President Obama’s remarks today about the withdrawal of our combat troops from Iraq by August 31, 2010, were disgraceful. Those who have read my postings obviously assume that I am not a fan of President Obama. Therefore, if you are, you may want to stop reading at this point.
It is clear that his role as Commander-in-Chief is at odds with his training and exposure to his anti-war friends in Chicago. I don’t want to get into the Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers background again, but sometimes it’s hard to ignore this part of his past. Just as his tenure as a community organizer affects his views on the redistribution of wealth in this society.
• In the President’s remarks to our soldiers he never once mentioned the words victory, success, or democracy. He treated our soldiers as victims not victors, because of the difficult demands of this war on their personal lives. If you said that to our soldiers during WWII, the Greatest Generation, they would think you were crazy! Our soldiers were protecting our citizens from terrorism here in the U.S. and they liberated Iraq in the process. So what if it was a personal inconvenience. Are you really my Commander-in-Chief?
• Mr. Obama never gave any acknowledgement to General Petreus or President Bush for the success of the surge. This shows no class, particularly after President Bush treated Obama and his staff so graciously during the transition.
• Mr. Obama never used the word “democracy”, after we have established the only democratic country in the Mid-East with the blood of over 4,000 American youth. Iraq now has political parties, elections, and democratic debates among their legislators without a gun pointed at their heads. Do you see this in Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Syria?
• President Obama just focused on the fact that we were withdrawing 100,000 combat troops and leaving 35-50,000 to support the Iraqi army going forward. This war ended because we were successful in removing a dictator and murderer, who supported terrorism all over the Mid-East and virtually ruined the Iraqi economy. It ended because the war is over and we defeated Al-Qaeda and Mr. Obama contributed nothing to it other than making the announcement.
I was embarrassed by his insensitivity to our military and the people in our government who worked hard to resolve a very difficult situation. He will probably proceed to take credit for ending the war in the next presidential election.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
An Invoice for Future Generations
Over the past few days President Obama has laid out the most expansive and expensive domestic agenda since LBJ’s Great Society (we know how that worked out)! This followed the $2 trillion we just put into our financial system for TARP and the Stimulus (or the Economic Reinvestment and Recovery Act). We now have this Congress proposing a $410 billion omnibus bill which completes the budget for 2009 for 9 of the 12 major government agencies. The Democrats held off voting on this under Bush since they felt he would veto much of it. Now with their man in charge, it’s Gung Ho! The expenses for these agencies, or as the current administration says, the “investments” for these agencies, will jump by 80% from 2008 to $650 billion in 2009.
How do we pay for this? Mr. Obama says that raising taxes on people who make over $250k/yr, limiting deductions for mortgages and charitable donations, and getting out of Iraq, will do it. Well, the Wall Street Journal, with the help of the Tax Foundation, did the calculations and concluded this was “poppy cock”, as President Eisenhower used to say. In fact, taxes on everyone earning more than $75k/yr in 2006 would barely provide enough to cover the $4 trillion Congress will be spending in fiscal 2010. Keep in mind that over this current period, business will not be as good as it was in 2006. Thus, the likelihood of severe inflation is now very real and the reduced value of our dollar will severely affect the solvency of our nation in the years to come.
We are witnessing the greatest redistribution of wealth this country has ever seen and we are modeling our economy after the stagnated industrialized economies of Western Europe, where the emphasis is on sharing the wealth instead of growing the wealth. When will we ever get away from class warfare tax politics and move from a 44,000 page tax code to a flatter, easier to interpret tax policy, free of distortions and inequities, and one that encourages investment and growth?
The American electorate is not shy about making its voice heard in the ballot box and as we watch this President move us towards socialism we will exercise our options. The numbers will show that those who eventually will pay for this travesty are not only the so-called “rich” but the middle class, if we are to combat the inflation that will surely come.
Then Mr. Obama will have to take the political blame and this will become his Depression, not Mr. Bush’s, and he likely will be a one-term President despite his charisma and his amazing journey to the White House.
How do we pay for this? Mr. Obama says that raising taxes on people who make over $250k/yr, limiting deductions for mortgages and charitable donations, and getting out of Iraq, will do it. Well, the Wall Street Journal, with the help of the Tax Foundation, did the calculations and concluded this was “poppy cock”, as President Eisenhower used to say. In fact, taxes on everyone earning more than $75k/yr in 2006 would barely provide enough to cover the $4 trillion Congress will be spending in fiscal 2010. Keep in mind that over this current period, business will not be as good as it was in 2006. Thus, the likelihood of severe inflation is now very real and the reduced value of our dollar will severely affect the solvency of our nation in the years to come.
We are witnessing the greatest redistribution of wealth this country has ever seen and we are modeling our economy after the stagnated industrialized economies of Western Europe, where the emphasis is on sharing the wealth instead of growing the wealth. When will we ever get away from class warfare tax politics and move from a 44,000 page tax code to a flatter, easier to interpret tax policy, free of distortions and inequities, and one that encourages investment and growth?
The American electorate is not shy about making its voice heard in the ballot box and as we watch this President move us towards socialism we will exercise our options. The numbers will show that those who eventually will pay for this travesty are not only the so-called “rich” but the middle class, if we are to combat the inflation that will surely come.
Then Mr. Obama will have to take the political blame and this will become his Depression, not Mr. Bush’s, and he likely will be a one-term President despite his charisma and his amazing journey to the White House.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
A Stirring Speech - But Is Obama's Plan Feasible?
Well our President really knows how to make an uplifting speech and he succeeded last night. At my age I have heard many of these ambitious and lofty speeches that Presidents use to illustrate leadership and utilize the bully pulpit to raise their favorability ratings. I truly hope this President is successful, but I have been disappointed before by speeches that promise solutions to all our problems and promote excessive government intervention in our lives, only to see them go down in flames when bureaucrats are allowed to implement these so-called solutions without transparency or accountability.
I certainly am in favor of bold action by government resources in times like this, but solutions must come from the ideas of both sides of the aisle not with the approach that “we won and we’re going to do it our way”. Solutions should incorporate the thoughts, values, and needs of the entire electorate.
Obama outlined a very ambitious plan which includes actions aimed at the current economic crisis and proposals for programs in energy, healthcare, and education that will put his stamp on the future course of the country for many years to come. To top it off, he set the goal to reduce the current deficit in half by the end of his first term. All this leaves me with a very dubious view of the plan’s feasibility.
