It either must be terribly humiliating or maybe these two just aren't as smart as everyone thought they were. I suspect it is the former, because I know that Senators Warner and Webb are plenty smart. They are also plenty wimpy. These guys folded like a flimsy tent when we we needed them. Warner ran as a "radical centrist" Webb publicly fancies himself a renegade and a free thinker. Well, when Harry Reid needed these two to fall in line they snapped a crisp salute, voted the way Harry wanted them to and then posted statements on their websites explaining their votes in approved talking points from the DNC.
The real problem here, and it goes beyond gutless senators like Mark and Jim, the problem is that these guys are already fabulously wealthy. The taxes they are going to impose upon us (assuming they have not exempted themselves somewhere in the 2000 page bill) are a drop in the bucket to them. They mean nothing. These two could easily pay (though I bet they won't) another 100K in taxes each and they would not blink an eye. The problem is that for the rest of America, those of us who work for a living, who build businesses and create jobs, these taxes are real and they hurt. So my tax dollars are going to Nebraska, Louisiana, and Vermont in order to keep their senators votes in line. This is good government....why?
Nice job Senators from Virginia. You cowered in front of a moron like Harry Reid. I cannot imagine how it feels to be a lapdog for man of Reid's caliber...but it must suck. Good luck in your re-election bids. You are going to need it! HAHAHAHA!!!!
Monday, December 21, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Term Limits Now More Than Ever
Get these people out of Washington as soon as we can...all of them. Super rich, ivory tower lemmings completely out of touch with the daily lives of real Americans in Washington is a recipe for...disaster - just what we are getting from Congress and the President today. Agenda driven, political legislation that has nothing to do with solving problems in our country.
Here are the no longer covert priorities of every legislator in Washington 1) Get re-elected 2) Score political "victories" that hopefully make the opposition look bad 3) Get re-elected again. That's pretty much it. See the problem.
Senate, one term; House 2 terms. Then go home and earn a living like the rest of us.
Elect me president, I will get it done :)
Here are the no longer covert priorities of every legislator in Washington 1) Get re-elected 2) Score political "victories" that hopefully make the opposition look bad 3) Get re-elected again. That's pretty much it. See the problem.
Senate, one term; House 2 terms. Then go home and earn a living like the rest of us.
Elect me president, I will get it done :)
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Obama, you are the President...time to start acting like it
I know that coming from Chicago, everything for Barak Obama is political. However, the decision to send more troops, stand with current levels, or withdraw from Afghanistan should rise above typical, frustrating, and self-serving partisan gnashing of teeth. Unfortunately for Obama, he cannot rise from the sewer of Chicago politics. Every decision is political and is made through the decision tree of what makes Obama and the Democratic party look good and the other side look bad. Furthermore, what position strengthens his political foundation and erodes any competitor, in party or out.
The Afghanistan decision is not all that hard if put through a simple analysis. First, what does it take to win? Are we willing to pay that price? If we are not willing to go all in and win, then get out. General McCrystal believes 40,000 more troops will give him a winning hand. He believes he can secure the population, defeat that Taliban, and leave a nascent free society. He is closest to the ground, either give him what he needs or relieve him and pull out. I was shocked to think that Obama was considering splitting the difference and sending more troops but not as many as his general requested. This would be politics at its worst. This is the worst case scenario for he troops already there and the new ones he would send. It is not the addition in force that a trained military professional believes is needed to win. However it is enough to make Obama not look like a sissy, but not what the military needs, so he is still okay with his left wing loony supporters. This is a political decision. It is tantamount to throwing away American lives....not enough to win, but just enough to provide political cover with the opposing views on what to do in Afghanistan.
Obama is not big on American "winning". We know he is a man of the world. If he feels that a convincing and forceful American victory is not in our best interests....then make that decision and live with the consequences. That is what leaders do, it is not what politicians do. If Obama wants to get out, I would rather he say so and get the warring American forces home. Sending them a fractional reinforcement on what is needed to win is wasteful and immoral.
Obama, you are the President of the United States. It is time to start acting like it. Make a decision, lead for a change. We will let you know how you did in 2012.
The Afghanistan decision is not all that hard if put through a simple analysis. First, what does it take to win? Are we willing to pay that price? If we are not willing to go all in and win, then get out. General McCrystal believes 40,000 more troops will give him a winning hand. He believes he can secure the population, defeat that Taliban, and leave a nascent free society. He is closest to the ground, either give him what he needs or relieve him and pull out. I was shocked to think that Obama was considering splitting the difference and sending more troops but not as many as his general requested. This would be politics at its worst. This is the worst case scenario for he troops already there and the new ones he would send. It is not the addition in force that a trained military professional believes is needed to win. However it is enough to make Obama not look like a sissy, but not what the military needs, so he is still okay with his left wing loony supporters. This is a political decision. It is tantamount to throwing away American lives....not enough to win, but just enough to provide political cover with the opposing views on what to do in Afghanistan.
Obama is not big on American "winning". We know he is a man of the world. If he feels that a convincing and forceful American victory is not in our best interests....then make that decision and live with the consequences. That is what leaders do, it is not what politicians do. If Obama wants to get out, I would rather he say so and get the warring American forces home. Sending them a fractional reinforcement on what is needed to win is wasteful and immoral.
Obama, you are the President of the United States. It is time to start acting like it. Make a decision, lead for a change. We will let you know how you did in 2012.
Are you kidding me?
We are really going to bring the 9/11 terrorist a$$holes to American soil for a civilian trial...to be put on the docket right after a carjacking case is resolved? So the planners of the 9/11 jihadist massacre are due the same rights as the local car thief? Newsflash for Eric Holder - these bastards are not American citizens. They are not due any constitutional due process. They are ar criminals. This is both an irrational and stupid political decision...very Nixonian...by an administration that fancies itself as far smarter than markets, economies, and certainly average Americans.
There is an intersection of interests in the KSM matter. The only thing he wants out of his remaining pathetic and wasted life is to die as a martyr. The only thing we as Americans owe KSM is a bullet between the eyes. It is my suggestion that we recognize the intersection of these common interests...and save ourselves a lot of money, time, and national turmoil.
There is an intersection of interests in the KSM matter. The only thing he wants out of his remaining pathetic and wasted life is to die as a martyr. The only thing we as Americans owe KSM is a bullet between the eyes. It is my suggestion that we recognize the intersection of these common interests...and save ourselves a lot of money, time, and national turmoil.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Use Your Heads People
I am not a big fiction reader. I strongly prefer non-fiction. I especially dislike reading fiction in the news media and then hearing fiction repeated as fact by people following what they hear rather than using their heads and thinking for themselves.
Here are some facts that are not refutable. The democrats control the House of Representatives by 79 seats. They have an insurmountable voting majority of 60 in the senate (58 democrats +2 reliable "independents"). So when I hear chatter in the media and in conversation about the "obstructionist" republicans my head starts to throb. The republicans cannot in anyway obstruct anything the democrats want to do. They do not have the votes. This is like stating that my pair of two's is obstructing your full house in the poker hand of life. The full house wins every time. It just is. So, if the democrats want to pass legislation, there is nothing the republicans can do to stop it. They do not have the votes. They would be steamrolled on every vote.
If fellow democrats are jumping ship from democratic causes, why does that make republicans obstructionist? The answer is, it doesn't. However, most of the media needs a boogey man to demonize and an excuse to cite when liberalism fails. If the democrats agenda does not roll forward this year, it isn't because of the meanie republicans, it is because the democrats don't agree on the policy...and maybe, just maybe because it is bad for America.
Come on people use your heads. This one isn't that hard.
Here are some facts that are not refutable. The democrats control the House of Representatives by 79 seats. They have an insurmountable voting majority of 60 in the senate (58 democrats +2 reliable "independents"). So when I hear chatter in the media and in conversation about the "obstructionist" republicans my head starts to throb. The republicans cannot in anyway obstruct anything the democrats want to do. They do not have the votes. This is like stating that my pair of two's is obstructing your full house in the poker hand of life. The full house wins every time. It just is. So, if the democrats want to pass legislation, there is nothing the republicans can do to stop it. They do not have the votes. They would be steamrolled on every vote.
