3/29/12
This week’s oral arguments in the Supreme Court concerning what has come to be known as “Obamacare” (See yesterday’s post, YOU CAN’T TELL THE PLAYERS WITHOUT A SCORECARD) have given me and, apparently, those few journalists who are not wholly consumed with the Trayvon Martin story, occasion to revisit the health insurance issue extensively. Yesterday, I opined on the Supreme Court’s deliberations and the political implications thereof. Today, I thought it would be fruitful to discuss a substantive (judging from the action in the Court, THE substantive) portion of the bill: the mandate that essentially everyone in the country buy health insurance.
As I have said before, even I, with my purported libertarian leanings, have no problem with an insurance mandate. Why? Because to say that one has a right not to buy health insurance is to say that one has the right to pawn off his responsibilities on everybody else. If a person were to get sick while uninsured, the very high likelihood is that his fellow citizens (i.e., you and I) will ultimately pay for his or her hospital and doctor bills, either through higher health insurance premia or through the tax system (or, in the modern world, the money printing system) in the form of taxes to support Medicaid or similar health insurance provision programs. There is nothing patriotic, noble, admirable, honorable, tough, or free market about demanding that others pick up your tab.
Some who are clearly either uninformed or filthy rich will argue that they don’t need health insurance because they will pay for their medical costs out of their own pockets. They apparently don’t realize that the cost of a hospital visit can easily be high enough to bankrupt a typical American family.
Others will argue that the young and healthy should not be forced to buy insurance because they “don’t need it.” The underlying assumption behind this "logic" is that young and apparently healthy people are immune to accidents and illnesses that can attack us at any age and in any state of health.
Everyone, with the possible exception of (probably both of) those wealthy enough to pay for any health care they could possibly incur, needs to buy health insurance…unless s/he somehow thinks it is somehow just and honorable to have everyone else pay for his or her health care.
There is one set of circumstances under which I could honestly and wholeheartedly adhere rigidly to what some call my libertarian principles and oppose a mandate. If we were to make sure that anyone who consumes health care pay, one way or the other, for the health care he consumes, I, too, would vigorously oppose a mandate. If, for example, someone gets sick or gets in a car accident and winds up in the hospital, he will have to pay that bill, no matter how large, either through insurance which he would voluntarily purchase or out of his own pocket. If he is uninsured and, as will generally be the case, is unable to pay the bill, the provider will be able to seize his bank accounts, stocks and bonds, cars, house (and I don’t mean put a lien on his house; I mean evict him and his family from his house and sell it to satisfy the claim), or any other assets he might have, in addition to, of course, garnishing his wages, in order to satisfy the claim. In other words, if one were to get sick or otherwise require medical care and is uninsured, he would have to pay the claim or would be financially broken in a forced effort to pay the claim. Further, it would have to be widely advertised that the consequences of incurring medical costs without insurance will, in most cases, be utter and complete financial ruin. No exceptions, no heart rending tales, no sob stories—if you incur a medical bill you will pay it, be financially destroyed, or both.
Such a system would provide sufficient incentive, without a mandate, to purchase medical insurance. However, we know that we would never enforce such a regimen; we simply will not throw people out in the street if they fail to buy insurance and incur health expenses they cannot pay. We will fall for the admittedly and justifiably poignant tales of the kids who will wind up paying for their parents’ mistakes or their parents’ “inability” to purchase insurance. We are simply too compassionate a society, for better or worse (probably for better), to make people pay such a high price even for their own blatant irresponsibility.
In the absence of a system that makes it clear that failure to insure one’s self and then demanding medical services will result in financial devastation, even ruin, people will still refuse to buy insurance and insist on having everyone else pay for their health care; i.e., they will exercise their right to be irresponsible. This is intolerable in a nation that demands, or at least once demanded, that people live up to certain responsibilities in order to live in a free society. Therefore I, and more people who think like I do than one would suspect, express, at least privately, little or no problem with a health insurance mandate.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
YOU CAN’T TELL THE PLAYERS WITHOUT A SCORECARD
3/28/12
Though one would not know it from watching or listening to the TV or radio news or reading a non-financial newspaper, there is something going on in the world other than the Trayvon Martin story. One of those items is the Supreme Court’s spending three days entertaining oral arguments on the constitutionality of what has come to be known as Obamacare. At this writing (about 3:30 PM Chicago time on Wednesday, 3/28/12), it looks as if the “conservatives” on the court—Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas—want to strike down the whole law. The “liberals” on the court—Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg—would like to preserve the whole law and, should the insurance mandate be struck down, they would like to preserve as much of the law as is possible. Most importantly, and less predictably, Justice Kennedy, the swing vote, appears to be siding with the conservatives in wanting to strike down the whole law. But who knows? We can’t get into the Justices’ heads, we won’t get a decision until maybe June, and oral arguments are only part of the case. Two points, though, bear making, in order of importance:
First, as one who really believes that the job of a Justice, or any judge, is to interpret the law and the Constitution as opposed to writing the law and/or single-handedly amending the Constitution (rather than one who just says that the Justices should limit themselves to interpreting the law while really wanting them to make law the way I want it made, as many of my “conservative” friends are wont to do), I am appalled that we deem ourselves able to predict the outcome of this, or any case, based on a the Justices’ political leanings. What is even more appalling is that such predictions may turn out to be right. If the Justices are interpreting the law, their political leanings should be of no consequence in deciding a case. Perhaps one could argue that the Justices’ views of certain legal/political issues, such as the reach of the Commerce clause, should be relevant, but be assured that those who are predicting the outcome of this case are not basing their predictions exclusively on, say, Justice Alito’s view of the Commerce clause.
Second, if the “conservatives” succeed in having the whole law struck down (which would seem to this perhaps self-styled conservative to be a glaring example of judicial overreach; if the insurance mandate is Constitutionally defective, strike down the mandate and leave the rest of the law intact. Then let the legislative branch deal with the problems that would arise from, inter alia, the continued existence of the preexisting conditions provisions without the insurance mandate. That would seem to be the outcome that those concerned with the Court’s tendency to make, as opposed to interpret, the law would want. While I digress, at least I do so parenthetically.), the Republicans are going to have two problems.
The first problem that the Republicans will have will be both substantive and political. Despite conservatives’ and other Republican voters’ protestations that they “hate Obamacare,” they love some of its provisions. Perhaps most saliently, even those who profess to detest Obamacare like having their older (22-26) kids’ being able to get insurance coverage through their parents’ policies. If Obamacare is gone, that provision is gone. Maybe just as saliently, even those who hate Obamacare would like, in 2014, if not sooner, to be able to get health insurance even if they, or their spouse or children, have what passes in the world of health insurance underwriting for a preexisting condition. That provision, too, will vanish if the law is struck down.
The Republicans are not stupid, though sometimes judging from the GOP presidential field, with one exception, people could be excused for thinking so, but, again, I digress. The GOPers realize that many provisions of Obamacare, and especially the coverage for adult children and the preexisting conditions provisions, or something like them, are popular. Thus, most Republican pols promise to incorporate these provisions in their version of health care reform. But they will have to move awfully fast, and avoid a veto by a Democratic, in all likelihood, president who would love to see them swing in the wind, if they are to get a reform enacted that would preserve these popular provisions. Meanwhile, the Democrats will incessantly remind people that it was the Republicans who wanted their adult kids to go uninsured and for them to not be able to get coverage due to some preexisting condition.
The second problem the GOPers will have will be purely political: if Obamacare is struck down, a very big issue will be removed from the 2012 presidential race. At this juncture, the GOP needs all the issues it can get.
Doubtless I will be writing more on this case as it progresses, but this will have to do for now, much to my readers’ relief.
Though one would not know it from watching or listening to the TV or radio news or reading a non-financial newspaper, there is something going on in the world other than the Trayvon Martin story. One of those items is the Supreme Court’s spending three days entertaining oral arguments on the constitutionality of what has come to be known as Obamacare. At this writing (about 3:30 PM Chicago time on Wednesday, 3/28/12), it looks as if the “conservatives” on the court—Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas—want to strike down the whole law. The “liberals” on the court—Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg—would like to preserve the whole law and, should the insurance mandate be struck down, they would like to preserve as much of the law as is possible. Most importantly, and less predictably, Justice Kennedy, the swing vote, appears to be siding with the conservatives in wanting to strike down the whole law. But who knows? We can’t get into the Justices’ heads, we won’t get a decision until maybe June, and oral arguments are only part of the case. Two points, though, bear making, in order of importance:
First, as one who really believes that the job of a Justice, or any judge, is to interpret the law and the Constitution as opposed to writing the law and/or single-handedly amending the Constitution (rather than one who just says that the Justices should limit themselves to interpreting the law while really wanting them to make law the way I want it made, as many of my “conservative” friends are wont to do), I am appalled that we deem ourselves able to predict the outcome of this, or any case, based on a the Justices’ political leanings. What is even more appalling is that such predictions may turn out to be right. If the Justices are interpreting the law, their political leanings should be of no consequence in deciding a case. Perhaps one could argue that the Justices’ views of certain legal/political issues, such as the reach of the Commerce clause, should be relevant, but be assured that those who are predicting the outcome of this case are not basing their predictions exclusively on, say, Justice Alito’s view of the Commerce clause.
Second, if the “conservatives” succeed in having the whole law struck down (which would seem to this perhaps self-styled conservative to be a glaring example of judicial overreach; if the insurance mandate is Constitutionally defective, strike down the mandate and leave the rest of the law intact. Then let the legislative branch deal with the problems that would arise from, inter alia, the continued existence of the preexisting conditions provisions without the insurance mandate. That would seem to be the outcome that those concerned with the Court’s tendency to make, as opposed to interpret, the law would want. While I digress, at least I do so parenthetically.), the Republicans are going to have two problems.
The first problem that the Republicans will have will be both substantive and political. Despite conservatives’ and other Republican voters’ protestations that they “hate Obamacare,” they love some of its provisions. Perhaps most saliently, even those who profess to detest Obamacare like having their older (22-26) kids’ being able to get insurance coverage through their parents’ policies. If Obamacare is gone, that provision is gone. Maybe just as saliently, even those who hate Obamacare would like, in 2014, if not sooner, to be able to get health insurance even if they, or their spouse or children, have what passes in the world of health insurance underwriting for a preexisting condition. That provision, too, will vanish if the law is struck down.
The Republicans are not stupid, though sometimes judging from the GOP presidential field, with one exception, people could be excused for thinking so, but, again, I digress. The GOPers realize that many provisions of Obamacare, and especially the coverage for adult children and the preexisting conditions provisions, or something like them, are popular. Thus, most Republican pols promise to incorporate these provisions in their version of health care reform. But they will have to move awfully fast, and avoid a veto by a Democratic, in all likelihood, president who would love to see them swing in the wind, if they are to get a reform enacted that would preserve these popular provisions. Meanwhile, the Democrats will incessantly remind people that it was the Republicans who wanted their adult kids to go uninsured and for them to not be able to get coverage due to some preexisting condition.
The second problem the GOPers will have will be purely political: if Obamacare is struck down, a very big issue will be removed from the 2012 presidential race. At this juncture, the GOP needs all the issues it can get.
Doubtless I will be writing more on this case as it progresses, but this will have to do for now, much to my readers’ relief.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
YOU MIGHT AS WELL SEND IT TO TIMBUKTU
3/24/12
One of the most interesting (Remember the Chinese curse: “May you live in interesting times.”) stories on the foreign policy front this week concerned the coup and brewing civil war in Mali. This is a complicated story, but it seems that a group of Malian rebels from the Tuareg tribe (Yes, by the way, that is how Volkswagen got the name of its mid-sized SUV, with just slightly different spelling, but I digress.), after having been inspired, and heavily armed, from helping in the overthrow of Colonel Gadhafi in Libya, returned to Mali seemingly intent on carrying out their version of the much lauded Arab Spring (call it, perhaps, the Saharan and sub-Saharan African Spring, 2012) in their home country. Elements of the Malian military, tired of being outgunned by what CNN and other naïve Western media would doubtless insist on calling the “idealistic young people who had tasted the excitement of freedom in Libya,” or some such drivel, overthrew the democratically elected government of President Amadou Toumani Toure in an effort to wrest more money from the Malian treasury for arms. The Tuareg insurgents, known as National Movement for the Liberation of the Azawad, took advantage of the unsettled situation in the capital of Barnako to take several major Malian cities, including that most famous of Malian cities, Timbuktu.