I took some comfort in the fact that his healthcare remarks were focused on efficiencies and preventive medicine and did not mention the word “universal”. In addition, his comments on education for teacher incentives, charter school commitment, and the goal to have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020, were very commendable. I was not encouraged by his energy pronouncements which placed emphasis on the wrong issues and not enough on cheaper and known methods of energy generation like more domestic drilling and nuclear energy. A cap on carbon footprints will surely have a negative impact on the profitability of our economy and exacerbate our current problems.
I was optimistic on his promise to make our expenditures for the war on terror more transparent and his accelerated exit from Iraq. But his comments on overcoming “extremism” in Afghanistan and Pakistan were vague. I was pleased, however, by his support for increased pay and extended healthcare for our military.
There were some great examples of American generosity and tenacity from the invited guests in the audience. The only low point was the remark that Joe Biden will oversee the effort to ensure that the stimulus money will be spent appropriately. Ouch! How about having a non-political and more objective person do that? We don’t want patronage to be a factor in delving out this money, like what occurred during the Great Depression.
I must say that the sight of Nancy Pelosi jumping up and down about 70 times during the speech with a stupid grin on her face was a little disconcerting, particularly knowing that she made absolutely no contribution to the bi-partisan effort that Mr. Obama tried to achieve in the Stimulus bill debate.
Good luck, Mr. President, you have your work cut out for you.
I certainly am in favor of bold action by government resources in times like this, but solutions must come from the ideas of both sides of the aisle not with the approach that “we won and we’re going to do it our way”. Solutions should incorporate the thoughts, values, and needs of the entire electorate.
Obama outlined a very ambitious plan which includes actions aimed at the current economic crisis and proposals for programs in energy, healthcare, and education that will put his stamp on the future course of the country for many years to come. To top it off, he set the goal to reduce the current deficit in half by the end of his first term. All this leaves me with a very dubious view of the plan’s feasibility.
I took some comfort in the fact that his healthcare remarks were focused on efficiencies and preventive medicine and did not mention the word “universal”. In addition, his comments on education for teacher incentives, charter school commitment, and the goal to have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020, were very commendable. I was not encouraged by his energy pronouncements which placed emphasis on the wrong issues and not enough on cheaper and known methods of energy generation like more domestic drilling and nuclear energy. A cap on carbon footprints will surely have a negative impact on the profitability of our economy and exacerbate our current problems.
I was optimistic on his promise to make our expenditures for the war on terror more transparent and his accelerated exit from Iraq. But his comments on overcoming “extremism” in Afghanistan and Pakistan were vague. I was pleased, however, by his support for increased pay and extended healthcare for our military.
There were some great examples of American generosity and tenacity from the invited guests in the audience. The only low point was the remark that Joe Biden will oversee the effort to ensure that the stimulus money will be spent appropriately. Ouch! How about having a non-political and more objective person do that? We don’t want patronage to be a factor in delving out this money, like what occurred during the Great Depression.
I must say that the sight of Nancy Pelosi jumping up and down about 70 times during the speech with a stupid grin on her face was a little disconcerting, particularly knowing that she made absolutely no contribution to the bi-partisan effort that Mr. Obama tried to achieve in the Stimulus bill debate.
Good luck, Mr. President, you have your work cut out for you.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Consumerism: A Transformational Change in Healthcare
I recently met Frank Hone, a man who has worked in the healthcare industry for twenty years. Some of this time was spent working with pharmaceutical companies in their DTC (direct-to-consumer) marketing of prescription drugs beginning in the early 90’s and then through the period after the FDA relaxed regulations on such advertising. Frank left this field when he became disheartened with the dangers of this trend and the excessive growth of such means of marketing drugs, which overshadowed other health options. In 2007, the television networks broadcast many hours of these commercials daily. That year the cost of DTC advertising was $5.2 billion.
Frank’s recently published book, “Why Healthcare Matters”, HRD Press, Inc. www.whyhealthcarematters.com, is a call to action for business leaders to drive the transformational change in our healthcare marketing model by focusing on demand-side solutions. Frank believes that the role of the consumer is vital to affecting this change, and that individual personal responsibility needs more emphasis. He provides a road map which promises to reverse the disturbing trend in health care delivery costs. He also outlines a 10-step tactical plan for implementation, that proactive companies can use to improve health care communications and increase the productivity of their employees, and describes the results of progressive companies that are leading the way.
Chronic disease is the culprit that accounts for more than 70% of health costs and saps the productivity, and eventually the profitability, from our economic system. Presenteeism, is one of these problems, it goes virtually unnoticed and is often accepted as normal. This is the lost productivity caused by employees on the job who suffer chronic ailments but are not sick enough to be absent from work.
This condition does not appear on any financial statement and too often doesn’t receive attention from management. Presenteeism, can be caused by asthma, allergies, migraines, arthritis, obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, etc. which can distract employees and limit their work output.
Studies published in the Journal of the American Medical Association estimate that U.S. companies suffer annual losses of $150 billion in at-work productivity. These same studies indicate that these losses are more costly than health care, workman’s compensation, disability, or absenteeism. Many companies are beginning to measure the cost of this problem, are educating their employees in an effort to change the health culture, and are providing tools and resources to empower them to become more essential participants in the interface with health care providers.
The American Institute of Preventive Medicine has shown that for every dollar invested in improving an employee’s health care knowledge, the employer can anticipate a return of $16. Most capital investments for businesses would not have that high a return. What are some of the ways this is being done and has it been successful; will be a subject of future posts.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Politics and Common Sense - Rarely Compatible
Recently, my wife, after reading my post on the problems with the stimulus bill, said “Why don’t you talk more about there not being enough tax incentives in the bill. The average person doesn’t know anything about corporate or capital gains taxes”. I thought that was a reasonable request.
My problem with the stimulus bill is that although 35% of the bill contains some form of tax credits (not cuts), corporate or capital gains taxes are not addressed. These taxes are the ones that most influence the profitability and investment environment of our industrial base. As a result, they impact Wall Street’s view of the future, jobs, and consumer confidence. Why they were not addressed in this bill is strictly political and makes no economic sense.
