Sunday, February 19, 2012

A Tale of Two Half-Marathons

I am not a great athlete. I played right-field in baseball because it was unlikely the ball would ever make it out that far. I played on an adult soccer team, but usually had to be substituted after five minutes. However, I have run off and on since college, at least when I didn’t sideline myself with injuries. Mostly I did 5ks. However, in 2005, I decided to do a half-marathon just to see if I could finish it. I was a middle-aged, overweight lawyer and somehow the challenge of forcing my body through 13.1 miles seemed like a reasonable thing to do. I have been doing the 3M Half-Marathon every year since. However, this year, I decided to try doing two half-marathons within a month of each other.

Run #1: Planning Makes Perfection, Well, Maybe Not Perfection, But Not a Fail Either

I started training for the 3M Half-Marathon in October. I ran a 5k at the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges in Tampa, Florida in October. I was barely able to drag myself through the course, sweating profusely. I started doing progressively longer runs each week, including doing the Thundercloud Turkey Trot, a 5 mile run on Thanksgiving.

Two weeks before the big day, I decided to do a 12.5 mile that would be close to the course distance. I had previously done nine miles and eleven miles without hitting a wall. However, my new course had a lot of hills. I ended up dehydrated and exhausted four miles from home and had to walk most of the way back. The next week, I reversed the course so that I did most of the hills on the front end when I was fresher. I planed water bottles every two miles so I would stay hydrated. This time I made it nearly ten miles before hitting the wall. The cedar pollen was out in full force and by the time I finished, I was so exhausted that I slept for most of the day.

The week before the race, I went in to see an allergist and got an allergy shot. I also had several Muscle Activation Technique sessions with my trainer, Brandon O’Connor. Muscle Activation Technique tests to see which muscles are not firing and then manually palpates the ends of them til they work. It really is remarkable.

The night of the race, we got a room at the Candlewood Suites, which was a few yards from the start of the race. I had a brief moment of panic the next morning when I unrolled the race shirt I had picked up at the expo and realized that it was short-sleeved. The morning temperature was supposed to be 32 degrees. Fortunately when I walked out the door, the race was already starting and I didn’t have time to get cold waiting for the start.

The 3M is mostly downhill. I was able to keep to my plan of running 30 minutes and walking for one. The only specific memory that I have is that around mile four, we were coming up on the 183 overpass just as the sun was hitting it. There was a pond with ducks nearby. It all seemed so peaceful, like that was the best place in the world to be at that time. I finished in 2 hours 41 minutes, which was my third best time of the eight years I have been running it.

Run #2: The Kingdom of the Hills

The Austin Marathon and Half Marathon was three weeks later. The week before the race, I decided to run the course to get an idea of what it would be like. I was doing pretty well until mile ten. I was feeling excited about reaching the end when I realized that the end of the course was filled with hills, one after the other, including a giant hill on Lamar. I limped my way through those final three miles walking most of it. My time of 2 hours 52 minutes wasn’t great, but I figured it was a new course for me and it would give me something to compare myself to.

This morning, on the day of the race, I woke up at 5:00 a.m. and was out the door at 5:40. It was full dark and there was the slimmest of crescent moons. I wanted to leave early because they were expecting 20,000 people and I expected a massive traffic jam. There were a few more cars on the road than usual for quarter to six on a Sunday morning, but nothing bad. I parked by my office and was all ready to go by 6:00 a.m., an hour ahead of time. I played a game of Scrabble on the computer (the computer won) and went to the restroom one more time. Finally it was time to venture out.

As I made my way to the Capitol grounds, I could see thousands of people making their way to the starting point. I got in line at the very back, up against the Capitol, over two blocks from the starting line.

It took me eighteen minutes just to reach the start after the gun started. I continued with my plan to run 30 minutes and walk one. My first thirty minutes took me up Congress to MLK, over to San Jacinto, down to 11th Street, across to Guadalupe and across the Congress Avenue bridge. I was just entering the first big hill of the day when I took was able to take a walk break. I snapped a picture on my phone to show my progress. I had taken my phone along (packed snugly against my body in a Spi-belt) in case I had a heart attack and needed to call 911. However, it came in handy for pictures as well. I had made it through the first two miles in 23 minutes, which was under my goal time of 12 minutes per mile.

