2/0) 10 at-bats, 22 points, 2.200 PPR
John Boehner (14/3/4/6/14/1) 42 at-bats, 92 points, 2.190 PPR
Michael Moore (2/4/0/2/3/0) 11 at-bats, 24 points, 2.182 PPR
Rick Scott (8/12/9/5/7/3) 44 at-bats, 96 points, 2.182 PPR
Mitch McConnell (2/2/2/1/3/0) 10 at-bats, 21 points, 2.100 PPR
John McCain (34/31/29/29/38/8) 169 at-bats, 342 points, 2.024 PPR
Harry Reid (2/1/3/2/3/0) 11 at-bats, 21 points, 1.909 PPR
John Kasich (5/4/7/5/6/0) 27 at-bats, 51 points, 1.889 PPR
Rob Portman (2/3/3/2/3/1) 14 at-bats, 26 points, 1.857 PPR
Eric Cantor (4/1/3/2/4/2) 16 at-bats, 29 points, 1.813 PPR
Rachel Maddow (1/3/3/1/4/0) 12 at-bats, 21 points, 1.750 PPR
Scott Walker (5/3/3/6/10/1) 28 at-bats, 45 points, 1.607 PPR
Nancy Pelosi (1/2/7/2/3/2) 17 at-bats, 25 points, 1.471 PPR
Glenn Beck (2/1/5/4/6/5) 23 at-bats, 22 points, 0.957 PPR
Ron Johnson (0/1/1/4/4/0) 10 at-bats, 9 points, 0.900 PPR
Chain e-mails (4/5/6/6/28/49) 98 at-bats, 4 points, 0.041 PPR
The one thing Kucinich will ever win against that field. George Will comes in second place and is the only other person here to crest the 3.0 mark.
And now the Republican candidates, again from best PPR to worst.
Ron Paul (4/5/2/1/1/1) 14 at-bats, 39 points, 2.786 PPR
Mitt Romney (17/7/10/5/9/4) 52 at-bats, 127 points, 2.442 PPR
Rudy Giuliani (7/6/9/7/5/2) 36 at-bats, 76 points, 2.111 PPR
Mike Huckabee (7/2/6/6/4/2) 27 at-bats, 57 points, 2.111 PPR
Tim Pawlenty (1/4/3/2/1/1) 12 at-bats, 24 points, 2.000 PPR
Newt Gingrich (3/3/4/1/3/2) 16 at-bats, 31 points, 1.938 PPR
Paul Ryan (1/1/2/3/0/1) 8 at-bats, 14 points, 1.750 PPR
Sarah Palin (10/6/7/9/13/5) 50 at-bats, 86 points, 1.720 PPR
Mike Pence (3/0/2/3/5/0) 13 at-bats, 22 points, 1.692 PPR
Rick Perry (10/6/19/9/13/7) 64 at-bats, 108 points, 1.688 PPR
Jim DeMint (2/0/0/1/2/1) 6 at-bats, 10 points, 1.667 PPR
Herman Cain (0/2/2/1/3/2) 10 at-bats, 9 points, 0.900 PPR
Donald Trump (0/1/2/0/4/3) 10 at-bats, 4 points, 0.400 PPR
Michelle Bachmann (1/1/2/5/11/7) 27 at-bats, 10 points, 0.370 PPR
Rick Santorum (0/0/1/0/3/1) 5 at-bats, 1 point, 0.200 PPR
Ron Paul wins honors in this field, beating everybody overall but Kucinich and Will. Cain, Trump, Bachmann and Santorum, meanwhile, come in below 1.0, beating nobody but the chain e-mails and each other. (Though Cain can say he ties Ron Johnson.)
Everybody's PPR will flesh out more as the campaign process continues and they get more at-bats. However, for now, it seems a fair starting point.
One of the most important measures by which we judge our politicians is honesty. At the risk of being Captain Obvious, one would prefer that their elected officials not lie to them. But yet, when it actually comes time to vote, honesty never actually seems to play a part in the decision. No matter how untrustworthy a candidate seems to be, no matter how many years we spend screaming about the broken campaign promises of those who have come before, we seem to judge the new candidates, on some level, by what they have promised, disregarding the possibility that these promises may be lies. We almost never account for the possibility that the person we vote for might have something else up their sleeve-- although, given how things have gone in Wisconsin this year with Scott Walker, maybe that will change a bit.
We do have a way to measure one candidate's honesty against another. At Politifact, they keep a record of the history of every person and organization whose statements they rate. We'll be using those histories today, as well at the ratings each statement has received. You know the ratings by now: True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True, False and Pants On Fire. We're going to assign each rating a point value, as follows:
True- 5 points
Mostly True- 3 points
Half True- 2 points
Barely True- 1 point
False- 0 points
Pants On Fire- -1 point
This point system is designed to give a little extra bonus for having all your lines crossed and I's dotted, with the jump from 3 to 5 points from a Mostly True to a full True. Neither False nor Pants on Fire are awarded any points- getting things totally wrong should not be rewarded- and if you've been given a Pants on Fire, the inclination is that you've made people measurably dumber for having listened to you. That is going to be penalized in a way for which you'd be better off never having opened your mouth.
Now, Politifact has issued some questionable ratings. A little bit of salt is to be taken along with the ratings. However, it's still the best we've got.
What we're going to do here is take all the Republican primary candidates for President, even the ones who have dropped out, and others who have been speculated into the mix, and measure their average rating per statement. We will also measure President Obama. The raw point total won't mean anything, as that is profoundly dependent on how often they are examined. (It will, however, be supplied to help show the math- total points divided by total ratings equals average points per rating, or PPR.)
To help combat small sample sizes, like a baseball batting title, we're going to ask for a minimum number of five "at-bats" to qualify for a PPR. We'll include the non-qualifying candidates, but they will be given separately, without a PPR.
A score will show up with the ratings, in descending order from True to Pants On Fire, shown in the format (0/1/0/2/3/0). This sample chart signifies one Mostly True, two Barely Trues, and three Falses. Followed will be the total points, and then PPR- in this case, 0.833.
As a control, the score for "chain e-mails" will also be given, as they are pretty much Politifact's resident butt monkey; the single least-reliable source Politifact regularly checks. Also included will be a variety of other notable people with at least 10 "at-bats".
Consider a PPR of 2.5 to be great, 2.0 to be good, 1.5 to be marginal, 1.0 to be bad, and anything below 1.0 to be awful.
Sound good?
First, we'll get the non-qualifying candidates out of the way...
Haley Barbour (0/0/0/1/0/0)
Jeb Bush (1/2/0/1/0/0)
Chris Christie (0/1/1/1/1/0)
Mitch Daniels (0/0/0/0/2/0)
Jon Huntsman Jr. (1/0/0/0/0/0)
Gary Johnson (0/1/0/0/0/0)
Fred Karger (0/0/0/0/0/0)
Thad McCotter (0/0/0/0/0/0)
Roy Moore (0/0/0/0/0/0)
Buddy Roemer (0/0/0/0/0/0)
Now that that's done, we'll introduce first Obama, the chain e-mails and the other notables, listed from highest PPR to lowest. A high PPR is, obviously, good. The higher the PPR, the more honest and truthful you are as scored by Politifact.
Dennis Kucinich (8/3/4/1/2/0) 18 at-bats, 58 points, 3.222 PPR
George Will (7/2/3/4/0/0) 16 at-bats, 51 points, 3.188 PPR
Hillary Clinton (32/8/22/15/8/2) 87 at-bats, 241 points, 2.770 PPR
Bob McDonnell (3/3/3/3/0/0) 12 at-bats, 33 points, 2.750 PPR
David Axelrod (2/3/4/2/0/0) 11 at-bats, 29 points, 2.636 PPR
Marco Rubio (8/7/5/4/4/1) 29 at-bats, 74 points, 2.552 PPR
Barack Obama (75/67/71/39/49/4) 305 at-bats, 753 points, 2.469 PPR
Charlie Crist (11/7/7/6/6/2) 39 at-bats, 94 points, 2.410 PPR
Joe Biden (10/9/10/8/5/3) 45 at-bats, 102 points, 2.267 PPR
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (2/3/3/2/2/0) 12 at-bats, 27 points, 2.250 PPR
Jon Kyl (1/3/4/0/2/0) 10 at-bats, 22 points, 2.200 PPR
John Boehner (14/3/4/6/14/1) 42 at-bats, 92 points, 2.190 PPR
Michael Moore (2/4/0/2/3/0) 11 at-bats, 24 points, 2.182 PPR
Rick Scott (8/12/9/5/7/3) 44 at-bats, 96 points, 2.182 PPR
Mitch McConnell (2/2/2/1/3/0) 10 at-bats, 21 points, 2.100 PPR
John McCain (34/31/29/29/38/8) 169 at-bats, 342 points, 2.024 PPR
Harry Reid (2/1/3/2/3/0) 11 at-bats, 21 points, 1.909 PPR
John Kasich (5/4/7/5/6/0) 27 at-bats, 51 points, 1.889 PPR
Rob Portman (2/3/3/2/3/1) 14 at-bats, 26 points, 1.857 PPR
Eric Cantor (4/1/3/2/4/2) 16 at-bats, 29 points, 1.813 PPR
Rachel Maddow (1/3/3/1/4/0) 12 at-bats, 21 points, 1.750 PPR
Scott Walker (5/3/3/6/10/1) 28 at-bats, 45 points, 1.607 PPR
Nancy Pelosi (1/2/7/2/3/2) 17 at-bats, 25 points, 1.471 PPR
Glenn Beck (2/1/5/4/6/5) 23 at-bats, 22 points, 0.957 PPR
Ron Johnson (0/1/1/4/4/0) 10 at-bats, 9 points, 0.900 PPR
Chain e-mails (4/5/6/6/28/49) 98 at-bats, 4 points, 0.041 PPR
The one thing Kucinich will ever win against that field. George Will comes in second place and is the only other person here to crest the 3.0 mark.
And now the Republican candidates, again from best PPR to worst.
Ron Paul (4/5/2/1/1/1) 14 at-bats, 39 points, 2.786 PPR
Mitt Romney (17/7/10/5/9/4) 52 at-bats, 127 points, 2.442 PPR
Rudy Giuliani (7/6/9/7/5/2) 36 at-bats, 76 points, 2.111 PPR
Mike Huckabee (7/2/6/6/4/2) 27 at-bats, 57 points, 2.111 PPR
Tim Pawlenty (1/4/3/2/1/1) 12 at-bats, 24 points, 2.000 PPR
Newt Gingrich (3/3/4/1/3/2) 16 at-bats, 31 points, 1.938 PPR
Paul Ryan (1/1/2/3/0/1) 8 at-bats, 14 points, 1.750 PPR
Sarah Palin (10/6/7/9/13/5) 50 at-bats, 86 points, 1.720 PPR
Mike Pence (3/0/2/3/5/0) 13 at-bats, 22 points, 1.692 PPR
Rick Perry (10/6/19/9/13/7) 64 at-bats, 108 points, 1.688 PPR
Jim DeMint (2/0/0/1/2/1) 6 at-bats, 10 points, 1.667 PPR
Herman Cain (0/2/2/1/3/2) 10 at-bats, 9 points, 0.900 PPR
Donald Trump (0/1/2/0/4/3) 10 at-bats, 4 points, 0.400 PPR
Michelle Bachmann (1/1/2/5/11/7) 27 at-bats, 10 points, 0.370 PPR
Rick Santorum (0/0/1/0/3/1) 5 at-bats, 1 point, 0.200 PPR
Ron Paul wins honors in this field, beating everybody overall but Kucinich and Will. Cain, Trump, Bachmann and Santorum, meanwhile, come in below 1.0, beating nobody but the chain e-mails and each other. (Though Cain can say he ties Ron Johnson.)
Everybody's PPR will flesh out more as the campaign process continues and they get more at-bats. However, for now, it seems a fair starting point.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
In Other News, America's Collective Head Exploded
How far of a disconnect is there between the media, the government, and everyone else in the country?
A new poll is out saying that 52% of Americans favor tax increases as part of a plan to balance the budget.
How much news or political speech have you seen lately that would have given you anything resembling that idea of where the nation stood on taxes? (Granted, the poll didn't ask whether these same people would want their own taxes raised; that number is bound to be lower. Odds are, the number consists largely of people wanting to tax the rich. But this is still something of a shockingly high number that I'd like to see expanded on in future polling.)
A new poll is out saying that 52% of Americans favor tax increases as part of a plan to balance the budget.
How much news or political speech have you seen lately that would have given you anything resembling that idea of where the nation stood on taxes? (Granted, the poll didn't ask whether these same people would want their own taxes raised; that number is bound to be lower. Odds are, the number consists largely of people wanting to tax the rich. But this is still something of a shockingly high number that I'd like to see expanded on in future polling.)
Monday, March 28, 2011
I Sentence You To Life, And All Its Horrors
Amnesty International today issued their annual report on the state of the death penalty worldwide, and they are overall showing a fairly sharp decline over the past year... as long as you exclude China. China is by far the biggest proponent of the death penalty worldwide, executing more people than the rest of the world combined, so much so that if you included China in the count, it would skew the reading.
So excluding China, 719 people were executed worldwide in 2009. In 2010, the number was 527. At least, as far as we know; some countries aren't totally forthcoming in releasing their statistics. China, meanwhile, has at least 2,000 by Amnesty International's count, with rumors of it being as high as 8,000.
You see now why China had to be excluded?
22 other countries were scored as having at least one execution in 2010. Iran had 252, North Korea 60, Yemen 53, the United States 46, Saudi Arabia 27, Libya 18, Syria 17, Bangladesh 9, Somalia 8, Sudan 6, Palestine 5, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea and Taiwan 4, Belarus and Japan 2, and Iraq,
Botswana, Malaysia and Bahrain 1. Most of those countries, though, might have higher counts beyond what was scored, and Vietnam and Singapore might have also carried out at least one. (The confirmed count adds up to 521. Amnesty misplaced six executions here somewhere.)
It must be noted that these are actual executions. Not death sentences. While death sentences are given out in the thousands- 2,024 given by 67 countries- often, they aren't carried out.
Belarus is probably under more scrutiny than any other, outside of China. They are the only country left in Europe that still executes, in defiance of pressure placed upon it by the EU, which will not start officially talking with Belarus until it, among other things, abolishes the practice.
Over the past decade, 31 countries have. Gabon is the most recent, the 139th overall, while Mongolia instituted a moratorium- not abolition, but a step in that direction. Here in the US, Illinois recently abolished the death penalty, the 16th state to do so. Texas accounted (PDF) for 17 of the 46 American executions; if it were a country, it'd be ranked 8th in 2010 executions. Ohio had 8, Alabama 5, Virginia, Oklahoma and Mississippi 3, Georgia 2, and Florida, Louisiana, Arizona, Utah and Washington 1. There would have been more save for the fact that almost all American executions are by lethal injection, and there was widespread difficulty in obtaining one of the drugs in the cocktail, sodium thiopental. Arizona had to get theirs from the United Kingdom. Texas, down from 24 executions in 2009, has also been dealing with fallout from the executions of inmates who have later been exonerated; as a result, they've been more deliberate in proceeding.
