John McCain's Planetarium Problem

in , , , , ,

I like the fact that McCain's best example of Obama's wasteful spending basically comes down to "Barack Obama tried to teach your children SCIENCE!"

As if scientists weren't having enough problems due to federal budget freezes, now they're facing flak from Republican presidential candidate John McCain because of a $3 million planetarium projector. Which was never funded.

McCain has repeatedly taken his presidential rival (and Senate colleague) Barack Obama to task for seeking the $3 million earmark for Chicago's Adler Planetarium. The 40-year-old projector currently being used by the world-class planetarium is failing, and it's so obsolete that spare parts aren't available anymore. Obama and other members of the Illinois congressional delegation sought federal funds for a replacement.

That request fell by the wayside, and the funds never came through. But McCain is still trying to beat Obama over the head with the non-existent earmark, complaining about the "overhead projector" during Tuesday night's debate.

Anyone who's been to a planetarium knows that a planetarium projector is an incredibly complex and expensive device, and not your garden-variety overhead projector. Two years ago, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Griffith Observatory's new projector cost more than $3 million. Total cost of the Griffith's renovation: $93 million.

In response to McCain's comments, the Adler Planetarium issued a truth-squad statement today. Adler President Paul Knappenberger noted that the Griffith Observatory as well as New York's Hayden Planetarium received federal funding to replace their projection systems, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Legions of science fans are leaping to Adler's defense. Here's a selection, mostly cribbed from Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog. I'll be glad to add more if you send them along as a comment:


As if scientists weren't having enough problems due to federal budget freezes, now they're facing flak from Republican presidential candidate John McCain because of a $3 million planetarium projector. Which was never funded.

McCain has repeatedly taken his presidential rival (and Senate colleague) Barack Obama to task for seeking the $3 million earmark for Chicago's Adler Planetarium. The 40-year-old projector currently being used by the world-class planetarium is failing, and it's so obsolete that spare parts aren't available anymore. Obama and other members of the Illinois congressional delegation sought federal funds for a replacement.

That request fell by the wayside, and the funds never came through. But McCain is still trying to beat Obama over the head with the non-existent earmark, complaining about the "overhead projector" during Tuesday night's debate.

Anyone who's been to a planetarium knows that a planetarium projector is an incredibly complex and expensive device, and not your garden-variety overhead projector. Two years ago, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Griffith Observatory's new projector cost more than $3 million. Total cost of the Griffith's renovation: $93 million.

In response to McCain's comments, the Adler Planetarium issued a truth-squad statement today. Adler President Paul Knappenberger noted that the Griffith Observatory as well as New York's Hayden Planetarium received federal funding to replace their projection systems, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Legions of science fans are leaping to Adler's defense. Here's a selection, mostly cribbed from Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog. I'll be glad to add more if you send them along as a comment:


Noted on Tuesday (and this morning), McCain's shares are hitting new lows on the political prediction markets. Maybe his planetarium problem was a factor.

McCain's shares are hitting new lows on the political prediction markets. Maybe his planetarium problem was a factor.

Jon Stewart Vs. Sarah Palin

in , , ,

Jon Stewart's not taking sides, but...


"Neither of them is perfect, but if you, out of nowhere, are going to grab a woman out of the woods and make her your vice presidential candidate, what can I do?

"[Sarah Palin] is like Jodie Foster in the movie 'Nell,' " Stewart continued. "They just found her, and she was speaking her own special language.

"Have you noticed how [Palin's] rallies have begun to take on the characteristics of the last days of the Weimar Republic? In Florida, she asked 'Who is Barack Obama?' Hey, lady, we just met YOU five f-ing weeks ago."


Conclusive proof that Jon Stewart is not a Republican: He cares about his country more than his paycheck.

Apple announces October 14 notebook event in Cupertino

in , , , ,

Reports out on the web today say Apple has just sent out invites to a special media event on Apple's campus for October 14. The invite reads, "The spotlight turns to notebooks," and has a ray of light shining over the back of an unidentified Apple notebook.

he invite-only event will be taking place at Apple's Town Hall in Cupertino on October 14, 10am Pacific Time.

As you are likely aware, October 14 has been widely rumored for several weeks now as the official date for Apple's update to the MacBook and MacBook pro line. Some had doubts that such an update would end up being announced during an Apple event, but Apple has come through once again.

What can we expect from this event? No one knows for sure, but supposedly leaked photos have been spreading across the web as of late.

YouTube adds “Read Comment Aloud” feature from xkcd

in , , , , , , ,



This comic is a week or so old.


Randall Monroe, the creator of xkcd, suggested that if YouTube commenters had to listen to their comments read back to them aloud, it might lead to better discussion on YouTube. Some Googlers thought that was a pretty fun suggestion, so they did it. YouTube now has an audio preview so you can listen to your comment before you post it. I love that Google had the sense of humor to add this feature.



From his own blog, or blag, as he calls it:


"It seems someone at YouTUBE took this comic seriously and decided to add an “Audio Preview” feature. Now you can hear your comments read aloud to you.

Of course, it’s an optional button using speech synth rather than a mandatory dramatic reading, so it’ll just be used for entertainment by people who haven’t played with a speech synthesizer before:

But then, after a little more browsing around, I see this:

So maybe there’s hope after all."

Report: Voter purges in 6 states may violate Federal Election Laws

in , , ,

via the Associated Press

NEW YORK - Tens of thousands of eligible voters have been removed from rolls or blocked from registering in at least six swing states, and the voters' exclusion appears to violate federal law, according to a published report.

