Coyote Crunch

Why the Government's "Strings Attached" Bailout Is Working

2009-12-03T11:27:00.000-08:00

Because they hate it: Of course, the federal government's insistence on executive-compensation restraints is hard on bailed out corporations. Of course, the government has no business imposing such restrictions--except that the government saved their sorry behinds by shoveling money at them. Of course, it's stupid to hamstring these financial and auto behemoths' ability to attract the very executive talent that could restore them to health. Stupid, stupid, stupid--except that these stupid restrictions are driving these corporations to pay the money back, sooner rather than later. The coyotes guess the government knew what it was doing after all. Smart, smart, smart. Wile E.

Let's Get Away from Employer Provided Health Insurance.

2009-08-26T17:32:00.000-07:00

... and do the following: Having said what we said in our previous post, let's acknowledge something odd. If you think we should get rid of our reliance on employer-provided health insurance, you have too paths:

Keep the government out and let it happen (because it will). This emphasizes individual responsibility abd is a libertarian, almost Ayn Rand approach.
Get the government in, big time.

Let's talk about the second approach--because the first is rather straightforward--and make the following points.

The most radical approach--a single payer option--would relieve business of the need to provide health insurance benefits. While the costs of such a program should give everyone pause, it would be a boon to a U.S. business.

A more conservative approach could also be used to move the country away from employer provided insurance (where it is going away anyway). Some ideas that have been proposed and on which there is fairly widespread agreement.

Allow individuals to shop for insurance coverage all across the country. This increases insurance competition and would reduce insurance rates some.
Allow individals to buy health insurance with pre-tax dollars, which would put them on the same playing field as workers who get tax-free health insurance from their employers. (The negative version of this is treat employee benefits as income and tax them.) This is only fair--and should encourage people to buy their own health insurance.
Force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, with some controls designed to prevent people from dropping insurance to save money and coming back in to gain coverage for serious medical conditions. This would essentially create a national "group," which reduces the value of employer-provided coverage and increases the value of indivudal coverage.
Institute an "individual mandate," similar to the individual mandate for auto insurance in many states. Individuals would have to carry insurance or pay an income tax penalty. (Do not, on the other hand, institute and employer mandate.)
Emphasize catastrophic/Health Savings Account insurance at reasonable rates. These plans are cheaper because they are true insurance plans, protecting against catastrophe, instead of pretending to cover all health issues. Their high deductibles force individuals to either get gap insurance (an option), to shop around, or just to be more responsible for their own basic maintenance.

Wile E.

If Congress Fails to Pass a Health Plan ...

2009-08-26T16:46:00.000-07:00

... you will lose your insurance anyway: At least the employer-provided kind. The extreme right--maybe just the right--is trying to scare people by saying they will lose their health insurance if "Obamacare" (whatever that is) passes. What they are not telling you is that you will lose your health insurance--at least the employer provided kind--if Congress fails to act.

It's already happening. Employer provided health insurance is just too expensive. Small businesses haven't been able to afford it for a long time. They pay high rates--double, we discovered when we were in business--what you can buy as an individual. And the rates have been going up dramatically every year. If you think large corporations are going to be able to continue providing coverage, think again. Chrysler and General Motors went into bankruptcy, largely because of huge legacy costs generated by their commitments to worker/retiree pensions and health care.

Even when companies continue to offer health insurance, workers and would-be workers are at risk, especially older workers too young for medicare. If you're 50 to 65, watch out. You'll be first in line to be laid off and last in line to be hired--precisely because you are too expensive to be covered.

While this is painful, it may not be entirely bad in the long run. Our reliance on "benefits" has had some unfortunate consequences.

Workers are insulated from medical costs: With health insurance provided for them, workers have no incentive to pay attention to medical costs and every reason to demand the latest and the best medicine has to offer.
Medical providers are insulated from price pressure: With workers not paying attention, medical providers are free to ratchet up charges, pad invoices, order unnecessary tests, by expensive equipment duplicated in nearby facilities, and so on.
Insurance companies are insulated from price pressure (sort of): To some extent, insurance companies benefit from the same absence of price pressure as providers. However, insurers are really middle men who pass on the costs in the form of insurance to companies and individuals.

However, insurers are the fuse of a ticking time bomb. Insurers raise prices to groups--and exclude individuals from coverage of pre-existing conditions. This practice forces more and more and people to seek more expensive group insurance through employers. Eventually, companies and individuals begin to experience pain from increasing insurance costs.

Employer provided health insurance has other consequences.

People think employers must provide health insurance. Why? Do employers provide auto insurance? Or home insurance? Or long-term care insurance? Why is it their business? Why is a good thing? Does it make a business a better business? Does it help a company serve its mission? Does it make a company more competitive, especially in the global market where health insurance is either not provided at all or provided by the government?
People think they must work for a company that provides health insurance. In setting this as a priority, they often wind up working for a company they don't like in other respects doing work they hate, and generally limiting their options.

In another post, we'll talk about what we might do instead. Wile E.

Focus on the Good News.

2009-03-12T08:40:00.000-07:00

Update: The news media, on the whole, rides the wave of momentum. In an economic slowdown, their reporting is unremittingly negative. To compensate, we'll identify some of the good news.

Durable goods orders increase: The Commerce Department reported that orders for durable goods--manufactured products expected to last at least three years--increased 3.4% last month. This was the first advance in six months. Most of the increase came from orders for military aircraft and parts, machinery, computers, and fabricated metal products. (3/27/2009)
New home sales rise: The Commerce Department reported that sales of new homes rose 4.7% in February from a month earlier. In combination with the equally unexpected increase in existing home sales, this means inventories are being drawn down and suggests that home sales are reaching a bottom. Watch for these developments: 1) prospective buyers, thinking the bottom has been reached, will come back into the market in droves; 2) prospective sellers, thinking the bottom has been reached, will remove their homes from the market waiting for prices to increase. With few new homes being built, we could move quickly into a high-demand low-supply situation, in other words a seller's market, precipitating rapidly rising home prices. This would intensify if homebuilders can't get loans from banks and begin adding to the supply of new homes. (3/26/2009)
Existing home sales rise: The National Association of Realtors reported that existing home sales were 5.1% higher in February than in January, thanks in great part to distressed sales (foreclosures and short sales). Still, the increase was a surprise and good news. It means that existing house inventories are being drawn down, which is necessary for the market to bottom. In the meantime, savvy buyers are getting sweet deals. (3/23/2009)
Suddenly, banks are in the black: Citigroup CEO sparked a stock market rally when he announced that the company had made a profit in the first two months of the year, its first in 15 months if it holds up. A day later, JP Morgan Chase reiterated that it had made a profit in the first two months of the year. Wells Fargo has said its results for the two months were strong. (Colorado Springs Gazette, 3/12/2009.)
Jobs are being created: While the recession has claimed 4.4 million jobs, it has created 2 million others, according to government data. While this is a net loss, it's important to remember that jobs are created, even in an economic downturn. At his point, most of the new jobs are in education, health care, and government. However, there are new openings in private industry, especially for highly skilled workers. Engineers and the like. (AP via Colorado Springs Gazette, 3/10/2009)

The Bad Economy Has a Bright Side

2008-12-26T10:29:00.000-08:00

The media can't get enough of telling you how bad things are. And they are, but there are bright spots:

Oil prices have plunged, part one: From above $140 a barrel, they are now below $40 a barrel. This has obvious benefits to the consumer and, according to Economist James Glassman, may function as a $350 billion stimulus package.
Oil prices have plunged, part two: You know that part about how, thanks to our oil addiction, we send all of our money to people who hate us. Well, the countries that love to irritate us--Iran, Russia, and Venezuela, to name three--aren't getting as much of our money these days. And they aren't quite as cocky.
Oil prices have plunged, part three: Even though oil prices--and with it, gas prices at the pump--have dropped, Americans are still driving less. That multiplies the above benefits.
Americans are becoming more frugal: This is exasperating economists and feds who say we need to spend more, but this is not a bad thing. The main reason for the bubble is that we were spending too much, gorging ourselves, and it made us sick. Now we're recovering--we're spending less, saving more, and paying off our bills. Healing is painful, but it is, after all, healing. For the most hopeful view on this phenomenon, visit daveramsey.com.
We're going to get infrastructure: The perceived necessity of an economic stimulus plan is driving our new president and Congress to come up with a stimulus package that by all accounts will be heavy on infrastructure spending. While there are arguments about how well and how fast infrastructure spending will work as stimulus, it is the pragmatic choice. Unlike just handing out money, which the right favors in the form of cutting taxes and the left favors in the form of doling out checks, spending on infrastructure employs people in real jobs to build real long-term assets for the country. Besides, those assets are falling apart and need fixing.--Wile E.

To Create Jobs, Build Bridges ...

2008-10-20T10:31:00.000-07:00

... and other infrastructure: In the midst of the economic crisis, the two presidential candidates are talking about creating jobs. McCain says we should reduce taxes on business. Obama says we should give businesses a $3,000 tax credit for hiring new workers. McCain may be right in the long run, in that a reduction in business taxes would make U.S. based business more competitive Obama is suggesting a more directed tax relief, designed specifically to create jobs. However, while businesses might benefit from such a tax credit, they are unlikely to hire a worker for the sake of tax increase. If the two candidates really want to create jobs, via government stimulation, they should suggest spending money on infrastructure projects--bridges, highways, government buildings, airport and seaport improvements, etc. In fact, all government levels--federal, state, county, and municipal--should organize their affairs so that spending on infrastructure occurs most intensely during economic downturns. Construction projects do several things:

They provide "good-paying jobs" in both professional and construction categories.
They support a variety of local businesses directly (e.g. , construction companies) and indirectly (e.g., materials companies).
They provide much-needed new infrastructure and maintenance of existing infrastructure.

In short, this is work that needs to be done. Why not do it during an economic downturn? During economic upturns, governments should reduce spending on infrastructure and build up "rainy day" funds to be spent on infrastructure during the next economic downturn.

This is a much better strategy than mickey-mouse payments and tax credits that sound good but do nothing to create jobs directly and little to create them indirectly--and that leave the public with no lasting legacy. Like infrastructure.--Wile E.

Does Recycling Save Trees?

2008-01-11T10:10:00.000-08:00

It Seems Logical: If you print a book, you need paper. If you use virgin paper for your book, you have to cut down a tree to make the paper. Therefore, you are reducing the world's forest. Well, not really, as it turns out. "Pulp" trees are faster growing than lumber trees. Like Christmas trees, they are planted and cultivated. Farmed. The more paper you use, the more trees get planted. This excerpt from a story by Sally Herigstad in MSN MONEY, says it well enough.

We've all heard: Recycle paper and save the trees. But according to James Wetzel, a professor of environmental economics at Virginia Commonwealth University, the end result of all that recycling is fewer acres of timberland, not more. More than one-third of paper pulp now comes from recycled sources.

"Alas, one result is a decrease in demand for pulpwood -- thus the price of timberland falls," Wetzel says. If timber companies sell fewer trees for paper, they find more-profitable things to do with the land, like sell it to developers.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions," Wetzel says. "If you want people to plant more trees, they need a reason. In 30 to 50 years, they will harvest those trees."
Shredded paper may not make it into recycled paper, anyway. Anca Novacovici, founder of Eco-Coach, says, "Shredded paper cannot be recycled with regular paper because the fibers are cut short. Therefore it is demoted to a lower-grade material."

To me, it still makes sense to recycle paper when you can because it saves (maybe) some energy. It just doesn't save the forests. Instead, consider shredding your paper and using it on your compost pile. Wile E.

How to Get Out of Iraq: A Mental Exercise

2007-10-07T09:05:00.001-07:00

Missing the obvious: The first Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago used to say that "good politics is good government." Contemporary politicians would do well to apply this lesson to the Iraq quagmire. In the midst of trying to gain political advantage, they miss the obvious.

Obvious point #1: Congress can change the mission. Politicians are stuck on the idea that Congress, because it gave the president approval to go into Iraq, must remove its permission either by fiat or by defunding the war. The problem is that doing so is impractical. First, the president might continue his policies (especially if the effort were not defunded). Second, logistically U.S. troops cannot be removed immediately. It will take months. Third, deciding on the absolute removal of troops, however long it takes, has all kinds of consequences that no one wants to face. On the other hand, Congress can simply declare a more limited mission, one that will allow for the orderly drawdown of troops, and charge the president to carry it out. He probably will--because we don't have the troop strength to do anything more. The advantage to Congress is that they will look like they did something intelligent.
Obvious point #2: Iraqis are the key to the politics, theirs and ours. Politicians give lip service to this concept, but their behavior says otherwise. Political dialog about what do is conducted as if the Iraqis are not there. Even politicians who have the guts to propose solutions do so as if the U.S. must come up with a solution rather than Iraqis. For example, presidential contender and U.S. Senator Joseph Biden has acknowledged the obvious divisions in Iraqi society and has proposed a kind of partition of the country. Makes sense--except that this or any other solution ought to be up to Iraqis. And why has no one proposed that we ask Iraqis if they they want us to stay? This could be done in the form of a national plebiscite, regional plebiscites, or requests to the Iraqi parliament. Are we afraid of the answer? If they invite us to stay, we are not occupiers. If they ask us to leave, we can declare "mission accomplished" and begin leaving. Wile E.

Americans Are in the Center on Abortion

2007-06-05T15:39:00.000-07:00

We wish the politicians would catch up: Congratulations to Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton for taking centrist positions on abortion. Of course, they have caught hell for being muddled or dishonest from pundits and advocates.Nevertheless, Rudy and Hillary are in the mainstream with their professed dislike of abortion and their defense of pro-choice law. The coyotes like the position. Far from being immoral, as the purists contend, the two presidential candidates have staked out the moral and rational high ground. Moral because they point to their willingness to reduce abortions (and in Giuliani's case, his track record). Rational because they implicitly recognize the rightness of both sides. On one hand, one cannot deny that an embryo/fetus is inside a woman's body. This is more accurate than saying the embryo/fetus is part of a woman's body (like a limb), but it gives the woman a stronger claim on controlling the disposition of the embryo/fetus than the plantation owner has on the disposition of the human "slave" he claims as "property." (The moral comparison of abortion to slavery or genocide therefore doesn't work.) On the other hand, one cannot deny that the embryo/fetus is a potential human being and that disposing of it is of some considerable moral consequence. This is more accurate than saying the embryo/fetus is a human being, which is not a fact but a position, an opinion, or a dogma. This is why it is possible for people like Sen. Clinton and Mayor Giuliani to say that they are (mostly) opposed to abortion (for reasons of faith) but that they bow to pro-choice law because they recognize the stronger claim of pro-choice forces based on undeniable fact. Their solution of focusing on making abortions "safe, legal, and rare" is a rational way of dealing with the conflict between two "rights," one that ought to be applauded.--Wile E.

