4/29/11
Today’s (Friday, 4/29’s, page A4) Wall Street Journal reports on “bipartisan” efforts to reduce tax breaks for big oil in the face of $112 oil and a $10.7 billion first quarter profit for Exxon Mobil.
“Tax breaks” for “big oil” are neither more nor less meritorious than tax breaks for anyone else. One man’s tax breaks are another man’s “incentives” to do whatever the politicians deem desirable. An efficient and optimal tax code would be simple and flat with no latitude for politicians to reward their friends and benefactors. But since we are dealing with this lifetime, we have to deal with the issue of various tax breaks that politicians dole out to those who bankroll their flights of self-aggrandizement; hence the effort by pols to rescind tax breaks when the heat is on that the same gutless pols passed when the climate was more temperate, but I digress.
One portion of the Journal article caught my eye:
Oil executives and some Republicans countered that the Democratic proposals amount to new taxes on energy that would be passed on to consumers.Hmm…
Whenever the subject of high oil and gasoline prices comes up, oil company executives and their toadies in Congress immediately rush to the microphone to tell us that the oil companies have little or no influence on the price of oil, that they are what the microeconomists call “price takers.” Exxon-Mobil was once again making that argument yesterday when its gargantuan first quarter haul was reported.
If the oil companies indeed are price takers, how can they pass along any new taxes to consumers?
Friday, April 29, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
“WHO TOLD YOU TO PICK UP YOUR MAT AND WALK (ON THE SABBATH)?”
4/28/11
I sent the following reply to the same friend and reader who initiated the conversation on Father Pfleger in response to his question of how some can consider it principled for Mike Pfleger to “not follow the rules of a Church that has supported, educated, and cared for (him) his whole career”:
It’s not necessarily principled, but Pfleger's admirers will make Pfleger sound principled while trying to make George look like a buffoon. That’s perhaps the only thing about which one can be confident regarding this episode.
Pfleger probably should have been forced out in 1993, when his twelve years had expired. On the other hand, had that happened, he would not have been able to do the things he has done for St. Sabina, for the black Church, and for the Church itself in maintaining and strengthening its presence on the black South Side, which was disappearing in the ‘70s and ‘80s. On yet another hand, one could argue that Mike Pfleger wasn’t doing anything for the Church; he was serving the community, maybe Christ, and, of course, Mike Pfleger, but not the Church. As has been said about Mike Pfleger, St. Sabina, and the Masses there, it’s all very Christian but not all that Catholic. It’s a multi-faceted situation, to be sure.
Had the rules been enforced, we would have avoided all this controversy. On the other hand, some wonderful things that have taken place for the people of Englewood, especially spiritually, would never have taken place, either. Perhaps this is a case of God’s intervening and/or, as Jesus so often insisted, of genuine faith’s overriding adherence to the rules so that God might be glorified and His ultimate purposes achieved.
I sent the following reply to the same friend and reader who initiated the conversation on Father Pfleger in response to his question of how some can consider it principled for Mike Pfleger to “not follow the rules of a Church that has supported, educated, and cared for (him) his whole career”:
It’s not necessarily principled, but Pfleger's admirers will make Pfleger sound principled while trying to make George look like a buffoon. That’s perhaps the only thing about which one can be confident regarding this episode.
Pfleger probably should have been forced out in 1993, when his twelve years had expired. On the other hand, had that happened, he would not have been able to do the things he has done for St. Sabina, for the black Church, and for the Church itself in maintaining and strengthening its presence on the black South Side, which was disappearing in the ‘70s and ‘80s. On yet another hand, one could argue that Mike Pfleger wasn’t doing anything for the Church; he was serving the community, maybe Christ, and, of course, Mike Pfleger, but not the Church. As has been said about Mike Pfleger, St. Sabina, and the Masses there, it’s all very Christian but not all that Catholic. It’s a multi-faceted situation, to be sure.
Had the rules been enforced, we would have avoided all this controversy. On the other hand, some wonderful things that have taken place for the people of Englewood, especially spiritually, would never have taken place, either. Perhaps this is a case of God’s intervening and/or, as Jesus so often insisted, of genuine faith’s overriding adherence to the rules so that God might be glorified and His ultimate purposes achieved.
TIME FOR A COUNCIL OF CHICAGO?
4/28/11
A loyal friend and reader asked what I thought about the imbroglio surrounding Father Michael Pfleger, who has served as pastor of St. Sabina Church on Chicago’s south side for thirty years and who was suspended by Cardinal Francis George after Pfleger once again mused about leaving the Church if the Cardinal enforced the Archdiocese’s 12 year limit for pastors in Father Pfleger’s case.
Since my readers may enjoy (or be infuriated) by my thoughts, I have posted a redacted version of my reply:
4/28/11
I have, or had, a theory about Father Pfleger that may or may not hold up in light of yesterday’s events. I don’t know any more than I read in the papers; this is just a theory.
The Cardinal was confronted with a dilemma; there was an outcry, albeit a muted one, from parishioners of the many parishes, and from their former pastors, who had lost beloved pastors because of the 12 year rule. Why did they have to give up their pastors when St. Sabina could keep Mike Pfleger? On the other hand, Pfleger has been instrumental in keeping black Catholics in the Church and attracting blacks to the Church. Forcing him out of St. Sabina might, and probably would have, serious ramifications for the black Church in Chicago and maybe beyond. So the Cardinal went to Mike Pfleger with a deal: Pfleger would nominally leave St. Sabina to serve as principal of Leo High School. Leo is on 79th and Sangamon; Sabina is at 78th, just west of Racine, approximately three blocks from Leo. Pfleger would not be running Leo and whoever was selected to nominally succeed him at Sabina would not be running St. Sabina; it would be something of a ruse. In reality, Pfleger would still be running Sabina but appearances would be satisfied. Everyone would be happy. Pfleger turned down the deal either because he was too obtuse to see it for what it was (unlikely), too proud to take it (more likely), or didn’t trust the Cardinal (likeliest).
After Pfleger went on the radio with the latest of his threats to leave the Church, the Cardinal had little choice but to suspend him, given the premium the Church puts on obedience to the hierarchy. Since the Cardinal is enforcing a doctrine of the Church that many, including yours truly as well as many black Catholics who are loyal to their pastor and to their parish rather than to the Church, do not find the most attractive of the Church’s doctrines, the Cardinal is probably going to come off looking petty and vindictive to many but as decisive and strong to the people about whom the Cardinal really cares: the pray, pay, and obey crowd.
Again, just a theory, but one worth considering.
A loyal friend and reader asked what I thought about the imbroglio surrounding Father Michael Pfleger, who has served as pastor of St. Sabina Church on Chicago’s south side for thirty years and who was suspended by Cardinal Francis George after Pfleger once again mused about leaving the Church if the Cardinal enforced the Archdiocese’s 12 year limit for pastors in Father Pfleger’s case.
Since my readers may enjoy (or be infuriated) by my thoughts, I have posted a redacted version of my reply:
4/28/11
I have, or had, a theory about Father Pfleger that may or may not hold up in light of yesterday’s events. I don’t know any more than I read in the papers; this is just a theory.
The Cardinal was confronted with a dilemma; there was an outcry, albeit a muted one, from parishioners of the many parishes, and from their former pastors, who had lost beloved pastors because of the 12 year rule. Why did they have to give up their pastors when St. Sabina could keep Mike Pfleger? On the other hand, Pfleger has been instrumental in keeping black Catholics in the Church and attracting blacks to the Church. Forcing him out of St. Sabina might, and probably would have, serious ramifications for the black Church in Chicago and maybe beyond. So the Cardinal went to Mike Pfleger with a deal: Pfleger would nominally leave St. Sabina to serve as principal of Leo High School. Leo is on 79th and Sangamon; Sabina is at 78th, just west of Racine, approximately three blocks from Leo. Pfleger would not be running Leo and whoever was selected to nominally succeed him at Sabina would not be running St. Sabina; it would be something of a ruse. In reality, Pfleger would still be running Sabina but appearances would be satisfied. Everyone would be happy. Pfleger turned down the deal either because he was too obtuse to see it for what it was (unlikely), too proud to take it (more likely), or didn’t trust the Cardinal (likeliest).
After Pfleger went on the radio with the latest of his threats to leave the Church, the Cardinal had little choice but to suspend him, given the premium the Church puts on obedience to the hierarchy. Since the Cardinal is enforcing a doctrine of the Church that many, including yours truly as well as many black Catholics who are loyal to their pastor and to their parish rather than to the Church, do not find the most attractive of the Church’s doctrines, the Cardinal is probably going to come off looking petty and vindictive to many but as decisive and strong to the people about whom the Cardinal really cares: the pray, pay, and obey crowd.
Again, just a theory, but one worth considering.
“I MUST BE GOING!”
4/28/11
Yesterday (i.e., Wednesday, 4/27/11), the Wall Street Journal reported that Pakistan is urging the thug we installed in Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai (who, incidentally, might have a brighter future if he moved to the 50th Ward in Chicago) to “dump the U.S.” in favor of Pakistan and China. Juxtapose that with the report in today’s (i.e., Thursday, 4/28/11’s) Journal that an Afghan Air Force Officer opened fire on American forces at the Kabul airport, killing eight of our soldiers. As the Journal further reports
“Shootings by Afghans among the soldiers and police, some of them Taliban infiltrators, are becoming a leading cause of death for U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan. This month, there have been six attacks by uniformed Afghans inside military bases and facilities across the country.” (Emphasis mine)
It sounds like Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, who delivered the advice to Mr. Karzai to “dump” us, has a GREAT idea. Please, Mr. Karzai, bite the hand that fed you, indeed, poke at the womb that created you—PLEASE dump us! Then we can go home and put this most salient manifestation of the disastrous Bush/Obama exercise in nation building as foreign policy behind us.
As we leave, though, we should take the time to inform Mr. Karzai and his new puppeteers that if an attack on our shores or our interests (narrowly defined this time) should originate in Afghanistan, we will be back…but not for long and not to nation build.
Yesterday (i.e., Wednesday, 4/27/11), the Wall Street Journal reported that Pakistan is urging the thug we installed in Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai (who, incidentally, might have a brighter future if he moved to the 50th Ward in Chicago) to “dump the U.S.” in favor of Pakistan and China. Juxtapose that with the report in today’s (i.e., Thursday, 4/28/11’s) Journal that an Afghan Air Force Officer opened fire on American forces at the Kabul airport, killing eight of our soldiers. As the Journal further reports
“Shootings by Afghans among the soldiers and police, some of them Taliban infiltrators, are becoming a leading cause of death for U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan. This month, there have been six attacks by uniformed Afghans inside military bases and facilities across the country.” (Emphasis mine)
It sounds like Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, who delivered the advice to Mr. Karzai to “dump” us, has a GREAT idea. Please, Mr. Karzai, bite the hand that fed you, indeed, poke at the womb that created you—PLEASE dump us! Then we can go home and put this most salient manifestation of the disastrous Bush/Obama exercise in nation building as foreign policy behind us.
