Before they spend more so-called stimulus money, both President Obama and the Congressional Democrats should carefully consider these words written by Scottish philosopher David Hume who lived from 1711 - 1776:
"The practice of contracting debt will almost infallibly be abused in every government. It would scarcely be more imprudent to give a prodigal son a credit in every banker's shop in London, than to empower a statesman to draw bills upon posterity."
Republicans, too, should contemplate their part in the fiscal follies of the George W. Bush era. It is one thing to cut taxes: the simultaneouse increase in spending, at the highest rate ever, surely amounts to High Crimes and Misdemeanours.
Unfortunately, there is no way to impeach Representatives and Senators but we can vote all of them out of office.
This year.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Not Set in Stone
Those who believe that the United States Constitution should be set in stone may wish to consider these words written by Thomas Jefferson:
"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the Ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did beyond amendment. . . . Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs . . . Each generation is as independent of the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before."
Times changes and our fundamental laws may well need to change with them. Both slavery and the denial of women's suffrage were permitted by the Consitution as originally adopted. The first was an unpleasant political compromise lest the new nation never come into being and the latter merely reflected the custom of the times.
Eventually, however, those wrongs were righted.
Still outstanding is the denial of representation in the House and Senate for the six hundred thousand citizens of the District of Columbia. Can we, with a straight face, describe ourselves as a democracy when we disenfranchise so many people for no other reason than the fact that they live in a particular jurisdiction?
The Constitution is a good, but still imperfect, document. It could become better if the fundamentalists were to recognize that Mr. Jefferson actually gave us permission to amend it.
"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the Ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did beyond amendment. . . . Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs . . . Each generation is as independent of the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before."
Times changes and our fundamental laws may well need to change with them. Both slavery and the denial of women's suffrage were permitted by the Consitution as originally adopted. The first was an unpleasant political compromise lest the new nation never come into being and the latter merely reflected the custom of the times.
Eventually, however, those wrongs were righted.
Still outstanding is the denial of representation in the House and Senate for the six hundred thousand citizens of the District of Columbia. Can we, with a straight face, describe ourselves as a democracy when we disenfranchise so many people for no other reason than the fact that they live in a particular jurisdiction?
The Constitution is a good, but still imperfect, document. It could become better if the fundamentalists were to recognize that Mr. Jefferson actually gave us permission to amend it.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Big Corporations and Short Term Thinking
BP's management, like that of many other large companies, seems to have been so focused on short term earnings and cost avoidance that it forgot an old adage:
You can pay me now or you can pay me [a lot more] later.
In the world of big corporations, thinking is driven by the fear of the effect that modestly reduced profits next quarter will have on the stock price. Corner cutting and risk taking, as well as ferocious lobbying to reduce the number and scope of applicable regulation, are a standard part of such short term thinking. They appear to have been major contributing factors to the Macondo oil well disaster and in several other incidents where BP has been involved.
It is only rarely that such behaviors result in an incident. When, however, things do go wrong, they go very badly wrong indeed and the costs are frequently extraordinarily high. Nor is the company the only one to bear the burden: many innocent bystanders also suffer. The Macondo oil well disaster is a classic case.
Regulation would not be necessary if honorable, far thinking, managers were to take it upon themselves to adopt state of the art safety practices and to take into account the real risks of their technologies and business models. The only government body needed, then, would be one that was charged with disseminating information about new and improved safety technologies and procedures. Perhaps even that would not be necessary if there were an enlightened industry association to do the job.
Few humans, however, are capable of thinking accurately beyond the short term. Further, since a positive attitude is a necessity for success in business, most employees grossly underestimate the risks that are being taken. As a result, the need for regulation cannot be avoided. Mere compliance with regulations, however, is insufficient even though compliance with applicable regulations is often offered as a defense in court.
Although it is not remotely possible to avoid all disasters, an attitude of "doing the right thing" for the benefit of all stakeholders can certainly reduce the frequency of such events and the unintended damage that is caused when the inevitable occurs. It is, however, a reality that those who focus on the risks being taken are regarded as merchants of gloom and doom, Cassandras, or just as undesirable negative influences. That they should be removed from the company as soon as conveniently possible is accepted by almost everyone.
