David McElroy

What does a government agency do when it finds out that it has unspent money? Does it give the money back to taxpayers? Does it find another department with more important needs? Or does it find some way to spend the money — to make sure it can get the same money next year?

If you made the third choice, you might have a bright future ahead as a bureaucrat. If you made the first choice, you’re living your life on Fantasy Island.

In Camden, N.J., the city finds itself with $63,000 burning a hole in its bank account, because the grant from which the money comes expires on Sept. 30. Here’s the story. The state Department of Criminal Justice made the grant to the County Prosecutor’s Office, which didn’t know what to do with the money, because its “community justice director” — yes, that’s the title — was laid off in May. So that office agreed to give it to the city, which is required to spend it immediately. Why? Here’s the key:

Keep Reading

More communication is supposed to lead to people getting along better. That’s what I’ve always heard. But when it comes to political communication in this increasingly polarized country, there’s no understanding. There’s less and less attempt by people to understand each other. Instead, there’s more hatred.

I browse strongly partisan websites every now and then just to get an idea about what people on both sides of the mainstream are saying. Every time I do, it seems to leave me feeling physically ill and emotionally numb, because the partisans of the mainstream don’t just disagree with one another. They hate each other.

Have you read what the partisans on both sides have to say about the other? They’re angry and vicious and mean. Much of what they write is unfair and intellectually dishonest. I first added links to four of them — two on each side — but I realized that I don’t want to do that. I’m not trying to make you angrier. I’m trying to get you to look for a solution beyond the anger.

Keep Reading

Retraction: I was fooled by a hoax. A Republican political writer admitted this morning that he created the fake Google+ profile and post that are quoted here. When I posted the item at midnight, other sources were reporting the item as legitimate, too, but I was still inaccurate. If you want to know why I was so sure that it was really Krugman’s view, take a look at what he wrote in the New York Times just three days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. I’m leaving this posted for more discussion of the topic — either Krugman’s view or the hoax itself — if anyone is interested.

Update: Krugman has made a statement on the hoax.

When an earthquake hit the east coast Tuesday, most people were just happy that there wasn’t much damage done. My favorite idiot economist was instead sorta lamenting the fact that there wasn’t more damage so that rebuilding could “stimulate” the economy more:

“People on twitter might be joking, but in all seriousness, we would see a bigger boost in spending and hence economic growth if the earthquake had done more damage.”

Yes, Paul Krugman is at it again. I’ve talked recently about how these Keynesian acolytes honestly believe that digging ditches and filling them back up helps the economy and I’ve also talked about their idiotic attachment to the notion that breaking things and then fixing them stimulates an economy.

If Krugman were right that random damage is good for the economy, then we ought to knock down cities just for the heck of it. All we’d need to produce full employment is turn loose the guys with wrecking balls.

It’s honestly hard to believe that anybody could still stick to the Keynesian religion. It hasn’t ever worked. It’s not going to ever work. It makes no sense.