As we leave, though, we should take the time to inform Mr. Karzai and his new puppeteers that if an attack on our shores or our interests (narrowly defined this time) should originate in Afghanistan, we will be back…but not for long and not to nation build.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
ST. JOHN PAUL II
4/27/11
Pope John Paul II will be beatified, the last step before canonization, on May 1, only five yeas after the Pope’s death on 4/2/05. This “fast track” to sainthood has drawn some criticism, especially since the decision to fast track the former Pope was made by those who were personally, theologically, and professionally close to John Paul II, most notably his successor, Pope Benedict XVI who, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, John Paul’s, for lack of a better term, doctrinal and theological enforcer.
The criticism of the haste with which all this is taking place concerns John Paul’s shortcomings, which center around his handling of the clergy sex abuse scandal, and its cover-up, which rocked the Church through the latter years of John Paul’s papacy and continue to this day. Most salient of these shortcomings, according to critics, were John Paul’s handling of Cardinal Law, who was given a lavish and well compensated sinecure in Rome after decades of covering up the clergy sex abuse scandal in Boston and his handling of the Legionaries of Christ, a conservative religious order that John Paul held up as a model of Catholic orthodoxy while its leader and founder, Marcial Maciel, was committing what the Vatican, under Pope Benedict, would call “true crimes,” primarily involving sexual abuse and leading what the same Vatican would call “an immoral” life “devoid of scruples and authentic religious sentiment.” No one is accusing John Paul of being aware of Maciel’s various perversions. The argument is that the Pope should have looked a little harder before so vociferously singing the praises of Maciel and holding him up as a shining example of orthodox Catholicism.
Some have argued that the John Paul’s failings on the sex abuse scandal have their roots in his having been raised and spent his pre-papal priesthood in Poland, where the Communist rulers, and before them the Nazi rulers, had a habit of dispatching priests they found bothersome by concocting tales of sexual abuse. Given this background, the argument goes, one could understand why the former Karol Wojtyla looked with suspicion on such charges.
Regardless of what one thinks of that argument, it is one that need not be made when arguing for John Paul II’s early beatification and certain canonization. John Paul’s former spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls, came close to making the more effective argument when he said, after reading the entire case study of the beatification “I think it is enough to be certain that he (John Paul) lived the Christian virtues in an heroic way,” the requirements for beatification. But the case for St. John Paul can be put more simply, to wit: John Paul II was a very good man and a great Pope who, among other things, helped bring down Communism, allowing his countrymen and their neighbors to exercise their faith with a freedom that they had never seen before, made the Church relevant to at least two new generations, and, by his personal charisma and piety, drew people to the Church and to God and provided an example of Christian obedience to the will of God. John Paul also did some bad, some might say very bad, things. But everyone, even the best of us, of which John Paul surely was one, does bad things. Perfection is not required for sainthood; if it were, heaven would be a nearly empty place.
A simple argument to be sure. But beauty, and sanctity, is often found in simplicity.
Pope John Paul II will be beatified, the last step before canonization, on May 1, only five yeas after the Pope’s death on 4/2/05. This “fast track” to sainthood has drawn some criticism, especially since the decision to fast track the former Pope was made by those who were personally, theologically, and professionally close to John Paul II, most notably his successor, Pope Benedict XVI who, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, John Paul’s, for lack of a better term, doctrinal and theological enforcer.
The criticism of the haste with which all this is taking place concerns John Paul’s shortcomings, which center around his handling of the clergy sex abuse scandal, and its cover-up, which rocked the Church through the latter years of John Paul’s papacy and continue to this day. Most salient of these shortcomings, according to critics, were John Paul’s handling of Cardinal Law, who was given a lavish and well compensated sinecure in Rome after decades of covering up the clergy sex abuse scandal in Boston and his handling of the Legionaries of Christ, a conservative religious order that John Paul held up as a model of Catholic orthodoxy while its leader and founder, Marcial Maciel, was committing what the Vatican, under Pope Benedict, would call “true crimes,” primarily involving sexual abuse and leading what the same Vatican would call “an immoral” life “devoid of scruples and authentic religious sentiment.” No one is accusing John Paul of being aware of Maciel’s various perversions. The argument is that the Pope should have looked a little harder before so vociferously singing the praises of Maciel and holding him up as a shining example of orthodox Catholicism.
Some have argued that the John Paul’s failings on the sex abuse scandal have their roots in his having been raised and spent his pre-papal priesthood in Poland, where the Communist rulers, and before them the Nazi rulers, had a habit of dispatching priests they found bothersome by concocting tales of sexual abuse. Given this background, the argument goes, one could understand why the former Karol Wojtyla looked with suspicion on such charges.
Regardless of what one thinks of that argument, it is one that need not be made when arguing for John Paul II’s early beatification and certain canonization. John Paul’s former spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls, came close to making the more effective argument when he said, after reading the entire case study of the beatification “I think it is enough to be certain that he (John Paul) lived the Christian virtues in an heroic way,” the requirements for beatification. But the case for St. John Paul can be put more simply, to wit: John Paul II was a very good man and a great Pope who, among other things, helped bring down Communism, allowing his countrymen and their neighbors to exercise their faith with a freedom that they had never seen before, made the Church relevant to at least two new generations, and, by his personal charisma and piety, drew people to the Church and to God and provided an example of Christian obedience to the will of God. John Paul also did some bad, some might say very bad, things. But everyone, even the best of us, of which John Paul surely was one, does bad things. Perfection is not required for sainthood; if it were, heaven would be a nearly empty place.
A simple argument to be sure. But beauty, and sanctity, is often found in simplicity.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
DOG BITES MAN
4/23/11
Today’s (i.e., Saturday, 4/23’s, page A11) Wall Street Journal reports that
Senator John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, called on the U.S. and other nations to recognize the rebels as the “legitimate voice of the Libyan people” and to step up military support for them, including weapons, training, and more air strikes.
Vladimir and Estragon may wait for Godot. I will equally pointlessly wait for the war Senator McCain does NOT want us to join and escalate.
Today’s (i.e., Saturday, 4/23’s, page A11) Wall Street Journal reports that
Senator John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, called on the U.S. and other nations to recognize the rebels as the “legitimate voice of the Libyan people” and to step up military support for them, including weapons, training, and more air strikes.
Vladimir and Estragon may wait for Godot. I will equally pointlessly wait for the war Senator McCain does NOT want us to join and escalate.
WE’VE ELIMINATED ALL THE GOOD GUYS; NOW LET’S GO AFTER THE INNOCENT BYSTANDERS
4/23/11
Today’s (i.e., Saturday’s, 4/23/11, page A10) Wall Street Journal reports that
“Protests by truckers flared into a third day in China’s biggest port city and shippers offered the first indication that trade was being slowed, illustrating how inflation worries could gum up the world’s No. 2 economy.”
Apparently, as is taking place in this country on a smaller (but perhaps not for long) scale, truckers in Shanghai are parking their rigs because they simply can’t make any money with diesel prices at these levels.
Note also that inflated prices of every day necessities were largely behind the protests in Egypt, Syria, and throughout the Middle East. See my 2/3/11 piece AFTER ALL THESE CENTURIES, THE EGYPTIANS STILL HAVE SOMETHING TO TEACH US.
Hmm…
It looks like the Bush/Obama/Bernanke policy of inflating our way out the debt that is the legacy of a 20+ year public and private spending debauch is wreaking havoc, or worse, on people other than the hapless creditors, who had the good sense not to buy into the “spend all you can as fast you can” mentality that has become so popular in this country, that the policy is designed to punish.
Today’s (i.e., Saturday’s, 4/23/11, page A10) Wall Street Journal reports that
“Protests by truckers flared into a third day in China’s biggest port city and shippers offered the first indication that trade was being slowed, illustrating how inflation worries could gum up the world’s No. 2 economy.”
Apparently, as is taking place in this country on a smaller (but perhaps not for long) scale, truckers in Shanghai are parking their rigs because they simply can’t make any money with diesel prices at these levels.
Note also that inflated prices of every day necessities were largely behind the protests in Egypt, Syria, and throughout the Middle East. See my 2/3/11 piece AFTER ALL THESE CENTURIES, THE EGYPTIANS STILL HAVE SOMETHING TO TEACH US.
Hmm…
It looks like the Bush/Obama/Bernanke policy of inflating our way out the debt that is the legacy of a 20+ year public and private spending debauch is wreaking havoc, or worse, on people other than the hapless creditors, who had the good sense not to buy into the “spend all you can as fast you can” mentality that has become so popular in this country, that the policy is designed to punish.
ON THE ROAD TO DAMASCUS
4/23/11
Before our nation’s media types and right thinking pols get all gooey-eyed about the prospect of a revolution, like the uprising in Egypt about which they were so gaga, taking place in Syria, perhaps they ought to heed the words of one Joshua Landis, director for Middle Eastern studies at the University of Oklahoma and clearly a man who knows of what he speaks:
“Who will step in for Syria? No one, it will be decided in the streets.”
Life is about to get very hard in Syria, and not only for the 10% of the population that is non-Muslim, mostly Christians but also, in small but tenacious numbers, Jews. The Muslim population is also far from uniform, with Sunnis comprising 74% of the population and the other 16% of Syrian citizens being of various Muslim groups. Over all these has ruled the Assad family, who are Alawites, since 1970. Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal points out (4/23, page A11), the Assads “have held together the country’s eclectic mix of sects and ethnic groups, sometimes uneasily (What a weak word in these circumstances, but I digress.), under a single umbrella.”
In the wake of our problems in Iraq, Afghanistan, and, to a lesser extent, Pakistan, one would hope that we are realizing why most Middle Eastern leaders are not the types of Jeffersonian democrats who would be lionized in the faculty lounge at Harvard. The West, largely the British but also the French, with American complicity, drew the maps of the Middle East with little regard to ethnic, tribal, and linguistic affinities. What the West bequeathed to the Middle East was a batch of ungovernable agglomerations of people who have not gotten along for millennia. Keeping a reasonable degree of order under such circumstances requires a degree of force and amorality that is indeed regrettable but perhaps even more necessary. Note, too, that the application of such force never bothered us all that much when the applicators (e.g., Saddam Hussein, Shah Reza Pahlavi) were doing our bidding, but that is grist for another mill.
Before our nation’s media types and right thinking pols get all gooey-eyed about the prospect of a revolution, like the uprising in Egypt about which they were so gaga, taking place in Syria, perhaps they ought to heed the words of one Joshua Landis, director for Middle Eastern studies at the University of Oklahoma and clearly a man who knows of what he speaks:
“Who will step in for Syria? No one, it will be decided in the streets.”
Life is about to get very hard in Syria, and not only for the 10% of the population that is non-Muslim, mostly Christians but also, in small but tenacious numbers, Jews. The Muslim population is also far from uniform, with Sunnis comprising 74% of the population and the other 16% of Syrian citizens being of various Muslim groups. Over all these has ruled the Assad family, who are Alawites, since 1970. Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal points out (4/23, page A11), the Assads “have held together the country’s eclectic mix of sects and ethnic groups, sometimes uneasily (What a weak word in these circumstances, but I digress.), under a single umbrella.”
In the wake of our problems in Iraq, Afghanistan, and, to a lesser extent, Pakistan, one would hope that we are realizing why most Middle Eastern leaders are not the types of Jeffersonian democrats who would be lionized in the faculty lounge at Harvard. The West, largely the British but also the French, with American complicity, drew the maps of the Middle East with little regard to ethnic, tribal, and linguistic affinities. What the West bequeathed to the Middle East was a batch of ungovernable agglomerations of people who have not gotten along for millennia. Keeping a reasonable degree of order under such circumstances requires a degree of force and amorality that is indeed regrettable but perhaps even more necessary. Note, too, that the application of such force never bothered us all that much when the applicators (e.g., Saddam Hussein, Shah Reza Pahlavi) were doing our bidding, but that is grist for another mill.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
“IS THIS ANY WAY TO RUN AN AIRLINE?”