The next stretch was up two and a half miles of hills on South Congress. It was early in the course and I was mentally prepared for it. When I had run this stretch last week, I had to stay to the sidewalk and dodge my way through all the Bo-hos shopping on SoCo. This time we had the street to ourselves. The long series of hills was do-able and I took my second walk break just after the five mile mark.
I was still ahead of my goal time.

During the next stretch, there was one more hill leading up the Ben White access road to South First.. The series of hills that we had just gone up mirrored itself in a long downhill. This was probably the most fun part of the race and I was able to relax and look at some of the interesting people around me. There was one girl who had written “does my butt look fast” on the back of her shirt. There was another one whose shirt read, “If you can read this, I’m not in last place.” There was a fireman in full gear. Back towards the beginning I had come across two girls with full military packs on their backs. (Now that’s crazy). There was also the guy with silver parachute pants and the two girls with Happy 40th Birthday helium balloons tied to their pony tails. Some time later I would encounter a big guy in a kilt and a man and a woman in matching bumblebee costumes with tutus.
At the crest of one hill, I got my first view of downtown, shimmering in the morning haze. I also saw someone with a sign that said, “Run Like You’re Being Chased By a Zombie.” I thought it said, “Run Like a Zombie,” so I shambled by. Through miles six and seven, I continued ahead of pace and feeling good.

We reached the First Street bridge around mile 8. When I crossed back across, I had spent one hour and fourteen minutes South of the river, for a total time of one hour 39 minutes. There was a long flat stretch down Cesar Chavez. Somewhere around mile 9, there were a bunch of yellow-clad Livestrong volunteers cheering us on. Approaching mile 10 was the first of five hills that would be a huge challenge. I trudged up the ramp from Cesar Chavez to Lake Austin and was rewarded when I passed mile 10 in under two hours.

After mile 10, I knew that I had to conserve if I was going to make it through the next four hills and 3.1 miles. There was a long hill up the access road. I made up it all right and stopped to take a picture.
As we reached Enfield, the marathoners split off and we crossed mile 11. I remember thinking that running another 15 miles at that point sounded like suicide. The first portion of Enfield was the third in the series of hills and I barely made it up. A little while later, there was a long gentle hill.
As I crested the hill, I saw the long decline to where Enfield crossed Lamar and then brutally climbed back up again. At the base of the big hill, I decided I would walk it. I was able to walk the insurmountable hill in just two minutes, saving precious energy for the remaining effort. At the top of the hill were girls dressed with halos and wings. They had signs like “This is heaven” and some that were more suggestive. Once again, it was a shot in the arm to see organized cheerleaders for the race. I never saw the mile marker for mile 12, but it must have been somewhere after the hill.

After cruising down 15th Street (the continuation of Enfield), I turned onto San Jacinto knowing that the last hill lay just ahead. I had traveled this same hill in mile 1 of the race when my legs were much fresher. However, I was able to summon the energy to trudge upwards and keep going. The effort was rewarded when I turned onto 11th Street and saw a sign that said 400 yards to finish. More importantly, I could see the turn onto Congress Avenue where the finish line lay ahead and it was all downhill. I pushed on past 300 yards, 200 yards, 100 yards. I glanced at my watch and realized that I was going to finish much better than I had expected. I crossed the finish line in 2 hours 40 minutes 56 seconds, four seconds faster than my time three weeks ago.
Four seconds may not seem like much, but this was a much more difficult course, so it was huge to me. I finished 4014 out of 4486 men, which put me in the top 90%. However, for me, finishing strong was the only thing that mattered.


Monday, January 16, 2012

A Story About Martian Luther King

I have been reading The Help. Yesterday I came across a passage that seems very appropriate for today. This is the black maid Aibileen speaking to three year old Mae Mobley:


"Today I'm on tell you bout a man from outer space," She just loves hearing about peoples from outer space. Her favorite show on the tee-vee is My Favorite Martian. I pull out my antennae hats I shaped last night out a tinfoil. fasten em on our heads. One for her and one for me. We look like a couple a crazy people in them things.

