I recently spent the better part of a day observing a memorial service for four murdered Police Officers from the city of Lakewood, Washington. A few days after that ceremony, two more officers were shot just a few miles away from the first ambush, and one died of his wounds. Only a few weeks before these events, two Seattle officers were ambushed, and one killed, at a stop light.
Perhaps it's because of my background in the history of totalitarian states that I see the attacks on these eight officers as just the beginning of a conflict that may soon confront our entire law enforcement community.
In the 1920's and 1930's Germany was a constitutional republic, like the US, struggling through economic hard times. Like the US today, the German people were divided into a conservative camp...who wished to make their constitution work and to weather the economic storm...and those on the left, who wished to bring about a radical new form of government with little or no resemblance to the old order. They slathered at the idea of "redistributive justice" much as similar types do today.
Though they only received some 30% plus of the national vote, The Socialist Workers Party (the N.A.Z.I.) managed to manipulate their candidate, Adolf Hitler, into the number one seat in the administration. From that position, he was able to eradicate democratic institutions and eventually take total control of the government.
One of the stories of that struggle, largely untold, was that of German police officers and what happened to them.
Like our law enforcement community today, those officers were protectors of their constitution, generally conservative and law-abiding, and sworn to uphold the constitutionally elected government. This created a problem for Herr Hitler and his minions as much of what they needed to do was unconstitutional and even entailed a good deal of violence and murder.
A struggle ensued between these forces...the conservatives in the citizenry, protected largely by the police forces, and those wanting revolution and pushing for the totalitarian control which they felt would empower them personally. That group was in opposition to constitutional law enforcement.
Hitler's followers were the displaced, the less fortunate, criminals of all stripes, malcontents, sadists, and psycopaths. Politicians who use the tactics of class conflict have always taken advantage of such people to create anarchy, to put together street organizations, and to carry out the dirty, but necessary, acts of violence and sedition necessary to create a crisis situation. Such a crisis would give the government the needed excuse to declare martial law, or create new and more powerful law enforcement agencies manned by their lackeys, or even to cancel or suspend elections.
But first, they would have to deal with the old law enforcement community...made up of loyal citizens who would, in the end, refuse to do things like search homes for firearms, or kidnap political targets, or sack and burn blocks of stores and businesses. In fact, these police professionals would try and stop such activities, and in the end they tried to stand firm despite orders from above.
Hitler knew he had to deal with the law enforcement community in Germany...and he did so. He used them against the German people as long as he could, but when officers finally rebelled he had to bring out the thugs. First, of course, he set the stage by denigrating police officers with insults and snide insinuations (recall Obama's remarks about police officers "being stupid"). He appointed staff members with criminal backgrounds, or radicals who shared a dislike for law enforcement personnel.
Knowing what happened then...seeing how today there are groups hailing killers of police officers as heroes while attempting to protect and hide them...when coupled with current political winds makes me wonder about what is to come.
A shocking number of appointees who make up the new administration in WA DC come from criminal backgrounds, even having served prison terms, or "academic" backgrounds where they openly celebrated their hatred of law enforcement personnel. The criminal community has taken notice...and they appear to be emboldened. Many of them, when arrested, smirkingly announce they will not be in prison for long. They threaten the arresting officers, prosecutors, judges, and jury members. They act arrogantly and state confidently that "the tables are turning" and soon they will be in charge and that people in the community will pay.
I recall a photo montage I saw, during the last election cycle, of one hundred mug shots of recently arrested criminals in Chicago...each wearing an Obama t-shirt. A weird coincidence...just like the weird coincidence that recently bills were introduced in Congress giving prison inmates the right to vote? Just like the 9th circuit court in San Francisco overturning state laws barring felons from voting?
The 9th circuit opinion will likely be overturned...a large percentage of that whackey trio's opinions are...but the fact such a off the wall case was even heard at that level is disturbing to citizens and energizing to criminals.
Officers I know well tell me there is a new attitude on the street...a dangerous attitude. And they tell me of rumors of layoffs in their departments, as well as actual salary reductions and increased micro-management by political hacks. A number of states are preparing to start early release programs from prisons, for budgetary reasons of course, and bills are in committee which would give amnesty to all illegal immigrants along with immediate voting rights...and a shocking percentage of those folks are gang or cartel members.
All of this may sound pretty alarmist, after all this is the United States of America, where the vast majority of citizens are solidly behind our law enforcement personnel and for the constitution. But those same conditions existed in Germany in the 1920's!
Law abiding citizens are being bypassed on a number of issues...being ignored on health care and cap and trade...and the millions of phone calls and emails don't seem to slow down the more demagogic members of congress. Will they eventually take the same "ignore the will of the people" stance on maintaining our police departments, or keeping felons in prison, or the issues of giving the vote to illegals and criminals? And will these actions by the most corrupt congress in a century be the gateway to an assault on law enforcement personnel?
To get to us...tyrants have to first get through the "thin blue line" of police officers who protect and serve their communities. I don't believe tyrants can do it. For one thing, our officers don't stand alone. If the time comes I truly believe the American people will rise up and back-up their police. The officers I talk to believe that as well...and they actually represent us more truly than many of our elected officials. If the time comes...I believe it will be the politicos who will back down and leave the field. For that matter...I don't think many of them will be in office after the 2010 elections to make the attempt.
I'm all for easing them all into retirement...before we lose any more of our gallant officers and any more of our constitution.
The Professor
When Agendas Run Amock
Imagine you are forced into the witness protection program in order to keep your family safe and alive.
You have to change your name. All of your family have to change their names. Literally overnight you are packed off to a new town...you never again can call or see your parents, your siblings, your friends...they're not even allowed to know what happened to you. You can't even receive news of them.
When your parents get old and need your help...you can't be there. You won't even know about it. The slightest security leak, or slip-up, can get you killed. Your entire world is gone and you can never get it back.
That's what it can be like if you serve as a juror on a trial against a well-connected crime figure. The only way you can be an impartial juror, is to have you and your family's safety guaranteed beyond doubt. Otherwise...someone out of the twelve members of that jury will refuse to convict out of fear they or a family member will pay the ultimate price.
Now imagine you are on the jury trying five terrorists who were involved in the 9/11 attacks. If they are convicted, an entire international terrorist organization will dedicate itself to killing you, your immediate family, your extended family, your friends and co-workers, and anyone they might consider whose death would give you pain.
Remember they have millions of fanatical members...people willing to strap on suicide vests and jump on school busses. People willing to fly airplanes into buildings. Can you imagine any way your entire sphere of family and friends can be protected...not just for a few months, or years, but for the next few decades. Because these fanatics will target all of them for as long as it takes. They will never quit.
Now let's be brutally realistic! The defense attornies will "leak" your name and your address to the press within a matter of days. They will do so knowing full well it would destroy any chance the prosecution has of getting a conviction. Within hours of that leak reporters and bloggers will spill that information across the world wide net. You're sitting on the jury...you know what will happen if the terrorists are convicted...what do you do?
Be real honest! Do you truly believe that all twelve of you, no matter how strong the evidence, will convict? Won't there be at least one hold out? Someone so terrified they simply will not budge...and won't the remainder eventually see that the only way out of a hung jury is to go with a not-guilty verdict?
The same issue was raised half a century ago when Nazi war criminals were put on trial. That is why military tribunals were used to dispense justice...and why members of our government have been trying to start the same process for the 9/11 terrorists being held today by the US Military. For years now they have been blocked from moving forward by organizations like the ACLU.
So why did the Obama administration kowtow to such organizations and go an entirely different route? This last week they announced these terrorists would be tried as civilians...and given the full protection of the US Constitution as if they were US citizens. It means they would have to be convicted by a jury of twelve Americans.
There is obviously zero logic at work here...so we have to ask "what are the reasons for this rather radical turn of events and this decision?"
There are a number of possible answers; all of which may be a part of why this move was made. Let's get started by painting the scene:
Everyone understands that the Obama crew has a deeply rooted hatred for Bush and his administration, the military and military people, the CIA, all and any wars, and the entire concept of the war against terror. These terrorists were captured on the battlefield...not properly "arrested"...and were sent to Gitmo instead of a civilian prison where they could have been protected from "abuse" and "torture."
There is nothing more this group of malcontents wants more than to sling mud at all the institutions and persons they hate so deeply. A public trial of these "victims of torture" whereby the terrorists can have a forum to lie and make claims against the US, the military, and US citizens is just too much an opportunity for these whiners in the White House to pass up.
Worse; there is a very real possibility of acquittal on a technicality...such as their not being read their rights when captured on the battlefield...or a hung jury. The failure to find them guilty will be tossed back at the Bush administration...it's all their fault...they should have morandized the prisoners in Afghanistan...they should have built a forensic case on site...created a chain of evidence...etcetera ad nauseam. US citizens will be outraged...and a certain number will put the blame on Bush and his people rather than where it rests.
It's almost as if this was the goal of the ACLU and friends from the first...and perhaps it was. Unfortunately for them, we the people are not quite the fools they take us to be. They spend so much time with the easily manipulated that they fail to see the groundswell of anger already building among normal folks.
Polls show the vast majority of Americans want these war criminals tried in a military tribunal. If Obama's people turn this into a circus, which they will without a doubt, and fail to get convictions and harsh sentences (such as death), this will turn on them...and will probably turn hard.
We may be beginning to see how vengeful idealogues can out-maneuver themselves...I believe they are finally doing so on the health care take-over issue...and how they may just be their own worst enemies. Let's watch what happens... and be ready to remind our friends and acquaintances that "we told you so."
The Professor
You have to change your name. All of your family have to change their names. Literally overnight you are packed off to a new town...you never again can call or see your parents, your siblings, your friends...they're not even allowed to know what happened to you. You can't even receive news of them.
When your parents get old and need your help...you can't be there. You won't even know about it. The slightest security leak, or slip-up, can get you killed. Your entire world is gone and you can never get it back.
That's what it can be like if you serve as a juror on a trial against a well-connected crime figure. The only way you can be an impartial juror, is to have you and your family's safety guaranteed beyond doubt. Otherwise...someone out of the twelve members of that jury will refuse to convict out of fear they or a family member will pay the ultimate price.
Now imagine you are on the jury trying five terrorists who were involved in the 9/11 attacks. If they are convicted, an entire international terrorist organization will dedicate itself to killing you, your immediate family, your extended family, your friends and co-workers, and anyone they might consider whose death would give you pain.
Remember they have millions of fanatical members...people willing to strap on suicide vests and jump on school busses. People willing to fly airplanes into buildings. Can you imagine any way your entire sphere of family and friends can be protected...not just for a few months, or years, but for the next few decades. Because these fanatics will target all of them for as long as it takes. They will never quit.
Now let's be brutally realistic! The defense attornies will "leak" your name and your address to the press within a matter of days. They will do so knowing full well it would destroy any chance the prosecution has of getting a conviction. Within hours of that leak reporters and bloggers will spill that information across the world wide net. You're sitting on the jury...you know what will happen if the terrorists are convicted...what do you do?
Be real honest! Do you truly believe that all twelve of you, no matter how strong the evidence, will convict? Won't there be at least one hold out? Someone so terrified they simply will not budge...and won't the remainder eventually see that the only way out of a hung jury is to go with a not-guilty verdict?
The same issue was raised half a century ago when Nazi war criminals were put on trial. That is why military tribunals were used to dispense justice...and why members of our government have been trying to start the same process for the 9/11 terrorists being held today by the US Military. For years now they have been blocked from moving forward by organizations like the ACLU.
So why did the Obama administration kowtow to such organizations and go an entirely different route? This last week they announced these terrorists would be tried as civilians...and given the full protection of the US Constitution as if they were US citizens. It means they would have to be convicted by a jury of twelve Americans.
There is obviously zero logic at work here...so we have to ask "what are the reasons for this rather radical turn of events and this decision?"
There are a number of possible answers; all of which may be a part of why this move was made. Let's get started by painting the scene:
Everyone understands that the Obama crew has a deeply rooted hatred for Bush and his administration, the military and military people, the CIA, all and any wars, and the entire concept of the war against terror. These terrorists were captured on the battlefield...not properly "arrested"...and were sent to Gitmo instead of a civilian prison where they could have been protected from "abuse" and "torture."
There is nothing more this group of malcontents wants more than to sling mud at all the institutions and persons they hate so deeply. A public trial of these "victims of torture" whereby the terrorists can have a forum to lie and make claims against the US, the military, and US citizens is just too much an opportunity for these whiners in the White House to pass up.
Worse; there is a very real possibility of acquittal on a technicality...such as their not being read their rights when captured on the battlefield...or a hung jury. The failure to find them guilty will be tossed back at the Bush administration...it's all their fault...they should have morandized the prisoners in Afghanistan...they should have built a forensic case on site...created a chain of evidence...etcetera ad nauseam. US citizens will be outraged...and a certain number will put the blame on Bush and his people rather than where it rests.
It's almost as if this was the goal of the ACLU and friends from the first...and perhaps it was. Unfortunately for them, we the people are not quite the fools they take us to be. They spend so much time with the easily manipulated that they fail to see the groundswell of anger already building among normal folks.
Polls show the vast majority of Americans want these war criminals tried in a military tribunal. If Obama's people turn this into a circus, which they will without a doubt, and fail to get convictions and harsh sentences (such as death), this will turn on them...and will probably turn hard.
We may be beginning to see how vengeful idealogues can out-maneuver themselves...I believe they are finally doing so on the health care take-over issue...and how they may just be their own worst enemies. Let's watch what happens... and be ready to remind our friends and acquaintances that "we told you so."
The Professor
Warning Letter from a Law Instructor
I felt this warning from Michael Connelly, a retired attorney and constitutional law instructor, deserved reprinting. Keep in mind this is his review of HR 3200...which was about half as long and convoluted as the current Senate health care bill. We must be emailing and calling our senators during this vital moment in history and urging them to vote down this travesty.
The Warning:
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.
However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration to all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable" to the "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.
However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law.”
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
And another to the Bill of Rights:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas
The Warning:
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.
However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration to all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed “acceptable" to the "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.
However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law.”
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. Here is a link to the Constitution:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
And another to the Bill of Rights:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas
Johnson...McNamara...Obama: the Convergence
Throughout history; nations, city states, and tribes which chose to fight a conflict by use of a defensive strategy (versus defensive tactics, which are used commonly) inevitably failed in their endeavor and often ceased to exist.
Only rarely has the US elected to try and break the historical deadlock. After early setbacks with the Continental Army, some members of the new Congress urged Washington to take a strictly defensive posture, pulling the army into the wilderness and spending what might have been decades waiting for the British to uproot him.
Washington was far too wise to consider this option, instead he learned from earlier tactical mistakes and doggedly built an army which could go head-to-head against British regulars. He understood far too well the historical precedent...the Brits would simply grow stronger while drying up Washington's base of supply, while his force would lose public support and personnel; eventually becoming little more than a band of renegades.
In the Korean conflict, US forces, after great initial successes and the near collapse of North Korea, were forced into a bloody stalemated war of attrition. Afraid to further provoke the Chinese or the Soviets, the US used enough force to hold the line, but not to bring abut decisive victory. That conflict has never been resolved and still destabilizes the region.
