3/31/10
The Wall Street Journal, the former voice of reason and limited government in the U.S. media, will usually go to great lengths to advance what has become over the last ten years or so its most fervent cause—the “supergovernment on a global scale” approach to foreign policy that has characterized the Bush/Obama administration’s worldview. However, the contortions of logic that the Journal routinely uses to cheerlead for the establishment of an American empire have reached new heights with this morning’s (i.e., Wednesday, 3/31’s) op-ed article by Danielle Pletka, vice-president for foreign and defense policy at the American Enterprise Institute and obvious fellow traveler with the Journal as it advances the view that the rest of the world ought to just shut up and take orders from the all knowing, all seeing, all wise U.S. government—or else.
Ms. Pletka, in her article seemingly cheerleading for starting yet a third Middle East War by launching a military strike against Iran, writes the following:
“What of Israel? The mess of U.S.-Israel relations has ironically only bolstered the fears of Arab governments that the current U.S. administration is a feckless ally. If the U.S. won’t stand by Israel, by whom will it stand?”
Hmm…so if we want to curry the favor of Arab governments, what we ought to do is stand by the Israeli government no matter what.
Regardless of what one thinks regarding the desirability of a strike on Iran, the state of U.S.-Israeli relations, or the advisability of heeding the concerns of various Arab governments, one has to admit that Ms. Pletka’s argument that the way to reassure the Arab world is to support the Netanyahu/Lieberman government with unflinching enthusiasm defies logic and common sense.
But the Journal apparently cares little for logic and thoughtful argumentation; the only thing that matters to the Journal is that one’s heart is in what it deems the place. Just look at the Journal’s inexplicable ardor for Sarah Palin.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Saturday, March 27, 2010
“IT’S THE GOOD LIFE…FULL OF FUN, SEEMS TO BE THE IDEAL…”
3/28/10
Friday I discussed the Bush/Obama administration’s plan that would force banks, and you, through the Home Affordable Modification Plan (“HAMP”) and/or the FHA, to subsidize the lifestyles of those who bought far too much house for their incomes. On Friday, Mr. Obama announced that this program, designed to redistribute income not from the rich to the poor, but, rather from the responsible to the irresponsible, will be sweetened. In this latest addition to the plan, those who lose their jobs and find themselves on unemployment compensation would have their mortgage payments reduced to no more than 31% of their incomes for three to six months. After that, those who apparently had no idea that borrowing money involves an obligation to pay it back would qualify for a permanent reduction in their mortgage payments.
Leave aside for a moment the ramifications of such tinkering with the structures of mortgages by those in Washington, who clearly have everything figured out. will have for the availability of home loans for those who can actually afford their houses. Just consider for a moment what such a proposal would do: It would create a massive entitlement that says that people are entitled to live at a level dictated by the highest income they have ever achieved. The government will make sure that the lifestyle achievable at the highest level of one’s income, at least as far as housing goes, will be locked in…for life. Never will economic misfortune…unemployment, a reduction in business, a reduction in hours, even a decision to pursue a less lucrative career (as long as the last is punctuated by a brief period of unemployment) will ever have any real consequences for one’s lifestyle. And, you, dear taxpayer, will guarantee it.
O tempora, o mores!
Friday I discussed the Bush/Obama administration’s plan that would force banks, and you, through the Home Affordable Modification Plan (“HAMP”) and/or the FHA, to subsidize the lifestyles of those who bought far too much house for their incomes. On Friday, Mr. Obama announced that this program, designed to redistribute income not from the rich to the poor, but, rather from the responsible to the irresponsible, will be sweetened. In this latest addition to the plan, those who lose their jobs and find themselves on unemployment compensation would have their mortgage payments reduced to no more than 31% of their incomes for three to six months. After that, those who apparently had no idea that borrowing money involves an obligation to pay it back would qualify for a permanent reduction in their mortgage payments.
Leave aside for a moment the ramifications of such tinkering with the structures of mortgages by those in Washington, who clearly have everything figured out. will have for the availability of home loans for those who can actually afford their houses. Just consider for a moment what such a proposal would do: It would create a massive entitlement that says that people are entitled to live at a level dictated by the highest income they have ever achieved. The government will make sure that the lifestyle achievable at the highest level of one’s income, at least as far as housing goes, will be locked in…for life. Never will economic misfortune…unemployment, a reduction in business, a reduction in hours, even a decision to pursue a less lucrative career (as long as the last is punctuated by a brief period of unemployment) will ever have any real consequences for one’s lifestyle. And, you, dear taxpayer, will guarantee it.
O tempora, o mores!
Friday, March 26, 2010
IT’S ENOUGH TO MAKE A GUY WANT TO CHANGE HIS NAME
3/26/10
The Chicago Tribune reported this (i.e., Friday, 3/26) morning that Governor Pat Quinn (no relation) has decided that he would like Sheila Simon as his running mate. Ms. Simon is a law professor at Southern Illinois University. She has no experience in elected office (probably a plus, when one thinks about it), other than holding a city council seat in Carbondale, having lost a race for mayor of that town in 2007. Her only “qualifications” for public office (Yes, I know that being lieutenant governor requires no qualifications; look at the last occupant of that office. But the LG could wind up as governor quickly; again, look at the last occupant of the LG’s office.) are the following:
--She’s from downstate and will run on a ticket that features zero (0) downstaters.
--She is fully onboard with the Governor’s plan to raise the income tax, unlike the apparent runner up, State Senator Susan Garrett of Lake Forest, who actually had the temerity to suggest that further cuts in the state budget ought to be considered before the taxes of our state’s already heavy burdened taxpayers be raised.
--She shares the Governor’s “the only thing that is important is politics” attitude, as reflected in the following quote:
“The number 1 goal is to get the governor elected and get the Democratic ticket elected. I think I’m pretty well suited to help out in that department.”
And, most important…
--She is the daughter of former Senator, presidential candidate, and Lieutenant Governor Paul Simon, a liberal icon in this state and a guy who even someone as hard-nosed and distrustful of government as I liked, despite his “In Government We Trust” approach to politics and government.
The Tribune also reported today that the Illinois Tollway Authority Board, at the prodding of Governor Quinn (no relation) , has named Kristi LaFleur, a trusted Quinn (no relation) aide who holds a doubtless vital, necessary office called “deputy chief of staff for economic development,” to the $180,000 per year post of Chairman of the Illinois Tollway Authority. Ms. LaFleur is 35 years old and has no experience running a transportation agency. She did, however, serve as something called “chief of staff for the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity” (doubtless another vital function of government that we must, according to Governor Quinn (no relation) , pay higher taxes to maintain) under former Governor Rod Blagojevich. Her chief qualifications, according to both her and her boss, Pat Quinn (no relation), is her commitment to the latest all purpose cutesy-pie political catch-word, “transparency” and her ability to get the Governor’s ear.
Isn’t it great to know that our “reform” governor has abandoned such nefarious practices as nepotism and cronyism, practices he made his bones denouncing? One quickly gets the impression that Pat Quinn (no relation) is just another political hack of the type that so thrives in the soil of the Land of Lincoln, but a very clever hack, a hack who got where he was convincing (some of) us he was the very antithesis of what he is. And we, the voters in this state, fell for it…again. As one of my heroes, H.L. Mencken, once said, “The American people get the government they deserve—and they get it good.”
As I’ve said before, put a bowler on his head and a cigar in his mouth, and Pat Quinn (no relation) becomes Paddy “Chicago ain’t ready for reform yet” Bauler, only without Mr. Bauler’s personality, skill, and familiarity with the way the world works…but with much more duplicity.
The Chicago Tribune reported this (i.e., Friday, 3/26) morning that Governor Pat Quinn (no relation) has decided that he would like Sheila Simon as his running mate. Ms. Simon is a law professor at Southern Illinois University. She has no experience in elected office (probably a plus, when one thinks about it), other than holding a city council seat in Carbondale, having lost a race for mayor of that town in 2007. Her only “qualifications” for public office (Yes, I know that being lieutenant governor requires no qualifications; look at the last occupant of that office. But the LG could wind up as governor quickly; again, look at the last occupant of the LG’s office.) are the following:
--She’s from downstate and will run on a ticket that features zero (0) downstaters.
--She is fully onboard with the Governor’s plan to raise the income tax, unlike the apparent runner up, State Senator Susan Garrett of Lake Forest, who actually had the temerity to suggest that further cuts in the state budget ought to be considered before the taxes of our state’s already heavy burdened taxpayers be raised.
--She shares the Governor’s “the only thing that is important is politics” attitude, as reflected in the following quote:
“The number 1 goal is to get the governor elected and get the Democratic ticket elected. I think I’m pretty well suited to help out in that department.”
And, most important…
--She is the daughter of former Senator, presidential candidate, and Lieutenant Governor Paul Simon, a liberal icon in this state and a guy who even someone as hard-nosed and distrustful of government as I liked, despite his “In Government We Trust” approach to politics and government.
The Tribune also reported today that the Illinois Tollway Authority Board, at the prodding of Governor Quinn (no relation) , has named Kristi LaFleur, a trusted Quinn (no relation) aide who holds a doubtless vital, necessary office called “deputy chief of staff for economic development,” to the $180,000 per year post of Chairman of the Illinois Tollway Authority. Ms. LaFleur is 35 years old and has no experience running a transportation agency. She did, however, serve as something called “chief of staff for the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity” (doubtless another vital function of government that we must, according to Governor Quinn (no relation) , pay higher taxes to maintain) under former Governor Rod Blagojevich. Her chief qualifications, according to both her and her boss, Pat Quinn (no relation), is her commitment to the latest all purpose cutesy-pie political catch-word, “transparency” and her ability to get the Governor’s ear.
Isn’t it great to know that our “reform” governor has abandoned such nefarious practices as nepotism and cronyism, practices he made his bones denouncing? One quickly gets the impression that Pat Quinn (no relation) is just another political hack of the type that so thrives in the soil of the Land of Lincoln, but a very clever hack, a hack who got where he was convincing (some of) us he was the very antithesis of what he is. And we, the voters in this state, fell for it…again. As one of my heroes, H.L. Mencken, once said, “The American people get the government they deserve—and they get it good.”
As I’ve said before, put a bowler on his head and a cigar in his mouth, and Pat Quinn (no relation) becomes Paddy “Chicago ain’t ready for reform yet” Bauler, only without Mr. Bauler’s personality, skill, and familiarity with the way the world works…but with much more duplicity.
“SEND A FEW LOBSTERS AND A BOTTLE OF CHAMPAGNE TO THOSE LADIES IN THAT BOOTH OVER THERE, AND GIVE MY YOUNG FRIEND AT THE END OF THE TABLE THE CHECK”
3/26/10
According to this morning’s (i.e., Friday’s 3/26/10’s) Wall Street Journal (page A4), the White House is set to announce “an expansion of its foreclosure prevention efforts to include reducing mortgage loan balances for some borrowers, a controversial (You’re kidding!) step that policy makes have long resisted…”
In this latest manifestation of ever benevolent government intervention, banks will be paid your money to reduce the principal amount on loans they made to deadbeats. Further, once those deadbeats have had their principal reduced, their loans will be backed by the FHA, thus putting you on the hook in order to keep these people in homes you wouldn’t dream of buying yourself. “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you” indeed.
Anticipating the protests of those who don’t meekly swallow whatever codswallop the pandering politicians try to force, or sneak, down their throats, the administration argues that these programs are not designed to have you, dear taxpayer, who have acted responsibly in your spending and your home purchasing, bail out those who insisted on buying more house than they could possibly afford in order to look down their noses at you. No, this program will “better assist responsible homeowners who have been affected by the economic crisis through no fault of their own.”
One can hear these “responsible” homeowners who are in trouble through “no fault of their own” right now:
What? You mean when I borrow money I have to pay it back? How can you possibly expect people to understand such complicated financial transactions?
