The charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former managing director of the International Monetary Fund, a French Socialist panjandrum, and a top contender for France’s presidency, are serious.
Manhattan prosecutors have charged Mr. Strauss-Kahn, with seven counts stemming from allegations he sexual assaulted a hotel housekeeper.
As can be expected, Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s arrest has sent shock waves and disbelief throughout the capitals of Europe, and outrage throughout much of France. The French have long celebrated their laissez-faire attitude toward sex and moral issues. In this regard, particularly germane was the French riposte to America's disapproval of Bill Clinton's sexual scandal with Monica Lewinsky - they "sniffed."
This brings to mind the wonderful description of another French affair in Richard Holbrooke's book "To End A War." A special dinner was held at Wright - Patterson Air Force Museum, the greatest military air museum in the world, for delegates to the Dayton Peace Accords, November 1 - 21, 1995. All delegates were stopped for a security check, which included being searched by dogs trained to smell explosives. The French Representative, Jacques Blot, took extreme exception to this procedure. He whined, "This insult is to all of France." He stated emphatically, "I will not be sniffed!" He was said to pronounce it "sneefed."
"Sneefed" indeed, let's hope Monsieur Blot never has to go through Barack Obama's and Janet Napolitano's airport security checks.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Obama Speak
Mr. Obama once again tried to pull his chestnuts out of the fire, and pull the wool over everyone’s eyes, in his speech to stabilize America’s mounting debt and fiscal crisis (April, 13, 2011).
Mr. Obama, now famous for pussyfooting around on the issue, wants US to believe that he has a credible plan to deal with America’s debt and spending problems. Yet, all he offers is pie in the sky and pipe dreams.
Mr. Obama has come down from the mountain and told us that the answer to America’s debt is to raise taxes – on the rich. In America, according to Mr. Obama, you are rich if a husband and wife earn more than $250,000 a year. Mr. Obama believes that ‘raising taxes is cutting spending in the tax code.’ Say what?
Mr. Obama didn’t say that his policies of redistribution of the American taxpayers wealth to the welfare state on the one hand, and banks, hedge funds, public sector unions on the other, are responsible for the trillions in debt that are forecast to drown US in red ink. Nor did Mr. Obama say that the policies of quantitative easing, aka bailouts, to again reward the world’s Bankers and Hedge Fund Managers, by the Federal Reserve Chairman, Mr. Bernanke, who he appointed, further massacred America’s wealth.
All things considered, we can only hope that Mr. Obama’s plan, like most of what he says, comes with an early expiration date.
Mr. Obama, now famous for pussyfooting around on the issue, wants US to believe that he has a credible plan to deal with America’s debt and spending problems. Yet, all he offers is pie in the sky and pipe dreams.
Mr. Obama has come down from the mountain and told us that the answer to America’s debt is to raise taxes – on the rich. In America, according to Mr. Obama, you are rich if a husband and wife earn more than $250,000 a year. Mr. Obama believes that ‘raising taxes is cutting spending in the tax code.’ Say what?
Mr. Obama didn’t say that his policies of redistribution of the American taxpayers wealth to the welfare state on the one hand, and banks, hedge funds, public sector unions on the other, are responsible for the trillions in debt that are forecast to drown US in red ink. Nor did Mr. Obama say that the policies of quantitative easing, aka bailouts, to again reward the world’s Bankers and Hedge Fund Managers, by the Federal Reserve Chairman, Mr. Bernanke, who he appointed, further massacred America’s wealth.
All things considered, we can only hope that Mr. Obama’s plan, like most of what he says, comes with an early expiration date.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Healthcare cost control is the medicine for what ails America
The first cut at analyzing anything is to place it in its proper perspective. Perspective structures the debate and the public’s perception of the problem. In other words, how we define the problem is how we solve it.
Most would agree that the debate on “Entitlements,” i.e., Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is a first-order imperative to deal with America’s debt problem. To take on all Entitlements together is unworkable. By “suboptimization” of America’s Entitlement programs, the problem of America’s debt can be disaggregated into a number of smaller and discrete sub problems.
Runaway spending on Entitlements will drive the debt to unsustainable levels. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spending will soar as 78 million “baby boomers” retire. Peter Orszag, Mr. Obama’s former Budget Director, has indicated that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will together account for 20 per cent of US GDP by 2050 (Medicare 10.0%, Medicaid 4.3%, and Social Security 5.7%). That is more than all federal taxes combined.
