| ThoughtsOnline |
|
Rambling thoughts on who knows what... Because not everything is as the conventional wisdom would have it... BLOGS I SORT OF LIKE... Volokh Conspiracy ProfessorBainbridge MarginalRevolution Patterico Powerline Ace Wizbang JustOneMinute XRLQ Betsy's Page HE WHO USED TO LINK ME EVERY NOW AND THEN InstaPundit Email Steve
|
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Looking past the headline: "Foreclosure woes mount for those with good credit"...
Yes, there are more people with good credit behind on their mortgage than there was last year. And 1 in every 8 mortgages are delinquent. But... for those with good credit... and who have a fixed rate loan... and who don't live in California, Nevada, Arizona or Florida, the chances are darn good that they're current on their mortgage.
With GM soon to follow Chrysler into bankruptcy, I figure it's as good a time as ask just what was gained by the Bush Administration giving billions of dollars to GM and Chrysler?
Supposedly, the money was needed to keep GM and Chrysler from having to go into bankruptcy, that the money would buy some time for GM and Chrysler to work out their problems and get their act together. Obviously, that didn't work out. Neither GM nor Chrysler came up with a reorganization that came even close to restoring them to profitability. Neither came up with a plan that satisfied their various creditors and constituencies that they should go along with GM and Chrysler's plans. In other words, the money the Bush Administration gave to GM and Chrysler was wasted. But, you say, Bush gave money to GM and Chrysler not so much to keep them out of bankruptcy but to keep them out of bankruptcy at a time when doing so would have caused even more problems for the economy as a whole. But, I answer, even if that was their motivation, that is based on nothing more than pure unadulterated guessing, there was (and is) nothing to indicate the economy would have collapsed if GM and/or Chrysler entered bankruptcy early last winter. And since nobody can prove the economy would have cratered, I stand by my assertion that the money was wasted. Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The federal government is going to receive a 70% stake in General Motors in return for 'investing' another $50 billion (note: the Washington Post reports the additional 'investment' is only $29 billion).
Using the lower number, and ignoring the $19 billion the federal government has already loaned GM (treating it as a a sunk cost), and ignoring the equity being given to the UAW in return for whatever paltry concessions they are making, getting 70% for $29 billion puts an enterprise value on GM of almost $42 billion. And who in their right mind would pay $42 billion for GM? Using a Price/Earnings ratio of 14-to-1 (there are companies with higher multiples and companies with lower multiples, but 14-to-1 makes the math easy), GM would need to have profits of roughly $3 billion. So how does GM close the gap between the tens of billions of dollars they're losing and the $3 billion in profits needed to even come close to remotely justifying the government's 'investment'? I have no idea. The 'concessions' the UAW is making come nowhere near closing the gap. And I haven't even factored in GM being pressured to produce even more small (money-losing) cars and fewer (money-making) SUVs, a move that will make environmentalists happy but will do no good to GM's finances. So back to my question, who in their right mind would value GM at $42 billion? The answer: nobody with a shred of business sense. Nobody who thought it necessary to see a return on investment. Nobody who was using their own money. In other words, only a politician who mistakes their success at extracting campaign contributions for business acumen. Only a politician who ignores the immorality of taking so much money from one group of people in order to dole it out to favored friends. Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Yes, Dick Cheney is doing a nice job of attacking Obama on issues involving national security....
BUT WHY WASN'T CHENEY DOING THIS LONG BEFORE NOW? Why wasn't Cheney defending the Bush policies last year? Why wasn't he criticizing Obama's criticisms of Bush's policies? It's not as if Cheney had no idea what Obama wanted to do. No, Cheney going on the attack last year wouldn't have swung the election to McCain (McCain was such a lousy candidate that God himself couldn't have helped McCain win). But Cheney could have presented a clear and coherent defense of the policies that helped keep us safe, he could have provided both the theoretical and practical foundation for the GOP to fight Obama's naive, misguided and wrong approaches to dealing with terrorism. I've long argued that public opinion turned against Bush largely because he did such an inept job of defending his programs... and because no one capable of stringing together a couple of sentences was filling in the gap. Cheney could have done so, he should have done so, and had he done so, the public would have been more supportive of Bush's policies and far more skeptical of Obama. Tuesday, May 19, 2009
I don't expect much from so-called business reporters, but AP writer Anne Flaherty fails to meet even those low expectations in this article on the Senate's move to restrict credit card companies.