Certainly people will say that I am being too hard on those who have found themselves unemployed or similarly affected by the economic downturn. No I’m not. People lose jobs. People get their hours cut back. Business evaporates, especially when one is in a field that relies on the uninterrupted continuation of financial lunacy. These are not unheard of economic phenomenon. We are supposed to plan for these eventualities by engaging in arcane, almost forgotten, practices called “saving money” and “building a nest egg.” And, no, establishing an equity line of credit and getting banks to expand one’s credit card limits does not constitute “building a nest egg.” Bad things, like losing houses, do happen when the economy encounters its periodic, and ultimately healthy, bumps in the road, but such bad things are far more likely to happen to one when one is living on the very edge.
Some will argue that it is often in the lenders’ interests to reduce principal balances, and certainly that is true. But the banks (Well, maybe I’m going out on a limb here…let’s say “many bankers” or “some bankers”) are capable of making that assessment themselves without the government helping them. But the banks are even more willing to accept (demand, really) government handouts for doing things that they would have to do in any case, and such handouts serve to cushion the blow for these financial institutions and investors who, to use a highly technical financial term, screwed up.
Others will argue that we have to bail out those who bought more house than we could afford by contending that, if we don’t, the real estate market will take an enormous hit and we will all suffer, the old (and trite) “put out the fire in your neighbor’s house to prevent yours from burning down” “argument.” But that’s how a free economy, a concept that grows increasingly foreign to our masters in Washington, works; excesses must get worked out of the system and often the process is painful, even to the innocent. But to try to avert pain to the innocent by demanding that they, or other innocents, suffer certain pain by having to reach into their own pockets not only presupposes that politicians are better at working out economic problems than is the free market but also exacerbates the pain down the road. It’s the financial equivalent of applying a band-aid to a cut that one has not cleaned and disinfected.
If one wants to buy more house than one can afford on the supposition that the economic road will always be sunny and bright, that is his or her prerogative; this is a free country. But when such dreams rationalized as plans fail to come true, one must be willing to suffer the consequences for one’s fiscal friviolity. If banks make bad loans, that, too, is their prerogative; this, again, is a free country and remains a reasonably free economy. But when their “put it all on red 7” approach to lending rationalized as the product of a sophisticated financial model fails to pay off, they, too, much suffer the consequences.
Forcing taxpayers to pay for the exoneration of those who, in most cases, committed monumental acts of financial idiocy will only lead to more monumental acts of financial idiocy…and some very angry taxpayers.
According to this morning’s (i.e., Friday’s 3/26/10’s) Wall Street Journal (page A4), the White House is set to announce “an expansion of its foreclosure prevention efforts to include reducing mortgage loan balances for some borrowers, a controversial (You’re kidding!) step that policy makes have long resisted…”
In this latest manifestation of ever benevolent government intervention, banks will be paid your money to reduce the principal amount on loans they made to deadbeats. Further, once those deadbeats have had their principal reduced, their loans will be backed by the FHA, thus putting you on the hook in order to keep these people in homes you wouldn’t dream of buying yourself. “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you” indeed.
Anticipating the protests of those who don’t meekly swallow whatever codswallop the pandering politicians try to force, or sneak, down their throats, the administration argues that these programs are not designed to have you, dear taxpayer, who have acted responsibly in your spending and your home purchasing, bail out those who insisted on buying more house than they could possibly afford in order to look down their noses at you. No, this program will “better assist responsible homeowners who have been affected by the economic crisis through no fault of their own.”
One can hear these “responsible” homeowners who are in trouble through “no fault of their own” right now:
What? You mean when I borrow money I have to pay it back? How can you possibly expect people to understand such complicated financial transactions?
Certainly people will say that I am being too hard on those who have found themselves unemployed or similarly affected by the economic downturn. No I’m not. People lose jobs. People get their hours cut back. Business evaporates, especially when one is in a field that relies on the uninterrupted continuation of financial lunacy. These are not unheard of economic phenomenon. We are supposed to plan for these eventualities by engaging in arcane, almost forgotten, practices called “saving money” and “building a nest egg.” And, no, establishing an equity line of credit and getting banks to expand one’s credit card limits does not constitute “building a nest egg.” Bad things, like losing houses, do happen when the economy encounters its periodic, and ultimately healthy, bumps in the road, but such bad things are far more likely to happen to one when one is living on the very edge.
Some will argue that it is often in the lenders’ interests to reduce principal balances, and certainly that is true. But the banks (Well, maybe I’m going out on a limb here…let’s say “many bankers” or “some bankers”) are capable of making that assessment themselves without the government helping them. But the banks are even more willing to accept (demand, really) government handouts for doing things that they would have to do in any case, and such handouts serve to cushion the blow for these financial institutions and investors who, to use a highly technical financial term, screwed up.
Others will argue that we have to bail out those who bought more house than we could afford by contending that, if we don’t, the real estate market will take an enormous hit and we will all suffer, the old (and trite) “put out the fire in your neighbor’s house to prevent yours from burning down” “argument.” But that’s how a free economy, a concept that grows increasingly foreign to our masters in Washington, works; excesses must get worked out of the system and often the process is painful, even to the innocent. But to try to avert pain to the innocent by demanding that they, or other innocents, suffer certain pain by having to reach into their own pockets not only presupposes that politicians are better at working out economic problems than is the free market but also exacerbates the pain down the road. It’s the financial equivalent of applying a band-aid to a cut that one has not cleaned and disinfected.
If one wants to buy more house than one can afford on the supposition that the economic road will always be sunny and bright, that is his or her prerogative; this is a free country. But when such dreams rationalized as plans fail to come true, one must be willing to suffer the consequences for one’s fiscal friviolity. If banks make bad loans, that, too, is their prerogative; this, again, is a free country and remains a reasonably free economy. But when their “put it all on red 7” approach to lending rationalized as the product of a sophisticated financial model fails to pay off, they, too, much suffer the consequences.
Forcing taxpayers to pay for the exoneration of those who, in most cases, committed monumental acts of financial idiocy will only lead to more monumental acts of financial idiocy…and some very angry taxpayers.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
CHAIRMAN’S PROGRESS
3/25/10
See my 3/16/10 post for an almost complete list of places at which my book, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics, is in stock and/or readily available. I say “almost complete” because I discovered, in the midst of completing some other task, that The Chairman can be ordered at the Barnes & Noble’s website (barnesandnoble.com) for immediate shipping. So, in addition to its being available at such independents as Anderson’s and Bookie’s, at Amazon.com, and at The Irish Book Club, the book can be ordered from Barnes & Noble’s website if you are so inclined. Again, as I said in the 3/16 post, while the book is immediately available at the outlets listed in that post, I suspect just about any book store will order the book for you.
More book news….
I have completed the first draft and the first editing of the as yet unnamed sequel to The Chairman. While I prefer The Chairman, and it will always hold a special place in my heart, I think the general public will find the sequel a slightly better book. It moves a little more quickly (though The Chairman moves very well, especially by the time one hits the middle chapters) and doesn’t contain as much background material as The Chairman. I, for one, really enjoyed the wealth of background in The Chairman, as did many of my readers, especially those interested and/or involved in politics. But the general reader, especially the reader who is more interested in compelling characters than political background, will probably find the sequel slightly more to his or her liking. However, there is (more than) plenty of political background, and more recent political history, in the sequel to keep the political junky glued to the book. I suppose what I’m saying is that both The Chairman and its sequel are terrific books, but the general reader may find the new book even more compelling than the original while those who liked The Chairman will enjoy the new book at least as much.
The new book should be out some time this summer; I have to do more editing and consult with some of my friends in the book business regarding the most effective and profitable way to publish this new book.
Thanks.
See my 3/16/10 post for an almost complete list of places at which my book, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics, is in stock and/or readily available. I say “almost complete” because I discovered, in the midst of completing some other task, that The Chairman can be ordered at the Barnes & Noble’s website (barnesandnoble.com) for immediate shipping. So, in addition to its being available at such independents as Anderson’s and Bookie’s, at Amazon.com, and at The Irish Book Club, the book can be ordered from Barnes & Noble’s website if you are so inclined. Again, as I said in the 3/16 post, while the book is immediately available at the outlets listed in that post, I suspect just about any book store will order the book for you.
More book news….
I have completed the first draft and the first editing of the as yet unnamed sequel to The Chairman. While I prefer The Chairman, and it will always hold a special place in my heart, I think the general public will find the sequel a slightly better book. It moves a little more quickly (though The Chairman moves very well, especially by the time one hits the middle chapters) and doesn’t contain as much background material as The Chairman. I, for one, really enjoyed the wealth of background in The Chairman, as did many of my readers, especially those interested and/or involved in politics. But the general reader, especially the reader who is more interested in compelling characters than political background, will probably find the sequel slightly more to his or her liking. However, there is (more than) plenty of political background, and more recent political history, in the sequel to keep the political junky glued to the book. I suppose what I’m saying is that both The Chairman and its sequel are terrific books, but the general reader may find the new book even more compelling than the original while those who liked The Chairman will enjoy the new book at least as much.
The new book should be out some time this summer; I have to do more editing and consult with some of my friends in the book business regarding the most effective and profitable way to publish this new book.
Thanks.
WE ARE STILL LOYAL TO YOU, ILLINOIS
3/25/10
I rarely (never, really) write about sports on this blog, largely because I know very little about sports unless the event/team/game concerned took place at least forty years ago. This, of course, makes me quite unique in the world of punditry; utter ignorance of the subject one is addressing generally presents no barrier to a pundit’s expostulating on that topic at great, and usually annoying and/or amusing, length.
However, the appearance of one of my almae matres, the Fighting Illini of the Big U, in the NIT has prompted me to write a piece I have been contemplating since their first round game in which they narrowly defeated the Seawolves of now Stony Brook University, formerly SUNY-Stony Brook, my wife’s alma mater. (Incidentally, we both enjoyed that game very much; what are the chances of these two schools ever playing again? They never played before. And I suspect that we might be the only couple in the entire world composed of a U of I graduate and a Stony Brook graduate, but, if I am wrong, I would love to hear from others similarly configured.) Further, this post is not about sports per se, but rather on displaying a degree of class and courtesy, or at least shame.
Ever since the Illini wound up in the NIT, every time I’ve heard Bruce Weber, or virtually any other representative of the Illinois hoopsters, speaking, he was whining about the Illini not being asked to the NCAA but having to settle for the NIT or, when he wasn’t personally complaining about his plight, responding to alums, students, and other fans similarly sullen and down in the mouth regarding the Illini’s failure to secure an invitation to the Big Dance. Such ceaseless airing of this grievance is disappointing for two reasons.
First, complaining about being invited to the NIT rather than to the NCAA is rude. Yes, I understand that everyone understands that the NIT is very much the consolation prize for those who couldn’t make it to the NCAA and has been for at least forty years. No one at the NIT, or anywhere, has any illusions that the NIT is anything but that. But enough of this Yeah, we couldn’t get to the NCAA so we had to settle for this inferior tournament talk. It is, despite the very much acknowledged relative desirability of the two tournaments, very much akin to saying something like I couldn’t get invited to the nice party, the one I really wanted to go to, so I guess I’ll have to settle for your crappy party. And buy some better chips next time, will ya? A host, confronted with such an ornery guest, would be tempted to ask him to leave if the party that host so carefully prepared and to which he so graciously asked the guest, was not up to that guest’s standards. Where are people’s manners?
Second, after the spanking (Spanking? The wholesale, unabashed, embarrassing trip to the woodshed) the Dayton Fliers delivered to the Illini last night, the boys from my school showed that they didn’t belong in the NIT, let alone the NCAA. After an utter embarrassment like last night’s, I hope Weber and his minions will finally have the shame to stop this Oh, woeful day, we had to settle for this miserable tournament” talk.
And another thing…I hope, but certainly don’t expect, that, next year, the NIT sends out a blanket announcement to every college and university with a basketball program, and one specifically addressed to Champaign-Urbana, stating that if you really don’t want to come to our tournament, we will spare you the ignominy and not invite you in the first place. Just let us know now if coming to our party will be some sort of unbearable disgrace and we will spare you the embarrassment.
