For History Buffs

50 years ago: Austin was ‘all agog’ to greet JFK

Posted: 9:35 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 21, 2013

By Patrick Beach – American-Statesman Staff

Austin was ready.

The city was bedecked in holiday decorations and lights. Mayor Lester Palmer and Emma Long, the first woman elected to the City Council, were among the dignitaries set to greet President John F. Kennedy when Air Force One touched down at Bergstrom Air Force Base on the afternoon of Nov. 22, 1963 — 50 years ago today.

+

About 2,500 people were expected

A tent was up outside the Governor’s Mansion for a reception before the big event of the day. The invitations to that affair, scripted in handsome cursive, had gone out.

Largely because Gov. John Connally and others had tirelessly worked the phones, checks poured in for the $100-a-plate fundraising dinner at Austin Municipal Auditorium. The caterer didn’t know exactly how many plates to set. Connally said sales had “far exceeded” his predicted 2,500.

The excitement was such that Superintendent Irby Carruth announced that Austin schools would close at 2:30 p.m. so students could see the motorcade. A hand-drawn map of the route was printed in the newspaper. Unlike Dallas — where Kennedy people and the press were braced for a possibly hostile reception — Austin was giddy.

+

A photo of Lyndon Baines Johnson being sworn in

“The man on the street, the kids, clerks and stenographers will have ample opportunity to see and wave their greetings to President John Kennedy and the presidential party when the president visits Austin Friday,” the Austin Statesman declared on Nov. 19. On Nov. 21, the headline: “Austin all agog over Kennedy visit.” And a second story: “Till just before departure/Jackie held up wardrobe decision.”

The plane was to land at 3:15, and Kennedy would be taken by motorcade along a published route to the Commodore Perry Hotel — “Austin’s hotel of distinction” — at Eighth and Brazos streets at 3:30, attend a reception on the lawn of the Governor’s Mansion and head to what is now part of the Long Center for the fundraising dinner, the only overtly political event on the president’s Texas itinerary.

After steaks and a speech that Kennedy hoped would reunite the liberal and conservative wings of the Texas Democratic Party, they’d fly by helicopter out to Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson’s ranch in the Hill Country to kick back after a long and tiring trip.

+

A page from the Austin American-Statesman’s special section from Nov. 23, 1963, on the John F. Kennedy assassination.

Longtime LBJ caterer and self-proclaimed barbecue king Walter Jetton, almost certainly cowboyed up to the nines in his trademark Stetson and pressed white shirt, would tend to the barbecue pit at the ranch. It was whitetail season, and rumor had it that Johnson had ordered deer be positioned in such a way that the president could get a good shot. (The details of Johnson’s scheme, if in fact it existed, are lost to history.) Richard “Cactus” Pryor was booked to entertain, as he frequently did at the ranch.

Local and White House press were invited to a post-deadline cocktail party with “grazing food” in Colonnade Room III of the Commodore Perry Hotel, hosted by the local chapter of what later became the Society of Professional Journalists. Democrats from all over the state were checking in there and at other Austin hotels to settle in and get ready for the big dinner. During the visit, University of Texas coach Darrell Royal was going to give the president a football autographed by the soon-to-be national champion Longhorns.

Neal Spelce, who was working as news director and anchor at a TV station in town, was ready. They had filmed the preparations at the auditorium, tables and folding chairs filling the lower level, programs laid out.

“The idea was this was to be a big unity-type dinner,” said the veteran Austin broadcaster. “John Connally pretty much personified the conservative wing and (Sen. Ralph) Yarborough personified the liberal wing, and there was all this tug-of-war for control of the party. They wanted a show of unity, plus it was a big fundraiser, raising a bunch of money for the Kennedy re-election campaign.”

Amid intraparty fighting and even rumors that Kennedy might be preparing to dump Johnson from the 1964 ticket, the president planned to deliver a galvanizing speech in which he called Johnson “my strong right arm” and spoke of past promises fulfilled and future growth, concluding: “So let us not be petty when our cause is so great. Let us not quarrel amongst ourselves when our nation’s future is at stake. Let us stand together with renewed confidence in our cause — united in our heritage of the past and our hopes for the future — and determined that this land we love shall lead all mankind into new frontiers of peace and abundance.”

Fourteen members of Texas’ congressional delegation would be along for at least some part of the trip. “Never before in the storied history of Austin has such a large concentration of state and national leaders been here,” the Austin American reported on Nov. 22. For the people of Texas, it was to be their first chance to see Kennedy as president, and the first lady’s first official trip since the death of her infant son Patrick in August.

Johnson, in his remarks at the Austin dinner, intended to mention the pockets of antipathy directed at Kennedy from political extremists in Dallas and elsewhere. He was to conclude: “And thank God, Mr. President, that you came out of Dallas alive.” The line was sure to get a great reception.

Anything but ominous’

In Dallas, spectators lined the motorcade route, including a group of children with a sign that said, “Please stop and shake our hands.” The president complied.

Connally aide Julian Read was in charge of herding reporters on a press bus that day. Despite the dark warnings about the reception the president could receive in Dallas, “the mood inside the bus was anything but ominous,” Read wrote in his book, “JFK’s Final Hours in Texas.” “The air was filled with light banter akin to a holiday outing. Reporters were uniformly surprised by the warm reception for the president and his wife.”

In the president’s limousine, Texas first lady Nellie Connally turned and said, “Mr. President, you certainly can’t say Dallas doesn’t love you.”

The press bus was following the limo. Read heard “a pop. And then pop-pop,” and then the limo rocketed away.

In Austin, Spelce was at the Driskill Hotel meeting with Police Chief Bob Miles and finalizing details for covering the visit when the news from Dallas broke, a UPI bulletin. It was 12:36 p.m.:

THREE SHOTS WERE FIRED AT PRESIDENT KENNEDY’S MOTORCADE TODAY IN DOWNTOWN DALLAS, TEXAS.

The chief was informed. Spelce sprang out of his seat and dashed to his TV station a few blocks away to begin days of wall-to-wall coverage. The three Connally children were pulled out of Austin High, O. Henry Middle and Casis Elementary schools and taken to the Governor’s Mansion where, because of three gunshots, there would be no reception since — as the world would learn in about an hour — there was no President Kennedy to be received.

