One Last Word about Race
Last week, the world was abuzz with Andrew Breitbart’s posting of a video that depicted Shirley Sherrod in a racist light. As a result, the Obama administration (showing their usual fortitude when the going gets tough) called Ms. Sherrod while she was driving and demanded her immediate resignation. It was only after the full video came to light that the administration realized that in attempting to quell a political firestorm before it erupted, they triggered another. By Friday, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack was forced to issue a public apology and offer Ms. Sherrod a new job.
Most of the coverage of this event seems to gravitate towards one of two veins:
- The media messed things up badly by not vetting the story before airing/printing it. True enough, but then again, we haven’t had professional journalists in charge of newsrooms for a generation – I’m at a loss as to why anyone is surprised when gibberish comes out of them.
- The Obama administration over-reacted to a perceived political threat. Well… yes, they did. But this is hardly anything new for this President or his closest advisors. Don’t forget, Obama is the same guy who publicly dissed his own pastor rather than stomach the ensuing political fight while he was Candidate Obama.
But what is most disturbing to me is that once again, our Nation has let a potentially culture-altering moment slip into the abyss of silence. Because really, if you stop to think about it, this moment was created by our Nation’s inability to come to grips with our inherent cultural differences.
A quick history lesson: immediately prior to the scalping of Ms. Sherrod’s reputation by Mr. Breitbart, the NAACP issued a statement that, in effect, called the Tea Party a racist movement. What predicated that statement is a very real perception in communities of color that the very ideas expressed by the Tea Party movement are, in themselves, racist. Mr. Breitbart then either received or created an edited video seeming to depict a NAACP meeting espousing equally racist ideology, which he then posted to his blog. I have no way of knowing if Andrew Breitbart is racist. I have no way of knowing the same about the President of the NAACP, Ben Jealous, is a racist. I don’t know either man, and quite frankly, I could care less if either one is. This post isn’t directed to the true racists (be they white, black or whatever) – you know who you are, and you can stop reading here. The world has always had your kind and quite frankly, while we would be better off without you, at least you aren’t very ambiguous about your views.
But what the entire episode demonstrates is that our nation, conceived in the concept of equality for all, has a long way to go before we realize that ideal. And the reason we do is much more subtle than racism. It is called prejudice, and its ugly head will keep appearing in our national discourse until everyone does something about it.
Prejudice differs from racism in very profound ways. Odds are you harbor prejudicial tendencies – even if you aren’t aware of them. Prejudice simply means that your perception of something is biased by your subconscious thoughts, often irrationally. People generally harbor hundreds of prejudices, and not only in regards to race. You may prefer Chevrolets to Toyotas without knowing why. Perhaps your father and grandfather always drove Chevrolets and spoke rudely about Japanese automakers, which created a subconscious impression that Chevrolets are superior to Toyotas. Much the same away, impressions regarding race and racial stereotypes are given to us when we are young. In order to overcome them, we wind up spending a lifetime – and rarely succeed in entirely dispensing with our prejudices. Think about how you overcome your prejudices to any other thing, aside from race: you learn by association, constant and reinforced association. To go back to the car analogy, you probably start slowly. You go for a ride in a friends Toyota and discover the car isn’t that bad. Then you rent one for a business trip and discover that the car basically handles like any other car. Eventually, you buy one for yourself.
The speech given by Ms. Sherrod actually addressed that reality and her struggles to overcome her own prejudices. For those who still haven’t heard her biography, here is the Cliff’s Notes Version: her father, a civil rights activist, was murdered by the KKK when she was a girl. Nobody was ever brought to trial for the crime, which (unfortunately) was all too common for the time. Fast forward to 1990 and Ms. Sherrod is a paid advocate for poor farmers; she happens to get the case of a poor – but white – farmer. Succumbing to her own prejudices, she sends the farmer to a white lawyer for assistance. Only later does she realize that she had, because of prejudice, abandoned her duty to the farmer and make a conscious effort to never allow that to happen again.
In a not-so-violent way, I can relate to Ms. Sherrod’s story. I was raised in a relatively cloistered community, decidedly rural and definitely WASP-ish. I never met a person of a different ethnicity, much less race, before joining the Marine Corps. And I certainly had more than my share of racial missteps stemming from prejudices over the intervening 27 years. And like Ms. Sherrod, I make conscious efforts daily to not allow them to interfere with my daily life. Most of the time, I succeed. Occasionally, I do not. Those occasions where I fail, though, are moments I reflect on and identify the reasons for my failure. I then resolve to learn more about the cause of the particular prejudicial thought and reaction and address ways to overcome it. While I will never be able to say I have the life experience of somebody from a black community, I can learn to appreciate the culture. The same holds true with other communities my life has led me to interact with – Puerto Rican, Mexican, Chinese, and Philipino, Jewish and on the list goes. But you get the idea (I hope).
I truly believe that until we begin to associate with one another, not as hyphenated Americans but simply as Americans, until we learn to recognize that we all harbor prejudices and work to overcome them as individuals, we will never move past the issue of race in American life. The good news is that like many other people I’ve met, we can all overcome our personal prejudices without undue effort. It’s time to make that effort. It’s time to get out of our cloistered communities and begin that association – and to understand that until we begin to discuss those things that make us different we cannot discuss the things that bind us together.
Extending Benefits
I’m certain many of you have been watching the unfolding – seemingly in slow-motion – debate on extending unemployment benefits. Then again, I’m also certain that quite a few of my fellow citizens haven’t given it more thought than which sunscreen to bring to the beach. After all, it is July. This is hardly the time of year when political juices get flowing for most of the electorate.
However, I have two strikes against me when thinking about this: for one, I am an admitted political junkie and two; I am one of those approximately 6,800,000 Americans who has been officially unemployed for longer than 6 months. (That’s a pretty dismal number, but it’s actually rosy when compared to the long-term underemployment number and the actual numbers of Americans who have been unemployed so long that the feds stopped counting them. But I digress.) So, I’ve been watching and listening with keen interest.
Being fiscally conservative (ok, ϋber-conservative) and also unable to secure new, permanent employment, I find myself torn between the two very real issues at play. Those two issues are, to put it simply, how do we reconcile a real need to prevent utter destitution for the millions like myself – and at the same time, do it in a way that doesn’t further bankrupt the country? It seems to most reasonable Americans that the proposal put forth by the Republican caucus – paying for the cost of extending unemployment benefits by using some of the remaining funds from last year’s gargantuan stimulus package – is a good compromise. Why the Democratic caucus is so opposed to the idea has been beyond me. After all, even that most liberal of economists, Paul Krugman has said repeatedly that unemployment benefits are “a highly effective form of stimulus.” Congress loves “earmarks,” or setting aside money for pet projects. In an election year when there are likely upwards of 20 million voters who face the prospect of losing everything on a daily basis, it seems logical that Congress would earmark $38 billion of pre-existing expenditures on a pretty popular program. It would be a win-win, something that almost never happens for a politician: they could claim both the labels of “caring liberal” and “fiscal conservative” with one vote. So why won’t they?
The answer (as with almost everything Congress does these days) lies in the details. The program is part of H.R. 4213, a 412 page megalith that deals with a whole of stuff not at all related to employment or economic stimulus. In fact, the section dealing with the benefit extensions is Title V, subtitle A of the bill. It incorporates all of 9 ½ pages of the bill.
I’m sure you’re asking yourself what could be in the other 402 pages of the bill. Well, here are a few highlights. Feel free to hit the link and read it for yourself:
*Provisions to build sewer systems
*Alternative fuels vehicle credits
*Energy efficient appliance tax credits
*New standards for windows and doors (You can’t make this up, folks)
*Railroad track maintenance credits
*Rum excise tax relief for Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. Hey, even if we’re all broke, at least we should be able to swig cheap rum, get drunk and forget this mess!
The list goes on and on. There are over 500 individual line items in this bill. Not only have our congressmen been busy putting earmarks into this thing, it seems they’ve taken special care to pack it with more pork than a Jimmy Dean breakfast sausage. No wonder they couldn’t find the $38 billion! (By the way, by the Obama administrations own estimates, there should be nearly $340 billion left from last year’s budget buster.)
Oh, and one final note regarding the supposed disincentive of providing unemployment benefits: In ordinary times, I agree that extending unemployment benefits can be a disincentive to finding gainful employment. But these are not ordinary times; not when estimates range from five to eight people for every available job opening. And speaking from personal experience, I can assure you that getting 30% of my prior earnings in an unemployment check doesn’t exactly meet my monthly commitments. Here’s hoping Sen. Jon Kyl and Senatorial candidate Sharron Angle, who have publicly espoused this thought, take a good look around their respective states and come to their senses. They are not properly representing their constituents, their party or the nation as long as they hold that view.
Announcement
As some may have noticed, I’ve been writing for Zell’s Pinstripe Blog. Feel free to read my baseball musings there, at http:zellspinstripeblog.wordpress.com.
You can still join me here for the latest in political conversation.
RIP George
In case you’ve been under a rock this morning, George M. Steinbrenner III, owner of the greatest sports franchise in history for the past 38 years, passed away around 9:45am after a massive heart attack.He had just celebrated his 80thbirthday on July 4.
George was bombastic, argumentative and at times a bit crazy. But like your slightly off-kilter uncle, George was part of our family – and because he was always a fan first and owner second, we understood and accepted him, even when the rest of the world tried to shun him. We always knew we were part of the Yankees Family, as long as George was around. Yes, he made a ton of money, but unlike other owners in any sport, he put that money back into the team. Ask a fan in Kansas City or Pittsburgh if they would rather have their current ownership or a George Steinbrenner, and the answer is always “George.” As much as the rest of baseball cries foul every time the Yankees sign the best players on the free agent market to multi-million dollar contracts, MLB has never had to step in and force the Yankees to spend their revenue on improving the team (a la the Florida Marlins). Even when the media would hoist him on a petard of his own making, George remained the Boss: large and in charge.
And one thing remained constant throughout the years: winning. When he bought the team in 1973 from CBS, the Yankees had fallen to become a laughing stock. The great stadium was empty on most days and falling into disrepair, the team was terrible and without direction. From the start, the Boss was determined to restore the Yankee legacy. He convinced a broke New York City to repair the destitute field that had once seen immortals like Babe Ruth, Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle. He imported new stars to roam a revitalized Yankee Stadium: Mickey Rivers. Willie Randolph. Graig Nettles. Lou Piniella. Bucky Dent. Chris Chambliss. Catfish Hunter. Reggie Jackson. Within three years, the Yankees had returned to the World Series. The next season, the team rewarded George with the first of his seven world championships. In 2009, the new Yankee Stadium was completed and while we were all saddened to see the original go, it truly is worthy of the name Yankee Stadium. George struck again, signing CC Sabathia, AJ Burnett and Mark Texeira. And once again, the team rewarded him with a world championship.
