Mark Stoiber R.I.P.

One week ago today, I was shocked and saddened to read the obituary of Mark Stoiber.  Mark Stoiber's cause of death was a Pulmonary Embolism. 

Mr. Stoiber was Co-Founder and President of The Sleep Wellness Institute, a successful Milwaukee-area operation that helps people with sleep apnea.  He was also a proud husband, father of three children and a man of quiet confidence, patience and intelligence.  Moreover, Mark Stoiber truly cared about others. 

It might be the most cruel paradox of this life, that a good man like Mark Stoiber is taken ten days before his 48th birthday, while countless bastards live peaceably into their nineties.  Why?  Maybe when we meet the Creator, we'll learn why.  

Class struggles, debt and happiness

Credit-related causes of the Great Recession included: lax underwriting standards (abetted by government programs and the GSEs), overuse of ARMs (because the borrower couldn't qualify for a fixed rate note), too much cash-out financing and artificially low interest rates.  Yet, the Wall Street factor (i.e. securitization of those obligations and excessive risk-taking) always seems to dominate the debate.  I disagree with that emphasis because:

1) the Wall Street factor already gets most of the attention in the press,
2) regulatory reform for banks is a foregone conclusion,
3) Wall Street's culpability came during and after credit issuance to subpar borrowers, not beforehand. 

It's the third point that is lost on some who look only at the Wall Street role in this unmitigated disaster.  The destruction could only have been possible with easy credit extended to in-over-their-heads borrowers, like our federal government -- that operates the same way -- in the red. 

Even today many journalists treat sympathetically, those homeowners who walk away from their mortgages when the principal amount owed, exceeds the current market value of a property.  That's disturbing.  (Experts say, that between 20 and 25 percent of all outstanding mortgages in this country are under water.)

Author User: Brendel at en.wikipedia.org

Excessive consumer debt and government debt affect the rest of us who keep our promises and pay our obligations.  Yet some debtors and their advocates continue to ply us with excuses.  I have given you examples, but here's another one, which I'll call the Jon Stewart excuse:  You can't fault them because they were just "optimistic" about the future.  (If you're an optimistic borrower with bad credit and thus in need of an empathetic co-signer; please seek out Mr. Stewart.)  I'm genuinely sympathetic to people who suffered tremendous misfortune that led their financial problems.  Examples may include catastrophic medical issues, sudden job loss or sudden death of a primary wage maker.  Their pain was not self-induced.  My belief, however, is that people in those unfortunate circumstances constitute a smaller percentage of the people defaulting on their obligations, than what's portrayed by Left-leaning observers. 

A new book by Arthur C. Brooks called, The Battle: How the Fight Between Free Enterprise and Big Government will Shape America's Future may add some perspective.  The book is reviewed by Matthew Continetti in the June 21 issue of National Review.  Mr. Continetti, an associate editor at The Weekly Standard in his article titled, "The Happiness of Pursuit" notes that Dr. Brooks thinks 30% of the American public believes "...free enterprise is unfair and the government ought to do more to ensure equal outcomes" and that wealth redistribution is a justifiable anecdote.  

Continetti notes that conservatives believe "redistribution is inefficient, or unfair to those from whom the money is taken, or a recipe for unlimited government".  He notes that Arthur Brooks has additional reasoning why redistribution fails in practice.  Based upon what Continetti calls an "abundance of empirical data" Brooks believes feelings of low self-worth, not inequality, actually make people unhappy and giving a man a fish not only won't help him fish, it won't help him feel good about himself either.  Brooks believes that earned success which he defines as, "the ability to create value honestly" is a proven prescription for happiness.

According to Brooks, 30% of Americans believe that wealth redistribution is justified.  That figure stuns me.  Apparently 30% of us do not realize (or care) that continuing down this slope could have apocalyptic repercussions for our current way of life -- a way of life that enabled America to flourish in the first place.  Perhaps despair and envy are the birth parents of all Socialist states.

Blessed again!

Wikipedia image

Another Progressive I've known as long as Mortimer (since childhood) read my last post - I'll call him "Cameron" - and he takes issue with my claim, "Wealth re-distribution is the Excalibur sword of most Progressives."  Cameron feels it is only reconciliation for "30 to 40 years" of growing disparity between the wealthy and the less fortunate.  Cameron's beef is summed up thus: "So John, I have a question for everyone out there that talks about this so called wealth redistribution. Based upon the facts I have cited, why was it okay for that wealth redistribution to go on during the 80's, 90's and into the 2000's, but now it's not when it goes the other way around?"

"Cameron,

Thanks for taking the time to read my last post and share your views.  I appreciate it.

