Monday, August 12, 2002

I recently read a wonderful The New Republic article that has a section that I think describes me very well.  I fall under the Professional component of the Democratic party.  "Professionals are highly skilled, white-collar workers, typically with a college education, who produce ideas and services."  "As a result, many professionals have come to draw a sharp distinction between their priorities and those of the market. Once advocates of laissez-faire capitalism, they have grown increasingly amenable to government regulation of business." A point I would add is that professionals now are much more vulnerable to career downturns then they were 20 to 40 years ago.  Let's just say that the white-collar workers at Enron - who saw their retirement nest egg get wiped out due and then get let go while top management made millions and then got more in retention bonuses - are not going to be "advocates of laissez-faire capitalism". 11:27:51 PM    comment []

Links Make the (Blog) World Go 'Round I started this blog on 8/7. I had no idea of what to expect, but I was hoping that somehow people would find my blog. Friday, I got over 100 hits, most of them from a link in Scott Rosenberg's blog and some of them from a link in Radio Free Blogistan. I also was linked to by a number of other Salon blogs ( WETW--Wiken's Eclectic Time Waster and filchyboy). I was thrilled to get that many hits, but I wasn't sure how long the Salon blogs would be a source of hits. In my early posts, I wrote a number of entries with links to Atrios' blog. Today, he returned the favor by linking to my blog, and that link has been a big source of hits. Thank you, Atrios! As I hope to have an audience similar to Atrios', I am hoping many of those readers will become "repeat customers". 10:46:00 PM    comment []

A Double Hooray! The first hooray is that I have some comments relating to my writings!  I was beginning to think that no one thought my stuff worth commenting on.  BobbyG commented on my short David Broder piece: Actually, if you read Broder literally, he is correct: "For most of his presidency and, indeed, his political career, George Bush has enjoyed the reputation..." Whether Broder means that ironically or not, the fact is that Bush has enjoyed that REPUTATION -- whether it was deserved or not! Why should Broder repeat what is reputed to be true but isn't?  Isn't it a journalist's job to inform the public.  The public thinks foreign aid is one of the federal government's top expenditures - can you imagine an article on federal budget with the line "the federal government has the reputation of making foreign aid one of its top spending categories" and the article not mention the truth?  I see it as a great way of saying Dubya is honest and sincere when you know he isn't. Second hooray - I got my links to work again!  I just had to repeat the steps I had done earlier. 10:04:48 PM    comment []

When Will the Media Say That Dubya's Social Security Privitization Plans Are Vaporware? Today, there is a Dallas Morning News opinion piece about Social Security Privitization that was okay. However, I have never seen discussed in an opinion piece, analysis piece or news report the point I want to see discussed. 3 1/2 years ago, candidate Dubya came up with his Social Security Privitization plan at a "bullet point" level. Candidate Dubya knew exactly the benefits of his plan - as the Daily Howler puts it, free money  - even though he didn't know how it would work. When candidate Dubya announced his plan, critics said that it wouldn't work but they couldn't make their criticisms stick because there was enough details to say how the plan wouldn't work. 3 1/2 years later, Dubya's Social Security Privitization plan is still at a "bullet point" level. Anything that is still at the concept level for that long I would consider "Vaporware". A little digression on the stupidity of the "liberal media" - now candidate Dubya had a great idea for avoiding actually coming up with a workable plan. He announced that as soon as he became President, that he would appoint a bipartisan commission to come up with a workable plan. Why the media accepted this is beyond me. I think the next Democratic presidential candidate should run on a platform of providing all of the country's electrical power through non-polluting means and that as soon as he (or she) is elected, he would appoint a bipartisan commission to come up with a workable plan. The candidate could then rave about reducing pollution, stimulating the economy through the lower cost of electricity, cutting our dependence on foreign oil, etc. I am sure the media will give the Democratic candidate the same free ride :). A little digression on Dubya's bipartisanship - Dubya was elected and he did appoint a "bipartisan commission". Now, bipartisan commission normally means a commission where the Democratic leadership of congress appoints half of the members and the Republican leadership of congress appoints the other half. Because the commission is balanced, it can make the painful trade-offs necessary but in a way that both the Democratic and Republican interests share the pain. Once a normal bipartisan commission is done, the bill is ready for a "yes-or-no" vote in Congress. Most commissions don't get their bill voted on as the powers benefitted by the status quo usually quickly crush support for the commission's bill. Dubya took a completely different route - he defined "bipartisan commission" as one appointed by his administration where half the committee had some tenuous tie to the Democratic party. The commission was little more than an extension of the Cato Institute. When Dubya's commission made their recommendations, they had no "buy in" from the Democrats and the Democrats immediately trashed their recommendations. Back to the topic, Dubya's commission didn't come anywhere close to a workable plan. Instead, they came up with a bunch of "recommendations" that were little better than bullet points. So, not only does Dubya not have a detailed plan, doesn't even have a plan for coming up with a detailed plan. Yet Dubya keeps talking about Social Security Privitization and the media doesn't seem to notice that there is no there there. Let's face it - if the best policy minds can't come up with a politically feasible plan in 3 1/2 years, there is no politically feasible plan. I keep hoping that someday I will read something in the media that makes this point, but I am always disappointed. 6:52:22 PM    comment []

