Newt Gingrich, campaigning in Florida, says if he's elected president we'll have a permanent base on the moon by 2020. This has been applauded in the Sunshine state because, of course, it would provide a good deal of employment there. From aerospace engineers to hotel janitors, the "space coast" benefits from much federal money being pumped into the exploration and occupation of space.
I think it's a little ironic that Gingrich, running as a proponent of cutting federal spending and proclaiming at every stop that government cannot create jobs, would pander in this way. While it might attract the votes of people whose political philosophy is "No federal spending unless it is on me," I doubt it will play well with people who are honestly concerned about the annual budget deficit.
I'd rather talk about the moon than about Newt Gingrich. The moon orbits the earth at a distance of about 238,000 miles. It is substantially smaller than earth, and hunan beings (and everything else) weigh only about one-sixth there of what they do here. The moon has no atmosphere. There probably is water ice in the deep crater bottoms on the moon and some water ice beneath the lunar dust, though the astronauts who went there didn't notice any. There are tiny moonquakes from time to time, but the moon is nearly dead geologically. That could change if the moon is hit by a meteor.
It is possible that there are metals or other substances on the moon that could be of value on earth, but transportation costs at this time make it unlikely that any profitable mining could be accomplished. Although there are more esoteric schemes on the drawing boards, such as collecting solar energy on the moon and reflecting it to earth, such things appear to be more science fiction than science fact, at least for now.
So why go back there? Honestly, I can't think of a good reason. It's a topic that could be left to the scientists rather than the politicians as far as I'm concerned. If we're going to spend big buckets of money on space exploration, however, I'd opt for robots first. Then it strikes me that the next great step into space should be a manned voyage to a near-earth asteroid rather than the moon. There are such asteroids that periodically approach within four to five million miles of us. That's about twenty times as far as the moon is, and would be a good dress rehearsal for the jump someday to Mars. The gravity on an asteroid would be a small fraction of what it is on the moon, meaning the spaceship would need very little thrust to escape from it for the trip home.
These asteroids probably are very similar to the moon in terms of their composiiton - metals and rocks - so we could learn about the origins of the solar system from them as well as we could by bringing home more samples of moon rocks. In addition, I think we'd learn as much or more about survivability in space from a trip to an asteroid as we would from a trip back to the moon.
So Newt, although it might be good politics to hold out the promise of expensive space exploration this week as you pursue a chance to lose to Barack Obama in the fall, why not check with the scientists and engineers at the Kennedy Space Center before making promises you're not likely to keep?
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
This I Believe
Back in the 1950's there was a radio program called This I Believe, on which people, mostly prominent but some obscure, read essays with the same title as the program itself. NPR has been re-broadcasting them in recent days, and I find them very interesting. Some have been assembled in book form and are available in public libraries or for sale.
Anyway, I thought I'd take a stab at it myself as a way towards self-definition, at a somewhat advanced stage in my life. So for anyone who cares, or has a few idle minutes, this is what I believe.
I believe in a brotherhood and sisterhood of all human beings, whatever the cultural or political trappings they are immersed in might be. I'm not so naive as to think there aren't significant differences among us, but on the big things - wanting to prosper, wanting personal fulfillment, wanting to raise our children in security and with a chance to pursue their own destinies - I think we are all rather alike, wherever we live on this old planet. As Sting once put it, "We share the same biology, regardless of ideology, and what might save us, me and you, is if the Russians love their children too."
I believe we are our brothers' keepers. When people need help we are obliged to help them, and we needn't/shouldn't ask if they deserve that help. To put it shortly, if we only help those who deserve our aid, we won't help very many people. To be sure, there are folks who are habituated to letting others do for them, but even they must be accorded the basic benefits of life.
I believe we have a duty to clean up our own messes. I take seriously the passage in the Book of Genesis in which God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden, to take care of it. There is a dichotomy in our Judeo-Christian tradition, I acknowledge. Genesis also says God gave humans dominion over nature, suggesting we can do as we please with the other creatures here. But I prefer the first premise, that we are stewards and it is just totally arrogant for us to abuse or use all up what resources are on and in the earth.
I think I might believe in God. It's certainly difficult to think of creation without a creator, but what God is remains mysterious to me. But I do believe in religion, at least in the ten Commandments of Moses and the Sermon on the Mount.
For the record, I believe in science. I believe humans evolved from earlier species of apes over the last several million years. I believe the earth is warming due to human action, and that warming will accelerate catastrophically over the next few decades unless we change our profligate ways immediately. I believe we could be up to the challenge, but many people will resist making changes in their lives for the simple reason that the needed changes will cost them money.
Still, I believe that a regulated private enterprise economy is the most efficacious way of delivering goods and services to most people in a society. It is also the economic system most congenial to human liberty. Having said that, I also believe government has a vital role to play in preserving real competition among businesses and intervening in business to promote the general welfare.
I believe in art. Art uplifts and provokes us. Whether it's Shakespeare or Michelangelo, or George Lucas or Jackson Pollock, it's worth our support and our appreciation. I believe we'd all be spiritually poorer without a vigorous and uncensored art community. And, I believe in scholarship. Intellectual curiosity is one of the great pleasures of life.
I believe in freedom. I believe that people who insist on their own liberty must be willing to accept and defend the liberty of others. The old mantra is still valid: "I disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (But that's your death I'm talking about, not my own.)
