What you can do for your country

MSM - Have You no Sense of Decency?

I will probably never make it as a politician.  I don't do sound bites.  I do try to simplify points in the context of others perspective, but sound bites don't do it for me.  I am sure every politician is trained to respond in only very specific ways so that the media can't catch phrase and use it to wedge in their own agenda.

But, the time comes to stop routine. 

Day by day, almost accelerating now, the free press has given up on any form of critical thinking.  The press seems compelled to drive speed and controversy in a way that is destructive to their own purpose.  We as viewers let this happen.  Politicians let this happen.

My tipping point, as if there aren't 100's, was an NBC expose today on the RNC's expenditure of $1,900 for some club, $17K for a jet, and some other things.  NBC  went on to interview various democrats who said "And the Republicans think they should manage the nations money?".  Very cute, but.....  Nancy Pelosi flies back and forth from San Francisco and DC each week on a plane designed to care 250 passengers at a cost of probably a couple million per year.  She spent something like 200K in the last 2 years on food and beverages for the plane.  A rational person would say "So mister DNC person, what does it mean that Speaker Pelosi spent 200K on food for her plane?"

There are those great moments where after much frustration, leaders speak out and challenge the moment.  The Joe McCarthy Moment where Joseph Welch challenge the senator with the famous line:

"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

Or,the Reagan "I am paying for this microphone" moment. In these and other cases people paused and realized we were moving the wrong way.  These leaders rejected the powers in front of them and went a different direction.  We need more "Have you no sense of decency" moments, holding government accountable for its actions.  When people fear government, its called tyranny.  When government fears the people, its liberty.  Time for more liberty.

Politician and others need to ask questions of reporters, challenging the question they ask.  They need to challenge the reporters that have not done their job, are a mouth piece for a point of view, or simply lack critical thinking skills.  Here are some examples with a recommended challenge (We will call the reporter Jane or Joe):

Corporate Write-down for Health Care

Jane: Senator, It seems big corporations are trying to embarrass the president with these big write downs.  Rep. Waxman will hold a hearing.  How will these big companies justify their actions?

Senator: Jane, every corporation is legally bound to comply with a range of explicit accounting rules.  With the implementation of SOX, new criminal rules were put in place that directly impact the CEO and CFO.  Why aren't you asking Congressman Waxman why he failed to comprehend FASB, SOX and other financial regulations when he wrote the health care bill.  In the United States the Government is responsible to the people.  I am not sure why AT&T needs to show up in a hearing to explain US law to the congressman who wrote the bill?  Maybe he did not read it before he voted for it.

Bush Budget Deficit

Joe: Senator, President Obama arrived with an unprecedented financial crisis as a result of deficits run up by the Bush administration.  Isn't he doing what is needed to make up for those failures.

Senator: Joe, a large portion of the Bush deficits came about from the global war on terror.  That is an expenditure with a known end point, unlike something like health care which will go on forever.  You might recall, the global war on terror was a result of 3200 Americans dying in an attack on our country.  70% voted yes in the senate and congress for the Iraq war.  Do you understand the difference between a war and an entitlement?

Tea Party People Calling Congressman the N Word

Jane: Senator, with all the nasty comments being made by tea party members how do you see the country coming together to make progress.  Given this vindictive why should the government try to be bipartisan.

Senator: Jane, do you have any video showing these nasty comments in which a congressman was called the N word?  I assume it happened, but normally you all have video when reporting facts.  Or maybe a few corroborating sources? If we go back to the principle of a free press, the press is sort of focused on questioning government facts on behalf of the people.  So, I would ask you, should the President leverage unsubstantiated comments to push forward partisan legislation?  Does the press like being used as an arm of the government to achieve a partisan objective?