Forget Cheap Oil; the U.S. Needs Energy Independence.

2006-11-30T09:58:00.000-08:00

The World May Depend on It: The coyotes are clear about their priorities. Energy independence is more important than cheap oil. Our dependence on fossil fuels, especially the crude oil required to make gasoline, is all too real. And it makes us vulnerable to disruptions, deliberately caused or not. It makes us vulnerable to blackmail by bad actors on the world stage. It is our achilles heel. We need to address the problem. Here's how:

First, we must become clear as a nation that our goal is energy independence, not cheap gasoline. (Cheap gasoline, to a great extent, is making us more dependent and more vulnerable.) To be energy independent, we must be willing to make some changes in our lifestyle. Doing so will involve some sacrifice, but it will not in the long run mean a a lower quality a life. (In fact, if we don't make some changes, our nation might cease to exist, which is a lousy quality of life, indeed.)

Second, we must forget partisan ideologies and use an agressive strategy that combines conservation with aggressive domestic production of all types of energy.

Conservation is both a short-term and long-term fix. In a crunch, always accompanied by price pressure, Americans have proven they can reduce their use of energy over the short-term by changing habits and over the medium-term by improving the energy efficiency of their transportation, buildings, and appliances. Conservation can also be created and increased by government pressure; for example, by increasing MPG standards on automobile fleets, reducing speed limits, and changing zoning laws and code requirements to encourage more walkable environments and more efficient use of energy in buildings.

Domestic Production of energy needs to be increased. All types of energy. Fossil fuels, sustainable energy (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, biofuels), even nuclear (maybe).

Increasing sustainable energy, especially decentrailized systems such as solar and wind, is a no-brainer in a world of terrorism. The downside is the capital investment require, but the goal--energy independence--justifies government encouragement, including but not limited to subsidies and tax benefits. For example, why shouldn't local governments in sun belt regions require--or at least encourage with incentives--all new construction to be be built with on-the-grid battery backed-up solar systems? Housing prices would be higher, but utillity bills would drastically be reduced. Utilities, substantially supported by these solar systems, could drastically reduce their use of fossil fuels, ideally to the point of using them as backup sources of electricity. An abundance of available electrical energy might make electrical transportation systems viable again.
Increasing fossil fuel production, not popular with environmentalists and liberals, is also necessary for security. We need to drill in the Anwar, drill of the Florida coast, drill off the coast of California. While fossil fuels are not desirable from an environmental point of view, they (especially oil) are currently necessary, especially for transportation. They also allow utility companies to even out their provision of electricity when the sun doesn't shine, the wind doesn't blow, and the water doesn't flow quickly enough to meet demand. The environmental impact of drilling for oil is not as severe as it was years ago and can be paid for in a variety of ways. Mining for coal, shale, and other fossil fuels is problemmatical environmentally; while those problems need to be addressed, in the interests of energy independence, they should not prohibit production altogether.
Increasing biofuel production, such as ethanol and methane. There are environmental and efficiency concerns with ethanol production, among others. However, even if they are inefficient, biofuels can help us achieve energy independence if their production can be done within a closed domestic loop. (We're told that most of the gasoline burned in Brazil is derived from plants.)
Nuclear energy is problemmatical. The upside is that nuclear plants produce no operational greenhouse gasses, no small benefit in a world of global warming. However, there are other risks associated with managing spent fuel and protecting the plants from accidents and terrorism. In fact, there is no comfortable way to manage the nuclear waste generated by these plants. While the risk of accidents is low, they have happened and they are devastating, a fact that makes a nuclear plant a tasty target for terrorists. For those reasons, the coyotes would focus on other solutions to energy independence. Wile E.

Sure, Jimmy, Let's Talk Apartheid.

2006-11-28T13:24:00.000-08:00

Ethnic Cleansing, Si; Apartheid, No: Jimmy Carter appeared on TV this morning, promoting his latest book: Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. The noise you heard was coyote blood boiling. As with most positions that make your teeth itch, this one was about half right. Yes, there is apartheid in Israel/Palestine, but it is mainly inside the heads of the international community that supports an ethnically cleansed two-state solution in the name of "peace." Okay, we'll have to amend that. It is understood but never spoken that one state will be ethnically cleansed. That would be Palestine, which is being given the international blessing to continue to teach its children to hate--and yes, kill--Jews in the name of perpetuating their own victimhood. The other state would be Israel, a secularized "Jewish state" that since 1948 has accepted non-Jews (Arab Christiams, Arab Moslems, Druze, and others) as voting citizens with full rights, including freedom of worship. Of course, they will be expected to continue this practice--not to mention providing free passage to Palestinians who need to work there--while relocating Israeli Jews out of "occupied territories" back into Israel. Of course, the fact that the goal seems to be to produce an ethnically cleansed Palestinian state seems to be lost on the international community--and President Carter. But maybe their view is that if you don't have another ethnic group in your state, you can't have apartheid. Wile E.

Election Winner: The Center

2006-11-21T13:50:00.000-08:00

Election Losers, The Partisans: The coyotes were uncharacteristically tickled by the mid-term elections, mainly because independent voters stuck a thumb in the eye of the Republican Party while pushing the Democratic Party back toward the center. Very coyote-like of them. Alas, the coyotes are too wise to expect the two parties to get it and to follow-through with their bipartisan promises, at least with respect to how Congress operates. Wile E.

We Don't Need More Reasons to Hate Chirac ...

2006-08-18T09:51:00.000-07:00

... But He Gives Them to Us Anyway: Go figure. The Islamic Republic of France, with the aiding and abetting of the U.S. government, put together a cease-fire proposal featuring a "robust" (hah!) international force of 15,000 UN troops, which they offer to lead while at the same time reducing their commitment to 400 soldiers. Word is that the Syrian government has intimidated them, threatening via back channels that French troops will become victims of a terrorist attack if France commits a significant number of troops to the UN force. The coyotes can't wait to see how the French stand up to Iran. Wile E.

UN Cease-Fire Must Be a Joke.

2006-08-11T15:53:00.000-07:00

Ugh: At first blush, the U.N. approved cease fire in Lebanon appears to be an ugly joke. Here's the plan: The UN will deploy 15,000 blue helmets with a "robust mandate" to watch the Lebanese army play footsie with Hezbollah while it redeploys its forces and rockets in Southern Lebanon. Okay, they said it another way. The blue helmets will support the Lebanese army in the region as Israel withdraws. Apparently, that was the fish thrown to Israel. Their withdrawal timeline is inderminate. But geez. With the Lebanese army is in the back pocket of Hezbollah and the blue helmets supposed to "support" the Lebanese army, that means the UN will be effectively supporting Hezbollah. They certainly won't be shooting at them. They don't have a mandate to shoot at anything. I suppose we should be grateful they weren't assigned specifically to shoot at Israel. Of course, nothing says they can't haul Hezbollah rockets into position. The real laugher is that the U.S. sold out Israel and Ehud Olmert is going along with it.Wile E.