Shock and numbness

Spelce went to the auditorium and found a scene he described as eerie — everything perfect, everything ready, the catering staff weeping.

For days, Spelce said, “People were walking around with blank stares. Just numb. And glued to the TV sets. People were mesmerized, maybe a little more here because there was this anticipation that he was going to be here in just a few hours. The community had rallied around the idea that this was a historical occasion. Over the weekend, downtown was almost a ghost town. People started showing up in church who hadn’t been there in a while.”

Ben Barnes, freshly elected to the Texas Legislature and an early supporter of Connally’s campaign for governor, had spent seven or eight weeks plotting out the trip, working closely with Kennedy advance man Jerry Bruno, who for decades would blame himself for the assassination.

“This was a political trip,” said Barnes, who would go on to become lieutenant governor. “He came to raise money. He was also down in the polls. Connally was 10 or 11 points higher than Kennedy.”

Barnes remembers Nellie Connally spotting a problem in the proposed itinerary: a short turnaround for the first lady to freshen up at the hotel before the governor’s reception.

“She’s going to be mad as hell if she only has 15 minutes to change clothes,” Barnes recalls Connally saying.

Barnes, among others, had lobbied against a motorcade in Dallas. But Yarborough wanted it. And, more importantly, so did the president. He wanted people to see him.

“We delivered (Lee Harvey Oswald) a home run when that parade route was planned to get the most people out,” Barnes said.

Barnes was having lunch at the Forty Acres Club on the UT campus with Frank Erwin, a powerful state Democrat, and Bill Moyers, then deputy director of the Peace Corps and soon to become Johnson’s press secretary. Moyers got a call from the Secret Service: Johnson wanted him to proceed immediately to Love Field in Dallas. The Texas Department of Public Safety called Barnes, saying Kennedy and Connally, the latter a close political ally and personal friend, had been shot. Barnes arranged for a DPS plane to take Moyers. The door was open and both engines were running when they got to the airport.

“I never saw a plane take off like that,” Barnes said. “It was a terrible ordeal. We didn’t know if Connally was going to live or not.”

In Dallas, the president’s limo sped to Parkland Hospital while a press bus full of reporters covering Kennedy’s visit went to the Trade Mart as planned. Upon arrival they all rushed to the bank of pay phones as Connally aide Read told event organizers they feared something awful had happened.

Read had planned to return to Austin to work on Connally’s speech that night after the morning breakfast event in the Crystal Ballroom of the Hotel Texas in Fort Worth, where the first couple had spent the night in room 850. Jacqueline Kennedy, as she was wont to do, was late in arriving to the event, but when she did it was like a movie star walked in. Read decided to stick around. The rain had passed, the bubbletop was removed from the president’s limo, the sun was out, and the crowds were much larger and more welcoming than expected. It was going to be a great day.

No more. Barnes went to the state Capitol and with Texas House Speaker Byron Tunnell arranged a memorial and prayer service in the chamber that night. Calls were made to area hotels and motels, and programs printed on a mimeograph.

“We had to do something,” Barnes recalled. “People were beside themselves. There was some comfort to that.”

Earlier, Westinghouse Broadcasting’s White House reporter Sid Davis had arrived at Love Field just as the president’s casket was being loaded onto Air Force One. A number of seats had been removed to accommodate it, and Secret Service agents had to use a hammer or mallet to knock off the casket’s handles to get it on the plane. It was broiling inside. Davis remembers Johnson saying, “I feel like I’ve lived a year since this morning.”

Johnson asked Jacqueline Kennedy, still wearing her blood-soaked outfit, if she would like to stand with him as he was sworn in. When she appeared, Davis said, “the sobbing turned to outright bawling.”

The oath was administered in 28 seconds. Davis got off the plane to file his solemn report.

Shame we’ll never live down’

Shock, grief and fear gripped the nation — if not the world — especially in Austin, where high expectations were replaced with horror. How could this have happened? How could it have happened here? Was it a conspiracy?

“Oh, no,” a woman described as a “gray-haired mother” told an Austin newspaper reporter. “All through the war, all over the world, and we in Texas have to do this. The shame we’ll never live down.”

Two days later, Dallas cabaret owner Jack Ruby shot and killed Oswald in the basement of the Dallas police headquarters — on live television and in a crowd of lawmen numerous enough to quell a riot.

Margaret Berry, long considered UT’s unofficial historian, remembers walking to lunch when someone told her the news that Kennedy had been shot. She didn’t have tickets to that night’s dinner; her mother was quite ill at the time. But she knew people who did. Those people were now possessing grim keepsakes.

She also remembers a memorial service sometime later at University United Methodist Church, which she said President Johnson chose because it was a pretty church on campus. She sat in the balcony.

At the time, some predicted that the assassination was the event that would unleash an era of violence and madness. And so it was to be.

“Dallas, Oswald, Ruby, Watts, Whitman, Manson, Ray, Sirhan, Bremer, Vietnam, Nixon, Watergate, FBI, CIA, Squeaky Fromme, Sara Moore — the list goes on and on,” Austin journalist Gary Cartwright wrote in a 1975 Texas Monthly article on Ruby, whom he knew. “Who the hell wrote this script, and where will it end? A dozen years of violence, shock, treachery and paranoia, and I date it all back to that insane weekend in Dallas and Jack Ruby — the one essential link in the chain, the man who changed an isolated act into a trend.”

Fifty years on, the aftershocks remain more faint but ongoing. Something — call it innocence or confidence or plain, naive hope — has eroded, forever melted away.

When, Berry was asked, did things return to normal? Her answer was bitter and rhetorical:

“Did they ever?”


About this story

Patrick Beach conducted roughly 10 interviews of people who were in Austin, Dallas-Fort Worth and the Washington, D.C., area on Nov. 22, 1963; reviewed the archives of the Austin American and the Austin Statesman in the days preceding and following the assassination; and examined period documents and photos at the Austin History Center.

 

A Proposal to Shake Things Up

It is time to revisit the Reapportionment Act of 1929.  That law set the number of Representatives at 435 but did not restate the 1911 provision that districts be contiguous, compact, and equally populated.  The Supreme Court eventually restored “equally populated” in the one-man one vote decisions which were key civil rights cases of the early 1960s, spearheaded by Alabama Attorney General Richmond Flowers.  We have never come back to “contiguous (and) compact.”