Unfortunately, laws governing corporations require their directors and managers to act solely in the interests of shareholders. Worse, many courts have spoken in such a way as to interpret 'in the interests of shareholders' as 'in the very short term interests of shareholders' thus encouraging the very behaviors that too often leads to disaster.
So, at the very least, changes to corporate law and company by-laws are needed. A more radical thought would be to consider the abolition of corporations and a severe reduction in the limits of liability.
If Corporations were to be replaced by Limited Partnerships, there could be limited liability for passive investors. Senior executives, members of the Board, and owners of more than, say, ten percent of the company, would make up the General Partnership and be subject to unlimited liability. Little harm would likely occur if an exception to this rule were made for small privately held businesses.
Such a structure would remove many of the perverse incentives that encourage corporations, and their managements, to do the wrong thing.
Consider, after all, the generally constructive activities of Goldman Sachs when it was organized as a General Partnership. In 1999, the company became a corporation with its stock being publicly traded. The risks that it took, in search of quick profits, would have been unacceptable to the former Partners Committee of the company. When short term greed replaced long term greed, the consequences included a major contribution to the current financial crisis.
Your correspondent does not expect that corporations will soon be abolished. Instead, the dead hand of new regulators, and regulations, will impose procedures and costs that will have some impact although little of it will be positive.
It is the nature of big corporations to create problems. Since those problems can only rarely be addressed by regulation, it is reasonable to expect a regular stream of disasters whose underlying cause is short term thinking.
Unfortunately, we have little alternative other than to expect the worst. The Boy Scout motto "Be Prepared" provides a valuable road map.
You can pay me now or you can pay me [a lot more] later.
In the world of big corporations, thinking is driven by the fear of the effect that modestly reduced profits next quarter will have on the stock price. Corner cutting and risk taking, as well as ferocious lobbying to reduce the number and scope of applicable regulation, are a standard part of such short term thinking. They appear to have been major contributing factors to the Macondo oil well disaster and in several other incidents where BP has been involved.
It is only rarely that such behaviors result in an incident. When, however, things do go wrong, they go very badly wrong indeed and the costs are frequently extraordinarily high. Nor is the company the only one to bear the burden: many innocent bystanders also suffer. The Macondo oil well disaster is a classic case.
Regulation would not be necessary if honorable, far thinking, managers were to take it upon themselves to adopt state of the art safety practices and to take into account the real risks of their technologies and business models. The only government body needed, then, would be one that was charged with disseminating information about new and improved safety technologies and procedures. Perhaps even that would not be necessary if there were an enlightened industry association to do the job.
Few humans, however, are capable of thinking accurately beyond the short term. Further, since a positive attitude is a necessity for success in business, most employees grossly underestimate the risks that are being taken. As a result, the need for regulation cannot be avoided. Mere compliance with regulations, however, is insufficient even though compliance with applicable regulations is often offered as a defense in court.
Although it is not remotely possible to avoid all disasters, an attitude of "doing the right thing" for the benefit of all stakeholders can certainly reduce the frequency of such events and the unintended damage that is caused when the inevitable occurs. It is, however, a reality that those who focus on the risks being taken are regarded as merchants of gloom and doom, Cassandras, or just as undesirable negative influences. That they should be removed from the company as soon as conveniently possible is accepted by almost everyone.
Unfortunately, laws governing corporations require their directors and managers to act solely in the interests of shareholders. Worse, many courts have spoken in such a way as to interpret 'in the interests of shareholders' as 'in the very short term interests of shareholders' thus encouraging the very behaviors that too often leads to disaster.
So, at the very least, changes to corporate law and company by-laws are needed. A more radical thought would be to consider the abolition of corporations and a severe reduction in the limits of liability.
If Corporations were to be replaced by Limited Partnerships, there could be limited liability for passive investors. Senior executives, members of the Board, and owners of more than, say, ten percent of the company, would make up the General Partnership and be subject to unlimited liability. Little harm would likely occur if an exception to this rule were made for small privately held businesses.
Such a structure would remove many of the perverse incentives that encourage corporations, and their managements, to do the wrong thing.