"One day, a wise Martian came down to Earth to teach us people a thing or two," I say.

"Martian? How big?"

"Oh, about six-two."

"What's his name?"

"Martian Luther King."

She take a deep breath and lean her head down on my shoulder. I feel her three-year-old heart racing against mine, flapping like butterflies on my white uniform.

"He was a real nice Martian, Mister King. Looked just like us, nose, mouth, hair up on his head, but sometime people looked at him funny and sometime, well, I guess people was just downright mean."

i could get in a lot of trouble telling her these little stories, especially with Mister Leefolt. But Mae Mobley know these our "secret stories."

"Why Aibee? Why was they so mean to him?" she ask.

"Cause he was green."

Kathryn Stockett, The Help, pp. 349-50.

I realize that this is just fiction written in 2009 rather than an actual story about a maid teaching a child about prejudice. However, I think the image is very powerful. While a white child might not think anything about seeing black people treated poorly, she would instinctively know that it was wrong to be mean to a wise Martian just because he was green.

A Happy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day to everyone.

Saturday, December 24, 2011

My Most Influential Books

When reporters want to trip up a candidate, they ask them to name one book which has profoundly influenced them other than the Bible? Can you name one book that has influenced you? I can't name just one, but I can give a list.

Before Age 23:

1. A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch by Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand gave me a distrust of the power of big government and shaped the libertarian side of my philosophy during my teen and young adult life. Pink Floyd's The Wall feeds a similar viewpoint.

2. The Lord of the Rings trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien and The Foundation trilogy by Isaac Asimov fired my imagination. The ability to see civilizations that never existed in your mind's eye is key to creative thinking.

3. My political philosophy textbook in college exposed me to the Enlightenment philosophers. They shaped my libertarian views in a less cynical way. I would say that I was influenced by The Federalist Papers but I have never made it all the way through them.

4. Candide by Voltaire and Lysistrata by Aristophanes exposed me to the power of satire. I have been a smartass ever since.

5. The Law of the Land by Charles Rembar was the start of my love affair with the law. Rembar demonstrated that writing about the law could be fun, something that influenced me many years later when I began to write a bankruptcy blog.

6. Blessed Rage for Order by Catholic Theologian David Tracy did not influence me in the least. However, I always thought it would be a good name for a Christian punk band. Dynamics of Faith by Paul Tillich was one theology book that I did understand.

After Age 23:

7. The Bible and Luther's Small Catechism made me appreciate the value of compassion more. I know that I was supposed to have read these books at a much younger age, but I did not really appreciate them until I was older. I especially like the way that Luther turns the Ten Commandments into positive commands to do good as opposed to merely negatives to be avoided.

8. Judgment at Nuremberg by Robert Conot, Letters to Freya by James Helmuth von Moltke and The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright helped me to appreciate the power of evil and the danger of fanaticism. I had read books about World War II, including William Shirer's Berliln Diary, when I was younger, but I didn't really comprehend them until I was an adult.

9, Hamlet and the works of William Shakespeare helped me develop a love of the English language and the power of words. The Story of English by Robert McCrum, William Cran and Robert MacNeil is runner-up in this category.

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Do Tax Cuts Increase Employment?

In the debate over raising the debt ceiling, Republicans have refused to consider tax increases of any kind. The adjective "job-kiling" is always linked to "tax increases" even if it is eliminating a tax loophole for corporate jets. That made me wonder. If tax increases kill jobs, then tax cuts must increase taxes. According to an ABC News Report, there have been five major tax cuts in recent years: JFK in 1963, Ronald Reagan in 1981 and 1986 and George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003. What was the effect of those tax cuts on employment? I used employment rates rather than unemployment, because unemployment is a fickle figure.


Looking at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I found that for the period between 1948 and 1984, employment rates hovered between 55-59%. It didn't matter which party was in the White House, employment rates stayed within a narrow band. However, the years 1985-2008 tell a different story. During those years, encompassing three Republican and one Democratic President, employment rates exceeded 60% every year. Because these years of high employment spanned the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, there is at least some correlation between tax cuts and employment.