In the Vietnam war, the US administration in the persons of Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara made a decision to fight a protracted war of defense as a test of will against the Soviet Union's proxy state, North Vietnam. McNamara was a firm adherent of what is called War Management Theory. Most military professionals adhere to War Fighting Theory...the two are very different schools of thought.
I recall an analysis of the war that included two photos side-by-side. The first was a famous photo of President Lincoln during the Civil War. In the photo, Lincoln is seated at the rear of the room, his tophat on his lap, listening intently as his generals work over a large table covered with maps. He was the observer...doing the people's business by monitoring the experts in warfighting and being there to make final decisions based on their recommendations.
The other photo was of Johnson and McNamara with the chiefs of staff...the top generals in all the armed forces of the nation. In this photo, Johnson and McNamara were leaning over a large map table while the generals sat disgusted and ignored in the background. They had learned not to speak up, as one of the two politicians would normally fly into a rage and ignore what advice the officer wished to convey.
These men's egoes were more important to them than the lives of the men and women serving on the battlefields. Johnson often remarked that generals could not be trusted in issues of war and that he was smarter than the lot of them. McNamara was known to share those feelings...but in his own regard.
Lincoln was by far the more intelligent man. He was wise enough to know his limitations, and though he got testy with his generals from time to time, and replaced those who failed to produce, he bowed to their judgement on matters not political in nature.
Not only was Johnson very different than Lincoln, conceited and bull headed, but he disliked military people and he had bigger fish to fry. He was pushing his Great Society agenda to congress and the people and felt the war would simply get in the way. So McNamara's war management theories seemed to fit his needs at the moment.
Those theories called for a defensive strategy; whereby the goal was not to win the conflict, but to keep from losing. In other words, apply enough force to keep the Communists from completely overrunning the struggling democrary in the south, but not enough to dissuade them from trying. The key, McNamara assured Johnson, was that the Communists would get the hint and give up the idea of conquest after a few years.
This would also signal the Soviets that we were willing to slug it out in Europe as well if that became necessary. It actually convinced the Soviets of very different things of course, but that's another story.
McNamara's theories called for building an innaccessible wall of protection around the south...which to anyone who can read a map seemed like one of the most ludicrous ideas in history...one that the Communists would be unable to efficiently cross. This worked so badly, of course, that Johnson finally bowed to a minimal amount of "active defense" in the form of going after military production in the north through use of airpower.
It went no further than that however. Military leaders were already stretching the limit of McNamara's vision, and the war was getting way too much publicity for Johnson's taste. His big social agenda was going down the tubes thanks to anger over his handling of the war.
Of course we're all aware of how that conflict ended, and of the sacrifices made not only by US personnel but South Vietnamese troops by the millions as well as allied forces from all over the Pacific. Their courage could not save a democracy condemned to extermination by fools in Washington D.C.
Now there is a new photo being passed around. President Obama, VP Biden, and a dozen other civilians sitting around a large table procrastinating over how to proceed in Afghanistan. The media refers to this group as his "war council."
Note that the chiefs of staff are now completely missing; as are the generals on the ground who have been pushing for a decision for half a year. To make matters worse, the professionals in-country have delivered four carefully prepared strategic plans to carry on and eventually win the war...and all have now been rejected by the "war council."
Does Obama want the generals to revise their plans and come back? No...he has announced his council will write his strategic plan for the war.
Now...we'll take a moment to allow you to slam your fist through a wall...or simply sit in front of your computer in stunned silence. Some of you may want to beat your head against your desk or cry...it's up to you...all four might be called for at this point.
Try to look at the bright side...Obama and his people have finally, irrefutably, proven their egomania, their narcissim, and their lack of intelligence beyond any question. No one with the slightest semblance of sense could disagree this may be the most incredibly stupid single decision these people have made to date. Now there can be no doubt of their incompetence.
But there are other issues in play: recall Obama's speech on TV when he broke into regular programming to announce the mass shootings at Fort Hood. For two minutes he spoke about social issues, then inserted some lines about the murders on the base, then finished up with more social issues.
What does this short interlude tell us? One...like Johnson, he has a social agenda that overrides the lives of our men and women who serve in the military. This social agenda is so important that it will eclipse our national security and cut the very foundations of support for our troops before this administration is finished. They have a messianic need to complete this agenda despite what it does to our nation and our people.
We see the results of that agenda being played out in the dithering over strategy in Afghanistan. The war council is not concerned with winning...they are concerned with image and getting out if necessary to save their social plan. If this wasn't true, the President would have simply chosen one of the four options and told our generals to "make it so."
Two...like most failed leaders throughout history...Obama won't learn from history. He wants to take the reins of a general, but doesn't have any interest in knowing anything about the art, history, and science of leading men in battle. Like wanting to run giant corporations, running a war is simply beyond his grasp in the slightest degree...but that doesn't prevent an extreme narcissist from truly believing he will be successful.
Now one might suggest that I'm offbase...that Obama will simply reword one of the Generals' plans in order to take credit for it. That's unlikely...it's the move a publicity hungry, but dogmatic, politician might make. I believe Obama is such a narcissist that he truly believes he and his friends are able to come up with superior plans. This despite their total lack of training, knowledge, or experience in these complex matters...similar to their approach to the world of business.
Whatever move they now make, this administration has set the framework for failure and it will be difficult to break out of that model. Liberals will always find some consolation in such failure...the media can always label it success of course...and if that fails they can still go back to blaming Bush. The long arm of George Bush reaches out constantly, you know,...and it is the one strategy they can use with some level of actual understanding of what they're doing.
The Professor
Only rarely has the US elected to try and break the historical deadlock. After early setbacks with the Continental Army, some members of the new Congress urged Washington to take a strictly defensive posture, pulling the army into the wilderness and spending what might have been decades waiting for the British to uproot him.
Washington was far too wise to consider this option, instead he learned from earlier tactical mistakes and doggedly built an army which could go head-to-head against British regulars. He understood far too well the historical precedent...the Brits would simply grow stronger while drying up Washington's base of supply, while his force would lose public support and personnel; eventually becoming little more than a band of renegades.
In the Korean conflict, US forces, after great initial successes and the near collapse of North Korea, were forced into a bloody stalemated war of attrition. Afraid to further provoke the Chinese or the Soviets, the US used enough force to hold the line, but not to bring abut decisive victory. That conflict has never been resolved and still destabilizes the region.
In the Vietnam war, the US administration in the persons of Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara made a decision to fight a protracted war of defense as a test of will against the Soviet Union's proxy state, North Vietnam. McNamara was a firm adherent of what is called War Management Theory. Most military professionals adhere to War Fighting Theory...the two are very different schools of thought.
I recall an analysis of the war that included two photos side-by-side. The first was a famous photo of President Lincoln during the Civil War. In the photo, Lincoln is seated at the rear of the room, his tophat on his lap, listening intently as his generals work over a large table covered with maps. He was the observer...doing the people's business by monitoring the experts in warfighting and being there to make final decisions based on their recommendations.
The other photo was of Johnson and McNamara with the chiefs of staff...the top generals in all the armed forces of the nation. In this photo, Johnson and McNamara were leaning over a large map table while the generals sat disgusted and ignored in the background. They had learned not to speak up, as one of the two politicians would normally fly into a rage and ignore what advice the officer wished to convey.
These men's egoes were more important to them than the lives of the men and women serving on the battlefields. Johnson often remarked that generals could not be trusted in issues of war and that he was smarter than the lot of them. McNamara was known to share those feelings...but in his own regard.
Lincoln was by far the more intelligent man. He was wise enough to know his limitations, and though he got testy with his generals from time to time, and replaced those who failed to produce, he bowed to their judgement on matters not political in nature.
Not only was Johnson very different than Lincoln, conceited and bull headed, but he disliked military people and he had bigger fish to fry. He was pushing his Great Society agenda to congress and the people and felt the war would simply get in the way. So McNamara's war management theories seemed to fit his needs at the moment.
Those theories called for a defensive strategy; whereby the goal was not to win the conflict, but to keep from losing. In other words, apply enough force to keep the Communists from completely overrunning the struggling democrary in the south, but not enough to dissuade them from trying. The key, McNamara assured Johnson, was that the Communists would get the hint and give up the idea of conquest after a few years.
This would also signal the Soviets that we were willing to slug it out in Europe as well if that became necessary. It actually convinced the Soviets of very different things of course, but that's another story.
McNamara's theories called for building an innaccessible wall of protection around the south...which to anyone who can read a map seemed like one of the most ludicrous ideas in history...one that the Communists would be unable to efficiently cross. This worked so badly, of course, that Johnson finally bowed to a minimal amount of "active defense" in the form of going after military production in the north through use of airpower.
It went no further than that however. Military leaders were already stretching the limit of McNamara's vision, and the war was getting way too much publicity for Johnson's taste. His big social agenda was going down the tubes thanks to anger over his handling of the war.
Of course we're all aware of how that conflict ended, and of the sacrifices made not only by US personnel but South Vietnamese troops by the millions as well as allied forces from all over the Pacific. Their courage could not save a democracy condemned to extermination by fools in Washington D.C.
Now there is a new photo being passed around. President Obama, VP Biden, and a dozen other civilians sitting around a large table procrastinating over how to proceed in Afghanistan. The media refers to this group as his "war council."
Note that the chiefs of staff are now completely missing; as are the generals on the ground who have been pushing for a decision for half a year. To make matters worse, the professionals in-country have delivered four carefully prepared strategic plans to carry on and eventually win the war...and all have now been rejected by the "war council."
Does Obama want the generals to revise their plans and come back? No...he has announced his council will write his strategic plan for the war.
Now...we'll take a moment to allow you to slam your fist through a wall...or simply sit in front of your computer in stunned silence. Some of you may want to beat your head against your desk or cry...it's up to you...all four might be called for at this point.
Try to look at the bright side...Obama and his people have finally, irrefutably, proven their egomania, their narcissim, and their lack of intelligence beyond any question. No one with the slightest semblance of sense could disagree this may be the most incredibly stupid single decision these people have made to date. Now there can be no doubt of their incompetence.
But there are other issues in play: recall Obama's speech on TV when he broke into regular programming to announce the mass shootings at Fort Hood. For two minutes he spoke about social issues, then inserted some lines about the murders on the base, then finished up with more social issues.
What does this short interlude tell us? One...like Johnson, he has a social agenda that overrides the lives of our men and women who serve in the military. This social agenda is so important that it will eclipse our national security and cut the very foundations of support for our troops before this administration is finished. They have a messianic need to complete this agenda despite what it does to our nation and our people.
We see the results of that agenda being played out in the dithering over strategy in Afghanistan. The war council is not concerned with winning...they are concerned with image and getting out if necessary to save their social plan. If this wasn't true, the President would have simply chosen one of the four options and told our generals to "make it so."
Two...like most failed leaders throughout history...Obama won't learn from history. He wants to take the reins of a general, but doesn't have any interest in knowing anything about the art, history, and science of leading men in battle. Like wanting to run giant corporations, running a war is simply beyond his grasp in the slightest degree...but that doesn't prevent an extreme narcissist from truly believing he will be successful.
Now one might suggest that I'm offbase...that Obama will simply reword one of the Generals' plans in order to take credit for it. That's unlikely...it's the move a publicity hungry, but dogmatic, politician might make. I believe Obama is such a narcissist that he truly believes he and his friends are able to come up with superior plans. This despite their total lack of training, knowledge, or experience in these complex matters...similar to their approach to the world of business.
Whatever move they now make, this administration has set the framework for failure and it will be difficult to break out of that model. Liberals will always find some consolation in such failure...the media can always label it success of course...and if that fails they can still go back to blaming Bush. The long arm of George Bush reaches out constantly, you know,...and it is the one strategy they can use with some level of actual understanding of what they're doing.
The Professor
Patriotic Resistance: A Letter by Thomas Sowell
We've all heard the screechings from the left that boil down to "we should all support the President...after all, he was elected, time to shut up...unite behind him and move forward blah, blah, blah." It's time to absorb his view of the world and abandon our own.
Kind of like the left united behind George Bush and our troops? You might notice we're still behind our troops...it doesn't matter to us who is in the presidency...we don't change our stripes according to what administration is in office.
The reality is: the day an election is over, the next cycle begins. The elected official is our employee, and it's our duty to review and critique everything our employee does. We are not only free to criticize and attempt to correct his course of action...we are honor bound to do so. I'm re-printing a recent letter by Thomas Sowell, well known and respected Economist and public figure, as he expresses his version of this reality.
I will respect the Office he holds, and I will acknowledge his abilities as an orator and wordsmith and pray for him, BUT that is it.
I have begun today to see what I can do to make sure he is a one-term President!
Why am I doing this? It is because I do not share Obama's vision or value system for America;
I do not share his Abortion beliefs;
I do not share his radical Marxist's concept of re-distributing wealth;
I do not share his stated views on raising taxes on those who make $150,000+ (the ceiling has been changed three times since August);
I do not share his view that America is arrogant;
I do not share his view that America is not a Christian Nation;
I do not share his view that the military should be reduced by 25%;
I do not share his view of amnesty and giving more to illegals than American Citizens who need help;
I do not share his views on homosexuality and his definition of marriage;
I do not share his views that Radical Islam is our friend and Israel is our enemy who should give up any land;
I do not share his spiritual beliefs (at least the ones he has made public);
I do not share his beliefs on how to re-work the healthcare system in America ;
I do not share his Strategic views of the Middle East, and certainly do not share his plan to sit down with terrorist regimes such as Iran .
Bottom line, my America is vastly different from Obama's, and I have a higher obligation to my Country and my God to do what is right!
For eight (8) years, the Liberals in our Society, led by numerous entertainers who would have no platform and no real credibility, but for their celebrity status, have attacked President Bush, his family, and his spiritual beliefs!
They have not moved toward the center in their beliefs and their philosophies, and they never came together nor compromised their personal beliefs for the betterment of our Country! They have portrayed my America as a land where everything is tolerated except being intolerant!
They have been a vocal and irreverent minority for years;
They have mocked and attacked the very core values so important to the founding and growth of our Country;
They have made every effort to remove the name of God or Jesus Christ from our Society;
They have challenged capital punishment, the right to bear firearms, and the most basic principles of our criminal code;
They have attacked one of the most fundamental of all Freedoms, the right of free speech!
Unite behind Obama? Never!
I am sure many of you who read this think that I am going overboard, but I refuse to retreat one more inch in favor of those whom I believe are the embodiment of Evil!
PRESIDENT BUSH made many mistakes during his Presidency, and I am not sure how history will judge him. However, I believe he weighed his decisions in light of the long established Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding Fathers!!!
Majority rules in America , and I will honor the concept; however, I will fight with all of my power to be a voice in opposition to Obama and "his goals for America ."
I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who, if left unchecked, will destroy our country! Any more compromise is more defeat!
I pray that the results of this election will wake up many who have sat on the sidelines and allowed the Socialist-Marxist anti-God crowd to slowly change so much of what has been good in America !
"Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." (Thomas Jefferson)
God bless you and God bless our Country!!!
Kind of like the left united behind George Bush and our troops? You might notice we're still behind our troops...it doesn't matter to us who is in the presidency...we don't change our stripes according to what administration is in office.
