| 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
|
Saturday, October 31, 2009
The Obama Administration invested $2.3 billion in CIT... all lost. The Obama Administration loaned tens of billions of dollars to GM and Chrysler... pretty much all lost. The Obama Administration loaned tens of billions of dollars to AIG... pretty much all lost. The Obama Administration spent billions of dollars on 'cash for clunkers', some $24,000 per car and resulting in only a temporary boost in car sales.
Friday, October 30, 2009
I think it was during the 1980 presidential race that I first noticed the term 'misery index', the sum of the inflation rate and the unemployment rate, and where (obviously) the higher the index, the less well-off was the economy.
While some attribute Reagan's victory to the index being on the high side in the months leading up to the election, I don't think most voters actually knew or paid attention to the actual statistics. Rather, I think most people had anecdotal evidence that the economy was doing poorly: news reports of people without jobs, easier rush hour commutes, attributable to fewer people having jobs and needing to go to and from jobs, neighborhood businesses closing, their own businesses having to tighten belts, etc. I think it was more of a 'statistics? I don't need no stinking statistics to know that the economy sucks' than a analysis of economic indicators. And I think the same dynamic holds right now... which may lead to people discounting - and ridiculing - the Administration's claims of how many jobs their stimulus has 'created or saved'? When people hear reports of continuing layoffs, when they continue to see foreclosure sales in their neighborhoods, when they see businesses in the area shutting down, when they see malls that aren't as crowded as they seemed to be just a couple of years ago... well, that is evidence that just doesn't jibe with the rosy claims coming out of the Obama Administration. And as Bush found out with Iraq, where a constant drumbeat of negative images (car bombings, counts of military deaths, etc.) undermined his public assertion that things were progressing in Iraq, that we were getting ever closer to finally winning the war, and with it, his believability, so too may Obama finding people tuning him out. While the American people have little patience with those who fail to deliver (whether as President on the economy or the local pro athlete at the plate), they think even less of those who don't deliver but act as if they have. Thursday, October 29, 2009
I don't know if (1) a health care bill will ever pass, (2) if one does, whether it will include a so-called 'public option', (3) if it does, whether there will an 'opt-out' provision by which individual states can decide to not participate... but I can guarantee that if it does, NOT A SINGLE STATE WILL EVER DO SO.
And not because, as some claim, because the rules are stacked against states wishing to opt out... but rather because (1) the public option will offer cheaper rates making it hard for state politicians to deny their residents the opportunity to get health insurance for less money, (2) those lower rates will be made possible by a combination of higher taxes and health insurance premiums, and (3) because those higher rates and taxes will hit the residents of a state whether or not that state offers a public option, state legislatures will most definitely figure that participating at least allows their residents to get back a portion of those higher taxes and premiums. Opting out of the public option would be as fiscally silly as a state announcing they didn't want any military bases or defense contracts awarded to state firms. Their residents would still have to pay the taxes to pay for defense spending, so lobbying for defense dollars is simply the best way for a state to minimize the net outflow of its residents' tax dollars. The only way an opt out works is if everybody opts out. But so long as just one state offers a public option, every other state is stuck with having to take do the same lest their residents tax dollars go to support the lower rates in the states offering the public option.
Reading reports that Obama is conducting a province by province review of Afghanistan, it seems pretty clear that he doesn't want to put additional troops into Afghanistan and is trying to buy time while he scrounges around for a reason to reject McChrystal's request for more troops.
Ordinarily, conducting a province by province analysis is something that is done once one has bought into the overall plan, sort of a 'yes, I'll send more troops, but let's first review how many are needed'. After all, there's no reason to conduct a province by province review of how many troops are needed if you've already decided to not send any more troops, right? Ah, but something's missing... Obama saying "yes, I'll send more troops, but let's first review how many are needed". Doing so would have assured our allies and our troops of Obama's commitment to defeating the Taliban and keeping Afghanistan from once again becoming a haven for Al Qaeda. And if Obama was committed to backing McChrystal, there would be no reason for Obama to not make such a statement. But he hasn't... because Obama is stalling for time. He believes that making his intentions known is going to hurt him politically. But unlike those who believe Obama is going to send troops but is waiting because he fears angry Democratic voters will take it out on Democratic candidates in next week's elections, I believe the exact opposite: that Obama is either going to not send any additional troops or so few troops that it amounts to a repudiation of his hand-picked commander and Obama fears retribution from independent voters who will turn some relatively close contests into outright routs. Wednesday, October 28, 2009
A sign of just how much I think Obama has grabbed power at the expense of the private sector (paranoid?) is that when I saw the tease "Obama picks former Senators for Intel board", my first reaction was that Obama was picking directors for Intel's board of directors and not, as is the case, picking members for the President's Intelligence Advisory Committee. My bad, but how many of you wouldn't have had the same initial thought?
I'm sure others have pointed out that we're not supposed to think that the government is going to ration health care at the same time they're rationing access to the swine flu vaccine.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
The Obama version of 'it depends on the meaning of 'is'...
Apparently, when Obama told Congress that abortion wouldn't be covered under 'our health plan', he was referring to 'his' plan and not the plans put forth by Congressional Democrats. Of course, since there is no 'Obama' plan, any plan passed wouldn't be an 'Obama' plan and thus free to provide taxpayer funding of abortion services.
With Bob McDonnell likely to win the Virginia gubernatorial election next week, most pundits are (and have been) saying opponent Creigh Deeds' mistake was going negative. Others are attempting to paint this election as a referendum on Obama.
But I think the big (unreported) story isn't Deeds going negative, but the way McDonnell fought back against those negative ads. He didn't try to ignore them, he didn't try to (weaselly) respond, he took them head on... and he turned them against Deeds in a way that minimized their effectiveness. Deeds claimed that McDonnell was hostile to working women - and McDonnell responded with some forceful ads featuring working women who attested to McDonnell's strong track record of dealing with women in the workforce and support for the careers of his own daughters... a powerful rebuttal to Deeds' claims. Deeds claimed that McDonnell was a throwback to the middle ages - and McDonnell responded with (conservative leaning) editorials from Virginia papers that claimed that Deeds was making things up... another powerful rebuttal to Deeds' claims. By doing so, in basically calling Deeds a liar, McDonnell planted the seed among voters that Deeds was just making things up, that he wasn't to be trusted, that the voters were safe in ignoring Deeds' claims (as well of the claims of Deeds' supporters such as the Washington Post). And finally McDonnell responded with commercials that claimed that the only strategy Deeds had was to go negative, that Deeds had nothing positive to offer Virginia voters. Thus, each time voters were exposed to another negative Deeds ad, McDonnell's commercials reminded them that Deeds had nothing but negativity to offer voters (sort of a 'yeah, here he goes again' impression). Republicans ought to know that the preferred campaign strategy for Democrats is to try and demonize GOP candidates... and too often, the GOP response is weak, weak, weak. McDonnell showed that there is an alternative... and an alternative that can pay huge dividends elsewhere. Monday, October 26, 2009
The Marine Corps Marathon was run yesterday and, as is always the case, the overall winner was a guy and the fastest-finishing woman finished a bit later (70th overall). One might think that the Washington Post might choose to put a picture of the overall winner on the front page with pictures of other notable finishers on inside pages and in the Sports section.
But... that would lead to a bunch of angry women writing in to complain that the Post doesn't give women's sports the same coverage that it does to men's sports. They complain, for example, when the Post gives more prominence to the University of Maryland men's basketball team than to the women's basketball team (yes, the women have lately had better teams, but the men draw more far fans than the women). And with circulation (and profits) continuing to drop, the last thing a newspaper editor wants to do is piss off readers (who are becoming former readers more than non-readers are becoming readers). So, hoping that guys won't complain (and cancel) to the same extent as do women, they put the woman on Page 1 and run a smaller picture of the guy on the front page of the Sports section. A business decision that meshes nicely with their politically correct souls. A win-win. Friday, October 23, 2009
A maxim of sales is that it is darned hard for a salesman to sell a product to a prospect if the prospect senses the salesman is less than enthused about the product.