The public perception of George was of a man who didn’t care about those around him, but his legacy will be larger than the Bronx Bombers. Over the years, he created foundations that will continue to serve the needs of ordinary people throughout the Tampa and New York areas for years to come. As a veteran, the work George did for our servicemen and women, including sponsoring scholarships for the children of fallen heroes, will always hold a special place in my heart.
George Steinbrenner was not always a beloved figure in New York sports, but nobody ever doubted his commitment to winning. For that, Yankees fans everywhere will always love him. RIP, Boss – you earned it.
The Declaration Demystified
Yesterday, I posted the Declaration of Independence, in its entirety. I hope you have had a chance to read it. If not, please do – it is our republics founding document. The principles laid out by Thomas Jefferson and agreed to by the other founding fathers represent more than why the United States came into existence. Those principles are the very lifeblood of our nation and the primary reason that for the past 234 years, millions of people have risked everything to call the USA “home.”
What are those principles, those core beliefs that identify what it means to be an “American?”
I’ve decided to write a series to cover what are best called “The American Principles.” Today begins the lesson.
First and foremost, an American believes the core phrase from the Declaration: “All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” That is a heck of phrase, outlining the four tenets of Americanism in only 27 words. Yet, those 27 words are the key to understanding every vital document that came before and after. Let’s break them down and truly understand the meaning.
The first thing to understand is that while the Founders were deeply spiritual men, they did not all conform to the same religion. While most were Protestant, at least two were Catholic and two were Jewish. Additionally, there were deep divisions in terms of what types of Protestantism were observed by the rest. There were Quakers, Shakers, Baptists, Calvinists and Anglicans. So, while all of these men agreed in principle that there is a God, not all were comfortable with using the word. (It is sacrilegious for some to mention the name of God). Additionally, none felt comfortable in obligating the rest to a specific observance, since one of the major impetuses leading to settlement of the colonies was the pursuit of religious freedom and tolerance. And so, in our founding document we see the result of the tension between government and religion (or more precisely, government and multiple religions): the idea that the government should not endorse a particular religion. This creed was later adopted and formalized in the First Amendment to the US Constitution (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…). However, it should be pointed out that while the Founders did not believe the government should formally recognize any particular religion for fear of giving it privileged status (in effect, creating a state religion), they also did not believe that government should be devoid of any spiritual context. As a result, the founders inserted the generic “Creator” into the Declaration, although each member of Congress interpreted that to mean God as understood in the typical Judeo-Christian ethos.
This is crucial to understanding this phrase. Men are created and given rights by that which created them; therefore, their rights are divinely formed. It follows that governments, which are institutions of men, cannot supersede a divinely given right. So, therefore, the rights that are expressly enumerated – Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness – are divine rights, granted to men by God and inviolable. No legal government can usurp those rights and if it attempts to, then it is the right of the people to overthrow the government.
Where do the people derive the right to overthrow an unjust government? We’ll cover that in the next part…
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When
in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right; it is their Duty, to throw off the such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security – Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity of which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. –The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative House repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws of Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriation of Lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has evinced a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our Legislatures.
He has effected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution; and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent their Acts of pretended Legislation.
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders they should commit on the inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
For abolishing the free system of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislature, and declaring themselves invested with the power to legislate for us in cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt out towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken captive on the High Seas to bear arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and do all other Acts and Things which Independent State of right do.
And for support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes and our Sacred Honor.
What a Week!
What a Week!
June 28, 2010
The Yankees are now home after completing a tour of the NL West. Well, a half-tour, anyway – and considering the way the games against the Diamondbacks and Dodgers went, I don’t think anyone in the Bronx is exactly sorry to have missed out on seeing the Giants and Padres. So, what did we learn about the Bombers this past week?
- Even when this team plays like crap, they’re still better than most. The series finales against Arizona and LA were hardly well-played, crisp games. Despite Andy Pettite uncharacteristically trying to literally throw a game away against the Dodgers, the team rebounded with four runs in the 9th and two more in the 10th to win. And after Dontrelle Willis and Javier Vazquez proceeded to try and walk everyone in the ballpark (including the hot-dog vendor in section 235); after both teams managed to run themselves out of big inning after big inning; the Yanks won a game that set baseball back to the Snuffy Stirnweiss era.
- Dave Eiland may be more important than anyone realized. While the rest of the pitching staff has rolled on this month while he took a leave of absence, AJ Burnett’s implosion worsened on this trip. He managed to pitch to a 16.71 ERA in two starts. The rest of the numbers aren’t any better (unless you’re masochistic enough to think a 1.432 OPSa is great). Most alarming is that as a strike-out pitcher, AJ only managed 13 total swings-and-misses over 7 innings. That’s less than two per inning. AJ simply cannot succeed if bats are finding his pitches. If Eiland’s imminent return doesn’t cure AJ it will be time for the Yankees to forget looking to the Marlins for pitching help. After Kevin Brown and Carl Pavano before, it may just be that the chemicals in Miami’s water cause combustion when mixed with NYC water.
- Forget Cliff Lee and David DeJesus. The Yankees aren’t desperate for starting pitching or outfield health. The emergence of stable play from farmhands Chad Huffman and Colin Curtis have given the Yanks solid OF options (which may be needed more than ever, depending on Brett Gardner’s health). And despite AJ Burnett’s problems (see above), I doubt he’ll continue to pitch this poorly. Infield depth, though, is another matter. I like Ramiro Pena and Kevin Russo, but they’ve proven their bats are not big-league ready. There are available infielders out there – Ty Wiggington, Jeff Keppinger, Garrett Atkins and Johnny Peralta, just to name a few. Will the Yankees get one? Time will tell, but it’s hard to imagine this team rolling into August without a veteran manning the reserve IF spot.
Finally, what are the Yanks to do with Chan-Ho Park? In two appearances, Chan Oh-No proved to be more arsonist than fireman. It’s hard to imagine the team cutting bait on this guy. Brian Cashman hates admitting mistakes and after having to DFA Randy Winn earlier this year, dumping Park would be another admittance of failure. But at this point, the manager has expressed reservations about using him in anything other than a mop-up role. My bet is once either Alfredo Aceves or Sergio Mitre comes off the DL, Park should pack his bags in anticipation of a one-way ticket out of New York.
Who’s Driving?
I’m certain by now you’ve heard that Rolling Stone published a pretty scathing article about Gen. Stanley McCrystal. For all the hoo-ha about comments made about the current administration, the article is about much more than that: it tears the administration a new one on the current war policy and strategy. It also highlights a a problem I blogged about last week; the administration’s inability to make a command decision.
I really could care less about the parts of the story that have gained the most media airtime. In case you were under a rock, the press has been having fun with the fact Gen. McCrystal doesn’t have much respect for the President, Vice-President or US Ambassador to Afghanistan? To which I say, So What? Most people in the military have little respect and less regard for any of them. That’s not news; it’s simply a wake-up call to those who have never served that the military mindset prefers direct action over consensus building. Even though the article paints an unflattering picture of McCrystal as a Col. Kurtz type character (the narcissistic commander in “Apocalypse Now” played by Marlon Brando), it’s pretty clear throughout the article that none of the rank-and-file have much use for the President’s strategy in Afghanistan. As one soldier complains to Gen. McCrystal,
“You say we’ve stopped the momentum of the insurgency. I don’t believe that’s true in this area. The more we pull back, the more we restrain ourselves, the stronger it’s getting.”
This, to me, pretty much sums up the principle issue of Obama’s Presidency: an inability to come to quick, astute decisions.
I’m not the only one is lamenting the President’s obvious inability to lead. As Richard Cohen writes in “President Obama’s Enigmatic Intellectualism,”
“What these people were seeking was not an eruption of anger, not a tantrum and not a full-scale denunciation of an oil company. What they wanted instead was a sign that this catastrophe meant something to Obama, that it was not merely another problem that had crossed his desk…”
In other words, we have a President who actually seems afraid that any decision he makes will end up being wrong. Which, of course, seems pretty strange for a guy who was supposedly elected because his intellect gave him a sense of invincibility.
Mr President, I’m restating the plea I made a week ago: please, please stop triangulating and start leading. Even though I’m on definitely on the political right, the last thing the nation needs is a Presidency whose authority is compromised by a lack of cajones. We’ve experienced that before – the feckless Carter years being the most recent. It was the most dismal four years in our nation’s recent history – but so far, this President seems intent on recreating that era. Consider:
- Double digit unemployment, a faltering economy and no prospects of a turn-around
- A nation at the mercy of the Iranians and Koreans
- Israel being left at the gates in favor of “moderate” Arab states
- A general national unease about the ship of state being rudderless
Crisis in Crisis Management
As everyone is well aware by now, the President gave his first Oval Office address the other night. Plenty has been said and written about what was in the speech – Howard Kurtz has a terrific summary in the Washington Post – but what nobody wrote about is, what wasn’t in the speech. And what was missing is more illuminating about why the spill in the Gulf of Mexico has careened out of control than anything the President said.
As most of the readers of this blog are aware, my political tendencies are toward the conservative. However, while I am opposed to most of the administration’s policies, I still do not wish the President ill when dealing with all matter of crises that every President faces. The best hope for our survival as a nation is to have people in the Oval Office and West Wing who are competent. Unfortunately, the USA once again has a President who is neither in charge nor, it seems, knows how to take charge.
The Gulf Oil Spill is only the latest crisis to illustrate this problem. Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan and the economy are all crises that have been mangled by an endless set of blunders, bloopers and missteps. But for many Americans, this particular crisis is the final straw. Of course, there is nothing like being witness to millions of gallons of oil pouring out of the ocean floor and making its way to our shores to crystallize the idea that this administration is – incompetent.
The level of incompetence is stupefying. After all, this was supposed to be the cerebral presidency; a defining contrast to the predicate administration. This was supposed to be an administration of highly intelligent, outside-the-beltway , outside-the-box thinkers who could handle all the world’s woes and bring us safely to the future. But the common thread in all of the inaction, indecisiveness and ineffectiveness the world has witnessed over the past 18 months is that nobody in this Ivy educated klatch has a clue about crisis management.
