by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, POLITICS, QUICKLY NOTED
A must read, food-for-thought from National Review:
Herd Instincts
Is Hillary Clinton a better commodities trader than George Soros, or did she just get really, really lucky? Both explanations leave something to be desired.
By Caroline Baum & Victor Niederhoffer — June 1, 2016
Editor’s note: A version of this article originally appeared in the February 20, 1995, issue of National Review.
When Newt Gingrich told a Republican audience recently that his lucrative book deal paled in comparison with Hillary Clinton’s cattle-trading profits, the Speaker’s comments were greeted with wild applause and raucous laughter. Opened to public scrutiny less than a year ago, Mrs. Clinton’s one hundred-fold return from trading futures has already become part of popular lore. Whenever anyone is suspected of making a fast buck nowadays, the First Lady’s adventure in commodities trading is bound to come to mind.
On October 11, 1978, the future First Lady, a neophyte investor with an annual income of $25,000, opened a commodity-futures account with a deposit of $1,000. Her first trade was the short sale of ten live-cattle contracts at a price of 57.55 cents a pound: a commitment to deliver in December of that year 400,000 pounds of cattle with a market value of $230,200. One day later, she bought the contracts back at a price of 56.10 cents, just 0.15 cent above the low of the day, pocketing $5,300 for a return of 530 per cent.
Mrs. Clinton continued to be a net winner at the game. By the time she closed her trading account ten months later, she had racked up $99,541 in profits, a spectacular 10,000 per cent return on her initial investment of $1,000. Either Mrs. Clinton was a better trader than the legendary George Soros, whose best-ever annual return in thirty years of trading was 122 per cent, or she was led by an invisible hand.
During a press conference last April, the First Lady attributed her success to her advisor James Blair’s “theory that because of the economy in the early part of the 1970s, a lot of cattle herds had been liquidated, so that there was going to be a big opportunity to make money in the late Seventies.” After examining Mrs. Clinton’s trading records, Leo Melamed, the father of financial futures and former chairman of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, and Jack Sandner, the Merc’s current chairman, found nothing irregular except, on occasion, insufficient margin in her account. Anyone could have done as well, these gentlemen said, given the doubling of cattle prices during her year of trading. Mr. Melamed called the brouhaha over the First Lady’s financial affairs “a tempest in a teapot.” Mr. Sandner attributed her success to her “trading the biggest bull market in the history of cattle. If someone caught that trend and traded it well, they could make an extraordinary amount of money, a lot more than $100,000, on a small investment.”
RELATED: The Dirty Business of the Billary Machine, Again
Yet Mrs. Clinton bucked the trend and traded it well. Most of her trades, including her first two, her last two, and her single most profitable trade (in dollar terms) were initiated from the short side, anticipating a decline in cattle prices. Short selling by the public is extremely rare, especially on a first trade. When one considers that both the investor and her trading advisor were using a herd-reduction theory to capitalize on the biggest bull market in cattle in history, the success of her short sales raises a bright red flag.
In other situations where the legitimacy of a transaction is suspect, the courts are guided by the common-law doctrine, enunciated by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in the 1994 case BFP v. Resolution Trust Corporation, that “a transfer of title for a grossly inadequate (or in some cases grossly excessive) consideration would raise a rebuttable presumption of actual fraudulent intent.” Except for a press conference or two attended by sympathetic journalists not familiar with commodities trading, the First Lady has done nothing to rebut that presumption.
IN SEARCH OF SLIME
Cases of fraud are notoriously hard to prove. In the investigation of a suspected fraud, the prosecutor does not expect to uncover a document outlining the terms of an illicit financial transfer between two parties. Similarly, an insurance investigator does not expect to find an arsonist standing on the fire-ravaged premises with match and empty gasoline can in hand.
But the clues are there. Despite their best efforts, perpetrators of fraud usually leave a slimy trail — what fraud investigators refer to as badges or indicia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in the 1835 case Floyd v. Goodwin, “Fraud has to be ferreted out by carefully following its marks and signs, for fraud will in most instances, though ever so artfully and secretly contrived, like the snail in its passage, leave its slime by which it may be traced.”
