The Splendid Table Podcast!
I don't know how many of you listen to NPR...but I'm someone that has it on all the time. When I wake up in the morning, I flip on the NPR and listen to the news while I shower and get ready for class. When I go to bed, I flip on the NPR and listen to it while I go through my go-to-bed routine. When I had a car, I was probably 50-50 with music and NPR, depending on my mood for the moment. Generally, I like shows like "Talk of the Nation," "All Things Considered," and "On Point," "Day to Day," and "Marketplace" where I can get my news fix and learn some interesting things. (Incidentally, I am also extremely bad with silence or being unoccupied, like I can't even brush my teeth without reading something or listening to the radio...thus, NPR.) On the weekends, NPR can be a little shittier. Although I can listen to "Click and Clack," I simply cannot stand "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" which seems to be on at ALL hours on the weekends, or Garrison Keillor stuff....just not a fan. (Not sure how I got off on listing my favorite NPR shows...)
Anyway, to wrap up, I do love "This American Life" and "The Splendid Table" but I never really know when they're on. I used to remember driving around on Sundays and getting super excited if I happened to be in the car during "The Splendid Table"...which is more or less a deeper version of Food Network for the radio.
Even I'm bored now...so in conclusion, I figured out what Podcasts were about a month ago and now I have the new episode of The Splendid Table on my iPod that I can listen to whenever I want (which is quite often given my distance from school, my lack of a car, and my reliance on public transportation for all other travel.) That's all. End of post. Hope you enjoyed it.
10 comments:
Greetings from Sunny California, where I just earned a magnificent tan riding my bike from Venice Beach to Redondo Beach. So many hotties. I mean, really. Everywhere.
Run DMC (the player, not the band) is awesome. Glad we got him. But the band is pretty cool too.
But on to something that's not so cool, I find this one of the best expressions of my concerns re Obama (which you will ignore, or at most post a passive two line response)
Nine months from now, the 44th president will be inaugurated. Looking at the debates, votes cast and money raised in this year's presidential primary races, the next president may not only be a Democrat, but Barack Obama, the most liberal of the 100 members of the U.S. Senate.
Add the announced retirement of six Republican senators and 29 Republican House members (compared with just seven House Democrats) and the Democrats are likely to control both the House and the Senate with much bigger majorities than they do today.
So both the next president and the new congressional majorities will be much more liberal than the officeholders they have replaced, and that will result in a broad-reaching, socialist-leaning, greatly expanded American government.
* * *
Four significant public policy changes are certain: the size, scope and spending of the federal government will substantially expand; income taxes will go up; protectionism will replace free trade; and a commitment to global internationalism will saddle America with a broad Kyoto global warming agreement that, according to the U.N. Climate Treaty Secretariat, should exempt China and India.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have proposed increasing annual federal spending, respectively, by $226 billion and $303 billion – the Obama total being about a 10% increase. Neither of them as president would likely limit any spending – not entitlements, not earmarks, not farm subsidies.
In the past four years, income tax cuts have been good for the American economy, raising government tax revenues by $785 billion, reducing the deficit, and helping to create more than eight million new jobs and 52 consecutive months of job growth prior to the slowdown at the beginning of this year. A Democratic administration's tax increases are likely to be substantial: Mr. Obama proposes raising top income tax rates to 39.6% from 35%, capital gains tax rates to perhaps 28% from the current 15%, dividend tax to 39.6% from 15%, and top estate tax rates back up to 55%. And he wants to raise substantially or abolish the $102,000 cap on wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax. "He is indeed a redistributionist," said blogger and Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan after watching Mr. Obama's answer to a tax question in last week's presidential debate.
Protectionism will replace free trade as American policy, even though trade creates domestic jobs. Foreign-owned companies operating in the U.S. employ five million people (think Honda's 16,000 or Nokia's 6,000), and America's exports of goods and services employs another 11 million. But earlier this month Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked a vote on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement by suspending the requirement that Congress vote up or down for such a treaty. Both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama want to repeal or significantly modify Nafta, which Mr. Obama says has never "been good for America." Their protectionist America would limit international trade agreements, likely leading to anti-American protectionism by other nations.
