It's official. Tiger Woods returns to competitive golf next week at the Accenture Match Play Championship in Arizona. It's a good thing too, because if you think our economy is going through a slump not seen since the Great Depression, the PGA has been full-scale depressed since Tiger limped away with the U.S. Open Championship last year.
Even I have a hard time watching golf when Tiger's not playing and I rarely if ever root for him to win. You see, my wife is a Padraig Harrington fan, which I think has more to do with his heritage and leprachaun voice than his golf. My daughters are through and through Tiger fans - jump on the bandwagon girls. I'm a Phil Fan, but Ol' Lefty often leaves his fans feeling the way you do two hours after eating chinese food - unsatisfied.
Ratings have been down precipitously for the PGA this year and they've been waiting patiently for their rainmaker to arrive back on the scene. As the old swashbuckling pro Walter Hagen supposedly told his on course nemesis Bobby Jones, "Win or lose kid, you were always the news." So it is with Tiger - he's always the news.
Most fans of golf, and PGA professionals for that matter, are in awe of Tiger whether they realize it or not - whether they admit it or not. And even us fans who want to see the field step up to him tune in to see if it will happen week after week. Now our attention will be on Tiger's return after eight months off the Tour.
The choice of returning for the match play event makes sense. Tiger relishes match play, because he is the most intimidating figure in golf and that is a big edge in this format. Yet, it is also a gamble, because match play is notoriously unpredictable. As a Phil Fan, I'll be on the edge of my seat during the first round hoping against hope that his slice doesn't come back - idiot. Hey, he said it himself, not me. Who am I to question his judgement?
Whatever the outcome, I'm glad he's coming back, because he is the greatest golfer in the world - ever. What I'm not looking forward to is the fawning and gratuitous coverage of everything Tiger next week. I'm afraid the on-course announcers are going to fall over themselves and disrupt the tournament to be near him - in His presence. If you're planning on watching next week, keep a bucket near your barca-lounger - you'll probably need it.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
"People Try to Put Us Down.."
I heard the question posed on one of the talk shows this morning and it was only a matter of time before it was asked - will our kids be able to expect to have a better life than we do? Is the American dream for all intents and purposes dead?
Whenever our economy is shaken to the extent is has been recently, there are those among us who are ready and willing to write America off and say her best days are behind her. President Carter himself fell victim to this type of naysaying and defeatism by telling us we need to start doing with less.
One of my favorite personal stories about intergenerational theft happened in 1998. I was attending a Trauger family reunion in Bucks County, PA. I was standing with my father, grandfather and his brother. Seizing upon a moment to ask a young Senate staffer a question, my grandfather's brother asked, "why is the federal government stealing my social security money?"
I responded that it was quite simple, his generation has been in power, my father's generation bitched and moaned for it, they gave it to them and my generation will have to pay for it. The discussion ended right there. I'm not sure my grandfather or his brother expected or appreciated such a broadside from me, but I believed it then and I believe it now.
Which brings us to today. What many people don't realize is the extent to which the federal government has gone into debt in the last six months to deal with the current situation. Nearly ten trillion dollars will be, has been, or could be spent to get us out of the hole we're in. Again, my generation and those that follow will be expected to pick up the tab when it comes due.
Unfortunately, this only reflects what's happened in the last six months. We still have major structural issues with our federal budget that set us up for nearly $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities for things such as Medicare and Social Security. What's different about that situation is the Baby Boom generation may actually have to help pay a portion of the bill by reducing their benefits - and they should.
Do I believe my daughters should expect to live a less fulfilled or comfortable life than I have? Do I believe the American dream is dead? Absolutley not. I have faith in the American people, the American spirit and American ingenuity to overcome these problems. I'm sure most living through the 1930's and late 1970's had their faith shaken and may have started to believe their children would never be able to make a better life for themselves, but they did. So it will be with the next generation. That is the hope and change we can believe in.
Whenever our economy is shaken to the extent is has been recently, there are those among us who are ready and willing to write America off and say her best days are behind her. President Carter himself fell victim to this type of naysaying and defeatism by telling us we need to start doing with less.
One of my favorite personal stories about intergenerational theft happened in 1998. I was attending a Trauger family reunion in Bucks County, PA. I was standing with my father, grandfather and his brother. Seizing upon a moment to ask a young Senate staffer a question, my grandfather's brother asked, "why is the federal government stealing my social security money?"
