The media should put me on retainer....I'm quite the soothsayer!

It seems the news media has somehow discovered there is something fishy smelling at best, and maybe illegal at worst, about the sale of a uranium mining company to Russia after the Clinton Foundation, a philanthropy run by her husband, William Jefferson Clinton (aka POTUS 42), received "contributions" from Russians close to the uranium deal. 

BIG SHOCK!

Well put me in for a Pulitzer Prize!

I wrote about this very sort of sleaze in this blog back on June 9, 2016.  The Clinton's IMO set up a pretty sweet scheme whereby "contributions" were made to the pure-as-the-driven-snow Clinton Foundation, then Senator and later Sec of State Hillary Clinton blessed a transaction favored by the same contributors. I doubt they'll find any paper trail on the subject as a casual comment and an understanding nod over dinner between husband and wife sealed the deal.

This is what our politicians do...."one for me, and one for the country".  They go in with a modest net worth, and leave public service filthy rich.  Coincidence?  Methinks not.

To save you from scouring my blog archive (in the column on the right), below is what I wrote 16 months ago.  As Yogi Berra would have said, "It's deja vu all over again."

S

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So why won't I vote for her [Hillary Clinton]?  It's all about trust, or lack there of.  For starts, it's hard for me to separate the activities of the Clinton Foundation run by her husband and her duties as a Senator or Secretary of State.  There is no clear demarcation. 

Under federal law, foreign governments seeking State Department clearance to buy American-made arms are barred from making campaign contributions, a prohibition aimed at preventing foreign interests from using cash to influence national security policy.  But nothing prevents them from contributing to a "philanthropic foundation" controlled by policymakers.  (A tidy little loophole, wouldn't you say?)

Admittedly the philanthropic Clinton Foundation has done a lot of good for a lot of worthy causes.  But mixed in with its good deeds are lots of highly suspicious "coincidences".  While it was perfectly legal for anyone to give to the non-profit Clinton Foundation while Hillary was a sitting US Senator and a cabinet official during the Obama administration, the potential for abuse was off the chart.  As an aspiring public servant, she should never have let herself be put in such a compromising position.  It was simply a bad decision of the highest order.

Consider this:  In 2011 while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, the State Department approved a $29 billion dollar sale of American-built fighter planes to Saudi Arabia, despite the pleas of many that a deal that large would upset the delicate balance of power in the region.  The deal was even considered a "top priority" for Ms. Clinton personally.  Is it just a coincidence that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed $10 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation, and Boeing contributed $900,000 just months before the sale was given official approval?  

In fact, in just three years (2011-2013) under Hillary Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion dollars worth of arms sales to 20 nations who had given contributions to the Clinton Foundation.  This number is over twice as much as was approved by the State Department in the same time frame during the last term of George W. Bush. 

*sniff*....What's that smell?

And does this seem odd?....Hillary Clinton switched from opposing an American free trade agreement with Colombia to supporting it after a Canadian energy and mining magnate with interests in that South American country contributed to the Clinton Foundation.  

In fact, 13 companies lobbying the State Department paid Bill Clinton $2.5 million in speaking fees while Hillary Clinton headed the agency.  Even if it was a coincidence, just the appearance of impropriety is staggering!

And then we get to her (likely) coziness with Wall Street.  In that regard she seems more like an old-school Republican.  Doesn't it seem suspicious that she was paid $1.8 million dollars to make just eight speeches in less than two years to big banks?  And just this election cycle, based on their campaign contributions to date, she is far and away their favorite candidate.

Do you think they sought her out as a speaker because of her good looks and personality, or could it have something to do with the fact that maybe, just maybe, they felt their relationship might soon pay big dividends if she were to become President of the United States?  Whether true or not, the opportunity to personally gain from her official position and her relationship with Bill's Clinton Foundation is just too tempting.  She sleeps with the guy, for crying out loud!

Spend just a few minutes on Google and see all this and much more documented for yourself.   