In China itself, last month they abolished the death penalty for 13 'economic' crimes, a move which Amnesty International derided as "legal housekeeping", as China rarely carried out the executions for those crimes anyway. Among the crimes: tax fraud, tomb robbing, fossil stealing, and the smuggling of cultural relics. The death penalty was also abolished for those over age 75. That still leaves 55 crimes that can get you killed in China.
Still a long way to go.
So excluding China, 719 people were executed worldwide in 2009. In 2010, the number was 527. At least, as far as we know; some countries aren't totally forthcoming in releasing their statistics. China, meanwhile, has at least 2,000 by Amnesty International's count, with rumors of it being as high as 8,000.
You see now why China had to be excluded?
22 other countries were scored as having at least one execution in 2010. Iran had 252, North Korea 60, Yemen 53, the United States 46, Saudi Arabia 27, Libya 18, Syria 17, Bangladesh 9, Somalia 8, Sudan 6, Palestine 5, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea and Taiwan 4, Belarus and Japan 2, and Iraq,
Botswana, Malaysia and Bahrain 1. Most of those countries, though, might have higher counts beyond what was scored, and Vietnam and Singapore might have also carried out at least one. (The confirmed count adds up to 521. Amnesty misplaced six executions here somewhere.)
It must be noted that these are actual executions. Not death sentences. While death sentences are given out in the thousands- 2,024 given by 67 countries- often, they aren't carried out.
Belarus is probably under more scrutiny than any other, outside of China. They are the only country left in Europe that still executes, in defiance of pressure placed upon it by the EU, which will not start officially talking with Belarus until it, among other things, abolishes the practice.
Over the past decade, 31 countries have. Gabon is the most recent, the 139th overall, while Mongolia instituted a moratorium- not abolition, but a step in that direction. Here in the US, Illinois recently abolished the death penalty, the 16th state to do so. Texas accounted (PDF) for 17 of the 46 American executions; if it were a country, it'd be ranked 8th in 2010 executions. Ohio had 8, Alabama 5, Virginia, Oklahoma and Mississippi 3, Georgia 2, and Florida, Louisiana, Arizona, Utah and Washington 1. There would have been more save for the fact that almost all American executions are by lethal injection, and there was widespread difficulty in obtaining one of the drugs in the cocktail, sodium thiopental. Arizona had to get theirs from the United Kingdom. Texas, down from 24 executions in 2009, has also been dealing with fallout from the executions of inmates who have later been exonerated; as a result, they've been more deliberate in proceeding.
In China itself, last month they abolished the death penalty for 13 'economic' crimes, a move which Amnesty International derided as "legal housekeeping", as China rarely carried out the executions for those crimes anyway. Among the crimes: tax fraud, tomb robbing, fossil stealing, and the smuggling of cultural relics. The death penalty was also abolished for those over age 75. That still leaves 55 crimes that can get you killed in China.
Still a long way to go.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Primarying The President
In a discussion yesterday on Facebook, I was linked up by Kevin Zeese to this interview given to The Nation by Russ Feingold, who as you may recall was defeated in November by Ron Johnson. The reaction of a couple of Zeese's friends was sharply negative because during the interview, Feingold stated his support for President Obama's renomination in 2012, or at least, his reluctance to support a primary campaign against him.
Zeese is a Green, and ran as such in 2006 for a Senate seat in Maryland- he of course lost or he'd be in the Senate right now instead of eventual winner Ben Cardin- and so are, to a large degree, Zeese's friends. They aren't Obama fans, viewing him as too conservative, and when I stated that Obama was not going to draw a serious primary challenger, I received a fierce denunciation from one person who proceeded to call me a "Reagan Democrat".
First, it must be said that this assertion, as liberal as I am, is not entirely off base. While today, knowing what I do, Ronald Reagan would never receive my vote, hindsight is 20/20. Had I been alive (I was born in 1985) and been eligible to vote in Reagan's election years of 1980 and 1984, I have to admit that Reagan would have gotten votes out of me on both occasions. On Election Day 1980, I imagine I'd have been mighty skeptical of incumbent Jimmy Carter's performance- the oil crisis, boycotting the Olympics, stagflation, the swimming rabbit- and would not have had all the information about the hostage crisis in Iran, which was dominating news at the time. As a result, I'd probably have booted him out. As for 1984... Walter Mondale. What a disaster he was. It wasn't that Reagan was particularly great or anything, merely that his opposition had imploded in front of him.
So I guess you could call me a Reagan Democrat. Or a Reagan Green- I identify more with the Green platform, but caucus Democratic for primarily strategic purposes. But you get the idea. Anyway. That established.
The point I was intending to make was not simply that Obama would not receive a serious primary challenge. My point- or as we should probably restate at this point, my hypothesis- was that Presidents just don't get seriously primaried. It's almost a perk of the office. You usually only really get one shot in your life at the White House, unless you are Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Richard Nixon or Bush 41, in which you get two, or unless you are Ronald Reagan, in which you get three. You need to spend so much political capital, call in so many favors, and it is such a power struggle at that high level that even when you get to the top, it's a damn hard thing to stay there. If you go for it and lose, you may never get another shot. So unless you are drafted into the race, you have to keep your powder dry and wait for the most opportune possible moment.
When your party is in the White House, taking on the incumbent President, one-on-one, is not an opportune moment. At least, not if you would like to remain significantly involved in politics. God help you if you lose and the incumbent retains.
This is not to say incumbent Presidents don't get primary challengers. Just not good ones. That's the hypothesis, anyway.
But again, this is something that needs to be shown. It's not something people look at a lot, and it's really along the lines of conventional wisdom. I'd hate to look stupid.
So I need to back up my argument. What The Royal We must do is to examine all previous years in which an incumbent President has stood for re-election. Every President has either been a Vice President, Senator, House representative, Governor, Cabinet member (and Hoover's the only one that wasn't State or War/Defense) or an Army general, so you can't just grab a guy off the street and have him go 'But I AM serious!'. It's got to be someone of stature. Additional information is often needed to determine if someone is truly a threat (Nancy Pelosi would, for example, serve as a greater challenge to Obama than Laura Richardson, even though they're both House members from California), but generally this is what you're looking for.
Sound good?
1792: George Washington, who identified with no party, ran unopposed by either side and was in fact coaxed out of retiring to engage in the second term.
1800: John Adams, a Federalist, was the incumbent. He drew two primary opponents- Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, former ambassador to France, and John Jay, governor of New York. Pinckney became Adams' running mate.
1804: Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, was the incumbent. He was unopposed for renomination.
1812: James Madison, a Democratic-Republican, was the incumbent. He was unopposed for renomination.
1820: James Monroe, a Democratic-Republican, was the incumbent, and ran unopposed by either side.
1828: John Quincy Adams, a Republican, was the incumbent. He was unopposed for renomination.
1832: Andrew Jackson, a Democrat, was the incumbent. He was unopposed for renomination.
1840: Martin Van Buren, a Democrat, was the incumbent. He was unopposed for renomination.
1852: Millard Fillmore, a Whig, was the incumbent. He had taken over after the death of Zachary Taylor, and historically, these Presidents have had a hard time gaining respect. He did draw opposition, and was in fact defeated for renomination by Army general Winfield Scott. Daniel Webster, a former Senator, a legendary one, in fact, also sought the nomination.
1856: Franklin Pierce, a Democrat, was the incumbent, and really, when the party's official campaign slogan became "Anybody But Pierce", he really should have bowed out and saved himself the embarrassment. He didn't. James Buchanan, who came in as ambassador to Great Britain, won the nomination and the White House. Also involved were Senators Stephen Douglas and Lewis Cass. Cass wasn't running- he had missed on his chance in 1848- but drew a few votes at the convention anyway.
1864: Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, was the incumbent. He was basically unopposed for renomination. There was some initial question as to his re-electability, and a smattering of support for Army general Ulysses S. Grant, but the war turned in Lincoln's direction and the Grant issue was solved by taking Andrew Johnson as a running mate. We'll call it opposition, but you can't really call it serious, especially due to the fact that Lincoln would have crushed Grant anyway.
1868: Despite coming one vote away from being thrown out of office, Andrew Johnson, who again, had taken over after the death of Lincoln, still thought for some reason he could get renominated. 13 opponents begged to differ. 22 ballots were cast at the convention; Johnson never led or threatened to, and stopped getting voted for after ballot 18. Former House representative George Pendleton led early on; Army general Winfield Hancock and Senator Thomas Hendricks deadlocked late; former Governor Horatio Seymour became the compromise nominee.
1872: Ulysses S. Grant, a Republican, was the incumbent. He was unopposed for renomination.
1884: Chester A. Arthur, a Republican, was the incumbent, and defeated by former Senator James G. Blaine. Two other Senators, George Edmunds and John Logan, also sought the nomination. Arthur, again, was an heir of a White House vacated by death, in this case James Garfield.
1888: Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, was the incumbent. He was unopposed for renomination.
1892: Benjamin Harrison, a Republican, was the incumbent. He saw opposition by Governor William McKinley and Secretary of State James G. Blaine, but he had already taken his shot as the nominee in 1884 and lost, and by this time was easily defeatable by Harrison, especially because he was drafted into the race but did not run himself, and because McKinley had sucked up enough votes to kickstart his own 1896 election. Which was just as well; Blaine died in January 1893. It wasn't really serious opposition. More like showpiece opposition. These were the days where when you wanted someone else at the convention, you just went and voted like it, as opposed to the current practice of the nominee being hashed out well in advance and becoming nominated by acclimation.
1900: McKinley, now the Republican incumbent, was unopposed for renomination.
1904: Theodore Roosevelt, the latest ascendant President, was opposed by Senator Mark Hanna, but Hanna died prior to the convention and no additional opposition stepped up.
1912: This was the first year of primary elections, and two Republicans decided to take a run at William Howard Taft: former President Theodore Roosevelt and Senator Robert LaFollette. Taft was Roosevelt's handpicked successor, so the fact that Roosevelt, who put him in, was trying to take him back out was, you could say, a slightly serious challenge. LaFollette was no slouch either, winning two of the first four primaries. Taft won a bitter nomination, leading to Roosevelt forming the Bull Moose Party and gaining 88 electoral votes to Taft's 8. Woodrow Wilson was perfectly happy watching the two cancel each other out and claiming the other 435.
1916: Wilson was unopposed for renomination.
1924: Calvin Coolidge, a Republican, was the incumbent. He had taken over for Warren Harding, and the party had no problem with him. LaFollette was in the mix, as was Senator Hiram Johnson, but both had already made unsuccessful runs and were never really in it.
1932: Herbert Hoover, a Republican, was the incumbent. Against the party's better judgment, and also because Hoover had a lockdown on the party, he was renominated without much debate and with only token opposition from obscure former Senator Joseph Irwin France. And boy did they pay for not finding someone else.
1936: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a Democrat, was the incumbent. His only challenger was Henry Breckenridge, who 20 years prior had been Assistant Secretary of War and in 1934 ran for a Senate seat in New York as part of the "Constitutionalist Party" but came in fifth, getting doubled up by the Communist. He got predictably smothered in the primaries.
1940: Roosevelt was always going to draw a challenge by virtue of being the guy that broke the then-unwritten rule of a two-term limit. In fact, some geared up on speculation that he wouldn't try it. In this case, former Postmaster General James Farley and Vice President John Nance Garner took their shots, and Senator Millard Tydings and Secretary of State Cordell Hull also drew votes at the convention, but Roosevelt, once confirmed that he would run, took them all out with no trouble.
1944: Roosevelt was unopposed this time.
1948: Harry Truman, a Democrat, did see a movement to drop him by party leaders who preferred Army general Dwight Eisenhower. When Eisenhower declined, though, Truman's renomination was assured. However, that didn't stop conventioneers from casting votes for Senators Richard Russell or eventual running mate Alben Barkley, or West Virginia Senator Harley Kilgore from winning a favorite-son primary. Former Governor Paul McNutt and one-term House representative James Roe also received votes.
1956: Eisenhower, having declared himself ready and elected in 1952, was unopposed for renomination.
1964: Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat ascendant to John F. Kennedy, got the same treatment that ascendant Presidents usually do. Governor George Wallace and a slew of favorite sons weren't going to cut it, though, and thus the primary season was largely figured as going through the motions.
1968: Johnson said in March that he wouldn't seek another term. Everybody blames this on Vietnam. What gets forgotten is that at the time he said that, he was seeking another term. He was losing, badly, and made his exit upon seeing an internal poll showing him getting plastered in Wisconsin, the next primary in line, by Senator Eugene McCarthy. The nomination eventually went to Vice President Hubert Humphrey. As far as I'm concerned, it's serious opposition, serious enough to hound the President out of the race.
1972: Richard Nixon, a Republican, was the incumbent, and had only to swat away a pair of gadflies, House representatives John Ashbrook and Pete McCloskey.
1976: Gerald Ford, a Republican, was the incumbent, but as he was the only President to not be officially approved by the voters in any way, shape or form, there was no way he wasn't drawing opposition. Ford's opposition was Ronald Reagan, who Ford beat, but not by much. There was also Harold Stassen, but his big opportunity had come and gone in 1948, and he had been running every time since right up through 2000. Look up 'perennial candidate' and if there's a picture, it's certain to be his.
1980: Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, was the incumbent. His term had gone badly enough that Senator Ted Kennedy decided this was his chance, and while he put the hurt on, taking 12 states from Carter and building late momentum, it wasn't enough. Governor Jerry Brown also took a primary, Michigan's. Secretary of State Edmund Muskie's name was put forward as a compromise just in case the convention became deadlocked.
1984: Ronald Reagan, as we established early on, was the incumbent. All he had to do was beat Harold Stassen. In 1984, I could probably have beaten Harold Stassen and I wasn't even born yet.
1992: George H.W. Bush- Bush 41- was the Republican incumbent. His opposition was columnist Pat Buchanan, who put in a scare in New Hampshire but ultimately didn't win a thing. Oh, and also there was Harold Stassen. 8,099 people voted for Stassen, probably as a joke.
1996: Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was the incumbent. Lyndon Larouche mounted a challenge, despite the fact that he had taken his big shot in 1976, and also there was the little issue of his being on parole at the time. He claimed two delegates, who were both thrown out because the Democrats wanted no part of LaRouche's crazy ass. He's still involved in politics, putting Hitler mustaches on Barack Obama on his PAC website.
2004: George W. Bush- Bush 43- was the Republican incumbent. Bill Wyatt, a T-shirt maker from California, was Bush's strongest opposition. He claimed that his 4% in the Louisiana primary was a victory, as it sent a message to the party. Whatever message it was, it was deleted unread.