4/21/11
The Obama Administration’s new rules for airline have garnered much news coverage over the last few days and understandably so; this is news that directly affects a significant portion of the public in ways it can easily understand. The rules sound fairly innocuous; inter alia, they require airlines to refund baggage fees when those lines lose passengers’ luggage, to pay more for bumping passengers, to disclose all costs (including, for example, charges for meals, blankets(!), pillows(!), checking bags, etc.), and to not leave passengers on the tarmac for extended periods of time. Who can argue with such requirements? I can.
The problem with these oh so reasonably sounding rules are encapsulated by the typically inane comment of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who, despite working in a Democratic administration, is a Republican. Mr. LaHood, formerly a congressman from downstate Illinois, where people are normally quite sensible, remarked “Passengers have a right to be treated fairly.” Remember the likes of Mr. LaHood when you hear someone arguing that the Republicans are the party of small government and/or that there is a genuine difference between the two parties that jointly conspire to deny you your freedom and the fruits of your labor, but I digress.
Passengers may, but probably don’t, have the right to be treated fairly. There is nothing in the Constitution, or in the works of, say, John Locke or Thomas Paine, which stipulates that anyone, and certainly an airline passenger, has the inherent right to be treated fairly. More to the point, though, while airline passengers may (but probably don’t) have the right to be treated fairly, there is no doubt that no one has the right to be an airline passenger. Flying commercially isn’t a right; it’s a service for which we pay if we choose.
More importantly, while it might not be a right to be treated fairly, all of us wish to be treated fairly. Unfortunately for the modern American (the modern person, really), fair treatment is not something dispensed, or enforced, at least not in most cases, by the government; it normally takes some action on our part to be treated fairly. In this particular case, if one wishes to be treated fairly, one should not patronize airlines that treat us unfairly. If one airline loses our bags and charges us for the privilege, we should give the figurative middle digit to that airline and take our business elsewhere, perhaps, but not necessarily, to an airline that treats us with more respect.
I can hear the counter-argument already: That is fine in the abstract, but frequently there is no choice in airlines. In some, but not nearly as many as the complainers would have you believe, there is only one airline that can get people from Point A to Point B. Or, if there is more than one airline that runs a particular route, they all treat their passengers like cattle. There are a number of counters to this counter. The reason that many, if not most (I know at least one that doesn’t.) treat their customers like stowaways on a refuse scow is that their customers let them do so. Instead of going elsewhere, people pay for such abuse, finding it easier to whine to the government about one’s rights than to actually do something one’s self to secure one’s rights. And despite the protestations of those who think narrowly and/or don’t work very hard to find alternatives to rude treatment, there are ALWAYS alternatives to flying an airline that doesn’t deserve one’s business that extend well beyond equally insolent airlines. These include driving (Why on earth does anyone, for example, fly from, say, Chicago to Detroit or from New York to Boston? By the time one gets one’s self to the airport, endures the strip tease dictated by small government types like Mr. LaHood, and hurries up and waits, one could have quite easily driven that distance and gone point to point. Driving is also fun, if done properly. The best part of any trip to Orlando for yours truly, for example, is the drive down there and the drive home. Admittedly, the bar is set VERY low in this case, but the same is true in most cases. But I digress.), Amtrak (I said “alternative;” I didn’t say “necessarily good alternative.” Perhaps if more people took Amtrak, it would indeed become a better alternative, and how much worse can it be if the airlines are truly as bad as those who run supine to their public officials for “help” would have us believe?), teleconferencing, the telephone, or vacationing closer to home. We rarely (almost never, really) have to fly to conduct business or to vacation. We have, however, decided that flying is somehow a right, and the airlines have taken advantage of the vulnerability born of sense of entitlement to treat us in a way that deflates our dignity while inflating their revenue per seat mile.
The larger point is that we can’t depend on government to address our problems. The reason that we have a competitive, free market economy, or once had a competitive free market economy, is because such an arrangement delivers goods and services more effectively and efficiently than any of the alternatives. But in order for the system to work, we must actively participate in the system rather than ask the government to abort those aspects of the system that require effort on our part.
The Obama Administration’s new rules for airline have garnered much news coverage over the last few days and understandably so; this is news that directly affects a significant portion of the public in ways it can easily understand. The rules sound fairly innocuous; inter alia, they require airlines to refund baggage fees when those lines lose passengers’ luggage, to pay more for bumping passengers, to disclose all costs (including, for example, charges for meals, blankets(!), pillows(!), checking bags, etc.), and to not leave passengers on the tarmac for extended periods of time. Who can argue with such requirements? I can.
The problem with these oh so reasonably sounding rules are encapsulated by the typically inane comment of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who, despite working in a Democratic administration, is a Republican. Mr. LaHood, formerly a congressman from downstate Illinois, where people are normally quite sensible, remarked “Passengers have a right to be treated fairly.” Remember the likes of Mr. LaHood when you hear someone arguing that the Republicans are the party of small government and/or that there is a genuine difference between the two parties that jointly conspire to deny you your freedom and the fruits of your labor, but I digress.
Passengers may, but probably don’t, have the right to be treated fairly. There is nothing in the Constitution, or in the works of, say, John Locke or Thomas Paine, which stipulates that anyone, and certainly an airline passenger, has the inherent right to be treated fairly. More to the point, though, while airline passengers may (but probably don’t) have the right to be treated fairly, there is no doubt that no one has the right to be an airline passenger. Flying commercially isn’t a right; it’s a service for which we pay if we choose.
More importantly, while it might not be a right to be treated fairly, all of us wish to be treated fairly. Unfortunately for the modern American (the modern person, really), fair treatment is not something dispensed, or enforced, at least not in most cases, by the government; it normally takes some action on our part to be treated fairly. In this particular case, if one wishes to be treated fairly, one should not patronize airlines that treat us unfairly. If one airline loses our bags and charges us for the privilege, we should give the figurative middle digit to that airline and take our business elsewhere, perhaps, but not necessarily, to an airline that treats us with more respect.
I can hear the counter-argument already: That is fine in the abstract, but frequently there is no choice in airlines. In some, but not nearly as many as the complainers would have you believe, there is only one airline that can get people from Point A to Point B. Or, if there is more than one airline that runs a particular route, they all treat their passengers like cattle. There are a number of counters to this counter. The reason that many, if not most (I know at least one that doesn’t.) treat their customers like stowaways on a refuse scow is that their customers let them do so. Instead of going elsewhere, people pay for such abuse, finding it easier to whine to the government about one’s rights than to actually do something one’s self to secure one’s rights. And despite the protestations of those who think narrowly and/or don’t work very hard to find alternatives to rude treatment, there are ALWAYS alternatives to flying an airline that doesn’t deserve one’s business that extend well beyond equally insolent airlines. These include driving (Why on earth does anyone, for example, fly from, say, Chicago to Detroit or from New York to Boston? By the time one gets one’s self to the airport, endures the strip tease dictated by small government types like Mr. LaHood, and hurries up and waits, one could have quite easily driven that distance and gone point to point. Driving is also fun, if done properly. The best part of any trip to Orlando for yours truly, for example, is the drive down there and the drive home. Admittedly, the bar is set VERY low in this case, but the same is true in most cases. But I digress.), Amtrak (I said “alternative;” I didn’t say “necessarily good alternative.” Perhaps if more people took Amtrak, it would indeed become a better alternative, and how much worse can it be if the airlines are truly as bad as those who run supine to their public officials for “help” would have us believe?), teleconferencing, the telephone, or vacationing closer to home. We rarely (almost never, really) have to fly to conduct business or to vacation. We have, however, decided that flying is somehow a right, and the airlines have taken advantage of the vulnerability born of sense of entitlement to treat us in a way that deflates our dignity while inflating their revenue per seat mile.
The larger point is that we can’t depend on government to address our problems. The reason that we have a competitive, free market economy, or once had a competitive free market economy, is because such an arrangement delivers goods and services more effectively and efficiently than any of the alternatives. But in order for the system to work, we must actively participate in the system rather than ask the government to abort those aspects of the system that require effort on our part.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
ROD BLAGOJEVICH, MEET RON MILOVANOVIC
4/20/11
Another issue in the ongoing saga of “Former Illinois Governor Meets the Feds” formally starts today with potential jurors’ filling out questionnaires as the first step in selecting the group of citizens who will determine the fate of Illinois’ most famous former governor. Last summer, I wrote extensively on the first trial of this copiously coiffed charlatan whose penchant for snazzy haberdashery and endless pursuit of new heights of self-aggrandizement caused him to, according to the federal government, step beyond the lines of legal propriety. Whether this second trial will prove as intriguing, and as reliable a source of material for the Pontificator, as did the first one, no one knows. However, to those of us who follow politics, and especially those who follow the politics of my hometown, this brand of shenanigans never gets old.
My readers would be well advised to read, in preparation for the meat of this trial, my second novel, The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics. Especially relevant are those portions, starting with chapter 12, that deal with young Governor Ron Milovanovic. Contrary to the suppositions of most, Governor Milovanovic is not a thinly veiled fictional version of Rod Blagojevich; like all characters in my novels, Governor Milovanovic is an amalgam of real life characters. While Governor Milovanovic displays many of the traits of Governor Blagojevich, he also embodies characteristics of many of the men who have held, or now hold, the office of governor of the state of Illinois: a nearly pathological messianic complex, a firm determination that, through sheer force of will and intellect, they can change things in this state (in varying directions, depending on the governor), the quality of being in over their heads and out of their league, an utter lack of a degree of aplomb and discretion in playing the game of this state’s peculiar politics, and the ultimate futility of their tenures in Springfield or, in the case of Mr. Blagojevich, in his home in Ravenswood.
Mr. Blagojevich, like Governor Milovanovic, didn’t engage in behavior that is uncharacteristic of the politicians in his home state. His sin, if you will, was not engaging in questionable and apparently corrupt practices; his sin was in not taking the time or having the ability to engage in such practices with a degree of skill and acumen that would allow one to escape the clutches of federal law enforcement. Mr. Blagojevich’s other sin, like that of Governor Milovanovic, may have been embarrassing and running afoul of those who are really in charge of this state, in not doing what he was told and in reneging on deals he made that enabled him to become governor. Mostly, though, most men suffered from the certainty of their own rectitude, even when the lack thereof was so readily apparent to just about everyone else.
The Chairman’s Challenge (Mark M. Quinn) is available at Anderson’s in Naperville, Bookie’s in West Beverly, and at virtually any online book vendor, most saliently Amazon.com and the Irish Book Club. It also can be ordered at any book store and is available in many libraries in the Chicagoland area, though, sadly, not at the Chicago Public Library. Maybe Governor Blagojevich could have done something about that omission…doubtless for a price.
