Musings on Sports, Politics and Life in general

Latest

(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 SabathiaA.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-

Read the rest of this page »

What? Me Worried?


Our beloved Yankees are 8-3 and regardless of today’s outcome, have won their first four series of the year. So why be worried, right?
The last time the Pinstripers won their first four series was 1926. Guys named Ruth and Gehrig anchored that roster and the pitching staff was led by 23 game winner Herb Pennock. They won the AL pennant by 3 games. They were the precursor to the team that many think was the greatest team ever assembled, the 1927 Yankees.
They also lost the World Series that year, 4-3 to the Cardinals.
As anyone who has watched baseball knows, April greatness does not necessarily translate to October success. Last season, the Yankees went into May in 4th place in the division and Toronto and Baltimore were battling for top dog. Toronto wound up in fourth and the Orioles last, with neither even in the conversation by the end of July. Two seasons before, the Mets came out of April looking like the kings of the road, with a ML best 17-6 record. We all know how that season ended – with one of the most infamous collapses in baseball history. I point out these example only to illustrate the point that God has a strnage sense of humor – and he loves to use baseball teams as his punch-line.
Great opening months are, of course, better than lousy opening months. Except for good teams, sometimes going through an early baptism of fire can forge the toughness needed in the postseason. Consider the 1998 Yankees, probably the best team of the divisional era. Few remember how that season started – with the Yankees at one point 1-4 and not looking anything like a playoff team. There came a closed door meeting and what was actually said in the clubhouse remains a mystery – nobody will actually say – but the result was the Yanks winning 14 of the next 15. As they say, the rest is history. Or take the 1978 Yankees – the team that couldn’t get out of their own way. Everything finally came to a head one infamous day in Boston, when on national TV, Billy Martin and Reggie Jackson decided to let a season and a half’s tension explode in the dugout. But afterwards, the newly cohesive Yanks made up a 14 1/2 game deficit, forced the Bucky Dent one-game playoff, smoked the Royals in the playoffs and won the World Series.
So, while the Yanks should certainly enjoy their opening two weeks, the fact is that several of the questions about this team coming into this season haven’t really been answered yet:
1. Can Curtis Granderson and Brett Gardner hit lefties? Call it mixed reviews so far. After two weeks, Gardner finds hinself in a platoon with Marcus Thames and only hitting .230. As the saying goes, you can’t steal first base. If he doesn’t start to hit, can the Yanks live with a Randy Winn/Thames platoon? As for Granderson, he’s currently killing right-handers to the tune of .357 and holding his own against lefties at .267. Although he hasn’t displayed much pop against lefties, if he can keep his average against them around .260 and continue to play an above average CF, there probably isn’t much concern there.
2. Can Javier Vazquez vanquish the 2004 demons? So far, the answer is “NO.” His first start was atrocious and his second not much better. The one thing about Vazquez that concerned many observers, myself included, isn’t Vazquez’ physical talent – it’s his mental make-up. This is, after all, a pitcher who has managed to crack in every pressure situation he’s ever been presented with. For the Yanks sake, he better get his head on straight – or else the answer to the number 4 spot in the rotation could end up being…Uh Oh Mitre.
3. Who is the 8th inning guy? Two weeks in, and still no answer. Joe Girardi seems to be leaning towards Chan Ho(me Run) Park, but the Pepto Bismol Kid has yielded three homers in 6 innings. and in one two inning stint should have given up three more (thank a stiff wind blowing in for saving him there). Joba Chamberlain has only had one great outing, although he has been effective in two others. David Robertson, who seemed to have the early lead for the job, has demostrated a penchant for striking guys out but also giving up flurries of base hits.Stay tuned on this one.
4. Can Robbie Cano handle the 5 spot in the order? This one gets a “YES.” Through 11 games, Cano is hitting .356 and has an OPS of 1.083. Those are Albert Pujols type numbers.
5. When will the ageless wonders (Jeter, Mariano and Posada) begin to show their age? We won’t get an answer to this one until, well, they start playing like guys who are closer to 40 than 30. But so far, Jeter and Posada are hitting over .300 and showing some serious pop in their bats, and Mo just keeps on being Mo. Let’s hope this remains a question in 2011, too.
In short, enjoy the season as it’s unfolded so far. But keep in mind that it’s long season – we’re barely 5% of the way in. The battles haven’t really begun and nobody knows what will wind up being this team’s iron forge. But I’d prefer it come early. 1926 was a very good year, but it ended on a pretty sour note – with Babe Ruth standing on second base after being caught stealing and the Cardinals celebrating a World Series championship.

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.

  1. 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).
  2. 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.
  3. 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

Read the rest of this page »

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.