For example, how excited would you be to buy a Ford from a salesman who drives a Chevy? A PC from a salesman who admits he uses a Mac? Or insurance from a salesman whose own coverage is from another carrier? So how easy do you think it is going to be for the Obama Administration to convince its allies to send additional troops to Afghanistan given that they themselves aren't so hot on the idea? I would sure hurt to be the guy tasked with having to advance the argument 'Yeah, guys, we're not so sure that sending troops won't be a waste of lives and money... so how many troops can I put you down for?'. Thursday, October 22, 2009
Following on the heels of the example below, along comes another so-called business reporter who isn't up to the task...
What makes David Ellis competent enough to determine what is 'runaway' Wall Street pay practices? Has Ellis ever held an executive position at a Wall Street firm? At a firm anywhere? I doubt it. And not having done so, by definition, Ellis is unqualified to render judgment on what is and what isn't 'runaway' pay. He has no way of knowing whether a bonus for a particular executive was justified or not. Ellis is guilty of sloppily (with perhaps a trace of bias) accepting one side's opinion as fact. If he was truly interested in maintaining the neutrality journalists profess to aspire to, he would avoid using loaded phrases such as that. I likewise don't expect much of Obama, as he hasn't held any sort of real private sector job. If he did, he would know that executives don't "pay themselves huge bonuses". What employee anywhere pays himself? Aren't employees paid by employers? A Wall Street executive might like to pay himself a big bonus but if he can't convince someone up the food chain that he deserves such pay, he ain't getting it. So... if someone was getting 'too much' money, that would be a failing of that executive's superiors... and the superior is the one who should bear the brunt of criticism and not the executive who is guilty only of accepting his boss's view of his value to the organization... but the soundbite doesn't carry the same if Obama was to blast 'Wall Street executives who pay their staff more than their staff deserves'.... does it? Look, I am not defending the pay levels these people get... but at least I'm honest enough to admit that I don't have the details of what these people did to supposedly merit the pay they claim to have earned, so I don't know whether these pay levels are appropriate or not. But my long, long, long experience in business tells me that very few bosses pay their staff significantly more than is deserved... and even fewer do so when that undeserved pay lowers their own business unit's profitability.. and with it, their own performance-based compensation.
Gee, I just love business writers who lack even a basic understanding of the subjects they write about...
Example: The number of newly laid-off workers filing claims for jobless benefits rose more than expected last week.... as employers remain reluctant to hire even with the economy showing signs of recovery. Where do I start? While the two - employers shedding jobs and employers who aren't shedding jobs but are reluctant to add to staff - often take place around the same time (hint: tough economic conditions), they aren't directly related to one another... the latter doesn't follow the former nor does the former follow the latter. Furthermore, the statistic being reported this morning is of newly laid off workers which is not affected by whether other employers are hiring. The overall employment number is a mix of lay-offs balanced against new hiring, but that isn't the statistic being reported. To further the sin, the reporter writes that the number of layoffs is a gauge of "companies' willingness to hire new workers". It is, but in such a weak manner as to be relatively useless. Companies lay off staff when they feel they have too many employees for what they forecast will be the demand for their products and services... and they do so until they feel they've reached an equilibrium between staff levels and projected revenues. Hiring, on the other hand, results when employers feel current staff levels are too low for what they project as future revenues and workload. Obviously, companies won't be hiring until after they've done all the shedding of jobs they think they need to do, but hiring doesn't necessarily follow layoffs.
To the extent that Obama's attacks on FoxNews and the GOP are the result of a thought-out strategy and aren't simply his lashing out at people who don't like him, who is he trying to impress?
Obama may be trying to rally the left, but I doubt it, as I don't think Obama is figuring his problems are with the left. And I can't fathom the thinking that would have someone thinking that these attacks are supposed to win Obama points from the right. So, by default, Obama must be trying to impress the middle group of voters, the so-called (at least by me) mushy middle, the voters whose support Obama and the Democrats need to pass legislation and keep their seats. In doing so, Obama is running a big risk. During the campaign, he ran as a post-partisan candidate, and, presumably, won a fair amount of support from voters tired of politicians yelling at one another instead of working together (I'm not attesting to the wisdom of this view, only that is exists). And by going after Fox and the GOP, Obama could be trying to appeal to these folks that Fox and the GOP are the obstacles to this utopian dream of post-partisanship. But he runs the risk that these voters will see him as just another complaining politician, no different from everybody else in Washington and thus not deserving of support. There is a parallel with the way Obama handled the Gates/Cambridge cop kerfuffle. Obama had campaigned as a post-racialist candidate, a black guy who wasn't wedded to traditional black grievances and attitudes. Yet his knee-jerk response to blame the white cop struck many voters as evidence that Obama may not be the person he claims to be... and as a result, Obama's ratings took a hit. So while the jury is out on Obama's attacks on his political opponents, I think the odds are greater that this will backfire on Obama more than the likelihood he is going to generate much public anger at FoxNews and the GOP. Of course, Obama may not be following a script but is rather just acting like a petulant, spoiled kid who isn't getting everything he is demanding. And if so, then I would expect to see his ratings take even more of a hit... for as much as the mushy middle doesn't like partisanship, they frown even more on their Presidents acting like little kids. UPDATE: and to the extent the GOP responds to Obama by accusing him of playing partisan politics, this only further the impression with voters seeking this so-called post-partisan age that Obama is just another politician and not the guy they thought he was going to be. Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The economy is not doing so well, Iran is off building nuclear weapons, Obama is trying to re-do health insurance and health care and is dickering about what to do in Afghanistan... and supposedly conservative Senator Orrin Hatch wants Obama to investigate the BCS?
On a list of the top twenty issues facing America, the BCS doesn't rank even a footnote. Heck, on a list of the top twenty issues for the Justice Department, the BCS doesn't rank even a footnote. I'm not sure the BCS ranks even among the top twenty anti-trust issues before the Justice Department. Yeah, yeah, I know Hatch votes conservative more often than not... but what does it say that he can't see the total philosophical breakdown involved in looking for the federal government to involve itself in the way a bunch of colleges and football stadiums go about arranging football games in late December and early January?
A guy is arrested for indecent exposure after a woman and daughter cutting through his yard at 5:30 in the morning saw him naked through an open window.
While I guess there ought not be a blanket rule that one can be naked in one's own house, this case seems a bit perverse. And just how did the police conclude that the 'man wanted to be seen naked'?
I am somewhat conflicted over the government micro-managing executive compensation at bailed-out firms...
PRO: it is quite right for the 'owners' of a firm to set compensation for workers at the firm. Lenders can also insist on limits on executive compensation. And the government, by virtue of the bailout, falls into a quasi-owner/lender role. CON: However, the owners of a firm usually don't set the pay level themselves but rather defer to a chosen board of directors to make those decisions. Absent evidence of malfeasance or fraud, I am leery of second-guessing the decision of the directors that the existing pay levels are appropriate and in the best interests of the company. CON: I have no confidence that any of the people determining the 'appropriate' level of executive compensation have any real world experience necessary to properly balance compensation with performance. And lacking experience and detailed knowledge of the business, I fear the government will use too broad of a sword in making cuts. CON: I have every reason to believe that the decision will be made more on the basis of how it plays politically than whether it is in the best interests of the business, and especially so given the extent to which the Obama Administration is politicizing everything. PRO: Can't think of any more. Tuesday, October 20, 2009
A common misconception from last year's election is that moderates leaned left.
