tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41290538745385039362024-02-20T08:51:33.429-08:00Contra DuopolyBecause when Democrats and Republicans talk about the "public good" they really mean what's good for their donors and supporters.Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.comBlogger144125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-72725467282581144612010-02-04T13:27:00.000-08:002010-02-04T13:44:06.676-08:00No East Coast Bias HereBlasted on the front page of both the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/business/global/05toyota.html?hp">New York Times</a> and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020401732.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR">Washington Post</a> today is a news story about brake problems with the Toyota Prius, which Toyota <a href="http://www.toyota.com/about/news/corporate/2010/01/05-1-sales.html">sold about 140,000</a> of in the US last year. You'd think everyone in the country drove one.<br /><br />In fact the Prius is a tiny percentage of the U.S. market. The Ford F-150, which has seen its sales fall by 50% in recent years STILL sold <a href="http://media.ford.com/images/10031/December09sales.pdf">more than 400,000</a> last year alone.<br /><br />Granted, Toyota is news these days, especially Toyotas with problems. And of course if you went to an Ivy League school, live among guilt ridden left-coast intellectuals and believe in global warming, you need to either drive one of these things or act like you want to own one. So the people who make news decisions actually think most of us envy Prius drivers or secretly wish we could drive one.<br /><br />News Flash - most Americans snicker at Prius drivers. Why, we ask, would anyone pay 5 grand more for a smaller version of a Camry unless they were a posturing, annoying person? In fact some guy has made money with this <a href="http://www.zazzle.com/pretentious_bumper_sticker-128373628010446887">awesome bumper sticker</a> reminding us that you can't spell pretentious without "prius." The Times and Post reporting on this "story" so prominently is like doing a front page story on decline wine production in Zimbabwe or a bowling tournament in North Korea. It's not relevant to real people. Of course that describes a lot of what passes for "news" in the MSM these days.Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-29167885654010138832010-02-04T06:01:00.000-08:002010-02-04T13:45:54.374-08:00Does Thou Protest Too Much?Keith Hennessey is one of my favorite bloggers because he actually uses data and political economy approaches to his posts. Still, he worked in the Bush White House, so you have to take his work with a grain of salt. This passage from <a href="http://keithhennessey.com/2010/02/04/need-future-focus/">today's post</a> just struck me:<blockquote>Yes, President Obama faced some enormous economic challenges early in his term. His predecessor did as well, even before the crisis of 2008: a bursting tech bubble leading to a recession in 2001, an economic seizure caused by 9/11, corporate governance scandals in 2002, a recession in 2002-2003, the economic uncertainty triggered by invading Iraq (this one was a policy choice), and eventually oil spiking above $100 per barrel.<br /><br />I think it’s OK for a President to talk about the challenges he and the Nation face. It helps to set reasonable expectations. I think a President should propose solutions to those challenges and describe a brighter future that he hopes to deliver. I think it’s tacky and tiresome for a President to keep bashing his predecessor, especially more than a year after taking office. I acknowledge that my perspective on this point is biased by my professional past.<br /><br />I also think this refrain weakens President Obama. He is portraying himself as a victim of forces that are beyond his control. A President should want people to focus on him and what he’s going to do, not on a comparison of him with someone else (anyone else). President Obama should want people talking about the Obama Agenda rather than about what happened ten years ago. Ten years ago.</blockquote>He then goes onto argue that Obama needs to establish some new set of policies to differeniate himself from Bush or at least work to rollback the stuff he's attacking, like the Medicare drug benefit of that stupid pair of wars that Obama promised he'd end.<br /><br />My question is this - where are the positive policies in government these days? The Democrats, scarred after the health care debacle, aren't getting anywhere near new ideas. The Republicans just sit back and attack the Democrats on wasteful spending, but as even Keith acknowledges, the <a href="http://www.american.com/archive/2009/september/making-bush-look-like-a-piker">GOP is partially responsible</a> for this mess and have zero track record for limiting government growth. There's a real opportunity for a policy entrepreneur in this political environment. I wonder who will seize this chance? Any candidates? Mike Pence? Scott Brown?Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-66868540256907429502009-12-14T12:43:00.000-08:002009-12-14T12:49:24.877-08:00Use History Part 2Any Democrat who wonders why Joe Lieberman is <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/14/politics/main5977243.shtml">holding the Obamacare bill hostage</a> and maybe a little hacked off at Harry Reid might want to recall this statement that Reid and Chuck Schumer issued after Lieberman lost the Democratic primary in 2006 in Connecticut<blockquote>The Democratic voters of Connecticut have spoken and chosen Ned Lamont as their nominee. Both we and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) fully support Mr. Lamont’s candidacy. Congratulations to Ned on his victory and on a race well run.<br /><br />Joe Lieberman has been an effective Democratic Senator for Connecticut and for America. But the perception was that he was too close to George Bush and this election was, in many respects, a referendum on the President more than anything else. The results bode well for Democratic victories in November and our efforts to take the country in a new direction.</blockquote>Well I'd say Joe is taking that health care bill in a new direction, yes siree...............<br /><br />Quick prediction - a deal will be cut, but Lieberman won't be the last Democratic moderate to waver and maybe vote no. I'd still put the odds of passage of some kind of bill at 65%.Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-2715872803734423332009-12-14T12:33:00.001-08:002009-12-14T12:35:52.897-08:00Someone is HiringAnd that would be the Federal Government, and <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-10-federal-pay-salaries_N.htm">they are giving out sweet pay and perks</a>! I've been blogging about the onerous burden that state and local government employees' pension and health care obligations will place on Fundbaby, but this is just another reminder of how the feds don't understand what real people suffer through and become increasingly disconnected from reality and the correcting forces of markets.Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-45733599287452469782009-12-14T06:43:00.000-08:002009-12-14T07:58:33.317-08:00Representative Government UpdateThis <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/10/gop.congress/">poll from CNN</a>, not Fox, shows that around 60% of Americans now oppose the Senate health care bill. The key passage from the article:<blockquote>According to the poll, a very large majority of Americans think that the health care bill that the U.S. Senate is considering would raise the federal deficit and raise their taxes, and while they think that the bill would help many families, only one in five think they would benefit personally if the bill becomes law.<br /><br />"As a result, more than six in 10 say they oppose the Senate health care bill," Holland said. "Republicans obviously don't like the bill, but two-thirds of independents also say they are against it."</blockquote>Hat tip to the Opinion Journal's Best of the Web.<br /><br />UPDATE<br /><br />Stumbled across <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/house/bart-gordon-to-retire.html?hpid=topnews">this news bit</a> from the Washington Post about the fourth Democratic House Member in a "swing district" who will retiring this year - coincidentally. Of course even if there's a seismic shift in the elections next year, we'll simply get more of the same from the other group of thieves.Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-59067206596230881212009-12-11T11:10:00.000-08:002009-12-11T11:10:00.471-08:00A Scary Lesson in Government Financial PlanningI handle the finances in Chateau Fundfamily, and Mrs. Fundman and I are in agreement that this is the best way to handle it. You see, I'm cheap, and Mrs. Fundman is not so much. I may not be as cheap as La Cheapa Chica, but I tend to view <a href="http://www.daveramsey.com/">Dave Ramsey</a> as a more appropriate role model than say, <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2009/11/03/nicolas-cage-sells-pieces-of-real-estate-empire-sues-ex-manager/">Nicholas Cage</a>. So I turn down the thermostat in the winter, bring back little shampoo bottles from hotels, and buy meat when it's marked way, way down at the story. I don't <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumpster_diving">dumpster dive</a>, but hey, you never know.<br /><br />In government, no one is Dave Ramsey, and everyone is Nick Cage, and lately, everyone has been like Nick Cage with a vengeance. Of course it's easy to be Nick Cage when you are spending other people's money, and that's what governments do. The only broad limits on insane government spending of OUR money has been a legal limit on the amount of debt the U.S. government can use to fund its activities - 12 trillion bucks. <br /><br />You'd think that in addition to tax revenues, a 12 trillion dollar limit would be enough to run a country no? Well apparently it isn't because now they need more credit. And unlike normal people, the government doesn't need the approval of Visa or Amex to raise their credit card limit. Congress votes on it. So imagine if you could take out a credit card, and just keep raising the limit - awesome no? And the debt you put on the card was paid off with someone else's money in 30 years after you had retired and made a mint as a lobbyist and paid speaker.<br /><br />Well yesterday the Democratic House leadership said they were going to have to <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30417_Page2.html">raise the debt ceiling - by 1.8 TRILLION dollars</a> (1,800,000,000,000). If that isn't nauseating enough, the Congress doesn't understand, at all, the ramifications of this. Take a look at this quote from David Obey, the Chairman of the House Appropriations committee:<blockquote>“It is December. We don’t really have a choice,” Obey told POLITICO. “The bill’s already been run up; the credit card has already been used. When you get the bill in the mail you need to pay it.”</blockquote>Now David Obey is head of the committee that appropriates all, ALL, of the expenditures for the House. This guy is the top shopper for all of the U.S. government along with his colleague in the Senate. Consider his quote about the credit card "has been used" and the bill needs to be paid.................<br /><br />Dave, buddy, YOU ARE NOT PAYING FOR THE BILL BY RAISING THE DEBT CEILING. No, Dave you are ADDING TO THE BILL. Trust me; I handle the finances for my family, and I don't think a bill has been paid when I simply borrow money from someone to pay someone else. But this apparently is the way that the government thinks. You "pay" bills by borrowing money. And while most U.S. families are <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gTco0FXr_x-OTVz52pEsOCBEXrmQ">cutting their debt burden by not borrowing more money</a>, the government is doing the opposite and apparently thinks that's fine.<br /><br />If the government would like to actually "pay" it's bills I have some suggestions on that matter - spend less, and pay down the debt. In a regime that is supposed to have democratic tendencies, the Congress may want to look at the actions of their constituents and learn a thing or two. A novel idea in politics today.Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-30086605256020590252009-12-10T08:03:00.000-08:002009-12-10T12:07:05.140-08:00Shedding a Little Light on Another Global Warming "Expert"Mrs. Fundman and I have become very disillusioned with former Governor "Hockey Mom" of Alaska. We don't dislike her nearly as much as the folks in the MSM or on the left, but she's just not that bright and really should just go away. Instead she writes stuff like <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/08/AR2009120803402.html?sub=AR">this piece in the Washington Post</a> on global warming that sort of takes a flimsy position on the science and politics surrounding it.