 
435 was set as the number because of the size of the chamber.  I suggest that limitation is a mere logistical issue that can be overcome in many ways that need not be addressed here.

 
Take the least populated state in each decennial census and give it one Rep.  Then give other states multiples rounded up so that 1.51 WY in 2010 equals 2.  Expand the House as necessary.

 
Done for 2010, the total membership of the HoR would now be 544.  CA would have 66.  TX would have 44.  NY would have 34.  FL would have 33.  Make the mandate “contiguous and compact, leaving entire municipalities and entire counties within a single district wherever possible.”

 
Shake things up a bit.  We might get Congress to actually support it because it makes for more Congressmen, each with somewhat more manageable districts for campaign purposes.  Of course, it would effectively end the gerrymander.

Copied Without Permission from the WSJ

By
JEFFREY A. SINGER

Every so often I have an extraordinary and surprising experience with a patient—the kind that makes us both say, “Wow, we’ve learned something from this.” One such moment occurred recently.

A gentleman in his early 60s came in with a rather routine hernia in his lower abdomen, one that is easily repaired with a simple outpatient surgical procedure. We scheduled the surgery at a nearby hospital.

My patient is self-employed and owns a low-cost “indemnity” type of health insurance policy. It has no provider-network requirements or preferred-hospital requirements. The patient can go anywhere. The policy pays up to a fixed amount for doctor and hospital bills based upon the diagnosis. This affordable health-insurance policy made a lot of sense to this man, based on his health and financial situation.

When the man arrived at the hospital for surgery, the admitting clerk reviewed the terms of his policy and estimated the amount of his bill that would be paid by insurance. She asked him to pay his estimated portion in advance. (More hospitals are doing that now because too often patients don’t pay their portions of the bills after insurance has paid.)

The insurance policy, the clerk said, would pay up to $2,500 for the surgeon—more than enough—and up to $2,500 for the hospital’s charges for the operating room, nursing, recovery room, etc. The estimated hospital charge was $23,000. She asked him to pay roughly $20,000 upfront to cover the estimated balance. (emphasis provided)

My patient was stunned. I received a call from the admitting clerk informing me that he wanted to cancel the surgery, and explaining why. After speaking to the man alone and learning the nature of his insurance policy, I realized I was not bound by any “preferred provider” contractual arrangements and knew we had a solution.

I explained that just because he had health insurance didn’t mean he had to use it in every situation. After all, when people have a minor fender-bender, they often settle it privately rather than file an insurance claim. Because of the nature of this man’s policy, he could do the same thing for his medical procedure. However, had I been bound by a preferred-provider contract or by Medicare, I wouldn’t have been able to enlighten him.

Hospitals and other providers make their “list” prices as high as possible when negotiating contracts with health plans and Medicare regulators. No one is ever expected to pay the list price. Anybody who has seen an “Explanation of Benefits” statement from a health plan will note a very high charge from the provider, and an “adjusted charge” based upon the contracted fee schedule, which usually leaves the patient with little or nothing in out-of-pocket expenses. The only people routinely faced with list prices are those few people who have insurance like my patient’s—that doesn’t include a pre-negotiated fee schedule with contracted providers—or those who have no insurance.

Most people are unaware that if they don’t use insurance, they can negotiate upfront cash prices with hospitals and providers substantially below the “list” price. Doctors are happy to do this. We get paid promptly, without paying office staff to wade through the insurance-payment morass.

So we canceled the surgery and started the scheduling process all over again, this time classifying my patient as a “self-pay” (or uninsured) patient. I quoted him a reasonable upfront cash price, as did the anesthesiologist. We contacted a different hospital and they quoted him a reasonable upfront cash price for the outpatient surgical/nursing services. He underwent his operation the very next day, with a total bill of just a little over $3,000, including doctor and hospital fees. He ended up saving $17,000 by not using insurance. (emphasis provided)

This process taught us a few things. First, most people these days don’t have health “insurance.” They have prepaid health plans. They pay premiums to take advantage of a pre-negotiated fee schedule arranged for and administered by a third party. My patient, on the other hand, had insurance.

Second, even with the markdown for upfront “cash-pay” patients, none of the providers was losing money on my patient. Otherwise they wouldn’t have agreed to the prices. With the third-party payer taken out of the picture, we got a better idea of the market prices for the services. It is the third-party payment system that interferes with true price competition, so “market clearing prices” can’t develop.

Take the examples of Lasik eye surgery or cosmetic surgery. These services are not covered by insurance. Providers compete on the basis of quality, outcomes and price. And prices have continually dropped as quality and services have improved—unlike the rest of health care.

When my patient returned for his post-op visit we discussed the experience. It was clear to both of us that the only way to make health care more affordable is to diminish the role of third-party payers. Let consumers and providers interact through market forces to drive down prices and drive up quality, like we do when we buy groceries, clothing, cars, computers, etc. Drop the focus on prepaid health plans and return to the days of real health insurance—that covers major, unforeseen events, leaving the everyday expenses to the consumer—just like auto and homeowners’ insurance.

Sadly, we are heading in the exact opposite direction. ObamaCare expands the role of the third party and practically eliminates the role—and the say—of the patient in the delivery of health care. Will they ever learn?

Dr. Singer practices general surgery in Phoenix, Ariz., and is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.

A version of this article appeared August 22, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Man Who Was Treated for $17,000 Less.

This is Insane.

New York Times
July 20, 2013
A Shuffle of Aluminum, but to Banks, Pure Gold
By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI

MOUNT CLEMENS, Mich. — Hundreds of millions of times a day, thirsty Americans open a can of soda, beer or juice. And every time they do it, they pay a fraction of a penny more because of a shrewd maneuver by Goldman Sachs and other financial players that ultimately costs consumers billions of dollars.

The story of how this works begins in 27 industrial warehouses in the Detroit area where a Goldman subsidiary stores customers’ aluminum. Each day, a fleet of trucks shuffles 1,500-pound bars of the metal among the warehouses. Two or three times a day, sometimes more, the drivers make the same circuits. They load in one warehouse. They unload in another. And then they do it again.