Corporate Tax Rate
• Since the 1980’s corporate tax rates have been in a free fall, that is, everywhere except the U.S. On average, the top corporate rate in industrialized nations has gone from 50% to an average of 29%, according to the CATO Institute. In a global economy, competition is compelling governments to dramatically lower corporate tax rates. The U.S. is 2nd to Japan, but when you include state taxes, we have by far the highest corporate tax rate among all 33 industrialized nations in the world. Since 2000 our rate is unchanged, while virtually all other nations have dropped considerably (according to the Tax Foundation). A measurable drop in our tax rate would result in a marked rebound in our stock market, an impetus for corporate investment, and a surge in net profits. Wouldn’t that drive jobs and consumer spending?
Democrats fret over the “cost” of such a cut. However, compared to the trillion dollar spending package they just past, the effect on government revenues would be chump change. The increased corporate revenue gains from repatriated earnings, expanded production, increased income tax revenue, and lower unemployment costs, will more than offset any reduction in tax revenues going to the government.
Capital Gains Tax
• Another enigma is the reluctance to reduce capital gains taxes. Some 100 million Americans own stock, most are middle-class people. Obviously, most people will not realize capital gains on stock and in 401k’s this year, but under normal conditions a cut in capital gains tax always leads to increased revenues for the government rather than the reverse. Clinton dropped the tax to 20% in 1997 and Bush to 15% in 2002 and demonstrated this.
Most Democrats believe that a tax on investment income only affects the rich. The IRS tells us differently. In 2005, 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79% from households with incomes below $100,000. Since this would be a middle-class tax cut, why do most Democrats oppose it? I thought that Republicans were the party of the rich. This is a stereotype that has existed for decades, but the facts don’t always bear that out.
So we risk spending 2 trillion dollars, when cuts in corporate and capital gains taxes can achieve the same result without the associated risk. That’s why politics and common sense are rarely compatible.
My problem with the stimulus bill is that although 35% of the bill contains some form of tax credits (not cuts), corporate or capital gains taxes are not addressed. These taxes are the ones that most influence the profitability and investment environment of our industrial base. As a result, they impact Wall Street’s view of the future, jobs, and consumer confidence. Why they were not addressed in this bill is strictly political and makes no economic sense.
Corporate Tax Rate
• Since the 1980’s corporate tax rates have been in a free fall, that is, everywhere except the U.S. On average, the top corporate rate in industrialized nations has gone from 50% to an average of 29%, according to the CATO Institute. In a global economy, competition is compelling governments to dramatically lower corporate tax rates. The U.S. is 2nd to Japan, but when you include state taxes, we have by far the highest corporate tax rate among all 33 industrialized nations in the world. Since 2000 our rate is unchanged, while virtually all other nations have dropped considerably (according to the Tax Foundation). A measurable drop in our tax rate would result in a marked rebound in our stock market, an impetus for corporate investment, and a surge in net profits. Wouldn’t that drive jobs and consumer spending?
Democrats fret over the “cost” of such a cut. However, compared to the trillion dollar spending package they just past, the effect on government revenues would be chump change. The increased corporate revenue gains from repatriated earnings, expanded production, increased income tax revenue, and lower unemployment costs, will more than offset any reduction in tax revenues going to the government.
Capital Gains Tax
• Another enigma is the reluctance to reduce capital gains taxes. Some 100 million Americans own stock, most are middle-class people. Obviously, most people will not realize capital gains on stock and in 401k’s this year, but under normal conditions a cut in capital gains tax always leads to increased revenues for the government rather than the reverse. Clinton dropped the tax to 20% in 1997 and Bush to 15% in 2002 and demonstrated this.
Most Democrats believe that a tax on investment income only affects the rich. The IRS tells us differently. In 2005, 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79% from households with incomes below $100,000. Since this would be a middle-class tax cut, why do most Democrats oppose it? I thought that Republicans were the party of the rich. This is a stereotype that has existed for decades, but the facts don’t always bear that out.
So we risk spending 2 trillion dollars, when cuts in corporate and capital gains taxes can achieve the same result without the associated risk. That’s why politics and common sense are rarely compatible.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Rating Our Presidents
While we are on the topic of rating Presidents (see post 2/17/09 ), I see that there was a news release yesterday stating that, The Times, a British publication, released the following ratings list by a panel of eight historians:
10 Best Presidents
Lincoln
Washington
F.Roosevelt
Jefferson
T.Roosevelt
Eisenhower
Truman
Reagan
Polk
Wilson
10 Worst Presidents
Buchanan
Pierce
Van Buren
Harrison
Nixon
G.Bush
Hoover
Harding
Garfield
Filmore
Rating Presidents is strictly an academic exercise. Historians generally differ based on the time they lived and the eventual course of history, which is usually a reliable indicator. The public, however, uses a different standard based more on popularity and likeability. Thus, note the absence of Kennedy and Clinton from this list, although Kennedy did finish at number 11 on the best list. My good “friend” Jimmy Carter barely managed to escape the bottom 10.
I know you probably thought I took a cheap shot at Clinton in my previous post, but the historians said that although Clinton left office with a high approval rating they considered him mediocre. They added that he passed progressive legislation (welfare reform) but saddled himself with the Lewinsky scandal and landed at number 23. One panelist, Ben MacIntyre said, “Clinton promised so much, delivered so little and embarrassed everyone”. Isn’t that what they call a con man?
As an avid student of presidential history, I would remove F. Roosevelt from the top 10, based on his dismal performance during the Great Depression. He probably gets good grades for his charisma, communication skills, and leadership qualities, particularly during WWII. I also would raise Polk even higher in the standings; he was a man with great executive and management skills who presided over our “manifest destiny” period as a nation. I also would drop Wilson out of the top 10, since most of his term was served by his wife, not him. Maybe we should give her the 10 spot.
Also, I feel sorry for Harrison and Garfield. Harrison died after 23 days in office, when he got sick because he didn’t wear a coat while giving his inaugural address in freezing weather; and poor Garfield got shot and died after 4 months in office. So why are they on the worst 10 list? Maybe we should consider them “No shows”.
Who can dispute Lincoln and Washington, our greatest Presidents. Although the challenges are different today, do you really think they would have pushed that stimulus package?