Yes, I know...."They all do it."  But they aren't ALL running for President.  We've been giving such shenanigans a blind eye for too many years now, and IMHO it has resulted in the mess we're in today.  We can't afford to put someone in the White House who could with the stoke of a pen put a fast buck ahead of our national interests.

I'm gonna be in hot water for this one!

Front and center in the news these days is tax reform.  Republicans go so far as to call it a "middle class tax cut", even though the facts suggest otherwise, that the middle class will get a very small slice of the tax cut pie.  But now some details are emerging that are bound to be controversial, and one in particular finally addresses something I've thought long and hard about.

Whenever someone says "home mortgage interest deduction" most people usually quickly nod off, except those few who actually receive that tax write off, and they sit bolt-upright.  Here are some numbers to illustrate where we are:  Roughly 65% of Americans own their homes, meaning they don't rent.  Of those, roughly 60 don't get a tax write off for the interest they pay on their mortgage because they either have no mortgage (their home is paid for) or they owe so little on their mortgage they're better off just taking the "standard" personal tax deduction.  

If you do the math you'll find that 61% of Americans are subsidizing the other 39% to own their homes.  I find this mildly amusing because these 39% are often the same ones who protest the loudest about the subsidies/write offs government gives to large corporations for various reasons, referring to it scathingly as "corporate welfare".  Umm...so subsidies "for me" are good, but not "for them"?  *snicker*

The traditional justification used for a mortgage interest deduction is that it promotes home ownership, which in turn promotes more civic activism and more informed citizens.  They supposedly go to the polls and vote more often and are more involved in local issues, schools, etc.  Unfortunately that argument just doesn't hold water.  There is ample evidence that shows it is the level of education and income that leads to more civic involvement, not necessarily home ownership.  (Home ownership among younger, well educated, affluent adults is slowing dramatically as they are marrying and starting families later in life.)

Of the four countries shown here that compare demographically favorably with the US, we are the only one who still allows mortgage interest deductions.  With or without special tax advantages, home ownership for all four hovers around the same 65-68%.

"But...but...without that deduction, we'll never sell any houses!  We'll all DIE!!"  So says the Realtor and builder trade groups.  (Full disclosure...I've been a homebuilder for 45 years.)  Not so fast Kemosabe.  Remember back in the 1980's (?) when the IRS began phasing out the interest deduction allowed on credit card debt and auto loans?  The cry back then from those industries was the same gloom and doom.  Truth is the financial services and auto industries were unfazed.  The deductions were phased out over a number of years, giving people time to prepare and adjust for the new reality.

Here's where it gets interesting for me.  As things are now, people are incentivized to buy the biggest home they can, with a helping hand from the IRS.  In my area at least families of just two or three people are convinced they need 4,000 square foot McMansions.  (More full disclosure...I build 4,000+ square foot McMansions.)  Imagine how much more efficiently we could use our resources if families of 2 or 3 scaled back their expectations and lived in 2,000-2,500 square foot homes?  Well appointed, custom quality, super-energy-efficient smaller homes.

I predict MORE people would buy smaller, more affordable homes, even after factoring out the tax deduction.  Builders would build more homes, employing more architects, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, painters, etc.  Our home ownership rate would go UP.  Realtors would sell more homes.  Lenders would make more loans.

Who would lose if the mortgage interest deduction was phased out?  The 39% who now enjoy it, and the tax preparers who will no longer be needed to itemize taxes when everyone goes the standard deduction route.  And the property tax collectors who right now want nothing but BIG houses in their communities because of the tax $$$$ they bring in.  (But if they'll look a bit further down the road they'll realize more smaller homes vs fewer big homes should make this all revenue neutral.)

Who wins?  The taxpayers, all of us, because we'll see another 70-100 BILLION dollars in our treasury every year.  And if the IRS used that $70-100B to fund the doubling of the standard tax deduction for everyone, then we'd have a true middle class tax cut.

Am I missing something?  Your opinion?

S

Killing the goose that laid the golden egg

Capitalism is described as "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit."  That's it in a nutshell, and it's worked better and benefited more people than any other economic system the world has ever known.  But somewhere along the way our system of classic capitalism has been compromised, subverted, and dare I say even perverted.

