Is Britain's "Royal Family" a waste of taxpayer cash or good value for money?
The Daily Telegraph's take is here.
Don't be fooled, though: the figures they use do not even begin to cover the actual costs of maintaining the royals (i.e. they do not include security). Also, by virtue of birth, each member of the royal family has an "estate" from which they earn millions of pounds of personal income. So when you add it all up, these ribbon-cutting clowns (our sentiment shining through yet?) cost a pretty pound indeed.
Perhaps this explains why so many in this country are dependent on benefits-for-nothing and government handouts: it is the behavior modeled by the queen!
Monday, June 29, 2009
Jack-o
Even The Informed Voter can join the fray of news organizations covering Michael Jackson's demise, with this semi-plausible connection to politics:
Verily, We Are All Sinners
The Democrats have Spitzer and John Edwards--and going back further, most famously Bill Clinton.
But it often seems like the GOP has more high profile members who end up buying crystal meth from gay hookers, sexting with young boys, or say, popping down to Buenos Aires for a few days. TPM put together this best-of-the-worst slideshow of sex scandals from the party of "family values," highlighting one more reason why the GOP brand may be suffering in the last few years.
But it often seems like the GOP has more high profile members who end up buying crystal meth from gay hookers, sexting with young boys, or say, popping down to Buenos Aires for a few days. TPM put together this best-of-the-worst slideshow of sex scandals from the party of "family values," highlighting one more reason why the GOP brand may be suffering in the last few years.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Sorry, Guv'nor
The Mark Sanford revelations are a nice dose of schadenfreude for Dems as the GOP throw away their telegenic and seemingly innocuous 2012 offerings (Sanford and Ensign, to name two taken down by adultery in the last two weeks) and are left with Palin and Gingrich (for a very funny take, check out Gail Collins today).
Also, take three minutes to check out this Colbert Report before they found Sanford, where Stephen crowns himself governor and admonishes Sanford for going on the Appalachian Trail and "Henry David Thoreau-ing" away his career.
Also, take three minutes to check out this Colbert Report before they found Sanford, where Stephen crowns himself governor and admonishes Sanford for going on the Appalachian Trail and "Henry David Thoreau-ing" away his career.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Governor Alert - The Search for Mark Sanford | ||||
| ||||
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Barring Any Unforeseen Circumstances...
Reports today that Palin may not run for governor in 2010 to free up her schedule for other political ambitions.
As one local pol put it: barring some "unforeseen collapse on the national stage' Palin won't run again for governor.
Didn't Palin already collapse on the national stage? If Republicans still think she has national standing (not notoriety) and that she can win, that would be fantastic...Obama can win that race any day. But I am afraid that too many GOPers already know her 15 minutes are up, and will look beyond her, and beyond Jindal, for 2012.
As one local pol put it: barring some "unforeseen collapse on the national stage' Palin won't run again for governor.
Didn't Palin already collapse on the national stage? If Republicans still think she has national standing (not notoriety) and that she can win, that would be fantastic...Obama can win that race any day. But I am afraid that too many GOPers already know her 15 minutes are up, and will look beyond her, and beyond Jindal, for 2012.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Warning Signs
A sign that the "green shoots" in the market may be stymied before they get out of the ground: in the U.K., Barclays and other lenders are raising mortgage interest rates. Banks, which have been under pressure to lend after receiving government bailouts, are struggling to hold up their end of the bargain--and if banks aren't lending, recovery isn't here yet.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Charlie Wilson's War
From time to time we post reviews of politically-themed movies on the site, but nobody does a better job reviewing films then friend-of-the-blog Josh Edelglass at www.motionpicturescomics.com. So when he covers a movie with even a tenuous connection to politics, we are always happy to send our readers his way. This week, check out his review of Charlie Wilson's War (click here for the review).
Filet d' Equine, Medium Rare
From the department of "Surely-There-are-Higher-Priorities": the EU wants horse owners to sign a pledge not to eat their animals.
Zebras will also be included in the legislation.
Zebras will also be included in the legislation.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Different Strokes
As the U.S. bails everyone and their mother out of financial trouble (including U.S. and global firms), Europe is starting to focus on cutting deficits.
Is Europe taking the lead on a more sober course to recovery? Or are they just free-loading on the back of U.S. intervention?
Is Europe taking the lead on a more sober course to recovery? Or are they just free-loading on the back of U.S. intervention?
