Torinus & Geanakoplos

Today, while viewing old e-mail on a frosty Sunday, I came upon a message I sent August 16, 2009 to Milwaukee columnist and entrepreneur, John Torinus.  Mr. Torinus has some terrific ideas about creating fiscal health and opportunity here in the Badger state.  However, I was piqued by something in his column last summer and I wrote to him:

"John,

While I agree with 95% of the column, the notion – apparently advanced by John Geanakoplos -- that the government ought to force “a write-down of principal on sub-prime home loans that are under water” is wrong. 

I recall hearing one of your presentations on healthcare and the insurance plans of yesteryear which offered no incentive to control costs (as opposed to high deductible plans many of us now have). You likened the situation to a 10 cent Martini night that you observed as a young Marine. Such arrangements, you reminded the audience, just might lead one to be “over-served.”

Well that’s precisely, the story of most sub-prime borrowers – they were over-served and just as no one forced you to drain too many martinis, no lender could force someone to buy more home than they could afford.

Of course, the rest of us who behave responsibly with our health and wealth, pay the price for those who don’t, but that’s fodder for another column.

To keep sub-prime borrowers in "their" homes - the ones with jobs anyway who may just need a little time - there are better options like converting them to renter status, interest only payment extensions, etc. But write down the principle? No. Doing so abets irresponsible behavior instead of suppressing it.

Tougher mortgage underwriting standards have already taken hold because far too many people, left to their own devices, will drink from the trough until they burst."

Noonan, Isaacson and Caro on Zakaria's program

It was quite a panel assembled today on Fareed Zakaria's Sunday cable program.  Mr. Zakaria typically focuses his program on foreign affairs, but today he turned his sights to the domestic political challenges of the Obama administration.

It was sort of a "Where did he go wrong and what should he do now?" theme addressed by three fine writers - Walter Isaacson, Peggy Noonan and Robert Caro. 

Mr. Caro asserted, "If Obama backs away from healthcare, he will have lost his ideals." 

On a personal note, I am a huge fan of Mr. Caro's work on LBJ.  (I wish he'd complete his book on the final years of Johnson's life soon.)  However, some might take exception with his reference today, to the "fifty million" Americans without health insurance, for two reasons. 

First, many tend to use interchangeably, the notion of "care and insurance" as Mr. Caro did, which obscures the debate. 

Second, the "fifty million" figure needs to be deconstructed and put it into perspective for a nation of 308 million people.  When one looks at "the number" which appears to be closer to 45 million than 50 million, and subtracts from it, the number of people falling under one of the following conditions:

• eligible for free or heavily subsidized health insurance, but won't take it
• takes free or heavily subsidized health insurance but reports to census takers they have no insurance
• can well afford traditional (non-subsidized) insurance, but chooses not to buy it
• are not American citizens

. . . one ought to reduce the 45 (or 50) million number, by at least 30 million people according to an analysis by former White House economic adviser, Keith Hennessey.  What remains, is the number of uninsured we have a duty to worry about and help, but that number approaches 15 million people, not 50 million people.

Perhaps we need not nationalize 1/6th of our economy against the wishes of most Americans to produce a policy that does nothing to lower costs.  Market reforms, tort reforms, increased patient responsibility and other measures could lower costs and improve the system.

Walter Isaacson (author of a critical but engrossing biography of Henry Kissinger) may have made the most practical prescription on today's program when he concluded, "The country is best governed and transformed from the center."

In time we'll know if Mr. Obama will heed this advice and succeed, or choose to double down on the current course.

Milwaukee's fiscal woes won't be solved by Dems' press releases

Published 1.15.2010 at Examiner.com

The primary reason I decided to support Scott Walker's bid for Governor last year is that he is one of the few state pols who "gets it." The "it" in this case -- is fiscal sanity.

I make no claim of neutrality, so when a Web article from the state Democratic machine came into view yesterday, I was naturally skeptical. The title alone was hair-raising, "Inmates Released, Public Safety Plans Cut: "Patchwork" Walker's Latest Hypocrisy Exposed by Political Ally"

The "Political Ally" referred to is Milwaukee County Sheriff, David A. Clarke Jr. -- another leader who also understands how to operate within his means.  My word, I wondered, what had County Executive Scott Walker done? The piece issued by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, references, "...a scathing letter to Walker" from Sheriff Clarke.