My brother and I are the owners of a privately held corporation, meaning the two of us are the only stockholders.  On an almost daily basis we do things above and beyond what is required by any regulation because we feel it is the right way to do business.  This costs us a bit more to deliver our product, and reduces our profits somewhat, but we're still doing OK, and our clients say they appreciate our extra effort and attention.  We'll never get rich doing business this way because we're "leaving money on the table", but we sleep well at night.

Today's publicly held corporations can't afford to leave money on the table.  They must lie, cheat, and steal to squeeze every last penny from their customers.  If they don't, their thousands of stockholders will demand a change in executive leadership and/or dump their stock, possibly tanking the company.  If their product can be made the slightest bit cheaper, they'll do it.  Cutting corners has become a fine art.  Profits come first, always!

Consider this:  Pharmaceutical manufacturers employ tens of thousands of brilliant researchers who spend years developing and testing new drugs that improve our quality of life, and in many cases actually save lives.  They're amazing people doing incredible work.  God bless them!

One of their creations was "opiods", drugs that can help those with chronic pain.  This was a godsend for those hurting.  But according to the new rules of what I call "perverted capitalism", pharmaceutical company executives have no qualms at all about turning these miracle drugs into an addictive nightmare for millions (?) of people.  Opiod abuse has now become a national crisis.  Lives and families have been torn apart, all so the drug makers can maximize their profits.  Shame on them!

And, yes, they know exactly what they're doing.  They know they're producing many times more opioids every year than can safely be prescribed and used by actual patients.  Through their lobbyists they even pushed a bill through Congress last year that prohibited the Drug Enforcement Administration (the DEA) from investigating and interdicting massive opioid shipments to "suspicious" distributors.  Had the drug companies failed, the DEA would have put a huge dent in their profits, and to them their profits are more important than peoples lives.  That's just wrong!

Then we have corporate mergers that have the effect of reducing competition and inflating their bottom lines.  Remember when we had Exxon and Mobil and Chevron and Texaco?  Now we have Exxon/Mobil and Chevron/Texaco.  United and Continental merged to form the new United Airlines.  Delta and Northwest merged to form the new Delta Airlines.  American and US Air merged to form the new American Airlines.  Fares are up, and customer satisfaction is down, but airline profits are at record highs.  

Remember when Macy's, Neiman Marcus, Lord and Taylor, Saks Fifth Avenue, and many others were all independent companies?  Now they're all owned by giant retail conglomerates.  Walmart and Amazon have taken over their sectors, too.  Remember local hardware stores, mom and pop restaurants, community banks, and independent car dealerships?  There are relatively few still in business, left behind in the race to merge, "increase synergy", and maximize profits.

And do I even need to mention corporate subsidies, aka "corporate welfare"?  What the hell is that all about?  Did they think we wouldn't notice?

I've heard it said your "character" is defined by how you behave when no one is looking.  If that's so, then many of our players today have terrible character.

It's no longer about doing what's right, but only about what will make the most money and what they can get away with.  At many businesses today doing "right" will get you fired, that's how cold blooded we've become. We're being attacked from within, and we're losing.  Capitalism in 2017 is NOT your daddy's capitalism!

S

How could this happen?

Any school kid has seen pictures like this of pre-WWII Germany where hundreds of thousands of ordinary Germans flocked to get even a glimps of Adolf Hitler as he promised to pull them out of the hard times they were in.  

"How could this happen?  Didn't they see Hitler for the hateful madman he was?"  

Well, no, not really.  Hitler inflamed even the slightest prejudices most people had and convinced them better times were ahead if only they would trust him.  Prejudices against Jews of course, and the mentally and physically handicapped, and Slavs, and pretty much everyone who had it better than they did, too. 

"Times were simpler then, and people were just very naive.  That could never happen today.  We're much better educated and too sophisticated to fall for anything like that."

Really?  Have you not seen FOX News, or MSNBC, or read Breitbart or Huff Post or any number of other slanted sources of information?  We all have our prejudices, and there is one group or another out there looking for you, hoping to turn you into one of their disciples.  IMO we're even MORE susceptible today of falling into the camp of one evil group or another than Germans were back in the 1930's.