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
It's Not All Doom and Gloom
A summary of late-night's funny jabs at the Iranian election ruckus:
Conan O'Brien: President Ahmadinejad is claiming that he won, causing a lot of controversy. Some people say that Ahmadinejad cheated a little bit. They’re now that saying weeks before the election President Ahmadinejad distributed 400,000 tons of potatoes to voters in rural areas. Who knew he’d be put over the top by the Iranian-Irish vote?
Craig Ferguson: Election returns are kind of hard to believe. According to the numbers, both opposition candidates lost to Ahma-Dinna-Jacket in their hometowns. That’s like Barack Obama losing in the city of Chicago. I’m not, in any way, suggesting Iranian politics are as corrupt as Chicago, but even Blagojevich is like, “Oh, they’re good.”
Jimmy Fallon: Well, the results from Iran’s presidential elections are in. And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared victory. But his opponent, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, is claiming ballot fraud and wants an investigation. If that doesn’t work, he’s planning on making a documentary about global warming.
Conan O'Brien: President Ahmadinejad is claiming that he won, causing a lot of controversy. Some people say that Ahmadinejad cheated a little bit. They’re now that saying weeks before the election President Ahmadinejad distributed 400,000 tons of potatoes to voters in rural areas. Who knew he’d be put over the top by the Iranian-Irish vote?
Craig Ferguson: Election returns are kind of hard to believe. According to the numbers, both opposition candidates lost to Ahma-Dinna-Jacket in their hometowns. That’s like Barack Obama losing in the city of Chicago. I’m not, in any way, suggesting Iranian politics are as corrupt as Chicago, but even Blagojevich is like, “Oh, they’re good.”
Jimmy Fallon: Well, the results from Iran’s presidential elections are in. And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared victory. But his opponent, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, is claiming ballot fraud and wants an investigation. If that doesn’t work, he’s planning on making a documentary about global warming.
I Ran...I Ran So Far Away
The recent upheaval in Iran is exactly the type of geopolitical volatility we predicted would result from the economic crisis: with the regime's money spigot turned off, many Iranians are no longer content directing their rage at the U.S. and Israel.
Ross Douthat, the new Times columnist, writes that stagnating GDP, joblessness, and inflation are the root causes of the challenge to Ahmadinejad, and that the obvious election fraud may permanently discredit the clerical leadership.
It is too early to tell, but the geopolitical shift may in fact be favorable for the West--a lucky turn indeed, if it is true.
Ross Douthat, the new Times columnist, writes that stagnating GDP, joblessness, and inflation are the root causes of the challenge to Ahmadinejad, and that the obvious election fraud may permanently discredit the clerical leadership.
It is too early to tell, but the geopolitical shift may in fact be favorable for the West--a lucky turn indeed, if it is true.
Monday, June 15, 2009
A Health Care Post Script
We are heartened that The New York Times' Editorial Board has taken notice of our humble little blog. How else would they have heard about Atul Gawande's excellent article in the New Yorker about health care that we urged you to read last week?
On Sunday, they posted the following:
"There is disturbing evidence that many [doctors] do a lot more than is medically useful — and often reap financial benefits from over-treating their patients. No doubt a vast majority of doctors strive to do the best for their patients. But many are influenced by fee-for-service financial incentives and some are unabashed profiteers."
Now, we certainly don't adovocate a witch hunt to find out which of America's doctors are behaving unethically. But we do advocate adjusting the structure of our health care system so that doctors aren't given incentives to push un-needed medical procedures in order to line their pockets. This is a goal that is well within reach of policy makers, and it will save the taxpayers' millions (not even Newt Gingrich could complain about that!).
One more reason to read Gawande's article: according to the Times, it "has become must reading at the White House." As well it should!
On Sunday, they posted the following:
"There is disturbing evidence that many [doctors] do a lot more than is medically useful — and often reap financial benefits from over-treating their patients. No doubt a vast majority of doctors strive to do the best for their patients. But many are influenced by fee-for-service financial incentives and some are unabashed profiteers."
Now, we certainly don't adovocate a witch hunt to find out which of America's doctors are behaving unethically. But we do advocate adjusting the structure of our health care system so that doctors aren't given incentives to push un-needed medical procedures in order to line their pockets. This is a goal that is well within reach of policy makers, and it will save the taxpayers' millions (not even Newt Gingrich could complain about that!).
One more reason to read Gawande's article: according to the Times, it "has become must reading at the White House." As well it should!