I responded that it was quite simple, his generation has been in power, my father's generation bitched and moaned for it, they gave it to them and my generation will have to pay for it. The discussion ended right there. I'm not sure my grandfather or his brother expected or appreciated such a broadside from me, but I believed it then and I believe it now.
Which brings us to today. What many people don't realize is the extent to which the federal government has gone into debt in the last six months to deal with the current situation. Nearly ten trillion dollars will be, has been, or could be spent to get us out of the hole we're in. Again, my generation and those that follow will be expected to pick up the tab when it comes due.
Unfortunately, this only reflects what's happened in the last six months. We still have major structural issues with our federal budget that set us up for nearly $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities for things such as Medicare and Social Security. What's different about that situation is the Baby Boom generation may actually have to help pay a portion of the bill by reducing their benefits - and they should.
Do I believe my daughters should expect to live a less fulfilled or comfortable life than I have? Do I believe the American dream is dead? Absolutley not. I have faith in the American people, the American spirit and American ingenuity to overcome these problems. I'm sure most living through the 1930's and late 1970's had their faith shaken and may have started to believe their children would never be able to make a better life for themselves, but they did. So it will be with the next generation. That is the hope and change we can believe in.
The Post-Partisan Era
Upon President Obama's election, America was promised he would usher in an era of post-partisanship. It shouldn't be a surprise that this was about as realistic as a world in which unicorns, flying monkeys and dragons live in peace and harmony.
I am not necessarily shocked or disappointed, but I think maybe I wanted to be. Even the most cynical of us have those fleeting moments when we get stuck in that moment and believe, however briefly - 'it is going to be different this time.' I had that feeling when I heard Obama speak on election night and from time-to-time as he went about the business of his transition - until he chose Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. At that point, there wasn't any doubt in my mind it wouldn't be any different than it has been in the past.
It couldn't be, it's not and I'm not sure I ever want it to be if what the American people get out of it is $1.2 trillion legislation that appears to do more for mice than man.
I am not necessarily shocked or disappointed, but I think maybe I wanted to be. Even the most cynical of us have those fleeting moments when we get stuck in that moment and believe, however briefly - 'it is going to be different this time.' I had that feeling when I heard Obama speak on election night and from time-to-time as he went about the business of his transition - until he chose Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. At that point, there wasn't any doubt in my mind it wouldn't be any different than it has been in the past.
It couldn't be, it's not and I'm not sure I ever want it to be if what the American people get out of it is $1.2 trillion legislation that appears to do more for mice than man.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The Junior Partner
Former Majority Leader Dick Armey had a plethora of quips, axioms and country song lyrics he used to conjur up at the appropriate times to describe or properly illustrate situations. One such axiom was, "If you make a deal with the devil, there's no question who the junior partner is."
This is true even if we change it a little to reflect something going on today. Which is to say, "If you make a deal with the government, there's no question who the junior partner is." An example of this is the limiting of executive pay for those companies receiving TARP funds. While it is pleasing to the ear, makes us feel good and appeals to our populist bent, it's also stupid.
Now, let me get something straight right away, I've never made $500,000 in one year and to most Americans it sounds like a heck of a paycheck if you can get it. I also make no excuses for the lack of leadership or backbone some executives have shown in running their companies. Yet, there is something to be said about the pressures executives are under from members of their board and shareholders to keep up with the next guy. Problem is, one of the next guys was Bernie Madoff and we found out how he rolled.
This isn't to excuse bad behavior. My parents always told me two wrongs don't make it right. My Dad also used to tell me that sometimes, "it's good enough for government work." This, from a guy who never worked for the government in his life. Thing is, senior executives in major corporations in the U.S. can not be satisfied with good enough for the government - they'd be run out on a rail by their boards and shareholders. In the end, I don't excuse the behavior, but I understand the pressure to perform.
The fact is, much of what is happening to our economy right now is and was beyond their control, but we as Americans want someone to blame. So executives are being forced to give up a sizeable portion of their income and slip on the yoke of government.