Let's add all that up...
Races: 36
Races where the incumbent was completely unopposed: 13
Races with serious opposition: 9 (1800, 1852, 1856, 1868, 1884, 1912, 1968, 1976, 1980)
Races with serious opposition where the incumbent had not taken over the term through the predecessor's early departure: 4 (1800, 1856, 1912, 1980)
Races where the incumbent was defeated: 5 (1852, 1856, 1868, 1884, 1968)
Races where a President not completing a term abandoned through the predecessor's death was defeated: 1 (1856)
Well, okay, I wasn't entirely correct. Incumbent Presidents can draw serious opposition. But in order to get it, half the time it takes a President who wasn't elected President. And unless you count Lyndon Johnson- and almost nobody does- no incumbent President has actually been unseated in the primary since 1884, an era prior to anything we would recognize today as a primary season. And if you cut it down to Barack Obama's current situation- an incumbent completing a term he began in his own right- the only president who has lost the primary under those circumstances is Franklin Pierce.
The slogan of the Democratic Party in 1856 was "Anybody But Pierce".
The slogan on the website of the Democratic National Committee today is "Change That Matters."
Bit of a difference.
Zeese is a Green, and ran as such in 2006 for a Senate seat in Maryland- he of course lost or he'd be in the Senate right now instead of eventual winner Ben Cardin- and so are, to a large degree, Zeese's friends. They aren't Obama fans, viewing him as too conservative, and when I stated that Obama was not going to draw a serious primary challenger, I received a fierce denunciation from one person who proceeded to call me a "Reagan Democrat".
First, it must be said that this assertion, as liberal as I am, is not entirely off base. While today, knowing what I do, Ronald Reagan would never receive my vote, hindsight is 20/20. Had I been alive (I was born in 1985) and been eligible to vote in Reagan's election years of 1980 and 1984, I have to admit that Reagan would have gotten votes out of me on both occasions. On Election Day 1980, I imagine I'd have been mighty skeptical of incumbent Jimmy Carter's performance- the oil crisis, boycotting the Olympics, stagflation, the swimming rabbit- and would not have had all the information about the hostage crisis in Iran, which was dominating news at the time. As a result, I'd probably have booted him out. As for 1984... Walter Mondale. What a disaster he was. It wasn't that Reagan was particularly great or anything, merely that his opposition had imploded in front of him.
So I guess you could call me a Reagan Democrat. Or a Reagan Green- I identify more with the Green platform, but caucus Democratic for primarily strategic purposes. But you get the idea. Anyway. That established.
The point I was intending to make was not simply that Obama would not receive a serious primary challenge. My point- or as we should probably restate at this point, my hypothesis- was that Presidents just don't get seriously primaried. It's almost a perk of the office. You usually only really get one shot in your life at the White House, unless you are Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Richard Nixon or Bush 41, in which you get two, or unless you are Ronald Reagan, in which you get three. You need to spend so much political capital, call in so many favors, and it is such a power struggle at that high level that even when you get to the top, it's a damn hard thing to stay there. If you go for it and lose, you may never get another shot. So unless you are drafted into the race, you have to keep your powder dry and wait for the most opportune possible moment.
When your party is in the White House, taking on the incumbent President, one-on-one, is not an opportune moment. At least, not if you would like to remain significantly involved in politics. God help you if you lose and the incumbent retains.
This is not to say incumbent Presidents don't get primary challengers. Just not good ones. That's the hypothesis, anyway.
But again, this is something that needs to be shown. It's not something people look at a lot, and it's really along the lines of conventional wisdom. I'd hate to look stupid.
So I need to back up my argument. What The Royal We must do is to examine all previous years in which an incumbent President has stood for re-election. Every President has either been a Vice President, Senator, House representative, Governor, Cabinet member (and Hoover's the only one that wasn't State or War/Defense) or an Army general, so you can't just grab a guy off the street and have him go 'But I AM serious!'. It's got to be someone of stature. Additional information is often needed to determine if someone is truly a threat (Nancy Pelosi would, for example, serve as a greater challenge to Obama than Laura Richardson, even though they're both House members from California), but generally this is what you're looking for.
Sound good?
1792: George Washington, who identified with no party, ran unopposed by either side and was in fact coaxed out of retiring to engage in the second term.
1800: John Adams, a Federalist, was the incumbent. He drew two primary opponents- Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, former ambassador to France, and John Jay, governor of New York. Pinckney became Adams' running mate.
1804: Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, was the incumbent. He was unopposed for renomination.
1812: James Madison, a Democratic-Republican, was the incumbent. He was unopposed for renomination.
1820: James Monroe, a Democratic-Republican, was the incumbent, and ran unopposed by either side.
1828: John Quincy Adams, a Republican, was the incumbent. He was unopposed for renomination.
1832: Andrew Jackson, a Democrat, was the incumbent. He was unopposed for renomination.
1840: Martin Van Buren, a Democrat, was the incumbent. He was unopposed for renomination.
1852: Millard Fillmore, a Whig, was the incumbent. He had taken over after the death of Zachary Taylor, and historically, these Presidents have had a hard time gaining respect. He did draw opposition, and was in fact defeated for renomination by Army general Winfield Scott. Daniel Webster, a former Senator, a legendary one, in fact, also sought the nomination.
1856: Franklin Pierce, a Democrat, was the incumbent, and really, when the party's official campaign slogan became "Anybody But Pierce", he really should have bowed out and saved himself the embarrassment. He didn't. James Buchanan, who came in as ambassador to Great Britain, won the nomination and the White House. Also involved were Senators Stephen Douglas and Lewis Cass. Cass wasn't running- he had missed on his chance in 1848- but drew a few votes at the convention anyway.
1864: Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, was the incumbent. He was basically unopposed for renomination. There was some initial question as to his re-electability, and a smattering of support for Army general Ulysses S. Grant, but the war turned in Lincoln's direction and the Grant issue was solved by taking Andrew Johnson as a running mate. We'll call it opposition, but you can't really call it serious, especially due to the fact that Lincoln would have crushed Grant anyway.
1868: Despite coming one vote away from being thrown out of office, Andrew Johnson, who again, had taken over after the death of Lincoln, still thought for some reason he could get renominated. 13 opponents begged to differ. 22 ballots were cast at the convention; Johnson never led or threatened to, and stopped getting voted for after ballot 18. Former House representative George Pendleton led early on; Army general Winfield Hancock and Senator Thomas Hendricks deadlocked late; former Governor Horatio Seymour became the compromise nominee.
1872: Ulysses S. Grant, a Republican, was the incumbent. He was unopposed for renomination.
1884: Chester A. Arthur, a Republican, was the incumbent, and defeated by former Senator James G. Blaine. Two other Senators, George Edmunds and John Logan, also sought the nomination. Arthur, again, was an heir of a White House vacated by death, in this case James Garfield.
1888: Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, was the incumbent. He was unopposed for renomination.
1892: Benjamin Harrison, a Republican, was the incumbent. He saw opposition by Governor William McKinley and Secretary of State James G. Blaine, but he had already taken his shot as the nominee in 1884 and lost, and by this time was easily defeatable by Harrison, especially because he was drafted into the race but did not run himself, and because McKinley had sucked up enough votes to kickstart his own 1896 election. Which was just as well; Blaine died in January 1893. It wasn't really serious opposition. More like showpiece opposition. These were the days where when you wanted someone else at the convention, you just went and voted like it, as opposed to the current practice of the nominee being hashed out well in advance and becoming nominated by acclimation.
1900: McKinley, now the Republican incumbent, was unopposed for renomination.
1904: Theodore Roosevelt, the latest ascendant President, was opposed by Senator Mark Hanna, but Hanna died prior to the convention and no additional opposition stepped up.
1912: This was the first year of primary elections, and two Republicans decided to take a run at William Howard Taft: former President Theodore Roosevelt and Senator Robert LaFollette. Taft was Roosevelt's handpicked successor, so the fact that Roosevelt, who put him in, was trying to take him back out was, you could say, a slightly serious challenge. LaFollette was no slouch either, winning two of the first four primaries. Taft won a bitter nomination, leading to Roosevelt forming the Bull Moose Party and gaining 88 electoral votes to Taft's 8. Woodrow Wilson was perfectly happy watching the two cancel each other out and claiming the other 435.
1916: Wilson was unopposed for renomination.
1924: Calvin Coolidge, a Republican, was the incumbent. He had taken over for Warren Harding, and the party had no problem with him. LaFollette was in the mix, as was Senator Hiram Johnson, but both had already made unsuccessful runs and were never really in it.
1932: Herbert Hoover, a Republican, was the incumbent. Against the party's better judgment, and also because Hoover had a lockdown on the party, he was renominated without much debate and with only token opposition from obscure former Senator Joseph Irwin France. And boy did they pay for not finding someone else.
1936: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a Democrat, was the incumbent. His only challenger was Henry Breckenridge, who 20 years prior had been Assistant Secretary of War and in 1934 ran for a Senate seat in New York as part of the "Constitutionalist Party" but came in fifth, getting doubled up by the Communist. He got predictably smothered in the primaries.
1940: Roosevelt was always going to draw a challenge by virtue of being the guy that broke the then-unwritten rule of a two-term limit. In fact, some geared up on speculation that he wouldn't try it. In this case, former Postmaster General James Farley and Vice President John Nance Garner took their shots, and Senator Millard Tydings and Secretary of State Cordell Hull also drew votes at the convention, but Roosevelt, once confirmed that he would run, took them all out with no trouble.
1944: Roosevelt was unopposed this time.
1948: Harry Truman, a Democrat, did see a movement to drop him by party leaders who preferred Army general Dwight Eisenhower. When Eisenhower declined, though, Truman's renomination was assured. However, that didn't stop conventioneers from casting votes for Senators Richard Russell or eventual running mate Alben Barkley, or West Virginia Senator Harley Kilgore from winning a favorite-son primary. Former Governor Paul McNutt and one-term House representative James Roe also received votes.
1956: Eisenhower, having declared himself ready and elected in 1952, was unopposed for renomination.
1964: Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat ascendant to John F. Kennedy, got the same treatment that ascendant Presidents usually do. Governor George Wallace and a slew of favorite sons weren't going to cut it, though, and thus the primary season was largely figured as going through the motions.
1968: Johnson said in March that he wouldn't seek another term. Everybody blames this on Vietnam. What gets forgotten is that at the time he said that, he was seeking another term. He was losing, badly, and made his exit upon seeing an internal poll showing him getting plastered in Wisconsin, the next primary in line, by Senator Eugene McCarthy. The nomination eventually went to Vice President Hubert Humphrey. As far as I'm concerned, it's serious opposition, serious enough to hound the President out of the race.
1972: Richard Nixon, a Republican, was the incumbent, and had only to swat away a pair of gadflies, House representatives John Ashbrook and Pete McCloskey.
1976: Gerald Ford, a Republican, was the incumbent, but as he was the only President to not be officially approved by the voters in any way, shape or form, there was no way he wasn't drawing opposition. Ford's opposition was Ronald Reagan, who Ford beat, but not by much. There was also Harold Stassen, but his big opportunity had come and gone in 1948, and he had been running every time since right up through 2000. Look up 'perennial candidate' and if there's a picture, it's certain to be his.
1980: Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, was the incumbent. His term had gone badly enough that Senator Ted Kennedy decided this was his chance, and while he put the hurt on, taking 12 states from Carter and building late momentum, it wasn't enough. Governor Jerry Brown also took a primary, Michigan's. Secretary of State Edmund Muskie's name was put forward as a compromise just in case the convention became deadlocked.
1984: Ronald Reagan, as we established early on, was the incumbent. All he had to do was beat Harold Stassen. In 1984, I could probably have beaten Harold Stassen and I wasn't even born yet.
1992: George H.W. Bush- Bush 41- was the Republican incumbent. His opposition was columnist Pat Buchanan, who put in a scare in New Hampshire but ultimately didn't win a thing. Oh, and also there was Harold Stassen. 8,099 people voted for Stassen, probably as a joke.
1996: Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was the incumbent. Lyndon Larouche mounted a challenge, despite the fact that he had taken his big shot in 1976, and also there was the little issue of his being on parole at the time. He claimed two delegates, who were both thrown out because the Democrats wanted no part of LaRouche's crazy ass. He's still involved in politics, putting Hitler mustaches on Barack Obama on his PAC website.
2004: George W. Bush- Bush 43- was the Republican incumbent. Bill Wyatt, a T-shirt maker from California, was Bush's strongest opposition. He claimed that his 4% in the Louisiana primary was a victory, as it sent a message to the party. Whatever message it was, it was deleted unread.
Let's add all that up...
Races: 36
Races where the incumbent was completely unopposed: 13
Races with serious opposition: 9 (1800, 1852, 1856, 1868, 1884, 1912, 1968, 1976, 1980)
Races with serious opposition where the incumbent had not taken over the term through the predecessor's early departure: 4 (1800, 1856, 1912, 1980)
Races where the incumbent was defeated: 5 (1852, 1856, 1868, 1884, 1968)
Races where a President not completing a term abandoned through the predecessor's death was defeated: 1 (1856)
Well, okay, I wasn't entirely correct. Incumbent Presidents can draw serious opposition. But in order to get it, half the time it takes a President who wasn't elected President. And unless you count Lyndon Johnson- and almost nobody does- no incumbent President has actually been unseated in the primary since 1884, an era prior to anything we would recognize today as a primary season. And if you cut it down to Barack Obama's current situation- an incumbent completing a term he began in his own right- the only president who has lost the primary under those circumstances is Franklin Pierce.
The slogan of the Democratic Party in 1856 was "Anybody But Pierce".
The slogan on the website of the Democratic National Committee today is "Change That Matters."
Bit of a difference.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Paint the Roof, Burn the Town, Shut It Down, Or Something
The Daily Beast, in time for New Years', has compiled a ranking of the 40 drunkest cities in America, compiling data based on average drinks per person per month, percentages of heavy or binge drinkers, and the prevalence of deaths from alcoholic liver disease. The winner: Milwaukee. No big shocker there.
By and large, the top 40 list (warning: slideshow) is predominantly northern cities...
1- Milwaukee, WI
2- Fargo, ND
3- San Francisco, CA
4- Austin, TX
5- Reno, NV
6- Burlington, VT
7- Omaha, NE
8- Boston, MA
9- Anchorage, AK
10- San Diego, CA
11- Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
12- Denver, CO
13- Providence, RI
14- Sioux City, IA
15- Toledo, OH
16- Hartford, CT
17- Tampa, FL
18- Portland, ME
19- San Antonio, TX
20- Philadelphia, PA
21- Spokane, WA
22- Cleveland, OH
23- Sacramento, CA
24- St. Louis, MO
25- New Orleans, LA
26- Tuscon, AZ
27- Buffalo, NY
28- Tallahassee, FL
29- Chicago, IL
30- Seattle-Tacoma, WA
31- Springfield-Holyoke, MA
32- Portland, OR
33- Davenport, IA
34- Phoenix, AZ
35- Cincinnati, OH
36- Las Vegas, NV
37- Baltimore, MD
38- Cedar Rapids, IA
39- Casper, WY
40- Jacksonville, FL
Residents of the list should probably watch themselves. There's an old myth that drinking keeps you warm. All the drinking does is draw heat out from your core. It helps temporarily, but once that heat seeps away, you're just going to freeze that much faster.