The reality is: the day an election is over, the next cycle begins. The elected official is our employee, and it's our duty to review and critique everything our employee does. We are not only free to criticize and attempt to correct his course of action...we are honor bound to do so. I'm re-printing a recent letter by Thomas Sowell, well known and respected Economist and public figure, as he expresses his version of this reality.
I have noted that many elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, called upon America to unite behind Obama.
Well, I want to make it clear to all who will listen that I "AM NOT" uniting behind Obama. However, I promise to give our country the devoted loyalty of a patriot.
I will respect the Office he holds, and I will acknowledge his abilities as an orator and wordsmith and pray for him, BUT that is it.
I have begun today to see what I can do to make sure he is a one-term President!
Why am I doing this? It is because I do not share Obama's vision or value system for America;
I do not share his Abortion beliefs;
I do not share his radical Marxist's concept of re-distributing wealth;
I do not share his stated views on raising taxes on those who make $150,000+ (the ceiling has been changed three times since August);
I do not share his view that America is arrogant;
I do not share his view that America is not a Christian Nation;
I do not share his view that the military should be reduced by 25%;
I do not share his view of amnesty and giving more to illegals than American Citizens who need help;
I do not share his views on homosexuality and his definition of marriage;
I do not share his views that Radical Islam is our friend and Israel is our enemy who should give up any land;
I do not share his spiritual beliefs (at least the ones he has made public);
I do not share his beliefs on how to re-work the healthcare system in America ;
I do not share his Strategic views of the Middle East, and certainly do not share his plan to sit down with terrorist regimes such as Iran .
Bottom line, my America is vastly different from Obama's, and I have a higher obligation to my Country and my God to do what is right!
For eight (8) years, the Liberals in our Society, led by numerous entertainers who would have no platform and no real credibility, but for their celebrity status, have attacked President Bush, his family, and his spiritual beliefs!
They have not moved toward the center in their beliefs and their philosophies, and they never came together nor compromised their personal beliefs for the betterment of our Country! They have portrayed my America as a land where everything is tolerated except being intolerant!
They have been a vocal and irreverent minority for years;
They have mocked and attacked the very core values so important to the founding and growth of our Country;
They have made every effort to remove the name of God or Jesus Christ from our Society;
They have challenged capital punishment, the right to bear firearms, and the most basic principles of our criminal code;
They have attacked one of the most fundamental of all Freedoms, the right of free speech!
Unite behind Obama? Never!
I am sure many of you who read this think that I am going overboard, but I refuse to retreat one more inch in favor of those whom I believe are the embodiment of Evil!
PRESIDENT BUSH made many mistakes during his Presidency, and I am not sure how history will judge him. However, I believe he weighed his decisions in light of the long established Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding Fathers!!!
Majority rules in America , and I will honor the concept; however, I will fight with all of my power to be a voice in opposition to Obama and "his goals for America ."
I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who, if left unchecked, will destroy our country! Any more compromise is more defeat!
I pray that the results of this election will wake up many who have sat on the sidelines and allowed the Socialist-Marxist anti-God crowd to slowly change so much of what has been good in America !
"Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." (Thomas Jefferson)
God bless you and God bless our Country!!!
Some Clarification on "Profits" Posting
A good friend and colleague suggested the post preceeding this one might be somewhat confusing to anyone who has not had to deal with cash flow in a business; versus cash flow at home or in one's personal life. He is right, of course...and I felt it necessary to explore the idea in more clarity.
To remind; I was explaining how a business's cash flow, in different stages of the operating cycle, could distort short-term tax returns in a way that would falsely indicate the business had benefitted from a sudden increase in profit. I brought up the issue due to a government agency that made a public announcement that profits were up across the business sector. They contended that the recession must be over as a result.
Quarterly tax returns tend to show the ups-and-downs of cash flow more dramatically than a yearly tax return, and most businesses have to file quarterly. The longer time period of a full year simply "smooths" out the fluctuations in cash flow and gives a more accurate picture of what the firm is doing. The agency was speaking about quarterly tax returns.
Here is a good visualization of the "operating cycle."
Imagine a circle graphic with a box at 12 o'clock labeled "Cash." There is another box at 3 o'clock labeled "Raw materials", a box at 6 o'clock labeled "Inventory", and one at 9 o'clock labeled "Accounts Receivables." We will go around this circle in a clock-wise direction.
What this graphic represents is the assets the company has at different points of the "operating cycle."
At the beginning of the cycle the company has cash, it might be their own or from a loan, or a combination of both. The company begins by paying out money in the first stage of the cycle to purchase materials. Money going out of the firm would also be for payroll costs and other needs.
A cash flow statement at this point shows the purchase funds coming in, from prior sales and/or as cash from a loan, and then going out, to purchase raw materials. On the tax return, however, we simply see the cost of raw materials as an expense. Loans are not income...anymore than the use of a personal credit card to purchase something for your home is a source of income.
(Admittedly some folks use their credit cards as "income" and that does get them into a whole world of hurt in the long run.)
At this point, we show no income as the company has nothing to sell. In the next stage we see the raw materials being worked into finished goods and the goods being stored as inventory. Again, our tax return will show no income, but will show expenses as we pay for labor. The assets are now all in inventory.
Now imagine this firm's operating cycle is one year in length...perhaps they make toys for the Christmas season. Our quarterly tax returns show large losses in quarters one and two: the first quarter mainly for materials, and the second mainly for labor. This corresponds to the first two stages of the operating cycle.
In the third quarter, or third stage of the cycle, the sales process takes place. We may well be receiving some income now, as some customers will pay cash up front to obtain price breaks, but most of our actual revenue will come back in the fourth stage, the collection cycle. Most of our assets have now been converted to Accounts Receivables...or money owed by purchasers to the firm. This takes place in the third stage of the cycle.
Hopefully, the firm receives its money in the fourth stage of the cycle. In our annual model, that is the fourth quarter.
In a strong economy, we might already be buying more materials and paying for labor in the third and fourth quarters, so the income coming in would be offset by those expenses. We would also have the expense, in the fourth quarter, of the company paying back the loan that began the process. Therefore, we might be showing a profit in those quarters, but it would be largely offset by the new expenses of replacing inventory and the repayment of the loan.
But in a recession, we would be laying off workers in the third and fourth quarters as demand for future product falls off. We would also be purchasing less materials for future production. As a result, expenses are suddenly less than they have been for years.
The result: almost all the annual income comes in during quarters three and four, yet expenses are now reduced. Income minus expenses equals profit...and the profit number will be higher than in the previous year, or operating cycle, as we have reduced expenses. The profit figure will also be far higher than in quarters one and two. To the uninitiated, the quarterly tax returns make it look like this business is suddenly "booming" with cash...so they must be "profitable."
Here's the rub: the firm is producing less product than the prior year...so what do you think will happen during the next sales and collection cycles? If you guessed that sales and profits would go way down...you are right. The "booming" profits in cycles three and four are simply a fluke...and actually foreshadow what will be a dramatic reduction in revenue and profit.
It's like a last, dying gasp. The patient raises his head...speaks one more time...then collapses and is gone.
Which is exactly what could happen to this company and others like it. Almost all companies have some sort of operating cycle...and many are keyed to the holiday season as being the sales and collection parts of the cycle. Even those that are not tied to end of the year sales will show sudden spurts of profit during a recession as they reach the third and fourth stages of their cycles.
So in one respect, the government folks are correct...the quarterly returns show profit. But when the year-end returns come in they will tell a very different story, because all four stages of the cycle will be reflected.
The truest measure of the end of a recession is when employment figures begin to go up...instead of down. There is a dark side to recovery however, that may well be the death knell of many firms. As an economy begins to recover, and demand is forecast for finished goods, firms need to begin buying raw materials and hiring people once again.
Some of them simply won't have the cash to do so without help from a lending institution. Unfortunately, with a tough year behind the borrower, lenders may well decline to offer funding. As other firms get product on the shelves, these less fortunate ones will end up losing their market share and will be forced to shut down...even as a recovery is well under way.
Of course not every business has a long operating cycle...a restaurant brings in fresh foodstuffs in the morning and by evening they convert this material into meals and have collected their money. But the greater part of our economy, and the part that supplies a significant portion of wages that translate to consumer spending, is made up of manufacturing, wholesaling, and distribution firms. All of these are subject to these long operating cycles.
I hope this makes it a bit clearer to those who have asked for such clarification. Though not as scintillating as some of our conversations, it is an eye opener to the true current situation and the lack of business expertise in Washington DC at this time.
Hopefully...they will seek out and find experience and advice before much longer. Heaven knows we need help in the business sector, where jobs are actually produced, a lot more than we need more excuses for even more taxation.
Now that you understand the operating cycle...you can understand how increased taxes simply drain money out of the operating cycle and require the business to make less product and lay off more workers. I don't think our elected officials have figure that one out yet...especially when taxes are so often levied against phantom profits.
The Professor
To remind; I was explaining how a business's cash flow, in different stages of the operating cycle, could distort short-term tax returns in a way that would falsely indicate the business had benefitted from a sudden increase in profit. I brought up the issue due to a government agency that made a public announcement that profits were up across the business sector. They contended that the recession must be over as a result.
Quarterly tax returns tend to show the ups-and-downs of cash flow more dramatically than a yearly tax return, and most businesses have to file quarterly. The longer time period of a full year simply "smooths" out the fluctuations in cash flow and gives a more accurate picture of what the firm is doing. The agency was speaking about quarterly tax returns.
Here is a good visualization of the "operating cycle."
Imagine a circle graphic with a box at 12 o'clock labeled "Cash." There is another box at 3 o'clock labeled "Raw materials", a box at 6 o'clock labeled "Inventory", and one at 9 o'clock labeled "Accounts Receivables." We will go around this circle in a clock-wise direction.
What this graphic represents is the assets the company has at different points of the "operating cycle."
At the beginning of the cycle the company has cash, it might be their own or from a loan, or a combination of both. The company begins by paying out money in the first stage of the cycle to purchase materials. Money going out of the firm would also be for payroll costs and other needs.
A cash flow statement at this point shows the purchase funds coming in, from prior sales and/or as cash from a loan, and then going out, to purchase raw materials. On the tax return, however, we simply see the cost of raw materials as an expense. Loans are not income...anymore than the use of a personal credit card to purchase something for your home is a source of income.
(Admittedly some folks use their credit cards as "income" and that does get them into a whole world of hurt in the long run.)
At this point, we show no income as the company has nothing to sell. In the next stage we see the raw materials being worked into finished goods and the goods being stored as inventory. Again, our tax return will show no income, but will show expenses as we pay for labor. The assets are now all in inventory.
Now imagine this firm's operating cycle is one year in length...perhaps they make toys for the Christmas season. Our quarterly tax returns show large losses in quarters one and two: the first quarter mainly for materials, and the second mainly for labor. This corresponds to the first two stages of the operating cycle.
In the third quarter, or third stage of the cycle, the sales process takes place. We may well be receiving some income now, as some customers will pay cash up front to obtain price breaks, but most of our actual revenue will come back in the fourth stage, the collection cycle. Most of our assets have now been converted to Accounts Receivables...or money owed by purchasers to the firm. This takes place in the third stage of the cycle.
Hopefully, the firm receives its money in the fourth stage of the cycle. In our annual model, that is the fourth quarter.
In a strong economy, we might already be buying more materials and paying for labor in the third and fourth quarters, so the income coming in would be offset by those expenses. We would also have the expense, in the fourth quarter, of the company paying back the loan that began the process. Therefore, we might be showing a profit in those quarters, but it would be largely offset by the new expenses of replacing inventory and the repayment of the loan.
But in a recession, we would be laying off workers in the third and fourth quarters as demand for future product falls off. We would also be purchasing less materials for future production. As a result, expenses are suddenly less than they have been for years.
The result: almost all the annual income comes in during quarters three and four, yet expenses are now reduced. Income minus expenses equals profit...and the profit number will be higher than in the previous year, or operating cycle, as we have reduced expenses. The profit figure will also be far higher than in quarters one and two. To the uninitiated, the quarterly tax returns make it look like this business is suddenly "booming" with cash...so they must be "profitable."
Here's the rub: the firm is producing less product than the prior year...so what do you think will happen during the next sales and collection cycles? If you guessed that sales and profits would go way down...you are right. The "booming" profits in cycles three and four are simply a fluke...and actually foreshadow what will be a dramatic reduction in revenue and profit.
It's like a last, dying gasp. The patient raises his head...speaks one more time...then collapses and is gone.
Which is exactly what could happen to this company and others like it. Almost all companies have some sort of operating cycle...and many are keyed to the holiday season as being the sales and collection parts of the cycle. Even those that are not tied to end of the year sales will show sudden spurts of profit during a recession as they reach the third and fourth stages of their cycles.
So in one respect, the government folks are correct...the quarterly returns show profit. But when the year-end returns come in they will tell a very different story, because all four stages of the cycle will be reflected.
The truest measure of the end of a recession is when employment figures begin to go up...instead of down. There is a dark side to recovery however, that may well be the death knell of many firms. As an economy begins to recover, and demand is forecast for finished goods, firms need to begin buying raw materials and hiring people once again.
Some of them simply won't have the cash to do so without help from a lending institution. Unfortunately, with a tough year behind the borrower, lenders may well decline to offer funding. As other firms get product on the shelves, these less fortunate ones will end up losing their market share and will be forced to shut down...even as a recovery is well under way.
Of course not every business has a long operating cycle...a restaurant brings in fresh foodstuffs in the morning and by evening they convert this material into meals and have collected their money. But the greater part of our economy, and the part that supplies a significant portion of wages that translate to consumer spending, is made up of manufacturing, wholesaling, and distribution firms. All of these are subject to these long operating cycles.
I hope this makes it a bit clearer to those who have asked for such clarification. Though not as scintillating as some of our conversations, it is an eye opener to the true current situation and the lack of business expertise in Washington DC at this time.
Hopefully...they will seek out and find experience and advice before much longer. Heaven knows we need help in the business sector, where jobs are actually produced, a lot more than we need more excuses for even more taxation.
Now that you understand the operating cycle...you can understand how increased taxes simply drain money out of the operating cycle and require the business to make less product and lay off more workers. I don't think our elected officials have figure that one out yet...especially when taxes are so often levied against phantom profits.
The Professor
Tax Man is Excited...Profits? are up...
The most recent "news" coming out of Washington D.C.'s cadre of new-age economic experts is that the recession is certainly over as corporate profits are up!
Wonderful...and even believable if you know nothing about corporate financials and how they work. Most people don't of course, and shouldn't be expected to ...it's not how they make a living. But economic advisors to the administration should understand exactly what is happening...their ignorance is both shocking and disturbing.
Corporate financials and tax returns are normally filed quarterly, unlike we normal folk who file after the year's over, so corporate financials give us a more up-to-date look at what is happening. But they're not too up-to-date.
Let me explain that contradiction. Most companies have what we call an operating cycle...an ongoing time period between taking in resources and raw materials, combining them with labor and machinery, then stocking finished goods, selling the goods, and eventually collecting for the goods.
This operating cycle might be a matter of days in length...like a restaurant for example...but manufacturers and distributors have to struggle with cycles that are months, or even years, in length.
