7/30/09
It’s been a few weeks since my last post; we were on a long cruise in the Baltic Sea with limited, expensive internet access and I was uncomfortably out of touch with the news, so the Pontificator took a hiatus. The good (or bad, depending on the reader’s perspective) news is that I feel compelled to make up for lost time, so I have some reflections on our trip in this and the next (or last, depending on one’s perspective) post. All but one are confirmations of things I already knew, but experience brings these things, often lost in the nooks and crannies of memory, back to the forefront:
Point 1
Walking at a vigorous pace (a near trot, really; those of you who know me personally know exactly what I mean) is energizing. Walking slowly is enervating.
Point 2
You don’t learn much on a cruise because you don’t spend enough time in any one place and don’t have the opportunity (In some places, “opportunity” is a far too polite word.) to sleep in a local hotel and sample, or depend on, the local cuisine. However, given that there are five of us traveling, with all the packing and repacking that implies, and only one of us (yours truly, but the girls are coming along on this point) is an adventurous eater, the advantages of cruising (access to good food and a comfortable bed each night, great value for the money (We could never have stayed in comparable accommodations or eaten nearly as well as we did for anything like what we spent on the cruise.), terrific service, and a host of interesting traveling companions) outweigh the disadvantages.
Further, the educational value of traveling in general is vastly overrated. We were sojourning with many people who considered themselves experienced travelers, but no one seemed to know as much as I did about the places we visited. I found this interesting because I don’t like to travel (I travel because my wife likes to travel and I love my wife and strive to keep her happy. My favorite place to travel is home. If I have to travel, I would prefer a few days (but not a week) someplace in Wisconsin or Michigan tubing, eating, and relaxing by a lake.). I learned everything I know about our destinations from those objects of George Bush’s hearty and proud disdain, books, and I don’t pretend to be an expert on European, especially northern European, history. Yet I was not completely flabbergasted by, say, the extensiveness of the Scandinavian welfare states, as were most of the experienced travelers on the boat, and I knew something about the “Great Patriotic War” between Russia and Germany in the ‘40s. Perhaps if I traveled more, I would spend far more time shopping rather than wasting my time trying to learn a few things about the places I visit.
So most observations I make in this post have to be tempered by the limited nature of the cruising learning experience, but I doubt if I would have learned much more had we traveled on land.
Point 3
On any trip I take, I spend much of my time (Surprise!) observing what people drive. What I learned from such observations on this trip was the only observation in this post that was not a confirmation of what I already knew; in fact, I was completely surprised at the apparent car preferences of northern Europeans. Despite what we hear about “those tiny little cars” Europeans drive, it was hard to distinguish the cars I saw from those one would see in Chicago. A plurality, perhaps even a slight majority, of the cars I saw were in the subcompact class (Think Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, Nissan Versa, though the model names were different in most cases.), but an almost equal number were in the compact class (Ford Focus, Mazda 3 (a LOT of Mazda 3s; the Europeans know a great car, apparently), Honda Civic, VW Golf (Rabbit in this country), Volvo S40, Toyota Corolla, Opel Astra, sold as the nearly identical Saturn Astra in this country). Further, mid-sized cars (Honda Accord (but a slightly smaller car; the European Accord is sold in this country as the outstanding Acura TSX), Toyota Camry, VW Passat, Volvo S60) were everywhere. Luxury marques (Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, Audi, and, newly, Lexus), were abundant and were identical to the models sold in this country, though, like many cars, with diesel engines. Even more surprisingly, I noticed a small, but not inconsiderable, number, of “pure American” cars: Chrysler minivans, Jeep Cherokees, PT Cruisers, Chrysler 300s (including 300 wagons that, not surprisingly, bear an amazing resemblance to the U.S. Dodge Magnum), even a Chrysler Sebring or two, which is especially surprising, given that the Sebring is quite ordinary. Cadillac SRXs were seen in nearly every port, as were Escalades. I even saw a few Chevy Malibus. I kept expecting the cars to get smaller as we moved farther east, but even in St. Petersburg and Talinn, these observations remained more or less consistent.
Another stark observation is the big move the Koreans have made into the European car market. Hyundais and Kias were everywhere, and I saw more billboards and ads for those two marques than for any other make of automobile.
So the northern Europeans aren’t driving econoboxes; they are driving essentially the same cars we are driving, albeit with more manual transmissions (Europeans know how to drive, apparently.) and diesel engines. What are missing are “everyman” large cars, like Chevy Impalas, Toyota Avalons, or Ford Tauri (The large cars that I noticed were luxury cars, like the Mercedes S-Class and the BMW 7 Series, though none of these is as large as a Caddy DTS or a Lincoln MKS.) and the huge numbers of SUVs and minivans found on American roads.
Also…while one sees plenty of Renaults, Peugeots, VWs, and Opels on northern European roads, I didn’t see many Fiats except for an occasional Punto or 500, both of which are very small cars.
So what are the conclusions?
First, as people get more prosperous, they tend to like larger cars. This is not a uniquely American trait. Perhaps the Obamacrats should ponder this before they pop off, ever confident about their superior knowledge of the mindset of the average person, a species as exotic to them as a zoo animal from some distant corner of the globe, about how the American car companies don’t build the cars people want to buy. Even with gas at the equivalent of $8.00 per gallon, people like some room and comfort in their cars.
Second, if there ever were a time for “world cars” (i.e., cars that can be sold with only slight modification almost anywhere in the world, or at least the developed world), it is now. World cars have been tried before but haven’t worked; perhaps the difficulty was only timing. As most of the readers of the Insightful Pontificator, and its predecessors, know, I have long felt that Ford was ahead of its Big 3 competitors in most every aspect of its business, and Alan Mulally’s push to internationalize their car line is yet another example of Ford’s fresh, though perhaps obvious to those outside the industry, thinking.
Third, Chrysler’s looking to Fiat for its salvation is an indication of the dire straits in which Chrysler finds itself. That having been said, I was amazed at the number of Chrysler products I saw in northern Europe. Mind you, the numbers were nothing like those of European marques, but were at least as large as any of the American marques, if one counts the ubiquitous Ford Focus as a European marque. (Bear in mind, however, that the outstanding European Focus, whose underpinnings are shared with the Mazda 3 and the Volvo S40, is coming to these shores as part of Mulally’s internationalization efforts. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan have reason to be nervous.)
Point 4
No one lives like Americans live, or, more precisely, the average person in our country lives far better than the average person anywhere else. (The very wealthy live well wherever they live, though it is no surprise that many of Europe’s (and Asia’s) very wealthy spend a lot of time on one of our coasts.) This is true even in the most advanced countries, like the UK, or in the Scandinavian welfare states that the international busybody groups repeatedly tell us have “the highest standard of living in the world.” Though life is pretty good in northern Europe (especially Norway, it seems), in terms of living space, food, access to automobiles, buying power, availability of a wide variety of cultural experiences, etc., no one is our equal.
This brings me back to the recurring theme, if there is a recurring theme, of the Insightful Pontificator. We have a great thing going here but it looks like, based on our nonchalance regarding our responsibilities as participants in our political system, our spendthrift ways, and our obsession with life’s more trivial aspects, we are on the verge of blowing it. If we don’t start paying attention, and saving money, we will have blown the abundant, unprecedented legacy our ancestors have left for us. And we will have no one to blame but ourselves.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
THE GIRLS (AND BOYS) FROM IPANEMA
7/30/09
In the very early stages of our trip to England and the Baltic, I took the kids aside for one of those “This is important and I want you to pay attention” moments so familiar to parents. I told the kids that they were effectively ambassadors for their country, that people would take their actions, rightly or wrongly, as reflections of the behavior of “all those Americans.” Therefore, they should try to be on their best behavior, not only because doing so is the right thing, but also because they wanted to reflect well on the United States. Since our kids are 16, 14, and 11, I got mostly rolling eyeballs, especially familiar to parents of teenagers and pre-teens, from the kids. But the rest of the trip provided plenty of evidence that maybe the old guy is not as dumb as he sounds.
