I'm glad to hear that Dick Cheney is "resting comfortably" in the hospital following his heart problem. But how else does one rest? Uncomfortably?
Just wondering.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Toothless Tiger
No, this isn't another post about you-know-who. It's about the concept of regulation, and I thought it appropriate, with the new credit card law taking effect this week.
The law does a few good things, like requiring notice of interest rate hikes, restricting abusive fees and controlling the availability of cards to college-age kids. But there is no cap on interest rates, and there's nothing to prevent the issuers from arbitrarily lowering -- or even raising -- the credit lines attached to those cards.
Personally, I think credit card agreements should be more contractual instruments. You agree with the issuer on terms up front for a period, say, up to five years, in which your credit line is fixed and they can't raise your interest rates beyond a certain level above prime, unless you show a pattern of delinquency. We should live so long.
What really needs attention, as I've observed many times before, is the FICO score system (note the four-letter acronym beginning with "f."). If you pay off -- and cancel -- your credit cards tomorrow, you're in danger of lowering your credit score. So the experts tell you, pay the card off -- not too quickly -- and leave the account open. But the card issuers may choose to cut your credit line anyway (which also lowers your score). So you can't even say, take this card and shove it.
But I digress -- back to the bigger issue. I like the idea of small government, too, but we expect government to provide, at the very least, for our safety and security. To me, this means, by extension, protecting us from becoming victims. This requires REGULATION. You hate what the big banks are doing to you, but is government on your side? After being blamed for causing a crisis rivaling the Great Depression, have financial institutions, Wall Street or the insurance industry been required to change a single practice (other than the few outlined in the credit card law)? The FDA is supposed to be regulating the pharmaceutical industry; is it effectively preventing harmful drugs from making it to market? In general, government is much more effective at paperwork (or electronic file) generation than doing the most significant part of its job.
Sorry folks, the free market doesn't work without rules of the road. The President and Congress need not only to provide us with reasonable (what a devil of a word that is!) rules, but also to provide a government large enough -- and dedicated to -- enforcing those rules. Can you blame the Tea Party people for being fed up with a government that just isn't there for them? If it were, size wouldn't matter.
The law does a few good things, like requiring notice of interest rate hikes, restricting abusive fees and controlling the availability of cards to college-age kids. But there is no cap on interest rates, and there's nothing to prevent the issuers from arbitrarily lowering -- or even raising -- the credit lines attached to those cards.
Personally, I think credit card agreements should be more contractual instruments. You agree with the issuer on terms up front for a period, say, up to five years, in which your credit line is fixed and they can't raise your interest rates beyond a certain level above prime, unless you show a pattern of delinquency. We should live so long.
What really needs attention, as I've observed many times before, is the FICO score system (note the four-letter acronym beginning with "f."). If you pay off -- and cancel -- your credit cards tomorrow, you're in danger of lowering your credit score. So the experts tell you, pay the card off -- not too quickly -- and leave the account open. But the card issuers may choose to cut your credit line anyway (which also lowers your score). So you can't even say, take this card and shove it.
But I digress -- back to the bigger issue. I like the idea of small government, too, but we expect government to provide, at the very least, for our safety and security. To me, this means, by extension, protecting us from becoming victims. This requires REGULATION. You hate what the big banks are doing to you, but is government on your side? After being blamed for causing a crisis rivaling the Great Depression, have financial institutions, Wall Street or the insurance industry been required to change a single practice (other than the few outlined in the credit card law)? The FDA is supposed to be regulating the pharmaceutical industry; is it effectively preventing harmful drugs from making it to market? In general, government is much more effective at paperwork (or electronic file) generation than doing the most significant part of its job.
Sorry folks, the free market doesn't work without rules of the road. The President and Congress need not only to provide us with reasonable (what a devil of a word that is!) rules, but also to provide a government large enough -- and dedicated to -- enforcing those rules. Can you blame the Tea Party people for being fed up with a government that just isn't there for them? If it were, size wouldn't matter.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Republican Nightmare
So what do you think would happen to President Obama's approval rating if Osama bin Laden were captured or killed on his watch? Given the impressive enemy captures of recent days, it could actually happen.
Would Jimmy Carter have had another four years if the Iranian hostage rescue attempt had succeeded? Just wondering.
Would Jimmy Carter have had another four years if the Iranian hostage rescue attempt had succeeded? Just wondering.
Friday, February 19, 2010
OK, So I Lied
As long as today is the day of Coming Clean, I have to confess that my statement in the last post that I had better things to do than watch Tiger Woods' mea culpa today was false. Of course I watched it!
And you know what? I'm willing to cut this guy a little slack. Some critics have called this media event a public relations disaster; others have said when Tiger talks about his "problem" it smacks too much of "the Devil made me do it." But I actually think it worked.
If it were me, I would have made it a real news conference, allowing some members of the golfing media to attend and ask questions, telling them up front that I would not answer anything I thought was out of bounds. The criticism remains that the whole thing was staged.
But Tiger did what he had to do, which was apologize to his wife, family, close friends, his sponsors, his foundation staff and board, and the kids who benefit from his foundation. He had to do this for himself, whether or not it was good PR. From what I know about addiction treatment programs, one of the required stations of the cross is apologizing for your transgressions and making amends. It doesn't require the addict to actually win forgiveness, just to make the effort, and I think Tiger was sincere in that department.