The Mythbusters proved this and everything.
In addition, a note to city #1, Milwaukee: today the forecast calls for showers with a high of 48 (living 35 miles west of Milwaukee, I'm currently seeing fog out my window), but tonight it's supposed to drop to 26, with rain still coming down, and not get above freezing again for at least the next few days. So the roads aren't going to be the greatest. Add in a bunch of drunken New Years' revelers, on a Friday night yet, and if you don't get where I'm going with this, just ask Fargo, city #2, what happened last night in their neck of the woods.
By and large, the top 40 list (warning: slideshow) is predominantly northern cities...
1- Milwaukee, WI
2- Fargo, ND
3- San Francisco, CA
4- Austin, TX
5- Reno, NV
6- Burlington, VT
7- Omaha, NE
8- Boston, MA
9- Anchorage, AK
10- San Diego, CA
11- Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
12- Denver, CO
13- Providence, RI
14- Sioux City, IA
15- Toledo, OH
16- Hartford, CT
17- Tampa, FL
18- Portland, ME
19- San Antonio, TX
20- Philadelphia, PA
21- Spokane, WA
22- Cleveland, OH
23- Sacramento, CA
24- St. Louis, MO
25- New Orleans, LA
26- Tuscon, AZ
27- Buffalo, NY
28- Tallahassee, FL
29- Chicago, IL
30- Seattle-Tacoma, WA
31- Springfield-Holyoke, MA
32- Portland, OR
33- Davenport, IA
34- Phoenix, AZ
35- Cincinnati, OH
36- Las Vegas, NV
37- Baltimore, MD
38- Cedar Rapids, IA
39- Casper, WY
40- Jacksonville, FL
Residents of the list should probably watch themselves. There's an old myth that drinking keeps you warm. All the drinking does is draw heat out from your core. It helps temporarily, but once that heat seeps away, you're just going to freeze that much faster.
The Mythbusters proved this and everything.
In addition, a note to city #1, Milwaukee: today the forecast calls for showers with a high of 48 (living 35 miles west of Milwaukee, I'm currently seeing fog out my window), but tonight it's supposed to drop to 26, with rain still coming down, and not get above freezing again for at least the next few days. So the roads aren't going to be the greatest. Add in a bunch of drunken New Years' revelers, on a Friday night yet, and if you don't get where I'm going with this, just ask Fargo, city #2, what happened last night in their neck of the woods.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Let It Snow, Let It Snow, Actually, No, Stop It
Today we have our first measurable snowfall of the year, and Watertown busted out a 'snow emergency' for the occasion. I'm only seeing a couple inches outside my window, but it is enough to where you have to bust out the plows, so sure, why not.
Wisconsin, however, comparatively gets off easy. The American recorded record for snowfall in a 24-hour period (recorded being the keyword; sometimes snowfall doesn't get recorded because it falls in a place not equipped to measure it, which makes the identity of record-holders pretty volatile) is at Mile 47 Camp, Alaska, which recieved 78 inches of snow on February 9, 1963. In the lower 48, the record- some say the overall record and in fact world record when they don't count Mile 47 Camp- is held by Silver Lake, Colorado, which comes up 2.4 inches short of Alaska at 75.8 inches in April 1921. (When this happens, the Alaska record seems to revert to a 62-incher taken by Thompson Pass in 1955.)
Ranking the states by their respective record 24-hour snowfall, and counting Mile 47 Camp, along with the other highest numbers I've come across since I've really got no way of knowing which figures are more trustworthy than others, we see this, (tied states ordered chronologically):
1- Alaska, 78.0 inches (Mile 47 Camp, 1963)
2- Colorado, 75.8 inches (Silver Lake, 1921)
3- California, 67.0 inches (Echo Summit Sierra at Tahoe, 1982)
4- Washington, 65.0 inches (Crystal Mountain Ski Resort, 1994)
5- South Dakota, 52.0 inches (Lead, 1973)
6- New Hampshire, 49.3 inches (Mount Washington, 1969)
T7- New York, 49.0 inches (Watertown, 1900)
T7- Wyoming, 49.0 inches (Hunter Station, 1924)
9- Montana, 48.0 inches (7 miles south of Shonkin, 1982/14 miles southeast of Millegan, 2003)
10- Oregon, 47.0 inches (Hood River ES, 1980)
11- Vermont, 42.0 inches (Jay Peak, 1995)
12- New Mexico, 41.0 inches (Kelly Ranch, 1964)
13- Maine, 40.0 inches (Orono, 1962)
T14- Pennsylvania, 38.0 inches (Morgantown, 1958)
T14- Idaho, 38.0 inches (Sun Valley, 1959)
T14- Arizona, 38.0 inches (Heber Ranger Station, 1967/Alpine, 1987)
T14- Utah, 38.0 inches (Alta, 1982)
T18- Illinois, 36.0 inches (Astoria, 1900)
T18- North Carolina, 36.0 inches (Mount Mitchell, 1993)
T18- Minnesota, 36.0 inches (Wolf Ridge ELC, 1994)
T18- Nevada, 36.0 inches (Dagget Pass, 1996)
22- West Virginia, 35.0 inches (Flat Top, 1998)
23- Virginia, 33.5 inches (5 miles east of Luray, 1994)
24- Indiana, 33.0 inches (Salem, 2004)
T25- New Jersey, 32.0 inches (Charlotteburg Reservoir, 1915)
T25- Michigan, 32.0 inches (Herman, 1985)
27- Maryland, 31.0 inches (1 mile east-northeast of Spring, 1942)
T28- Ohio, 30.0 inches (3 miles south of Warren, 1901)
T28- Connecticut, 30.0 inches (Falls Village, 1969)
T28- Rhode Island, 30.0 inches (Woonsocket, 1978)
T28- Tennessee, 30.0 inches (Mount Leconte, 1993)
T28- Kansas, 30.0 inches (Pratt, 2009)
33- Massachusetts, 29.0 inches (Natick, 1997)
T34- North Dakota, 27.0 inches (Minot Airport, 1984)
T34- Nebraska, 27.0 inches (Dalton, 2006)
T36- Wisconsin, 26.0 inches (Neillsville, 1904)
T36- Kentucky, 26.0 inches (Simers, 1942)
T36- Oklahoma, 26.0 inches (Woodward/Freedom, 2009)
T39- Arkansas, 25.0 inches (Corning, 1918)
T39- Delaware, 25.0 inches (Dover, 1979)
T39- Texas, 25.0 inches (Follett, 2009)
T42- Iowa, 24.0 inches (Lenox, 1918)
T42- South Carolina, 24.0 inches (2 miles south-southwest of Rimini, 1973)
T42- Missouri, 24.0 inches (Cape Girardeau/Jackson, 1979)
45- D.C., 21.0 inches (D.C., 1922)
46- Alabama, 20.0 inches (Walnut Grove, 1993)
47- Georgia, 19.3 inches (3 miles northeast of Cedartown, 1942)
48- Mississippi, 18.0 inches (Mount Pleasant/Tunica, 1963)
49- Louisiana, 13.0 inches (Colfax, 1960)
50- Hawaii, 6.5 inches (Haleakali, Maui, 1936)
51- Florida, 4.0 inches (Milton Exp. Station, 1954)
Kansas and Oklahoma got their state records on the same day- March 28, 2009- from the same storm. Georgia and Kentucky also shared a date; March 3, 1942. Again, they shared a storm.
While several of the states- the western ones in particular; again, it's hard to measure snowfall in the mountains to the degree you might want for this kind of thing- are in dispute, Neillsville doesn't get displaced by anyone.
That established, it only takes 3-4 inches and some gradient on Portland, Oregon roads to cause this to happen (3-4 inches being what these drivers had; it doesn't even really take that much):
Be careful out there this winter. Don't be these people.
Wisconsin, however, comparatively gets off easy. The American recorded record for snowfall in a 24-hour period (recorded being the keyword; sometimes snowfall doesn't get recorded because it falls in a place not equipped to measure it, which makes the identity of record-holders pretty volatile) is at Mile 47 Camp, Alaska, which recieved 78 inches of snow on February 9, 1963. In the lower 48, the record- some say the overall record and in fact world record when they don't count Mile 47 Camp- is held by Silver Lake, Colorado, which comes up 2.4 inches short of Alaska at 75.8 inches in April 1921. (When this happens, the Alaska record seems to revert to a 62-incher taken by Thompson Pass in 1955.)
Ranking the states by their respective record 24-hour snowfall, and counting Mile 47 Camp, along with the other highest numbers I've come across since I've really got no way of knowing which figures are more trustworthy than others, we see this, (tied states ordered chronologically):
1- Alaska, 78.0 inches (Mile 47 Camp, 1963)
2- Colorado, 75.8 inches (Silver Lake, 1921)
3- California, 67.0 inches (Echo Summit Sierra at Tahoe, 1982)
4- Washington, 65.0 inches (Crystal Mountain Ski Resort, 1994)
5- South Dakota, 52.0 inches (Lead, 1973)
6- New Hampshire, 49.3 inches (Mount Washington, 1969)
T7- New York, 49.0 inches (Watertown, 1900)
T7- Wyoming, 49.0 inches (Hunter Station, 1924)
9- Montana, 48.0 inches (7 miles south of Shonkin, 1982/14 miles southeast of Millegan, 2003)
10- Oregon, 47.0 inches (Hood River ES, 1980)
11- Vermont, 42.0 inches (Jay Peak, 1995)
12- New Mexico, 41.0 inches (Kelly Ranch, 1964)
13- Maine, 40.0 inches (Orono, 1962)
T14- Pennsylvania, 38.0 inches (Morgantown, 1958)
T14- Idaho, 38.0 inches (Sun Valley, 1959)
T14- Arizona, 38.0 inches (Heber Ranger Station, 1967/Alpine, 1987)
T14- Utah, 38.0 inches (Alta, 1982)
T18- Illinois, 36.0 inches (Astoria, 1900)
T18- North Carolina, 36.0 inches (Mount Mitchell, 1993)
T18- Minnesota, 36.0 inches (Wolf Ridge ELC, 1994)
T18- Nevada, 36.0 inches (Dagget Pass, 1996)
22- West Virginia, 35.0 inches (Flat Top, 1998)
23- Virginia, 33.5 inches (5 miles east of Luray, 1994)
24- Indiana, 33.0 inches (Salem, 2004)
T25- New Jersey, 32.0 inches (Charlotteburg Reservoir, 1915)
T25- Michigan, 32.0 inches (Herman, 1985)
27- Maryland, 31.0 inches (1 mile east-northeast of Spring, 1942)
T28- Ohio, 30.0 inches (3 miles south of Warren, 1901)
T28- Connecticut, 30.0 inches (Falls Village, 1969)
T28- Rhode Island, 30.0 inches (Woonsocket, 1978)
T28- Tennessee, 30.0 inches (Mount Leconte, 1993)
T28- Kansas, 30.0 inches (Pratt, 2009)
33- Massachusetts, 29.0 inches (Natick, 1997)
T34- North Dakota, 27.0 inches (Minot Airport, 1984)
T34- Nebraska, 27.0 inches (Dalton, 2006)
T36- Wisconsin, 26.0 inches (Neillsville, 1904)
T36- Kentucky, 26.0 inches (Simers, 1942)
T36- Oklahoma, 26.0 inches (Woodward/Freedom, 2009)
T39- Arkansas, 25.0 inches (Corning, 1918)
T39- Delaware, 25.0 inches (Dover, 1979)
T39- Texas, 25.0 inches (Follett, 2009)
T42- Iowa, 24.0 inches (Lenox, 1918)
T42- South Carolina, 24.0 inches (2 miles south-southwest of Rimini, 1973)
T42- Missouri, 24.0 inches (Cape Girardeau/Jackson, 1979)
45- D.C., 21.0 inches (D.C., 1922)
46- Alabama, 20.0 inches (Walnut Grove, 1993)
47- Georgia, 19.3 inches (3 miles northeast of Cedartown, 1942)
48- Mississippi, 18.0 inches (Mount Pleasant/Tunica, 1963)
49- Louisiana, 13.0 inches (Colfax, 1960)
50- Hawaii, 6.5 inches (Haleakali, Maui, 1936)
51- Florida, 4.0 inches (Milton Exp. Station, 1954)
Kansas and Oklahoma got their state records on the same day- March 28, 2009- from the same storm. Georgia and Kentucky also shared a date; March 3, 1942. Again, they shared a storm.
While several of the states- the western ones in particular; again, it's hard to measure snowfall in the mountains to the degree you might want for this kind of thing- are in dispute, Neillsville doesn't get displaced by anyone.
That established, it only takes 3-4 inches and some gradient on Portland, Oregon roads to cause this to happen (3-4 inches being what these drivers had; it doesn't even really take that much):
Be careful out there this winter. Don't be these people.
Monday, June 28, 2010
TAXES BAD-- Well, Hang On A Sec; Let's Figure This Out
This one's always bugged me a bit, and it's high time to put this to bed once and for all. If you've spent long enough in Internet political flamewars, inevitably you will eventually get into a row about taxes. Invariably, it will be driven by someone seeking lower taxes, for a variety of reasons personal and societal.
For a long time, they didn't have any real competition. After all, who wants to pay more taxes? In recent years, though, there has been an increase, however small, in people defending higher taxes, on the basis that without a certain amount of taxes, a country can't properly function. Invariably, this side will bring up Somalia as the low-taxes proxy and somewhere in Scandinavia, most likely Sweden, as the high-taxes proxy. And obviously you'd rather be living in Sweden than Somalia, right?
It's just that teeny, tiny sample size, though. And that's what's been bugging me. Without any further information, for all one knows Somalia and Sweden are strawmen.
So while I personally fall on the pro-taxes side of things- make of that what you will- it'd be nice to get some confirmation, disconfirmation, or even inconclusiveness.
So here's what we'll do. We'll tease out the sample size more. We'll take a larger set of global high and low tax rates; we'll use a top 20 on each side. That should be plenty enough. We will then compare the countries shown on a standard-of-living comparison, averaging the scores to provide a mean standard-of-living rating for the high-tax group and for the low-tax group.
Then, it's a simple matter of seeing who did better. Sound good? Good.
The first thing we must do, of course, is identify a pair of suitable data sets to use; we need something that compares a wide variety of countries based on the same set of data.