I believe in humor. I believe laughter is the best medicine. And I believe I've said enough for today.
Anyway, I thought I'd take a stab at it myself as a way towards self-definition, at a somewhat advanced stage in my life. So for anyone who cares, or has a few idle minutes, this is what I believe.
I believe in a brotherhood and sisterhood of all human beings, whatever the cultural or political trappings they are immersed in might be. I'm not so naive as to think there aren't significant differences among us, but on the big things - wanting to prosper, wanting personal fulfillment, wanting to raise our children in security and with a chance to pursue their own destinies - I think we are all rather alike, wherever we live on this old planet. As Sting once put it, "We share the same biology, regardless of ideology, and what might save us, me and you, is if the Russians love their children too."
I believe we are our brothers' keepers. When people need help we are obliged to help them, and we needn't/shouldn't ask if they deserve that help. To put it shortly, if we only help those who deserve our aid, we won't help very many people. To be sure, there are folks who are habituated to letting others do for them, but even they must be accorded the basic benefits of life.
I believe we have a duty to clean up our own messes. I take seriously the passage in the Book of Genesis in which God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden, to take care of it. There is a dichotomy in our Judeo-Christian tradition, I acknowledge. Genesis also says God gave humans dominion over nature, suggesting we can do as we please with the other creatures here. But I prefer the first premise, that we are stewards and it is just totally arrogant for us to abuse or use all up what resources are on and in the earth.
I think I might believe in God. It's certainly difficult to think of creation without a creator, but what God is remains mysterious to me. But I do believe in religion, at least in the ten Commandments of Moses and the Sermon on the Mount.
For the record, I believe in science. I believe humans evolved from earlier species of apes over the last several million years. I believe the earth is warming due to human action, and that warming will accelerate catastrophically over the next few decades unless we change our profligate ways immediately. I believe we could be up to the challenge, but many people will resist making changes in their lives for the simple reason that the needed changes will cost them money.
Still, I believe that a regulated private enterprise economy is the most efficacious way of delivering goods and services to most people in a society. It is also the economic system most congenial to human liberty. Having said that, I also believe government has a vital role to play in preserving real competition among businesses and intervening in business to promote the general welfare.
I believe in art. Art uplifts and provokes us. Whether it's Shakespeare or Michelangelo, or George Lucas or Jackson Pollock, it's worth our support and our appreciation. I believe we'd all be spiritually poorer without a vigorous and uncensored art community. And, I believe in scholarship. Intellectual curiosity is one of the great pleasures of life.
I believe in freedom. I believe that people who insist on their own liberty must be willing to accept and defend the liberty of others. The old mantra is still valid: "I disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (But that's your death I'm talking about, not my own.)
I believe in humor. I believe laughter is the best medicine. And I believe I've said enough for today.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Election Year Politics
I'm listening to Martin Bashir's interview with Congressman Joe Walsh, who plumps for a zero percent tax rate on all inheritances and capital gains. "That money has already been taxed," he says, and even Mitt Romney should pay no tax on the millions he made in recent years. To me that's the equivalent of saying my employer's earnings are taxed, and therefore I shouldn't be taxed on any income paid to me.
Meanwhile, the cannonade of Republican hyperbole continues. President Obama not only does not deserve a second term, he's an abject failure and the worst president ever. (Apparently nosing out Jimmy Carter, who has been their whipping boy for the last thirty years.) The ghost of Osama bin Laden might agree with them, but only because he's no longer among the living, thanks to the current president.
A joke circulating last week was along the same lines. Fidel Castro is quoted as saying that a robot could have done a better job as president than Barack Obama has. Mitt Romney immediately called Castro to thank him for his endorsement.
Mitt Romney, by the way, paid 13.9% in taxes on his income last year, an income in many millions of dollars, all from investments, none from actual work. Romney insists he has earned all his money, but economists refer to investment income as "unearned." Not saying Mitt broke the law or isn't entitled to take legal tax deductions, unless he was instrumental in passing tax loopholes that would be to his own advantage. Still, remember Joe Walsh, who wants to cut Mitt's tax burden to nothing.
And there is Newt Gingrich, he of the $1.6 million dollar income from Freddie Mack for his work as a historical consultant. Mr. Gingrich is highly educated in history. So am I. I taught history and I'm here to tell you I never made $1.6 million or any significant fraction of it. If I had taught for thirty years, beginning in 2000, I would have totaled just about the amount of money Newt made from Freddie, doing heaven only knows what valuable service. ($35,000 per year times thirty years)
Let me end with a reference to Joe Walsh's argument. Surely every parent, including Mr. Walsh, would like to leave an inheritance for his offspring. (Maybe not Mr. Walsh, who is fighting charges that he's a delinquent dad.) But, for how large a fortune? Is our country well served by having a permanent leisure class generation after generation, because someone along the old family tree was spectacularly successful or spectacularly lucky? Or, how many of us favor Paris Hilton never having to work a day in her life when so many others struggle along from week to week, one short jump ahead of the bill collector?
I agree with Mr. Walsh one one thing: bring on the election and we'll decide as a country which way we want to go.
Meanwhile, the cannonade of Republican hyperbole continues. President Obama not only does not deserve a second term, he's an abject failure and the worst president ever. (Apparently nosing out Jimmy Carter, who has been their whipping boy for the last thirty years.) The ghost of Osama bin Laden might agree with them, but only because he's no longer among the living, thanks to the current president.
