Thursday, November 25, 2010

Thanksgiving Newsbites: Nov. 25, 2010


Happy Thanksgiving...!
Posted by at

6 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572404575634750552843856.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLESecond

[I]f you think TSA is dysfunctional and unpopular now, wait until it unionizes.

This month, the Federal Labor Relations Authority ruled that 50,000 TSA personnel will be allowed to vote on whether or not to join a union with full collective bargaining rights. The American Federation of Government Employees and the National Treasury Employees Union are already gearing up their campaigns to win over the screeners.

* FOLKS, THIS IS INSANITY. THIS IS YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ATTEMPTING TO DESTROY THE SYSTEM BY OVERWHELMING THE SYSTEM. COM'ON... SERIOUSLY... THE LEVEL OF MUNICIPLE/GOVERNMENT UNIONIZATION WHICH ALREADY EXISTS IS A DISASTER IN THE MAKING; THIS LATEST MOVE ADDS FUEL TO THE FIRE!

After 9/11, Congress wisely decided to forbid TSA employees from coming under union work rules out of fear that it could compromise security. Imagine if every change in procedures had to be cleared with union shop stewards. While it is not easy to fire TSA personnel now, just think how difficult it will be to remove bad employees if they are covered by union job protection agreements.

(*SIGH*)

But in 2007, the new Democratic Congress eliminated the ban on collective bargaining, and as soon as Barack Obama became president in 2009 his appointees began pushing unionization for TSA. Last year, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano admitted in Congressional testimony that she backs collective bargaining rights for TSA employees, overriding the considered judgment of all previous TSA administrators that such rights are at cross-purposes with the flexibility TSA needs to meet certain threats.

* FOLKS... (*SIGH*)... WHAT WE SHOULD REALLY BE DISCUSSING IS ABOLISHING HOMELAND SECURITY. IT'S SIMPLY ANOTHER LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT. LET THE CIA OPERATE - WITH THE APPROPRIATE OVERSIGHT - INTERNALLY TO COMBAT TERRORISM FROM OVERSEAS. FOLLOW THE ISRAELI MODEL AND PRIVATIZE AIRPORT SECURITY. STANDARDS WILL RISE AND EFFICIENCY WILL GROW.

November 25, 2010 at 9:50 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704369304575632340503669062.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

If Dublin's problem was too much debt, how can it help to take on more?

* BRAVO...! GOD BLESS THE AUTHOR (GEOFFREY WOOD, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS EMERITUS AT CASS BUSINESS SCHOOL IN LONDON) FOR HIS BILL-LIKE QUESTION!

To understand whether Europe's bailout of Ireland will do the country any good, it helps to remember how Ireland got into its predicament in the first place. Back around the time when Britain's Northern Rock and then Iceland's financial industry got into trouble, a run started on Irish banks. Dublin stepped in and guaranteed all bank debts - not just retail deposits, but everything, including commercial deposits and bonds.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Not surprisingly the run stopped, temporarily.

* "TEMPORARILY" BEING THE KEY WORD! (*SNORT*)

With a deficit north of 30% of gross domestic product, the Irish government was already stretched to the limits of what it can borrow to prop up the banks. With planned budget cuts of about €15 billion over the next four years to bring its deficit under control, further fiscal tightening to pay for more bank aid was perhaps not politically feasible for the Irish government. It seemed possible that the Irish economy, however hard it was willing to try, might actually not be able to repay its debts. This fear sparked another run on Irish banks, triggering this week's emergency loan from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.

Now, if Ireland's problem was too much debt, how can taking on more debt help? There is only one answer - the new loan must be on terms so generous, i.e., lower interest rates over a longer maturity, that it can be repaid more easily than the old debt. The EU/IMF package must also be bigger than the old debt, so that it can be used to partially repay old loans and to recapitalize the Irish banks.