RELATED: Why Both Clintons Are Such Unapologetic Liars
Insurance investigators have an objective list of marks and signs that they look for when a presumption of fraud exists. In cases where arson is suspected, one of the first questions a fire investigator tries to answer is: Was the pet removed from the premises? Medical fraud might be indicated when the medical bills in question are photocopies, or if they fail to itemize office visits and treatments. In cases of automobile-accident fraud, one marker would be a claimant’s attempt to discourage an insurance investigator from looking at the damaged vehicle.
As far as we know, there are no indicia for commodities-trading fraud. So we took it upon ourselves to develop a checklist of fraud indicators that would apply to a broad range of financial trickery. We are confident that any investment activity that scores high on our test merits a red flag. We have rated the likely legitimacy of Mrs. Clinton’s activities on a scale ranging from 1 (highly likely) to 10 (highly unlikely) for each often criteria.
1. Were the returns excessive as measured against a normal yardstick of performance? Yes. As discussed above, Mrs. Clinton’s annual return was more than eighty times George Soros’s in his best year. As far as we know, no non-professional has ever achieved a return of that magnitude. Stanley Kroll, a well-known commodities broker who worked at three major firms at that time, has written that none of his retail customers turned a profit. Neither did those of any of his colleagues at other firms. Even Mrs. Clinton’s trading advisor, Jim Blair, who says he was “damn good” at making money in commodities, suffered a $15 million trading loss shortly after his pupil stopped trading. Score: 10 points.
2. Has there been any effort to suppress investigation of the transaction? Yes. Mrs. Clinton was adamantly opposed to the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into her and her husband’s financial dealings, including her own trading activities, during the late 1970s and 1980s. She attempted to deflect attention from the matter by explaining away her newfound wealth as a gift from her parents, until the Clintons’ 1978 and 1979 tax returns were made public and the actual source of her windfall profit was revealed. Furthermore, despite our repeated and friendly requests to both the First Lady’s and the White House’s press representatives, none of our questions concerning the elementary details of Mrs. Clinton’s trades and the availability of original documentation has been answered. Score: 10 points.
RELATED: All of Hillary’s Lies Are Premeditated
3. Are crucial records of the transaction missing or available only in duplicate form? Yes. The purchase and sale confirmations for Mrs. Clinton’s two most profitable trades are lost or missing. Her first, extraordinary transaction is also among the missing. The details were furnished by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Mrs. Clinton has no independent recollection of her first trade, which produced a 530 per cent return overnight. You can be sure that Fernando Valenzuela hasn’t forgotten the five shutouts in his first seven games as a rookie pitcher for the Los Angeles Dodgers in 1981. Score: 10 points.
4. Did the suspect alter his story regarding the activity in question? Yes. The White House furnished ever-changing versions of Mrs. Clinton’s trading activities. First, we were told she did her own research, relying primarily on the Wall Street Journal, and placed all of her own trades. Then mentor James Blair played an advisory role, but she made the decisions, determined the size, and placed all the trades. As it now stands, she relied on Blair’s advice, and he placed most of her trades. When queried, the First Lady said the confusion was the result of the way the story was communicated to the press. Score: 10 points.
5. Were a good portion of the purchases and sales executed near the most favorable prices of the day? Yes. As noted, Mrs. Clinton’s first trade of ten live-cattle contracts (sold short) was followed by a purchase at a price just 0.15 cent above the day’s low. The odds of a retail trader buying at a price 15 points off the intraday low on a ten-contract trade are about the same as those of finding the Dead Sea Scrolls on the steps of the State House in Little Rock.
Many of Mrs. Clinton’s subsequent transactions were executed near the day’s extremes, including her last big trade in July 1979. At a time when her account was $18,000 under water, she managed to sell fifty live-cattle contracts 0.12 cent from the high on a day when prices dropped by the 1.5-cent limit. Her very last trade was a purchase of fifty cattle contracts just 0.05 cent above the low of the day. Such precision trading would be enviable for a trader who spends every second of the trading day glued to the screen. It is a dazzling coup for a non-professional like Mrs. Clinton, who had many other claims on her time, such as litigating for the Rose Law Firm, serving on corporate boards, crusading for children’s rights, chairing the Legal Services Corporation, and performing various duties as the governor’s wife. Until Hillary’s diaries and Rose’s time sheets become public and reveal her whereabouts between the opening and closing of the cattle pit each day she traded, we cannot award her a perfect score. Score: 8 points.