A joke circulating last week was along the same lines. Fidel Castro is quoted as saying that a robot could have done a better job as president than Barack Obama has. Mitt Romney immediately called Castro to thank him for his endorsement.
Mitt Romney, by the way, paid 13.9% in taxes on his income last year, an income in many millions of dollars, all from investments, none from actual work. Romney insists he has earned all his money, but economists refer to investment income as "unearned." Not saying Mitt broke the law or isn't entitled to take legal tax deductions, unless he was instrumental in passing tax loopholes that would be to his own advantage. Still, remember Joe Walsh, who wants to cut Mitt's tax burden to nothing.
And there is Newt Gingrich, he of the $1.6 million dollar income from Freddie Mack for his work as a historical consultant. Mr. Gingrich is highly educated in history. So am I. I taught history and I'm here to tell you I never made $1.6 million or any significant fraction of it. If I had taught for thirty years, beginning in 2000, I would have totaled just about the amount of money Newt made from Freddie, doing heaven only knows what valuable service. ($35,000 per year times thirty years)
Let me end with a reference to Joe Walsh's argument. Surely every parent, including Mr. Walsh, would like to leave an inheritance for his offspring. (Maybe not Mr. Walsh, who is fighting charges that he's a delinquent dad.) But, for how large a fortune? Is our country well served by having a permanent leisure class generation after generation, because someone along the old family tree was spectacularly successful or spectacularly lucky? Or, how many of us favor Paris Hilton never having to work a day in her life when so many others struggle along from week to week, one short jump ahead of the bill collector?
I agree with Mr. Walsh one one thing: bring on the election and we'll decide as a country which way we want to go.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Some more on the Cayman Islands, taken from Wikipedia. Mitt Romney is claimed to have multi-million dollar holdings there.
The Cayman Islands are a major international financial centre. The biggest sectors are "banking, hedge fund formation and investment, structured finance and securitization, captive insurance, and general corporate activities."[26] Regulation and supervision of the financial services industry is the responsibility of the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA).
The Cayman Islands are the fifth-largest banking centre in the world,[27] with $1.5 trillion in banking liabilities.[26] There are 279 banks (as of June 2008[update]), 19 of which are licensed to conduct banking activities with domestic (Cayman-based) and international clients, the remaining 260 are licensed to operate on an international basis with only limited domestic activity. Financial services generated CI$1.2 billion of GDP in 2007 (55% of the total economy), 36% of all employment and 40% of all government revenue. In 2010, the country ranked fifth internationally in terms of value of liabilities booked in the Cayman Islands and sixth in terms of assets booked. It has branches of 40 of the world's 50 largest banks. The Cayman Islands are the second largest captive domicile in the world with more than 700 captives, writing more than US$7.7 billion of premiums and with US$36.8 billion of assets under management.[28]
There are a number of service providers. These include global financial institutions including HSBC, UBS, and Goldman Sachs; over 80 administrators, leading accountancy practices (incl. the Big Four auditors), and offshore law practices including Maples & Calder.[29] They also include wealth management such as Rothschilds private banking and financial advice.[30
]
Since the introduction of the Mutual Funds Law in 1993, which has been copied by jurisdictions around the world, the Cayman Islands have grown to be the world's leading offshore hedge fund jurisdiction.[29] In June 2008, it passed 10,000 hedge fund registrations, and over the year ending June 2008 CIMA reported a net growth rate of 12% for hedge funds.[31]
Starting in the mid-late 1990s, offshore financial centres, such as the Cayman Islands, came under increasing pressure from the OECD for their allegedly harmful tax regimes, where the OECD wished to prevent low-tax regimes from having an advantage in the global marketplace. The OECD threatened to place the Cayman Islands and other financial centres on a "black list" and impose sanctions against them.[32] However, the Cayman Islands successfully avoided being placed on the OECD black list in 2000 by committing to regulatory reform to improve transparency and begin information exchange with OECD member countries about their citizens.[3
]
In 2004, under pressure from the UK, the Cayman Islands agreed in principle to implement the European Union Savings Directive (EUSD), but only after securing some important benefits for the financial services industry in the Cayman Islands. As the Cayman Islands are not subject to EU laws, the implementation of the EUSD is by way of bilateral agreements between each EU member state and the Cayman Islands. The government of the Cayman Islands agreed on a model agreement, which set out how the EUSD would be implemented with the Cayman Islands.[33]
A report published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in March 2005, assessing supervision and regulation in the Cayman Islands' banking, insurance and securities industries, as well as its money laundering regime, recognised the jurisdiction's comprehensive regulatory and compliance frameworks. "An extensive program of legislative, rule and guideline development has introduced an increasingly effective system of regulation, both formalizing earlier practices and introducing enhanced procedures", noted IMF assessors. The report further stated that "the supervisory system benefits from a well-developed banking infrastructure with an internationally experienced and qualified workforce as well as experienced lawyers, accountants and auditors", adding that, "the overall compliance culture within Cayman is very strong, including the compliance culture related to AML (anti-money laundering) obligations".[34] [35]
On 4 May 2009, United States President Barack Obama declared his intentions to curb the use of financial centres by multinational corporations. In his speech, he singled out the Cayman Islands as a tax shelter.[36]
The next day, the Cayman Island Financial Services Association submitted an open letter to the President detailing The Cayman Islands' role in international finance and its value to the US financial system.[37]
The Cayman Islands are a major international financial centre. The biggest sectors are "banking, hedge fund formation and investment, structured finance and securitization, captive insurance, and general corporate activities."[26] Regulation and supervision of the financial services industry is the responsibility of the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA).
