Ted Kennedy’s passing saddens me. Alright, you ask “How could a libertarian /conservative/ republican (take your pick) be saddened by the passing of this left-wing socialist /nationalized health care shill /whatever (take your pick) ?”

Simple. Growing up in Massachusetts I benefited from Ted’s efforts, met him a few times, and saw what seemed like true concern for his constituents. It would be hypociritical of me to demonize him, like so many do.

Many people ask “How could the people of Massachusetts elect this guy and John Kerry, time after time?” Having lived there for many years I can offer an explanation. Part of it is clearly the state’s Democratic machine; another is the miserable failure of the Mass Republican Party to create a credible, statewide alternative. Part of it was his raw power – if something was going to happen that affected the state, he was going to be there looking out for his constituents. There’s public affection for the family, but I think this is based more on the nostalgia of the glory days and simpler times of Camelot than the current generation of Kennedys. And finally part of it is because he touched the lives of almost all of us.

(An aside – John Kerry will never fill Ted’s shoes. He knows it. The people of Massachusetts know it. I suspect the other 98 members of the Senate know it. With the right Republican candidate, he could be very vulnerable.)

Three personal remembrances of Ted – I’ll start with the unflattering one first. For several years I was employed by a company that was developing a system for laser-based enrichment of nuclear materials. It was announced that Ted was planning a visit, and when the day came, we all greeted him enthusiastically. We gathered in our cafeteria, listened to a few opening remarks, and then Ted opened up the floor to some questions. Most were softballs, but one scientist asked “Senator, what do you think about private companies controlling nuclear materials?” Predictably Ted answered he wasn’t in favor of it, and when he heard the guffaws on the floor and realized he had been set up he momentarily froze like a deer in headlights. He was clearly never briefed on our activities. The meeting ended with a few polite remarks shortly thereafter.

Some years earlier, when I was senior in High School, Ted spoke to a class assembly. I don’t remember the substance of his remarks, but I remember thinking that he truly believed in the potential of each of us to make a difference. I think Ted was an optimist till the end.

One final memory – in the 1990’s my former father-in-law retired as Superintendent of Schools for a large suburban Boston community. His most treasured retirement gift? Not the gold watch, the special chair from his alma mater, or the proclamation from the Governor – it was the personal letter from Ted Kennedy congratulating him on his years of service.

I have read that Ted was known for doing small, personal things like that. This is the Ted Kennedy I will remember, and it’s why I am saddened this morning.

* Updates and further reading:

• Hot Air points out that Ted’s role as patriarch of the Kennedy clan was thrust upon him by two assassin’s bullets, and makes the point that both JFK and RFK’s deaths “were deeply personal tragedies for all of the Kennedys”. One has to ask if any family has sacrificed so much in pursuit of what they believed.
• Michelle Malkin’s post Sen. Edward Kennedy has died says what I unintentionally omitted: “Put aside your ideological differences for an appropriate moment and mark this passing with solemnity.”
• GayPatriot points out some additional qualities that made Ted so effective as a Senator
• As usual Patterico has an interesting take. I know he said don’t ask, but why Andy Granatelli?
• The Moderate Voice has some balanced reflections on the Senator’s personality and offers up some opinions on a possible replacement.
• Former Boston Herald editor Jules Crittenden offers up some possible replacements and asks “who gets to be the next iconic liberal lion?” Nobody respectable seems to be on the horizon.

Some Boogie Stop Shuffle.

That’s the opinion of Former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, according to the Washington Times. Apparently the updated 10 year budget projections, while trending towards the CBO’s $9.1 Trillion deficit estimate, selectively include and exclude the impacts of proposed legislation:

Holtz-Eakin said that said the Obama administration wrongly assumes it will receive $640 billion in revenue from the creation of a cap-and-trade system for polluters, which would rely on the passage of an energy reform bill that many Democrats oppose, plus another $200 billion from a controversial proposal to tax international businesses. The Obama administration is also counting on the idea that health care reform will not increase the deficit, which some believe is impossible.

What’s more stunning about this? Counting in contributions from Cap and Trade, or trying to pass off projections that the proposed health care reform package will actually lower the budget deficit? A public option that extends benefits to uninsured Americans while creating a massive new bureaucracy is simply unaffordable. Targeted incentives to make health insurance more affordable combined with meaningful tort reform would be more practical and lead to more probable deficit reductions over the longer term.

* Update: Take it away, Greta:

(Youtube video h/t to Below the Beltway)

Any statistics professor will tell you there’s no such thing as the “law of averages”, but as today’s Washington Times points out there is a “Flaw of Averages”, which is also the title of a new book by Sam L. Savage, a consulting professor of management science and engineering at Stanford University and a fellow of the Judge Business School at the University of Cambridge.

The problem with predictions based on averages? Risk and uncertainty aren’t factored into plans.

“In everyday life,” said Mr. Savage, “the flaw of averages ensures that plans based on average customer demand, average completion time, average interest rate and other uncertainties are below projection, behind schedule and beyond budget.”

When people use a single number, usually a historical average, to predict the future, they invite systematic errors and generate unintended consequences, mostly negative…

Probability, risk, and uncertainty can be difficult concepts for people to grasp. The best plans take a range of outcomes into account, with each assigned a probability of occurrence (of course as humans we tend to poor estimation of probabilities.) The process can start with the simple questions of (1) What are our assumptions and (2) What if we are wrong?

Keep all of this in mind the next time you’re tempted to predict the future based on a poll taken in the past

The latest Daily Presidential Tracking Poll – Rasmussen Reports™ is out and it’s more of the same for President Obama:

Gateway Pundit has a pretty good list of reasons why. Time for the leading practitioner of Hopenchange to alter his approach to governing and hope for an improvement. The White House has to be in a bind – continue with its key policy initiatives and risk increasing widespread public disapproval and a lessening of the Democratic grip on Congress, or lighten up and alienate the most vocal portion of Obama’s political base. Of course, one has to ask the question – who else would they vote for anyway?

My fellow conservatives will gloat, but as I’ve warned before, low presidential polling numbers create security and political risks. Besides, Republicans haven’t been able to take widespread advantage of this situation, although if the upcoming Virginia gubernatorial election is any indication this may be changing.

This graph posted at Patterico’s Pontifications: Obama’s Budget Deficit seems scary enough:

Could future recessions be even worse as a result of Obama’s plans for such a massive expansion of the size and role of the Federal Government? A recent article titled Big Government, Big Recession by the Cato Institute’s Alan Reynolds suggests this possibility. One study has shown that the era of post-New Deal, big government spending and intervention has increased average recession length:

A 1999 study in The Journal of Economic Perspectives by Christina Romer (now head of the Council of Economic Advisers) found that “real macroeconomic indicators have not become dramatically more stable between the pre-World War I and post-World War II eras, and recessions have become only slightly less severe.” Ms. Romer also noted that “recessions have not become noticeably shorter” in the era of Big Government. In fact, she found the average length of recessions from 1887 to 1929 was 10.3 months. If the current recession ended in August, then the average postwar recession lasted one month longer — 11.3 months. The longest recession from 1887 to 1929 lasted 16 months. But there have been three recessions since 1973 that lasted at least that long.

The article points out that economies with the smallest Governmental share of GDP tend to recover the quickest. Several European economies are already recovering form the current contraction. Could a future recession be longer and more severe than the current, resulting in the nightmare scenario of calls for even more deficit spending to prop up an economy that is increasingly dependent on it?