I rarely (never, really) write about sports on this blog, largely because I know very little about sports unless the event/team/game concerned took place at least forty years ago. This, of course, makes me quite unique in the world of punditry; utter ignorance of the subject one is addressing generally presents no barrier to a pundit’s expostulating on that topic at great, and usually annoying and/or amusing, length.
However, the appearance of one of my almae matres, the Fighting Illini of the Big U, in the NIT has prompted me to write a piece I have been contemplating since their first round game in which they narrowly defeated the Seawolves of now Stony Brook University, formerly SUNY-Stony Brook, my wife’s alma mater. (Incidentally, we both enjoyed that game very much; what are the chances of these two schools ever playing again? They never played before. And I suspect that we might be the only couple in the entire world composed of a U of I graduate and a Stony Brook graduate, but, if I am wrong, I would love to hear from others similarly configured.) Further, this post is not about sports per se, but rather on displaying a degree of class and courtesy, or at least shame.
Ever since the Illini wound up in the NIT, every time I’ve heard Bruce Weber, or virtually any other representative of the Illinois hoopsters, speaking, he was whining about the Illini not being asked to the NCAA but having to settle for the NIT or, when he wasn’t personally complaining about his plight, responding to alums, students, and other fans similarly sullen and down in the mouth regarding the Illini’s failure to secure an invitation to the Big Dance. Such ceaseless airing of this grievance is disappointing for two reasons.
First, complaining about being invited to the NIT rather than to the NCAA is rude. Yes, I understand that everyone understands that the NIT is very much the consolation prize for those who couldn’t make it to the NCAA and has been for at least forty years. No one at the NIT, or anywhere, has any illusions that the NIT is anything but that. But enough of this Yeah, we couldn’t get to the NCAA so we had to settle for this inferior tournament talk. It is, despite the very much acknowledged relative desirability of the two tournaments, very much akin to saying something like I couldn’t get invited to the nice party, the one I really wanted to go to, so I guess I’ll have to settle for your crappy party. And buy some better chips next time, will ya? A host, confronted with such an ornery guest, would be tempted to ask him to leave if the party that host so carefully prepared and to which he so graciously asked the guest, was not up to that guest’s standards. Where are people’s manners?
Second, after the spanking (Spanking? The wholesale, unabashed, embarrassing trip to the woodshed) the Dayton Fliers delivered to the Illini last night, the boys from my school showed that they didn’t belong in the NIT, let alone the NCAA. After an utter embarrassment like last night’s, I hope Weber and his minions will finally have the shame to stop this Oh, woeful day, we had to settle for this miserable tournament” talk.
And another thing…I hope, but certainly don’t expect, that, next year, the NIT sends out a blanket announcement to every college and university with a basketball program, and one specifically addressed to Champaign-Urbana, stating that if you really don’t want to come to our tournament, we will spare you the ignominy and not invite you in the first place. Just let us know now if coming to our party will be some sort of unbearable disgrace and we will spare you the embarrassment.
THE BANKS MADE ME DO IT!
3/25/10
In today’s (i.e., Thursday, 3/25/10’s) Wall Street Journal, on page A5, we learn that Depfa Bank, PLC, which is based in Dublin (Ireland, not Ohio) and is a unit of Hypo Real Estate Holding, AG, which is based in Germany, has seized $5.5 million left in trust to backstop losses suffered by five Wisconsin school districts that invested $35 million in, as the paper calls them, “exotic securities.” The districts will probably lose the $35mm and could be on the hook for another $150mm. Ouch. The districts are suing Stifel Financial, which advised the districts, and Royal Bank of Canada, which sold the investments. Ah, the wonders of the globalization of the financial markets! But that is another issue.
It is difficult to determine from the article what it is these school district purchased. First, the securities are described as “subprime related securities,” which might lead one to believe that the districts bought a tranche of a collateralized mortgage obligation (“CMO”). Later, the article says the districts purchased “bundles of corporate debt RBC packaged into collateralized debt obligations,” which would lead one to believe that the districts bought an intermediate to lower tranche of a corporate CDO. Later, the article reports that “School officials believed they were investing directly in a portfolio of corporate bonds, rather than insuring against corporate defaults,” which would lead one to believe that the districts were selling credit default swaps (i.e., were short the protection). Finally, the article states that the “borrowers included Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other companies that were hit hard as the financial crisis worsened.” This might clear it up; the school districts may have purchased a tranche, and probably a lower tranche, of a CDO that was comprised largely of debt of mortgage originating or guaranteeing corporations like Fannie and Freddie. From this article, though, one can’t be sure exactly what the districts bought.
Though I can’t tell what the districts bought from this article, I would surely make it my business to understand what it was I was buying if I were the purchaser. This, of course, is a point of distinction between me and the school districts. As the Journal reports:
The Wisconsin school districts claim they bought investments they didn’t understand or were misled by banks and securities firms.
It is certainly not beyond the realm of possibilities that the districts were misled by the various financial “experts” with whom they were consorting. But when one buys securities one doesn’t understand, and relies on those selling those securities to explain them, how does one blame anybody but one’s self, and maintain a straight face, when thing don’t work out as one’s salesperson (Oh, I’m sorry…financial advisor) predicted? As I have said before in a similar context, this is very much akin to blaming the train for the consequences when one lies down on the tracks.
In today’s (i.e., Thursday, 3/25/10’s) Wall Street Journal, on page A5, we learn that Depfa Bank, PLC, which is based in Dublin (Ireland, not Ohio) and is a unit of Hypo Real Estate Holding, AG, which is based in Germany, has seized $5.5 million left in trust to backstop losses suffered by five Wisconsin school districts that invested $35 million in, as the paper calls them, “exotic securities.” The districts will probably lose the $35mm and could be on the hook for another $150mm. Ouch. The districts are suing Stifel Financial, which advised the districts, and Royal Bank of Canada, which sold the investments. Ah, the wonders of the globalization of the financial markets! But that is another issue.
It is difficult to determine from the article what it is these school district purchased. First, the securities are described as “subprime related securities,” which might lead one to believe that the districts bought a tranche of a collateralized mortgage obligation (“CMO”). Later, the article says the districts purchased “bundles of corporate debt RBC packaged into collateralized debt obligations,” which would lead one to believe that the districts bought an intermediate to lower tranche of a corporate CDO. Later, the article reports that “School officials believed they were investing directly in a portfolio of corporate bonds, rather than insuring against corporate defaults,” which would lead one to believe that the districts were selling credit default swaps (i.e., were short the protection). Finally, the article states that the “borrowers included Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other companies that were hit hard as the financial crisis worsened.” This might clear it up; the school districts may have purchased a tranche, and probably a lower tranche, of a CDO that was comprised largely of debt of mortgage originating or guaranteeing corporations like Fannie and Freddie. From this article, though, one can’t be sure exactly what the districts bought.
Though I can’t tell what the districts bought from this article, I would surely make it my business to understand what it was I was buying if I were the purchaser. This, of course, is a point of distinction between me and the school districts. As the Journal reports:
The Wisconsin school districts claim they bought investments they didn’t understand or were misled by banks and securities firms.
It is certainly not beyond the realm of possibilities that the districts were misled by the various financial “experts” with whom they were consorting. But when one buys securities one doesn’t understand, and relies on those selling those securities to explain them, how does one blame anybody but one’s self, and maintain a straight face, when thing don’t work out as one’s salesperson (Oh, I’m sorry…financial advisor) predicted? As I have said before in a similar context, this is very much akin to blaming the train for the consequences when one lies down on the tracks.
Friday, March 19, 2010
WE PROTECT YOUR HEALTH
3/19/10
Most of the conversation, or at least most of the political conversation, this weekend centers on health care. As I think about this issue, three points come to mind, which I advance not because I am in favor the current health insurance plan that looks like it is about to become law (I’m not.), but, rather, because I am in favor of rational, rather than knee-jerk, unexamined, argumentation. There are plenty of reasons to oppose the plan without resorting to the following chestnuts that are emanating from those opposed to the plan.
--I addressed this one back in my 8/13/09 post, but it’s worth revising now that such hysteria is being peddled not only by Sarah Palin but by plenty of otherwise thoughtful, intelligent people. We are told that, under the “Obama Plan,” “death panels” will decide who gets “health care” and who doesn’t. We are told that our parents and grandparents will be condemned to death by a pack of faceless, uncaring bureaucrats. But turn off the right ring ranters for a moment and think about this argument for awhile. Just about everyone in this country over the age of 65 gets his or her health insurance, to a greater or lesser (usually greater) extent from Medicare, a government program. If the objective were to kill off the old people in order to save money, the government could do that right now through Medicare. It’s not doing that. Further, “death panels,” if that is what one chooses to call them, already exist, only in private insurance companies rather than the federal government. People die all the time because insurance companies deny them treatment. Perhaps one is willing to argue that large private bureaucracies are more compassionate or more caring than large government bureaucracies. I would argue that’s a close call.
--We are told how awful European and Canadian health systems (or the health systems of any country on earth, other than ours) are awful, terrible, hellish mechanisms which serve only to ration coverage and deny people the “health care” they deserve. We are constantly treated to the horror stories of those who were denied care by the national health systems of our closest international brethren and/or were forced to come to the U.S. for care. We are also told that our health care system is far superior to those in Europe, that no one capable of going anywhere would choose to go to Europe for a procedure rather than to the U.S.
Doubtless there are those who were denied care in Canada, England, or France. Doubtless there are those who have to wait longer than they would in the U.S. for care. And there probably are those who die in other countries who might have been saved here. Leave aside the argument there are plenty of people denied care here, either because they had no insurance or their insurance company denied coverage. Just ask, rather, if these foreign systems are so horrendous, why they are so popular in their home countries. Back in the ‘80s and ‘90s, there was a small but determined movement afoot, mostly from the right and most saliently championed by Pat Buchanan, to have the western provinces of Canada secede and join the United States. It actually made some sense; these resource rich provinces felt they were shortchanged by the older, industrialized, and resource poor, but population rich, east of Canada. America, in the Reagan and immediate post-Reagan years, seemed to be in ascendancy. But the idea never got very far, mostly because people in the western provinces would have no part of any scheme that involved their exchanging the Canadian health system for the U.S. health system. In England, the national health service is, perhaps sadly, as big a part of the fabric of English society and identity as that great nation’s long history as a, and, in some periods, the, global beacon of liberty. If one were to hold a vote in any European country, or in Japan or Canada, in which the citizens were asked to choose either their existing system or the American system, our system would get about as many votes as Harold Stassen did in the ‘50s and ‘60s.
The question one has to ask is if the “European” systems are so awful, why are they so popular?
And one more thing to think about for those who say that our system is so obviously superior to those in Europe: One of the big international stories this week was Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s efforts to show his citizenry that he is healthy and in charge after his recent surgery in…Germany. Mubarak could afford to go anywhere, but he chose to go to, and pay for, that hellish, socialist German system for his potentially life threatening surgery. And he’s not the only one. While we get our fair share of Middle Eastern, and other foreign, potentates seeking medical attention, plenty go to France, Germany, or England for even the most elaborate operations and procedures. If those systems, as some would have you believe, stifle innovation by bureaucratic rationing of care and thus are no match for our system, why do people who could go anywhere choose to go there?
--People who, like I, are great believers in the free market say that if the market is given a chance to work in health care, it will work the same magic in health insurance as it does in most other areas of human endeavor. What these people, almost all of whom get their health insurance through work or the government, don’t understand is that there is no free market in health insurance, at least for those who buy their own insurance. Once you have a pre-existing condition (Under the current system, “pre-existing condition” means one has been to a doctor on more than one, or sometimes only one, occasion for a condition, even if that condition is deemed to have been addressed and/or eliminated. If you don’t believe me, try applying for individual insurance and see for yourself.), you no longer can “shop” for health insurance because the only insurer who will cover you is your current insurer, and only because, according to regulation, that insurer has to continue to offer insurance. So once you have visited the doctor for a certain condition, even a seemingly harmless condition, you are trapped in your current insurance company, and your insurance company knows it. Rates skyrocket and there is not a damn thing you can do about it but reduce your coverage to the point at which you are paying still outrageous premia to cover only the most catastrophic of illnesses and to purchase a few “discount coupons” for health expenditures. If I am wrong about this, please show me where I am wrong; it would save me a LOT of money.