RELATED: Habitual Liar Lies Habitually
6. Was there anything unusual about the suspect’s behavior or anything irregular about the activity in question? Yes. As mentioned earlier, Mrs. Clinton, a neophyte investor with nearly no savings, traded the biggest bull market in the history of cattle primarily from the short side. Her first three transactions were short sales. The irregularities connected with her first trade alone should have tripped the security system. The commission of $500 and bid-asked spread of around $600 on such a trade came to more than her entire initial equity of $1,000. So from the moment she entered her first transaction she had already lost more than she could afford to lose. Unlike that of most traders, Hillary’s trading activity rebought and sold everything from one and two lots to sixty contracts at a time. In her waning days as a speculator, she day-traded fifty contracts at a time when she already had an open position of 65 contracts. Score: 10+ points.
7. Was the risk in the trading program inconsistent with the customer’s net income and net worth? Yes. Mrs. Clinton’s 1978 earned income of $24,250 from the Rose Law Firm partnership and husband Bill’s $26,500 as Arkansas attorney general are considerably lower than the minimums set by most brokerage houses for opening a commodities-trading account. If for some reason Mrs. Clinton had lost rather than won $100,000, where would she have come up with the money?
On three separate occasions (in November 1978, December 1978, and July 1979), the value of Mrs. Clinton’s open positions was well in excess of $1 million for days at a time, and in two cases for up to three weeks. A 2 to 5 per cent move — the sort of move that occurs about once every two weeks — in the wrong direction would have wiped out not only the Clintons’ net income for the year but also their entire net worth. Their joint political aspirations would have gone up in smoke if the governor-elect had been forced to declare personal bankruptcy as a result of his wife’s speculations in commodities futures. Score: 10 points.
RELATED: Clinton and Trump: The Moral Universe of Liars
8. Was the suspect in a position to do a favor for any of the other parties involved? Yes. Hillary’s advisor, James Blair, was not only a family friend, but also counsel of Tyson Foods, the largest chicken processor in the world and Arkansas’s biggest employer. According to a 1994 article in The New York Times Magazine, the company’s chairman, Don Tyson, viewed “politics as a series of unsentimental transactions between those who need votes and those who have money . . . a world where every quid has its quo.” Clearly Tyson had money, and he put it on Bill Clinton in 1978. In return, as reported in The New York Times Magazine, he expected the new governor to raise the legal truck-weight limit in Arkansas so that Tyson Foods could compete with out-of-state poultry truckers.
Blair may also have been balancing an item in his own account. In the early months of the Carter Administration, Bill Clinton coordinated federal patronage in Arkansas, and one of his first moves in this area was to recommend Blair for the chairmanship of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board.
In Keys to Crookdom, written in 1924, George C. Henderson comments: “The great grafter does not buy government officials after they are elected, as a rule. He owns them beforehand,” And, in a prescient conclusion: “Occasionally good and faithful servants are rewarded by attorneys’ fat fees, gifts and market tips in addition to emoluments of the office.” Score: 10 points.
9. Was there any history of illegal, irregular, or unethical behavior on the part of the broker? Yes. Red Bone, the broker of record for both Mr. Blair and Mrs. Clinton, was suspended from trading for a year, even before he left Tyson Foods to run the Refco brokerage office in Springdale, Arkansas, for trying to comer the egg futures market. In 1979, Red was disciplined by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange for “serious and repeated violations of record-keeping functions, order-entry procedures, margin requirements, and hedge procedures.” Refco was fined $250,000, at the time the largest fine ever levied for commodity-trading violations.
One of Refco’s Springdale brokers at the time has admitted under oath that the firm was buying and selling blocks of contracts and allocating them to customers after the market closed. In one instance, after being chastised by their superiors in Refco’s Chicago headquarters, the brokers had to set back the time-stamp clock before stamping the day’s trades to give the appearance that account allocations had been properly made. Score: 10 points.
