I used to be a fairly regular viewer of basketball playoffs for both the NCAA and the NBA. Of course, that was when teams I followed were in the playoffs.
Syracuse made a nice run this year but then that bum Fab Melo decided academics were not necessary to his future (I think he will regret that eventually) and they flamed out.
I never really believed in the Knicks this year but then along came Jeremy Lin and Iman Schumbert started playing really well and suddenly the Knicks were watchable. Now both are out and the Knicks are again unwatchable.
Of course, there were always "da Bulls" who play as a team and with a star like Derrick Rose had a chance for a nice run into June. Now Rose is out and the Bulls will still play as a team but it will be tough to score enough as they get deeper into the playoffs. One can always hope and they are watchable, so we shall see.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Sunday, April 22, 2012
I'm Feeling Blue
It wasn't that long ago that my co-workers, including RedStateVT, accused me of always seeing the worst in terms of the credit markets and that I needed to present an optimistic outlook to our main client.
Well I am usually an optimist, but I cannot help but feel that populism is running rampant around the world and we are not a better place for it. Thus, I am discouraged.
The impetus for this today is Thomas Friedman's column highlighting how collections of minority special interest groups have overcome mechanisms to enforce the will of the majority. i.e. partisan politics without compromise in the middle. One effect of this is the risk that the U.S. discards a basic building block of our historic economic success.
The U.S. enjoys its economic position because the government created a system that enforced a rule of law, regulations that encouraged risk taking but prevented recklessness, built infrastructure, educated the workforce and funded scientific research. All this is at risk today because we do not have a balanced approach to deficit reduction and global competitiveness.
The reason is partisan politics are being rewarded by the lack of competitive districts as my friend Jeff S commented on recently and was further elucidated upon in a Washington Post column that I provide the following link to.
How populism is destroying compromise
I don't have a solution for this and the U.S. is hardly the only country in the world where this exists. Argentina has firmly established itself as the least creditworthy country in the world. All in the name of the government handing money to its supporters. Greece is a close follower of Argentina. Other places in Europe can't agree politically on where to draw the lines but people are angry that big business gets rescued and they get gored. We will see where the elections take everything in Europe. Putin survives in Russia by maintaining certain standards of law & order (and the use of crude Mafia techniques on political adversaries), but complements this with a certain kind of populism.
The only place where populism really doesn't exist is Asia where the societal impulse is aimed at the individual supporting the group's goals and people generally comply.
So why am I Blue? Well, I don't see an end in sight to the following fundamental disagreement between Democrats and Republicans on entitlements and how to pay for the War on Terror. Republicans want to pay for the War on Terror by reducing entitlements and leaving other forms of corporate welfare in place. Democrats want to raise taxes to pay for the War on Terror and preserve entitlements while leaving other forms of corporate welfare in place. Both parties are dominated in their core by an unwillingness to compromise.
The U.S. must address its fiscal situation in a manner that Simpson Bowles laid out: 2/3's expense reduction and 1/3 revenue enhancement. The U.S. will only be globally competitive if we separate health care from employment and make it both an individual responsibility and as affordable as possible. Getting there is neither simple nor following a clear path. Populism aimed at getting partisan votes prevents intelligent discussion of choices and modifying mistakes while trying new things to see how we get there.
That is why I am feeling Blue today.
Well I am usually an optimist, but I cannot help but feel that populism is running rampant around the world and we are not a better place for it. Thus, I am discouraged.
The impetus for this today is Thomas Friedman's column highlighting how collections of minority special interest groups have overcome mechanisms to enforce the will of the majority. i.e. partisan politics without compromise in the middle. One effect of this is the risk that the U.S. discards a basic building block of our historic economic success.
The U.S. enjoys its economic position because the government created a system that enforced a rule of law, regulations that encouraged risk taking but prevented recklessness, built infrastructure, educated the workforce and funded scientific research. All this is at risk today because we do not have a balanced approach to deficit reduction and global competitiveness.
The reason is partisan politics are being rewarded by the lack of competitive districts as my friend Jeff S commented on recently and was further elucidated upon in a Washington Post column that I provide the following link to.