If fellow democrats are jumping ship from democratic causes, why does that make republicans obstructionist? The answer is, it doesn't. However, most of the media needs a boogey man to demonize and an excuse to cite when liberalism fails. If the democrats agenda does not roll forward this year, it isn't because of the meanie republicans, it is because the democrats don't agree on the policy...and maybe, just maybe because it is bad for America.
Come on people use your heads. This one isn't that hard.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
When Fat Cats Become Bone Heads
So major banks in the US are managed by their leadership to the point of collapse and the US Govt has to rescue them with billions of taxpayer dollars. Now as their business recovers, at least for now, what does the leadership do? They pay themselves huge bonuses like nothing ever happened. What planet do these idiots live on?
It is my opinion that cronyism in both the private and public sectors is one of the biggest threats to the future of the United States. Once a person becomes a fat cat in business or politics, short of being convicted of being an ax murderer (or taking 90K in bribes and stashing the cash in the freezer), they are entitled to riches and perks unknown to the rest of America. I guess a meritocracy is only in effect for those not in the fat cat club. Once in, membership appears stickier than university tenure.
What were these clowns thinking? What a self inflicted PR nightmare. If fat cats forget that their fat wallets don't impress most Americans and their fate egos will be their undoing. What a bunch of boneheads. Obama should have fired all of them for being morons - they work for the government. Remember?
It is my opinion that cronyism in both the private and public sectors is one of the biggest threats to the future of the United States. Once a person becomes a fat cat in business or politics, short of being convicted of being an ax murderer (or taking 90K in bribes and stashing the cash in the freezer), they are entitled to riches and perks unknown to the rest of America. I guess a meritocracy is only in effect for those not in the fat cat club. Once in, membership appears stickier than university tenure.
What were these clowns thinking? What a self inflicted PR nightmare. If fat cats forget that their fat wallets don't impress most Americans and their fate egos will be their undoing. What a bunch of boneheads. Obama should have fired all of them for being morons - they work for the government. Remember?
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
When "Present" Won't Cut It
Opponents of Barack Obama reported during the campaign the high percentage of "present" votes by then state senator Obama. Clearly Obama was mapping out his political future walking the tightrope of politics by keeping himself out of many controversial positions of record. Voting "present" and dodging tough issues with a present vote may be fine in the state legislature of Illinois. However, when that "present" state senator is now Commander in Chief, voting "present" won't cut it.
The time has come in Afghanistan to fish or cut bait. We need a decision. Obama's commander in Afghanistan and his secretary of defense are pushing for more troops. Obama is a flower child of the 1960s and his gut tells him that all things can be worked out through peaceful negotiations. His far left advisers and supporters also believe that we should bring home the troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq as soon as possible. The problem is that candidate Obama called Afghanistan the "right" war that we needed to fight to secure our future against the terrorist threat. So now Obama is either trying to make the right call to get the best result in Afghanistan or he is trying to find a way to vote "present" and weasel out of taking a stand what will without question be unpopular with many Americans.
Welcome to the big leagues Obama, make a decision..."present" won't cut it. Either pull the troops out ad bring them home or double down and try to win. I can see the merit of both positions. I would double down. What I would not do is dither around looking for a politically palatable solution while brave American soldiers risk their lives. Obama, you are the president, make a decision, it's your job!
The time has come in Afghanistan to fish or cut bait. We need a decision. Obama's commander in Afghanistan and his secretary of defense are pushing for more troops. Obama is a flower child of the 1960s and his gut tells him that all things can be worked out through peaceful negotiations. His far left advisers and supporters also believe that we should bring home the troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq as soon as possible. The problem is that candidate Obama called Afghanistan the "right" war that we needed to fight to secure our future against the terrorist threat. So now Obama is either trying to make the right call to get the best result in Afghanistan or he is trying to find a way to vote "present" and weasel out of taking a stand what will without question be unpopular with many Americans.
Welcome to the big leagues Obama, make a decision..."present" won't cut it. Either pull the troops out ad bring them home or double down and try to win. I can see the merit of both positions. I would double down. What I would not do is dither around looking for a politically palatable solution while brave American soldiers risk their lives. Obama, you are the president, make a decision, it's your job!
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The Real World versus Obamaland
In Obamaland, the impossible is possible, I suppose due to the overwhelming persuasive powers of Obama. Unfortunately in the Real World, where all of us with the exception of Barack Obama and his minions live, things like laws of physics, economics, and human nature do not bow to the Obama charm.
In Obamaland, we can add 40 million new subscribers to healtcare roles without stressing the the capacity of the existing system or raising costs. Sadly, according to all who just stop and think about it and also according to those in the CBO who actually crunch the numbers, Obamaland holds no connection to reality.
In Obamaland, bad people with hate in their hearts and nefarious plans in their brains will put aside their hate and join the community of peace through persuasive negotiations with the all feeling, all sensing, all healing Obama. In Obamaland, it is possible for weapons technology to be "banished from the face of the Earth". In the real world, bad people take advantage of the overconfident silliness of Obamaland dwellars. In the real world, people who actually take action when needed and drive results feel their heads explode when Obamaland platitudes suffice where firm action and resolve are needed.
Most dangerously for all of us, people in the real world, with real hate, real plans, and real weapons eat the lunch of those who live in Obamaland. Were Obama not the president of the United States, this would be just another heady idealist being shoved to irrelevance by things they ironically do not understand. However, Obamaland has moved into the White House and many people will suffer the economic consequences of his failures at a minimum. In the worst case scenario, a lot of people who live in the real world could die from the hubris of Obamaland and its disconnect from the reality of evil in the real world.
Obamaland is a great place for university professors, community organizers, and for young idealists short on real world experience. Obamaland is a bad place when decisions of consequence are at hand, when one must delineate between good and evil. The infinite shades of grey and idea that no one is wrong or bad they are just different doesn't play very well when one of those "different" from us in planning to blow Israel off the map. Obamaland doesn't translate very well into the real world in which we live. I guess we are finding that out a little too late.
In Obamaland, we can add 40 million new subscribers to healtcare roles without stressing the the capacity of the existing system or raising costs. Sadly, according to all who just stop and think about it and also according to those in the CBO who actually crunch the numbers, Obamaland holds no connection to reality.
In Obamaland, bad people with hate in their hearts and nefarious plans in their brains will put aside their hate and join the community of peace through persuasive negotiations with the all feeling, all sensing, all healing Obama. In Obamaland, it is possible for weapons technology to be "banished from the face of the Earth". In the real world, bad people take advantage of the overconfident silliness of Obamaland dwellars. In the real world, people who actually take action when needed and drive results feel their heads explode when Obamaland platitudes suffice where firm action and resolve are needed.
Most dangerously for all of us, people in the real world, with real hate, real plans, and real weapons eat the lunch of those who live in Obamaland. Were Obama not the president of the United States, this would be just another heady idealist being shoved to irrelevance by things they ironically do not understand. However, Obamaland has moved into the White House and many people will suffer the economic consequences of his failures at a minimum. In the worst case scenario, a lot of people who live in the real world could die from the hubris of Obamaland and its disconnect from the reality of evil in the real world.
Obamaland is a great place for university professors, community organizers, and for young idealists short on real world experience. Obamaland is a bad place when decisions of consequence are at hand, when one must delineate between good and evil. The infinite shades of grey and idea that no one is wrong or bad they are just different doesn't play very well when one of those "different" from us in planning to blow Israel off the map. Obamaland doesn't translate very well into the real world in which we live. I guess we are finding that out a little too late.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Does Obama Have a Strategy?
I am going to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and say that he does not have a strategy for his administration, because if one assumed he had a strategy based on his actions in 9 months in office, they conclusion would not be a pretty one.
I assume that he is in the business of paying back and buying the future support of his "base". Afterall, that is the Chicago-way and Obama has shown his roots as a born and bred Chicigo politician. His base is 1) Union workers 2) Radical Left Peaceniks and socialists 3) Disaffected America Apologists 4) Naive Peaceniks who really believe we can live together with radical Islam 5) People who do not have health insurance. By the way, it is possible to belong to more than one classification of the Obama base.