Consider, after all, the generally constructive activities of Goldman Sachs when it was organized as a General Partnership. In 1999, the company became a corporation with its stock being publicly traded. The risks that it took, in search of quick profits, would have been unacceptable to the former Partners Committee of the company. When short term greed replaced long term greed, the consequences included a major contribution to the current financial crisis.
Your correspondent does not expect that corporations will soon be abolished. Instead, the dead hand of new regulators, and regulations, will impose procedures and costs that will have some impact although little of it will be positive.
It is the nature of big corporations to create problems. Since those problems can only rarely be addressed by regulation, it is reasonable to expect a regular stream of disasters whose underlying cause is short term thinking.
Unfortunately, we have little alternative other than to expect the worst. The Boy Scout motto "Be Prepared" provides a valuable road map.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Interesting Surprise
"There are two clocks: one of them is counting down the time to our debt crisis; the other can wake us up to see our situation as it is, not as we want it to be, or as our ideologies say it should be. And the kind of country our children will live in -- growing or stagnant, on the rise or in decline -- depends on which clock goes off first."
"We can keep making easy choices and hoping that the crisis clock just keeps ticking. But sooner or later, if that's what we choose, there will be a time when we find that we have hardly any choices left at all."
Sometimes a politician is actually brave enough to speak truth even when it contradicts the prevailing attitude of his party. Surprisingly, the statements above were actually made by the Majority Leader of the House, Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD).
In keeping with the old adage that no good deed goes unpunished, your correspondent strongly suggests that Congressman Hoyer take up residence under any convenient table. His own party will soon be accusing him of gross disloyalty while assembling vast stockpiles of rotten fruit and vegetables to use as missiles.
Republicans, meanwhile, will watch gleefully as the Democrats take another step towards self destruction and a major loss in the mid-term elections this year. That Republicans will likely win is a given but they will only deserve the victory if they, too, are willing to speak truth to the voters.
"We can keep making easy choices and hoping that the crisis clock just keeps ticking. But sooner or later, if that's what we choose, there will be a time when we find that we have hardly any choices left at all."
Sometimes a politician is actually brave enough to speak truth even when it contradicts the prevailing attitude of his party. Surprisingly, the statements above were actually made by the Majority Leader of the House, Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD).
In keeping with the old adage that no good deed goes unpunished, your correspondent strongly suggests that Congressman Hoyer take up residence under any convenient table. His own party will soon be accusing him of gross disloyalty while assembling vast stockpiles of rotten fruit and vegetables to use as missiles.
Republicans, meanwhile, will watch gleefully as the Democrats take another step towards self destruction and a major loss in the mid-term elections this year. That Republicans will likely win is a given but they will only deserve the victory if they, too, are willing to speak truth to the voters.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
War in Afghanistan (2)
In 2001, when the United States first sent troops to Afghanistan, the country was ruled by the Taliban who then provided a safe haven for our real enemy, al-Qaeda. The initial military operations were largely successful in that al-Qaeda was driven into hiding and its operations severely disrupted. To have captured, or killed, Osama bin Ladin would have been a bonus but the fact that it did not happen does not significantly reduce the success of the initial operations.
The Taliban can reasonably described, at least by Western standards, as really unpleasant religious zealots with a primitive medieval outlook on human and, specially, women's rights. On the other hand, we only have one real issue with them which is that they still supply a safe haven, albeit less useful than before 2001, for our enemy. The task (see also mission creep) in Afghanistan has now morphed into an attempt to create a functioning nation state from what has only ever been a collection of warring tribes whose ferocity, and determination to remain autonomous, cannot be questioned.
Between 1839 and 1922, the British fought three Afghan Wars and found the task of controlling the country to be impossible. The Russians retired in disarray in 1989 after ten years of fierce fighting. The only successful invaders of Afghanistan were the Arabs in 656 AD. Even then, it took more than two hundred years for the country to be made safe for Islam.
Given that we are now fighting a war on behalf of a weak and corrupt government, we seem doomed to fail. Creating a nation in Afghanistan will not take years or even tens of years. It will take centuries.