Loyal readers might suspect that I would use this story to further bash our naïve, shortsighted, and ultimately dangerous role in helping to overthrow Colonel Gadhafi, a well intentioned move that will nonetheless ultimately destabilize much of Africa and, along with our other excellent adventures in ingenuous manifest destiny disguised as do-goodism, much of the Middle East. (See my 1/15/12 post, DON’T BOTHER TO WAKE ME WHEN THE REVOLUTION’S OVER, which will in turn direct you to my other posts on the “Arab Spring.”) While loyal readers have already been proven correct, I’ve said, for now, as much as I’m going to say about that. Instead, I want to focus on something buried in reports of the troubles in Mali.
In response to the coup by Captain Amadou Sanogo (doubtless the spiritual heir of Staff Sergeant Jerry Rawlings, who staged a coup on Ghana in the early ‘80s; apparently, one does not have to be a high ranking officer, or even an officer, to lead a coup in Africa, that most democratic of continents, at least as far as military overthrows go. But I digress.), the United States government has canceled the $461mm in aid that it had earmarked for Mali. This immediately caught my eye…$461 mm in aid…to Mali?! Admittedly, Mali is a big gold producer and therefore has a smidgeon of strategic importance, has been democratic, at least by African standards, for twenty years, and has been an “enemy of Al Qaeda,” the 21st century equivalent of being “anti-Communist” as far as unlocking U.S. aid. But $461mm, for a landlocked country with only about 14 million people?
Fifty years after the late, great Senator Everett Dirksen threw out his best, and most sarcastic line, “A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you’re talking real money,” $461 mm might not seem like much. And, yes, we could eliminate all foreign aid and would make nary a dent in our deficit. But just because savings are small doesn’t mean that they aren’t worth saving.
Do we really have so much money that we can afford to give $416 million to Mali, a country that, despite its gold, is as obscure as it sounds and is of little strategic interest to the United States, and certainly of less strategic interest to us than to its former colonial master, France?
One of the most interesting (Remember the Chinese curse: “May you live in interesting times.”) stories on the foreign policy front this week concerned the coup and brewing civil war in Mali. This is a complicated story, but it seems that a group of Malian rebels from the Tuareg tribe (Yes, by the way, that is how Volkswagen got the name of its mid-sized SUV, with just slightly different spelling, but I digress.), after having been inspired, and heavily armed, from helping in the overthrow of Colonel Gadhafi in Libya, returned to Mali seemingly intent on carrying out their version of the much lauded Arab Spring (call it, perhaps, the Saharan and sub-Saharan African Spring, 2012) in their home country. Elements of the Malian military, tired of being outgunned by what CNN and other naïve Western media would doubtless insist on calling the “idealistic young people who had tasted the excitement of freedom in Libya,” or some such drivel, overthrew the democratically elected government of President Amadou Toumani Toure in an effort to wrest more money from the Malian treasury for arms. The Tuareg insurgents, known as National Movement for the Liberation of the Azawad, took advantage of the unsettled situation in the capital of Barnako to take several major Malian cities, including that most famous of Malian cities, Timbuktu.
Loyal readers might suspect that I would use this story to further bash our naïve, shortsighted, and ultimately dangerous role in helping to overthrow Colonel Gadhafi, a well intentioned move that will nonetheless ultimately destabilize much of Africa and, along with our other excellent adventures in ingenuous manifest destiny disguised as do-goodism, much of the Middle East. (See my 1/15/12 post, DON’T BOTHER TO WAKE ME WHEN THE REVOLUTION’S OVER, which will in turn direct you to my other posts on the “Arab Spring.”) While loyal readers have already been proven correct, I’ve said, for now, as much as I’m going to say about that. Instead, I want to focus on something buried in reports of the troubles in Mali.
In response to the coup by Captain Amadou Sanogo (doubtless the spiritual heir of Staff Sergeant Jerry Rawlings, who staged a coup on Ghana in the early ‘80s; apparently, one does not have to be a high ranking officer, or even an officer, to lead a coup in Africa, that most democratic of continents, at least as far as military overthrows go. But I digress.), the United States government has canceled the $461mm in aid that it had earmarked for Mali. This immediately caught my eye…$461 mm in aid…to Mali?! Admittedly, Mali is a big gold producer and therefore has a smidgeon of strategic importance, has been democratic, at least by African standards, for twenty years, and has been an “enemy of Al Qaeda,” the 21st century equivalent of being “anti-Communist” as far as unlocking U.S. aid. But $461mm, for a landlocked country with only about 14 million people?
Fifty years after the late, great Senator Everett Dirksen threw out his best, and most sarcastic line, “A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you’re talking real money,” $461 mm might not seem like much. And, yes, we could eliminate all foreign aid and would make nary a dent in our deficit. But just because savings are small doesn’t mean that they aren’t worth saving.
Do we really have so much money that we can afford to give $416 million to Mali, a country that, despite its gold, is as obscure as it sounds and is of little strategic interest to the United States, and certainly of less strategic interest to us than to its former colonial master, France?
SOME UNCONVENTIONAL THINKING (FROM ME!?) ON THE IMPACT OF A CHINESE SLOWDOWN ON OUR BIGGEST EXPORT TO THE MIDDLE KINGDOM
3/24/12
The stock market had not a miserable week last week (the S&P was down only half a percent), but still the worst week it has had so far this calendar year. There were, as there always are when the market moves, even when it doesn’t move that much, numerous explanations for stocks’ relative difficulties, but the rationale that seemed to gain the most traction among the cognoscenti was China, which has become the all-purpose explanation for anything, financial or otherwise, over the last several years. In this instance, it is becoming clear, or about as clear as things can be in rather opaque China, that the world’s second largest economy is in the midst of a slowdown. Early in the week, in the wake of the travails of Mr. Bo Xilai, who was in charge in Chongqing (which the more seasoned of my readers will remember as Chung-king) until he, or his affinity for old-fashioned cultural revolutionary Maoism (I’d bet on the former, but that is grist for another mill.), ran afoul of party bosses in Beijing, rumors surfaced of a coup in China. If such rumors had proven to have substance, we wouldn’t be discussing a half a point drop in the S&P but, rather, would be looking to trade futures in bottled water, beef jerky, and ammunition, but I digress. When the rumors of a Chinese coup were dispelled, we were left with the fact, more or less, of a Chinese slowdown.
The reaction of the markets was pretty much as one would have expected: commodities were weak, with the exception of the late week moves in oil, which is dancing to its own dynamics, stocks were down, and bonds were up. As I was pondering the market’s actions, while cutting my lawn on Thursday for the first time this season, I came up with some fresh thinking on bonds. Hopefully, I am not just talking my position. (See my now seemingly prescient 3/10/12 post, A TRADE FOR (AT LEAST) THIS YEAR.)
Commodities fell, as they always do when it looks like China is slowing down, on projected weakness in demand. Yet, during such times, U.S. treasury bonds trade up in response to weakness in stocks that, presumably, results from fears of the ramifications of a Chinese slowdown for demand for U.S., and worldwide, exports. This conventional action in bonds might seem logical; however, why wouldn’t bonds trade down when the Chinese economy is slowing due to lack of demand, as do other commodities? If the Chinese economy is slowing, and China’s is not a conventional economy in the sense that an economic slowdown leads to declining domestic demand and hence a larger trade surplus, or smaller trade deficit, wouldn’t China generate less foreign exchange and hence less ability to purchase U.S. treasury debt? In other words, if a slow Chinese economy reduces demand for commodities like wheat, corn, oil, steel, etc., wouldn’t the same sluggishness reduce demand for treasuries?
Further, if there were, or were to be, something to the coup rumors in China, one would surely expect that U.S. treasuries would trade up on the flight to quality trade. But wouldn’t it seem logical that an overthrow of the Chinese government, and, presumably, a reordering of its export oriented economy, or even fears of such a reordering, would result in a dramatic drop in Chinese demand for treasuries and hence a blow to the solar plexus of treasury prices and the U.S. government’s ability to borrow?
Of course, those who have been paying close attention would argue that Chinese demand for treasuries has already been falling for a number of reasons. In the 12 months ended 6/30/11, increases in U.S. dollar holdings (mostly treasuries) accounted for only 15% of the total increase in Chinese reserves, down from 45% in the 12 months ended 6/30/10 and 63% in the five year period ended 6/30/11. As a result, U.S. dollar holdings comprised only 54% of Chinese reserves as of 6/30/11, down from 65% at 6/30/12. These are drastic fall-offs, and one can presume, as much as one can presume anything about Chinese finances, that the trend is continuing into 2012. But it would seem logical that a dramatic slowdown in the Chinese economy would further blunt the Chinese appetite for treasuries, albeit primarily through a decrease in overall accumulation of reserves rather than through a change in preferences regarding the composition of those reserves.
And a coup would have a much larger impact on Chinese desire to lend us money. But we don’t even want to think about that.
The stock market had not a miserable week last week (the S&P was down only half a percent), but still the worst week it has had so far this calendar year. There were, as there always are when the market moves, even when it doesn’t move that much, numerous explanations for stocks’ relative difficulties, but the rationale that seemed to gain the most traction among the cognoscenti was China, which has become the all-purpose explanation for anything, financial or otherwise, over the last several years. In this instance, it is becoming clear, or about as clear as things can be in rather opaque China, that the world’s second largest economy is in the midst of a slowdown. Early in the week, in the wake of the travails of Mr. Bo Xilai, who was in charge in Chongqing (which the more seasoned of my readers will remember as Chung-king) until he, or his affinity for old-fashioned cultural revolutionary Maoism (I’d bet on the former, but that is grist for another mill.), ran afoul of party bosses in Beijing, rumors surfaced of a coup in China. If such rumors had proven to have substance, we wouldn’t be discussing a half a point drop in the S&P but, rather, would be looking to trade futures in bottled water, beef jerky, and ammunition, but I digress. When the rumors of a Chinese coup were dispelled, we were left with the fact, more or less, of a Chinese slowdown.
The reaction of the markets was pretty much as one would have expected: commodities were weak, with the exception of the late week moves in oil, which is dancing to its own dynamics, stocks were down, and bonds were up. As I was pondering the market’s actions, while cutting my lawn on Thursday for the first time this season, I came up with some fresh thinking on bonds. Hopefully, I am not just talking my position. (See my now seemingly prescient 3/10/12 post, A TRADE FOR (AT LEAST) THIS YEAR.)
Commodities fell, as they always do when it looks like China is slowing down, on projected weakness in demand. Yet, during such times, U.S. treasury bonds trade up in response to weakness in stocks that, presumably, results from fears of the ramifications of a Chinese slowdown for demand for U.S., and worldwide, exports. This conventional action in bonds might seem logical; however, why wouldn’t bonds trade down when the Chinese economy is slowing due to lack of demand, as do other commodities? If the Chinese economy is slowing, and China’s is not a conventional economy in the sense that an economic slowdown leads to declining domestic demand and hence a larger trade surplus, or smaller trade deficit, wouldn’t China generate less foreign exchange and hence less ability to purchase U.S. treasury debt? In other words, if a slow Chinese economy reduces demand for commodities like wheat, corn, oil, steel, etc., wouldn’t the same sluggishness reduce demand for treasuries?
Further, if there were, or were to be, something to the coup rumors in China, one would surely expect that U.S. treasuries would trade up on the flight to quality trade. But wouldn’t it seem logical that an overthrow of the Chinese government, and, presumably, a reordering of its export oriented economy, or even fears of such a reordering, would result in a dramatic drop in Chinese demand for treasuries and hence a blow to the solar plexus of treasury prices and the U.S. government’s ability to borrow?
