Mandatory Marcus

The Bill For The Healthcare Bill...

2010-03-04T20:10:00.001-08:00

MANDATORY MARCUS

In 1965 when the Medicare program was initially kicked off, Congress estimated Medicare's cost to be about $12 billion in 1990.

Meanwhile in the real world when 1990 rolled around, Medicare's cost was $107 billion. Today it is rapidly approaching $500 billion.

Today's Congress (and President) are saying that the healthcare bill currently being debated will lower the budget deficit, reduce premiums and only cost the "wealthiest" of Americans any additional tax dollars.

Wanna bet on whether the geniuses in today's Congress are any better at making these estimates than the ones we had in 1965...?

Winter Olympic Thought of the Day...

2010-02-26T00:02:00.001-08:00

MANDATORY MARCUS

No amount of dramatic music with deep voiced narratives will make men's figure skating cool.

California Dreamin'

2010-01-24T22:55:00.001-08:00

MANDATORY MARCUS

Here are all the reasons you can expect California to go bankrupt in our lifetime...compliments of the folks over at Global Economic Trend Analysis:

California has the 3rd highest state income tax in the nation: 9.55% tax bracket at $47,055 and 10.55% at $1,000,000 - Tax Foundation 2010 State Business Tax Climate Table 2
California has the highest state sales tax rate in the nation by far at 8.25%. Indiana is next highest at 7%. Table 15
California corporate income tax rate is 3rd worst in the nation with a rate of 8.84%. - Table 2 and Table 8
California ranks 13th in property taxes. Table 2
California has the fourth highest capital gains tax 9.55%. - Capital Gains Tax Rates By State
California has the highest gasoline tax as of January 2010, averaging 65 cents/gallon. The national average is 47.4% - API Motor Fuel Taxes
California has one of the highest state vehicle license car taxes, 1.15% per year on value of vehicle, up from 0.65% in 2008. [expired link]

So where's the money going?

1 in 5 in LA County receiving public aid, nearly 2.2 million people as of February 2009. 20% in Los Angeles County receive public aid

California has 12% of the nation’s population, but 36% of the country’s TANF (“Temporary” Assistance for Needy Families) welfare recipients – more than the next 8 states combined. Unlike other states, this “temporary” assistance becomes much more permanent in CA. July, 2009 California has more recipients in key welfare category than next eight states combined.
California prison guards highest paid in the nation. The maximum pay of California's prison guards is nearly 40 percent higher than that of the highest-paid guards in 10 other states and the federal government, according to a study by the California Department of Personnel Administration. Cal-Taxletter
California teachers easily the highest paid in the nation. National Education Association
California now has the lowest bond ratings of any state, two steps above junk. The new rating affects about $72 billion of general obligation and lease-supported bonds. July 15 California bond rating cut again California ranks 44th worst in “2008 lawsuit climate.” Institute For Legal Reform
California, a destitute state, still gives away college education at fire sale prices. California community college tuition is by far the lowest in the nation. Nationwide, the average community college tuition is 4.5 times higher than California CC’s. This ridiculously low tuition devalues education to students – resulting in a 30+% drop rate for class completion. Moreover, 2/3 of California CC students pay no tuition at all – filling out a simple unverified “hardship” form that exempts them from any tuition payment, or receiving grants and tax credits for their full tuition. [Expired Link]
California offers thousands of absolutely free adult continuing education classes. In San Diego, over 1,400 classes for everything from baking pastries to ballroom dancing are offered totally at taxpayer expense. San Diego Continuing Education
California residential electricity costs 13.81 cents per kilowatthour. The national average is 6.99-8.49. US Department of Energy
It costs 38% more to build solar panels in California than in Tennessee – which is why European corporations have invested $2.3 billion in two Tennessee manufacturing plants to build solar panels for our state. March 5, 2009 More Solar Companies Producing Elsewhere to Sell to California

Oh the fun that's in store for all of us here in the once Golden State....

Letter To The Editor

2010-01-17T17:47:00.001-08:00

MANDATORY MARCUS

In today's Los Angeles Times I saw this letter to the editor:

Re: New Northrop Gruman CEO shows why he got the job" Jan 7:
     My family works for aerospace companies in Southern California. The news that Northrop Grumman Corp. is moving its headquarters to the Washington, D.C., area is a shock to us.
     Is it possible to motivate the mayor of Los Angeles or the governor of our state to stop the planned action of new Northrop Chief Executive Wesley G. Bush? We strongly believe it will affect many companies along with Northrop.
     The CEO's of the financial companies are responsible for our present economy. This CEO will destroy what is left of Southern California's economy.
     - Reba Palt, Irvine

My head is spinning.

Upon what body of evidence does one base the claim that "This CEO will destroy what is left of Southern California's economy."? How exactly is any of this the fault of Northrop's CEO?

Given the nonstop barrage of media narratives that place the blame of our economic woes entirely on the back of "big business", while conveniently leaving out the government policies that allowed most of the bad behavior to take place, its no wonder that Ms. Palt is prone to blame the CEO. He's the easy target...but he's the wrong target.