What this means is that the company buys raw materials and pays for the stuff...racking up huge expenses...then uses labor to transform the stuff...again racking up expenses...yet doesn't show revenue from sales until long after the expenses have been paid out.
Ah-ha...some of you are already saying to yourselves...and you're right. When a company writes off expenses in their 1st quarter, then is forced to lay people off in the 2nd quarter, suddenly expenses go down dramatically. They are no longer buying raw materials and paying for labor...but now the revenues are coming in and the 3rd and 4th quarters look "great" on paper.
Voila! Suddenly profits grow...Not! When you understand business cycles and how they affect the financial statements in the first year or two of a recession, it all makes sense. And you suddenly realize that this "growth" in profits is simply a book keeping anomaly...and the reduction of raw materials and labor expenses indicates a future decline in revenue and profits. This "growth" is not growth...it's a one-time shot...and it's really just on paper! The company's bank accounts could very well be empty as most of the "profits" were pre-spent in quarters one and two and the remainder in quarter three. Very deceptive if you don't know what's happening.
Another question you might be asking...why wouldn't the business try to smooth out the expenses and this one-time profit for tax purposes? Why declare it now?
Firstly, they really can't of course. Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures, or GAAP, really don't allow this and the IRS doesn't care for it either. There is another reason to take the hit this year however...tax rates on business have been increased seriously but don't take full affect until 2010. A company can afford the hit now more easily.
Of course, politicians are drooling...big surprise. "Profits" they exclaim..."why, we must tax those immediately and declare emergency windfall taxes or something to get at that money." Being somewhat ignorant on business financials they don't realize the business cycle and that losses will follow the quarters of profit (or perhaps don't care). Companies cannot afford to spend these paper profits because they really don't exist as we normally think of profits, and they will be soaked up by losses in the following quarters.
"Nonsense," say the politicos...why we're experts in everything. That's simply pro-evil-business propaganda from a highly-paid special interest spokesperson."
Uh....I'm still waiting for the check...haven't received a dime yet.
Unfortunately; some of these businesses, despite these "profits" will be unable to stay afloat. Remember that much of this "profit" has already been spent and the remainder is waiting to be collected by the firm's creditors. Now that the firm is not producing revenue as it did, it may be in long term trouble at this point. If they cannot reduce expenses enough, or come up with enough sales revenue, they may very possibly end up closing their doors and laying off all remaining employees.
Not quite as exciting a picture as the pundits in WA D.C. have been painting...is it? Let's hope future administrations actually bring some business people on board...social workers and community organizers don't seem to get this reality stuff.
The Professor
Wonderful...and even believable if you know nothing about corporate financials and how they work. Most people don't of course, and shouldn't be expected to ...it's not how they make a living. But economic advisors to the administration should understand exactly what is happening...their ignorance is both shocking and disturbing.
Corporate financials and tax returns are normally filed quarterly, unlike we normal folk who file after the year's over, so corporate financials give us a more up-to-date look at what is happening. But they're not too up-to-date.
Let me explain that contradiction. Most companies have what we call an operating cycle...an ongoing time period between taking in resources and raw materials, combining them with labor and machinery, then stocking finished goods, selling the goods, and eventually collecting for the goods.
This operating cycle might be a matter of days in length...like a restaurant for example...but manufacturers and distributors have to struggle with cycles that are months, or even years, in length.
What this means is that the company buys raw materials and pays for the stuff...racking up huge expenses...then uses labor to transform the stuff...again racking up expenses...yet doesn't show revenue from sales until long after the expenses have been paid out.
Ah-ha...some of you are already saying to yourselves...and you're right. When a company writes off expenses in their 1st quarter, then is forced to lay people off in the 2nd quarter, suddenly expenses go down dramatically. They are no longer buying raw materials and paying for labor...but now the revenues are coming in and the 3rd and 4th quarters look "great" on paper.
Voila! Suddenly profits grow...Not! When you understand business cycles and how they affect the financial statements in the first year or two of a recession, it all makes sense. And you suddenly realize that this "growth" in profits is simply a book keeping anomaly...and the reduction of raw materials and labor expenses indicates a future decline in revenue and profits. This "growth" is not growth...it's a one-time shot...and it's really just on paper! The company's bank accounts could very well be empty as most of the "profits" were pre-spent in quarters one and two and the remainder in quarter three. Very deceptive if you don't know what's happening.
Another question you might be asking...why wouldn't the business try to smooth out the expenses and this one-time profit for tax purposes? Why declare it now?
Firstly, they really can't of course. Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures, or GAAP, really don't allow this and the IRS doesn't care for it either. There is another reason to take the hit this year however...tax rates on business have been increased seriously but don't take full affect until 2010. A company can afford the hit now more easily.
Of course, politicians are drooling...big surprise. "Profits" they exclaim..."why, we must tax those immediately and declare emergency windfall taxes or something to get at that money." Being somewhat ignorant on business financials they don't realize the business cycle and that losses will follow the quarters of profit (or perhaps don't care). Companies cannot afford to spend these paper profits because they really don't exist as we normally think of profits, and they will be soaked up by losses in the following quarters.
"Nonsense," say the politicos...why we're experts in everything. That's simply pro-evil-business propaganda from a highly-paid special interest spokesperson."
Uh....I'm still waiting for the check...haven't received a dime yet.
Unfortunately; some of these businesses, despite these "profits" will be unable to stay afloat. Remember that much of this "profit" has already been spent and the remainder is waiting to be collected by the firm's creditors. Now that the firm is not producing revenue as it did, it may be in long term trouble at this point. If they cannot reduce expenses enough, or come up with enough sales revenue, they may very possibly end up closing their doors and laying off all remaining employees.
Not quite as exciting a picture as the pundits in WA D.C. have been painting...is it? Let's hope future administrations actually bring some business people on board...social workers and community organizers don't seem to get this reality stuff.
The Professor
Exciting news from the Physics Department
Goodness...the Professor just had to get off politics and economics today because the campus is all abuzz about the Physics Department. It seems they have discovered new sub-atomic particles which could hold some of the answers about the very nature of the universe.
Now, I'm no physicist, so I'll put this exciting news in layman's terms.
As you probably know, molecules consisting of protons and neutrons were once considered the very building blocks of nature, but then scientists began to discover smaller, sub-atomic, particles. The newest, smallest, and most dense of all of these were recently discovered by physicists in California.
They were named "morons" and were not only discovered, but found to be plentiful in the natural world. At our University, physicists have just found and named a new element consisting mostly of morons. It has been named Obermannium, and is the most dense element yet known to man.
Findings at our school's particle accelerator tell us that morons, unlike neutrons or protons which are evenly distributed through all matter, seem to be geographically clustered. For example, the Berkely area of California seems to have an extremely high clustering of morons. More areas of clustering seem to exist around major metropolitan areas, such as Detroit and Boston, but also seem to be common near coastal areas.
Scientists have also decided on a new measure of density, as Obermannium is so much more dense than other matter, which they have simply named the Obermann. The density of a cluster of morons can be labeled using the new term. For example; a large cluster might weigh a killaobermann while a small cluster might be a decaobermann.
Discovery of the moron has also led to the discovery of a rare mineral that appears in very trace amounts. It has been named Oprahzite and seems to attract morons. Oprahzite is unique in its ability to change its mass and weight on a regular basis...growing larger, then smaller, in succession.
Physicists are extremelely excited by the initial disovery of the moron, and be the continued findings to which they have been led by studying this sub-atomic particle. They don't know where this research may take them, but they do know that understanding morons, and that morons exist and always will, should help in understanding the world around us and how it functions.
Glad I could help in my own small way...
The Professor
Now, I'm no physicist, so I'll put this exciting news in layman's terms.
As you probably know, molecules consisting of protons and neutrons were once considered the very building blocks of nature, but then scientists began to discover smaller, sub-atomic, particles. The newest, smallest, and most dense of all of these were recently discovered by physicists in California.
They were named "morons" and were not only discovered, but found to be plentiful in the natural world. At our University, physicists have just found and named a new element consisting mostly of morons. It has been named Obermannium, and is the most dense element yet known to man.
Findings at our school's particle accelerator tell us that morons, unlike neutrons or protons which are evenly distributed through all matter, seem to be geographically clustered. For example, the Berkely area of California seems to have an extremely high clustering of morons. More areas of clustering seem to exist around major metropolitan areas, such as Detroit and Boston, but also seem to be common near coastal areas.
Scientists have also decided on a new measure of density, as Obermannium is so much more dense than other matter, which they have simply named the Obermann. The density of a cluster of morons can be labeled using the new term. For example; a large cluster might weigh a killaobermann while a small cluster might be a decaobermann.
Discovery of the moron has also led to the discovery of a rare mineral that appears in very trace amounts. It has been named Oprahzite and seems to attract morons. Oprahzite is unique in its ability to change its mass and weight on a regular basis...growing larger, then smaller, in succession.
Physicists are extremelely excited by the initial disovery of the moron, and be the continued findings to which they have been led by studying this sub-atomic particle. They don't know where this research may take them, but they do know that understanding morons, and that morons exist and always will, should help in understanding the world around us and how it functions.
Glad I could help in my own small way...
The Professor
Nobel Peace Prize a Surprise?
"Shock" waves were registered on the seismograph of public opinion the other day when the Nobel Peace Prize committee announced Barack Obama was the 2009 winner. I'm not sure why?
It didn't surprise me at all. After all, it follows historical precedent...and history pretty much tells us everything about the present and the future.
If you look back at the prizes awarded over the last century you will find the accolades and "job descriptions" of most recipients were simply stated at "Pacifist."
The vast majority of the winners were also total unknowns...never to be heard from again. There were some notable individuals of course; Mother Theresa, Ghandi, Albert Schweitzer, and a few others who actually dared to challenge convention and put themselves in harm's way. But the majority were simply considered important for their vision of a perfect world without conflict...visions they could do nothing to make come about of course...but gushy and warm visions nonetheless.
Three American presidents have received the award; Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter.
Roosevelt actually threatened to send the Marines into any nation that disturbed the peace...and he did it once or twice...scaring the bad guys into taking on more peaceful demeanors. He actually won the award for this behavior. It was obviously a different committee in 1906.
Wilson won for helping to establish the League of Nations. This was a good indicator where the committee was going...results no longer mattered...only vision. Wilson also dragged America kicking and screaming into a European war that historians are still trying to figure out where our national interest came in. And he threw a couple of hundred thousand Americans into prison for protesting that war...the new progressivism at work.
That's real Peace Prize stuff!
Jimmy Carter was the only presidential winner who took part in something that is still tangible and intact...the Sinai Peace Accords. Good for him, good for everyone for that matter, and he won the award for it. Recently he doesn't seem pleased by this feat however, and appears to wish Israel no longer existed...maybe it's old age.
Underneath the surface desire for peace at any price, the little group of Swedish left wingers who choose the winners seem also intent on rewarding those who help bring down the evil and imperialist American economy...which they probably view as a "war machine." Wilson put us onto the road of Corporatism and wage and price controls which brought us the great depression...sometimes referred to as America's Golden Age by left wing nut jobs world wide.
Carter brought us 25% intereste mortgage rates, 12% inflation, and the greatest unemployment since the depression. Americans found his one term to be more than enough. For some strange reason they did not desire another "Golden Age." But it made him a leftie icon.
Now we see the weird, offwordly, economic theories of Obama's close friends being attempted on a federal level. Not surprisingly the Nobel committee actually commends them for their attacks on the free market...perhaps part of the reason Obama was nominated as a prize recipient only two weeks into his lackluster presidency. Perhaps a huge part.
They've done stranger things. Al Gore shared the prize with the UN's commission on climate change. But he saved the world from turning into a massive oven and exploding messily all over the solar system...and just in time. And Al did it by simply making a video and millions of dollars off feeble-minded celebrities by selling them "carbon credits."
Now most of that UN commission have quit the group in disgust. The group's new motto is "We thought it was Global Warming...but now it's Global Cooling...but it's still Climate Change...and we know you peasants are to blame."
Catchy, eh? But how many carbon credits will it sell?
So should anyone be "shocked" that an American politician with a fuzzy grasp of world history, no understanding of geo-strategy or conflict resolution, who degrades the evil West, with a vision of a weapons-free world full of bunny rabbits and butterflies and no realistic concept of how to get there, should win a Noble Peace prize?
Duuuuhhhhhh...of course not. I actually predicted it would happen at some point. I didn't think it would be so soon...but maybe they wanted to do it before his administration did something so stupid that even the media would notice. And with decisions having to be made in regards to the war on terror and Islamic Fascism...that could be any day now.
The bunnies and butterflies were a nice idea...but I think the Taliban would have gassed the butterflies, then shot and eaten the bunnies. What can you do? Next year you give the Taliban the prize.
The Professor
It didn't surprise me at all. After all, it follows historical precedent...and history pretty much tells us everything about the present and the future.
If you look back at the prizes awarded over the last century you will find the accolades and "job descriptions" of most recipients were simply stated at "Pacifist."
The vast majority of the winners were also total unknowns...never to be heard from again. There were some notable individuals of course; Mother Theresa, Ghandi, Albert Schweitzer, and a few others who actually dared to challenge convention and put themselves in harm's way. But the majority were simply considered important for their vision of a perfect world without conflict...visions they could do nothing to make come about of course...but gushy and warm visions nonetheless.
Three American presidents have received the award; Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter.
Roosevelt actually threatened to send the Marines into any nation that disturbed the peace...and he did it once or twice...scaring the bad guys into taking on more peaceful demeanors. He actually won the award for this behavior. It was obviously a different committee in 1906.
Wilson won for helping to establish the League of Nations. This was a good indicator where the committee was going...results no longer mattered...only vision. Wilson also dragged America kicking and screaming into a European war that historians are still trying to figure out where our national interest came in. And he threw a couple of hundred thousand Americans into prison for protesting that war...the new progressivism at work.
That's real Peace Prize stuff!
Jimmy Carter was the only presidential winner who took part in something that is still tangible and intact...the Sinai Peace Accords. Good for him, good for everyone for that matter, and he won the award for it. Recently he doesn't seem pleased by this feat however, and appears to wish Israel no longer existed...maybe it's old age.
Underneath the surface desire for peace at any price, the little group of Swedish left wingers who choose the winners seem also intent on rewarding those who help bring down the evil and imperialist American economy...which they probably view as a "war machine." Wilson put us onto the road of Corporatism and wage and price controls which brought us the great depression...sometimes referred to as America's Golden Age by left wing nut jobs world wide.
Carter brought us 25% intereste mortgage rates, 12% inflation, and the greatest unemployment since the depression. Americans found his one term to be more than enough. For some strange reason they did not desire another "Golden Age." But it made him a leftie icon.
Now we see the weird, offwordly, economic theories of Obama's close friends being attempted on a federal level. Not surprisingly the Nobel committee actually commends them for their attacks on the free market...perhaps part of the reason Obama was nominated as a prize recipient only two weeks into his lackluster presidency. Perhaps a huge part.
They've done stranger things. Al Gore shared the prize with the UN's commission on climate change. But he saved the world from turning into a massive oven and exploding messily all over the solar system...and just in time. And Al did it by simply making a video and millions of dollars off feeble-minded celebrities by selling them "carbon credits."