For example, she justifies Congressional action because "... money is tight in most households".. but where is the justification for that claim? Most households haven't suffered the loss of a job and most households aren't behind on their mortgage. As far as I know, most households have suffered no loss of income which would, at best, lead to money being tight on a figurative and not literal basis. The reporter also claims that "members of Congress didn't want to face voters in the 2010 election without proof that they are listening to constituents crushed by foreclosure rates and joblessness" and she claims that "the jobless rate rose to 8.9 percent in April, and some economists predict it could rise into double digits" and "the number of foreclosures jumped 32 percent in April compared with the same month last year". Again, ignoring the fact that most constituents are NOT losing their houses and are NOT without jobs, is she claiming that this credit card bill is the Senate's answer to those out of work and/or losing their home? That this bill is a sop thrown to those folks? If so, then where's the interview with someone out of work, asking them how happy they are that they won't be hit with late fees on their next credit card statement? And if not, then why the references to foreclosures and joblessness, other than to throw some irrelevant statistics into the story? And she uncritically accepts Democratic Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney's claim that "Today is a victory for all credit cardholders". On the contrary. I am not going to benefit, nor are even 'most' credit cardholders going to benefit from these changes as I, along with the majority of cardholders, don't engage in the behavior that results in these charges being levied. This bill benefits a self-selecting group of cardholders, namely those who exceed their credit limit, pay late or do something that lowers their credit rating. For everybody else, those who play by the rules, this bill does nothing. And while she gives lip service to and buries at the end the arguments given by credit card companies opposed to these changes, nowhere does she address the concerns of on-time payers afraid that they'll be charged fees and higher interest rates as credit card companies try to make up from them the money they won't be able to get from those who don't pay their bills on time and who run over their limit. To me, this is a classic case of the majority being punished for the sins of a relative few... and nowhere does the reporter mention this at all. Monday, May 18, 2009
Despite conservative allegations to the contrary (another link), the NYT ombudsman is correct that the NYT was not looking to protect the Obama campaign when it killed a story on ACORN 'interactions' with the Obama and Clinton campaigns... for the simple reason that the people who read and take their cues from the NYT were so infatuated with Obama (and hostile to McCain and the GOP) that NOTHING the NYT could have written would have shaken their enthusiasm for Obama. Heck, the NYT could have written that Obama was going to not close Guantanamo, not get rid of indefinite detention of terrorist suspects and not release photos of alleged prisoner abuse... and Obama would still have received votes from 102% of the NYT readership.
Thus, because running the story would not have hurt Obama, the NYT must have had another reason for doing so.
It may indeed 'cost more to be poor' but the Post reporter does a poor job of covering what he (she?) tries to cleverly portray as "Poverty 101"...
For example, she writes that, lacking cars, the poor can't get out to Costco or Trader Joe's so they end up paying more at their local corner food store where bread costs $1.80 more than it does at a suburban grocery store. But the reporter doesn't factor in the costs of the car and gas to get to Costco, nor does she factor in the higher housing costs for living in the suburbs... all of which offset to some degree the difference in prices for a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk. She also claims that it isn't just a financial burden the poor suffer, that they also end up spending more time doing certain things than richer folks. For example, she writes how the poor, lacking washing machines and dryers, can't 'go out for a jog' while their clothes are in the washing machine because they have to hang around the local laundromat waiting for their clothes get clean. Sorry, but I just don't consider it a huge problem if not going out for a jog is the hardship someone without a washing machine has to suffer. Finally, the reporter complains that the poor have to do deal with more hassles because they're poor: the "calls from the bill collectors, the landlord, the utility company". Yet calls from bill collectors are not attributable to being poor, per se, but rather borrowing money they can't repay. There's no requirement that anyone, regardless of income or lack thereof, go and borrow money they can't repay. Thursday, May 14, 2009
For Obama to complain that he hasn't been able to close the books on the Bush Administration is a bit like the proverbial kid who kills his parents and asks for mercy since he is an orphan... as Obama has done as much as anyone to keep the doors open... by by releasing classified memos, by wandering around the world apologizing for our supposed sins and by threatening to prosecute Bush Administration officials.
Given the trouble Nancy Pelosi is in for lying about what she knew and when she knew about 'enhanced interrogation' of terrorists, House Republicans could stand by and gloat, hoping somehow that they could benefit from this in November (which is a long way off)....
Or they could pledge en masse to vote for Steny Hoyer to replace Pelosi as Speaker. Given that the Democrats outnumber the Republicans by 257 - 178, it would only take 40 Democratic votes to dump her and her baggage... and figuring that Hoyer would probably vote for himself, just 39 Democrats are needed. I figure there have to be that many who either don't like her or her politics or think she ought to pay a price for taking on the issue of going after Bush appointees and having it all blow up in her face. How about it, Minority Leader Boehner? You haven't had too much to brag about lately, this would be a real nice morale booster, getting rid of somebody as partisan as Pelosi. Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Much has been written (link) about the Obama Administration's 'assault on property rights' and the 'enforceability of contracts' as applies to Chrysler secured creditors who had to accept pennies on the dollar.