For tax rate, we will use the Heritage Foundation's 2010 Index of Economic Freedom, showing, among other things, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. (They also have government spending as a percentage of GDP, but we'll shelve that for perhaps another day.) Somalia was not examined in this dataset, which is a mixed blessing. On one hand, it's bad, as we can't truly get the Somalia/Sweden faceoff this premise demands. On the other hand, even if Somalia assessed taxes, how would they expect to collect?
The Heritage Foundation would not, by the way, be my first choice of source, but the less-taxes crowd is more likely to be Republican and Libertarian, and they would be more willing to use the Heritage Foundation straightaway. So as far as representing a viewpoint, it's not as bad an option as you might think. (Besides, they have the widest variety of countries by several orders of magnitude; everyone else I saw only compared developed nations.)
For standard-of-living, we will use the United Nations 2009 Human Development Index (which was produced with 2007 numbers). They weren't able to get Somalia either, by the way.
We will set the rule that in order to be placed on the high-tax or low-tax list, you must first qualify by being listed on the 2009 Human Development Index list. That's because it would screw things up to try and figure out how or if to score a 'n/a' or if to use data from previous years or anything of the sort. I'll just disqualify the country. This is less about who specifically is on each list and more about how the ones that are on each list compare to each other.
Got all that? Great. Time to select our groups. With the disqualified countries noted, and there were two of them:
LOW-TAX GROUP
DISQUALIFIED: Iraq- "negligible", surely under that of the UAE but really it's academic
1. United Arab Emirates- tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is 1.0%
2. Equatorial Guinea- 1.7%
3. Qatar- 2.6%
4. Bahrain- 2.7%
5. Libya- 2.9%
6. Myanmar- 3.0%
7. Kuwait- 3.1%
8. Oman- 3.3%
9. Chad- 4.2%
10. Afghanistan- 5.2%
11. Congo-Brazzaville- 5.4%
12. Nigeria- 5.6%
13. Saudi Arabia- 5.6%
14. Iran- 6.1%
15. Angola- 6.2%
16. Haiti- 6.9%
17. Sudan- 7.0%
18. Central African Republic- 7.3%
19. Yemen- 7.3%
20. Algeria- 7.9%
HIGH-TAX GROUP
1. United Kingdom- 37.9%
2. Netherlands- 38.0%
3. Slovenia- 38.4%
4. Bosnia/Herzegovina- 38.5%
5. Hungary- 39.9%
6. Germany- 40.8%
7. Swaziland- 41.2%
8. Iceland- 41.4%
9. Cyprus- 41.6%
10. Austria- 41.9%
11. Finland- 43.1%
12. Italy- 43.3%
13. Norway- 43.4%
14. Cuba- 44.8%
15. France- 45.0%
16. Belgium- 46.1%
17. Sweden- 48.9%
18. Denmark- 49.5%
19. Lesotho- 54.3%
DISQUALIFIED- Kiribati- 69.7%
20. Timor-Leste- 133.9% (Because you are assuredly wondering where THAT number came from, the Heritage Foundation shows it "reflecting large tax revenues from petroleum projects in the Timor Sea.")
So we've got our field and we've got our teams. Now we carry that to the 2009 Human Development Index, and look at the scores our 40 countries got, along with their rankings (out of 182).
LOW-TAX GROUP
1. United Arab Emirates- HDI score is .903 (ranked 35th)
2. Equatorial Guinea- .719 (118th)
3. Qatar- .910 (33rd)
4. Bahrain- .895 (39th)
5. Libya- .847 (55th)
6. Myanmar- .586 (138th)
7. Kuwait- .916 (31st)
8. Oman- .846 (56th)
9. Chad- .392 (175th)
10. Afghanistan- .352 (181st)
11. Congo-Brazzaville- .601 (136th)
12. Nigeria- .511 (158th)
13. Saudi Arabia- .843 (59th)
14. Iran- .782 (88th)
15. Angola- .564 (143rd)
16. Haiti- .532 (149th)
17. Sudan- .531 (150th)
18. Central African Republic- .369 (179th)
19. Yemen- .575 (140th)
20. Algeria- .754 (104th)
HIGH-TAX GROUP
1. United Kingdom- .947 (21st)
2. Netherlands- .964 (6th)
3. Slovenia- .929 (29th)
4. Bosnia/Herzegovina- .812 (76th)
5. Hungary- .879 (43rd)
6. Germany- .947 (22nd)
7. Swaziland- .572 (142nd)
8. Iceland- .969 (3rd)
9. Cyprus- .914 (32nd)
10. Austria- .955 (14th)
11. Finland- .959 (12th)
12. Italy- .951 (18th)
13. Norway- .971 (1st)
14. Cuba- .863 (51st)
15. France- .961 (8th)
16. Belgium- .953 (17th)
17. Sweden- .963 (7th)
18. Denmark- .955 (16th)
19. Lesotho- .514 (156th)
20. Timor-Leste- .489 (162nd)
And now for the average scores.
The low-tax group, with an average of 4.75% tax revenue as a percentage of GDP, has a mean HDI score of .6714 (if placed in the HDI, they would collectively be somewhere between South Africa and Morocco), and a mean ranking of 108.35.
The high-tax group, with an average of 51.08% tax revenue as a percentage of GDP (albeit skewed high a bit by Timor-Leste), has a mean HDI score of .87335 (which if placed in the HDI table would get them between Chile and Croatia), and a mean ranking of 41.8.
The numbers pretty much speak for themselves, decisively in favor of the high-tax group.
For a long time, they didn't have any real competition. After all, who wants to pay more taxes? In recent years, though, there has been an increase, however small, in people defending higher taxes, on the basis that without a certain amount of taxes, a country can't properly function. Invariably, this side will bring up Somalia as the low-taxes proxy and somewhere in Scandinavia, most likely Sweden, as the high-taxes proxy. And obviously you'd rather be living in Sweden than Somalia, right?
It's just that teeny, tiny sample size, though. And that's what's been bugging me. Without any further information, for all one knows Somalia and Sweden are strawmen.
So while I personally fall on the pro-taxes side of things- make of that what you will- it'd be nice to get some confirmation, disconfirmation, or even inconclusiveness.
So here's what we'll do. We'll tease out the sample size more. We'll take a larger set of global high and low tax rates; we'll use a top 20 on each side. That should be plenty enough. We will then compare the countries shown on a standard-of-living comparison, averaging the scores to provide a mean standard-of-living rating for the high-tax group and for the low-tax group.
Then, it's a simple matter of seeing who did better. Sound good? Good.
The first thing we must do, of course, is identify a pair of suitable data sets to use; we need something that compares a wide variety of countries based on the same set of data.
For tax rate, we will use the Heritage Foundation's 2010 Index of Economic Freedom, showing, among other things, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. (They also have government spending as a percentage of GDP, but we'll shelve that for perhaps another day.) Somalia was not examined in this dataset, which is a mixed blessing. On one hand, it's bad, as we can't truly get the Somalia/Sweden faceoff this premise demands. On the other hand, even if Somalia assessed taxes, how would they expect to collect?
The Heritage Foundation would not, by the way, be my first choice of source, but the less-taxes crowd is more likely to be Republican and Libertarian, and they would be more willing to use the Heritage Foundation straightaway. So as far as representing a viewpoint, it's not as bad an option as you might think. (Besides, they have the widest variety of countries by several orders of magnitude; everyone else I saw only compared developed nations.)
For standard-of-living, we will use the United Nations 2009 Human Development Index (which was produced with 2007 numbers). They weren't able to get Somalia either, by the way.
We will set the rule that in order to be placed on the high-tax or low-tax list, you must first qualify by being listed on the 2009 Human Development Index list. That's because it would screw things up to try and figure out how or if to score a 'n/a' or if to use data from previous years or anything of the sort. I'll just disqualify the country. This is less about who specifically is on each list and more about how the ones that are on each list compare to each other.
Got all that? Great. Time to select our groups. With the disqualified countries noted, and there were two of them:
LOW-TAX GROUP
DISQUALIFIED: Iraq- "negligible", surely under that of the UAE but really it's academic
1. United Arab Emirates- tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is 1.0%
2. Equatorial Guinea- 1.7%
3. Qatar- 2.6%
4. Bahrain- 2.7%
5. Libya- 2.9%
6. Myanmar- 3.0%
7. Kuwait- 3.1%
8. Oman- 3.3%
9. Chad- 4.2%
10. Afghanistan- 5.2%
11. Congo-Brazzaville- 5.4%
12. Nigeria- 5.6%
13. Saudi Arabia- 5.6%
14. Iran- 6.1%
15. Angola- 6.2%
16. Haiti- 6.9%
17. Sudan- 7.0%
18. Central African Republic- 7.3%
19. Yemen- 7.3%
20. Algeria- 7.9%
HIGH-TAX GROUP
1. United Kingdom- 37.9%
2. Netherlands- 38.0%
3. Slovenia- 38.4%
4. Bosnia/Herzegovina- 38.5%
5. Hungary- 39.9%
6. Germany- 40.8%
7. Swaziland- 41.2%
8. Iceland- 41.4%
9. Cyprus- 41.6%
10. Austria- 41.9%
11. Finland- 43.1%
12. Italy- 43.3%
13. Norway- 43.4%
14. Cuba- 44.8%
15. France- 45.0%
16. Belgium- 46.1%
17. Sweden- 48.9%
18. Denmark- 49.5%
19. Lesotho- 54.3%
DISQUALIFIED- Kiribati- 69.7%
20. Timor-Leste- 133.9% (Because you are assuredly wondering where THAT number came from, the Heritage Foundation shows it "reflecting large tax revenues from petroleum projects in the Timor Sea.")
So we've got our field and we've got our teams. Now we carry that to the 2009 Human Development Index, and look at the scores our 40 countries got, along with their rankings (out of 182).
LOW-TAX GROUP
1. United Arab Emirates- HDI score is .903 (ranked 35th)
2. Equatorial Guinea- .719 (118th)
3. Qatar- .910 (33rd)
4. Bahrain- .895 (39th)
5. Libya- .847 (55th)
6. Myanmar- .586 (138th)
7. Kuwait- .916 (31st)
8. Oman- .846 (56th)
9. Chad- .392 (175th)
10. Afghanistan- .352 (181st)
11. Congo-Brazzaville- .601 (136th)
12. Nigeria- .511 (158th)
13. Saudi Arabia- .843 (59th)
14. Iran- .782 (88th)
15. Angola- .564 (143rd)
16. Haiti- .532 (149th)
17. Sudan- .531 (150th)
18. Central African Republic- .369 (179th)
19. Yemen- .575 (140th)
20. Algeria- .754 (104th)
HIGH-TAX GROUP
1. United Kingdom- .947 (21st)
2. Netherlands- .964 (6th)
3. Slovenia- .929 (29th)
4. Bosnia/Herzegovina- .812 (76th)
5. Hungary- .879 (43rd)
6. Germany- .947 (22nd)
7. Swaziland- .572 (142nd)
8. Iceland- .969 (3rd)
9. Cyprus- .914 (32nd)
10. Austria- .955 (14th)
11. Finland- .959 (12th)
12. Italy- .951 (18th)
13. Norway- .971 (1st)
14. Cuba- .863 (51st)
15. France- .961 (8th)
16. Belgium- .953 (17th)
17. Sweden- .963 (7th)
18. Denmark- .955 (16th)
19. Lesotho- .514 (156th)
20. Timor-Leste- .489 (162nd)
And now for the average scores.
The low-tax group, with an average of 4.75% tax revenue as a percentage of GDP, has a mean HDI score of .6714 (if placed in the HDI, they would collectively be somewhere between South Africa and Morocco), and a mean ranking of 108.35.
The high-tax group, with an average of 51.08% tax revenue as a percentage of GDP (albeit skewed high a bit by Timor-Leste), has a mean HDI score of .87335 (which if placed in the HDI table would get them between Chile and Croatia), and a mean ranking of 41.8.
The numbers pretty much speak for themselves, decisively in favor of the high-tax group.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Lies, Damn Lies And Statistics
We have some breaking news coming into the political desk.
There's a prospect of an improved outcome for Republicans in November.
There's a prospect of an improved outcome for Democrats in November.
It appears voters hate everybody in Congress.
The voters mildly approve of Barack Obama.
The voters hate Barack Obama.
I do not envy Nate Silver right now. If he can run the table in Senate predictions like he did in 2008, using nothing but his model that is heavily dependent on polling data, you can go ahead and start searching his house for the political equivalent of Gray's Sports Almanac.
There's a prospect of an improved outcome for Republicans in November.
There's a prospect of an improved outcome for Democrats in November.
It appears voters hate everybody in Congress.
The voters mildly approve of Barack Obama.
The voters hate Barack Obama.
I do not envy Nate Silver right now. If he can run the table in Senate predictions like he did in 2008, using nothing but his model that is heavily dependent on polling data, you can go ahead and start searching his house for the political equivalent of Gray's Sports Almanac.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Does Death Prevent Death?
Last night, this story came over the Fark wires, showing that California has 700 inmates on Death Row, and has executed only 13 since 1977.
Fark being Fark, inevitably the first guy to make it to the thread said that it was "time to add an express lane", which was variously interpreted as both 'streamline the appeals process so it doesn't take so long' and 'execute them faster; what are we waiting for'.
One of the 'execute them faster' proponents mentioned that the death penalty is meant to be a deterrent.
Sounds like my kind of hypothesis.
What we're going to do today is simple. In practice, the death penalty is nearly exclusively applied to murder cases. The last execution in America for any crime that did not include a murder was on September 4, 1964, when James Coburn was put to death for robbery in Alabama.
Knowing that, the best way to go about investigating the power of the death penalty as a deterrent is to compare murder rates. Specifically, we will compare the murder rate in states with the death penalty to the murder rate in states without.
In addition, as some states have the death penalty but are reluctant to use it, we'll further separate states by the date of their most recent execution. We'll set a cutoff of three years, giving us three total categories:
1. States actively using the death penalty (have executed since April 26, 2007)
Alabama (last executed June 11, 2009)
Arizona (May 23, 2007)
Florida (February 16, 2010)
Georgia (October 20, 2009)
Indiana (December 11, 2009)
Kentucky (November 21, 2008)
Louisiana (January 7, 2010)
Mississippi (July 23, 2008)
Missouri (May 20, 2009)
Ohio (April 20, 2010)
Oklahoma (January 14, 2010)
South Carolina (May 8, 2009)
South Dakota (July 11, 2007)
Tennessee (December 2, 2009)
Texas (April 22, 2010)
Virginia (March 18, 2010)
2. States inactively using the death penalty (have the death penalty, but have not executed since April 26, 2007)
Arkansas (November 28, 2005)
California (January 17, 2006)
Colorado (October 13, 1997)
Connecticut (May 13, 2005)
Delaware (November 4, 2005)
Idaho (January 6, 1994)
Illinois (March 17, 1999)
Maryland (December 5, 2005)
Montana (August 11, 2006)
Nebraska (December 2, 1997)
Nevada (April 26, 2006)
New Mexico (November 6, 2001)
North Carolina (August 18, 2006)
Oregon (May 16, 1997)
Pennsylvania (July 6, 1999)
Utah (October 15, 1999; there's been one in the news that's been scheduled, but it hasn't happened yet, so this is where Utah goes for now)
Washington (August 28, 2001)
Wyoming (January 22, 1992)
3. States without the death penalty, for which there is a moratorium, or have not executed since the 'modern era' of capital punishment began in 1976 with the Supreme Court case Furman v. Georgia)
Alaska
Hawaii
Iowa
Kansas (June 22, 1965)
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
New Hampshire (June 14, 1939)
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
Rhode Island
Vermont
West Virginia
Wisconsin
This gives us 16 states in Group 1, 18 states in Group 2, and 16 states in Group 3, which by lucky happenstance is just about as close to perfect as we're going to get as far as evening up the sizes of the groups.