On our cruise was a very large tour group, composed mostly of lawyers and legislators, from Brazil. At breakfast the second morning of the cruise, my wife and I (The kids were sleeping, off doing something else, or pretending they didn’t know us while enjoying the outstanding Windjammer buffet.) had the opportunity to share a meal with an elderly Brazilian lawyer and former senator and his wife. They were lovely people. The senator was very interested in my ideas regarding Brazil, Russia, China, and our new president. The conversation was engaging and substantive. The couple asked us to please come to Brazil and spend some time with them, learning about their country and its emerging place in the world. We came away with a very favorable impression of Brazil and Brazilians.
It all went downhill from there. It seemed like an inordinate number of the members of that tour group were just downright rude, cutting in line, pushing people aside, and generally treating people either with contempt or as if they just weren’t there. Many were loud and inconsiderate, interrupting lectures, presentations, trivia games, and other activities and acting put out when asked to keep it down. Many of the people on the cruise grew more disgusted by the day, and travelers from the UK, the largest single national group (if one can call people from the UK one national group; the Scots, the Orange Irish, and the Welsh might argue) on the trip, stereotypically invariably polite and considerate, were especially outraged. At a few points in time, it looked as if UK and Brazil might go to war right on the ship.
One of our very engaging dinner companions (One’s dinner companions can have an enormous impact on one’s enjoyment of a cruise; we were blessed to have a wonderful family from Pennsylvania at our table.) had a theory on the behavior of the tour group. She pointed out that, even though Brazil is developing rapidly and its middle class is growing quickly, such things as cruises, though within the financial grasp of much of the American middle class, is still out of reach of the average Brazilian. Most people from Brazil who are financially capable of taking a cruise like ours are probably from the upper class and, like the upper class of most societies, tend to regard those not of their class with scorn and derision, or simply as nonentities. So what we were seeing was not so much a reflection of Brazilians as general as it was a reflection of the old upper classes in Brazil, or anywhere, really.
There was a great deal of logic in our friend’s observation, and the rude behavior that we noticed from the Brazilian tour group was probably limited to a few people, though the latter certainly did not seem to be the case. Most people from Brazil are probably great people, or at least as engaging and friendly as people from anywhere else in the world. But a lot of people on that cruise ship came away with a very unfavorable impression of “all those Brazilians.” I suspect those impressions are wrong, but it doesn’t matter; they have been made and are more or less indelible in many people’s minds.
And our kids learned something about leaving an impression of their country.
In the very early stages of our trip to England and the Baltic, I took the kids aside for one of those “This is important and I want you to pay attention” moments so familiar to parents. I told the kids that they were effectively ambassadors for their country, that people would take their actions, rightly or wrongly, as reflections of the behavior of “all those Americans.” Therefore, they should try to be on their best behavior, not only because doing so is the right thing, but also because they wanted to reflect well on the United States. Since our kids are 16, 14, and 11, I got mostly rolling eyeballs, especially familiar to parents of teenagers and pre-teens, from the kids. But the rest of the trip provided plenty of evidence that maybe the old guy is not as dumb as he sounds.
On our cruise was a very large tour group, composed mostly of lawyers and legislators, from Brazil. At breakfast the second morning of the cruise, my wife and I (The kids were sleeping, off doing something else, or pretending they didn’t know us while enjoying the outstanding Windjammer buffet.) had the opportunity to share a meal with an elderly Brazilian lawyer and former senator and his wife. They were lovely people. The senator was very interested in my ideas regarding Brazil, Russia, China, and our new president. The conversation was engaging and substantive. The couple asked us to please come to Brazil and spend some time with them, learning about their country and its emerging place in the world. We came away with a very favorable impression of Brazil and Brazilians.
It all went downhill from there. It seemed like an inordinate number of the members of that tour group were just downright rude, cutting in line, pushing people aside, and generally treating people either with contempt or as if they just weren’t there. Many were loud and inconsiderate, interrupting lectures, presentations, trivia games, and other activities and acting put out when asked to keep it down. Many of the people on the cruise grew more disgusted by the day, and travelers from the UK, the largest single national group (if one can call people from the UK one national group; the Scots, the Orange Irish, and the Welsh might argue) on the trip, stereotypically invariably polite and considerate, were especially outraged. At a few points in time, it looked as if UK and Brazil might go to war right on the ship.
One of our very engaging dinner companions (One’s dinner companions can have an enormous impact on one’s enjoyment of a cruise; we were blessed to have a wonderful family from Pennsylvania at our table.) had a theory on the behavior of the tour group. She pointed out that, even though Brazil is developing rapidly and its middle class is growing quickly, such things as cruises, though within the financial grasp of much of the American middle class, is still out of reach of the average Brazilian. Most people from Brazil who are financially capable of taking a cruise like ours are probably from the upper class and, like the upper class of most societies, tend to regard those not of their class with scorn and derision, or simply as nonentities. So what we were seeing was not so much a reflection of Brazilians as general as it was a reflection of the old upper classes in Brazil, or anywhere, really.
There was a great deal of logic in our friend’s observation, and the rude behavior that we noticed from the Brazilian tour group was probably limited to a few people, though the latter certainly did not seem to be the case. Most people from Brazil are probably great people, or at least as engaging and friendly as people from anywhere else in the world. But a lot of people on that cruise ship came away with a very unfavorable impression of “all those Brazilians.” I suspect those impressions are wrong, but it doesn’t matter; they have been made and are more or less indelible in many people’s minds.
And our kids learned something about leaving an impression of their country.
Monday, July 13, 2009
“HEY JUDGE, OLD BUDDY, OLD PAL, I’LL PAY THAT HUNDRED I OWE YA’ IF YA’ GET ME OUT OF THIS SPOT…”
7/13/09
There are plenty of reasons to oppose the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, perhaps the most salient of which is her penchant for judicial activism and her curious apparent belief that people of some nationalities are wiser than others. Of course, many of those who raise the most strenuous objections to her “legislating from the bench” rather than “adhering to the law and the constitution” have absolutely no problem with judges legislating from the bench…as long such judges legislate the way these self-professed “strict constructionists” would like. Since hypocrisy is one of the hallmarks of the modern Republican Party, this should come as no surprise, but those few who genuinely object to Ms. Sotomayor on the grounds of her seemingly fuzzy views on the role of a judge have a valid point.
A perhaps equally valid, but far less publicized, reason to object to Judge Sotomayor’s ascension to the nation’s highest court is her finances. After a career of being on the public payroll, with only a brief interlude at a Manhattan law firm to bulk up her finances and wait for a judgeship to become available, including seventeen years on the bench, and having no children to support, Ms. Sotomayor has a total of $30,000 in the bank and $15,000 in credit card bills, in addition to over $350,000 in mortgages on a condo she bought for about that amount in 1998. So after paying her credit card bills, Judge Sotomayor has less than one tenth of one year’s salary in the bank after drawing that salary for over seventeen years. Many will doubtless wail and cry that federal judges don’t make all that much money, but most people can only dream of making the $150,000 plus salary Judge Sotomayor is pulling down, especially with the ultra-generous health care and pension benefits that come with the job. Yes, it’s expensive to live in New York, but the vast, overwhelming majority of New Yorkers get by on far less than a federal judge’s salary. Some even manage to put some money in the bank after paying their credit card bills in full every month. Not enough, of course, but some.
Perhaps there is a legitimate reason for Ms. Sotomayor’s shaky finances; she comes from a very modest background and maybe much of her salary has gone toward supporting family members who are having a hard time. Such an explanation (which, whether true or not, is bound to surface if the subject of her finances comes up in the hearings) would indicate a generous nature and would in many ways enhance her attractiveness as a Justice, unless, of course, such generous nature is taken too far in the area of, say, criminal law. But, if helping out her relatives is not the source of Ms. Sotomayor’s financial situation, it can only indicate to those who think like me not only gross financial irresponsibility but a lack of character; frivolous, weak, and silly people throw money away, and we have enough frivolous, weak, silly people in Washington. Such a lack of character, reflected in her attitude toward money, is a more profound objection to Judge Sotomayor than the vulnerability to corruption that results from such shaky finances. Not only is the character issue more important, but Judge Sotomayor’s integrity has never legitimately been brought into question, and she has apparently been living on the financial edge her entire professional life.