RELATED: The Clintons’ Greatest Political Gift: Getting Millions of Americans to Defend the Indefensible
10. Were rules, regulations, and normal operating procedures violated? Yes. Mrs. Clinton insists that despite the advice she received from James Blair, she maintained a non-discretionary account. Any non-broker who places an order for a customer is, by definition, acting in a discretionary capacity and must file the appropriate documents. And in view of Mrs. Clinton’s busy schedule and the precision timing of many of her trades, it is likely that Mr. Blair placed the orders without consulting with her. Yet no discretionary forms were ever filed. Finally, it is inconceivable that a prudent broker would assume all of the risk exposure for a client who did not have the funds to support her positions without a third-party guarantee. Score: 10 points.
Hillary’s total score on our financial hanky-panky scale is 98 out of 100, catapulting her to the top of the class for potential commodities fraud. A detailed examination of her trades seemed in order. We started with records of each purchase and sale confirmation and all of the monthly statements that were provided by the White House. Next we looked at the high, low, open, and close on each of these days to see how her fills compared to what was available. Finally, we calculated the unrealized gains, required margin, available equity, and commitments outstanding for each day during Mrs. Clinton’s ten months of trading.
FAVORABLE TREATMENT?
Backed up by legions of data, we were prepared to rebut the First Lady’s contention that “there isn’t any evidence that anybody gave me any favorable treatment.” Our analysis of the data and other documents yielded these observations:
1. Mrs. Clinton’s account was under-margined by $50,000 to $80,000 during a one-month period beginning November 10, 1978. Again in July 1979, her margin requirements were approximately $100,000 for several days, when there was negative equity (minus $30,000) in the account. A normal rule of thumb for commodity traders is to maintain equity of at least five times the margin requirement. Mrs. Clinton routinely reversed this ratio, maintaining equity around one-fifth of her required margin.
2. Her total equity would have been wiped out on three occasions, taking into account the commissions due and the cost of exiting the trades. On July 17, the commissions and bid-asked spreads on newly opened positions, added to her existing deficit going into the day, could have totally wiped out the family’s net worth, even without any market move against her.
3. Her name was misspelled “Hilary” on all the official brokerage statements she produced, raising the question of whether the statements were ever mailed to the detail-oriented attorney.
4. Her first two monthly statements reveal identical misalignments and faulty keystrokes on certain letters, raising doubts as to their authenticity. It wouldn’t take a great stretch of the imagination to conclude that they were generated simultaneously in an effort to cover the slimy trail.
5. Withdrawals from her account consistently kept her equity below $15,000. After each big win, she withdrew the spoils. Finally, after making about $100,000 in four days in July 1979, she closed her account down. Such behavior is inconsistent with human nature, as observed any day in Las Vegas or Atlantic City, as well as with Mrs. Clinton’s insistence that she reinvested her profits.
6. Two-thirds of her trades showed a profit by the close of the day she entered them, and 80 per cent of her trades, on both the long and the short sides, were ultimately profitable, percentages that are rarely achieved by the most successful professionals.
7. Commissions and slippage of her trades totaled more than 37 times her initial equity.
8. Most of her 33 trades were for five or ten lots. But on three occasions Mrs. Clinton traded fifty or sixty contracts, positions that would normally require about $1 million in equity to support. Each of these trades was entered at extraordinarily favorable levels relative to the price range of the day and was highly profitable by day’s end. On two of the large trades the overnight profits pushed a negative equity into the black. Had Mrs. Clinton lost on any of the large trades, the implications for her “investment program” would have been dire.
9. For a two-week period in July 1979, the equity in her account swung from negative $31,000 to positive $62,000. Finally, after the purchase of fifty contracts just a gnat’s eyelash above the low of the day, the account was closed with a withdrawal of $60,000, bringing total withdrawals to more than $99,000. Mrs. Clinton was allowed to trade like a millionaire, in the process violating numerous rules and procedures that industry professionals have developed to prevent financial catastrophe to customer and brokerage house alike.
10. More egregious than any of these other red flags of commodity-trading fraud was the size of Mrs. Clinton’s commitments. From day one, the size of her positions was wildly out of line with the equity available to absorb loss. On November 13, 1978, with $13,000 in her account, she controlled a position of 62 contracts with an underlying market value of $1.9 million. On December 11, 1978, she had $6,000 in her account and a ninety-contract position valued at $2.3 million. And on her third to last day of trading, July 17, 1979, she had 115 contracts outstanding with a market value of $3.2 million. The equity in her account was a negative $18,000.