The only possible solution - other than years of fighting for little gain - is to make a deal with the Taliban that might look something like this.
Perhaps this proposal is too simplistic but, had we acted on the advice given to President Lyndon Johnson by the late Senator George Aiken (R-Vt) during the Vietnam War, it is not clear that the long term outcome would have been much different. Let us, then, borrow Senator Aiken's words: "Declare victory and leave" so that we may begin to prepare for the very real threats posed by a nuclear armed North Korea and a soon to be nuclear armed Iran. Unless we are prepared to use our own nuclear weapons, we do not have the resources to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan while still providing a credible deterrent against these other enemies or an adequate response if worst comes to worst.
Our leaders, therefore, must establish priorities and your correspondent believes that Afghanistan is low on the list.
The Taliban can reasonably described, at least by Western standards, as really unpleasant religious zealots with a primitive medieval outlook on human and, specially, women's rights. On the other hand, we only have one real issue with them which is that they still supply a safe haven, albeit less useful than before 2001, for our enemy. The task (see also mission creep) in Afghanistan has now morphed into an attempt to create a functioning nation state from what has only ever been a collection of warring tribes whose ferocity, and determination to remain autonomous, cannot be questioned.
Between 1839 and 1922, the British fought three Afghan Wars and found the task of controlling the country to be impossible. The Russians retired in disarray in 1989 after ten years of fierce fighting. The only successful invaders of Afghanistan were the Arabs in 656 AD. Even then, it took more than two hundred years for the country to be made safe for Islam.
Given that we are now fighting a war on behalf of a weak and corrupt government, we seem doomed to fail. Creating a nation in Afghanistan will not take years or even tens of years. It will take centuries.
The only possible solution - other than years of fighting for little gain - is to make a deal with the Taliban that might look something like this.
- So long as you, the Taliban, promise, in the name of Allah, to refuse safe haven for al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group that is sworn to destroy America and its allies, we will depart and leave you alone.
- You must give us safe passage to leave.
- If you kill or capture Osama bin Ladin and his senior colleagues, we will send you large sums of money.
- If you renege on this agreement, we will use air power and missiles to turn your cities into smoking ruins.
Perhaps this proposal is too simplistic but, had we acted on the advice given to President Lyndon Johnson by the late Senator George Aiken (R-Vt) during the Vietnam War, it is not clear that the long term outcome would have been much different. Let us, then, borrow Senator Aiken's words: "Declare victory and leave" so that we may begin to prepare for the very real threats posed by a nuclear armed North Korea and a soon to be nuclear armed Iran. Unless we are prepared to use our own nuclear weapons, we do not have the resources to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan while still providing a credible deterrent against these other enemies or an adequate response if worst comes to worst.
Our leaders, therefore, must establish priorities and your correspondent believes that Afghanistan is low on the list.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
General McChrystal
Anyone who has a much contempt for his superiors and colleagues (President Obama, Vice President Biden, Ambassador Eikenberry and several others) as General Stanley McChrystal is going to have a hard time doing his job effectively.
While his judgement may be accurate, senior members of the military are expected to give their best advice to the civilian leaders of the nation. When their advice is not taken, or conflicts with the strategy that has been adopted, their next step is to accept the decision and keep their mouths shut in public while taking all possible actions to execute the strategy. In short, say "Yes, Sir", salute, and charge up the hill. If that is too difficult, retirement or resignation are both honorable alternatives.
General McChrystal acted appallingly - perhaps even dishonorably - when he communicated his negative opinions to his staff. Worse, he and his staff then passed them on to a journalist working for Rolling Stone magazine. That the result was an inflammatory article, likely harmful to U.S. interests in Afghanistan, should be no surprise to any thoughtful person.
General McChrystal's actions indicate that he is sadly lacking in leadership skills and, therefore, unfit to serve in the position of Commander in Chief of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. It is your correspondent's opinion that he should be relieved of command for incompetence.
On the other hand, if the Commander in Chief, President Obama, is feeling generous, he may wish to accept what is reported to be General McChrystal's offer to retire.
Either Thursday or Friday of this week would be a good day for a retirement ceremony.