<br /><br />So now the next day in <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/09/AR2009120903860.html">this response</a> along comes Alan Leshner, who is the chief executive officer of the AAAS, which touts itself as the world's biggest general scientific community, that publishes the journal <span style="font-style:italic;">Science</span>. So in a fight like this you'd assume that the Hockey Mom is wrong and Mr. Scientific Community guy is the expert.<br /><br />But in many ways this exchange summarizes why I don't have any clue who to believe here. We know about Palin, and her intellectual "limits." But what you may not know about Mr. Science Guy is that he has no background AT ALL in climate change. He's a psychologist, a Ph.D. in it. Now that's more of a social science. And in fact, he's a former government bureaucrat who was head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which is at the core of the Drug War, and later NIH. So first off, the guy's not a physician, but he's a brain psychology expert who focuses on addiction. He has no background in global warming other than having worked as <a href="http://www.state.gov/p/io/unesco/members/49173.htm">a bureaucrat</a>.<br /><br />Secondly, it turns out that at least according to <a href="http://www.nvo.com/hypoism/15replacingalanleshneristheonlywaytoendthedrugwar/">this guy</a> who is a doctor, Mr. Science Guy may have influenced research that predisposed results to support his worldview. I'm not fucking kidding. Salon.com ran <a href="http://www.salon.com/health/feature/2000/10/10/nida/index.html">this nice little piece</a> suggesting that Mr. Science Guy <blockquote>has supported research that bolsters the administration's point of view, failed to fund projects that could undermine it, opposed research into medical marijuana and used images drawn from advanced medical technology to create misleading anti-drug campaigns.</blockquote>This is EXACTLY the problem that the Climategate emails have raised - that a political agenda is pushing the research not honest debate. So this guy is part of the problem posing as an objective, all-knowing scientist.<br /><br />So we are left wondering who the hell to believe? A probably ditzy, self-interested politician or a guy who has a history of engaging in questionable scientific activities? That's at the core of what's wrong with all of this public dialogue AND why people are starting to doubt the validity of this stuff. If the science is not scientific, and the opponents still look like wing-nuts we're left confused and cynical.Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-76353464502692823482009-12-10T06:46:00.000-08:002009-12-10T06:48:35.645-08:00This is a Joke, Right?Headline from the NYTimes wire this morning:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/world/europe/11prexy.html?_r=1&hp">Accepting Peace Prize, Obama Evokes ‘Just War’<br /></a><br />I think we are going to find out at the end of his administration that Sasha Baron Cohen is playing Obama and filming the whole thing.Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-51943761239626620582009-12-09T05:50:00.000-08:002009-12-09T06:41:54.180-08:00Climate Language - Watch your WalletInvestment - it's one of those words that sounds good. Evokes images of squirrels hiding nuts for the winter and saving for Fundbaby's college education. It sounds a helluva lot better than "huge tax increases giving elected politicians and government bureaucrats lots of money to pass around to campaign supporters and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking">rent-seeking</a> business people" which is what it usually means when people talk about government investments.<br /><br />See governments don't make money and then invest it. They take our money and then spend it. Now one of the biggest debates in economics is whether or not the effect of government spending is good or bad for an economy depending on the context and way it's spent. Folks like Keynes and Paui Krugman think that's possible and support it. Conversely folks like FA Hayek say that such initiatives are a bad thing to be avoided because the government doesn't do a particularly good job of spending other people's money and typically just gives the money to special interests.<br /><br />The Greenies have been the kings of language. They say things like "green jobs" and "investment" and "climate change" rather than "heavily subsidized jobs" or "wasteful government redistributive spanding" or "variations in dynamic systems that potentially show little causal effect." It's just like shopping at <a href="http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/products/grocery.php">Whole Foods</a> and paying 14 dollars for a 5 ounce bag of baked organic root vegetable chips, which makes you feel good about yourself, but makes little economic sense and even less environmental sense.<br /><br />But I think that Climategate, which I've blogged about a little and the right wing blogosphere has been covering extensively, along with the economic downturn has had a pretty big impact on even MSM coverage of Copenhagen. Take for example <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/science/earth/09cost.html?_r=1&hp">this Time article</a> examining the costs of a climate change deal. The author focuses on how expensive it's going to be, qualifies the apocalyptic predictions, and notes that carbon trading is going to be really, really expensive.<br /><br />As long as folks like Fox News stop posting <a href="http://j-walkblog.com/index.php?/weblog/posts/fox_math/">stupid survey data</a> about opposition to global warming and de-legitimizing folks who have genuine concerns about the costs and benefits of this project I think we may, MAY be heading in the right direction.Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-53434268315572169342009-12-01T05:52:00.000-08:002009-12-01T05:52:00.151-08:00This Should be a Huge ScandalI've been sort of shocked by the language, but unsurprised that folks at the East Anglia climate center who advocate <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming">AGW</a> dismissed skepticism or criticism of their research in emails that were released in the MSM a few weeks ago. I used to be an academic, and I can tell you that this kind of stuff happens all the time in universities. People are people, and they tend to buy into a conclusion and overlook details that don't fit their world view, dressing up the results with fancy models and at times heroic assumptions. The research may or may not get it right, but too often people's careers and lives get intertwined with an investment in the work. ALL scientific and social scientific research should be submitted to public cross-checking by posting of all available data. See this quote from <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml">Declan McCullagh</a>:<blockquote>The irony of this situation is that most of us expect science to be conducted in the open, without unpublished secret data, hidden agendas, and computer programs of dubious reliability. East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit might have avoided this snafu by publicly disclosing as much as possible at every step of the way.</blockquote>But now it's starting to look like there's a big reason why none of these folks disclosed the information: many of the conclusions that AGW are based on use data <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece">that now no longer exist</a>, which is a huge, enormous, and really troubling problem. If the folks who advocate AGW are saying that the "science" is settled, but they no longer have the raw data that support the scientific findings, that's bad. And whether or not those emails show bias or lack of sensitivity or whatever, if the whole thing can't be re-examined because the data got thrown out, it's really, really, really, really, really, really, really, bad.<br /><br />The financial, economic, and political consequences of policies that limit carbon emissions will cost trillions of dollars - 1,000,000,000,000's. And all of this legislation may be based on temperature measurements that may be ALL WRONG? Even in my deeply cynical world view this is pretty depressing.<br /><br />Happy Holidays!Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-5472226540613175102009-11-30T08:34:00.001-08:002009-11-30T08:55:02.158-08:00Throwing Good Money After Bad Money After Stupid Money After Bubble MoneyLet me begin with a simple statement - most people facing or in foreclosure now probably had too much house to begin with. Anyone who cares to disagree is free to do so in the comments.<br /><br />If you take that statement at face value, why do we continue <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/28/news/economy/Obama_mortgage_announcement/index.htm?cnn=yes">to throw money at these folks</a> for at least the third time? <br /><br />Here is the key passage in my humble view:<blockquote>Under the president's plan, delinquent borrowers are put into trial modifications for several months to make sure they can handle the new payments and to give them time to submit their financial paperwork.<br /><br />Borrowers that qualify for a long-term modifications can keep making the lower payments for five years. At that point, the interest rate will be set at the rate at the time of the adjustment, or about 5% today.<br /><br />Loan servicers, however, say they are having trouble getting the necessary documents from borrowers, while homeowners maintain that their financial institutions are repeatedly losing the paperwork.<br /><br />And once homeowners send in their forms, servicers may find these borrowers don't have enough income or have too much equity or savings to qualify. Or it may just be more profitable for the bank to foreclose on the home than modify the mortgage.</blockquote>So to summarize - most of the folks in this program either shouldn't be in these places or have plenty of money but are trying to steal from the government; the government can't get the paperwork right for either the lenders or borrowers who actually can benefit from this program. So it's a complete cluster-fuck.<br /><br />So basically all we are doing is re-inflating an asset bubble, and pushing back the pain of the inevitable. Why? Well we aren't bailing out homeowners really. If you think about it logically, we are basically bailing-out lenders who don't have to take foreclosure, but instead get reduced payments through this program. The program should really be called "A Way to Make it Look Like We Care About Little People While Actually Giving Money to Big Banks and Rich People" but that's a tad long and unwieldy. So I'd settle for "Business as Usual."Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-45498859230858659242009-11-26T10:11:00.000-08:002009-11-26T10:11:00.267-08:00A Class I Would Love to TakeFrom the New York Times of all places, <a href="http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/11/24/dining/1247465837395/closer-to-the-bone.html?hp">this video</a> on a guy in Virginia who teaches people (it's all guys in the video) how to hunt, field dress and cook deer. I can only imagine how the comments section of the Times is full of angry vegans bemoaning the glorification of tasty Bambi being sauteed to perfection.............(<a href="http://www.simpsons-crazy.co.uk/picture.php?Picture=photo/Images/Pictures/homerdrooling.gif">this is what I'm doing</a> thinking of tasty venison).Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-2612432025688795212009-11-21T11:03:00.000-08:002009-11-30T06:02:59.207-08:00A Question About the French Health Care SystemReading the stories today about the cervical cancer recommendations, I was struck by two things. First, the MSM like <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/health/20assess.html?_r=1&hp">this New York Times piece</a> is really on board with what is now being called "science based medicine." Between you and me I thought medicine these days was SUPPOSED TO BE BASED ON SCIENCE ALREADY since we'd stop the bleedings and such.<br /><br />Secondly, I know this is going to sound catty, but wasn't one of the big things about why our system sucked was that we already weren't very good at preventable deaths? Don't the Europeans and <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92419273">French in particular</a> score really well on those measures of preventable deaths? So do we square limiting screening with this goal? Or did I miss something?Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-10395853735667009742009-11-20T05:41:00.001-08:002009-11-20T06:39:14.360-08:00Some Truth Behind the RhetoricLiving in Washington, DC is weird. I should know - I used to live there. The food scene is great, and there are a lot of young people who bring energy and relentlessly baseless optimism to the place. But everything closes early. Public transit is built around the needs of commuters and tourists. Almost no one, other than the city's African-American population, actually is born, lives, and dies in the area. And then there's the infestation of politicians.