This is not to say the administration is incapable of recognizing a crisis. Every member seems well aware of the critical situations around them. But instead of figuring out how to resolve them, the administration seems hell-bent on following Rahm Emmanuel’s “never let a good crisis go to waste” policy of using crises to forge political points. What President Obama and the rest of his policy wonks have failed to notice is that the country does not want a new political agenda – they want action that resolves the crisis. In fact, if the President focused more energy on solving those crises swirling around right now, odds are he could make more political hay by pointing to his administration’s competence.
It may be that with a West Wing full of political operatives (and not necessarily administrators and managers – see Elena Kagan) that none of them have any experience solving a crisis. This probably comes as a shock to most Americans, since it seems anyone who has ever had a leadership position in the private sector has had their share of crises to avert and overcome. Heck, I had my first taste of crisis management as a 19 year old Lance Corporal and section leader. But, the thing to remember is that none of President Obama’s top aides have any private industry experience, and neither does the President. In fact, they have come from either the legislative branch or are political apparatchiks, where crisis management primarily involves three steps: duck and run, blame the other guy and propose new rules to prevent future ducking and running. Anyone else see a correlation between that philosophy and the way the current crises are being handled?
So, Mr. President, here are the basic tenets of effective crisis management. You may want to feed them into your teleprompter.
- Identify the problem. Gee, seems simple enough. “Houston, we have a problem.” And as I mentioned, the White House seems to have this part down pat.
- Identify possible solutions. This means actually looking at the problem in-depth and figuring out ways to fix it. Millions of gallons of crude headed for the beach? Call out every possible resource – ASAP and get it cleaned up. Worry about who/how it will be paid for later.
- Limit objectives. In other words, deal with the crisis in hand, not the one that may happen next week.
- Quickly implement the best solution, but be ready with the next in case it doesn’t work. This is called “taking charge.” You may notice that the operative word is “quickly.” Dawdling about for 50+ days is not “quickly.”
- Maintain communication. Taking trips to the golf course doesn’t fit with this model. Neither does going on vacation. Neither does waiting 58 days before telling the country that you really have no idea what the heck to do, except ask for more taxes (more on that in a bit).
- Once the crisis is under control, do a debrief to determine why the crisis existed in the first place and what could have been done better. Note: this is done after the crisis is under control. Since the crisis is not yet over, it’s a little difficult to know what has worked and what hasn’t.
- Develop and implement preventative measures. See number 4.
There were two other ways in which the speech illuminated the President’s failure to grasp the principles of crisis management.
First, I am certain that Secretary Chu is a fine person and wonderful human being. However, having a Nobel Prize does not necessarily make him qualified to lead the charge on this particular crisis. 30 years ago I had a different opinion, but the recent Nobel Prizes awarded to such luminaries as Yasser Arafat, Mohamed El Baradei, Al Gore and even Barack Obama have pretty much tarnished a once prestigious award. And Dr. Chu’s work has been in research, not implementation. This does not inspire confidence.
Secondly, back to the new taxes thing. The President ended his speech by devoting better than a third of it to asking Congress to pass the Cap-and-Trade legislation – a bill that would add around $1800 to every American’s tax burden. I really don’t see how new taxes will solve the mess in the gulf, but maybe I’m missing something. But I suspect that this is merely a knee-jerk reaction from an administration that truly believes in not letting a good crisis go to waste in promoting their policies.
Today is more thank just another Sunday
Today is Sunday, June 6th, 2010. For those of you forgot, 66 years ago it was June 6, 1944.
66 years ago, tens of thousands of young men stormed the beaches at Normandy in the greatest amphibian invasion the world has ever seen. It is known as D-Day.
Many of those young men knew they wouldn’t live to see June 7. But they stormed off their ships anyway, into all the hell that the Nazi’s could muster. Amongst shrapnel and bullets; mortars and bombs they came. Wading towards those beaches through the blood of their comrades, they came. As their buddies fell all around them, they came. And they kept on coming. All day, those brave young men from small towns and big cities, many of whom would never have seen an ocean of not for the war, dove into chest-high water and waded through all that and more towards the beach. Nothing could stop them, for they were fighting for the very freedom of the world. Fighting to rid the world of the greatest menace it has ever known, National Socialism; Nazi Germany.
Those men won that day and slogged their way across Europe, liberating small towns and big cities that were both similar yet so very different from the ones they had left a world away. But they fought on, to liberate people who did not speak their languages or know their customs. But they shared one thing in common, the one thing that people everywhere share: a desire to be free, to determine their own destiny. That they succeeded was not a forgone conclusion at the time. Those brave young men who endured the tortures of Normandy and 10 months of fighting across Europe accomplished what no army had done before them.
There are so very few of these remarkable men left with us today. If you know one, please stop and say “Thank You” on this anniversary. If you don’t know one, visit the local VA Nursing Home – you can find one there.
I Shed a Tear
The Pride Hat
I awoke this morning to thoughts of old friends who left us too soon. It’s not an unusual occurrence; most mornings I wake thinking of the same men. When they died, they did not give in to fear; cowardice was not these men’s forte. Some died in battle, some preparing for battle. Two very good friends of mine died not in battle but the wounds they sustained in defense of liberty hastened their untimely departure from our world. One man was known simply as Tank. He was a large man, but in his later years his body had been ravaged by the effects of two bullet wounds and prolonged exposure to Agent Orange during two tours of duty in Vietnam. Today, I celebrate not only Memorial Day but the tenth anniversary of his passing. Although Tank never spoke of it, he was awarded a Bronze Star during his second tour. It wasn’t until his funeral that I learned how as a 23 year old platoon sergeant he ran back onto a hot LZ, taking a bullet in the back and one in the shoulder, in order to pull one of his men to the relative safety of a tree line. But anyone who knew the man wasn’t surprised to hear of his courage under fire.
This morning, as I thought of him, I shed a tear.
The other day, I watched my town’s annual Memorial Day parade. In addition to the Korean War and Vietnam vets, a detachment from the local Marine Corps reserve unit marched. As I looked at their eager young faces, I realized that most of those kids weren’t born when I earned my EGA in 1983. In fact, most of them hadn’t been born when I mustered out. Realizing that most of these young men will be shipped to Iraq or Afghanistan, I reflected on my own service. I joined to fight Communism, and like most of the world, I rejoiced when the Berlin War crashed to the ground. I truly thought my service had proven, in some small way, invaluable to the defense of the American way of life. Yet here I was, watching a new generation of Marines preparing to fight a new enemy. Had my service not been as valuable as I once thought? Had the men I had known during my service, men who had fought and died in battles around the world – had they died in vain? I decided that no, our service – their service – had been as important in our time as these brave young men’s service is today. And then I realized that none of those young men will return from their combat tours the same. Even if not scarred on the outside, even if they survive to return home physically intact, they will carry the memories of what they see and feel and endure for the rest of their lives.
And as I watched, I shed a tear.
Last night I watched the National Memorial Day Concert, broadcast from the National Mall on PBS. I listened as Gary Sinise and Dennis Haysbert recounted the final moments of Charlie Johnson’s life. I watched as a new generation of war widows were celebrated. I enjoyed the stylings of Brad Paisley. Like plenty of others, I rose to attention and sang the Marine Corps hymn during the Salute to the Services, and I rose to attention and sang again during “America the Beautiful.”
But many times during the concert, I stopped to shed a tear.
And I wondered, as prepared to try and sleep, will anyone awake on Tuesday and remember the sacrifices of the men who have fought and died to preserve the United States? It’s terrific that we have a day set aside to pay tribute to those men. And I don’t mind that we celebrate by doing uniquely American things – backyard barbecues, trips to the beach, baseball games. But I wondered, when Tuesday comes will my fellow countrymen remember those who ensured that the backyard barbecues could continue?
A little earlier today, I went to the neighborhood bodega. It was a routine trip to pick up a few items needed for my own backyard barbecue. Like many veterans, I have a “Pride Hat.” You may have seen one perched on a veteran’s head – a baseball cap on which are pinned his campaign ribbons. Mine is nearing retirement. It’s 14 years of service are evidenced by its faded color and the only thing keeping it together are years of starch used to block it. As a result, I only wear it on special occasions. Today being one of those occasions, I wore it on my walk to the bodega. On my return trip, a neighborhood kid – maybe 6 or 7 years old – stopped me and said, “Were you really in the Army?” I smiled and said, no, I am a Marine and we’re better than the Army. The little boy sat on his bike for a minute, seeming to take in this bit of information. The he stood, and said “Thank you” before pedaling off down the street.
I shed a tear. In fact, I’m still shedding a few as write this. Because I have my answer. For as long as children like this can find my service honorable, they will keep the flame of liberty alive. In so doing, the most important thing we can do as Americans to remember and honor the sacrifices of so many brave men will endure. We will continue to live as Americans, preserving our republic as the beacon of freedom and liberty for the rest of the world.
Terrorists? Kill ’em All…
So, much to many a liberal journalist’s and blogger’s chagrin, it turns out that the Times Square bomb attack this past weekend was the work of an Al-Queda operative. Chuck Schumer and Mike Bloomberg both are probably trying to figure out how to erase their misguided – and potentially inflammatory – left-wing rhetoric about the bomber being a “home grown nut job who’s upset about the health care bill.”
Of course, typical Americans are not surprised to hear the Faisal Shahzad is a Pakastani who somehow obtained US citizenship; that he spent more than 5 months in his native country, and that he returned home specifically to get terror training. No matter how the media or President tries to spin this, Shahzad is exactly what most Americans think of when they hear about a terror attack: a seemingly educated Muslim man in his late 20’s or early 30’s with a serious mental defect. And lots of explosives at his disposal.
Which brings me to my main point. The Obama administration, and most of our neo-socialist leadership, is adverse to calling Islamic fundamentalism what it is: the root source of terrorsit attacks on the United and our allies. In their forthcoming NSS, the administration refuses to call out Islamic fundamentalism as a threat to domestic peace. They blatantly refuse to recognize this is a war – most likely in a misguided attempt at fostering relationships with the oil-rich Middle East nations where most terrorists are funded. Indeed, on April 7 (less than one month ago) the President banned all administration officials from uttering the phrases, “radical Muslim,” “radical Islam” and “Islamic fundamentalist” when describing terrorists or terrorist organizations.
