Election loss and an unpopular explanation

This post by a Rabbi in Teaneck, NJ is a stark reminder why America is in trouble and how polarized we've become as a nation.  Rabbi Pruzansky obviously feels the frustration many of us feel about this election outcome.  I've added blue italics for emphasis of key passages. By Rabbi Steven Pruzansky   "The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo - for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility.  And fewer people voted.     But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle. Romney lost because he didn't get enough votes to win.  That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues - the traditional American virtues – of  liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness - no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate.  The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff. Every businessman knows this; that is why the "loss leader" or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama's America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who - courtesy of Obama - receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote.  The lure of free stuff is irresistible. The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which "47% of the people" start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money - "free stuff" - from the government. Almost half of the population has no skin in the game - they don't care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese. They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else's expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future. It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.     That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is ignorant and uninformed. Indeed, it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters - the clear majority – are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich.     Obama could get away with saying that "Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules" - without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the "rich should pay their fair share" - without ever defining what a "fair share" is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to "fend for themselves" - without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending. Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions - in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the money is gone.     Obama also knows that the electorate has changed - that whites will soon be a minority in America (they're already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America. Obama is part of that different America, knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won. Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his "negative ads" were simple facts, never personal abuse - facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil's bargain of making unsustainable promises. It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan - people of substance, depth and ideas - to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents.  Obama mastered the politics of envy – of class warfare - never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups. If an Obama could not be defeated - with his record and his vision of America, in which free stuff seduces voters - it is hard to envision any change in the future. The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy - those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe - is paved.       Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations.. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come.  The "Occupy" riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead - years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.     If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back." (Image above from Microsoft Clip Art)

The yoke of two Americas

It became clearer after President Obama’s re-election that we're two Americas.  Has our country been this divided since the Vietnam War, or perhaps the Civil War?  Mr. Obama captured just fifty-one percent of the popular vote.  

Last November, I anticipated more reaction from voters in the Center, due in part to the now infamous, “You didn’t build that” quip.  I believed it validated deep concerns held by many Americans that President Obama remains anti-business and anti-free market.  I also believed there was no way to take such a gaffe out of context (as claimed by the President and his defenders) and that the ripple effect would devastate the President's campaign.  I was obviously wrong about the fallout as far fewer swing voters in the Center cared about the issue than I'd imagined.  Setting aside the unpredictable American Center, the two Americas of Blue and Red remain far apart in their belief systems.

Icon by Flat-icons-com at freepik

Much of Blue America believes that since car tires rolled on public pavement while building businesses, or since career success came after attending public universities --- government funding enabled positive economic outcomes.   

Red America concedes that of course, some large scale public works projects and excellent public universities influenced America's growth and as our population grew, a corresponding increase in the size of federal government was necessary.  

However, Red America doesn't believe our nation flourished exclusively, or even principally, for these reasons.  Red America believes, it was limited government, free markets and personal freedom that enabled growth and prosperity in the first place coupled with initiative, smart risk-taking and hard work. Red America points to history that suggests the inevitable outcome of unchecked deficit-spending and taxation courts disaster and that we're already witnessing our decline.

Red America remains convinced that one of the most perilous problems faced by our nation today is federal spending and that added taxation, by any other name or game, is more of an enabler to the fiscal problem, than a cure.  For this view, Red America is often labeled by Blue as extremists.

Leaders of Blue America welcome new tax increases like the 2% payroll hike on all taxable wages up to $113,700 (which Blue dismisses as end of a tax "holiday") and the new Medicare adder of 0.9%.  

Class warfare and the politics of envy are often used to justify tax increases.  This historically has been Blue America's mantra to increase taxes.  Paying one's "fair share" is whatever they want it to mean.

And on the spending side, a reduction in the rate of increase to any budget item, is still decried as a spending cut by Blue America.  By contrast, Red America welcomes the prospect of a nominal $85 billion spending reduction from a government that spent over $3.5 trillion last year. 