While his judgement may be accurate, senior members of the military are expected to give their best advice to the civilian leaders of the nation. When their advice is not taken, or conflicts with the strategy that has been adopted, their next step is to accept the decision and keep their mouths shut in public while taking all possible actions to execute the strategy. In short, say "Yes, Sir", salute, and charge up the hill. If that is too difficult, retirement or resignation are both honorable alternatives.
General McChrystal acted appallingly - perhaps even dishonorably - when he communicated his negative opinions to his staff. Worse, he and his staff then passed them on to a journalist working for Rolling Stone magazine. That the result was an inflammatory article, likely harmful to U.S. interests in Afghanistan, should be no surprise to any thoughtful person.
General McChrystal's actions indicate that he is sadly lacking in leadership skills and, therefore, unfit to serve in the position of Commander in Chief of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. It is your correspondent's opinion that he should be relieved of command for incompetence.
On the other hand, if the Commander in Chief, President Obama, is feeling generous, he may wish to accept what is reported to be General McChrystal's offer to retire.
Either Thursday or Friday of this week would be a good day for a retirement ceremony.
Monday, June 21, 2010
The National Guard and the BP Oil Spill
President Obama has mobilized seventeen thousand members of the National Guard to help with the oil spill clean up. Since many of these people have civilian jobs, there will be businesses which suffer hardship and inconvenience as employees depart, for an indeterminate time, and return with little notice.
The United States Employment and Re-employment Rights Act (USERRA) protects employees from adverse personnel actions when they are called to active duty. The Act also entitles them to be re-employed when their period of active duty ends. The exercise of these rights inevitably involves costs that are borne by businesses. That is, however, an acceptable price to pay to ensure the proper treatment of those who serve our nation in the armed forces. The President should, however, take care not to activate the National Guard when there is an alternative.
What special skills are required to clean up oily beaches? If specialized skills are required, do these members of the National Guard possess them? Why not offer these jobs to those who are currently unemployed? Surely there are many who would welcome the ability to earn their own living again - even if for a limited time - rather than existing on a government handout.
If there is paid work available but the unemployed don't want to do it, stop wasting taxpayer money on them. Worse, to take members of the National Guard away from their jobs, while there are others available to do the work of oil spill clean up, is idiocy.
How else to describe this than just another exercise in government mismanagement and incompetence?
Enough said.
The United States Employment and Re-employment Rights Act (USERRA) protects employees from adverse personnel actions when they are called to active duty. The Act also entitles them to be re-employed when their period of active duty ends. The exercise of these rights inevitably involves costs that are borne by businesses. That is, however, an acceptable price to pay to ensure the proper treatment of those who serve our nation in the armed forces. The President should, however, take care not to activate the National Guard when there is an alternative.
What special skills are required to clean up oily beaches? If specialized skills are required, do these members of the National Guard possess them? Why not offer these jobs to those who are currently unemployed? Surely there are many who would welcome the ability to earn their own living again - even if for a limited time - rather than existing on a government handout.
If there is paid work available but the unemployed don't want to do it, stop wasting taxpayer money on them. Worse, to take members of the National Guard away from their jobs, while there are others available to do the work of oil spill clean up, is idiocy.
How else to describe this than just another exercise in government mismanagement and incompetence?
Enough said.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Getting Real About Energy
When he spoke to the nation on Tuesday, President Obama offered the usual cliches and platitudes - perhaps better described as processed organic refuse ejected from the south end of a northbound bull - about ending our 'century old addiction to fossil fuels'. Since he did not offer any solutions, the only conclusion that can reasonably be reached is that Mr. Obama entirely deserves the title of Posturer in Chief.
What then should the President have proposed?
Start with a very simple concept from Economics 101. If the price of a good increases, the demand will decrease. The President, then, should have proposed a substantial tax - say $5.00 per gallon - on fossil fuel used for transportation and a somewhat smaller tax on all other energy derived from fossil fuels. The reason for the different rates is to take into account the fact that users of fuel for transport can more easily and rapidly reduce their energy consumption than can industrial, residential and commercial facilities.