Apparently, the President is living in dream world, where there is no War on Terror and all terrorists are merely criminals. There is no fundamental clash of cultures or ideologies in play. Islam is religion of peace and sorely misunderstood by Americans, and American culture is sorely misunderstood in the Middle East. If we can only foster a dialog, they won’t bomb us anymore nad we can all get together on the mountaintop to sing Kumbaya. If this attitude weren’t so rife with the potential to kill a whole lot of Americans, it would be laughable. After all, liberals have been promoting appeasement since – well, since Neville Chamberlain. I think we all know how that turned out.
The simple fact is this: we’ve been fighting Islamic fundamentalists since April 30, 1979. For those of you not too familiar with history, that’s the date that the US Embassy in Iran was overrun by radical Islamic Fundamentalists. 4 1/2 years later, a radical Muslim backed by Iran drove a car bomb into the US Embassy in Beirut, killing 299 Marines. The carnage hasn’t stopped since then. Of course, for most Americans this war began on September 11, 2001. And what has the current appeasement rapprochement gained us? A radical Muslim went on a shooting spree at Fort Hood. A radical Muslim boarded a plane bound for Detroit and tried to blow up his underwear. And now the Times Square fiasco. What most Americans have failed to realize is that we’ve been lucky with the past few attempts: had those attacks not been carried out by incompetent boobs, there would be a whole bunch of us dead right now.
So, what’s to be done? Already new restrictions on our liberties are being recommended. The same Senator Schumer who swore the Times Square attack was the work of Tea Partier has already floated the idea of cordoning off New York City. After the shoe bomber, we were all told to take off out shoes before boarding our flights. After the underwear bomber, the TSA began implementing a plan for full-body scans. After the Ft. Hood attack, numerous calls went out to further restrict Second Amendment rights. I’m sorry, but I fail to see how any of this attacks the root cause of the problem. In fact, it seems counter-intuitive to the whole concept of “Engagement.” If we’re supposed to be exporting the ideals of a free society, then why would try to turn ourselves into a continental police state?
No, President Obama, the way to end terrorists threats to the US is to recognize it for what it is and devote your energies to defeating it. Here’s my plan. It is remarkably simple, easy enough for even you to understand and implement:
- Declare any nation, organization or group that sponsors or harbors terrorists is an enemy of the United States. See how easy that is? If you let terrorists live in your country, use your banks or in any way support them, you are considered an enemy of the US.
- Immediately seize all US assets of any nation, organization o r group that sponsors or harbors terrorists. You’ve certainly seized enough money from US citizens, so you’ve had practice.
- Announce that any nation that harbors or sponsors terrorists, or harbors any organization or group that sponsor terrorists, have 90 days before we take military action. I know this one is hard to swallow, but it is a war. Trust me, shoot a few missiles at Saudi oil fields and everyone in the region will know we mean business.
Somehow, I doubt this plan will ever be put into action by this administration. But I for one would love to see an administration with enough backbone to do so.
(No) Freedom of Speech
When I titled this blog Political Baseballs, I was using a common euphemism that I thought explained my two great passions in life. (Not discounting my wife, but I think she understands). That is to say, I’m passionate about baseball. And I’m passionate about politics. I never thought the two topics would wind up in the same post. After all, the last time politics and baseball met in the Twilight Zone we were subjected to Mark McGwire suddenly forgetting how to speak, Sammy Sosa suddenly forgetting how to speak English and Raffy Palmeiro suddenly forgetting how to tell the truth. I’ve always relied on baseball to take my mind off the drudgery to which everyday life subjects all of us. I’ve reveled in the game’s unique characters and their antics. I mean, who can forget Bill “Spaceman” Lee, Dick “Dirt” Tidrow from the ’70s? And who didn’t become enthralled with Cal Ripken’s pursuit of Lou Gehrig’s record (yes, even I, the lifetime Yankees fan found myself rooting for him)?
But thanks to the Lords of Baseball and their unrepentant zeal to one-up Roger Goodell and Co. over at the NFL, here we are again. It seems that in their quest to make major league baseball apolitical, they’ve stepped right into the issue of First Amendment rights. Or perhaps I should say, stomped on the First Amendment altogether. And now, MLB is facing the prospect of alienating a whole segment of their fans. Shortsightedness certainly can go a long way.
For those of you unfamiliar with the story, last week MLB banned all employees from using their Twitter accounts from commenting on anything other than games or their teams. What seems to have been the inspiration behind this dubious edict is a little known reliever for the Oakland A’s, Brad Ziegler. Ziegler was posting comments on his Twitter account regarding his non-support for a potential sports boycott of Arizona, following that state’s passage of SB1070. As a result of Ziegler’s non-political speech, baseball got nervous. What if other players or writers started using Twitter to voice non-political ideas? Ziegler was adamant over a series of posts that he couldn’t support the ban because he hadn’t read the bill and didn’t know enough about it to take a position. Horrors! Imagine – a public figure stating that the bill should be read and understood before everyone started going loco!
Of course, baseball couldn’t stand for this expression of First Amendment rights. Why, what if ALL of their employees decided that they should tell people to think before they act? What a travesty!
Ok, I’m exaggerating a bit. In the end, baseball’s executive office was trying to prevent the firestorm around this bill from consuming the game. Let’s face it; regardless of where you officially make your stand on this, you’re going to alienate one of baseball’s two core constituencies – either the suburbanites who attend most games, or the Hispanic community, which produces half of MLB players. Rather than take a stand and risk alienating ticket buyers or most of their players, baseball decided it would be best to trample on everyone’s inalienable right to expression. Only, it’s not inalienable if your paycheck is signed by Bud Selig, I guess.
By shutting off a reasonable place where fans and players could voice their opinions, they’ve invited their doomsday scenario. Over the weekend, the MLBPA formally requested that Baseball’s All-Star Game for 2011 not be played in Phoenix. Uh, oh. Financially, baseball can’t really afford to do that – it takes 2-3 years to put the shindig together. Baseball’s executives also don’t want to seem as if they’re caving to player pressure – ever. At the same time, they can’t really risk alienating their players. The last time baseball had acrimonious player relations was in the mid-1970’s through early 1990’s. That period saw 4 work stoppages, including the loss of the World Series in 1994. During that time, baseball slipped in popularity from “America’s Pastime” to fall behind football nationally – and has even slipped behind basketball in some cities.
I don’t know how MLB can extricate itself from this mess. My guess is, they can’t.
I’m looking at it this way: Jefferson wrote that our rights were granted by our Creator. Obviously, the Creator is showing Bud Selig the meaning of “inalienable.”
Vazquez the Bust
As anyone who knows me realizes, I was never a fan of bringing Javier Vazquez back to the Yankees. I’ve always thought his failure to win during his last go-round, in 2004, was more mental than mechanical. Those suspicions were furthered when, two years ago while pitching for the White Sox, his manager basically threw him under the bus; challenging his manhood and daring him to be aggressive prior to a playoff start against the Rays. Javy’s response was, well, certainly not full of machismo:
“You know what? It’s not going to [change a lot of opinions] because I’m really the type of guy that when I retire, I’m going to be home in Puerto Rico with my family. I’m not looking to have to change minds if people feel that way.”
He then went out and proceeded to give up 6 runs on 8 hits, including two moon-shot homers, in a miserable 4 1/3 innings. Regardless of how much Kenny Williams may not like Ozzie spouting his opinions in public, he must agree with his manager. After all, the following off-season the White Sox shipped him to Atlanta in exchange for 4 minor leaguers. Of those, only Brent Lillibridge has had any lasting power at the major league level – that is, if you call a .177 batting average in 75 games over parts of two seasons “lasting power.”
Vazquez has been known as baseball’s greatest enigma during his career. When playing for 2nd-division teams, his stuff is electric and he posts eye-popping numbers. But the moment a contender trades for him, he goes into the tank. Consider this chart:
| Javier Vazquez | Teams in Contention | Teams not in Contention |
| W | 38 | 41 |
| L | 105 | 101 |
| Win % | 48.1 | 50.97 |
| ERA | 4.94 | 4.00 |
| WHIP | 1.36 | 1.23 |
| SO/BB | 3.05/1 | 3.98/1 |
| HR/9 | 1.83 | 1.14 |
| CG% | 1.98 | 8.33 |
And you quickly appreciate what Ozzie and other baseball people have long realized: Javy has the stuff, but neither the heart nor the stomach to be a quality big league pitcher. So imagine my horror when I read this in Joel Sherman’s blog yesterday:
“The Yanks did not consider Javier Vazquez a perfect fit. There were members of the organization who felt it was never worthwhile to reunite with a player who had failed previously as a Yankee. There were members of the organization who thought Vazquez had, at the least, a bit of the loser gene; that knack to pitch below his stuff and to give up the crushing hit at the worst time.
‘But for their purposes, the Yanks saw Vazquez as the best possible situation. The Yanks were worried about how hard CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Andy Pettitte worked last year between the regular season and postseason, and feared that there could be a diminishment in their stuff/effectiveness. Vazquez, they figured, would at the least be a league-average innings eater, at a time when that species would be of incredible value.”
If true (and I have no reason to doubt it; Joel Sherman has usually been dead right on his sourcing), then that means the sabermatricians in the Yankee front office won out over the baseball people – again. Because let’s face it, Javy Vazquez has been far from league average. His ERA now stands at a nine – dead last among 111 league starters who qualify for the ERA title; the league average is 4.75. I’d rather not get into the rest of the numbers. You can pick up today’s columns from Marc Carig, Paul Bourdet and Mark Feinsand if you’re masochistic enough for that. The most disconcerting thing about Vazquez is that the Yankees brought him back in the hopes that with a reduced role – being a league-average innings-eater – he wouldn’t feel the pressure that has always cooked his goose. Unfortunately, it seems as though Javy can’t get out if his own way. He should have realized from his first tour in the Bronx that blaming the fans for his failures is not the way to get them off his back. Yet, that’s exactly what he did after his last start at Yankee Stadium, when the fans booed him off the field. If he expects better treatment in his next start after those comments (likely on Saturday), then he’s living in fantasy world.