Another issue in the ongoing saga of “Former Illinois Governor Meets the Feds” formally starts today with potential jurors’ filling out questionnaires as the first step in selecting the group of citizens who will determine the fate of Illinois’ most famous former governor. Last summer, I wrote extensively on the first trial of this copiously coiffed charlatan whose penchant for snazzy haberdashery and endless pursuit of new heights of self-aggrandizement caused him to, according to the federal government, step beyond the lines of legal propriety. Whether this second trial will prove as intriguing, and as reliable a source of material for the Pontificator, as did the first one, no one knows. However, to those of us who follow politics, and especially those who follow the politics of my hometown, this brand of shenanigans never gets old.
My readers would be well advised to read, in preparation for the meat of this trial, my second novel, The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics. Especially relevant are those portions, starting with chapter 12, that deal with young Governor Ron Milovanovic. Contrary to the suppositions of most, Governor Milovanovic is not a thinly veiled fictional version of Rod Blagojevich; like all characters in my novels, Governor Milovanovic is an amalgam of real life characters. While Governor Milovanovic displays many of the traits of Governor Blagojevich, he also embodies characteristics of many of the men who have held, or now hold, the office of governor of the state of Illinois: a nearly pathological messianic complex, a firm determination that, through sheer force of will and intellect, they can change things in this state (in varying directions, depending on the governor), the quality of being in over their heads and out of their league, an utter lack of a degree of aplomb and discretion in playing the game of this state’s peculiar politics, and the ultimate futility of their tenures in Springfield or, in the case of Mr. Blagojevich, in his home in Ravenswood.
Mr. Blagojevich, like Governor Milovanovic, didn’t engage in behavior that is uncharacteristic of the politicians in his home state. His sin, if you will, was not engaging in questionable and apparently corrupt practices; his sin was in not taking the time or having the ability to engage in such practices with a degree of skill and acumen that would allow one to escape the clutches of federal law enforcement. Mr. Blagojevich’s other sin, like that of Governor Milovanovic, may have been embarrassing and running afoul of those who are really in charge of this state, in not doing what he was told and in reneging on deals he made that enabled him to become governor. Mostly, though, most men suffered from the certainty of their own rectitude, even when the lack thereof was so readily apparent to just about everyone else.
The Chairman’s Challenge (Mark M. Quinn) is available at Anderson’s in Naperville, Bookie’s in West Beverly, and at virtually any online book vendor, most saliently Amazon.com and the Irish Book Club. It also can be ordered at any book store and is available in many libraries in the Chicagoland area, though, sadly, not at the Chicago Public Library. Maybe Governor Blagojevich could have done something about that omission…doubtless for a price.
Monday, April 18, 2011
A DIFFERENT KIND OF POST FOR A DIFFERENT KIND OF WEEK
It’s Holy Week, as its name implies, the most sacred week of the Christian year, the week in which we commemorate the three closely related events that are not only the most important events in the life of Jesus and on the Christian calendar but also, to those who take their Christianity seriously, the most momentous events in human history.
Not at all coincidentally, it is also the week of Passover this year. While the two don’t always take place at the same time, they generally do and the reason is obvious: Holy Thursday celebrates Christ’s institution of the Eucharist at what clearly was a Seder meal.
There is just a touch of controversy in the contention that the Holy Thursday meal was indeed a Seder. The gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke state quite clearly that “Jesus desired to eat the Passover with His disciples…” and thus he asked them to prepare the meal in the “upper room, furnished.” John’s gospel, however, takes a different tack, indicating that the Passover took place shortly after the crucifixion of Jesus, stating that the Pharisees, Jesus’s chief accusers, would not enter the praetorium of Pilate for the sentencing of Jesus (which took place after the events of Holy Thursday) because they did not want to be defiled by contact with Gentiles, a condition that would prevent them from celebrating the Passover. This contradiction has puzzled theologians, and just ordinary Christians, for centuries. Indeed, I was prompted to post this piece by an article that just popped up on my ISP’s home page. The article reports on research done by Professor Colin Humphreys at Cambridge who concludes that the contradiction can be explained by John’s use of a different calendar from that employed by Mark, Matthew, and Luke.
While there may be something to Professor Humphrey’s research (I don’t know enough about the relative merits of the lunar calendar and the more the “old-fashioned” Jewish calendar Jesus may have been using, according to Professor Humphrey, to opine on this matter.), the apparent contradiction between the gospels concerning the confluence between Holy Thursday and the Passover Seder can be explained both more simply and more profoundly by understanding the different motivations of the gospel writers.
Mark, Matthew, and Luke wrote what we call the synoptic gospels. They were concerned with reporting the facts of Jesus’s life to those newly converted to His message and to those whom they hoped to convince to convert. These Gospels are both theological tracts and biographies, if you will, of Jesus, with the emphasis slightly on the latter. Mark’s gospel, the first of the four, was especially concerned with the facts of Jesus’s life, and it moves at a nearly breathless pace; I highly recommend as a starting point for those wanting to get acquainted with Jesus. But I digress.
John, on the other hand, as the last chronologically of the Gospels, written when the Christology of the early Church was much more highly developed, was much more concerned with theology, with identifying Jesus as the Son of God and with conveying to the reader that eternal life was to be obtained through faith in Jesus and fealty to His message. While this Gospel, too, can be considered a biography of Jesus, it is much more concerned with theology than facts. Thus, that Holy Thursday’s events were part of a Seder meal was not nearly as important as outlining the theological significance, and the irony, of the Pharisees’ not wanting to defile themselves so that they could celebrate the preliminarily redemptive sacrifice of the lamb of the Passover while they pushed for the ultimately redemptive sacrifice of Jesus.
Maybe I’ll write more of these in the future.
At any rate, blessed Passover and Holy Week, Triduum, and Easter if I don’t write in the next few days.
Not at all coincidentally, it is also the week of Passover this year. While the two don’t always take place at the same time, they generally do and the reason is obvious: Holy Thursday celebrates Christ’s institution of the Eucharist at what clearly was a Seder meal.
There is just a touch of controversy in the contention that the Holy Thursday meal was indeed a Seder. The gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke state quite clearly that “Jesus desired to eat the Passover with His disciples…” and thus he asked them to prepare the meal in the “upper room, furnished.” John’s gospel, however, takes a different tack, indicating that the Passover took place shortly after the crucifixion of Jesus, stating that the Pharisees, Jesus’s chief accusers, would not enter the praetorium of Pilate for the sentencing of Jesus (which took place after the events of Holy Thursday) because they did not want to be defiled by contact with Gentiles, a condition that would prevent them from celebrating the Passover. This contradiction has puzzled theologians, and just ordinary Christians, for centuries. Indeed, I was prompted to post this piece by an article that just popped up on my ISP’s home page. The article reports on research done by Professor Colin Humphreys at Cambridge who concludes that the contradiction can be explained by John’s use of a different calendar from that employed by Mark, Matthew, and Luke.
While there may be something to Professor Humphrey’s research (I don’t know enough about the relative merits of the lunar calendar and the more the “old-fashioned” Jewish calendar Jesus may have been using, according to Professor Humphrey, to opine on this matter.), the apparent contradiction between the gospels concerning the confluence between Holy Thursday and the Passover Seder can be explained both more simply and more profoundly by understanding the different motivations of the gospel writers.
Mark, Matthew, and Luke wrote what we call the synoptic gospels. They were concerned with reporting the facts of Jesus’s life to those newly converted to His message and to those whom they hoped to convince to convert. These Gospels are both theological tracts and biographies, if you will, of Jesus, with the emphasis slightly on the latter. Mark’s gospel, the first of the four, was especially concerned with the facts of Jesus’s life, and it moves at a nearly breathless pace; I highly recommend as a starting point for those wanting to get acquainted with Jesus. But I digress.
John, on the other hand, as the last chronologically of the Gospels, written when the Christology of the early Church was much more highly developed, was much more concerned with theology, with identifying Jesus as the Son of God and with conveying to the reader that eternal life was to be obtained through faith in Jesus and fealty to His message. While this Gospel, too, can be considered a biography of Jesus, it is much more concerned with theology than facts. Thus, that Holy Thursday’s events were part of a Seder meal was not nearly as important as outlining the theological significance, and the irony, of the Pharisees’ not wanting to defile themselves so that they could celebrate the preliminarily redemptive sacrifice of the lamb of the Passover while they pushed for the ultimately redemptive sacrifice of Jesus.
Maybe I’ll write more of these in the future.
At any rate, blessed Passover and Holy Week, Triduum, and Easter if I don’t write in the next few days.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
“…’CAUSE I DON’T HAVE A WOODEN HEART…”
The Wall Street Journal has a very interesting, some might say slippery, approach to bailouts of governments, financial institutions, etc. In principle, the Journal stands four square against bailouts of any kind, sticking out its hairy chest and declaring that a true free market has no room for bailouts of financial miscreants. However, when a specific bailout that would enable “investors” of any kind to avoid pain, the Journal always manages to find some way to justify this particular bailout this time in the interest of “preserving the world financial system” or some such drivel. It makes no difference, in the Journal’s estimation, whether the immediate bailoutee is a government, a bank, or even an industrial company; as long as the ultimate beneficiary is some kind of Wall Street institution heavily invested in that entity, the Journal argues that its ever disappearing devotion to ephemeral “principle” “must” be abandoned, just this one time.
In keeping with this long tradition of hypocrisy, today’s (i.e., Thursday, 1/14’s) Journal’s front page features an article (“In Euro’s Hour of Need, Aide Gets ‘Madame Non’ to Say Yes”) gushing over the ability of German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble’s successful efforts to get Europe’s former new iron, but now plastic, lady Angela Merkel to abandon her normal, and very German, fealty to monetary and fiscal rectitude in favor of getting along by going along with European efforts to bail out just about anybody in Europe who needs a handout in order to avoid the consequences of a very unGerman bout of fiscal debauchery. This is all to be done, of course, in the interest of “European unity,” which, if I were to digress a moment, lately amounts to all of Europe going over the cliff in a much unified manner. “European unity” is an addle-brained concept that has no chance of ever being achieved, and thank the good Lord for that. Europe is composed of some very different nations with markedly different cultures and approaches to life. Two wars have been fought in this century alone in order to achieve someone’s vision of European unity which was, thankfully, never realized. But I do digress.
So Wolfgang Schauble used his devotion to European integration and his considerable powers of persuasion to get Ms. Merkel to go along with a permanent bailout fund that will serve to rescue Greece, Ireland, and Portugal and to signal to any other European country that it is fine to go out and abuse the credit card; Uncles Klaus and Yves will always be there to set things right when pesky creditors make unreasonable demands for things like repayment of money borrowed.
There is much rejoicing over this next step toward societal and financial dystopia in the editorial offices of the Journal, largely because those being saved are the financial institutions in New York and London who have lent other people’s money without regard to prospects for repayment. But the Journal may have destroyed its own argument by pointing out that
Portugal’s request for a bailout last week is the first big test of whether the deal worked.
Portugal will indeed get a bailout and, as Ms. Merkel insisted, will, in exchange for that bailout, agree to some very tight restrictions on its fiscal behavior. But agreeing to anything is easy; living up to those agreements is difficult. After all, Portugal (and Greece and Ireland) agreed to pay the debts that other people are being forced to pay for them, right? So what happens when Portugal (and Greece and Ireland) says to hell with these financial restrictions when they get the least bit uncomfortable? Is the European Union going to rescind its bailout? Even if rescinding a bailout were somehow possible, would the EU actually do it, thus forcing a possibly inescapable crisis for the euro that the bailout was designed to avoid? In this game of chicken, there is no doubt that those on the receiving end of the bailout will win. Since Portugal, Ireland, and Greece know this, they will soon feel free to conduct their fiscal affairs in any way they damn well please and the bailouts will thus truly and indubitably become a mechanism by which frugal German, French, Czech, and Finnish taxpayers subsidize financial foppishness on the continent’s periphery. And the world, or at least the developed world, will take one more step to economic and financial destruction.