How populism is destroying compromise
I don't have a solution for this and the U.S. is hardly the only country in the world where this exists. Argentina has firmly established itself as the least creditworthy country in the world. All in the name of the government handing money to its supporters. Greece is a close follower of Argentina. Other places in Europe can't agree politically on where to draw the lines but people are angry that big business gets rescued and they get gored. We will see where the elections take everything in Europe. Putin survives in Russia by maintaining certain standards of law & order (and the use of crude Mafia techniques on political adversaries), but complements this with a certain kind of populism.
The only place where populism really doesn't exist is Asia where the societal impulse is aimed at the individual supporting the group's goals and people generally comply.
So why am I Blue? Well, I don't see an end in sight to the following fundamental disagreement between Democrats and Republicans on entitlements and how to pay for the War on Terror. Republicans want to pay for the War on Terror by reducing entitlements and leaving other forms of corporate welfare in place. Democrats want to raise taxes to pay for the War on Terror and preserve entitlements while leaving other forms of corporate welfare in place. Both parties are dominated in their core by an unwillingness to compromise.
The U.S. must address its fiscal situation in a manner that Simpson Bowles laid out: 2/3's expense reduction and 1/3 revenue enhancement. The U.S. will only be globally competitive if we separate health care from employment and make it both an individual responsibility and as affordable as possible. Getting there is neither simple nor following a clear path. Populism aimed at getting partisan votes prevents intelligent discussion of choices and modifying mistakes while trying new things to see how we get there.
That is why I am feeling Blue today.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Both Political Parties Need to Get Focused on Deficit Reduction SERIOUSLY
Quickly, because I have to go play golf.
This a.m. in the papers I see: Bi-paritsian blocking of cuts to farm subsidies, bi-partsian support for ending the successful use of bidding processes to cut the cost of medical equipment for Medicare recipients, and a John Boehner comment to the Catholic Bishops that to save entitlements we need to cut the spending on them. I happen to agree with that statement but before you take all the $ needed to straighten this mess out from entitlements, how about including an increase in revenues to pay for the BORROWED WAR ON TERROR?
FORE
This a.m. in the papers I see: Bi-paritsian blocking of cuts to farm subsidies, bi-partsian support for ending the successful use of bidding processes to cut the cost of medical equipment for Medicare recipients, and a John Boehner comment to the Catholic Bishops that to save entitlements we need to cut the spending on them. I happen to agree with that statement but before you take all the $ needed to straighten this mess out from entitlements, how about including an increase in revenues to pay for the BORROWED WAR ON TERROR?
FORE
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
I'm glad I don't live in a swing state
Both the President and Governor Romney want to raise a $1.0 billion to fund themselves in the swing states. I cannot imagine how much repetitive and likely false advertising this is going to create. I can imagine how awful it will be for TV viewers who have to watch it all to see their favorite program.
I have a better idea. Let's hold the election next week and see how everything falls out. We get a new Congress and one of the candidates for President by June 1 and then we can see how they sort the budget out for this year and the future.
I have a better idea. Let's hold the election next week and see how everything falls out. We get a new Congress and one of the candidates for President by June 1 and then we can see how they sort the budget out for this year and the future.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
The Economist Calls Out the GOP Lies
I quote this week's Economist magazine.
"Mr. Romney's retort (to Mr. Obama's "Social Darwinism" statement) is that the President is attacking policies nobody is proposing, "setting up straw men to distract from his record". Coming from Republicans, this is rich. They have attacked a straw man since the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. They label his conventional Keynesian response to deep recession "socialist". They called "Obamacare" unAmerican, even though this market-based scheme to extend health care to 30 mm uninsured Americans is almost identical to the one Mr. Romney adopted as governor of Massachusetts."
"Mr. Romney also accuses Mr. Obama of drowning the American dream in a sea of red ink. But on this issue there is plenty of blame to go around. Although Mt. Obama has yet to come up with a serious plan to tame entitlements, he did try last summer to negotiate a "grand bargain" on the deficit. And when that failed, agreed with Congress on $1.2 trillion of automatic deficit reducing spending cuts to start in 2013."
The leader goes on to worry that the current gridlock will continue with Mr. Obama in the White House and a Republican Congress.