The fluctuations in the price of Hillary’s cattle commitments taken in 1978 and 1979 averaged 1 per cent a day from close to close and 2 per cent from high to low. On unusual days, once or twice a month, cattle prices fluctuate by 4 or 5 per cent. All commodity traders know that they must be sufficiently liquid to withstand such extreme swings and avoid financial ruin. One 4 or 5 per cent adverse fluctuation in Mrs. Clinton’s position would have constituted five times her annual income and five times her net worth. And this is just a one-day move. Commodities have a nasty habit of moving against you for several days in a row, right to the point where you are forced to liquidate. But whenever Mrs. Clinton was on the brink of ruin, she managed to pull a rabbit out of a hat.
The outlook was not bright for her in the middle of July 1979. The total equity in her account was a negative $31,245. She owed $65,000 in margin requirement. On July 17, she doubled up, selling fifty more contracts just 0.12 cent off the day’s high of 68.72, and covering it that same day for a profit of $10,400. At the time, her required margin was $115,000 and her total cash due to the broker was $135,000. Most speculators know that doubling up when one’s position is seriously under water is a one-way ticket to ruin. Only if she had held a confirmed, round-trip ticket would someone in Mrs. Clinton’s position have been willing to risk the farm in such a high-stakes game. Providentially, three days later, on her last day of trading, the whole situation was resolved. Cattle closed down the limit again, and Mrs. Clinton covered her short position down by just 0.05 cent above the limit. She ended her career as a speculator with a final flourish to rival her first trade.
After extensive research, we have satisfied ourselves that Mrs. Clinton was neither naive nor lucky nor particularly talented as a trader. Even individuals who have never visited a futures exchange or traded one futures contract will, upon examination of the evidence, be convinced that Mrs. Clinton’s representation of the events 15 years later is highly implausible.
After a concerted attempt to follow the path and uncover the truth, we are still left with one gnawing question. Hillary Clinton earned profits of $99,541. What happened to the other $459?
Editor’s Note: This article as originally printed and reprinted mistakenly said that James Blair declared bankruptcy. In fact it was his broker, Robert “Red” Bone, who declared bankruptcy.
— Caroline Baum is a financial columnist with Dow Jones Telerate. Victor Niederhoffer is a commodities speculator. The authors wish to thank Jay McKeage and Jon Normile for their assistance. This article originally appeared in the February 20, 1995, issue of National Review.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, FREEDOM, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS
To the President of Brown University,
I read with interest your recent commitment to increasing diversity at Brown University spending $100 million over the next 5-7 years in order to hire 60 more faculty members is an immense undertaking.
You wrote, “Many of the efforts detailed in our plan are focused on faculty diversity through targeted strategies such as early identification programs, postdoctoral programs and cluster hiring. By hiring the best and the brightest from a full range of backgrounds, we’ll put Brown in a position to attract exceptional students and scholars into our applicant pools.”
This is truly fantastic. Thus, I would like to know just how many conservative and libertarian professors Brown has hired or plans to hire as part of this initiative?
You also enthusiastically and “explicitly rejected mandatory ‘diversity training’, and cite diversity as “a key element of our core mission of education and discovery” being “integral to our commitment to cultivating an intellectual environment in which a wide range of views are represented and all individuals are treated with respect.” Agreed! Without libertarian and conservative point of views, you unequivocally cannot have a full, diverse point of view for learning. You certainly cannot possibly have a wide range of views if you have twice as many Marxist-leaning professors as the rest!
Supporting the necessity for diversity in higher education as a means for open conversation, a free exchange of ideas, and mutual respect. Without belittling the need to increase representation from historically underrepresented groups, it would be rather flawed to only focus on genetic diversity, while completely ignoring the expansion of diversity in political and ideological thought.
I look forward to hearing about your diversity expansion will include those that are politically and intellectually underrepresented at such a prestigious institution of higher learning.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Here’s another ridiculous article by “economist” Grep Ip, wondering aloud once again why the economy isn’t doing any better, and why low interest rates haven’t helped. Either he’s truly incompetent as an economist not to see the detrimental effects of government policies on businesses and the economy, or he’s playing dumb to give cover to the Obama Administration by pretending their policies aren’t harmful and looking the other way in his analysis.