Of course, those who have been paying close attention would argue that Chinese demand for treasuries has already been falling for a number of reasons. In the 12 months ended 6/30/11, increases in U.S. dollar holdings (mostly treasuries) accounted for only 15% of the total increase in Chinese reserves, down from 45% in the 12 months ended 6/30/10 and 63% in the five year period ended 6/30/11. As a result, U.S. dollar holdings comprised only 54% of Chinese reserves as of 6/30/11, down from 65% at 6/30/12. These are drastic fall-offs, and one can presume, as much as one can presume anything about Chinese finances, that the trend is continuing into 2012. But it would seem logical that a dramatic slowdown in the Chinese economy would further blunt the Chinese appetite for treasuries, albeit primarily through a decrease in overall accumulation of reserves rather than through a change in preferences regarding the composition of those reserves.
And a coup would have a much larger impact on Chinese desire to lend us money. But we don’t even want to think about that.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
IS THE FORMER BRIGHT ONE BECOMING THE DULL(ARD) ONE?
3/21/12
I have reproduced below in redacted form a letter I sent to Robert Feder, dean of Chicago media reporters, expressing my concerns about the “new look” at the Chicago Sun-Times. Developments at the Sun-Times are sufficiently troubling that I felt it necessary to share my thoughts with my readers.
Robert, by the way, is now at Time Out Chicago and can be found at:
http://timeoutchicago.com/arts-culture/chicago-media-blog/136511/chicago-media-blog
3/21/12
Hi Robert,
I miss your column in the Sun-Times and, sad to say, have only sporadically followed you in your “new” gig, usually when something big happens in the media around town, the latter because you are the man in Chicago media. After going to the site to look for your comments about a very troubling development in Chicago media (See the following paragraphs.), I took the time to subscribe to your newsletter via e-mail. I look forward to reading you more regularly.
What concerns me and therefore prompted the aforementioned visit to your site is the transformation of the Sun-Times into a Midwestern version of the New York Daily News or Post, which should not be surprising given the new guy in charge. The paper is rapidly becoming (has become?) a joke. After long defending the Sun-Times to my fellow suburbanites as a “must read” for those who want to follow local news, and especially local politics, I am finding it increasingly difficult, well nigh impossible, to continue this defense in light of the “new” Sun-Times as my friends’ long, and formerly largely baseless, argument that the Sun-Times is just a tabloid rag seems to be coming true. One has to think that my old friend Jim Tyree has to be spinning in his grave.
One of my greatest concerns is that some, perhaps many, of the good newspeople and/or columnists at the Sun-Times will leave in disgust. Given the condition of the job market in journalism, this is perhaps an exaggerated fear, and I suspect the powers-that-be at the Sun-Times are counting on job insecurity to keep people there.
I hope that we hear from you soon regarding the new Sun-Times, Robert; your voice means a lot (yes, even to those in management at the Sun-Times) and you might be able to effect some much needed re-examination of this new course. I fear, though, that, given the general decline in genuine literacy that characterizes our society and people’s seemingly endless appetite for fluff and disdain for difficult, challenging, thought-provoking reporting and commentary on issues that really matter, there is no turning back at the Sun-Times.
Thanks, Robert; I look forward to reading you regularly again.
I have reproduced below in redacted form a letter I sent to Robert Feder, dean of Chicago media reporters, expressing my concerns about the “new look” at the Chicago Sun-Times. Developments at the Sun-Times are sufficiently troubling that I felt it necessary to share my thoughts with my readers.
Robert, by the way, is now at Time Out Chicago and can be found at:
http://timeoutchicago.com/arts-culture/chicago-media-blog/136511/chicago-media-blog
3/21/12
Hi Robert,
I miss your column in the Sun-Times and, sad to say, have only sporadically followed you in your “new” gig, usually when something big happens in the media around town, the latter because you are the man in Chicago media. After going to the site to look for your comments about a very troubling development in Chicago media (See the following paragraphs.), I took the time to subscribe to your newsletter via e-mail. I look forward to reading you more regularly.
What concerns me and therefore prompted the aforementioned visit to your site is the transformation of the Sun-Times into a Midwestern version of the New York Daily News or Post, which should not be surprising given the new guy in charge. The paper is rapidly becoming (has become?) a joke. After long defending the Sun-Times to my fellow suburbanites as a “must read” for those who want to follow local news, and especially local politics, I am finding it increasingly difficult, well nigh impossible, to continue this defense in light of the “new” Sun-Times as my friends’ long, and formerly largely baseless, argument that the Sun-Times is just a tabloid rag seems to be coming true. One has to think that my old friend Jim Tyree has to be spinning in his grave.
One of my greatest concerns is that some, perhaps many, of the good newspeople and/or columnists at the Sun-Times will leave in disgust. Given the condition of the job market in journalism, this is perhaps an exaggerated fear, and I suspect the powers-that-be at the Sun-Times are counting on job insecurity to keep people there.
I hope that we hear from you soon regarding the new Sun-Times, Robert; your voice means a lot (yes, even to those in management at the Sun-Times) and you might be able to effect some much needed re-examination of this new course. I fear, though, that, given the general decline in genuine literacy that characterizes our society and people’s seemingly endless appetite for fluff and disdain for difficult, challenging, thought-provoking reporting and commentary on issues that really matter, there is no turning back at the Sun-Times.
Thanks, Robert; I look forward to reading you regularly again.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
TIME FOR THAT QUADRENNIAL PARLOR GAME “WHO GETS THE WARM BUCKET OF (SPIT)?”
3/20/12
Every four years, about the time the parties’ presidential nominations get (or the party’s nomination gets, depending on the year) locked up, the attention of political aficionados like yours truly turns to the vice-presidential possibilities. We do this because it’s fun, a parlor game of sorts (if anyone still had a room called a parlor in his or her home), but it is, ultimately, about as meaningful as any other parlor game. Why? First, because our prognostications are usually wrong. Second, and more importantly, vice-presidents, even the most powerful and influential vice-presidents, like Al Gore, rarely wield much power in their administrations. (Dick Cheney (aka Edgar Bergen to George Bush’s Charlie McCarthy or, perhaps more properly, William M. Gaines to George Bush’s Alfred E. Neuman) is a special case for obvious reasons.) Third, being vice-president is not the leg up on becoming president it once was. True, five of our twelve post-War presidents had been vice-president before moving into the Oval Office (That includes President Nixon, who I counted despite his eight years pretending to practice law between the two jobs.), but there has been only once president (the first George Bush) since President Reagan assumed office 32 years ago who had been vice-president before moving on up.
Even though speculating regarding the choice of VP is usually futile and pointless, we engage in such prognostication because, as I said before, it’s fun and it gives us something to do during that usually long period of time between the nomination’s being settled and the general election campaign’s starting in earnest. Even in this year, when the Democratic nomination was never in any realistic doubt and the GOP nomination is at least theoretically still undetermined, yours truly and others are already mulling over the choice of VPs.
Loyal readers remember that I have already speculated about the Democratic second spot; see my 10/18/11 post “I’LL MAKE (HER) AN OFFER SHE CAN’T REFUSE.” in which I opined, long before such opining became popular, that it might be a very good idea for President Obama to ask Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden to change jobs. I stand by that contention, though it looks at this stage like such chair rearranging may be unnecessary given the declining prospects for any of the GOP candidates, including the nearly certain Republican standard-bearer, to seriously challenge the President for his job. (See, inter alia, but most recently, my 3/14/12 piece YEAH, BUT HE’S OUR CONDESCENDING CLOWN.) Given that Mr. Obama, like most politicians, is cautious and harbors some deep-seated insecurities and thus will not offer someone as powerful, popular and thus as threatening as Mrs. Clinton the VP post unless he has to, it looks like the chances for such fun and games on the Dem side are, while still very real, fading. The fade will end quickly if, for instance, gasoline reaches, say, $6.00 a gallon out here in the hinterlands this summer, but that is another issue.
The real fun, of course, comes from guessing who Mitt Romney will ask to join him on the ticket as he prepares to challenge President Obama. Yours truly was, happily, prodded to begin such speculation after Mass last Sunday morning by a great friend, and fellow political enthusiast, over coffee in the Dunkin’ Donuts at 104th and Western. I, for one, can think of few better places to discuss politics. Probably due to the aptness of the location and the insightfulness of the company, I think I came up with the PERFECT running mate for Mr. Romney…seriously.
First, of course, one has to eliminate the obvious possibilities:
--Mr. Romney’s current opponents. The baggage of Messrs. Gingrich and Santorum is too much for them to bear; why should Mr. Romney allow such baggage to drag down his already rapidly depleting chances at defeating Mr. Obama? The country, which, to the extent that it understands the Constitution, considers it as an impediment that must be gotten around in order to “get things done,” (i.e., “to get me what I want from government”) is, sadly, not yet, nor will it ever be, ready for a Paul vice-presidency or presidency. Either Paul.
--Mitch Daniels. Probably not a bad choice for most people. I, for one, being a lifelong sufferer from Irish amnesia (i.e., I’ll forgive, but I’ll never forget.) will never vote for Mr. Daniels given that he was OMB Director for George W. Bush, a job very much akin to being chief chastity enforcer in a house of ill-repute. But the GOP is not concerned with getting yours truly’s vote; it is concerned with winning the White House. And most people don’t know enough history to be aware of anything that happened before the last episode of American Idol and will take into account only Mr. Daniels’ admittedly quite good job as governor of Indiana, or, more properly, what they will be told about Mr. Daniel’s admirable work in his latest position. So Mr. Daniels is not a bad choice, but not THE choice.
--Jeb Bush. As you might suspect, I will NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, under ANY circumstances vote for someone from that family again for ANYTHING. I don’t think I’d even vote for anyone completely unrelated but with the same last name, even a name that is phonetically the same, for ANYTHING. In fact, if I still drank beer, I would have to give up Budweiser and its “popular priced” companion, because they are (or were, depending on how you look at it) brewed by Anheuser Busch. I don’t care how much one would argue that Jeb is not George; he is still related and that’s enough for me to send a few bucks to his opponent, ANY opponent. While most of the public probably does not share my intensity, they doubtless share my feelings and, hence, Mr. Romney is smart enough not to take this chance. I hope.
--Chris Christie. Nothing short of a Ron Paul draft at the GOP convention would make yours truly as happy as having Chris Christie as Mr. Romney’s running mate. But it won’t happen—two northeastern governors, neither of whom has much appeal to the true believers on the social right, is not the formula for the GOP this, or any, year. Further, Mr. Christie’s honesty in saying, when asked why he didn’t run for president this year, that, as a first term governor he was not ready to be president, works against him. Can you imagine what David Axelrod and his henchmen would do with that statement? Ironically, though, the honesty and sense of self reflected in that comment only heightens my, and, I am sure, others’, enthusiasm for a future Christie run for president.
--Everyone’s odds-on favorite, Marco Rubio. Another favorite of yours truly has many things going for him—young, articulate, genuinely conservative, thoughtful, from perhaps ultimate swing state Florida, and more than vaguely ethnic, indeed, the son of Cuban immigrants. The latter is not as big a deal as most Anglo political strategists suppose because most Hispanics are smart enough to realize that “Hispanic” is too broad a category to form a single lump. Further, Mr. Rubio, as a 41 year old (on election day) first term senator is probably not the ideal vessel for attacking President Obama as an ingénue. But despite these drawbacks, Mr. Rubio would be a good candidate and therefore merits being at or near the top of everyone’s list.
But it was speculating with my buddy at the Dunkin’ on Western about Mr. Rubio that I almost inadvertently stumbled on the PERFECT running mate for Mr. Romney….
--Senator Tom Coburn. Dr. Coburn is exactly what Mr. Romney is looking for:
--southern,
--unquestionably conservative on social and fiscal matters,
--reasonable in that he works with Democrats (or at least works better with congressional Democrats and the President than just about any other Republican in Congress), so much so that he is personally friendly with President Obama, thus showing that he is an example of that increasingly rare animal, especially in politics: a gentleman who can put political differences aside when choosing friends,
--a medical doctor, which can’t help when so much discussion and decision making both during and after the campaign will revolve around health care and paying for health care,
--the right age, not too old yet not a kid, at 64,
--honest enough not to break the three term pledge he made when he first went to the House in 1994 (as so many of his GOP colleagues did once they figured out that making one’s living having one’s hindquarters smooched beats working at a real job) and not to have any scandals in his background worthy of mention by any but the most disingenuous, and
--having been around Washington for 18 years but having had a life and a profession before heading to that Dystopia on the Potomac that usually turns those few who go there for worthwhile reasons into public nuisances.