Let's see if his actions support my theory, giving him the benefit of the doubt that no one is stupid enough enough to try to turn this great republic into a quagmire of government programs where the vast majority depend on the government to take care of them.
Tariff on low end tires from China..who does that help...oh yes, the union boys. Consumers get the benefit of more expensive produts and we get to see if China decides to retaliate. BTW, has Obama ever heard of Smoot Hawley? A period of recession has historically been a poor time to begin a policy of protectionism.
Healthcare, Insurance, Coverage...whatever it is called to day...reform. Well, this helps those in the 5th category, but it also, as written by the House, help the Union boys as they get special treatment and benefits that the rest of the proletariat have to endure with "reformed" healthcare.
Wavering on Afghanistan policy...this certainly is a payback for Peacenicks of any ilk. I thought Afghanistan was Obama's fulcrum on the war on terror. How can we, after 9 months in office, have to delay a decision on troop levels so we can determine our strategy. We don't have a strategy? Are you kidding me? What has been going on since January? Seems to me this delay is a way to not do anything that looks too hawkish or aggressive and make his peacenik supporters mad.
Investigating the CIA for interrogations we conducted in the post 9/11 war on terror. I've got to tell you, whether we waterboarded the bastards who architected the 9/11 massacre or whether we got potty water on the koran doesn't keep me up at night. Why are we going back to re-investigate something that has already been investigated?
Cash for clunkers...let's see who does this help....certainly the unions, although in a funny and happy twist of fate, Toyota sold the most cars during this ridiculous program. This also helped people who like having someone else'money (taxpayers who did not buy a car) given to them (taxpayers and non-taxpayers did buy a car and got $ 4500 from Uncle Sam).
GM & Chrysler Bailout...hmmm, too big to fail...or not. If GM and Chrysler had been allowed to "fail" like 99.9999% of most American business are "allowed" to do...their assets would have been bought by businesses and investors who thought they could make better use of those assets. There would be jobs in Michigan, just not union jobs....ooops! There's the rub. The fallacy is that if GM and Chrysler had failed, while it would have been a big economic shock, there is still demand for cars and trucks in the markets they serve. New investments, new capital would have remade the assets of GM and Chrysler into something viable in the market, rather than a ward of the state, but that would not have been a happy outcome for the union supporters of Obama.
See the pattern here? There is more and I could add more examples, but after a while it just becomes piling on. I guess the Obama strategy or rather his tactics are paying back those in his base, so he can do whatever it is he intends to do...once he comes up with a strategy...like that Afghanistan thing.
I assume that he is in the business of paying back and buying the future support of his "base". Afterall, that is the Chicago-way and Obama has shown his roots as a born and bred Chicigo politician. His base is 1) Union workers 2) Radical Left Peaceniks and socialists 3) Disaffected America Apologists 4) Naive Peaceniks who really believe we can live together with radical Islam 5) People who do not have health insurance. By the way, it is possible to belong to more than one classification of the Obama base.
Let's see if his actions support my theory, giving him the benefit of the doubt that no one is stupid enough enough to try to turn this great republic into a quagmire of government programs where the vast majority depend on the government to take care of them.
Tariff on low end tires from China..who does that help...oh yes, the union boys. Consumers get the benefit of more expensive produts and we get to see if China decides to retaliate. BTW, has Obama ever heard of Smoot Hawley? A period of recession has historically been a poor time to begin a policy of protectionism.
Healthcare, Insurance, Coverage...whatever it is called to day...reform. Well, this helps those in the 5th category, but it also, as written by the House, help the Union boys as they get special treatment and benefits that the rest of the proletariat have to endure with "reformed" healthcare.
Wavering on Afghanistan policy...this certainly is a payback for Peacenicks of any ilk. I thought Afghanistan was Obama's fulcrum on the war on terror. How can we, after 9 months in office, have to delay a decision on troop levels so we can determine our strategy. We don't have a strategy? Are you kidding me? What has been going on since January? Seems to me this delay is a way to not do anything that looks too hawkish or aggressive and make his peacenik supporters mad.
Investigating the CIA for interrogations we conducted in the post 9/11 war on terror. I've got to tell you, whether we waterboarded the bastards who architected the 9/11 massacre or whether we got potty water on the koran doesn't keep me up at night. Why are we going back to re-investigate something that has already been investigated?
Cash for clunkers...let's see who does this help....certainly the unions, although in a funny and happy twist of fate, Toyota sold the most cars during this ridiculous program. This also helped people who like having someone else'money (taxpayers who did not buy a car) given to them (taxpayers and non-taxpayers did buy a car and got $ 4500 from Uncle Sam).
GM & Chrysler Bailout...hmmm, too big to fail...or not. If GM and Chrysler had been allowed to "fail" like 99.9999% of most American business are "allowed" to do...their assets would have been bought by businesses and investors who thought they could make better use of those assets. There would be jobs in Michigan, just not union jobs....ooops! There's the rub. The fallacy is that if GM and Chrysler had failed, while it would have been a big economic shock, there is still demand for cars and trucks in the markets they serve. New investments, new capital would have remade the assets of GM and Chrysler into something viable in the market, rather than a ward of the state, but that would not have been a happy outcome for the union supporters of Obama.
See the pattern here? There is more and I could add more examples, but after a while it just becomes piling on. I guess the Obama strategy or rather his tactics are paying back those in his base, so he can do whatever it is he intends to do...once he comes up with a strategy...like that Afghanistan thing.
Getting Things Done - Advice for Obama
I recognize that President Obama has never had a private sector job, so he needs some help understanding how the real world, real businesses, and real people work. Here is some free advice, that if he follows it, can help him get is presidency out of the ditch.
Businesses hate uncertainty in their markets. Business risk is a part of our ridiculously successful capitalist system. Business people understand that, work to mitigate risk, and evaluate risk/reward trade-offs everyday. What business people cannot tolerate and what makes them recoil into complete inaction is market uncertainty...things that could change the rules of the game over which they have no control, into which they have no input, and against which they have no defense. This reality also applies to consumers...as small enterprises managing their households and lives. If there are too many balls in the air that have potential to radically change the rules of their existence, businesses and the consumers in those businesses will stand on the sidelines, hunker down and wait to see what is going to happen. These are good and rational business reactions.
Obama has too many balls in the air. He is upsetting too many apple carts and heading down too many rat holes. What will the impact of healthcare reform be on small business? I have no idea. Neither do business people. What will the impact of healthcare reform be on the taxes small business owners and individuals pay? No clue. What mandates will be required by an ivory tower president and legislature? I haven't the slightest. Neither does anyone else. Starting to see the problem?
Cap and Trade...where is this headed? What will be the increased tax burden on consumers and business if Cap and Trade becomes law? I know one thing, whether direct or indirect, the cost of everything will rise for the United States market...and for the US market alone. India and China will be the great beneficiaries of Cap and Trade, while its impact on US business in unknown in in depth, only in its direction. This is a huge potential game changer for American businesses and American consumers. Its economic impact is potentially massive...but know one knows how big of a burden Cap and Trade would create and when it starts to dig.
Cardcheck...where is this headed? I hope to the garbage heap where it belongs. However, the president favors card check to help out his union base of supporters. How will this impact the cost of business? Well, it won't make it cheaper to do business if I have to overpay for labor due to increased unionization through simple cardcheck processes. How much will this cost American businesses, I don't know, and the point is neither do they, but like Cap and Trade it will increase the cost of doing business, we just don't know how much.
See the trend? There are way too many balls in the air. There are far too many potential cost/tax burdens waiting to be thrust upon American business in the name of...well, I am not sure what it is int he name of, since it does not appear to be part of any well thought out plan or strategy. I guess this is all in the name of paying back those who got Obama to the White House.