<br /><br />Inevitably, it starts to influence people's minds, like Steve Pearlstein, who actually writes the occasionally smart business column in the Washington Post. However like most DC/NYC public intellectual types, hanging out in the halls of power clouds his perceptions, and it annoys me. Behold this quote <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/06/AR2009080603854.html?nav=emailpage">from a column of his</a> attacking Republicans for being "political terrorists" in the health care debate:<blockquote>While holding themselves out as paragons of fiscal rectitude, Republicans grandstand against just about every idea to reduce the amount of health care people consume or the prices paid to health-care providers -- the only two ways I can think of to credibly bring health spending under control.<br /><br />When Democrats, for example, propose to fund research to give doctors, patients and health plans better information on what works and what doesn't, Republicans sense a sinister plot to have the government decide what treatments you will get. By the same wacko-logic, a proposal that Medicare pay for counseling on end-of-life care is transformed into a secret plan for mass euthanasia of the elderly. </blockquote>Now by and large I agree with him that Republicans are being fear mongers in this debate but he's not being honest when he says that our only choice is to "reduce the amount of health care people consume." He assumes, since he lives in DC, that the government must be more heavily involved in health care. Instead we could also use proper pricing to make people understand health care costs. But once he assumes that government is the answer, what he's saying, inevitably and unavoidably, is that some people who are "over-consuming" care will be limited in their access to care. If he admitted this, he'd understand that the reason why the Republicans "wacko-logic" is working with people is that the public rightly understands there's no such thing as a free lunch. The Democrats are soft-peddling the impact of their proposed changes and the impact of those changes.<br /><br />Using very vague phrases like "better information on what works and what doesn't" is dancing around the fundamental issue. Note that Pearlstein doesn't say "perfect information." People facing life threatening situations don't want to hear about probabilities and costs. They don't want to hear that if something PROBABLY WON'T WORK that they can't have it because it's too expensive. And it's not easy for a bunch of experts to decide what "works" and what doesn't.<br /><br />Imagine a 10 year old child who's life can be saved by a procedure with a high probability of success and very high cost. Now imagine a 75 year old columnist for the Washington Post who needs an expensive operation that might only extend life for a couple of years. In our screwed up system it is more likely that the old fart columnist would get the operation because of Medicare. That's wrong in my view. A panel of "experts" are more likely to do the opposite, but even they might discover that the child would die in a few years and the 75 year old might live another 25 or 30 years and add productively to society. And no matter what anyone on the left says, they will have to limit access to certain procedures based on "better" information. Overall society will save some money, but individual choice will be limited.<br /><br />Which brings me to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111904053.html">today's column by Pearlstein</a> on the breast cancer recommendations. Much like many folks in the MSM, he's sort of surprised by the hoopla. After reviewing what the panel did, he says:<blockquote>All that, of course, is exactly what the task force did, based on numerous studies done in different countries using different methodologies. In the end, it found that while some lives might be saved each year, the benefits of annual screening of women in their 40s were outweighed by the costs -- and that's without even getting into the financial costs, which run to several billion dollars a year.</blockquote>That's the most honest statement I've seen yet about this entire debate. As I've noted here on a number of occasions, you CANNOT change this system without altering the winners and losers. If the reforms as currently written go through, more people who currently do not have health insurance and decent, not awesome, coverage will get it. In addition, people with awesome coverage (AARP and old farts I'm looking at you) will see an erosion in quality and access. Costs will increase. You can't get something for nothing.<br /><br />Now if, IF we were going to have an honest discussion of these issues I'd start here. But since honesty has never been part of politics, I'd settle for compromise. Why not expand Medicaid for the poor and down-trodden. Push for cost controls in Medicare, and create a health system where people actually saw the costs of their procedures? That would, in my humble view, limit "over-consumption" or at least place those costs on those consuming. It's called personal choice and responsibility combined with broad public charity. It wouldn't kill us to start here.Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-60535701273051523502009-11-19T08:54:00.000-08:002009-11-19T09:09:47.044-08:00No Such Thing as a Free MammogramMrs. Fundman and I "discussed" the new recommendations for mammograms last night after dinner and a few drinks. I say "discussed" because I hadn't read much about it and she was pretty wound up after a long day with FundInfant at the pediatricians. As a conservative who watches too much Glenn Beck/<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_A2-9hZHiA">John Nash</a>, she saw the specter a conspiratorial future of cost-cutting once Obamacare passed the Congress. I just suggested it might be related to the changes that doctors had recently recommended to prostate exams for men.