Opponents of the Obama proposal say that they recognize the problem of preexisting conditions and that the problem can be addressed by a simple reform. But once you start requiring insurers to cover all comers, you either force them to charge premia that are unaffordable to all but a few or you heavily regulate premia, effectively telling insurance companies that they must charge the very sick non-economic rates. If the former, what would be accomplished? If the latter, the process would be effectively socialized anyway.
Again, these are not arguments in favor of ObamaCare but, rather, arguments in favor of reasoned discussion rather than mindless repeating of spoon fed, and consumed, drivel that withers upon the most cursory of examination.
Most of the conversation, or at least most of the political conversation, this weekend centers on health care. As I think about this issue, three points come to mind, which I advance not because I am in favor the current health insurance plan that looks like it is about to become law (I’m not.), but, rather, because I am in favor of rational, rather than knee-jerk, unexamined, argumentation. There are plenty of reasons to oppose the plan without resorting to the following chestnuts that are emanating from those opposed to the plan.
--I addressed this one back in my 8/13/09 post, but it’s worth revising now that such hysteria is being peddled not only by Sarah Palin but by plenty of otherwise thoughtful, intelligent people. We are told that, under the “Obama Plan,” “death panels” will decide who gets “health care” and who doesn’t. We are told that our parents and grandparents will be condemned to death by a pack of faceless, uncaring bureaucrats. But turn off the right ring ranters for a moment and think about this argument for awhile. Just about everyone in this country over the age of 65 gets his or her health insurance, to a greater or lesser (usually greater) extent from Medicare, a government program. If the objective were to kill off the old people in order to save money, the government could do that right now through Medicare. It’s not doing that. Further, “death panels,” if that is what one chooses to call them, already exist, only in private insurance companies rather than the federal government. People die all the time because insurance companies deny them treatment. Perhaps one is willing to argue that large private bureaucracies are more compassionate or more caring than large government bureaucracies. I would argue that’s a close call.
--We are told how awful European and Canadian health systems (or the health systems of any country on earth, other than ours) are awful, terrible, hellish mechanisms which serve only to ration coverage and deny people the “health care” they deserve. We are constantly treated to the horror stories of those who were denied care by the national health systems of our closest international brethren and/or were forced to come to the U.S. for care. We are also told that our health care system is far superior to those in Europe, that no one capable of going anywhere would choose to go to Europe for a procedure rather than to the U.S.
Doubtless there are those who were denied care in Canada, England, or France. Doubtless there are those who have to wait longer than they would in the U.S. for care. And there probably are those who die in other countries who might have been saved here. Leave aside the argument there are plenty of people denied care here, either because they had no insurance or their insurance company denied coverage. Just ask, rather, if these foreign systems are so horrendous, why they are so popular in their home countries. Back in the ‘80s and ‘90s, there was a small but determined movement afoot, mostly from the right and most saliently championed by Pat Buchanan, to have the western provinces of Canada secede and join the United States. It actually made some sense; these resource rich provinces felt they were shortchanged by the older, industrialized, and resource poor, but population rich, east of Canada. America, in the Reagan and immediate post-Reagan years, seemed to be in ascendancy. But the idea never got very far, mostly because people in the western provinces would have no part of any scheme that involved their exchanging the Canadian health system for the U.S. health system. In England, the national health service is, perhaps sadly, as big a part of the fabric of English society and identity as that great nation’s long history as a, and, in some periods, the, global beacon of liberty. If one were to hold a vote in any European country, or in Japan or Canada, in which the citizens were asked to choose either their existing system or the American system, our system would get about as many votes as Harold Stassen did in the ‘50s and ‘60s.
The question one has to ask is if the “European” systems are so awful, why are they so popular?
And one more thing to think about for those who say that our system is so obviously superior to those in Europe: One of the big international stories this week was Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s efforts to show his citizenry that he is healthy and in charge after his recent surgery in…Germany. Mubarak could afford to go anywhere, but he chose to go to, and pay for, that hellish, socialist German system for his potentially life threatening surgery. And he’s not the only one. While we get our fair share of Middle Eastern, and other foreign, potentates seeking medical attention, plenty go to France, Germany, or England for even the most elaborate operations and procedures. If those systems, as some would have you believe, stifle innovation by bureaucratic rationing of care and thus are no match for our system, why do people who could go anywhere choose to go there?
--People who, like I, are great believers in the free market say that if the market is given a chance to work in health care, it will work the same magic in health insurance as it does in most other areas of human endeavor. What these people, almost all of whom get their health insurance through work or the government, don’t understand is that there is no free market in health insurance, at least for those who buy their own insurance. Once you have a pre-existing condition (Under the current system, “pre-existing condition” means one has been to a doctor on more than one, or sometimes only one, occasion for a condition, even if that condition is deemed to have been addressed and/or eliminated. If you don’t believe me, try applying for individual insurance and see for yourself.), you no longer can “shop” for health insurance because the only insurer who will cover you is your current insurer, and only because, according to regulation, that insurer has to continue to offer insurance. So once you have visited the doctor for a certain condition, even a seemingly harmless condition, you are trapped in your current insurance company, and your insurance company knows it. Rates skyrocket and there is not a damn thing you can do about it but reduce your coverage to the point at which you are paying still outrageous premia to cover only the most catastrophic of illnesses and to purchase a few “discount coupons” for health expenditures. If I am wrong about this, please show me where I am wrong; it would save me a LOT of money.
Opponents of the Obama proposal say that they recognize the problem of preexisting conditions and that the problem can be addressed by a simple reform. But once you start requiring insurers to cover all comers, you either force them to charge premia that are unaffordable to all but a few or you heavily regulate premia, effectively telling insurance companies that they must charge the very sick non-economic rates. If the former, what would be accomplished? If the latter, the process would be effectively socialized anyway.
Again, these are not arguments in favor of ObamaCare but, rather, arguments in favor of reasoned discussion rather than mindless repeating of spoon fed, and consumed, drivel that withers upon the most cursory of examination.
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR…
3/19/10
My 3/17/10 comment on the politics of the health insurance bill seems to have generated a great deal of thoughtful give and take on the topic. Two of my more insightful and engaged readers and friends contacted me with observations and nuanced differences on the bill. One addressed, among other things, the timing of the bill’s provisions, specifically that the bill’s costs, in the form of taxes, will kick in before its ostensible benefits, generating a pool of money waiting to be spent, always a dangerous thing when dealing with most humans but especially with politicians. At any rate, the guys who wrote me on these matters are two of the smartest guys I know, and I have reproduced my replies below because they expand on the points I made on 3/17 (and happy and blessed St. Joseph’s Day to all of you!):
3/18/10
You're absolutely right; the "benefits" aren't mandated to start kicking in for 3 years, which is why I said "(I would say the “immediate” impact, but it’s going to take a few years before the features of the bill fully take effect.)" This could be the bill's undoing, but probably not; not many people will be paying taxes directly according to the bill; high benefit plans will be taxed, as will drug companies and health care products companies. The "benefits" in the form of access to health insurance will kick in before the pernicious effects of the new or increased taxes will be felt. The politicians are too clever to let the costs fully sink in before the "benefits" kick in. At any rate, the way the Republicans are vilifying this bill, as long as the world doesn't end upon the bill's passage, it might turn out to be a plus for the Dems. Not a prediction, just something to think about while all the commentators (or at least those of the stripe you and I and most conservatives would listen to) seem to be saying this is a sure political loser.
I hadn't thought about the "burning a hole in the pocket" angle...very insightful of you! Perhaps the pols will "lend" to the general fund the money accumulating before the program fully kicks in, as they do with the current Social Security surplus and then spend it as they please on "urgent" needs that somehow didn't exist until the pols realized there was a pile of unspent money lying around. The outcome, as you point out, won't be a good one. But the typical pol probably figures "What the hell; that's down the line. We'll cross that bridge, with other people's money, when we come to it."
3/19/10
Don't misunderstand me; I'm not for the health insurance bill, largely because it does nothing to sever the tie between employment and health insurance, which I think should be one of the primary goals of any true reform of the health insurance system. I've written a lot on this subject in the blog.
My point in the latest post was not to comment on the economic, ideological, or financial merits of the bill, but, rather, to comment on the politics of the bill. The GOPers who are so sure that this is a big political loser might find out differently when the bill is passed and implemented. People seem to talk a good game about how they despise big government and all that, but, when a program helps them, all of the sudden that becomes a “worthy” program and a “proper role for government.” This bill is going to help a lot of people directly, especially those who, like me (and you, I think), buy their own health insurance. And the costs, both direct and indirect, for the individual or for the economy, won’t be felt, for most people, until after even the already delayed benefits kick in. Thus, this might not be as big a loser for the Dems, politically, as some people seem to think. Heck, the way the GOP has vilified this bill, it will work out as a political plus for the Dems if the world doesn’t end Sunday after the vote.
My point on “GOP loyalists” was that they might argue, in response to my discourse on long run costs and short term benefits, that, even if I’m right, the Republicans are thinking of the long term while the Dems are just concerned about the short term. But that simply isn’t true; rare indeed is the pol, Republican or Democrat, who thinks beyond the next election. There is the tendency on the part of partisans to label Dems bad and GOP good, or vice-versa. As someone more familiar with my thinking than are most people, you know my attitude is Dems bad GOP bad. They are all barnacles on the ship of state.
My 3/17/10 comment on the politics of the health insurance bill seems to have generated a great deal of thoughtful give and take on the topic. Two of my more insightful and engaged readers and friends contacted me with observations and nuanced differences on the bill. One addressed, among other things, the timing of the bill’s provisions, specifically that the bill’s costs, in the form of taxes, will kick in before its ostensible benefits, generating a pool of money waiting to be spent, always a dangerous thing when dealing with most humans but especially with politicians. At any rate, the guys who wrote me on these matters are two of the smartest guys I know, and I have reproduced my replies below because they expand on the points I made on 3/17 (and happy and blessed St. Joseph’s Day to all of you!):
3/18/10
You're absolutely right; the "benefits" aren't mandated to start kicking in for 3 years, which is why I said "(I would say the “immediate” impact, but it’s going to take a few years before the features of the bill fully take effect.)" This could be the bill's undoing, but probably not; not many people will be paying taxes directly according to the bill; high benefit plans will be taxed, as will drug companies and health care products companies. The "benefits" in the form of access to health insurance will kick in before the pernicious effects of the new or increased taxes will be felt. The politicians are too clever to let the costs fully sink in before the "benefits" kick in. At any rate, the way the Republicans are vilifying this bill, as long as the world doesn't end upon the bill's passage, it might turn out to be a plus for the Dems. Not a prediction, just something to think about while all the commentators (or at least those of the stripe you and I and most conservatives would listen to) seem to be saying this is a sure political loser.
I hadn't thought about the "burning a hole in the pocket" angle...very insightful of you! Perhaps the pols will "lend" to the general fund the money accumulating before the program fully kicks in, as they do with the current Social Security surplus and then spend it as they please on "urgent" needs that somehow didn't exist until the pols realized there was a pile of unspent money lying around. The outcome, as you point out, won't be a good one. But the typical pol probably figures "What the hell; that's down the line. We'll cross that bridge, with other people's money, when we come to it."
3/19/10
Don't misunderstand me; I'm not for the health insurance bill, largely because it does nothing to sever the tie between employment and health insurance, which I think should be one of the primary goals of any true reform of the health insurance system. I've written a lot on this subject in the blog.
My point in the latest post was not to comment on the economic, ideological, or financial merits of the bill, but, rather, to comment on the politics of the bill. The GOPers who are so sure that this is a big political loser might find out differently when the bill is passed and implemented. People seem to talk a good game about how they despise big government and all that, but, when a program helps them, all of the sudden that becomes a “worthy” program and a “proper role for government.” This bill is going to help a lot of people directly, especially those who, like me (and you, I think), buy their own health insurance. And the costs, both direct and indirect, for the individual or for the economy, won’t be felt, for most people, until after even the already delayed benefits kick in. Thus, this might not be as big a loser for the Dems, politically, as some people seem to think. Heck, the way the GOP has vilified this bill, it will work out as a political plus for the Dems if the world doesn’t end Sunday after the vote.
