One hundred million dollars is a lot of money to most mere mortals.
President Obama and friends are hoping that you never get past that initial emotional reaction.
One hundred million dollars!
That's like winning the Super Lotto five times in a row!
That's three Manny Ramirez salaries--at least when's he's not imbibing in performance-enhancing drugs...
That's, that's...more Ferrari's than can be driven in a lifetime!
But what is it, in proportion to the US Federal budget?
A clever young man has given us the best demonstration of all.
Gruff old Senator Everett Dirksen once growled during a 1960's budget debate, 'A few billion here, a few billion there, and pretty soon, it adds up to real money!'
Indeed it does.
And Obama plans to exponentially expand spending.
We are looking at 50 Trillion (with a T!--that means 'thousand billion') in unfunded obligations, with Medicare, Social Security, and further entitlements. Spending already promised, already in the pipeline.
So, how much is one hundred million dollars?
Just enough to insult our intelligence.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Some Solutions on the Horizon for Health Care
This rolled out by Jeff Immelt at GE this morning.
I caught the first few minutes of the presentation, and it was enough to cheer the heart, at least a bit.
There are solutions to the health-care mess in this country. They are being created in the Third World, and exported back to us.
Now if the Federal Guv'mint will stay out of the way, and allow innovation to proceed.
Immelt made very clear: 'GE is not a charity. We're here to return profit to our investors.' But he also emphasized that countries with good health care in place, and a healthy citizenry, tend to be more wealthy.
He's right!
But, the national health care proposals proposed by Obama and the Congressional Democrats will overwhelm any creation of wealth resulting from improved health care.
We're already looking at 50-something trillion (that's with a 'T') in unfunded obligations at the Federal level. The 'solution' now traveling through Congress will not even be read, much less debated. No one knows, outside of the authors of the legislation, what mischief is contained within those hundreds of pages of numbing prose.
At least in the UK, they held an open debate on the subject, and the discussion continues to this day.
Do we really, really want our health care in the hands of the people who brought us Amtrak, Fannie and Freddie, the TARP, and the current management of both our banking and auto sectors?
Are these people really trustworthy?
I caught the first few minutes of the presentation, and it was enough to cheer the heart, at least a bit.
There are solutions to the health-care mess in this country. They are being created in the Third World, and exported back to us.
Now if the Federal Guv'mint will stay out of the way, and allow innovation to proceed.
Immelt made very clear: 'GE is not a charity. We're here to return profit to our investors.' But he also emphasized that countries with good health care in place, and a healthy citizenry, tend to be more wealthy.
He's right!
But, the national health care proposals proposed by Obama and the Congressional Democrats will overwhelm any creation of wealth resulting from improved health care.
We're already looking at 50-something trillion (that's with a 'T') in unfunded obligations at the Federal level. The 'solution' now traveling through Congress will not even be read, much less debated. No one knows, outside of the authors of the legislation, what mischief is contained within those hundreds of pages of numbing prose.
At least in the UK, they held an open debate on the subject, and the discussion continues to this day.
Do we really, really want our health care in the hands of the people who brought us Amtrak, Fannie and Freddie, the TARP, and the current management of both our banking and auto sectors?
Are these people really trustworthy?
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Mine That Bird and Other Inspirational Competitors
It's moments like this that remind us why the Kentucky Derby is what it is.
A $9500 gelding, driven twenty-one hours from New Mexico by his injured trainer, squeezed at the gate and starting dead last, guided along the rail by the world's most fearless jockey, winning by 6 3/4 lengths(and still accelerating as he crossed the wire).
What makes a moment like this so incredibly special, inspiring and joyful?
Could it be because we saw a real competition unfold before our eyes, in contrast to the endless manipulations of money and power that have so crippled so much of the world, and fertilized and watered our cynicism?
The best horse, guided by the best jockey, ran against the odds (50 to 1) through the mud, straight into our hearts and memories: We'll all remember where we were and who we were with when we saw the 2009 Derby.