But I'm not sure that is what is actually taking place. Yes, the secured creditors were pressured, but not in a way that suggests that the Obama Administration is ignoring bankruptcy law. As I understand the situation, the Obama Administration used its position as the 'lender of last resort' to threaten to withhold additional funding unless creditors agreed to its terms. The creditors were 'forced' to accept those terms only to the extent that every other option was seen as less desirable; they could have said no and taken their chances with a bankrupt company that had no money to continue operations but chose not to do so. I'm not a big fan of the government providing bailout funds to car companies, banks, newspapers or, for that matter, any other business or industry. But having done so, the federal government - as any lender would - has the right to dictate the terms by which it is willing to provide financing. I'm also not a fan of the Obama Administration using its leverage to reward favored groups, such as the labor unions, at the expense of other interested parties, but that is a policy difference and not a legal matter. That is what seems to be case here. The federal government said it was willing to put billions more into Chrysler, but only if the secured creditors gave up their preferred position. Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Dahlia Lithwick is either ignorant or deluding herself if she thinks that the 'empathy' Obama wants from a Supreme Court nominee is generic in nature and not slanted towards particular groups. Does she really think that Obama wants his nominee to take the feelings of 'bitter gun nuts' into account when deciding cases? How about taking into account the pressures of being 'hedge fund speculators'? Does she think that Obama wants his nominee to take into account "what it's like to be a young, teenaged mom"... and then rule against her?
Of course not. Empathy is a means to an end, not an end in of itself, it is a tool to construct a decision that Obama likes. Empathy is the bridge to span the gaps where the written law and precedent don't provide the support for the Court ruling in the way Obama wants them to rule. And it's telling that in referring to his desire to have empathetic Justices, Obama cites only the constituencies - gays, the poor, black, disabled, teenage mothers - that comprise the Democratic voting bloc and not any of the demographics - rich, selfish, corrupt and bigoted - that tend to vote Republican. 'Empathy' to a Democrat is no different than 'original intent' and 'legislating from the bench' are code words for conservatives who want a particular outcome and don't particularly care about the way a Justice reaches a particular decision. But Lithwick is right to criticize the GOP for focusing on empathy. As I said above, empathy is but a means to an end... and as a general rule, Americans care less about the process than the end result (in large part because process is harder concept for the public to grasp, it's a lot easier to understand the end result). In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if someone likes the outcome, they'll overlook whatever reservations they might have about the process by which that outcome was reached. Liberals don't care how the Supreme Court twisted things to outlaw bans on abortion and sodomy, all they cared about was the end result that gave women the right to abort their babies and gays the right to do whatever it is that they want to do to one another. Likewise, most Republicans didn't care when the Supreme Court went off the deep end when ruling against the Gore side back in 2000, all they cared about was that their guy won. Because of this, the GOP needs to focus on the decisions that an Obama appointee is likely to make and how those decisions are going to negatively affect the voters whose support the GOP needs (just as Ted Kennedy, in going after Robert Bork, didn't bother arguing against Bork's judicial philosophy, he simply declared that Bork would bring back days of back alley abortions. It's all about the end result). The GOP needs to claim that an Obama appointee is going to make us less safe by siding with terrorists over the American people and with criminals over police and the public. They need to argue that an Obama appointee is going to side with those who would restrict a parent's right to raise and educate their kids the way they'd like. The GOP needs to argue that an Obama appointee is going to cost jobs by siding with the government bureaucrats who intrude into private industry. They need to argue that an Obama appointee is going to make health care more expensive by siding with class action plaintiff attorneys over the doctors and pharmaceutical companies that provide our medical care. The GOP needs to argue that an Obama appointee who cites foreign law is out of touch with a mainstream America which is quite proud of our traditions. And given the resistance of nominees to be specific, the GOP needs to put the nominee into a box where their refusal to answer the question can be taken as evidence of their bias. For example, they should ask the nominee whether he or she believes the safety of the American public is more important than the health and well being of a captured terrorist. Or, taking a page from Bernard Shaw, they ought to ask the nominee how he or she would react to school administrators looking for a contraband Advil strip searching their teenage daughter... or the legality of zero tolerance policies that result in kids being expelled from school for accidentally bringing a butter knife to school. Granted, GOP opposition is going to fall short, absent some personal scandal, they're not going to be able to keep an Obama appointee off the bench. But there's still value in waging the fight: in going after an Obama appointee, the GOP has the chance to taint by association the Democrats who will vote to support the out-of-touch with mainstream America nominee... and, if the GOP played their cards right, they could receive some nice dividends this fall. Of course, the GOP being the GOP, they're going to screw things up... Monday, May 11, 2009
Something to consider when pondering today's announcement that the federal deficit is now up to $1.8 trillion.... that amount is an optimistic number, the lowest deficit the budget folks can report with anything resembling a straight face. It is based on a bunch of projections and assumptions, none of which represent truly pessimistic thinking.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Conservative critics of the Democrats (effectively) eliminating school choice in DC are offering up some decidedly non-conservative criticisms...