The Cayman Islands are the fifth-largest banking centre in the world,[27] with $1.5 trillion in banking liabilities.[26] There are 279 banks (as of June 2008[update]), 19 of which are licensed to conduct banking activities with domestic (Cayman-based) and international clients, the remaining 260 are licensed to operate on an international basis with only limited domestic activity. Financial services generated CI$1.2 billion of GDP in 2007 (55% of the total economy), 36% of all employment and 40% of all government revenue. In 2010, the country ranked fifth internationally in terms of value of liabilities booked in the Cayman Islands and sixth in terms of assets booked. It has branches of 40 of the world's 50 largest banks. The Cayman Islands are the second largest captive domicile in the world with more than 700 captives, writing more than US$7.7 billion of premiums and with US$36.8 billion of assets under management.[28]
There are a number of service providers. These include global financial institutions including HSBC, UBS, and Goldman Sachs; over 80 administrators, leading accountancy practices (incl. the Big Four auditors), and offshore law practices including Maples & Calder.[29] They also include wealth management such as Rothschilds private banking and financial advice.[30
]
Since the introduction of the Mutual Funds Law in 1993, which has been copied by jurisdictions around the world, the Cayman Islands have grown to be the world's leading offshore hedge fund jurisdiction.[29] In June 2008, it passed 10,000 hedge fund registrations, and over the year ending June 2008 CIMA reported a net growth rate of 12% for hedge funds.[31]
Starting in the mid-late 1990s, offshore financial centres, such as the Cayman Islands, came under increasing pressure from the OECD for their allegedly harmful tax regimes, where the OECD wished to prevent low-tax regimes from having an advantage in the global marketplace. The OECD threatened to place the Cayman Islands and other financial centres on a "black list" and impose sanctions against them.[32] However, the Cayman Islands successfully avoided being placed on the OECD black list in 2000 by committing to regulatory reform to improve transparency and begin information exchange with OECD member countries about their citizens.[3
]
In 2004, under pressure from the UK, the Cayman Islands agreed in principle to implement the European Union Savings Directive (EUSD), but only after securing some important benefits for the financial services industry in the Cayman Islands. As the Cayman Islands are not subject to EU laws, the implementation of the EUSD is by way of bilateral agreements between each EU member state and the Cayman Islands. The government of the Cayman Islands agreed on a model agreement, which set out how the EUSD would be implemented with the Cayman Islands.[33]
A report published by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in March 2005, assessing supervision and regulation in the Cayman Islands' banking, insurance and securities industries, as well as its money laundering regime, recognised the jurisdiction's comprehensive regulatory and compliance frameworks. "An extensive program of legislative, rule and guideline development has introduced an increasingly effective system of regulation, both formalizing earlier practices and introducing enhanced procedures", noted IMF assessors. The report further stated that "the supervisory system benefits from a well-developed banking infrastructure with an internationally experienced and qualified workforce as well as experienced lawyers, accountants and auditors", adding that, "the overall compliance culture within Cayman is very strong, including the compliance culture related to AML (anti-money laundering) obligations".[34] [35]
On 4 May 2009, United States President Barack Obama declared his intentions to curb the use of financial centres by multinational corporations. In his speech, he singled out the Cayman Islands as a tax shelter.[36]
The next day, the Cayman Island Financial Services Association submitted an open letter to the President detailing The Cayman Islands' role in international finance and its value to the US financial system.[37]
Thursday, January 19, 2012
The Masks of Romney
This morning, speaking in South Carolina, Mitt Romney told us that his father-in-law came to America from Wales, where he had been a miner. Papa-in-law was injured in an accident, Romney said, and subsequently traveled to the United States because he viewed America as a land of opportunity. Although Romney didn't specify, we can draw the conclusion that it was in fact a mining accident.
I thought it was interesting, because, like all the Republicans presidential wannabes, Romney is campaigning against government regulation. He hasn't done much about specifying what regualtions he would do away with, but could mining regulations be among them? And would greater mining regulation years ago in Wales have saved his daddy by marriage from whatever his accident was?
In the midst of the frenetic election season, when government intervention in the world of private enterprise is under assault, we sometimes forget that regulations can save lives and protect health. I certainly hope we haven't forgotten the 29 miners who died in West Virginia two years ago. The mine owner had paid heavy fines to the government for safety violations because it was cheaper to pay the fines than install the safety equipment. What was needed there was not less regulation but steeper penalties that would provided an incentive for the owner to do the right thing. Frankly, the bastard should have gone to jail. (Remember, corporations are people, and this one was a mass murderer.)
In the same vein is the explosion at the BP oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico that killed eleven workers and injured several others. Compensation to the victims, to people whose livelihoods were affected, and money spent to clean the Gulf coast will mount into the billions, and all because BP couldn't be bothered to install safety equipment on the rig. Corporate officials responsible for the lapse should be doing time.