So advice for Obama, assuming he can see the problems he is creating for the businesses and people he so longs to tax into middle class....pick a one major initiative. Create a value proposition for the majority of Americans (other than giving away someone else' money) and insert that initiative as part of a broad strategy to improve the already fabulous economic system we have in America. If your initiative and plan do not achieve these goals or have the potential to achieve these goals...you are working on the wrong things.
This advice is solid and it is free. You can thank me later by keeping my taxes low, letting keep what I earn, and staying out of my healthcare decisions.
Businesses hate uncertainty in their markets. Business risk is a part of our ridiculously successful capitalist system. Business people understand that, work to mitigate risk, and evaluate risk/reward trade-offs everyday. What business people cannot tolerate and what makes them recoil into complete inaction is market uncertainty...things that could change the rules of the game over which they have no control, into which they have no input, and against which they have no defense. This reality also applies to consumers...as small enterprises managing their households and lives. If there are too many balls in the air that have potential to radically change the rules of their existence, businesses and the consumers in those businesses will stand on the sidelines, hunker down and wait to see what is going to happen. These are good and rational business reactions.
Obama has too many balls in the air. He is upsetting too many apple carts and heading down too many rat holes. What will the impact of healthcare reform be on small business? I have no idea. Neither do business people. What will the impact of healthcare reform be on the taxes small business owners and individuals pay? No clue. What mandates will be required by an ivory tower president and legislature? I haven't the slightest. Neither does anyone else. Starting to see the problem?
Cap and Trade...where is this headed? What will be the increased tax burden on consumers and business if Cap and Trade becomes law? I know one thing, whether direct or indirect, the cost of everything will rise for the United States market...and for the US market alone. India and China will be the great beneficiaries of Cap and Trade, while its impact on US business in unknown in in depth, only in its direction. This is a huge potential game changer for American businesses and American consumers. Its economic impact is potentially massive...but know one knows how big of a burden Cap and Trade would create and when it starts to dig.
Cardcheck...where is this headed? I hope to the garbage heap where it belongs. However, the president favors card check to help out his union base of supporters. How will this impact the cost of business? Well, it won't make it cheaper to do business if I have to overpay for labor due to increased unionization through simple cardcheck processes. How much will this cost American businesses, I don't know, and the point is neither do they, but like Cap and Trade it will increase the cost of doing business, we just don't know how much.
See the trend? There are way too many balls in the air. There are far too many potential cost/tax burdens waiting to be thrust upon American business in the name of...well, I am not sure what it is int he name of, since it does not appear to be part of any well thought out plan or strategy. I guess this is all in the name of paying back those who got Obama to the White House.
So advice for Obama, assuming he can see the problems he is creating for the businesses and people he so longs to tax into middle class....pick a one major initiative. Create a value proposition for the majority of Americans (other than giving away someone else' money) and insert that initiative as part of a broad strategy to improve the already fabulous economic system we have in America. If your initiative and plan do not achieve these goals or have the potential to achieve these goals...you are working on the wrong things.
This advice is solid and it is free. You can thank me later by keeping my taxes low, letting keep what I earn, and staying out of my healthcare decisions.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
What do we really know about Health Care Reform
There is a swirl of "information" flying around about potential reform of the United States' health care system. Sorting through the propaganda, talking points, and spin, there are some things about the current system and the proposed reforms that are irrefutable.
First: The current system is broken for many reasons. One of those reasons is not problem with delivery of quality care. Instead, the reason the current system is broken is due to the rising cost of care and obligations the government has to recipients of government run medicaid and medicare.
Second: Any system in which the connection between the cost of service and the delivery of service is severed is doomed to failure. This is why the current system of government and private insurance is so broken. There is no recognition of usage cost. If a doctor's office visit only costs a $ 10 co-pay or is free, then what the heck, stop in just to see what the Doc has to say. Any product in any system that is priced well below fair market value will be over used. Any system in which there is no incentive to optimize and control costs will see run away costs - like the current system. Therefore any "reform" that makes health care appear "free" will crash and burn.
Third: There is no way to force health care coverage for 47M uninsured Americans without dramatic tax increases to pay for those newly covered with health care. Any suggestion otherwise is pure folly at best and outright deception at worst.
Fourth: Absent political agendas, the fix for health care coverage is not particularly daunting nor difficult.
Fifth: A "public option" for health care where the government both runs the option and sets the rules for the market in which that "option" operates will drive private players out of the market.
None of these concepts are difficult to grasp. All of these are difficult if not impossible to refute. It would be refreshing to see someone on Capitol Hill embrace the reality of our health care situation and propose a responsible reform plan that solves the problem rather than scratching political backs or serving failed political dogma.
BTW - I just read where car dealers are hung out to dry waiting for their money from Uncle Sam's cash-for-clunkers program. These dealers are essentially floating the Feds an interest free loan and have no clue when payments will be dispersed nor when the paperwork nightmare will end. The government cannot run a tiny, insignificant program like cash for clunkers, but there are those who would trust Washington to run health care....you have got to be kidding me. A tried and true phrase describes many on Capitol Hill..."those who could not find their asses with both hands and a map"....and these are the people we want running health care? I want them to go home and stay there, so they don't screw up the tiny flickers of economic recovery that may be taking hold.
First: The current system is broken for many reasons. One of those reasons is not problem with delivery of quality care. Instead, the reason the current system is broken is due to the rising cost of care and obligations the government has to recipients of government run medicaid and medicare.
Second: Any system in which the connection between the cost of service and the delivery of service is severed is doomed to failure. This is why the current system of government and private insurance is so broken. There is no recognition of usage cost. If a doctor's office visit only costs a $ 10 co-pay or is free, then what the heck, stop in just to see what the Doc has to say. Any product in any system that is priced well below fair market value will be over used. Any system in which there is no incentive to optimize and control costs will see run away costs - like the current system. Therefore any "reform" that makes health care appear "free" will crash and burn.
Third: There is no way to force health care coverage for 47M uninsured Americans without dramatic tax increases to pay for those newly covered with health care. Any suggestion otherwise is pure folly at best and outright deception at worst.
Fourth: Absent political agendas, the fix for health care coverage is not particularly daunting nor difficult.
Fifth: A "public option" for health care where the government both runs the option and sets the rules for the market in which that "option" operates will drive private players out of the market.
None of these concepts are difficult to grasp. All of these are difficult if not impossible to refute. It would be refreshing to see someone on Capitol Hill embrace the reality of our health care situation and propose a responsible reform plan that solves the problem rather than scratching political backs or serving failed political dogma.
BTW - I just read where car dealers are hung out to dry waiting for their money from Uncle Sam's cash-for-clunkers program. These dealers are essentially floating the Feds an interest free loan and have no clue when payments will be dispersed nor when the paperwork nightmare will end. The government cannot run a tiny, insignificant program like cash for clunkers, but there are those who would trust Washington to run health care....you have got to be kidding me. A tried and true phrase describes many on Capitol Hill..."those who could not find their asses with both hands and a map"....and these are the people we want running health care? I want them to go home and stay there, so they don't screw up the tiny flickers of economic recovery that may be taking hold.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Health Care Reform that Doesn't Suck - Part II
Let's be clear on one thing before we get started...the house bill on health care reform...it sucks. (Also the vague descriptions of health care that Obama is trying desperately to shove down Americans throats...that "plan" sucks as well.) Face it, any bill over 1,000 pages is likely to suck, and this one does, royally.
Let's fix health care....
Tort reform. Attorneys filing medical malpractice suits...loser pays. If the doc loses, he/she pays. If the filing attorney loses, he pays court and defense costs. Frivolous law suits just ended and billions of dollars of wasteful insurance premiums for malpractice insurance just cut costs of service. I told you this really isn't that hard of a problem.
Inter-state restrictions on buying health care insurance are gone. Anyone or any company can buy a coverage from any licensed firm. Competition just went up and prices just went down - for everyone.
A huge problem in the current system is a total disconnect between delivery of service and cost of service. A public option, by the way makes this problem worse. Increase the size, access, and tax benefits of personal savings accounts.