Step 2 is to compare everybody's murder rates. The most recent information is from 2007 according to census.gov (warning: Excel file), measuring number of murders per 100,000 people. The national average is 5.6.
Group 1 is bolded, Group 2 is italicized, Group 3 is standard. Their group numbers are also placed beside them.
14.2- Louisiana (1)
9.8- Maryland (2)
8.9- Alabama (1)
8.2- New Mexico (2)
8.0- South Carolina (1)
7.5- Georgia (1)
7.5- Nevada (2)
7.4- Arizona (1)
7.1- Mississippi (1)
6.7- Arkansas (2)
6.7- Michigan (3)
6.6- Florida (1)
6.5- Missouri (1)
6.5- North Carolina (2)
6.4- Alaska (3)
6.4- Tennessee (1)
6.2- California (2)
6.1- Oklahoma (1)
5.9- Illinois (2)
5.9- Texas (1)
5.8- Pennsylvania (2)
5.6- Indiana (1)
5.3- Virginia (1)
4.8- Kentucky (1)
4.5- Ohio (1)
--------note this line for later--------
4.4- New Jersey (3)
4.3- Delaware (2)
4.2- New York (3)
3.9- Kansas (3)
3.8- Nebraska (2)
3.5- West Virginia (3)
3.3- Idaho (2)
3.3- Wisconsin (3)
3.1- Colorado (2)
3.1- Wyoming (2)
3.0- Connecticut (2)
2.9- Massachusetts (3)
2.7- Washington (2)
2.2- Minnesota (3)
2.2- Utah (2)
2.1- South Dakota (1)
1.9- North Dakota (3)
1.9- Oregon (2)
1.9- Vermont (3)
1.8- Rhode Island (3)
1.7- Hawaii (3)
1.6- Maine (3)
1.5- Montana (2)
1.2- Iowa (3)
1.1- New Hampshire (3)
Obviously, there's some noise in the data, partially due to the way this was set up- after all, even if you've only executed one person in the last 50 years, if that one happened last week, you're in Group 1. Group 2 is all over the place.
But look at Group 1 and Group 3. Note that demarcation line placed between the 4.5 of Ohio and the 4.4 of New Jersey; it separates the states 25/25. You'll find a very clear separation, with almost all of Group 1 on Ohio's side and almost all of Group 3 on New Jersey's side. And remember, Groups 1 and 3 are of equal size, 16 states apiece.
Among states with at least 4.5 murders per 100,000:
Group 1: 15
Group 2: 8 (including five of the six most recent executions in the group- North Carolina, Nevada, California, Maryland and Arkansas; Montana's below the line)
Group 3: 2 (Michigan and Alaska)
Among states with under 4.5 murders per 100,000:
Group 1: 1 (South Dakota, which among states in Group 1 is the second-closest to slipping into Group 2)
Group 2: 10 (including the five longest waits in the group since their last execution: Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon, Colorado and Nebraska)
Group 3: 14
That's a result. Parse however you wish, but that's a result. The death penalty, from this data, does not appear to be an effective deterrent to the crime it punishes.
Fark being Fark, inevitably the first guy to make it to the thread said that it was "time to add an express lane", which was variously interpreted as both 'streamline the appeals process so it doesn't take so long' and 'execute them faster; what are we waiting for'.
One of the 'execute them faster' proponents mentioned that the death penalty is meant to be a deterrent.
Sounds like my kind of hypothesis.
What we're going to do today is simple. In practice, the death penalty is nearly exclusively applied to murder cases. The last execution in America for any crime that did not include a murder was on September 4, 1964, when James Coburn was put to death for robbery in Alabama.
Knowing that, the best way to go about investigating the power of the death penalty as a deterrent is to compare murder rates. Specifically, we will compare the murder rate in states with the death penalty to the murder rate in states without.
In addition, as some states have the death penalty but are reluctant to use it, we'll further separate states by the date of their most recent execution. We'll set a cutoff of three years, giving us three total categories:
1. States actively using the death penalty (have executed since April 26, 2007)
Alabama (last executed June 11, 2009)
Arizona (May 23, 2007)
Florida (February 16, 2010)
Georgia (October 20, 2009)
Indiana (December 11, 2009)
Kentucky (November 21, 2008)
Louisiana (January 7, 2010)
Mississippi (July 23, 2008)
Missouri (May 20, 2009)
Ohio (April 20, 2010)
Oklahoma (January 14, 2010)
South Carolina (May 8, 2009)
South Dakota (July 11, 2007)
Tennessee (December 2, 2009)
Texas (April 22, 2010)
Virginia (March 18, 2010)
2. States inactively using the death penalty (have the death penalty, but have not executed since April 26, 2007)
Arkansas (November 28, 2005)
California (January 17, 2006)
Colorado (October 13, 1997)
Connecticut (May 13, 2005)
Delaware (November 4, 2005)
Idaho (January 6, 1994)
Illinois (March 17, 1999)
Maryland (December 5, 2005)
Montana (August 11, 2006)
Nebraska (December 2, 1997)
Nevada (April 26, 2006)
New Mexico (November 6, 2001)
North Carolina (August 18, 2006)
Oregon (May 16, 1997)
Pennsylvania (July 6, 1999)
Utah (October 15, 1999; there's been one in the news that's been scheduled, but it hasn't happened yet, so this is where Utah goes for now)
Washington (August 28, 2001)
Wyoming (January 22, 1992)
3. States without the death penalty, for which there is a moratorium, or have not executed since the 'modern era' of capital punishment began in 1976 with the Supreme Court case Furman v. Georgia)
Alaska
Hawaii
Iowa
Kansas (June 22, 1965)
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
New Hampshire (June 14, 1939)
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
Rhode Island
Vermont
West Virginia
Wisconsin
This gives us 16 states in Group 1, 18 states in Group 2, and 16 states in Group 3, which by lucky happenstance is just about as close to perfect as we're going to get as far as evening up the sizes of the groups.
Step 2 is to compare everybody's murder rates. The most recent information is from 2007 according to census.gov (warning: Excel file), measuring number of murders per 100,000 people. The national average is 5.6.
Group 1 is bolded, Group 2 is italicized, Group 3 is standard. Their group numbers are also placed beside them.
14.2- Louisiana (1)
9.8- Maryland (2)
8.9- Alabama (1)
8.2- New Mexico (2)
8.0- South Carolina (1)
7.5- Georgia (1)
7.5- Nevada (2)
7.4- Arizona (1)
7.1- Mississippi (1)
6.7- Arkansas (2)
6.7- Michigan (3)
6.6- Florida (1)
6.5- Missouri (1)
6.5- North Carolina (2)
6.4- Alaska (3)
6.4- Tennessee (1)
6.2- California (2)
6.1- Oklahoma (1)
5.9- Illinois (2)
5.9- Texas (1)
5.8- Pennsylvania (2)
5.6- Indiana (1)
5.3- Virginia (1)
4.8- Kentucky (1)
4.5- Ohio (1)
--------note this line for later--------
4.4- New Jersey (3)
4.3- Delaware (2)
4.2- New York (3)
3.9- Kansas (3)
3.8- Nebraska (2)
3.5- West Virginia (3)
3.3- Idaho (2)
3.3- Wisconsin (3)
3.1- Colorado (2)
3.1- Wyoming (2)
3.0- Connecticut (2)
2.9- Massachusetts (3)
2.7- Washington (2)
2.2- Minnesota (3)
2.2- Utah (2)
2.1- South Dakota (1)
1.9- North Dakota (3)
1.9- Oregon (2)
1.9- Vermont (3)
1.8- Rhode Island (3)
1.7- Hawaii (3)
1.6- Maine (3)
1.5- Montana (2)
1.2- Iowa (3)
1.1- New Hampshire (3)
Obviously, there's some noise in the data, partially due to the way this was set up- after all, even if you've only executed one person in the last 50 years, if that one happened last week, you're in Group 1. Group 2 is all over the place.
But look at Group 1 and Group 3. Note that demarcation line placed between the 4.5 of Ohio and the 4.4 of New Jersey; it separates the states 25/25. You'll find a very clear separation, with almost all of Group 1 on Ohio's side and almost all of Group 3 on New Jersey's side. And remember, Groups 1 and 3 are of equal size, 16 states apiece.
Among states with at least 4.5 murders per 100,000:
Group 1: 15
Group 2: 8 (including five of the six most recent executions in the group- North Carolina, Nevada, California, Maryland and Arkansas; Montana's below the line)
Group 3: 2 (Michigan and Alaska)
Among states with under 4.5 murders per 100,000:
Group 1: 1 (South Dakota, which among states in Group 1 is the second-closest to slipping into Group 2)
Group 2: 10 (including the five longest waits in the group since their last execution: Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon, Colorado and Nebraska)
Group 3: 14
That's a result. Parse however you wish, but that's a result. The death penalty, from this data, does not appear to be an effective deterrent to the crime it punishes.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Ratz!
Recently, in what has become a grand tradition, sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, the pope himself has found himself caught in scandal, having been found to have engaged in conduct allowing the abuse to take place. Specifically, when it was found that Father Lawrence C. Murphy of Milwaukee molested over 200 boys, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger decided against a defrocking despite urges from local Archbishop Rembert Weakland. He also, as Archbishop of Munich, allowed an admitted pedophile to return to parish work; the pedophile would reoffend.
There have been calls for Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, to resign. Don't count on him going anywhere. Most of the points I'm raising are covered in the linked article, but here goes anyway.
First off, the pope can't be fired. He's there as long as he wants. There is precedent for firing a pope- Silverius was deposed by a Byzantine general, Belisarius, in 537 and demoted to monk on allegations of treasonous correspondence with the Goths- but papal power has increased greatly since then, formally if not secularly.
The pope can resign, but according to canon law, he can only do so of his own volition. He can jump, but he can't be pushed. And given that the pope's inner circle has circled the wagons, Ratzinger clearly has no desire to jump.
And the last pope to actually resign did so in 1415, Gregory XII, and he only did so because there were three people claiming to be pope at the time- one an antipope (which means he doesn't officially count), one ruling from Rome, and one ruling from Avignon, France. Others have made plans for potential resignation, but none have followed through for almost 600 years.
Which, of course, leaves him to serve out his tenure as little more than one more member of the Catholic Church that's seen as a kid-diddler, even if he didn't do any of it himself. And it leaves the rest of us more or less disregarding and discrediting the Church until such time as we do need a new Pope.
That all said, in an effort to have some unique content, let's do some Papal trivia.
*Before John Paul I, the most recent pope to take a name that had not already been taken by a predecessor was Pope Lando. Lando served for six months from 913-914 and there isn't much known about him. He's so forgotten that he once had a song dedicated to him on the basis of being the 'most unimportant pope'.
*Until John II in 533, popes used their personal names as their regnal name. Why did John II take another name? Because his personal name was Mercurius, and Mercury was a Roman god.
*The first 35 Popes have been canonized. Liberius is #36. The 13 Popes that came after Liberius have been canonized too.
*The most recent canonized pope is Pius X, who served from 1903-1914.
*The numbering of popes by name has gone a bit wonky over the years due to antipopes, mistaken spellings and whatnot. For example, Martin's count is two high because of the count being mistakenly lumped in with that of Marinus. But, according to how the Church has it, the numbering for each name used stands as follows:
23- John
16- Benedict, Gregory
14- Clement
13- Innocent, Leo
12- Pius
9- Boniface, Stephen
8- Alexander, Urban
6- Adrian, Paul
5- Celestine, Martin, Nicholas, Sixtus
4- Anastasius, Eugene, Felix, Honorius, Sergius
3- Callixtus, Julius, Lucius, Sylvester, Victor
2- Adeodatus, Agapetus, Damasus, Gelasius, John Paul, Marcellus, Marinus, Paschal, Pelagius, Theodore
1- Agatho, Anacletus, Anicetus, Anterus, Caius, Conon, Constantine, Cornelius, Dionysius, Donus, Eleutrus, Eusebius, Evaristus, Eutychian, Fabian, Formosus, Hilarius, Hormisdas, Hyginus, Lando, Liberius, Linus, Marcellinus, Mark, Miltiades, Peter, Pontian, Romanus, Sabinian, Silverius, Simplicius, Siricius, Sisinnius, Soter, Symmachus, Telesphorus, Valentine, Vigilius, Zachary, Zephyrinus, Zosimus
*To date, popes have come from the following modern-day countries, as far as anyone can tell: Croatia, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Palestine, Poland, Portugal, 'Roman Africa' (which here likely means either Algeria or Tunisia, and most likely the Carthage area of Tunisia), Spain, Syria, United Kingdom.
*Until John Paul II in 1978, a new pope went through a coronation ceremony. Part of this ceremony included the new pope being told "Annos Petri non videbis", which translates to a preliminary adminoshment that the new Pope won't be able to live long enough to match St. Peter's tenure.
Ratzinger could have used it.
There have been calls for Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, to resign. Don't count on him going anywhere. Most of the points I'm raising are covered in the linked article, but here goes anyway.
First off, the pope can't be fired. He's there as long as he wants. There is precedent for firing a pope- Silverius was deposed by a Byzantine general, Belisarius, in 537 and demoted to monk on allegations of treasonous correspondence with the Goths- but papal power has increased greatly since then, formally if not secularly.
The pope can resign, but according to canon law, he can only do so of his own volition. He can jump, but he can't be pushed. And given that the pope's inner circle has circled the wagons, Ratzinger clearly has no desire to jump.
And the last pope to actually resign did so in 1415, Gregory XII, and he only did so because there were three people claiming to be pope at the time- one an antipope (which means he doesn't officially count), one ruling from Rome, and one ruling from Avignon, France. Others have made plans for potential resignation, but none have followed through for almost 600 years.
Which, of course, leaves him to serve out his tenure as little more than one more member of the Catholic Church that's seen as a kid-diddler, even if he didn't do any of it himself. And it leaves the rest of us more or less disregarding and discrediting the Church until such time as we do need a new Pope.
That all said, in an effort to have some unique content, let's do some Papal trivia.