Friday, June 12, 2009
True Costs
In last week's New Yorker, Atul Gawande (himself a doctor) tackles the issue of healthcare costs, and presents an interesting conundrum: how is it that the per patient spend for residents of McAllen, Texas, a poor border town, is one of the highest in the whole country? And does that mean that they receive better care? Bet you can guess the answer. We strongly urge you to read the entire article, but here we post a couple of intriguing snippets:
"The primary cause of McAllen’s extreme costs was, very simply, the across-the-board overuse of medicine. This is a disturbing and perhaps surprising diagnosis. Americans like to believe that, with most things, more is better. But research suggests that where medicine is concerned it may actually be worse. For example, Rochester, Minnesota, where the Mayo Clinic dominates the scene, has fantastically high levels of technological capability and quality, but its Medicare spending is in the lowest fifteen per cent of the country—$6,688 per enrollee in 2006, which is eight thousand dollars less than the figure for McAllen."
Why is this? Because at the Mayo Clinic doctors work together (without personal financial incentive) to coordinate the best treatment for patients. Not so in places like McAllen, where a more 'entrepreneurial' spirit presides. A memorable analogy from Mr. Gawande:
"Providing health care is like building a house. The task requires experts, expensive equipment and materials, and a huge amount of coördination. Imagine that, instead of paying a contractor to pull a team together and keep them on track, you paid an electrician for every outlet he recommends, a plumber for every faucet, and a carpenter for every cabinet. Would you be surprised if you got a house with a thousand outlets, faucets, and cabinets, at three times the cost you expected, and the whole thing fell apart a couple of years later? Getting the country’s best electrician on the job (he trained at Harvard, somebody tells you) isn’t going to solve this problem. Nor will changing the person who writes him the check."
Incidentally, at the moment the number one article at the New York Times website is Nicholas Kristof's Thursday editorial on one American woman's experience with national health care in Canada. It is also well worth a lunchtime read.
"The primary cause of McAllen’s extreme costs was, very simply, the across-the-board overuse of medicine. This is a disturbing and perhaps surprising diagnosis. Americans like to believe that, with most things, more is better. But research suggests that where medicine is concerned it may actually be worse. For example, Rochester, Minnesota, where the Mayo Clinic dominates the scene, has fantastically high levels of technological capability and quality, but its Medicare spending is in the lowest fifteen per cent of the country—$6,688 per enrollee in 2006, which is eight thousand dollars less than the figure for McAllen."
Why is this? Because at the Mayo Clinic doctors work together (without personal financial incentive) to coordinate the best treatment for patients. Not so in places like McAllen, where a more 'entrepreneurial' spirit presides. A memorable analogy from Mr. Gawande:
"Providing health care is like building a house. The task requires experts, expensive equipment and materials, and a huge amount of coördination. Imagine that, instead of paying a contractor to pull a team together and keep them on track, you paid an electrician for every outlet he recommends, a plumber for every faucet, and a carpenter for every cabinet. Would you be surprised if you got a house with a thousand outlets, faucets, and cabinets, at three times the cost you expected, and the whole thing fell apart a couple of years later? Getting the country’s best electrician on the job (he trained at Harvard, somebody tells you) isn’t going to solve this problem. Nor will changing the person who writes him the check."
Incidentally, at the moment the number one article at the New York Times website is Nicholas Kristof's Thursday editorial on one American woman's experience with national health care in Canada. It is also well worth a lunchtime read.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Call and Response
Karl Rove makes the five key arguments Republicans should use to fight a public option as part of the health care solution (with comments):
1) A public option is not necessary because there is already lots of competition. [This is a weak argument because the private market also has different incentives, namely, to deny coverage. The better argument is that proponents of health care should form a not-for-profit insurer; this in theory would allow for a more ethically-aligned industry that provided good care.]
2) A public option will undercut private insurers because they pay less. [This would seem to be a good thing, right?: if government can get away with paying less because it is effectively the largest insurer, costs come down for everybody. Just adding the uninsured alone would make this a powerful bloc for buying services, prescription drugs, etc.]
3) A public option would "crater" the private market since many employers would abandon plans. [Wal-mart and others have not supported universal health care out of a strong concern for employee health, so this is probably true. Of course, separating health care from employment might be a good thing. And employers competing for talent will offer supplemental coverage, as they do in countries with national plans: there will always be a two-tier system with faster access and premium care for those with more money.]
4) The public option is more expensive. [This argument alleges that the lower prices paid by Medicare to doctors and hospitals are effectively subsidized by private insurers who pay more. In any case, one thing Hillary got right last time around was that any move toward universal health should go hand in hand with a change in doctor liability. If we can reduce malpractice premiums doctors can make comparable incomes on lower fees, and maybe even enjoy their practice more.]