So you heard it here first—Mitt Romney should pick Tom Coburn as his running mate. In the unlikely event that anyone else gets the GOP nomination, s/he should also select Senator Coburn as his or her running mate.
Note I didn’t say that Mr. Coburn will be on the GOP ticket; I only said he should be on the GOP ticket. As loyal readers know, I try to refrain from making overt predictions.
Every four years, about the time the parties’ presidential nominations get (or the party’s nomination gets, depending on the year) locked up, the attention of political aficionados like yours truly turns to the vice-presidential possibilities. We do this because it’s fun, a parlor game of sorts (if anyone still had a room called a parlor in his or her home), but it is, ultimately, about as meaningful as any other parlor game. Why? First, because our prognostications are usually wrong. Second, and more importantly, vice-presidents, even the most powerful and influential vice-presidents, like Al Gore, rarely wield much power in their administrations. (Dick Cheney (aka Edgar Bergen to George Bush’s Charlie McCarthy or, perhaps more properly, William M. Gaines to George Bush’s Alfred E. Neuman) is a special case for obvious reasons.) Third, being vice-president is not the leg up on becoming president it once was. True, five of our twelve post-War presidents had been vice-president before moving into the Oval Office (That includes President Nixon, who I counted despite his eight years pretending to practice law between the two jobs.), but there has been only once president (the first George Bush) since President Reagan assumed office 32 years ago who had been vice-president before moving on up.
Even though speculating regarding the choice of VP is usually futile and pointless, we engage in such prognostication because, as I said before, it’s fun and it gives us something to do during that usually long period of time between the nomination’s being settled and the general election campaign’s starting in earnest. Even in this year, when the Democratic nomination was never in any realistic doubt and the GOP nomination is at least theoretically still undetermined, yours truly and others are already mulling over the choice of VPs.
Loyal readers remember that I have already speculated about the Democratic second spot; see my 10/18/11 post “I’LL MAKE (HER) AN OFFER SHE CAN’T REFUSE.” in which I opined, long before such opining became popular, that it might be a very good idea for President Obama to ask Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden to change jobs. I stand by that contention, though it looks at this stage like such chair rearranging may be unnecessary given the declining prospects for any of the GOP candidates, including the nearly certain Republican standard-bearer, to seriously challenge the President for his job. (See, inter alia, but most recently, my 3/14/12 piece YEAH, BUT HE’S OUR CONDESCENDING CLOWN.) Given that Mr. Obama, like most politicians, is cautious and harbors some deep-seated insecurities and thus will not offer someone as powerful, popular and thus as threatening as Mrs. Clinton the VP post unless he has to, it looks like the chances for such fun and games on the Dem side are, while still very real, fading. The fade will end quickly if, for instance, gasoline reaches, say, $6.00 a gallon out here in the hinterlands this summer, but that is another issue.
The real fun, of course, comes from guessing who Mitt Romney will ask to join him on the ticket as he prepares to challenge President Obama. Yours truly was, happily, prodded to begin such speculation after Mass last Sunday morning by a great friend, and fellow political enthusiast, over coffee in the Dunkin’ Donuts at 104th and Western. I, for one, can think of few better places to discuss politics. Probably due to the aptness of the location and the insightfulness of the company, I think I came up with the PERFECT running mate for Mr. Romney…seriously.
First, of course, one has to eliminate the obvious possibilities:
--Mr. Romney’s current opponents. The baggage of Messrs. Gingrich and Santorum is too much for them to bear; why should Mr. Romney allow such baggage to drag down his already rapidly depleting chances at defeating Mr. Obama? The country, which, to the extent that it understands the Constitution, considers it as an impediment that must be gotten around in order to “get things done,” (i.e., “to get me what I want from government”) is, sadly, not yet, nor will it ever be, ready for a Paul vice-presidency or presidency. Either Paul.
--Mitch Daniels. Probably not a bad choice for most people. I, for one, being a lifelong sufferer from Irish amnesia (i.e., I’ll forgive, but I’ll never forget.) will never vote for Mr. Daniels given that he was OMB Director for George W. Bush, a job very much akin to being chief chastity enforcer in a house of ill-repute. But the GOP is not concerned with getting yours truly’s vote; it is concerned with winning the White House. And most people don’t know enough history to be aware of anything that happened before the last episode of American Idol and will take into account only Mr. Daniels’ admittedly quite good job as governor of Indiana, or, more properly, what they will be told about Mr. Daniel’s admirable work in his latest position. So Mr. Daniels is not a bad choice, but not THE choice.
--Jeb Bush. As you might suspect, I will NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, under ANY circumstances vote for someone from that family again for ANYTHING. I don’t think I’d even vote for anyone completely unrelated but with the same last name, even a name that is phonetically the same, for ANYTHING. In fact, if I still drank beer, I would have to give up Budweiser and its “popular priced” companion, because they are (or were, depending on how you look at it) brewed by Anheuser Busch. I don’t care how much one would argue that Jeb is not George; he is still related and that’s enough for me to send a few bucks to his opponent, ANY opponent. While most of the public probably does not share my intensity, they doubtless share my feelings and, hence, Mr. Romney is smart enough not to take this chance. I hope.
--Chris Christie. Nothing short of a Ron Paul draft at the GOP convention would make yours truly as happy as having Chris Christie as Mr. Romney’s running mate. But it won’t happen—two northeastern governors, neither of whom has much appeal to the true believers on the social right, is not the formula for the GOP this, or any, year. Further, Mr. Christie’s honesty in saying, when asked why he didn’t run for president this year, that, as a first term governor he was not ready to be president, works against him. Can you imagine what David Axelrod and his henchmen would do with that statement? Ironically, though, the honesty and sense of self reflected in that comment only heightens my, and, I am sure, others’, enthusiasm for a future Christie run for president.
--Everyone’s odds-on favorite, Marco Rubio. Another favorite of yours truly has many things going for him—young, articulate, genuinely conservative, thoughtful, from perhaps ultimate swing state Florida, and more than vaguely ethnic, indeed, the son of Cuban immigrants. The latter is not as big a deal as most Anglo political strategists suppose because most Hispanics are smart enough to realize that “Hispanic” is too broad a category to form a single lump. Further, Mr. Rubio, as a 41 year old (on election day) first term senator is probably not the ideal vessel for attacking President Obama as an ingénue. But despite these drawbacks, Mr. Rubio would be a good candidate and therefore merits being at or near the top of everyone’s list.
But it was speculating with my buddy at the Dunkin’ on Western about Mr. Rubio that I almost inadvertently stumbled on the PERFECT running mate for Mr. Romney….
--Senator Tom Coburn. Dr. Coburn is exactly what Mr. Romney is looking for:
--southern,
--unquestionably conservative on social and fiscal matters,
--reasonable in that he works with Democrats (or at least works better with congressional Democrats and the President than just about any other Republican in Congress), so much so that he is personally friendly with President Obama, thus showing that he is an example of that increasingly rare animal, especially in politics: a gentleman who can put political differences aside when choosing friends,
--a medical doctor, which can’t help when so much discussion and decision making both during and after the campaign will revolve around health care and paying for health care,
--the right age, not too old yet not a kid, at 64,
--honest enough not to break the three term pledge he made when he first went to the House in 1994 (as so many of his GOP colleagues did once they figured out that making one’s living having one’s hindquarters smooched beats working at a real job) and not to have any scandals in his background worthy of mention by any but the most disingenuous, and
--having been around Washington for 18 years but having had a life and a profession before heading to that Dystopia on the Potomac that usually turns those few who go there for worthwhile reasons into public nuisances.
So you heard it here first—Mitt Romney should pick Tom Coburn as his running mate. In the unlikely event that anyone else gets the GOP nomination, s/he should also select Senator Coburn as his or her running mate.
Note I didn’t say that Mr. Coburn will be on the GOP ticket; I only said he should be on the GOP ticket. As loyal readers know, I try to refrain from making overt predictions.
Monday, March 19, 2012
THIS QUINN ONCE OWNED A MAZDA PROTÉGÉ, BUT THAT QUINN (NO RELATION) WAS NOT A BLAGO PROTÉGÉ!
3/19/12
This (Monday, 3/19/12, page A4) morning’s Wall Street Journal featured a reasonably insightful article by Patrick O’Connor and Douglas Belkin on the Illinois primary entitled “Illinois Race Muddled by State’s Move Right.” I will write more on the substance f the article at the end of this piece. What really caught my attention, and stuck in my proverbial craw, about the article was the following sentence
The same year, a socially conservative candidate survived a crowded primary only to lose in the general election to the Democratic protégé of jailed former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
Loyal readers know that I am perhaps the last person who would leap to the defense of Governor Pat Quinn (no relation). But to call the Governor Quinn (no relation) a “protégé of Governor Rod Blagojevich” is both an insult to Governor Quinn (no relation) and an indication of the authors’ seemingly complete unfamiliarity with the politics of our state.
Yes, Pat Quinn (no relation) was Rod Blagojevich’s lieutenant governor, so one could see how someone with at best a passing knowledge of politics in the Land of Lincoln might stretch to conclude that Mr. Quinn (no relation) was Mr. Blagojevich’s “protégé.” But someone who knew something about this state and/or took the time to do a little homework would realize several things.
First, in order of importance, there are separate primaries in Illinois for lieutenant governor and for governor. Then Congressman Rod Blagojevich ran in the 2002 gubernatorial primary with the backing of party regulars in Cook County, largely because he was sponsored by his father-in-law, 33rd Ward Alderman and Committeeman Dick Mell, and had helped carry Chicago’s, or at least its Democratic Machine’s, water both in Springfield as a State Representative and in Washington as a Congressman, two jobs he also got courtesy of his father-in-law. Pat Quinn (no relation) ran in the lieutenant gubernatorial primary with either the Democratic organization’s opposition or its indifference, depending on how one interprets the ill-fated candidacy of his main rival, political neophyte Joyce Washington. This stance vis-à-vis the Democratic Organization was in keeping with Mr. Quinn’s (no relation) traditional role as an independent, anti-Machine independent…when it suited his political ambitions. It was therefore only after the primary that Messrs. Quinn (no relation) and Blagojevich were joined on the ticket, and theirs was a partnership in name only, if that. The relationship was at best a distant one; in fact, after Mr. Blagojevich’s problems accelerated with his arrest in December, 2008, Mr. Quinn (no relation) claimed that he had not spoken with Mr. Blagojevich for long stretches of time, as long as a year in duration, during the time they ostensibly were a team.
Second, Pat Quinn (no relation) is eight years older, almost to the day, than Rod Blagojevich and has been involved in Illinois politics back when Rod Blagojevich was in high school. It would be difficult for Mr. Quinn (no relation) to have been the protégé of someone whose tenure in political life was perhaps half as long as that of Mr. Quinn (no relation).
Third, as mentioned before, Rod Blagojevich was a product of the Regular Democratic Organization in Chicago, a protégé of his father-in-law Dick Mell. While no one in that Organization, or at least no one smart enough to have achieved a position of any authority in that Organization, was silly enough to make Mr. Blagojevich an insider by any means, he was a creature of the Machine; if he weren’t, one suspects he would have wound up as a low-level participant in the automotive detailing business, or as a distributor for Fuller Brush, rather than as governor of Illinois, but I digress. Pat Quinn (no relation), on the other hand, has made his bones in politics by being, or posing as, an independent, anti-Machine, crusader, not as a protégé of perhaps Illinois political history’s most notable protégé.
Despite all this evidence of the contention’s laughability, the article in the Journal insisted on referring to Pat Quinn (no relation) as Rod Blagojevich’s protégé based on Mr. Quinn’s (no relation) having been lieutenant governor when Rod Blagojevich as governor. This is yet another lesson in what I think I will begin to call Quinn’s Rule, to wit: trust nothing about Illinois or Chicago politics written in national publications by national political reporters. While our politics is not nearly as unique as it once was, it takes genuine knowledge of, and experience with, our politics to write anything worth reading about it.