Sadly, the yoke of two Americas remains firmly in place.

White House Fiscal Adviser?
Wikimedia Commons

The historical cycle that rings true today

A friend* trying to console me after Mr. Obama's re-election, shared a timeless quote:

"Again and again after freedom has brought opportunity and some degree of plenty, the competent become selfish, luxury-loving and complacent, the incompetent and the unfortunate grow envious and covetous, and all three groups turn aside from the hard road of freedom to worship the Golden Calf of economic security.  The historical cycle seems to be: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more."

Icon by Arfianta at freepik

These prophetic words came from the leader of a Pennsylvania cork company during a speech he delivered on March 18, 1943.  The speech was delivered by Henning Prentis.  Mr. Prentis also wrote this:

"At the stage between apathy and dependency, men always turn in fear to economic and political panaceas." (Industrial Management in a Republic, p. 22.).  

The concept rings true today.  

*Thanks, Kevin.

Defending Paul Ryan in the NY Times

Excerpts from my letter to the editors at the New York Times Magazine concerning a cover story on Paul Ryan in the October 21 issue which were published online November 1.  


Illustration by Jaime Hernandez

The excerpts also appear in today's print edition of the New York Times Magazine.  My apologies for the blurry, tiny font.

 



Ben Stein speaks about hypocrisy

I saw Mr. Stein speak in San Diego last June.  An interesting figure: part lawyer, part economist, part actor -- and he's also quite funny at the stump.  Some of his latest wisdom on health care and immigration policy follows...


Ben Stein - SodaHead image

"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government
that requires every citizen to prove they
are insured. . . but not everyone must
prove they are a citizen."
   
Now add this, "Many of those who refuse,
or are unable, to prove they are citizens
will receive free insurance paid for by
those who are forced to buy insurance
because they are citizens."

The Romney tax policy

Conceptually, it's not more regressive than what we have but it's being labeled as such by Obama supporters who conflate marginal tax rates with effective tax rates.

Lower marginal rates on a broader base of income is a step toward real tax reform.  Reduce the mountain of deductions, credits and incentives -- apply lower marginal rates to a greater aggregate of taxable income and in the process remain revenue neutral while simplifying the tax code.  What's wrong with that?

Perhaps the problem for Mr. Obama's supporters is that remaining revenue neutral might help curb run away government spending.

(This is a CEO, not a Community Organizer)

Don't sulk, resist.

In his piece from the current issue of Fortune magazine, Geoff Colvin says the current environment is a "...nasty, insidious force that's undermining the native optimism that buoys up business people everywhere" and then he admonishes readers with one word -- "Resist!"  

I appreciated another article in this issue by Ms. Mina Kimes who wrote about a manager for the MFS International Value Fund -- Mr. Barnaby Wiener.  Like a lot of people; I largely stick to index funds, but Mr. Wiener's actively-managed fund according to Fortune, is one of the best in its class having outperformed 99% of its peers since 2002. 

Mr. Wiener says "It's much more important to avoid losing money than it is to make money" and he adds, "If you avoid the big losses, you make money almost by default."  Those statements seem consistent with Warren Buffet's well-known view, "The first rule of investing is don't lose money; the second rule is don't forget Rule No. 1."  OK, but what's the third rule?  Anyway, on to the election...

1. The presidential election is only 50 days away.

2.  It's the most important election of my conscious lifetime (in other words, since I was 24).

3.  We need a CEO more than a Community Organizer with velvety speeches.

4.  Please encourage anyone still on the fence to get out and vote for Mitt & Paul.

Image by storyset on Freepik



Maddente.com raison d'être

Raison d'être -- is French for "reason for existence" -- which is a heady concept.  I'll define this blog's raison d'être for my five six readers, with this post.  Many of my posts center on fiscal responsibility. 

Fotosearch Image

So when I see a column I agree with as I did today in WSJ by Steven Malanga ("State Politicians and the Public Pension Cookie Jar") -- I share it and talk about it.  I hope in a small way, I'll add attention to the generational burden-shifting and recklessness taking place (and it feels good to get gripes out of my system and into a post).