Of course higher taxes and broad protectionism are not new ideas, they were tried by Herbert Hoover and led to the Great Depression.
* * *
Then will come dramatic public policy changes in the areas of labor law, free speech, election laws and national energy policy.
Significant labor law changes will likely start with the elimination of secret ballots for union organizing elections, so that unions can verbally "ask" workers if they would like to join (read: intimidate them into saying yes). Then may come repeal of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act provision that allows states to enact "right to work" laws – 22 of them have done so – that allow workers to take jobs even if they decide not to join a union.
Next would come some free-speech changes, like the reinstitution of the "fairness doctrine" that requires broadcast radio and television stations to give equal time to both sides of any public policy on-air discussions. There was such a Federal Communications Commission rule that was abandoned 20 years ago, but liberals want it back in order to stifle conservative talk radio. Such a return of government regulation of free speech would create a very different First Amendment America.
* * *
Finally would come a vast energy and global-warming-oriented policy that would begin limiting the energy resources America needs to prosper. U.S. domestic crude oil field production has fallen by nearly half since 1970, but additional offshore oil and gas drilling would continue to be prohibited, for Mr. Obama even opposes existing Gulf of Mexico oil drilling. Off the east and west coasts there is a 19-year supply of natural gas and enough oil to replace our oil imports for 25 years, but access to it will not be permitted. No new nuclear power plants have been approved since the 1970s, and liberalism's antinuclear sentiment bodes ill for any significant new ones.
Perhaps the best example of the new energy liberalism is its attitude toward coal. Kansas needs additional electricity, but the state government recently banned the construction of two new electricity generators in an existing coal fired plant, the reason being the additional greenhouse gasses the plant would emit. The state Legislature overrode the ban, but Gov. Kathleen Sibelius, a Democrat, vetoed the bill, thereby validating America's first substantial step to stop the use of the coal-based power that supplies about half of our electricity.
So America's energy policy in the new administration may be no additional nuclear, coal, or oil and natural gas power generation, which leaves us with only windmill, solar, biomass, and geothermal for additional power needs. Those sources combined provide about 2.4% of our electrical generation sources.
* * *
With such policies, we would be a far more regulated, far less prosperous nation offering far less opportunity. The 23% of Americans who identify themselves as liberals may applaud, but for the rest of us it would be an unfortunate outcome.
RS
Let me see if I can take that piece by piece.
1) What are you doing in California?
2) Not just passive 2 line response, but passive aggressive 2 line response.
Some of the stuff you say has plausible argumentative force, but as much of it reeks of Coulterisms and embarrassingly simple perspectives on complex issues. I will say, though, that some of the stuff you talk about I don’t really have any interest in, so I can’t really respond. I also feel like you’re still wrestling with 1968, 1980, and 1984 statist liberalism, which seems a little intellectually dishonest. Plus a lot of what you are saying is drawn from Republican talking points with all of the misleading distortions, so I’ll start there.
Distortion 1: The way you define the size of the federal government and what constitutes federal spending. If I’m not mistaken, military spending on foreign wars amounting to over $ 1 trillion in 6 years counts as federal spending. Curtailing of civil rights and reduced privacy for US citizens constitutes larger government in a more meaningful way than an extra couple percentage points on your taxes.
Distortion 2: The lapsing of tax cuts in 2010 in a carefully, but intentionally designed ploy to strike at Democratic presidential candidates is not the same thing as raising taxes. It is the lapse of the Bush tax cuts. Holding a balloon under water and then letting go and watching it rise to the top is not “lifting the balloon.”
Distortion 3: Protectionism is not coming back in any meaningful way. Please.
Distortion 4: Economic growth and prosperity can not be causally traced to the tax cuts, i.e. the Laffer Curve isn’t even remotely established as economic fact. If I had to make a wager, I would bet that the easy, loosey goosey credit markets, the emergence of new markets, and frothy market behavior had more to do with growth than the tax cuts.
Distortion 5: Herbert Hoover’s tax and protectionist policies led to the Great Depression. Wow. Seriously?