Look: it’s really very simple for Javier Vazquez to get the fans and media off his back. All he has to do is start giving some quality starts. You know, 6+ innings, 3 or fewer runs. String 3 or 4 of those together, and he can start to solidify his hold on the #4 rotation spot. The problem is, I don’t think he’s capable of it, at least not while wearing pinstripes. And already, the rumblings are being heard from the front office that it may be time to cut and run on the whole experiment. Even staunch supporters like Mike Francesa are beginning to jump off the bandwagon (which may be the first time I’ve agreed with him in a long time). The simple fact is, Javy had a horrendous April. But unlike past bad Aprils by CC Sabathia (a proven winner everywhere) or Chien Ming-Wang (who had been a winner before running the bases in Houston), Yankee fans have one indelible picture of Vazquez in their minds, and it’s similar to that of a cowed schoolboy who was just sent to the principal’s office. It doesn’t help him that he was traded for Melky Cabrera – a very popular player. But that’s his reality; he’d better start living it or find another city to play ball in.
The question the Yanks need to ask is, how many more starts are they willing to give him to demonstrate he has the heart, the mental toughness and the desire to pitch in New York? Is it one more? 5 more? 10 more? Right now, the rest of the rotation is pitching well enough to carry him, but nobody really expects Andy Pettite to keep pitching to a 1.29 ERA and nobody really expects Phil Hughes to throw one-hitters every time he takes the mound. Once they come back down to earth, the Yanks will need Vazquez. Will he be up to the challenge, or will they be forced into looking at other options?
Grading the Governor
It’s been barely four months since Chris Christie took the oath of office as Governor of the Great State of New Jersey. (Please hold the New Jersey jokes for later). For those of who do not reside in the Garden State, Christie was elected for three reasons: (1) to repair the state budget and get taxes under control (especially New Jersey’s insane property taxes); (2) revive the business climate and (3) because he ISN’T Jon Corzine. Well, on the last point, he’s succeeded – nobody will ever confuse Christie with his predecessor. The question is, how is he doing on the first two points?
That probably depends on who you talk to, but one thing is for sure: Christie isn’t only attacking the state budget with zeal, he’s also attacking municipal and school district budgets. In this regard he deserves some credit: he is the first governor since Brendan Byrne in the 1970’s to link all three in an unholy alliance. Of course, Byrne’s solution was to institute the state income tax – which, while it sounded great on paper has had the effect of only bloating the state budget. (We’ll chalk that one up to an “OOPSIES” moment.)
The crux of the issue, for the uninitiated, is this: most of New Jersey’s services are provided by local municipalities and school districts. These entities only have three sources of revenue: state disbursements, local property taxes and local fees. Where Christie has run afoul of both the municipalities and school districts is that he has either frozen or cut the state disbursements for numerous local programs. This has led to a particularly bitter fight with the NJEA, New Jersey preeminent teachers union. With most districts now receiving less in state subsidies, they are faced with the prospect of either raising property taxes to cover the reduction or reducing staff and programs. Of course, there’s also the often under-reported issue of how many districts have used the state’s largesse in the past; for instance, the Jersey City Schools District has put that money into a “rainy-day” fund. The reality is that JCSD could keep services exactly where they currently are without any state assistance whatsoever.
Of course, to hear the teachers union, this is tantamount to the classic line from “Ghostbusters:” Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria! Realizing that they aren’t likely to get the Governor to rescind his executive order, they’ve gone into full attack mode. And by full, I mean attacking on all fronts. It’s become almost amusing to pick up a copy of the Newark Star-Ledger or Bergen Record and see some of the things being said. Eventually, I’ll figure out if the Governor is simply “a fat pig” who obviously didn’t graduate from a public school “because he can’t add 2+2,” and if the state’s Education Commissioner, Brett Schundler, is really an “apostate from Hell.” (These are actually mild statements; in case you hadn’t heard, the NJEA also put a hit on the Governor and tried to contract the Almighty to do the deed). The rhetoric from the state house has turned equally vicious, in true Goodfella’s fashion. (Hey, I’m allowed. I live in the town where The Sopranos was filmed. SO…shuddayamouf). Christie has likened teachers to drug pushers, among other things. What makes this especially entertaining is that this highlights a diametric opposition of two incredibly powerful forces in state politics – the NJEA is the state’s largest union in what is a traditionally pro-union state and the Governor is, well..the Governor.
The real test comes today, when citizens across the state vote on their local school district budgets. Ordinarily, these elections are pretty tame affairs marked by low turnout and high margins of passage. but since Christie threw down a gauntlet earlier this month – challenging the state’s voters to not pass any budget that doesn’t include a wage freeze for teachers. How low and how high? In a typical year, voter turnout would be around 20% and over 90% of school budgets are passed. The all time low is 54% of school budgets being approved – a number that may well be surpassed this year, given that a Rasmussen poll finds 65% of New Jerseyans siding with the Governor.
So, will this be the year when New Jersey’s citizens finally stop saying “Enough with property taxes” and actually start doing something about it? Chris Christie is hoping so. He’s set this election up as the first real test of his political clout and chosen the State’s biggest union – and most powerful lobbying group – as his intended target. If he succeeds in getting voters to reject the proposed budgets in the 86% of districts seeking an increase, he will have won a significant victory and the odds go up that he will be able to ram through his proposed “Slim-Fast” budgets over the next three years. So, for now Christie gets an “incomplete” on this issue.
I’ll post an update here tomorrow and tackle the other main issue, reviving the NJ business climate. In the meantime, I’ve included two more links after the break for your reading enjoyment.
UPDATE: It looks as if the voters in this state have rejected 54% of the proposed school budgets, an all-time high. This round goes to the Governor. Grade, so far: B-
What? Me Worried?
Are the jobs REALLY gone?
There’s been a lot of talk lately, from both the left and the right, that most of the jobs lost in the current recession are lost forever. Robert Reich is a well-respected former Labor Secretary for President Clinton. In his article The Future of American Jobs, he contends that American jobs were permanently lost to a pair of factors: technology and outsourcing. Technology allows companies to increase employee efficiency (more employee productivity at lower labor costs); outsourcing is enabled by technology that enables foreign workers to remain competitive with Americans and can be closely monitored using new technologies. Although philosophically opposed to Reich, James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation reaches the same many of the same conclusions in Reduced Investment and Job Creation to Blame for High Unemployment. The only difference in these two articles is that Reich focuses on job losses, while Sherk focuses on job creation. But in both articles, the authors contend that both near- and long-term unemployment will remain at or near 8%. ( I wrote about the disappearing jobs phenomenon earlier this month)
There are many causes for this, of course, beginning with the fact that United States (and most of the developed world) began moving earnestly away from labor-intensive manufacturing economies towards knowledge-based service economies in the late 1970’s. Although well aware of this, nobody did much to prepare the citizenry for this fundamental economic change. Much as the US experienced a dramatic cultural and demographic shift in the late 19th century as we moved from an agrarian economy to a manufacturing economy, we are experiencing the same now. Policies over the past 30 years at both the federal and state level, rather than focusing on restructuring education and employment policies, were largely concentrated on sparing the status quo. Although the days of a high-school dropout being able to get a well-paying job for life at the local manufacturing plant ended a generation ago, we’ve continued to subsidize both the labor unions (who rely on perpetuating this myth) and the educational systems (whose labor unions and administrators have been resistant to changing the formulas they’ve worked under for 6 generations). As a result, we have a large segment of the population that is ill-suited for the type of work the modern economy provides.
Both liberals and conservatives in this country (and other Western nations) are calling for a return to 20th century economies. Liberals believe that the US can return to a manufacturing-based economy, if only certain policies are enacted. Some of these include: engaging in protectionist trade policy (apply punitive tariffs on goods produced in low-age countries); requiring a percentage of all goods sold in the US to be produced in American factories and tightening labor and banking regulations to “protect” the American worker. Conservatives are championing reduced immigration, business credits and lower taxes as the way to spur manufacturing growth. Both of these approaches – or any combination thereof – is wrong, immoral and ill-conceived. They are intended primarily to appease the 60% of Americans whose jobs will disappear or have disappeared in the past three decades.
First of all, thanks to technologies that were not even conceived a century ago, the modern world is more tightly interwoven than at any time in history. When combined with the fact that the days of imperialism ended with WWII, it is now impossible for any nation that relies on exports for economic vitality to successfully engage in protectionist trade policies. Imposing excessive tariffs or limiting imports in any way will, in the end, prove counter-productive as other nations reciprocate the move. Many persons in what we often derisively refer to as the “developing world” consider the steady income provided by manufacturing economies as a vast improvement in their situations. Despite wages that are considered substandard in the west, the mere fact that workers have a steady source of income – and therefore, food and shelter – provides a sense of security previously unknown. This was, by the way, the same attitude that drove many former tenant farmers to migrate to cities during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, in the US and Europe. This was despite the advance knowledge that most would work in conditions that we find abhorrent and for wages that we can’t countenance today. Combined with the interactive nature of modern economies, no nation can afford to block goods coming from these nations.These types of policies were tried during the heights of the Great Depression – the result was over 50 million human beings killed in the greatest conflagration in history. Secondly, imposing inane limits on immigration will rob the US of a tremendous source of energy and vigor, both of which are priceless commodities in the new economy (and I suspect that very vitality is what many are afraid of). Finally, any restructuring of tax and revenue policies that ignore the modern economic realities in favor of a long passed age robs the emerging job market of strength and future generations of Americans of a sorely needed simplified tax code.
So, if the modern economy in the West will not be based on manufacturing, what will we do in the future? Where will the jobs come from? Well, first of all, not all manufacturing will be permanently off-shored. For several reasons (including national defense), there will always be some sort of manufacturing in the US. However, the reality is that as a percentage of employment and average compensation, American manufacturing will never return to the halcyon days of the 1960’s and 70’s. The new economy will be services based and requires a more educated and more flexible workforce than the one that currently exists. I realize that when I say “services” many people conjure visions of hotel maids and McDonald’s cashiers. Those type of jobs have always existed and will always exist, but nobody should think we’ll become a nation of gas station attendants. What I’m referring to by services are the types of positions that require more brain power than brawn power; fields like medicine, technology, research, aerospace, education and banking are all services. All are creating jobs right now. The problem is, their growth is restricted by a lack of skilled workers. It’s a fact that none of your politicians want to talk about, because they know in large part they’re directly responsible for this fact.