We can only hope that post election, soberness recognizing the need for balance comes to the surface in a sufficient number of legislators and the Administration.
"Mr. Romney's retort (to Mr. Obama's "Social Darwinism" statement) is that the President is attacking policies nobody is proposing, "setting up straw men to distract from his record". Coming from Republicans, this is rich. They have attacked a straw man since the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. They label his conventional Keynesian response to deep recession "socialist". They called "Obamacare" unAmerican, even though this market-based scheme to extend health care to 30 mm uninsured Americans is almost identical to the one Mr. Romney adopted as governor of Massachusetts."
"Mr. Romney also accuses Mr. Obama of drowning the American dream in a sea of red ink. But on this issue there is plenty of blame to go around. Although Mt. Obama has yet to come up with a serious plan to tame entitlements, he did try last summer to negotiate a "grand bargain" on the deficit. And when that failed, agreed with Congress on $1.2 trillion of automatic deficit reducing spending cuts to start in 2013."
The leader goes on to worry that the current gridlock will continue with Mr. Obama in the White House and a Republican Congress.
We can only hope that post election, soberness recognizing the need for balance comes to the surface in a sufficient number of legislators and the Administration.
Friday, April 13, 2012
I Don't Understand
why NY Republicans oppose the setting up of a Heath Insurance Exchange.
The original Health Insurance Exchange was established in Utah, hardly a hot bed of liberalism, to allow individuals to find health insurance in a easy manner with competition at the heart of the process.
That would be a good thing for every state to have as long as Health Insurance is neither a Single Payer Plan nor singularly regulated at the Federal level. Regardless of what happens to the Affordable Health Care Act in the Supreme Court, neither of those conditions will occur.
Thus, I applaud Andrew Cuomo's executive order authorizing the NY State Health Insurance Department to set up a Health Insurance Exchange.
As someone who is shopping for an individual policy at the moment, it would be much appreciated to have this in place already.
The original Health Insurance Exchange was established in Utah, hardly a hot bed of liberalism, to allow individuals to find health insurance in a easy manner with competition at the heart of the process.
That would be a good thing for every state to have as long as Health Insurance is neither a Single Payer Plan nor singularly regulated at the Federal level. Regardless of what happens to the Affordable Health Care Act in the Supreme Court, neither of those conditions will occur.
Thus, I applaud Andrew Cuomo's executive order authorizing the NY State Health Insurance Department to set up a Health Insurance Exchange.
As someone who is shopping for an individual policy at the moment, it would be much appreciated to have this in place already.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
David Brooks catches up with my last June comments
David Brooks today focused on the effect of globalization on politics. It is remarkably close to what I have been saying for some time. Except he does not to on to expound Universal Health Care.
David's column today
My Points Last June
David's column today
My Points Last June
Sunday, April 8, 2012
The World is a Complicated Place
I can't help but lament that it is unfortunate that success in politics is driven by the ability to use snappy short zingers to explain a position on a topic that is inevitably very complicated with a lot of nuances and potential paths to progress.
The common theme in today's paper was not surprising a bit more reflective than usual as we have Passover and Easter. Ross Douthat's column observed how the religious center is eroding. He uses the Civil Right's movement as his example of how the Church used to occupy a high moral ground in the middle without a proclivity toward either party and used the pulpit to make sermons on how man kind could achieve better.
He goes on to observe how society has split in two ways which has reduced the Churches ability to act in this way. One substantial part of the country has secularized and is non-church going. The other has become more strident in their church going with a side effect of becoming political and generally Republican. Thus, even though the country believes in Freedom of Religion as much as ever, we have the current state of politics where church goers believe that means the government should allow them to promote their beliefs, while the non-church goers believe that means the church has no standing to affect their life. From that disagreement you get the "War on Religion" and the "War on Women". The result of this is that churches no longer occupy a place where they have the ability to promote moral principles in the center and lead the politicians by forging a national consensus.
Another effect on the churches is the fact that a substantial % of the population doesn't support them financially. This means they must get their money from those that do support them. Since, lower taxes provide more funds to those who do give, churches have been placed in a position where their survivorship depends on those lower taxes. The church is not in a position to advocate about the morality of supporting the government's position as a provider of a social safety net.