<br /><br />Well today I officially apologize to Mrs. Fundman, because the White House is apparently <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/18/AR2009111802545.html">freaking out</a> over the panel and its potential impact on the debate. The quote from the Post, not Fox or some right-wing blog, that got me was:<blockquote>Under health-care reform legislation pending in Congress, the task force's recommendations would be used to help determine the basic coverage that insurance companies would need to offer for preventive services. But task force officials said that played no role in the panel's decision and costs were never considered.</blockquote>Yeah, sure. That's why the White House has issued about 35 public statements saying that this had nothing to do with the reform.<br /><br />Just as an fyi - <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8367614.stm">this little piece</a> was brought to my attention by a friend in the UK, which has socialized medicine. A panel there just decided not to give people with liver cancer a drug which is proven to extend life because it's too expensive. And the drug apparently has some <a href="http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/news/20090924/nexavar-may-treat-advanced-breast-cancer">positive effects on breast cancer</a> as well - not that any Brit will ever enjoy those benefits.<br /><br />Folks as I've noted before, there is NO WAY to increase access and decrease costs without limiting available treatments. Full stop. The question is which alternative is more just, and that's a discussion we don't want to have in this country.Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-2025818298771058882009-11-18T07:12:00.000-08:002009-11-18T07:29:22.217-08:00Why I'm a Total Cynic about Greenies, Part 345Behold today's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/science/earth/18offset.html?_r=1&hp">New York Times piece</a> on the decline of carbon offsets. In it the reporter, Elisabeth Rosenthal, decides to interview the president of a non-profit in the UK, a guy named <a href="https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/Pages/Staff.aspx">Paul Dickinson</a>.<br /><br />Paul, tells Times readers "that rather than buying offsets he had sharply scaled back on flying and was instead taking trains or conducting meetings by phone or teleconference."<br /><br />Huh, funny, because as his bio says HE FOUNDED A TELECONFERENCING COMPANY.<br /><br />Then there is another environmental expert quoted in the article, Anja Kollmuss. She claims to be a "scientist," but she's not. Her degree is in Urban and Environmental Planning. She tells the Times readers that "buying offsets won’t solve the problem because flying around the way we do is simply unsustainable." Well she should know. As <a href="http://www.sei-us.org/about/staff-kollmuss.html">her bio notes</a> SHE'S BEEN WORKING ON A PROJECT IN RURAL INDIA FOR SEVEN YEARS. That means she's been flying a couple times a year back and forth to and from Europe to India. I mean, what's her carbon footprint like?<br /><br />Does any reporter ever, EVER check their sources? Is anyone in the Green movement not a total hypocrite? It took me literally five minutes to find this information, and yet the Times parades these hypocrites around to make people feel badly about flying? Ms. Rosenthal appears to be the Times lead reporter on environmental issues, and she can't even check to see how unbiased her sources are? This is America's paper of record?<br /><br />Flying is one of the greatest advances in human history. It has allowed people to live remarkably better lives. It allows medical patients to receive donor organs, transports goods all over the world, and sends Doctors Without Borders to rural areas. Ms.Rosenthal, please stop bashing modernity and making regular people who don't fly back and forth all over the world feel badly for hoping over to Iowa twice a year to visit Mom and Dad.Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-68736345436788389342009-11-06T08:17:00.000-08:002009-11-06T08:30:17.169-08:00Apparently, the Fox News War is OverRemember when the President <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12fox.html">basically declared war</a> on Fox News and tried to get the removed from the White House press pool?<br /><br />Well apparently that was very twelve-minutes-ago because on Wednesday, one day after the off-year elections that had no broader implications for Democrats in which independent voters went fleeing to the GOP, David Axelrod, he who <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28417.html">declared Fox non-news</a> on October 18th, granted said agency <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/04/raw-data-fox-news-interview-david-axelrod/">this exclusive interview</a> with Major Garrett.<br /><br />Hell, the Argentine military did better in the Falklands than the administration did in that conflict. Talk about surrender. The next thing you know <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi1zg2NOCn8">Anita Dunn</a> will be interviewed by Glenn Beck with his insane collection of pictures, chalkboards and arrows pointing everywhere.<br /><br />The internal polling at the White House must be fucking horrible among independents for them to cave this quickly. I generally don't put too much stock into off-years meaning a whole lot because one year is forever in politics, but the way the White House is acting they sure seem scared.Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-8341788980528873322009-11-06T06:42:00.001-08:002009-11-06T06:47:28.808-08:00Here's an Idea, Use HistoryThree days removed from the Democrats losing gubernatorial races in NJ and Virginia, I have been struck by the way that Democrats have downplayed the results saying the races were unrelated to national events while Republicans have hammered away at the national implications for themselves and Obama.<br /><br />So I thought to myself, "Self, didn't the Dems win in Virginia in 2005 with Bush in the White House? How did each party spin the story four years ago?"<br /><br />The answer my friends is here in this <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9975248/">MSNBC piece</a> analyzing the 2005 outcomes. Note the similarities. The Democrats crowed about the national implications (and they were right) while the Republicans suggested it was all about local issues.<br /><br />In the meantime, sorry I've not been posting to my 4 longtime readers. You can all come in off the ledge as I'm going to try to be better about writing more regularly.Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-10804632172770703162009-06-02T07:27:00.000-07:002009-06-02T07:49:14.656-07:00Klein Hearts Friedman?The most unpopular public intellectual in the world today appears to be Milton Friedman, although anyone Pro-Life is probably a close second. Friedman has been trashed by just about <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124355131075164361.html">everyone on the left</a>, including Naomi Klein who is a poster-girl for left wing, post modern anger at capitalism and all things "conservative."<br /><br />But when I Googled Naomi recently to see what she has been saying these days, I found this amazing quote:<blockquote>Larry Summers and Tim Geithner came up with a plan to bail out the banks that is actually a disguised bailout for the hedge funds — where the government is not bailing out the hedge funds directly because they can’t sell that, but hedging the hedge funds to buy the toxic assets of the banks — instead of nationalizing the banks and breaking them up, which is what needs to happen.</blockquote>Here's the deal, what was Friedman's view of big government's judgment and benevolence? Check out <a href="http://www.unitedliberty.org/videos/milton-friedman-on-the-phil-donahue-show-in-1979">this video</a> of him and Phil Donahue going at it and tell me how far apart these two are on their skepticism of government power?<br /><br />It seems to me that there may be a growing consensus about the limits of government benevolence in society today among people of very different ideological views. I'm not sure what this all means, but if both sides recognize the folly of the duopoly, that's progress.Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-35544390462937977212009-05-31T07:27:00.000-07:002009-05-31T07:52:08.163-07:00The Joke of ImpartialityMy father is a lawyer. I have neighbors and friends who are lawyers and teach in law schools. My office "next door neighbor" is a lawyer. Some of my best friends........seriously, yes some of my <a href="http://www.snpp.com/guides/hutz.file.html">best friends are lawyers</a>. And if there's one thing I know from all of them, it's that they don't think, for one second, that any judge is "impartial" whatever that means.<br /><br />Any good trial lawyer tries to get sympathetic judges and juries. Any good appellate lawyer tries to appeal to the predispositions of the appellate judges. And the reason the Founders set up a complicated selection process for the Supreme Court and judiciary wasn't, in my view, by accident. They understood that judges were never going to be "above the law" or "impartial."<br /><br />The Founders had a very sophisticated understanding of law. Hell, read the damn <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm">Declaration of Independence</a>. It reads like a legal brief. These guys weren't dumb or inexperienced in the law. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams#Career_before_the_Revolution">John Adams cut his teeth as a lawyer</a>, and they all had read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blackstone">Blackstone</a>. They understood that "good" law should put some constraints on the arbitrary nature of power, but it wasn't perfect or sufficient to eliminate the risks to libery. They also understood that democratic politics had to be allowed to modify the course of government.<br /><br />So it is with great pleasure that I tell the Left to seriously defend Sotomayor's argument that white judges reach "bad" decisions compared to Latinas. And to the Right I ask you how you can narrowly define "racism" as any generalization based on race when the term comes loaded with the experience of slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, bigotry, and racial profiling? I ask the Left how its "post racial" President can play identity politics? I ask the Right why a bunch of white guys, fat white guys no less, are the ones crying foul here? If they are so racially progressive, where are the hordes of black and Latino Republicans defending limited views of the judiciary?<br /><br />You can't separate law from politics. You also shouldn't equate the two. It seems to me she's an <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/05/sotomayor_overturned_60_of_the.html">OK, not great judge</a>, who fit a profile in a highly politicized decision. It also seems to me that using the "racism" card against her won't hurt the GOP in NASCAR country. For Obama, she's a bone to the Latino community, which both sides need to win this election. And it's not at all clear that most people even know who she is, let alone Latinos.<br /><br />The problem is that there are no, universally agreed upon "GREAT" judges. They are not like baseball players or doctors. They are more like painters - you either like their work or you don't. You either agree with the outcomes and laud them, or you don't like the outcomes and call them "activists" or "closed minded" and you take you fight to other political arenas.<br /><br />Mrs. Fundman and I got into a huge fight about her the other night, and that tells me something else - I'm going to be doing dishes for a while and agreeing with her more. That's probably the best thing that's come out of this.Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-21255482848882768962009-05-28T05:40:00.001-07:002009-05-28T05:43:11.574-07:00In Case You Had ForgottenBecause I certainly had, it's been 20 years since the Tiananmen Square Massacres in China. <a href="http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10814">This piece</a> in the UK's Prospect does a nice job reflecting on what's happened since.Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-1435302864385233742009-05-27T13:29:00.000-07:002009-05-27T14:06:02.371-07:00How Much is Too MuchI am old enough to remember the phrase "above the fold" which means the stuff in an old fashion print newspaper that was on top of the front page. Honestly I'm not sure if the same stuff holds for today's online media but this afternoon's New York Times webpage "above the median screen line?" is featuring a story about how, apparently, Bill Clinton has run out of interns to sleep with. The headline reads (I shit you not) <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/magazine/31clinton-t.html?hp">"The Mellowing of William Jefferson Clinton."