Examples?  President Trump has his "base", those who refuse to believe anything at all negative about him.  Any evidence of a tainted election victory is just sour grapes, "flip-flopping" on issues is just his way of keeping his opponents off balance, etc.  They have tasted his brand of Kool Aid and apparently loved it.  They aren't going back.

Then you have the anti-Trumpsters who can find absolutely nothing good to say about the President.  Everything he says is dismissed out of hand.  THEY are always right, and HE is always wrong.  More Kool Aid consumed.  They aren't going back.

Antisemitism is still with us.  Racial tensions are flaring...White Supremacists, Antifa...Charlottsville was NOT spontaneous.  Protestants still view Catholics warily.  My generation looks unfavorably at today's kids and their dress, music, attitudes, etc.  Gay/straight, Believers/atheists, stand or take a knee...the issues, and ardent followers of each, are almost endless.  And however they might believe, they are unlikely to ever go back.  Some believe those who own guns are just a bunch of knuckle-dragging, Tea Party bubbas.  Umm...I own guns, and I am ANYTHING but a knuckle-dragging, Tea Party bubba.  Ewww!  *Oops, even I have prejudices*

My point is, we are NOT too sophisticated to fall prey to being radicalized.  If you think you're too smart to fall for such shenanigans, they're probably already reeling you in.  Apparently we haven't learned the old lesson of history repeating itself.  I hope this ends better than last time.

S

How much is too much?

How big is too big?

For better or worse, I live in one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the country.  I say "for better or worse" because for years now I've been looking for that sweet spot that's big enough to have everything I need/want, but not too big to be overwhelmingly congested.  Everywhere I look these days all I see is more construction.  I'm losing ground to "overwhelmingly congested"!

Smaller towns love growth.  More people means more grocery stores, and retailers, and more tax revenue to support filling potholes and building new, state-of-the-art schools.  More restaurants and theaters and maybe a few more doctors and even a new hospital, too.  The improving "quality of life" in turn entices companies looking to relocate or expand to move in, and the cycle repeats itself.

My DF/W Metroplex is now pushing 7.2 million residents.  Houston has 6.7M, Chicago has 9.5M, LA has 13M, NY has 20M, London has 18M, and Tokyo has 38M (metropolitan areas in total).  Which begs the question:  How big is TOO big?

At what point does growth stop being a positive and become a negative?  How many steak houses or burger joints do you need?  Or pediatricians and 24-hour corner urgent care clinics? Or AMC  theaters?  However many you might think appropriate, ask yourself if it's worth the traffic congestion, and road rage, and crime, and the daily frustrations that tie us in knots?  At some point are we really just taking one step forward and two steps backward?

Who benefits, really, from all this growth?  The landowners and developers, for sure. And the select few contractors who can build all those highways and mid-high rise buildings.  And of course the bureaucracy.  More people means more tax revenues, and higher salaries for those who hustle new businesses and make more rules for the rest of us to follow.

It seems like it's all just a giant ego trip.  "My city is bigger than yours.  My airport handles more flights.  My skyline is more dramatic."   Virtually everyone benefits a little I suppose, but IMO most of us are just treading water at best.

My fear now is that someday I might actually be able to move to my dream destination, some comfortable mid-size town in Colorado, only to be run over by a stampede of people fleeing Dallas and LA and Chicago who are following my lead.

Umm, now that I think about it....I didn't write this.  You never read this.  Nice not talking to you.  Bye-bye.  ;)

S

 

Some Medicare info for you....a good read if you're 65>, or have insomnia

Last week I received from my Medicare adviser a simple overview of what the next round of Medicare will look like.  I thought I'd share it with those of you who are at or near Medicare age.  This info is for supplements, insurance that covers what Medicare doesn't.

NOTE:  These are NOT Medicare Advantage programs.  In those, Medicare just gives an approved company a lump sum and then bows out.  For better or worse you're then their problem.  Many of the Advantage plans seem to cover more, but there is always small print.  They are basically HMO's/PPO's, meaning you have to use THEIR doctors and hospitals.  They may also say they include prescription drugs, but not ALL drugs are on their included list (their "formulary").  Be careful!