My point on “GOP loyalists” was that they might argue, in response to my discourse on long run costs and short term benefits, that, even if I’m right, the Republicans are thinking of the long term while the Dems are just concerned about the short term. But that simply isn’t true; rare indeed is the pol, Republican or Democrat, who thinks beyond the next election. There is the tendency on the part of partisans to label Dems bad and GOP good, or vice-versa. As someone more familiar with my thinking than are most people, you know my attitude is Dems bad GOP bad. They are all barnacles on the ship of state.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
KEEP ST. PATRICK OUT OF ST. PATRICK’S DAY
3/17/10
I’ve addressed this topic extensively in my 1/29/10 and 3/27/09 pieces, widely regarded as among the best posts ever to appear on this blog, specifically addressing the (Thank God!) demise of the South Side Irish Debauch Rationalized as a Parade. But since it is St. Patrick’s Day, I thought it incumbent on a guy named Quinn to write a brief reflection on what some of my national origin refer to as the High Holy Day(s).
I hate St. Patrick’s Day. At least I hate the way it is currently celebrated in this country. The day seems designed to make the Irish look like a bunch of drunken buffoons, mostly because so many Irish-Americans seem determined to fulfill that stereotype. There is more to being Irish than getting drunk and making a fool of one’s self. There is more to Irish culture and heritage than throwing up green beer, or even throwing up Guiness and Jameson’s. Our ancestors didn’t come here and work like mules digging canals and working in meat packing plants so we could dishonor their memories by making them look like a bunch of besotted imbeciles.
Further, St. Patrick would be appalled by the way we celebrate his feast day. (So would Eamon DeValera, Michael Collins, St. Brendan, St. Bridget, James Joyce, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Gene Kelly, Georgia O’Keefe, Pat O’Brien, Jimmy Cagney, Michael Flatley, Herb Kelleher, Jack Ford, William Brennan, Patrick Fitzgerald, Fulton, Sheen, Eugene O’Neill, Tom Clancy, Jimmy Breslin, Tim Russert, Bill Buckley, John Barry, Cardinal O’Connor, Audie Murphy, George M. Cohan, Bing Crosby, Richard J. Daley, Jack Dempsey, Louis Sullivan, et. al.) While he was clearly a charismatic person (and not Irish, but that’s another issue), St. Patrick was not the type to prance around in a stupid green derby and an Erin Go Bragh tie while swilling beer and whiskey and effecting an increasingly strong fake accent as the aforementioned consumption increased. St. Patrick was a serious, contemplative, austere, some might say severe man who took himself, his mission, and his adopted countrymen seriously. We display none of those traits on his feast day.
Am I saying that St. Patrick’s Day should be spent in prayer and contemplation? While Mass should probably (and always used to) be part of the day’s celebrations, I am not saying that the whole day should be given over to reflection on the life of St. Patrick and the virtues and values he attempted to impart to his adopted homeland. Celebration, fun, music, dancing, and, yes, for those who can and enjoy doing so, a few drinks ought to be part of St. Patrick’s Day. But where did we ever get the idea that the day should consist of mocking and deriding the values that indeed were the man whose feast we are ostensibly celebrating?
I’ve never been to Ireland, but I understand that the day is celebrated quite differently there. While it is a fun day, it is not a day of debauchery. And that it’s SAINT Patrick’s Day is not forgotten. Or at least that’s the way it used to be over there. With the rise of the Celtic Tiger (in abeyance, apparently, hopefully temporarily), perhaps “globalization” has led to the importation of the American approach to this Irish feast day. I sure hope, and pray, not.
I’ve addressed this topic extensively in my 1/29/10 and 3/27/09 pieces, widely regarded as among the best posts ever to appear on this blog, specifically addressing the (Thank God!) demise of the South Side Irish Debauch Rationalized as a Parade. But since it is St. Patrick’s Day, I thought it incumbent on a guy named Quinn to write a brief reflection on what some of my national origin refer to as the High Holy Day(s).
I hate St. Patrick’s Day. At least I hate the way it is currently celebrated in this country. The day seems designed to make the Irish look like a bunch of drunken buffoons, mostly because so many Irish-Americans seem determined to fulfill that stereotype. There is more to being Irish than getting drunk and making a fool of one’s self. There is more to Irish culture and heritage than throwing up green beer, or even throwing up Guiness and Jameson’s. Our ancestors didn’t come here and work like mules digging canals and working in meat packing plants so we could dishonor their memories by making them look like a bunch of besotted imbeciles.
Further, St. Patrick would be appalled by the way we celebrate his feast day. (So would Eamon DeValera, Michael Collins, St. Brendan, St. Bridget, James Joyce, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Gene Kelly, Georgia O’Keefe, Pat O’Brien, Jimmy Cagney, Michael Flatley, Herb Kelleher, Jack Ford, William Brennan, Patrick Fitzgerald, Fulton, Sheen, Eugene O’Neill, Tom Clancy, Jimmy Breslin, Tim Russert, Bill Buckley, John Barry, Cardinal O’Connor, Audie Murphy, George M. Cohan, Bing Crosby, Richard J. Daley, Jack Dempsey, Louis Sullivan, et. al.) While he was clearly a charismatic person (and not Irish, but that’s another issue), St. Patrick was not the type to prance around in a stupid green derby and an Erin Go Bragh tie while swilling beer and whiskey and effecting an increasingly strong fake accent as the aforementioned consumption increased. St. Patrick was a serious, contemplative, austere, some might say severe man who took himself, his mission, and his adopted countrymen seriously. We display none of those traits on his feast day.
Am I saying that St. Patrick’s Day should be spent in prayer and contemplation? While Mass should probably (and always used to) be part of the day’s celebrations, I am not saying that the whole day should be given over to reflection on the life of St. Patrick and the virtues and values he attempted to impart to his adopted homeland. Celebration, fun, music, dancing, and, yes, for those who can and enjoy doing so, a few drinks ought to be part of St. Patrick’s Day. But where did we ever get the idea that the day should consist of mocking and deriding the values that indeed were the man whose feast we are ostensibly celebrating?
I’ve never been to Ireland, but I understand that the day is celebrated quite differently there. While it is a fun day, it is not a day of debauchery. And that it’s SAINT Patrick’s Day is not forgotten. Or at least that’s the way it used to be over there. With the rise of the Celtic Tiger (in abeyance, apparently, hopefully temporarily), perhaps “globalization” has led to the importation of the American approach to this Irish feast day. I sure hope, and pray, not.
EVEN THE KANAMITS WERE QUITE POPULAR…FOR AWHILE
3/17/10
As I think about the health insurance bill that looks like it is about to pass this week, by hook or by crook, I am starting to think that the Republicans might rue the day they so vociferously opposed this bill.
The first impact (I would say the “immediate” impact, but it’s going to take a few years before the features of the bill fully take effect.) will be that a lot of people who couldn’t get health insurance due to preexisting conditions will be able to get health insurance. A lot of people who couldn’t afford health insurance will be able to afford health insurance due to a combination of generous subsidies and enormous pressure, mostly political but, hopefully, also economic, on health insurance companies.
Sure, the aforementioned, and other, benefits of the bill will come about because of coercion. In all likelihood, the long run costs of the bill, and not only dollar costs, will be high and may include an impairment of the efficient delivery of health services and the further technological development of the industry. Moreover, in the all not that long run, the bill will put enormous pressure on a federal budget, and state budgets, already strained beyond the breaking point. But, in the short run, a lot of people will see a lot of benefits from the bill. And, since most people don’t have a grasp on the long run, they will wind up quite pleased with the bill. Then the Republicans will have to explain why they told everyone that the bill would be the ruination of our budget, our economy, and our society, a harbinger of the socialization, they continually tell us, rightly or wrongly, that President Obama has planned for the economy.
To a lot of people, this bill is going to look pretty good, for awhile. When the horror stories that the GOP has concocted don’t come true, Mr. Obama, and the Democrats, may end up looking better for 2010 and 2012 than many people expect, at least on a relative basis.
Doubtless some GOP loyalists will argue that the Republicans, by opposing a bill that might prove popular in the short run and fiscally ruinous in the long run, are showing their “fiscal responsibility” and their “concern for the future of our nation.” Those arguments, however, went out the window George W. Bush and the GOPers who played the lap dog to him, who showed that they cared not a whit for either fiscal responsibility or the future. Rare is the politician of either party who is able to see, or cares what happens, beyond the next election.
Additional note…
Does anyone get this latest of what my students call my OGCRs (“Old Geezer Cultural References”) in the title to this post?
As I think about the health insurance bill that looks like it is about to pass this week, by hook or by crook, I am starting to think that the Republicans might rue the day they so vociferously opposed this bill.
The first impact (I would say the “immediate” impact, but it’s going to take a few years before the features of the bill fully take effect.) will be that a lot of people who couldn’t get health insurance due to preexisting conditions will be able to get health insurance. A lot of people who couldn’t afford health insurance will be able to afford health insurance due to a combination of generous subsidies and enormous pressure, mostly political but, hopefully, also economic, on health insurance companies.
Sure, the aforementioned, and other, benefits of the bill will come about because of coercion. In all likelihood, the long run costs of the bill, and not only dollar costs, will be high and may include an impairment of the efficient delivery of health services and the further technological development of the industry. Moreover, in the all not that long run, the bill will put enormous pressure on a federal budget, and state budgets, already strained beyond the breaking point. But, in the short run, a lot of people will see a lot of benefits from the bill. And, since most people don’t have a grasp on the long run, they will wind up quite pleased with the bill. Then the Republicans will have to explain why they told everyone that the bill would be the ruination of our budget, our economy, and our society, a harbinger of the socialization, they continually tell us, rightly or wrongly, that President Obama has planned for the economy.
To a lot of people, this bill is going to look pretty good, for awhile. When the horror stories that the GOP has concocted don’t come true, Mr. Obama, and the Democrats, may end up looking better for 2010 and 2012 than many people expect, at least on a relative basis.
Doubtless some GOP loyalists will argue that the Republicans, by opposing a bill that might prove popular in the short run and fiscally ruinous in the long run, are showing their “fiscal responsibility” and their “concern for the future of our nation.” Those arguments, however, went out the window George W. Bush and the GOPers who played the lap dog to him, who showed that they cared not a whit for either fiscal responsibility or the future. Rare is the politician of either party who is able to see, or cares what happens, beyond the next election.
Additional note…
Does anyone get this latest of what my students call my OGCRs (“Old Geezer Cultural References”) in the title to this post?
WHERE’S ROBERT HALL WHEN YOU NEED HIM?
3/17/10
This morning’s (i.e., 3/17/10’s) Wall Street Journal informs us that Chinese provincial officials are attacking foreign luxury brands for poor quality. According to officials in the province of Zhejiang, 48 of 85 samples of imported clothing from 30 international “luxury” brands failed to meet Chinese product quality standards.
Apparently, this is yet another thing the Chinese know that we don’t. Luxury brands, in many, if not most cases, are no better, and often are worse, than “non-luxury” brands. This holds for cars, clothes, shoes, electronics, you name it. The Chinese have discovered, as most of us have not, that buying a “luxury” brand involved paying scads of spondulicks for a name. Luxury brands are purchased, for the most part, by people with very fragile egos in an attempt to oh so temporarily fortify their teetering self-esteem by sporting a “designer” label.
In this country, sporting a designer label is supposed to mean “I’m an upscale, successful person.” What it really means is “I’m a financial moron, willing to spend money I don’t have on inferior merchandise because I am desperate to convince other people, and myself, that I’m some sort of big shooter. I define myself by the labels I wear, drive, eat, watch, etc. Come to think of it, we can drop the adjective ‘financial’ from the first sentence of this self-description.” The Chinese are apparently discovering this after a very short experience with “luxury” labels. We still haven’t figured it out after several generations of throwing our money away on worthless gimcracks that serve only to make us even thirstier for the ever illusory peace of mind and self-fulfillment.