10 Best Presidents
Lincoln
Washington
F.Roosevelt
Jefferson
T.Roosevelt
Eisenhower
Truman
Reagan
Polk
Wilson
10 Worst Presidents
Buchanan
Pierce
Van Buren
Harrison
Nixon
G.Bush
Hoover
Harding
Garfield
Filmore
Rating Presidents is strictly an academic exercise. Historians generally differ based on the time they lived and the eventual course of history, which is usually a reliable indicator. The public, however, uses a different standard based more on popularity and likeability. Thus, note the absence of Kennedy and Clinton from this list, although Kennedy did finish at number 11 on the best list. My good “friend” Jimmy Carter barely managed to escape the bottom 10.
I know you probably thought I took a cheap shot at Clinton in my previous post, but the historians said that although Clinton left office with a high approval rating they considered him mediocre. They added that he passed progressive legislation (welfare reform) but saddled himself with the Lewinsky scandal and landed at number 23. One panelist, Ben MacIntyre said, “Clinton promised so much, delivered so little and embarrassed everyone”. Isn’t that what they call a con man?
As an avid student of presidential history, I would remove F. Roosevelt from the top 10, based on his dismal performance during the Great Depression. He probably gets good grades for his charisma, communication skills, and leadership qualities, particularly during WWII. I also would raise Polk even higher in the standings; he was a man with great executive and management skills who presided over our “manifest destiny” period as a nation. I also would drop Wilson out of the top 10, since most of his term was served by his wife, not him. Maybe we should give her the 10 spot.
Also, I feel sorry for Harrison and Garfield. Harrison died after 23 days in office, when he got sick because he didn’t wear a coat while giving his inaugural address in freezing weather; and poor Garfield got shot and died after 4 months in office. So why are they on the worst 10 list? Maybe we should consider them “No shows”.
Who can dispute Lincoln and Washington, our greatest Presidents. Although the challenges are different today, do you really think they would have pushed that stimulus package?
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
A Loveable Liar
I couldn’t resist this one today! It was President’s Day yesterday and all banks and federal offices were closed so I expected no stupid news or statements from our politicians. All of a sudden I get a laugher. Former President Bill Clinton came out with the ridiculous statement that, had he been in the White House these last eight years, we would not be in a the mess we are today. Wow! No Bill, probably worse.
I guess we wouldn’t have had a 9/11 which basically accounts for the deficit growth over that time. Remember, you blew three chances to get Bin Laden and treated the Al-Qaida attacks in the U.S. as police actions, empowering them even more. Also Bill, your encouragement of home ownership, from legislation passed during the Carter years, caused those people who couldn’t afford it, to get loans from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Bill, the best thing you did was pass welfare reform, which was forced upon you by a Republican controlled Congress and which was politically expedient for you at the time, even though your wife tried to convince you otherwise.
AOL is my computer server and on their news page they usually ask questions about topical events of the day and then ask for subscriber opinion. Well, when asked would the economy have tanked if Clinton was in charge during the last eight years, 51% said Yes, and 41% said No, with 8% not sure with 211,344 responses when I viewed it. Although this result was better for Clinton than I thought it should be, a result of this guy’s vast popularity, it still shows that most of the public don’t agree with him.
To illustrate this when asked how history would judge Clinton’s presidency, 53% said favorable, 47% unfavorable. It shows what a great con man and liar he is, particularly in front of the Grand Jury. Also, adding to the unbelievable things he said yesterday, he commented that Obama was off to a great start because of the passing of the stimulus bill. When AOL asked the same question, subscribers said 53% No, and 47% yes. This shows that most people again didn’t agree with Mr. Clinton. See my post of February 13th, 2009 about Obama’s “ugly start”.
I guess if you’re a former President and a good liar you can say anything and some people believe it, ask Jimmy Carter.
I guess we wouldn’t have had a 9/11 which basically accounts for the deficit growth over that time. Remember, you blew three chances to get Bin Laden and treated the Al-Qaida attacks in the U.S. as police actions, empowering them even more. Also Bill, your encouragement of home ownership, from legislation passed during the Carter years, caused those people who couldn’t afford it, to get loans from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Bill, the best thing you did was pass welfare reform, which was forced upon you by a Republican controlled Congress and which was politically expedient for you at the time, even though your wife tried to convince you otherwise.
AOL is my computer server and on their news page they usually ask questions about topical events of the day and then ask for subscriber opinion. Well, when asked would the economy have tanked if Clinton was in charge during the last eight years, 51% said Yes, and 41% said No, with 8% not sure with 211,344 responses when I viewed it. Although this result was better for Clinton than I thought it should be, a result of this guy’s vast popularity, it still shows that most of the public don’t agree with him.
To illustrate this when asked how history would judge Clinton’s presidency, 53% said favorable, 47% unfavorable. It shows what a great con man and liar he is, particularly in front of the Grand Jury. Also, adding to the unbelievable things he said yesterday, he commented that Obama was off to a great start because of the passing of the stimulus bill. When AOL asked the same question, subscribers said 53% No, and 47% yes. This shows that most people again didn’t agree with Mr. Clinton. See my post of February 13th, 2009 about Obama’s “ugly start”.
I guess if you’re a former President and a good liar you can say anything and some people believe it, ask Jimmy Carter.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Strength Training Will Keep You Young
I thought that I’d talk about some guy stuff today and give the politicians and economists a day off. The question of aging is an inevitable phenomenon that we all have to cope with and men do it differently than women. Women seem to view this process in a rather ominous fashion treating it with various concoctions of creams and make-up for their face, body, and eyes and different hairstyles with highlights. Of course, for men a tinge of gray and a few wrinkles is sexy, according to most women. And hair, well most of us men have the same hair style for life, as long as it lasts.
What bothers most men is the loss of muscle, the inexplicable disappearance of a waist after the age of forty, and losing that quick step and the competitive energy that comes with flexibility and strength. Also, it’s well known that as your body deteriorates it will also affect your brain function and emotional health.
Most of us try various forms of aerobic exercise (walking, jogging, cycling, etc) to control weight and flexibility but these kinds of activities while beneficial do not prevent muscle loss. A 10 year study of American’s best master distance runners showed a five pound muscle loss between their mid 40’s and mid 50’s which is the same rate seen in sedentary people. In fact, while we add an average of one pound of body weight yearly, we lose about 0.5 pounds of muscle and gain 1.5 pounds of fat. So our body weight may change by one pound, but body composition changes by two pounds-in the wrong direction.