Mr. Malanga focuses on at least one part of a multi-faceted national spending problem -- defined benefit programs for public employees -- better known as public pensions.  I didn't understand how costly they are until some six years ago, when a retired pediatric dentist of all people, began to educate me.

I also have misgivings about pension plans in the private sector, but shareholders of those pension-granting organizations choose where to invest their money.  Put differently, if a majority of company shareholders wish to tolerate expensive employee retirement and health care plans -- that's their business.  Investors can and do vote with their feet.  But taxpayers can't sell their shares, or wage a proxy fight. So, public pension reform is my topic du jour (OK, that's it for the French phrases -- I promise). 

Fortunately, voters are beginning to wake up and support leaders like Governor Scott Walker and the fiscal reforms they sponsor to curb these budget busters in the public domain.

Someone asked me why I haven't been posting much lately.  The answer is I've been busy working and like most working Americans -- trying to add to my defined contribution plan.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Governor Scott Walker / Wikipedia Image

Finally, I'll share another column also found in today's WSJ  by Peggy Noonan about Governor Scott Walker's resounding win this week, called "What's Changed After Wisconsin". 

Mr. Walker, whom I hope you'll remember -- not recall -- is the first recipient of the Maddente.com MVP Award for public adherence to fiscal responsibility.

A refreshing perspective from Phil Gramm. It's not just about the banks

On Bloomberg TV last month, former U.S. Senator Phil Gramm discussed the housing meltdown, as well as, his own work to deregulate the banks.  

Phil Gramm, Wikipedia

During the course of the interview, Mr. Gramm highlights "concerted government action and pressure on banks" to make sub prime loans and destructive decisions in Washington "to force feed housing" ownership.

The Bloomberg interviewer insinuates that there were as many predatory lenders as predatory borrowers.  So, exactly, what is a predatory lender?  I believe many borrowers were unaware of the potential risks of their variable rate mortgages.  That's fair.  

However, were millions of people buying more home than they could afford, or sucking more equity out of their homes than they could afford to lose; all largely duped?  I never believed so and still don't believe so.

Gramm asserted that for every subprime borrower who actually got swindled by lenders, there were "one hundred" that exploited the system, i.e., predatory borrowers.  There's the debate, Mate. 

That millions of borrowers bought properties they couldn't afford, recklessly used cash out financing, or shouldn't have been in variable rate notes in the first place, is clear.  We will debate for years which players and policies enabled the whole sorry misuse of credit.  Laying the entire mess at the hands of bankers is conveniently populist, but incorrect. 

If you don't have time for the whole interview, consider moving the needle to the six-minute mark.

My take on GOP presdential candidates

Ron Paul, Wikipedia

Ron Paul -- I remain conflicted about Ron Paul.  The reasons are simple and shared by a number of GOP voters.  Let's first look at the plus side.  I love the man on fiscal policy.  As he once described his zeal to cut federal spending, “I am absolutely convinced it is the only road to prosperity.”  On monetary policy -- Ron Paul is the gold standard (pun intended).

If not for the Tea Party, I'd have bolted from the Republican Party a few years ago because I wasn't seeing enough Republicans walk the fiscal talk that Rep. Paul walks every day.  Then I discovered Ron Paul.  When Ron Paul says he'd cut a trillion dollars in federal spending year one, he even tells you how he'd do it.  When he talks about The Fed's destructive, easy money policies -- he means it.  I admire his courage and consistency.  Unfortunately, Rep. Paul's foreign policy is often, "Blame America First."  It's unfair to brand virtually all American foreign intervention as "nation building".  He's more worried about domestic TSA agents, than foreign enemies of this country.  He's obsessed with "rights" of enemy combatants (non Americans) in Guantanamo and dismisses the record of domestic security our existing policies (maintained by leaders in both parties) have engendered.  I also question his views on Israel.