However, I wasn't satisfied with that. I decided that a better comparison would be to look at government revenues as a percentage of GDP compared to employment rates. During the period since 1948, government revenues as a percentage of GDP have ranged from 14.4% to 20.6%. That means that the lowest quartile of revenues as a percentage of GDP would be 14.4%-16.0% and the highest quartile would be 19.0%-20.6%. I only found four years in the bottom quartile (1949-50 and 2009-2010), while I found eleven years in the upper quartile (1952, 1969-70, 1980-82 and 1997-01).


Comparing these rates yields the following table:


Year

Revenues as % of GDP

Employment %

1950

14.4%

56.1%

1949

14.5%

55.4%

2009

14.8%

59.3%

2010

14.8%

58.5%

1952

19.0%

57.3%

1970

19.0%

57.4%

1980

19.0%

59.2%

1982

19.2%

57.8%

1997

19.2%

63.8%

2001

19.5%

63.7%

1981

19.6%

59.0%

1969

19.7%

58.0%

1999

19.8%

64.3%

1998

19.9%

64.1%

2000

20.6%

64.4%


These numbers are very counter-intuitive. The higher the percentage of GDP consumed by the government, the higher the level of employment. While I can't prove it, my hypothesis is that when the economy is good, employment is higher and tax collections are higher as well. When the economy is in the toilet, employment is lower and tax collections are lower.


I decided to perform one last test. How did government revenues and employment change in the four years after a cut? If tax cuts spur the economy, you would expect to see revenues as a percentage of GDP stay constant, constant dollar collections increase and employment increase. Here is what I found:


Year

Revenue as % of GDP

Revenue in Constant $

Employment $

1963

17.8%

$674.9

55.4%

1964

17.6%

$704.3

55.7%

1965

17.0%

$721.1

56.2%

1966

17.3%

$789.1

56.9%

1967

18.4%

$875.4

57.3%

1981

19.6%

$1,251.4

59.0%

1982

19.2%

$1,202.8

57.8%

1983

17.5%

$1,113.6

57.9%

1984

17.3%

$1,174.3

59.5%

1985

17.7%

$1,250.9

60.1%

1986

17.5%

$1,277.7

60.7%

1987

18.4%

$1,375.7

60.7%

2001

19.5%

$2,215.3

63.7%

2002

17.6%

$2,028.6

62.7%

2003

16.2%

$1,901.1

62.3%

2004

16.1%

$1,949.5

62.3%

2005

17.3%

$2,153.6

62.7%

2006

18.2%

$2,321.4

63.1%

2007

18.5%

$2,414.0

63.0%


These are a lot of numbers. Here is what I think they mean. The Kennedy tax cuts increased revenue by $200 million and increased employment by 1.9%.


The Reagan tax cuts initially resulted in both reduced revenue and reduced collection. However, by 1987, revenue was up by $100 million and employment was up by 1.7%.


The Bush tax cuts followed the same pattern with revenue and employment trending down but then increasing. However, the Bush tax cuts resulted in a net employment loss of 0.7%.


The bottom line is that it appears that depending on how you slice and dice the numbers, you can conclude that high taxes lead to high employment or conversely that tax cuts increase employment. It is beyond my abilities as an amateur economist to figure it out.


Sources: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/presidential-tax-cuts-now/story?id=12337213

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf

Friday, July 15, 2011

Did You Know That Taxes Are Low And Spending Is High?

One of the Republican mantras during the debate to increase hte debt ceiling is that we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem. As it turns out, receipts as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) are at an historic low, while spending is at an historic high. For 2009-10, government revenues were under 15% of GDP. You have to go back sixty years to 1950 to find a comparable level. Since 1940, there have only been eight years when revenue was less than 15% as a percentage of GDP (1940-43, 1949-50 and 2009-10). See Historical Tables: Budget of the U.S. Government 2011, Table 1.3, which you can find here. To be fair, the last two years are an anomaly. The same report predicts that receipts will increase to 16.8% in 2011 and 18.1% in 2012. For the post-World War II era, government receipts have traditionally been more than 15% but less than 20% of GDP. The only post World War II year in which receipts were greater than 20% was 2000.


