A local California schoolteacher has singled out excessive benefits as one reason for the her district's budget shortfall:
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11967689
Poor district leadership and an inadequate state budget are not the only reasons for East Side's problems. The sacred cow of the East Side Teachers Association is medical benefits that cost over $27.3 million a year. East Side is the only district of its size in Santa Clara County that pays 100 percent of employee benefits. Although admirable, this extracts an enormous financial toll. Add paid benefits for each member of the board of trustees and medical coverage for retirees under age 65, and the cost skyrockets.
Teachers' unions have set up a pyramid scheme where the older teachers reap the benefits of the system and leave scraps for incoming and younger teachers. It's time for a change, and unless more tenured union members are willing to cut their benefits or make sacrifices, children will continue to suffer.
"And if an epitaph be my story, I'd have a short one ready for my own: I had a lover's quarrel with the world." -- Robert Frost
Friday, April 3, 2009
About Me: Superstitious Version
The Mouth of Truth apparently has these things to say about me:
You sometimes can't enjoy close personal relationships.
You are extremely sensitive and have fine taste.
You are deeply mystical and intuitive by nature.
You are sometimes over idealistic and you should learn to be more cautious to avoid disappointment.
Your success will give rise to envy; keep a sharp look out for the traps set for you.
Be very careful: you could be caught off guard by misfortune.
Well, I'll be damned. That Zoltar-lookin' thing might have me spot-on. Also, I score highest in "Health"; lowest in "Luck."
You sometimes can't enjoy close personal relationships.
You are extremely sensitive and have fine taste.
You are deeply mystical and intuitive by nature.
You are sometimes over idealistic and you should learn to be more cautious to avoid disappointment.
Your success will give rise to envy; keep a sharp look out for the traps set for you.
Be very careful: you could be caught off guard by misfortune.
Well, I'll be damned. That Zoltar-lookin' thing might have me spot-on. Also, I score highest in "Health"; lowest in "Luck."
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Krauthammer on the Disabled
I just re-discovered this little gem from Charles Krauthammer (SJ Merc, 7C, July 11, 1999):
To be sure, patronizing the disabled is not as offensive as...in-your-face mockery...But its effect is similar: to distance oneself, to give expression to the reflexive mixture of fear and pity that misfortune in others invokes in all of us.
Disability--like exile, the human condition it most resembles--neither ennobles or degrades. It frames experience. It does not define it.
In 1972, Mr. Krauthammer was paralyzed in a serious diving accident.
To be sure, patronizing the disabled is not as offensive as...in-your-face mockery...But its effect is similar: to distance oneself, to give expression to the reflexive mixture of fear and pity that misfortune in others invokes in all of us.
Disability--like exile, the human condition it most resembles--neither ennobles or degrades. It frames experience. It does not define it.
In 1972, Mr. Krauthammer was paralyzed in a serious diving accident.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Scott Herhold on Excessive Government Spending
The SJ Merc's Scott Herhold exposes some excessive government spending:
http://www.mercurynews.com/scottherhold/ci_12004635
The cost of all courtroom security in the county, which includes bailiffs, has grown from $17.2 million in 2000-01 to $30.8 million this year, an increase of 79 percent. Over those same eight years, inflation has been 21 percent.
Setting aside cost, the way courtroom security is handled makes no sense. When I walk into Santa Clara County's civil courthouses, I see four to five officers all within fifteen feet of each other. A violent person can use an automatic weapon to maim or kill all five officers, at which point he is in the courtroom ready to wreck more mayhem against defenseless lawyers and staff. Forget a gun--how about a homemade bomb? A violent person can waltz right into a courthouse with a homemade bomb and throw it within a vicinity of about forty people. I'm assuming the sheriffs and deputies aren't trained in dismantling bombs, so regardless of their salary, they're ineffective.
Basically, once a violent person is in a courthouse, it's too late. In order to justify having more than four officers at once, you need to set it up this way:
1. A security checkpoint must be maintained outside the courtroom, at least 100 feet away from the actual courthouse. Two officers would be in charge of this checkpoint, and both would be armed.
2. Two other officers--the second line of defense--would be inside the courthouse, ready to intervene if the first line of defense is dismantled. One officer would be at the entrance to the actual courthouse, while the other officer would be at the exit.
Doing it this way, the police can better justify paying officers lots of money to sit around and scan briefcases and small items. (So far, my most interesting experience with courtroom security has been when an officer confiscated my keychain bottle opener without telling me.)
Right now, courtroom security only protects us from stupid criminals. The smart criminals, if motivated, would have a field day in almost any courtroom in California, especially if two assassins/criminals work together (one slipping in from the exit door, which has no security checkpoint, while another comes through the front door).
