The President has a Math Problem

One thing Obama said in his ginormous health care reform speech stuck in my mind. Without getting into who is lying, or misrepresenting, or generally not playing nice on health care, I can say for certain that the President is WAY off on his math.

At one point he said -- and I know it's accurate because I bipped back the TiVo twice to make sure and asked my wife if he really said it and Jake Tapper heard it too -- that if we can "slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term."

Wow, he must be thinking REALLY long-term! Let's solve for X shall we?

One-tenth of one per cent of X equals $4 trillion or

.01 * X = $4,000,000,000,000

X = $400,000,000,000,000

Therefore the amount of growth in healthcare costs is $400 trillion, although we don't know the rate because he provided no time component (how much of what by when). But just accepting his number, it takes a whole lot of per cent of anything to equal a trillion...or four. The growth of healthcare costs is about 8% per year now, so saving $4T might help the deficit, if it were possible.

Somehow, I think those numbers just don't add up. And the fact that no news story on his speech evinced skepticism about his numbers is astounding. But finally, remember when Newt Gingrich said we wanted to "slow the rate of growth for medicare" in the mid-1990s? Dude was hung out to dry. Called a dirtbag and a hater of old folks. Now, of course, as in many other things, when Obama says it the press just nods and says "Great!"

Times change, Baby!

The 3 Lies in Every Story on Health Care Reform

Every current article on health care reform (or "health insurance reform") contains at least three lies that the media repeats time after time. Of course, some articles have more than three, but that number seems to be the minimum daily requirement for the MSM. For convenience I'll use my local paper, The Riverside Press-Enterprise, which ran an article this morning by their Washington Bureau guy, Ben Goad. But you can have fun by applying the "3 Lie Test" to any article by a MSM source.

Obama's health care plan
The first line of the story contains the phrase "President Barack Obama's health care plan," which is a false premise. Obama has pointedly made clear in multiple interviews that he has not put forth a plan, nor has he given many specifics as to what a plan should include to get his signature. You can believe the Obama of 2003 and 2007 if you like the single payer plan, or you can believe President Obama who now says the current plans under consideration are in no way a "trojan horse" for a single payer system. What you cannot believe is that Obama has A Plan he provided to the public or to Congress. Such a thing does not exist.

In fact, this is a problem Obama has inflicted on himself twice this year, first with the stimulus bill that he outsourced to the two people with the lowest approval ratings in the country, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid. Of course, they larded it up with crap that can't and won't stimulate the economy, but are long-held wishes of the Left.

Public Undecided
The fourth paragraph of the story leads off with the phrase "Polls show the public is torn over Obama's vision for reform" and is but one variation of the "undecided meme" playing out in the media. And it is a bold-faced lie, one often paired with the "two sides in the debate break mostly along party lines" lie. The truth is more than three quarters of Americans polled are very concerned about the shape of the plans in Congress, and those in favor are dropping below "Elvis is alive" numbers. In fact, the most recent poll finds Americans are overwhelmingly happy -- 80% of them -- with the insurance they have and are worried that Congress will blow it up to make their universal health care plan viable. Nothing that has those kind of numbers can be a one party vs. the other debate. If you have a slice of America 80% wide, then you have what used to be called "bipartisan" support.

Which brings us the the third of the must-have lies for every article on health care:

Sales Job
Coming in the fifth paragraph of the story but widely reported everywhere, is the Big Sales Job lie. As evidence by my local paper's story this morning, and various videos burning up Youtube the real mission is by Democrats is to avoid public discussion at all, if possible, and if a debate must be joined to lie about what's in the bill or feign (let's hope) ignorance. I leave open the possibility that there could be real ignorance in Congress and the Executive Branch, of course. But the sales job meme is just another continuance of a theme the MSM hammered during the campaign, when it seemed that Barack could do no wrong, and words slipped off his silvery tongue to wild applause. Let's face it, unless he's selling Barack he can't sell worth squat!

This has become all too apparent as he holds press conference after prime time snoozer after on-site droning. The man is the best argument against health care reform every time he opens his mouth. The idea that he is any kind of a salesman is an insult to real sales professionals. The hallmark of a good salesman is the ability to provide value through solutions, typified by the well-worn car sales line, "What do I need to do to put you in this car today?" Have you ever heard Obama consider what the public would like to know about "health care reform" in order to make a wise decision? No! He doesn't care what you think, as long as you don't think too long or too hard about what Congress is doing.