This lack of moral direction from the churches has many unfortunate effects on U.S. policy. I cannot attribute any of these specific observations to a lack of specific morality; but I do have a belief that, if the country had a less political, more moral based, religious center, we might be addressing problems in a more productive manner.
Welfare Reform passed during the Clinton Administration has been perceived as a success, but now 4 years into a brutal recession we seeing the underside of it. In Arizona, young single mothers are being placed in difficult circumstances. Now I will agree with RedStateVT that one benefit of this Welfare Reform is that individuals are encouraged to take responsibility for their own selfs, and this is happening in Arizona. But when abused mothers are forced to return to their abuser husbands, I cannot help but feel that somehow Arizona has it wrong as Arizona takes some Federal $ that are designed to help these single mothers and diverts it to other programs. This is almost certainly better addressed at the state level, but Arizona is ground zero for this hard divide between the political parties and the Republicans dominate Arizona. If a religious center were operating there, perhaps this problem would be addressed.
Thomas Friedman points out that the Arab Spring is as much about food and water as it was about Democracy. Desert countries are running out of water and food is getting more expensive. Countries where leaders worship money - a situation that exists in 100% of oil rich Arabia - are not thinking in a forward manner about water and food for their population. Meanwhile, climate change - which humans have some role in - is threatening to make these food and water issues more widespread around the globe. In fact, it is already having an effect on California where you cannot grow food without irrigation and what happens to California food matters to the cost of food in the U.S.
As the U.S. Military has already pointed out, climate change through its effects on the availability of food and water, is a national security issue. The Arab Spring proves that populations do not care if they die if the availability of food and water is suspect. Friedman's point is that climate change must be addressed because it will have an effect on us sooner or later and later is, his mind, no more than 20 years out. This is why China is so aggressively working at dominating every form of manufacturing so they can afford to survive this upheaval without the Communist Party losing control of the situation.
If the Church was occupying a position in the center then a consensus might be developed that the U.S. should do something about addressing our inter-connected policy problems. What is the right level of economic support for the Federal Government. Is it the 22% of the Reagan years or the 18% that the Heritage foundation now promotes? What is the appropriate divided between National Defense and Entitlements? How do we pay for the War on Terror which has been 100% borrowed? How do we find an atmosphere where Democrats and Republicans can agree that they disagree but agree that compromise and a path forward up the middle is better than standing still?
I have no answers beyond the Democrats need to try to compromise but stand firm on the need to raise revenues so that revenues are somewhere in the area of 21% or 22% and the budget is in surplus when the economy booms and in deficit when the economy is in recession.
The common theme in today's paper was not surprising a bit more reflective than usual as we have Passover and Easter. Ross Douthat's column observed how the religious center is eroding. He uses the Civil Right's movement as his example of how the Church used to occupy a high moral ground in the middle without a proclivity toward either party and used the pulpit to make sermons on how man kind could achieve better.
He goes on to observe how society has split in two ways which has reduced the Churches ability to act in this way. One substantial part of the country has secularized and is non-church going. The other has become more strident in their church going with a side effect of becoming political and generally Republican. Thus, even though the country believes in Freedom of Religion as much as ever, we have the current state of politics where church goers believe that means the government should allow them to promote their beliefs, while the non-church goers believe that means the church has no standing to affect their life. From that disagreement you get the "War on Religion" and the "War on Women". The result of this is that churches no longer occupy a place where they have the ability to promote moral principles in the center and lead the politicians by forging a national consensus.
Another effect on the churches is the fact that a substantial % of the population doesn't support them financially. This means they must get their money from those that do support them. Since, lower taxes provide more funds to those who do give, churches have been placed in a position where their survivorship depends on those lower taxes. The church is not in a position to advocate about the morality of supporting the government's position as a provider of a social safety net.
This lack of moral direction from the churches has many unfortunate effects on U.S. policy. I cannot attribute any of these specific observations to a lack of specific morality; but I do have a belief that, if the country had a less political, more moral based, religious center, we might be addressing problems in a more productive manner.