They didn't. They rejected Bush, McCain and the GOP (probably in that order) but they did not endorse liberal values. It makes sense when you break it down. Take an independent who leans somewhat conservative, opposes most tax hikes, doesn't believe that government is the solution to every problem, dislikes aggressive foreign policy yet wants to feel safe and generally is proud of America and is somewhat liberal on some social issues although they don't abortion should be easily available as it is. Those are core beliefs, molded over years and years... and why would anyone think that someone is going to change their core beliefs on a dime? It makes no sense... "I don't like the job Bush has done... so I'm now in favor of higher taxes? I don't think McCain is all that sharp... so I'm going to now be in favor of a government takeover of health care? People don't change their core beliefs. They pick candidates they think best match up with those beliefs. And Obama was able to persuade enough of a population that leans right to support him (or, in some cases, to withhold their support for McCain)... but Obama did so by convincing people (some people don't need that much convincing) that he was in tune with their concerns and values... and not because he or the failures of the Bush Presidency convinced them to cross over to the dark side of liberalism. And the silver lining for conservatives in all this? There are actually two: Obama and the Democrats believe that people, in voting for Obama, expressed support for a liberal approach. And thus, they're going to keep pushing policies that the people don't support which will alienate the public and, by extension, help GOP challengers next year. And, apropos of the saying 'fool me once... ", the American public is going to be a lot more skeptical of the next liberal who comes along professing to be post-partisan. As it is said... once burned... Monday, October 19, 2009
So what that only 34% of Californians approve of Nancy Pelosi's job performance?
She doesn't depend on them for re-election, that, luckily for her, is dependent on her reliably liberal district. And there is little possibility that voters in other California districts will vote against Democratic candidates because of their dissatisfaction with Pelosi; gerrymandering has rendered very few districts up for grabs to the point where an anti-Pelosi bloc would sway the results. There is, however, a fine way of exploiting her underwhelming ratings: the House GOP should pledge to back as Speaker a candidate chosen by the 'Blue Dog' moderate Democrats... and to also promise to throw their votes against any attempt by the liberal Democrats to punish the Blue Dogs for this blasphemy. The Blue Dogs and the GOP together form a majority of votes in the House. They ought to work together to elect a Speaker who, by definition, almost has to be better than Pelosi at representing the concerns and values of their respective districts. Why should they abide by precedent that allows a minority of the House (liberals) to select the Speaker and control the agenda? Heck, while they're at it, they wouldn't have to stop at Speaker; most, if not all, of the House Committees are chaired by diehard liberals, the Blue Dogs and the GOP should pledge to replace them as well. Granted, ousting Pelosi would deny the GOP partisans the ability to raise money and campaign on an anti-Pelosi platform. But while that may result in fatter campaign bank accounts, it is detrimental to the interests of anybody to the right of Pelosi and Stark and Rangel. Nor is the GOP going to take back control of the House next year anyway, so they ought to take advantage of the opportunity to dramatically improve their relative fortunes. And an added bonus: the 'post-partisan' Obama would find it hard to criticize this move, wouldn't he? Democrats and Republicans working together to find a solution to their common problem, what could be more bi-partisan than that?
The Washington Redskins lost another game to a previously winless team and, predictably, the natives have gone on the warpath...
And I am here to mock and laugh at them. These people have to have a screw loose to act the way they are. Sitting in the stands with a paper bag on your head? Screaming that the owner needs to go? Getting upset over how a bunch of strangers play football? Stupid... and for more than one reason. First, getting upset over how a bunch of strangers play football is ridiculous. And yes, the players are strangers. The players don't know the fans and the fans don't know the players. Yes, the fans know who the players are but they don't know them. There is no more of a reason to care about the outcome of a Redskins game than a game played by a bunch of other strangers on the Mall. So they suck... so what? The outcome of the game has absolutely no impact on the lives and finances of 99.9% the so-called fans, so how in the world can people rationalize getting upset over something that affects them not in the least? Geez, these people get less upset over things that do matter - like taxes, health care reform, schools and the war in Afghanistan - than they do over something pathetically insignificant like the win-loss record of the football team which happens to play half its games somewhere in the area of where these people live. Another point: the players provide entertainment... and the general rule of entertainment is not to go if you don't think it is going to be any good. I don't like Quentin Tarantino movies so I don't go to them; it would be ridiculous for me to go and be predictably disappointed, yet Redskins fans go week after week, year after year, even though they and most rational observers predict that the entertainment provided that week is going to suck. They think they're showing loyalty when in fact they're showing that they're suckers. How many times does Lucy pull the ball away before these 'fans' realize the entertainment they're going to see isn't going to live up to their expectations? With Redskins fans, the answer is apparently week after week after week... and they spend a lot more time and money doing so than I would going to a movie that I didn't think was going to be any good. Note: I am excluding from criticism on this point those who go to the games because the team is bad and they're doing the equivalent of going to a NASCAR race to watch the wrecks. And is there any better way of engraving an 'L' on the middle of one's forehead than going to the game and wearing a bag over your head or a shirt with some sort of derogatory language? Next, yelling for the owner to be replaced is a waste of breath and sign that these fans don't live in the real world. There is no real provision by which an owner can be forced out... and certainly not by fans disappointed in the team's record. While Redskins owner Daniel Snyder probably would prefer to be liked rather than mocked, he ain't going to sell the team because fans don't like him. Nor is he going to do anything different because the fans and sportswriters don't like what he's done; he's doing what he thinks will result in a winning record and if he changes course, it will because he has decided that a change of course is necessary to produce a winning record and not because some number of sportswriters are crying for him to back off. And even if Snyder was somewhat responsive to fan sentiment, why would he do anything different when the fans keep showing up and keep buying team merchandise? Finally, what kind of screwed up thinking has Redskins fans feeling like they're entitled to go watch a team with a winning record? (I presume this is their attitude given how upset they are when the team doesn't win) Most of them spend nothing more than a few hours a week watching the team on TV and reading about them in the paper, they're not paying any money, they're getting their entertainment for free. How does that entitle them to anything? Getting pissed off at people who give you something for free is terrible manners; when one is given a gift that isn't to one's liking, one doesn't scream and shout at the gift giver.
The Washington Post just changed the format of their print edition (yeah, I know it doesn't do any good to provide an electronic link to a print product).
Why? Do they believe that rearranging the articles on the page or including pictures of the columnists is going to convince people to start reading the print edition? Or convince people who would have stopped doing so but for this amazing redesign to continue reading the print edition? The old format was fine, there was nothing about it that discouraged people who wanted to read the paper from doing so. There was nothing about it that deterred a non-reader from picking it up and becoming a reader. So why change? Because (tired analogy alert) like passengers on a sinking ship rearranging the deck chairs, the people who work at the Post want to do something that will save their sinking ship... yet, like those who would rearrange deck chairs on a sinking sink, their efforts aren't geared to solving the real problem, to plugging the real leak. Some (who, exactly?) might say a redesign is no big deal, that while it doesn't help, it doesn't hurt anything either. But that is wrong, for every man hour devoted to a redesign is a man hour that isn't available to help management fix the real problems... and with the problems the Post (and other print papers have), they need to devote every hour possible to fixing the real problems. So while the staff might feel excited about this re-design, in a perverse way, it only makes it more likely that the ship is going to end up sinking. A well-designed sinking, but a sinking nonetheless. Friday, October 16, 2009
All other things being equal, the higher a President's approval ratings, the more likely a President will be able to use the 'bully pulpit' to advance his agenda.
And there is another somewhat inter-related aspect to approval ratings: the extent to which a President views the public as giving him either a big pat on the back in the case of high approval ratings or the middle finger where the ratings aren't so good. For some Presidents, such as Bush II, the second aspect are less important for the simple reason that they just don't seem to care that much about what the public thinks. They're motivated by whatever motivates them, they know they're right and they're going to persevere no matter how low the ratings are. But for Presidents like Obama, who truly care about what the public thinks of him, low ratings are a kick in the teeth.... and especially coming so relatively soon after he took office. Imagine being someone who was so caught up in the adoration who now has to read that less than half of the public would vote for him again? Imagine how it is to go from thinking re-election was going to be a shoe-in to having to hope the GOP nominates somebody as un-electable as Sarah Palin? Granted, Obama still has (at a minimum) three-plus years to go and he can sure do some damage in that time. But to the extent that Obama decides that he wants to regain that adoration, since the people don't like what he is doing, he is going to have to change his stripes. Maybe he'll spend less time apologizing for the United States and more time talking about how good it is. Maybe he'll be less willing to hand off domestic policy to two people - Pelosi and Reid - who rank near the bottom of the polls. Maybe he'll get off his scheme to turn the economy into a bought-and-paid-for subsidiary of the United States government. Any of this would be good, in fact, any departure from his current terrible programs would be nice.