MEDICARE SUPPLEMENTS

Medicare has deductibles and co-pays ... lots of them. These deductibles and co-pays change every year, but this is what they look like in 2017:

PART A DEDUCTIBLES AND CO-PAYS (the hospitals)

Day one deductible: $1,316

Days 2-59 co-pays: $0 per day

Days 60-89 co-pays: $329 per day

Days 90-150 co-pays: $658 per day

Skilled Nursing Facility co-pays: $164.50 per day (Maximum 100 days)

PART B DEDUCTIBLES AND CO-PAYS (the doctors)

Annual deductible: $183

Co-pays after the deductible is met: 20% co-pay of everything WITHOUT LIMIT.

Whoa!

You don't have to be a Mensa member to see that an unexpected illness could cost you a ton of money if you had original Medicare and nothing else.

THIS IS WHERE SUPPLEMENTS COME IN

Medicare supplements (Medigap plans) are private insurance plans, regulated by Medicare, that pay all or part of the aforementioned deductibles and co-pays.

There are eleven different kinds of supplements, identified by letters A to N, each one covering different pieces of those deductibles and co-pays. The most popular plans are Plan F and Plan G since they cover the most.

 

A Plan F covers ALL of Medicare's deductibles and co-pays. Plan G covers all of them except the Part B annual deductible of $183. Since Plan G has a premium that's $400 per year less than Plan F (on average) it's always the better value.

Here's a little known fact: Because supplements are federally regulated, those with the same letter are identical except for price! They have to cover the exact same things.

WHAT DO THEY COST?

Premiums are based on your age and your zip code. In Frisco, TX, there are at least 26 different companies offering Plan F supplements. The premiums for a 65 year old female range from $120 per month to $369 per month - for the exact same thing!

The least expensive plan is not usually the best value because those are the plans that have the largest renewal increases. If your plan costs $120 per month in year one but jumps to $180 per month in year two, it's no longer a good deal. And if your health is bad, or your medications give the insurance companies a scare, you'll be stuck with that plan and its ever-increasing premiums.

MY RECOMMENDATION

There are some supplement companies that have proven to be reasonably priced and have relatively low annual premium increases.

They are, in alphabetical order: AARP, Aetna and Blue Cross. As those of you who have been to my office know, Aetna has always been the plan that starts out the least expensive of the three and stays that way over the years, so that's usually what I recommend. In addition, if a husband and wife both go on the plan they get a 12% discount.

Once you have a quality supplement, there should be no need to change. They will all have some rate increases each year on your anniversary date, but those increases should be manageable.

CAN YOU CHANGE SUPPLEMENTS?

If you have a supplement that is NOT priced right, can you do anything about it? Maybe. You can apply for a different supplement any time during the year, but the plan you're applying for will ask you three pages of health questions, review your medications and talk to your doctors. If they don't like what they see, they will decline you and you'll have to stay where you are.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Hope this helps.

Regards,

S  

Ahhh....America....we have a problem

We seem to be a very odd bunch.  By "we" I mean the upset, disillusioned, gun toting Americans among us.  First the "upset, disillusioned" part:

We have a lot of societal issues.  Minorities feel the deck is stacked against them, and they want fairer treatment.  White supremacists feel that if minorities receive better treatment, it will be at their expense.  

Every kid who can strum a guitar thinks he's going to be a rock star, and every kid who has any athletic ability thinks he's destined for professional sports stardom.  Virtually all hit the reality wall eventually and find their life's work will instead be on a loading dock or at the paper mill. 

Too many seniors had expected a comfy retirement, only to find their life savings vanish when they found themselves with unexpected and overwhelming medical bills, or their 401K's cratered, along with the company they worked 40 years for.  At least they still have their Medicare and Social Security, right?  Umm...maybe not.  Hungry tax-cut vultures are eyeing them both. 