All that having been said, the overriding theme of the article, i.e., that the Illinois GOP presidential primary race is close because GOP politics in this state, as in most places, has moved to the right in recent years, is indeed true. It is this movement that will make this race interesting. On the other hand, a lot of other national political reporters have not been as astute as Messrs. O’Connor and Belkin in picking up this trend and continue to believe that the Illinois GOP is overwhelmingly moderate and that, therefore, Illinois should easily fall into the Romney column. This perception, though misplaced, makes Illinois almost, but not quite, a must-win situation for Mr. Romney in the sense that, if he loses here, the perception of his inevitability will be further tarnished, with negative, though probably not fatal, consequences for his chances at the GOP nomination, which itself rapidly seems to be losing value. But more on that last point in a later post.
This (Monday, 3/19/12, page A4) morning’s Wall Street Journal featured a reasonably insightful article by Patrick O’Connor and Douglas Belkin on the Illinois primary entitled “Illinois Race Muddled by State’s Move Right.” I will write more on the substance f the article at the end of this piece. What really caught my attention, and stuck in my proverbial craw, about the article was the following sentence
The same year, a socially conservative candidate survived a crowded primary only to lose in the general election to the Democratic protégé of jailed former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
Loyal readers know that I am perhaps the last person who would leap to the defense of Governor Pat Quinn (no relation). But to call the Governor Quinn (no relation) a “protégé of Governor Rod Blagojevich” is both an insult to Governor Quinn (no relation) and an indication of the authors’ seemingly complete unfamiliarity with the politics of our state.
Yes, Pat Quinn (no relation) was Rod Blagojevich’s lieutenant governor, so one could see how someone with at best a passing knowledge of politics in the Land of Lincoln might stretch to conclude that Mr. Quinn (no relation) was Mr. Blagojevich’s “protégé.” But someone who knew something about this state and/or took the time to do a little homework would realize several things.
First, in order of importance, there are separate primaries in Illinois for lieutenant governor and for governor. Then Congressman Rod Blagojevich ran in the 2002 gubernatorial primary with the backing of party regulars in Cook County, largely because he was sponsored by his father-in-law, 33rd Ward Alderman and Committeeman Dick Mell, and had helped carry Chicago’s, or at least its Democratic Machine’s, water both in Springfield as a State Representative and in Washington as a Congressman, two jobs he also got courtesy of his father-in-law. Pat Quinn (no relation) ran in the lieutenant gubernatorial primary with either the Democratic organization’s opposition or its indifference, depending on how one interprets the ill-fated candidacy of his main rival, political neophyte Joyce Washington. This stance vis-à-vis the Democratic Organization was in keeping with Mr. Quinn’s (no relation) traditional role as an independent, anti-Machine independent…when it suited his political ambitions. It was therefore only after the primary that Messrs. Quinn (no relation) and Blagojevich were joined on the ticket, and theirs was a partnership in name only, if that. The relationship was at best a distant one; in fact, after Mr. Blagojevich’s problems accelerated with his arrest in December, 2008, Mr. Quinn (no relation) claimed that he had not spoken with Mr. Blagojevich for long stretches of time, as long as a year in duration, during the time they ostensibly were a team.
Second, Pat Quinn (no relation) is eight years older, almost to the day, than Rod Blagojevich and has been involved in Illinois politics back when Rod Blagojevich was in high school. It would be difficult for Mr. Quinn (no relation) to have been the protégé of someone whose tenure in political life was perhaps half as long as that of Mr. Quinn (no relation).
Third, as mentioned before, Rod Blagojevich was a product of the Regular Democratic Organization in Chicago, a protégé of his father-in-law Dick Mell. While no one in that Organization, or at least no one smart enough to have achieved a position of any authority in that Organization, was silly enough to make Mr. Blagojevich an insider by any means, he was a creature of the Machine; if he weren’t, one suspects he would have wound up as a low-level participant in the automotive detailing business, or as a distributor for Fuller Brush, rather than as governor of Illinois, but I digress. Pat Quinn (no relation), on the other hand, has made his bones in politics by being, or posing as, an independent, anti-Machine, crusader, not as a protégé of perhaps Illinois political history’s most notable protégé.
Despite all this evidence of the contention’s laughability, the article in the Journal insisted on referring to Pat Quinn (no relation) as Rod Blagojevich’s protégé based on Mr. Quinn’s (no relation) having been lieutenant governor when Rod Blagojevich as governor. This is yet another lesson in what I think I will begin to call Quinn’s Rule, to wit: trust nothing about Illinois or Chicago politics written in national publications by national political reporters. While our politics is not nearly as unique as it once was, it takes genuine knowledge of, and experience with, our politics to write anything worth reading about it.
All that having been said, the overriding theme of the article, i.e., that the Illinois GOP presidential primary race is close because GOP politics in this state, as in most places, has moved to the right in recent years, is indeed true. It is this movement that will make this race interesting. On the other hand, a lot of other national political reporters have not been as astute as Messrs. O’Connor and Belkin in picking up this trend and continue to believe that the Illinois GOP is overwhelmingly moderate and that, therefore, Illinois should easily fall into the Romney column. This perception, though misplaced, makes Illinois almost, but not quite, a must-win situation for Mr. Romney in the sense that, if he loses here, the perception of his inevitability will be further tarnished, with negative, though probably not fatal, consequences for his chances at the GOP nomination, which itself rapidly seems to be losing value. But more on that last point in a later post.
QUIEN ES MAS MACHO?
3/19/12
As I was driving to church this morning, I heard on Newsradio 78’s broadcast of the national CBS news a statement to the effect that Mitt Romney had won the Puerto Rico primary, and all its delegates (paraphrasing here because I neither write while I drive nor possess a photographic memory), and contended that his victory in Puerto Rico proved that a Republican can win among Hispanic voters.
Now, Mitt Romney was not quoted, nor was any of his people quoted, as saying specifically that the Romney victory in Puerto Rico proved that the GOP could win among Hispanic voters. I only heard the CBS new reader say that the Romney camp interpreted the victory that way. So I don’t know whom I am criticizing here: Mr. Romney, his staff, or CBS news. Further, I am not commenting on the substance of the statement in that I am not arguing that the GOP can, or cannot, win among Hispanic voters. I am commenting only on the contention that a victory in a GOP primary shows that the GOP can win among Hispanic voters, and to that contention I will write only that it was one of the most asinine statements of a political season that has been notable perhaps most saliently by its degree of asininity, which is a word I think I just made up.
What Mr. Romney’s victory in the Puerto Rico primary shows is that a GOP candidate can win a GOP primary, i.e., can win when he is running against other Republicans, or that he can beat other Republicans in a primary in which participation was limited, by definition, to Puerto Ricans, excluding, by the way, other Hispanics, but that is yet another area in which this argument comes across as silly. Beating other Republicans says nothing about whether Mr. Romney can attract Puerto Rican, let alone broader Hispanic, votes in substantial, or difference making, numbers when he is running against Democrats; it only says that the Puerto Ricans who voted in the GOP presidential primary found Mr. Romney preferable to his Republican alternatives. But I suppose that when one is grasping at straws, any straw will do.
As I was driving to church this morning, I heard on Newsradio 78’s broadcast of the national CBS news a statement to the effect that Mitt Romney had won the Puerto Rico primary, and all its delegates (paraphrasing here because I neither write while I drive nor possess a photographic memory), and contended that his victory in Puerto Rico proved that a Republican can win among Hispanic voters.
Now, Mitt Romney was not quoted, nor was any of his people quoted, as saying specifically that the Romney victory in Puerto Rico proved that the GOP could win among Hispanic voters. I only heard the CBS new reader say that the Romney camp interpreted the victory that way. So I don’t know whom I am criticizing here: Mr. Romney, his staff, or CBS news. Further, I am not commenting on the substance of the statement in that I am not arguing that the GOP can, or cannot, win among Hispanic voters. I am commenting only on the contention that a victory in a GOP primary shows that the GOP can win among Hispanic voters, and to that contention I will write only that it was one of the most asinine statements of a political season that has been notable perhaps most saliently by its degree of asininity, which is a word I think I just made up.
What Mr. Romney’s victory in the Puerto Rico primary shows is that a GOP candidate can win a GOP primary, i.e., can win when he is running against other Republicans, or that he can beat other Republicans in a primary in which participation was limited, by definition, to Puerto Ricans, excluding, by the way, other Hispanics, but that is yet another area in which this argument comes across as silly. Beating other Republicans says nothing about whether Mr. Romney can attract Puerto Rican, let alone broader Hispanic, votes in substantial, or difference making, numbers when he is running against Democrats; it only says that the Puerto Ricans who voted in the GOP presidential primary found Mr. Romney preferable to his Republican alternatives. But I suppose that when one is grasping at straws, any straw will do.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
YEAH, BUT HE’S OUR CONDESCENDING CLOWN
3/14/12
The media’s reaction to the results of last night’s primaries in Alabama and Mississippi ranged from the barely rational to the hysterical. A good example of the latter was Fox News’ headline “Santorum Shocker.” As in most issues in politics, and in life, all sides would be well advised to take a deep breath and listen to a rational analysis from someone with no skin in the game, or at least with no viable skin in the game:
As we assess what many are proclaiming as a great, game changing victory by Rick Santorum, a little perspective is necessary, to wit:
--Rick Santorum managed to carry by a slim margin two small states that the GOP will most certainly carry in the general election and that, until about a week ago, Mitt Romney was given no chance to carry.
--Former Senator Santorum achieved a majority, or anything like a majority, in neither of those two states.
--Mr. Santorum did little, if anything, to close the yawning chasm in delegates between him and Mr. Romney.
--Mr. Santorum’s “shocker” has not, so far, shocked the obstreperous and delusional Newt Gingrich out of the race.
So Mr. Romney, who still looks like the nominee and who will certainly carry Alabama and Mississippi in the general was hurt, nary a whit by last night’s results. As I argued in my post of 3/12/12, ADVICE TO MITT ROMNEY: DON’T WIN TOMORROW, a plurality victory by Mr. Romney would have done more to nudge Mr. Gingrich out of the race and thus would have been genuinely damaging to Mr. Romney’s campaign. Thus, Mr. Romney has, as I predicted, helped himself by losing in Alabama and Mississippi.
Another note…as I said in my 2/1/12 post, QUOTE OF THE CAMPAIGN,
the GOP’s great fear should be that they are, in all likelihood, going to nominate, in Mr. Romney, a very flawed candidate. Why? Mr. Romney is way ahead in the delegate race largely because he has outspent Mr. Gingrich by a factor of four and Mr. Santorum by a factor of six. Mr. Romney will have no such advantage in a general election race against President Obama and thus will have to fall back on his innate appeal and/or Mr. Obama’s 41% (according to the New York Times/CBS poll; the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll has the President’s approval rating at 50%) approval rating. The latter is hopeful for the GOP but is fluid and fickle. The former is laughable, as demonstrated by the Mr. Romney’s underwhelming performance in the primaries and that will get even more risible as Mr. Romney persists in such nakedly unctuous gestures as adorning himself in hilariously inapt blue jeans, proclaiming his love for “cheesy grits,” and using “y’all” for the second person plural. Don’t be surprised, for example, if, in the next week, Mr. Romney professes an undying devotion for Italian beef , Chicago style dogs, and da Bears while telling people he looks forward to seeing them at a campaign rally right next to dat Picasso ting and urging them to “Vote early and often,” as dey do back in da precincts over by da river.
The media’s reaction to the results of last night’s primaries in Alabama and Mississippi ranged from the barely rational to the hysterical. A good example of the latter was Fox News’ headline “Santorum Shocker.” As in most issues in politics, and in life, all sides would be well advised to take a deep breath and listen to a rational analysis from someone with no skin in the game, or at least with no viable skin in the game:
As we assess what many are proclaiming as a great, game changing victory by Rick Santorum, a little perspective is necessary, to wit:
--Rick Santorum managed to carry by a slim margin two small states that the GOP will most certainly carry in the general election and that, until about a week ago, Mitt Romney was given no chance to carry.
--Former Senator Santorum achieved a majority, or anything like a majority, in neither of those two states.
--Mr. Santorum did little, if anything, to close the yawning chasm in delegates between him and Mr. Romney.
--Mr. Santorum’s “shocker” has not, so far, shocked the obstreperous and delusional Newt Gingrich out of the race.