Ms. Palt draws some connection between Northrop's CEO moving the company out of California and the CEO's of financial institutions being the cause of our present economy. I'm guessing the point there is that CEO's are bad...and our savior here might possibly be the Mayor of Los Angeles and the Governor of California???

The unintended irony in Ms. Palt's letter is that she is imploring the very people who actually are at fault here to do something to stop it. The Mayor of Los Angeles and the Governor of California are part of the engine that is driving Northrop to leave the State.

Northrop's CEO is responding in a profoundly rational way to the incentives that the State of California is providing; as well as to the incentives that other states are providing. States compete to attract business and on that count California just got its ass kicked.

California is no friend to business and hasn't been for a very, very long time (think gold rush days). According to the Tax Foundation's most recent State Business Climate Index for 2010, California ranked 48th in 2007, 49th in 2008, 48th in 2009, and is again ranked 48th in 2010. Not exactly the kind of environment that is going to endear your business community to want to stick around.

A similar survey asked CEO's to rate the best and worst states for job growth and business. California has been the picture of consistency...ranking 51st (last place) from 2006 through 2009. Rankings for 2010 won't come out until later in the year. Care to wager how California will finish this year...???

Northrop is looking to move to a Virginia suburb. If you're wondering whether Virginia has a friendlier business climate than California...Virginia ranks 15th on the State Business Climate Index and 7th in the CEO survey; California is 48th and 51st respectively.

Consider some of the other differences between California and Virginia as of July 1st 2009:

Sales tax in California = 8.25% (actually exceeds 10% in L.A. County)...Virginia = 5.0%.
Gas tax in California = $0.399/gal...Virginia = $0.32/gal
California state income tax rate @ $47,055 up to $1M = 9.55%...Virginia, max state income tax rate = 5.75%

I'm no expert in policy matters but I do know that the CEO of Northrop did not legislate the California state policies that make California less competitive.

While I agree that it will be bad (possibly very bad) for the Southern California economy if/when Northrop moves away...the fault isn't with Northrop's CEO...it's with a political machine in dire need of being put down altogether and reworked from scratch.

But until then....congratulations to the California political machine that continues to amaze with record deficits, anti-business politics and an overwhelming, other-worldly ability to continuously make one bad decision after the next.

And most impressively...still being able to get folks like Ms. Palt to blame someone else.

I Love it When A Good Plan Comes Together...

2010-01-12T20:42:00.001-08:00

MANDATORY MARCUS

"Now, let me get this straight...we are going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a President that also hasn't read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes...all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong?"

- An Anonymous Quote From a Very Astute Observer

When Knowledge Isn't Power

2010-01-09T19:50:00.001-08:00

MANDATORY MARCUS

"knowledge is becoming more diffuse, while political power is becoming more concentrated."

- Unchecked & Unbalanced by Arnold Kling

True...so it looks like we should expect lots and lots of really bad decisions headed our way...

Blog Envy II - Limits on Pay Edition

2009-11-21T14:42:00.001-08:00

MANDATORY MARCUS

I find myself once again suffering from blog envy. Oh, to have authored this:

"Yes, it is high time that pay and investment guidelines be mandated for all top level executives who may in the normal course their daily work push the entire economy too close to or even over the edge of systemic risk falls. If nothing else, this Great Recession has taught us that top executives can practically capsize the economy.

But the chief concern is not with presidents and vice presidents of too-big-to-fail banks and other bailed-out enterprises. As large as they are, they are small potatoes relative to the big generators of systemic risk. The critical concern is with top government executives who can create national and international panic, lay the groundwork for international inflation or deflation, and just by voting and writing regulations can change the risk profile of entire industries.

We taxpayer/investors demand a set of risk-sensitive compensation guidelines that will mandate pay and wealth-management rules for all federal government top executives starting with the president of the United States and all cabinet members and their deputies. While we’re at it let’s include all members of Congress and every member of the commissions and boards that manage the nation’s independent agencies, including, of course, the board of governors and chairman of the Federal Reserve System.

To properly align incentives of these elected and appointed executives (and others), we demand that each and every one be paid a base pay — some 75 percent of the current salary — plus incentive pay — the remaining 25 percent — based on improvements in real GDP growth over a five-year period that begins the day of their appointment or election. The base pay would be provided on the normal Office of Personnel Management pay schedule. The incentive pay, with recommended details worked out by Feinberg, would be provided on the basis of a three-year rolling average gain in real GDP, which means that the first incentive payment would be received three years after an executive’s first day of office.

But this deals with just part of the incentive misalignment. We must align incentives associated with government executive wealth.

Elected and appointed government executives routinely place their personal investment portfolios into management by a blind trust. While this action satisfies those who may be concerned primarily with ethics
and upright behavior, simply being blindfolded as to capital gains and losses does not get to the systemic risk problem, which of course, is our chief concern here.

All high government officials described earlier must have their personal portfolios invested in a visible S&P 500 index funds, not to be redeemed until one year after leaving office. We taxpayer/investors do not want our executives blindfolded as to gains and losses. We want them to know exactly what is happening to the Great American Bread Machine, our economy, while they are in office. We want them to feel our pain and our gain.Feinberg and Bernanke should focus efforts on those whose actions can capsize the economy—the top executives and elected officials in Washington. The others are small potatoes."