Regarding CEO pay at the S&P 500; I don't feel it's a useful benchmark for a public policy discussion, because by definition, you are citing 500 companies to represent a national employment landscape that comprises over six million private employer companies.  That's hardly a reasonable sample, but let's talk about it anyway. 

(On a side note, I hear large public company CEO criticism often and find it interesting that few care about celebrity compensation like that paid to Oprah Winfrey or Alex Rodriguez - even though their pay dwarfs the average CEO paycheck and they don't create many jobs). 

Vastly undeserved executive compensation occurs to be sure, but it's really a matter for shareholders to deal with, isn't it?  After all, they own the company.  They can sell their shares, vote out the board, start a proxy fight, file lawsuits and do any number of things - and many do. 

Similar to any employee that just can't stand his/her Boss; vote with your feet, sue the bastard, etc. but again, let's not make policy for 300 million people based upon a handful of public company executives, lax boards, or apathetic stockholders.

I want to comment on two other items related to prosperity: housing and taxes.

More of our discretionary dollar goes to housing than anywhere else.  We were hardly raised in wealthy homesteads, Cam.  Our parents worked hard, but lived modestly by today's standards.  Perhaps a 1500 square foot bungalow on a postage stamp-sized lot, with two bedrooms, maybe three.  Can we agree on this description?  How do we live today?  More importantly, what has happened to American home sizes over this period you are pointing to? 

Researcher Moya Mason notes in a recent paper that while family sizes have decreased almost 25% over the last 30 years, the size of new houses actually increased over 50%.  This is consistent with my view of Americans in general.  Few of us are able to consume too little and the living standard has improved among all groups, since our childhood.

America has grown primarily through free markets, hard work and innovation - not government intervention.  I recognize this is traditional conservative orthodoxy and some don't like it, but it goes to the core of our disagreement.  You sound as though lower and middle third America have actually been exploited by the "top third."  How so, Cameron?  Think about income taxes (we can talk about taxes on property and consumption another day).

A column in the Wall Street Journal (April 14, 2010, `Spreading The Wealth Isn't Fair') by Arthur C. Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute alerts readers that last year, 38% of all Americans were expected to have zero tax liability.  They paid nothing in federal income taxes.  Under Mr. Obama's budget and other expected tax changes, this group of Americans that pay zip to federal coffers, is expected to grow to 46% in 2011 while the federal government continues to expand. 

Dr. Brooks also notes that according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, a full 60% of all Americans "consume more in government services than they pay in taxes."  And what about that top 5% of Americans earning more than the other 95%? These are the folks everyone loves to hate.  Well, they pay over half of all federal income taxes paid.  Yes, 5% of the tax paying public, pays over 50% of all federal income tax collected.

I understand the worry over a concentration of assets, but whether we advocate for the top third, bottom third, or middle third of America - we cannot tax our way to prosperity, or make transfer payments to reverse perceived inequities, unless we want to unwind the very system that facilitated America's rise. 

I'm going to close with part of that Arthur Brooks column:

"...our system is the envy of the world and should be a source of pride.  Generation after generation, it has rewarded hard work and good values, education and street smarts.  It has offered the world's most disadvantaged not government redistribution but a chance to earn their success."   (Words in bold my emphasis, not Brooks'). 

I can't improve on that statement, so I'll leave it there. 

Cam, I know we haven't resolved our debate, but I am excited about your visit this summer after not having seen you for so many years.  Please let me know your expected day(s) in town, so we can block the time and I can make the sauce.

Best,

John"

Blessed with friends on the other side

Wikipedia image

This post contains excerpts from an April 10 e-mail response to a dear friend of mine (edited for emphasis and anonymity). 

“Dear Mortimer,

I’ll say hello to the guys for you and I’ll be thinking about you this evening.

As for politics, yes, we tend to gravitate toward sources that share our views.  However, I also read the New York Times Op-ed pages and watch MSNBC (as hard as those tasks are for me).  I suppose you watch Fox on occasion and I know you read the WSJ – so good for both of us.  We try.  The state-sponsored education you cite that we both benefited from, came largely from our parents' sweat equity – translated into tax dollars – that funded the University of Wisconsin system. True, my friend.  But, I'm not arguing for zero taxation, or zero government involvement in our lives. 

When Progressives argue in favor of entitlement programs, they'll sometimes cite Social Security (under-funded as it is) to bolster their case.  They'll ask, “Well do you think Social Security is a Socialist program too?”  They actually think it’s a great gotcha question for fiscal conservatives.

The bone of contention, gets down to whom you trust with your money.  Progressives wish to give more of it to government because they believe it helps society and folks like me say....