Deregulation

Joe: Senator, as a result of Bush Era deregulation the financial system is in Chaos, what other choice did President Obama have but to authorize all these stimulus programs

Senator:  Bush era deregulation?  Like Class Stiegle reform, which happened under Clinton?  Or the thousands of pages regulation added during the Bush administration?  Joe, which of the banks that have been bailed out were deregulated as a result of Class Stiegle? Which continued to operate under the old scope.  Do you know?  Do you care?  If you interview a single mortgage broker from the last few years, can you find one of them that thought the Government driven FHA no money down loans were safe?  Do you think these loans came about because of Bank deregulation or because of acts of Congress dating back 15+ years?

The "We the People Act"

Our congressional leaders have seen fit to implement the perfect health care system for the country, but have chosen not to make it applicable to the senior leadership of congress and their staff.  It is hard to justify this position.  

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress.  Many citizens had no idea that congressional operations and members of Congress are exempt from various laws or have special benefits such as:

• After 5 years of service, someone in Congress can retire with a pension salary 2-3 times greater than a similar executive that pays into social security (They did not participate in social security until 1984) also see NTUF Report
• Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
• Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act and Open Record Laws
• National Labor Relations Act of 1947
• The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
• Various building codes
• Various equal opportunity, equal employment and affirmative action laws
• Minimum wage

The Republicans fixed previous transgressions in 1995 under the Congressional Accountability Act.  However, the latest step to special privileges is to exempt congress from aspects of Health care Reform, specifically senior staff and legislators with respect to health exchanges.  Somehow, that doesn't seem logical.  We do not have an elite that is above the law. Some have proposed a constitutional amendment in a well meaning but error filled email.  The basic amendment is:

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States  Constitution:
Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States

Baring an amendment, perhaps instead, someone in the senate or the congress should propose the "We the People Act" removing limitations of laws applied to citizens but for some reason excluded from application to government.  Other rules might be:

1. No congressman shall be paid more than 4x the average wage of the American people
2. No senator shall be paid more than 4.5x the average wage of the American people
3. No "Earmark" may be authorized to the sole benefit of the sponsors district
4. All Senators and Congressman must sign an affidavit acknowledging if they have or have not read the entirety of the bill they are voting on

What rules would you add?

Is TSA really this clueless?

I was traveling the other day to a remote location in Michigan.  I live in a major city.  The principle airline is dramatically reducing traffic, so everyone has to go to the smaller concourse now to get a flight.  We were leaving at 6:00 am, which means we arrived for departure around 5:00 am on a Monday morning.  To my shock, there was a 50 min or so line going into security.  I have not seen one like that in a while.  As we finally got to security I also noticed two of the security/x-ray lines were not staffed.  I asked a TSA agent what was going on with such a long line.  The answer was "We are busy".  Hmmm.... "Busy", I guess the 50 min line should have been a clue.  So, I am thinking "They must know all these people are coming, because we have tickets.  The airline knows.  How come more TSA agents aren't on site to get us through quicker?"

On my return trip from Michigan, there was no line at the little airport.  As a matter of fact, I think there were three passengers and three TSA agents.  So, I ask the TSA agent "Do yo all know how many passengers are traveling".  She says "Yes".  I ask "How".  "Well, we record the number each day, around various times, and then estimate when people will travel".  "Do you get a list from the airline" I ask.  "No, but sometimes they tell us when they add or delete a flight" says she.

Some of you may have seen an article about using special antennas to monitor your progress in security lines based on the movement of your cell phone.  Blue-tooth emits a unique identifier that TSA can uses to find your position in line.  Civil libertarians are afraid its a violation of your privacy for TSA to track this data when you are in line.  So, TSA is trying to reconfigure the system so it does not store your phone identifier.

Now, lets put this all together.  TSA is supposed to track everyone who is flying so that we can prevent terrorists from getting on the plane.  Theoretically, TSA already knows your are in line at some point to get on that flight.  So what if they know your cell phone, they knew that already.  And you should probably already have your blue-tooth off, its sort of like screaming out your name in the hall and thinking no one will notice.  This is idiotic:

1. TSA shouldn't put the blue-tooth system in because the airline can tel them how many people are coming.  Screw the ACLU and just avoid the problem.
2. It the airline let TSA knows more people have reservations for a flight, they can/should add staff
3. More staff at busy times would probably also prevent omissions by security
4. TSA should probably also get a bonus based on keeping short lines, but then again they are government so efficiency is sort of a bad thing

Is this is how we plan to run health care?  We deserve to get our ass kicked by the Chinese if we are this clueless.