You can read the entire article from which this excerpt comes right here; written by Bruce Yandle.

My only comment is that paying the elected officials noted above 75% of their existing salaries is still too generous. All elected officials should be paid a base salary equivalent to the median US family income (currently just a bit over $50,000/year). Base salaries would rise and fall accordingly as would the above noted incentive pay.

Our elected officials have for too long been throwing their stones from an ivory tower...it's time they moved into glass houses of their very own.

Mandatory Marcus Sentence of the Day

2009-11-08T22:00:00.001-08:00

MANDATORY MARCUS

From denverpost.com; this sentence sums things up nicely...

"...we can save billions by funding a plan that uses billions of wasted tax dollars from another public plan that we already supplement with billions. Make sense?"

Mandatory Marcus Book Passage of the Week

2009-11-08T21:59:00.001-08:00

MANDATORY MARCUS

"In fact there was only one species on the planet more intelligent than dolphins, and they spent a lot their time in behavioral research laboratories running round inside wheels and conducting frighteningly elegant and subtle experiments on man. The fact that once again man completely misinterpreted this relationship was entirely according to these creatures' plans."

- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams

First Things First

2009-10-24T15:07:00.001-07:00

MANDATORY MARCUS

So today it appears that the House health bill now carries with it a one trillion dollar price tag over 10 years. Surprisingly spending one trillion dollars is also somehow going to reduce the budget deficit.

I've heard of addition by subtraction...but I've never heard of subtraction by addition.

If you are like me you probably want some perspective on what exactly one trillion dollars means. Its an easy number to say, but its so big its practically abstract. So here's some perspective for you:

$1,000,000,000,000 - that's a one followed by twelve zero's; a thirteen figure price tag.
One trillion seconds = 31,688 years, 269 days, 1 hour, 46 minutes and 40 seconds.
One trillion dollars in one dollar bills would weigh 2.2 billion pounds (1.1 million tons).
It would take a military jet flying at the speed of sound, reeling out a roll of dollar bills behind it, 14 years before it reeled out one trillion dollars.
One trillion one dollar bills laid end to end would stretch from the earth to the moon 200 times before running out of bills.
With one trillion dollars you could buy a $3 latte every day for 900 million years.
One trillion dollars is greater than the entire GDP of Australia.
One trillion dollars would buy every single stock on the Toronto stock exchange.
One trillion dollars would fund the military of every NATO country combined.

O.K....so you get the point. It's a lot of money. So how exactly does spending it cut the deficit you ask?

"The proposal would recoup these costs, and then some, through revenue from various sources, including $201 billion in taxes on high-premium insurance plans, and $404 billion in spending cuts for Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and other federal programs." - This according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) as reported by Medscape (part of WebMD).

After ten years the cost savings and additional revenue will allegedly increase more rapidly since the initial cost of expanding coverage would have already been absorbed. So what they are saying is that after ten years this plan will reduce the budget deficit even more and at an even faster pace.

Dare I bother to point out the fact that raising taxes on some insurance plans isn't a cost saving measure...it's an arbitrary government imposed price increase that will likely lower the number of such plans in the future; which will in turn lower the revenue collected and thus not lower the deficit as planned...but why let logic get in the way of such a grand plan?

I like to think I'm a reasonable person. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. But history shows over and over and over that politicians won't reduce spending on anything if it might cost them a vote. Do you think that maybe when the time comes to cut spending on Medicare, Medicaid etc. that there will be a political element to that decision? I mean it all looks nice on paper until you realize that every single time in the past that we have considered cutting spending in these areas we end up spending more.

So how about a compromise? I'm willing to be reasonable.

First...you (Congress) cut Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and other federal programs by the $404 billion amount you are alleging you will and then we can talk about taking on the one trillion dollars worth of spending you want.

You know...if you had made those auto companies restructure first...and then decided whether to hand out $81 billion, we might not have just lit that $81 billion on fire the way we did by handing it out first and then hoping for the change that never came. It wasn't that long ago...so come on Congress...stretch those mental muscles and try to remember what we got for doing things in the wrong order.

Maybe...just maybe...we should do the hard part first and make sure it gets done before we just hand over one trillion dollars to a congressional body that has a clear, indisputable track record of throwing good money after bad.

Alternatively I guess we could just buy Canada and rename it "public option".

Some Simple Questions

2009-10-10T22:12:00.001-07:00

MANDATORY MARCUS

Over the past few weeks a number of questions have come to mind that I figured I may as well ask here:

If Congress actually votes on matters that have national implications (and they do); why don't Congresspeople have to run in National elections? After all...Barney Frank chairs the House Financial Services Committee and Charles Rangel chairs the House Ways & Means Committee; both of which have profound national implications on things like financial regulation and tax law...shouldn't the people in California, Louisiana, Montana etc. get a say on who is going to be making rules that effect them?