I am going to take some of the money I just saved and create a low income credit for those who cannot afford insurance to go buy the coverage that best meets their needs. Wait! I just saved more money here because these folks will no longer use the emergency room for primary care. BTW, illegals don't get the benefit. I can solve that problem now too while I have a minute. I am going to totally shut down the boarder and stop illegal crossings. However recognize that there are two ends to a funnel and that having to wait years for adjudication of a legal immigrant request is ridiculous. Therefore all applications for visas will be adjudicated with a yes/no decision within 120 days of the application. There, now those coming here are here legally and can participate in the wonders of a capitalist society. Illegals already here are sent home never to return if they commit a crime. Those here working and living in America can begin a process of becoming legal, but will have to pay a fine. Problem solved.
How many pages under 1,000 is this? We don't need some idiotic public insurance option, please, just use your head.
Just to close, Nancy Pelosi, who may be the stupidest member of Congress ever, and there is stiff competition for that distinction, said that they wanted to remove the insurance companies from the relationship between patients and doctors? Really? And replace them with what? The federal government? Unless we are going totally fee-for-service, then someone or some thing is going to be in between you and your doctor. Would you rather that "thing" be an insurance company or the federal government...which mental giants like Pelosi in positions of leadership.
Let's fix health care....
Tort reform. Attorneys filing medical malpractice suits...loser pays. If the doc loses, he/she pays. If the filing attorney loses, he pays court and defense costs. Frivolous law suits just ended and billions of dollars of wasteful insurance premiums for malpractice insurance just cut costs of service. I told you this really isn't that hard of a problem.
Inter-state restrictions on buying health care insurance are gone. Anyone or any company can buy a coverage from any licensed firm. Competition just went up and prices just went down - for everyone.
A huge problem in the current system is a total disconnect between delivery of service and cost of service. A public option, by the way makes this problem worse. Increase the size, access, and tax benefits of personal savings accounts.
I am going to take some of the money I just saved and create a low income credit for those who cannot afford insurance to go buy the coverage that best meets their needs. Wait! I just saved more money here because these folks will no longer use the emergency room for primary care. BTW, illegals don't get the benefit. I can solve that problem now too while I have a minute. I am going to totally shut down the boarder and stop illegal crossings. However recognize that there are two ends to a funnel and that having to wait years for adjudication of a legal immigrant request is ridiculous. Therefore all applications for visas will be adjudicated with a yes/no decision within 120 days of the application. There, now those coming here are here legally and can participate in the wonders of a capitalist society. Illegals already here are sent home never to return if they commit a crime. Those here working and living in America can begin a process of becoming legal, but will have to pay a fine. Problem solved.
How many pages under 1,000 is this? We don't need some idiotic public insurance option, please, just use your head.
Just to close, Nancy Pelosi, who may be the stupidest member of Congress ever, and there is stiff competition for that distinction, said that they wanted to remove the insurance companies from the relationship between patients and doctors? Really? And replace them with what? The federal government? Unless we are going totally fee-for-service, then someone or some thing is going to be in between you and your doctor. Would you rather that "thing" be an insurance company or the federal government...which mental giants like Pelosi in positions of leadership.
Healthcare Reform that Doesn't Suck - Part I
Few if any in America feel that the current system of health care can survive and thrive over the long term. But let's be clear about a few things before we fix the majority of the problems...which really aren't that hard to fix.
First, let's agree that the quality of health care available in America is the best in the world. Very few Americans are heading to Canada, England, France, or Germany for the health care offered in those countries. Some very sick individuals will have to travel abroad to use cutting edge experimental treatments not approved by the slow and ultra conservative FDA. Seems like that can and should be part of any "fix" for America. However, far more Canadians and Brits are headed to the United States to use our health care system rather than participate in their own free systems. What does that tell you?
Second, let's agree that the ambulance chasing industry of blood sucking personal injury attorneys adds nothing to the health care system. In fact they are a tremendous drag on the system. An OB/GYN friend of mine has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in malpractice insurance over his career, despite never having been sued nor ever paying a claim. Who benefited from that money? Not the patients, not the doctors and staff. So any health care reform that does not address tort reform and take the jackpot chasing frivolous law suites out of the system is not a serious attempt at reform but is a political system of spoils for faithful donors.
Third, there are millions of uninsured people living in America. Many of them are young people who chose not to buy health insurance. Some are here illegally. Others are destitute and cannot afford insurance and need our help. Any reform that does not help the citizens who cannot help themselves is not viable reform.
Fourth, we cannot mandate coverage for an additional 45 million users of health care services without increasing supple proportionally. Without an equivalent increase in supply, vastly increased demand will overrun supply forcing a system of rationing.
Fifth, a public option to compete with private insurance is insanity. The government runs Social Security - it is now a giant ponzi scheme that will go broke. The government runs Medicare and Medicaid, both of which are going broke and have saddled the USA with trillions of unfunded obligations. The government runs Amtrack and the post office - both of which provide poor service and lose money annually. Get the picture? Additionally, if the government is competing with private health insurance firms, and the government gets to make and change the rules, who do you think will come out on top, despite their performance?
So let's fix the health care problems....okay? Coming in Part II
First, let's agree that the quality of health care available in America is the best in the world. Very few Americans are heading to Canada, England, France, or Germany for the health care offered in those countries. Some very sick individuals will have to travel abroad to use cutting edge experimental treatments not approved by the slow and ultra conservative FDA. Seems like that can and should be part of any "fix" for America. However, far more Canadians and Brits are headed to the United States to use our health care system rather than participate in their own free systems. What does that tell you?
Second, let's agree that the ambulance chasing industry of blood sucking personal injury attorneys adds nothing to the health care system. In fact they are a tremendous drag on the system. An OB/GYN friend of mine has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in malpractice insurance over his career, despite never having been sued nor ever paying a claim. Who benefited from that money? Not the patients, not the doctors and staff. So any health care reform that does not address tort reform and take the jackpot chasing frivolous law suites out of the system is not a serious attempt at reform but is a political system of spoils for faithful donors.
Third, there are millions of uninsured people living in America. Many of them are young people who chose not to buy health insurance. Some are here illegally. Others are destitute and cannot afford insurance and need our help. Any reform that does not help the citizens who cannot help themselves is not viable reform.
Fourth, we cannot mandate coverage for an additional 45 million users of health care services without increasing supple proportionally. Without an equivalent increase in supply, vastly increased demand will overrun supply forcing a system of rationing.
Fifth, a public option to compete with private insurance is insanity. The government runs Social Security - it is now a giant ponzi scheme that will go broke. The government runs Medicare and Medicaid, both of which are going broke and have saddled the USA with trillions of unfunded obligations. The government runs Amtrack and the post office - both of which provide poor service and lose money annually. Get the picture? Additionally, if the government is competing with private health insurance firms, and the government gets to make and change the rules, who do you think will come out on top, despite their performance?
So let's fix the health care problems....okay? Coming in Part II
Sunday, June 28, 2009
The Open Hand vs. The Clinched Fist
President Obama's communications skills can't trump the theocratic leadership of the Iran. It is odd to me that Obama thinks of himself as so skilled or so effective in his ability to transcend years of hate, distrust, and cowardice that he feels he can win over the leadership of Iran with speeches and overtures of goodwill...that his open hand of negotiation and even friendship will somehow turn the tide of the fanatical Muslim world. How absurd. Does Obama understand with whom he is attempting to deal?
Maybe Obama should recognize that while his hand is extended and open the hand of the Iranian government would direct their agents in Al Qaeda or Hamas to saw off the head of every western "infidel" if they could and post the video of their vile actions on the Internet. Can Obama be so naive or so obtuse? These people hate him (though they may find his weakness quite useful) just as much as they hate any American. They would kill all of us, Obama included, if they could. These are people we want to reach out to with an open hand? To what end? How does one have a rational conversation with someone who would like to cut your head off? Why would you waste your time? Is this all for show? Is this part of the inner Obama hippie, make love not war, parading itself as foreign policy?
Maybe Obama will start to figure this out sooner rather than later. Ahmadinejad has already hurled a pretty big insult at Obama, charging him with being no different than George W Bush as he batted the Obama Cairo speech back over the net...I am sure that comparison with "W" is considered the lowest of low blows by the Obama people, but get used to it, the Iranians are just getting started.