Ok, so some know-it-all school superintendent doesn't want to reduce the Eagle Scout's suspension for having a pocketknife in a survival kit locked in a car parked in a school parking lot... but where is the school board in all of this?
Last I checked, school superintendents report to an elected (or, in some cases, appointed by other elected officials) school board. They're fully capable of over-riding the school superintendent and ordering him to lift the suspension... and firing him if he doesn't comply. Something that too often gets lost in discussions of public education is that administrators and teachers work for us. We've hired them to teach our kids the way we want them taught. If the parents don't want Latin taught, then Latin ought not be taught. But way too often, the administrators and teachers act is if they should be the ones who get to make the decisions... and it is lazy parents who let them get away with it. Thursday, October 15, 2009
What was Dave Checketts thinking when he approached Rush Limbaugh and invited him to join the ownership group angling to buy the St Louis Rams?
Was he not aware of the special place Limbaugh has in the hearts of racial troublemakers? Was he not aware that the number one fantasy among liberals is that Limbaugh gets caught with a young boy in a hotel room? Was he not aware that Donovan McNabb would likely try to get even for Limbaugh having the temerity to claim that McNabb is only a so-so quarterback? Was Checketts thinking that Limbaugh's involvement was going to go unnoticed? And with no objection? Presumably Checketts is a smart guy (why else would guys with money agree to back Checketts?), so presumably he was aware of Limbaugh's reputation among liberals... and presumably he was aware that liberals don't fight fair... and he went ahead anyway and invited Limbaugh to join in... only to drop Limbaugh at the first sign of complaints from the likes of Sharpton and noted civic treasure Bob Irsay (the last I read, Irsay doesn't command a big following among other owners, he ain't no Art Rooney). What a wuss. Note: I don't much like Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder (not, as is the case with most of DC, because of his lousy record with coaches, draft picks and free agents, but rather because he comes across as a pompous asshole), but I give him credit for not backing down in the face of complaints from some negligible number of Indians that the Redskins name is divisive.
Much like NYT ombudsman Clark Hoyt, who just can't bring himself to say that liberal bias manifests itself in the stories the NYT runs, Washington Post media commentator extraordinaire Howard Kurtz just can't bring himself to recognize that the reason most journalists want health care reform to pass is NOT, as Kurtz claims, because they don't want to have spent so much print on something that failed, but rather BECAUSE JOURNALISTS ARE LIBERALS AND LIBERALS WANT TO SEE LIBERAL POLICIES ENACTED INTO LAW.
Imagine you're running a fever. You start with a temperature of 99.1 which two hours later climbs to 99.5 and then two hours after that it is 99.5 and then two hours after that 100.3 and two hours after that it is 100.7 and then two hours later it is 101.1 and then two hours later on to 101.3.
To me, your condition is continuing to worsen. Sure, your temperature didn't go up by as much on a linear basis by as it did the previous two hours, and by even less using a logarithmic scale, and yes, your temperature has to stop going up before it can start to go down, but your temperature is nonetheless higher... and to me, a higher temperature is evidence of a worsening condition and not a situation that is 'improving'. So it makes no sense that economic news depicts the latest unemployment numbers as evidence of an 'improving' economy. Yes, fewer people lost jobs this week than last week (a decrease of less than 2 percent) but the economy still shed more jobs than it added. So while it is 'good' news that fewer people lost their jobs than was expected and fewer than during previous weeks, this report in no way should be taken as a sign that the economy is getting better. Another item of note: it appears as if the Labor Department is under-reporting the number of people losing jobs, as they continually need to revise upwards their original reports. A number of years ago, I wrote that the Commerce Department was under-reporting growth in the economy during the Bush Presidency, perhaps as a way of painting an overly - and unjustified - negative picture of the economy. Is the Labor Department now deliberately under-reporting job losses in order to paint an unjustified less-negative picture? Jim Geraghty thinks NJ bureaucrats are doing this in New Jersey, perhaps to help Corzine win re-election, it's not inconceivable that pro-Obama bureaucrats in the Labor Department are doing the same on a national scale. Wednesday, October 14, 2009
The reason right wing media sensation Rush Limbaugh can be forced out as a potential owner of an NFL team while left wing media sensation Keith Olbermann can keep showing up on NBC's NFL show can be summed up simply as: liberals raise a stink, conservatives complain quietly.
As we've seen this week, liberals play for keeps and they don't take prisoners. When they get a conservative in their sights, everything is fair, up to and including making up quotes. Conservatives on the other hand, do nothing. They might complain among one another, but they don't turn off NBC rather than listen to Olbermann... and they certainly don't complain to NBC, they don't stop watching NBC's other shows and boycott NBC's advertisers. For whatever reason, liberals long ago decided that the stakes were big enough, that the negative consequences of having conservatives run things were so bad that it justified just about anything that could help liberals and screw with conservatives. Forget about consistency, don't worry about contradicting statements made just a few short months ago, go ahead and violate every standard of journalistic integrity that ever existed, use college papers written 20 years ago to discredit opponents, go ahead and do to conservatives what they would never want done to themselves or their friends... all is okay in war, and the Democrats definitely view this as war. And for some reason, conservatives just aren't as motivated to win as are the liberals, they just don't seem to worry as much about the damage liberals will do to the country, they aren't playing for keeps. It's ironic that the party that prides itself for seeing the world as it is and not as we'd like it to be is so willing to act as if the Democrats were playing by the same rules as they are. As I've said before, the Democrats will keep going until the Republicans start fighting as hard - or harder - as the Democrats are doing. Conservatives need to punish liberal celebrities, they need to punish companies that promote and advance liberal causes. They need to be willing to do to Democrats what the Democrats are so willing to do to them. And when they do - if they ever do - then perhaps the Democrats will realize it is time to scale back the vindictiveness and cheap demonizing of their opponents... sort of a Mutual Assured Destruction of politics. It only works if both sides believe their opponents are willing to go to the limit... and right now, the Democrats have no reason to believe the Republicans are willing to do so... so they'll keep using the same tactics for the simple reason.... that they work.
WSJ liberal columnist Thomas Frank blasts the GOP for putting lobbyists in positions of power.
So of course, I am holding my breath waiting for Frank to criticize Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner hiring aides who made millions of dollars working for the very same firms that Frank holds responsible for our economic troubles. What's that, Geithner is a Democrat? Well then, never mind, I'm not going to be holding my breath waiting for Frank to criticize Geithner.
As I've said before, there isn't a health 'insurance' problem as much as a health 'care' problem, with problem being defined as some number of people not being able to get all of the health care they want for a price they're willing and able to pay.