The answers about what to do for the next generation of Americans is pretty obvious and I applaud President Obama for starting education initiatives that may prove fruitful. (I’m no fan of the President, but you have to give credit where it’s due). However, there are 2 generations of Americans now in the workforce and a third about to enter, whose citizens are ill-prepared for the current economy. The big question is what do we do about restoring some semblance of full employment, and at tolerable wages now? The first thing is for the labor unions to understand that the world has changed and they need to get with the times. Once, the antagonistic approach between organized labor and business in the US led to a system that worked well, in the contained system that was the US. Once the US was no longer the dominant player in manufacturing, though, the unions failed to keep up with pace of global economics. It is long past time for them to seriously engage foreign governments and labor markets -by working to raise living standards oversees, they can reinforce those standards back home. Secondly, our own politicians need to work in ways that remove the yoke of debt from our collective shoulders. The projected national debt for 2020 equates to $150,000 for every family in the US – or more than 3x the anticipated per family income for that year. That level of debt is unsustainable and is largely driven by “entitlement” spending – Social Security and the new Health Care package. It is past time to revisit how these programs are funded before they drive the entire nation into bankruptcy. Until debt projections are reduced, funding for projects needed to revitalize the economy cannot be pursued. In the same vein, the political class needs to be honest about the limits of government intervention in economic policy – aside from fiscal and tax policy, there really isn’t anything they can do for immediate and sustainable growth. At the moment, fiscal policy is stagnated -interest rates are at zero. That leaves tax policy – which will not unfreeze capital markets. However, by implementing a strategic tax policy in coordination with a debt reduction plan, lawmakers can relax market tensions by demonstrating long-term fiscal sense.
However, even if the various entrenched factions were to begin immediately putting these ideas in action, the near-term effect would be negligible. We would still need high spending on unemployment compensation and other safety net program to prevent our society from devolving into absolute chaos. I would like to add a caveat to this spending, though. One thing obvious to anyone who’s driven any road in Pennsylvania or watched a manhole explode in New York City knows our infrastructure is aging badly. I would offer those receiving government assistance the option of either attending training in a new field or showing up for manual labor repairing our bridges, schools and the like. This recreation of the WPA would at least prevent the nation from just throwing money down a rat-hole.
Bums in the Bronx
Over the past couple of days, I’ve been involved a Twitter war. (Imagine that – Twitter has even encompassed warfare!) The topic: is it OK to boo players on a team you root for?
There are people who believe you should root for players who wear your team’s colors, regardless of their performance. As a fan of the New York Yankees for over 40 years, I find that idea to be incredibly naive. After all, Yankee Stadium is home to the “Bronx Cheer.” For generations, fans have filed through the turnstiles at the House That Ruth Built (and now, that George Built) and cheered our heroes and LOUDLY booed the players who didn’t measure up. The idea of “earning your stripes” originated in the Bronx. It means that a player needs to perform well if he wants to be accepted by the fans. And if he fails, well…his days at Yankee Stadium will be pure hell on earth.
The cause for the twit-war lately has been two recent additions to the Yankee’s pitching staff, Chan-Ho Park and Javier Vazquez. Park is brand-new to Yankee’s fans, but this is the second go-around for Vazquez (his first didn’t end well). Both have, over the past two days, been booed lustily as they exited the game.
The new breed of fan, who doesn’t believe in booing poor performances, is having a hard time reconciling this. In Parks’s case, he made a bad first impression – giving up the winning runs in the first game of the year and pitching poorly in two appearances against the hated Red Sox to begin the season. When he gave up a long home run to Kendry Morales during yesterday’s home opener, he lost whatever support the fans were willing to give him. After all, the hallmark of Yankees Pride throughout the years has been not cracking under pressure and rising to the challenge instead. There’s also CHP’s history to consider. Brian Cashman signed Park based on a half-season of relief work for the Phillies last year. Prior to that, his career wound through stops in LA, Texas, San Diego and Queens. His one year with the Mets? He started on the DL, came on to pitch in one game, giving up 7 runs over 4 innings. Then he disappeared onto the DL for the rest of the year. His prior AL numbers aren’t particularly eye-popping, either. A 5.89ERA, 23-24 record and 1.6 WHIP all point to a guy who’s been hit hard whenever he’s stepped away from the NL. Which is exactly what we’ve seen so far in his Yankee appearances – and thus, the booing.
Javy Vazquez is morphing into the second coming of Eddie Whitson. For those of you unfamiliar with the saga of Eddie Whitson, he came to the Yankees in the mid-80’s, fresh off a spectacular campaign with the Padres. Possessing a lighting fastball, big curve and devastating slider, Whitson was supposed to be the ace that would anchor the Yankees staff for pennant runs to come. Unfortunately for him and Yankees fans, it turned out he couldn’t handle pressure. The booing got so bad that Billy Martin, the manager at the time, didn’t dare pitch him at Yankee Stadium. Eventually, the Yankees traded him back to the Padres for the immortal Tim Stoddard. (Stoddard, by the way, was loudly cheered just for not being Ed Whitson).
Vazquez also possesses a hard fastball and slider, along with a good change-up. He also strikes out lots of hitters. Unfortunately for him, he tends to crack under pressure. In his last Bronx adventure in 2004, he was summoned out of the bullpen in game 7 of the LCS – and gave up the grand slam to Johnny Damon that ended the Curse of the Bambino. That came after a second-half in which he was largely ineffective. Since then, the company line has been that he was pitching with a sore shoulder. Maybe. Or maybe, despite having “plus” stuff Javy just doesn’t have the heart needed to be a prime-time player.
Yankee fans are quickly deciding the latter. In two starts this year, Vazquez has displayed the electric stuff – he has 9 strikeouts in 11 innings – but we’ve also seen him wilt with men on base. He’s only allowed baserunners in 4 of his 11 innings – but those four innings have yielded 12 runs. In other words, when he gets into trouble, Vazquez tends to implode. Contrast that to a fan favorite, Andy Pettite. Pettite always has runners on base – but he makes the big pitch when he needs to and escapes trouble. Andy has HEART. Javy has jelly-legs. It’s also not the first time Vazquez has heard this, by the way. Ozzie Guillen, for whom he pitched in Chicago, got rid of him because he didn’t trust him during the White Sox pennant drive.
It’s the difference between being a Yankee, and simply being a good player who will never earn the right to call themselves a Yankee.
Dinosaurs among us: The USPS
The long awaited GAO report on the financial viability of the US Postal Service was released earlier today. Ok, maybe you weren’t on the edge of your seat waiting for it. But you should have been.
A little background, for those of you who haven’t been following the story:
The Post Office reported to Congress earlier this year that it is facing the prospect of losing $238 billion over the next ten years. This becomes problematic because, unlike most federal agencies, the USPS is required to balance its budget. Congress made this stipulation when it semi-privatized the service in 1970. I say semi-privatized because the same statute made the post-office a monopoly and guaranteed that Congress would subsidize any operating losses stemming from “mandated services” with money from the general revenue. In 1982, Congress went a step further when they declared that income received by the USPS (from selling stamps and metering packages, primarily) was not tax revenue – therefore, the money raised by the USPS by conducting its daily business was solely to be used by the USPS for the purposes of its operating costs. This effectively split the post office’s accounting from the rest of the federal budget; almost immediately, the Postal Service began running deficits. However, the early shortfalls were quickly made up by arbitrarily raising postage rates.
This brings us to the modern-day, when changing demographics, technologies and competition for the lucrative package business have altered the postal landscape. When the USPS reported in March that they were on the verge of needing a massive cash infusion just to stay afloat, Congress did what it does best: commission an independent report on the state of postal services finances, and tapped the Government Accounting Office for the project. The news is both sobering and not unexpected.
The USPS is, in fact, facing a $238 billion deficit over the next ten years. That puts the US taxpayer on the hook for $238 billion in postal subsidies over the next ten years, unless way are found to bring costs into line with revenues. So what to do?
The GAO report notes three specific areas where USPS costs are out of control and out of whack with their anticipated business: employment, operations and pricing structure.
Workforce
The GAO report notes that the USPS currently has 300,000 employees, far more than needed to efficiently deliver the mail. It recommends reducing the workforce through attrition and outsourcing. It also recommends restructuring contributions to retirement plans to match those of other federal agencies. The latter two points would need concessions from the postal workers union – don’t hold your breath, especially with Democrats in control of both Houses of Congress and the Presidency.
Operations
The USPS is currently over capacity, both in terms of facilities and delivery routes. They recommend a series of actions, including reducing mail delivery from 6 to 5 days, closing excess post offices, moving post offices to self-serve kiosks and leasing space in retail establishments, closing unneeded distribution centers, and instituting “cluster boxes.” (A cluster box is a centrally located box that houses the mail boxes for a neighborhood). All of their recommendations would require union concession and the Congress to change current statutes.
Pricing
The GAO recommends that the USPS restructure it’s prices to better compete on products where it has to, and raise rates where it has a monopoly. The key here is getting Congress to agree to end preferential pricing for money-losing, but statutorily required, services (such as 2nd- and 3rd-class mail). Yes, in case you missed that last point – not only does your mailbox get stuffed with “junk” mail, but Congress has mandated that the postal service cannot charge a fair rate for it. And it’s one of the biggest money-losers for the USPS.
The GAO report points out that the USPS business model is a recipe for disaster and cannot sufficiently absorb the dual impact of lower revenues and higher costs. (See General Motors for an example of how this business model succeeds).
Mail volume declined 36 billion pieces over the last 3 fiscal years, 2007 through 2009, due to the economic downturn and changing use of the mail, with mail continuing to shift to electronic communications and payments. USPS lost nearly $12 billion over this period, despite achieving billions in cost savings, reducing capital investments, and raising rates. However, USPS had difficulty in eliminating costly excess capacity, and its revenue initiatives had limited results. To put these results into context, until recently, USPS’s business model benefited from growth in mail volume to help cover costs and enable it to be self-supporting. In each of the last 3 fiscal years, USPS borrowed the maximum $3 billion from the U.S. Treasury and incurred record financial losses. A looming cash shortfall led to congressional action at the end of fiscal year 2009 that deferred costs by reducing USPS’s mandated retiree health benefit payment. Looking forward, USPS projects continued mail volume decline and financial losses over the next decade.