If we are going to pass a health care bill that requires cost participation from both the States and the federal government in the expansion of state Medicaid programs...why does Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's State of Nevada get to avoid the additional taxes? Oregon, Rhode Island and Michigan also get to avoid the additional State tax. What do they all have in common? They are all well connected Democrats looking for you and I to pay more so that their constituents can pay less. And it probably goes without saying that they are all up for re-election and are considered to be in close races with Republican challengers. Hmmm....so the rest of the Country will have to pay more so these politicians' constituents can pay less, thereby increasing the chances that these particular individuals remain in office? My vote would be to tax me less and let them all lose their seats. (National elections anyone...?)

If the health care bill under consideration includes a 40% tax on "high value insurance plans" (and it does) and that means any plan that costs more than $21,000/year...why do 17 States with mostly large Union populations that enjoy exactly this kind of "high value insurance" get a higher threshold? You might want to ask Chuck Schumer from New York who probably doesn't want to have to deal with a bunch of angry New York Union Members at election time. (National elections anyone...?)

Why can't we have one issue per item of legislation? One issue; one bill. That way nobody gets to hide behind a veil of "compromise" to explain why they voted for a single bill that contains totally unrelated and frequently contrary issues. Like that one that passed containing the "credit card bill of rights" and also allows people to carry loaded weapons into National Parks. What do those two thing have to do with each other anyway??? Seriously...vote an issue and own it. If you don't get re-elected then go find a real job like the rest of us.

And finally....

Where's my Nobel Peace Prize? Two days ago I prevented my cat from getting into a fight with a neighboring cat who wandered too close to my front door...that right there means I've done at least as much as the President to qualify; and clearly that's not enough to win a Nobel Prize.

Mandatory Marcus Quote Of The Week

2009-09-27T19:50:00.001-07:00

MANDATORY MARCUS

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone."

- Claude Frederic Bastiat, 1801-1850

Less Is More IV

2009-09-19T21:01:00.001-07:00

MANDATORY MARCUS

Remember those retail health clinics we talked about just a few days ago? This Wall St. Journal article points out that they are already expanding services and driving doctors' groups and hospitals to react in two entirely predictable ways:

They are pressing insurance companies on co-payments to these facilities to eliminate any financial incentive to use them. (We'll call this the bad response)
They are acting more competitively themselves: Doctors offices are expanding office hours into evenings and weekends and hospitals are opening more urgent care centers to treat relatively minor health problems. (We'll call this the good response)
What you can predict will happen next is that doctors' groups and hospitals (and possibly insurance companies in collusion with them) will begin lobbying members of Congress to help create legislation to prevent any further expansion of retail health clinics; and thus prevent the further erosion of doctors' and hospitals established market position.

And there lies a very large potential problem...the possibility that the government intervenes in the market's natural evolution towards greater competition, lower prices and higher quality...while simultaneously claiming to want to lower prices and improve quality.

Oh the irony!

I remain hopeful that our government wouldn't stoop to such shenanigans. I also remain hopeful that one day Publishers Clearing House will come through with that $10 Million Dollar super prize so I can finally add them to my blocked sender list.

And thus continues the ongoing triumph of hope over experience....

Less Is More III

2009-09-17T21:57:00.001-07:00

MANDATORY MARCUS

Remember the auto bailouts? Where taxpayers (that's you) invested billions of dollars to save GM and Chrysler with the understanding that when they get back on their feet we will get that money back and maybe even turn a profit?

Allow me to present the Congressional Oversight Panel's September Oversight Report concerning the use of TARP funds in the support and reorganization of the Domestic Auto Industry. 221 pages of glorious detail surrounding the history of the auto bailouts and an analysis of where we are now.

For those that don't feel much like reading 221 pages of exceptionally tedious reporting...allow me to paraphrase in a single sentence - "We just blew billions of dollars that we aren't getting back, and we sure as hell aren't going to get any kind of return on it...now or ever."

If you prefer to have slightly more detail here it is: taxpayers spent approximately $81 Billion in auto bailouts in the
dismantling of the old GM and Chrysler and the creation of the new GM and Chrysler. The Congressional Oversight Panel's expectation is that taxpayers (that's us) will lose around 73% of that investment...or about $59 Billion. That's $59 Billion right down the drain folks.

Out of curiosity, what would you do if your financial adviser put you into an investment that lost you 73%? What would you think of a bank that throws away 73% of your deposits? What if your favorite team only played 27% of the game and then forfeited? I could go on and on but I think you get the point...which is in all cases you wouldn't stand for it. You'd fire your financial adviser, find a new bank and get yourself a different team.

So why haven't we fired everybody responsible for this boondoggle?!?! I for one, would be perfectly willing to have a wholesale exchange of every Congressperson that mustered even the slightest support for this idiotic bailout...regardless of political party.

But since the American taxpayer seems to be the ultimate glutton for punishment...nothing happened then and nothing will happen now. In fact, now we're looking at even more ways to allow government to spend boatloads of our money.

We shouldn't complain should we? I believe it was Alexis de Tocqueville that said, "in a democracy, we get the government we deserve." Besides...none of us would really be better off paying lower taxes and keeping more of our paychecks would we?

