All Things in Moderation

Students across the UC campus system are protesting in solidarity with the UC Davis students, all of whom are protesting yet another 9% hike in tuition/fees after a 32% hike in 2009 across the 10 campus university.  The image of a police officer emptying a canister of pepper spray directly into the faces of sitting students has caused quite a stir out here.

University of California President Mark G. Yudof today (Nov. 20) announced the actions he is taking in response to recent campus protest issues:

I am appalled by images of University of California students being doused with pepper spray and jabbed with police batons on our campuses.


I intend to do everything in my power as president of this university to protect the rights of our students, faculty and staff to engage in non-violent protest.


Chancellors at the UC Davis and UC Berkeley campuses already have initiated reviews of incidents that occurred on their campuses. I applaud this rapid response and eagerly await the results.


The University of California, however, is a single university with 10 campuses, and the incidents in recent days cry out for a systemwide response.


Therefore I will be taking immediate steps to set that response in motion.


I intend to convene all 10 chancellors, either in person or by telephone, to engage in a full and unfettered discussion about how to ensure proportional law enforcement response to non-violent protest.


To that end, I will be asking the chancellors to forward to me at once all relevant protocols and policies already in place on their individual campuses, as well as those that apply to the engagement of non-campus police agencies through mutual aid agreements.


Further, I already have taken steps to assemble experts and stakeholders to conduct a thorough, far-reaching and urgent assessment of campus police procedures involving use of force, including post-incident review processes.


My intention is not to micromanage our campus police forces. The sworn officers who serve on our campuses are professionals dedicated to the protection of the UC community.


Nor do I wish to micromanage the chancellors. They are the leaders of our campuses and they have my full trust and confidence.


Nonetheless, the recent incidents make clear the time has come to take strong action to recommit to the ideal of peaceful protest.
As I have said before, free speech is part of the DNA of this university, and non-violent protest has long been central to our history. It is a value we must protect with vigilance. I implore students who wish to demonstrate to do so in a peaceful and lawful fashion. I expect campus authorities to honor that right.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 10 Comments »

But none of them is willing to make even a token gesture in order to demonstrate the sincerity of their position.

I hope the video embed works. Behind the firewall, I can’t check it:

If not, view it at The Daily Caller, where they say:

Two dozen “patriotic millionaires” traveled to the Capitol on Wednesday to demand that Congress raise taxes on wealthy Americans. 

The Daily Caller attended their press conference with an iPad, which displayed the Treasury Department’s donation page, to find out if any of the “patriotic millionaires” were willing to put their money where their mouth is.

Hot Air also covers the video, where they say :

So what’s the lesson here? True patriots won’t volunteer, but insist on being drafted before coming to this nation’s service? That’s certainly a unique view of “patriotism,” isn’t it? That’s because “patriotism” isn’t what drives this message — it’s ideology. It would be equally “patriotic” to demand that the federal government return to a level of spending that we had just a few years ago, when the federal government spent one out of every five dollars rather than one out of every four in the American economy.

Listening to it, I don’t think these people are very serious about their cause, or they are all remarkably tone deaf. If they are super rich, they couldn’t be bothered to toss off a grand or two (at least while the cameras were rolling) in order to make a show of putting their money where their mouth is? I can’t listen to it now, but I recall one of them saying that everybody needs to pitch in, including the middle class (that will go over well) and another excusing themselves from making any sort of donation because they do “significant” private charity. Uh-huh.

Didn’t hear anything about what they were proposing. We’re they proposing pumping up capital gains, or personal income tax? And I’d be curious how hard any of these folks, who couldn’t even toss of some pocket change just to set a good example toward their cause, actually be impacted by the increased taxes. If they were arguing for increased income taxes, while they themselves profit mostly from capital gains, they could have all been entirely full of shiznits.

While I understand the argument that a correct policy prescription is collective, and that to make a difference the effort needs to be collective, as a layperson with no axe to grind against the super-wealty, all these rich guys come off (perhaps it’s the video editing, but it does not feel like that) as completely full of crap, and out to swindle regular old working joes like me, busy living the American dream of just getting by.

Whether the arguments themselves are inherently hypocritical, the unwillingness, to a man, for any of them to part with what would, quite honestly, be for them the equivalent of pocket change for you or me, just to make a point—that’s speaks volumes to me. And what it says is that this isn’t what they claim, that these people are full of crap, and this so-called tax on the rich is going to leave them largely untouched while funneling cash out of the pockets of the Kevins, Marks, Scotts, QBs, and lmsincas and even yellojkts of the world.

My sense of just their reactions in the video, and I can’t imagine how additional context would help, is that these folks are being dishonest or duplicitous. The most charitable interpretation I can imagine is that they are simply not serious, and posing for fun and for a war story to take back to their friends at the next cocktail party.

Patriotic millionaires. Hmmph.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 58 Comments »

Vital Statistics:

US futures are down on the failure of the super committee to reach a deal. FWIW, I am surprised at the reaction – I don’t think anyone expected much anyway. Euro sovereigns are relatively stable this morning. Merger Monday is back, with a $10 billion deal in the pharma space and a deal in the insurance space. Corporations are sitting on a mountain of cash and valuations are low. We should be seeing a lot more of this.

So was Jon Corzine a crook, or just someone who made a bad trade? It seems some of the biggest distressed investors are betting the latter. Of course all assets are good investments at a price, and MF Global bonds are trading at 36 cents on the the dollar, and the bank debt is around 50 cents. These investors are betting that the missing 600 million of customer funds is out there, and will be found. If that is the case, you can make a case that the equity is actually worth something. Which means a full recovery on the bonds and a double or triple as the case may be.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 13 Comments »

Here’s an interesting story in the LA Times this morning.  Oh yay, another confusing tax increase/decrease coming to a ballot initiative near you.  We’ll see how this one pans out as details are pretty sketchy at this point.


