No Runny Eggs

The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.

Archive for July 24th, 2008

WPRI understates how much the minimum markup law costs

by @ 19:12. Filed under Business, Politics - Wisconsin.

By now, you should have seen the press reports (this one from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is representative) on the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute’s study that states the minimum markup law on gasoline costs us 8 cents a gallon. Some of you may even have taken the time to read the report itself. I hate to do this to Christian Schneider, but the report actually understates how much the minimum markup law is costing us, as it is far closer to 18 cents/gallon.

Allow me to explain how it was understated. The report references a 1999 WPRI report that states at that time, when gasoline was $1.27/gallon, the minimum markup law cost between 2 and 3 cents per gallon. Despite noting earlier in the report that, due to the fact that the markup law is a percentage of the price, its growth is independent of the costs of doing business, Christian uses the simplistic multiple of the current cost of gasoline now versus its cost in 1999 to state that the effect is only 8 cents.

A more-accurate estimate that is based on the earlier WPRI report would take into account not only the increase in the cost of gasoline, but the actual increase in cost of doing business. The Bureau of Labor Statistics does have a statistic called the Employment Cost Index, which is a better measure of how much it costs to run a business than the Consumer Price Index as wages tend to go up faster than prices. I don’t have the time to include increased taxes and property costs, or attempt to figure out how other goods and services offered by the gas stations interact, or even to adjust this for the increase in the amount of gasoline sold in 2008 versus 1999, but the ECI should yield a rather close estimate in the increase in the cost of doing business.

Before I get to the ECI, I need to establish what the “fair” markup was in 1999. I don’t have the report from that year handy, and the new report doesn’t explicitly mention what it is. However, I do have enough information to infer what that is. Gasoline was $1.27/gallon, the “excess” markup was between 2 and 3 cents per gallon (I’ll be generous to the protectionists and use the lower 2 cents), and the mandated markup was 9.18%. That made the minimum markup $0.107 cents/gallon, and the “fair” markup a maximum of $0.087 cents/gallon.

Back to the ECI; I am choosing to use the current-dollar version as it does not attempt to factor out inflation, and I need to include the effects of inflation. Since the BLS changed the definitions of the various categories of employees, including “service occupations”, at the end of 2005, and reports using the current definitions only go back to 2001, I have to note there may well be a discrepancy in this. Specifically, the report using the old definition had an ECI for service occupations of 84.8 in March 2001 (with a base of 100.0 in December 2005), while the report using the current definition and the same base of 100.0 in December 2005 had an ECI for service occupations of 85.5. Since I’m all about simplicity, I’ll otherwise ignore that discrepancy.

In March 1999, the ECI for service occupations was 78.9. In March 2008 (the last quarter the figures are available), it was 108.4. That translates to a 37.4% increase in the ECI.

Now, I can estimate what the “fair” markup per gallon of gasoline should be in 2008. Multiplying the 1999 “fair” markup by the increased cost of employment yields an estimated “fair” markup of 12.0 cents/gallon.

With that established, figuring out how much the minimum markup law costs us is a simple matter of subtracting the “fair” markup from the mandated markup. That mandated markup is, at a price of $4.07/gallon, 30.2 cents per gallon. Subtracting the 12.0 cents per gallon the station needs to stay in business means that the minimum markup law is costing us 18.2 cents per gallon.

Even if one were to accept the premise that gas stations needed the entire 10.7 cents/gallon in 1999, the minimum markup law is costing us significantly. The increased cost of business only brings up the necessary markup to 14.7 cents/gallon, which would mean the minimum markup law is costing us 15.5 cents/gallon.

Now, who wouldn’t like a 15-18 cent drop in the price of a gallon of gas? Gov. Jim Doyle supports the repeal of the minimum markup law, even though he believes it wouldn’t do anything to gas prices. The Wisconsin Institute for Leadership issued a call to Doyle for a special session, and Representatives Bill Kramer and Leah Vukmir joined WIL’s call. Now that a repeal of the minimum markup law has been demonstrated that not will have a significant and positive impact on gasoline prices, it is past time to repeal it. Every day that it remains on the books, it costs Wisconsin residents even more money.

The Morni…er, Afternoon Scramble/Open Thread Thursday – 7/24/2008

It’s Thursday, it’s late, and I’m glad Shoebox is back and in fine satirical form because I have no energy, so enjoy some Muddy Waters and Eric Clapton and feed me some material, please…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-gkIjp9lYc[/youtube]