Now most of that UN commission have quit the group in disgust. The group's new motto is "We thought it was Global Warming...but now it's Global Cooling...but it's still Climate Change...and we know you peasants are to blame."
Catchy, eh? But how many carbon credits will it sell?
So should anyone be "shocked" that an American politician with a fuzzy grasp of world history, no understanding of geo-strategy or conflict resolution, who degrades the evil West, with a vision of a weapons-free world full of bunny rabbits and butterflies and no realistic concept of how to get there, should win a Noble Peace prize?
Duuuuhhhhhh...of course not. I actually predicted it would happen at some point. I didn't think it would be so soon...but maybe they wanted to do it before his administration did something so stupid that even the media would notice. And with decisions having to be made in regards to the war on terror and Islamic Fascism...that could be any day now.
The bunnies and butterflies were a nice idea...but I think the Taliban would have gassed the butterflies, then shot and eaten the bunnies. What can you do? Next year you give the Taliban the prize.
The Professor
All Hail Her Highness
With all the news regarding the disgusting activities of the criminal class openly operating the ACORN organization, and the politicians who have supported and depended on them for illicit campaign funding, it's easy not to notice news of the royal family.
I'm not speaking of the British royal family of course...I'm speaking of their equivalent here in the U.S.
The Canadian news networks, being somewhat less cowardly than their Yankee counterparts, ran an interesting breakdown of Michelle Obama's staff. I've taken the liberty of reprinting the stats below with salaries, names, and positions:
1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for th e First Lady)
5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11.. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M.. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $35,000 - Ja ckson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
This does not include part-time travelling companions; a make-up artist and hair-stylist who travel onboard Air Force One with the first lady.
To be fair, though...other first ladies have had permanent paid staff. Most recently, Hillary Clinton had a staff of three...and Laura Bush had a staff of one. I recall someone in the press during the Bush years criticizing Mrs. Bush for wasting the taxpayer's money with her paid staff member. What, oh what, has happened to that journalist...maybe he's mellowed out with age.
Now keep in mind Mrs. Bush was an inferior human being...after all her graduate degree was in Library Science (ugggghhhh...teaching innocent little children to think...what treachery) versus Michelle who's graduate degree is in law (ahhhhh...using the law to force others to do things they don't want to do...how noble). And Laura's husband...ex-military and an ex-CEO...how disgusting; while Michelle's hubby is an ex-street organizer...just like Ghandi...or Lenin...take your choice.
Therefore Laura only needed the one personal secretary. Michelle has just sooooo much going on she really, really, really needs all of that personal attention at our expense. Sorry if that explanation sounds lame...I'm trying to co-opt what the twits in the media are going to say in order to justify this narcissism.
As a matter of fact...does the Queen Mum of Britian have as large a staff as Michelle. If not, she can be consoled with her precious MP3 player filled with Obama speeches.
Sorry if this sounds like a petty issue...I'm just pointing out the difference in attitude from prior first ladies. I suddenly have a renewed respect for Hillary Clinton...not an easy accomplishment, but there you have it.
I look forward to the day when we once again have the family of a public servant in the White House...instead of royalty. I tire of monarchy, and pomposity, so quickly I'm afraid.
The Professor
I'm not speaking of the British royal family of course...I'm speaking of their equivalent here in the U.S.
The Canadian news networks, being somewhat less cowardly than their Yankee counterparts, ran an interesting breakdown of Michelle Obama's staff. I've taken the liberty of reprinting the stats below with salaries, names, and positions:
1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for th e First Lady)
5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11.. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M.. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $35,000 - Ja ckson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
This does not include part-time travelling companions; a make-up artist and hair-stylist who travel onboard Air Force One with the first lady.
To be fair, though...other first ladies have had permanent paid staff. Most recently, Hillary Clinton had a staff of three...and Laura Bush had a staff of one. I recall someone in the press during the Bush years criticizing Mrs. Bush for wasting the taxpayer's money with her paid staff member. What, oh what, has happened to that journalist...maybe he's mellowed out with age.
Now keep in mind Mrs. Bush was an inferior human being...after all her graduate degree was in Library Science (ugggghhhh...teaching innocent little children to think...what treachery) versus Michelle who's graduate degree is in law (ahhhhh...using the law to force others to do things they don't want to do...how noble). And Laura's husband...ex-military and an ex-CEO...how disgusting; while Michelle's hubby is an ex-street organizer...just like Ghandi...or Lenin...take your choice.
Therefore Laura only needed the one personal secretary. Michelle has just sooooo much going on she really, really, really needs all of that personal attention at our expense. Sorry if that explanation sounds lame...I'm trying to co-opt what the twits in the media are going to say in order to justify this narcissism.
As a matter of fact...does the Queen Mum of Britian have as large a staff as Michelle. If not, she can be consoled with her precious MP3 player filled with Obama speeches.
Sorry if this sounds like a petty issue...I'm just pointing out the difference in attitude from prior first ladies. I suddenly have a renewed respect for Hillary Clinton...not an easy accomplishment, but there you have it.
I look forward to the day when we once again have the family of a public servant in the White House...instead of royalty. I tire of monarchy, and pomposity, so quickly I'm afraid.
The Professor
Forgetting History...a Presidential Pastime
On September 17, 1939, the Soviet Union invaded the Kresy, or borderlands, of Poland in what would basically be the extermination of that small nation for decades to come. In the following years the cities of Poland would be systematically destroyed and millions of her citizens would be murdered in a genocidal frenzy to be rid of all things Polish.
Fifty years later, the United States and its CIA would help build the underground freedom movement, known as Solidarity, which would eventually help bring about the fall of the Soviet empire, and with that collapse, the resurrection of Poland as an independent nation.
On the 70 year anniversary of the invasion, while Poles were holding candlelight vigils to remember the dead, and television specials reminded the people of the horrors they had suffered, our President caved in to Russian demands that the US not aid Poland in her future defense.
Some commentators have stated the date, September 17, was chosen in order to insult the Polish people and those who support them...to throw in their faces that their old masters were once again moving toward control of their region and their futures, and that we in the US would turn a blind eye and allow it to happen.
I truly believe that theory to be overly cynical and wrong-headed...though the end result will be as described if we don't change course. No...the date was chosen despite its historical and highly emotional signifigance to the Poles. I truly believe that our President, as well as every person on his staff, his czars, his advisors, and his family, friends, and acquaintances...have again proven their extremely shallow knowledge of history.
Over and over again, they have exercised "new ideas" which have been tried repeatedly in the past and have always failed. They have demonstrated an ignorance of that past, and how it affects the now and the future, that would be embarassing to most 5th graders. In fact, they have shown an outright disdain for the lessons of history...instead putting their faith in theories and platitudes which have been espoused for centuries...and have always resulted in disaster. By ignoring history, they can ignore reality...and pretend that this time...this time...the theories and platitudes will actually work...really they will...
Those who do not understand history will become victims of it! No truer words were ever spoken, and in a few years those of us with open and inquisitive minds will watch this prophecy come true for the naive and shallow folks in the current administration. Unfortunately, they will make many of us victims as well. We already suffer from their inability to understand basic economics, ignoring history there as well while embracing simiplistic slogans and childlike theorems.
Those who understand history, particularly the history of negotiation with Russian leadership, winced painfully as this deal was made. We knew full well that within hours the Russians would be demanding more concessions...and that is exactly what happened. It's what has always happened...why didn't the President's advisors know it would happen again?
Again...naivety and ignorance. I, myself, have negotiated business deals with Russian businessmen. The process always begins with their making unreasonable demands. The wise negotiator makes unreasonable demands in return to block them. It can go back and forth for some time...perhaps years...before they begin to scale back their demands.
The secret to success...remembering that we have far more of what they want than they have of what we want. I strongly believe Obama and his people don't understand this.
Once the initial wall is breached, and they give in to something (you never concede first) they will always follow with the original absurd demands. This can, again, go on for some time. You eventually respond with some small concession...then hold your ground until they concede something larger. Then the process begins again...absurd demands followed once more by your refusal to discuss those issues while insisting they give in on some other small issue.
And thus it goes...if you are wise enough to study history and understand the process. If not...you get railroaded. And the Russians are experts at this. One might note they have responded, not only with new and more outrageous demands, but have wisely "created" concessions which make their opponent believe they won something in return.
In this case, the Russians announced they would no longer consider putting nuclear missile batteries on the Polish border. They hadn't done it...they don't have the funds to do it...and it would be foolish as every missile in the Russian inventory can easily reach Poland now! Duhhhhh.......but just watch...the administration and the media will take the bait and announce they have received this "major concession" from the Russians, thereby averting a horrible conflict.
Who won't believe this blatant nonsense? The Polish people...that's who. They are perfectly aware that Russian tanks are quite capable of crushing Poland again...the Russians would never have used nuclear weapons in the first place. But the hysterical sycophants in America will praise the administration for averting nuclear disaster. Watch and observe...this will be a good measure of who the truly stupid are in our society.
Unfortunately, US foreign policy is now like a textbook on what hasn't worked in the past and never will. The British survived Chamerlain...hopefully we, and the Polish, Georgian, Ukranian, and other eastern European peoples who had hoped to be our allies, will survive this challenge as well.
The Professor
Fifty years later, the United States and its CIA would help build the underground freedom movement, known as Solidarity, which would eventually help bring about the fall of the Soviet empire, and with that collapse, the resurrection of Poland as an independent nation.
On the 70 year anniversary of the invasion, while Poles were holding candlelight vigils to remember the dead, and television specials reminded the people of the horrors they had suffered, our President caved in to Russian demands that the US not aid Poland in her future defense.
Some commentators have stated the date, September 17, was chosen in order to insult the Polish people and those who support them...to throw in their faces that their old masters were once again moving toward control of their region and their futures, and that we in the US would turn a blind eye and allow it to happen.
I truly believe that theory to be overly cynical and wrong-headed...though the end result will be as described if we don't change course. No...the date was chosen despite its historical and highly emotional signifigance to the Poles. I truly believe that our President, as well as every person on his staff, his czars, his advisors, and his family, friends, and acquaintances...have again proven their extremely shallow knowledge of history.
Over and over again, they have exercised "new ideas" which have been tried repeatedly in the past and have always failed. They have demonstrated an ignorance of that past, and how it affects the now and the future, that would be embarassing to most 5th graders. In fact, they have shown an outright disdain for the lessons of history...instead putting their faith in theories and platitudes which have been espoused for centuries...and have always resulted in disaster. By ignoring history, they can ignore reality...and pretend that this time...this time...the theories and platitudes will actually work...really they will...
Those who do not understand history will become victims of it! No truer words were ever spoken, and in a few years those of us with open and inquisitive minds will watch this prophecy come true for the naive and shallow folks in the current administration. Unfortunately, they will make many of us victims as well. We already suffer from their inability to understand basic economics, ignoring history there as well while embracing simiplistic slogans and childlike theorems.
Those who understand history, particularly the history of negotiation with Russian leadership, winced painfully as this deal was made. We knew full well that within hours the Russians would be demanding more concessions...and that is exactly what happened. It's what has always happened...why didn't the President's advisors know it would happen again?
Again...naivety and ignorance. I, myself, have negotiated business deals with Russian businessmen. The process always begins with their making unreasonable demands. The wise negotiator makes unreasonable demands in return to block them. It can go back and forth for some time...perhaps years...before they begin to scale back their demands.
The secret to success...remembering that we have far more of what they want than they have of what we want. I strongly believe Obama and his people don't understand this.
Once the initial wall is breached, and they give in to something (you never concede first) they will always follow with the original absurd demands. This can, again, go on for some time. You eventually respond with some small concession...then hold your ground until they concede something larger. Then the process begins again...absurd demands followed once more by your refusal to discuss those issues while insisting they give in on some other small issue.
And thus it goes...if you are wise enough to study history and understand the process. If not...you get railroaded. And the Russians are experts at this. One might note they have responded, not only with new and more outrageous demands, but have wisely "created" concessions which make their opponent believe they won something in return.
In this case, the Russians announced they would no longer consider putting nuclear missile batteries on the Polish border. They hadn't done it...they don't have the funds to do it...and it would be foolish as every missile in the Russian inventory can easily reach Poland now! Duhhhhh.......but just watch...the administration and the media will take the bait and announce they have received this "major concession" from the Russians, thereby averting a horrible conflict.
Who won't believe this blatant nonsense? The Polish people...that's who. They are perfectly aware that Russian tanks are quite capable of crushing Poland again...the Russians would never have used nuclear weapons in the first place. But the hysterical sycophants in America will praise the administration for averting nuclear disaster. Watch and observe...this will be a good measure of who the truly stupid are in our society.
Unfortunately, US foreign policy is now like a textbook on what hasn't worked in the past and never will. The British survived Chamerlain...hopefully we, and the Polish, Georgian, Ukranian, and other eastern European peoples who had hoped to be our allies, will survive this challenge as well.
The Professor
There's that "F" word again...
Goodness...the professor has been upbraided for using the "F" word...
Fascist...there I go again darn it.
"How," I've been asked, "can you use the "F" word when discussing what our current administration and lackeys are up to?" "Where is your tolerance, you hate-speecher you, and why are you so paranoid about our beloved leader?"
Hmmmmm...has been my response, as they've answered their question with the question itself.
Remember the professor is about logic...no emotion here folks...just putting together batches of information, studying and analyzing that info, and looking at the historical background and precedent. Let's discuss the infamous "F" word in a rational manner and analyze what Fascism is.
The word is the Americanization of "Fascista"...the popular national socialist party in Italy at the beginning of the 20th century (Fascio Autonomo d'Azione rivoluzionaria). At that time the western world was going through a love affair with experimental political systems, mainly as a result of growing populations, the morphing of agricultural workers into industrial workers, growing importance of industry and growing consumer demands, and world-wide unrest as a result of this growth and change.
Bennito Mussolini, who would later lead the Fascistas to victory in national elections, had been an international socialist for over a decade. He came to the conclusion that the Italian people had too much pride in themselves as the descendants of the Romans to ever put their faith into an organization loyal to international interests. He felt the Fascistas were on the inside track to bringing a socialist agenda to Italy.
The internationalists immediately turned their vengeance on him...denouncing the Fascistas as a "right wing" organization. This charge actually did not really stick until World War II forced socialists world-wide to denounce Mussolini's rule. It was most convenient then to state that he had been a right wing zealot all along, despite his socialist writings and leadership.
The National Socialist party which eventually took control in Germany (the N.A.Z.I) was never referred to as a fascist organization until Mussolini was rebranded as a right winger. Then the brand slid effortessly over to the German dictatorship. Confusing? Keep in mind socialists world wide had spent a decade drooling over the recasting of all of Europe in the socialist model, led by Herr Hitler and Il Duce.
Those dreams turned into nightmares of course, as always happens in authoritarian regimes. What saved the world, thank God, was that the two major players for world dominance could not long tolerate competition. So the international socialists, represented by the Soviets, and the national socialists, represented by the Nazis, had to come to violent blows. It became totalitarian state versus totalitarian state for control of land, resources, and human capital.
The real history buffs among you will remember as well, during this time of political upheaval the U.S. was hardly immune from radical ideas from Europe. Mussolini was very fashionable in the U.S. from the first world war especially. Later, Hitler, also became an idol of the radical chic set.