The question I have is, what about the government regulators or members of Congress who failed in their duty to oversee financial or housing markets? What about the legislators who admonished those looking into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make sure they weren't making too many bad loans? Even with clear warnings as to what the problems were, they still failed to act - or worse, they refused to act. What yoke will they be forced to wear? Will they lose their jobs or be forced to sacrifice a significant amount of their income as well?
Nope. They are the senior partner, and they got a raise this year.
This is true even if we change it a little to reflect something going on today. Which is to say, "If you make a deal with the government, there's no question who the junior partner is." An example of this is the limiting of executive pay for those companies receiving TARP funds. While it is pleasing to the ear, makes us feel good and appeals to our populist bent, it's also stupid.
Now, let me get something straight right away, I've never made $500,000 in one year and to most Americans it sounds like a heck of a paycheck if you can get it. I also make no excuses for the lack of leadership or backbone some executives have shown in running their companies. Yet, there is something to be said about the pressures executives are under from members of their board and shareholders to keep up with the next guy. Problem is, one of the next guys was Bernie Madoff and we found out how he rolled.
This isn't to excuse bad behavior. My parents always told me two wrongs don't make it right. My Dad also used to tell me that sometimes, "it's good enough for government work." This, from a guy who never worked for the government in his life. Thing is, senior executives in major corporations in the U.S. can not be satisfied with good enough for the government - they'd be run out on a rail by their boards and shareholders. In the end, I don't excuse the behavior, but I understand the pressure to perform.
The fact is, much of what is happening to our economy right now is and was beyond their control, but we as Americans want someone to blame. So executives are being forced to give up a sizeable portion of their income and slip on the yoke of government.
The question I have is, what about the government regulators or members of Congress who failed in their duty to oversee financial or housing markets? What about the legislators who admonished those looking into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make sure they weren't making too many bad loans? Even with clear warnings as to what the problems were, they still failed to act - or worse, they refused to act. What yoke will they be forced to wear? Will they lose their jobs or be forced to sacrifice a significant amount of their income as well?
Nope. They are the senior partner, and they got a raise this year.
Supply-Side Health Care
Contained in the soon to be passed economic stimulus package is a provision creating a council which will make decisions and recommendations on the health care we receive. This is in the name of controlling the growth of health care spending.
The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness and Research aims to compare outcomes, effectiveness and appropriateness of items, services and procedures used to prevent, diagnose or treat diseases, disorders and other health care conditions. While this sounds like a good idea on the surface, there is something lurking beneath.
Most of us are familiar with the notion of supply-side economics. Simply put, supply-side economics is the theory that we should advance policies that raise capital and labor output by increasing the incentive to produce. I contend there is a stronger and more organic supply-side force in health care. When pharmaceutical, device and biologics companies develop new treatments there is a natural tendency for us as consumers to want those innovative treatments regardless of whether there is an existing technology that is just as good.
Instead of encouraging the incentives to production, measures such as the Federal Coordinating Council threaten to choke off the supply of health care by managing the doctors you can see, the prescriptions they can write or the devices they can use to treat your condition. In my opinion, this is backwards. We need to encourage the discovery of new treatments and technologies, but this does not often happen with "blockbuster" drugs or devices. More often, it is an incremental advance and should be recognized as valuable, not dismissed as insignificant.
A more effective approach to controlling the cost of health care is to impact the demand side of the equation. A good example is what happens to health care treatments not covered by our health insurance - cosmetic surgery.
Because cosmetic surgery is rarely covered by health insurace, it is virtually the only sector of health care in this country where cost declines over time. The same is true of the eyesight correction procedures such as lasik. We pay for these procedures out of our own pockets so we are much more sensitive to the price. Are we sensitive to the price of a CT scan or X-ray? Does anyone really know how much these cost even after having one? Probably not.
In the end, let's focus our attention on where it ought to be - ourselves. I believe overutilization of health care in our country is the primary cause of increased costs to the system whether we pressure our doctors to perform tests or procedures or they are practicing defensive medicine to prevent a lawsuit. Only by being savvy consumers of health care can we have a significant impact on bending the growth curve of health care costs in our country.
The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness and Research aims to compare outcomes, effectiveness and appropriateness of items, services and procedures used to prevent, diagnose or treat diseases, disorders and other health care conditions. While this sounds like a good idea on the surface, there is something lurking beneath.