The next time you hear some government official blather on about more taxes, taxing the "wealthy", taxing "junk food", increasing property taxes or increasing taxes anywhere in the name of everyone "paying their fair share"...remember what happens to that money when it leaves your hands and gets into theirs...then think about whether the better solution might actually be less spending...starting with less government.

Just a thought...

Tire Tracks All Across Our Backs

2009-09-13T17:53:00.001-07:00

MANDATORY MARCUS

Just a few day ago President Obama imposed a tariff on tires imported from China. For those who may not know, a tariff is a duty (a.k.a. tax) imposed on imported goods. The justification for it is that it helps to make domestic producers of tires "more competitive" so that they don't lose business to less expensive foreign competition. It's a lot like saying that because Tiger Woods is better than everyone else at golf, the PGA should force him to play every other hole left handed so things are "more competitive".

Let's be clear, the President just jacked up the price of tires from China specifically to make them more expensive for you to buy them. Because competitors in China are able to produce tires of equal quality for less money, and thereby sell more tires, the President simply increased their cost to make sure their tires aren't less expensive relative to tires produced in the U.S.

Don't you love it when you could pay less for something but are forced to pay more instead? Isn't it awesome to discover that the sole reason you have to pay more for the item is because your own government simply added costs to deter you from buying it...even though you need it?

233 years ago, back in the year 1776, a fellow by the name of Adam Smith wrote a fairly influential book called An Inquiry Into The Nature And Causes Of The Wealth of Nations (A.K.A. The Wealth of Nations); today Adam Smith is widely considered to be the father of modern economics.

A key concept that Adam Smith articulated can be found in the following passage:

"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self evident that it would be absurd to attempt to prove it. But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce." (emphasis added)

Let's dig into this just a bit more shall we?

Do you think that the President actually believes it is better for you to pay more for an item when you could, in fact, pay less? Do you think that the President actually thinks it is good for the economy to arbitrarily increase the price of goods and services; particularly in the midst of what we are continuously told is the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression? Do you think that the President feels that he has just improved things for the American consumer by ensuring we all pay more than necessary for tires?

I think we can all agree that the President is smart enough to know better.

Question: Why impose the tariff if it actually makes everyone worse off than they would be without it?

Answer: It doesn't matter that it makes every single consumer in the U.S. worse off because it makes specific producers better off; in particular it makes a small special interest group (the United Steelworkers Union) better off. And naturally, as a result of all this, the President is better off because he was elected in large part due to the support of labor unions.

Today the percentage of workers belonging to any labor union is about 12% and declining. So in order to protect the interests of a subset of 12% of the working population, our government just stuck it to the remaining 88%. And that's just as it relates to "workers". If we took the labor union population as a percentage of all U.S. consumers, the percentage would be substantially lower...to the point of statistical insignificance.

By sticking it to you and me in the form of higher prices, the President buys continued support from labor unions come re-election time. Such action is diametrically opposed to the common sense observation laid forth by Adam Smith who pointed out, over 200 years ago, that the purpose of production is consumption. A tariff hurts consumers and provides benefit exclusively to the producers of the product in question.

By the way...President Bush did the same thing with tariffs on steel imports (though he ultimately repealed them before they went into effect)...so this isn't just an "Obama" problem it's a "government" problem; which should make you very concerned because what is most evident through all this is the fact that an elected official, even at the highest possible level, will clearly say and/or do whatever is necessary to get and remain elected.

All of this raises the question: how much more do you want to put into the hands of people whose incentives are so clearly tied to their own outcomes, and not yours...unless of course yours are politically convenient at the time?

My First Bleg...

2009-09-13T00:07:00.001-07:00

MANDATORY MARCUS

I'm told that when a Blogger asks for something from the audience its called "blegging"...so allow me to bleg.

I have gotten some feedback from some of you through comments that you have made directly to me through Facebook, LinkedIn and in some cases via email.

I love hearing from all of you...even those of you who disagree with whatever it is I'm saying...but I would really love it if you provided that feedback via the blog in the form of a comment; so that everyone (not just me) can see what's on your mind.

Those of you who are bit shy can rest assured that the option to comment anonymously or with a pseudonym is available...so feel free to cast your verbal stones or shower me with much deserved adoration comfortable in the knowledge that nobody (including me) has to know from whence it all comes.

Now that I am now done "blegging"...let the comments begin..!!!

Back To School Daze

2009-09-07T19:53:00.001-07:00

MANDATORY MARCUS

AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL THE PARENTS WHO ARE UPSET ABOUT PRESIDENT OBAMA'S UPCOMING SPEECH TO PUBLIC SCHOOL CHILDREN:

Dear Parents,

You're kidding right?

Don't get me wrong here...I'm not a fan of any of the "grow government" policies of this particular administration. I'd like them to cool it with all the industry "Czars"...the tax plans...the bailouts...the "stimulus spending" etc.

But honestly...you out there who are all worked up and bent out of shape because the President of the United States plans to deliver a back to school address that stresses the importance of education...you need to chill out.