So what factors are leading to the declining mail volume? Well, the biggest is probably the Internet. 10 years ago, you would have to sign up to receive this blog as a newsletter delivered by your friendly local postman. In the same way, more and more of us are paying our bills on-line. (Personally, I’m on check 298 on 4 year old checking account – and I started on check 200). Even junk mailers are cutting back – they’ve discovered spam, which is actually more effective than 3rd class delivery. Catalogs by mail are another item that has taken to the internet. In my youth, we anticipated the quadrennial mailing of the JC Penney, Montgomery Ward and Sears catalogs. Montgomery Ward has since gone out of business, but the other two stopped mailing catalogs this decade. Secondly, at the time of the 1970 law, the Postal Service did not have any real competition, other than from local couriers in urban settings. It was not until UPS won the right of common carriage in 1974 that any real competition opened. Next came Federal Express (FedEx). The two package shipping giants have decimated the USPS’ package delivery services by shipping freight cheaper, more efficiently and faster than the post office is able. So, that leaves first-class mail as the only profit center left to the USPS monopoly – and it’s in no way profitable. (When was the last time you mailed a letter?)
Is it time to fully privatize the USPS? Well, the GAO report makes pretty clear that to do so would doom it to bankruptcy faster than you can say “boo.” Is it time to off-load the services to a 3rd party, or group of third party common carriers? They wouldn’t want it – especially with the same Congressional restrictions that have in large part sunk the USPS. Is it time to just say “so long” to the idea of the Post Office?
Probably not. Many USPS defenders point to the Constitution – particularly Article 1, Section 8 – as mandating postal delivery. In fact, that clause only gives Congress the power to “Establish Post Offices and Post Roads.” It doesn’t mandate that a post office be created. However, the fact that Congress did establish the first national post office with the Postal Act of 1792 I think demonstrates that the Founders understood the importance of a postal service to the dissemination of information and the conduct of national commerce. However, given the current state of the Postal Service’s finances and the finances of the nation in general, something needs to be done – and quickly. Here are my recommendations.
- Adopt most of the GAO report. The only section I have trouble with is their recommendation to reduce delivery to 5 days from 6. While those in urban areas have viable alternatives for weekend mail service, those in rural areas do not. (UPS and FedEx actually hire the USPS for rural package delivery, if it’s not a priority overnight package).
- End the distinction between 1st-, 2nd and 3rd class mail. If you have a piece of paper you want delivered somewhere, pay full freight. Or deliver it yourself.
- If the union won’t go along, Reaganize it. I’m referring to PATCO and the way President Reagan dealt with them when they struck in 1981. The same rule applies to the NALC and APWU. If they do not acquiesce in what are essentially reasonable demands by the USPS and GAO, they should all immediately be fired and replaced.
Harsh? Perhaps. The alternative is, however, for the post office to become another of those large, sucking government agencies that robs the American taxpayer.
We remember what a real recovery looks like – and this ain’t it.
In this morning’s New York Times , Floyd Norris asks why Americans have a hard time believing that our economy has turned the corner.
Well, Floyd, the answer to that question is that when you wake up in the morning and have neither a job nor any real prospects of finding one, it’s hard to be optimistic. When you get requests from friends who’ve been out of work for more than 6 months for a little help in paying their rent, it’s hard to be optimistic. When your neighbor just sold their house for less than they bought it, because they were facing foreclosure otherwise, it’s hard to be optimistic. When your pastor pleads with the congregation for food donations, because demand at the food pantry has doubled in the past year, it’s hard to be optimistic. In other words, when you’ve played by the rules – went to school, got a job, raised your family, stayed out of trouble, paid your bills, etc. – and you’re still face to face with economic misery every day, it’s hard to be optimistic about the economy.
Norris tries to compare the current recession (although he argues that is a misnomer; since the recession ended in August) with the economic downturns of the mid-1970’s and early 1980’s, but forgets some inconvenient truths in his comparisons. Either that, or he simply ignores them. Although he claims that “If you are under 45, you probably don’t have much recollection of the last strong recovery, after the recession that ended in late 1982,” it seems as if he is one of those who is fonder of Justin Bieber than the Beatles. For starters, he has dates mixed up: as anyone who accurately recalls the recession to which he refers can tell you, that recession didn’t end until late 1983.
Dates aside, he looks at the economic indicators and finds striking similarity between then and now. What he isn’t doing is looking at the underlying cause-and-effect of policy actions taken by government and industry during that period. Nor does Norris really do an apples-to-apples comparison; it’s like somebody looking at a zebra and saying, “What a cute horse!”. He bases his campaign for optimism on three factors: a surging stock market, good unemployment news and increases in retail activity. He may be the first person I’ve read who actually thinks the news on employment has been good recently, but there may be others.
So, even if we grant that these indicators all point to a robust recovery (a dubious proposition, which I’ll get into later), there still is a difference in what these indicators are saying now versus what they said in 1983. In 1983, not only stock prices were increasing (in fact, between April 1983 and today, the Dow is up some 8,000 points, nearly quadrupling it’s value) but so was volume. That is, more shares were being traded at higher prices. People wanted in – they were optimistic that the economy had recovered and companies were going to start making money again. Today, even Norris admits that volume is at best stagnant. He seems reticent to have to admit that most of the market’s price surge is being fueled by money managers simply moving funds from one asset to another. His employment numbers are derived from the household survey, not the employer survey, and he claims a net gain of 1.1 million jobs for the first quarter of 2010. That is wildly divergent from the employer survey, which shows a net increase of only 162,000 jobs for the quarter. Given that there are currently an estimated 23 million Americans either unemployed or underemployed, that equates to 142 quarters (or 35 years) to get everyone back to work. Hardly inspiring news. And if, as he claims in his article, the recession ended seven months ago, it’s worth pointing out that job growth in Q4 1983 added 2.1 million jobs to the economy. That’s using the employer survey, so the apples-to-apples comparison shows that even with a smaller available work force, the recovery of 1983-84 was adding jobs at 9 times the rate of the current recovery. Add in that roughly 1/4 of those unemployed have been out of work for 12 months or more and that there are 6 potential employees for every job opening, and the two recoveries don’t compare favorably, at all. As for the surge in retail spending? It doesn’t take a genius to see what where we’re spending our money: while overall retail activity increased by 0.3%, spending on gasoline jumped 24% and groceries jumped 11.8%. While folks are spending on life’s necessities (and the cost of those necessities continue to increase), not too many people are going out and buying that new Maseratti.
So, what’s the difference in the two recoveries? Why was 1983 so robust, while 2010 is so…meh? The difference lies in the way our economy has been significantly restructured over the past 18 months. In 1983, upon assuming office, President Reagan promptly began initiatives that reduced government involvement in the private sector. His stimulus package involved spending money, as did President Obama’s; however, Reagan spent less money to provide incentives to employers and tax reductions than Obama spent on his plan. Reagan let companies that were in distress fail; Obama (and Bush before him) spent tremendous economic and political capital to subsidize and/or outright purchase failing corporations. There are two other huge distinctions, too. The Reagan budgets left us with a debt of approximately 28% GDP. The current administration will, by their own estimate, leave us with a debt of 118% GDP. Reagan moved swiftly to reduce interest rates and inflation, partly by strengthening the dollar – a debt as large as the one now being created can only lead to inflation and monetary devaluation.
So, Mr. Norris, if your wondering why Americans are so pessimistic, there’s your answer. It’s not that the recession is or isn’t over in our minds. It’s that we remember what a real recovery looks like – and this ain’t it.
Country Joe sings the blues
From the “In case you missed it” file: umpire Joe West is calling out the Yankees and Red Sox for playing too slow. You can listen to the full link on ESPN.com here – http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5067225
“They’re the two clubs that don’t try to pick up the pace. They’re two of the best teams in baseball. Why are they playing the slowest? It’s pathetic and embarrassing. They take too long to play.” [emphasis mine]
I may not be a genius, but this sure looks like sour grapes to me. In case you’ve never heard of “Country Joe” West, he is noted as an umpire who (a) gets some rather obvious calls wrong and (b) has a girth comparable to the Hindenberg. I hate to say it, but I don’t think he’s missed many meals – except for dinner this weekend, which is where I suspect his tirade originated. But in the quest for fairness – an alien concept to most ML umpires, I admit – I decided to investigate further. Do Yankees/Red Sox games take longer than the average game? And if so, are they playing at a “pathetic and embarrassing” pace or is some other factor the culprit?
I decided the best way to tackle the question of pace was to determine how long each pitch interval is. That is, how long is it taking (on average) for the pitcher to deliver the ball to the batter? Do determine this, I tallied the total number of pitches thrown, the total number of batters and how long the games took. There are some things I can’t account for, because they don’t show up in a box score (like pick-off attempts) that will also affect the pace, but those factors will likely cancel each other out so long as we’re comparing the same types of games. A little investigating quickly found that no two other teams were able to put up total pitches thrown and plate appearances, so I chose to take the Orioles/Rays and Rangers/Blue Jays series to use for comparison.
So, here’s the data I compiled using the box scores for the games:
| Yankees / Red Sox | ||||||||||||
| Date | Batters | Pitching Changes | Total Pitches | Total Time | ||||||||
| 4-Apr | 83 | 6 | 308 | 208 | ||||||||
| 6-Apr | 79 | 10 | 333 | 206 | ||||||||
| 7-Apr | 91 | 9 | 326 | 190 | ||||||||
| 3 gm avg | 84.33 | 8.33 | 322.33 | 201.33 | ||||||||
| Orioles / Rays / Rangers / Blue Jays | ||||||||||||
| Date | Batters | Pitching Changes | Total Pitches | Total Time | ||||||||
| 5-Apr | 70 | 5 | 267 | 156 | ||||||||
| 6-Apr | 78 | 7 | 302 | 182 | ||||||||
| 7-Apr | 154 | 9 | 546 | 323 | ||||||||
| 4 gm avg | 75.5 | 5.25 | 278.75 | 165.25 | ||||||||
Health Care Reform: The Democrats Strike Back
In a recent post, I outlined who I thought the winners and losers of the recently passed HCR bill. Much as I projected, businesses and their employees are among the first to be directly affected by the new regulations and taxes.
This article in the Wall Street Journal sums up, rather nicely, some of these early consequences of the congressional and presidential march towards socialism.
- Medtronics announced it may have to lay off up to 1,000 workers in order to pay for their new obligations. Rather ironic, considering that those employees probably considered their jobs to be safe. After all, Medtronics makes medical equipment – the last industry you would think would suffer layoffs from a health care bill.