There is some hope, however. In Finland (motto: We do socialism right. With public debt at 50% of GDP and a budget deficit of 2.5% of GDP, who is “free market” America, for whom such numbers are only a wistful memory, to argue?), the True Finns party, whose most salient campaign issue is opposition to frugal Finland’s participation in bailouts of those who sneer at its financial propriety, is going to make a strong showing in Sunday’s election and will not, or at least says it will not, participate in any coalition government that will participate in further loan guarantees. But Finland, despite its having one of Europe’s most beautiful capitals and a history of being quite determined in the face of peril (Remember 1940; the Russians do.), is a small country with little clout in Europe or anywhere, for that matter. But even in Germany, Angela Merkel’s party and its coalition partner got walloped in February’s eletions in Baden-Württemberg, losing control of that state for the first time in 60 years, largely due to popular unhappiness with Ms. Merkel’s effectively making Germany the guy who picks up the tab for the riotous parties being conducted on the continent’s periphery while it spends its evenings studying and going to bed early. However, the beneficiaries of the right leaning parties’ electoral debacle in Baden-Wurttemberg were the Greens, who will doubtless embrace such bailout schemes with even more enthusiasm than the completely cowed Ms. Merkel.
So while there is some hope, there is, in reality, very little hope. The world has been turned on its head; bad behavior is rewarded, good behavior is punished, and we follow Dante into the inferno.
In keeping with this long tradition of hypocrisy, today’s (i.e., Thursday, 1/14’s) Journal’s front page features an article (“In Euro’s Hour of Need, Aide Gets ‘Madame Non’ to Say Yes”) gushing over the ability of German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble’s successful efforts to get Europe’s former new iron, but now plastic, lady Angela Merkel to abandon her normal, and very German, fealty to monetary and fiscal rectitude in favor of getting along by going along with European efforts to bail out just about anybody in Europe who needs a handout in order to avoid the consequences of a very unGerman bout of fiscal debauchery. This is all to be done, of course, in the interest of “European unity,” which, if I were to digress a moment, lately amounts to all of Europe going over the cliff in a much unified manner. “European unity” is an addle-brained concept that has no chance of ever being achieved, and thank the good Lord for that. Europe is composed of some very different nations with markedly different cultures and approaches to life. Two wars have been fought in this century alone in order to achieve someone’s vision of European unity which was, thankfully, never realized. But I do digress.
So Wolfgang Schauble used his devotion to European integration and his considerable powers of persuasion to get Ms. Merkel to go along with a permanent bailout fund that will serve to rescue Greece, Ireland, and Portugal and to signal to any other European country that it is fine to go out and abuse the credit card; Uncles Klaus and Yves will always be there to set things right when pesky creditors make unreasonable demands for things like repayment of money borrowed.
There is much rejoicing over this next step toward societal and financial dystopia in the editorial offices of the Journal, largely because those being saved are the financial institutions in New York and London who have lent other people’s money without regard to prospects for repayment. But the Journal may have destroyed its own argument by pointing out that
Portugal’s request for a bailout last week is the first big test of whether the deal worked.
Portugal will indeed get a bailout and, as Ms. Merkel insisted, will, in exchange for that bailout, agree to some very tight restrictions on its fiscal behavior. But agreeing to anything is easy; living up to those agreements is difficult. After all, Portugal (and Greece and Ireland) agreed to pay the debts that other people are being forced to pay for them, right? So what happens when Portugal (and Greece and Ireland) says to hell with these financial restrictions when they get the least bit uncomfortable? Is the European Union going to rescind its bailout? Even if rescinding a bailout were somehow possible, would the EU actually do it, thus forcing a possibly inescapable crisis for the euro that the bailout was designed to avoid? In this game of chicken, there is no doubt that those on the receiving end of the bailout will win. Since Portugal, Ireland, and Greece know this, they will soon feel free to conduct their fiscal affairs in any way they damn well please and the bailouts will thus truly and indubitably become a mechanism by which frugal German, French, Czech, and Finnish taxpayers subsidize financial foppishness on the continent’s periphery. And the world, or at least the developed world, will take one more step to economic and financial destruction.
There is some hope, however. In Finland (motto: We do socialism right. With public debt at 50% of GDP and a budget deficit of 2.5% of GDP, who is “free market” America, for whom such numbers are only a wistful memory, to argue?), the True Finns party, whose most salient campaign issue is opposition to frugal Finland’s participation in bailouts of those who sneer at its financial propriety, is going to make a strong showing in Sunday’s election and will not, or at least says it will not, participate in any coalition government that will participate in further loan guarantees. But Finland, despite its having one of Europe’s most beautiful capitals and a history of being quite determined in the face of peril (Remember 1940; the Russians do.), is a small country with little clout in Europe or anywhere, for that matter. But even in Germany, Angela Merkel’s party and its coalition partner got walloped in February’s eletions in Baden-Württemberg, losing control of that state for the first time in 60 years, largely due to popular unhappiness with Ms. Merkel’s effectively making Germany the guy who picks up the tab for the riotous parties being conducted on the continent’s periphery while it spends its evenings studying and going to bed early. However, the beneficiaries of the right leaning parties’ electoral debacle in Baden-Wurttemberg were the Greens, who will doubtless embrace such bailout schemes with even more enthusiasm than the completely cowed Ms. Merkel.
So while there is some hope, there is, in reality, very little hope. The world has been turned on its head; bad behavior is rewarded, good behavior is punished, and we follow Dante into the inferno.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
ABBOT AND COSTELLO GO INTO ORBIT
So Chicago’s beautiful Adler Planetarium will not be getting one of the retired shuttles. Instead, we will be getting a crumby old shuttle trainer, which is very much akin to getting a T-6 Texan when one was expecting a P-51 Mustang.
I, for one, am delighted that we will not be getting a shuttle, which would have turned out to have been just another excuse for politicians to spend money fortifying their egos and their public personae and ingratiating themselves with their contractor friends in the interest of “maintaining Chicago’s position as a world class city” or some such drivel. My only disappointment is that we will be getting the pathetic training shuttle which I am sure the politicians will use as a nearly as effective device for blowing our spondulicks with an effectiveness rivaled only by the shuttle program itself, a glittering testimony to a bureaucracy’s ability to preserve itself even in the face of daunting, overpowering logic, but I digress. Oh, yes, the shuttle project would have been (and, presumably, the trainer will be) funded “without public money.” But that would not have made the shuttle any less of a money pit. Why?
First of all, never, ever believe a politician when s/he states that a particular project will be pursued “without public money.” The cases in which such assurances are kept, or even made with a straight face, are so few that they escape the minds of even those assuring us that, yes, this time we mean it. Second, even if by some miracle the shuttle display at Adler would have been put in place without public money (and even if it would) it would have been financed, either entirely or primarily, by an especially virulent form of the Chicago shakedown. Every business owner in our fair city would be subjected by something very much akin to the following cajoling by some politically connected obsequiant knuckle-dragger who, in most instances, would be, literally or figuratively, reading from a script:
“Aw, c’mon, you love your city, don’t ya? Don’t ya want us to be a world class city? Whatsa matter? Don’t you like Chicago? What…you want us to be another Detroit? C’mon. Da Mare really would appreciate it if you would help with a small contribution. It’ll help the economy. It’ll help make us a world class city. C’mon. Our consultants tell us it’ll create 400,000 jobs. C’mon. Show your love for our city. Don’t you like da Bears or what? Whattya got against kids? Whattsa matter wit’ you?”
Then the discussion would turn to the consequences not “donating” would have for one’s chances of winning any kind of city business, or any business from those who had the public spiritedness to pony up for this latest boondoggle, and the myriad possible violations by non-contributors of various city codes and regulations that would suddenly have to come under intense scrutiny.
In short, the Adler Shuttle would be financed in much the same manner that the Olympics would have been financed had we not dodged that bullet. Good riddance and thank the good Lord we were spared from this particular device for enriching the politically connected in the name of civic pride.
I, of course, am in the distinct minority in my being overjoyed at not getting a copy of this space jalopy that would be able to continue to fulfill its primary mission (only figuratively instead of literally in this manifestation) of burning other people’s money at a mind-bogglingly prodigious rate. Naturally, most of the right thinking people, and certainly the politicians who run this town, are sullen and down in the mouth about having to settle for the trainer instead of the real thing; after all, they would get to reward the contracts for the millions upon millions of dollars the shuttle would “need” in order to serve as a monument to the government’s longstanding and ever growing ability to destroy money at pointless tasks.
The question the political movers and shakers must be asking themselves in the wake of their failure to get a shuttle must be twofold. First, what good is it having a president from around here, indeed, some might say making a guy from here president, if he can’t deliver even something so trifling as a copy of a space jalopy? If the President can’t even get Adler a shuttle, what about the billions of dollars of federal money he was expected to send home to keep the city afloat and the local pols’ supporters well larded with contracts and other sinecures?
Second, the reason that the Daleys and their pals were so gung-ho on Rahm Emanuel for mayor was their perception that Mr. Emanuel’s closeness to the President and the other people who hold sway in Washington would result in rich rewards for the city of Chicago, that their boy Rahm would be able to bring plenty back to our fair city because he is such a prominent figure in Washington. The thought, of course, was not that he would be bringing back a shuttle, but, rather, money and lots of it. But, in the wake of this shuttle fiasco, the boys back home must be thinking that if he can’t even get us a museum piece (in more ways than one), how in the world is the north shore wunderkind supposed to get the billions that the Daleys anticipated when they backed this poseur for mayor?
In the wake of the shuttle “disappointment,” a lot of people around this town have to be thinking they backed a couple of the wrong horses.
I, for one, am delighted that we will not be getting a shuttle, which would have turned out to have been just another excuse for politicians to spend money fortifying their egos and their public personae and ingratiating themselves with their contractor friends in the interest of “maintaining Chicago’s position as a world class city” or some such drivel. My only disappointment is that we will be getting the pathetic training shuttle which I am sure the politicians will use as a nearly as effective device for blowing our spondulicks with an effectiveness rivaled only by the shuttle program itself, a glittering testimony to a bureaucracy’s ability to preserve itself even in the face of daunting, overpowering logic, but I digress. Oh, yes, the shuttle project would have been (and, presumably, the trainer will be) funded “without public money.” But that would not have made the shuttle any less of a money pit. Why?
First of all, never, ever believe a politician when s/he states that a particular project will be pursued “without public money.” The cases in which such assurances are kept, or even made with a straight face, are so few that they escape the minds of even those assuring us that, yes, this time we mean it. Second, even if by some miracle the shuttle display at Adler would have been put in place without public money (and even if it would) it would have been financed, either entirely or primarily, by an especially virulent form of the Chicago shakedown. Every business owner in our fair city would be subjected by something very much akin to the following cajoling by some politically connected obsequiant knuckle-dragger who, in most instances, would be, literally or figuratively, reading from a script:
“Aw, c’mon, you love your city, don’t ya? Don’t ya want us to be a world class city? Whatsa matter? Don’t you like Chicago? What…you want us to be another Detroit? C’mon. Da Mare really would appreciate it if you would help with a small contribution. It’ll help the economy. It’ll help make us a world class city. C’mon. Our consultants tell us it’ll create 400,000 jobs. C’mon. Show your love for our city. Don’t you like da Bears or what? Whattya got against kids? Whattsa matter wit’ you?”