5) A public option puts the government between patients and doctors. [The Republicans' favorite bogeyman in the healthcare debate. It is true that the government will need to decide what services it pays for and how much it pays, just as they do with Medicare and as private insurers do (anybody with private insurance think their coverage is carte blanche?). Any insurance provider, public or otherwise, will always make choices on the relative value of services, period.]
So that's the Turd Blossom play book. To us the most astonishing thing in the whole piece is what is not said: there is no acknowledgement that the current system does not work for most Americans (especially in an economy when we are all one pink slip away from being uninsured).
Our ideas about how public health can be best served have evolved a lot over the last two years living in the U.K. The National Health System (NHS) is not perfect, but it is pretty damn good. And compared to a system that ties your health to great financial risk, and a good chance of being hung out to dry on needed care, it is sublime.
1) A public option is not necessary because there is already lots of competition. [This is a weak argument because the private market also has different incentives, namely, to deny coverage. The better argument is that proponents of health care should form a not-for-profit insurer; this in theory would allow for a more ethically-aligned industry that provided good care.]
2) A public option will undercut private insurers because they pay less. [This would seem to be a good thing, right?: if government can get away with paying less because it is effectively the largest insurer, costs come down for everybody. Just adding the uninsured alone would make this a powerful bloc for buying services, prescription drugs, etc.]
3) A public option would "crater" the private market since many employers would abandon plans. [Wal-mart and others have not supported universal health care out of a strong concern for employee health, so this is probably true. Of course, separating health care from employment might be a good thing. And employers competing for talent will offer supplemental coverage, as they do in countries with national plans: there will always be a two-tier system with faster access and premium care for those with more money.]
4) The public option is more expensive. [This argument alleges that the lower prices paid by Medicare to doctors and hospitals are effectively subsidized by private insurers who pay more. In any case, one thing Hillary got right last time around was that any move toward universal health should go hand in hand with a change in doctor liability. If we can reduce malpractice premiums doctors can make comparable incomes on lower fees, and maybe even enjoy their practice more.]
5) A public option puts the government between patients and doctors. [The Republicans' favorite bogeyman in the healthcare debate. It is true that the government will need to decide what services it pays for and how much it pays, just as they do with Medicare and as private insurers do (anybody with private insurance think their coverage is carte blanche?). Any insurance provider, public or otherwise, will always make choices on the relative value of services, period.]
So that's the Turd Blossom play book. To us the most astonishing thing in the whole piece is what is not said: there is no acknowledgement that the current system does not work for most Americans (especially in an economy when we are all one pink slip away from being uninsured).
Our ideas about how public health can be best served have evolved a lot over the last two years living in the U.K. The National Health System (NHS) is not perfect, but it is pretty damn good. And compared to a system that ties your health to great financial risk, and a good chance of being hung out to dry on needed care, it is sublime.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
From A Guy Who Used to Drive a Chrysler LeBaron Convertible...
Jon Voigt calls Obama a "false prophet." Bold call from a well-known male prostitute who hangs out on 42nd street in Times Square.
Editor's Note: By chance the editors saw "Midnight Cowboy" last week. Despite its Best Picture nod, we can confidently say that the movie was awful and that Jon Voigt was not a particularly good actor.
Editor's Note: By chance the editors saw "Midnight Cowboy" last week. Despite its Best Picture nod, we can confidently say that the movie was awful and that Jon Voigt was not a particularly good actor.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Gushing (Briefly)
How cool is this: I head whistles and sirens this afternoon and looked outside my office window. What do I see: Michelle Obama's motorcade passing by! I could clearly see Sasha Obama and her grandmother in a heavily armored SUV, accompanied by a nimble but heavily-armed armada.
Let the Eagles Soar
Be sure to check out the Colbert Report this week, with episodes shot in Baghdad. Readers who live outside the U.S. can watch the episodes on iTunes (unlike the Daily Show, Colbert is still blocked over here); proceeds this week go to an organization close to our heart: the USO.
A So-So Endorsement
David Brooks endorses Sonia Sotomayor, saying she has a "clear and honest if unimaginative mind" and that her opinions, carefully considered, reflect a strong bias for precedent with a dose of judicial incrementalism.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Inside Tour
Missed MSNBC's "Inside the Obama White House" tour? We did, too, and plan on catching it online here. I wonder if Bartlett, C.J., Leo, Josh , or Toby will be wandering around?
Have You Heard the Good News?