- Verizon sent an email to all of their employees, suggesting that the company will likely have to reduce health benefits, due to increased costs incorporated in the new law. Yes, that’s right. People with quality coverage are losing that quality as a direct result of the “reform.”
- Caterpillar announced they anticipate $100M in extra health care costs.
- AT&T announced a $1B charge-off, directly resulting from increased medical expenses.
What is particularly troubling about these announcements are the industries they represent: medical technology, telecommunications and manufacturing.
Telecom: AT&T and Verizon are the nation’s two largest telecom providers. Their combined announcements represent a troubling issue for the industry as a whole. Given the fierce competition in this sector (in case you hadn’t noticed, per-subscriber rates have dropped by nearly 20% over the past 12 months, largely spurred by competition from smaller carriers) and that both are now in the middle of major technology upgrades, there really is nowhere else for them to turn to make up the shortfall except by whacking health benefits. The pressure on smaller or regional telecom providers will be even more intense.
Medical Technology: Medtronic’s announcement that up 1,000 employees may be forced to enter the worst job market in 30 years is particularly unnerving. Medical-related industries were supposed to be one of the drivers of both economic activity and job growth for 2010. If HCR is having the opposite effect, then the net effect of Obamacare on the economy may well be worse than anyone feared.
Manufacturing: In an industry that hasn’t had any good news in what feels like eons, Caterpillar’s announcement has to give even Paul Krugman pause. An additonal $100M in expenses represent 17% of their operating profit for 2009 – a year that saw both EPS and PPS results drop by nearly 80% from 2008. Worse, estimates for this year only had Cat realizing $285M in operating profit. If forced to take a charge (which our byzantine accounting rules will require, if they need to write down the increased costs), that $100M represents a 35% reduction in operating expenses. As with any industry, reductions of that magnitude invariably lead to lower stock prices, which lead to a whole raft of financial problems.
Of course, the Democrats who dreamed up this “reform” have taken notice. The last thing they want is any bad news related to HCR on your evening news or in your morning paper. After all, by now, we’re all supposed to be madly in love with O-care and worshiping at the altar of socialism. As pointed out here, Henry Waxman has sent letters to the Chairmen of the companies mentioned here, all but demanding that they appear before Congress to repent of their collective sin. You know, the sin of minding their respective company’s bottom lines.
I suppose this is how socialism slowly overrides free markets. One day, you complain that a lack of corporate responsibility has led to the Great Recession. The next, you complain that corporate responsibility is undermining public trust in your great socialist experiment. I guess Rep. Waxman and his fellow Democrats are hoping that we’re either too dumb or naive to recognize this blatant power-grab for what it is: an all-out assault on freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Joba: Back to the Future
Well folks, according to Joel Sherman of the NY Post in this article, Phil Hughes gets the nod as the Yankees #5 starter, Joba Chamberlain becomes Mo’s heir apparent, and Sergio Mitre and Alfredo Aceves are both now in the long relief/emergency starter role.
As I commented in this earlier post, this move should have come 2 years ago. Joba has never had the mental make-up of a MLB starter, and it’s doubtful he could successfully grow into that role. Yogi said it best, “Baseball is ninety percent mental and the other half is physical.” Joba has never lacked the physical stuff to be dominant and certainly has succeeded in the late innings reliever role. But he’s never looked comfortable as a starter.
Just think back to last year. One of the “Joba Rules” that rarely gets discussed anymore is how the Yankees coaching staff had Joba warming up in the bullpen whenever the Yanks were at home. I can’t think of another pitcher who has had to resort to such zaniness to try and mentally prepare for an outing. And despite all of that, he still had trouble throwing strikes as a starter.
Consider: according to Baseball Reference, Joba has pitched to a .759 OPS, .266 OBA, and 1.480 WHIP in 221 career innings as a starter. He has also pitched to a .512 OPS, .182 OBA and 0.983 WHIP is 60 relief innings. The experiment was tried, and it failed.
So Hughes moves into the 5 hole. If he continues to progress (and assuming his change-up is as improved as has looked this spring, no reason he won’t), then the Yankees have somebody pitching out of that spot who would be better than most teams #3. In fact, he might well be as a good as most team’s number 2. Joba moves into the 8th inning, where he can prep to one day take over from Mariano as the closer. Aceves demonstrated his value last year, by being a rubber-armed guy who can pitch multiple innings on consecutive days.
The guy I most worry about in this alignment is Mitre. His best pitch is a sinker, and I don’t know too many sinkerballers who are effective relievers. Especially when they’re not going to get very much work, as will be his case, being the 12th arm in the pen. He has gotten rave reviews from scouts and opposing hitters this spring – it’s always possible the Yankees trade him at some point for an outfielder, I guess.
Anyway, see the poll and chime in!
HCR: Winners and Losers
As with all battles, the recent fight over Health Care Reform left us with winners and losers. But due to the sheer size, scope and complexity of this legislation, deciphering who won and lost isn’t easy. Certainly, those of us who feel that government is too large, consumes too much of GDP and has overreached the boundaries established by the Constitution feel he nation lost. Despite that, some groups will undoubtedly see a financial and/or services benefit from these new laws. Others in our society have just been given a swift kick in the nether regions. I’ll attempt to break this down as simply as I can. But, this is nearly 4800 pages of legislation – even I can get something wrong here.
The Winners:
Uninsured folks (well, some of them, anyway): The legislation promises to extend health insurance to 32 million Americans who currently go without. Some will receive direct government subsidies to help aid in purchasing, others will be enrolled by their employers (see more on this below) and the rest will be shoved into Medicaid (more on this, too).
Medicare Part D recipients: You now have an additional $250 in prescription coverage.
Drug Manufacturers: They get an increase in patent protection, from 7 to 12 years. That basically freezes out competition from generics, which gives the manufacturer more time to recoup their investment in R&D. Also, with so many more people enrolled in health plans and no change to the fee-for-service payment model, expect doctors to write more prescriptions than ever.
Try as I might, I can’t find anyone else who actually benefits from this…
The Losers
Small Business: Businesses with more than 50 employees will receive a tax credit to help enroll their employees in a health plan. The exact amount of the credit is ambiguous, but it could be as much as 50% of the per-employee cost of the plan. Sounds great, but if you don’t currently offer insurance to your employees and fall in the 50-200 employee range, you’ve just incurred a new expense. And don’t think of enrolling your employees in any government sponsored plans: there are BIG penalties for even trying.
Medium Business: If you have 200 employees or more, congratulations! You’ve just been promoted to being a “Big Business” and as such, you are now required to offer insurance to all of your employees. But you don’t get the tax credit – you just have to enroll them or pay ginormous penalties for failing to do so.
Insurance Providers: This may sound counter-intuitive, but insurance companies stand to lose in this deal. After all, they’re getting 30+ million new enrollees, most of whom (conceivably) are hale and hearty. But “insurance” will become a misnomer; these companies have now become de facto 3rd party payers. The policies they underwrite will no longer be able to exclude people with pre-existing medical conditions, nor will they be able to cap total per-patient expenditures. Ordinarily, a company would respond to these realities by raising premiums – but with the creation of a federal oversight board, insurers will face limits on how much those premiums can be raised. If insurers were operating on normal profit margins, most could probably withstand these non-competitive pressures. But most are working with razor thin margins already; this legislation could easily see a consolidation of the industry into 3 or 4 companies that have enough reserves to withstand he initial losses.
Persons with pre-existing conditions: You’ll need to wait four years before being assured you can receive medical insurance. Until then, you can still be frozen out. Worse yet, you may be forced into Medicaid – which would mean lower quality care than you may be receiving already.
The uninsured: This may seem like a misprint; after all, how can the same group both win and lose? It’s not so difficult. If you’ve chosen not to have health insurance due to cost or just because you don’t see the necessity. you are now royally screwed. Either buy it, or pay a penalty – of up to 2.5% of your gross income. Of course, you may just decide to say to hell with it and pay the penalty – if you make, say, $50,000 per year, the penalty amounts to $1250. Good luck finding coverage for less than that.
The Insured: If you’re part of the 90% or so of the nation that currently has health insurance, get ready to pay more and receive less. As mentioned, insurers will certainly need to raise premiums and co-payments to stay in business. At the same time, the number of medical providers isn’t dramatically increasing. If you thought long waits at the doctor’s office were the norm before, well…imagine even more patients cramming into the waiting room. Even emergency rooms can expect to feel the pinch: in Massachusetts, which unveiled it’s own version of insurance-for-all last year, emergency room visits have actually gone up, not down.
States: Ever wonder why the “Cornhusker Kickback” was demanded by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb)? It’s because of the increased number of people that are going to wind up on Medicaid, which is the medical insurance program paid for by the states. Yes, the federal government throws some money into the pot, but not nearly enough to cover the people already on Medicaid. Take a state with a relatively dense population, high medical costs and high unemployment, and this becomes a recipe for disaster (can anyone say “CALIFORNIA?”). Watch your state capitals closely – most states are going to need to raise taxes or create new revenue streams just to cover the costs.
Doctors & Hospitals: If you were a doctor or hospital, you might think this was a great thing – until you read the fine print. Yes, you’ll get more patients who can pay, but what are they paying? Undoubtedly, one of the key items not spelled out but certain to happen will be reduced payments for services. Why? Medicaid, Medicare and private insurers will need to pay less per procedure in order to stay solvent. The pot of money they have isn’t really getting bigger, but the amount they’ll need to pay out will be. Unless somebody has changed the laws of mathematics, that necessitates a reduction in per-service fees rendered. So, doctors will work harder and get less money. Also, without any effort at tort reform, malpractice liability insurance premiums are likely to increase. Talk about getting squeezed by both ends – no wonder medical school enrollments are down, for the first time in several generations.
The Upper Class: First of all, congratulations! Your rolls have now been swelled to include families making more than $88,000/year. I suppose in some parts of the country, that’s considered wealthy. But in most of our urban centers, $88k doesn’t get you much. Regardless, that is now magic threshold at which government assistance for medical coverage ends. Additionally, you now get hit with an additional .9% increase in Medicare taxes and a 3.8% tax on investments. (And yes, that includes Roth IRA’s).
Banks: What on earth do banks have to do with health care? I answered that, as well as why they now stand lose billions, in a previous post.
One final thought: there is another group that stands to gain from this legislation: trial lawyers. Considering the number of challenges being filed (as of noon today, there have already been 13), there are going to be more than a few making some big $$$.
Political Baseballs 