  • I wish I could do a day without an Obamination Watch, but I can’t. Matt Burden has two witnesses of Barack Obama’s Afghan Adventure.
  • Lance Burri explains my view on the DNC delegate for John McCain. Do remember that the ‘Rats demand 110% fealty.
  • JammieWearingFool has the flop to the flip on the exploitation of Obama’s kids. Yes, they’re being exploited again.
  • John McCormack caught Wesley “World War III over Pristina” Clark forgetting a couple of key facts on the Surge. I guess Clark wants to get into Uncle Jimbo’s Crosshairs again.
  • Jim Hoft gives credit to Harold Ford for blasting the critics of the Surge. Expect Ford’s tombstoning to occur shortly.
  • Gopfolk charts the price of oil since Bush lifted the executive portion of the off-shore drilling ban. Not even a hurricane could save Nancy Pelosi’s lies.
  • Soren Dayton has another view on the Online War.
  • Michelle Bachmann becomes a MythBuster. That tiny portion of ANWR designated by Jimmy Carter as an energy reserve would increase the daily world oil output by roughly 1.25%, which would do a lot to bring the oil markets to the middle of the supply/demand curve and reduce the price of oil significantly.
  • Mary Katharine Ham found a movie I might actually go to the theater to see; a Zucker zing of Michael Moore. I am serious, and don’t call me Shirley.
  • John Hawkins interviewed “Save the Males” author Kathleen Parker.
  • E.M. Zanotti found a homeless guy aping the Obama campaign line. Do remember that both are campaigning for your change.
  • McQ gives kudos to Katie Couric for actually daring to question the Obamination while on their junket. The arrogant tone taken by Obama when he realized that Couric is a member of PUMA is priceless. Operation Chaos LIVES!

When a Flip is Not a Flop but is Still Wrong.

by @ 5:38. Filed under Politics - National.

Following  his stop in Iraq, Barack Obama was interviewed about what he now believes his plan for troop withdrawal in Iraq should be.

If you want to see Barack in full living color (given what I see has happened on this site while I was away, I feel it necessary to point out that my use of the term “color” is not some subterranean racism that I harbor and therefore has nothing to do with Barack’s skin color but rather with seeing the full context of his comments, facial reactions, gestures, intonations etc….glad I got that covered!) give his explanation, you can do so here:   http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=137053  .   The essence of Barack’s comments were captured by his web site a few days ago:

A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal
Barack Obama believes we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obamawill give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

Under the Obamaplan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

Some writers have been calling Barack’s recent update to his web site and his corresponding interview comments a flip flop. It’s not.

Take a look at this quote from Barack back in January of 2007; comments he made while the “surge” was being discussed:

The Obama plan, called the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007, would begin a troop withdrawal no later than May 1, 2007, but it includes several caveats that could forestall a clean break:

It would leave a limited number of troops in place to conduct counterterrorism activities and train Iraqi forces. And the withdrawal could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets a series of benchmarks laid out by the Bush administration. That list includes a reduction in sectarian violence; the equitable distribution of oil revenue; government reforms; and democratic, Iraqi-driven reconstruction and economic development efforts. Obama’s proposal also would reverse Bush’s troop-increase plan.

Notice that both in 2007 and today, Obama wanted a complete draw down of all combat troops. He also had provisions for leaving some special forces troops. At the tactical level, Obama hasn’t flip flopped. Obama’s plan as outlined on his web site this week looks very similar to the one he laid out in January of last year. But that is also his problem.

In January of 2007 the Surge was being debated. Had Obama had his way, the Surge would have never happened . Had Obama had his way and US troops been pulled out, LAST YEAR, we would likely be sitting here today not only with an Iran that was moving towards nuclear armament but also an Iran that would be establishing agency within Iraq. Obama may be right on the tactics…after the fact, but he was wrong on the strategy!

Here’s the thing. Many folks following the Presidential race, have gotten into debating whether Barack has flipped, flopped or contorted his position  in some other fashion. I’ll admit, I personally find some of that to be an entertaining past time. However, the issue with Obama, yesterday, today and tomorrow is that he is wrong on the Strategy.

It’s fun amongst we conservatives to play “Whack an Obama” (again I feel the need to inject that the word “whack” is not generated by a subterranean racism looking to harm Obama, rather it is a reference to the carnival game often seen at Chuck E Cheese) for flipflopping. We just need to realize that if we’re attempting to address or persuade the audience who find him appealing, but are open to thinking about it, they find that kind of activity to be on the level of name calling. Have fun with the flip flops but make sure that at the core of the issue is the repetitive errancy that Obama has on every strategic position he has taken.

Ain’t This the Pot Calling the Kettle a Color That is Void of All Color

by @ 5:01. Filed under Miscellaneous.

So rapper Nas has collected over 600,000 signatures on a petition saying that FOX news is racist and not fair to Obama.

Nas’ evidence of Fox’s racism is Bill O’Reilly defending negative comments about Michelle Obama by saying “I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there is evidence.” Also put into evidence was O’Reilly referring to Michelle Obama as “Barack’s baby mama.”

Um, 0 for 2 NAS.

In the first instance, any thinking and hearing person knows that O’Reilly’s words were in defense of Michelle Obama. I’m not even sure that his words were an unfortunate choice, as the phrase “lynching party” was not one that only applied to African Americans…does anyone remember how cattle rustlers were dealt with?

In the second, Michelle Obama was the one that got this issue started. The following clip is from Michelle’s infamous introduction of Barack.

O’Reilly and Michelle Malkin merely picking up on a turn of phrase that Michelle used. If it was racist for O’Reilly, why wasn’t it for Michelle Obama?

Finally, Yup, it took me all of 30 seconds to grab the first “song” I could find and grab Nas’ lyrics. If you want to read disrespect to women, which is what Nas seemed to be all hopped up about, just look below the fold…I refuse to show these without a warning that they are offensive!
(more…)

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]