Then the discussion would turn to the consequences not “donating” would have for one’s chances of winning any kind of city business, or any business from those who had the public spiritedness to pony up for this latest boondoggle, and the myriad possible violations by non-contributors of various city codes and regulations that would suddenly have to come under intense scrutiny.
In short, the Adler Shuttle would be financed in much the same manner that the Olympics would have been financed had we not dodged that bullet. Good riddance and thank the good Lord we were spared from this particular device for enriching the politically connected in the name of civic pride.
I, of course, am in the distinct minority in my being overjoyed at not getting a copy of this space jalopy that would be able to continue to fulfill its primary mission (only figuratively instead of literally in this manifestation) of burning other people’s money at a mind-bogglingly prodigious rate. Naturally, most of the right thinking people, and certainly the politicians who run this town, are sullen and down in the mouth about having to settle for the trainer instead of the real thing; after all, they would get to reward the contracts for the millions upon millions of dollars the shuttle would “need” in order to serve as a monument to the government’s longstanding and ever growing ability to destroy money at pointless tasks.
The question the political movers and shakers must be asking themselves in the wake of their failure to get a shuttle must be twofold. First, what good is it having a president from around here, indeed, some might say making a guy from here president, if he can’t deliver even something so trifling as a copy of a space jalopy? If the President can’t even get Adler a shuttle, what about the billions of dollars of federal money he was expected to send home to keep the city afloat and the local pols’ supporters well larded with contracts and other sinecures?
Second, the reason that the Daleys and their pals were so gung-ho on Rahm Emanuel for mayor was their perception that Mr. Emanuel’s closeness to the President and the other people who hold sway in Washington would result in rich rewards for the city of Chicago, that their boy Rahm would be able to bring plenty back to our fair city because he is such a prominent figure in Washington. The thought, of course, was not that he would be bringing back a shuttle, but, rather, money and lots of it. But, in the wake of this shuttle fiasco, the boys back home must be thinking that if he can’t even get us a museum piece (in more ways than one), how in the world is the north shore wunderkind supposed to get the billions that the Daleys anticipated when they backed this poseur for mayor?
In the wake of the shuttle “disappointment,” a lot of people around this town have to be thinking they backed a couple of the wrong horses.
Friday, April 8, 2011
OILY AND OFTEN
I normally don’t like to make explicit predictions, especially about market developments, in the Pontificator, largely because I don’t like to leave a paper trail when I am wrong, which I am about half the time, in line with most human experience. However, a friend asked this morning where I thought oil was going and, since my yen prediction of last month (See my 3/17/11 post, YEN TRADE LOOKS EASY HERE) looks especially prescient at this point, I thought I would chance reproducing a redacted copy of my reply for my readers:
4/8/11
We're oil is at $111.56 as I write this and most people never thought it would get that high. I suspect that on its monetary value alone, it has some room to run and if any of the imbroglios in the Middle East flare over, that's probably good for at least another $10.00. So I would say we'll see at least $120 and maybe another $10 or so.
The only things that would kill oil’s run would be a big Chinese slowdown, which would almost have to be intentional and born of severe monetary restraint, a sudden outbreak of peace and stability in the Middle East, or a bout of sobriety on the part of Mr. Bernanke, all of which are unlikely.
4/8/11
We're oil is at $111.56 as I write this and most people never thought it would get that high. I suspect that on its monetary value alone, it has some room to run and if any of the imbroglios in the Middle East flare over, that's probably good for at least another $10.00. So I would say we'll see at least $120 and maybe another $10 or so.
The only things that would kill oil’s run would be a big Chinese slowdown, which would almost have to be intentional and born of severe monetary restraint, a sudden outbreak of peace and stability in the Middle East, or a bout of sobriety on the part of Mr. Bernanke, all of which are unlikely.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
MORE FROM THE SOCRATES OF WEST ROGERS PARK
4/6/11
(See one of today’s other posts, YET MORE EVIDENCE THAT THE END IS PAST NIGH, for background on the subject matter covered in this post.)
In the wake of his being retired from his 38 year stint on the Chicago City Council by Rahm Emanuel and Richard Daley (C’mon; who really thinks it was Debra and Ira Silverstein who won that election?), the latter of whom Mr. Stone supported loyally ever since Mr. Daley entered politics, after supporting his father for as long as Mr. Stone had been in politics, 50th Ward Alderman Bernie Stone was asked what he thought of the woman who will replace him. Mr. Stone, being an old-fashioned Chicago (former) ward boss, replied that Debra Silverstein
“...will be a disaster for this ward. There’s no way I’ll help her. She knows nothing.”
Pressed further on whether he would do the “gentlemanly” thing and support Mrs. Silverstein, Mr. Stone replied
“No. Listen, that family stripped me of everything I had. Why the hell would I support them? I’m not being bitter. It’s not a question of being bitter. It’s just a question of tit for tat.”
This is honesty on a par with that exhibited by Mr. Stone’s late colleague 25th Ward Alderman and Committeeman Vito Marzullo who, when asked by a college crowd why he entered politics, replied
“I entered politics to reward my friends and screw my enemies.”
Such honesty is indeed refreshing and not only because it is so rare in telepromptered, blow-dried, focus grouped politics of this dreary era in which we live. I, for one, am sick and tired of two pols who have spent months figuratively kicking the excretory product out of each other for months, or even years, making smarmy, unctuous, nauseously insincere nicey-nice with each other on election night. Give me one Bernie Stone over a million of the pancake made up automatons with $100 hairdos who somehow feel fit to tell us what to do in the modern era.
I have missed Vito Marzullo ever since he died in 1990, five years after his nine terms of service on the City Council ended. I am already missing Bernie Stone.
(See one of today’s other posts, YET MORE EVIDENCE THAT THE END IS PAST NIGH, for background on the subject matter covered in this post.)
In the wake of his being retired from his 38 year stint on the Chicago City Council by Rahm Emanuel and Richard Daley (C’mon; who really thinks it was Debra and Ira Silverstein who won that election?), the latter of whom Mr. Stone supported loyally ever since Mr. Daley entered politics, after supporting his father for as long as Mr. Stone had been in politics, 50th Ward Alderman Bernie Stone was asked what he thought of the woman who will replace him. Mr. Stone, being an old-fashioned Chicago (former) ward boss, replied that Debra Silverstein
“...will be a disaster for this ward. There’s no way I’ll help her. She knows nothing.”
Pressed further on whether he would do the “gentlemanly” thing and support Mrs. Silverstein, Mr. Stone replied
“No. Listen, that family stripped me of everything I had. Why the hell would I support them? I’m not being bitter. It’s not a question of being bitter. It’s just a question of tit for tat.”
This is honesty on a par with that exhibited by Mr. Stone’s late colleague 25th Ward Alderman and Committeeman Vito Marzullo who, when asked by a college crowd why he entered politics, replied
“I entered politics to reward my friends and screw my enemies.”
Such honesty is indeed refreshing and not only because it is so rare in telepromptered, blow-dried, focus grouped politics of this dreary era in which we live. I, for one, am sick and tired of two pols who have spent months figuratively kicking the excretory product out of each other for months, or even years, making smarmy, unctuous, nauseously insincere nicey-nice with each other on election night. Give me one Bernie Stone over a million of the pancake made up automatons with $100 hairdos who somehow feel fit to tell us what to do in the modern era.
I have missed Vito Marzullo ever since he died in 1990, five years after his nine terms of service on the City Council ended. I am already missing Bernie Stone.
YET MORE EVIDENCE THAT THE END IS PAST NIGH
So what to make of yesterday’s aldermanic elections in Chicago? While the media speculates on Mayor-elect Rahm Emanuel’s “score” in this election (presumably 7 of the 9 aldermanic candidates he backed won—quite impressive), I see the final, unequivocal nail in the coffin of the old ward based political Machine in Chicago, as if the Machine displayed any more than the faintest of heartbeats prior to this election.
Why? The Banks family, which has long controlled the 36th Ward in close cooperation with State Senator Jimmy DeLeo, could not re-elect Bill Banks’ handpicked successor, his former drive John Rice, losing the election to Chicago fireman Nick Sposato. One could argue that the Cullertons maintained control of their century long bailiwick in the 38th Ward, but Tim Cullerton’s opponent, Tom Caravette, was deeply flawed, largely due to what some considered legitimate contentions that he is something of a slum lord. One could also argue that in the 50th Ward, Committeeman Ira Silverstein’s wife Debra Silverstein defeated 38 year alderman Bernie Stone, but this was a race between a new committeeman and the man he replaced only four years ago who had his own machine of sorts in the ward. Further, Ira Silverstein doesn’t fit the mold of an old time ward boss, a description that fits Bernie Stone to a tee. Neither of these examples negates the near fact that when the Banks/DeLeo consortium can’t carry the 36th Ward, the old ward based Machine is finished.
The Rice loss is only the latest example of a once formidable ward organization being unable to crank. In the last 6 months, we have witnessed:
--Last November, Ed Burke was unable to reelect Joseph Mario Moreno, his candidate for Cook County Commissioner in a district that encompasses Burke’s 14th Ward. In the same election, Ed Burke’s brother Dan won reelection to his state rep seat, in a district that likewise encompasses the 14th Ward, by only 55%-45% over Rudy Lozano.
--In February, Gery Chico carried only seven wards. With the exception of the 19th, all had at least Hispanic pluralities or, in the case of the 23rd, a population of Hispanics exactly even with its white population. Even in the 10th, 13th, 14th, and 23rd Wards, run by presumed powerhouses John Pope, Mike Madigan, Ed Burke, and Mike Zalewski, Mr. Chico won as much on account of his last name as on the backing of the wards’ committeemen. See my 2/22/11 post, “IT’S OVER, IT’S OVER!!!”
--In that same February election, the once vaunted machine of Alderman and Committeeman Gene Schulter in the “Fighting 47th” could not carry for Mr. Schulter’s handpicked replacement, Tom O’Donnell, losing to political novice Ameya Pawar and not even making it to yesterday’s April runoff. See my 2/23/11 post, THE FIGHT’S OVER IN THE 47TH.
The old Machine had a faint hint of its former glory when its nominal boss, 31st Ward Committeeman Joe Berrios, defeated Rahm Emanuel wannabe Forest Claypool for Cook County Assessor, but that was perhaps its last hurrah. While most would hail this development, one must feel a bit of wistfulness for the entertainment value of our former peculiar way of governing ourselves and for an era when people who were clearly and unabashedly in it for the money and the power, rather than those who protest to be in it for such namby-pamby and disingenuous motives as “the public good” or “reform” while reaching for infinitely larger chunks of money and power, were in charge. See my 3/28/11 post, HEY, THE BOYS NEED A LITTLE LUNCH MONEY…
One final note…
The most profound words of election night were uttered by old warhorse Bernie Stone former committeeman, and now soon to be former alderman, of the 50th Ward. Mr. Stone lost to Debra Silverstein (See the second paragraph of this post.) who had not only the backing of her husband, Ira Silverstein, who got the committeeman’s post in the 50th with the support of Mayor Daley, but also the unequivocal and highly vocal backing of Rahm Emanuel:
“I’m up against the Machine. I used to be the Machine.”