I bring this back to Romney because, like too many people, he seems to have forgotten his roots, or at least his father-in-law's roots. Romney, by the way, seems to me to be the least genuine candidate for president I have seen since Nixon. Where in the facade he presents to the public can we find the real Romney? What does he truly believe, other than truly believing he'd like to be president? Pictures of him always seem to show a big smile, like some celebrity in the entertainment field, brightening the day of the little people whose presence he is gracing very briefly.
But probably I shouldn't care. President Obama will be re-elected and Romney will get a sentence in the history books, nothing more. There's a fair chance he won't even be the GOP nominee.
I thought it was interesting, because, like all the Republicans presidential wannabes, Romney is campaigning against government regulation. He hasn't done much about specifying what regualtions he would do away with, but could mining regulations be among them? And would greater mining regulation years ago in Wales have saved his daddy by marriage from whatever his accident was?
In the midst of the frenetic election season, when government intervention in the world of private enterprise is under assault, we sometimes forget that regulations can save lives and protect health. I certainly hope we haven't forgotten the 29 miners who died in West Virginia two years ago. The mine owner had paid heavy fines to the government for safety violations because it was cheaper to pay the fines than install the safety equipment. What was needed there was not less regulation but steeper penalties that would provided an incentive for the owner to do the right thing. Frankly, the bastard should have gone to jail. (Remember, corporations are people, and this one was a mass murderer.)
In the same vein is the explosion at the BP oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico that killed eleven workers and injured several others. Compensation to the victims, to people whose livelihoods were affected, and money spent to clean the Gulf coast will mount into the billions, and all because BP couldn't be bothered to install safety equipment on the rig. Corporate officials responsible for the lapse should be doing time.
I bring this back to Romney because, like too many people, he seems to have forgotten his roots, or at least his father-in-law's roots. Romney, by the way, seems to me to be the least genuine candidate for president I have seen since Nixon. Where in the facade he presents to the public can we find the real Romney? What does he truly believe, other than truly believing he'd like to be president? Pictures of him always seem to show a big smile, like some celebrity in the entertainment field, brightening the day of the little people whose presence he is gracing very briefly.
But probably I shouldn't care. President Obama will be re-elected and Romney will get a sentence in the history books, nothing more. There's a fair chance he won't even be the GOP nominee.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
In America, we get the government we deserve. So if we elect Mitt Romney, we'll get this.
According to ABC News, Romney, a former executive at private equity firm Bain Capital who is projected to be worth upwards of $250 million, holds around $8 million of his personal wealth in as many as 12 funds based in the Cayman Islands. Romney also lists a separate investment, valued between $5 million and $25 million, placed on the same Caribbean island chain.
ABC News reports that Bain holds some 138 shrouded offshore funds in the Cayman Islands alone. Romney's campaign has maintained that such behavior is not unusual, and that Romney himself has paid all the appropriate U.S. taxes on his holdings within the accounts.
From ABC News:
According to ABC News, Romney, a former executive at private equity firm Bain Capital who is projected to be worth upwards of $250 million, holds around $8 million of his personal wealth in as many as 12 funds based in the Cayman Islands. Romney also lists a separate investment, valued between $5 million and $25 million, placed on the same Caribbean island chain.
ABC News reports that Bain holds some 138 shrouded offshore funds in the Cayman Islands alone. Romney's campaign has maintained that such behavior is not unusual, and that Romney himself has paid all the appropriate U.S. taxes on his holdings within the accounts.
From ABC News:
Tax experts agree that Romney remains subject to American taxes. But they say the offshore accounts have provided him -- and Bain -- with other potential financial benefits, such as higher management fees and greater foreign interest, all at the expense of the U.S. Treasury. Rebecca J. Wilkins, a tax policy expert with Citizens for Tax Justice, said the federal government loses an estimated $100 billion a year because of tax havens.Reuters reported earlier Wednesday that Bain also held accounts harbored in places such as Bermuda, Ireland and Hong Kong, which could lead to further questions about Romney's personal involvement in these holdings.
Monday, January 16, 2012
More on Presidential Elections
Some time ago, I posted that the Democrats have had a gradual upward trend in presidential elections while the Republican presidential candidates have trended slowly downward. Here are the vote totals from presidential elections, dating back to 1972.
1972
Nixon (R) 60.7%
McGovern (D) 37.5%
1976
Carter (D) 50.1%
Ford (R) 48.0%
1980
Reagan (R) 50.7%
Carter (D) 41.0 %
Anderson (I) 6.6%
1984
Reagan (R) 58.8%
Mondale (D) 40.6%
1988
Bush (R) 53.4%
Dukakis (D) 45.7%
1992
Clinton (D) 43.0%
Bush (R) 37.5%
Perot (I) 18.9%
1996
Clinton (D) 49.2%
Dole (R) 40.7%
Perot (I) 8.4%
2000
Bush (R) 47.9%
Gore (D) 48.4%
2004
Bush (R) 50.7%
Kerry (D) 48.3%
2008
Obama (D) 52.9%
McCain (R) 45.7%
And now a few observations. First of all, it's hard to tell who will be hurt most by an independent candidate. I'd guess that John Anderson took votes that would have gone more or less evenly between Reagan and Carter. Clearly, however, the Perot candidacies hurt Bush and Dole more than Clinton. Then in 2000 Ralph Nader's vote total, mostly taken from people who would have gone for Gore, cost him the presidency.