This industrial dance has been choreographed by Goldman to exploit pricing regulations set up by an overseas commodities exchange, an investigation by The New York Times has found. The back-and-forth lengthens the storage time. And that adds many millions a year to the coffers of Goldman, which owns the warehouses and charges rent to store the metal. It also increases prices paid by manufacturers and consumers across the country.

Tyler Clay, a forklift driver who worked at the Goldman warehouses until early this year, called the process “a merry-go-round of metal.”

Only a tenth of a cent or so of an aluminum can’s purchase price can be traced back to the strategy. But multiply that amount by the 90 billion aluminum cans consumed in the United States each year — and add the tons of aluminum used in things like cars, electronics and house siding — and the efforts by Goldman and other financial players has cost American consumers more than $5 billion over the last three years, say former industry executives, analysts and consultants.

The inflated aluminum pricing is just one way that Wall Street is flexing its financial muscle and capitalizing on loosened federal regulations to sway a variety of commodities markets, according to financial records, regulatory documents and interviews with people involved in the activities.

The maneuvering in markets for oil, wheat, cotton, coffee and more have brought billions in profits to investment banks like Goldman, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, while forcing consumers to pay more every time they fill up a gas tank, flick on a light switch, open a beer or buy a cellphone. In the last year, federal authorities have accused three banks, including JPMorgan, of rigging electricity prices, and last week JPMorgan was trying to reach a settlement that could cost it $500 million.

Using special exemptions granted by the Federal Reserve Bank and relaxed regulations approved by Congress, the banks have bought huge swaths of infrastructure used to store commodities and deliver them to consumers — from pipelines and refineries in Oklahoma, Louisiana and Texas; to fleets of more than 100 double-hulled oil tankers at sea around the globe; to companies that control operations at major ports like Oakland, Calif., and Seattle.

In the case of aluminum, Goldman bought Metro International Trade Services, one of the country’s biggest storers of the metal. More than a quarter of the supply of aluminum available on the market is kept in the company’s Detroit-area warehouses.

Before Goldman bought Metro International three years ago, warehouse customers used to wait an average of six weeks for their purchases to be located, retrieved by forklift and delivered to factories. But now that Goldman owns the company, the wait has grown more than 20-fold — to more than 16 months, according to industry records.

Longer waits might be written off as an aggravation, but they also make aluminum more expensive nearly everywhere in the country because of the arcane formula used to determine the cost of the metal on the spot market. The delays are so acute that Coca-Cola and many other manufacturers avoid buying aluminum stored here. Nonetheless, they still pay the higher price.

Goldman Sachs says it complies with all industry standards, which are set by the London Metal Exchange, and there is no suggestion that these activities violate any laws or regulations. Metro International, which declined to comment for this article, in the past has attributed the delays to logistical problems, including a shortage of trucks and forklift drivers, and the administrative complications of tracking so much metal. But interviews with several current and former Metro employees, as well as someone with direct knowledge of the company’s business plan, suggest the longer waiting times are part of the company’s strategy and help Goldman increase its profits from the warehouses.

Metro International holds nearly 1.5 million tons of aluminum in its Detroit facilities, but industry rules require that all that metal cannot simply sit in a warehouse forever. At least 3,000 tons of that metal must be moved out each day. But nearly all of the metal that Metro moves is not delivered to customers, according to the interviews. Instead, it is shuttled from one warehouse to another.

Because Metro International charges rent each day for the stored metal, the long queues caused by shifting aluminum among its facilities means larger profits for Goldman. And because storage cost is a major component of the “premium” added to the price of all aluminum sold on the spot market, the delays mean higher prices for nearly everyone, even though most of the metal never passes through one of Goldman’s warehouses.

Aluminum industry analysts say that the lengthy delays at Metro International since Goldman took over are a major reason the premium on all aluminum sold in the spot market has doubled since 2010. The result is an additional cost of about $2 for the 35 pounds of aluminum used to manufacture 1,000 beverage cans, investment analysts say, and about $12 for the 200 pounds of aluminum in the average American-made car.

“It’s a totally artificial cost,” said one of them, Jorge Vazquez, managing director at Harbor Aluminum Intelligence, a commodities consulting firm. “It’s a drag on the economy. Everyone pays for it.”

Metro officials have said they are simply reacting to market forces, and on the company Web site describe their role as “bringing together metal producers, traders and end users,” and helping the exchange “create and maintain stability.”

But the London Metal Exchange, which oversees 719 warehouses around the globe, has not always been an impartial arbiter — it receives 1 percent of the rent collected by its warehouses worldwide. Until last year, it was owned by members, including Goldman, Barclays and Citigroup. Many of its regulations were drawn up by the exchange’s warehouse committee, which is made up of executives of various banks, trading companies and storage companies — including the president of Goldman’s Metro International — as well as representatives of powerful trading firms in Europe. The exchange was sold last year to a group of Hong Kong investors and this month it proposed regulations that would take effect in April 2014 intended to reduce the bottlenecks at Metro.

All of this could come to an end if the Federal Reserve Board declines to extend the exemptions that allowed Goldman and Morgan Stanley to make major investments in nonfinancial businesses — although there are indications in Washington that the Fed will let the arrangement stand. Wall Street banks, meanwhile, have focused their attention on another commodity. After a sustained lobbying effort, the Securities and Exchange Commission late last year approved a plan that will allow JPMorgan Chase, Goldman and BlackRock to buy up to 80 percent of the copper available on the market.

In filings with the S.E.C., Goldman has said it plans by early next year to store copper in the same Detroit-area warehouses where it now stockpiles aluminum. On Saturday, however, Michael DuVally, a Goldman spokesman, said the company had decided not to participate in the copper venture, though it had not disclosed that publicly. He declined to elaborate.

Banks as Traders

For much of the last century, Congress tried to keep a wall between banking and commerce. Banks were forbidden from owning nonfinancial businesses (and vice versa) to minimize the risks they take and, ultimately, to protect depositors. Congress strengthened those regulations in the 1950s, but by the 1980s, a wave of deregulation began to build and banks have in some cases been transformed into merchants, according to Saule T. Omarova, a law professor at the University of North Carolina and expert in regulation of financial institutions. Goldman and other firms won regulatory approval to buy companies that traded in oil and other commodities. Other restrictions were weakened or eliminated during the 1990s, when some banks were allowed to expand into storing and transporting commodities.