The only way to maintain or improve muscle mass is to engage in some form of strength exercise regularly. About three years ago I found a system that meets my lifestyle and does not involved the conventional weight lifting programs you find at most gyms that entail a lot of grunting and sweating with unsupervised training. I described the system I use in my wife’s blog, www.maryahearn.com, it’s called High Intensity training and entails 20 minutes, 2-3 times a week and is comfortable for people up into their 80’s. In fact, age is not a barrier to muscle replacement. Seniors in their 80’s add muscle tissue at about the same rate as younger adults.
I can’t tell you how much strength training has enhanced my well being, mental attitude, and ability to perform tasks that use to be drudgery. I have included some links below for you to review should you want more information.
If you want to resist the onslaught of father time, try it, you won’t regret you did!
www.hitfitnessflorida.com
www.seriousstrength.com
What bothers most men is the loss of muscle, the inexplicable disappearance of a waist after the age of forty, and losing that quick step and the competitive energy that comes with flexibility and strength. Also, it’s well known that as your body deteriorates it will also affect your brain function and emotional health.
Most of us try various forms of aerobic exercise (walking, jogging, cycling, etc) to control weight and flexibility but these kinds of activities while beneficial do not prevent muscle loss. A 10 year study of American’s best master distance runners showed a five pound muscle loss between their mid 40’s and mid 50’s which is the same rate seen in sedentary people. In fact, while we add an average of one pound of body weight yearly, we lose about 0.5 pounds of muscle and gain 1.5 pounds of fat. So our body weight may change by one pound, but body composition changes by two pounds-in the wrong direction.
The only way to maintain or improve muscle mass is to engage in some form of strength exercise regularly. About three years ago I found a system that meets my lifestyle and does not involved the conventional weight lifting programs you find at most gyms that entail a lot of grunting and sweating with unsupervised training. I described the system I use in my wife’s blog, www.maryahearn.com, it’s called High Intensity training and entails 20 minutes, 2-3 times a week and is comfortable for people up into their 80’s. In fact, age is not a barrier to muscle replacement. Seniors in their 80’s add muscle tissue at about the same rate as younger adults.
I can’t tell you how much strength training has enhanced my well being, mental attitude, and ability to perform tasks that use to be drudgery. I have included some links below for you to review should you want more information.
If you want to resist the onslaught of father time, try it, you won’t regret you did!
www.hitfitnessflorida.com
www.seriousstrength.com
Obama: Messiah or Mortal?
An Ugly Start
It’s hard to believe President Obama, with a 70% approval rating, could get off to such an ugly start. The mis-steps and mistakes in the first three weeks of the Obama administration is by far the worst in recent memory. The withdrawal of New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg as Commerce nominee is just another example of screw-ups in the Cabinet selection process. The ridiculous press release of Press Secretary Gibbs saying that Senator Gregg approached President Obama seeking this nomination and then a few hours later admitting this was not so, continues to illustrate the rather lack of political savvy in the Administration and this inept Press Secretary.
Senator Gregg, a fiscal hawk, and respected Senator on both sides of the aisle, could not bring himself to be on this team due to “irresolvable conflicts”. The final straw was announcement that Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff, would be overseeing the next census, a prime responsibility of the Commerce Department, thus humiliating the new nominee right off the bat. If this is what our new President calls bi-partisanship, he will have a hard time getting any Republicans to believe he is serious.
In addition, the embarrassment caused by the Treasury, Labor, Performance Office, Commerce, and Health & Human Services nominees and Obama’s revelation that “he screwed up”, although noble, has quickly erased the “messiah” label. To make matters worse the performance of his Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, announcing his plan to utilize the remaining $350 billion in TARP funds was devastating. Saying that he doesn’t have the details of his plan worked because “I’ve only been on the job for two weeks” when he has been head of the Federal Reserve from several years and presided over this mess with Paulsen and Bernake since last year, was something that “Joe the Plumber” would say. What a way to build confidence on Wall Street!
So on Monday, President’s Day, Obama will sign the ugly stimulus bill. This is a $789 billion dollar piece of legislation which is supposed to create 3.5-4.0 million new jobs in a few months, years or decades. Do you believe this? Only $282 billion or 35% involves any form of tax cuts but not the cuts we really need like capital gains, and corporate taxes, mainly because those in control, the Democrats and Mr. Obama, don’t feel this is their political ideology nor politically expedient with their constituency.
Your kids and grandchildren will pay for this mistake and your dollars will buy a lot less in the future. This is the ugly result of such an ugly start.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
HEALTHCARE CONSUMERISM - SO WHY DON'T WE MEASURE UP?
It's clear we have the best hospitals, doctors, and medical technology in the world and we spend more than any country on healthcare. The dichotomy is that we don’t deliver that quality to our citizens and we lag many countries in the key health metrics.
Recently, I was privileged to be invited to a talk sponsored by the Naples Community Hospital System Foundation in Naples, Florida. The guest speaker was Dr. Robert S. Galvin, who is Director of Global Healthcare for General Electric. Dr. Galvin oversees the design and performance of GE’s health programs, which totals over $3.0 billion annually, and he is responsible for medical services, encompassing over 220 medical clinics in more than 20 countries. Dr. Galvin had some interesting observations.
Despite the fact that healthcare represents 16.6% of our GDP and is expected to reach 19.5% by 2017, we lag many countries in life span, infant mortality, patient satisfaction, and many other measures of healthcare delivery. There are essentially four major factors that drive our spiraling health costs according to Dr. Galvin:
1 .There is a preponderance of unhealthy lifestyle practices.
2. Excessive doctor pay due to the trend towards specialization and away from family medicine.
3. Wasteful practices in the health administrative and delivery system.
4. Unnecessary, redundant, and expensive tests and treatments.
All of these contribute to our poor standing among nations who spend far less than we do.
There is no doubt that we excel at crisis medicine. Where we lag is in preventive medicine and chronic disease. Both these issues are a matter of consumer education and lifestyle modification. Most of the proposed healthcare reform legislation focuses on getting more people insured, whether they want it or not, and not enough on these issues.
Why is medicine unlike any business?