The Machine used to be in the hands of guys like Bernie Stone. Now, and for at least the last twenty years, the Machine is, and has been, in the hands of the guy who sits on the Fifth Floor of City Hall. And, as Bernie Stone also said last night:
“Instead of King Richard, he’s now Emperor Emanuel. If guys like Eddie Burke are pushed around by Rahm Emanuel, then this city is in for some rough times.”
Indeed, Alderman Stone.
Why? The Banks family, which has long controlled the 36th Ward in close cooperation with State Senator Jimmy DeLeo, could not re-elect Bill Banks’ handpicked successor, his former drive John Rice, losing the election to Chicago fireman Nick Sposato. One could argue that the Cullertons maintained control of their century long bailiwick in the 38th Ward, but Tim Cullerton’s opponent, Tom Caravette, was deeply flawed, largely due to what some considered legitimate contentions that he is something of a slum lord. One could also argue that in the 50th Ward, Committeeman Ira Silverstein’s wife Debra Silverstein defeated 38 year alderman Bernie Stone, but this was a race between a new committeeman and the man he replaced only four years ago who had his own machine of sorts in the ward. Further, Ira Silverstein doesn’t fit the mold of an old time ward boss, a description that fits Bernie Stone to a tee. Neither of these examples negates the near fact that when the Banks/DeLeo consortium can’t carry the 36th Ward, the old ward based Machine is finished.
The Rice loss is only the latest example of a once formidable ward organization being unable to crank. In the last 6 months, we have witnessed:
--Last November, Ed Burke was unable to reelect Joseph Mario Moreno, his candidate for Cook County Commissioner in a district that encompasses Burke’s 14th Ward. In the same election, Ed Burke’s brother Dan won reelection to his state rep seat, in a district that likewise encompasses the 14th Ward, by only 55%-45% over Rudy Lozano.
--In February, Gery Chico carried only seven wards. With the exception of the 19th, all had at least Hispanic pluralities or, in the case of the 23rd, a population of Hispanics exactly even with its white population. Even in the 10th, 13th, 14th, and 23rd Wards, run by presumed powerhouses John Pope, Mike Madigan, Ed Burke, and Mike Zalewski, Mr. Chico won as much on account of his last name as on the backing of the wards’ committeemen. See my 2/22/11 post, “IT’S OVER, IT’S OVER!!!”
--In that same February election, the once vaunted machine of Alderman and Committeeman Gene Schulter in the “Fighting 47th” could not carry for Mr. Schulter’s handpicked replacement, Tom O’Donnell, losing to political novice Ameya Pawar and not even making it to yesterday’s April runoff. See my 2/23/11 post, THE FIGHT’S OVER IN THE 47TH.
The old Machine had a faint hint of its former glory when its nominal boss, 31st Ward Committeeman Joe Berrios, defeated Rahm Emanuel wannabe Forest Claypool for Cook County Assessor, but that was perhaps its last hurrah. While most would hail this development, one must feel a bit of wistfulness for the entertainment value of our former peculiar way of governing ourselves and for an era when people who were clearly and unabashedly in it for the money and the power, rather than those who protest to be in it for such namby-pamby and disingenuous motives as “the public good” or “reform” while reaching for infinitely larger chunks of money and power, were in charge. See my 3/28/11 post, HEY, THE BOYS NEED A LITTLE LUNCH MONEY…
One final note…
The most profound words of election night were uttered by old warhorse Bernie Stone former committeeman, and now soon to be former alderman, of the 50th Ward. Mr. Stone lost to Debra Silverstein (See the second paragraph of this post.) who had not only the backing of her husband, Ira Silverstein, who got the committeeman’s post in the 50th with the support of Mayor Daley, but also the unequivocal and highly vocal backing of Rahm Emanuel:
“I’m up against the Machine. I used to be the Machine.”
The Machine used to be in the hands of guys like Bernie Stone. Now, and for at least the last twenty years, the Machine is, and has been, in the hands of the guy who sits on the Fifth Floor of City Hall. And, as Bernie Stone also said last night:
“Instead of King Richard, he’s now Emperor Emanuel. If guys like Eddie Burke are pushed around by Rahm Emanuel, then this city is in for some rough times.”
Indeed, Alderman Stone.
“I WISH YOU HEALTH, AND MORE THAN WEALTH, I WISH YOU LOVE…”
While I am generally favorably disposed toward Representative Paul Ryan’s plan to reduce government spending by $6 trillion over the next ten years, one has to wonder how much thought was put into one of its major components, the reduction in spending on Medicare for those my age and younger.
Mr. Ryan proposes giving us a premium support payment (terminology used presumably because “premium support payment” sounds better than “voucher” after the teachers’ unions have beaten up on the latter term for the last thirty years or so, but I digress) of $8,000, presumably in today’s dollars, starting in 2022. We can then take that $8,000 and choose from a variety of plans participating in an insurance exchange of the type Mr. Ryan so detests when they are part of the Obama health plan. While $8,000 is far less than the $11,743 Medicare currently spends on each senior, Mr. Ryan depends on the miracle of the marketplace to bring down premia since so many insurance companies will be competing for the seniors’ business.
Hmm…
While I am a firm believer in the miracle of the marketplace and spend a large portion of this blog decrying efforts of government enthusiasts of both parties to squelch the workings of the free enterprise system, I am quite sure such miracles will not take place in the health care industry, and especially in delivering health care or, more properly, health insurance, to seniors. Why? Given the aggressiveness with which insurance companies deny coverage to those with preexisting conditions, many, if not most, seniors are uninsurable, according to insurance company definitions and preferences. Therefore, one has to doubt that insurance companies will be lining up to participate in Mr. Ryan’s exchanges to insure those deemed uninsurable. With a limited number of participants, the marketplace has a hard time working miracles.
This points out a larger problem with the medical insurance marketplace, i.e., the market does not work well, if at all, in this market, and certainly not in the marketplace for individual insurance policies. Why? Once one has what the insurance companies deem a preexisting condition, one has little latitude to participate in anything remotely resembling a market. Even if one can get insured, one is locked into that insurance policy, since no one else will insure him, regardless of the abuse his current provider chooses to heap on him in the form of higher premiums, higher deductibles, denial of coverage, etc. From the other direction, if insurance companies are allowed to legitimately underwrite, anyone with a preexisting condition (e.g., most senior citizens) will be unable to get coverage, and, by the way, legitimately so. No one can make money providing insurance when premium and investment income do not exceed outlays for claims. On the other hand, if health insurance companies are not allowed to underwrite, an activity proscribed by the Obama plan and, probably, as more details come out, by the Ryan plan, then we have effectively ditched the free market in favor of coercing insurers to write insurance at a loss. How does that differ from government coverage in anything but the most ethereal of forms?
One would think that Mr. Ryan and those who have helped him design his plan would be aware of this, but maybe not. Mr. Ryan, as far as anybody knows, has never purchased an individual health insurance policy but, instead, has obtained his health insurance through his employer. In the case of Mr. Ryan, the latest most vocal champion of free enterprise to emerge from the modern GOP, and most of those who helped design his plan, that employer has been either the federal government or some state or local government. Such is the low and absurd state our system of governance and political discourse has reached.
Mr. Ryan proposes giving us a premium support payment (terminology used presumably because “premium support payment” sounds better than “voucher” after the teachers’ unions have beaten up on the latter term for the last thirty years or so, but I digress) of $8,000, presumably in today’s dollars, starting in 2022. We can then take that $8,000 and choose from a variety of plans participating in an insurance exchange of the type Mr. Ryan so detests when they are part of the Obama health plan. While $8,000 is far less than the $11,743 Medicare currently spends on each senior, Mr. Ryan depends on the miracle of the marketplace to bring down premia since so many insurance companies will be competing for the seniors’ business.
Hmm…
While I am a firm believer in the miracle of the marketplace and spend a large portion of this blog decrying efforts of government enthusiasts of both parties to squelch the workings of the free enterprise system, I am quite sure such miracles will not take place in the health care industry, and especially in delivering health care or, more properly, health insurance, to seniors. Why? Given the aggressiveness with which insurance companies deny coverage to those with preexisting conditions, many, if not most, seniors are uninsurable, according to insurance company definitions and preferences. Therefore, one has to doubt that insurance companies will be lining up to participate in Mr. Ryan’s exchanges to insure those deemed uninsurable. With a limited number of participants, the marketplace has a hard time working miracles.
This points out a larger problem with the medical insurance marketplace, i.e., the market does not work well, if at all, in this market, and certainly not in the marketplace for individual insurance policies. Why? Once one has what the insurance companies deem a preexisting condition, one has little latitude to participate in anything remotely resembling a market. Even if one can get insured, one is locked into that insurance policy, since no one else will insure him, regardless of the abuse his current provider chooses to heap on him in the form of higher premiums, higher deductibles, denial of coverage, etc. From the other direction, if insurance companies are allowed to legitimately underwrite, anyone with a preexisting condition (e.g., most senior citizens) will be unable to get coverage, and, by the way, legitimately so. No one can make money providing insurance when premium and investment income do not exceed outlays for claims. On the other hand, if health insurance companies are not allowed to underwrite, an activity proscribed by the Obama plan and, probably, as more details come out, by the Ryan plan, then we have effectively ditched the free market in favor of coercing insurers to write insurance at a loss. How does that differ from government coverage in anything but the most ethereal of forms?
One would think that Mr. Ryan and those who have helped him design his plan would be aware of this, but maybe not. Mr. Ryan, as far as anybody knows, has never purchased an individual health insurance policy but, instead, has obtained his health insurance through his employer. In the case of Mr. Ryan, the latest most vocal champion of free enterprise to emerge from the modern GOP, and most of those who helped design his plan, that employer has been either the federal government or some state or local government. Such is the low and absurd state our system of governance and political discourse has reached.
Monday, April 4, 2011
“I’M A MAN OF MEANS BY NO MEANS…”
For all my complaining about the Wall Street Journal’s “banging on the war drums as a substitute for reportage” approach to journalism, I still consider it the nation’s greatest newspaper, and a page A1 article in today’s (i.e., Monday, 4/4’s) Journal fortifies that belief. The article “Fed’s Low Interest Rates Crack Retirees’ Nest Eggs” considers the human aspects of the Bush/Obama/Bernanke policy of keeping short term (and, if they could, long term, but that is grist for another mill) rates low in order to punish savers and reward spenders so that the economy will “return to health” in the wake of the number such enlightened thinking did on the nation’s finances a few years ago.
The problem faced by the elderly whom Messrs. Bush, Obama, and Bernanke have financially decimated is best summed up by Mrs. Eileen Keller, a retiree who, in her mid-60s, cannot be considered old, at least not by someone yours truly’s age. Mrs. Keller is quoted in the article as saying:
“It bothers me, because we did all the right things. We weren’t frivolous. We saved our money. And still we get hit by this.”