People with pre-existing conditions want treatment for those pre-existing conditions... but without having to pay any more for it. People butting up against lifetime coverage caps want to keep receiving care in excess of those caps... but without having to pay any more for it. People who object to the deductibles and co-pays they have to pay want lower deductibles and co-pays... but without having to pay any more for it. People who don't like taking generic drugs want to be able to get the name brand stuff... but without having to pay any more for it. So what the issue really involves is a cry of 'we want more... and we want you to pay for it'. The second misunderstanding is not realizing that health insurance companies really do nothing more than try to match the amount of premiums collected with the amount of benefits paid out. Raise the amount of coverage... and the premiums go up by roughly the same amount. Include mandates to cover Procedure X or Test Y... and the premiums go up by roughly the same amount. Insurance companies aren't evil... their customers have told them they want X amount of coverage, the insurance carriers agreed to provide that level of coverage for $Z in premiums... and it is to both parties advantage that the insurance company not pay out benefits that exceed X... for if they did, the insurance company's customers will be getting a higher premium hike than otherwise would be the case. Put another way, when an insurance company tells somebody 'no, that isn't covered', they're acting in the interests of their other policyholders who really don't want to have to pay more in premiums because someone got paid for something that was outside of their agree-upon coverage. And because the politicians can't or won't realize these two points none of their proposals will really solve anything. Even the supposedly business savvy Republicans get it wrong. For example, they call for eliminating the state bans on people buying insurance from out of state insurers; the right argues that this will foster competition and result in lower health insurance costs. But... it won't. Discounting the possibility that one insurance company has developed some new efficient way of processing claims (which would reduce overhead costs and thus allow the insurance company to charge less in premiums while preserving the level of profitability), the ONLY WAY one insurance company can charge lower premiums is if they provide a corresponding lower level of benefits. While this might appeal to some people who decide they can do without coverage for X procedure (maternity care for women past childbearing age), those who do want that coverage (women of childbearing age) will end up having to pay additional premiums to their insurance carrier to offset the premiums lost from those people not wanting that coverage... resulting in no overall lessening of health insurance dollars. Put another way, the maternity care in the aggregate isn't going to cost any less... and if you let some people off with lower premiums for giving up that coverage, all you're doing is shifting the cost to the people who want to retain that coverage. So where is the reduction in costs? There isn't one. Well, there could be... if people decided to not have kids, reducing the amount of money spent on maternity care which in turn reduces the need to charge insurance premiums to cover maternity care. But, notwithstanding whether it is a good idea to lower the birth rate, how many medical procedures are as 'optional' as maternity care? Fixing broken bones? Not optional. Getting antibiotics? Not optional. Treating heart attacks? Not optional. As illustrated with the maternity care example, the only way to lower health 'care' costs is to either (1) lower the demand for health care (2) lower the supply of health care, or (3) find a way of providing health care for less money. The first two are non-starters, people are just not going to give up wanting to go to a doctor when they don't feel good and getting fixed for what ails them... they're not going to do so voluntarily and they sure as heck aren't going to stand for a government bureaucrat telling them they can't get treatment. So... by process of elimination, the ONLY thing that will work to lower the amount of money spent on health care is to find a way of providing health care more cheaply. Increasing the number of doctors and hospitals could foster competition and lower prices. Eliminating the malpractice premium could lower prices. Ah... but basic economics dictates that lower prices can stimulate demand as customers increase their purchases of the newly lower priced products... which would result in a situation where it costs less for any given procedure... but with no less money being spent in total than before.
Suing the SEC because the SEC didn't detect and shut down Madoff's ponzi scheme is nothing less than 'the government is supposed to protect us from the consequences of our own stupidity'.
Sorry, but that isn't the way life is supposed to be. People have the right to do stupid things but they also have to suffer the results. And giving lots of money to someone without checking out the operation and looking at the books and doing even the least bit of due diligence certainly counts as doing something stupid. And stupid people should have no right to ask the people who didn't act stupidly to make them whole. Of course, what the stupid people who lost money with Madoff are doing is nothing different from what the stupid people who buy shorefront property do when a hurricane damages their property.... or what the stupid people who buy houses in cities that lie under sea level do when the levees break and their houses get flooded... or what stupid people who buy houses near airports do when they find it a bit noisy at dinnertime.... or what stupid people who major in useless programs at college do when they find out their liberal arts degree gets them job offers from nothing better than McDonalds... the country is full of stupid people who look to the not-so-stupid people to bail them out, to give them back what their stupidity has cost them. And the big question is why the not-so-stupid people put up with this crap, why they don't call their representatives and demand that they not be forced to suffer because of the stupidity of a relatively small number of people. Do they not realize the price they pay every time a stupid person shows up with their outstretched hand, demanding to have their house rebuilt, their bank account replenished? Or do they willingly go along under the mistaken belief that, but for the grace of god, they'd find themselves in similar distress? I'm not sure, and I don't know if complaining would do any good, but by not complaining and not fighting back, they're doing the equivalent of 'just laying back and enjoying it'.
I really can't come up with an explanation for why, with such a target-rich environment, Hillary Clinton decided to focus on Russia's treatment of dissidents.
Why not challenge Russia to respect the sovereignty of its neighbors, in particular the former republics of the Soviet Union? Why not challenge Russia to refrain from playing gas games with Eastern and Western Europe? Why not challenge Russia to seriously cooperate with international efforts to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons? Why not challenge Russia to clamp down on government corruption and government confiscation of foreign business interests? Why not challenge Russia to back off its publicly stated willingness to preemptively use nuclear weapons? What kind of ranking puts the way Russia treats its own citizens at the top of the list of concerns the United States has with the Russian government? There are far more important issues than whether Russia allows its citizens to criticize the Russian government... and it is bewildering that an American Secretary of State wastes an opportunity on something that relatively just isn't that important. And her focusing her attention on the Kremlin's treatment of domestic dissidents is likely to be viewed in the Kremlin as an admission that the Obama Administration doesn't have the guts to challenge Russia on the major issues.
Petraeus might be a decent general, but the GOP candidate for President? That's about as stupid an idea as when some Democrats rallied around Wesley Clark.... and for the same reasons.
Yes, being a general is a whole lot more impressive than being a community organizer, but it doesn't come close to satisfying the basic requirements of a candidate. No offense to the good general, but he is but a tool by which policy is effected, he is someone who is used by those who make policy. As far as I have seen, he is not the guy who makes the policy. I want a candidate who has and can articulate a conservative vision for America and has the organizational wherewithal and political smarts to put the vision into effect. And as I said about Clark, being a successful commander (which Clark may or may not have been), does not make one qualified to make the decisions on foreign policy, let alone convince me that a military commander has the vision and smarts to handle the domestic side of the policy agenda (note: at least with Clark, the Democrats were thinking he could dispel fears that the Democrats were weak on foreign policy, a valid concern, but not something the GOP has to concern itself about). And unless America has been attacked in the days leading up to the 2012 elections, those elections, like every other Presidential election, is going to be decided on economic and other domestic issues and not which candidate has the best plan for stabilizing Afghanistan (which, trust me, ain't going to have been stabilized by 2012)... and nominating a domestic policy novice is a dumb, dumb, dumb idea. Tuesday, October 13, 2009
On the heel of news that a seven year old Cub Scout was suspended for bringing his eating utensil to school comes news that a 17 year old Eagle Scout was suspended for having a 2 inch pocketknife in a survival kit locked in his car in the school parking lot.
While school administrators claim the purpose of these rules is to 'protect the students', the reality is that they're looking to protect themselves. They're looking to protect themselves against any possibility of fingers being pointed at them in the event a student is hurt by another student with a weapon at school. By suspending everybody found in violation of the rules - even in, and especially in, cases such as these - administrators are declaring that they take school violence seriously... and if there does occur a case where one student hurts another, the administrators can argue that the violence took place despite their best efforts, that they did all they could be expected to do. Administrators, for all of their incompetence at actually educating kids, are no dummies, they know their jobs are at risk if they're deemed to have not taken school violence as seriously as possible. They're also looking to protect themselves against claims that they're racist, that they don't discipline white kids as harshly as they do black and other minority kids. The administrators know that if they take away all discretion to go (pun alert!) lightly on a kid that they can never be accused of racism (another career killer). To administrators, tis better to overly punish a white kid than risk losing their jobs after being accused of treating black kids more harshly. It is somewhat akin to businesses choosing to take disciplinary action against every guy who gets accused of sexual harassment, no matter whether his actions actually rose to a level where a 'reasonable' woman would be offended. Tis far better to punish some guy for making some silly, stupid crack to an overly sensitive or vindictive woman than to not do so and risk the major damage award from the inevitable lawsuit claiming the company didn't do enough to clamp down on such abhorrent behavior.
How could the Nobel Peace Prize, per some Obama supporters "... be the world's most prestigious honor" when only 5 Norwegians are on the committee that selects the winners?