*Before John Paul I, the most recent pope to take a name that had not already been taken by a predecessor was Pope Lando. Lando served for six months from 913-914 and there isn't much known about him. He's so forgotten that he once had a song dedicated to him on the basis of being the 'most unimportant pope'.
*Until John II in 533, popes used their personal names as their regnal name. Why did John II take another name? Because his personal name was Mercurius, and Mercury was a Roman god.
*The first 35 Popes have been canonized. Liberius is #36. The 13 Popes that came after Liberius have been canonized too.
*The most recent canonized pope is Pius X, who served from 1903-1914.
*The numbering of popes by name has gone a bit wonky over the years due to antipopes, mistaken spellings and whatnot. For example, Martin's count is two high because of the count being mistakenly lumped in with that of Marinus. But, according to how the Church has it, the numbering for each name used stands as follows:
23- John
16- Benedict, Gregory
14- Clement
13- Innocent, Leo
12- Pius
9- Boniface, Stephen
8- Alexander, Urban
6- Adrian, Paul
5- Celestine, Martin, Nicholas, Sixtus
4- Anastasius, Eugene, Felix, Honorius, Sergius
3- Callixtus, Julius, Lucius, Sylvester, Victor
2- Adeodatus, Agapetus, Damasus, Gelasius, John Paul, Marcellus, Marinus, Paschal, Pelagius, Theodore
1- Agatho, Anacletus, Anicetus, Anterus, Caius, Conon, Constantine, Cornelius, Dionysius, Donus, Eleutrus, Eusebius, Evaristus, Eutychian, Fabian, Formosus, Hilarius, Hormisdas, Hyginus, Lando, Liberius, Linus, Marcellinus, Mark, Miltiades, Peter, Pontian, Romanus, Sabinian, Silverius, Simplicius, Siricius, Sisinnius, Soter, Symmachus, Telesphorus, Valentine, Vigilius, Zachary, Zephyrinus, Zosimus
*To date, popes have come from the following modern-day countries, as far as anyone can tell: Croatia, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Palestine, Poland, Portugal, 'Roman Africa' (which here likely means either Algeria or Tunisia, and most likely the Carthage area of Tunisia), Spain, Syria, United Kingdom.
*Until John Paul II in 1978, a new pope went through a coronation ceremony. Part of this ceremony included the new pope being told "Annos Petri non videbis", which translates to a preliminary adminoshment that the new Pope won't be able to live long enough to match St. Peter's tenure.
Ratzinger could have used it.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Research Marches On
538 just did some reminiscing about an old graph showing polling house effects. Andrew Gelman notes a graph from 1995, with which he helped out, noting effects from the 1988 Presidential election. Aside from the general ugliness of the graph itself, Gelman notes two things about it:
Progress indeed. The guy who won the corresponding election had served his entire term, gotten voted out in favor of his successor, and the successor was in the second half of his first term, before that graph saw the light of day, when now it can be done the same day and added to as mountainous a pile of raw data as you like, sometimes accompanied by calls for more, perhaps even investigations for more.
And as for progress, I can attest to the gigantic leap in data availability myself. I saw its march over the course of my formal schooling.
When I started out in elementary school, compiling data for a report meant contant shuttling back and forth to the library, having a possibly-outdated World Book on hand, a lot of old-school grunt work, often for naught. It was entirely possible that you would have an idea what you wanted to write, but couldn't make it to a place you could reference, so you'd either have to leave it out or try and explain to the teacher what happened to your sources.
We learned computers in middle school, and while we'd still have to do some shuttling back and forth, that was simply going to school and using their Internet access. However, the Internet was still young, and the amount of information available was somewhat limited (not helped by a school-initiated firewall).
Eventually, we got our own computer, and we had some early jitters. (True story: When we got it turned on, we attempted to first go to ESPN.com. I don't know how we wound up at a Swedish porn site. I don't want to know either.) But we got better at using the Internet, and over time, so did everyone else. The Internet grew and evolved in turn, and so did the quantity of information and the efficiency in finding it. If you asked me in 1995 to do a report on Mali, just in general, I don't know whether I'd be able to pull it off. But if you asked me now to look up a Malian soccer team? Done. And here's their major rival just for kicks.
In college, I was invited to a luncheon that a sampling of other students and faculty were attending, and one of the school administrators asked me how research has evolved. The answer I gave was largely what I just said, with the caveat that, with all of that information out there, there's also a bunch of crap. There's people who don't do their research, people who speak ignorantly, people who deliberately seek to misinform. You need to be able to cut through all of that.
That's the challenge now. The question used to be, could you find the information. Now the question is, what information are you going to use.
2. The time lag. This is a graph of polls from 1988, and it's appearing in an article published in 1995. A far cry from the instantaneous reporting in the fivethirtyeight-o-sphere. And, believe me, we spent a huge amount of time cleaning the data in those polls (which we used for our 1993 paper on why are campaigns so variable etc).
3. This article from 1995 represented a lot of effort, a collaboration between a journalist, a statistician, and a political scientist, and was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Nowadays, something similar can be done by a college student and posted on the web. Progress, for sure.
Progress indeed. The guy who won the corresponding election had served his entire term, gotten voted out in favor of his successor, and the successor was in the second half of his first term, before that graph saw the light of day, when now it can be done the same day and added to as mountainous a pile of raw data as you like, sometimes accompanied by calls for more, perhaps even investigations for more.
And as for progress, I can attest to the gigantic leap in data availability myself. I saw its march over the course of my formal schooling.
When I started out in elementary school, compiling data for a report meant contant shuttling back and forth to the library, having a possibly-outdated World Book on hand, a lot of old-school grunt work, often for naught. It was entirely possible that you would have an idea what you wanted to write, but couldn't make it to a place you could reference, so you'd either have to leave it out or try and explain to the teacher what happened to your sources.
We learned computers in middle school, and while we'd still have to do some shuttling back and forth, that was simply going to school and using their Internet access. However, the Internet was still young, and the amount of information available was somewhat limited (not helped by a school-initiated firewall).
Eventually, we got our own computer, and we had some early jitters. (True story: When we got it turned on, we attempted to first go to ESPN.com. I don't know how we wound up at a Swedish porn site. I don't want to know either.) But we got better at using the Internet, and over time, so did everyone else. The Internet grew and evolved in turn, and so did the quantity of information and the efficiency in finding it. If you asked me in 1995 to do a report on Mali, just in general, I don't know whether I'd be able to pull it off. But if you asked me now to look up a Malian soccer team? Done. And here's their major rival just for kicks.
In college, I was invited to a luncheon that a sampling of other students and faculty were attending, and one of the school administrators asked me how research has evolved. The answer I gave was largely what I just said, with the caveat that, with all of that information out there, there's also a bunch of crap. There's people who don't do their research, people who speak ignorantly, people who deliberately seek to misinform. You need to be able to cut through all of that.
That's the challenge now. The question used to be, could you find the information. Now the question is, what information are you going to use.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Olympics: Day 14- Statistics! Glorious, Glorious Statistics!
Exactly what it says on the label; today you get a semi-random assortment of Olympic statistics. Medal statistics do not include Athens 1906; the IOC doesn't officially recognize those.
ALL-TIME MEDAL LEADER: United States. Including Vancouver, they have 2,539 overall medals. They won't lose the lead for a while; the Soviet Union dissolved at 1,204 (they are considered a distinct entity from Russia).
ALL-TIME SUMMER LEADER: United States, at 2,295. The Soviets ended with 1,010.
ALL-TIME WINTER LEADER: Norway. As of the start of today, they had 298 to the United States' 244.
The overalls go 1-2 with the same pairings when you count individual medals with the sole exception of Winter bronzes, where instead of Norway-US, it goes Norway-Austria. Norway has 90; Austria 73. (As of today, though, the US has 70.)
PERFECT ATTENDANCE CLUB: Only France, Great Britain and Switzerland have attended every Olympics since 1896.
PERFECT SUMMER CLUB: Add Greece.
PERFECT WINTER CLUB: Add Austria, Canada, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Sweden and the United States.
MOST ALL-TIME MEDALS WITHOUT A COMPLETE SET: The Philippines, who have acquired 9 medals- 2 silver, 7 bronze; all in summer.
MOST WINTER MEDALS WITHOUT A COMPLETE SET: Croatia, with 7- 4 gold, 3 silver.
COUNTRIES WITH A SINGLE GOLD AS THEIR ONLY MEDAL: Burundi, United Arab Emirates.
MOST ATTENDED GAMES WITHOUT A MEDAL: Monaco, 25 Games. 18 summer, 7 winter. They're followed by San Marino (19) and Andorra (18). Fifth on the list is Malta, who actually has medaled at the Paralympics- 2 silver, 6 bronze.
MOST MEDALED CURRENTLY EXISTING COUNTRY TO NEVER HOST THE OLYMPICS: Hungary, with 465 medals (only 6 in winter, none gold).
MOST WINTER MEDALED COUNTRY TO NEVER HOST THE WINTER GAMES: Finland, at 152 (only 1 in Vancouver).
MOST MEDALED SUMMER COUNTRY TO NEVER MEDAL IN WINTER: Cuba; 194.
MOST MEDALED WINTER COUNTRY TO NEVER MEDAL IN SUMMER: Liechtenstein; 9. They are also the ONLY medaled winter country to never medal in summer.
MOST STRIPPED MEDALS: Marion Jones, United States, with 5.
ALL-TIME PARALYMPIC MEDAL LEADER: The United States, at 2,088. Great Britain has 1,447. The same two are 1-2 in summer, and it's Norway-Austria in winter; the two are separated by only 6 medals.
MOST PARALYMPICS WITHOUT A MEDAL: Uganda, with 8. Armenia, Chile and Ecuador have been at 7 apiece.
MOST ATTEMPTS TO HOST THE OLYMPICS: Los Angeles, 9. New York has only bid once, for 2012.
MOST UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS: Montreal, with 8.
MOST ATTEMPTS WITHOUT SUCCESS: Detroit, with 7.
MOST ATTEMPTS WITHOUT FAILURE: London, with 4. Paris and Stockholm were successful in their first two tries. Paris then failed for 1992; Stockholm for 2004.
CITIES THAT HAVE ATTEMPTED TO HOST BOTH SUMMER AND WINTER: Montreal, Helsinki, Minneapolis, Munich.
CITIES THAT SUCCESSFULLY BID ONLY TO NOT GET TO HOST: Chicago- 1904 (stolen by St. Louis), Tokyo- 1940 (WW2; given to Helsinki and then cancelled), London- 1944 (WW2), Sapporo- 1940 Winter (WW2; given to St. Moritz, Switzerland; Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany; then cancelled), Cortina d'Ampezzo- 1944 Winter (WW2), Denver- 1976 Winter (backed out; reawarded to Innsbruck).
SHORTEST POST-HOSTING HANGOVER BEFORE A HOST BID AGAIN: 8 years, St. Moritz. They hosted in 1928, sat out 1932, bid in 1936.
STATISTICALLY EASIEST CHOICE: Innsbruck 1964, who gained 84.4% of the vote over Calgary on the first ballot. Los Angeles 1984 and Lake Placid 1980 ran unopposed after potential opponents Tehran and Vancouver, respectively, failed to submit a bid.
MOST BALLOTS NEEDED: Albertville 1992, which needed five rounds and a run-off. Sofia, Bulgaria led after Round 1.
TOUGHEST FINAL ROUND OF VOTING: Melbourne 1956, which won by a single vote over Buenos Aires.
COUNTRIES THE IOC HAS CONVENED IN THAT HAVE NEVER HOSTED THE OLYMPICS: Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Denmark, Luxembourg, Hungary, Portugal, Monaco, Poland, Egypt, Iran, Uruguay, India, Turkey, Puerto Rico, Singapore, Guatemala. South Africa and Argentina will host meetings in 2011 and 2013.
Snd now your life is complete. Or, you know, not.
ALL-TIME MEDAL LEADER: United States. Including Vancouver, they have 2,539 overall medals. They won't lose the lead for a while; the Soviet Union dissolved at 1,204 (they are considered a distinct entity from Russia).
ALL-TIME SUMMER LEADER: United States, at 2,295. The Soviets ended with 1,010.
ALL-TIME WINTER LEADER: Norway. As of the start of today, they had 298 to the United States' 244.
The overalls go 1-2 with the same pairings when you count individual medals with the sole exception of Winter bronzes, where instead of Norway-US, it goes Norway-Austria. Norway has 90; Austria 73. (As of today, though, the US has 70.)
PERFECT ATTENDANCE CLUB: Only France, Great Britain and Switzerland have attended every Olympics since 1896.
PERFECT SUMMER CLUB: Add Greece.
PERFECT WINTER CLUB: Add Austria, Canada, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Sweden and the United States.
MOST ALL-TIME MEDALS WITHOUT A COMPLETE SET: The Philippines, who have acquired 9 medals- 2 silver, 7 bronze; all in summer.
MOST WINTER MEDALS WITHOUT A COMPLETE SET: Croatia, with 7- 4 gold, 3 silver.
COUNTRIES WITH A SINGLE GOLD AS THEIR ONLY MEDAL: Burundi, United Arab Emirates.
MOST ATTENDED GAMES WITHOUT A MEDAL: Monaco, 25 Games. 18 summer, 7 winter. They're followed by San Marino (19) and Andorra (18). Fifth on the list is Malta, who actually has medaled at the Paralympics- 2 silver, 6 bronze.
MOST MEDALED CURRENTLY EXISTING COUNTRY TO NEVER HOST THE OLYMPICS: Hungary, with 465 medals (only 6 in winter, none gold).
MOST WINTER MEDALED COUNTRY TO NEVER HOST THE WINTER GAMES: Finland, at 152 (only 1 in Vancouver).
MOST MEDALED SUMMER COUNTRY TO NEVER MEDAL IN WINTER: Cuba; 194.
MOST MEDALED WINTER COUNTRY TO NEVER MEDAL IN SUMMER: Liechtenstein; 9. They are also the ONLY medaled winter country to never medal in summer.
MOST STRIPPED MEDALS: Marion Jones, United States, with 5.
ALL-TIME PARALYMPIC MEDAL LEADER: The United States, at 2,088. Great Britain has 1,447. The same two are 1-2 in summer, and it's Norway-Austria in winter; the two are separated by only 6 medals.
MOST PARALYMPICS WITHOUT A MEDAL: Uganda, with 8. Armenia, Chile and Ecuador have been at 7 apiece.
MOST ATTEMPTS TO HOST THE OLYMPICS: Los Angeles, 9. New York has only bid once, for 2012.
MOST UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS: Montreal, with 8.
MOST ATTEMPTS WITHOUT SUCCESS: Detroit, with 7.
MOST ATTEMPTS WITHOUT FAILURE: London, with 4. Paris and Stockholm were successful in their first two tries. Paris then failed for 1992; Stockholm for 2004.
CITIES THAT HAVE ATTEMPTED TO HOST BOTH SUMMER AND WINTER: Montreal, Helsinki, Minneapolis, Munich.