"I don’t trust you because of your history.  Not only do you choke economic growth with your tax and spending policies, but your programs fail and are fraught with waste, fraud and abuse."

Did the Community Reinvestment Act and scores of Democratic initiatives like it enable the American dream for millions of people who otherwise would have been shut out of home ownership regardless of their honest intentions, hard work, and best efforts?   

Of the millions of foreclosures we've seen during The Great Recession, I believe the majority were assumed by reckless borrowers or cheats who had no business assuming those loans.  They lost “their” homes, tanked the market and made the climate more difficult for honest Americans who now - despite their best intentions - remain shut out of the market, perhaps for years.

A primary cause of our trouble was state-sanctioned, predatory borrowing that the Left now calls predatory lending, because their munificent scheme blew up. They brought the system to its knees and they still want to try again and again.  Today it’s health care, tomorrow its education and so on.

Wealth redistribution is the Excalibur sword of most Progressives, Mortimer.  Howard Dean admitted as much recently.  Their vision is not what made this country great and what’s more, all the anger you see out there – overwhelmingly coming from good people  – will not fade away.

I deplore violence and lawlessness and I will not partake in it, but I fear that with the warmer weather and a relentless Pollyanna in the White House, you’ll see things boil over this summer.  I hope I am wrong, but things are going to get uglier because many see their way of life at stake - and a revolution of sorts, is already underway.  How many Americans can take another 2+ years of “hope and change?”   You might be surprised at how palpable the anger and frustration is among the Right and the Center.  That is what I mean about this time being a little different. 

It's not just the GOP or former John Kerry critics -- it's a cross section of Americana.  I believe that their feelings about this administration, stoked by the economy, dwarf the anti-Bush anger we remember.

One last item Morty…

I care about others, you know that and I believe most Progressives have a heart as warm as mine and I include you among them.  I simply view most Progressives as honestly misguided on these matters - and you see me the same way - I get it.  It's a draw.  OK.

We also agree there are Wing Nuts on both sides.  However, if life comes down to helping your fellow man, consider that Conservatives believe government is simply not the way to salvation and its very nature is to give what it does not have, in order to stay in power.  Fannie, Freddie, free Fed money, and the like, it was all government conceived, packaged and delivered.  They just needed a little help from a few reckless Wall Street titans to package and insure the mess, in order to bring the whole temple down. 

But back to helping the less fortunate.  Consider that as a percentage of income, many observers believe Republicans give a larger percentage of their incomes to charity than Democrats.  If you doubt the assertion, check out this link…   I have not made a rigorous study of the question, but I think at best it's another draw, Mort.

Either way, too many Dems pretend that they belong to the party of compassion and that the GOP doesn't care.  That stifles productive debate, so thanks for never playing that nauseating card.

Gotta run...

Your devoted friend,

John“

Mark Neumann's time for a new goal

By WisPolitics.com - Mark Neumann 

Here's to Mark Neumann, a fiscal conservative and effective legislator with the best interests of the people in mind.  He's the kind of candidate we need to help take back our state from what Ayn Rand called, "the looters." The problem is that the Governor's job won't be his. Mr. Neumann's could instead challenge Russ Feingold for a Senate seat (that could have become his in 1998) and abandon his Gubernatorial ambitions.  The reasons are...

• The Walker forces are too strong, better funded and possesses support of the party leadership and the GOP rank and file.
• Mr. Walker has a very real chance of beating Mr. Barrett - you could cast more momentum his way, by throwing your support to the Walker campaign.
• Neumann is the only credible candidate with Washington experience and a chance to beat Feingold.  
• He lost to Mr. Feingold by a slim margin last time around. Feingold and other stalwarts in his party, are more vulnerable today.  

So, Mr. Neumann, please be a pragmatist.  You will not win the September primary anyway. There is still time to displace Mr. Feingold, but you must change horses....soon.

Kanjorski & Armey - a worthy dual.

This morning, while watching CNBC's Squawk Box (as I frequently do while dressing for work), I was struck by a welcome reminder that civility and reasoned political discourse still exist.

Democratic Congressman Paul Kanjorski and former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey debated.  The issues and the exchanges mattered less to me than the tone and outcome of the segment. 

Neither man gave much ground, but neither fell prey to stupid sniping or demagogic interruptions while the other man spoke.  Honest officials can put forth opposing views without acting like vicious morons.

I don't know if it is because Mr. Armey and Mr. Kanjorski were reared in an earlier era, or if actual maturity comes to one later in life.  All I know is this: Joe Wilson rants and Keith Olbermann types do us no good.  

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."