The other trait common to good sales professionals is product knowledge, the ability to clearly communicate features and benefits of the service or widget they sell. The public is well aware that every "news conference" he's held on the subject has been famously devoid of actual facts about the bills under construction. Not only is he ignorant of the particulars, he is quick to give off the slimy vibe of someone trying to pull the wool over their customer's eyes. The media can say he is doing a bang-up sales job, but it is so patently false that fewer Americans are buying, and that is why there is such a rush to get a bill -- any bill --signed into law before the popular uprising leaves a permanent taint on the President.

This little post has gone on so long, I don't have time right now to expound on the various "lies of omission" that would round out my take on the article in question. But go ahead, test these lies against your local paper's story on health care reform today. Then ask yourself, "What are they not telling me?" (Hint: tax increases and budget deficits.)

[Edited for spelling and syntax about one hour after original post. Content is the same, just clearer now, I hope.]

Birthers and Truthers are both Stupid

Of all the conspiracy theories one could waste time on, the fretting and arguing over Barack Obama's citizenship is the dumbest. Even if he was born in Kenya or Indonesia, he is an American citizen because his mother was. So whether or not you "believe" the Hawaiian facsimile or not, it doesn't matter. If you are born of American parents -- or even just an American mother -- you are an American. Go ahead, ask a lawyer about that.

For example, if a US citizen is traveling in France and gives birth, the baby is not French. It is a US citizen. There are some countries that will confer dual citizenship, such as happened to friends of mine in South America when their parents where in the peace Corps. But still, being born of Americans they are American. But wait, you say, what about Mexican "anchor babies?" This is a strange interpretation of the Constitution that was invented by Democrats and rarely applies to immigrants other than Latinos crossing our southern border.

And it's not reciprocal. Try having a baby in Guadalajara and see if their government will claim it a s a citizen and give it welfare. In the end, the Birthers, like the psycho Truthers who think somehow the fumbling American government pulled off some grand conspiracy to take down the twin towers -- and got away with it despite thousands of people trying to prove it so -- will not let facts and the evidence in plain sight sway their opinion.

Two months?

I can't believe it has been that long since I had a long-from piece. However, my Twittering has also slowed considerably -- for two reasons: First, I have started a Twitter feed for one of the Brands I manage, and the brief time I can devote to tweets has been allocated mostly to that exercise. And it's fun to interact with customers and enthusiasts too! Second, there is far too much to do for the Brands I work with to tear myself away and offer up commentary or links. I am blessed in that I still have full and interesting employment.

So, all that being said I have some writing in the works and will post to the Tiny Pundit soon. One project is a long post about how Sarah Palin made me tweet. But first, there will be some more...uh...current topics to write about. See ya!

Excerpt from WSJ: Obama's GM Plan Looks Like a Raw Deal

With respect to questions posed by Mr. Nader and Mr. Weissman, number one is intriguing. After all, it costs nothing for GM and Chrysler to allow franchisees to remain in business. What it does accomplish is turning customers of the factory (distributors, in the classic sense) into debtors who hold factory goods and owe money on them, but have no way to return them in lieu of payment. Chrysler has refused to accept cars back from dealers. When their is no obvious answer one's mind turns to the political implications.

And why isn't Congress assertying their rightful place in these negotiations, as they fid in 1979 with Chrysler's first bailout? That is explored more fully in number seven, but fair use does not allow me to reprint the entire article.

Here are samples of the first 5 questions in the article published today:

Congress, not a secret task force, should decide the company's fate.
By RALPH NADER and ROBERT WEISSMAN

1) Has the task force conducted any kind of formal or informal cost-benefit analysis on the costs of a GM bankruptcy and excessive closures? These may include the social effects of lost jobs (including more than 100,000 dealership jobs alone), more housing foreclosures, the government expense of providing unemployment and social relief, lost tax revenues, supplier companies that will be forced to close, damaged consumer confidence in the GM brand, and impacts on GM's industrial creditors.

2) Do GM and Chrysler really need to close as many dealerships -- which do not cost manufacturers -- as have been announced?

3) Is the task force asking for too many plants to close and the elimination of too many brands?