Seems to me we need everybody stressing the importance of education; including teachers, parents, the business community and yes...even government. Like him or not, the President is a pretty good poster child for the kind of opportunities made available through a quality education.

Scenes like this one featuring a parent who actually starts crying (literally) because her child might hear what the President has to say; really makes me wonder whether any speech, given by anyone, at any point in history can prevent her child from growing up to be the same weak, close-minded, xenophobic stereotype depicted in this video.

You may not like his economics, his domestic policies, his foreign policies, his cabinet members, his hair style, his choice of beer, his favorite color, his favorite TV show or his White House garden...but he's still the President of the United States; which is an enormous accomplishment whether you like him or not.

Even if you buy into the theory that the President has a secret agenda to preach socialism to school kids; are you seriously of the opinion that a single speech given on a single day at school is going to trump the day in-day out 24/7/365 influence you have as a parent?

If your child comes home with questions about how the world really works because of what the President said at school...isn't that a good thing? Isn't that an opportunity to actually be a parent and have a conversation with your child about life?

What in the world are you going to do when your kid gets older and is introduced to ideas from folks they will be exposed to like Nietzsche, Marx, Darwin, Plato and yes...maybe even Obama? Will that be your queue to start burning some books to ensure your kid is as illiterate as you are acting?

Your idiotic antics make it hard for a person that actually has legitmate, logical differences with how government is running to make those arguments without being lumped into the crazy pool with all of you.

So do all the sane people a favor and grow up.

Love,

Mandatory Marcus

Less is More II

2009-09-06T22:24:00.001-07:00

MANDATORY MARCUS

Behold the magic of the market!

As the government continues to blather on about lowering the cost of health care, the market is actually doing something about it.

And yes...it has taken longer than it should and is limited in scope (for now)...but then demand has never been louder and more prominent than it is today. Keep in mind that a fickle consumer does not move the market...but a loud, demanding, persistent consumer usually does.

Say hello to a low cost equal quality health care option - the retail health clinic. Where the service is faster and the average cost of routine treatments is lower than those in doctor's offices, urgent care facilities and emergency rooms.

As an added bonus...these clinics don't cost the taxpayer one single penny. Meanwhile our tax dollars are continuing to fund the salaries of the elected officials who are utterly incapable of making any kind of decision that may raise some questions come election day.

Of course no right minded person can be surprised by this. The government's track record of improving quality and lowering prices is abysmal...whereas the market's track record of doing the same is rather spectacular. (See my previous post for examples)

And as even the most left leaning economist will tell you...as more of these clinics come on line the competition for customers will continue to put downward pressure on prices and require improved and expanded services. Simple economics 101.

As an extra special irony that will surely cause many heads to spin is the fact that of the 1,200 retail health clinics that exist today; 400 are operated by Wal-Mart. Yes Wal-Mart. The embodiment of pure capitalist evil is not only the Nation's single largest private employer (1.8M employees), they now provide about 1/3 of the access to these low cost health clinics.

I now await the inevitable cries from anti-market, pro-government interventionists crying foul because Wal-Mart is non-union and has the audacity to provide better solutions, faster and cheaper than their competitors (including government); while continuing to grow and create jobs throughout the U.S.

Maybe we need more Wal-Mart and less government...

Less is More

2009-08-30T22:48:00.001-07:00

MANDATORY MARCUS

Seems like the popular argument these days is that capitalism is bad and free markets have failed. Somehow or another the blame for the financial crisis, unemployment and the lack of affordable health care has been laid squarely at the feet of "free markets".

I won't bother to take the time necessary to explain how there hasn't been a lot of freedom in these alleged "free markets" for quite some time. Instead I will simply say that anyone who thinks that the market has failed in these areas should examine the details a bit closer.

Take health care as one example; if you don't think markets can help address the issue of affordable health care you can start defending that position by explaining away your local pharmacy. Your local pharmacy is that place you can go and get free advice from a Pharmacist before you buy exceedingly reasonably priced remedies for the flu, a cold, fever, toothache, stomach aches, dry eyes, minor cuts and scrapes, headaches, sunburns etc. etc. the list could go on and on.

But that isn't really the point of my thoughts today. The point is how well markets can work when we let them. I happened to walk into an Office Depot last week where I passed by something called a Netbook; which is a 2.5lb mini laptop complete with Windows XP, a 160GB hard drive, 1GB of memory, wireless connectivity and hours of battery life all for between $299 - $399 depending on some options you choose.

Then there's the Amazon Kindle. For $299 you can buy an electronic book reader with access to more than 300,000 books (and growing), get free wireless access to download books in under 60 seconds and purchase the typical hardback for under $10 instead of the usual $25.

What you don't find with these products are factions within government mandating that every Netbook be equipped exactly the same way. Or government regulations mandating that every electronic reader deliver their content for a specified price, or that all content available on one reader be provided to every other reader. In other words we don't do to these products what we have done to health insurance, trade, education etc.....you know, nearly all the industries firmly under the thumb of some government agency.