Obamacare: Competition just like Expedia.com....

I really don't understand that much in the world.  Most of my experience relates to innovation and creating businesses.  I have a good sense of politics, but don't understand how politicians can shift their opinions so readily.  I operate on a principle of facts.  When facts are limited, I operate on principles that have worked in other situations.  When faced with new options or ideas, I try to understand comparable situations.  I guess my lesson in life so far is that new ideas are a lot harder to implement than first imagined, so its worthy to understand the risks and design a system that avoids those risks.

As a human, I like the idea of everyone being able to see a doctor.  I believe everyone in this debate feels the same.  I also believe everyone should be allowed to eat, but I don't see taxing the rich to feed the poor.  So, on the issue of caring for my fellow man, can we say we are all on the same team?

If I were a racist.....
So, the question becomes how do we improve the environment so that more people can access health care if they choose?  I had a liberal MIT professor who studied housing projects in the late 60s.  He concluded that housing projects were a bad thing.  He was called to congress to get a whipping from Tip O'Neil.  After giving his testimony on his conclusions, the congressmen accused him of being a racist.  Perhaps an ivory tower academic who did not care for the less fortunate.  The Professor responded "Dear Mr. O'Neil, if I were a racist I would be for public housing!" 

You see, his conclusion was public housing concentrated together the part of the population having the hardest time operating in the economy.  It brought together the most challenged into a single crucible of despair.  Rather than intermixing these folks with mentors and more successful people, it placed unwed mothers along side of criminals, in which children looking for father figures sought out the worst models in society.

Just like Expedia.com......
I was watching Meet the Press on Sunday.  Steny Hoyer, was the guest.  After he wrongly asserted that polling showed the American people widely support health care, he said that health care reform was about creating open markets and competition.  I looked up his resume on his congressional site.  It had no information about his private sector experience, just a long list of accolades for political accomplishments (legislation not results).  I went to Wikipedia to get more details.  There I found his entire career has been in politics.  He got a law degree and then went into the state legislature.  Hmmm.....  Wonder where he got his experience understanding competition.  I don't know much about politics, but I do know a lot about competition and innovation in business, because its been my vocation for 20+ years.

This idea of an exchange seems to be the magic bullet to competition, at least that what Mr. Hoyer thinks.  I have heard him mention many times, "You can go on line and shop for health care just like getting a ticket on Expedia.  So, health care will be competitive".  He might want to think about this some more.  If putting up a web site was all it took there would be hundreds of Expedia like sites serving the public.  And maybe there are hundreds.  But to be successful, it takes skills beyond just putting up a web site, like unique access to plane tickets, long term contracts, proprietary deals, unique insight into customer behavior, presentation of customized solutions, etc.  Expedia needs to offer something unique to keep customers coming to it.  Expedia sells a fungible item, an airplane ticket from A to B.  You can sell a ticket on line because there is little debate about its quality and value.  The customer understands what is at A and B.  The customer knows why it is worth traveling there.  They understand essentially what kinds of planes there are.  They understand a great deal about the product, so buying airplane tickets on line works.

Last I checked, health care is a complex product.  Different people have widely different needs.  Insurance is a shared risk pool, so people offering health care have different offerings and criteria.  If Hoyer was right that an "Exchange" is the magic bullet to competition, why hasn't someone put up a "Health Care" exchange already?  Hmmm......

It is a system.....
The Health Care market is a system, change an incentive in one area and the rest of the system will adapt to the needs of the market.  Congress is stepping in with their list of constraints to control the system.  Congress seeks to offer health care to everyone, or most everyone, through various rules, regulations and taxes.  As they seek to expand care, they actually are constraining it.  At a macro level, there is a lot of innovation to come which will improve health care.  There is a lot of unfinished science.  So, as a system health care is not done innovating.  In markets where innovation is essentially complete, regulation helps.  In markets where innovation is incomplete, regulation disrupts and slows innovation.  And here are some reasons why.....