Ip writes, “One of the great mysteries of the recovery is why low interest rates have done so little to lift business investment. After all, that is supposed to be one of the ways monetary policy works: A lower cost of capital makes any project more viable. But what if lower interest rates are actually hurting investment by encouraging companies to pay dividends or buyback stock instead?”
This is exactly what is happening — it’s no mystery. But he draws no substantial conclusions. If he would just come down from his ivory tower of what is “supposed to happen” under Keynesian economics, and actually observe what is happening, he might actually learn something. The fact of the matter is, Obama’s policies are destroying our business environment and eliminating the opportunity.
The burden of over-regulation, the increases in taxes, the litigation-friendly environment, the overreaching government agencies, Obamacare, unprecedented debt and more — all of these factors cause businesses to essentially pause their business strategy. Who in their right mind really would consider substantial investment in an environment that is hostile to workers, and an economy that is now seeing more businesses close instead of open? The risk is often too great. Sitting it out is a safer bet.
Not only is it not a mystery as to why low interest rates haven’t spurred growth, it’s a no-brainer. To ignore the government’s effect on business and the economy is unprofessional and incompetent. “It’s the government, stupid!”
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, TAXES
A few weeks ago, the Feds trotted out a statistic aimed to bolster support for the fledgling Obamacare legislation amid steep premium hikes and costly non-compliance fines. While the Obama Administration celebrated the fact that the uninsured rate was finally below 10%, in reality, this same statistic actually represents the most colossal failure of any government program in the history of this country.
In 2010, we had nearly 307 million people living in the United States, with a 16.3% uninsured rate — or a record number of 49.9 million uninsured, according to the Census Bureau. On March 20, Nancy Pelosi presented a letter to the House of Representatives showing the yearly effects of Obamacare on insurance coverage — which included estimates on the number of uninsured each year. Obamacare passed three days later.
Looking at the data that was used to persuade passage of Obamacare, the number of estimated uninsured in 2016 was projected to be less -30 million and a 95% insured rate. That means the government predicted that by now, the uninsured rate would have dropped from 16.3 down to 5% — not 9.1% which is the current statistic. Going from 16.3% to 9.1% (instead of 5% by now) means that the government hit only 63% of the projected number of uninsured. (For the sake of also considering population increases, let’s say that the government only hit about ⅔ of its target).
This is a big deal. Congress and the public were told that the intended effects of getting the number of uninsured Americans down to a low number were worth it in the long run even if it meant that rest of the population — some 257 million people who currently HAD insurance at the time — would experience some sort of disruption with their health insurance. Most of these 257 million people were relatively happy with their plans and prices but the government decided that mucking with the system for all, for the reduction of some uninsured, was worth it.
And yet, only ⅔ of the projected uninsured has gotten insurance. 28.6 million people in the population remains uninsured, when it was projected that about 20 million (down from 50 million) would be uninsured by this time. How is this a success? It’s not, of course. Financially too, this program is derelict.
Celebrating an “under 10% uninsured number” is a hollow victory, a gimmick, a ruse to hide the truth about Obamacare. This statistic is an unmitigated disaster, an admission of utter failure of a program that has encroached into the lives of every American and arguably the biggest government program failure this country has had to contend with.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, TAXES
Deidre McCloskey’s recent treatise (How the West (and the rest) Got Rich) on was a thoughtful essay on the power of liberty and its impact on economics. For the most part, McCloskey did a fine job explaining classical liberalism (“worthy of a free person”) and how the Great Enrichment — our uplifting out of poverty — really came about only when man began to have the liberty to think new ideas and create them.
There was one section, however, where Ms. McCloskey was incorrect. She indicated in passing the right had championed “Social Darwinism” and put forth concepts like eugenics — but this is incorrect. The idea gained footing during the Victorian Era due to the evolutionist Herbert Spencer, and it was promoted by progressives such as Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson in the United States. The idea that people should be left by the wayside in a “survival of the fittest” kind of mentality is particularly repugnant and certainly not one espoused by conservatives or libertarians. Conservatives and libertarians are notoriously more generous; liberals don’t take their own money and give to the poor — they take other people’s money and give to the poor.