So Mr. Romney, who still looks like the nominee and who will certainly carry Alabama and Mississippi in the general was hurt, nary a whit by last night’s results. As I argued in my post of 3/12/12, ADVICE TO MITT ROMNEY: DON’T WIN TOMORROW, a plurality victory by Mr. Romney would have done more to nudge Mr. Gingrich out of the race and thus would have been genuinely damaging to Mr. Romney’s campaign. Thus, Mr. Romney has, as I predicted, helped himself by losing in Alabama and Mississippi.
Another note…as I said in my 2/1/12 post, QUOTE OF THE CAMPAIGN,
the GOP’s great fear should be that they are, in all likelihood, going to nominate, in Mr. Romney, a very flawed candidate. Why? Mr. Romney is way ahead in the delegate race largely because he has outspent Mr. Gingrich by a factor of four and Mr. Santorum by a factor of six. Mr. Romney will have no such advantage in a general election race against President Obama and thus will have to fall back on his innate appeal and/or Mr. Obama’s 41% (according to the New York Times/CBS poll; the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll has the President’s approval rating at 50%) approval rating. The latter is hopeful for the GOP but is fluid and fickle. The former is laughable, as demonstrated by the Mr. Romney’s underwhelming performance in the primaries and that will get even more risible as Mr. Romney persists in such nakedly unctuous gestures as adorning himself in hilariously inapt blue jeans, proclaiming his love for “cheesy grits,” and using “y’all” for the second person plural. Don’t be surprised, for example, if, in the next week, Mr. Romney professes an undying devotion for Italian beef , Chicago style dogs, and da Bears while telling people he looks forward to seeing them at a campaign rally right next to dat Picasso ting and urging them to “Vote early and often,” as dey do back in da precincts over by da river.
Monday, March 12, 2012
ADVICE TO MITT ROMNEY: DON’T WIN TOMORROW
3/12/12
Conventional wisdom seems to be that a Mitt Romney win in Alabama tomorrow “could all but bring the GOP nominating contest to a close,” as an AP article (Monday, 3/12/12, Chicago Sun-Times, page 8) put it. The thinking is that a win in Alabama or, presumably, Mississippi, which is less likely, would give Mr. Romney a win in the South outside Florida and thus establish that his appeal extends beyond the northeast and industrial Midwest and that he can indeed carry the South, where a Republican must win in order to win the presidency. This line of argumentation is faulty for a few reasons.
A Romney win in Alabama and/or Mississippi will not end the GOP contest. Say Mr. Romney carries Alabama and/or Mississippi with a plurality of the votes, with the combined Santorum/Gingrich total exceeding his. (He will not win either state with an outright majority.) Rather than alleviate the perception of Mr. Romney’s weakness among “conservatives,” Southern or otherwise, such an outcome would more clearly demonstrate that one “conservative” could have won both states, thus substantially ramping up the pressure on either Mr. Santorum or Mr. Gingrich (almost assuredly the latter) to drop out, leaving Mr. Romney facing one “conservative” opponent in the race for the nomination of a conservative Party. Thus, such an outcome would only intensify and prolong, rather than end, the race for the GOP presidential nomination.
Approaching this subject from another angle, Mr. Romney does not have to win any Southern primaries or establish that he can win in the South in order to win the nomination and be a viable Republican candidate against President Obama. As I’ve said in prior posts (most recently in 3/7/12 post, “I’VE BEEN IN SOME BIG (METROPOLITAN AREAS)…”), any Republican is going to carry the reddest of red states, a pretty good description of Alabama, Mississippi, and the rest of the South, simply because of that region’s antipathy toward President Obama. Simply put, given where the delegates are, and how they are selected, Mr. Romney could win the nomination without winning a single Southern state outright. And, if he does so, he will most assuredly carry the South over Barack Obama simply because he is not President Obama.
Therefore, we have a great irony here. A win by Mr. Romney in Alabama and/or Mississippi would hurt his chances at the nomination by hastening the departure of one of his chief opponents, placing Mr. Romney in a one-on-one battle with an opponent whose philosophy is more in line with that of most of the GOP primary electorate. A loss by Mr. Romney in the South, and especially a loss to Newt Gingrich, could help the former Massachusetts governor by keeping both of his chief opponents in the race, splitting the “conservative’ opposition to Mr. Romney. Further, should Mr. Romney win the nomination, as is still at least highly likely, a failure to win Alabama, Mississippi, or any Southern primary should not hurt his chances at defeating President Obama because the Republican standard-bearer is going to carry the South regardless of who he is.
Conventional wisdom seems to be that a Mitt Romney win in Alabama tomorrow “could all but bring the GOP nominating contest to a close,” as an AP article (Monday, 3/12/12, Chicago Sun-Times, page 8) put it. The thinking is that a win in Alabama or, presumably, Mississippi, which is less likely, would give Mr. Romney a win in the South outside Florida and thus establish that his appeal extends beyond the northeast and industrial Midwest and that he can indeed carry the South, where a Republican must win in order to win the presidency. This line of argumentation is faulty for a few reasons.
A Romney win in Alabama and/or Mississippi will not end the GOP contest. Say Mr. Romney carries Alabama and/or Mississippi with a plurality of the votes, with the combined Santorum/Gingrich total exceeding his. (He will not win either state with an outright majority.) Rather than alleviate the perception of Mr. Romney’s weakness among “conservatives,” Southern or otherwise, such an outcome would more clearly demonstrate that one “conservative” could have won both states, thus substantially ramping up the pressure on either Mr. Santorum or Mr. Gingrich (almost assuredly the latter) to drop out, leaving Mr. Romney facing one “conservative” opponent in the race for the nomination of a conservative Party. Thus, such an outcome would only intensify and prolong, rather than end, the race for the GOP presidential nomination.
Approaching this subject from another angle, Mr. Romney does not have to win any Southern primaries or establish that he can win in the South in order to win the nomination and be a viable Republican candidate against President Obama. As I’ve said in prior posts (most recently in 3/7/12 post, “I’VE BEEN IN SOME BIG (METROPOLITAN AREAS)…”), any Republican is going to carry the reddest of red states, a pretty good description of Alabama, Mississippi, and the rest of the South, simply because of that region’s antipathy toward President Obama. Simply put, given where the delegates are, and how they are selected, Mr. Romney could win the nomination without winning a single Southern state outright. And, if he does so, he will most assuredly carry the South over Barack Obama simply because he is not President Obama.
Therefore, we have a great irony here. A win by Mr. Romney in Alabama and/or Mississippi would hurt his chances at the nomination by hastening the departure of one of his chief opponents, placing Mr. Romney in a one-on-one battle with an opponent whose philosophy is more in line with that of most of the GOP primary electorate. A loss by Mr. Romney in the South, and especially a loss to Newt Gingrich, could help the former Massachusetts governor by keeping both of his chief opponents in the race, splitting the “conservative’ opposition to Mr. Romney. Further, should Mr. Romney win the nomination, as is still at least highly likely, a failure to win Alabama, Mississippi, or any Southern primary should not hurt his chances at defeating President Obama because the Republican standard-bearer is going to carry the South regardless of who he is.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
A TRADE FOR (AT LEAST) THIS YEAR
3/10/12
One of the best trades so far this year has been a bet against long maturity treasury bonds, i.e., a bet on higher long term interest rates. The yield on the 10 year treasury, at 2.03%, is up 15 basis points (“bps”) for the calendar year while the yield on the 30 year treasury, at 3.18%, is up a nearly staggering 29 basis points for the year.
Despite these dramatic increases in interest rates, yours truly thinks that higher rates, and probably substantially (50-100 bps at least) higher rates, are in the cards, certainly by year end. Why do I say this? This prognostication has little or nothing to do with the prospects for a QE3. It is impossible to get inside the head of Obsequious Ben Bernanke and his sycophants on the FOMC. That having been said, because of my feelings about the “genuineness” of this economic recovery and the reasons I refer to Dr. Bernanke as Obsequious Ben, I suspect we will see something like QE3, perhaps with a milder moniker. But it doesn’t really matter; rates will go up if the Fed does nothing to keep them from going up and rates will go up if, perhaps especially if, the Fed does everything it can to keep them from going up. Why?
Either this economy is going to recover, putting natural upward pressure on real rates that the Fed cannot, and should not (I know; this has never stopped Obsequious Ben in the past from putting the big hurt on savers.), temper and/or inflation will finally make its presence known (in government statistics; inflation’s presence has been very well known in our daily lives for years now), putting irresistible upward pressure on nominal rates. “Irresistible” is probably not a strong enough word; any efforts on the part of the Fed to keep rates down in the face of inflationary pressure, or even pressure on real rates, will be more than futile; they will be glaringly counterproductive.
Interestingly, despite holding this very firm conviction on the direction of nominal rates, I remain very long treasury inflation protected securities (“TIPS”); in one form or another, TIPS comprise well over half my total portfolio and over 70% of one of my, for lack of a better term, sub-portfolios. So it’s pretty clear that I think the upward pressure on nominal rates will come from inflation rather than economic growth. So far this year, at least, the market seems to agree with me; while, as I said before, conventional 30 years and 10 years have increased in yield 29 and 15 bps respectively, 30 year TIP yields have increased only 4 bps while 10 year TIP yields have fallen 15 bps. The implied inflation assumptions for the 10 and 30 years are 2.30% and 2.39% respectively, well below current headline CPI of 2.9% and a bet I will take all day. The ETF TIP is up 1.68% for the year.
Of course, some kind of financial disaster, a’ la’ Lehman, driving investors into the relative safety of U.S. treasuries, could turn this prediction on its head. Still, one wonders if even the next financial shipwreck would overcome, in any but the shortest of runs, the growing realization on the part of investors, especially foreign investors, that the only way out of our debt problems (The cognoscenti continue to insist that what we experienced was a housing problem rather than a debt problem, an insistence that makes yours truly even more sullen regarding the economic and financial outlook.) is inflation, with obvious ramifications for conventional treasuries.
One of the best trades so far this year has been a bet against long maturity treasury bonds, i.e., a bet on higher long term interest rates. The yield on the 10 year treasury, at 2.03%, is up 15 basis points (“bps”) for the calendar year while the yield on the 30 year treasury, at 3.18%, is up a nearly staggering 29 basis points for the year.
Despite these dramatic increases in interest rates, yours truly thinks that higher rates, and probably substantially (50-100 bps at least) higher rates, are in the cards, certainly by year end. Why do I say this? This prognostication has little or nothing to do with the prospects for a QE3. It is impossible to get inside the head of Obsequious Ben Bernanke and his sycophants on the FOMC. That having been said, because of my feelings about the “genuineness” of this economic recovery and the reasons I refer to Dr. Bernanke as Obsequious Ben, I suspect we will see something like QE3, perhaps with a milder moniker. But it doesn’t really matter; rates will go up if the Fed does nothing to keep them from going up and rates will go up if, perhaps especially if, the Fed does everything it can to keep them from going up. Why?
Either this economy is going to recover, putting natural upward pressure on real rates that the Fed cannot, and should not (I know; this has never stopped Obsequious Ben in the past from putting the big hurt on savers.), temper and/or inflation will finally make its presence known (in government statistics; inflation’s presence has been very well known in our daily lives for years now), putting irresistible upward pressure on nominal rates. “Irresistible” is probably not a strong enough word; any efforts on the part of the Fed to keep rates down in the face of inflationary pressure, or even pressure on real rates, will be more than futile; they will be glaringly counterproductive.
Interestingly, despite holding this very firm conviction on the direction of nominal rates, I remain very long treasury inflation protected securities (“TIPS”); in one form or another, TIPS comprise well over half my total portfolio and over 70% of one of my, for lack of a better term, sub-portfolios. So it’s pretty clear that I think the upward pressure on nominal rates will come from inflation rather than economic growth. So far this year, at least, the market seems to agree with me; while, as I said before, conventional 30 years and 10 years have increased in yield 29 and 15 bps respectively, 30 year TIP yields have increased only 4 bps while 10 year TIP yields have fallen 15 bps. The implied inflation assumptions for the 10 and 30 years are 2.30% and 2.39% respectively, well below current headline CPI of 2.9% and a bet I will take all day. The ETF TIP is up 1.68% for the year.