For example, the argument that every kid ought to have the right to attend a school such as Sidwell Friends, the private - and expensive - school the Obama kids go to... and that it is hypocritical for Obama to give his kids opportunities that other kids don't have. Well, the kids have the right to attend that school or any other private school (provided they are accepted), they lack the funds to pay the tuition. And a bedrock of conservative economic philosophy is that people can buy only what they have the money to pay for. Conservatives have never accepted the argument that someone has a right to get what they don't have the money to pay for themselves. We don't accept that someone without money has a right to receive the same medical care as someone with more money in the bank. We don't accept that one has a right to just as nice a house or as nice a car as someone who makes ten times the money. And conservatives aren't supposed to be advocates for the government handing out money. We're supposed to be the ones arguing for less government spending, not more. We aren't supposed to be the ones arguing for government to write checks to cover the costs of going to Harvard because it's so much nicer than going to the local community college. Yes, the public schools in DC suck. Yes, (some) parents are understandably interested in giving their kids better educational opportunities. But that doesn't mean the government has the obligation to pick up the tab. The government offers educational programs; if some number of parents don't like the government provided services, they're welcome to pick up the tab themselves for sending their kids elsewhere... but they're not entitled to demand that I pick up the tab.
CBS reporter Mark Knoller tries to explain that the disparity between reporters standing for Obama but not for Bush shouldn't be seen as a lack of respect for Bush... but Knoller's own words betray him and show the extent of the media bias.
To quote: reporters, in standing as Obama entered the room "... forgot about the needs of their colleagues in the back of the room as well as the less formal atmosphere of the briefing room. Certainly it was a sign of respect for the president, but not one of disrespect for his predecessor". Well... if standing for Obama as he entered the room is a sign of respect, how could not standing for Bush be anything other than an indication that the media had LESS respect for Bush? If respect is defined as standing, how could sitting be seen as respectful? Monday, May 04, 2009
Here's another talking point for the GOP...
With polls showing that less than one in five people think Obama's plans will save GM and Chrysler and with 70% of the public opposing any more bailout money being given to GM and Chrysler, now is the time for Congress and the Obama administration to back off their plans to throw billions of dollars down the toilet and to let the bankruptcy courts do what they were designed to do. What better way for the GOP to convince the voters that the GOP is with them than to attack Obama and the Democrats in Congress for doing something disliked by most of the public - including a large number of independents? And of course, the GOP will pass on the opportunity.
A silver lining for the GOP as far as Specter's defection to the Democrats? Stories about his incredibly stupid comment blaming the GOP for Jack Kemp's death will have a 'D-PA' next to Specter's name rather than an 'R-PA'.
Obama can thank Bush for the the mess in Pakistan as Bush's pushing Musharraf laid the foundation for the Taliban being in position to take control of the country.
And, like in Gaza, the mess in Pakistan shows just how completely wrong Bush was to place so much effort into 'instilling democracy' around the world. His critics argued (and correctly so) that democracy in a country full of religious crazies is worse than a country run by a dictatorship which shared our opposition to Islamic fundamentalism. Saturday, May 02, 2009
Closing schools with students with swine flu might seem like a good thing to do... unless you bother to spend all of thirty seconds thinking about it... at which time the closings are revealed as nothing more than a lame attempt by public health officials to show that they are pro-active, in charge and taking no chances when it comes to keeping us safe.
Just how does closing schools "isolate children exposed to likely cases of swine flu"? It's not as if students from those schools have been put into quarantine facilities and kept from the rest of us. What do students do when there is no school? They go out. They don't, as public health officials have urged, "avoid public places". They go to shopping malls, they go out to restaurants, they go to movies, they go to their friend's houses... all places where, if they are infected, can infect their friends and other people they - and their germs - come into contact with. And even if they did "avoid public places", they don't avoid their families... their mothers and fathers and younger brothers and sisters... who go to work and go shopping at the local grocery store and go to different schools... where they, if they are infected, can in turn infect other people who will in turn affect other people. In other words, closing a particular high school does absolutely nothing to halt the spread of swine flu or any other communicable disease. So why close a high school? Because bureaucrats have an insatiable need to show the public that they are doing something... even if what they are doing is of absolutely no use whatsoever. Tis better to do something and hope the public doesn't catch on as to how silly it is than to be criticized for doing nothing.... even if nothing is, as is the case here, the right thing to be doing.
|