In addition to wondering how a country with fewer people than Los Angeles gets to speak for the 'world', I am wondering how Obama's supporters can support the work of this committee? Liberals like to use the 'looks like us', 'reflective of the community' and 'diversity' arguments when advocating for increasing the number of minorities in the workforce and government... yet this committee looks nothing like the world as a whole. The 'world' is roughly 50-50 male-female, the committee is 80% female. The 'world' sure ain't as lily white as this committee which is comprised of five pretty pasty faced folks; how can the committee purport to speak for the 'world' when they look like, at best, no more than half of the 'world'? Nobody on the committee is under 49 years old; the last time I checked there are an awful lot of people in the 'world' who have yet to hit the half century mark. And while I can't tell from the available evidence, I doubt there are many Buddhists, Muslims, Jews or Hindus on the committee; with supposedly one out of every four people in the world being Muslim, how can a committee that has no Muslims come even close to speaking for the 'world'? If the liberals were consistent, they would denounce the committee - and the awards it hands out - as being an anachronistic throwback to times when a bunch of white guys (and gals) tried to set the standards by which the rest of us were expected to follow. Aren't we past the point where we're supposed to accept the pronouncements of a bunch of white folks as gospel? And yet, the liberals have offered nary a peep of criticism of the committee. They haven't - as the conservatives have - urged Obama to turn down the award. I can't put my finger on it, but it's almost as if there is different standard that is being applied.... Thursday, October 08, 2009
The old joke was a conservative was a liberal who had just gotten mugged. The new version may soon be a conservative is a liberal who finds out that liberal health care reform makes insurance more, rather than less, expensive...
Today's poster child is Wendy Button, a liberal speechwriter for the likes of John Edwards, Clinton and Obama, who moves to Massachusetts only to find herself priced out of the health insurance market. Of course, any conservative could have told her this was going to happen. Forcing insurance companies to eliminate coverage caps and issue insurance to those with pre-existing conditions has to result in higher premiums. It's simple math and basic business. The premiums an insurance provider charges is based on the sum of (1) the dollars paid in benefits, (2) its administrative costs, and (3) whatever profit margin it feels it can support. Increasing the amount of benefits paid out without lowering either the administrative costs or the profit margin means the insurance companies will look to increase the amount of premiums their customers are charged. In other words, those customers without pre-exisiting conditions or bumping up against the coverage caps will be charged more in order to provide coverage to those with pre-existing conditions and running up charges in excess of the coverage caps. In even fewer words, the healthy will have to pay more to cover the not-so-healthy. But while Ms. Button does realize liberal reform ain't all it is cracked up to be, she unfortunately doesn't quite get the full picture. For example, she laments not being able to buy insurance from a DC-based carrier or health exchange. But the only reason these other options are less expensive is that they're not required (at least not yet) to provide the same level of coverage as are Massachusetts based carriers. Force them to provide the same level of coverage and they'll likely charge premiums that are just as high. The simple fact is that it is impossible to provide health insurance coverage to the sick who don't now have it for the same price as everybody else without increasing the cost of coverage for everybody else... and no amount of liberal maneuvering can change that fact. Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Just as I thought Bill Clinton should have resigned over the Lewinsky affair, not because he broke laws but because sleeping with a subordinate is just not cool, I think CBS ought to cancel Letterman's show, and for the same reason.
Not because NOW finally got around to criticizing Letterman but because there are some things that shouldn't be tolerated - even from people who bring in tens of millions of dollars in advertising revenue - and sleeping with subordinates is one of those things that should never be done.
I hereby propose that most sports fans have something seriously wrong mentally...
There is no logical explanation for supposedly grown up men and women getting so excited about a football team (or hockey or baseball or basketball or whatever) for which they have no direct connection. The vast majority of fans (99.9%) of any given professional sports team have no family members on the team. They have no friends on the team. They are not neighbors with anyone on the team. In fact, most fans have never even met or had any contact whatsoever with someone on the team. They have no financial interest in the team. Their own connection to the team is that somewhere in the team's name there is the name of the city in or around which they live. So how is it that these fans invest so much emotionally on whether 'their' team wins or loses a game? A team winning (or conversely, losing) does nothing for the fan. It doesn't make them richer (excepting those who bet on their team). It doesn't make them more secure at work. It doesn't make their kids listen to them more. It doesn't make their city better - by any measurable standard - than the city of the team 'their' team beat (how could it, given that probably none of the players on the team actually grew up in the area?). The only people who have a legitimate reason to really care about whether a team wins or loses are (in order): the players and coaches on the team (and especially so if their livelihood depends on whether they win or lose), the ownership of the team, those with a financial interest in the success of the team (vendors, retailers nearby, etc.), family of those on the team or related to the ownership and friends of those on the team or ownership. No one else has a legitimate reason to get so tied up emotionally in whether a team does well. And doing so, apropos of Jesse Ventura's crack, is evidence of 'a weak mind'. The same holds true of college teams. What does it say about someone who graduated 30 years ago from State U that they still dress in the school colors every Saturday? The school isn't the same as when they went there, their professors have long gone; the only thing that remains are the buildings, and that is if they weren't torn down for something more modern. How does 'their' team winning make one iota of difference in their lives? And I ask the same question of current students: just why does it matter so much to you whether the hired talent your school brought in to play football or basketball wins or loses? It doesn't boost the value of a degree from that school. The professors aren't going to give everybody an extra 10 points on the final exam because State U won the conference title. Their tuition bills aren't going down if the team wins. Most students don't know anybody on any of the school's teams, they certainly don't hang out with them and they're certainly not friends with anyone on one of the teams. Yet I've seen kids who freak out more that their team lost than they do when they blow an exam. It makes absolutely no sense. And yet people still go crazy. I, playing amateur psychologist, figure it is because.... heck, I have no idea, the whole thing makes no sense. Mind you, I'm not blasting sports... as entertainment. I can be just as happy watching a football game on TV as I am going to a good movie. I enjoy watching the games... but as entertainment and not as something that actually matters. With very few exceptions, I watch without caring which team wins. I want action, I (usually) want scoring, I want the excitement of not knowing how something is going to turn out. Where I make exceptions are the situations where a team has somebody affiliated with it that is, how to put it, trash. Trash is trash and trash shouldn't get the glory of being adored by millions of (mindless) fans. I couldn't root for the Dallas Cowboys as long as Terrell Owens was on the team, with him moving on, I can't root for Buffalo. Ditto for Michael Vick and the Eagles, Dan Snyder and the Redskins, Manny Ramirez and the Dodgers, wherever Allan Iverson ends up playing and so on. Those guys I root against. And there are players who seem to be nice guys - Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Jimmy Johnson, to name but a few - where, all other things being equal, I'll root for the good guys. But even then, not to the point where I am going to lose any sleep if the game doesn't go the way I'd like. Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Obama told employees of the National Counterterrorism Center that he was going to give them "the tools and support you need to get that job done here at home".
Assuming they don't already have all the tools they need, as that would make Obama's comment more than a little misleading, what tools is he planning on giving them? Is he planning on relaxing the rules regarding monitoring telephone conversations and supporting the telecom companies who in the past cooperated with the government against the idiotic litigation filed by our enemies? Is he planning on allowing 'enhanced interrogation' of suspected terrorists and offering support to the interrogators? Is he planning to allow the FBI and other agencies to more aggressively target and infiltrate Muslim groups and support the agents against shrieks they were 'profiling' Muslims? It's one thing to claim that you support X or Y, but the proof of support is not found in the words promising the support but in the action of actually providing that support. Right now, and I suspect, for the indefinite future, all Obama is offering is words. He's good at it, real good. But he's AWOL when it comes to backing up his words. Monday, October 05, 2009
There's at least one conservative who is happy that Chicago didn't win the Olympics... me!
Although Obama isn't accepting responsibility for Chicago losing the bid, he certainly would have tried to take credit had Chicago won... and he would have tried to parlay that dubious claim into an argument that we should therefore support his domestic policies... and anything that keeps him on the defensive domestically is all right by me. It likewise gives Michelle Obama a figurative black eye. She makes this 'huge sacrifice' going to Copenhagen, she makes a speech that is all about her... and all she gets is a bunch of useless "Chicago 16" t-shirts. Like with her husband, anything that pops their ego even a little bit can't be all that bad. But most important, hosting the Olympics is a financially terrible idea. They lose money. They result in lots of stuff that isn't needed getting built. They result in lots of hassle for the people who live in and around the host city. Furthermore, the Olympics long ago lost their innocent appeal (at least to me). Once upon a time, I admired the concept and the competitors. But the competitors are no longer amateurs, they're all pretty much high paid professional athletes. And while I don't mind watching high paid professional athletes (I am watching Green Bay and Minnesota as I type this), I dislike the facade, the pretense that these Olympic athletes are somehow special because they're competing in the Olympics... and being held in Rio means the news coverage will be slightly less frantic and extensive than if they were being held in Chicago... and anything that lessens the hype is all right by me. So is it any reason I am glad? It's a win-win-win for me, a loss-loss for the Obamas.