* OH... AND SINCE THE PROFESSOR HASN'T MENTIONED IT YET... THERE'S THE MATTER OF THE COST TO THE LENDER! YES... DOES THE LENDER HAVE THE MONEY, THE WEALTH, THE SAVINGS WITH WHICH TO MAKE THE LOAN AN ECONOMICALLY VIABLE STRATEGY? (RHETORICAL QUESTION, FOLKS... SEE GREECE... PORTUGAL... SPAIN... ITALY...) HOW MUCH WEALTH CAN BE TRANSFERRED FROM GERMANY TO THE EU DEADBEATS BEFORE THE WHOLE HOUSE OF CARDS COLLAPSES?

At some point the markets will question the stability of the whole euro project. These doubts can be addressed in one of two ways. Either the union will end (or contract to a core), or there will be sudden political and fiscal centralization. Which is more likely?

I have no crystal ball, but it all comes down to two further questions: Would Germany want to remain in a union with slow-growing, fiscally irresponsible members? And would those countries in turn want to stay in a union in which they are no more than poor and subservient provinces?

November 25, 2010 at 10:05 AM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://blogs.forbes.com/richardepstein/2010/11/23/government-by-waiver-the-breakdown-of-public-administration/?boxes=opinionschannellatest

* BY JUDGE RICHARD EPSTEIN

The past year has marked the passage of the two most massive legislative "reforms" in the history of American politics: ObamaCare...and Dodd-Frank...

Their size and complexity dwarf those of any New Deal legislation.

These new laws require a stunning acceleration of the longstanding practice of relying on delegated authority to implement statutory commands.

Here is one typical instance of how the process has gotten gummed up under ObamaCare. As a matter of grand legislative policy, ObamaCare decreed that firms would be required to knock out wasteful administrative costs by attaining favorable “medical loss ratios,” which in turn require them to slash their administrative expenses for individual and group health care plans to between, say, 15% and 20% of total costs. The numbers are often little more than half of the current expense ratios for various kinds of plans. The statutory commands all rest on the grand assumption that these administrative costs are a form of disguised waste that mere competitive market forces could not eliminate.

But the claim is a delusion.

No one has any clear idea what counts an “administrative cost” for statutory purposes, which itself leads to all sorts of jockeying and lobbying for strategic advantage inside the administrative process - which just raises those administrative costs even more. Since the politicos miscalculated the regulatory burdens, they have to brace for the real possibility that some health care plans will collapse under the strain.

* To be continued...

November 25, 2010 at 11:34 AM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)

Starting in late September, reality hit home when McDonald’s announced that it would have cut out its “mini-med” program for about 30,000 of its low-paid workers. It insisted that it could not meet the statutory requirements for the simple reason that high employee turnover raises administrative costs.

Rather than face this public relations disaster, Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, granted a one-year waiver from the requirements of the program. ... Since that time fresh waivers have been routinely dispensed by the Department of Health and Human Services to many other organizations, including many powerful unions. At least one million workers are now out from under ObamaCare, with more to come.

The process vividly shows how unrealistic expectations can undermine the rule of law. Waivers are by definition an exercise of administrative discretion that benefits the party who receives its special dispensation. Yet nothing in ObamaCare explains who should receive these waivers or why.

[A] waiver gives the favored organization a competitive advantage over its rivals. ... What’s more, waivers are typically only for short periods - say one year. They are often given on condition that the firm take steps to bring itself into compliance during waiver period. But what happens if the firm requests a renewal? Is it issued on the ground that no amount of ingenuity could have brought the firm into compliance? Or is it denied in order to make sure that the overarching statutory command is not nullified by endless short-term compromises?

What matters systematically is not the outcome of any particular case but rather the long-term toll that extensive rulemaking exacts from the administrative process. The safeguards of the rule of law are always undermined by fierce short-term pressures on administrative agencies.

* ISN'T IT AMAZING HOW OFTEN THE RULE OF LAW IS GIVEN SHORT SHIFT NOW THAT WE'RE LIVING IN THE AGE OF OBAMA...

Economically, the high fixed costs of administrative compliance drive small firms to seek takeover by powerful larger firms whose deeper purses and better political contacts help them weather the storm. The palpable irony is that the same health care experts who once touted ObamaCare now fear that the new combinations will make health care more monopolistic, raising prices while cutting costs.