Stop "The War on Terrorism ... "

2006-08-11T14:56:00.000-07:00

... And Fight the Real Enemy: Since 9/11, we have supposedly been fighting a "war on terrorism." As has been pointed out by other commentators, "terrorism" is a technique used by a variety of groups, some of whom aren't a particular threat to us (Basque partisans, whether they use terrorism or not, are not particularly a threat to Americans). Our enemy, correctly defined, is something like "genocidal Islamists." Radio talk show host Michael Medved names the enemy as "Islamic Nazis," a term I don't especially like because it invites discussion that isn't especially helpful. However, I think it is useful to name the enemy as a group of people with a specific goal and a set of behaviors. Suffice it to say that our enemy consists of certain people who behave with the clear intent to exterminate certain classes of people, namely Jews (or Israelis), Americans, and infidels. Our enemy is not a religion, though the enemy subscribes to certain religious views. The fact that this enemy is determined to kill us makes it one worth fighting. Defined this way, the face of the enemy becomes rather specific. From the top, it consists first of those states who have a stated purpose of exterminating Jews and Americans and infidels (Iran), quasi-states and militias with the stated purpose of exterminating Jews and Americans (Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraqi "insurgents"), clerics and other leaders fomenting followers to these purposes (Al Qaeda leadership, many Wahabi clerics, many Pakistani madrasas), financial supporters of any of these groups, and soldiers doing the dirty work (active and sleeper cells). If we name the enemy correctly, it will be easier to go on the offensive. Wile E.

Stop the Airport Foolishness.

2006-08-11T14:39:00.000-07:00

Real Security: TSA, and security agencies from other countries, need to stop the goofy security focus on "stuff" instead of "people." Okay, in the context of yesterday's specific threat, checking carry-on liquids makes some sense but only for a brief period of time. However, it can't go on. It's wrong-headed. Security teams need to do what the Israelis do--focus on identifying problem "people" with astute questioning, observation, and other techniques. Also, specific security measures should be randomized--with computers and random changes of mathemeticians supplying the algorithms--so that would-be terrorists cannot predict and rely on specific techniques. In other words, TSA might apply a variety of techniques that would change in a random order at random periods of time. These techniques might include: questioning of everyone, questioning of likely candidates (yes! profiling!), questioning of every nth person, questioning of random persons, thorough checks of everyone's bags, thorough checks of likely candidates' bags, etc. Algorithms should ensure that the most effective techniques--namely profiling--are in play most often. Also, TSA officials need the ability to make human decisions, pulling a suspicious character out of line when some other technique is mandated. We need to drop the ridiculous reticence to profile young Middle Eastern males (or whomever fits the current profile) and combine that with enough randomly used additional techniques to increase the chances of terrorists slipping through the profile (by using women, non-Arab converts to Islam, etc.). This system would be much less invasive for most passengers than the current, mostly useless search for box-cutters, nail clippers, and shampoo. Wile E.

Rogue Nations Only Do What Works ...

2006-07-07T15:16:00.000-07:00

... So Stop Rewarding Bad Behavior: Regarding Iran and North Korea, we should take a page from the Israelis and do what we can unilaterally. No, not invade them. However, we definitely need to think harder about doing what we can do.

First, we need to recognize that the leaders of Iran and North Korea are not irrational. Evil, maybe. Dangerous, certainly. But not irrational. On the contrary, they are rational and we are irrational. We're the ones rewarding bad behavior. And they are behaving badly, reaping the rewards. Perfectly rational. To change this, we should do the following. We announce to each rogue nation that we are prepared to offer them specified goodies (things we know they want) on condition and as long as they behave in a specified manner. Every time they don't behave well, we divert the funding for piece of their package to a neighbor who is being well. For example, every time North Korea shoots off a test missile, we send some of the money meant originally for them to South Korea or Japan or even Russia or China. Every time, Iran announces or is found to have made an advancement in its nuclear program, we send goodies or cash meant for them to Afghanistan, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Iraq, or Kuwait. And so on. We don't negotiate. We just do it.

Second, we need to focus on communicating with the population and supporting regime change. This is easier to do in the case of Iran, which has a more modern communications system than the very backward North Korea. However, there are ways.

Third, we can begin to punish bad behavior. The coyotes think this strategy will be less useful to the U.S., unless we get to the point of military action, because we have little to take away ourselves from Iran and North Korea. However, the same may not be said of the European Union, South Korea, China, and Russia.

This won't have an immediate effect, especially on the Iranians. But it will reverse the cycle of rewarding bad behavior.

High Gas Prices Bring Out the Morons.

2006-05-05T10:02:00.000-07:00

Savings for the Math-Challenged: High gas prices invariably manage to bring out the worst in Americans. Instead of changing their behavior in significant ways, like driving less or taking the bus or making plans to buy a more fuel efficient car, Americans whine. Worse, they engage in truly moronic behavior, like driving across town to save two cents per gallon. The other day, we noted on the news that a couple of gas stations Back East dropped their gas prices some fifty cents for promotional reasons. Of course, this created a traffic jam as people lined up, waiting as long as seven hours to fill up their tanks. Let's see, if you saved fifty cents a gallon on a fifteen-gallon fillup, that would be a savings of $7.50. So that means these people think their time is worth is a little more than $1.00 an hour? Wile E.

Okay, Hillary Has a Chance.

2006-05-03T15:03:00.000-07:00

Watch for a Third Party: With immigrant advocates busy overplaying their hand--what with the waving Mexican flags, the Spanish version of The Star-Spangled Banner, and the jobs boycott on Communism's greatest holyday-- a strong run by an anti-illegal-immigrant third-party candidate is a real possibility. Such a candidate would probably split the Republican Party rather than drawing equally from both parties, which would leave the way open for Hillary. Hey, maybe those immigrant advocates have thought the whole thing through. Wile E.

Hillary Will Never Be President.

2006-04-28T15:48:00.000-07:00

She's No Bill: The coyotes, at least some of them, like the Junior Senator from New York. In fact, they think she's an honorary coyote, willing to wiggle and wag and do what it takes to make something happen. By all accounts, she's a good Senator. Conservatives are hyping her as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination because they would dearly love to run against her. She may indeed win the nomination, but Republicans know she is unlikely to win the general election. Why? She's divisive, through little fault of her own. She inherits the Right's visceral dislike of her husband and is on the receiving end of the Right's payback for the Left's personal animosity to George Bush. No matter what she says, Conservatives/Republicans assume she is lying just as surely as Willy is slick. They will poison the independents against her. She would have a chance against a very right-wing Republican who can be credibly positioned by the Democrats as even more divisive than she is. And her chances would improve again if a strong third-party conservative siphons votes away from the Republican candidate. However, the Republicans have a number of candidates who can position themselves as less partisan and more centrist than she is: namely, John McCain, Mit Romney, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, and Rudy Giuliani. If one of those gets nominated, watch out. The country is hungry for a credible non-partisan leader. We're betting on Mit Romney, who is a capable conservative executive able to work with liberals. Two more points: Hillary's chances diminish if the Democrats win back either the House or the Senate. And the first female president of the U.S. will almost surely be a center-right Republican. That's because such a candidate will get a good share of the non-Republican women's vote as well as the usual Republican vote. Wile E..