Of course, some kind of financial disaster, a’ la’ Lehman, driving investors into the relative safety of U.S. treasuries, could turn this prediction on its head. Still, one wonders if even the next financial shipwreck would overcome, in any but the shortest of runs, the growing realization on the part of investors, especially foreign investors, that the only way out of our debt problems (The cognoscenti continue to insist that what we experienced was a housing problem rather than a debt problem, an insistence that makes yours truly even more sullen regarding the economic and financial outlook.) is inflation, with obvious ramifications for conventional treasuries.
AN INVESTMENT FOR (AT LEAST) THE NEXT TEN YEARS
3/10/12
The news has been abuzz of late with the nearly exponential increase in domestic natural gas reserves in the United States over the last five or ten years. How much gas we have, in meaningful measures, is debatable; the conventional measure seems to be in “years supply,” but that number is heavily influenced by the uses to which we put our treasure trove of gas. When we hear, as we often do, that we have a 100 or more year supply of gas, the underlying assumption is that we will use the gas in the applications of today. To the extent that we use more gas to fuel power plants or, more tantalizingly, as transportation fuel, the years supply number will obviously go down, unless we find more gas, which seems likely. In any event, I digress; we have a lot of gas and a lot more of it than we thought we did only a few years ago. The best statistic to cite as evidence of this is the nearly 10 year low price of gas.
There is a move afoot to take legislative and/or regulatory action to keep this gas in the United States. This curious movement is being led by and even odder set of bedfellows, including
--the petrochemical industry, which would like to keep its feedstock cheap,
--environmentalists, who are concerned about the environmental impacts of intensifying exploration, extraction, especially by means of fracking, and delivery of gas, and
--those who think it is somehow patriotic to continue to run huge trade deficits and have the government tell people what to do with the fruits of their labor and investments.
So far, this movement has not gained much traction and probably won’t; even here in the land of The Khardashians, Teen Moms, Lady Gaga, and Two Men and a Boy (or whatever that affront to good taste is called), common sense still prevails in the marketplace. And think about it for a minute; even those, like the petrochemical industry and just about all of us, as users of gas, who favor lower gas prices, those who naively shout about “energy independence,” and those concerned with the environment should be encouraging export of gas. Why? If gas stays as cheap as it is, exploration and production (“E&P”) activity will fall off sharply, resulting in both higher prices and lower supplies of domestically produced, clean burning gas. We simply have to export gas to avoid a production stifling glut; again, common sense will, or at least should, prevail here.
Exporting gas, however, is not as easy as exporting oil or liquid petroleum products. Natural gas is, after all, a gas at prevailing temperatures. To export it, one must liquefy it by chilling it to very low temperatures. Since we have used just about all of our gas domestically and didn’t, until recently, foresee producing exportable quantities of gas, we have only one liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) facility in the United States. It is located in Kenai, Alaska, exports only to Japan (but could export anywhere, one supposes, but most efficiently to anywhere in Asia where, presumably, the demand would be greatest), and is 43 years old. So we need more LNG facilities in order to deal with our glut of gas and improve our trade picture by exporting gas. Therefore, an investment in LNG facilities in the U.S. seems to be nearly what was once called a lead pipe cinch.
Unfortunately, it is difficult for individuals to invest directly in LNG facilities. But it would seem that investing in companies that build such facilities, concerns that manufacture the materials used in such facilities, and firms that will own and/or operate such facilities would be a good way to play this seemingly obvious trend. Not wanting to recommend individual stocks, and not being as attuned to the industry as I was many years ago, I am not going to tout any such companies. But it would seem that one interested in using my (far more than a) hunch that LNG facilities will be a terrific investments in the years to come in order to make a few spondulicks should be able to find, alone or with help, companies that will themselves cash in on the soon to be burgeoning business of liquefying and exporting natural gas.
The news has been abuzz of late with the nearly exponential increase in domestic natural gas reserves in the United States over the last five or ten years. How much gas we have, in meaningful measures, is debatable; the conventional measure seems to be in “years supply,” but that number is heavily influenced by the uses to which we put our treasure trove of gas. When we hear, as we often do, that we have a 100 or more year supply of gas, the underlying assumption is that we will use the gas in the applications of today. To the extent that we use more gas to fuel power plants or, more tantalizingly, as transportation fuel, the years supply number will obviously go down, unless we find more gas, which seems likely. In any event, I digress; we have a lot of gas and a lot more of it than we thought we did only a few years ago. The best statistic to cite as evidence of this is the nearly 10 year low price of gas.
There is a move afoot to take legislative and/or regulatory action to keep this gas in the United States. This curious movement is being led by and even odder set of bedfellows, including
--the petrochemical industry, which would like to keep its feedstock cheap,
--environmentalists, who are concerned about the environmental impacts of intensifying exploration, extraction, especially by means of fracking, and delivery of gas, and
--those who think it is somehow patriotic to continue to run huge trade deficits and have the government tell people what to do with the fruits of their labor and investments.
So far, this movement has not gained much traction and probably won’t; even here in the land of The Khardashians, Teen Moms, Lady Gaga, and Two Men and a Boy (or whatever that affront to good taste is called), common sense still prevails in the marketplace. And think about it for a minute; even those, like the petrochemical industry and just about all of us, as users of gas, who favor lower gas prices, those who naively shout about “energy independence,” and those concerned with the environment should be encouraging export of gas. Why? If gas stays as cheap as it is, exploration and production (“E&P”) activity will fall off sharply, resulting in both higher prices and lower supplies of domestically produced, clean burning gas. We simply have to export gas to avoid a production stifling glut; again, common sense will, or at least should, prevail here.
Exporting gas, however, is not as easy as exporting oil or liquid petroleum products. Natural gas is, after all, a gas at prevailing temperatures. To export it, one must liquefy it by chilling it to very low temperatures. Since we have used just about all of our gas domestically and didn’t, until recently, foresee producing exportable quantities of gas, we have only one liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) facility in the United States. It is located in Kenai, Alaska, exports only to Japan (but could export anywhere, one supposes, but most efficiently to anywhere in Asia where, presumably, the demand would be greatest), and is 43 years old. So we need more LNG facilities in order to deal with our glut of gas and improve our trade picture by exporting gas. Therefore, an investment in LNG facilities in the U.S. seems to be nearly what was once called a lead pipe cinch.
Unfortunately, it is difficult for individuals to invest directly in LNG facilities. But it would seem that investing in companies that build such facilities, concerns that manufacture the materials used in such facilities, and firms that will own and/or operate such facilities would be a good way to play this seemingly obvious trend. Not wanting to recommend individual stocks, and not being as attuned to the industry as I was many years ago, I am not going to tout any such companies. But it would seem that one interested in using my (far more than a) hunch that LNG facilities will be a terrific investments in the years to come in order to make a few spondulicks should be able to find, alone or with help, companies that will themselves cash in on the soon to be burgeoning business of liquefying and exporting natural gas.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
“I’VE BEEN IN SOME BIG (METROPOLITAN AREAS)…”
3/7/12
During last night’s CNN coverage of the “Super Tuesday” primaries, one of the staff Democratic pundits opined that one of Mitt Romney’s and, by extension, the GOP’s, problems is that Romney is winning where Democrats normally win (the large metropolitan areas) and losing where the Republicans normally win (rural areas and/or the South).
Two points deserve to be made on this observation. The first is that it is not right, or at least not precisely right. Mitt Romney is winning in major metropolitan areas, but Democrats don’t normally win in major metropolitan areas. Democrats win in the cities, but “major metropolitan areas” are composed of both cities and suburbs. The suburbs are generally the battleground of any election with a tendency to swing between the parties but which, under normal circumstances, generally go Republican unless the Republicans blow it by running candidates whose appeal is limited to the true believers. This trend has softened in recent years as city dwellers emigrate to the suburbs, and especially the close-in suburbs, and take their voting habits with them, but the GOP lean in the suburbs remains. With the cities normally going Democratic and the suburbs being the swing vote that still leans Republican, it is a stretch to say that, by winning in metropolitan areas, Mr. Romney is winning where Democrats normally win.
The second point is that, even if the pundit’s observation were exactly on point, it would seem that Mr. Romney’s winning where Democrats win and losing where Republicans win would be a salubrious development for the GOP. The areas where Republicans normally win will go Republican regardless of who the candidate is, especially this year. As Republican voter Omar Fernandez, a 41 year old pharmaceutical salesman from Marietta, GA, put it yesterday
“We don’t have great choices, but it’s anyone but Obama for me.” (Wall Street Journal, 3/7/12, page A8)
Mr. Fernandez’s opinion is, to say the least, widely and deeply held by all Republicans. Most Republicans just want Mr. Obama out of the Oval Office, and the true believers, those least favorably disposed toward Mitt Romney, despise Mr. Obama and will support anyone, yes, even Mitt Romney, who can retire the President early. If here were the GOP candidate, Elmer Fudd would carry the most loyally Republican states. (Mr. Fudd may look pretty good compared to most of the GOP field, but that is grist for another mill.) Maybe Mr. Romney will not carry the traditionally red states by as large a margin as would a more conservative candidate, but, given the nature of the electoral college, it doesn’t matter.
Given that anyone other than, perhaps, Dennis Kucinich, would beat President Obama in most of the red states, wouldn’t it be to the GOP’s advantage to have as their candidate someone, maybe Mr. Romney, who can attract voters in the larger metropolitan areas that went Democratic in 2008 by virtue of Mr. Obama’s ability to do well in the traditionally Republican, but moderately do, suburbs? Wouldn’t it make sense to have a candidate with a record of winning where, according to the CNN pundit, the Democrats win?
During last night’s CNN coverage of the “Super Tuesday” primaries, one of the staff Democratic pundits opined that one of Mitt Romney’s and, by extension, the GOP’s, problems is that Romney is winning where Democrats normally win (the large metropolitan areas) and losing where the Republicans normally win (rural areas and/or the South).
Two points deserve to be made on this observation. The first is that it is not right, or at least not precisely right. Mitt Romney is winning in major metropolitan areas, but Democrats don’t normally win in major metropolitan areas. Democrats win in the cities, but “major metropolitan areas” are composed of both cities and suburbs. The suburbs are generally the battleground of any election with a tendency to swing between the parties but which, under normal circumstances, generally go Republican unless the Republicans blow it by running candidates whose appeal is limited to the true believers. This trend has softened in recent years as city dwellers emigrate to the suburbs, and especially the close-in suburbs, and take their voting habits with them, but the GOP lean in the suburbs remains. With the cities normally going Democratic and the suburbs being the swing vote that still leans Republican, it is a stretch to say that, by winning in metropolitan areas, Mr. Romney is winning where Democrats normally win.
The second point is that, even if the pundit’s observation were exactly on point, it would seem that Mr. Romney’s winning where Democrats win and losing where Republicans win would be a salubrious development for the GOP. The areas where Republicans normally win will go Republican regardless of who the candidate is, especially this year. As Republican voter Omar Fernandez, a 41 year old pharmaceutical salesman from Marietta, GA, put it yesterday
“We don’t have great choices, but it’s anyone but Obama for me.” (Wall Street Journal, 3/7/12, page A8)
Mr. Fernandez’s opinion is, to say the least, widely and deeply held by all Republicans. Most Republicans just want Mr. Obama out of the Oval Office, and the true believers, those least favorably disposed toward Mitt Romney, despise Mr. Obama and will support anyone, yes, even Mitt Romney, who can retire the President early. If here were the GOP candidate, Elmer Fudd would carry the most loyally Republican states. (Mr. Fudd may look pretty good compared to most of the GOP field, but that is grist for another mill.) Maybe Mr. Romney will not carry the traditionally red states by as large a margin as would a more conservative candidate, but, given the nature of the electoral college, it doesn’t matter.
Given that anyone other than, perhaps, Dennis Kucinich, would beat President Obama in most of the red states, wouldn’t it be to the GOP’s advantage to have as their candidate someone, maybe Mr. Romney, who can attract voters in the larger metropolitan areas that went Democratic in 2008 by virtue of Mr. Obama’s ability to do well in the traditionally Republican, but moderately do, suburbs? Wouldn’t it make sense to have a candidate with a record of winning where, according to the CNN pundit, the Democrats win?