Reality Check 1: Deficit spending is borrowing. Borrowed money must be paid back. The enormous Bush deficits now have to be funded with increased taxes in the future. Period. It is no one’s fault but those who passed the simultaneous tax cuts and spending increases. (See the War and the “new” Medicaid).
Reality Check 2: McCain wants to repeal the AMT, lower the corporate tax rate, maintain the Bush tax cuts, cut gasoline taxes in the summer time, and has no proposal for how to replace the hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue. Listen to McCain’s economic policies. He doesn’t understand them himself.
Reality Check 3: If you believe in your espoused principles self-reliance, personal accountability, hard work leads to success, and that individual opportunity is the measure of each citizen, then you should set the Estate Tax at 100%. No dynasties please.
Reality Check 4: Free trade is far more complicated than you make it out to be, and the economic spill over effects far from simple. The United States remains one of the greatest impediments to free trade in the world by virtue of the structure of the Senate and overrepresentation of agricultural states. The largest Republican donors stand behind these policies, causing the failure of liberalizing rounds of negotiations, most notably Doha. Furthermore, it’s far from clear that trade creates domestic jobs: trade increases GDP, not jobs.
I’m not sure why I’m responding. I think it has to do with my aversion to my tax textbook. In any case, I think your views have become a caricature of the principles underlying them…at least as I’ve understood them in the past.
And stop trying to invoke Socialism. It's on the same level of Tardhood as the hippies calling every American president "Hitler."
California = work (coupled with weekends on the beach and going to Dodger games.
Political stuff later. Beer now.
RS
You should have started with that. I want beer.
So... right on about the politics stuff. Yeah, "frothy market behavior." Well said.
As to the original post:
I love the Splendid Table (I call it the Delicious Dish). Remember when I used to get up to go to church when we all lived at Burch? I listened to that on the way home (it comes on at noon, at least in Durham and Nashville). You're right -- the podcast is awesome. I listen to it while I'm shopping and cooking (seems appropriate).
This American Life: also awesome (mostly -- it's hit or miss sometimes). I've been waiting and waiting and FINALLY Car Talk is available (they made a deal with Audible.com a while back and it must have finally run out), so I'm ecstatic about that. The only one I miss is Says You (not an NPR program, but carried by most stations). Have you ever listened to that?
Very true about Michael Feldman (Whad'ya Know). He f-ing SUCKS. Other than that, I listen to Fresh Air from time to time (usually when I catch it on the radio and it's a good guest and I miss some of the interview).
Hey -- do you watch The Wire? 'Cause you should. Oh man, I watched all 5 seasons in like a month, and now I'm re-watching them with SB (she's hooked now; we just finished season 1). Obama's favorite show AND Nashville Mayor Karl Dean's favorite show. You know we're on the right track here in NashVegas.
Congrats on finishing up. Good luck with the bar. Pre-emptive "ouch" for 'ya there.
- hauben
Ha. Another NPR junkie...awesome. I actually have this huge old portable Sony Walkman radio I listen to as I bike to class. People always look at it and have NO idea what it is.
As for "The Wire," this summer will be the time for it. My brother (who happens to live near Baltimore) has been following the show for awhile and will not stop talking about it. At the same time, Slate, the Atlantic, and random publications and people have been proclaiming it the "greatest television show ever"...which seems to be the general consensus. Which means yes, I will definitely be watching it soon.
Assuming you come back to check this...what's the deal with your garden? After wrapping up yet another Pollan book, searching for CSAs in Boston, and doing a lot more vegetable eating since giving up the cigarettes and super-unhealthy diet...I've wondered if you're doing that again...I suppose you can't...in Atlanta? Also, how is the housing market where you are? You bought a place, right? (nice public forum for these questions, right?)
Sun and Booze beckon, so I'll answer in abreviated fashion:
Distortion #3: I disagree. Under a Democrat president, protectionism will return. Both Obama and Hillary (strange how we refer to Obama by his last name, and Hillary by her first – sexism?) have denounced NAFTA, and Hillary fired an advisor who lobbied for the Columbia agreement. Both candidates have repeatedly denounced jobs leaving for overseas. Indeed, Obama in his race speech referenced factory owners closing their doors and laying off workers in order to make bigger profits overseas. This whole “people not profits” kick of Obama’s smacks of protectionism.