I recall an attempt Mr. Paul made to appeal to Pro-Defense Republicans when he highlighted the fact he had voted to use force after 9/11.  My fear is that a President Paul would wait for another 9/11 before acting.  Ignoring one's enemies has nothing to do with Liberty. 

Traditional Republicans have significantly more in common with hardcore Paul supporters than either group has in common with Democrats -- and probably always will.  I respect the ideological purity of most Libertarians -- their loyalty and unswerving respect for the Constitution.  My differences with some of them are: a) an all hands-off position about containing evil and preserving national security, b) a failure to embrace political reality by running hopeless candidates who siphon GOP votes and c) too many of them still spout the nonsense that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Newt Gingrich, Wikipedia

Newt Gingrich -- Mr. Gingrich will not be the nominee of his party, but if you ever have the opportunity to see Newt Gingrich speak in public, you must make the time.  He's a rare breed of public speaker -- poised and colorful with an enviable command of American history and domestic politics.  I've never seen him use notes at the stump.  Speaker Gingrich also says ineffective things at the worst possible moments like his recent attacks on Romney's private equity group.  .            

Rick Santorum --

Rick Santorum, Wikipedia

A lot of Americans are getting their first taste of Rick Santorum.  He's been a part of the Washington landscape for a long time while managing to keep his nose clean and win respect from people who agree with him and scorn from those who don't.  Mr. Santorum will not be the nominee of his party either.  His character, social values and deeply-held convictions are the stuff that lands one a spot on Mount Rushmore, but we need a CEO in the Oval Office more than a role model for at-risk youths.  I'm also troubled by his explanation for a vote against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania when it tried to become a Right To Work (RTW) state.  Mr. Santorum now says he'd sign an executive order allowing all states to become RTW states. By the way, check out this site to learn more about RTW site.

Mitt Romney --
That brings us to Mr. Romney.  Words that come to mind are: urbane, wealthy, smart and energetic.  Of course, that's not enough to win.  I hope Governor Romney's commitment to balanced budgets will remain as pure as Governor Scott Walker's performance here in Wisconsin. 

By the way, I'm now awarding an annual Maddente.com MVP Award for public adherence to fiscal responsibility under adverse conditions.  Mr. Walker earns the inaugural award -- hands down -- for his 2011 performance.  Taking a $3.6 billion dollar deficit to a $300 million dollar surplus, without raising taxes, against a Tsunami of cheap legislative stunts and vicious public union attacks, has re-defined courage and leadership in this state.

But back to Mitt.  There's much more to learn and discuss about Mitt Romney, of course, but for now I'll close with this thought: Mr. Romney will be the GOP nominee facing Barack Obama in November and if elected, he'll become an infinitely better President than his predecessor.

A book: All The Devils Are Here

Back in 2007 while waves of defaults occurred after sub-prime loans "reset" (an adjustable rate mortgage payment that increases after the prime interest rate increases) I asked one Loan Officer,  "Why did lenders write variable rate notes when they knew many borrowers had little capacity to make higher payments down the road?"

What I heard in reply was that as risky as these credit bets were, if conventional higher fixed-interest rates were used, the borrower could not have qualified for as much of a loan.   My reaction?  Exactly.

I'm reading a book by Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera - All The Devils Are Here - The Hidden Story Of The Financial Crisis (Portfolio/Penguin).  I'm learning more about the origin of sub-prime lending and the players behind it, but I'm struck by a rhetorical question the authors pose in Chapter Six, concerning the line between predatory lending and what I have called predatory borrowing:

"But in the larger scheme of things, did it really matter who was at fault?"

Yes.  It matters.  Attention to causality (i.e. fault) is important because sweeping policies are being hatched to curb systemic risks for the future.  If they get it wrong, we'll over-regulate mortgage originators -- possibly choking off  liquidity for many qualified, low income borrowers.  My biggest fear is that we'll fail to transfer liability from the American taxpayer to future borrowers-lenders-investors (where it belongs).

A debate over a Kyle Bass interview

Cameron and I are jousting again. 