This naive and unrealistic view of the world and how it works is why the president of the United States needs to have had a job before he or she takes office. This is why community organizers do not rise to great levels of success in business. The lens of community organizing apparently fogged by the haze of "Kumbya" and hubris - which is a dangerous mix when leading the only super power in the world. The world is nothing like the southside of Chicago. Skills developed organizing unemployed steel workers don't translate particularly well in dealing with soon-to-be- nuclear countries who would like nothing more than to detonate a bomb in an American population center.
Feeling good about that open hand? I hope Obama's other hand is drawn back ready to punch Ahmadinejad in the face, but I suspect it is holding a bunch of freshly picked wild flowers or it might have some more money for his friends at the UAW.
Maybe Obama should recognize that while his hand is extended and open the hand of the Iranian government would direct their agents in Al Qaeda or Hamas to saw off the head of every western "infidel" if they could and post the video of their vile actions on the Internet. Can Obama be so naive or so obtuse? These people hate him (though they may find his weakness quite useful) just as much as they hate any American. They would kill all of us, Obama included, if they could. These are people we want to reach out to with an open hand? To what end? How does one have a rational conversation with someone who would like to cut your head off? Why would you waste your time? Is this all for show? Is this part of the inner Obama hippie, make love not war, parading itself as foreign policy?
Maybe Obama will start to figure this out sooner rather than later. Ahmadinejad has already hurled a pretty big insult at Obama, charging him with being no different than George W Bush as he batted the Obama Cairo speech back over the net...I am sure that comparison with "W" is considered the lowest of low blows by the Obama people, but get used to it, the Iranians are just getting started.
This naive and unrealistic view of the world and how it works is why the president of the United States needs to have had a job before he or she takes office. This is why community organizers do not rise to great levels of success in business. The lens of community organizing apparently fogged by the haze of "Kumbya" and hubris - which is a dangerous mix when leading the only super power in the world. The world is nothing like the southside of Chicago. Skills developed organizing unemployed steel workers don't translate particularly well in dealing with soon-to-be- nuclear countries who would like nothing more than to detonate a bomb in an American population center.
Feeling good about that open hand? I hope Obama's other hand is drawn back ready to punch Ahmadinejad in the face, but I suspect it is holding a bunch of freshly picked wild flowers or it might have some more money for his friends at the UAW.
Climate Change Bill...I think not
Reuters breathless headline "House Passes Landmark Climate Change Bill" would be laughable were it not so dangerous. The headline should read "House Passes Economic Suicide Bill". Let's look at the reality of this idiotic legislation:
There is inconclusive evidence that 1) the earth is warming 2) man's activity impacts earth's warming or cooling. The data from the past 5 years shows that the earth and its oceans have actually cooled. This blip in time data is every bit as insignificant as the last cooling data from the 1970s and the warming data from the 1990s. The Earth marginally warms and cools. Got it. Let's go grill some burgers and and move on to issues that actually matter.
So the reality is that congress is addressing a problem that may or may not exist, that may or may not be caused by man's activities. Just to continue the illumination of the absurdity of of this "landmark" bill, let's assume that the problem exists and is caused by human activity. The effects of the activity of the United States is a small percentage of all human activity. The impact of this bill on the reduction of CO2 based emissions is a fractional impact of the United States' fractional contribution to the problem. Hence, the benefit will be a fraction of a small fraction and of no value whatsoever.
The economic impact however, will be an enormous boon to our economic competitors and an anchor around the neck of the United States economy. Energy is the foundation of any economy. This climate change bill will drive the cost of US energy through the roof. At the same time China and India will have unfettered access to the best, most reliable, and least expensive energy known to man. Therefore the United States will self impose an tremendous economic handicap upon itself....all in the name of solving a problem that may or may not exist with legislation that does not impact the "global" nature of the supposed problem.
This may be the stupidest idea ever to come out of Washington...and that is a low bar to get under. The only way the United States should inflict a cap and trade system upon itself is if India, China, Russia, and the entire European Union enact an identical system upon themselves as well. Otherwise the United States is the tree that falls inconsequentially in the forest and no one hears it, hence it is unnoticed, undetectable, and inconsequential in addressing the faux problem at hand.
I am not a big conspiracy guy, but this bill fails every test of sensible reason that there has to be something else going on. The bill will not have any impact on the global climate. The bill will levy a massive tax on the entire population of the United States. Finally, the bill will make the United States far less competitive in the global economy. Like water that seeks its lowest point, capital always seeks its highest return. Where do you think the highest returns for capital will be if the United States enacts this bill? Guess what, it will not be here and capital will migrate in massive quantities to countries whose leadership does not put an pistol to the heads of its economy and pull the trigger.
I know the day that president Obama signs this bill into law, which hopefully never happens, is the day all of my investments move into Asia, where capital is free to earn returns unfettered by the stupidity and/or subversive plans of US politicians.
There is inconclusive evidence that 1) the earth is warming 2) man's activity impacts earth's warming or cooling. The data from the past 5 years shows that the earth and its oceans have actually cooled. This blip in time data is every bit as insignificant as the last cooling data from the 1970s and the warming data from the 1990s. The Earth marginally warms and cools. Got it. Let's go grill some burgers and and move on to issues that actually matter.
So the reality is that congress is addressing a problem that may or may not exist, that may or may not be caused by man's activities. Just to continue the illumination of the absurdity of of this "landmark" bill, let's assume that the problem exists and is caused by human activity. The effects of the activity of the United States is a small percentage of all human activity. The impact of this bill on the reduction of CO2 based emissions is a fractional impact of the United States' fractional contribution to the problem. Hence, the benefit will be a fraction of a small fraction and of no value whatsoever.
The economic impact however, will be an enormous boon to our economic competitors and an anchor around the neck of the United States economy. Energy is the foundation of any economy. This climate change bill will drive the cost of US energy through the roof. At the same time China and India will have unfettered access to the best, most reliable, and least expensive energy known to man. Therefore the United States will self impose an tremendous economic handicap upon itself....all in the name of solving a problem that may or may not exist with legislation that does not impact the "global" nature of the supposed problem.
This may be the stupidest idea ever to come out of Washington...and that is a low bar to get under. The only way the United States should inflict a cap and trade system upon itself is if India, China, Russia, and the entire European Union enact an identical system upon themselves as well. Otherwise the United States is the tree that falls inconsequentially in the forest and no one hears it, hence it is unnoticed, undetectable, and inconsequential in addressing the faux problem at hand.
I am not a big conspiracy guy, but this bill fails every test of sensible reason that there has to be something else going on. The bill will not have any impact on the global climate. The bill will levy a massive tax on the entire population of the United States. Finally, the bill will make the United States far less competitive in the global economy. Like water that seeks its lowest point, capital always seeks its highest return. Where do you think the highest returns for capital will be if the United States enacts this bill? Guess what, it will not be here and capital will migrate in massive quantities to countries whose leadership does not put an pistol to the heads of its economy and pull the trigger.
I know the day that president Obama signs this bill into law, which hopefully never happens, is the day all of my investments move into Asia, where capital is free to earn returns unfettered by the stupidity and/or subversive plans of US politicians.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Hypocrisy + Stupidity = Big Trouble
Remember when Obama woke up one morning in a rage because of the retention bonuses paid to AIG employees? While there was no doubt that his outrage was manufactured and his anger faked purely for stoking his populist fires of rich versus poor, it seems he either ran out of rage or forgot to muster that rage when the employees for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae got their retention bonuses last week. While Freddie and Fannie are no less indebted to the government for their very existence, AIG is not the playground, or rather the honey pot, for former politicians to go and get rich. One can easily argue that Obama's feigned rage at the AIG bonuses was yet another example of his total ignorance of the business world. After all, if AIG is worth saving, and 165B "invested" to date suggests that someone in government feels that it is, then the task of saving AIG will require talented and motivated employees - who would stay if rewarded with a light at the end of the tunnel - retention bonuses being a standard tool for keeping talent in place when others are heading for the exits. So, while I understand the horrific public relations job AIG did justifying why they need to pay competitive packages to the talent they need to keep the doors open. The same argument could be made for Fannie and Freddie by anyone who has ever worked in the business world. However, why does Obama have selective rage? He clearly does not understand the "pay for performance" world in which most of us live, otherwise he would not have used the AIG bonuses to generate fake rage and score political points. I guess he scored all the points he needed or was oblivious to the fact that Fannie and Freddie employees got more in bonuses that did the AIG employees. Obama either needs to be consistent in his ignorance of business or own up to the utter hypocrisy of his actions. Neither bodes well for the future of our nation.