As a businessman, I could never understand why the medical profession follows none of the conventional economic principles. For example:
• Supply and demand has nothing to do with price or vice versa.
• Price is not set by value or quality (i.e. outcome) nor is the consumer able to readily measure quality.
• The consumer never asks about price nor is there a price list where he can choose alternative therapies or treatments.
• The supplier (provider) controls the sale and price process rather than the consumer.
This passive behavior of the consumer may be related to the fact that someone else pays the bill, thus, the consumer doesn’t pay attention to health issues until he is sick, and obviously, not when he is well. Good health is taken for granted or relegated to genetic “luck”. The truth is if the medical consumer was more like the conventional consumer and employers were more proactive about their employee’s wellness and disease prevention, the upward spiral of medical costs will be reversed.
You’ll read more about this in future postings.
Recently, I was privileged to be invited to a talk sponsored by the Naples Community Hospital System Foundation in Naples, Florida. The guest speaker was Dr. Robert S. Galvin, who is Director of Global Healthcare for General Electric. Dr. Galvin oversees the design and performance of GE’s health programs, which totals over $3.0 billion annually, and he is responsible for medical services, encompassing over 220 medical clinics in more than 20 countries. Dr. Galvin had some interesting observations.
Despite the fact that healthcare represents 16.6% of our GDP and is expected to reach 19.5% by 2017, we lag many countries in life span, infant mortality, patient satisfaction, and many other measures of healthcare delivery. There are essentially four major factors that drive our spiraling health costs according to Dr. Galvin:
1 .There is a preponderance of unhealthy lifestyle practices.
2. Excessive doctor pay due to the trend towards specialization and away from family medicine.
3. Wasteful practices in the health administrative and delivery system.
4. Unnecessary, redundant, and expensive tests and treatments.
All of these contribute to our poor standing among nations who spend far less than we do.
There is no doubt that we excel at crisis medicine. Where we lag is in preventive medicine and chronic disease. Both these issues are a matter of consumer education and lifestyle modification. Most of the proposed healthcare reform legislation focuses on getting more people insured, whether they want it or not, and not enough on these issues.
Why is medicine unlike any business?
As a businessman, I could never understand why the medical profession follows none of the conventional economic principles. For example:
• Supply and demand has nothing to do with price or vice versa.
• Price is not set by value or quality (i.e. outcome) nor is the consumer able to readily measure quality.
• The consumer never asks about price nor is there a price list where he can choose alternative therapies or treatments.
• The supplier (provider) controls the sale and price process rather than the consumer.
This passive behavior of the consumer may be related to the fact that someone else pays the bill, thus, the consumer doesn’t pay attention to health issues until he is sick, and obviously, not when he is well. Good health is taken for granted or relegated to genetic “luck”. The truth is if the medical consumer was more like the conventional consumer and employers were more proactive about their employee’s wellness and disease prevention, the upward spiral of medical costs will be reversed.
You’ll read more about this in future postings.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Obama's First Press Conference a B-
I thought that President Obama did fairly well in his first press conference tonight. He appeared to be informed and engaged in the fiscal issues but his facts continue to be skewed and partisan and his answers tended to be very cautious, particularly on foreign policy questions related to Iran. In addition, many of his answers were long-winded and somewhat boring.
Although no one yet knows how bad this recession is compared to previous ones, I question his continued use of fear tactics to create a sense of urgency about the passage of the stimulus bill. Frankly, I'm more interested in what the Treasury Secretary has to say tomorrow, which is very important to the housing and credit situation which is currently in limbo. When pressured on these tactics the President backed off his previous statement that "this crisis can turn into a catastrophe that we may never recover from". Sounds like the end of the world as we know it!
He also continues to put blame on the previous administation for the crisis and his "inheritance" of this giant deficit. This is quite disingenuous because the seeds for this began as far back as the Carter administration, was exascerbated during the Clinton years, actually stalled under Bush until the waning months of his term in office, and was catalyzed by Dodd and Frank during that time. Also,being driven into a war we didn't want and never started was a significant contributing factor. To say that the opposition presided over a doubling of the deficit sounds like the old political rhetoric that transformational leaders try to avoid.
His comment that we know tax cuts did not work in the past is totally incorrect. We have seen that tax cuts invariably increase government revenues and stimulate investment and the economy. FDR raised taxes during the Great Depression and prolonged the crisis. He also said that Japan failed to act boldly during its great recession in the 90's and paid the consequences. Well, Japan actually quadrupled its national debt with large government spending programs, we're only doubling ours, does that mean we're not acting boldly enough? He also said that Republicans are against government intervention (some Democrats are too),this is not really true. It's not intervention that bothers the GOP, its the type of intervention that is the issue. FDR's failed policies of the 30's is a great example of that.
I can't help but be amazed at the soft questions this Washington press corps threw at Obama. What ever happened to the hard-nosed, mature reporters of the past who didn't have to read their questions and didn't look like scared kids? The only mature reporter left is Helen Thomas and she should have retired decades ago. She asked if the President believed if "so-called" terrorists are hiding in Pakistan. Do you believe that? And what did she mean by "so-called"?
P.S. I thought Obama handled the A-Roid question real well, but it seemed out of place given all the weighty topics being discussed.
Although no one yet knows how bad this recession is compared to previous ones, I question his continued use of fear tactics to create a sense of urgency about the passage of the stimulus bill. Frankly, I'm more interested in what the Treasury Secretary has to say tomorrow, which is very important to the housing and credit situation which is currently in limbo. When pressured on these tactics the President backed off his previous statement that "this crisis can turn into a catastrophe that we may never recover from". Sounds like the end of the world as we know it!
He also continues to put blame on the previous administation for the crisis and his "inheritance" of this giant deficit. This is quite disingenuous because the seeds for this began as far back as the Carter administration, was exascerbated during the Clinton years, actually stalled under Bush until the waning months of his term in office, and was catalyzed by Dodd and Frank during that time. Also,being driven into a war we didn't want and never started was a significant contributing factor. To say that the opposition presided over a doubling of the deficit sounds like the old political rhetoric that transformational leaders try to avoid.