I still maintain that he owes no apology to golf fans; indeed, they will feel cheated if Tiger stays away from golf for too long. And in spite of how some pundits feel, the average bear will accept the apology.
Will there be more revelations? Probably. Tiger certainly has no obligation to furnish details of his misdeeds to the general public -- the tabloid press will take care of that. This story is going to go on for quite a while, but eventually it will all be old news.
Given Tiger's admissions, he has forfeited the right, as I said yesterday, to be thought of as an Arnold Palmer. But as for role-modeling, what's wrong with the image of a celebrity who admits his mistakes and then turns his life around? It's the second half, of course, that counts.
And you know what? I'm willing to cut this guy a little slack. Some critics have called this media event a public relations disaster; others have said when Tiger talks about his "problem" it smacks too much of "the Devil made me do it." But I actually think it worked.
If it were me, I would have made it a real news conference, allowing some members of the golfing media to attend and ask questions, telling them up front that I would not answer anything I thought was out of bounds. The criticism remains that the whole thing was staged.
But Tiger did what he had to do, which was apologize to his wife, family, close friends, his sponsors, his foundation staff and board, and the kids who benefit from his foundation. He had to do this for himself, whether or not it was good PR. From what I know about addiction treatment programs, one of the required stations of the cross is apologizing for your transgressions and making amends. It doesn't require the addict to actually win forgiveness, just to make the effort, and I think Tiger was sincere in that department.
I still maintain that he owes no apology to golf fans; indeed, they will feel cheated if Tiger stays away from golf for too long. And in spite of how some pundits feel, the average bear will accept the apology.
Will there be more revelations? Probably. Tiger certainly has no obligation to furnish details of his misdeeds to the general public -- the tabloid press will take care of that. This story is going to go on for quite a while, but eventually it will all be old news.
Given Tiger's admissions, he has forfeited the right, as I said yesterday, to be thought of as an Arnold Palmer. But as for role-modeling, what's wrong with the image of a celebrity who admits his mistakes and then turns his life around? It's the second half, of course, that counts.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Please Pass the Tea
So far, I haven’t been to a Tea Party, but the movement is forcing me to wake up and smell the coffee.
First of all, most of us would like to see a smaller, less intrusive government. You don’t have to be a wacko to want that. No one likes the idea of staggering debt, right? But can we agree we need government to do a few things? Such as:
1. Safety and Security. This is clearly the first duty.
2. Infrastructure. This is basically pothole repair on a grand scale. And, in the case of Washington, D.C. today, snow removal.
3. Regulation. Maybe this isn’t a Tea Party priority, but look at it this way: Traffic signals not only prevent accidents but actually improve the flow of traffic, right? Regulation is an extension of police power. Police are there to protect us from being victimized in the course of normal activity.
4. Education. Providing for a workforce that is ready to compete.
OK, I didn’t include health care. That would be nice, but we can’t afford a top-to-bottom reform all at once. What we CAN afford, it seems to me, falls under (3) above. Start doing something about insurance company abuses. Perhaps other parts of the health care industry (which it shouldn’t be) need regulation as well. And at least some access needs to be provided for those who can least afford it. We’re paying for these people now anyway (or, Tea Partiers, should we just let these people die at home or in the street?).
With all of the above, the critical part is making sure the money is spent properly. We throw a lot of money at safety and security, for instance, but are these dollars actually making us safer and more secure? Are bridges being built to nowhere? Can we reasonably regulate without stifling markets? Education spending may seem frivolous if it doesn’t advance us toward the goal of creating a prepared workforce.
The Tea Party won’t be much of a party unless the movement can coalesce around the things it really agrees on. Simply changing out members of Congress is only a first step.
First of all, most of us would like to see a smaller, less intrusive government. You don’t have to be a wacko to want that. No one likes the idea of staggering debt, right? But can we agree we need government to do a few things? Such as:
1. Safety and Security. This is clearly the first duty.
2. Infrastructure. This is basically pothole repair on a grand scale. And, in the case of Washington, D.C. today, snow removal.
3. Regulation. Maybe this isn’t a Tea Party priority, but look at it this way: Traffic signals not only prevent accidents but actually improve the flow of traffic, right? Regulation is an extension of police power. Police are there to protect us from being victimized in the course of normal activity.
4. Education. Providing for a workforce that is ready to compete.
OK, I didn’t include health care. That would be nice, but we can’t afford a top-to-bottom reform all at once. What we CAN afford, it seems to me, falls under (3) above. Start doing something about insurance company abuses. Perhaps other parts of the health care industry (which it shouldn’t be) need regulation as well. And at least some access needs to be provided for those who can least afford it. We’re paying for these people now anyway (or, Tea Partiers, should we just let these people die at home or in the street?).
With all of the above, the critical part is making sure the money is spent properly. We throw a lot of money at safety and security, for instance, but are these dollars actually making us safer and more secure? Are bridges being built to nowhere? Can we reasonably regulate without stifling markets? Education spending may seem frivolous if it doesn’t advance us toward the goal of creating a prepared workforce.
The Tea Party won’t be much of a party unless the movement can coalesce around the things it really agrees on. Simply changing out members of Congress is only a first step.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)