United Emirates of America?

2006-02-22T16:45:00.000-08:00

What Were They Thinking? The coyotes have bided their time and listened to various arguments about the wisdom of ceding East Coast Port logistics to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Some respectable people involved in security issues do not seem especially concerned about the matter--after all, the UAE is an important ally with a U.S. port in their homeland. However, the coyotes remain unconvinced about the wisdom of turning these important operations over to a foreign country. It's one thing to have a company based in another country controlling these logistics (the situation before), another thing to turn control over to a company owned by another country, even an ally. Would the U.S. have turned port logistics over to a company owned by the U.N. (hah), or Canada, or the UK, or Israel. We don't think so. Bad idea. Wile E.

We're Not Ones To Shoot from the Hip ...

2006-02-22T16:36:00.000-08:00

... We'll Leave That To the Vice-President: The quail hunt gone bad was good for plenty of late-night humor but not much else. The coyotes were not impressed either with the press corps behavior or with Cheney partisans complaining about such. Truth is, the press corps would have acted similarly if Vice-President Gore had been the shooter, even if he had responded differently (which the former journalist surely would have), and late-night comics would have had the same field day. That's just the nature of those beasts. The only thing of real interest to emerge was Cheney's unwillingness to notify his boss immediately, his refusal to apologize for that particular behavior, and his boss's seeming indifference. Curious. Wile E.

Middle East Irony

2006-01-26T14:48:00.000-08:00

2006.01.26 Why Hamas Win is Good for Israel — It should now be starkly clear why Fatah did its best to circumvent elections (and blame it on Israel): Hamas. No one with any sense can be even mildly surprised by the outcome. The Arabs only choice was between eternal impoverishment under a hopelessly corrupt and chaotic bunch of crony terrorists, on the one hand, or "throw the gangsters out" and vote in the non-corrupt terrorists. Is that hard to figure out? It isn't much of a stretch to assert that about the only votes Fatah received were from Fatah cronies on the take. The size of the vote for Fatah shows the depth of the graft and corruption that, until now, has impoverished and doomed Paliban society. There was never any doubt that, given the opportunity and lacking Arafat's cult-leader hypnosis, they'd "throw the gangsters out." The only question was the margin." (from Yirmeyahu Ben-David.) For more, go to the netzarim.co.il. (Note this newsy page changes quickly, so the link will probably only be good for a short time.)

A Report Card for George Bush

2006-01-24T16:39:00.000-08:00

Because no president should be left behind: The coyotes hate the partisanship that sees George Bush as either a saint or a demon. Like all presidents, he has his good points and his bad, his successes and his failures. Nor are the coyotes too keen on those silly report cards that show up in sports pages, but they do demonstrate that the writers can think critically, something you can't say about most partisans. Anyway, herewith is George Bush's report card, right before his State of the Union, not intended to be taken too seriously.

Leadership (B-): Give the guy his due. This Prez no poll-watching panderer. He's got a vision of a different Middle East and an "Ownership Society" at home. And people who don't agree with him can just go and get their own Supreme Court. The coyotes would rate him higher if he were better at selling his vision or even if he could string a sentence together and sound like he meant it.
Foreign Policy (C): The coyotes rated President Bush highly for the way he worked with Ariel Sharon to isolate Arafat, who should have been isolated years ago, and for the way they seem to be handling North Korea. They rated him down for seemingly trying to piss off everybody else on the planet. Curiously, he seems to be doing a little better with Condoleeza Rice rather than Colin Powell as Secretary of State. At the moment, we seem to be clueless about how to handle Iran.
National Defense (B): The coyotes like the way Donald Rumsfeld is trying to reform the military. It needed doing, and he did a masterful job of winning the initial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Iraq (I): The coyotes are calling this an incomplete. President Bush could be seen as a hero in the end or an idiot. At the moment, the U.S. military is acquitting itself well. And the administration deserves kudos for helping shepherd the Iraqis to some kind of representative government. Obviously, security is stinky and the coyotes doubt much could have been diferently to change the results. The administration gets bad marks though for much of reconstruction. Establishment of a banking system and a monetary policy was a success. But the administration has done poorly at establishing much of the rest of the infrastructure, thanks in part to a focus on bringing in American consultants to work on giant western-style projects, which are impossible for Iraqis to run and vulnerable to attack (but lucrative to the contractors.) Still, the whole mess could be a success.
Homeland Security (C): Okay, we marked the President up for the absence of a large-scale terrorist attack on the homeland. You never know, but the administration is doing something right, even if airport security seems a little off the mark. And we marked him down for the hurricane fiasco. The failure wasn't all the administrations doing, but the Fema failure (for which Congress bears some blame) was deep and terrifying.
The Economy (B+): The economic numbers are excellent, even though the benefits are leaving people feeling less than exhilarated. They say Presidents don't really control the economy, but President Bush did push through tax cuts, some of which surely had an impact.
The Budget (F): Nothing good to be said. The tax cuts actually increased revenue, we're told, but spending increases ate away the surplus. His support of another entitlement program for seniors, while he was lobbying to fix Social Security, was truly senseless. You expect more from an MBA. Or maybe this is exactly what you expect from them.
Domestic Policy (D): The coyotes give the President credit for addressing the Social Security problem, though the way he did it was illogical. And then there was the Drug program, which exacerbates the debt. And he is not addressing the two reasons why people are feeling out of sorts in the midst of a good economy, rising health care/insurance costs and the rapid disappearance of pensions.
Energy Policy (D+): If it weren't for the tax credits on some alternative fuel installations, the President would have failed. The coyotes don't mind his support of drilling in Anwar--Democrats should trade that for a more aggressive energy policy emphasizing production, conservation, use of alternative (self-sustaining) energy, a solution to the nuclear waste problem (so that nuclear energy becomes more viable), and so on. In this world, we need become more independent of loss of oil and other energy resources around the world. He ain't doing it. He's supposed to know something about energy. Doesn't appear to be so.
The Courts (B-): What was up with the Harriet thing? Other than that, the coyotes are not especially bothered by the Roberts and Alito nomination. Democrats need to focus on getting their views across to the electorate instead of relying on the courts to install by fiat what they can't sell.

Debate on Iraq withdrawal Is Ill-timed.

2005-12-16T14:23:00.000-08:00

The Iraqis Will Decide: Congratulations to the brave Iraquis on their election. What has been bothering the coyotes about the recent "debate" on withdrawing our troops out of Iraq is that it is so ill-timed--as if the Iraqi election of a parliament is of no consequence. In fact, Iraq's representative government--assuming they can form one--will have the most to say about when and how we leave. Consider: if a duly elected Iraqi government asks us to withdraw our troops immediately or to specify a timetable for removing them, how could we refuse? Conversely, if they asked us to stay indefinitely, how could we refuse? Don't we want them to get to the point where they can decide those things? Wouldn't that be a real victory? Granted, we could find ourselves in a situation where the Iraqis can't form a governing coalition or can't come to a clear decision, but let's not cross those bridges until we come to them. Talking about what we will do as if the Iraqis--in the form of duly elected government--seems, well, let's just call it and ugly form of "cultural hubris" rather than something more inflammatory. Wile E.