His comment that we know tax cuts did not work in the past is totally incorrect. We have seen that tax cuts invariably increase government revenues and stimulate investment and the economy. FDR raised taxes during the Great Depression and prolonged the crisis. He also said that Japan failed to act boldly during its great recession in the 90's and paid the consequences. Well, Japan actually quadrupled its national debt with large government spending programs, we're only doubling ours, does that mean we're not acting boldly enough? He also said that Republicans are against government intervention (some Democrats are too),this is not really true. It's not intervention that bothers the GOP, its the type of intervention that is the issue. FDR's failed policies of the 30's is a great example of that.
I can't help but be amazed at the soft questions this Washington press corps threw at Obama. What ever happened to the hard-nosed, mature reporters of the past who didn't have to read their questions and didn't look like scared kids? The only mature reporter left is Helen Thomas and she should have retired decades ago. She asked if the President believed if "so-called" terrorists are hiding in Pakistan. Do you believe that? And what did she mean by "so-called"?
P.S. I thought Obama handled the A-Roid question real well, but it seemed out of place given all the weighty topics being discussed.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Whatever Happened to Our Political Debate?
My Mother always told me to not talk about religion and politics because these were "sensitive" topics with people. My experience over the years, however, has been to the contrary. I have always been able to address these topics with friends and co-workers without getting into character assassination and personal vindictiveness. Even the politicians of my generation were able to debate issues in a civil way and then go to the bar for a few drinks. In the turmoil in the 60's, 70's and 80's, we had some significant crises. The assassination of John and Bobby Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, the race riots, Watergate, the Cold War, and the malaise of the Carter years. Still political debate was civil and the media was balanced.
The optimism of the Reagan years, the end of the Cold War, and our victory in the Gulf War was a period where we reached a high point in national unity and pride.
It seems to me that civility and bipartisanship began to exit our political scene during the first congressional election of Clinton's first term. This marked the first time in some 50 years that the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress and the rhetoric started to get vitriolic. Democrats reacted badly to the demotion and Republicans gloated at their new-found power. The Republicans instituted the "Contract with America" which changed the political culture and philosophy that had been in place for decades.
All this followed the rather polarizing campaign of the Clinton/Bush election which catalyzed extremists on both sides to begin a debate that used character degradation as the norm of our political rhetoric. This reached a peak during the Clinton sex scandal and continues today as talk radio and political blogs flood the airways and the Internet with over zealous ideologues who destroy people they don't agree with.
It is also the denigration of America that has become the focus of our political debate and the assertion, even by our newly elected President, that we no longer have the values we once had.
If we have lost our reputation in the world, as many people claim, why are people clamoring to get here and why does no one want to leave? What country is as generous as ours? Who is first on the scene when there is a famine or Aids epidemic in Africa, an earthquake in Pakistan, a tsunami in Indonesia, genocide in Eastern Europe, and when a demented Nazi dictator tries to take over the European continent because he believed he belonged to some master race?
I'll talk more about this in future postings but it's time for you to get off your duffs and reject this notion that we have deserted our principles just because we have water-boarded three terrorists, or have over 100 war criminals in Gitmo and haven't yet brought charges (too bad). There are three thousand innocent people who had their lives snuffed out in one morning because these religious fanatics think we are evil because we support people whom they despise.
You need to stand up to this demoralization of America that seems to be at the center of our political debate and start to look at what's great about America. Our allies know we are not perfect but they also know that we stand by our friends no matter what. That's why they love us, that's why they try to emulate us, and that's why we are the standard to which they aspire.
Don't let anyone tell you different!
The optimism of the Reagan years, the end of the Cold War, and our victory in the Gulf War was a period where we reached a high point in national unity and pride.
It seems to me that civility and bipartisanship began to exit our political scene during the first congressional election of Clinton's first term. This marked the first time in some 50 years that the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress and the rhetoric started to get vitriolic. Democrats reacted badly to the demotion and Republicans gloated at their new-found power. The Republicans instituted the "Contract with America" which changed the political culture and philosophy that had been in place for decades.
All this followed the rather polarizing campaign of the Clinton/Bush election which catalyzed extremists on both sides to begin a debate that used character degradation as the norm of our political rhetoric. This reached a peak during the Clinton sex scandal and continues today as talk radio and political blogs flood the airways and the Internet with over zealous ideologues who destroy people they don't agree with.
It is also the denigration of America that has become the focus of our political debate and the assertion, even by our newly elected President, that we no longer have the values we once had.
If we have lost our reputation in the world, as many people claim, why are people clamoring to get here and why does no one want to leave? What country is as generous as ours? Who is first on the scene when there is a famine or Aids epidemic in Africa, an earthquake in Pakistan, a tsunami in Indonesia, genocide in Eastern Europe, and when a demented Nazi dictator tries to take over the European continent because he believed he belonged to some master race?
I'll talk more about this in future postings but it's time for you to get off your duffs and reject this notion that we have deserted our principles just because we have water-boarded three terrorists, or have over 100 war criminals in Gitmo and haven't yet brought charges (too bad). There are three thousand innocent people who had their lives snuffed out in one morning because these religious fanatics think we are evil because we support people whom they despise.
You need to stand up to this demoralization of America that seems to be at the center of our political debate and start to look at what's great about America. Our allies know we are not perfect but they also know that we stand by our friends no matter what. That's why they love us, that's why they try to emulate us, and that's why we are the standard to which they aspire.
Don't let anyone tell you different!
Friday, February 6, 2009
Can Government Actually Prolong a Depression?
This is not a political posting nor do the words here reflect a bias towards any party or ideology. However, from time to time I may comment on a book that I think deserves some attention, particularly if it is germane to the problems we face today. One such books is “New Deal or Raw Deal” by Burton W. Folsom, Jr. which describes the Roosevelt Administration and its action in coping with the worse economic depression in our history following the stock market crash of 1929.
The perception of the public has always been that the New Deal ended the Great Depression and, therefore, New Deal policies are needed to pull us out of our current crisis. Well, nothing could be further from the truth.
This book covers the years of FDR’s presidency from 1933 until his death in 1945 and describes the policies he instituted and the way he used them to control Congress and eventually attempted to stack the Supreme Court with judges who would support his “progressive” agenda. Many of his policies were eventually declared unconstitutional by this same court and were rescinded.