Over the past decade, a handful of bank holding companies have sought and received approval from the Federal Reserve to buy physical commodity trading assets.

According to public documents in an application filed by JPMorgan Chase, the Fed said such arrangements would be approved only if they posed no risk to the banking system and could “reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interests, or unsound banking practices.”

By controlling warehouses, pipelines and ports, banks gain valuable market intelligence, investment analysts say. That, in turn, can give them an edge when trading commodities. In the stock market, such an arrangement might be seen as a conflict of interest — or even insider trading. But in the commodities market, it is perfectly legal.

“Information is worth money in the trading world and in commodities, the only way you get it is by being in the physical market,” said Jason Schenker, president and chief economist at Prestige Economics in Austin, Tex. “So financial institutions that engage in commodities trading have a huge advantage because their ownership of physical assets gives them insight in physical flows of commodities.”

Some investors and analysts say that the banks have helped consumers by spurring investment and making markets more efficient. But even banks have, at times, acknowledged that Wall Street’s activities in the commodities market during the last decade have contributed to some price increases.

In 2011, for instance, an internal Goldman memo suggested that speculation by investors accounted for about a third of the price of a barrel of oil. A commissioner at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the federal regulator, subsequently used that estimate to calculate that speculation added about $10 per fill-up for the average American driver. Other experts have put the total, combined cost at $200 billion a year.

High Premiums

The entrance to one of Metro International’s main aluminum warehouses here in suburban Detroit is unmarked except for one toppling sign that displays two words: Mount Clemens, the town’s name.

Most days, there are just a handful of cars in the parking lot during the day shift, and by 5 p.m., both the parking lot and guard station often appear empty, neighbors say. Yet inside the two cavernous blue warehouses are rows and rows of huge metal bars, weighing more than half a ton each, stacked 15 feet high.

After Goldman bought the company in 2010, Metro International began to attract a stockpile. It actually began paying a hefty incentive to traders who stored their aluminum in the warehouses. As the hoard of aluminum grew — from 50,000 tons in 2008 to 850,000 in 2010 to nearly 1.5 million currently — so did the wait times to retrieve metal and the premium added to the base price. By the summer of 2011, the price spikes prompted Coca-Cola to complain to the industry overseer, the London Metal Exchange, that Metro’s delays were to blame.

Martin Abbott, the head of the exchange, said at the time that he did not believe that the warehouse delays were causing the problem. But the group tried to quiet the furor by imposing new regulations that doubled the amount of metal that the warehouses are required to ship each day — from 1,500 tons to 3,000 tons. But few metal traders or manufacturers believed that the move would settle the issue.

“The move is too little and too late to have a material effect in the near-term on an already very tight physical market, particularly in the U.S.,” Morgan Stanley analysts said in a note to investors that summer.

Still, the wait times at Metro have grown, causing the premium to rise further. Current and former employees at Metro say those delays are by design.

Industry analysts and company insiders say that the vast majority of the aluminum being moved around Metro’s warehouses is owned not by manufacturers or wholesalers, but by banks, hedge funds and traders. They buy caches of aluminum in financing deals. Once those deals end and their metal makes it through the queue, the owners can choose to renew them, a process known as rewarranting.

To encourage aluminum speculators to renew their leases, Metro offers some clients incentives of up to $230 a ton, and usually moves their metal from one warehouse to another, according to industry analysts and current and former company employees.

To metal owners, the incentives mean cash upfront and the chance to make more profit if the premiums increase. To Metro, it keeps the delays long, allowing the company to continue charging a daily rent of 48 cents a ton. Goldman bought the company for $550 million in 2010 and at current rates could collect about a quarter-billion dollars a year in rent.

Metro officials declined to discuss specifics about its lease renewals or incentive policies.

But metal analysts, like Mr. Vazquez at Harbor Aluminum Intelligence, estimate that 90 percent or more of the metal moved at Metro each day goes to another warehouse to play the same game. That figure was confirmed by current and former employees familiar with Metro’s books, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of company policy.

Goldman Sachs declined to discuss details of its operations. Mr. DuVally, the Goldman spokesman, pointed out that the London Metal Exchange prohibits warehouse companies from owning metal, so all of the aluminum being loaded and unloaded by Metro was being stored and shipped for other owners.

“In fact,” he said, “L.M.E. warehouses are actually prohibited from trading all L.M.E. products.”

As the delays have grown, many manufacturers have turned elsewhere to buy their aluminum, often buying it directly from mining or refining companies and bypassing the warehouses completely. Even then, though, the warehouse delays add to manufacturers’ costs, because they increase the premium that is added to the price of all aluminum sold on the open market.

The Warehouse Dance

On the warehouse floor, the arrangement makes for a peculiar workday, employees say.

Despite the persistent backlogs, many Metro warehouses operate only one shift and usually sit idle 12 or more hours a day. In a town like Detroit, where factories routinely operate round the clock when necessary, warehouse workers say that low-key pace is uncommon.

When they do work, forklift drivers say, there is much more urgency moving aluminum into, and among, the warehouses than shipping it out. Mr. Clay, the forklift driver, who worked at the Mount Clemens warehouse until February, said that while aluminum was delivered in huge loads by rail car, it left in a relative trickle by truck.

“They’d keep loading up the warehouses and every now and then, when one was totally full they’d shut it down and send the drivers over here to try and fill another one up,” said Mr. Clay, 23.

Because much of the aluminum is simply moved from one Metro facility to another, warehouse workers said they routinely saw the same truck drivers making three or more round trips each day. Anthony Stuart, a forklift team leader at the Mount Clemens warehouse until 2012, said he and his nephew — who worked at a Metro warehouse about six miles away in Chesterfield Township — occasionally asked drivers to pass messages back and forth between them.