My Theme Ate My Homework This weekend, I changed my blog theme, and all of personal links disappeared as well as name on the e-mail address gadget. I tried reposting my OPML file and that did no good. Ah, the joy of the computer age. 6:44:41 PM    comment []

Article - Charles Krauthammer's 8/9 Article in The Washington Post One Line Summary - Cheney did nothing wrong Primary Weakness - Ignores all the damning evidence Detail Summary - "Today the market is down, and CEOs are bums." "As the Enron, WorldCom and other scandals unfold, {Cheney's] tenure has come under attack." The accusations are: He took the money and ran. "Cheney made millions when he sold his Halliburton stock in the summer of 2000. The stock then was worth more than $50 per share. It is now about $13." " But wait." "He was forced to sell his stock when he was chosen by George Bush to be his running mate." Dresser. "The latest charge is that Cheney engineered a merger with a competitor, Dresser Industries, that is now dragging down Halliburton because of asbestos liability." "But wait. How can this be construed as wrongdoing? Dresser may have learned about increased asbestos liability...just before the merger. But there is no evidence that Cheney knew. Moreover, the claims then brought against Halliburton by the former Dresser subsidiary "were largely resolved in Halliburton's favor" (New York Times, same story). The company is suffering now because of new claims from this ex-subsidiary that were not lodged until June 2001, long after Cheney had left the company. Moreover, as Mickey Kaus points out in Slate, the...asbestos liability is estimated at $43 million a year (over 15 years). Halliburton's revenues are $13 billion a year." Accounting shenanigans. "The charge that nicely associates Cheney with Enron-like thievery is an accounting rule that Halliburton changed during Cheney's tenure. Halliburton had been counting cost overruns on its construction projects as total losses (until payment was negotiated). In 1998 it began counting as revenue the estimated payments that it would likely get. The charge is that this prettied up Halliburton's bottom line." " But wait. The new method had become the industry norm." "Moreover, the effect on Halliburton's revenues was trivial. In 1998, the change increased them by $89 million -- on total revenues of $17 billion." Critique - Krauthammer leaves out all the damning details: He took the money and ran. - What people have accused Cheney of earning millions while running his corporation into the ground and using accounting shenanigans to hide the fact short-term. Whether Cheney was forced to sell his shares or not has nothing to do with the accusation. What is important is that the bad financial news was kept from the public until after Cheney sold his shares. Dresser. - There was nothing illegal about Dresser - just stupid. The problem isn't that Cheney knew about the asbestos liability, it's that he didn't know about the asbestos liability. Cheney made the deal to acquire Dresser during a quail hunt with Dresser's CEO and that didn't do due diligence on Dresser's liabilities. According the NY Times, "some experts say that the asbestos-related liabilities Dresser brought to the company may end up driving Halliburton into bankruptcy." Because Cheney didn't perform his due diligence, he could mislead investors as to the health of Halliburton long enough to cash out. Ignorance was bliss. As for the $43 million a year over 15 years firgure, that is based upon Halliburton's estimate of the cost who is biased to understate the size of it and it is a $602 million pay out sometime over the next 15 years and not a fixed amount a year. Krauthammer compares the lawsuit cost, which will come directly out of profits, with revenue, a apples-and-oranges comparison to make the asbestos liabilities seem less significant. Accounting shenanigans. - Again, Krauthammer talks about the size of the $100 million change relative to revenue and not what is important, profit. Again, from the NY Times, On Jan. 20, 1999, Halliburton reported sales of $4.3 billion and profit of $66 million for the fourth quarter of 1998, both down from the period a year earlier. Mr. Cheney acknowledged that the quarter had been difficult but said he was "optimistic about the long-term outlook for our industry and for Halliburton in particular." The change in policy enabled the company to book $89 million in unsettled claims as revenue in 1998, compared to a "de minimis" figure in previous years, Mr. Foshee said. Exactly how much of that revenue turned into profits for the company is not stated in Halliburton's financial reports. But the impact would have been significant had the company taken the alternative route of writing the cost overruns off as losses, wiping out more than half of its $175 million in pretax operating profits for the fourth quarter, when the accounting change took effect. The accounting change may be an appropriate one, however it is illegal to do make such an accounting change with informing the stockholders. Summing up, Halliburton under Cheney illegally give itself on the sly a one-time $100 million boost to profits. Investors would have then overvalued the company, a boon to Cheney and any other Halliburton manager who sold stocks before the accounting change was made public. Cheney made millions of dollars as CEO while under his leadership the company made a merger that was going to push the company to the brink of bankruptcy.  Clinton was impeached for making some statements on an unimportant in an unimportant civil case.  Cheney took part in illegal activity involving millions of dollars and Krauthammer thinks is not significant enough to actually criticize the Vice-President. 7:25:12 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2002 Unrelated Disney. Last update: 9/1/2002; 9:33:17 AM.