I think it is important to read this book because it provides a benchmark on how not to approach the dilemma we now face and how excessive government intervention can restrict a free economy and actually make matters worse. The United States was one of the last nations to recover from that depression; in fact, the unemployment rate in 1939 was over 20%, ten years after the great crash. This was greater than it was in 1933 when FDR first took office. Since FDR’s objective was to get the country working again; clearly he failed and the Great Depression continued long after his ascent to the presidency.
FDR has enjoyed a status among many presidential historians that puts him among the greats, at least in the top five. After reading this book you may change your mind. He just dropped to somewhere in the middle of my list. In fact, his policies actually worsened unemployment, prolonged the Depression, and introduced concepts that continue to divide us today. Maybe our politicians should review this period of our history before they push through any so-called “stimulus” package. What we need now is cool, calm, and prudent analysis followed by effective bipartisan action. Clearly, this is an issue that transcends Left versus Right or Democrat versus Republican.
The perception of the public has always been that the New Deal ended the Great Depression and, therefore, New Deal policies are needed to pull us out of our current crisis. Well, nothing could be further from the truth.
This book covers the years of FDR’s presidency from 1933 until his death in 1945 and describes the policies he instituted and the way he used them to control Congress and eventually attempted to stack the Supreme Court with judges who would support his “progressive” agenda. Many of his policies were eventually declared unconstitutional by this same court and were rescinded.
I think it is important to read this book because it provides a benchmark on how not to approach the dilemma we now face and how excessive government intervention can restrict a free economy and actually make matters worse. The United States was one of the last nations to recover from that depression; in fact, the unemployment rate in 1939 was over 20%, ten years after the great crash. This was greater than it was in 1933 when FDR first took office. Since FDR’s objective was to get the country working again; clearly he failed and the Great Depression continued long after his ascent to the presidency.
FDR has enjoyed a status among many presidential historians that puts him among the greats, at least in the top five. After reading this book you may change your mind. He just dropped to somewhere in the middle of my list. In fact, his policies actually worsened unemployment, prolonged the Depression, and introduced concepts that continue to divide us today. Maybe our politicians should review this period of our history before they push through any so-called “stimulus” package. What we need now is cool, calm, and prudent analysis followed by effective bipartisan action. Clearly, this is an issue that transcends Left versus Right or Democrat versus Republican.
Our New Leader - Or Follower?
Ladies and gentlemen I just witnessed a very scary thing. Our new leader just interrupted all the cable programs Thursday evening, 2/5/09, at 8:30pm (prime time) in order to show us his talk to a bunch of Democratic senators and congressmen who were congregating at a resort in Virginia (paid for by us), most of who appear to have had too much to drink. I might say that the President also looked like he sipped one or two before this ridiculous speech.
He continues to predict the Armageddon of our entire economy and nation because the most learned economists tell him that it is so. Has anyone told him that an equal number on the other side say something completely different? He says that this “stimulus” bill needs to be at least 800 billion dollars, but he doesn’t say why the number is so important and he mentions nothing about the substance. He says that he’s tired of arguments on the other side, which talk about corporate and capital gains tax cuts.
Why?
Is it because he just wants to show we only need to throw money at this problem?
In my lifetime I have never seen a leader who struts around like a pop star without any apparent involvement in the process. Leaving it to the others to “work” the problem.
In this speech, he acknowledged Nancy Pelosi calling her a “rock”. Just the previous day, she emphatically declared that if this preposterous House stimulus bill was not passed right away, we would lose 500 million jobs a month for the remainder of the year!
She repeated this twice.
Somebody should tell her that only 300 million people live in the U.S.!
Her prediction is that everyone, plus 200 million more people will be out of work in the next month. This shows she has no grasp of numbers and the difference between millions, billions, trillions, etc. Apparently, it’s just a few more zeros to her.
With people like this in charge, we are in deep doo doo.
The FDR administration has already shown us that throwing money and government programs at the problem failed to create jobs and curtail a Depression and here we are repeating the story. It only leads to patronage and political leverage and control.
I’m afraid we have an amateur in charge.
I hope I’m not bursting your bubble, but someone with no experience at making critical decisions like this and spending his time on TV establishing his image and playing HORSE in the White House gym in the afternoon at a time like this, is a scary thought.
In addition, some of his cabinet appointees and his inept Press Secretary leave much to be desired.
This President needs a lot of help and he is greatly over-rated. We need more than a lofty speech right now. We need calm and prudent analysis and well-crafted legislation. Not 700 pages of crap ginned up in two days and read by no one.
Fasten your seat belts; we’re in for a bumpy ride!
He continues to predict the Armageddon of our entire economy and nation because the most learned economists tell him that it is so. Has anyone told him that an equal number on the other side say something completely different? He says that this “stimulus” bill needs to be at least 800 billion dollars, but he doesn’t say why the number is so important and he mentions nothing about the substance. He says that he’s tired of arguments on the other side, which talk about corporate and capital gains tax cuts.
Why?
Is it because he just wants to show we only need to throw money at this problem?
In my lifetime I have never seen a leader who struts around like a pop star without any apparent involvement in the process. Leaving it to the others to “work” the problem.
In this speech, he acknowledged Nancy Pelosi calling her a “rock”. Just the previous day, she emphatically declared that if this preposterous House stimulus bill was not passed right away, we would lose 500 million jobs a month for the remainder of the year!
She repeated this twice.
Somebody should tell her that only 300 million people live in the U.S.!
Her prediction is that everyone, plus 200 million more people will be out of work in the next month. This shows she has no grasp of numbers and the difference between millions, billions, trillions, etc. Apparently, it’s just a few more zeros to her.
With people like this in charge, we are in deep doo doo.
The FDR administration has already shown us that throwing money and government programs at the problem failed to create jobs and curtail a Depression and here we are repeating the story. It only leads to patronage and political leverage and control.
I’m afraid we have an amateur in charge.
I hope I’m not bursting your bubble, but someone with no experience at making critical decisions like this and spending his time on TV establishing his image and playing HORSE in the White House gym in the afternoon at a time like this, is a scary thought.
In addition, some of his cabinet appointees and his inept Press Secretary leave much to be desired.
This President needs a lot of help and he is greatly over-rated. We need more than a lofty speech right now. We need calm and prudent analysis and well-crafted legislation. Not 700 pages of crap ginned up in two days and read by no one.
Fasten your seat belts; we’re in for a bumpy ride!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
