Crazy ideas of the day:release convicts, ban military smoking, breach contracts.

1) Illinois' Governor Quinn proposes to release 125000 prisoners in order to save money ( by firing 1000 prison guards ). Perhaps they should auction releases to the prisoners so that the state would effectively get a commission on what these guys steal afterward. The technique of "the unacceptable alternative" is a transparent ploy by anyone unwilling to make sensible budget cuts. It's hard to believe this is serious.
Better is to cut thousands of government workers from the rolls of the staffs of state legislators and legislators' expense accounts should be limited as well. Here, at least, the prison workers are unionized and the staffs are likely not.
2) The Pentagon proposes to ban cigarette smoking in the military to save $1B/year in smoking-related health costs. It's hard to know where to start with this, although one should mention that Obama still smokes. Smoking under short-lived high stress situations is arguably good for one's health provided that smoking is forsworn afterward. Mortality of young people from smoking compared to the risks of combat or accident is likely negligible. Restricting one of the few indulgences of combat troops is insane ( and 50% of these do smoke, at least during their front-line service ) and can hardly be expected to maintain recruitment and re-enlistment levels.
3) On CNBC, during a discussion of "whether" AIG should pay retention bonuses they had contractually undertaken ( AIG today "asked" the czar if they could ), a lawyer named Andrew Stoltmann delivered himself of the following judgments: contracts are violated all the time; the employees should be forced to sue; a blue-collar jury is likely to dismiss their claims. Now, jury nullification might be a fact of life but to call for it publicly would be grounds for ejection from a more ordinarily-ethical profession ( "legal ethics" being unique ). One can hardly believe that a judge or an appeals court wouldn't uphold a valid contract with no reasons for breach. What this guy is calling for is merely adding the hurdle of litigation to a situation that is otherwise straightforward. As a lawyer he doubtless overlooks (or, more likely, doesn't care about ) the fact that business cannot be conducted if every contract has to be litigated when its terms and validity are clear. Such guys used to be called "shysters" but they may be more the norm today, at least in the U.S.
Yoda went through a period of considerable dealing with lawyers and routinely asked the following question: if the law is with you and the facts are with you and the matter goes to litigation, what's the chance that you'll prevail? The answers averaged to only 70%! No wonder that the costs of litigation in the U.S. are estimated upwards from $200Billion/year.
Instead of improving American competiveness by reducing this burden of litigation, the playing field is being redressed by exporting the attitude of litigating almost everything to societies that heretofore have not had it. It's too bad we can't export the lawyers themselves. (How would one book the export of a lawyer on the balance of trade?)