Update: I forgot to mention that the Presiding Judge compared the highly paid and numerous officers to an insurance policy, i.e., you don't think you need all that coverage until you actually do. While that sounds reasonable, it doesn't really address the point of the SJ Merc article--namely, that taxpayers shouldn't be paying Cadillac rates for "insurance" when cheaper rates exist for the same or similar coverage elsewhere. It seems that we should either improve the actual security so taxpayers are getting their money's worth, or buy a cheaper "policy." We also shouldn't overpay for any service that is ineffective. If I was in charge of security, I would make improvements first in the family courts, then the criminal courts, and then the civil courts.
http://www.mercurynews.com/scottherhold/ci_12004635
The cost of all courtroom security in the county, which includes bailiffs, has grown from $17.2 million in 2000-01 to $30.8 million this year, an increase of 79 percent. Over those same eight years, inflation has been 21 percent.
Setting aside cost, the way courtroom security is handled makes no sense. When I walk into Santa Clara County's civil courthouses, I see four to five officers all within fifteen feet of each other. A violent person can use an automatic weapon to maim or kill all five officers, at which point he is in the courtroom ready to wreck more mayhem against defenseless lawyers and staff. Forget a gun--how about a homemade bomb? A violent person can waltz right into a courthouse with a homemade bomb and throw it within a vicinity of about forty people. I'm assuming the sheriffs and deputies aren't trained in dismantling bombs, so regardless of their salary, they're ineffective.
Basically, once a violent person is in a courthouse, it's too late. In order to justify having more than four officers at once, you need to set it up this way:
1. A security checkpoint must be maintained outside the courtroom, at least 100 feet away from the actual courthouse. Two officers would be in charge of this checkpoint, and both would be armed.
2. Two other officers--the second line of defense--would be inside the courthouse, ready to intervene if the first line of defense is dismantled. One officer would be at the entrance to the actual courthouse, while the other officer would be at the exit.
Doing it this way, the police can better justify paying officers lots of money to sit around and scan briefcases and small items. (So far, my most interesting experience with courtroom security has been when an officer confiscated my keychain bottle opener without telling me.)
Right now, courtroom security only protects us from stupid criminals. The smart criminals, if motivated, would have a field day in almost any courtroom in California, especially if two assassins/criminals work together (one slipping in from the exit door, which has no security checkpoint, while another comes through the front door).
Update: I forgot to mention that the Presiding Judge compared the highly paid and numerous officers to an insurance policy, i.e., you don't think you need all that coverage until you actually do. While that sounds reasonable, it doesn't really address the point of the SJ Merc article--namely, that taxpayers shouldn't be paying Cadillac rates for "insurance" when cheaper rates exist for the same or similar coverage elsewhere. It seems that we should either improve the actual security so taxpayers are getting their money's worth, or buy a cheaper "policy." We also shouldn't overpay for any service that is ineffective. If I was in charge of security, I would make improvements first in the family courts, then the criminal courts, and then the civil courts.
Personal S&P Target
For my own personal portfolio, I am setting a 950 price target for the S&P 500 within the next two to five months. Looking at the money flow data, investors are getting out of money market funds and returning to the stock market. The "herd" mentality will probably convince more financial "lurkers" to re-enter equities soon.
In addition, if the White House ushers GM and Chrysler into an orderly re-organization, foreign investors will be soothed. They will continue to buy our Treasuries, bolstering the U.S. dollar, hurting gold prices, and steadying commodity prices. Also, in three to five months, AIG should be able to sell off more assets, which will allow it to repay the government some portion of our money. If all goes well with GM, Chrysler, and AIG--and yes, that's a big "if"--I predict a short-term psychological "high."
Right now, uncertainty and indecision are killing the market. That's to be expected--we have a new administration, and it's been in office fewer than 100 days. As time moves forward, having the Obama administration more settled and more comfortable with the G-20 will calm investors' nerves. The stimulus packages will also impact sentiment, as people either access or see the effects of the increased money supply.
I realize I am focusing on psychological rather than fundamental factors. This is intentional. The market is currently so volatile, sentiment will lead the way in the short-term. Bears can talk about earnings per share, historical price/earnings ratios, and other technical factors all they want, it won't matter--at least not yet. Seeing a decisive end to the constant printing of money is paramount, and the Obama administration, by using the "bankruptcy" word, is signaling to the world that it will not print an endless supply of money to prop up institutions. That is a welcome development--it's the first time in months we've seen decisive action.