For today's example of misleading the public, I offer Obama's statement, in referring to doctors, that "nobody has more credibility with the American people on this issue (health insurance reform) than you do".
While nobody (probably) has more credibility with the American people than doctors on the subject of medical care, it doesn't follow that we trust our doctors when it comes to medical insurance. Deciding what is 'right' on health insurance actually requires thinking less about the actual care one receives than the up-front premium costs, lists of participating doctors and hospitals, deductibles, co-pays and the other criteria that people consider when deciding whether a proposal is to the benefit or detriment... and a lot of these factors involve money.. and not just money in the abstract, but my money... a subject I'm not holding my breath hoping that my internist is knowledgeable about.
Market research should never be done for the sake of doing research, the goal of a researcher should always be to get insight into whether a particular course of action will resonate with the target audience.... or whether it will flop.
And the ability of a researcher to produce what I can 'actionable information' is directly correlated to the researcher's understanding of the audience and issues that affect their decision making. The better a researcher understands the audience - specifically, what makes them tick - the better able the researcher will be to come up with the nugget of information that allow the marketers to hit the hot buttons. An example was New Coke, where the researchers did correctly report that cola drinkers liked the taste of New Coke better than that of 'old' Coke and Pepsi... but only in a blind taste test. When the audience was told what they were drinking, they preferred the taste of 'old' Coke. Unfortunately for Coca Cola, their researchers didn't understand the audience well enough to know that there was a certain cachet to drinking Coke. Anyway, I was reminded of all this when I was reading survey results that report that the public is afraid of losing their current health insurance program. While technically true, it is a bit misleading, a result of researchers who - despite their probably having their own health insurance - not understanding the audience. Fear of losing one's current health insurance is a euphemism for 'fear of losing access to one's current doctors' and 'fear of having to pay for coverage'. It isn't so much that the public has a concern whether their coverage is through UnitedHealthCare or Blue Cross or Aetna or any of the many other providers, it is that the public knows that their doctors don't participate in every plan and they're afraid they'll get stuck in a plan that forces them to look for a new doctor. And they know that not every plan works the same way with premiums and co-pays and deductibles and the calculation of whatever 'usual and customary' is and thus they're afraid they'll get stuck with a plan that ends up costing them more money. Note: How do I know this? Because I not only have health insurance and worry about those issues, I have handled the selection of health insurance programs for companies and I know the concerns people have every time the subject of changing carriers arises. And what does this mean? The public is concerned that they'll lose access to their doctor and/or they will have to pay more for coverage. And they're not soothed by Obama's 'no one will have to switch'... one, the public doesn't believe him and two, they know that if even they can keep their existing insurance plan, there's no guarantee that their doctor will continue to participate and there's no guarantee that their premiums won't go up (especially if insurance companies have to stop excluding pre-existing conditions and have to charge everybody the same rates). So... if I were one of the Democrats pushing this legislation (and I am glad I'm not, for more than one reason) I would change the focus from 'keeping your insurance' to 'keeping one's doctor' and 'insurance no more expensive than now'. NOTE: Their claims wouldn't be true, there is no way that everybody will be able to keep seeing their current doctors and there is no way that insurance premiums won't go up, but those are the real issues that concern the public and the only way to alleviate public concern is to address them head on... even if, as with so much of what they're peddling, their claims aren't true. Saturday, October 03, 2009
A corollary to the 'those who can, can, those who can't, teach, those who can't teach, teach gym' is the 'never take business advice from someone who's never been in business'.
And an example of that is Obama's claim that his health care reform will lead to job growth because entrepreneurs with "... a good idea and the expertise and determination to build it into a thriving business" but "can't take that leap because they can't afford to lose the health insurance they have at their current job". Sounds reasonable, right? Wrong! Let's look at Joe Entrepreneur, who has a great idea and is about to quit his existing job (that provides him with health care benefits) to devote his attention to starting this new business. First of all, Joe doesn't have to 'lose' his health insurance when he quits, he can keep his insurance under COBRA. Yes, Joe will pay more for COBRA coverage than he likely did while employed but he doesn't have to go uncovered. Surely Obama knows this, right? Second, Joe can buy an individual heath insurance policy while he gets his business up and off the ground. Yes, it is also likely more expensive than his current plan but if having health insurance is that important to him, he doesn't have to go without. Third, given that very few start up businesses are profitable from Day One, Joe is likely to need to have some money saved up to cover several months of living expenses - including the premiums for health insurance - until the business gets going and gets to the point where they can take a full salary. If anything, saving money to cover health insurance premiums only somewhat delays the day they head off on their own, it doesn't prevent them from ever doing so. Or perhaps Joe doesn't need to have saved up money as he is fortunate enough to have a wife who makes enough money to cover expenses during the start up phase... and if she does, it's likely her employer offers health insurance and she and Joe can switch coverage to her employer's plan (no data to back this up, but it's my belief that most employees lacking employer provided health care tend to have lower paid jobs). And while switching plans might involved complications involving pre-existing conditions, I doubt there are many would be entrepreneurs falling into this category. But the biggest reason I don't believe Obama is in the nature of would-be entrepreneurs, who fall into one of two categories: those who so believe in themselves and their ideas that they pretty much ignore the long odds against success, and those who aren't so confident and are never going to take the leap. The first group isn't about to let something like health insurance stop them from heading off on their own, to them it's only a matter of time until their new business is bigger than Microsoft and they'll have plenty of money to pay for health insurance and the new boat and vacation house. And the second group wasn't going to give up their safe job and is only using the potential loss of health insurance coverage as a topical excuse to justify doing what they were going to do anyway. Put another way, even if you gave them health insurance, they weren't going anywhere. To them, starting a business is something they talk and dream about... but never do. So when I hear someone complain that the lack of health insurance is stopping them from quitting their job to start a wonderful new business that is going to hire lots of people... I know which group the complainer falls into. And Obama, not ever having started a business and not understanding those who do, can't tell the real entrepreneurs from the posers.
Ignore the Obama Administration claiming that talks with Iran are going well... And I'll demonstrate using nothing more than basic common sense.
Imagine someone doing something you don't like. They know you don't like it but continue doing it anyway. You meet with them and walk away claiming that they're going to change their behavior. What must have taken place during this meeting to achieve that outcome? Here are the only things that could change the dynamic: * You credibly threaten them if they don't change their behavior with a penalty that would hurt them more than whatever pleasure they receive from the disputed behavior. * You offer them some kind of a reward to stop the behavior, a reward that gives them more than whatever pleasure they receive from the disputed behavior. * They convince you that you should stop complaining about their behavior. The first option didn't happen. Obama isn't willing to do anything to Iran that would so hurt Iran that Iran would give up its nuclear program. And even if Obama was willing, he doesn't have the support from China and Russia to do anything at all, let along anything serious. And even if Obama was willing and had support, there is no way Iran would believe that was the case. Nor did the second scenario happen. I can't think of anything Iran wants more than nuclear weapons. What could Obama offer Iran that would be better than the benefits of having nukes? Did he offer to eradicate Israel for Iran? And the third scenario is also a non-starter, at least for people with half a brain. What could Iran say to the United States that would convince us that we had nothing to fear or worry about, especially since these talks followed the disclosure that Iran had secret facilities? If Iran truly thought we had nothing to worry about, why go through the trouble of hiding everything? Thus, the announcement that things were off to a good start was nothing more than a lie told to what the Obama Administration hopes are stupid people... for anyone with half a brain could easily see that no progress was made towards getting Iran to surrender their nuclear ambitions... tis a shame so few people seem to have that half a brain. Thursday, October 01, 2009
IF I WAS KING (and in no particular order)...