Ms. Sotomayor, like most Americans, probably thinks her finances are in fine shape. (See the next, or last, depending on one’s perspective, post.) Why, she has $15 grand in the bank and manages to make the minima on her credit cards. Why should she deny herself the “frequent dinner gatherings and outings to watch dance, ballet, opera, and baseball” (Chicago Sun-Times, 7/13/09) that she cannot afford. After all, it is the American way to spend beyond one’s income, and she wants those things. And how can one be so audacious as to suggest that anybody in America not immediately buy anything s/he wants? So if her finances do come up, she will react with either profound puzzlement (So what’s the problem?) or high dudgeon (Who are you to question my finances?). If she does react with high dudgeon, Judge Sotomayor will have a point; it is a pretty safe bet that many of the Senators voting on her confirmation can only aspire to have their finances in such fine shape, on a relative basis, as those of Judge Sotomayor. The dystopic financial state of many of those who feel somehow qualified to set economic policy for our country, by the way, is one reason that Judge Sotomayor’s finances are unlikely to come up, unless hypocrisy is more endemic to the Senate than even I had thought.
None of this is likely to matter, however, to Judge Sotomayor’s nomination. Barring something really big, and unexpected, emerging from a closet somewhere, she is going to be our new Justice. Considering the Republican appointee (Please remember Justice Souter, if you are a conservative or libertarian, the next time some vacuum brained zombie from the GOP tells you that you have to vote Republican “because of the courts.”) she is replacing, her appointment will not be such an unfavorable development.
There are plenty of reasons to oppose the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, perhaps the most salient of which is her penchant for judicial activism and her curious apparent belief that people of some nationalities are wiser than others. Of course, many of those who raise the most strenuous objections to her “legislating from the bench” rather than “adhering to the law and the constitution” have absolutely no problem with judges legislating from the bench…as long such judges legislate the way these self-professed “strict constructionists” would like. Since hypocrisy is one of the hallmarks of the modern Republican Party, this should come as no surprise, but those few who genuinely object to Ms. Sotomayor on the grounds of her seemingly fuzzy views on the role of a judge have a valid point.
A perhaps equally valid, but far less publicized, reason to object to Judge Sotomayor’s ascension to the nation’s highest court is her finances. After a career of being on the public payroll, with only a brief interlude at a Manhattan law firm to bulk up her finances and wait for a judgeship to become available, including seventeen years on the bench, and having no children to support, Ms. Sotomayor has a total of $30,000 in the bank and $15,000 in credit card bills, in addition to over $350,000 in mortgages on a condo she bought for about that amount in 1998. So after paying her credit card bills, Judge Sotomayor has less than one tenth of one year’s salary in the bank after drawing that salary for over seventeen years. Many will doubtless wail and cry that federal judges don’t make all that much money, but most people can only dream of making the $150,000 plus salary Judge Sotomayor is pulling down, especially with the ultra-generous health care and pension benefits that come with the job. Yes, it’s expensive to live in New York, but the vast, overwhelming majority of New Yorkers get by on far less than a federal judge’s salary. Some even manage to put some money in the bank after paying their credit card bills in full every month. Not enough, of course, but some.
Perhaps there is a legitimate reason for Ms. Sotomayor’s shaky finances; she comes from a very modest background and maybe much of her salary has gone toward supporting family members who are having a hard time. Such an explanation (which, whether true or not, is bound to surface if the subject of her finances comes up in the hearings) would indicate a generous nature and would in many ways enhance her attractiveness as a Justice, unless, of course, such generous nature is taken too far in the area of, say, criminal law. But, if helping out her relatives is not the source of Ms. Sotomayor’s financial situation, it can only indicate to those who think like me not only gross financial irresponsibility but a lack of character; frivolous, weak, and silly people throw money away, and we have enough frivolous, weak, silly people in Washington. Such a lack of character, reflected in her attitude toward money, is a more profound objection to Judge Sotomayor than the vulnerability to corruption that results from such shaky finances. Not only is the character issue more important, but Judge Sotomayor’s integrity has never legitimately been brought into question, and she has apparently been living on the financial edge her entire professional life.
Ms. Sotomayor, like most Americans, probably thinks her finances are in fine shape. (See the next, or last, depending on one’s perspective, post.) Why, she has $15 grand in the bank and manages to make the minima on her credit cards. Why should she deny herself the “frequent dinner gatherings and outings to watch dance, ballet, opera, and baseball” (Chicago Sun-Times, 7/13/09) that she cannot afford. After all, it is the American way to spend beyond one’s income, and she wants those things. And how can one be so audacious as to suggest that anybody in America not immediately buy anything s/he wants? So if her finances do come up, she will react with either profound puzzlement (So what’s the problem?) or high dudgeon (Who are you to question my finances?). If she does react with high dudgeon, Judge Sotomayor will have a point; it is a pretty safe bet that many of the Senators voting on her confirmation can only aspire to have their finances in such fine shape, on a relative basis, as those of Judge Sotomayor. The dystopic financial state of many of those who feel somehow qualified to set economic policy for our country, by the way, is one reason that Judge Sotomayor’s finances are unlikely to come up, unless hypocrisy is more endemic to the Senate than even I had thought.
None of this is likely to matter, however, to Judge Sotomayor’s nomination. Barring something really big, and unexpected, emerging from a closet somewhere, she is going to be our new Justice. Considering the Republican appointee (Please remember Justice Souter, if you are a conservative or libertarian, the next time some vacuum brained zombie from the GOP tells you that you have to vote Republican “because of the courts.”) she is replacing, her appointment will not be such an unfavorable development.
Friday, July 10, 2009
“IF I CAN’T FIND ME A HONEY, TO HELP ME SPEND MY MONEY, I’M GONNA HAVE TO BLOW THIS TOWN…”
7/10/09
CNBC contributor Ron Insana, a man who is decidedly NOT on my short list of people in the financial industry, broadly defined, whom I respect, made a comment yesterday that is so silly on a number of levels that it merits comment. When discussing the advisability of a new round of “stimulus” program, Mr. Insana, who was sort of taking my side of the argument (i.e., no), but in his typical milquetoast fashion, proposed not a full-blown, Bush/Obamaesque spending orgy but, rather, a temporary payroll (i.e., FICA) tax holiday. Mr. Insana said this would be a good idea because “with the savings rate up, people are likely to spend it.”
Hmm…
First, this argument continues the Alice in Wonderland logic that has dominated much of this once great nation’s economic thinking for at least the last twenty years, to wit, spending is good, savings are bad, exactly the sort of thinking that got us into the brine in which we are currently swimming. And, yes, deep thinkers out there, we need savings even in a recession, and especially under the current economic circumstances that must not be named (See my last point of contention with Mr. Insana’s comments.) because ultimately it is capital formation, not spending, that gets an economy back on track.
Second, Mr. Insana’s argument makes no sense arithmetically. If the savings rate is 6% (about the point to where it has risen over the last year or so), people will not spend all of their payroll tax cut, but, rather, if the savings rate holds, will spend 94% of said tax cut. If the savings rate were higher, they would spend less of it; it’s just a matter of arithmetic. But Mr. Insana seems to argue that the higher the savings rate, the more people will spend, which makes no sense on its face.