“Sometimes I’d talk to my nephew on the weekend, and we’d joke about it,” Mr. Stuart said. “I’d ask him ‘Did you get all that metal we sent you?’ And he’d tell; me ‘Yep. Did you get all that stuff we sent you?’ ”

Mr. Stuart said he also scoffed at Metro’s contention that a major cause for the monthslong delays is the difficulty in locating each customer’s store of metal and moving the other huge bars of aluminum to get at it. When he arrived at work each day, Mr. Stuart’s job was to locate and retrieve specific batches of aluminum from the vast stores in the warehouse and set them out to be loaded onto trucks.

“It’s all in rows,” he said. “You can find and get anything in a day if you want. And if you’re in a hurry, a couple of hours at the very most.”

When the London Metal Exchange was sold to a Hong Kong company for $2.2 billion last year, its chief executive promised to take “a bazooka” to the problem of long wait times.

But the new owner of the exchange has balked at adopting a remedy raised by a consultant hired to study the problem in 2010: limit the rent warehouses can collect during the backlogs. The exchange receives 1 percent of the rent collected by the warehouses, so such a step would cost it millions in revenue.

Other aluminum users have pressed the exchange to prohibit warehouses from providing incentives to those that are simply stockpiling the metal, but the exchange has not done so.

Last month, however, after complaints by a consortium of beer brewers, the exchange proposed new rules that would require warehouses to ship more metal than they take in. But some financial firms have raised objections to those new regulations, which they contend may hurt traders and aluminum producers. The exchange board will vote on the proposal in October and, if approved, it would not take effect until April 2014.

Nick Madden, chief procurement officer for one of the nation’s largest aluminum purchasers, Novelis, said the situation illustrated the perils of allowing industries to regulate themselves. Mr. Madden said that the exchange had for years tolerated delays and high premiums, so its new proposals, while encouraging, were still a long way from solving the problem. “We’re relieved that the L.M.E. is finally taking an action that ultimately will help the market and normalize,” he said. “However, we’re going to take another year of inflated premiums and supply chain risk.”

In the meantime, the Federal Reserve, which regulates Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and other banks, is reviewing the exemptions that have let banks make major investments in commodities. Some of those exemptions are set to expire, but the Fed appears to have no plans to require the banks to sell their storage facilities and other commodity infrastructure assets, according to people briefed on the issue.

A Fed spokeswoman, Barbara Hagenbaugh, provided the following statement: “The Federal Reserve regularly monitors the commodity activities of supervised firms and is reviewing the 2003 determination that certain commodity activities are complementary to financial activities and thus permissible for bank holding companies.”

Senator Sherrod Brown, who is sponsoring Congressional hearings on Tuesday on Wall Street’s ownership of warehouses, pipelines and other commodity-related assets, says he hopes the Fed reins in the banks.

“Banks should be banks, not oil companies,” said Mr. Brown, Democrat of Ohio. “They should make loans, not manipulate the markets to drive up prices for manufacturers and expose our entire financial system to undue risk.”

Next Up: Copper

As Goldman has benefited from its wildly lucrative foray into the aluminum market, JPMorgan has been moving ahead with plans to establish its own profit center involving an even more crucial metal: copper, an industrial commodity that is so widely used in homes, electronics, cars and other products that many economists track it as a barometer for the global economy.

In 2010, JPMorgan quietly embarked on a huge buying spree in the copper market. Within weeks — by the time it had been identified as the mystery buyer — the bank had amassed $1.5 billion in copper, more than half of the available amount held in all of the warehouses on the exchange. Copper prices spiked in response.

At the same time, JPMorgan, which also controls metal warehouses, began seeking approval of a plan that would ultimately allow it, Goldman Sachs and BlackRock, a large money management firm, to buy 80 percent of the copper available on the market on behalf of investors and hold it in warehouses. The firms have told regulators that these stockpiles, which would be used to back new copper exchange-traded funds, would not affect copper prices. But manufacturers and copper wholesalers warned that the arrangement would squeeze the market and send prices soaring. They asked the S.E.C. to reject the proposal.

After an intensive lobbying campaign by the banks, Mary L. Schapiro, the S.E.C.’s chairwoman, approved the new copper funds last December, during her final days in office. S.E.C. officials said they believed the funds would track the price of copper, not propel it, and concurred with the firms’ contention — disputed by some economists — that reducing the amount of copper on the market would not drive up prices.

Others now fear that Wall Street banks will repeat or revise the tactics that have run up prices in the aluminum market. Such an outcome, they caution, would ripple through the economy. Consumers would end up paying more for goods as varied as home plumbing equipment, autos, cellphones and flat-screen televisions.

Robert Bernstein, a lawyer at Eaton & Van Winkle, who represents companies that use copper, said that his clients were fearful of “an investor-financed squeeze” of the copper market. “We think the S.E.C. missed the evidence,” he said.

Gretchen Morgenson contributed reporting from New York. Alain Delaquérière contributed research from New York.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: July 20, 2013

A previous version of this article misstated one of the financial institutions that received approval to buy up to 80 percent of the copper available on the market. It is BlackRock, not the Blackstone Group.

REPRINTED WITHOUT PERMISSION 7-2-13

Why They Fought
By DAVID BROOKS

Tuesday is the 150th anniversary of the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg. In his eloquent new account, “Gettysburg: the Last Invasion,” the historian Allen Guelzo describes the psychology of the fighters on that day.

A battlefield is “the lonesomest place which men share together,” a soldier once observed. At Gettysburg, the men were sometimes isolated within the rolling clouds of gun smoke and unnerved by what Guelzo calls “the weird harmonic ring of bullets striking fixed bayonets.” They were often terrified, of course, sometimes losing bladder and bowel control. (Aristophanes once called battle “the terrible one, the tough one, the one upon the legs.”)

But, as Guelzo notes, the Civil War was fought with “an amateurism of spirit and an innocence of intent, which would be touching if that same amateurism had not also contrived to make it so bloody.”

Discipline was loose. Civil War soldiers were not used to subordinating themselves within large organizations. One veteran observed that in battle “men standing in line got in paroxysms of laughter.” But many were motivated by the sense that they were living up to some high moral ideal. Words like “gallant,” “valor” and “chivalric” dot their descriptions of each other’s behavior. Upon being taken prisoner, one Union soldier shook his captors’ hands and congratulated them on the “most splendid charge of the war.”