Woodrow Wilson modeled himself as the American reflection of European "stateism" and wrote extensively on behalf of a powerful and centralized government. He decried that Blacks, Jews, and excessively "individualistic" persons should not be allowed to vote. He deputized hundreds of thousands of goons to terrorize his political enemies. These "redshirts" burned down newspaper buildings, the homes of editors and writers, and lynched the more unfortunate.
They were given the authority to arrest, as an internal security organization of the government, and more than a quarter of a million Americans went behind bars in punishment for not supporting the administration. The Wilson gangs arrested more persons in three years than Mussolini and his Fascistas did in a decade.
It was during this time period that Wilson declared himself "the American Fascist" and Mussolini "the Italian Progressive."
The point of this history lesson, of course, is to view current politics in a clearer light. The labels of socialist, progressive, and fascist are truly interchangeable. You will hear gnashing of teeth at this historical truth, of course, as radical idealists will always be mesmerized by labels and always be competing among themselves for the top rung on the radical ladder. Socialists and progressives will call capitalists by the term fascist...and fascists will label the socialists and progressives as communists, and the rest of us will generally be quiet on the issue as we view all of the above as being dangerous NUTS!
Whoops...now I'm using the "N" word as well. Well, bring on the censorship...I deserve it for being a "F........." old "N....."
The Professor
Fascist...there I go again darn it.
"How," I've been asked, "can you use the "F" word when discussing what our current administration and lackeys are up to?" "Where is your tolerance, you hate-speecher you, and why are you so paranoid about our beloved leader?"
Hmmmmm...has been my response, as they've answered their question with the question itself.
Remember the professor is about logic...no emotion here folks...just putting together batches of information, studying and analyzing that info, and looking at the historical background and precedent. Let's discuss the infamous "F" word in a rational manner and analyze what Fascism is.
The word is the Americanization of "Fascista"...the popular national socialist party in Italy at the beginning of the 20th century (Fascio Autonomo d'Azione rivoluzionaria). At that time the western world was going through a love affair with experimental political systems, mainly as a result of growing populations, the morphing of agricultural workers into industrial workers, growing importance of industry and growing consumer demands, and world-wide unrest as a result of this growth and change.
Bennito Mussolini, who would later lead the Fascistas to victory in national elections, had been an international socialist for over a decade. He came to the conclusion that the Italian people had too much pride in themselves as the descendants of the Romans to ever put their faith into an organization loyal to international interests. He felt the Fascistas were on the inside track to bringing a socialist agenda to Italy.
The internationalists immediately turned their vengeance on him...denouncing the Fascistas as a "right wing" organization. This charge actually did not really stick until World War II forced socialists world-wide to denounce Mussolini's rule. It was most convenient then to state that he had been a right wing zealot all along, despite his socialist writings and leadership.
The National Socialist party which eventually took control in Germany (the N.A.Z.I) was never referred to as a fascist organization until Mussolini was rebranded as a right winger. Then the brand slid effortessly over to the German dictatorship. Confusing? Keep in mind socialists world wide had spent a decade drooling over the recasting of all of Europe in the socialist model, led by Herr Hitler and Il Duce.
Those dreams turned into nightmares of course, as always happens in authoritarian regimes. What saved the world, thank God, was that the two major players for world dominance could not long tolerate competition. So the international socialists, represented by the Soviets, and the national socialists, represented by the Nazis, had to come to violent blows. It became totalitarian state versus totalitarian state for control of land, resources, and human capital.
The real history buffs among you will remember as well, during this time of political upheaval the U.S. was hardly immune from radical ideas from Europe. Mussolini was very fashionable in the U.S. from the first world war especially. Later, Hitler, also became an idol of the radical chic set.
Woodrow Wilson modeled himself as the American reflection of European "stateism" and wrote extensively on behalf of a powerful and centralized government. He decried that Blacks, Jews, and excessively "individualistic" persons should not be allowed to vote. He deputized hundreds of thousands of goons to terrorize his political enemies. These "redshirts" burned down newspaper buildings, the homes of editors and writers, and lynched the more unfortunate.
They were given the authority to arrest, as an internal security organization of the government, and more than a quarter of a million Americans went behind bars in punishment for not supporting the administration. The Wilson gangs arrested more persons in three years than Mussolini and his Fascistas did in a decade.
It was during this time period that Wilson declared himself "the American Fascist" and Mussolini "the Italian Progressive."
The point of this history lesson, of course, is to view current politics in a clearer light. The labels of socialist, progressive, and fascist are truly interchangeable. You will hear gnashing of teeth at this historical truth, of course, as radical idealists will always be mesmerized by labels and always be competing among themselves for the top rung on the radical ladder. Socialists and progressives will call capitalists by the term fascist...and fascists will label the socialists and progressives as communists, and the rest of us will generally be quiet on the issue as we view all of the above as being dangerous NUTS!
Whoops...now I'm using the "N" word as well. Well, bring on the censorship...I deserve it for being a "F........." old "N....."
The Professor
National Endowment for the Arts: Fasionable Fascists
It was inevitable of course...as the Obama campaign and presidency seems to be more about image than anything else...that the ever-loyal regions of the artsy-fartsy community would eventually be drafted to serve in the battle over thought.
In the last few weeks, the National Endowment for the Arts, the NEA, has been putting out emails and having phone conferences for the so-called "cool" community (their words...not mine) and others who are fashionably "with-it". In these conferences, speakers put forth that the "duty" of the artistic community is to support the Obama administration and its goals. Listeners are urged "to show care" in allowing this agenda to be known as the legal ramifications are unclear.
Now keep in mind these folks, and this organization, is paid for by our tax dollars...and Obama's cozy little crew decides how much money they will receive.
No conflict of interest there...
But isn't art supposed to be about art? Isn't it supposed to challenge? To be rebellious? To cause viewers and listeners to think? In other words...to be creative?
Apparently not anymore. This isn't the first time however. Anyone who has studied the history of propaganda knows that governments throughout time have manipulated the art community to push their agendas. Art becomes propaganda when used by government...and the U.S. is almost as guilty as some others.
We really started to use the art community just prior to the first world war. Most of us have seen the posters and recruitment art of that war...showing the "Hun" as a slobbering, mindless, animal bent only on rape and murder? How about some of the posters of the next war...with caricatures of the "Jap" as a slanty-eyed devil wearing massive bi-focals and sporting an incredible overbite? Might one believe that such caricatures made it just a bit easier to ignore the constitution and put Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps?
The difference, of course, is that our government did not normally jail or execute dissenting artists. In other cultures, such pressure and outright violence was part of the norm.
In Germany, the government began steering the vision of art in the early 1930's and controlled more and more output until the end of the war. They did not usually execute or imprison artists who did not fall into line...but those persons did find themselves unable to practice their art, or to sell art, or even to be allowed to take part in conferences or events. Every so often one would suffer "an unfortunate accident" and be seriously injured or killed.
In the Soviet Union, painting the wrong picture didn't just mean you lost your government stipend...it usually led to a Siberian gulag and eventual death...if not immediate execution. During the cultural revolution in China; artists, musicians, actors, and most anyone involved in those areas, were humiliated, imprisoned, sometimes beaten...sometimes to death, by the crowds.
In the U.S. today, artists scream "censorship" if their funds are not increased as much as they'd like them to be. The personal cost of such "dissent" is normally to have the artist laughed at by the rest of the society.
The military recruitment posters the U.S. produced during the second world war held some level of justification...we were in a battle for our lives against monstrous men and regimes. I'm sure there will be NEA folks today crying out similar justification due to the "planetary emergency" or the importance of "remaking America" into a third-world nation. How those goals can be compared to defeating the National Socialists in Germany and the Japanese Imperial war machine I'll never figure out...perhaps I'm not creative enough to see the similarities.
Here's a thought...now that the NEA has taken this fateful step...let's just require them outright to create art on behalf of every administration that comes into office in the foreseeable future.
They can create anti-abortion art when the Republicans are in the majority, pro-union posters when it's the Democrats, and paintings of drowning Polar Bears when the Progressives have the chair. Abandon the pretext of art for art's sake, and keep the grant money coming.
In the last few weeks, the National Endowment for the Arts, the NEA, has been putting out emails and having phone conferences for the so-called "cool" community (their words...not mine) and others who are fashionably "with-it". In these conferences, speakers put forth that the "duty" of the artistic community is to support the Obama administration and its goals. Listeners are urged "to show care" in allowing this agenda to be known as the legal ramifications are unclear.
Now keep in mind these folks, and this organization, is paid for by our tax dollars...and Obama's cozy little crew decides how much money they will receive.
No conflict of interest there...
But isn't art supposed to be about art? Isn't it supposed to challenge? To be rebellious? To cause viewers and listeners to think? In other words...to be creative?
Apparently not anymore. This isn't the first time however. Anyone who has studied the history of propaganda knows that governments throughout time have manipulated the art community to push their agendas. Art becomes propaganda when used by government...and the U.S. is almost as guilty as some others.
We really started to use the art community just prior to the first world war. Most of us have seen the posters and recruitment art of that war...showing the "Hun" as a slobbering, mindless, animal bent only on rape and murder? How about some of the posters of the next war...with caricatures of the "Jap" as a slanty-eyed devil wearing massive bi-focals and sporting an incredible overbite? Might one believe that such caricatures made it just a bit easier to ignore the constitution and put Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps?
The difference, of course, is that our government did not normally jail or execute dissenting artists. In other cultures, such pressure and outright violence was part of the norm.
In Germany, the government began steering the vision of art in the early 1930's and controlled more and more output until the end of the war. They did not usually execute or imprison artists who did not fall into line...but those persons did find themselves unable to practice their art, or to sell art, or even to be allowed to take part in conferences or events. Every so often one would suffer "an unfortunate accident" and be seriously injured or killed.
In the Soviet Union, painting the wrong picture didn't just mean you lost your government stipend...it usually led to a Siberian gulag and eventual death...if not immediate execution. During the cultural revolution in China; artists, musicians, actors, and most anyone involved in those areas, were humiliated, imprisoned, sometimes beaten...sometimes to death, by the crowds.
In the U.S. today, artists scream "censorship" if their funds are not increased as much as they'd like them to be. The personal cost of such "dissent" is normally to have the artist laughed at by the rest of the society.
The military recruitment posters the U.S. produced during the second world war held some level of justification...we were in a battle for our lives against monstrous men and regimes. I'm sure there will be NEA folks today crying out similar justification due to the "planetary emergency" or the importance of "remaking America" into a third-world nation. How those goals can be compared to defeating the National Socialists in Germany and the Japanese Imperial war machine I'll never figure out...perhaps I'm not creative enough to see the similarities.
Here's a thought...now that the NEA has taken this fateful step...let's just require them outright to create art on behalf of every administration that comes into office in the foreseeable future.
They can create anti-abortion art when the Republicans are in the majority, pro-union posters when it's the Democrats, and paintings of drowning Polar Bears when the Progressives have the chair. Abandon the pretext of art for art's sake, and keep the grant money coming.
Reform! And our new Shadow Government!
Delving deeper and deeper into the "Health Care Reform" bill makes me feel almost dirty...unclean. It brings back uncomfortable memories of when I moved about with communists, socialists, and various "revolutionaries" in an attempt to understand their mindsets and to better understand how propaganda worked.
I did this as a teenager...back in the sixties...always fascinated by propaganda of various regimes and movements, of which my father was a scholar and kept a library of such work, and I wanted to see how people related to such brain-washing in real time. After having read Soviet prop-agit magazines and newspapers for years, it was easy to "go undercover" and talk the talk...blending in believably with real radicals.
Some, I soon discovered, were simply lonely, or lacked self-esteem, or were bored upper middle class kids looking for adventure and a sense of faux danger. Others were dangerous individuals...very manipulative, controlling, and lacking any moral compass whatsoever.
The one I recall the best was twice my age, in his mid-thirties at the time, and he led the movement in the region and was commandant of the secret cell. He kept the lists of who would be imprisoned, or executed, once the new socialist regime was established. He was at once vicious, and cowardly...afraid literally of his own shadow and convinced the FBI was behind every corner. I don't think he knew, or could socialize, with anyone over the age of eighteen.
I remember most vividly his 12 year old girl friend...you read that right...who lived with him in his basement apartment. She had been "given" to him by her parents, real nut case left wingers, who wanted her to become a revolutionary woman of the world and to learn at his feet. His sexual liason with this child should have been what worried him about the long-arm of the law...but his real paranoia was that the "secret police" were always stalking him because of his brilliant mind and the danger it posed to capitalist society.
He was a truly disgusting slug of an individual...and it was extremely difficult to pretend to adore him like the other kids did.
Needless to say, the months I spent mingling with these loons, most harmless but some truly psychotic, gave me a pretty solid ability to recognize and follow their progress as society changed and they went "mainstream"...abandoning their battle fatigues for three-piece suits.
I did this as a teenager...back in the sixties...always fascinated by propaganda of various regimes and movements, of which my father was a scholar and kept a library of such work, and I wanted to see how people related to such brain-washing in real time. After having read Soviet prop-agit magazines and newspapers for years, it was easy to "go undercover" and talk the talk...blending in believably with real radicals.
Some, I soon discovered, were simply lonely, or lacked self-esteem, or were bored upper middle class kids looking for adventure and a sense of faux danger. Others were dangerous individuals...very manipulative, controlling, and lacking any moral compass whatsoever.
The one I recall the best was twice my age, in his mid-thirties at the time, and he led the movement in the region and was commandant of the secret cell. He kept the lists of who would be imprisoned, or executed, once the new socialist regime was established. He was at once vicious, and cowardly...afraid literally of his own shadow and convinced the FBI was behind every corner. I don't think he knew, or could socialize, with anyone over the age of eighteen.
I remember most vividly his 12 year old girl friend...you read that right...who lived with him in his basement apartment. She had been "given" to him by her parents, real nut case left wingers, who wanted her to become a revolutionary woman of the world and to learn at his feet. His sexual liason with this child should have been what worried him about the long-arm of the law...but his real paranoia was that the "secret police" were always stalking him because of his brilliant mind and the danger it posed to capitalist society.
He was a truly disgusting slug of an individual...and it was extremely difficult to pretend to adore him like the other kids did.
Needless to say, the months I spent mingling with these loons, most harmless but some truly psychotic, gave me a pretty solid ability to recognize and follow their progress as society changed and they went "mainstream"...abandoning their battle fatigues for three-piece suits.
One of their most telling traits was a complete paranoia of everything private...private property owners, private businesses, private non-profits, and even privacy itself. They could not tolerate anything or anyone not being monitored by them...as everyone but them had to be evil capitalists...and in their minds the perfect monitoring system was to control agencies and use those agencies to monitor everything and everyone.
Thus, when I started hearing about health care "reform" my propaganda radar started blipping. The word "reform" is a hot button word. Such words are used to alter the listener's perception of reality, to misleed, to cloud the thought process by invoking an emotion, and to discredit the subject of the story. "Reform" insinuates that there must be a criminal or fraudelent behavior to be addressed and someone to be brought to "justice."