The uptick in the stock market has been a nice change after many days and months of downward momentum. This rally is a bit disconcerting, though, built on what has felt like a house of cards (it started with an announcement that Citi had a profitable month...a month!) by a market tired of bad news.
Something didn't smell right--we guessed the banks were not fully writing down expected losses?--and now we have an excellent Bloomberg magazine article explanation of the underpinnings of recent bank "profitability." Surprise, surprise, accounting changes that allow a bit more art and a bit less science are at the heart of recent "improvements."
These changes may give the market a long enough breather to restore confidence, stop the slide, and get things back on track. Or, by masking the true, underlying problems, the changes may actually cause further deterioration and harm to the U.S. economy by delaying the day of reckoning.
Let's all hope it is the first. But we fear it is the second.
Something didn't smell right--we guessed the banks were not fully writing down expected losses?--and now we have an excellent Bloomberg magazine article explanation of the underpinnings of recent bank "profitability." Surprise, surprise, accounting changes that allow a bit more art and a bit less science are at the heart of recent "improvements."
These changes may give the market a long enough breather to restore confidence, stop the slide, and get things back on track. Or, by masking the true, underlying problems, the changes may actually cause further deterioration and harm to the U.S. economy by delaying the day of reckoning.
Let's all hope it is the first. But we fear it is the second.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Whose Side Are You On?
The Daily Show provides coverage of Obama's "Muslim" speech in Cairo, checking in the the extremist reaction...at Fox News.
Have a good weekend!
Have a good weekend!
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Looking for Comity in the Muslim World | ||||
| ||||
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Time Bomb
If you have a few minutes this morning check out this slightly technical but important-to-understand macroeconomic problem: the rising cost of government borrowing.
The summary: there is a supply-demand curve for money, just as there is for any good. Massively increased demand from governments worldwide is pushing up the price of money (the interest rate), making government debt more expensive to service, and increasing personal borrowing costs, too (think twice before taking a tracker or short-term fixed mortgage). The hope is that major economic growth will bring in more tax revenues over time, allowing the government to pay off its debts and keep funding programs; if this does not happen, then governments will have to raise taxes and/or cut spending to continue its functions and service the debt.
The summary: there is a supply-demand curve for money, just as there is for any good. Massively increased demand from governments worldwide is pushing up the price of money (the interest rate), making government debt more expensive to service, and increasing personal borrowing costs, too (think twice before taking a tracker or short-term fixed mortgage). The hope is that major economic growth will bring in more tax revenues over time, allowing the government to pay off its debts and keep funding programs; if this does not happen, then governments will have to raise taxes and/or cut spending to continue its functions and service the debt.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Brooks on GM
David Brooks, in a column that even we missed on Monday, clearly and concisely explains why government ownership of GM is a bad idea.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
The General (R.I.P.)
We argued on this site that GM should go into pre-packaged bankruptcy a long time ago (a single example from December 12, here). We also warned that the restructuring should be severe and fast--enough so that private money could support the new company.
While none of the options on the table were very good, the end result, a pre-packaged bankruptcy combined with virtually unlimited government support, will likely prove a very bad choice.
As a threshold issue, consider this: would you invest in or lend money to GM, even a GM that is promising (for the umpteenth time) to reorganize its way into profitability? Us neither, and yet we have collectively just made an enormous investment with our tax dollars.
There are a number of reasons why the plan is a bad idea, but I am especially concerned that the restructuring seems unlikely to work from a brand management or operational standpoint (see our views on the Car Czar) and that the plan overly focuses on preserving jobs and meeting health care obligations.
I had not put all the pieces together until yesterday's profile of the 31 year old Obama official who is effectively championing the restructuring proposals for Chrysler and GM. Maybe it is just professional jealousy--as a 31 year old M.B.A. grad with an interest in cars and politics how could I not be?--but I think Mr. Deese, and the Obama administration have got this wrong.
The problem is not the math, which suggests that it is cheaper to sustain GM as a going concern that to absorb tens of thousands of workers on unemployment, add their pension liabilities to the guarantee system, etc. The problem is the very premise that the government should lend money to the auto industry--and the seeming failure of the "car team" to challenge the underlying assumption.
As an owner, the government must look out for its interests, weighing economic considerations (keeping down unemployment costs, for example) and, more troubling, political implications (Democrats cosy relationship with organized labor is no secret). But the government's interests may stand in the way of a serious restructuring led by private capital and expertise, especially if there is no political will to lay off thousands of redundant union workers, close plants in key congressional districts, and shed moribund brands. What's best for the government, may not be best for G.M., since the most effective course for the company will be very, very painful and require fresh, motivated capital, sensitive to the marketplace and not just interest groups (it is an odd way indeed to spend this many billion to develop fuel-efficient cars).