Using the same measure, spending is historically high. In 2009-10, spending as a percentage of GDP was approximately 25% of GDP. The last time spending was that high was 1946. However, in fairness, there have been many years when spending exceeded 20% of GDP (1942-46, 1953, 1968, 1975-96, 2006, 2008-11). So which recent Presidents kept spending below 20% of GDP? President Clinton (1997-2000) and President George W. Bush (2001-05 and 2007).


So what is "normal" about receipts and expenditures? In recent years, receipts above 20% but below 25% of GDP are typical, while expenditures around 18%-22% of GDP. The past two years have been unusual in that receipts have been below historic levels and expenditures have been much higher. That has led to the history-busting deficits that I described in my prior post.

Monday, July 4, 2011

The Deficit Is REALLY BIG And That's Not Just Partisan Spin

I have been listening to the current debate about the size of the federal budget and the deficit with some confusion. Republicans say that spending is too high. Democrats say that taxes are too low. I have vague recollections of budget deficits under President Reagan and both President Bushes and a surplus under President Clinton. Those facts made me a little skeptical about claims that deficits are out of control under President Obama. Since I had a little free time on this Fourth of July, I decided to do some reading. The Government Publishing Office put out a volume titled Historical Tables: Budget of the U.S. Government. You can find it here. It contains a great history of the federal budget and it confirms that current deficits have hit record levels.

Raw numbers don't tell you much over time due to the effects of inflation and the fact that the effect of the federal budget on the economy depends on the size of the economy. That is why I found table 1.3 at page 26 very instructive. It shows government receipts, government spending and the deficit in both constant FY 2005 dollars and as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

According to the Report, we have historically run deficits in times of war and depression until the 1970s when we ran continuous deficits with the exception of a few years. Deficit years from 1940 forward were 1940-46(World War II), 1950 and 1952-55 (Korean War), 1958-59, 1961-68 and 1970-73 (Vietnam War) and 1974-97 and 2002-11 (Afghanistan and Iraq). The only non-wartime years that we ran deficits since 1940 were 1958-59 under President Eisenhower and 1974-97 under Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton. Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush were the most recent presidents to preside over a surplus during 1998-2001.

While deficits have been common, the size of the deficit shows striking differences. During the war years of 1943-45, we had deficits equal to 30.3%, 22.7% and 21.5% of GDP. In constant dollars, those deficits were in the $500 billion range. The first postwar year of 1946 showed a fiscal hangover with a deficit equal to 7.2% of GDP and $175.6 billion in constant dollars.

In terms of percentage of GDP, we would not see a deficit equaling 1946 until the Obama administration when the deficit was 9.9% in 2009 and 10.6% of GDP in 2010. In other words, as a percentage of the economy, the deficits under President Obama consume a greater portion of the economy than at any time since World War II. (The Tables only go back to 1940, so I can't speak to the pre-World War II era. In constant dollars, we did not exceed the $175 billion level of 1946 until 1975-76 under President Ford, 1982-88 under President Reagan, 1989-92 under President H.W. Bush, 1993-95, 1996-97 under President Clinton, 2003-2008 under President George W. Bush and 2009-2010 under President Obama. However, while these deficits were greater than 1946, none reached the $500 billion level until 2009. Under President Obama, the deficit was $1.279 trillion in 2009 and 1.386 trillion in 2010. (Since the Table was using constant 2005 dollars, the actual deficits were higher at $1.4 and $1.5 trillion respectively).

Thus, it appears that President Obama's deficits really are unprecedented. In terms of GDP, they are the most since 1945. In constant dollars, they are over double the largest in history, more than double the World War II era deficits. This doesn't tell us WHY the deficits are so large. That would take a lot more digging than I have time to do on a holiday afternoon. President Obama has several strikes against him with interest piling up on the borrowing from his predecessors, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and a population of aging Baby Boomers. However, it is a verifiable fact that they make President Reagan and both President Bushes' deficits look mild in comparison and make President Clinton's record look positively sterling.