Obviously to anyone who has read the health care bill, the writers have no intention of making health care available to all, but have designed an elaborate bureaucracy which will smother any person or organization in the health care field with constant filling out and filing of reports. It's also quite obvious, reading between the lines, that the writers truly believe all involved in the health care field are evil money-grubbing leeches sucking the lives out their patient/victims.
As I read it, I felt as if I were once again in darkened, secret, meetings with the marxist wannabees of my youth...stridently discussing bringing down all of society. The sense of paranoia is strong throughout the document, if you know what you're looking for, as is the near psychotic need to be inside every office, every exam room, and every discussion between patients and their evil health care givers.
Now all of this may make the old Professor sound somewhat over the edge...and without my rather unique education and experience I would not have seen the background of this bill to the extent I do.
So here's a challenge...read the bill yourself. Actually think about the actions the bill is demanding of private individuals and companies...and try to come up with logical reasons why these demands are in the legislation...reasons outside of a paranoid need to control everything not government. Then go one step further, as I've done, and try to find out who...in congress that is...WROTE THE BILL!
This massive tome, you may recall, was rather suddenly introduced to congress seemingly out of nowhere. It is supposedly a house bill...but I have been unable to find anyone, either in congress or on their staffs, WHOM KNOWS WHERE THE BILL CAME FROM!
But look fast...this loophole will be closed soon. I'm not the only one out there who has come to the realization that congress...the folks we hire to write legislation...was not responsible for this document. Soon they will be assigning some poor scapegoats to be the "authors" in order to waylay such accusations (probably a group of staffers who they can afford to let go).
And be prepared to study other bills that suddenly "appear" on the floor of the house. This will not be the last...the nuts have come together again...only this time they are not hiding in basements and raping underage girls. This is time they are hiding in the highest levels of government...and we may be their intended victims.
The Professor
Thus, when I started hearing about health care "reform" my propaganda radar started blipping. The word "reform" is a hot button word. Such words are used to alter the listener's perception of reality, to misleed, to cloud the thought process by invoking an emotion, and to discredit the subject of the story. "Reform" insinuates that there must be a criminal or fraudelent behavior to be addressed and someone to be brought to "justice."
Obviously to anyone who has read the health care bill, the writers have no intention of making health care available to all, but have designed an elaborate bureaucracy which will smother any person or organization in the health care field with constant filling out and filing of reports. It's also quite obvious, reading between the lines, that the writers truly believe all involved in the health care field are evil money-grubbing leeches sucking the lives out their patient/victims.
As I read it, I felt as if I were once again in darkened, secret, meetings with the marxist wannabees of my youth...stridently discussing bringing down all of society. The sense of paranoia is strong throughout the document, if you know what you're looking for, as is the near psychotic need to be inside every office, every exam room, and every discussion between patients and their evil health care givers.
Now all of this may make the old Professor sound somewhat over the edge...and without my rather unique education and experience I would not have seen the background of this bill to the extent I do.
So here's a challenge...read the bill yourself. Actually think about the actions the bill is demanding of private individuals and companies...and try to come up with logical reasons why these demands are in the legislation...reasons outside of a paranoid need to control everything not government. Then go one step further, as I've done, and try to find out who...in congress that is...WROTE THE BILL!
This massive tome, you may recall, was rather suddenly introduced to congress seemingly out of nowhere. It is supposedly a house bill...but I have been unable to find anyone, either in congress or on their staffs, WHOM KNOWS WHERE THE BILL CAME FROM!
But look fast...this loophole will be closed soon. I'm not the only one out there who has come to the realization that congress...the folks we hire to write legislation...was not responsible for this document. Soon they will be assigning some poor scapegoats to be the "authors" in order to waylay such accusations (probably a group of staffers who they can afford to let go).
And be prepared to study other bills that suddenly "appear" on the floor of the house. This will not be the last...the nuts have come together again...only this time they are not hiding in basements and raping underage girls. This is time they are hiding in the highest levels of government...and we may be their intended victims.
The Professor
Health Care Reform? Can't afford it!
With a huge sigh of relief, the Professor has finally finished doing the job of Congress...
Yes...I've read HR 3200, the Health Care Reform legislation as it's come out of the house. Now keep in mind I didn't analyze every paragraph in detail, as the majority of this huge use of paper is taken up in definitions and pointing to other sections of the bill. But I do, finally, have a rough idea of what's going on here.
I'm pretty certain that's a lot more than any of our Congressional members can say at this point, having heard them go on about it to the media. It's a lot more than most folks will ever be able to say, as wading through this claptrap is a mind-numbing experience at best.
Between definitions of every facet of the health care industry, and how every facet has to be changed to meet new federal standards, and requirements for personnel and administration of any company making a medical device, a drug, providing any type of service, and actually...heaven forbid...finding time to practice medicine...I'm amazed they got so much into the thousand plus pages.
Anyone in the health care industry today understands that efficiency in operations is the key to getting costs down and making products and services more affordable. This is why procedures that used to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars now cost thousands. It's why we can buy generic drugs, that didn't exist a decade ago, at discount stores for under five bucks.
One of the main administrative costs in hospitals, clinics, and practices today is the managment of insurance claims, billing, and invoicing. You've likley noticed, when visiting your own doctor or dentist, that there are more bodies in the front office than there are in treatment rooms. Every doctor needs up to half-a-dozen support staff just to survive anymore.
A great deal of study has gone into making these admin functions more efficient. Something that private business does better than any entity on earth is to figure out how to control costs. Every business owner is aware that every dollar wasted is money from their own pocket.
Government, on the other hand, is extremely good at piling up costs and increasing expenses beyond belief. It's simply the way government functions...the larger the agency, the more the waste and the less it performs for every dollar it sucks in.
The major problem with this health care bill is not philosophical...it's not about losing control of your ability to make decisions with your physician without a counselor being involved...it's about costs! And the costs are stunning...well beyond what anyone has even begun to calculate, because most of those costs will be passed on to the consumer and the provider. And it is a short-fused time bomb!
The bill is more than 1,000 pages...and almost every page...read it yourself if you don't believe me...creates another 2 to 4 forms for the industry to fill out and file with the government.
Some of those forms are required for every patient...some for every patient visit...some are annual, some quarterly, some monthly...most are arbitrary. Most would appear to be on the wish list of some petty bureaucrat who wants to monitor some little tidbit of some business with which they may well have an axe to grind. From diversity forms which will prove the doctor doesn't discriminate against any and all types of victim groups, to forms proving a prescribed drug meets cost-benefit ratios, to forms recording financials and requiring justification for all billings...the burden is unbelievable and crushing in its volume.
It literally seems as if a thousand people contributed to this bill...each certain that his or her set of forms and requirements were absolutely vital to making the health care system work...and none knowing that the other 999 folks were also requiring a report and a form.
Taken as a whole...our health care industry will need a couple of years to hire people to wade through this bill...try and decipher what it means...try to come up with reports and forms to fill all the requirements...and every manufacturer, practice, clinic, and hospital, will have to hire armies of admin personnel to try and keep up with these reports.
You think health care costs are high now? Brother you have no idea what's coming down the pike. This is a tidal wave of bureacratically enforced expenses that will crush any and all who wish to serve the public in health care...and the people who want to receive care as well.
The estimated costs of a couple of trillion dollars if this bill becomes fact...waaaaaaay too low. This could run a hundred times that over the next decade and simply put every provider and vendor out of business.
Anyone want to tell me I'm lying...read the bill. Check out the Library of Congress...it's in our links...and pull up the text for HR 3200. It's a simple thing folks...break the bank and there ain't no more banks. Break the health care system...and where will you go when you need help.
Well...there's always Canada! Maybe they can squeeze out some aspirin and bandaids.
The Professor
Yes...I've read HR 3200, the Health Care Reform legislation as it's come out of the house. Now keep in mind I didn't analyze every paragraph in detail, as the majority of this huge use of paper is taken up in definitions and pointing to other sections of the bill. But I do, finally, have a rough idea of what's going on here.
I'm pretty certain that's a lot more than any of our Congressional members can say at this point, having heard them go on about it to the media. It's a lot more than most folks will ever be able to say, as wading through this claptrap is a mind-numbing experience at best.
Between definitions of every facet of the health care industry, and how every facet has to be changed to meet new federal standards, and requirements for personnel and administration of any company making a medical device, a drug, providing any type of service, and actually...heaven forbid...finding time to practice medicine...I'm amazed they got so much into the thousand plus pages.
Anyone in the health care industry today understands that efficiency in operations is the key to getting costs down and making products and services more affordable. This is why procedures that used to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars now cost thousands. It's why we can buy generic drugs, that didn't exist a decade ago, at discount stores for under five bucks.
One of the main administrative costs in hospitals, clinics, and practices today is the managment of insurance claims, billing, and invoicing. You've likley noticed, when visiting your own doctor or dentist, that there are more bodies in the front office than there are in treatment rooms. Every doctor needs up to half-a-dozen support staff just to survive anymore.
A great deal of study has gone into making these admin functions more efficient. Something that private business does better than any entity on earth is to figure out how to control costs. Every business owner is aware that every dollar wasted is money from their own pocket.
Government, on the other hand, is extremely good at piling up costs and increasing expenses beyond belief. It's simply the way government functions...the larger the agency, the more the waste and the less it performs for every dollar it sucks in.
The major problem with this health care bill is not philosophical...it's not about losing control of your ability to make decisions with your physician without a counselor being involved...it's about costs! And the costs are stunning...well beyond what anyone has even begun to calculate, because most of those costs will be passed on to the consumer and the provider. And it is a short-fused time bomb!
The bill is more than 1,000 pages...and almost every page...read it yourself if you don't believe me...creates another 2 to 4 forms for the industry to fill out and file with the government.
Some of those forms are required for every patient...some for every patient visit...some are annual, some quarterly, some monthly...most are arbitrary. Most would appear to be on the wish list of some petty bureaucrat who wants to monitor some little tidbit of some business with which they may well have an axe to grind. From diversity forms which will prove the doctor doesn't discriminate against any and all types of victim groups, to forms proving a prescribed drug meets cost-benefit ratios, to forms recording financials and requiring justification for all billings...the burden is unbelievable and crushing in its volume.
It literally seems as if a thousand people contributed to this bill...each certain that his or her set of forms and requirements were absolutely vital to making the health care system work...and none knowing that the other 999 folks were also requiring a report and a form.
Taken as a whole...our health care industry will need a couple of years to hire people to wade through this bill...try and decipher what it means...try to come up with reports and forms to fill all the requirements...and every manufacturer, practice, clinic, and hospital, will have to hire armies of admin personnel to try and keep up with these reports.
You think health care costs are high now? Brother you have no idea what's coming down the pike. This is a tidal wave of bureacratically enforced expenses that will crush any and all who wish to serve the public in health care...and the people who want to receive care as well.
The estimated costs of a couple of trillion dollars if this bill becomes fact...waaaaaaay too low. This could run a hundred times that over the next decade and simply put every provider and vendor out of business.
Anyone want to tell me I'm lying...read the bill. Check out the Library of Congress...it's in our links...and pull up the text for HR 3200. It's a simple thing folks...break the bank and there ain't no more banks. Break the health care system...and where will you go when you need help.
Well...there's always Canada! Maybe they can squeeze out some aspirin and bandaids.
The Professor
Negotiating the Red Herring
Good negotiators have long used a tool called the "Red Herring" to increase their odds of cutting the best deal for themselves. The device is used to confuse an opponent, waylay their fears, give them the impression you have surrendered something so they should as well; or all of the above.
The Red Herring in the current health care "reform" legislation being argued now in public venues is referred to as "the public option." Recall this is that part of the bill which states the government will create a federally funded and mandated health care insurance plan as an alternative to the private sector which has served us so well (there are actually people who feel this to be a superior alternative to the government giving vouchers or "health care stamps" to folks so they can buy private insurance...thus making use of an existing industry and saving hundreds of billions of dollars in the process.)
The reason for the "public option" and for a government run program of course has nothing to do with supplying health care to the needy among us. It has everything to do with a lust for power, and even the culture of Malthusian Economics with its focus on "scarcity" and eugenics for the sake of the "environment." Oh...the creation of that purposeful misconception however, is not a Red Herring...it's simply a lie!
A Red Herring is a negotiating point you intend to give up before you begin the negotiating. The second thing to strike me, after reading through the entire bill...as overly wordy as it was...was that there was no actual plan for a "public option." There are pages of platitudes...but nothing that would constitute an actual "business plan" to move it forward. That was the first sign to me that it was the Red Herring of the upcoming negotiation.
The first thing which struck me reading the bill; there was no need to spell out the public option! The remainder of the bill is designed very specifically to economically destroy the private health care industry which is the envy of the world. Once the hospitals are going bankrupt, the insurance companies have closed their doors, doctors are taking early retirement, and the nursing shortage becomes acute...the government can declare an "emergency"...much as they did with GM...and simply confiscate the segments of the industry piece-by-piece.
That will be the beginning of a new "public option"...or in this case an "only option."
This is a very smart way of sneaking past the public outrage...the citizens may feel they've won the negotiation, when in fact they have simply played into their opponent's hand. Like a bluff in Poker, abandoning the public option now will keep the players in the game so the government, with the winning hand, can take all. And don't kid yourself...they will.
There is only one problem however, but I'm sure the administration can talk around it. That 20% of the population who actually think government run industry is superior to private, are already screaming the president has failed them. Even the more radical leftists in Congress and the Senate are not understanding the ploy...of course how bright are radical leftists...they actually believe their own absurd hooey (I used to play poker with a bunch of socialists when in undergrad school...it was like taking candy from babies).
That means the Prez will have to either tough it out...and then please them in the end when the industry crashes...or he will have to speak to them and tell them how the plan is going to work. If he does that, however, someone in the media...probably at the Washington Post or Fox, as they are about the only honest media outlets remaining...is going to make those speeches known to all.
Then the public will know they've taken the Red Herring...and they won't like the taste of being lied to again. And the angrier we get...the harder it is for our employees...particularly those in Congress...to pretend they don't work for us.
So watch for the Red Herring...it will come...and when it does remember that this bill in its entirety needs to be scrapped. Actual health care coverage for those who need it and want it is available through simpler and cheaper options...and could be written and passed with everyone's concurrence if the power-mongers will simply step out of the way and let the people get it done.
The Professor
The Red Herring in the current health care "reform" legislation being argued now in public venues is referred to as "the public option." Recall this is that part of the bill which states the government will create a federally funded and mandated health care insurance plan as an alternative to the private sector which has served us so well (there are actually people who feel this to be a superior alternative to the government giving vouchers or "health care stamps" to folks so they can buy private insurance...thus making use of an existing industry and saving hundreds of billions of dollars in the process.)
The reason for the "public option" and for a government run program of course has nothing to do with supplying health care to the needy among us. It has everything to do with a lust for power, and even the culture of Malthusian Economics with its focus on "scarcity" and eugenics for the sake of the "environment." Oh...the creation of that purposeful misconception however, is not a Red Herring...it's simply a lie!
A Red Herring is a negotiating point you intend to give up before you begin the negotiating. The second thing to strike me, after reading through the entire bill...as overly wordy as it was...was that there was no actual plan for a "public option." There are pages of platitudes...but nothing that would constitute an actual "business plan" to move it forward. That was the first sign to me that it was the Red Herring of the upcoming negotiation.