Second, the electorate has been divided pretty sharply for the last twenty years. There is no great concensus now, and hasn't been since the Reagan landslide of 1984. Democrats have done a little better in every succesive election since then with only minor setbacks, while the Republicans have gradually declined. That doesn't necessarily mean the trend won't be reversed this year, but the GOP obviously must attract a larger constituency, which explains why President Bush made his sporadic effort to win Latino voters. It doesn't seem to have worked so far - California has become a safe state for the Democrats, and Arizona and New Mexico are "in play" now, though they have gone Republican in days gone by.
Finally, for heaven's sake, don't nominate a candidate whose last name begins with the letter M. I don't know if this applies to candidates with a first name that starts with M.
1972
Nixon (R) 60.7%
McGovern (D) 37.5%
1976
Carter (D) 50.1%
Ford (R) 48.0%
1980
Reagan (R) 50.7%
Carter (D) 41.0 %
Anderson (I) 6.6%
1984
Reagan (R) 58.8%
Mondale (D) 40.6%
1988
Bush (R) 53.4%
Dukakis (D) 45.7%
1992
Clinton (D) 43.0%
Bush (R) 37.5%
Perot (I) 18.9%
1996
Clinton (D) 49.2%
Dole (R) 40.7%
Perot (I) 8.4%
2000
Bush (R) 47.9%
Gore (D) 48.4%
2004
Bush (R) 50.7%
Kerry (D) 48.3%
2008
Obama (D) 52.9%
McCain (R) 45.7%
And now a few observations. First of all, it's hard to tell who will be hurt most by an independent candidate. I'd guess that John Anderson took votes that would have gone more or less evenly between Reagan and Carter. Clearly, however, the Perot candidacies hurt Bush and Dole more than Clinton. Then in 2000 Ralph Nader's vote total, mostly taken from people who would have gone for Gore, cost him the presidency.
Second, the electorate has been divided pretty sharply for the last twenty years. There is no great concensus now, and hasn't been since the Reagan landslide of 1984. Democrats have done a little better in every succesive election since then with only minor setbacks, while the Republicans have gradually declined. That doesn't necessarily mean the trend won't be reversed this year, but the GOP obviously must attract a larger constituency, which explains why President Bush made his sporadic effort to win Latino voters. It doesn't seem to have worked so far - California has become a safe state for the Democrats, and Arizona and New Mexico are "in play" now, though they have gone Republican in days gone by.
Finally, for heaven's sake, don't nominate a candidate whose last name begins with the letter M. I don't know if this applies to candidates with a first name that starts with M.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Terminations, Part Two
Boil it down, and there are only two performance problems on a job. Either the employee can't do the work or the employee won't do the work.
If the employee can't do the work, the reason might be that he isn't smart enough for the job - he has been promoted to his level of incompetence. Or, perhaps he just doesn't have an apptitude for the particular job he's in. Or, he's not physically fit to do the work, or the work hasn't been explained adequately, or he hasn't been trained well enough to function properly in the job.
Remedies in any of these cases are rather obvious. Further training, counseling, or reassignment all can be tried before a manager takes the drastic step of terminating a worker.
An employee won't do the work for less apparent reasons. Perhaps she thinks the work is not part of her employment agreement, feels the work is beneath her status or dignity, has some personal issue with another employee, management, or difficulty at home that's affecting her performance. It could be she's just habituated to doing as little as possible on the job, is taking advantage of another employee's willingness to carry her load, is so soured by inept or callous management that she's trying to get revenge on the workplace.
Once again, there are steps a good boss can take short of dumping the employee. Attitude adjustment is a difficult task, especially when a bad outlook has been festering for years, but it's a large part of the manager's job to rectify performance problems and it must be confronted. The old adage that one bad apple spoils the barrel is entirely true. When the whole barrel has already spoiled, well, that's when things become truly difficult for the manager.
Let me say just a few words about feather-bedding, employing more people than are needed or retaining people in redundant or obsolete jobs. The classic case was the railroads continuing to employ firemen on their diesels because the unions insisted on it when there wasn't any need for such a position any longer. This is often laid at the feet of the unions, but management did agree to it when negotiating employee contract terms. Extra costs were passed along to the traveling public and freighters. I'm sure employee morale was low, even though the goal of the union was to protect the workforce (and their membership and union dues). Management needed to work through the problem, not perpetuate it.
I'll close with a personal example of bad management. My supervisor once told me on a Christmas eve that she had made changes to the organizational structure that I had opposed and felt were to my detriment. She then said, "Well, I'm leaving now. Be sure to lock up behind you when you go home." I spent the rest of the day fuming. Now I'll grant you, there's no good time to give someone bad news, but that really just took the cake. Is it any wonder that many employees have bad morale when management behaves like that?
If the employee can't do the work, the reason might be that he isn't smart enough for the job - he has been promoted to his level of incompetence. Or, perhaps he just doesn't have an apptitude for the particular job he's in. Or, he's not physically fit to do the work, or the work hasn't been explained adequately, or he hasn't been trained well enough to function properly in the job.
Remedies in any of these cases are rather obvious. Further training, counseling, or reassignment all can be tried before a manager takes the drastic step of terminating a worker.