What would I do differently? For starters, I would focus all of the Administration's energy on passing health care reform. G.M.'s enormous health care obligations--one of the reasons for preserving the company--would be a much smaller concern if laid-off workers knew that they would have good health care coverage, subsidized if necessary.
To save jobs and protect workers, the government should focus on things that only the government can do: invest in a better safety net for the affected workers, including re-training (in exchange for public service?) and building a sustainable social security system not subject to the vagaries of the population ebb and flow.
Instead, the government has doubled-down on the proposition that G.M. is too big to fail, and will now be forced to make all kinds of bad choices resulting from this premise, instead of just letting natural selection sort out a failed company.
While none of the options on the table were very good, the end result, a pre-packaged bankruptcy combined with virtually unlimited government support, will likely prove a very bad choice.
As a threshold issue, consider this: would you invest in or lend money to GM, even a GM that is promising (for the umpteenth time) to reorganize its way into profitability? Us neither, and yet we have collectively just made an enormous investment with our tax dollars.
There are a number of reasons why the plan is a bad idea, but I am especially concerned that the restructuring seems unlikely to work from a brand management or operational standpoint (see our views on the Car Czar) and that the plan overly focuses on preserving jobs and meeting health care obligations.
I had not put all the pieces together until yesterday's profile of the 31 year old Obama official who is effectively championing the restructuring proposals for Chrysler and GM. Maybe it is just professional jealousy--as a 31 year old M.B.A. grad with an interest in cars and politics how could I not be?--but I think Mr. Deese, and the Obama administration have got this wrong.
The problem is not the math, which suggests that it is cheaper to sustain GM as a going concern that to absorb tens of thousands of workers on unemployment, add their pension liabilities to the guarantee system, etc. The problem is the very premise that the government should lend money to the auto industry--and the seeming failure of the "car team" to challenge the underlying assumption.
As an owner, the government must look out for its interests, weighing economic considerations (keeping down unemployment costs, for example) and, more troubling, political implications (Democrats cosy relationship with organized labor is no secret). But the government's interests may stand in the way of a serious restructuring led by private capital and expertise, especially if there is no political will to lay off thousands of redundant union workers, close plants in key congressional districts, and shed moribund brands. What's best for the government, may not be best for G.M., since the most effective course for the company will be very, very painful and require fresh, motivated capital, sensitive to the marketplace and not just interest groups (it is an odd way indeed to spend this many billion to develop fuel-efficient cars).
What would I do differently? For starters, I would focus all of the Administration's energy on passing health care reform. G.M.'s enormous health care obligations--one of the reasons for preserving the company--would be a much smaller concern if laid-off workers knew that they would have good health care coverage, subsidized if necessary.
To save jobs and protect workers, the government should focus on things that only the government can do: invest in a better safety net for the affected workers, including re-training (in exchange for public service?) and building a sustainable social security system not subject to the vagaries of the population ebb and flow.
Instead, the government has doubled-down on the proposition that G.M. is too big to fail, and will now be forced to make all kinds of bad choices resulting from this premise, instead of just letting natural selection sort out a failed company.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Potato Chip Confirmation
A funny little op-ed reporting on a British court's recent decision that Pringles are, in fact, potato chips. The question was relevant because Value Added Tax (VAT) is chargeable on prepared goods (in this case, chips, or crisps as they are called here) whereas ingredients and some other products are not taxed at all (the absence of VAT and sales tax is why our grocery bill is much lower here than in the U.S.A.).
The author uses the case to present a nice example of how the terms American politicians throw around to describe judges (like "strict constructionist" and "activist") do not make much sense. Interpretation, even strictly done, requires judgment, and the ability to synthesize fact, statute, precedent, and intent into a coherent whole. If you did not go to law school (anybody left who hasn't?), this op-ed will make the Sotomayor hearings--and debates about judges generally--much more accessible.
The author uses the case to present a nice example of how the terms American politicians throw around to describe judges (like "strict constructionist" and "activist") do not make much sense. Interpretation, even strictly done, requires judgment, and the ability to synthesize fact, statute, precedent, and intent into a coherent whole. If you did not go to law school (anybody left who hasn't?), this op-ed will make the Sotomayor hearings--and debates about judges generally--much more accessible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