The first thing which struck me reading the bill; there was no need to spell out the public option! The remainder of the bill is designed very specifically to economically destroy the private health care industry which is the envy of the world. Once the hospitals are going bankrupt, the insurance companies have closed their doors, doctors are taking early retirement, and the nursing shortage becomes acute...the government can declare an "emergency"...much as they did with GM...and simply confiscate the segments of the industry piece-by-piece.
That will be the beginning of a new "public option"...or in this case an "only option."
This is a very smart way of sneaking past the public outrage...the citizens may feel they've won the negotiation, when in fact they have simply played into their opponent's hand. Like a bluff in Poker, abandoning the public option now will keep the players in the game so the government, with the winning hand, can take all. And don't kid yourself...they will.
There is only one problem however, but I'm sure the administration can talk around it. That 20% of the population who actually think government run industry is superior to private, are already screaming the president has failed them. Even the more radical leftists in Congress and the Senate are not understanding the ploy...of course how bright are radical leftists...they actually believe their own absurd hooey (I used to play poker with a bunch of socialists when in undergrad school...it was like taking candy from babies).
That means the Prez will have to either tough it out...and then please them in the end when the industry crashes...or he will have to speak to them and tell them how the plan is going to work. If he does that, however, someone in the media...probably at the Washington Post or Fox, as they are about the only honest media outlets remaining...is going to make those speeches known to all.
Then the public will know they've taken the Red Herring...and they won't like the taste of being lied to again. And the angrier we get...the harder it is for our employees...particularly those in Congress...to pretend they don't work for us.
So watch for the Red Herring...it will come...and when it does remember that this bill in its entirety needs to be scrapped. Actual health care coverage for those who need it and want it is available through simpler and cheaper options...and could be written and passed with everyone's concurrence if the power-mongers will simply step out of the way and let the people get it done.
The Professor
Another Painful "Reality Bites" Issue
Ah yes! The Cash for Clunkers issue just keeps giving...sorry about that...but this program provides such a wonderful learning tool.
Today, let's speak to an economic principle we call "consumer conditioning."
This principle tells us that consumers, like you and I, are actually able to learn and to adjust their buying habits to their own interests. Pretty shocking concept...we do what we feel is best for us...not best for producers or government.
Cash for Clunkers is a perfect example of how to condition consumers. First off, the bait is pretty darn good...up to $4,500 given as a virtual gift to entice one to buy a new car. This is not the sort of gift we take for granted, or just shrug off. WE WANT THE MONEY! AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO WANT THE MONEY!
Therein lies the problem. Car companies and dealers wanted this program to help "kick start" car sales. It did that for the first 4 days until the money ran out. What happened then? Did sales continue? We're they "kick started"?
Well...duh...no! Shoppers came in...found out there was no more money...then went home to wait until more funds were allocated to the program.
Should this have surprised anyone with about a week's worth of business experience?
Of course not! The prospective buyers came in the door wanting their $4,500. When the money wasn't there, they went home. Then sure enough...a week later the funds came through...twice the amount as in the first package.
Oh joy! The dealers are excited...the buyers are again showing up...but this time the dealers are sharing an uneasy feeling. They have begun to realize that consumers are now getting conditioned. In other words...when this money runs out...no one will be coming in the doors. Prospective buyers will sit at home and wait for more money to come in.
It won't matter how adamently the government, or the dealers, or the car makers, insist and advertise that the money is never going to be coming...the consumers will stubbornly wait.
So the government might cave in again...consumer behavior will then be set in concrete. It could be years before folks give up and figure they will just have to pay full price for their new cars. Car sales, in the meantime, will hit all-time lows and will devastate the industry.
The short burst of sales enjoyed by the industry will be just that...a slim ray of sunshine before the industry collapses under this shortsighted promotional gimmick. It's easy to believe government people thinking up this program...it's hard to understand why industry personnel would not have tried to stop the madness before it began. Of course, that lack of awareness could help explain why the industry was having problems in the first place.
But to replace those original sales figures, which were down by a few percentage points, with this uncertain future, shows a lack of business acumen normally seen only in government agencies, and particularly in this administration.
The Professor
Today, let's speak to an economic principle we call "consumer conditioning."
This principle tells us that consumers, like you and I, are actually able to learn and to adjust their buying habits to their own interests. Pretty shocking concept...we do what we feel is best for us...not best for producers or government.
Cash for Clunkers is a perfect example of how to condition consumers. First off, the bait is pretty darn good...up to $4,500 given as a virtual gift to entice one to buy a new car. This is not the sort of gift we take for granted, or just shrug off. WE WANT THE MONEY! AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO WANT THE MONEY!
Therein lies the problem. Car companies and dealers wanted this program to help "kick start" car sales. It did that for the first 4 days until the money ran out. What happened then? Did sales continue? We're they "kick started"?
Well...duh...no! Shoppers came in...found out there was no more money...then went home to wait until more funds were allocated to the program.
Should this have surprised anyone with about a week's worth of business experience?
Of course not! The prospective buyers came in the door wanting their $4,500. When the money wasn't there, they went home. Then sure enough...a week later the funds came through...twice the amount as in the first package.
Oh joy! The dealers are excited...the buyers are again showing up...but this time the dealers are sharing an uneasy feeling. They have begun to realize that consumers are now getting conditioned. In other words...when this money runs out...no one will be coming in the doors. Prospective buyers will sit at home and wait for more money to come in.
It won't matter how adamently the government, or the dealers, or the car makers, insist and advertise that the money is never going to be coming...the consumers will stubbornly wait.
So the government might cave in again...consumer behavior will then be set in concrete. It could be years before folks give up and figure they will just have to pay full price for their new cars. Car sales, in the meantime, will hit all-time lows and will devastate the industry.
The short burst of sales enjoyed by the industry will be just that...a slim ray of sunshine before the industry collapses under this shortsighted promotional gimmick. It's easy to believe government people thinking up this program...it's hard to understand why industry personnel would not have tried to stop the madness before it began. Of course, that lack of awareness could help explain why the industry was having problems in the first place.
But to replace those original sales figures, which were down by a few percentage points, with this uncertain future, shows a lack of business acumen normally seen only in government agencies, and particularly in this administration.
The Professor
Bureaucratic Friction Defined by Clunkers Program
Having received some feedback on my last post criticizing the Cash for Clunkers program...I just couldn't help myself...
I have to post an "I told you so" post now that phase one of the program has come to completion. After all, this is a classic example of government waste, and one of the more wasteful ones at that. Don't believe me...or understand how it could be? Read on dear reader and see if you don't agree.
Congratulations to the Obama administration and its cadre of economic and business geniuses for so clearly demonstrating how "bureaucratic friction" works. For those non-economists out there, bureaucratic friction is a term for the loss of production in the economy due to the size and inherent innefficiencies of the organizations in the ecomony. Every organization is inherently less than 100% efficient...the larger the organization the greater the loss of efficiency.
One of the major chores facing management is to constantly seek means of decreasing this inherent loss of efficiency. Every human being has a set amount of production they can do in a set period of time...say an eight hour work day. If we start with a measure of ideal production, then start subtracting time spent on other issues, like breaks, we get a very simplistic measure of inneficiency.
The real measure is actually a result of all the frictions faced by the person in a day. The mind simply wanders, work is not scheduled efficiently, the pace and delivery of other persons with whom our subject interacts slows the process...meetings, phone calls, putting out "fires", customer issues, materials and tools issues....any of a vast number of distractions take away from the original estimation of how much this person could actually do in a day.
A really well-run firm, with motivated and happy workers, if accurately measuring their bureaucratic friction, might uncover a loss factor of 20 to 30%. In reality, it would be really difficult to do much better.
We can also look at how money moves in and out of a firm...what we call cash flow. We can uncover certain innefficiencies through this methodology as well. In a private company, we might find that expenditures of $100,000...for example...result in productive activity of $92,000. In essence, we find certain losses inherent in the operation of the company...in this instance an 8% friction loss. Management can attempt to isolate these "leaks" and patch them up. This is a rather straightforward way of measuring how well the firm and its processes are managed.
In a private company, this 8% would likely be considered too high and remedial steps would be taken immediately. If $100 grand was spent, they would want $100 grand of goods to come out the other end. Of course, this ideal is impossible to attain thanks to bureaucratic friction.
In government, it's quite another story. We have to remember that the real goal is not to get value from money spent...it's to get the spenders re-elected. The folks spending our money...and remember it is our money...want only to impress us with the benefits they "give us" or make us feel we have received something for nothing, or will receive it in the near future.
Thus; Cash for Clunkers! The government is "giving" you up to $4,500 to buy a new car. Pretty sweet deal...right?
Well, let's remember they had to take that $4,500 from someone first. "That's okay" you think, "it probably came from some rich guy who won't miss it."
Remember again, that the rich guy would have spent it on something...possibly something you make at your job...and would therefore help guarantee you keep your job. But that's a philosophical argument that can easily be shrugged aside.
Let's look at reality however; this may change your whole outlook! Remember bureaucratic friction....the law of bureacratic friction tells us there must be some loss of revenue due to the inherent friction within an organization. In this case, the US Government agencies which manage the Cash for Clunkers program. How much loss could there be? After all...all they do is give out checks to car buyers...right?
Let's do the math: the first phase of the program cost one billion dollars...that's $1,000,000,000. The number of cars sold, according the news media and the government posts, was under 25,000. Crunch those number and you get...$40,000 per car!
$40,000 per car! That represents bureacratic friction of some 90%. For those who haven't yet caught on...the Obama folks spent $40,000 of your money...gave about $4,000 to somebody else...and kept $36,000 within their agencies as overhead!
Boy...that really helps "kickstart" the economy doesn't it? You might notice that the agencies which kept the $36,000 don't produce anything of value. Therefore your $40 grand was also used to pump up inflation and devalue the dollars you still manage to keep after taxes are deducted from your paycheck.
Such a deal! Still like this program?
Here's the really scary part: Cash for Clunkers is small change...imagine the bureaucratic friction inherent in government taking over some 20% of our free market economy....say perhaps the entire health care industry! You think an operation is expensive now? Wait till these geniuses start to manage things.
We Americans choose to spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year to keep ourselves healthy and alive as long as possible. As a people with a certain amount of disposable income, this seems a pretty good choice of what to spend it on. After all, you can't enjoy fancy cars or clothes if you're dead!
Imagine if those hundreds of billions, which now go nearly 100% to giving us better lives, were suddenly "filtered" through a government sieve that removed 90% of the production value of that money? It will be the death of healthcare quality and quantity as we know it.
Where we now pay $40,000 to crush a car...we could eventually spend enormous amounts of money to provide us with all the bandaids and aspirin we'll need for the rest of our suddenly shortened lives...but only if the government run health care system works as efficiently as everything else government does so well.
The Professor
I have to post an "I told you so" post now that phase one of the program has come to completion. After all, this is a classic example of government waste, and one of the more wasteful ones at that. Don't believe me...or understand how it could be? Read on dear reader and see if you don't agree.
Congratulations to the Obama administration and its cadre of economic and business geniuses for so clearly demonstrating how "bureaucratic friction" works. For those non-economists out there, bureaucratic friction is a term for the loss of production in the economy due to the size and inherent innefficiencies of the organizations in the ecomony. Every organization is inherently less than 100% efficient...the larger the organization the greater the loss of efficiency.
One of the major chores facing management is to constantly seek means of decreasing this inherent loss of efficiency. Every human being has a set amount of production they can do in a set period of time...say an eight hour work day. If we start with a measure of ideal production, then start subtracting time spent on other issues, like breaks, we get a very simplistic measure of inneficiency.
The real measure is actually a result of all the frictions faced by the person in a day. The mind simply wanders, work is not scheduled efficiently, the pace and delivery of other persons with whom our subject interacts slows the process...meetings, phone calls, putting out "fires", customer issues, materials and tools issues....any of a vast number of distractions take away from the original estimation of how much this person could actually do in a day.
A really well-run firm, with motivated and happy workers, if accurately measuring their bureaucratic friction, might uncover a loss factor of 20 to 30%. In reality, it would be really difficult to do much better.
We can also look at how money moves in and out of a firm...what we call cash flow. We can uncover certain innefficiencies through this methodology as well. In a private company, we might find that expenditures of $100,000...for example...result in productive activity of $92,000. In essence, we find certain losses inherent in the operation of the company...in this instance an 8% friction loss. Management can attempt to isolate these "leaks" and patch them up. This is a rather straightforward way of measuring how well the firm and its processes are managed.
In a private company, this 8% would likely be considered too high and remedial steps would be taken immediately. If $100 grand was spent, they would want $100 grand of goods to come out the other end. Of course, this ideal is impossible to attain thanks to bureaucratic friction.
In government, it's quite another story. We have to remember that the real goal is not to get value from money spent...it's to get the spenders re-elected. The folks spending our money...and remember it is our money...want only to impress us with the benefits they "give us" or make us feel we have received something for nothing, or will receive it in the near future.
Thus; Cash for Clunkers! The government is "giving" you up to $4,500 to buy a new car. Pretty sweet deal...right?
Well, let's remember they had to take that $4,500 from someone first. "That's okay" you think, "it probably came from some rich guy who won't miss it."
Remember again, that the rich guy would have spent it on something...possibly something you make at your job...and would therefore help guarantee you keep your job. But that's a philosophical argument that can easily be shrugged aside.
Let's look at reality however; this may change your whole outlook! Remember bureaucratic friction....the law of bureacratic friction tells us there must be some loss of revenue due to the inherent friction within an organization. In this case, the US Government agencies which manage the Cash for Clunkers program. How much loss could there be? After all...all they do is give out checks to car buyers...right?
Let's do the math: the first phase of the program cost one billion dollars...that's $1,000,000,000. The number of cars sold, according the news media and the government posts, was under 25,000. Crunch those number and you get...$40,000 per car!
$40,000 per car! That represents bureacratic friction of some 90%. For those who haven't yet caught on...the Obama folks spent $40,000 of your money...gave about $4,000 to somebody else...and kept $36,000 within their agencies as overhead!
Boy...that really helps "kickstart" the economy doesn't it? You might notice that the agencies which kept the $36,000 don't produce anything of value. Therefore your $40 grand was also used to pump up inflation and devalue the dollars you still manage to keep after taxes are deducted from your paycheck.
Such a deal! Still like this program?
Here's the really scary part: Cash for Clunkers is small change...imagine the bureaucratic friction inherent in government taking over some 20% of our free market economy....say perhaps the entire health care industry! You think an operation is expensive now? Wait till these geniuses start to manage things.
We Americans choose to spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year to keep ourselves healthy and alive as long as possible. As a people with a certain amount of disposable income, this seems a pretty good choice of what to spend it on. After all, you can't enjoy fancy cars or clothes if you're dead!
Imagine if those hundreds of billions, which now go nearly 100% to giving us better lives, were suddenly "filtered" through a government sieve that removed 90% of the production value of that money? It will be the death of healthcare quality and quantity as we know it.
Where we now pay $40,000 to crush a car...we could eventually spend enormous amounts of money to provide us with all the bandaids and aspirin we'll need for the rest of our suddenly shortened lives...but only if the government run health care system works as efficiently as everything else government does so well.
The Professor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