An employee won't do the work for less apparent reasons. Perhaps she thinks the work is not part of her employment agreement, feels the work is beneath her status or dignity, has some personal issue with another employee, management, or difficulty at home that's affecting her performance. It could be she's just habituated to doing as little as possible on the job, is taking advantage of another employee's willingness to carry her load, is so soured by inept or callous management that she's trying to get revenge on the workplace.
Once again, there are steps a good boss can take short of dumping the employee. Attitude adjustment is a difficult task, especially when a bad outlook has been festering for years, but it's a large part of the manager's job to rectify performance problems and it must be confronted. The old adage that one bad apple spoils the barrel is entirely true. When the whole barrel has already spoiled, well, that's when things become truly difficult for the manager.
Let me say just a few words about feather-bedding, employing more people than are needed or retaining people in redundant or obsolete jobs. The classic case was the railroads continuing to employ firemen on their diesels because the unions insisted on it when there wasn't any need for such a position any longer. This is often laid at the feet of the unions, but management did agree to it when negotiating employee contract terms. Extra costs were passed along to the traveling public and freighters. I'm sure employee morale was low, even though the goal of the union was to protect the workforce (and their membership and union dues). Management needed to work through the problem, not perpetuate it.
I'll close with a personal example of bad management. My supervisor once told me on a Christmas eve that she had made changes to the organizational structure that I had opposed and felt were to my detriment. She then said, "Well, I'm leaving now. Be sure to lock up behind you when you go home." I spent the rest of the day fuming. Now I'll grant you, there's no good time to give someone bad news, but that really just took the cake. Is it any wonder that many employees have bad morale when management behaves like that?
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Terminations
Mitt Romney remarked that he likes being able to fire people, meaning he wants a company owner or manager to have the flexibility to remove an unsatisfactory (in the manager's opinion) employee. The Democrats and other Republicans immediately jumped on Romney's boo-boo to make it seem as though the ex-governor terminates underlings gleefully. One is reminded of Mr. Burns on The Simpsons, who gets rid of workers as a sport.
I'm not interested in defending Romney, or the prerogative of an employer to fire an employee at any time or for any reason, or no reason. Where it is legal to do so, companies have too frequently axed workers who are close to retirement and a pension, or on whatever whimsy or personal animosity they feel. I would like to say a few words about how to dump someone who just hasn't worked out.
Too often, a fired employee is told to clean out his desk and must depart in front of everyone, accompanied by security guards as if he's a thief.
Here's what I think. First of all, there should be no big surprises on evaluation day. An unsatisfactory worker should know beforehand what's about to happen. In other words, there should be reprimands and notes to files before the termination meeting takes place.
A manager must keep in mind that the firing is not a personal thing from her/his viewpoint, but it will be taken very personally by the person who is about to become unemployed. The manager doesn't hate the employee, doesn't want him/her to be miserable, impoverished, or anything else. The person being fired should be helped out the door with at least some dignity and sense of self-worth remaining.
Therefore, in the termination meeting it's important to begin with a complliment, before saying, "But things haven't worked out here." A short summary of the employee's failings might be given, but they should have been called to his attention on previous occasions and needn't be belabored.
The meeting then takes on the characteristics of an exit interview. The employee sshould know about any separation package and must be allowed to depart with a minimum of gawking from others.
There are exxceptions, of course. If the employee is being fired for theft or some other crime I'd say there's no need to be anything other than brutally honest. "you were caught with your hand in the till. You're done. Leave now."
But to be callous with someone who was merely inept is itself a sign of bad managment.
I'm not interested in defending Romney, or the prerogative of an employer to fire an employee at any time or for any reason, or no reason. Where it is legal to do so, companies have too frequently axed workers who are close to retirement and a pension, or on whatever whimsy or personal animosity they feel. I would like to say a few words about how to dump someone who just hasn't worked out.
Too often, a fired employee is told to clean out his desk and must depart in front of everyone, accompanied by security guards as if he's a thief.
Here's what I think. First of all, there should be no big surprises on evaluation day. An unsatisfactory worker should know beforehand what's about to happen. In other words, there should be reprimands and notes to files before the termination meeting takes place.
A manager must keep in mind that the firing is not a personal thing from her/his viewpoint, but it will be taken very personally by the person who is about to become unemployed. The manager doesn't hate the employee, doesn't want him/her to be miserable, impoverished, or anything else. The person being fired should be helped out the door with at least some dignity and sense of self-worth remaining.
Therefore, in the termination meeting it's important to begin with a complliment, before saying, "But things haven't worked out here." A short summary of the employee's failings might be given, but they should have been called to his attention on previous occasions and needn't be belabored.
The meeting then takes on the characteristics of an exit interview. The employee sshould know about any separation package and must be allowed to depart with a minimum of gawking from others.
There are exxceptions, of course. If the employee is being fired for theft or some other crime I'd say there's no need to be anything other than brutally honest. "you were caught with your hand in the till. You're done. Leave now."
But to be callous with someone who was merely inept is itself a sign of bad managment.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
A Question for the GOP Wannabes
About a year ago I posted a blog entry about a person who sought emergency room treatment for an unspecified illness while using a cellphone and sporting a gold tooth and some tattoos. The gist of the story was that this person was not taking responsibility for her/his own health care and welfare generally.
I said there might be any number of reasons the person was in this particular situation. Try to get a refund from your dentist or tattoo artist to pay for your emergency room visit (or anything else), for example.