Shifting gears a bit, what would you do if a two-bit, pin headed despot had just demonstrated that he had a missile capable of reaching the shores of the United States...while members of the Iranian government, on the cusp of developing nuclear weapons watched the missile test with glee. There are a lot of things I would do in that scenario, but the stupidest thing that I could think of to do, and the absolutely last this I would do would be to cut funding for strategic, uniquely American missile defense systems. What in the world is Obama thinking? Does he think that by dumping on the United States in front of the rest of the world that everyone loves us now? Maybe this is how things work in community organizing circles, but when we are dealing with people who would love to detonate a nuclear device in Time Square, who cut people's heads off and post the video in the Internet, and who blow themselves up on crowded buses with school children on board, knocking the US down a few pegs in public will not mollify these people. Rather it will be seen as a demonstration of weakness and will drive further escalation of their fanatic fantasies. What a stupid move by Obama, no other way to call this one. The prestige of the Ivy League education is dropping like the stock market with every day in office. Makes me wonder whose papers Obama copied to get through school, because no one this obtuse can get through the day, much less graduate from Columbia and Harvard.
Shifting gears a bit, what would you do if a two-bit, pin headed despot had just demonstrated that he had a missile capable of reaching the shores of the United States...while members of the Iranian government, on the cusp of developing nuclear weapons watched the missile test with glee. There are a lot of things I would do in that scenario, but the stupidest thing that I could think of to do, and the absolutely last this I would do would be to cut funding for strategic, uniquely American missile defense systems. What in the world is Obama thinking? Does he think that by dumping on the United States in front of the rest of the world that everyone loves us now? Maybe this is how things work in community organizing circles, but when we are dealing with people who would love to detonate a nuclear device in Time Square, who cut people's heads off and post the video in the Internet, and who blow themselves up on crowded buses with school children on board, knocking the US down a few pegs in public will not mollify these people. Rather it will be seen as a demonstration of weakness and will drive further escalation of their fanatic fantasies. What a stupid move by Obama, no other way to call this one. The prestige of the Ivy League education is dropping like the stock market with every day in office. Makes me wonder whose papers Obama copied to get through school, because no one this obtuse can get through the day, much less graduate from Columbia and Harvard.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
President Obama, What Comes After a Trillion?
If Barack Obama and his spend thrift pals in congress have their way, we may need to know what comes after a trillion because our debt will will past 1000 trillion in our life times and the Chinese will essentially own America and will do with it as they please.
It was interesting to me that Obama stated in his press conference that we cannot be a nation of individuals seeking our own self interest, but rather we have to be a collection of citizens as concerned with every one's welfare not just our own.
While that sounds great, it is not capitalism. The free market survives because everyone looks out for their own self interest and in doing so markets of free exchange form, value creation delivers wealth to those who best serve the needs of the market, and capital seeks it highest rate of return. This is how the United States has prospered and kicked economic butt for 200 years. It is hilarious to me that Obama is perplexed that capital does not run into the market he is defining...one of changing rules and punitive regualtions on success. He is a government man, through and through, one who knows not of the market, but wants the taxes it can deliver. He may kill it though, either unwittingly or by design.
The belief of Obama that somehow one's self interest is subservient to the common good is the foundation of communism. Don't think so? Read the Communist Manifesto and try to discern the difference between the class warfare Karl Marx describes and the class warfare he has invoked. There isn't a lot of difference. Obama believes that people are stuck in their economic class and that it is up to the central authority to look after the exploited ones, the helpless ones, the ones who are victims of circumstance rather than the result of their abilities and their choices. In the Obama world, he and his Ivy League egg heads are smarter than markets of billions of independent decisions. In the Obama world the number that follows 999 trillion matters, because he is going to spend that much to make sure that everyone is "equal" no matter how much it costs us.
It was interesting to me that Obama stated in his press conference that we cannot be a nation of individuals seeking our own self interest, but rather we have to be a collection of citizens as concerned with every one's welfare not just our own.
While that sounds great, it is not capitalism. The free market survives because everyone looks out for their own self interest and in doing so markets of free exchange form, value creation delivers wealth to those who best serve the needs of the market, and capital seeks it highest rate of return. This is how the United States has prospered and kicked economic butt for 200 years. It is hilarious to me that Obama is perplexed that capital does not run into the market he is defining...one of changing rules and punitive regualtions on success. He is a government man, through and through, one who knows not of the market, but wants the taxes it can deliver. He may kill it though, either unwittingly or by design.
The belief of Obama that somehow one's self interest is subservient to the common good is the foundation of communism. Don't think so? Read the Communist Manifesto and try to discern the difference between the class warfare Karl Marx describes and the class warfare he has invoked. There isn't a lot of difference. Obama believes that people are stuck in their economic class and that it is up to the central authority to look after the exploited ones, the helpless ones, the ones who are victims of circumstance rather than the result of their abilities and their choices. In the Obama world, he and his Ivy League egg heads are smarter than markets of billions of independent decisions. In the Obama world the number that follows 999 trillion matters, because he is going to spend that much to make sure that everyone is "equal" no matter how much it costs us.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Questions for Obama...that in spite of his Ivy league Education He Can't Answer
Exactly how does one build an economy "from the bottom up"? Remember? This was Obama's claim on the campaign trail and has been repeated by talking heads in the media and the administration (although those lines are blurry at best) but what does it mean? In a functioning economy, albeit in recession, it is still functioning and allocating the resources that have not been usurped by the federal government. So, what does one do to build it from the ground up? Does it mean empowering the individual to do as they please with their time and their talents? Does it mean that individuals can invest, take risks, and reap the rewards or suffer the losses? We have this already. I think what Obama and his left leaning friends mean we build up the bottom (give money to the bottom earners) by taking it from the folks who in Obama's estimation can afford to give up much of what the earn. Based on what I have seen from our new president this is the only conclusion a fair minded individual could draw because no one ever bothered to explain what he meant...assuming he ever knew. I suspect it was really just a good sound bite that made middle and low income people think they would get something from the government. I bet those middle class folks are going to be surprised when all they get is a higher tax bill in a few years and hyper inflation.
My investments are no longer worth what I paid for them. They are "under water" This is no fault of mine, I could afford the investments when I bought them. Maybe that is the problem, maybe I should have bought them on margin. Then I bet Obama would come bail me out like the folks who bought houses they could not afford with loans they could not pay back. Those people can have my investments soon because if Obama and his Treasury secretary who was too talented to reject because he is a tax cheat keep running their yaps, my investments will be worthless and anyone who wants them can have them. Why don't I get a bailout? My investments are worth much less than I paid for them through no fault of mine.
Does anyone in the Obama camp ever stop to wonder what will happen if the world buyers for our debt decide that they need a better return to invest in the shaky economy of the United States? Does Obama understand that the goal of a corporation is to maximize the wealth of the shareholders, not to create jobs? Companies create jobs because they have a need for a particular skill or resource as part of their efforts to maximize their returns. Jobs are a consequence of working to make profits. If Obama had ever held a job he might understand this, but since he hasn't, he doesn't.
My investments are no longer worth what I paid for them. They are "under water" This is no fault of mine, I could afford the investments when I bought them. Maybe that is the problem, maybe I should have bought them on margin. Then I bet Obama would come bail me out like the folks who bought houses they could not afford with loans they could not pay back. Those people can have my investments soon because if Obama and his Treasury secretary who was too talented to reject because he is a tax cheat keep running their yaps, my investments will be worthless and anyone who wants them can have them. Why don't I get a bailout? My investments are worth much less than I paid for them through no fault of mine.