Dems Need a Vision

2005-11-08T15:06:00.000-08:00

Stand Up for Government: Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne is the latest to suggest that the Democrats need to propose a vision of their own if they hope to compete successfully with Republicans in the next Congressional election. Hearkening back to Franklin D. Roosevelt's view of government, Dionne said "...Democrats will continue to lose ground if they fail to stand up for [the] affirmative government role in enhancing both individual liberty and self-sufficiency." Because Republicans generally take the side of weaker role for government (especially federal government), this makes considerable strategic sense. And he warned the Dems against focusing too strongly on rights. "The other challenge to the conservative status quo must focus on the obligations of citizens to their communities and their country ..." Hear! Hear! Anybody remember, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country"? Somebody ask Ted Kennedy when the Dems start turning that statement on its head. Wile E.

Communitarian Link Added

2005-11-08T14:43:00.000-08:00

A Centrist Network: The coyotes have long been impressed with the Communitarian Network, an collection of arguably centrist intellectuals and policy wonks positioned more or less between "libertarians" (advocates for a very weak government) and "totalitarians" (advocates for a very strong government). We'll be adding more links from different sides of the spectrum as time goes on. Wile E.

Dems Need a Program

2005-11-07T09:43:00.000-08:00

And Coyotes Are Here to Help: The coyotes are much in favor of the two-party system. It's the American Way. Now that the Republicans are on the ropes, you would think the Dems would be gaining favor. You would think wrong. Voters remain disgusted with the Democrats, and rightly so. The Dems seem to stand for nothing more than abortion rights and for whatever President Bush is against (or against whatever he is for). Rumor has it that Democratic think tanks are working on program that the leadership will spring on the public shortly before the 2006 Congressional Elections. In this, they seem to be borrowing a strategy from the Republicans of 1994 who took over the House by playing negative until springing the Contract With America shortly before the 1994 elections. Bad idea. The Dems are out of practice. They need to start showing some leadership now--so they can get the bugs out by election time. The coyotes will help by offering some ideas for a Democratic political program that makes sense. (The Republicans don't need as much help. Even though they are bumbling in their execution, they at least seem to have some sense of what they stand for.) Stay tuned. Wile E.

Hey, Ump, Hit It Out of the Park!

2005-10-12T13:45:00.000-07:00

So Much for Principle: The new Supreme Court Chief Justice got it right when he said that judges are "umpires," not "players." This is the supposed conservative line, but the coyotes are suspicious. Certainly, some conservatives are sincere and consistent when they say courts should not usurp the role of the legislative or executive branches of government. George Bush may well be among them. And their critique of the Democrats--that, having failed to convince the people of the rightness of their convictions, the Democrats have been relying on the courts to move their agenda forward--is well taken. However, the coyotes are certain that for many, the position is one of convenience, thanks to Republicans controlling Congress and the Presidency. Indeed, if you listen closely, you can tell that many conservatives are mainly interested in overturning Roe v. Wade and they don't mean turning abortion law back to the states. They mean prohibiting it, no matter what any legislature might say. Just like the Democrats, they would really like an activist court--only their way. Wile E.

The Right Role for the Feds in Hurricane Recovery

2005-09-27T15:22:00.000-07:00

Rebuild Infrastructure: The Bush administration and Congress are busy trying to outdo each other in an effort to throw money at hurricane recovery. The coyotes think everyone should take a breath and figure out what federal role makes sense in long-term (and chronic) disaster recovery. The principal that the coyotes work from is that the federal government should do those things that have strong interstate benefits and that, in effect, tie the country together. Also, the coyotes favor contributions to infrastructure building and maintenance rather than non-investment entitlement contributions. Following this principle and given that the Gulf Coast has strategic significance, especially regarding energy production and key ports like New Orleans and Houston, the coyotes favor a primary federal role in building and rebuilding infrastructure; to wit, the Port of New Orleans; wetland restoration in Texas and Louisiana (which would help prevent the type of catastrophic flooding seen after Katrina); levee repair and upgrades in New Orleans; and repair of key bridges and federal highways. Because of the strategic importance of oil production facilities and refineries, the federal government could play a role in assisting in their repair. However, it might be more advantageous to focus on a) establishing national standards for refined products that would override at least some of the expensive state standards and b) setting tougher national mileage standards for vehicles as a more efficient way of reducing the pollutants moving into the air. In addition, the federal government could surely make a contribution, with funds and coordination, to improving disaster communications between governmental entities. The coyotes are less enamoured of tax breaks for businesses building in dangerous areas and of compensation to homeowners who insist on living in disaster-prone areas without appropriate insurance. On that score, the coyotes think the federal government could require flood insurance (federally provided, if necessary) on mortgages when the property in question sits in a flood plain. Without this, homeowners should not be compensated for water damage. With the emphasis on building infrastructure, businesses and individuals will feel safer in moving to and investing in New Orleans and other areas. Without this focus, enticing businesses to invest in "enterprise zones" and begging residents to move back is borderline immoral. Wile. E.

Blame Game Is About Elections, Not Lives

2005-09-12T13:35:00.000-07:00

Hurricane Aftermath: We continue to be appalled by the attempts of politicians and partisan commentators to assign blame to the "other side," whatever that may be, for the slow response. It's obvious to the coyotes that local, state, and federal officials made mistakes--as well as some good decisions--and that there are some systemic problems that need to be identified and fixed. The coyotes don't know who is "most" at fault and think the effort to figure that out is more about election politics than anything else. In fact, we're prepared to say that any Democratic partisan who assignes the "primary" blame to President Bush or to FEMA and any Republican partisan who assigns "primary" blame to the New Orleans mayor and the Lousiana governor should have his or her tongue cut out. On this score, we think that more Republicans and self-styled conservatives have been willing to express frustration with the federal response, which suggests that either a) the federal response is more screwed up or b) the Republicans have more integrity than Democrats. Maybe both. Wile E..

Double Standard Applied to Israel

2005-09-12T13:31:00.000-07:00

On Gaza Pullout: See comments on the double standard applied to Israel at the Geir Notes blog.

Communication Fiasco After Katrina

2005-09-02T15:46:00.000-07:00

The End of the Information Age: Many of the horrible rescue-and-recovery problems in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina are the understandable results of a destroyed infrastructure. However, the coyotes are non-plussed by the complete failure of everyone with a communications responsibility--government officials, first responders, the military, and the media--to think at all creatively and improvise. It's as if everyone has noticed that the normal communications structures--cell phone towers, phone lines, cable and TV systems--have been destroyed and that no communications will occur until this infrastructure is repaired. This is insane. Communications is a process--of delivering content to an audience in one-way communications or of exchanging information in two-way communication. It you can't deliver/exchange information via cell phone, telephone, television, or the Internet, then you find another way to do it--via runners, leaflets, newspapers wrapped in plastic bags (like the one dropped for free on my lawn from time to time), information centers, carrier pigeons, megaphones, or whatever is at hand. We find it especially absurd that the media industry is focused entirely on gathering information from the site of the Katrina disaster--which they do very well--and appears to have no sense that it has any responsibilty to deliver information to the victims of Katrina--or their rescuers. Wile E..