This morning’s (i.e., 3/17/10’s) Wall Street Journal informs us that Chinese provincial officials are attacking foreign luxury brands for poor quality. According to officials in the province of Zhejiang, 48 of 85 samples of imported clothing from 30 international “luxury” brands failed to meet Chinese product quality standards.
Apparently, this is yet another thing the Chinese know that we don’t. Luxury brands, in many, if not most cases, are no better, and often are worse, than “non-luxury” brands. This holds for cars, clothes, shoes, electronics, you name it. The Chinese have discovered, as most of us have not, that buying a “luxury” brand involved paying scads of spondulicks for a name. Luxury brands are purchased, for the most part, by people with very fragile egos in an attempt to oh so temporarily fortify their teetering self-esteem by sporting a “designer” label.
In this country, sporting a designer label is supposed to mean “I’m an upscale, successful person.” What it really means is “I’m a financial moron, willing to spend money I don’t have on inferior merchandise because I am desperate to convince other people, and myself, that I’m some sort of big shooter. I define myself by the labels I wear, drive, eat, watch, etc. Come to think of it, we can drop the adjective ‘financial’ from the first sentence of this self-description.” The Chinese are apparently discovering this after a very short experience with “luxury” labels. We still haven’t figured it out after several generations of throwing our money away on worthless gimcracks that serve only to make us even thirstier for the ever illusory peace of mind and self-fulfillment.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
CHAIRMAN’S PROGRESS
3/16/10
Distribution channels for my novel, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics, are expanding!
In addition to Amazon.com, my book is available at or through the below listed book stores. If you are not comfortable ordering on the web, or just want to support independent book stores (a very worthy effort, I might add), I’m sure that you could call any of the stores listed below and the staff there would be happy to ship you a copy. I also suspect that any book store, chain or independent, would order the book for you, but the below locales have the book in stock, ready for pickup or for shipping:
Anderson’s Book Shop, Naperville
http://andersonsbookshop.com/
(630) 355-2665
The Bookie’s, Chicago (West Beverly)
http://www.bookiespaperbacks.com/sales.php
(773) 239 1110
57th Street Books, Chicago (Hyde Park)
http://semcoop.booksense.com/
(773) 684-1300
The Book Stall at Chestnut Court, Winnetka
http://www.thebookstall.com/
(847) 446 8880
Columbia College Bookstore, Chicago
http://www.bkstr.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/StoreCatalogDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10369&demoKey=d&catalogId=10001
(312) 427-4860
Town House Books, St. Charles,
http://www.townhousebooks.com/stcharlesbookstore.html
(630) 584-8600
And another venue through which The Chairman can be purchased:
The Irish Book Club
http://www.theirishbookclub.com/
(708) 445-0700
Thanks; I hope you enjoy the book.
Distribution channels for my novel, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics, are expanding!
In addition to Amazon.com, my book is available at or through the below listed book stores. If you are not comfortable ordering on the web, or just want to support independent book stores (a very worthy effort, I might add), I’m sure that you could call any of the stores listed below and the staff there would be happy to ship you a copy. I also suspect that any book store, chain or independent, would order the book for you, but the below locales have the book in stock, ready for pickup or for shipping:
Anderson’s Book Shop, Naperville
http://andersonsbookshop.com/
(630) 355-2665
The Bookie’s, Chicago (West Beverly)
http://www.bookiespaperbacks.com/sales.php
(773) 239 1110
57th Street Books, Chicago (Hyde Park)
http://semcoop.booksense.com/
(773) 684-1300
The Book Stall at Chestnut Court, Winnetka
http://www.thebookstall.com/
(847) 446 8880
Columbia College Bookstore, Chicago
http://www.bkstr.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/StoreCatalogDisplay?langId=-1&storeId=10369&demoKey=d&catalogId=10001
(312) 427-4860
Town House Books, St. Charles,
http://www.townhousebooks.com/stcharlesbookstore.html
(630) 584-8600
And another venue through which The Chairman can be purchased:
The Irish Book Club
http://www.theirishbookclub.com/
(708) 445-0700
Thanks; I hope you enjoy the book.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
KIND OF MAKES ONE YEARN FOR WILBUR MILLS
3/10/10
Fully aware that I am about the millionth person to comment on this story, I feel compelled to do so simply because it is both so entertaining and so reflective of the general direction of our society.
Representative Eric Massa (D., NY) is resigning his House seat. Initially, Mr. Massa cited health concerns for his departure from Congress, saying he has been diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma. However, aides to various members of the Democratic leadership say that investigations have been made into claims that Mr. Massa sexually harassed a male aide, thus leading to speculation, or more, that Mr. Massa stepped aside to avoid an inquiry into his sexual predilections.
Mr. Massa defended himself against the charges of harassment by claiming:
“Now they’re saying I groped a male staffer—yeah, I did. Not only did I grope him, I tickled him ‘til he couldn’t breathe. Then four guys jumped on tom of me…It was ‘kill the old guy.’”
Note that this is Mr. Massa’s defense, as if such peculiar high jinks were somehow normal and acceptable. Note also that Mr. Massa is one of our political leaders, the man the good people of western New York have chosen to represent them in Congress.
One can easily draw from Mr. Massa’s bizarre behavior and even more bizarre defense my usual conclusion: Our country is doomed, either because this is the kind of person we consider fit for leadership or because we have concluded that Washington is indeed a circus always on the outlook for a new set of clowns to appeal to our more ribald enthusiasms.
Give me the otherwise miserable ‘70s when politicians’ transgressions involved cavorting in public fountains with Argentine strippers. Such activity has a decidedly less creepy feel to it.
Fully aware that I am about the millionth person to comment on this story, I feel compelled to do so simply because it is both so entertaining and so reflective of the general direction of our society.
Representative Eric Massa (D., NY) is resigning his House seat. Initially, Mr. Massa cited health concerns for his departure from Congress, saying he has been diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma. However, aides to various members of the Democratic leadership say that investigations have been made into claims that Mr. Massa sexually harassed a male aide, thus leading to speculation, or more, that Mr. Massa stepped aside to avoid an inquiry into his sexual predilections.
Mr. Massa defended himself against the charges of harassment by claiming:
“Now they’re saying I groped a male staffer—yeah, I did. Not only did I grope him, I tickled him ‘til he couldn’t breathe. Then four guys jumped on tom of me…It was ‘kill the old guy.’”
Note that this is Mr. Massa’s defense, as if such peculiar high jinks were somehow normal and acceptable. Note also that Mr. Massa is one of our political leaders, the man the good people of western New York have chosen to represent them in Congress.
One can easily draw from Mr. Massa’s bizarre behavior and even more bizarre defense my usual conclusion: Our country is doomed, either because this is the kind of person we consider fit for leadership or because we have concluded that Washington is indeed a circus always on the outlook for a new set of clowns to appeal to our more ribald enthusiasms.
Give me the otherwise miserable ‘70s when politicians’ transgressions involved cavorting in public fountains with Argentine strippers. Such activity has a decidedly less creepy feel to it.
Monday, March 8, 2010
THE HEALTH CARE ISSUE ENCAPSULATED
3/8/10
Once upon a time, people didn’t have health insurance, or at least health insurance policies were purchased by a relative handful of people. People went to the doctor and paid him (It was almost always “him” in those days.) out of their own pockets. It was expensive, to be sure, but not outrageous. Further, back in those days, people engaged in an activity that has somehow been lost in the shadows of time—saving. People thought it necessary to save for a rainy day, rather than to have someone else bear the financial consequences when things didn’t go as planned, and one of those rainy days was a visit to the doctor or even a visit to the hospital. So health costs were reasonable, certainly by today’s standards, and people prepared for those costs by saving, so going to the doctor, or even to the hospital, was not a financially debilitating event.
All this began to change with World War II. Companies, hungry for labor as they strove to meet the demands of a country at war with a large chunk of its work force deployed, couldn’t attract new workers with higher wages due to wage and price controls. Effective managers (another quaint old notion seemingly lost in the fog of time) decided that they could get around the strictures of wage and price controls by offering a largely unknown benefit known as “health insurance” to existing and potential workers. “Heath insurance” would cover hospital stays and, in some cases, doctor visits, giving workers a nice perk and one less thing to worry about…or save for.
Health insurance had the predictable effect: As the user of the service (the patient) was divorced from the payer for that service (the insurance company), incentives to save and to shop wisely for health care deteriorated; the market was thus not allowed to work its usual magic on health care. After the war ended and health insurance came to be an expected part of most pay packages, this effect was amplified to the point at which a market, in any real sense of the term, no longer existed. Prices predictably skyrocketed.
Things eventually “progressed” to the point at which only a few could actually afford health care in the sense that they could pay for their doctor visits, in office procedures, and hospital stays out of pocket. Most everyone who could afford it and had access to it bought health insurance. As group plans became richer, health “insurance” metamorphosized into prepaid health care. Once health insurance was designed to protect people from financial catastrophe; at some point it came to cover even the most minute health expenditure—routine checkups, even the cheapest prescriptions, massage therapy, eye exams, eyeglasses, etc. The impact on the prices of anything medically related was predictable, and those without insurance, or those with insurance in the former sense of insurance against financial catastrophe rather than a prepaid health plan, could no longer afford even what was once considered basic health care.
Now we’ve gone a step further. Because of the ubiquitousness of insurance, the cost of health care has reached breathtaking levels. And, as the night follows the day, the cost of the “insurance” used to pay for health care has done a similar moon shot. So while once we reached the point at which the average person could not afford to pay for health care out of his or her own pocket, making health insurance necessary, now we’ve gotten to the point, largely because of “insurance,” that the average person, or average business, can no longer afford health insurance, thus making nationalization of health care perhaps not necessary but almost surely inevitable.
One more thing…
Doubtless one of the reasons (but not the primary reason, which remains the separation of payer from patient and thus the negation of the marketplace) that the cost of health care has gone up is the advance of medical technology. We’ve gotten pretty close to the point at which we can heal a growing number of previously fatal diseases and keep people alive a lot longer than we could in the past. One can envision a future when prolongation of “life” will know no technological limit. But we are beyond the point at which society is willing, or can afford, to pay for all that medical technology can provide. If we are truly serious about limiting health care costs, one of the ways of doing so will have to be to limit the advance of health care technology. Nationalization of health care, and its attendant rationing, will be one way society says, without really saying it, that we don’t wish to, or choose not to, pay to endlessly prolong life and to heal every disease. Whether such an approach is ethical or desirable is another issue. The point is that we can’t afford to keep everyone alive forever or to stop everyone from dying, or that we have decided that there are more pressing economic needs than the prolongation of life. Nationalization of health care, made inevitable by the advance of “health insurance” and the preemption of the market for health care that is a natural consequence of such insurance, is one of society’s ways of saying, without really saying it, that we have made the decision that some things are more important than exploring the limits of medical science.
Once upon a time, people didn’t have health insurance, or at least health insurance policies were purchased by a relative handful of people. People went to the doctor and paid him (It was almost always “him” in those days.) out of their own pockets. It was expensive, to be sure, but not outrageous. Further, back in those days, people engaged in an activity that has somehow been lost in the shadows of time—saving. People thought it necessary to save for a rainy day, rather than to have someone else bear the financial consequences when things didn’t go as planned, and one of those rainy days was a visit to the doctor or even a visit to the hospital. So health costs were reasonable, certainly by today’s standards, and people prepared for those costs by saving, so going to the doctor, or even to the hospital, was not a financially debilitating event.
All this began to change with World War II. Companies, hungry for labor as they strove to meet the demands of a country at war with a large chunk of its work force deployed, couldn’t attract new workers with higher wages due to wage and price controls. Effective managers (another quaint old notion seemingly lost in the fog of time) decided that they could get around the strictures of wage and price controls by offering a largely unknown benefit known as “health insurance” to existing and potential workers. “Heath insurance” would cover hospital stays and, in some cases, doctor visits, giving workers a nice perk and one less thing to worry about…or save for.