Monday, March 5, 2012
MY NOVELS AVAILABLE AT MARATHON BOOKS
3/5/12
My two novels, The Chairman and The Chairman’s Challenge, are now available at a new outlet, Marathon Books.
http://marathonbooks.net/buybooks.php
Marathon was started by an enterprising young man, and fellow Illinois graduate, Eric Wallor, who saw the market for a marketplace for books of all kinds when he first helped friends and relatives try to sell their used textbooks for more than the pittance they were offered by their college bookstores. The enterprise has been expanded to include the buying and selling of all types of books, and now Eric is making a major move into fiction. I was pleased both to help this hard-working young entrepreneur and to employ another outlet for my books. Currently, I am one of the featured authors on the site, so an interview of me, as well as a link to this site, is prominently displayed at http://marathonbooks.net/buybooks.php. Simply go to the site and there are the books, the interview, and the links.
If you haven’t bought my books yet, consider doing so on Marathon. And if you’re looking to buy or sell textbooks (I know I have a lot of students in my readership.) or any kind of books, check out Marathon Books. Even if you have bought my books, go to the Marathon site and see the interview; it was very well done.
Speaking of my books, with all the prompting that has come my way over the last month or so, there will be a third in the Chairman series.
Thanks.
My two novels, The Chairman and The Chairman’s Challenge, are now available at a new outlet, Marathon Books.
http://marathonbooks.net/buybooks.php
Marathon was started by an enterprising young man, and fellow Illinois graduate, Eric Wallor, who saw the market for a marketplace for books of all kinds when he first helped friends and relatives try to sell their used textbooks for more than the pittance they were offered by their college bookstores. The enterprise has been expanded to include the buying and selling of all types of books, and now Eric is making a major move into fiction. I was pleased both to help this hard-working young entrepreneur and to employ another outlet for my books. Currently, I am one of the featured authors on the site, so an interview of me, as well as a link to this site, is prominently displayed at http://marathonbooks.net/buybooks.php. Simply go to the site and there are the books, the interview, and the links.
If you haven’t bought my books yet, consider doing so on Marathon. And if you’re looking to buy or sell textbooks (I know I have a lot of students in my readership.) or any kind of books, check out Marathon Books. Even if you have bought my books, go to the Marathon site and see the interview; it was very well done.
Speaking of my books, with all the prompting that has come my way over the last month or so, there will be a third in the Chairman series.
Thanks.
PRYING MY STICK SHIFT OUT OF MY COLD, DEAD HANDS
3/5/12
In today’s (i.e., Monday, 3/5/12’s, page A13) Wall Street Journal, Gordon Crovitz waxes nearly euphoric over the apparently imminent prospect of cars that motivate themselves with no driver involvement:
“Over the next decade, cars could finally become true automobiles. Our laws will have to be updated for a new relationship between people and cars, but the benefits will be significant: fewer traffic accidents and fewer gridlocked roads—and, perhaps best of all, young people will be in self-driving cars, not teenager-driven cars.”
As one who finds driving so pleasurable that I would rather drive than do just about anything else and who finds that even an automatic transmission removes far too much control from the person who is ostensibly operating the car, my first reaction to Mr. Crovitz’s article was to (nearly) scream about how all the collectivist, safety-obsessed busybodies want to remove yet another of life’s delights that they find too dangerous, unfair, unhealthy, or otherwise offensive to their hyper-inflated sense of innate intellectual and moral superiority. My urge to rant and rave was especially acute in this case, when the activity that I love so much is being directly threatened by the enforcers of all things good and proper in their highest of estimations.
On reflection, however, as one who, if I were king, would hand out ten years sentences for failure to use one’s turn signal or for using a celphone, even a “hands-free device," while driving and would introduce mobile electric chairs for those who text and drive, I can see how many people would find a system of self-driven cars so attractive, even imperative. The driving skills and/or habits of the typical American are beyond deplorable; they are downright dangerous to anyone on or in reasonable proximity to a public road. People seem to have no idea that driving is what one does when one is behind the wheel and that driving involves skill, training, and, most of all, attention. People would do well to heed the admonitions contained on my two favorite bumper stickers:
“It’s a car, not a phone booth!” and
“Forget world peace; envision using your turn signal.”
…but they don’t. They just go on their merry way, blissfully ignorant of anything taking place anywhere around their 4,000 pound dining room/phone booth/web browser/entertainment device.
Mr. Crovitz hinted at this, though he used language that, while colorful, was not nearly as emphatic as mine when he described the activity on the roads as
“…the panorama of indecision, BlackBerry fumbling, rule-flouting, and other vagaries of the humans around us…”
So maybe, given how flawed the human element in driving has become, we would do well to remove the human element from the roads, especially since no one has the courage to place the blame where it really belongs: on those irresponsible menaces to society who insist, to absolutely no resistance, on their right to treat driving as secondary, or tertiary, to more important tasks when they are behind the wheel.
This is by no means an endorsement of robo-cars; life’s pleasures are beginning to dwindle at an increasing rate as I age, so I will fight to the death for this particularly piquant pleasure. My point is that the distinct possibility, or seeming imminence, of a robo-car based transportation system that mandates the abolition of the traditional driver driven car is a perfect illustration of how, in modern America, the responsible ultimately pay the price for the actions of the irresponsible.
In today’s (i.e., Monday, 3/5/12’s, page A13) Wall Street Journal, Gordon Crovitz waxes nearly euphoric over the apparently imminent prospect of cars that motivate themselves with no driver involvement:
“Over the next decade, cars could finally become true automobiles. Our laws will have to be updated for a new relationship between people and cars, but the benefits will be significant: fewer traffic accidents and fewer gridlocked roads—and, perhaps best of all, young people will be in self-driving cars, not teenager-driven cars.”
As one who finds driving so pleasurable that I would rather drive than do just about anything else and who finds that even an automatic transmission removes far too much control from the person who is ostensibly operating the car, my first reaction to Mr. Crovitz’s article was to (nearly) scream about how all the collectivist, safety-obsessed busybodies want to remove yet another of life’s delights that they find too dangerous, unfair, unhealthy, or otherwise offensive to their hyper-inflated sense of innate intellectual and moral superiority. My urge to rant and rave was especially acute in this case, when the activity that I love so much is being directly threatened by the enforcers of all things good and proper in their highest of estimations.
On reflection, however, as one who, if I were king, would hand out ten years sentences for failure to use one’s turn signal or for using a celphone, even a “hands-free device," while driving and would introduce mobile electric chairs for those who text and drive, I can see how many people would find a system of self-driven cars so attractive, even imperative. The driving skills and/or habits of the typical American are beyond deplorable; they are downright dangerous to anyone on or in reasonable proximity to a public road. People seem to have no idea that driving is what one does when one is behind the wheel and that driving involves skill, training, and, most of all, attention. People would do well to heed the admonitions contained on my two favorite bumper stickers:
“It’s a car, not a phone booth!” and
“Forget world peace; envision using your turn signal.”
…but they don’t. They just go on their merry way, blissfully ignorant of anything taking place anywhere around their 4,000 pound dining room/phone booth/web browser/entertainment device.
Mr. Crovitz hinted at this, though he used language that, while colorful, was not nearly as emphatic as mine when he described the activity on the roads as
“…the panorama of indecision, BlackBerry fumbling, rule-flouting, and other vagaries of the humans around us…”
So maybe, given how flawed the human element in driving has become, we would do well to remove the human element from the roads, especially since no one has the courage to place the blame where it really belongs: on those irresponsible menaces to society who insist, to absolutely no resistance, on their right to treat driving as secondary, or tertiary, to more important tasks when they are behind the wheel.
This is by no means an endorsement of robo-cars; life’s pleasures are beginning to dwindle at an increasing rate as I age, so I will fight to the death for this particularly piquant pleasure. My point is that the distinct possibility, or seeming imminence, of a robo-car based transportation system that mandates the abolition of the traditional driver driven car is a perfect illustration of how, in modern America, the responsible ultimately pay the price for the actions of the irresponsible.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
SLIGHTLY BETTER THAN THE ARCHIES
3/1/12
The death of Davy Jones prompted me to write ruminate in the Pontificator on his passing. This is indeed strange because I was never a fan of the Monkees; it must be a generational thing. Further, I really didn’t know what to write. Thankfully, a column by John Kass of the Chicago Tribune on this topic prompted me to send him a note, and an excerpted form of that missive should serve well as a comment on Mr. Jones and the Monkees:
As a guy who spent much of his youth listening to the likes of Led Zeppelin and much of his adulthood wondering why, your Davy Jones tribute column struck a responsive chord. I usually confine my “Kass reading” to your political columns, but I am delighted that I diverted from that practice today.
A recent poll of music lovers of approximately our vintage and mostly male found that “Daydream Believer” topped the list of Forbidden Musical Pleasures; i.e., songs that people like but don’t like to admit that they like. Though I find the song rather depressing (as I do most things), I can see how it achieved such an honor; it’s a great tune that evokes bouts of nostalgia, especially among those of us old enough to remember listening to the likes of Dex Card and Clark Weber playing it on WLS or WCFL. The tune is also quite catchy, perhaps dangerously so; ever since I learned of Mr. Jones’ death, the song has been playing over and over again in my head, almost to the point at which I am considering having it surgically removed.
Two more notes for my readers:
First, I took the aforementioned poll and, in my responses to the “Forbidden Pleasures” question, I listed “Daydream Believer” second, right after “anything by Johnny Mathis,” who has been a particular favorite of mine since childhood. On reflection, though, “Daydream Believer” should have come first because I have no problem at all admitting that I am a huge fan of Mr. Mathis and anything he has so far chosen to record.
Second, the last time I saw Davy Jones was a few years ago on a commercial that ran on CNBC for a product or service that I can’t remember. While the ad did not evoke as much pathos as does the ad for (I think) Rent-a-Center that features Hulk Hogan, it didn’t make me feel very good about Mr. Jones’ then stage in life. And I remember that, reading from the script, of course, Mr. Jones urged his counterpart to “C’mon, tell us the secret; we won’t tell anyone” as he winked into the camera. Given my feelings toward dishonesty, in just about every form, the ad made me feel especially bad for Mr. Jones. But I tend to take things far too seriously, as I am often told.
The death of Davy Jones prompted me to write ruminate in the Pontificator on his passing. This is indeed strange because I was never a fan of the Monkees; it must be a generational thing. Further, I really didn’t know what to write. Thankfully, a column by John Kass of the Chicago Tribune on this topic prompted me to send him a note, and an excerpted form of that missive should serve well as a comment on Mr. Jones and the Monkees:
As a guy who spent much of his youth listening to the likes of Led Zeppelin and much of his adulthood wondering why, your Davy Jones tribute column struck a responsive chord. I usually confine my “Kass reading” to your political columns, but I am delighted that I diverted from that practice today.
A recent poll of music lovers of approximately our vintage and mostly male found that “Daydream Believer” topped the list of Forbidden Musical Pleasures; i.e., songs that people like but don’t like to admit that they like. Though I find the song rather depressing (as I do most things), I can see how it achieved such an honor; it’s a great tune that evokes bouts of nostalgia, especially among those of us old enough to remember listening to the likes of Dex Card and Clark Weber playing it on WLS or WCFL. The tune is also quite catchy, perhaps dangerously so; ever since I learned of Mr. Jones’ death, the song has been playing over and over again in my head, almost to the point at which I am considering having it surgically removed.
Two more notes for my readers:
First, I took the aforementioned poll and, in my responses to the “Forbidden Pleasures” question, I listed “Daydream Believer” second, right after “anything by Johnny Mathis,” who has been a particular favorite of mine since childhood. On reflection, though, “Daydream Believer” should have come first because I have no problem at all admitting that I am a huge fan of Mr. Mathis and anything he has so far chosen to record.
Second, the last time I saw Davy Jones was a few years ago on a commercial that ran on CNBC for a product or service that I can’t remember. While the ad did not evoke as much pathos as does the ad for (I think) Rent-a-Center that features Hulk Hogan, it didn’t make me feel very good about Mr. Jones’ then stage in life. And I remember that, reading from the script, of course, Mr. Jones urged his counterpart to “C’mon, tell us the secret; we won’t tell anyone” as he winked into the camera. Given my feelings toward dishonesty, in just about every form, the ad made me feel especially bad for Mr. Jones. But I tend to take things far too seriously, as I am often told.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