• Increased taxes on unearned income will cause investors to seek out tax free assets like Muni Bonds to shield wealth.  This will reduce the amount of money in high risk ventures.  This reduces taxable income and expected resources from the rich to cover health care costs, so the CBO forecast will be wrong.
• Taxes on innovation, like devices and drugs, reduces investment in drug companies and device companies.  Investors will go after other markets.  Reduction of next generation drugs and devices, which reduce health care labor content, will create pressure for more doctors, nurses and health care facilities.
• Constraint on Medicare/Medicaid fees for services will force health care operations to pass unpaid cost of care to the private care market.  This will increase costs for insurance companies, driving up premiums.
• Doctors, who's profit is constrained, will retire.  Fewer people will want to enter the health care profession because constraints on innovation and revenue constrain profit, which constrains salaries.  
• Higher demand for health care, which should drive health care salaries up, will meet price cap regulations, resulting in labor shortages and market based rationing
• The forced inclusion of young people may increase private insurance revenue, thought it is unclear against other reductions in innovation if this extra revenue outweighs new costs.  Ultimately SCOTUS will rule mandate unconstitutional.
• Requirements to accept pre-existing conditions, elimination of life time caps, etc will increase premiums
• Caps on insurance premiums with increased costs will constrain supply. Insurance companies will stop taking patients.
• With higher insurance premiums and restraint in supply of private insurance companies, businesses will elect to eliminate employer care and pay the fine
• Entrepreneurs looking for markets will avoid the constraints of the health care market, seeking riches elsewhere.  Health care innovation will decline

This is still a market in search of innovation.  The government is stepping in to regulate cost and delivery.  Government operates on 30-50 year regulatory cycles, very slow to change.  Innovators operate on 5-10 year cycles.  With increase control by government, innovators will look elsewhere for rational markets.  Taxes will drive down incentives for health care investment in R&D, driving demand for more labor.  Reduced salaries and other market constraints will cause the best and the brightest to go into other markets, much how the "Quants" moved from aerospace to Wall Street after the fall of Russia.

Hurting those you love the most......
Congress is seeking to expand care to help those without.  A good cause.  But, given how the market works the Health Care legislation will reduce the supply of doctors and technology, reducing quality of care overall.  More people will have insurance so to speak, but with declining quality.  Everyone will have an insurance card, but not everyone will be able to access health care because the constraints on talent, devices, and drugs a defacto form of rationing will occur (death panel or not).  The well off will seek care through private means.  The not well off will be stuck in the system, just like the "Housing Projects" stuck people in despair.  So in the end, we are trading one system for another system of care, but patients will be no better off. 

As defacto rationing ensues, the 30M with no insurance but some access to doctors will become 30M with insurance, but no access to doctors.  I wonder, in the end who is the one without passion for those without health care?

Opting out of Obamanomics.....

Lay-off letter from an excellent boss.

Dear Employees:

As the CEO of this organization, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barrack Obama is our President and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way. To compensate for these increases, our prices would have to increase by about 10%. But since we cannot increase our prices right now due to the dismal state of the economy, we will have to lay off sixty of our employees instead. This has really been bothering me since I believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who would have to go. So, this is what I did. I walked through our parking lots and found sixty 'Obama' bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks will be the ones to let go I can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem.

They voted for change......

I gave it to them.

I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.

THE BOSS

Evil rich guy who does not care, apparently.....

I am one of those evil successful people who needs to give his "Fair Share".  I have been listening to the health care debate.  I have read the giant bills congress has created, which seems like 2000+ pages to essentially say "We will force 240M Americans to pay for the insurance of 30M other Americans".  The more the press, politicians, etc talk about the Affordable Care Act, the more I feel like I am a bad guy in some way or manner.