Because of the time required to improve the fuel efficiency of equipment and vehicles, alter behaviors, and change housing patterns (suburban sprawl and long drives to jobs), these taxes will need to be phased in over a fairly substantial period of time. If the taxes are to be effective, the phase in period should last no more than seven years which, not coincidentally, is the average length of time that people own each of their homes and less than the average length of time that they own their vehicles.
How should the receipts from these taxes be used?
A good solution would be to rebate the tax by reducing the Social Security and Medicare taxes paid by employers. Since this will significantly reduce labor costs, demand - and therefore employment - can be expected to increase. In addition, demand for labor will increase as companies and homeowners take action to reduce energy consumption. The result will be that the market, through the price mechanism which is generally efficient, rather than government, using always inefficient subsidies, will determine the future of non-fossil fuel energy sources. Although there will be winners and losers, the net impact on tax revenue is zero with the likelihood that business competitiveness improves and fossil fuel use is reduced.
Approval from most Democrats can be assumed while many Republicans, save only those those who are entirely consumed by chants of 'No New Taxes' or by mindless opposition to anything proposed by a President from the other party, should be able to support such a program.
Take inspiration, Mr. President, from these many times written words of Winston Churchill: "Action this day."
What then should the President have proposed?
Start with a very simple concept from Economics 101. If the price of a good increases, the demand will decrease. The President, then, should have proposed a substantial tax - say $5.00 per gallon - on fossil fuel used for transportation and a somewhat smaller tax on all other energy derived from fossil fuels. The reason for the different rates is to take into account the fact that users of fuel for transport can more easily and rapidly reduce their energy consumption than can industrial, residential and commercial facilities.
Because of the time required to improve the fuel efficiency of equipment and vehicles, alter behaviors, and change housing patterns (suburban sprawl and long drives to jobs), these taxes will need to be phased in over a fairly substantial period of time. If the taxes are to be effective, the phase in period should last no more than seven years which, not coincidentally, is the average length of time that people own each of their homes and less than the average length of time that they own their vehicles.
How should the receipts from these taxes be used?
A good solution would be to rebate the tax by reducing the Social Security and Medicare taxes paid by employers. Since this will significantly reduce labor costs, demand - and therefore employment - can be expected to increase. In addition, demand for labor will increase as companies and homeowners take action to reduce energy consumption. The result will be that the market, through the price mechanism which is generally efficient, rather than government, using always inefficient subsidies, will determine the future of non-fossil fuel energy sources. Although there will be winners and losers, the net impact on tax revenue is zero with the likelihood that business competitiveness improves and fossil fuel use is reduced.
Approval from most Democrats can be assumed while many Republicans, save only those those who are entirely consumed by chants of 'No New Taxes' or by mindless opposition to anything proposed by a President from the other party, should be able to support such a program.
Take inspiration, Mr. President, from these many times written words of Winston Churchill: "Action this day."
Saturday, June 19, 2010
A Thought for the Weekend
This is an election year in the USA and, so, we should consider the words of Edward Langley, an artist who lived from 1928 to 1995, as a call for action:
What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.
Enough said.
What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.
Enough said.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Democrats and Business
BP is clearly at fault with respect to the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
The political universe, however, is consumed by the attacks - for little more than short term partisan advantage - currently being made on the company by President Obama and many other members of the Democratic Party. When the oil spill problem is over, the punishment can begin but, until then, these criticisms are counterproductive.
All of which simply reinforce some of the contradictory attitudes of Democrats:
The political universe, however, is consumed by the attacks - for little more than short term partisan advantage - currently being made on the company by President Obama and many other members of the Democratic Party. When the oil spill problem is over, the punishment can begin but, until then, these criticisms are counterproductive.
All of which simply reinforce some of the contradictory attitudes of Democrats:
- they love jobs but hate employers.
- they love businesses but hate owners who become rich because their businesses are successful.
- they love small business for creating jobs but ignore the fact that small businesses fail at much higher rates than large businesses.
- they love small businesses for creating jobs but hate them because they can not afford to provide uneconomic levels of pay and benefits.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
A Step Toward Tyranny or Merely Posturing?