Democracies and War Weariness

2005-08-25T18:36:00.000-07:00

A Built-in Dynamic: The coyotes like to play a computer game called "Civilization," which has as an interesting game concept. Each civilization can change its form of government, each of which has some disadvantages. "Democracy," for example, is the most economically efficient but it is plagued with something called "war weariness," which kicks in and sends its cities into disorder and dysfunction not long after the civilization goes to war. And "war weariness" kicks in more quickly and more aggressively when the civilization is the aggressor. It seems strange to the coyotes that computer game creators have a better handle on one of the underlying dynamics of a Democracy than all of the pundits, talk-show hosts, and partisans commenting on Cindy Sheehan and her supporters. In other words, it is built-in to a Democracy that there will be vocal opposition to any war--any war--if it produces casualties and goes on for some time. A year, for argument's sake. It is built in because Democracies have opposition parties and free media, whch both have a stake in highlighting and stirring up dissent over any war started or supported by the current administration. It's a given, and it doesn't matter which party is in power and which is the opposition party. There will always be Cindy Sheehans. Remember that the Vietnam War began in a Democratic administration. which eventually lost power because of it. This being the case, the coyotes point out that President Bush made a strategic mistake, politically speaking, by getting into a War in Iraq. He has not been able to make the case, as he could with much more success with Afganistan, that this is a defensive war. And casualties have been substantial. Therefore, war weariness has kicked in right on schedule. A Democratic country cannot wage the kind of aggressive war that the President is trying to wage, at least not easitly. This is what the post-Vietnam War military leaders, like General Colin Powell, well understood with their doctrine of overwhelming force. The coyotes hasten to point out that this does not mean that the U.S. was "morally" wrong to go to war, that it is an unjust war, or that there is no sense in which it is a defensive war--only that it was a political mistake. Nor does it mean that the U.S. should pull out, as war opponents suggest. But the President is in a pickle. The best he can do is stand by his decision and hope--hope--that the Iraqis have enough political success and the U.S./Iraqi military has enough military success to stabilize the country before he leaves office. The good news is that the dynamic of "war weariness" would not prevent us, the coyotes think, from waging the kind of clandestine, rather dirty, combination of police action and guerrilla warfare that needs to be waged against Islamic fundamentalists. Wile E.

How to Solve the Immigration Problem

2005-08-16T19:15:00.000-07:00

A Modest Proposal: The coyotes are getting a tired of the silly proposals and the pontificating about the immigration issue, particulary with respect to Mexican immigration and, more important, to terrorist infiltration across our borders. It isn't easy, but here's how to address the problem over the long haul. First, it's necessary to recognize where are borders are defensible and where they are not. Obviously, they are most defensible on the coast and at points of entry, be they seaport or airport. Just as obviously, they are least defensible along our land borders with Mexico and Canada. In reality, short of bursting our national budget, there is no way to contain entry through either of those borders. By the same token, Mexico's border is most defensible at its ports of entry and along its coast and least defensible along its border with the U.S., Guatamela, and Belize. Second, it's necessary to draw some strategic conclusions from facts that seem obvious to us. One strategic conclusion is that it makes no sense to waste time trying to defend the indefensible. Therefore the indefensible borders will remain porous. Some other strategis are required and those would be the following. Strategy One: Assume relatively open borders between Canada and the United States and between Canada and Mexico, much as is the case in the European Union between member countries. Strategy Two: Emphasize documentation as a vehicle for free movement and commercial participation within North America. That is, if you wish to drive within North America, you need a valid U.S., Mexican, or Canadian drivers license. If you wish to conduct other business, you need valid documentation from some North American country. Strategy Three: Emphasize reciprocity. That is, if Mexico insists on Mexican insurance to drive within that country, then the U.S. and Canada would be within their rights to insist on similar insurance to drive without penalty in their countries. If the U.S. provides emergency hospital care to non-citizens, then Canada and Mexico should do as well, and so on. If the U.S. requires non-citizens to pay a payroll tax without building up retirement benefits, the Canada and the U.S. should be able to do likewise. Such reciprocal arrangements would need to be worked out over the long run with bilateral and, ultimately, multilateral talks. Strategy Four: Emphasize quality documentation. That is, the countries need to get together to insure that IDs, passports, and other documentation are forge-proof--or at least forge resistant. Strategy Five: The North American countries should cooperate on systems that control ports of entry and that identify potential terrorists. In this way, we would be doing what can be done--encouraging everyone to have high-quality documentation even if they are not citizens of their country of current residence--and not fighting a losing battle at closing borders that can't be closed. Moreover, in this country at least, businesses would be relatively free to hire laborers from Canada or Mexico but such laborers would not have the benefits of full citizenship, which would ease resentment. At the same time, U.S. citizens could travel across borders freely and be able to participate in the same way in Canada or Mexica, also without the full benefit of being citizens of those countries. Finally, with the emphasis on quality documentation, we would be able to identify potential or actual troublemakers. This seems like a win-win to the coyotes. Wile E.

Salazar vs. Dobson

2005-04-27T17:04:00.000-07:00

Silly Wars: The political arm of Focus on the Family decided to throw a few punches at Senator Ken Salazar (D-Colorado), ostensibly because he backtracked on a campaign pledge to support an up-or-down vote for federal judicial nominees. Okay, they have a point. Salazar was elected in spite of a Bush victory in the state because he presented himself as a centrist, a Democrat likely to work at least occasionally with the Republican majority. His pledge to support an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees was part of his reasonable image. Now he looks like he made the pledge just to get elected. So he's getting what he deserves. On the other hand, Focus ain't all that pious. They're parrotting partisan Republican rhetoric about the "unconstitutionality" of the Democratic use of the filibuster technique (a legally silly argument) and the unfairness of it all, convenienty forgetting Republican obstructionism against Clinton judicial nominees. Salazar, royally ticked off because a rude crowd (which Focus denies organizing) picketed a business owned by his wife, called Focus on the Family's head cheese, James Dobson, the "anti-Christ." Okay, folks, here's the thing. James Dobson is not the anti-Christ, a term we can live without. And Ken Salazar is not nearly as nutty as he sounded today.

How to Save Social Security

2005-03-04T13:31:00.000-08:00

Defined Benefit vs. Defined Contribution: Let's see where President Bush is right, viz. his Social Security proposal, and where he is wrong. He is right that the system is in trouble. The dimensions of the problem and the expected insolvency date are debatable, but there is no doubt that the system has a structural problem. You cannot run a pay-as-you-go system indefinitely if the number of contributors (workers) is constantly declining and the number of beneficiaries (retirees) is constantly increasing. At some point, the system will crash. His basic approach, to allow workers to use a portion of their payroll taxes to set up Personal Retirement Accounts, would probably be a benefit to workers who took advantage of the opportunity. More important, it makes sense to move the system away from a "defined benefit" approach to a "defined contribution" approach. This is what is happening in the corporate world, precisely because the "defined benefit" programs are by definition long-term liabilities, and they have had a tendency to grow beyond the organization's ability to keep up with the funding. As a result, corporations have been moving to "defined contribution" plans (like 401Ks) that have the twin advantages of incurring no long-term liability for the company and of giving workers control of their funds. This approach actually adds security, both for the organization and for the workers. The government is in exactly the same position, looking ahead to liabilities it will not be able to pay. Where the President is wrong is that he is presenting the right type of solution without a plan to pay for the transitional costs. These Personal Retirement Accounts can be looked at as a zero sum game (reduced liability pays for reduced income) only if you take the long view, the very long view. In the short and middle term, the proposal will leech money out of the system, move the insolvency date forward, and increase the likelihood that somewhere down the road, sooner now rather than later, retirees will get their benefits cut. For that reason, the older generation is absolutely right to be leery about the proposal. What the President needs to do is present a plan for paying the transitional costs, and we think the plan needs to share the pain. The wealthy should pay more (through a complicated formula combining a slight increase in the income ceiling for payroll taxes and a diminishment in the proportion of their contributions returned back to them as benefits); retirees should contribute with a small cut in the COLA increases; working people, including near retirees, should contribute by having the retirement age increased on a pro-rated basis; and all workers and employers should contribute with a small increase in payroll taxes. No one group should bear the complete burden. If this is done fairly but substantially, people will feel more comfortable transitioning to a defined contribution approach, which can and should in this case be bolder and more dramatic. Wile E.