Distortion #4: Au contraire. Did not the 1981 tax cuts lead to 7 years of prosperity and increased government revenue? And once Bush the First raised taxes in 1989ish, did not revenue fall? Am overly simplistic response, but demonstrative. I’m not quite clear on your point that things like the “frothy credit markets” led to growth. Rather, I would contend that they led to increases in dollars generated, not necessarily long term sustainable growth.
Distortion #5: The policies of the Hoover Administration clearly led to the Great Depression, helped by the nonsensical policies of the first, second and third New Deals. Although often conflated in the popular imagination, the 1929 stock market crash led to a minor recession, not the depression. Simplisticly, it was Hoover’s actions in 1931-1932 that changed a recession into the Great Depression; such the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act, the 1932 Revenue Act (which raised income taxes on the highest bracket from 25% to 63%).
Reality Check #1: You contend that the Bush tax cuts must be matched by future tax increases. But doesn’t this presume a fixed amount of per year spending on the Federal level? If we cut Federal spending, taxes don’t need to be increased, rather we are spending less and receiving the same amount.
Reality Check #2: Again, if we decrease federal spending from its current levels, then we don’t have to raise taxes. Of course, increasing federal spending from the current levels means we have to increase taxes to cover the Bush deficit, and increase taxes to cover the Obama/Hillary plans.
Reality Check #3: Agreed in part. I believe I’ve said before that a person living off of Welfare and not improving themselves is just as reprehensible as someone sponging off their trust fund, so I agree in part on your 100% estate tax. But, while good in theory, forfeiting the money to the federal government if you die? What about property etc... a bureaucratic nightmare.
Reality Check#4: Of course I’m being overly simplistic. One cannot outline free trade arguments in the limited forum that your blog provides.
OK, Margaritas and sun.
Oh. And she is running as "Hillary" so no, it's not sexism. It's free will.
...shit, why did I drink a beer with dinner while studying?
t's too far down for me to actually respond piece by piece. But just a few points: No, government revenue doesn't have to stay fixed. But you can't keep spending and complain about high taxes. (see past 8 years)
The real issue is that McCain has absolutely no plan for the enormous loss in revenue with our current system of government.
You can't think a BETTER smaller government is going to emerge from haphazard funding shortfalls. It's just going to be a failed, disorganized government, not a smaller one (incidentally with less jobs that are really not going to come from the free markets). If you want a principled smaller government, then design it. Don't simply try to take a baseball bat and wack the current bureaucracies when a scalpel is what we need. You want market deregulation? Then re-write 10b-5, don't randomly and haphazardly chop away at the SEC budget. Markets fail. People fail. Institutions fail. Firing buckshot at the federal budget is not going to do anything.
Also, I think that reforming free trade and "protectionism" are different beasts. The economic foundation of free trade presupposes that all of the lost jobs will come with increased returns to the capital owners who outsourced to lower labor costs. The economic equation doesn't stop there, that's not where it ends. If we're going to cut 30 jobs for an increased marginal return for the investor, that's not supposed to be a pure transfer. The 30 jobs are supposed to go somewhere else. Unfortunately, markets are not perfectly frictionless, labor is not perfectly mobile, and human capital in manufacturing is not equivalent to human capital in the service industry. The economic equation ends where some of the increased profits go to facilitating the mobility of labor so that it CAN find a new job. As it stands, a factory worker loses his job and he's fucked.
It's almost universally accepted by economists that some form of transfer has to take place when trade is liberalized. All of the gains in efficiency and growth are not supposed to go solely to the owners.
I believe in market mechanisms, but I think sound, responsible policy is necessary to make sure that real life obstacles that obstruct the mathematical models are removed. And I also think that markets are not always appropriate in every single circumstance. (See, e.g. anarchy.)
In short, here's how the right-wing characterizes the market: The markets are like a well-designed clock--so well designed in fact, that there's no need for oil because friction doesn't exist, there's no need for blue prints because it just so happens to be the natural design of the universe.
Post a Comment