Occasionally I have been at a dinner or some other social event when someone says, "Jim what do you do to contribute to society".  That's easy, "I create jobs".  To which they say, "No, what do you do for  for society? The poor and the indigent".  I thought I answered them the first time.

I do one thing very well and that is, help innovative ideas turn into full scale businesses that employee a lot of people, creates a lot of opportunity and pay a lot of taxes.  I have a specific talent for innovation and business creation.  I really don't do anything else well.  Occasionally I have thought I might become a rescue dog person, you know the kind that goes to earthquakes and helps find people with their German Shepard.  But, I really want to do that because I love training German shepherds.  I am not sure that counts for the "contribute to society" question.

I work very hard and do not take care of myself.  I pay all my taxes.  I don't try to play the “edge” on my taxes as I have a right to do.  I probably will drop dead of a heart attack at some point, so I doubt I will burden the health care system much.  I don't use my power to get to the front of the line.  I travel on commercial airplanes rather than private jets.  When people need help around me I find them jobs, give them money, or help in anyway that is appropriate.  But, President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Leader Reid, and others say I need to do more to help others.  I need to give them more money so they can offer health care to others.

When I do give money to a cause, I normally find that there is some form of acknowledgment by the institution (Did the IRS ever send you a “Platinum Card” thank you note?).  I am often asked to join the board to help the cause do more and expand its success.  I am asked for financial and intellectual contributions, respecting that my success in business might help the success in the cause.  I am not sure that is always correct, but it is what it is.....

So, our dear government, as you reach into my pocket let me give you the benefit of my 20+ years of business success creating 20K jobs, generating billions in revenue, collecting 3M+ frequent flyer miles, starting 30+ businesses, and paying millions in taxes.....

Its a "False Choice" to suggest health care is broken and this plan is the only fair way to provide health care to 30M.  My biggest lesson from business is to look for solutions that mitigate risk, not create them.  Given a choice of an Ivory Tower perfect plan vs. a mundane partial solution derived from market feedback, I take the mundane.  If the government wanted to deliver health care to more people, they should do what has worked in our economy (not Europe), like Health Savings Accounts.

Wal-Mart has done more to help society, by driving down food cost, than any government program.  The United States is unique in its ability to innovate.  Ironically, It appears that government doesn’t really care about the 30M uninsured.  Because if they really did, they would choose a low risk proven solutions (like HSAs) rather than unproven, innovation constraining, government intervention.  If government really cared about delivering affordable care to more people it would choose innovation over Government intervention.  There is no way for the CBO to properly score what will happen under the Affordable Care Act, because markets will not follow the Government doctrine:

• Entrepreneurs will pursue business elsewhere because innovators don't like a game that is fixed.  With less innovation, costs will go up. 
• The wealthy, responsible for paying for increased costs, will work less thus reducing the revenue (Tax receivables) forecast
• More free Helath Care will increase moral hazard, thus increasing cost
• Pre-existing condition requirements will increase insurance cost, directing anger towards health insurance companies, and driving for more government regulation, ultimately leading to government take over
• Government will never move at the speed of the market, as new technologies are developed or patient needs change it will take years for government to alter polices to allow health providers to provide better solutions.

I don't know what the motives are of those pushing for this health care bill, but I doubt it really has anything to do with better care.  It likely intends to increase government resources and congressional powers.  But as the person paying for it, I vote no.  And interestingly, I have the choice not to participate by not working.  I am not sure what the President will do next if I don't work.  Maybe he will require all successful people to gather at a work camp to deliver our services to the nation.  Unlikely.  All I can offer as an evil rich guy is: I am tired of others reaching into my pocket and telling me how I should behave, given that I have done everything possible to contribute to society by creating jobs and opportunity.  Congress has no moral high ground in this argument, but the do have the power.  Its a sad day.

Start at 8:00. Very good description of the real situation with politics and financial industry.

Come on, pass Healthcare, how else will you know what is in it?