4) Why is the task force permitting GM to increase manufacturing overseas for export back into the U.S.? Under the GM reorganization plan, the company will rely increasingly on overseas plants to make cars for sale in the U.S., with cars made in low-wage countries like Mexico rising from 15% to 23% of GM sales here.

5) Why is the task force supporting GM's efforts to devise a two-tier wage structure, whereby new auto jobs no longer provide a ticket to the middle class?

6) How will bankruptcy affect GM's overseas operations, with special reference to China and GM's corporate entanglements with Chinese partners?

Link to complete Wall Street Journal article here (requires subscription to log in).

Bank of America or Tele-Scam? 800-669-0102

Mowing my lawn this morning I was interrupted by wife, bringing me the telephone. "Who is it?" I whispered.

"B of A," she mouthed. After the brief discussion, which I transcribe as best I can below, I considered the likelihood of this being legitimate. After all, the 800 number that popped up indicated "unknown caller" on my phone. That alone is suspicious when it comes to alleged "debt collectors" calling. Worse, when I called back the number, 800-669-0102 the voicemail said, "Hi this is Stacia," who did NOT say a company name or indicate what position she holds. And hers was definitely not the voice that called me.

Here's my call log with the Indian telemarketer:

Me: "Hello."

Indian telemarketer: "Hello, who am I speaking to?"

Me: I stated my name and added, "Who am I speaking to?"

IT: Her name and, "calling from Bank of America, formerly Countrywide Mortgage and I must inform you that this call is from a debt collector and may be recorded for quality control purposes.

Me: "Really?" Said with slight incredulity.

IT: "This is a courtesy call to determine when you will be making your mortgage payment and in what form."

Me: "Is it past due?" I already knew the answer to this.

IT: "No it is not past due, t is due now and we would like to now when you will make that payment?"

Me: "I don't know but it will be on time. What is the purpose of this call?"

IT: " We are trying to save you a charge of $97 if you pay it late."

Me: "But I'm not late. I'll pay on time, as usual."

IT: "How do you usually make your payment?"

Me: "By check."

IT: "Will that be a written draft or a check by phone?"

Me: "Depends, usually by check but I believe we have paid by phone before as well. I'm puzzled by the purpose of this call since the account is current."

IT: "We would like to know what form the payment will be and when you will make the payment."

Me: "On time. What exactly is the purpose of this call?"

IT: "This is just a courtesy call."

Me: "Well thank you very much for reminding me I have a mortgage. We'll talk to you later. Goodbye."

Then I returned to mowing my lawn, puzzling over the facts presented by this telemarketer, (a) Countrywide is now Bank of America, and (b) they've spent money hiring telemarketers to call customers who are current in their accounts. Why would a company that recently took another Federal handout  at the same time they were buying a pig in a poke whilst their shareholders were firing their chairman be wasting money calling good customers, and in my case at least, wasting their customers' precious weekend time?

Well, what else has B of A been up to this week? Oh yeah! Their stress test indicated they need another $35,000,000,000 to be "healthy" and indicated they should convert some common stock to cash. Sure, I bet people are just lining up to buy that stock now. So, I called a retired bank president and asked him what reason would a bank have for enlisting telemarketers to call and ask for early payments? Mr. B pondered that a bit and admitted he could think of no benefit to B of A that would outweigh the cost. Beyond an immediate influx of cash. But that would not help their long-term capital position.

So, the question remains, what is a bank on the public dole doing bugging good customers who are paying on time. Don't they have something better to do? Once this house is paid off I will never get another mortgage through B of A or C-Wide.

If you don't like this kind of "courtesy call" bullying then call "Stacia" and let her know how you feel: 1-800-669-0102.

RIP: Chrysler | Cars I've Owned

1975 Pontiac Firebird
1974 VW Karmann Ghia
1978 Dodge Aspen
1972 Oldsmobile Delta 88
1985 Isuzu I-Mark
1980 Subaru Hatchback (GL or DL?)
1978 BMW 530i
1986 VW built in Brazil (such a piece of junk I can't even recall its name)
1992 Honda Accord DX
1991 Ford Crown Victoria
2002 Chrysler PT Cruiser
1993 Acura Integra ES
1962 Chevrolet C-10 Pick-up