The New York Times based its findings on reviews of state records and Social Security data.

The Times said voters appear to have been purged by mistake and not because of any intentional violations by election officials or coordinated efforts by any party.

States have been trying to follow the Help America Vote Act of 2002 by removing the names of voters who should no longer be listed. But for every voter added to the rolls in the past two months in some states, election officials have removed two, a review of the records shows.

The newspaper said it identified apparent problems in Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada and North Carolina. It says some states are improperly using Social Security data to verify new voters' registration applications, and others may have broken rules that govern removing voters from the rolls within 90 days of a federal election.

Democrats have been more aggressive at registering new voters this year, according to state election officials, so any closer screening of new applications may affect their party's supporters disproportionately, the Times said.

The result is that on Election Day, voters who have been removed from the rolls could show up and be challenged by political party officials or election workers.

The six states seem to have violated federal law in two ways. Some are removing voters from the rolls within 90 days of a federal election, which is not allowed except when voters die, notify the authorities that they have moved out of state, or have been declared unfit to vote.

And some of the states are improperly using Social Security data to verify registration applications for new voters, the newspaper reported.

"Just as voting machines were the major issue that came out of the 2000 presidential election and provisional ballots were the big issue from 2004, voter registration and these statewide lists will be the top concern this year," said Daniel P. Tokaji, a law professor at Ohio State University.

McCain: I'm Not Raising Taxes. I'm Cutting Medicare!

in , ,

Barack Obama says John McCain would raise people's taxes by changing the way the IRS looks at health insurance. McCain says he wouldn't.

Who's right?

Quite possibly McCain. But only because he's decided to slash Medicare and Medicaid instead.

Laura Meckler, who is one of the sharpest and most reliable policy reporters around, has the full story in today's Wall Street Journal.

To review: The essence of McCain's health care plan is to change the tax treatment of health benefits they get from employers. Instead of having people deduct the cost of group insurance premiums from their taxes, as they do now, McCain would offer everybody a tax credit--worth $2,500 to indivdiuals and $5,000 to families--that they could apply towards the purchase of health insurance. The credit would be valid whether people buy insurance through their employers or on their own.

It sounds simple enough. But you have to pay attention to the math.

Giving everybody that big new tax credit costs a lot of money. To pay for it, you'd have to get rid of the entire deduction as it now exists. That means people could no longer write off the cost of health insurance from their personal income taxes or from their payroll taxes. As Meckler explains:

If Sen. McCain were to apply both of these [deductions] to the value of health benefits, he could fully pay for his new tax credits. That is what aides have in the past suggested he would do.In April, when Sen. McCain gave a major speech about his health plan, Mr. Holtz-Eakin, the senior policy adviser, said the tax provisions alone were budget neutral -- meaning that health benefits would have to be subject to both income and payroll taxes.

In my inteviews with McCain staff, I got the same impression.

But the trouble with making this shift is that it would substantially alter people's tax liabilities. Some people would see taxes fall, while others would see taxes rise. And that last part is the opening Obama has seized recently, claiming that McCain wants to raise people's taxes.

As I've written, Obama's attacks aren't ideal from a policy standpoint; properly done, as part of a broader reform package, the kind of change McCain has described might work. But, strictly speaking, Obama's argument is correct.

Or, at least, it was. A few months ago, the McCain campaign began telling people that it wouldn't get rid of both deductions after all. It would eliminate the deduction on income taxes but it would keep the deduction on payroll taxes.

That meant only a few people would see their taxes go up. The rest would see their taxes decline--since, after all, they were keeping part of their old deduction and getting McCain's new credit.

But that also changed the math. Instead of being revenue neutral, the McCain health plan would cost the government money. A lot of money. According to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, it would add $1.3 trillion to the deficit over ten years.

Last week, though, a new wrinkle appeared. During the vice presidential debate, Sarah Palin announced that McCain's health plan was "revenue neutral."

I wrote that this was dishonest, but apparently I was wrong. The McCain campaign has now decided to introduce one more change. They're going to help pay for the new tax credit with cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Again, here's Meckler, explaining this latest sequence:

Mr. Holtz-Eakin said the campaign never intended to apply the payroll tax to health benefits. That means that most people would see a net tax cut, contrary to Sen. Obama's assertions. Only those with very rich benefits packages are likely to see a net increase in taxes. But it also means that Sen. McCain must fill a huge budget hole -- which the campaign says will come from cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

...Mr. Holtz-Eakin said the plan is accurately described as budget neutral because it assumes enough savings in Medicare and Medicaid spending to make up the difference. He said the savings would come from eliminating Medicare fraud and by reforming payment policies to lower the overall cost of care. He said the new tax credits will help some low-income people avoid joining Medicaid. The campaign also proposes increasing Medicare premiums for wealthier seniors.


So, just to review...

First McCain said he would elimine the entire tax deduction for health insurance, in order to pay for his new tax credit. This would have paid for itself, but it would have done so by raising taxes on a lot of people.

Then McCain decided he was keeping part of the deduction after all. While he would be raising taxes on a very few people, he'd be lowering them for most. Of course, that would also have meant running much bigger deficits.

Now McCain is saying, no, no, he's not going to increase the deficit with his health care plan. Instead, he's going to pay for it by cutting Medicare and Medicaid--which, at the levels he's discussing, might seriously weaken the program.

I can't wait to see what they come up with next.