There are doubtless those who simply don’t care about the humanitarian aspects of the Bush/Obama/Bernanke approach to monetary policy. After all, these misanthropic types might argue, people in Mrs. Keller’s age group surely could have delayed retirement and those, like World War II vet Forrest Yeager, also featured in the article, have made the mistake of living too long. It is far more important, these wunderkinds might argue, to keep rates low so that the children of those trying to make it on a few hundred a month can continue to live several floors over their heads and Wall Street types won’t have to bear the ignominy of having to get by on low seven figure incomes. I, on the other hand, would argue that perhaps the only mistake Mr. Yeager’s generation made was to spend so much money on the educations of the generation which has now decided that screwing their parents is somehow enlightened economic policy, but I digress.
Other deep thinking types would urge the elderly to suck it up, take a little risk, and stop relying on such antiquated investments as CDs and money market funds. Why, these hair chests would argue, short term investments are a fool’s game; man up and put your money in the stock market and you can’t miss! 11% per year, (almost) guaranteed! Such financial estimables were doubtless dispensing such advice in 2007, which is a large part of the problem, but being a boomer or younger means never having to admit that you were wrong, but I digress again.
Even those who care little about the humanitarian plight of those who were foolish enough, in the misanthropes’ estimation, to save their whole lives rather than emulating the lifestyles of their children have to consider the economic ramifications of the Bush/Obama/Bernanke “damn the savers” policy. How can seniors spend money when they earn nothing on their savings? Since, according to the Bush/Obama/Bernanke approach, a healthy economy is characterized by raucous spending debauches (primarily on imported items, but I digress again), how can the economy get healthy when the seniors can’t spend? What does this do to the stocks of businesses that cater to the wants and needs of the elderly? Perhaps if we point out to the most destructive generation how their systematic screwing of their parents hurts them, maybe they will reexamine this policy.
One more thing that I found interesting about this article was included almost as an afterthought. The article states that
American’s net contributions to their financial assets, such as bank and 401k accounts, amounted to 4% of disposable income in 2010, according to the Fed. That’s the lowest level since it began maintaining records in 1946—except for 2009, when people actually pulled money out.
Hmm…, I thought. What about the return to saving, reflected in the increasing savings rate, that we keep hearing about? The answer was in the next paragraph. Reduction of debt is counted as saving. I knew that, but I didn’t know, as the paragraph goes on to say, that reduction of debts due to defaults count as savings when calculating the savings rate. O tempora, o mores!
So…
We are persecuting the elderly who had the good sense to save the old-fashioned way (i.e., by not feeling the need to purchase at this very moment everything they’ve ever wanted) while patting ourselves on the back for “saving money” by sticking it to our creditors.
We are, just in case I haven’t written this in awhile, doomed. Doomed, doomed, doomed.
The problem faced by the elderly whom Messrs. Bush, Obama, and Bernanke have financially decimated is best summed up by Mrs. Eileen Keller, a retiree who, in her mid-60s, cannot be considered old, at least not by someone yours truly’s age. Mrs. Keller is quoted in the article as saying:
“It bothers me, because we did all the right things. We weren’t frivolous. We saved our money. And still we get hit by this.”
There are doubtless those who simply don’t care about the humanitarian aspects of the Bush/Obama/Bernanke approach to monetary policy. After all, these misanthropic types might argue, people in Mrs. Keller’s age group surely could have delayed retirement and those, like World War II vet Forrest Yeager, also featured in the article, have made the mistake of living too long. It is far more important, these wunderkinds might argue, to keep rates low so that the children of those trying to make it on a few hundred a month can continue to live several floors over their heads and Wall Street types won’t have to bear the ignominy of having to get by on low seven figure incomes. I, on the other hand, would argue that perhaps the only mistake Mr. Yeager’s generation made was to spend so much money on the educations of the generation which has now decided that screwing their parents is somehow enlightened economic policy, but I digress.
Other deep thinking types would urge the elderly to suck it up, take a little risk, and stop relying on such antiquated investments as CDs and money market funds. Why, these hair chests would argue, short term investments are a fool’s game; man up and put your money in the stock market and you can’t miss! 11% per year, (almost) guaranteed! Such financial estimables were doubtless dispensing such advice in 2007, which is a large part of the problem, but being a boomer or younger means never having to admit that you were wrong, but I digress again.
Even those who care little about the humanitarian plight of those who were foolish enough, in the misanthropes’ estimation, to save their whole lives rather than emulating the lifestyles of their children have to consider the economic ramifications of the Bush/Obama/Bernanke “damn the savers” policy. How can seniors spend money when they earn nothing on their savings? Since, according to the Bush/Obama/Bernanke approach, a healthy economy is characterized by raucous spending debauches (primarily on imported items, but I digress again), how can the economy get healthy when the seniors can’t spend? What does this do to the stocks of businesses that cater to the wants and needs of the elderly? Perhaps if we point out to the most destructive generation how their systematic screwing of their parents hurts them, maybe they will reexamine this policy.
One more thing that I found interesting about this article was included almost as an afterthought. The article states that
American’s net contributions to their financial assets, such as bank and 401k accounts, amounted to 4% of disposable income in 2010, according to the Fed. That’s the lowest level since it began maintaining records in 1946—except for 2009, when people actually pulled money out.
Hmm…, I thought. What about the return to saving, reflected in the increasing savings rate, that we keep hearing about? The answer was in the next paragraph. Reduction of debt is counted as saving. I knew that, but I didn’t know, as the paragraph goes on to say, that reduction of debts due to defaults count as savings when calculating the savings rate. O tempora, o mores!
So…
We are persecuting the elderly who had the good sense to save the old-fashioned way (i.e., by not feeling the need to purchase at this very moment everything they’ve ever wanted) while patting ourselves on the back for “saving money” by sticking it to our creditors.
We are, just in case I haven’t written this in awhile, doomed. Doomed, doomed, doomed.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
MAYBE KENN MILLER WILL PROPOSE A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM FOR NAPERVILLE GIRLS WHO DON’T WANT TO WORK AT SHOW-ME’S (SIC)
4/3/11
I sent the below e-missive to the campaign of one Kenn Miller, a candidate for Naperville mayor whose latest pandergram lauds himself as “champion of diversity” and contends “an Enterprise Center that focuses on Chinese trade would be beneficial to (sic) promoting the importance of Naperville as a center of excellence and entrepreneurial support.” This latest example of Mr. Miller’s never ending determination to spend our money to advance his political career adds ominously, after that last quoted sentence “It (the Enterprise Center) is just one step of many.” Given the mental horsepower displayed in most political discourse, my opposition to Mr. Miller’s ever expansionary plans will doubtless be attacked as a manifestation of some sort of anti-Chinese bias. Such is that state of public discourse in the U.S. these days.
Sadly, our alternatives in Naperville are few. The most salient act of the incumbent, George Pradel, in my mind, is his suggestion to my wife that my daughters, aged 16 and 17, will soon be working at Show-Me’s (sic), a nearby “sports bar” that can best be described as a Hooters, Tilted Kilt wannabe…only with far less class. Then we have one Doug Krause, a city council member who has been hacking around Naperville politics forever. Pradel, who is popular with Naperville residents, who apparently loved being talked to like they are six year olds and being told that their daughters are good only for tarting themselves up to titillate voyeuristic losers who apparently encounter problems getting any attention at home, will in all likelihood win against a divided opposition.
Luckily the mayor of our town has no real power.
Thanks.
4/3/11
Kenn and crew,
And just what else would you like the government to do? Or, probably the better question, is there anything you think the government SHOULDN'T do? An Enterprise Center? Naperville as a center of excellence and entrepreneurial support? C'mon. If you want to support entrepreneurship, how about, rather than picking and choosing which “entrepreneurs” are worthy of government support (a’la Richie Daley), lowering the tax burden and improving services so that entrepreneurs continue to find Naperville an attractive place to locate their businesses? True entrepreneurs aren’t lining up for handouts from ambitious and meretricious politicians; they just don’t want to be taxed needlessly and shaken down ceaselessly so that the local political class can fortify their egos and enhance their public sector futures by appealing to those who don’t stop to think that all that the politicians promise comes out of our pockets.
Your e-mails seem to have become a litany of proposals for government busybodiness designed to "improve" our lives. How about just leaving us alone instead of looking for more things to do with our money?
I can't possibly vote for the buffoon who is currently mayor, who thinks nothing of delivering gratuitous insults to my daughters and my wife while chortling in his normal incoherent, witless manner, and I thought I was going to vote for you, Kenn, but this ceaseless drivel about all that you want the government to do for (to?) me is quickly changing my mind. You sound like a typical Republican who is against big government...unless it is growing in his direction. We don't need more of this excerebrosity; the taxpayers can't afford it.
Mark Quinn
I sent the below e-missive to the campaign of one Kenn Miller, a candidate for Naperville mayor whose latest pandergram lauds himself as “champion of diversity” and contends “an Enterprise Center that focuses on Chinese trade would be beneficial to (sic) promoting the importance of Naperville as a center of excellence and entrepreneurial support.” This latest example of Mr. Miller’s never ending determination to spend our money to advance his political career adds ominously, after that last quoted sentence “It (the Enterprise Center) is just one step of many.” Given the mental horsepower displayed in most political discourse, my opposition to Mr. Miller’s ever expansionary plans will doubtless be attacked as a manifestation of some sort of anti-Chinese bias. Such is that state of public discourse in the U.S. these days.
Sadly, our alternatives in Naperville are few. The most salient act of the incumbent, George Pradel, in my mind, is his suggestion to my wife that my daughters, aged 16 and 17, will soon be working at Show-Me’s (sic), a nearby “sports bar” that can best be described as a Hooters, Tilted Kilt wannabe…only with far less class. Then we have one Doug Krause, a city council member who has been hacking around Naperville politics forever. Pradel, who is popular with Naperville residents, who apparently loved being talked to like they are six year olds and being told that their daughters are good only for tarting themselves up to titillate voyeuristic losers who apparently encounter problems getting any attention at home, will in all likelihood win against a divided opposition.
Luckily the mayor of our town has no real power.
Thanks.
4/3/11
Kenn and crew,
And just what else would you like the government to do? Or, probably the better question, is there anything you think the government SHOULDN'T do? An Enterprise Center? Naperville as a center of excellence and entrepreneurial support? C'mon. If you want to support entrepreneurship, how about, rather than picking and choosing which “entrepreneurs” are worthy of government support (a’la Richie Daley), lowering the tax burden and improving services so that entrepreneurs continue to find Naperville an attractive place to locate their businesses? True entrepreneurs aren’t lining up for handouts from ambitious and meretricious politicians; they just don’t want to be taxed needlessly and shaken down ceaselessly so that the local political class can fortify their egos and enhance their public sector futures by appealing to those who don’t stop to think that all that the politicians promise comes out of our pockets.
Your e-mails seem to have become a litany of proposals for government busybodiness designed to "improve" our lives. How about just leaving us alone instead of looking for more things to do with our money?
I can't possibly vote for the buffoon who is currently mayor, who thinks nothing of delivering gratuitous insults to my daughters and my wife while chortling in his normal incoherent, witless manner, and I thought I was going to vote for you, Kenn, but this ceaseless drivel about all that you want the government to do for (to?) me is quickly changing my mind. You sound like a typical Republican who is against big government...unless it is growing in his direction. We don't need more of this excerebrosity; the taxpayers can't afford it.
Mark Quinn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