I would proffer that Social Security is not the immediate problem, and we should not combine it with Medicare and Medicaid expenditures when seeking solutions to America's catastrophic debt. Clearly, Social Security can be tweaked to reflect the reality of aging. But this can be accomplished to threaten no one. Moreover, most Americans have paid for this meager retirement – it is not welfare. Yet, to propose privatizing Social Security is irresponsible and a fool's errand. Do you really believe we can trust the Stock Market, and Bank and Hedge Fund managers, with our retirement? Do you really believe we can sell that to our senior citizens? The short answer is no.
What ails American is out of control healthcare costs. The need to control costs in healthcare is America's primary fiscal necessity. Healthcare expenditures are growing at an exponential rate as compared to other costs in our economy. Everyone can agree to that. We should also be able to agree that all attempts to rein in spending on healthcare have failed such as HMOs, prevention, improved use of technology, and information technology. HMO's and Insurance companies are viable and profitable because they raise their rates to their subscribers at will. Health care is not an unambiguous and efficient marketplace given the asymmetrical nature of medical knowledge. Moreover, the so-called prevention effect is a fantasy.
There is an old and true axiom in healthcare: the way you pay for healthcare is the way you practice healthcare. But in today’s world there is another: healthcare is practice to protect the provider, i.e., physician, hospital, etc., from lawsuits. By ordering more and more visits, tests, and procedures, not only do healthcare providers protect themselves from litigation, but they also make more money.
Mort Zuckerman in an insightful analysis pointed out (The Financial Times, August 2o, 2009) “cost control, not coverage, is the key to health reform.” Healthcare costs will not be controlled until the insane costs and arbitrary awards of malpractice lawsuits are reformed. Mr. Zuckerman estimates that defensive medicine adds as much as 18 per cent to the total cost of medical care. Trimming even 1 per cent would save $22 billion in healthcare spending in one year (the New England Journal of Medicine, July 2, 2009). Eighteen per cent would yield $396 billion.
Most would agree that the debate on “Entitlements,” i.e., Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is a first-order imperative to deal with America’s debt problem. To take on all Entitlements together is unworkable. By “suboptimization” of America’s Entitlement programs, the problem of America’s debt can be disaggregated into a number of smaller and discrete sub problems.
Runaway spending on Entitlements will drive the debt to unsustainable levels. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid spending will soar as 78 million “baby boomers” retire. Peter Orszag, Mr. Obama’s former Budget Director, has indicated that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will together account for 20 per cent of US GDP by 2050 (Medicare 10.0%, Medicaid 4.3%, and Social Security 5.7%). That is more than all federal taxes combined.
I would proffer that Social Security is not the immediate problem, and we should not combine it with Medicare and Medicaid expenditures when seeking solutions to America's catastrophic debt. Clearly, Social Security can be tweaked to reflect the reality of aging. But this can be accomplished to threaten no one. Moreover, most Americans have paid for this meager retirement – it is not welfare. Yet, to propose privatizing Social Security is irresponsible and a fool's errand. Do you really believe we can trust the Stock Market, and Bank and Hedge Fund managers, with our retirement? Do you really believe we can sell that to our senior citizens? The short answer is no.
What ails American is out of control healthcare costs. The need to control costs in healthcare is America's primary fiscal necessity. Healthcare expenditures are growing at an exponential rate as compared to other costs in our economy. Everyone can agree to that. We should also be able to agree that all attempts to rein in spending on healthcare have failed such as HMOs, prevention, improved use of technology, and information technology. HMO's and Insurance companies are viable and profitable because they raise their rates to their subscribers at will. Health care is not an unambiguous and efficient marketplace given the asymmetrical nature of medical knowledge. Moreover, the so-called prevention effect is a fantasy.
There is an old and true axiom in healthcare: the way you pay for healthcare is the way you practice healthcare. But in today’s world there is another: healthcare is practice to protect the provider, i.e., physician, hospital, etc., from lawsuits. By ordering more and more visits, tests, and procedures, not only do healthcare providers protect themselves from litigation, but they also make more money.