The Think Long Committee, which includes Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, former governors Gray DavisEli Broad, says its proposal would provide $5 billion more for public schools every year and billions for public universities and local governments. and Arnold Schwarzenegger and Los Angeles philanthropist


Although the group has prepared a report outlining its proposals, it has not taken the preliminary steps needed to place the ideas before voters. Members have not filed any potential initiatives with the state attorney general’s office or created a campaign committee to finance such an effort. A spokesman for Think Long said those moves would come in the next couple of weeks.


The group’s plan is based on a reshuffling of California’s tax system. It would lower the state’s personal income and sales tax rates and create a new levy of more than 5% on services that are not currently taxed, such as legal work or accounting.


Think Long spokesman Nathan Gardels said members want to “maintain California’s progressive tax system.” Under their proposal, families earning up to $45,000 a year would pay no state income tax, while those making up to $95,000 annually would pay 2%. This would lower some taxpayers’ obligations significantly.


The group also wants to double the current exemption for homeowners and renters on their state income tax and eliminate most other California income tax credits.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 19 Comments »

Cops open up the Natalie Wood case. Robert Wagner may have done her in, after all.

Is innovation in Silicon Valley to blame for killing jobs while enriching the already hyper wealthy?

If that sign is any indication of what your resume looks like, I’m thinking I might know why you’re having trouble with your job search. Also, nothing against propellor hats, but . . .

Filed under: Uncategorized | 31 Comments »

Occupy San Diego holds a moment of silence “in solidarity” with the man who shot at the White House and has been charged with the attempted assassination of the President.

Wholly apart from the, er, questionable judgement, if this is the quality of intellect leading this “movement”, it is clearly not long for this world.

(BTW…is it really that cold in San Diego, necessitating scarves and gloves and winter coats? Global warming strikes again, perhaps.)

Filed under: Uncategorized | 13 Comments »

This item is a week or so old, but Michigan’s Senate recently passed an Anti-Bullying law that requires schools to pass rules and policies to protect students from bullying….well most bullying at least.

Democrats have been trying to pass an anti-bullying bill for years but were always thwarted by Republicans, leaving Michigan as one of 3 states without such a laws. Why would Michigan Republicans oppose such a bill? Government intrusion perhaps? Nope, it was fear of the big, bad homosexual agenda that fueled opposition. In the decade Republicans have opposed the anti-bullying bill, at least 10 homosexual students committed suicide.

The controversial portion of the bill is the following: “This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil & parent or guardian.”

I suppose one could argue that the exception created by this language was aimed at making sure the bill complied with the First Amendment, but if that was the reason for the exclusion I would think political belief would have been added rather than just addressing religious beliefs and moral convictions.

The bill has been heavily criticized by the media and Democrats in Michigan. Stephen Colbert had a pretty funny and on point take on the bill, too.
By the way, keep an eye on Gretchen Whitmer who appears in the video in the second link. She is the Senate Minority Leader here in Michigan and will probaby be making a run at Governor or Congress in the next few years. She was also named one of the World’s Hottest Politicians a few years ago by Maxim.

The other big controversy in Michigan surrounds a bill which would change Michigan’s No Fault Car insurance law. To summarize, the bill would put a cap on how much insurance companies could end up paying at which point payment would come from Medicaid, Medicare or private insurance. I had also heard that the reimbursement amounts paid by insurers would also become tied to Medicaid amounts, but I can’t find a good article discussing that aspect of the bill at the moment. Anyway, assuming that is part of the bill, it would reduce revenue for hospitals and physicians while increasing profits for insurance companies. If catastrophically injured payments exceeded the cap, the government would likely end up on the hook for the medical care through Medicare or Medicaid.

One of the problems with the proposed reform (which has stalled) is that insurers are already protected from having to pay millions of dollars in medical benefits to injured victims since after $500,000, benefits are paid by a catastrophic claims fund. The money for that fund comes from, at least in part, assessments on consumers. If the insurers also contribute to that fund, then I can see how the cap would save them money, if not I don’t see where their costs are reduced. Obviously, their profits would be increased if they continued to charge the assessment. I also wonder what would happen with the $12.9 billion dollar fund if this law passes? Would I get a check?

Aligning payment with Medicaid payment would definitely save the insurers. This brings us to people’s biggest problem with the bill. There is no guarantee the insruance companies would pass this savings on to consumers nor is their a guarantee that they would end the assessment that has thus far funded the catastophic injury fund. Absent such a promise, this would simply be a giant giveaway to the insurance company while pushing costs to the Medicare and Medicaid and further reducing income to hospitals and doctors. Elections matter, people.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 28 Comments »

Vital Statistics:

Markets are rebounding after the pummeling of the last two days. Italian and Spanish sovereign yields are slightly tighter this morning, and a number of banks are raising their 4Q GDP estimates. This has been the underlying story – the US economy is on the mend, but European headlines dominate the markets. If the US banks are taking up their GDP estimates, then analysts will be taking up their earnings estimates. The S&P 500 is trading at 11.8x forward earnings, which is a multiple last seen in the early 80s. Right before the bull market of a generation. I am not saying the secular bear market which began in 2000 is over, but it is getting long in the tooth, and the pieces are setting up for a new secular bull market, probably in the next few years.

Apologies for no report yesterday – was in the city all day yesterday.

Edit: Update 10:00 am – Leading Economic Indicators came in at .9%, higher than the .6% expected and close to the 2011 highs in March.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 79 Comments »

Courtesy of The Economist.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 11 Comments »

Filed under: Uncategorized | 10 Comments »