Wikipedia image

This time the fodder is an hour-long interview with hedge fund manager, Kyle Bass which Cameron and I both viewed with great interest.  Taped last month, I encourage you to view it too.

Cameron writes...

“John, I watched that video, thank you for forwarding it. It was very insightful. There were a lot of things that really popped out but one especially. Bass states that Washington has a spending problem, but in the same breath he states that the solution is simple. He states we need to raise revenues 2 1/2% and reduce expenses by 5%.   

Which is exactly what I wish Washington would do, but the Republicans stance against no new taxes and no compromise on that issue is hardly going to get that accomplished.”

My reply to Cameron...

Cam,

Note that the spending reduction Mr. Bass calls for is two times the tax increase he calls for.  Perhaps that’s because giving (additional) revenue to the federal government is like tossing it in the ocean.  Politically, raising some taxes might be an expedient way to get a budget bill past the Dems in order to ultimately net a much larger reduction in spending, but we don’t raise taxes because it is morally appealing, or because we think it's a prudent way to help the disadvantaged.

I hope to visit Cameron while I'm in Texas during the holidays.  At this time, I'd also like to wish all six readers of this blog a Merry Christmas.

Wikipedia image

Quick hits for combative times

Super committee fails - or did they?
So, across the board (1/2 defense, 1/2 non-defense) federal spending cuts of $1.2T will begin January, 2013 without tax increases.  That's the plan, but there is plenty of time for Congress to derail progress.  Thankfully, President Obama says he'll veto any bill that attempts to overturn the sequester.  Republicans or Dems who try to do it to protect whatever it is they purport to be protecting -- will do so at their peril.  This is the 2012 issue to watch.

GOP nomination and a narrowing field
I felt many of the same hopeful moments and (ultimately) profound disappointments from Herman Cain's candidacy as I felt during the Sarah Palin VP run in 2008.  My view has less to do with Mr. Cain's alleged personal indiscretions than his performance on the campaign trail which has become as painful to watch as Ms. Palin's was during the 2008 election.  

Cameron weighs in on income redistribution
In May of 2010, I began an interesting exchange with my old pal Cameron. 
More recently Cameron sent me the CBO report that has garnered so much attention, "Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007.  CBO says, "... the population with income in the lowest 20 percent (quintile) in 2007 was not necessarily the same population group in that category in 1979."  That point seems lost on some who believe this 20% is the exact same control group tracked during the period of study and thus the one still mired in poverty.  By definition, there always has been and always will be a lowest quintile, ipso facto.  CBO also mentions that the lowest 20 percent actually experienced income "18 percent higher in 2007 than it had been in 1979."  This data point suggests that a rising tide has lifted their boats too, though admittedly, not to the same degree as boat owners in higher quintiles. 

OWS and that "evil" one percent
Debate centers on the top 1% of income earners where the income share has increased dramatically in recent years.  Why?  Because if one looks at the income share by quintile, going back to the late 1960s, one sees that the share percentage of income earned by the top quintile has gone up (and down) in  percentages of total income between roughly 43 percent to 50 percent.  When I looked back further to the 1940s, the data for this quintile was still bouncing around in the mid 40s share percentage.  Thus, the share of total income going to the top quintile, hasn't changed much in relative terms. 

We all like to trot out statistics that support our own worldview.  I just did.  Don't want to talk about who pays the most income taxes?  Talk about income disparities.  Don't want to talk about higher living standards, or increased consumption by all Americans?  Yes, focus on the income.  Don't want to talk about anemic economic growth or continuing growth in government employment levels?  You got it -- single out the income issue.  One can always make a case and a counter case with quantitatively-supported talking points.  

As these wobbly debates continue, what's troubling is the class envy and resentment boiling over on to our streets.  For additional perspective, check out David Malpass' article in the current issue of Forbes Magazine ("Class Warfare Hurts Growth").  

Image by krakenimages.com on Freepik

'Tis but a scratch

When the bills come due, nations that have fallen prey to the entitlement vortex can foster street violence and class warfare when the coffers are empty.  Some leaders can also breed denial once they run out of money.   