</a> (You can do your own <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XnzstXd6V8">spit take</a> at that title)<br /><br />In the meantime well "below the fold/median line" on its webpage is a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/business/28markets.html?hpw">short piece</a> sort of dismissing the reason why the Dow dumped about 173 points today -- concerns that the U.S. government's credit rating could tumble because we're borrowing too much damn money. In that piece the author claims that the Treasury's auction of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasury_security">5 year notes</a> was "better than analysts had expected."<br /><br />Ummmm, look, I'm not some sophisticated business reporter with lots of experience at the New York Times, so maybe I'm slow, but when I glance at the bond market reports from basic economic data sites like <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/27/markets/bondcenter/credit/index.htm?postversion=2009052716">CNNMoney today</a>, I guess those analysts must have been predicting Jon and Kate winning "Parents of the Year" for things to be "better than analysts had expected."<br /><br />I mean, the sales of 2 year notes were ok, and 5 year notes were "sluggish." Wanna know why? Because anybody with a basic understanding of what's going on understands that we are going to get a shitstorm of inflation - lots of it. And no reasonable bond holder is going to take notes from the U.S. government and hold them for 5 years and get paid like less than 3% unless they have to. When you consider that not many people have that much money to lend the government, and you have one conclusion -- the Feds will have to offer much higher rates of return to attract buyers.<br /><br />Oh, and don't for one minute think <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=anxXWctD.tWc&refer=us">this little report</a> about how Moody's called the U.S.'s credit rating "stable." These were the same people who called subprime mortgages, and probably <a href="http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/the_road_to_bankruptcy.php">Edmund Andrew's wife</a> for that matter, AAA rated.<br /><br />I don't make predictions often (and don't ask Mrs. Fundman to confirm that), but I'm betting that the FreeCreditReport will begin running a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8Dgu--CzGw">bunch of ads</a> with President Obama in them. He'll be living in his <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym61U2XemcA">parent's basement</a> complaining about how his credit score allowed the Chinese to foreclose on the White House. Or maybe he'll have to take a side job at a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiWaKGQaOH8&feature=PlayList&p=39030A266D05774F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=13">Renaissance Fair</a>..........Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-81574491657047359392009-05-27T13:24:00.000-07:002009-05-27T13:29:37.943-07:00Apologies, Excuses, Shameless Deflection of BlameNo, I was not in jail. No, the former head of NOW did not try to hunt me down for my <a href="http://contraduopoly.blogspot.com/2009/04/who-are-washington-elites-and-who-are.html">earlier post</a> on her. I did not join either one of those odious two parties.<br /><br />Simply put, I had a massive work deadline that ended about three weeks ago, and then the Fund family went on vacation............the rest was just me figuring out what to say and working on another writing project.<br /><br />Many thanks to d.eris for kicking me over the weekend. In the end, nagging is probably the best medicine for lazy bloggers.<br /><br />It's nice to be back.Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-43600026024786160822009-04-23T02:20:00.001-07:002009-04-23T02:27:31.278-07:00Headline of the DayBelow the fold from the Financial Times (am traveling for work in the UK this week, so that helps explain the lack of posts) from <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1e8cd910-2f57-11de-a8f6-00144feabdc0.html">this piece</a> by Gillian Tett:<blockquote>Cadbury Schweppes is currently deemed a better credit bet than the British Treasury.</blockquote>Would any of my readers (ok, there aren't they many of you) like to work on a list of U.S. companies that are better bets than the U.S. as credit risks? Oh, wait - the Treasury OWNS ever private company in the U.S. now anyway......<br /><br />My initial list would include Berkshire Hathaway, Microsoft, Exxon Mobil, and GE. And probably the UAW as long as Obama is in office and Lockheed Martin as long as the Republican Party still exists.Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4129053874538503936.post-2189203490708084182009-04-17T07:28:00.001-07:002009-04-17T07:37:02.270-07:00I Wish He Would Just Go AwayPat Buchanan..............I mean, why, oh why, does anyone take him seriously? In this <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/17/rendering_unto_caesar_96034.html">thoughtful little illogical rant</a> he claims that since Catholic universities are becoming more liberal and secular, that means America is going to hell.<br /><br />First off, if his biography is any indication, the guy was nearly expelled from Georgetown for fighting in the 1960's - how Christian is that?<br /><br />Secondly, Jesuit institutions like Georgetown have been struggling with their Catholic identity for a long time - well before Obama got elected. Georgetown survives because it compromises its identity for DC prestige at the drop of a hat - it's the Jesuit way. See for example this quote from Tim Healy, former president of Georgetown in the 1990's:<blockquote>Father Buckley criticizes one contemporary expression of the dichotomy of secular purpose and religious inspiration of the Catholic university in his reflection on the philosophy of education of a famous president of Georgetown University, Timothy Healy. Father Healy had claimed that the Church and the university were essentially two radically distinct entities capable of coexisting in a mutually beneficial relationship but only if their mutual autonomy of mission was retained. In Fr. Healy's view, education at Georgetown was to remain "principally a secular business, and the university is a secular entity with a clear secular job to do. The Church can deeply influence how the secular job is done," (Buckley, 80),</blockquote>Thirdly, would anyone remember <a href="http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations">this survey</a> that CLEARLY SHOWED the U.S. is getting more Catholic Pat, not less.<br /><br />But don't let a little data get in the way of a good cultural rant. The right never does.Fundmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02168838078864583991noreply@blogger.com1