CITIES THAT SUCCESSFULLY BID ONLY TO NOT GET TO HOST: Chicago- 1904 (stolen by St. Louis), Tokyo- 1940 (WW2; given to Helsinki and then cancelled), London- 1944 (WW2), Sapporo- 1940 Winter (WW2; given to St. Moritz, Switzerland; Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany; then cancelled), Cortina d'Ampezzo- 1944 Winter (WW2), Denver- 1976 Winter (backed out; reawarded to Innsbruck).
SHORTEST POST-HOSTING HANGOVER BEFORE A HOST BID AGAIN: 8 years, St. Moritz. They hosted in 1928, sat out 1932, bid in 1936.
STATISTICALLY EASIEST CHOICE: Innsbruck 1964, who gained 84.4% of the vote over Calgary on the first ballot. Los Angeles 1984 and Lake Placid 1980 ran unopposed after potential opponents Tehran and Vancouver, respectively, failed to submit a bid.
MOST BALLOTS NEEDED: Albertville 1992, which needed five rounds and a run-off. Sofia, Bulgaria led after Round 1.
TOUGHEST FINAL ROUND OF VOTING: Melbourne 1956, which won by a single vote over Buenos Aires.
COUNTRIES THE IOC HAS CONVENED IN THAT HAVE NEVER HOSTED THE OLYMPICS: Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Denmark, Luxembourg, Hungary, Portugal, Monaco, Poland, Egypt, Iran, Uruguay, India, Turkey, Puerto Rico, Singapore, Guatemala. South Africa and Argentina will host meetings in 2011 and 2013.
Snd now your life is complete. Or, you know, not.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Filibuster Update
If you're curious as to what's going on with all those filibusters being thrown around, go here to Senate.gov. This is a complete statistical history of filibusters: how many cloture motions were filed in each Congress, how many came to a vote, how many times the filibuster was beaten back, what was being filibustered... and most importantly, who voted which way each time.
Have fun with that for the next couple hours.
Have fun with that for the next couple hours.
Friday, February 5, 2010
9.7%: Just A Number
Continuing our little crusade against bad math, today brings news that the unemployment rate has dipped below 10%, to 9.7%, but it comes with a loss of 20,000 jobs.
Unless a bomb went off and nobody said anything, these numbers don't reconcile with each other. There aren't any fewer people than there were last month, so if the number of jobs went down, logically the unemployment rate should go up, right?
The unemployment rate doesn't work that way. What's more, a fair amount of people know it doesn't work that way- it doesn't take into account the discouraged or underemployed (full-timers forced into being part-timers)- and yet we still use the figure we do, more or less just to save face. We essentially lie to ourselves and tell ourselves that things are better than they actually are. Nobody wants to be the guy that makes the unemployment numbers say what they should be saying, because what would happen then is there would be a gigantic, shocking leap in the unemployment rate, and whoever corrected the data would be punished, probably thrown out of office, essentially for the crime of fixing bad data.
For more on this, head over to the Atlantic; they go into a lot more detail with this month's numbers than I can, plus they have pretty graphs. The key thing to note, though, is that they went and fixed the numbers themselves, and came up with a seasonally-adjusted rate of 11.2% if you add in discouraged workers (which I would), and 16.5% if you also add in the underemployed (which I probably wouldn't, but you might).
Unless a bomb went off and nobody said anything, these numbers don't reconcile with each other. There aren't any fewer people than there were last month, so if the number of jobs went down, logically the unemployment rate should go up, right?
The unemployment rate doesn't work that way. What's more, a fair amount of people know it doesn't work that way- it doesn't take into account the discouraged or underemployed (full-timers forced into being part-timers)- and yet we still use the figure we do, more or less just to save face. We essentially lie to ourselves and tell ourselves that things are better than they actually are. Nobody wants to be the guy that makes the unemployment numbers say what they should be saying, because what would happen then is there would be a gigantic, shocking leap in the unemployment rate, and whoever corrected the data would be punished, probably thrown out of office, essentially for the crime of fixing bad data.
For more on this, head over to the Atlantic; they go into a lot more detail with this month's numbers than I can, plus they have pretty graphs. The key thing to note, though, is that they went and fixed the numbers themselves, and came up with a seasonally-adjusted rate of 11.2% if you add in discouraged workers (which I would), and 16.5% if you also add in the underemployed (which I probably wouldn't, but you might).
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Burn The Debt Clock
It's a perpetual and ever-growing sign of government waste. There's a well-known symbol devoted to counting every single dollar devoted to it. It causes outrage from voters and politicians alike every time it grabs the headlines. And there seems to be no end in sight to bringing it down, regardless of who's in charge.
It's the national debt. The number, according to the CIA World Factbook, now stands at $13.45 trillion, an amount so large as to be an abstract number, beyond the range of an average person's comprehension. It's massive, it's growing, and it produces outrage every time the debt ceiling is raised.
But is it the best way to gauge America's financial situation? No.
The national debt merely measures one side of America's financial ledger- its external debt- and doesn't take into the amount America itself is owed- its national credits. Nor does it measure how big a bite it takes out of the country's books.
Now, let's be clear before we go any further: we're measuring external debt here, not public debt, which the National Debt Clock measures. The Debt Clock shows $12.36 trillion currently, but much of the Debt Clock's number, around three-quarters of it, is taken from internal debts, money that we effectively owe to ourselves. If you wish to measure this number, the most effective way to do it is to look at public debt as percentage of gross domestic product, not the raw dollar amount of debt. In this regard, the CIA Factbook shows the United States sitting at 39.70%, in 66th position out of 129 nations measured, almost exactly in the middle. Almost nobody outside the CIA would place the percentage that low for the U.S., but the larger point is that not a single one of the 129 nations is shown as being debt-free. The IMF rates the U.S. much higher, at 65.363%, and other sources will place the U.S. even higher than that, but again, that misses the larger point that no country will be found on the plus side in this measurement.
The ten worst-performing countries in terms of public debt, according to the CIA: Zimbabwe, Japan, St. Kitts and Nevis, Lebanon, Jamaica, Singapore, Italy, Greece, Sudan, Iceland. Ten countries that are all over the place in terms of overall fiscal health. This is a bad way of measuring ourselves too. Forget the Debt Clock.
Very few countries on Earth are debt-free externally either. According to the CIA, only four places can make that claim: Brunei, Liechtenstein, Macau, and Palau, and one of those, Macau, isn't widely recognized as a sovereign nation. The top of the external debt scoreboard is an indiscriminate Who's Who of the First World, less a measure of a nation's fiscal responsibility than one of a nation's ability to do business. After the United States, the rest of the top ten reads: United Kingdom, Germany, France, Netherlands, Spain, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Switzerland. They all have over a trillion dollars US in external debt. Australia has an estimated $920 billion in debt Canada has an estimated $833 billion in debt. Norway is an estimated $548 billion in debt. China is an estimated $347 billion in debt. Saudi Arabia is an estimated $72 billion in debt. Venezuela is estimated at $43 billion in debt. Tiny Niue is in the fifth-best debt situation on Earth, 194st out of 198, and they show an estimated $418,000 in debt. The four that are not in debt merely show as breaking even.
This doesn't work. Everybody has debt, but obviously countries have to come out ahead. Economics don't work if everybody loses. Nobody would engage in trade if that were the case. Even in a Ponzi scheme, there's still one person that comes out ahead in the end. All that money is going somewhere. So how do you find where exactly?
Enter the account balance: credits minus debts. You don't balance your checkbook only by figuring out how much money you pay out. You get paid too. It's measured the same way as the national debt; however, the account balance tallies up the money you are owed by countries in debt to you, as well as the money you owe. (An even better gauge of where we stand would be account balance as a percentage of GDP, where the US's -4.330% pales in comparison to many other nations, such as Bulgaria's -21.853%, Nicaragua's -24.840%, or Liberia's -42.141%, but since hard dollar figures are what is needed, it's not as useful.)
Unfortunately, the United States doesn't do well in account balance either. In fact, America looks even worse. We at least have some company in national debt, with the United Kingdom carrying over $9 trillion in debt of its own, but as far as account balance goes, we're in a class by ourselves. According to the IMF's World Economic Outlook for April 2009, the United States is $673.266 billion in the red, worlds behind second-to-last Spain, who is merely $154.036 billion US in the red.
On the other end of the spectrum, unsurprisingly, China comes out ahead of the pack, $440.011 billion US in the black.
The ten countries furthest in the black (in US dollars):
China, 440.011 billion
Germany, 235.257 billion
Japan, 157.079 billion
Saudi Arabia, 139.041 billion
Russia, 102.331 billion
Norway, 83.802 billion
Kuwait, 70.594 billion
Switzerland, 44.847 billion
Sweden, 40.429 billion
Libya, 39.217 billion
The ten countries furthest in the red (in US dollars):
United States, -673.266 billion
Spain, -154.036 billion
Italy, -73.200 billion
Greece, -51.482 billion
United Kingdom, -45.392 billion
France, -45.327 billion
Australia, -42.833 billion
Turkey, 41.416 billion
India, -33.330 billion
Portugal, -29.437 billion
However, as bad as that may look, there is a silver lining. The US may be languishing far behind everyone else financially, but the actual amount we are in the red is only a fraction of what the national debt claims. The $673.266 billion in account balance is only 5% of what the national debt of $13.45 trillion shows. That means it's that much easier to pay off.
And furthermore, while the last time we were debt-free was in 1835, we were a creditor nation not very long ago at all. According to the IMF, the US was in the black as recently as 1991, when our account balance showed a surplus of $2.895 billion. So it is possible.
We don't need to become debt-free. Almost nobody is. We just need to have more money coming in than we have going out. And we've done it recently enough that some members of Congress who were in office at the time are still around.
Now can we do it again?
It's the national debt. The number, according to the CIA World Factbook, now stands at $13.45 trillion, an amount so large as to be an abstract number, beyond the range of an average person's comprehension. It's massive, it's growing, and it produces outrage every time the debt ceiling is raised.
But is it the best way to gauge America's financial situation? No.
The national debt merely measures one side of America's financial ledger- its external debt- and doesn't take into the amount America itself is owed- its national credits. Nor does it measure how big a bite it takes out of the country's books.
Now, let's be clear before we go any further: we're measuring external debt here, not public debt, which the National Debt Clock measures. The Debt Clock shows $12.36 trillion currently, but much of the Debt Clock's number, around three-quarters of it, is taken from internal debts, money that we effectively owe to ourselves. If you wish to measure this number, the most effective way to do it is to look at public debt as percentage of gross domestic product, not the raw dollar amount of debt. In this regard, the CIA Factbook shows the United States sitting at 39.70%, in 66th position out of 129 nations measured, almost exactly in the middle. Almost nobody outside the CIA would place the percentage that low for the U.S., but the larger point is that not a single one of the 129 nations is shown as being debt-free. The IMF rates the U.S. much higher, at 65.363%, and other sources will place the U.S. even higher than that, but again, that misses the larger point that no country will be found on the plus side in this measurement.
The ten worst-performing countries in terms of public debt, according to the CIA: Zimbabwe, Japan, St. Kitts and Nevis, Lebanon, Jamaica, Singapore, Italy, Greece, Sudan, Iceland. Ten countries that are all over the place in terms of overall fiscal health. This is a bad way of measuring ourselves too. Forget the Debt Clock.
Very few countries on Earth are debt-free externally either. According to the CIA, only four places can make that claim: Brunei, Liechtenstein, Macau, and Palau, and one of those, Macau, isn't widely recognized as a sovereign nation. The top of the external debt scoreboard is an indiscriminate Who's Who of the First World, less a measure of a nation's fiscal responsibility than one of a nation's ability to do business. After the United States, the rest of the top ten reads: United Kingdom, Germany, France, Netherlands, Spain, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Switzerland. They all have over a trillion dollars US in external debt. Australia has an estimated $920 billion in debt Canada has an estimated $833 billion in debt. Norway is an estimated $548 billion in debt. China is an estimated $347 billion in debt. Saudi Arabia is an estimated $72 billion in debt. Venezuela is estimated at $43 billion in debt. Tiny Niue is in the fifth-best debt situation on Earth, 194st out of 198, and they show an estimated $418,000 in debt. The four that are not in debt merely show as breaking even.
This doesn't work. Everybody has debt, but obviously countries have to come out ahead. Economics don't work if everybody loses. Nobody would engage in trade if that were the case. Even in a Ponzi scheme, there's still one person that comes out ahead in the end. All that money is going somewhere. So how do you find where exactly?
Enter the account balance: credits minus debts. You don't balance your checkbook only by figuring out how much money you pay out. You get paid too. It's measured the same way as the national debt; however, the account balance tallies up the money you are owed by countries in debt to you, as well as the money you owe. (An even better gauge of where we stand would be account balance as a percentage of GDP, where the US's -4.330% pales in comparison to many other nations, such as Bulgaria's -21.853%, Nicaragua's -24.840%, or Liberia's -42.141%, but since hard dollar figures are what is needed, it's not as useful.)
Unfortunately, the United States doesn't do well in account balance either. In fact, America looks even worse. We at least have some company in national debt, with the United Kingdom carrying over $9 trillion in debt of its own, but as far as account balance goes, we're in a class by ourselves. According to the IMF's World Economic Outlook for April 2009, the United States is $673.266 billion in the red, worlds behind second-to-last Spain, who is merely $154.036 billion US in the red.
On the other end of the spectrum, unsurprisingly, China comes out ahead of the pack, $440.011 billion US in the black.
The ten countries furthest in the black (in US dollars):
China, 440.011 billion
Germany, 235.257 billion
Japan, 157.079 billion
Saudi Arabia, 139.041 billion
Russia, 102.331 billion
Norway, 83.802 billion
Kuwait, 70.594 billion
Switzerland, 44.847 billion
Sweden, 40.429 billion
Libya, 39.217 billion
The ten countries furthest in the red (in US dollars):
United States, -673.266 billion
Spain, -154.036 billion
Italy, -73.200 billion
Greece, -51.482 billion
United Kingdom, -45.392 billion
France, -45.327 billion
Australia, -42.833 billion
Turkey, 41.416 billion
India, -33.330 billion
Portugal, -29.437 billion
However, as bad as that may look, there is a silver lining. The US may be languishing far behind everyone else financially, but the actual amount we are in the red is only a fraction of what the national debt claims. The $673.266 billion in account balance is only 5% of what the national debt of $13.45 trillion shows. That means it's that much easier to pay off.
And furthermore, while the last time we were debt-free was in 1835, we were a creditor nation not very long ago at all. According to the IMF, the US was in the black as recently as 1991, when our account balance showed a surplus of $2.895 billion. So it is possible.
We don't need to become debt-free. Almost nobody is. We just need to have more money coming in than we have going out. And we've done it recently enough that some members of Congress who were in office at the time are still around.
Now can we do it again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)