Clearly, Mr. Insana is looking at the situation prospectively. If people have done some saving and cleaned up their balance sheets, they are more likely to spend whatever extra money (“Extra” money—talk about two words that don’t work well together! But I digress.) comes their way. This is an example of the kind of naïve thinking that dominates a financial community that is populated by people who have not been around long enough to experience “normal” and thus assume that the fantasy world in which they have been operating for their entire careers is indeed “normal.” What Mr. Insana, and the financial braintrust he so exemplifies, seems to not understand is that we have been p---ing away prior generations’ savings for at least twenty years, and have reached the point at which the silos are empty and are in serious danger of being bought by the Chinese as they seek room to store all the IOUs they have accumulated from us during the spending and borrowing binge we have laughingly called an economy for at least the last generation. A few months of what would have been considered a meager savings rate by our forbearers, but that seems positively astronomical given our the at or near negative savings rates that have prevailed in our once great nation since people like Mr. Insana started dispensing financial advice, is not enough to dig us out of the hole our longstanding extravagance and sense of entitlement have dug for us. We will have to dramatically increase our savings rate for decades, not just stop throwing away every dime we can borrow for a few months, if we are ever to restore the financial foundations of this country.
Sadly, though, the type of thinking displayed by Mr. Insana seems to dominate the financial approach of the typical American. “Hey,” our modern American might say, “I’ve managed to put couple grand away and I’m comfortably making the minimum payment on my credit cards. I’m as financially solid as the rock of Gibraltar! I guess now I can buy another flat screen and lease another car I can’t possibly afford!” According to Mr. Insana’s logic, such an attitude is salubrious for our economy. And people continue to regard the likes of Mr. Insana as financial experts.
It is indeed over, my friends.
CNBC contributor Ron Insana, a man who is decidedly NOT on my short list of people in the financial industry, broadly defined, whom I respect, made a comment yesterday that is so silly on a number of levels that it merits comment. When discussing the advisability of a new round of “stimulus” program, Mr. Insana, who was sort of taking my side of the argument (i.e., no), but in his typical milquetoast fashion, proposed not a full-blown, Bush/Obamaesque spending orgy but, rather, a temporary payroll (i.e., FICA) tax holiday. Mr. Insana said this would be a good idea because “with the savings rate up, people are likely to spend it.”
Hmm…
First, this argument continues the Alice in Wonderland logic that has dominated much of this once great nation’s economic thinking for at least the last twenty years, to wit, spending is good, savings are bad, exactly the sort of thinking that got us into the brine in which we are currently swimming. And, yes, deep thinkers out there, we need savings even in a recession, and especially under the current economic circumstances that must not be named (See my last point of contention with Mr. Insana’s comments.) because ultimately it is capital formation, not spending, that gets an economy back on track.
Second, Mr. Insana’s argument makes no sense arithmetically. If the savings rate is 6% (about the point to where it has risen over the last year or so), people will not spend all of their payroll tax cut, but, rather, if the savings rate holds, will spend 94% of said tax cut. If the savings rate were higher, they would spend less of it; it’s just a matter of arithmetic. But Mr. Insana seems to argue that the higher the savings rate, the more people will spend, which makes no sense on its face.
Clearly, Mr. Insana is looking at the situation prospectively. If people have done some saving and cleaned up their balance sheets, they are more likely to spend whatever extra money (“Extra” money—talk about two words that don’t work well together! But I digress.) comes their way. This is an example of the kind of naïve thinking that dominates a financial community that is populated by people who have not been around long enough to experience “normal” and thus assume that the fantasy world in which they have been operating for their entire careers is indeed “normal.” What Mr. Insana, and the financial braintrust he so exemplifies, seems to not understand is that we have been p---ing away prior generations’ savings for at least twenty years, and have reached the point at which the silos are empty and are in serious danger of being bought by the Chinese as they seek room to store all the IOUs they have accumulated from us during the spending and borrowing binge we have laughingly called an economy for at least the last generation. A few months of what would have been considered a meager savings rate by our forbearers, but that seems positively astronomical given our the at or near negative savings rates that have prevailed in our once great nation since people like Mr. Insana started dispensing financial advice, is not enough to dig us out of the hole our longstanding extravagance and sense of entitlement have dug for us. We will have to dramatically increase our savings rate for decades, not just stop throwing away every dime we can borrow for a few months, if we are ever to restore the financial foundations of this country.
Sadly, though, the type of thinking displayed by Mr. Insana seems to dominate the financial approach of the typical American. “Hey,” our modern American might say, “I’ve managed to put couple grand away and I’m comfortably making the minimum payment on my credit cards. I’m as financially solid as the rock of Gibraltar! I guess now I can buy another flat screen and lease another car I can’t possibly afford!” According to Mr. Insana’s logic, such an attitude is salubrious for our economy. And people continue to regard the likes of Mr. Insana as financial experts.
It is indeed over, my friends.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
“A WHOLE LOTTA SHAKIN’ GOIN’ ON”
7/9/09
In my post of 12/13/08, one of a rapid fire series of comments I made in the wake of former Governor Rod Blagojevich’s arrest, I made the following admonition:
Also...speaking of John Harris (Blagojevich’s chief of staff), keep an eye on him (not for the scandal as it relates to Emanuel but in its broader scope). He worked for Daley for years, most saliently in the Aviation Department, supposedly a nest of corruption. It has been reported (but remember that all reporting in this town is suspect) that he was angry when Ron Huberman got the chief of staff's job (for Daley) over him and went to work for Blago in a foul disposition toward Daley. The important people around here are too smart to share anything with Governor Fauntleroy, but they probably felt they could trust Harris. Also, by the nature of his job, Harris was in a position to know more than Blagojevich about the goings-on at City Hall. So when the feds squeeze Harris, and you know they are probably squeezing really hard as I write this, who knows what he could spill on lots of important people around here?
Yesterday, John Harris pled guilty to a series of federal charges relating to his scheming with Blagojevich to, among other things, sell influence and appointments and have a Tribune editorialist fired for committing the unpardonable sin of writing things the former Governor deemed unfavorable. As part of his legal arrangements, Mr. Harris agreed to cooperate with the U.S. Attorney’s office in their prosecutorial efforts in and around Chicago. According to Mr. Harris’s lawyer, that cooperation will not be limited to matters involving Blagojevich but can reach back to Mr. Harris’s former employment at City Hall.
Score yet another one for the Insightful Pontificator.
John Kass is absolutely right when he mentions in today’s (i.e., Thursday, 7/7/09’s) Tribune column that Harris’s guilty plea was yesterday’s really important political story, trumping Lisa Madigan’s “surprise” announcement that she would be running for neither governor nor senator in 2010. (See the next, or last, depending on one’s perspective, post.) Ms. Madigan is a talented politician with a bright future, but Mr. Harris’s cooperation puts a lot of careers, reputations, and legal statuses in jeopardy.
In my post of 12/13/08, one of a rapid fire series of comments I made in the wake of former Governor Rod Blagojevich’s arrest, I made the following admonition:
Also...speaking of John Harris (Blagojevich’s chief of staff), keep an eye on him (not for the scandal as it relates to Emanuel but in its broader scope). He worked for Daley for years, most saliently in the Aviation Department, supposedly a nest of corruption. It has been reported (but remember that all reporting in this town is suspect) that he was angry when Ron Huberman got the chief of staff's job (for Daley) over him and went to work for Blago in a foul disposition toward Daley. The important people around here are too smart to share anything with Governor Fauntleroy, but they probably felt they could trust Harris. Also, by the nature of his job, Harris was in a position to know more than Blagojevich about the goings-on at City Hall. So when the feds squeeze Harris, and you know they are probably squeezing really hard as I write this, who knows what he could spill on lots of important people around here?
Yesterday, John Harris pled guilty to a series of federal charges relating to his scheming with Blagojevich to, among other things, sell influence and appointments and have a Tribune editorialist fired for committing the unpardonable sin of writing things the former Governor deemed unfavorable. As part of his legal arrangements, Mr. Harris agreed to cooperate with the U.S. Attorney’s office in their prosecutorial efforts in and around Chicago. According to Mr. Harris’s lawyer, that cooperation will not be limited to matters involving Blagojevich but can reach back to Mr. Harris’s former employment at City Hall.
Score yet another one for the Insightful Pontificator.