Health insurance had the predictable effect: As the user of the service (the patient) was divorced from the payer for that service (the insurance company), incentives to save and to shop wisely for health care deteriorated; the market was thus not allowed to work its usual magic on health care. After the war ended and health insurance came to be an expected part of most pay packages, this effect was amplified to the point at which a market, in any real sense of the term, no longer existed. Prices predictably skyrocketed.
Things eventually “progressed” to the point at which only a few could actually afford health care in the sense that they could pay for their doctor visits, in office procedures, and hospital stays out of pocket. Most everyone who could afford it and had access to it bought health insurance. As group plans became richer, health “insurance” metamorphosized into prepaid health care. Once health insurance was designed to protect people from financial catastrophe; at some point it came to cover even the most minute health expenditure—routine checkups, even the cheapest prescriptions, massage therapy, eye exams, eyeglasses, etc. The impact on the prices of anything medically related was predictable, and those without insurance, or those with insurance in the former sense of insurance against financial catastrophe rather than a prepaid health plan, could no longer afford even what was once considered basic health care.
Now we’ve gone a step further. Because of the ubiquitousness of insurance, the cost of health care has reached breathtaking levels. And, as the night follows the day, the cost of the “insurance” used to pay for health care has done a similar moon shot. So while once we reached the point at which the average person could not afford to pay for health care out of his or her own pocket, making health insurance necessary, now we’ve gotten to the point, largely because of “insurance,” that the average person, or average business, can no longer afford health insurance, thus making nationalization of health care perhaps not necessary but almost surely inevitable.
One more thing…
Doubtless one of the reasons (but not the primary reason, which remains the separation of payer from patient and thus the negation of the marketplace) that the cost of health care has gone up is the advance of medical technology. We’ve gotten pretty close to the point at which we can heal a growing number of previously fatal diseases and keep people alive a lot longer than we could in the past. One can envision a future when prolongation of “life” will know no technological limit. But we are beyond the point at which society is willing, or can afford, to pay for all that medical technology can provide. If we are truly serious about limiting health care costs, one of the ways of doing so will have to be to limit the advance of health care technology. Nationalization of health care, and its attendant rationing, will be one way society says, without really saying it, that we don’t wish to, or choose not to, pay to endlessly prolong life and to heal every disease. Whether such an approach is ethical or desirable is another issue. The point is that we can’t afford to keep everyone alive forever or to stop everyone from dying, or that we have decided that there are more pressing economic needs than the prolongation of life. Nationalization of health care, made inevitable by the advance of “health insurance” and the preemption of the market for health care that is a natural consequence of such insurance, is one of society’s ways of saying, without really saying it, that we have made the decision that some things are more important than exploring the limits of medical science.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
“I’LL PUT YOU IN A CAR…”
3/6/10
GM announced yesterday that it would reverse itself and reinstate at least 660 of the 2,000 dealers it announced it would drop in the wake of GM’s brush with bankruptcy that you, kind taxpayer, averted.
Is reinstatement of these dealers a good idea? I don’t know, but I suspect it is. I thought long and hard about the dealer closing issue when it was announced and wavered on it, and continue to waver to some extent. However, I have come to the conclusion that, while closing down dealers was clearly very good for the surviving dealers, and, hence, by intellectual contortion, indirectly for GM, on balance it probably is only marginally more expensive for GM to keep more dealers open and thus it doesn’t make a lot of sense for the General to deny franchises to anyone who has proven an ability to sell its product and is operating sufficiently profitably, in the franchisee’s estimation, to stay in business. I do remain open to arguments in favor of cutting back on dealerships; however, that is beside the point. This post is not about the merits of shutting down dealerships, but, rather, about two troubling justifications for keeping dealers open.
First, Mark Reuss, the very capable head of North American operations for GM, according to the Wall Street Journal
“…acknowledged Friday in a conference call that GM’s sales have suffered in recent months as the auto maker stopped shipping vehicles to dealers slated to close.
‘We would have beaten Ford, if not for the move,’ Mr. Reuss said.”
The same article goes on to say that
“…Chief Executive Edward E. Whitacre, Jr. has made boosting sales in the U.S. a top priority.”
Wait a minute. Wasn’t the quest for market share, regardless of that quest’s effect on profitability, one of the “strategies” that led to GM’s downfall? Market share for the sake of market share can lead to big problems, and not just in profitability. Ask the people at Toyota about that one.
Second, and more troubling, is a statement in the same Journal article:
“Lawmakers had pressured GM on behalf of local businesses, forcing it first to offer arbitration to dismissed dealers. The auto maker agreed to reinstate dealers after acknowledging the process it used to weed out showrooms didn’t properly consider such factors as location and customer loyalty.” (or the clout of a particular dealer’s representative in Congress—MQ)
Hmm…
What about the pious protestations by our politicians that the General’s new owners (in the politicians’ minds, the politicians) wouldn’t interfere in GM’s operations? It looks like those promises went by the wayside in this instance. This, of course, fuels suspicion that perhaps the handling of the whole Toyota mess may have been influenced by politics. Let’s see what happens when and if Honda, Nissan, or maybe even Ford, finds itself in the middle of a major recall. Perhaps such suspicions regarding the motivations behind and the handling of recalls have some justification.
GM may very well have made the right decision in this instance, but for some very troubling reasons. Now that GM has come so far on the product front (though probably not as far as Bob Lutz seemed to indicate while announcing his latest Favre like retirement), it would be very troubling to see the company that holds such promise be sacrificed on the altar of market share or, far worse, the political whims of its new owners.
GM announced yesterday that it would reverse itself and reinstate at least 660 of the 2,000 dealers it announced it would drop in the wake of GM’s brush with bankruptcy that you, kind taxpayer, averted.
Is reinstatement of these dealers a good idea? I don’t know, but I suspect it is. I thought long and hard about the dealer closing issue when it was announced and wavered on it, and continue to waver to some extent. However, I have come to the conclusion that, while closing down dealers was clearly very good for the surviving dealers, and, hence, by intellectual contortion, indirectly for GM, on balance it probably is only marginally more expensive for GM to keep more dealers open and thus it doesn’t make a lot of sense for the General to deny franchises to anyone who has proven an ability to sell its product and is operating sufficiently profitably, in the franchisee’s estimation, to stay in business. I do remain open to arguments in favor of cutting back on dealerships; however, that is beside the point. This post is not about the merits of shutting down dealerships, but, rather, about two troubling justifications for keeping dealers open.
First, Mark Reuss, the very capable head of North American operations for GM, according to the Wall Street Journal
“…acknowledged Friday in a conference call that GM’s sales have suffered in recent months as the auto maker stopped shipping vehicles to dealers slated to close.
‘We would have beaten Ford, if not for the move,’ Mr. Reuss said.”
The same article goes on to say that
“…Chief Executive Edward E. Whitacre, Jr. has made boosting sales in the U.S. a top priority.”
Wait a minute. Wasn’t the quest for market share, regardless of that quest’s effect on profitability, one of the “strategies” that led to GM’s downfall? Market share for the sake of market share can lead to big problems, and not just in profitability. Ask the people at Toyota about that one.
Second, and more troubling, is a statement in the same Journal article:
“Lawmakers had pressured GM on behalf of local businesses, forcing it first to offer arbitration to dismissed dealers. The auto maker agreed to reinstate dealers after acknowledging the process it used to weed out showrooms didn’t properly consider such factors as location and customer loyalty.” (or the clout of a particular dealer’s representative in Congress—MQ)
Hmm…
What about the pious protestations by our politicians that the General’s new owners (in the politicians’ minds, the politicians) wouldn’t interfere in GM’s operations? It looks like those promises went by the wayside in this instance. This, of course, fuels suspicion that perhaps the handling of the whole Toyota mess may have been influenced by politics. Let’s see what happens when and if Honda, Nissan, or maybe even Ford, finds itself in the middle of a major recall. Perhaps such suspicions regarding the motivations behind and the handling of recalls have some justification.
GM may very well have made the right decision in this instance, but for some very troubling reasons. Now that GM has come so far on the product front (though probably not as far as Bob Lutz seemed to indicate while announcing his latest Favre like retirement), it would be very troubling to see the company that holds such promise be sacrificed on the altar of market share or, far worse, the political whims of its new owners.
Friday, March 5, 2010
ABE LINCOLN? ISN’T HE ONE OF THIS YEAR’S CONTESTANTS ON “DANCING WITH THE STARS”?
3/5/10
Today’s lead “Business & Finance” blurb in the Wall Street Journal’s front page “What’s News” column read like this:
“Consumers snapped up spring (sic) merchandise at close to full price in February, driving same store sales up 4.1%. Retailers, including Abercrombie and Nordstrom, saw big improvements, and the results, coupled with performance in recent months, suggest shoppers, if not spending as much, are dropping ultra-frugal habits.”
This was taken as unmitigated great news by the solons of Wall Street and the modern economics profession, along with their accomplices in the financial press.
Ironically, on this very day that profligacy was being celebrated by the nation’s leading financial newspaper, a friend from grade school sent me a quote from Abe Lincoln, part of which was:
“You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.”
If our sixteenth president were writing, oh, maybe 145 years later, he also might have said that the Republic is doomed.
Today’s lead “Business & Finance” blurb in the Wall Street Journal’s front page “What’s News” column read like this:
“Consumers snapped up spring (sic) merchandise at close to full price in February, driving same store sales up 4.1%. Retailers, including Abercrombie and Nordstrom, saw big improvements, and the results, coupled with performance in recent months, suggest shoppers, if not spending as much, are dropping ultra-frugal habits.”
This was taken as unmitigated great news by the solons of Wall Street and the modern economics profession, along with their accomplices in the financial press.
Ironically, on this very day that profligacy was being celebrated by the nation’s leading financial newspaper, a friend from grade school sent me a quote from Abe Lincoln, part of which was:
“You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.”
If our sixteenth president were writing, oh, maybe 145 years later, he also might have said that the Republic is doomed.
CUT HIS SPENDING
3/5/10
This morning’s Wall Street Journal tells the story of closer than perhaps would be expected Congressional race in the South Carolina district of John Spratt, a 14 term (Fourteen terms! There oughta be a law! But that’s another issue.) Democratic congressman who leads his Republican opponent, Mick Mulvaney, by “only” 13 percentage points.
It seems that the voters in this district are mad, hopping mad about runaway federal spending and want those Washington politicians to do something about it, hence Mr. Mulvaney’s appeal. John Spratt, according to many voters in the district, is just too liberal and, as Chairman of the House Budget Committee, is especially responsible for the runaway spending in Washington.
However…
One of Spratt’s strongest selling points in this “conservative” district is the truckloads (trainloads, really) of federal money he sends back home, especially to support Sumter Air Force Base, home of the Air Force’s largest F-16 wing. This is one of the issues, if not the issue, that will, in all likelihood, lead to Mr. Spratt’s reelection to a 15th (Fifteen terms—30 years! O tempora, o mores!) term.
There is nothing especially unique, or profound, about the Spratt-Mulvaney race; the irony is obvious. Everyone wants to cut spending in some generic sense, but no one wants to cut any spending that benefits him or her. No, spending on us, most voters “reason," is vital and essential. It is only the spending that benefits, at least on the surface, other that is wasteful.
As my father told me over forty years ago, it’s all a matter of whose ox is being gored. No one wants to give up what he considers his rightful share of “free” money. And that is why we will never get federal spending under control.
This morning’s Wall Street Journal tells the story of closer than perhaps would be expected Congressional race in the South Carolina district of John Spratt, a 14 term (Fourteen terms! There oughta be a law! But that’s another issue.) Democratic congressman who leads his Republican opponent, Mick Mulvaney, by “only” 13 percentage points.
It seems that the voters in this district are mad, hopping mad about runaway federal spending and want those Washington politicians to do something about it, hence Mr. Mulvaney’s appeal. John Spratt, according to many voters in the district, is just too liberal and, as Chairman of the House Budget Committee, is especially responsible for the runaway spending in Washington.