That's the reaction of some Greek politicians who don't appreciate the futility of their fiscal situation.  A year and a half ago, German officials averred that part of a Greek bailout plan could involve the sale or lease of state-owned assets, as well as, other austerity measures. 

This proposal did not amount to a wholesale transfer of Greece's sovereignty as its opponents claimed.  Rather, it was part of a larger plan to lift a struggling debtor out of its self-induced mess through privatization of government assets including some Greek islands.  

In response one Greek government official said, if such asset transfers came to pass, it will result in a Greek boycott of German goods.  This threat seems to ring hollow.  They're broke, they can't borrow and they threaten not to buy products.  I'm reminded of the Black Knight from Monty Python and The Holy Grail.  After being drawn and quartered, the dismembered knight vowed to attack his foe (who didn't want to fight in the first place).  

                                                                 YouTube Video

Above is the clip.  Watch King Arthur's reply to the Black Knight, which could be Germany's reply to the aforementioned Greek official, "What are you going to do, bleed on me?"  

I'm sympathetic to the suffering in Greece, but it's hard to abide politicians who want to perpetuate the irresponsible government spending and market meddling that caused their mess.  

At the end of a 99 year lease, the British honored their treaty with China and transferred sovereignty of Hong Kong in 1997. Life went on.  Perhaps a multi-year lease of Mykonos would help matters. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
October 2, 2011 - NEWS UPDATE - Reuters just released this report on the Greek financial crisis...

"The Greek cabinet is expected to approve a contentious plan Sunday to lay off state workers, and sign off on a draft of next year's budget, in a race to slash spending, free up bailout loans and stave off bankruptcy.

Without the release of an 8 billion euro ($10.7 billion) tranche of an EU bailout, massively indebted Greece could run out of money to pay state wage bills within weeks.  European officials are scrambling to avert a Greek debt default, which could wreck the balance sheets of European banks, damage the prospects of the euro single currency and possibly plunge the world into a new global financial crisis."

When compromise and experts are dangerous

With a title like, "Are Economists Really That Smart" I had to read Bill Flax's piece in this month's issue of Forbes magazine, especially after digesting his first sentence, "Remember when Joe Biden admonished us to keep spending or else we'd go bankrupt?"  Mr. Biden's statement reminded me of something Nancy Pelosi uttered before enactment of the unpopular Obamacare legislation affecting 1/6th of our national economy.  Of course, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are not trained economists, nor am I, but these people are running the country.  This clip is only two seconds...

My timing to read the aforementioned Forbes piece was good since I'd just finished fighting my way through Nassim Taleb's best selling book, The Black Swan.  (I say "fighting" because several technical aspects are beyond me).

In their own ways, Messrs. Flax and Taleb fillet and roast the cadre of economists, public policy-makers and financial journalists who worship at the Keynesian alter.  Living within one's means and free market principles are concepts ignored, even ridiculed, by economic intelligentsia as they advocate for trillions in "stimulus".  

Their voices clamor for more government spending.  The reason QE2 failed, according to these experts, is that the sum wasn't large enough and all the fresh liquidity wasn't given enough time to work.  On the other hand, economists like Nassim Taleb see the economic calamities we now face through a different lens.  But back to the Forbes, piece.  

Mr. Flax says of economics and its modern day application to fiscal policy, 

"The principal failing of macroeconomics is the intrusion it invites and the certainty it instills in politicians...no planner, no matter how wise, could possibly appreciate all the subjective nuances lurking behind these numbers.  Such schemes are doomed to folly."

There also exists today, a notion that Pols sparring over fiscal policy must "compromise" as if the key to solving our economic morass falls in the middle of some ideological bell curve. 

Icon by Creatype at freepik

Compromise might produce added legislation, but it won't cure a deficit spending addiction.  Consider Nassim Taleb's eighth principle for a Black-Swan-Robust Society,

"Do not give an addict drugs if he has withdrawal pains.  Using leverage to cure the problems of too much leverage is not homeopathy, it's denial.  We need rehab."