John Kass is absolutely right when he mentions in today’s (i.e., Thursday, 7/7/09’s) Tribune column that Harris’s guilty plea was yesterday’s really important political story, trumping Lisa Madigan’s “surprise” announcement that she would be running for neither governor nor senator in 2010. (See the next, or last, depending on one’s perspective, post.) Ms. Madigan is a talented politician with a bright future, but Mr. Harris’s cooperation puts a lot of careers, reputations, and legal statuses in jeopardy.
THE STATE REMAINS HER OYSTER
7/9/09
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s much ballyhooed decision to seek reelection, rather than run for either governor or U.S. senator, probably emerged from cold political calculation, and far less sophisticated calculation than many are supposing. It is very difficult to run in any primary against an incumbent officeholder of one’s own party. The last time this was done successfully for statewide office in Illinois was in 1992 when Alan Dixon was defeated in the U.S. Senate primary by Carol Moseley Braun (Remember her? So do I. Too bad.) in the wake of the Anita Hill imbroglio. Before then, the most recent successful attempt at an intra-party coup was Mike Howlett’s 1976 primary defeat of incumbent governor and future felon Dan Walker. Mr. Howlett’s victory was less a product of his own political skill than a product of Richard J. Daley’s pique at Dan Walker for Mr. Walker’s characterizing the behavior of law enforcement at the 1968 Democratic convention as a “police riot” (I wonder how Mr. Walker would have reacted after taking a few spiked tennis balls to the groin, but that is another issue.) and for Mr. Walker’s general incompetence as governor, an office he apparently used as little more than a platform for intoning against the evil Machine and preparing for higher office. Further, once Mr. Howlett carried Daley’s water in the primary, he was promptly thrown under the bus in the general election, running with only perfunctory Machine support and predictably losing to Jim Thompson, the uber-pol who, despite his corruption busting prosecutorial career, became perhaps the archetype of the hermaphroditic Illinois pol who is concerned far less about party labels than about cold, hard cash.
Furthermore, it is even more difficult to run against an incumbent like Pat Quinn (no relation) who, despite his valiant and incessant efforts to give voters a reason to show him the door, is just about brand new, is still in the honeymoon stage, and retains an element of “man on a white horse” status. No one, apparently not even Pat Quinn, is capable of bollixing thing up sufficiently thoroughly and quickly to render him beatable in 2010, especially given the drama surrounding his ascension to the governor’s office and the great press he garners as a Clean Gene anti-Machine guy. However, given Mr. Quinn’s demonstrated incompetence and naiveté, he should be very vulnerable in 2014, if not sooner. So Ms. Madigan’s decision to forego the governor’s race in 2010 is therefore completely understandable.
Lisa Madigan’s decision to forego the Senate race was undoubtedly less easy, as demonstrated by her confidantes’ contention that she decided against running for governor weeks ago but made her announcement only yesterday, after she had decided not to run for the Senate. As I have discussed on numerous occasions in the Pontificator, Ms. Madigan wants to be governor, but who would turn down a Senate seat? There is no doubt she was interested in President Obama’s old seat and probably had a hard time turning down what looked like a relatively easy run for it. But she has a young family (Her kids are one and four years old.), making the Senate commute difficult. The field would have been slightly tougher. For example, I mentioned to a friend of mine last week that, considering that one of the few Kennedys (Chris) who cannot be legitimately accused of being a carpetbagger was in the race, I was surprised that the family name and money were not propelling him to instant front-runner status. Maybe there is something going on here, and more coming up, about which the general public, even the political junkie community, is not aware. Further, given Lisa’s interest in state type issues, perhaps she is one of those politicians who agrees with the sentiment expressed by John Ashcroft (I’m quite sure it was John Ashcroft, but it could have been Kit Bond, who has a very similar resume.), former Missouri governor and senator and Attorney General of the United States (who, incidentally, was born in Chicago), who said
“People who tell you being a senator is better than being governor will lie to you about other things as well.”
If that is the way she feels, Ms. Madigan may have simply determined that her chances for the governor’s office will be better in 2014, when she will be all of 47 years old, than they are in 2010.
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s much ballyhooed decision to seek reelection, rather than run for either governor or U.S. senator, probably emerged from cold political calculation, and far less sophisticated calculation than many are supposing. It is very difficult to run in any primary against an incumbent officeholder of one’s own party. The last time this was done successfully for statewide office in Illinois was in 1992 when Alan Dixon was defeated in the U.S. Senate primary by Carol Moseley Braun (Remember her? So do I. Too bad.) in the wake of the Anita Hill imbroglio. Before then, the most recent successful attempt at an intra-party coup was Mike Howlett’s 1976 primary defeat of incumbent governor and future felon Dan Walker. Mr. Howlett’s victory was less a product of his own political skill than a product of Richard J. Daley’s pique at Dan Walker for Mr. Walker’s characterizing the behavior of law enforcement at the 1968 Democratic convention as a “police riot” (I wonder how Mr. Walker would have reacted after taking a few spiked tennis balls to the groin, but that is another issue.) and for Mr. Walker’s general incompetence as governor, an office he apparently used as little more than a platform for intoning against the evil Machine and preparing for higher office. Further, once Mr. Howlett carried Daley’s water in the primary, he was promptly thrown under the bus in the general election, running with only perfunctory Machine support and predictably losing to Jim Thompson, the uber-pol who, despite his corruption busting prosecutorial career, became perhaps the archetype of the hermaphroditic Illinois pol who is concerned far less about party labels than about cold, hard cash.
Furthermore, it is even more difficult to run against an incumbent like Pat Quinn (no relation) who, despite his valiant and incessant efforts to give voters a reason to show him the door, is just about brand new, is still in the honeymoon stage, and retains an element of “man on a white horse” status. No one, apparently not even Pat Quinn, is capable of bollixing thing up sufficiently thoroughly and quickly to render him beatable in 2010, especially given the drama surrounding his ascension to the governor’s office and the great press he garners as a Clean Gene anti-Machine guy. However, given Mr. Quinn’s demonstrated incompetence and naiveté, he should be very vulnerable in 2014, if not sooner. So Ms. Madigan’s decision to forego the governor’s race in 2010 is therefore completely understandable.
Lisa Madigan’s decision to forego the Senate race was undoubtedly less easy, as demonstrated by her confidantes’ contention that she decided against running for governor weeks ago but made her announcement only yesterday, after she had decided not to run for the Senate. As I have discussed on numerous occasions in the Pontificator, Ms. Madigan wants to be governor, but who would turn down a Senate seat? There is no doubt she was interested in President Obama’s old seat and probably had a hard time turning down what looked like a relatively easy run for it. But she has a young family (Her kids are one and four years old.), making the Senate commute difficult. The field would have been slightly tougher. For example, I mentioned to a friend of mine last week that, considering that one of the few Kennedys (Chris) who cannot be legitimately accused of being a carpetbagger was in the race, I was surprised that the family name and money were not propelling him to instant front-runner status. Maybe there is something going on here, and more coming up, about which the general public, even the political junkie community, is not aware. Further, given Lisa’s interest in state type issues, perhaps she is one of those politicians who agrees with the sentiment expressed by John Ashcroft (I’m quite sure it was John Ashcroft, but it could have been Kit Bond, who has a very similar resume.), former Missouri governor and senator and Attorney General of the United States (who, incidentally, was born in Chicago), who said
“People who tell you being a senator is better than being governor will lie to you about other things as well.”
If that is the way she feels, Ms. Madigan may have simply determined that her chances for the governor’s office will be better in 2014, when she will be all of 47 years old, than they are in 2010.