Welfare Reform passed during the Clinton Administration has been perceived as a success, but now 4 years into a brutal recession we seeing the underside of it. In Arizona, young single mothers are being placed in difficult circumstances. Now I will agree with RedStateVT that one benefit of this Welfare Reform is that individuals are encouraged to take responsibility for their own selfs, and this is happening in Arizona. But when abused mothers are forced to return to their abuser husbands, I cannot help but feel that somehow Arizona has it wrong as Arizona takes some Federal $ that are designed to help these single mothers and diverts it to other programs. This is almost certainly better addressed at the state level, but Arizona is ground zero for this hard divide between the political parties and the Republicans dominate Arizona. If a religious center were operating there, perhaps this problem would be addressed.
Thomas Friedman points out that the Arab Spring is as much about food and water as it was about Democracy. Desert countries are running out of water and food is getting more expensive. Countries where leaders worship money - a situation that exists in 100% of oil rich Arabia - are not thinking in a forward manner about water and food for their population. Meanwhile, climate change - which humans have some role in - is threatening to make these food and water issues more widespread around the globe. In fact, it is already having an effect on California where you cannot grow food without irrigation and what happens to California food matters to the cost of food in the U.S.
As the U.S. Military has already pointed out, climate change through its effects on the availability of food and water, is a national security issue. The Arab Spring proves that populations do not care if they die if the availability of food and water is suspect. Friedman's point is that climate change must be addressed because it will have an effect on us sooner or later and later is, his mind, no more than 20 years out. This is why China is so aggressively working at dominating every form of manufacturing so they can afford to survive this upheaval without the Communist Party losing control of the situation.
If the Church was occupying a position in the center then a consensus might be developed that the U.S. should do something about addressing our inter-connected policy problems. What is the right level of economic support for the Federal Government. Is it the 22% of the Reagan years or the 18% that the Heritage foundation now promotes? What is the appropriate divided between National Defense and Entitlements? How do we pay for the War on Terror which has been 100% borrowed? How do we find an atmosphere where Democrats and Republicans can agree that they disagree but agree that compromise and a path forward up the middle is better than standing still?
I have no answers beyond the Democrats need to try to compromise but stand firm on the need to raise revenues so that revenues are somewhere in the area of 21% or 22% and the budget is in surplus when the economy booms and in deficit when the economy is in recession.
Measuring College Performance
I see someone wants to establish a quantitative measure of how well colleges are doing educating their students. Of course, this has migrated in the direction of some standardized test.
To their credit, colleges are pointing out that any test results will be directly impacted by the quality of the students they attract, so the test promoters now want the incoming students and the graduating students to take the test so the difference can be measured. I might add the effort of each student matters also and the college has no control over this because college students are young adults.
This is unnecessary. There is already a very defined quantitative measure of how well students are educated. It is called JOBS and GRADUATE SCHOOL. What % of graduates have jobs or are in grad school 12 months after graduating. What % of the school's graduates get Advanced Degrees over time? What is the level of graduates supporting the school financially after graduation? You compare one school versus another and you have a measure of who is doing a good job.
You don't have to go to a name school to get a good education. I have friends who are big successes but did not go to "NAME" schools. I have friends who went to "NAME" schools and are modest successes to outright failures. The school has nothing to do with any specific outcome which is a direct result of the student's effort.
To their credit, colleges are pointing out that any test results will be directly impacted by the quality of the students they attract, so the test promoters now want the incoming students and the graduating students to take the test so the difference can be measured. I might add the effort of each student matters also and the college has no control over this because college students are young adults.
This is unnecessary. There is already a very defined quantitative measure of how well students are educated. It is called JOBS and GRADUATE SCHOOL. What % of graduates have jobs or are in grad school 12 months after graduating. What % of the school's graduates get Advanced Degrees over time? What is the level of graduates supporting the school financially after graduation? You compare one school versus another and you have a measure of who is doing a good job.
You don't have to go to a name school to get a good education. I have friends who are big successes but did not go to "NAME" schools. I have friends who went to "NAME" schools and are modest successes to outright failures. The school has nothing to do with any specific outcome which is a direct result of the student's effort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)