Last night, President Obama spoke to the Nation about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
While he has no solutions, he is more than able to pretend that he is doing something. Nor does he lack the arrogance to assume powers that do not exist either in law or the Constitution. Although he is a lawyer by training, his statements, about the ways that BP will be made to pay for the damage that the company's negligence has caused, are either nonsensical or border on the tyrannical.
Perhaps both.
Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company’s recklessness.
And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent, third party.
Under which laws - or what part of the Constitution - does the President have the authority, absent a court order, to seize assets from a privately owned business? Even if the President did have such authority, how will the terms 'legitimate claims' and 'fair and timely manner' be defined and by whom?
When President Harry S Truman seized the nation's steel mills in 1952, it did not take long for the Supreme Court to rule that no such authority existed and the mills were promptly restored to their rightful owners.
If BP chooses to make voluntary payments to those that it has damaged, that is its right and such a course of action is likely to be better business than awaiting court action. To the extent that individuals or businesses do not feel that they have been adequately compensated, they may go to court where liability will be determined and damages assessed in accordance with the law.
President Obama states that the fund will be administered by a so-called 'Independent Administrator'. Does any thoughtful, and intellectually honest, person exist in our country who seriously believes that extreme political pressure will not be brought to bear on such an administrator to interpret 'legitimate claims' and 'fair and timely manner' in curious ways that favor political agendas?
The purpose of Mr. Obama's fund, then, seems to be to punish BP - while rewarding favored groups - rather than to make individuals and businesses whole from the damage that they have suffered. That BP deserves punishment appears to be self-evident but that is a process that takes place in court. In addition, the company's [former] customers may inflict further punishment by choosing to buy elsewhere.
In 1780, John Adams described America as a 'Nation of Laws, not of Men'. Notwithstanding the fact that he taught Constitutional Law for a period in his career, President Obama seems to be willing to ignore that statement in favor of granting unfettered power and discretion to a single person.
What Mr. Obama is attempting to do can, perhaps, be described as akin to an act of Royal tyranny - a term that your correspondent does not use lightly. From 1775 to 1783, Americans contributed many lives and much treasure to ensure that, never again, would such a form of government exist in our country.
We are left, then, with two equally unappetising conclusions: either Mr. Obama is just posturing or that he has taken a long step down the road towards tyranny. Whichever is the case, the sooner that Mr. Obama is no longer President, the better.
While he has no solutions, he is more than able to pretend that he is doing something. Nor does he lack the arrogance to assume powers that do not exist either in law or the Constitution. Although he is a lawyer by training, his statements, about the ways that BP will be made to pay for the damage that the company's negligence has caused, are either nonsensical or border on the tyrannical.
Perhaps both.
Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company’s recklessness.
And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent, third party.
Under which laws - or what part of the Constitution - does the President have the authority, absent a court order, to seize assets from a privately owned business? Even if the President did have such authority, how will the terms 'legitimate claims' and 'fair and timely manner' be defined and by whom?
When President Harry S Truman seized the nation's steel mills in 1952, it did not take long for the Supreme Court to rule that no such authority existed and the mills were promptly restored to their rightful owners.
If BP chooses to make voluntary payments to those that it has damaged, that is its right and such a course of action is likely to be better business than awaiting court action. To the extent that individuals or businesses do not feel that they have been adequately compensated, they may go to court where liability will be determined and damages assessed in accordance with the law.
President Obama states that the fund will be administered by a so-called 'Independent Administrator'. Does any thoughtful, and intellectually honest, person exist in our country who seriously believes that extreme political pressure will not be brought to bear on such an administrator to interpret 'legitimate claims' and 'fair and timely manner' in curious ways that favor political agendas?
The purpose of Mr. Obama's fund, then, seems to be to punish BP - while rewarding favored groups - rather than to make individuals and businesses whole from the damage that they have suffered. That BP deserves punishment appears to be self-evident but that is a process that takes place in court. In addition, the company's [former] customers may inflict further punishment by choosing to buy elsewhere.
In 1780, John Adams described America as a 'Nation of Laws, not of Men'. Notwithstanding the fact that he taught Constitutional Law for a period in his career, President Obama seems to be willing to ignore that statement in favor of granting unfettered power and discretion to a single person.