In the first place, the Sheriff's letter was addressed to several County supervisors and Mr. Walker, not solely to Mr. Walker, as the article implies.

Secondly, when the sum and substance of this piece didn't square with my own understanding of Mr. Walker's views, I looked to his Communications Director for Mr. Walker's official positions, which were described thus:

"The budget Scott presented for 2010 DID NOT include furlough days for Sheriff's deputies."

An amendment passed by the members of the County Board applied floating furlough days to everyone and it could not be line-item vetoed. The County Board are the ones that put this into Scott's budget.  

Now, the Sheriff has a series of actions he wants to take as an alternative to furlough days for deputies. Scott supports an alternative and has been working with his office for past few weeks.

Scott Walker WILL NOT and DOES NOT support the early release of inmates as part of an alternative plan. In fact, he would veto such a plan if approved by the County Board.

Instead, Scott will continue to work with the Sheriff's office to avoid the release of inmates - as well as furlough days"

Finally, I contacted Sheriff Clarke's office seeking comment on the "scathing" letter as described in the article in question, and the Sheriff responded through a representative that Sheriff Clarke,

“...is not going to politicize his budget and these conversations should definitely take place between himself, the County Board and the County Executive.”

Perhaps someone forgot to tell the Dems.

A Christmas greeting and a new domain...

I'd like to wish (all seven) readers of this blog, a safe and joyous Christmas season.  This site can now also be accessed at another domain: maddente.com 

God bless you and here's to a healthy and prosperous 2010!

Wikipedia image

Rick Santelli is right

Rick Santelli, CNBC

This morning I watched CNBC's Rick Santelli talking from the Chicago Board Of Trade.  His so-called, "Santelli Rant" has been watched on YouTube over a million times and his sentiments today, once again, represent the views of many Americans who believe in living within one's means -- it's how we were raised -- but we lack a microphone.

Rick Santelli was in fine form this morning while debating Steve Liesman.  The topic was banking reform and Mr. Santelli made a case for an elegantly simple cure -- raise the banks' capital requirements. 

Another CNBC commentator astutely chimed in that this is the same risk premium banks require when a homeowner has a marginal credit history -- the bank looks for more cash in the deal -- a bigger down payment to compensate for the risk of default.

Why can't we use the same mechanism to minimize chances of another banking meltdown?  Do we need new federal agencies, reams of new regulations, congressional hearings, class warfare speeches and on and on?  I realize that raising the amount of capital that banks must hold affects their profitability, but maybe it's a reasonable way to manage systemic risk.

Medellín, Columbia and Nixon

I've heard from friends with ties to Columbia, that conditions have dramatically improved across the country, although impressions of that nation's difficult past still linger around the world.  Tonight during Anthony Bourdain's show about Columbia, I watch as he visits Medellín and interviews locals - many of whom suffered enormously during the Pablo Escobar period of the 1980s.  The people appear proud, hopeful, even happy.  Mr. Bourdain says something to a local that reminds me of a rueful Richard Nixon speaking to White House staff in the final hours of his presidency:

"Only if you have been in the deepest valley, can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain." 

S/he who frames the healthcare debate...wins.

When the topic of healthcare reform took center stage this summer, I felt that "healthcare reform" had suddenly become code for "let's change health insurance." 

I was certain that I was missing something like the "3.5M jobs saved or created" metric I wrote about last March.  I thought I was the only one disturbed by how stimulus programs would be "measured" and conveyed by this administration because I wasn't witnessing views similar to my own. 

Surgeons, Wikipedia

In my opinion, the healthcare reform yardstick that counts, is the one that actually lowers healthcare costs for the greatest number of patients.  But that isn't how we frame the national debate and measure success or failure.  Is an expanded insurance pool run by the government going to achieve this goal?  I don't know, but uniformly lowering the cost of that pill, that surgery, that MRI, whatever it is -- would benefit us all.  I do not see how the House bill will lower health care costs.  

President Obama, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, etc. have successfully shifted the narrative from lowering healthcare costs, to demonizing the health insurance industry and expanding government control.  All this of course, delights their base.  If their bill passes, everyone will be 'covered' by virtue of a new mechanism.  That new mechanism is government-mandated, taxpayer funded, healthcare which is not reform at all -- unless one successfully frames the debate that way.