1900 advertisement treatment for morphine addiction - Wikipedia

The same metaphor I used in January of 2009 (and used elsewhere by others) of a drug addict who needs to take the pain, was also used by Dr. Taleb.  

The point is one cannot compromise with a drug addict, they only come back for more, which is why we must lower federal spending.  Tax increases and money printing are analogous to a government's morphine fix -- it feels good for a while, but it only makes the problem worse before the inexorable crash.  We must go cold turkey and take the pain incrementally.  

Conflicting voices about the debt crisis

The official position of this blog remains that the United States does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. 

I spoke with Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner at a local Town Hall Meeting last April about an idea advanced by Tim Pawlenty to avoid default without raising the debt limit.  The U.S. Treasury has the power to sequence (i.e. prioritize) payments when bills come due.  So debt holders can indeed be paid first to avert default and buy time while a budget patch is passed.  The idea has been roundly ignored or dismissed as impractical.  Of course, the U.S. government also has over a trillion dollars worth of other assets much of which could be liquidated to pay bills, but that's another post.

Guy tilling soil in front of Financial Temple - Wikipedia

The debt markets have not been as restive as the equity markets.  Bond markets know that the administration would not pull the financial temple down on our heads and allow a default, because it is not in the politicians' interest to do so.  The Obama administration would have little choice but to play the payment sequencing card to avert financial Armageddon. 

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner does not believe the Treasury possesses this ability.  A blog called FairlyConservative.com points out the bluff by citing some July 25th reporting done by Charlie Gasparino.  

What happened two days ago?  Bloomberg News and others reported that "...the Treasury Department will disclose its list of spending priorities in the event the debt limit isn't raised before August 2nd."  Apparently, the rating agencies warn against doing this (the same folks that did such a fine job assigning risk before the housing market cratered).  In the macro-scheme of things, it really wouldn't matter much according to David Wessel, and others. 

I don't want a credit downgrade to occur like Neil Cavuto and I understand the impact on our borrowing costs, but it might be more of a political risk than an economic risk which is a view expressed rather well in this blurb from Politico.

I'm listening to Bloomberg Radio and an interview with Mohamed El-Erian.  Dr. El-Erian understands the bond markets which at this juncture, are a more reliable indicator of danger than political sideshows that reap so much media attention.

The Truth About Wisconsin's Collective Bargaining 'Rights'

American Thinker logo

Published in American Thinker - 4.3.2011

By Tim Peterson, Robert J. Simandl, and John J. Maddente

Right: noun: a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral. 

That's the definition of the word used in connection with Wisconsin's government union employees and their demands to retain collective bargaining privileges.  This issue more than any part of the Budget Repair Bill, has captured the nation's attention.

For weeks, we've heard demonstrators beating drums in Madison and equally vocal sympathizers in the media admonish anyone listening about "rights" of government union employees and the turmoil visited upon "the middle class" due to the Governor's Budget Repair bill.  We've also seen polls suggesting public support for some of their views. 

We do not believe that: 1) government employee collective bargaining constitutes a "right" by any reasonable measure, or 2) poll data spewed out by parts of the media has been properly framed, or useful to gauge public opinion. 

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, collective bargaining is

"A process of negotiation between representatives of workers (usually labor union officials) and management to determine the conditions of employment. The agreement reached may cover not only wages but hiring practices, layoffs, promotions, working conditions and hours, and benefit programs."

Further into the root of the issue, according to West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2, in Constitutional Law rights are classified as natural, civil, and political. Natural rights are those that are believed to grow out of the nature of the individual human being such as rights to life, liberty, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness. Civil Rights belong to every citizen of the state, and are not connected with the organization or administration of government.

Political rights entail the power to participate directly or indirectly in the establishment or administration of government, such as the right of citizenship, the right to vote, and the right to hold public office.  Nothing in Wisconsin's Declaration of Rights (found in the State Constitution) guarantees a right to collective bargaining for any citizen, yet the reaction coming from government unions sounds as though the 1857 Dred Scott decision was dropped on them to enshrine slavery. 