Two weeks ago, we saw it unfold in slow motion at the Masters, as Angel Cabrera refused to give up, even when trapped behind a tree, and Kenny Perry came within two inches of the green jacket, only to watch it slide away, just like his first putt on the 72nd hole.
Perry lost the tournament, and won our hearts, as he applauded Cabrera on the putt on the 72nd hole that kept his hopes alive.
It was a real competition, played out in the open, within the strictest rules in sport.
Cabrera took the green jacket home, a most well-deserved prize, the pride of Argentina. (He admitted later in an interview that he checked his closet every day, just to make sure it was still there.)
Kenny Perry returned to Kentucky to a hug from his dad, the admiration of his wife and children, a flood of phone calls and letters, and the realization that at age 48, he's in the middle of his best years as a professional athlete.
That's what real competition does--it creates all sorts of winners, in all sorts of ways.
Please somebody, let Congress, the White House and the Captains of Industry in on the secret...
A $9500 gelding, driven twenty-one hours from New Mexico by his injured trainer, squeezed at the gate and starting dead last, guided along the rail by the world's most fearless jockey, winning by 6 3/4 lengths(and still accelerating as he crossed the wire).
What makes a moment like this so incredibly special, inspiring and joyful?
Could it be because we saw a real competition unfold before our eyes, in contrast to the endless manipulations of money and power that have so crippled so much of the world, and fertilized and watered our cynicism?
The best horse, guided by the best jockey, ran against the odds (50 to 1) through the mud, straight into our hearts and memories: We'll all remember where we were and who we were with when we saw the 2009 Derby.
Two weeks ago, we saw it unfold in slow motion at the Masters, as Angel Cabrera refused to give up, even when trapped behind a tree, and Kenny Perry came within two inches of the green jacket, only to watch it slide away, just like his first putt on the 72nd hole.
Perry lost the tournament, and won our hearts, as he applauded Cabrera on the putt on the 72nd hole that kept his hopes alive.
It was a real competition, played out in the open, within the strictest rules in sport.
Cabrera took the green jacket home, a most well-deserved prize, the pride of Argentina. (He admitted later in an interview that he checked his closet every day, just to make sure it was still there.)
Kenny Perry returned to Kentucky to a hug from his dad, the admiration of his wife and children, a flood of phone calls and letters, and the realization that at age 48, he's in the middle of his best years as a professional athlete.
That's what real competition does--it creates all sorts of winners, in all sorts of ways.
Please somebody, let Congress, the White House and the Captains of Industry in on the secret...
The Chrysler 'Bankruptcy'--It Ain't About Chrysler, Folks
This from Robert Saloman, eminently worth reading.
If you think it's just dry stuff about bankers and lawyers, read it again. It should put a chill up your spine, and cause you to cheer for the creditors who won't allow the Obama White House to subvert the rule of law, and bully them for good measure.
At bottom, the problems with this 'bankruptcy' are ethical:
1. The senior secured lenders are, by law, entitled to stand first in line. There are assets to liquidate (or reorganize and turn into money-makers) to settle their claims. Chrysler certainly holds the rights to thousands of design patents on vehicles, parts, and manufacturing processes. For instance, the mini-van is a very serviceable configuration--millions of moms with kids around the country can't be that wrong. The Dodge pickups, if marketed well, can give the Ford F-150/250/350 lines a real run for their money. Why can't two smaller(NON-UNION!) firms be organized to manufacture and distribute these vehicle lines? Without the horrendous per-vehicle expense added by the UAW's health/pension/work rules/featherbedding, these can be delivered to market profitably. We will always have mommies, farmers, ranchers, building contractors and hunting/fishing enthusiasts who will buy these vehicles. Add in the patents on parts and processes, available to sell or license, and Chrysler looks like a cash orchard awaiting harvest.
2. Why the **&&@@@@!!!! is the UAW being offered 55% of Chrysler? These clowns are in great part responsible for this train wreck. Remember how they would call a strike on one of the Big Three in order to force it to knuckle under, and then pick off the other two in succession. The only upside is that a majority stake might force them to act like adults for the first time in history. They can't 'stick it to The Man' if they themselves are 'The Man'. But after seven decades of wanton childishness, how optimistically should we await this 'conversion experience', this epiphany, this Damascus Road moment, this change of heart?