Most of us are familiar with the notion of supply-side economics. Simply put, supply-side economics is the theory that we should advance policies that raise capital and labor output by increasing the incentive to produce. I contend there is a stronger and more organic supply-side force in health care. When pharmaceutical, device and biologics companies develop new treatments there is a natural tendency for us as consumers to want those innovative treatments regardless of whether there is an existing technology that is just as good.
Instead of encouraging the incentives to production, measures such as the Federal Coordinating Council threaten to choke off the supply of health care by managing the doctors you can see, the prescriptions they can write or the devices they can use to treat your condition. In my opinion, this is backwards. We need to encourage the discovery of new treatments and technologies, but this does not often happen with "blockbuster" drugs or devices. More often, it is an incremental advance and should be recognized as valuable, not dismissed as insignificant.
A more effective approach to controlling the cost of health care is to impact the demand side of the equation. A good example is what happens to health care treatments not covered by our health insurance - cosmetic surgery.
Because cosmetic surgery is rarely covered by health insurace, it is virtually the only sector of health care in this country where cost declines over time. The same is true of the eyesight correction procedures such as lasik. We pay for these procedures out of our own pockets so we are much more sensitive to the price. Are we sensitive to the price of a CT scan or X-ray? Does anyone really know how much these cost even after having one? Probably not.
In the end, let's focus our attention on where it ought to be - ourselves. I believe overutilization of health care in our country is the primary cause of increased costs to the system whether we pressure our doctors to perform tests or procedures or they are practicing defensive medicine to prevent a lawsuit. Only by being savvy consumers of health care can we have a significant impact on bending the growth curve of health care costs in our country.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Maiden Blog
Much like my reticence to joining Facebook, I have been putting off posting a blog for months. I plan on posting my thoughts about what's happening here in Washington, DC. I suppose it wouldn't be out of character for me to talk a little golf as well.
ROMULUS STIMULUS:
By now, everyone knows Congress has been working on a so-called stimulus package to jump start the economy. What concerns me is the propensity for these mammoth pieces of legislation to take on a life of their own and do damage to the very things meant to be addressed.
I served in House Leadership for four years and have been an eyewitness to Members of Congress dealing with the issues of the day - large and small. One of the most striking observations I made during that time is the level to which the large issues become an obsession with little to no thought given to the consequences, intended or not, of the legislation passed. The legislation becomes all-consuming. The emphasis and energy shifts to get it done, whether it makes sense or not. Indeed, many times the solution being pursued has little to no impact on the problem they're trying to solve. It brings to mind the story of Romulus.
According to Roman mythology, Romulus and his twin brother Remus, were abandoned by their parents Mars and Rhea Silvia. The twins were reared by a wolf. During an argument over how to build Rome, Romulus killed his twin brother Remus.
The reason I thought of Romulus is I find it appropriate to describe our current situation with the stimulus package. Our parents have abandoned us. Romulus (government) is trying to solve a problem in building Rome (the economy). His brother, Remus (business), sees things a different way so Romulus kills his brother to solve the problem.
My hope is that Roman mythology can be rewritten so Romulus doesn't kill Remus this time.
ROMULUS STIMULUS:
By now, everyone knows Congress has been working on a so-called stimulus package to jump start the economy. What concerns me is the propensity for these mammoth pieces of legislation to take on a life of their own and do damage to the very things meant to be addressed.
I served in House Leadership for four years and have been an eyewitness to Members of Congress dealing with the issues of the day - large and small. One of the most striking observations I made during that time is the level to which the large issues become an obsession with little to no thought given to the consequences, intended or not, of the legislation passed. The legislation becomes all-consuming. The emphasis and energy shifts to get it done, whether it makes sense or not. Indeed, many times the solution being pursued has little to no impact on the problem they're trying to solve. It brings to mind the story of Romulus.
According to Roman mythology, Romulus and his twin brother Remus, were abandoned by their parents Mars and Rhea Silvia. The twins were reared by a wolf. During an argument over how to build Rome, Romulus killed his twin brother Remus.
The reason I thought of Romulus is I find it appropriate to describe our current situation with the stimulus package. Our parents have abandoned us. Romulus (government) is trying to solve a problem in building Rome (the economy). His brother, Remus (business), sees things a different way so Romulus kills his brother to solve the problem.
My hope is that Roman mythology can be rewritten so Romulus doesn't kill Remus this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)