Left to its own devices the market has made it possible for you to have computing power in a 2.5lb mini laptop for around $300; where five years ago it would have cost you around $3,000 and weighed 8.6lbs like my Sony Vaio VGN-A190 (512mb memory, 80GM hard drive and nearly non-existent battery life). And to have, literally at your fingertips, hundreds of thousands of books at substantially discounted prices. For under $700 and in less than 3.5lbs of equipment you can have all the computing power most of us will ever need and store 1,500 complete books on a single device.

So...market driven innovations continuously drive prices down...but somehow nearly everything the government has oversight of becomes more expensive.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be rules to prevent fraud, require disclosure etc...but I'm perfectly willing to take my chances with what the market comes up with (absent intrusive government intervention) on most issues.

Those of you who find the market distasteful, inefficient, unfair etc. may want to ask yourselves what delivers more value to you in more ways...those money grubbing greed mongering capitalists who are behind things like the computer you are reading this on, the car you drive, the air conditioning you enjoy, the music you listen to, the medicine you take, the clothes you wear etc. OR those wise, fair minded, popularly elected government officials who are behind things like the post office, the DMV, the VA, Social Security, tax policy etc.

As with most things, when it comes to government...less is more.

That Flushing Sound

2009-08-19T22:15:00.001-07:00

MANDATORY MARCUS

I'm going to have to stop reading the news and throw my TV out the window...or learn some deep breathing relaxation techniques.

Not only do I get to sit back and watch our government continue to seek out ever more inefficient ways to waste money in the name of stimulating the economy...I also get to watch the programs and services we're already paying for waste as much as humanly possible.

Let's start with the Cash for Clunkers program that has managed to unnecessarily burn through billions of dollars to accomplish little more than subsidizing auto purchases for people who would probably have been buying new cars in the next six months anyway. A complete waste. And now they are paying the dealers involved via IOU's instead of cash.

The dealers have to pay the rebate out of pocket and then wait for reimbursement from the government. Click here
to get the specific info on how car dealers are getting IOU's in lieu of the cash.

No Way....!!! You mean the government isn't paying money it owes to people working through its very own government sponsored program?!? What do you suppose would happen if I sent in an IOU in lieu of my taxes this year?

How about that post office? You know the post office...that place you go when you need to burn 45 minutes on a 5 minute task. Well they lost a couple billion dollars in the third quarter...to add to the billions already lost in the previous quarters. How is it that I pay $0.44 to send a letter 40 miles down the road and that contributes to a multi-billion dollar loss...but can head on down to my local grocery store and buy a kiwifruit from New Zealand for about the same price and nobody loses money?

And while we're at it...can somebody explain the logic behind paying taxes on tax refunds? You get a refund because you paid too much tax to begin with...how does that logic work?

Oh wait...it doesn't. In fact no logic can explain the travesty that is government being anything more than a referee in a market system. When the government becomes a player in a market system everybody loses...except of course the folks who are in the government.

And that is why I'm highly skeptical of a government sponsored health care option. That and the countless dollars that I see being flushed away on every other program the government has its hands in.

A Tear In My Beer

2009-08-02T19:46:00.001-07:00

MANDATORY MARCUS

According to what passes for news these days, some American beer producers were a bit bothered over the fact that at his "Beer Summit", President Obama and his guests Professor Gates and Officer Crowley drank beers produced by foreign companies.

We are talking about the President of the United States aren't we?

How about we let the most powerful man in the free world drink whatever beer he wants (even if he did pick the white zinfandel of beer) without having to listen to a bunch of whiners cry about the fact that he didn't drink their beer.

For those who actually have a problem with the President's beer selection, here's your solution:

Become President of the United States, have a couple knuckleheads who make embarrassing national spectacles of themselves over to air out their grievances at the White House, then serve up whatever drink you want.

Until then....

Pop Culture vs. Culture

2009-07-29T10:57:00.000-07:00
MANDATORY MARCUS

Here's a little something for those of you that are like me...and can't take another second of listening to every single news outlet blithering endlessly on about Michael Jackson, his crazy dad, his kids, his "mystery love child", his doctor, his missing nose(s)....etc. etc. ad nauseam.

Maybe it makes me a callous, heartless fiend...but I just don't care about postmortem, inter family, conspiracy theorist dead celebrity drama.

It would be a refreshing change to come home from a hard days work, pour a drink, turn on the news and see something that might actually affect something other than the Michael Jackson estate.

Perhaps as mental self defense against this assault on my intelligence I've been reading a lot more lately. In particular I've been reading epic poems.

Most recently I read (and then listed to a podcast of) "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. There are too many brilliant passages in this poem to share them all in this post (so you should go read the poem); but here are a few of my favorites:

IV.

He holds him with his glittering eye -
The wedding-guest stood still,
And listens like a three years' child:
The Mariner hath his will.

XXVIII.

Day after day, day after day,
We stuck, nor breath nor motion;
As idle as a painted ship
Upon a painted ocean.

CXLII.

He went like one that hath been stunned,
And is of sense forlorn:
A sadder and a wiser man,
He rose the morrow morn.

For those of you who are interested and don't mind reading directly from your computer, you will find most of the classics free at google books.

Now go! Save yourselves from the mind numbing hours that pass as "news" lately and get some culture.