3. We the taxpayers have been dragged involuntarily, and under false pretenses, into this mess. We can kiss almost every penny shoveled in Chrysler's direction goodbye. Until today, I didn't know that we were protected by a third priority lien, which means we finish about twenty lengths behind the UAW, which (immorally and erroneously) has been positioned as the defacto holder of the first lien. Those promises made to UAW were premised on the expectation that Chrysler would make profit, from which the health and pension bennies would be paid. No profit, no bennies; and it's not up to us to cough up just because profit wasn't made.
So, when is a senior secured debt not a senior secured debt?
When the UAW is in the room? When the White House(of either party) decides that a bankrupt enterprise is 'too big to fail'?
And, next time, when a pension fund manager looks at buying senior secured debt issued by Corporation Q....(remembering of course that the manager bears fiduciary responsibility for his actions)???
Personally, I hope the senior debt holders raise unshirted Cain in court, and tie up the process for months. There's enough Chrysler inventory out there to keep purchasers happy, so the plants can stay closed into next year, no problem.
This isn't about the survival of Chrysler.
It is about the survival of the rule of law.
It is a question of ethics.
If you think it's just dry stuff about bankers and lawyers, read it again. It should put a chill up your spine, and cause you to cheer for the creditors who won't allow the Obama White House to subvert the rule of law, and bully them for good measure.
At bottom, the problems with this 'bankruptcy' are ethical:
1. The senior secured lenders are, by law, entitled to stand first in line. There are assets to liquidate (or reorganize and turn into money-makers) to settle their claims. Chrysler certainly holds the rights to thousands of design patents on vehicles, parts, and manufacturing processes. For instance, the mini-van is a very serviceable configuration--millions of moms with kids around the country can't be that wrong. The Dodge pickups, if marketed well, can give the Ford F-150/250/350 lines a real run for their money. Why can't two smaller(NON-UNION!) firms be organized to manufacture and distribute these vehicle lines? Without the horrendous per-vehicle expense added by the UAW's health/pension/work rules/featherbedding, these can be delivered to market profitably. We will always have mommies, farmers, ranchers, building contractors and hunting/fishing enthusiasts who will buy these vehicles. Add in the patents on parts and processes, available to sell or license, and Chrysler looks like a cash orchard awaiting harvest.
2. Why the **&&@@@@!!!! is the UAW being offered 55% of Chrysler? These clowns are in great part responsible for this train wreck. Remember how they would call a strike on one of the Big Three in order to force it to knuckle under, and then pick off the other two in succession. The only upside is that a majority stake might force them to act like adults for the first time in history. They can't 'stick it to The Man' if they themselves are 'The Man'. But after seven decades of wanton childishness, how optimistically should we await this 'conversion experience', this epiphany, this Damascus Road moment, this change of heart?
3. We the taxpayers have been dragged involuntarily, and under false pretenses, into this mess. We can kiss almost every penny shoveled in Chrysler's direction goodbye. Until today, I didn't know that we were protected by a third priority lien, which means we finish about twenty lengths behind the UAW, which (immorally and erroneously) has been positioned as the defacto holder of the first lien. Those promises made to UAW were premised on the expectation that Chrysler would make profit, from which the health and pension bennies would be paid. No profit, no bennies; and it's not up to us to cough up just because profit wasn't made.
So, when is a senior secured debt not a senior secured debt?
When the UAW is in the room? When the White House(of either party) decides that a bankrupt enterprise is 'too big to fail'?
And, next time, when a pension fund manager looks at buying senior secured debt issued by Corporation Q....(remembering of course that the manager bears fiduciary responsibility for his actions)???
Personally, I hope the senior debt holders raise unshirted Cain in court, and tie up the process for months. There's enough Chrysler inventory out there to keep purchasers happy, so the plants can stay closed into next year, no problem.
This isn't about the survival of Chrysler.
It is about the survival of the rule of law.
It is a question of ethics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)