Again, I am hoping for an S&P target of 950 within the next two to five months, and I feel confident. After that, I have no set target. The April earnings reports won't be great, but they won't be dismal, either. The market is still priced for dismal numbers, and anything above abject collapse will increase positive sentiment. Good luck out there.
The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only. Under no circumstances do any statements here represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities or make any kind of an investment. You are responsible for your own due diligence. To summarize, I do not provide investment advice, nor do I make any claims or promises that any information here will lead to a profit, loss, or any other result.
Update on July 20, 2009: today, July 20, 2009, the S&P 500 rose above 950; however, the rise may be short-lived--Bernanke speaks tomorrow.
In addition, if the White House ushers GM and Chrysler into an orderly re-organization, foreign investors will be soothed. They will continue to buy our Treasuries, bolstering the U.S. dollar, hurting gold prices, and steadying commodity prices. Also, in three to five months, AIG should be able to sell off more assets, which will allow it to repay the government some portion of our money. If all goes well with GM, Chrysler, and AIG--and yes, that's a big "if"--I predict a short-term psychological "high."
Right now, uncertainty and indecision are killing the market. That's to be expected--we have a new administration, and it's been in office fewer than 100 days. As time moves forward, having the Obama administration more settled and more comfortable with the G-20 will calm investors' nerves. The stimulus packages will also impact sentiment, as people either access or see the effects of the increased money supply.
I realize I am focusing on psychological rather than fundamental factors. This is intentional. The market is currently so volatile, sentiment will lead the way in the short-term. Bears can talk about earnings per share, historical price/earnings ratios, and other technical factors all they want, it won't matter--at least not yet. Seeing a decisive end to the constant printing of money is paramount, and the Obama administration, by using the "bankruptcy" word, is signaling to the world that it will not print an endless supply of money to prop up institutions. That is a welcome development--it's the first time in months we've seen decisive action.
Again, I am hoping for an S&P target of 950 within the next two to five months, and I feel confident. After that, I have no set target. The April earnings reports won't be great, but they won't be dismal, either. The market is still priced for dismal numbers, and anything above abject collapse will increase positive sentiment. Good luck out there.
The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only. Under no circumstances do any statements here represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities or make any kind of an investment. You are responsible for your own due diligence. To summarize, I do not provide investment advice, nor do I make any claims or promises that any information here will lead to a profit, loss, or any other result.
Update on July 20, 2009: today, July 20, 2009, the S&P 500 rose above 950; however, the rise may be short-lived--Bernanke speaks tomorrow.
Thomas Jefferson on Banks
From Thomas Jefferson, paraphrased:
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
President Jefferson's modern-day equivalent would have to be Mr. Ron Paul.
Note: the Jefferson quotation cited above has no credible source. It is apparently a paraphrasing of two separate Jefferson statements:
And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale...Bank-paper must be suppressed, and the circulating medium must be restored to the nation to whom it belongs.
From Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, Monticello, 28 May 1816. [Ford 11:533] and Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, Monticello, 24 June 1813. [Ford 11:303]
Ford = Ford, Paul Leicester, ed. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1892-99. 10 vols.
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
President Jefferson's modern-day equivalent would have to be Mr. Ron Paul.
Note: the Jefferson quotation cited above has no credible source. It is apparently a paraphrasing of two separate Jefferson statements:
And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale...Bank-paper must be suppressed, and the circulating medium must be restored to the nation to whom it belongs.
From Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, Monticello, 28 May 1816. [Ford 11:533] and Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, Monticello, 24 June 1813. [Ford 11:303]
Ford = Ford, Paul Leicester, ed. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1892-99. 10 vols.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Basketball and Lawyers
Today's WSJ has an article about Idan Ravin, an attorney who helps train NBA players. Check this out:
After law school he [Idan] started coaching boys basketball at the local YMCA in San Diego to take his mind off his dreary day job as an attorney.
That's exactly how I ended up coaching youth basketball several years ago. I needed an outlet for my stress, and coaching basketball really helped. Idan Ravin now counts Carmelo Anthony and Chris Paul as clients, so maybe my NBA hoop dreams aren't completely outlandish. Hamed Haddadi, if you're reading this, shoot me an email. I've got some ideas on how you can improve your game.
After law school he [Idan] started coaching boys basketball at the local YMCA in San Diego to take his mind off his dreary day job as an attorney.
That's exactly how I ended up coaching youth basketball several years ago. I needed an outlet for my stress, and coaching basketball really helped. Idan Ravin now counts Carmelo Anthony and Chris Paul as clients, so maybe my NBA hoop dreams aren't completely outlandish. Hamed Haddadi, if you're reading this, shoot me an email. I've got some ideas on how you can improve your game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)