A Sucker Re-Born Every Minute

2009-07-22T22:19:00.000-07:00
MANDATORY MARCUS

For those of you who haven't made enough stupid mistakes in this life, here's an opportunity to have one carry over into the next.

Say hello to Reincarnation Bank.

That's right. You can deposit money in this life...and when you are reincarnated you can stop by and pick up your deposit...with interest.

And here I was worrying about the shrinking value of my retirement account. How could I have been so short sighted?

Do you think I could come back as a Nigerian prince and offer to give away the fortune I earned in compounded annual interest to anybody willing to email me their bank account information in response to my mass email spamming?

P.T. Barnum said that there is a sucker born every minute...he would be so proud.

Better You Than Me.

2009-07-20T23:50:00.000-07:00

MANDATORY MARCUS

Well its official…we’re being sold out.

You’ve heard the phrase about getting a taste of your own medicine? Well the medicine we’re talking about is the health care plan the government wants you to have…but doesn’t want to take themselves.

Last week the Wall Street Journal reported that the Senate Health Committee voted (barely) in favor of an amendment that would require all members and their staffs to enroll in any new government run health plan.

Only three Democrats voted in favor of the amendment.

So the party that wants to shove a “public option” down our throats before anybody has a chance to think twice about it has already thought enough about it to know they don’t want it.

Kind of reminds me of a certain stimulus spending package that had to get approved over a weekend or the world would come to an end…even though many months later we’ve only spent about 11% of the funds. And most of the funds that have been spent aren’t on anything stimulating…but I digress.

I’m not saying that the existing state of health insurance coverage isn’t in need of overhaul because I think it is. But I am saying that I don’t need to hear any additional details about the plan currently being proposed beyond the fact that those who would impose it would also avoid it.

How about this for a first step: absolutely no plan whatsoever is put into motion for “the people” unless every single federal and state employee relinquish their existing health benefits and replace them with the “public option”…including Congress, Senate and the Executive Branch.

Certainly if tax dollars are going to pay for a health insurance option, those whose living is funded on the backs of taxpayers should be required to consume it; particularly when those same people are bent on requiring you to consume it.

When you consider that our tax dollars are already paying for the health benefits of the aforementioned group and that we’re being told that this new “public option” will bring down the costs of health care; how can there even be any discussion about whether publicly funded employees (including Congress & Senate) will adopt it?

It would be nice if politicians had to eat their own dog food for a change.

Their failure to very willingly and very publicly adopt whatever public option comes to pass is all I need to hear to know that I don’t want it.

Mayor, Mayor Off The Wall...

2009-07-15T21:08:00.000-07:00

"This is a world-class city, and we provide fire and police protection. Period. The idea that we would charge the family for a funeral is nonsensical,"

This is a quote from Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in response to criticism over the City of Los Angeles footing the bill for the $1.4million in police and other services necessary to host the Michael Jackson memorial last Tuesday (7/7/09).

Noble Mayor Villaraigosa…noble indeed. Oh wait…that’s not your money you’re spending? It’s ours? Taxpayer money?

That certainly explains your generosity.

Mr. Mayor, if it’s so “nonsensical” to charge the family for a funeral, is it safe to assume that effective July 7, 2009 you have declared that funerals in the City of Los Angeles are free for everyone? You might want to let Forrest Lawn in on that plan…or are you are offering up the Staples Center as the universal funeral site for all of Los Angeles?

A nice gesture mind you, but given there are more than 4 million people living in Los Angeles you might need to let the Lakers know that they will need to defend their NBA title in another venue, because the Staples Center will be booked all year, every year, with free funerals.

Do I even need to point out that Michael Jackson paid nearly fifteen times this amount to “bury” certain other events in his past? Is it really too much to expect that his estate cover the cost of his own funeral? I mean, did somebody put a gun to someone’s head to force this public spectacle? Why not a private family memorial that wouldn’t have cost the City one red cent?

By the way, has it slipped your mind that the City of Los Angeles has a $530 million estimated budget shortfall? (A highly optimistic estimate given that the City is doing the estimating). That usually means dropping $1.4 million in completely wasted spending isn’t a good idea. And yes, from a taxpayer perspective, Michael Jackson’s memorial was a complete waste of money.

And now that we are on the topic I might also point out that most (arguably all) of the $178,789 salary paid to each of the 15 LA City Council members, is also a complete waste of spending….as is a very large chunk of your $232,426 salary.

In a city with over 10% sales tax rates, grossly overpaid City officials, a half Billion dollar budget shortfall, over 11% unemployment and one of the worst school districts in the entire Country (LAUSD)…you, ever the politician, decide that it is the taxpayer’s responsibility to take this $1.4 million in the shorts.

You think it’s a good idea to stick the taxpayer with this expense. I, the taxpayer, disagree. I think it a much better idea that you and the entire city council go without pay until the $1.4 million boondoggle you are so proud of has been offset via your salaries.

Alas, Mr. Mayor, I can’t blame you entirely. You are after all a career politician; and as Shakespeare said: “There’s small choice in rotten apples.”