One point appears lost in this discussion of "rights" (even coming from some commentators who supported the bill's passage).  Neither the U.S. Constitution nor Wisconsin's Constitution identifies collective bargaining as a right.  One can argue for an amendment at the state level -- and some advocates have recently done so -- but you can't credibly maintain that the legal equivalent presently exists. 

Therefore since collective bargaining is neither a natural, civil, nor political right, at best it is a right only in the colloquial sense of the term and merely a privilege in a purely constitutional sense.  It is a privilege in our view that has been badly abused in Wisconsin to the detriment of state taxpayers.  Collective bargaining actually denies the individual employee -- who might otherwise choose to decline a contract, or even decline the requirement to bargain collectively -- an ability to act independently, yet many continue to refer to this bargaining mechanism as a right.

While the recently enacted bill has caused much consternation, what it actually will do is replace collective bargaining with distributed bargaining and push down negotiations to the local school district levels -- where, in our view, they belonged in the first place.  We are bothered by the oft-used phrase of an "assault on the middle class" believing as we do, that it is not an assault on government employees who possess Cadillac health care benefits and retirement plans the rest of us only dream of.  Further, at 15% of the workforce (and even less of the populace), they hardly constitute the sweeping characterization we often hear as -- "Wisconsin's Middle Class."

The fact is, at the local level in many rural Wisconsin communities, public employment has become a fiefdom of privilege where, owing to binding interest arbitration based upon comparability, the never-ending spiral of wage and benefit improvements often results in local government compensation exceeding community "middle class" standards. The need to bargain virtually every operational issue makes implementing policy decisions and providing services a protracted struggle, often ending in grievance arbitration.

Perhaps this is why President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the patron saint of the American labor movement warned:

"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations...The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for...officials...to bind the employer...The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives."

We believe by limiting Collective Bargaining, the legislature has enriched individual workers ability to work where they want and associate and negotiate with whom they choose and taken steps to reign in runaway costs.

We also take issue with the way poll takers have tried to report public opinion, and trumpet results.  Consider the USA Today/Gallup poll asking respondents, "Would you favor or oppose a law in your state taking away some collective bargaining rights of most public unions, including the state teachers union?"  Their poll data revealed that 61% of respondents said "oppose" and so the Feb. 22^rd article title in USA Today blared, "Poll: Americans favor union bargaining rights"

We say -- not so fast.  In the first place, a more reasonably framed question would have been,

Would you favor or oppose a law in your state that substituted some collective bargaining privileges, including those of the state teachers union, with a move toward local bargaining?* 

The aforementioned USA/Gallup poll also indicated that 71% of us do not favor any tax increases as a means to reduce state budget deficits.  The problem with the USA/Gallup poll and those who like to seize only on responses to the first question mentioned above, is that they fail to ask respondents to choose between tax increases or spending cuts, as an either or proposition. Assuming we want present government employee staffing levels, we must choose between reducing costs, and levying tax increases for taxpayers.

A few commentators maintain that the $3.6B structural deficit Governor Walker inherited, does not actually mean our state is broke.  Of course the state can simply borrow more, raise taxes and user fees, engage in more accounting gimmickry (e.g. raiding segregated funds to close budget gaps), or some combination thereof.  That's what we have been doing for decades by kicking the proverbial can down the road. 

Change is never easy, but meaningful reform has come from duly-elected officials in Madison, Wisconsin.  We applaud our Governor and the Republicans for their leadership in standing for fiscal restraint and we remind our fellow taxpayers this boils down to a debate over controlling costs. Too much deficit requires lower and sustained limits on government employee benefits -- just like in real life where private businesses and taxpayers dwell. 

*Question shortened form published version.

Tim Peterson is a Milwaukee businessman and former Libertarian Party Candidate for US Senate, Robert Simandl is a Wisconsin attorney practicing employee benefit, labor and employment law and John Maddente is a Milwaukee businessman and former community columnist.