THE BOOK IS ON THE WAY
7/9/09
An update on my book of (very thinly veiled) Chicago politics, of which you will probably be getting many in the relatively near future, considering that this blog will be one of my major marketing tools:
After repeated, and continuing, attempts at going the conventional route (getting an agent interested who will in turn get a major publishing house interested) toward publication, I have more or less decided to self-publish my book. While, generally, self-publishing is where books go to die, there are success stories in self-publishing and my book is good enough (great, really, if I can say so myself) to be a major success and I have a sufficiently wide platform to help make that happen. (This blog is apparently very widely read.) So I am talking with several self-publishing companies and will take a few weeks to decide on one. We will get moving on this early in August and have a book ready for purchase on Amazon and a number of other online outlets by the Fall, certainly in time for the Christmas season. If it catches on, it will also be available in brick and mortar bookstores.
Say a prayer…and buy the book when it becomes available. If you like this blog, you’ll like the book, and you will probably like the book even if you don’t like the blog.
Thanks for your support.
An update on my book of (very thinly veiled) Chicago politics, of which you will probably be getting many in the relatively near future, considering that this blog will be one of my major marketing tools:
After repeated, and continuing, attempts at going the conventional route (getting an agent interested who will in turn get a major publishing house interested) toward publication, I have more or less decided to self-publish my book. While, generally, self-publishing is where books go to die, there are success stories in self-publishing and my book is good enough (great, really, if I can say so myself) to be a major success and I have a sufficiently wide platform to help make that happen. (This blog is apparently very widely read.) So I am talking with several self-publishing companies and will take a few weeks to decide on one. We will get moving on this early in August and have a book ready for purchase on Amazon and a number of other online outlets by the Fall, certainly in time for the Christmas season. If it catches on, it will also be available in brick and mortar bookstores.
Say a prayer…and buy the book when it becomes available. If you like this blog, you’ll like the book, and you will probably like the book even if you don’t like the blog.
Thanks for your support.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
“WHY DON’T YOU MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS?”
7/8/09
Vice-President Joe Biden, as is his wont, caused quite a stir on last Sunday’s edition of ABC’s “This Week.” Mr. Biden, when asked about a possible Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, said that Israel “can determine for itself—it’s a sovereign nation—what’s in their (sic) interest.” He quickly added that he was not making a statement regarding “whether we agree or not” with Israeli policy.
Some with too much time on their hands decided that Mr. Biden was sending a signal to the Israelis that the Obama administration was okay with an attack on Iran. Others thought that Mr. Biden was just being Mr. Biden, going off half-cocked and generally embarrassing the people around him. The latter is far more likely than the former, but there is a third possibility: perhaps Mr. Biden was performing that rarest of feats among our governing class, i.e., making some sense.
I don’t want to put words in Mr. Biden’s mouth, or thoughts in his head, but he might have been saying something very profound that would indicate a dramatic change in foreign policy, something broader in scope than even our attitude toward the Middle East. Perhaps Mr. Biden was saying that Israel, and every other nation, is not only a sovereign state but is governed by adults who ought to be treated like adults. Rather than imperiously assuming that we alone are the bearers of all wisdom and power, and that therefore every nation, and especially our allies, should come to us for approval for its actions, perhaps we ought to let people work out their problems as they see fit. Much to the amazement of those who have spent their lives in Washington, Washington is not Rome. We do not rule the world. The world is composed of at least nominally independent countries that do not need the approval of senatus populusque Americae to do what they feel is in their best interests. Therefore, perhaps it would be best for us to simply mind our own business.
I don’t know whether it would be wise policy for the Israelis to hit suspected Iranian nuclear weapons sites. But it doesn’t matter what I think, or even what anyone in power in our country thinks, regarding this matter. The Israelis are in a much better position to judge, simply because the stakes are so much higher for them, what to do regarding Iran. They can best determine what is a genuine existential threat for them and whether to act in accord with that determination. It is equally the province of the Iranians to determine how to proceed on their nuclear program and how to react to Israeli military action, should such action take place. Both sides would, of course, have to deal with the consequences of any action, or reaction, they would take. As sovereign nations, rather than errant schoolchildren, as many in our State Department seem to regard both sides, deciding on actions and bearing the consequences of those actions is their right and their obligation.
Just about the entire political class in this country, even members of that party that lives to deny such beliefs, believes in the nanny state. The only argument in Washington is who gets to be the nanny. But most of us think this attitude only applies to domestic affairs. People who spend a lot of time thinking about these things, however, have come to realize that this schoolmarm mentality stretches far beyond the borders of our once great nation. Further, the Republicans, who seem to spew the largest crocodile tears about big government on the domestic front, are the most ardent proponents of big government on a global scale. In the eyes of the professional politicians who dominate both major parties, not only are the citizens of the United States, the people who provide the sustenance that makes our politicians’ lifelong sinecures possible, witless, benighted, and badly in need of guidance from their betters who have no experience with life away from the public payroll, but the entire world is full of people and nations who can’t take care of, or think for, themselves. All these backward, or simply confused, peoples must take orders from Washington, which, of course, is rightly destined to rule the world, spreading Pax Americana to every remote corner of the planet. After all, the pols, and the financial barons of Wall Street, have done such a terrific job here, it is clear that they deserve to work their same magic on the rest of the globe.
Given that Joe Biden has been one of the foremost proponents of the nanny state for all of his nearly forty years in Washington, it is all but impossible to believe that his errant statement regarding Israel’s being a sovereign nation signals that sea change in America’s foreign policy approach, an approach that recognizes limits and displays humility. Joe was just being Joe, the crazy uncle whose entertainment value is best characterized by its fleeting nature. But it would be nice to think that maybe someone, somewhere in Washington realizes that wisdom is not the exclusive province of the Beltway and that America’s blood and treasure are not limitless.
Vice-President Joe Biden, as is his wont, caused quite a stir on last Sunday’s edition of ABC’s “This Week.” Mr. Biden, when asked about a possible Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, said that Israel “can determine for itself—it’s a sovereign nation—what’s in their (sic) interest.” He quickly added that he was not making a statement regarding “whether we agree or not” with Israeli policy.
Some with too much time on their hands decided that Mr. Biden was sending a signal to the Israelis that the Obama administration was okay with an attack on Iran. Others thought that Mr. Biden was just being Mr. Biden, going off half-cocked and generally embarrassing the people around him. The latter is far more likely than the former, but there is a third possibility: perhaps Mr. Biden was performing that rarest of feats among our governing class, i.e., making some sense.
I don’t want to put words in Mr. Biden’s mouth, or thoughts in his head, but he might have been saying something very profound that would indicate a dramatic change in foreign policy, something broader in scope than even our attitude toward the Middle East. Perhaps Mr. Biden was saying that Israel, and every other nation, is not only a sovereign state but is governed by adults who ought to be treated like adults. Rather than imperiously assuming that we alone are the bearers of all wisdom and power, and that therefore every nation, and especially our allies, should come to us for approval for its actions, perhaps we ought to let people work out their problems as they see fit. Much to the amazement of those who have spent their lives in Washington, Washington is not Rome. We do not rule the world. The world is composed of at least nominally independent countries that do not need the approval of senatus populusque Americae to do what they feel is in their best interests. Therefore, perhaps it would be best for us to simply mind our own business.
I don’t know whether it would be wise policy for the Israelis to hit suspected Iranian nuclear weapons sites. But it doesn’t matter what I think, or even what anyone in power in our country thinks, regarding this matter. The Israelis are in a much better position to judge, simply because the stakes are so much higher for them, what to do regarding Iran. They can best determine what is a genuine existential threat for them and whether to act in accord with that determination. It is equally the province of the Iranians to determine how to proceed on their nuclear program and how to react to Israeli military action, should such action take place. Both sides would, of course, have to deal with the consequences of any action, or reaction, they would take. As sovereign nations, rather than errant schoolchildren, as many in our State Department seem to regard both sides, deciding on actions and bearing the consequences of those actions is their right and their obligation.