What Mr. Obama is attempting to do can, perhaps, be described as akin to an act of Royal tyranny - a term that your correspondent does not use lightly. From 1775 to 1783, Americans contributed many lives and much treasure to ensure that, never again, would such a form of government exist in our country.
We are left, then, with two equally unappetising conclusions: either Mr. Obama is just posturing or that he has taken a long step down the road towards tyranny. Whichever is the case, the sooner that Mr. Obama is no longer President, the better.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Headscratcher (7)
After twenty five minutes of frustration, your correspondent has just given up trying to get help from one of Symantec's call centers.
The first step was to listen to, but only understand less than half of what an Indian customer service (customer service?) representative, with an incomprehensible accent, was saying. The second step was to wait to speak to a supervisor whose accent was only marginally easier to understand. That was followed by another wait to be transferred to a technical expert who, after listening to the problem description, stated that he was not trained to address Internet related problems.
This episode is a clear example of the old adage that you don't always get what you pay for but you rarely get more.
Why, then, do companies think that outsourcing their call centers to India is good business? Money - perhaps substantial amounts - is saved in the short term but, frequently, the long term result is to alienate their [about to be former] customers.
Or are these companies so arrogant that they actually believe that their customers have no alternatives?
A headscratcher indeed.
The first step was to listen to, but only understand less than half of what an Indian customer service (customer service?) representative, with an incomprehensible accent, was saying. The second step was to wait to speak to a supervisor whose accent was only marginally easier to understand. That was followed by another wait to be transferred to a technical expert who, after listening to the problem description, stated that he was not trained to address Internet related problems.
This episode is a clear example of the old adage that you don't always get what you pay for but you rarely get more.
Why, then, do companies think that outsourcing their call centers to India is good business? Money - perhaps substantial amounts - is saved in the short term but, frequently, the long term result is to alienate their [about to be former] customers.
Or are these companies so arrogant that they actually believe that their customers have no alternatives?
A headscratcher indeed.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Academia or Politics
Barack Obama's performance as President - too cool, too professorial, too detached - suggests that he is not really one of us and that he has little clue as to the desires and feelings of the American people.
He also bring to mind the famous statement made by the late William F. Buckley Jr. who said that he would rather be governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone book than by the Harvard faculty. It is a shame that President Obama abandoned academia, where he belongs, for politics where, it seems, he is as disconnected from us as was President Jimmy Carter.
After President Clinton's disastrous second term, and George W. Bush's general ineptitude, America needed a successful President. We can only hope that Mr. Obama's similarities to President Carter include his retirement, whether forced or voluntary, after a single term.
He also bring to mind the famous statement made by the late William F. Buckley Jr. who said that he would rather be governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone book than by the Harvard faculty. It is a shame that President Obama abandoned academia, where he belongs, for politics where, it seems, he is as disconnected from us as was President Jimmy Carter.
After President Clinton's disastrous second term, and George W. Bush's general ineptitude, America needed a successful President. We can only hope that Mr. Obama's similarities to President Carter include his retirement, whether forced or voluntary, after a single term.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Wrong Answers
Among the spectacularly wrong - but not actually harmful - historical misjudgements is this statement made by Heinrich Hertz:
"I do not think that the wireless waves that I have discovered will have any practical application."
Lord Kelvin merely compounded the error when he said:
"Radio has no future."
So, be sceptical - very sceptical - of those who claim to foretell the future.
"I do not think that the wireless waves that I have discovered will have any practical application."
Lord Kelvin merely compounded the error when he said:
"Radio has no future."
So, be sceptical - very sceptical - of those who claim to foretell the future.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Public Discourse
In spite of general disdain for some of the old fashioned virtues, the public forum would be more civilized if participants were to heed these words written by Mark Twain:
"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have these three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence to never practice either."
Mark Twain understood that having the right to do something does not always make the doing wise. Let us try to practice what he preached and, perhaps, make the world a slightly better place.
"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have these three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence to never practice either."
Mark Twain understood that having the right to do something does not always make the doing wise. Let us try to practice what he preached and, perhaps, make the world a slightly better place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