Another officer remembered battle as a “supreme minute to you; you are in ecstasies.” A Union artillery officer confessed that throughout Gettysburg “somehow or other I felt a joyous exaltation, a perfect indifference to circumstances, through the whole of that three days’ fight, and I have seldom enjoyed three days more in my life.”

In our current era, as the saying goes, we take that which is lower to be more real. We generally believe that soldiers under the gritty harshness of war are not thinking about high ideals like gallantry. They are just trying to get through the day or protect their buddies. Since World War I, as Hemingway famously put it, abstract words like “honor” and “glory” and “courage” often seem obscene and pretentious. Studies of letters sent home by soldiers in World War II suggest that grand ideas were remote from their daily concerns.

But Civil War soldiers were different. In his 1997 book “For Cause and Comrades,” James M. McPherson looked at the private letters Civil War soldiers sent to their loved ones. As McPherson noted, they ring with “patriotism, ideology, concepts of duty, honor, manhood and community.”

The soldiers were intensely political. Newspapers were desperately sought after in camp. Between battles, several regiments held formal debates on subjects like the constitutional issues raised by the war. “Ideological motifs almost leap from many pages of these documents,” McPherson reports. “It is government against anarchy, law against disorder,” a Philadelphia printer wrote, explaining his desire to fight.

The letters were also explicitly moralistic. “The consciousness of duty was pervasive in Victorian America,” McPherson writes. The letters were studded with the language of personal honor, and, above all, a desire to sacrifice, as one soldier put it, “personal feelings and inclinations to … my duty in the hour of danger.”

One of the most famous letters was written not at Gettysburg but on July 14, 1861, on the eve of the First Battle of Bull Run. It was written by Sullivan Ballou, an officer from Rhode Island. Ballou had lost his own parents when he was young and, having known “the bitter fruit of orphanage myself,” he declared himself loath to die in battle and leave his small children fatherless.

“My love for you is deathless,” he wrote to his wife. “It seems to bind me to you with mighty cables that nothing but Omnipotence could break; yet my love of country comes over me like a strong wind and bears me irresistibly on with all these chains to the battlefield.”

It’s not just love of country that impels him, but a feeling of indebtedness to the past: “I know how strongly American Civilization now leans upon the triumph of the Government, and how great a debt we owe to those who went before us through the blood and suffering of the Revolution. And I am willing — perfectly willing — to lay down all my joys in this life, to help maintain this Government, and to pay that debt.”

These letter writers, and many of the men at Gettysburg, were not just different than most of us today because their language was more high flown and earnest. There was probably also a greater covenantal consciousness, a belief that they were born in a state of indebtedness to an ongoing project, and they would inevitably be called upon to pay these debts, to come square with the country, even at the cost of their lives.

Makes today’s special interest politics look kind of pathetic.

Not Your Ordinary Marketplace

http://tinyurl.com/m4qjapm

Some takeaways:

Whether directly from their wallets or through insurance policies, Americans pay much more for almost every interaction with the medical system.

High prices mostly result not from top-notch patient care, but from business plans seeking to maximize revenue; haggling between hospitals and insurers that have no relation to the actual costs of performing the procedure; and lobbying, marketing and turf battles among specialists that increase patient fees.

The United States spends about 18 percent of its gross domestic product on health care, nearly twice as much as most other developed countries. The Congressional Budget Office has said that if medical costs continue to grow unabated, “total spending on health care would eventually account for all of the country’s economic output.”

Consumers, the patients, do not see prices until after a service is provided, if they see them at all.

Patients with insurance pay a tiny fraction of the bill, providing scant disincentive for spending (NoVA has told us this, of course).

Even doctors often do not know the costs of the tests and procedures they prescribe.

Insurers have limited incentive to bargain forcefully, since they can raise premiums to cover costs.

The article focuses on colonoscopies as a case study of an ordinary procedure run amok. If the American health care system were a true market, the increased volume of colonoscopies — numbers rose 50 percent from 2003 to 2009 for those with commercial insurance — might have brought down the costs because of economies of scale and more competition. Instead, it became a new business opportunity, and moved out of the office and into the hospital.

The cost of a colonoscopy in the United States varies staggeringly, from place to place, and even within a city. Austin averages four times Baltimore, for example. New York is even higher, of course.

It is the pricing of these ordinary medical procedures that surprises me as a major contributor to our inflated health care costs.

I recommend the linked article.

A WIDGET FOR YOU!

Do you want to compare hospital costs by procedure in your area? Around the nation? Bookmark this link and then have fun.

http://www.opscost.com/

DO AWAY WITH THEM

Do Away With Them
John D. Colombo

John D. Colombo is the Albert E. Jenner Jr. professor of law at the University of Illinois College of Law. His primary research area is federal and state tax-exemption for nonprofit organizations.

May 15, 2013

The best solution to the problems with 501(c)(4) organizations is to eliminate them completely. The problem with the (c)(4) designation is that it is essentially a charity that is permitted to engage in unlimited lobbying and some significant amount of political campaign activity (as long as that activity isn’t the organization’s “primary purpose”) in exchange for denying the organization the ability to receive deductible charitable contributions.

The I.R.S, will never be able to satisfactorily police the line at which political activity becomes “primary.”

But the Internal Revenue Service will never be able to satisfactorily police the line at which political activity becomes “primary.” Since “issue advocacy” (for example, lobbying) is permitted in any amount, the problem isn’t just one of identifying when political campaign activity becomes primary; it is also identifying the line between permissible issue advocacy and political campaign activity. This line is hard enough to enforce in the 501(c)(3) context, where political campaign activity is absolutely prohibited and lobbying permitted only to an “insubstantial” degree. The loosening of these restrictions in the (c)(4) context virtually invites wholesale noncompliance, which is pretty much what we have.

Further, the (c)(4) designation has no real purpose. The best explanation, in my view, for tax exemption for charities is that it is a sort of partial government subsidy for organizations that offer services that the private market will not offer, and that government either will not or cannot offer directly. I find it hard to believe that lobbying suffers from such a serious market failure that we need to subsidize organizations whose primary activity is to lobby. In fact, it seems almost perverse that the government would subsidize organizations whose primary purpose is to lobby the government.

So let’s make it simple: if you want to be a charity, be a charity and live with the 501(c)(3) limits; if you want primarily to be engaged in the political process through lobbying or otherwise, pay taxes like everyone else or register as a 527 political organization.