Does anyone in the Obama camp ever stop to wonder what will happen if the world buyers for our debt decide that they need a better return to invest in the shaky economy of the United States? Does Obama understand that the goal of a corporation is to maximize the wealth of the shareholders, not to create jobs? Companies create jobs because they have a need for a particular skill or resource as part of their efforts to maximize their returns. Jobs are a consequence of working to make profits. If Obama had ever held a job he might understand this, but since he hasn't, he doesn't.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Post-Election America, Is this really Change We Can Believe In?
If I could unilaterally make a single change to the constitution, it would be that the president of the United States must have held a real job in the private sector for at least seven years. University professor doesn't count, community organizer doesn't count, life time politician definitely doesn't count. If this were that case, we would never again have a president who knows so little about business, economics, and how the real world works. If the president held a real, private sector job for at least seven years, he or she would understand how value is created, how revenues are driven, and what motivates regular people. A president, born of the business world would not view simply businesses as an endless source of funds that magically appear in the federal coffers. He or she would understand that companies hire employees because they have a specific need and the value of that employee's work is greater than the value of the salary and benefits they earn. I think if Barack Obama had ever held a real job, he wouldn't be making some of the uninformed, capricious, and contradictory moves he is making today. He might understand that the bane of capital markets is uncertainty and that student body left, student body right, and retroactive changes to the rules of the game are a recipe for financial disaster. He clearly has no idea. His performance the past month has demonstrated why the starting pitcher in the little league world series doesn't make his next start as the opening day pitcher for the New York Yankees.
So here we go, Obama, the person who can be all things to all people, is going to spend massively to fulfil the leftist dreams of every democratic lawmaker through the largest government money grab ever and at the same time is committing to cut the federal deficit in half. Which deficit is he going to cut, the deficit before or after he doubled it? If you believe Obama will be true to his word, then I think after he spends a trillion dollars, while cutting the deficit in half, that bats are going to fly out of his butt singing "Everything is Coming Up Roses".
The real problem we have is that Obama has no clue what he is doing. He is making this up as he goes along. In his heart of hearts he wants not only fairness of opportunity but "fairness" of outcomes. So given that he has never held a real job, he has no clue how the business world works or what it does, and that at his core he wants to take from those who have and give to those who have not....this is what we get...collapsing financial markets, capital fearfully sitting in the sidelines, and a little league caliber pitcher trying to strike out Vladimir Guerrero.
So here we go, Obama, the person who can be all things to all people, is going to spend massively to fulfil the leftist dreams of every democratic lawmaker through the largest government money grab ever and at the same time is committing to cut the federal deficit in half. Which deficit is he going to cut, the deficit before or after he doubled it? If you believe Obama will be true to his word, then I think after he spends a trillion dollars, while cutting the deficit in half, that bats are going to fly out of his butt singing "Everything is Coming Up Roses".
The real problem we have is that Obama has no clue what he is doing. He is making this up as he goes along. In his heart of hearts he wants not only fairness of opportunity but "fairness" of outcomes. So given that he has never held a real job, he has no clue how the business world works or what it does, and that at his core he wants to take from those who have and give to those who have not....this is what we get...collapsing financial markets, capital fearfully sitting in the sidelines, and a little league caliber pitcher trying to strike out Vladimir Guerrero.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
The war on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
The one-two punch of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae was the accelerant at the core of the recession of 2008. This recession will spill over into 2009 and could get pretty ugly before things turn around. Freddie and Fannie were the vehicles for the largess in the home mortgage business. They socialized the risk of private investments and removed a fundamental tentent of capitalism - the penalty for a poor or undervalued assessment of risk. Freddie and Fannie operated with the full credit of the US Government and facilitated the house of cards, backing mortgages that should not have been made to people who could not pay them back. They fostered the credit default swaps that have essentially imploded and left banks and investors with assets of dubious or at least almost indiscernible value in an arms-length transaction.
In the midst of this economic turmoil, I wonder...what is George W Bush had fought for reform and oversight of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae five years ago with the same resolve he fought the war on terror? I can imagine two conflicting results, one which may have overwhelmed and the other and rendered it moot.
First, if Fannie and Freddie had been out of the business of guaranteeing loans of questionable value, we would likely have avoided the recession of 2008 or at least would be looking at another brief and shallow recession. Now, I also understand that if the excess in the housing market facilitated by Freddie and Fannie had been curtailed, we would likely have seen less strength in the economy of the past 5 years. The excesses of the housing bubble, fueled by Freddie and Fannie clearly provided an unsustainable and fundamentally unjustified economic stimulus. Cracking down on the actions of Freddie and Fannie would have kept a lid on some of our economic growth, however, the growth we realized would have been sound, justifiable, and sustainable growth - the kind that makes for long economic expansions and shallow recessions.
I also am certain that if George W had gone after the activity of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as well as the housing legislation that pushed bankers to make loans to customers who could not pay them back, he would have been branded a cold hearted, out of touch wealthy fraternity boy standing in the way of average citizens trying to realize the American Dream. He would have been deemed a racist who only cared about his rich buddies from Yale and Texas oil barons. He would have been beaten to a pulp by the economically illiterate mainstream media for giving tax cuts to the rich and denying home ownership to the poor. One can only speculate about the economic ramifications of an aggressive and successful crusade to reign in Freddie and Fannie, but there is no question that President Bush would have been crucified by the media for his actions...it would have been a unmitigated open season on the President....as if it wasn't already.
It is possible that the media circus around a reform effort would have over whelmed the president and the economic benefits he could have delivered. However, President Bush took a beating for the war on terror, the war in Iraq and has been steely in his resolve. Maybe he could have weathered the storm and kept us out of this economic mess. If he had, it would have been a project that turned him into an already strong media headwind. The President has his critics, and some of his criticism is justified. However, I believe if he had committed himself to the reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae the way he has to the war on terror, we might be handing over a far more robust economy to the Obama administration.
In the midst of this economic turmoil, I wonder...what is George W Bush had fought for reform and oversight of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae five years ago with the same resolve he fought the war on terror? I can imagine two conflicting results, one which may have overwhelmed and the other and rendered it moot.
First, if Fannie and Freddie had been out of the business of guaranteeing loans of questionable value, we would likely have avoided the recession of 2008 or at least would be looking at another brief and shallow recession. Now, I also understand that if the excess in the housing market facilitated by Freddie and Fannie had been curtailed, we would likely have seen less strength in the economy of the past 5 years. The excesses of the housing bubble, fueled by Freddie and Fannie clearly provided an unsustainable and fundamentally unjustified economic stimulus. Cracking down on the actions of Freddie and Fannie would have kept a lid on some of our economic growth, however, the growth we realized would have been sound, justifiable, and sustainable growth - the kind that makes for long economic expansions and shallow recessions.
I also am certain that if George W had gone after the activity of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as well as the housing legislation that pushed bankers to make loans to customers who could not pay them back, he would have been branded a cold hearted, out of touch wealthy fraternity boy standing in the way of average citizens trying to realize the American Dream. He would have been deemed a racist who only cared about his rich buddies from Yale and Texas oil barons. He would have been beaten to a pulp by the economically illiterate mainstream media for giving tax cuts to the rich and denying home ownership to the poor. One can only speculate about the economic ramifications of an aggressive and successful crusade to reign in Freddie and Fannie, but there is no question that President Bush would have been crucified by the media for his actions...it would have been a unmitigated open season on the President....as if it wasn't already.
It is possible that the media circus around a reform effort would have over whelmed the president and the economic benefits he could have delivered. However, President Bush took a beating for the war on terror, the war in Iraq and has been steely in his resolve. Maybe he could have weathered the storm and kept us out of this economic mess. If he had, it would have been a project that turned him into an already strong media headwind. The President has his critics, and some of his criticism is justified. However, I believe if he had committed himself to the reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae the way he has to the war on terror, we might be handing over a far more robust economy to the Obama administration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)