However…
One of Spratt’s strongest selling points in this “conservative” district is the truckloads (trainloads, really) of federal money he sends back home, especially to support Sumter Air Force Base, home of the Air Force’s largest F-16 wing. This is one of the issues, if not the issue, that will, in all likelihood, lead to Mr. Spratt’s reelection to a 15th (Fifteen terms—30 years! O tempora, o mores!) term.
There is nothing especially unique, or profound, about the Spratt-Mulvaney race; the irony is obvious. Everyone wants to cut spending in some generic sense, but no one wants to cut any spending that benefits him or her. No, spending on us, most voters “reason," is vital and essential. It is only the spending that benefits, at least on the surface, other that is wasteful.
As my father told me over forty years ago, it’s all a matter of whose ox is being gored. No one wants to give up what he considers his rightful share of “free” money. And that is why we will never get federal spending under control.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
“HEY ROCKY, IF MICK SAYS I GOTTA CLEAN OUT YOUR LOCKER, I GOTTA CLEAN OUT YOUR LOCKER, RIGHT?”
3/4/10
I sent the following letter to Tribune columnist John Kass in response to a column he wrote on Alexi Giannoulias, who seems to have become something of a focal point for this blog:
3/4/10
Hi John,
I like your theory on Giannoulias and Broadway Bank, i.e., “that he really didn’t call any shots at the bank because he was the kid.” If one reads the portions of Giannoulias’s Tribune editorial board meeting reproduced on today’s editorial page, one gets the notion that even Giannoulias’s language and seeming unfamiliarity with standard terminology reveals that he was, rather than the big time senior loan officer who led Broadway to its Potemkin success, the guy who got coffee for the old man, so to speak.
For example, he said in the interview that “…less than 9 percent of the loans that are currently underperforming were even given out while I was the bank…” Banks don’t “give out” loans; they “make” or “book” loans. Yes, it’s only terminology, but a big time senior lender would be highly unlikely to use such sloppy terminology. When asked about the “cease and desist” order from bank regulators, Giannoulias answered “that’s sort of standard protocol for banks that…have consent decrees.” Well, as the kids would say, “Duh.” Yes, “cease and desist” orders are the standard fare of consent decrees, but the point, as young Mr. Giannoulias apparently missed, was the very existence of the consent decree itself. He then went on to say that “These were not reckless or risky loans.” They weren’t? Then why is there a problem? Why is the bank worthless? His answer to the bank’s precarious financial position seems to be that everyone was doing it. It would seem that a person who makes poor decisions, fiscally imprudent decisions, and then excuses himself by pointing out that everyone else was doing it would feel very comfortable in the U.S. Senate. So, in that sense, Mr. Giannoulias may be ideally suited for the job he is seeking.
Thanks, John.
I sent the following letter to Tribune columnist John Kass in response to a column he wrote on Alexi Giannoulias, who seems to have become something of a focal point for this blog:
3/4/10
Hi John,
I like your theory on Giannoulias and Broadway Bank, i.e., “that he really didn’t call any shots at the bank because he was the kid.” If one reads the portions of Giannoulias’s Tribune editorial board meeting reproduced on today’s editorial page, one gets the notion that even Giannoulias’s language and seeming unfamiliarity with standard terminology reveals that he was, rather than the big time senior loan officer who led Broadway to its Potemkin success, the guy who got coffee for the old man, so to speak.
For example, he said in the interview that “…less than 9 percent of the loans that are currently underperforming were even given out while I was the bank…” Banks don’t “give out” loans; they “make” or “book” loans. Yes, it’s only terminology, but a big time senior lender would be highly unlikely to use such sloppy terminology. When asked about the “cease and desist” order from bank regulators, Giannoulias answered “that’s sort of standard protocol for banks that…have consent decrees.” Well, as the kids would say, “Duh.” Yes, “cease and desist” orders are the standard fare of consent decrees, but the point, as young Mr. Giannoulias apparently missed, was the very existence of the consent decree itself. He then went on to say that “These were not reckless or risky loans.” They weren’t? Then why is there a problem? Why is the bank worthless? His answer to the bank’s precarious financial position seems to be that everyone was doing it. It would seem that a person who makes poor decisions, fiscally imprudent decisions, and then excuses himself by pointing out that everyone else was doing it would feel very comfortable in the U.S. Senate. So, in that sense, Mr. Giannoulias may be ideally suited for the job he is seeking.
Thanks, John.
Monday, March 1, 2010
“HE SAID THERE WAS SOMETHING IN IT FOR ME, MICHAEL, FOR ME!”
3/1/10
In my 2/7/10 post, ALEXI’S LITTLE DIVIDEND, I examined the problems at Broadway Bank, the family business of the Giannoulias family, of whom Alexi Giannoulias, the Democratic candidate for Barack Obama’s old Senate seat, is the most prominent member. I pointed out in that post, as few others have, that any bailout of the bank would be an effective transfer of money from the taxpayers to the campaign of Senator Giannoulias. Consequently, not only will Mr. Giannoulias, should he win the seat, be able to fritter away taxpayer money in the Senate, but he will also be frittering away taxpayer money in his efforts to put himself in such a position.
As I reflect on reports that the Giannoulias family, or some other investors, will have to come up with $80mm (an amount, by the way, that exceeds the dividends the family took out of the bank in 2007 and 2008 by only $10mm) in the next month or so in order to shore up Broadway Bank’s finances or face federal seizure of the institution, I have come to two radically different conclusions: Either the money will be far easier to raise than is commonly thought or it will be, for all intents and purposes, impossible to raise.
How could raising the money be far easier than is commonly thought? Remember that the Giannoulias family is only one potential source of the spondulicks necessary to keep Broadway afloat. Certainly outside investors could be brought in if the family cannot see fit to put its dividends back into the bank. (The latter may be impossible if the family is telling the truth; the Giannoulias family contends that the bulk of those dividends was used to pay estate taxes in the wake of the death of the family’s patriarch.) And what would an outside investor get for its investment? Not only a bank with books that would make a mule gag, but the appreciation and eternal gratitude of a potential U.S. senator. Bailing out the Giannoulias family could be a transparent (and note, as I said a few posts ago, what a rage the use of the term “transparent” has been of late, though in an entirely different context) way of channeling money to a U.S. senator, a practice that, at least in its most blatant forms, has been illegal forever. Don’t think for a moment that legions of potential investors, including real estate speculators, local power brokers, national power brokers, and major financial institutions, who, despite pious protestations of fealty to the free market system always seem to manage to elbow their way to the front when the line at the federal trough is forming, aren’t thinking about the “extras” that may come with a bailout of Broadway.
How could raising money for Broadway, on the other hand, be nearly impossible? For the same reason. Any investor in Broadway would come under intense scrutiny by the media and those few citizens who remain concerned. So a Senator Giannoulias, no profile in courage (or he wouldn’t be in politics) might be especially vigilant in avoiding charges of conflict of interest and thus may go out of his way to avoid doing anything that might be remotely construed as helping anyone who saved his and his family’s livelihoods by bailing out his bank. A savior of Broadway might therefore shut himself off from the federal trough, clearly something the modern legions of “capitalists” would not want to do.
Which of the above scenarios is more likely? I’m betting on the first. People have short memories and Mr. Giannoulias has a very high opinion of himself, even for a politician. If there is a possibility that Giannoulias can get away with trading influence for a bailout of his family business, he would probably do so. And potential saviors of Broadway, given any kind of knowledge of how things work in Chicago and its environs (a knowledge that doubtless would be enhanced by reading my book, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics) probably harbor the same suspicions.
In my 2/7/10 post, ALEXI’S LITTLE DIVIDEND, I examined the problems at Broadway Bank, the family business of the Giannoulias family, of whom Alexi Giannoulias, the Democratic candidate for Barack Obama’s old Senate seat, is the most prominent member. I pointed out in that post, as few others have, that any bailout of the bank would be an effective transfer of money from the taxpayers to the campaign of Senator Giannoulias. Consequently, not only will Mr. Giannoulias, should he win the seat, be able to fritter away taxpayer money in the Senate, but he will also be frittering away taxpayer money in his efforts to put himself in such a position.
As I reflect on reports that the Giannoulias family, or some other investors, will have to come up with $80mm (an amount, by the way, that exceeds the dividends the family took out of the bank in 2007 and 2008 by only $10mm) in the next month or so in order to shore up Broadway Bank’s finances or face federal seizure of the institution, I have come to two radically different conclusions: Either the money will be far easier to raise than is commonly thought or it will be, for all intents and purposes, impossible to raise.
How could raising the money be far easier than is commonly thought? Remember that the Giannoulias family is only one potential source of the spondulicks necessary to keep Broadway afloat. Certainly outside investors could be brought in if the family cannot see fit to put its dividends back into the bank. (The latter may be impossible if the family is telling the truth; the Giannoulias family contends that the bulk of those dividends was used to pay estate taxes in the wake of the death of the family’s patriarch.) And what would an outside investor get for its investment? Not only a bank with books that would make a mule gag, but the appreciation and eternal gratitude of a potential U.S. senator. Bailing out the Giannoulias family could be a transparent (and note, as I said a few posts ago, what a rage the use of the term “transparent” has been of late, though in an entirely different context) way of channeling money to a U.S. senator, a practice that, at least in its most blatant forms, has been illegal forever. Don’t think for a moment that legions of potential investors, including real estate speculators, local power brokers, national power brokers, and major financial institutions, who, despite pious protestations of fealty to the free market system always seem to manage to elbow their way to the front when the line at the federal trough is forming, aren’t thinking about the “extras” that may come with a bailout of Broadway.
How could raising money for Broadway, on the other hand, be nearly impossible? For the same reason. Any investor in Broadway would come under intense scrutiny by the media and those few citizens who remain concerned. So a Senator Giannoulias, no profile in courage (or he wouldn’t be in politics) might be especially vigilant in avoiding charges of conflict of interest and thus may go out of his way to avoid doing anything that might be remotely construed as helping anyone who saved his and his family’s livelihoods by bailing out his bank. A savior of Broadway might therefore shut himself off from the federal trough, clearly something the modern legions of “capitalists” would not want to do.
Which of the above scenarios is more likely? I’m betting on the first. People have short memories and Mr. Giannoulias has a very high opinion of himself, even for a politician. If there is a possibility that Giannoulias can get away with trading influence for a bailout of his family business, he would probably do so. And potential saviors of Broadway, given any kind of knowledge of how things work in Chicago and its environs (a knowledge that doubtless would be enhanced by reading my book, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics) probably harbor the same suspicions.
“THE NAAAAAAAAAAME GAME…”
3/1/10
In my 11/19/09 post, A LITTLE ADOLESCENT BOY HUMOR TO BRIGHTEN YOUR DAY, I told the tale of an employee of Flash Cab Company who was arrested for exposing himself. Today’s news tells a tale of a similarly portentous name.
It seems that a White supremacist group called the Aryan Nations Church of Yahweh would like to set up shop in one, or perhaps both, of two vacant buildings in the town of John Day, Oregon. The citizens of Johns Day are up in arms about this development and are exploring what legal means they may have of denying the “church” access to those buildings.
What I found especially interesting about the story is the name of the leader of the aforementioned Aryan Nations Church of Yahweh: Paul R. Mullet.
This can’t be a real story. This is a joke, right?
In my 11/19/09 post, A LITTLE ADOLESCENT BOY HUMOR TO BRIGHTEN YOUR DAY, I told the tale of an employee of Flash Cab Company who was arrested for exposing himself. Today’s news tells a tale of a similarly portentous name.
It seems that a White supremacist group called the Aryan Nations Church of Yahweh would like to set up shop in one, or perhaps both, of two vacant buildings in the town of John Day, Oregon. The citizens of Johns Day are up in arms about this development and are exploring what legal means they may have of denying the “church” access to those buildings.
What I found especially interesting about the story is the name of the leader of the aforementioned Aryan Nations Church of Yahweh: Paul R. Mullet.
This can’t be a real story. This is a joke, right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