North Korea

From The Economist
Coping with North Korea
Korean roulette

Kim Jong Un has raised the stakes; it is time to get tougher with the nastiest regime on the planet

Apr 6th 2013 |From the print edition

EVEN by its own aggressive standards, North Korea’s actions over the past couple of weeks have been extraordinary. Kim Jong Un, the country’s young dictator, has threatened the United States with nuclear Armageddon, promising to rain missiles on mainland America and military bases in Hawaii and Guam; declared a “state of war” with South Korea; announced that he would restart a plutonium-producing reactor at its Yongbyon nuclear site, while enriching uranium to build more nuclear weapons; and barred South Korean managers from entering the Kaesong industrial complex, almost the only instance of North-South co-operation. All this comes after the regime set off a nuclear test, its third, in February. Tensions are the worst on the peninsula since 1994, when North Korea and America were a hair’s breadth from war.

The questions are what to make of all this, and how to respond. Neither is easy. The White House has tried to play down the aggression, talking of a “disconnect between rhetoric and action”, and some parts are pure bluster. The nuclear threat against mainland America is patently hollow: it will be years before the North has the technology to dispatch nuclear-tipped missiles. North Korea has yet to order a large-scale mobilisation of its 1.1m-strong army. Pyongyang, the capital, does not seem like a city that is about to go to war.

But there are also depressing reasons to take Mr Kim all too seriously. It does not take much to imagine the cycle of provocation and deterrence getting out of hand, especially if South Korea and the United States misjudge North Korea’s actions—or vice versa. And even without nuclear missiles, conflict on the crowded Korean peninsula would be savage. Decrepit North Korea would certainly be outgunned by South Korea and America. But nobody should doubt the cult-like commitment of the North’s armed forces. The human cost of war would be huge: 1.7m men serve in uniform on the peninsula, and North Korean artillery batteries are trained on the megalopolis of Seoul. American generals guess that a conflict could kill at least 1m, including thousands of Americans. Oh, and it would also be curtains for Asia’s thriving economy.

Moreover, Mr Kim heads a regime that cares nothing for its own brutalised people. Some 150,000-200,000 North Koreans—individuals and often whole families—rot as political prisoners in a vast gulag. Farmers are herded into collectives and forced into gruelling manual labour. Women trying to make a living by smuggling refugees across the border with China are shot if they do not know the right people to bribe.

In some ways the North is even scarier under its new ruler than it was under his father, who died in 2011. Early hopes that Mr Kim might prove a youthful agent of change seem entirely dashed by his nuclear explosion and boundless bombast. He is thought to have ordered the sinking of a South Korean naval corvette in 2010, with the deaths of 46 crewmen, and the shelling of a South Korean island later that year. Whereas Kim Jong Il was practised in the calibrated calculation of shaking down the outside world, his callow son has escalated tensions wildly. Nobody knows how to walk him back from the brink.

Doing so depends partly on Mr Kim’s motives. Perhaps aggression is a rite of passage to prove his leadership credentials to the country’s ancient generals. Perhaps he will shrewdly claim he has seen off the imperialist threat and back down. Perhaps he gets a thrill from orchestrating the chaos—as if he were playing a video game. Or, most worrying, perhaps he is out of his depth and therefore more prone to miscalculation.

Whenever Mr Kim’s father ratcheted up tensions, at least the pretence held that a bargain was to be had. In return for aid, oil or respect, North Korea would agree to discussions over dismantling its nuclear-weapons programme. The process was often a charade, but it kept the North engaged and it probably helped slow the development of nuclear weapons, as with the agreement to mothball the Yongbyon reactor in 2007. Now Mr Kim has declared that his nuclear capability is non-negotiable.

No prizes for backing off

What should the West do? In the long term, the best way to destabilise Mr Kim is from within. A new merchant class is emerging—the only prospering bit of the economy. The world must redouble its efforts to engage with these and other possible agents of change. This includes teaching more mid-ranking officials how societies work when they are organised around market economies and underpinned by laws; and funding defector radio stations beaming news back into the North.

That, though, is for the long term. The imperative now is to face down Mr Kim. After all, he has ruled out the only promise worth having (suspending his nuclear programme again). North Korea—and other rogue regimes and would-be nuclear proliferators, such as Iran—need to know that actions have consequences. That is why President Park Geun-hye of South Korea, in turn, was right to make it clear that sneak attacks will be met with a much firmer response than in 2010. America is right to move missile defences to Guam. When it sent two nuclear-capable B-2 bombers to fly over the peninsula it was a warning not only to North Korea, but also a gesture of support to the South. If Ms Park doubts American backing, she will be tempted to seek nuclear weapons herself.

Now more than ever, America needs to cajole China to press for change in its satellite. Apart from humanitarian aid to the North’s stunted people, all other commercial favours towards the regime should be stopped. Sick of Mr Kim and his family racket, China signed up to fresh UN financial sanctions against North Korea after the latest nuclear test. China has the capacity to choke the most iniquitous sources of the criminal regime’s cash. Yet its commitment to enforcing the sanctions seems half-hearted and it appears to have insisted that Shanghai accounts in two of its biggest banks, holding hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of Mr Kim and his cronies, be excluded from the sanctions. Attempts at changing North Korean behaviour have so far patently failed. But then, as China shows, not everything has yet been tried.

Emily has not yet left the room

She is near death, but her effort to wrench a last drop of beauty from life moved me deeply. I am grateful to Lulu for sharing it with me and I have permission to share it with you.

Here is a poem written in collaboration with my dear friend, Eileen Hunter, as I navigate this confusing time. It was originally titled “Small Blue Trucks.”

“Death Road”
Emily Meier

Smoke swirls across the wall,
One vase of roses becomes six
Bronze globes gild the dining room
The walls are pinball machines.
In the dining room, the kitchen, and a wall of the bedroom,
a pattern of blue and red.
In the living room they are a beauty
of blue and red circle balls.
On the living room walls they are a pattern
of New York News
travelling in black and white,
telling the city’s story.
Small blue trucks with white lights
merge into the scene, quiet and pale.
A mystery. I touch them.
I like the kittens. Eileen does too.