It's been a given that each generation of Americans will be better off than their parents.  Not so fast.  The middle class has been losing ground for the past several decades.  Kids are told they need a good education, then find themselves saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in student loans they have trouble paying back.

Blue-collar middle class Americans have been especially hard hit.  Many have seen their jobs outsourced to Mexico or Asia, and the replacement jobs they can find don't pay nearly what they need to maintain their former lifestyle.

Even comfortable white-collar Americans, who seem to have it all, say they feel overwhelming, intense pressure trying to keep it all.

Obese / short people know they'll never make it to a company vice-presidency.  Those offices are reserved for beautiful / handsome people.

And then we have our addictions....alcohol, drugs, gambling, etc, all impairing our ability to attain the good life.  Even those who take legitimately prescribed medicines....have you read the side effects today's meds bury in the fine print?  Besides the ever popular constipation and / or diarrhea, they often include "violent reactions and suicidal tendencies".  Yikes!

And scorned lovers, and lost promotions, and...

Which leads us to the "gun toting" part:

We do have a LOT of guns in America.  An estimated 300,000,000 plus.  The problem comes when some of those mentioned above just snap, unable to contain their anger.  Then they go after those who they feel are responsible for their misfortune, such as what happened in Las Vegas last week.

Now we're hearing calls once again for gun control.  "Stop making and selling 'assault rifles'", they say, "and we'll see less gun violence."  OK, fine.  Outlaw "bump stops", and suppressors, and even new AR-15's.  (Note: an AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle, legally speaking.)  With 300,000,000 guns already out there, does anyone really believe a disturbed person won't be able to get one?  (Another note: 1,000,000 guns are stolen and presumably resold every year on the black market.)

The fact is, unless we can get a handle on these (and other) societal issues we face, we're just putting a tiny band-aid on a sucking chest wound with gun control.  Once again, as has become the American Way, we're looking for a quick, easy way out.  We're in denial.

S

Reverse psychology

Remember back when you were a teenager, under intense social pressure and loaded with raging hormones, and your parents told you you couldn't see "that boy" or "that girl" because blah blah blah?  What did you do?  You probably fabricated an elaborate scheme, maybe with the help of your friends, to see him/her anyway.  That's an example of reverse psychology, and it pervades our society today more than ever.  When someone tells us we MUST do something, we'll fight to NOT do it.  If someone tells us we CAN'T have it, we'll go to great lengths to GET it.

The day after the recent horrible massacre in Las Vegas, MGM (they own the Mandalay Bay hotel) stock was down substantially, while Smith and Wesson stock was surging.  Investors knew there would be an immediate call for gun control, and they knew the result would be the public, even those who had never desired to own a gun before, would rush to buy one before they were outlawed.  *guns outlawed in America...hahaha!*

But reverse psychology can be more subtle, too.  For example, the NFL players "take a knee" movement was originally meant to publicize the social injustice Black Americans face every day in America.  It has no doubt brought attention to the subject and attracted many supporters, but it has also driven a wedge into society and alienated many who might have otherwise been on board.  

The "I have a constitutional right to protest" position (absolutely true) was also sometimes paired with "and if you oppose my right to 'take a knee' during the National Anthem, you're un-informed, ignorant, un-American and/or a racist".  (Yes, this happened...I heard commentators actually say that on national TV.)

The reverse psychological effect was that many ordinary people, often of a generation who grew up reciting the Pledge of Allegiance the first thing every morning at school, and stood with their hand over their heart and sometimes even sang the National Anthem at football games, recoiled and dug in their heels.  

As I tried to subtly say in a previous post, apparently unsuccessfully, sometimes you need to find a way to get your message across while not stirring up a reverse psychological reaction. Take a group knee before the National Anthem, or right before the kickoff at mid-field, for example.  

Gen Dwight Eisenhower led a diverse group that defeated the Nazi's by building a cohesive coalition, not by pitting one group against another.  Build coalitions, don't drive wedges.  (I can already imagine the reactions I'll get over those five words!)

Our society is becoming more rough edged, more confrontational, more "in your face", and I see that as ultimately counterproductive.  

Just my opinion.

S