Mort Zuckerman in an insightful analysis pointed out (The Financial Times, August 2o, 2009) “cost control, not coverage, is the key to health reform.” Healthcare costs will not be controlled until the insane costs and arbitrary awards of malpractice lawsuits are reformed. Mr. Zuckerman estimates that defensive medicine adds as much as 18 per cent to the total cost of medical care. Trimming even 1 per cent would save $22 billion in healthcare spending in one year (the New England Journal of Medicine, July 2, 2009). Eighteen per cent would yield $396 billion.
This is not to say, that this is all we have to do. Other healthcare reforms are needed. For example, we need mandate reform -- we need to give people the choice to choose a basic benefit package(s), and not the expanded excessive one mandated by ObamaCare. The American taxpayer should not have to put a "scooter" in every home.
The Democratic Party has invested substantial political costs in association with America’s Trial Lawyers, and as such is reluctant to abandon them. There is no finer example of this than when Barack Obama announced definitively at the start of the healthcare debate that ‘Tort Reform is off the table.’ Apparently, the Democrats greed for large donations from trial lawyers makes providing affordable healthcare to the American people and controlling America’s ruinous debt, dead in the water. As for the Republicans, why take on America's senior citizens when you can take on America's trial lawyers?
What's it going to be -- reform or fiscal insanity? Tort and mandate reforms will be game changers. Americans need a clear understanding that any plan to reduce the deficit will be fair and responsible. The Administration has clearly failed to present a coherent plan. This is a time for leadership and not campaigning. So, what’s it going to be?
The Democratic Party has invested substantial political costs in association with America’s Trial Lawyers, and as such is reluctant to abandon them. There is no finer example of this than when Barack Obama announced definitively at the start of the healthcare debate that ‘Tort Reform is off the table.’ Apparently, the Democrats greed for large donations from trial lawyers makes providing affordable healthcare to the American people and controlling America’s ruinous debt, dead in the water. As for the Republicans, why take on America's senior citizens when you can take on America's trial lawyers?
What's it going to be -- reform or fiscal insanity? Tort and mandate reforms will be game changers. Americans need a clear understanding that any plan to reduce the deficit will be fair and responsible. The Administration has clearly failed to present a coherent plan. This is a time for leadership and not campaigning. So, what’s it going to be?
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Power of public sector unions is Wisconsin issue
Published: March 15 2011 02:50 | Last updated: March 15 2011 02:50
From Mr Lawrence S. Schneiderman.
Sir, I must point out that efforts by Governor Scott Walker and the Republican state legislature of Wisconsin are to curtail the power of public employee unions, and not unions in general. Hence, Richard McGregor’s report “Republicans boosted by Wisconsin vote” (March 11) is not a full account of the issue.
The privilege for public sector employees to unionise is a recent phenomenon. It is not a historic birthright, as the unions would wish you to believe. It is Wisconsin’s taxpayers who employ these union members – not some fat cat, private jet, country club, cigar-chomping businessman.
Public sector workers are thriving because of the power their well-organised unions exercise. Their real bosses, aka taxpayers, have no voice other than electing public officials who represent their interests and not special interests. That was exactly what has been going on in Wisconsin. The people elected a Republican governor, state senate and assembly to put a stop to the Democrats in their special relations with the public sector unions, and their catastrophic addiction to spending.
Yet more disturbing is the picture that accompanied the article – a union protester in front of our state capitol waving the American flag upside down. According to Title 4, United States Code, Chapter 1: “The flag should never be displayed with the union down.” Apparently, democracy and the will of the people is a “bridge too far” for America’s public sector unions.
Lawrence S. Schneiderman,
Milwaukee, WI, US
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. Print a single copy of this article for personal use. Contact us if you wish to print more to distribute to others.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Libya
I oppose any US Military (including NATO) intervention in Libya. Simply put, intervention in Libya is not in our national interest. Moreover, we cannot afford it! Elections do have consequences -- that's about the only thing Mr. Obama got right. His disastrous policies and catastrophic addiction to spending has rendered the US impotent to engage in small wars that don't significantly affect our national interest. Best to use our depleted resources to come to the aid of our friends in the region, and in situations that directly affect our interests. Finally, to believe that our intervention will cascade into some democratic open society contradicts every reality.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Journalistic Malpractice
Today, I read incredulously the editorial comments of the Financial Times, "Time to muzzle Libya's mad dog: United Nations should impose a no-fly zone without delay," (February 25). FT wrote, "The UN should be ready to protect the oil installations if Col. Gaddafi starts to destroy them."