Just about the entire political class in this country, even members of that party that lives to deny such beliefs, believes in the nanny state. The only argument in Washington is who gets to be the nanny. But most of us think this attitude only applies to domestic affairs. People who spend a lot of time thinking about these things, however, have come to realize that this schoolmarm mentality stretches far beyond the borders of our once great nation. Further, the Republicans, who seem to spew the largest crocodile tears about big government on the domestic front, are the most ardent proponents of big government on a global scale. In the eyes of the professional politicians who dominate both major parties, not only are the citizens of the United States, the people who provide the sustenance that makes our politicians’ lifelong sinecures possible, witless, benighted, and badly in need of guidance from their betters who have no experience with life away from the public payroll, but the entire world is full of people and nations who can’t take care of, or think for, themselves. All these backward, or simply confused, peoples must take orders from Washington, which, of course, is rightly destined to rule the world, spreading Pax Americana to every remote corner of the planet. After all, the pols, and the financial barons of Wall Street, have done such a terrific job here, it is clear that they deserve to work their same magic on the rest of the globe.
Given that Joe Biden has been one of the foremost proponents of the nanny state for all of his nearly forty years in Washington, it is all but impossible to believe that his errant statement regarding Israel’s being a sovereign nation signals that sea change in America’s foreign policy approach, an approach that recognizes limits and displays humility. Joe was just being Joe, the crazy uncle whose entertainment value is best characterized by its fleeting nature. But it would be nice to think that maybe someone, somewhere in Washington realizes that wisdom is not the exclusive province of the Beltway and that America’s blood and treasure are not limitless.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
THE THING THAT WOULDN’T LEAVE
7/5/09
We are currently winding up our mid-summer sojourn to Long Island, visiting my wife’s family. Out here on “the Island,” they don’t have a newspaper; they have something called “Newsday,” which, whatever it is (some have suggested a cross between The Weekly World News and The National Enquirer, only without quite as much national coverage and searing editorial content), it isn’t a newspaper.
Between the endless stories of Michael Jackson, which, in yet another fulsome display of the never ending and seemingly accelerating determination of our once great nation to thrust itself into the tar pits, seem to dominate every other media outlet in our long ago great country, Newsday had a few stories on the latest “big” development on the national scene, the resignation of Alaska Governor, and failed VP candidate, Sarah Palin. A few observations can be made on this development.
Why does anyone doubt that Mrs. Palin is leaving the governor’s office to run for President full time? The only reason for not suspecting this is the beginning of a multi-year presidential run from yet another Republican who will doubtless tell us we are too focused on politics and government solutions to our problems is that it is simply too obvious. Further proof can be gleaned from this characteristically incoherent comment from the intellectophobe Mrs. Palin:
“I am now looking ahead and how (sic) we can advance this country together (sic) with our values of less government intervention, greater energy independence, stronger national security, and much-needed (sic) fiscal restraint.”
Besides the garbled syntax and gormless grammar (or perhaps because of the garbled syntax and gormless grammar), does this sound like someone who is planning to retire to a life of vigilantly sitting on the porch, scanning the sky for the waves of Bear bombers that Mrs. Palin and her supporters, in their most febrile and cherished fantasies, suspect are just waiting to initiate the next big one, WW III?
Admittedly, leaving the only job of any substance one has ever had in preparation for a job that at least in the past had monumental substance might not be the smartest move one could possibly make. As John Weaver, a (according to Newsday) senior strategist for John McCain’s (Did you know he was a POW in Vietnam?) presidential campaign, intoned in the wake of Mrs. Palin’s announcement,
“A good point guard (Mr. Weaver was extending one of Mrs. Palin’s seemingly endless sports analogies; I suppose when one knows nothing about public policy, one must fall back on sports analogies from one’s high school days.) wouldn’t walk off the court midgame and expect a better contract two or three years down the road.”
All that is true, but since when can one legitimately accuse Mrs. Palin of being bright? Haven’t we all grown rather used to her doing what normal people would consider stupid things?
Speaking of Mr. Weaver, he is also quoted in the Newsday article as saying:
“If this (i.e., Mrs. Palin’s quitting her job.) is a launching pad for 2012, it’s a curious move. Policy is politics, and she has no real accomplishments as governor.”
Hmm…
Mr. Weaver was “a former senior strategist for McCain’s presidential bids,” and he thought that Mrs. Palin had “no real accomplishments as governor”? But that didn’t stop Mr. McCain (Did you know he was a POW in Vietnam?) from putting this fatuous ingenue in a position to be president of the United States, with full access to the (perhaps now figurative) nuclear football. Mr. Obama is no prize, and Mr. Biden might be scary, but, still, when I consider the alternative, I feel slightly less inclined to reach for a Bromo when I hear Mr. Obama blathering on about things about which he knows little but cares very deeply.
Mrs. Palin’s behavior, and Mr. McCain’s willingness to thrust her upon an unsuspecting, but largely innocent (in a number of ways) American populace for what he, in his jumbled brain, considered political expediency, lends further evidence to a recurring theme in the Pontificator; to wit, politics is a silly sport engaged in by feckless, self-absorbed people. It’s a damn shame that we, the American people, by neglecting our duties as citizens, have put so much power and control over our lives into the hands of such vacuous, vain, and vapid people.
We are currently winding up our mid-summer sojourn to Long Island, visiting my wife’s family. Out here on “the Island,” they don’t have a newspaper; they have something called “Newsday,” which, whatever it is (some have suggested a cross between The Weekly World News and The National Enquirer, only without quite as much national coverage and searing editorial content), it isn’t a newspaper.
Between the endless stories of Michael Jackson, which, in yet another fulsome display of the never ending and seemingly accelerating determination of our once great nation to thrust itself into the tar pits, seem to dominate every other media outlet in our long ago great country, Newsday had a few stories on the latest “big” development on the national scene, the resignation of Alaska Governor, and failed VP candidate, Sarah Palin. A few observations can be made on this development.
Why does anyone doubt that Mrs. Palin is leaving the governor’s office to run for President full time? The only reason for not suspecting this is the beginning of a multi-year presidential run from yet another Republican who will doubtless tell us we are too focused on politics and government solutions to our problems is that it is simply too obvious. Further proof can be gleaned from this characteristically incoherent comment from the intellectophobe Mrs. Palin:
“I am now looking ahead and how (sic) we can advance this country together (sic) with our values of less government intervention, greater energy independence, stronger national security, and much-needed (sic) fiscal restraint.”
Besides the garbled syntax and gormless grammar (or perhaps because of the garbled syntax and gormless grammar), does this sound like someone who is planning to retire to a life of vigilantly sitting on the porch, scanning the sky for the waves of Bear bombers that Mrs. Palin and her supporters, in their most febrile and cherished fantasies, suspect are just waiting to initiate the next big one, WW III?
Admittedly, leaving the only job of any substance one has ever had in preparation for a job that at least in the past had monumental substance might not be the smartest move one could possibly make. As John Weaver, a (according to Newsday) senior strategist for John McCain’s (Did you know he was a POW in Vietnam?) presidential campaign, intoned in the wake of Mrs. Palin’s announcement,
“A good point guard (Mr. Weaver was extending one of Mrs. Palin’s seemingly endless sports analogies; I suppose when one knows nothing about public policy, one must fall back on sports analogies from one’s high school days.) wouldn’t walk off the court midgame and expect a better contract two or three years down the road.”
All that is true, but since when can one legitimately accuse Mrs. Palin of being bright? Haven’t we all grown rather used to her doing what normal people would consider stupid things?
Speaking of Mr. Weaver, he is also quoted in the Newsday article as saying:
“If this (i.e., Mrs. Palin’s quitting her job.) is a launching pad for 2012, it’s a curious move. Policy is politics, and she has no real accomplishments as governor.”
Hmm…
Mr. Weaver was “a former senior strategist for McCain’s presidential bids,” and he thought that Mrs. Palin had “no real accomplishments as governor”? But that didn’t stop Mr. McCain (Did you know he was a POW in Vietnam?) from putting this fatuous ingenue in a position to be president of the United States, with full access to the (perhaps now figurative) nuclear football. Mr. Obama is no prize, and Mr. Biden might be scary, but, still, when I consider the alternative, I feel slightly less inclined to reach for a Bromo when I hear Mr. Obama blathering on about things about which he knows little but cares very deeply.