My understanding of the Health Care Reform Act is that it is intended to ameliorate this problem by mandating private insurance for everyone and prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage to applicants. I'll agree that the Act is far from perfect. How much coverage is needed, for example, how high a deductible can a person get and still comply with the Act, and so forth. Still, it does demonstrably reduce the number of uninsured people in this country, such as the person I referred to a minute ago.
So my question to the GOP right-wingers is, if you object to freeeloaders using the healthcare system without paying for it, and object to "Obamacare," what would you do to solve the problem?
By the way, Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas and presidential hopeful, speaheads a very well financed political ad that claims the Health Care Reform Act was worked out in a sealed room in the middle of the night contrary to the wishes of most Americans. As I recall it, Congress agonized over the bill for a year, well covered by the media, and was the product of more compromises than I for one would have liked. Huckabee, for whom I once had a little respect, is wrong on all counts and a demagogue.
My advice generally is, before any election, look at who is doing the most advertising, and vote for the other candidate.
I said there might be any number of reasons the person was in this particular situation. Try to get a refund from your dentist or tattoo artist to pay for your emergency room visit (or anything else), for example.
My understanding of the Health Care Reform Act is that it is intended to ameliorate this problem by mandating private insurance for everyone and prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage to applicants. I'll agree that the Act is far from perfect. How much coverage is needed, for example, how high a deductible can a person get and still comply with the Act, and so forth. Still, it does demonstrably reduce the number of uninsured people in this country, such as the person I referred to a minute ago.
So my question to the GOP right-wingers is, if you object to freeeloaders using the healthcare system without paying for it, and object to "Obamacare," what would you do to solve the problem?
By the way, Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas and presidential hopeful, speaheads a very well financed political ad that claims the Health Care Reform Act was worked out in a sealed room in the middle of the night contrary to the wishes of most Americans. As I recall it, Congress agonized over the bill for a year, well covered by the media, and was the product of more compromises than I for one would have liked. Huckabee, for whom I once had a little respect, is wrong on all counts and a demagogue.
My advice generally is, before any election, look at who is doing the most advertising, and vote for the other candidate.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Political Thoughts
The Iowa cauuses are over, assumedly much to the relief of Iowans, and now the rapt attention of CNN and MSNBC will be fixed on New Hampshire for a week, before rocketing to South Carolina and then on to Florida. Like the rest of you I only want to say, "Is this any way to run a railroad?"
Actually, the entrance polls in Iowa were quite revealing, especially in what they said about which Republicans favor Mitt Romney. Romney did best among male participants who are elderly, white, and affluent. I think if he and the Republicans can't expand their appeal quite a bit by November trhey're headed for a big defeat.
There are Republicans who are not male, white, elderly or affluent, of course. The richest among them and the most highly educated were attracted to Ron Paul, while Rick Santorum, latest and possibly last darling of the "Anyone but Romney," faction, took the votes of the less well educated, less wealthy GOP voters. Probably the same constituent breakdown will occur in the next few primary states.
It seems a little ironic that Santorum, who is described as a devout Catholic, fares well with Republicans who think of themselves as evangelical born-again Christians. I say this thinking of the occasional accusation one hears that the Catholic church is a cult and not really Christian at all.
As usual, this year the vote will break somewhat by gender - men for the Republicans and women for the Democrats. In addition, the Democrats can count on majorities among black Americans, Latinos (except for Cuban Americans, a significant factor in Florida), and, until recently, Jewish citizens. All of this is good news for President Obama. In fact, an examination of presidential elections since 1972 shows a gradual upward trend for the Democrats for the last forty years, excepting only 1984.
So there you have it. Unless the Republicans can think of some way to detach a significant part of the Democratic coalition, Mr. Obama will have four more years in the White House, probably still check-mated by a Republican majority in one or both houses of Congress. If you liked the last two years, you're gonna love the next four. For the rest of us, it'll be more cynicism and apathy.
Actually, the entrance polls in Iowa were quite revealing, especially in what they said about which Republicans favor Mitt Romney. Romney did best among male participants who are elderly, white, and affluent. I think if he and the Republicans can't expand their appeal quite a bit by November trhey're headed for a big defeat.
There are Republicans who are not male, white, elderly or affluent, of course. The richest among them and the most highly educated were attracted to Ron Paul, while Rick Santorum, latest and possibly last darling of the "Anyone but Romney," faction, took the votes of the less well educated, less wealthy GOP voters. Probably the same constituent breakdown will occur in the next few primary states.
It seems a little ironic that Santorum, who is described as a devout Catholic, fares well with Republicans who think of themselves as evangelical born-again Christians. I say this thinking of the occasional accusation one hears that the Catholic church is a cult and not really Christian at all.
As usual, this year the vote will break somewhat by gender - men for the Republicans and women for the Democrats. In addition, the Democrats can count on majorities among black Americans, Latinos (except for Cuban Americans, a significant factor in Florida), and, until recently, Jewish citizens. All of this is good news for President Obama. In fact, an examination of presidential elections since 1972 shows a gradual upward trend for the Democrats for the last forty years, excepting only 1984.
So there you have it. Unless the Republicans can think of some way to detach a significant part of the Democratic coalition, Mr. Obama will have four more years in the White House, probably still check-mated by a Republican majority in one or both houses of Congress. If you liked the last two years, you're gonna love the next four. For the rest of us, it'll be more cynicism and apathy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)