In what reality does the Editorial Board of the Financial Times live (in)? When has the UN conducted a successful campaign? Just ask the folks in Rwanda, Srebrenica (Bosnia), and Congo, what UN interventions did for them. Or, Kosovo Serbs being murdered and their organs removed by Bill and Hillary Clinton's "Albanian freedom fighters," under UN protection. And these are only a few examples.
While Col. Gaddafi is slaughtering his countrymen in the streets of Libya, the UN is passing yet another condemnation of Israel. As others have pointed out, 'this sanctimonious babbling mess (UN) is incapable of meaningful intervention.'
In closing, if the Financial Times was a physician, it would be sued for malpractice and have its license revoked. This is journalistic malpractice!
In what reality does the Editorial Board of the Financial Times live (in)? When has the UN conducted a successful campaign? Just ask the folks in Rwanda, Srebrenica (Bosnia), and Congo, what UN interventions did for them. Or, Kosovo Serbs being murdered and their organs removed by Bill and Hillary Clinton's "Albanian freedom fighters," under UN protection. And these are only a few examples.
While Col. Gaddafi is slaughtering his countrymen in the streets of Libya, the UN is passing yet another condemnation of Israel. As others have pointed out, 'this sanctimonious babbling mess (UN) is incapable of meaningful intervention.'
In closing, if the Financial Times was a physician, it would be sued for malpractice and have its license revoked. This is journalistic malpractice!
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Public Servants Are Now Our Masters: The New Slavery
In Hal Weitzman's article, "Battle of Madison tests US stomach for longer struggle" (FT, February 23), it is important to understand that the Governor of Wisconsin's effort is to curtail the power of Public Employee Unions, and not Unions (private) in general.
Mort Zuckerman's highly instructive article in the FT, "America's public servants are now its masters" (September 10, 2010), points out that "public sector employees have become a privileged class." For example: private sector workers are nearly three (3) times more likely to be jobless than public sector workers; public sector employees are better off in every area: pay, benefits, time off and security, on top of working fewer hours; ninety per cent of government employees receive lifetime pension benefits versus 18 per cent of private employees; public sector employees are almost impossible to fire; public-sector unions are a mechanism for involuntary transfers of money from taxpayers to the Democratic Party; approximately 62 per cent of Obama and the Democratic Congress's Stimulus Program of $787 billion went to support public service employees; and, for the past two years and the first time in recent memory, Obama and his Democratic cohorts could not find “one cent” for an Annual Cost of Living increase for America’s Retired Military and Senior Citizens, but public sector employees experienced no such hardship.
It was Obama who crowed after the 2008 election, that "elections have consequences." Precisely, and the election of 2010 is no different. To my Wisconsin Democratic representatives -- go to work! The citizens of any State elect their representatives to work and represent their views -- not hide like cowards. If you disagree with a bill then you may vote against it -- but, show up, speak out, and be counted.
Mort Zuckerman's highly instructive article in the FT, "America's public servants are now its masters" (September 10, 2010), points out that "public sector employees have become a privileged class." For example: private sector workers are nearly three (3) times more likely to be jobless than public sector workers; public sector employees are better off in every area: pay, benefits, time off and security, on top of working fewer hours; ninety per cent of government employees receive lifetime pension benefits versus 18 per cent of private employees; public sector employees are almost impossible to fire; public-sector unions are a mechanism for involuntary transfers of money from taxpayers to the Democratic Party; approximately 62 per cent of Obama and the Democratic Congress's Stimulus Program of $787 billion went to support public service employees; and, for the past two years and the first time in recent memory, Obama and his Democratic cohorts could not find “one cent” for an Annual Cost of Living increase for America’s Retired Military and Senior Citizens, but public sector employees experienced no such hardship.
It was Obama who crowed after the 2008 election, that "elections have consequences." Precisely, and the election of 2010 is no different. To my Wisconsin Democratic representatives -- go to work! The citizens of any State elect their representatives to work and represent their views -- not hide like cowards. If you disagree with a bill then you may vote against it -- but, show up, speak out, and be counted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