Squads of health care experts and political pundits envisioned a Pax Obama for heath care once the political hubbub quieted down. It won’t happen. Without major steps to overhaul or repeal ObamaCare, government by waiver will become standard operating procedure to the detriment of us all.

November 25, 2010 at 11:34 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/553a434e-f81e-11df-8875-00144feab49a.html

Investors withdrew another $2.3 billion from funds that buy US municipal bonds in the latest week, capping a sell-off that has taken about $5.4 billion from the sector, according to Lipper, the fund tracker owned by Thomson Reuters.

The latest outflows from mutual and exchange traded funds for the week ended November 23 follow redemptions of $3.1 billion in the previous week, the largest outflow since Lipper began compiling weekly data in 1992.

* FOLKS... AT FIRST GLANCE SOME OF YOU MIGHT BE ASKING YOURSELVES, "WHY IS BILL POSTING SUCH DRY STUFF," BUT THINK ABOUT IT... THIS IS THE SORT OF BACKGROUND INFO NECESSARY IF ONE HOPES TO BE ABLE TO "CONNECT THE DOTS."

Investors have cashed out of muni bonds this month after a rise in yields on benchmark US Treasuries and against a backdrop of warnings that the financial problems of local governments and municipalities will lead to a rise in defaults. The selling also came amid record amounts of new issuance into the end of the year.

* O.K., ONE MORE TIME... (*SIGH*)... A RISE IN BENCHMARK U.S. TREASURIES MEANS THAT IN FUTURE THE GOVERNMENT - MEANING WE THE TAXPAYERS - WILL OWN MORE IN INTEREST PAYMENTS TO THE BUYERS OF TREASURIES. (IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S MORE DEBT!) AS TO "RECORD AMOUNTS OF NEW ISSUANCE," WHAT THAT'S ALL ABOUT IS STATES AND LOCALITIES ISSUING NEW DEBT IN ORDER TO STARVE OFF OLD DEBT! (THINKING GETTING A VISA SO AS TO PAY OFF YOUR MASTERCARD.)

* FOLKS... WE ARE WELL AND TRULY F--KED...

* OH... AND BTW...

Unlike corporate bonds, “munis” carry tax breaks that attract wealthy individuals.

* YEP. PROCESS THAT ONE, FOLKS. IN PLAIN ENGLISH: "MUNIS" ARE A TAX HAVEN FOR THE RICH SUBSIDIZED BY THE MIDDLE AND UPPER MIDDLE CLASSES. AS LEFT-WING CITY AND STATE OFFICIALS BASH "THE RICH" THEY CREATE THIS PRODUCT THAT ALLOWS THE RICH TO ESCAPE TAXES ON MUNICIPAL BOND INCOME. (*SMIRK*)

November 25, 2010 at 11:36 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2010/11/11/cnn-claims-no-favorites-mrc-data-shows-campaign-coverage-skewed-left

CNN has launched a new advertising campaign, claiming to be the only cable network without an ideological ax to grind.

(*SNORT*) (*CHUCKLE*)

“If you want to keep them all honest, without playing favorites, the choice is clear: CNN, the worldwide leader in news,” the on-screen message argues.

(*LOL*)

So, did CNN “play favorites” during the midterm campaign? MRC analysts reviewed all of the guests and commentators on CNN’s primetime weekday programs from October 4 through October 29, the last four full weeks before the November 2 elections. Guests were grouped into three categories: “Democrat/liberal,” “Republican/conservative,” and “Other.” The latter category included all non-political guests, as well as guests who were not associated with a clear political point of view.

The results show that liberal guests outnumbered conservatives by a more than three-to-two margin, 61% to 39%.

Our analysts found 88 “Democrat/liberal” guests to just 56 “Republican/conservative” guests.

All three of the network’s primetime programs - Parker Spitzer, Larry King Live, and Anderson Cooper 360 - featured more liberals than conservatives among their politically-affiliated guests.

(*SHRUG*) (*SMIRK*)

November 25, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)