RE-POSTED WITH NEW MATERIAL Withdraw from the UN Not only does the UN bestow legitimacy to some real lousy folks and serve as an anti-American forum, with modern communications, we no longer need the convenience of having each nation maintain a physical presence in one city. We don't need the UN to consult with our friends, to warn our enemies and to explain our actions to everybody else. Change the tax code Lower the top marginal tax rate to 25% (nobody, regardless of how much money they make, should have to hand over more than 1/4 of what they make). Eliminate all deductions other than charitable donations and gifts (I wouldn't charge tax on money earned but given away) and expenses incurred to produce income (for example, unreimbursed business expenses and child care expenses so both parents can work, but only to extent of the earnings of the lower paid of the two). Eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax. Eliminate personal deductions. Change the rules so the IRS has to prove its case rather than requiring the taxpayer to prove theirs. Allow deferral of investment gains that are immediate re-invested (you're only taxed if you 'take' the money). Tort Reform Loser pays the reasonable legal fees of the winner (if you sue someone and don't win, you have an obligation to make them whole). Iran Failure to prove - to our satisfaction - that they have dismantled their nuclear program would result in military strikes against all known and suspected facilities. Government spending Cap government spending at a given level with no adjustment for any reason. Unanticipated 'needs' would only be funded with money shifted from other programs. Government bureaucracy I Eliminate the Departments of Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture, Energy, with 75% (and declining by 5 percentage points every two years) of the money spent in these areas being given to the states as grants. I would also eliminate the Departments of Veteran's Affairs and Homeland Security (both brought back into the Defense Department) and Commerce (incorporated into the State Department). Government bureaucracy II Eliminate the EPA (fold its responsibilities into Interior), all funding for the NEA and similar organizations (it is not the role of government to support the 'arts'). Post Office Sell off to the public, eliminate the Postal Commission, the postal monopoly and the requirement that the Post Office serve all locales (someone wants to live in the middle of nowhere, they don't get the same conveniences as those living in more populated areas). Government workers Eliminate government worker unions. Fannie and Freddie Eliminate their government subsidy (and for the other similar entities such as the FHA). Term limits two terms for Senators, six terms for Representatives. One six year term for (future) Presidents, with a recall election at the halfway mark (55% needed to remove a President, replacement election held 60 days following recall). Congressional Staffs Twenty staffers per Senator, 4 staffers per Representative. White House Staff Maximum of 250 staffers, employed however the President wishes. Campaign finance Eliminate all restrictions on donations, other than immediate public disclosure of contributors (no money could be spent until 14 days after public disclosure of that contribution). Abortion Reverse Roe-v-Wade and leave to the states to regulate and/or restrict. Drug laws Eliminate all federal restrictions on drug use, leave to states to regulate (if, for example, West Virginia wants to allow meth use, they can do so... and they can clean up the mess). Immigration No government benefits of any kind provided to illegal immigrants. Verification of residency for employment, government benefits, drivers licenses, home purchase or rental. Welfare no benefits without work of some kind (picking up trash alongside roads, etc). Limit of 2 years of benefits at one time, lifetime limit of 8 years of benefits. Military Rules of Engagement the military exists to protect America and American lives and will ALWAYS be allowed to take whatever action it feels appropriate (and will receive the benefit of the doubt in any dispute) to protect American lives. In simple terms, Americans come first, everybody is a distant second. Foreign Policy the State Department will exist to represent American interests abroad, not to represent foreign interests in Washington. Israel and the Palestinians no pressure on Israel, it is up to them and their neighbors to work things out... or not work things out. Energy Eliminate bans on off shore drilling and open up untapped areas within US borders. Allow construction of nuclear power plants. Global Warming tell advocates to go away until they can provide verifiable proof that (1) global warming exists and (2) the consequences to America are a net negative and (3) the costs of reversing or mitigating the warming are less than the negative consequences. Criminal Law Consistent with the 'loser pays' rule in civil law, anyone who is acquitted of criminal charges will be reimbursed their legal expenses plus an amount to compensate them for the damage to their reputation and earning capacity (this will, as it should, make prosecutors think real hard before they indict someone). More to come with time.... and here they are... Historical designations eliminate any restrictions that limit the changes a property owner can make to his property (if society thinks it is critical to maintain historical properties, then someone can step up and buy the property themselves) Discrimination law keep the rules that ban government from discriminating, eliminate laws that apply to the private sector (if someone wants to be stupid and discriminate against a particular group, then they can suffer the resulting consequences) Wage laws Eliminate both the minimum wage law (if workers want more money, they can go work for someone willing to pay more) and Davis-Bacon (jacks up the price of government projects) Crime Eliminate 'three strike' laws and replace with system where a criminal's record is taken into account when deciding the length of a prison term (it's similar to three strikes but focuses on the totality of a person's record rather than just the number of convictions) Torture Allow 'enhanced interrogation' to be used for purposes of gaining information needed to detect terrorist attacks.
Today's example of the media not understanding the subject matter they write on goes to MSNBC's headline writer who wrote: "Bookies Favor Chicago in 2016 Vote"
Bookies don't favor either side, not in this contest or in any other contest. The odds that bookies establish reflect the preferences of the betting public. When a bookie says 'Chicago is favored', all they're doing is saying that more bettors are picking Chicago than the other candidates.
Not sure how to reconcile Obama getting 53% of the vote with this poll showing 61% of the public supports the use of force to keep Iran from going nuclear... but no matter the explanation, it is sure nice to see a clear majority of Americans supporting the position I have had for years.
And since Obama won't use force (he won't even going to threaten to use force), he finds himself on the wrong side of the public on this issue... just like he does with health reform.... just as he did on the Gates/Cambridge cop kerfuffle. I wonder how many of the 60 plus million people who voted for him are thinking twice about their decision...
Unfortunately, diplomats too often focus on the process of talking rather than the desired end results and the latest round of diplomacy with Iran is following that pattern.
And contrary to what diplomats would like people to believe, there is nothing complicated or inherently difficult in the process of talking to another country. Here is how it should proceed: The United States must first decide on the minimum of what we want Iran to do. Do we want a total cessation of Iran's nuclear program? Do we just want to keep Iran from turning an allegedly civilian nuclear program into a military program? Or possibly, would we be satisfied if Iran didn't use the nuclear weapons it is spending billions of dollars developing? We also have to decide on the level of proof we will insist on. Once we have decided what we want, we have to decide what we are willing to do to Iran in order to make that happen. Are we willing to use our military? And if so, just how must damage are we willing to do to Iran? If not, what economic or other sanctions are we willing to impose on Iran? And from a slightly different perspective, what are we willing to offer Iran if they go along with what we want. Are we willing to relax sanctions? Are we willing to stop with the anti-regime blather? Are we willing to help them destroy Israel by means other than nuclear weapons? And we also have to decide what we are willing to do to others who might present an obstacle to our 'persuasion' of Iran. Are we willing to impose economic sanctions countries that continue to do business with Iran? Are we willing to risk a military confrontation with countries that, for example, might try to ignore a blockade or whose citizens might be harmed during a military attack on Iran? And we need to decide what we're willing to help otherwise reluctant partners to get their cooperation. Are we willing to give up Taiwan in order to get China to help out? Once we have figured out what we want and what we're willing to do, it is time to talk. But not with Iran to start, but rather with the other countries who need to be informed as to what our plans are. If, for example, we are willing to impose economic sanctions on countries that continue to do business with Iran, we need to tell those countries of what lies in wait for them. If we're willing to use our military to enforce a blockade of Iraq to prevent them from exporting oil or importing gasoline, we need to tell those countries who are likely to be affected. And then we tell Iran what we want and what will happen to them if they don't comply. Now there's nothing wrong with telling Iran we want more than we really do. Nor is there anything wrong with telling Iran we're willing to do more than we really plan to. Doing so builds wiggle room and allows us to graciously compromise with Iran, saving them some face. Given that the Bush Administration did a lot of talking but did nothing of substance, and the Obama Administration doesn't exactly cause our enemies to cower in fear, it is extremely critical that we persuade Iran that we are serious this time. And doing so may require a demonstration, a shot across the bow that Iran has to take notice of. See, a pretty straightforward process. Nothing complicated. Just a matter of deciding what we want and what we're willing to do to get it. The process isn't different from what millions of people do every day in regards to their lives. Bigger stakes, sure. But the process remains the same.
|