Mrs. Palin’s behavior, and Mr. McCain’s willingness to thrust her upon an unsuspecting, but largely innocent (in a number of ways) American populace for what he, in his jumbled brain, considered political expediency, lends further evidence to a recurring theme in the Pontificator; to wit, politics is a silly sport engaged in by feckless, self-absorbed people. It’s a damn shame that we, the American people, by neglecting our duties as citizens, have put so much power and control over our lives into the hands of such vacuous, vain, and vapid people.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
SPEAKING OF INDEPENDENCE…
7/1/09
This morning’s (i.e., Wednesday, 7/1’s) Wall Street Journal reports that Wal-Mart told the White House that the world’s largest retailer supports requiring employers (except for very small employers) to provide their workers with health insurance. This mandate is a centerpiece of the Obama health care package. Wal-Mart’s motives aren’t entirely pure; it provides, contrary to popular opinion, relatively generous health care benefits to its workers and thus wouldn’t mind seeing the field on which it plays against competitors who don’t provide such insurance leveled. Wal-Mart also hopes to fend off an even more aggressive and onerous mandate contained in a bill being cooked up by the Senate Finance Committee. In any case, however, the support of Wal-Mart, organized labor’s favorite whipping boy, for an employer mandate goes a long way toward making this proposal, dangerous for reasons that far transcend the substantial and potentially debilitating costs to employers, a reality.
Employer provided health insurance is a peculiar feature of the American health care system. It has its roots in World War II, when wage and price controls prevented employers from attracting scarce employees (What a difference a war makes!) with higher wages. Some clever employers came up with the idea of recruiting employees by offering health insurance, the provision of which did not run afoul of the wage-price controls. The rest is history; Americans increasingly came to look to their employer, rather than their own wallets, as the source of their health care. With the increasing predominance of third party payers, the mindset of “What the heck, it’s not my money—give me the best!” took over. The cost of health care, in what is perhaps the most predictable economic development of all time, skyrocketed.
With costs increasing to the point at which they could easily bankrupt all but the wealthiest of Americans, and the only plausible way for most people to avoid such a fate lying in the hands of their employers, people became dependent on a job not only to provide financial sustenance to their families but also to avoid the wealth devastating impact of an serious illness or injury. Thus, people who lost their jobs for any reason found themselves without health insurance and thus infinitely more financially vulnerable than one would normally expect as a consequence of losing their jobs.
Such vulnerability is bad enough, but think of the impact that our system of employer provided health insurance has had on entrepreneurship in this country. It’s almost impossible to determine how many fledgling Bill Gates, Ron Popeils, or Roger Penskes have been dissuaded from pursuing their dreams by fear of bankruptcy brought on by lack of health insurance. It follows that it is impossible to determine how much our economy and our lives have been hurt by these thwarted dreams. However, one has to conclude that, given the entrepreneurial spirit that at least at one time prevailed in America, the strength of which is proven by the rate of small business formation in this country despite the obstacles our health care system puts in its way, we have missed out on countless innovations because their potential inventors and purveyors have decided to suck it up and join the countless faceless corporate or government legions out of fear of having to “go naked” on health care coverage.
If the Obama administration succeeds in forcing employers to provide health insurance, our perverted system of tying one’s status as an employee to one’s health care, and consequently to one’s financial solvency, will become even more entrenched. This will serve to further quash one of the few things America still has going for it in the world economy: its spirit and history of innovation. Future Amadeo Gianninis, Ray Krocs, and Sam Waltons will be forced by the realities of health care to forego their dreams and instead go to work for huge corporations, where, despite the lip service paid to creative thinking, it is obsequiousness and uniformity of thought that are rewarded. Innovation will be stifled, and we as a nation will be playing on a field on which we have few, or no, natural advantages.
Notice that this argument against the curious connection between employment and health care that has become endemic in our economy could be used by either extreme of the health care debate. Both those in favor of a one payer system and those who oppose the entire Obama health care “plan” as a further socialization of our economy can cheer those of us who oppose the employment/health care link. I’m not arguing for or against either side, at least not in this post; I’m just saying that tying one’s health care to one’s employment status, a relic of an ill-advised price control policy from almost 70 years ago, has to be reexamined if we are ever to get health care costs under control and provide for continued entrepreneurship and consequent innovation, our economy’s only hope.
This morning’s (i.e., Wednesday, 7/1’s) Wall Street Journal reports that Wal-Mart told the White House that the world’s largest retailer supports requiring employers (except for very small employers) to provide their workers with health insurance. This mandate is a centerpiece of the Obama health care package. Wal-Mart’s motives aren’t entirely pure; it provides, contrary to popular opinion, relatively generous health care benefits to its workers and thus wouldn’t mind seeing the field on which it plays against competitors who don’t provide such insurance leveled. Wal-Mart also hopes to fend off an even more aggressive and onerous mandate contained in a bill being cooked up by the Senate Finance Committee. In any case, however, the support of Wal-Mart, organized labor’s favorite whipping boy, for an employer mandate goes a long way toward making this proposal, dangerous for reasons that far transcend the substantial and potentially debilitating costs to employers, a reality.
Employer provided health insurance is a peculiar feature of the American health care system. It has its roots in World War II, when wage and price controls prevented employers from attracting scarce employees (What a difference a war makes!) with higher wages. Some clever employers came up with the idea of recruiting employees by offering health insurance, the provision of which did not run afoul of the wage-price controls. The rest is history; Americans increasingly came to look to their employer, rather than their own wallets, as the source of their health care. With the increasing predominance of third party payers, the mindset of “What the heck, it’s not my money—give me the best!” took over. The cost of health care, in what is perhaps the most predictable economic development of all time, skyrocketed.
With costs increasing to the point at which they could easily bankrupt all but the wealthiest of Americans, and the only plausible way for most people to avoid such a fate lying in the hands of their employers, people became dependent on a job not only to provide financial sustenance to their families but also to avoid the wealth devastating impact of an serious illness or injury. Thus, people who lost their jobs for any reason found themselves without health insurance and thus infinitely more financially vulnerable than one would normally expect as a consequence of losing their jobs.
Such vulnerability is bad enough, but think of the impact that our system of employer provided health insurance has had on entrepreneurship in this country. It’s almost impossible to determine how many fledgling Bill Gates, Ron Popeils, or Roger Penskes have been dissuaded from pursuing their dreams by fear of bankruptcy brought on by lack of health insurance. It follows that it is impossible to determine how much our economy and our lives have been hurt by these thwarted dreams. However, one has to conclude that, given the entrepreneurial spirit that at least at one time prevailed in America, the strength of which is proven by the rate of small business formation in this country despite the obstacles our health care system puts in its way, we have missed out on countless innovations because their potential inventors and purveyors have decided to suck it up and join the countless faceless corporate or government legions out of fear of having to “go naked” on health care coverage.
If the Obama administration succeeds in forcing employers to provide health insurance, our perverted system of tying one’s status as an employee to one’s health care, and consequently to one’s financial solvency, will become even more entrenched. This will serve to further quash one of the few things America still has going for it in the world economy: its spirit and history of innovation. Future Amadeo Gianninis, Ray Krocs, and Sam Waltons will be forced by the realities of health care to forego their dreams and instead go to work for huge corporations, where, despite the lip service paid to creative thinking, it is obsequiousness and uniformity of thought that are rewarded. Innovation will be stifled, and we as a nation will be playing on a field on which we have few, or no, natural advantages.
Notice that this argument against the curious connection between employment and health care that has become endemic in our economy could be used by either extreme of the health care debate. Both those in favor of a one payer system and those who oppose the entire Obama health care “plan” as a further socialization of our economy can cheer those of us who oppose the employment/health care link. I’m not arguing for or against either side, at least not in this post; I’m just saying that tying one’s health care to one’s employment status, a relic of an ill-advised price control policy from almost 70 years ago, has to be reexamined if we are ever to get health care costs under control and provide for continued entrepreneurship and consequent innovation, our economy’s only hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