On Supporting Our Troops

2005-02-25T13:26:00.000-08:00

Using Unity to Divide: Some commentators I respect--and some I don't--scold "the left" (a pigeonhole term, like "the religious right" that should cue the intelligent that something stupid is about to be said) for saying on one hand that they "support our troops" and on the other hand "disagree with our policy in Iraq." At the extremes, this criticism may have some validity. For example, the statement that one supports the troops is not believable from someone who clearly hates the U.S., thinks it engages in criminal activity as a matter of course, and talks as if Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are paragons of virtue and sincerity when compared to President Bush. On the other hand, to insist on a unity between support of U.S. troops and agreement with U.S. political is absurd on several fronts. First, many of these same critics disagreed with the Clinton administrations intervention in the Balkans during the 1990s while simultaneously insisting that they supported our troops and just didn't want to put them "in harm's way" or some similar cliche. Second, people who disagree with or who are uncomfortable with U.S. policy in Iraq are known to go to some trouble to entertain U.S. troops in Iraq (Al Franken, for example) or to correspond and send care packages to a deployed soldier (my wife, for example), which I would suggest shows genuine support, respect, and caring for troops. Third, and perhaps most important, the insistence on consistency between support of troops and support of U.S. policy flies in the face of the American tradition of a separation between the military personnel and civilian policy-makers. Is the soldier who strongly disagrees with his or her Commander-in-Chief policy but who follows his orders anyway guilty of not supporting the troops (including himself or herself?). The idea is absurd. This is an important tradition, one that is in large part responsible for the fact that there has never been a military coup in this country as has been common in South America. In fact, it can be said the the military in this country deserve our respect, at least in part, precisely because they are willing to follow orders even when they don't agree with them. This is an essential part of the moral virtue of the American military. In every conflict, there is an attempt to insist on the unity between military action and policy. If you support the policy, you might insist that anyone who doesn't agree with you is unpatriotic and can't possibly support the troops (as is common today). If you don't support the policy, you might insist that the troops themselves are immoral for being involved (as was common during the Vietnam era). Both are wrong and outside of a cherished American tradition. Finally, my sense is that today, pride in the U.S. military personnel--because of their effectiveness, their professionalism, their discipline, their courage, and their civility during difficult duty (with some exceptions)--is rather intense, even among most of those who don't agree with current policy in Iraq. This was not the case during the Vietnam era, and there is almost no comparison in that respect. Wile E.

On Giving the Devil His (or Her) Due

2005-02-22T10:23:00.000-08:00

Mindless Partisanship: Years ago, I had a problem with the drinking of someone close to me. In my immaturity, I rejected everything this person did. Later, with a bit of recovery of my own, I learned to distinguish the behavior I didn't like from other behavior that was quite admirable. Political partisans, the worst of them anyway, don't seem to be able to do this. In the '90s, some partisan Republicans and Conservatives took such a bitter dislike to Bill Clinton, they couldn't give him credit for his obvious talents, his accomplishments, or for doing things they might otherwise have agreed with. Today, on the other side, partisan Democrats and progressives have such a bitter dislike of George Bush that they can't acknowledge his personal assets, accomplishments, or positions that they might otherwise agree with. In truth, while policy differences between the President and Democrats are significant, the personal animosity seems not only uncalled for but in some cases a rather blatant expression of religious anti-Christian bigotry. Partisan Republicans complain about Democratic "hatred" of the President--and seem to have no appreciation for the way they treated President Clinton--or, for that matter, for the way they talk today about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. It seems to me that a good exercise in maturity--and intellectual honesty--is to practice giving credit to a political adversary for his or her attributes, accomplishments, and positions that you might agree with. Wile E.

Bush, Bush, and Clinton

2005-02-21T14:12:00.000-08:00

Hail to the Chiefs: Kudos to President George W. Bush for appointing former presidents, George H. Bush and William J. Clinton, to work together to raise money for the relief and reconstruction of areas damaged by the Indian Ocean tsunami. The decision was a good one for several reasons. First, it said W (and, by extension, the U.S.) was serious about Tsunami relief and reconstruction; second, it tapped the talents of two former U.S. presidents who have something left to give; third, it was a brilliant bi-partisan move that elevated the status of all three individuals involved as well as the presidency itself. It was an absolutely graceful move. Even better, the elder Bush and Clinton seem to be playing well together, enjoying each other's company and using their mutual synergy to great effect. Wile E.

Laughingstock Capital: Move Over California!

2005-02-10T09:32:00.000-08:00

Nuts on the Left; Crazies on the Right: We sent the following to the Colorado Springs Gazette: "Thanks to Ward Churchhill and his supporters on the left and the El Paso County (Colorado) Commissioners and their supporters on the right, Colorado is beginning to replace California as the political laughingstock of the country. Just because people like Ward Churchhill have a first amendment right to trivialize the Holocaust and insult the victims of terror does not mean that UC officials should hire them as professors, give them tenure, promote them to department chairs, and go out of their way to make speaking space available to them. Just because people have a second amendment right to keep and bear arms does not mean El Paso County Commissioners should go out of their way to invite citizens to bring their sidearms, longarms, and RPGs into county buildings. Granted that the open carrying of weapons can make people feel more secure under some conditions—as it does in Israel. However, this practice can also make people feel intimidated and afraid. Frankly, if I saw a non-uniformed citizen carrying a firearm of any kind into the Assessor’s office, my first assumption would be that this person has an agenda and no more common sense than (Commissioners) Sally Clark, Dennis Hisey, or Douglas Bruce—and believe me, that’s pretty terrifying." --Wile E.

One Bad Indian; Many Bad Chiefs

2005-02-10T09:16:00.000-08:00

The Trouble With Churchhill: Talk show hosts and other commentators are taking the wrong approach re. Ward Churchhill. It doesn't matter that he trivializes the Holocaust and insults the victims of 9/11 terrorism. He has tenure and has a first-amendment right to speak, within rather broad limits. The horse is out of the barn in that respect. But who hired him? Who gave him tenure? Who promoted him to department chair? Who is going out of their way to give him speaking venues? The tenure process and first-amendment rights do not need to change. But university officials--chancellors, presidents, deans, and other professors--and and should be held to account for the care and nurturing of the unqualified, the idiotic, and the evil. --Wile E.