Consider for a moment too, the idea of wealth input. When people like Bernie Sanders suggest that wealth is unfairly going to wealthier people — well, how do you determine how much should go to each person? Should it really all be the same? Is that equality? Should LeBron James get the same as the least talented player in the NBA? We should be focusing on the equality of opportunity — the quality that you put in is equal to what you get out of it.
For example, Bill Gates make tens of millions a year and he pays several people $1 million or more a year because they are worth it to him. If Gates paid only the minimum wage, other companies would snap the employees up because of their talents . Gates, in paying some of his employees large sums, has recognized their worth because they are generating whatever output was satisfactory to Gates — for example, a strong ROI for the year.
On the other hand, if minimum wage advocates insist on paying $15/hour just for the sake of paying $15/hour instead of $7.50, why should they? Why should the employer be forced to take on the extra cost if the output isn’t worth $15/hour, if they aren’t generating that kind of value? Thus, with that kind of imbalance, the employer must make changes in other areas of his business to make it work — whether it be one or more fewer job overall, price increases, etc.
If people aren’t being paid $100,000 because they are not worth it to their company of employment, that’s a part of business. But it is patently unfair to make arbitrary wage increases in the guise of “fairness.” Why is it fair to some but not others? Why are the people earning $500,000 not suddenly getting $600,000 if others making less get arbitrary wage increases? Why are they excluded? Is that fair? That is why such policies are inherently unfair. The employer should be able to determine, on his own, to pay what his employee is worth and what his employee can generate — without artificial wage policies or government coercion.
It’s difficult to own a business and stay in business when the government comes along and makes changes to how the company is allowed to be in business in the middle of the game. That is patently unfair and unequal. These types of actions stifle a business’s freedom to do business, which is why McCloskey’s era of the “Great Enrichment” is proving to be on the decline.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
As a tax practitioner, I have been following the IRS scandal since the beginning. Here’s the latest update — the list of IRS target have been released, 3 years later. From the Washington Times:
More than three years after it admitted to targeting tea party groups for intrusive scrutiny, the IRS has finally released a near-complete list of the organizations it snagged in a political dragnet.
The tax agency filed the list last month as part of a court case after a series of federal judges, fed up with what they said was the agency’s stonewalling, ordered it to get a move on. The case is a class-action lawsuit, so the list of names is critical to knowing the scope of those who would have a claim against the IRS.
But even as it answers some questions, the list raises others, including exactly when the targeting stopped, and how broadly the tax agency drew its net when it went after nonprofits for unusual scrutiny.
The government released names of 426 organizations. Another 40 were not released as part of the list because they had already opted out of being part of the class-action suit.
That total is much higher than the 298 groups the IRS‘ inspector general identified back in May 2013, when investigators first revealed the agency had been subjecting applications to long — potentially illegal — delays, and forcing them to answer intrusive questions about their activities. Tea party and conservative groups said they was the target of unusually heavy investigations and longer delays,
Edward D. Greim, the lawyer who’s pursuing the case on behalf of NorCal Tea Party Patriots and other members of the class, said the list also could have ballooned toward the end of the targeting as the IRS, once it knew it was being investigated, snagged more liberal groups in its operations to try to soften perceptions of political bias.
“As we have identified in our filings in this case, important questions still exist regarding changes to the IRS‘ case listings that occurred after theIRS learned that the [inspector general] and congressional investigations had begun,” he said. “Based on these changes, which to date remain unexplained, a very real possibility — if not probability — exists that theIRS modified its targeting in light of the investigations, packing its own internal lists of targeted groups to support its preferred narrative, including by adding ideologically diverse groups.”
He said if that did happen, it would have “tainted” the list the IRS has now released.
The IRS declined to comment, saying its filing spoke for itself.
A series of investigations found the IRS did ask intrusive questions and did delay applications for years, in violation of policy. But so far no investigation has found any order from the White House to conduct the targeting.
‘Tea’ and ‘patriot’ groups
Sixty of the groups on the list released last month have the word “tea” in their name, 33 have “patriot,” eight refer to the Constitution, and 13 have “912” in their name — which is the monicker of a movement started by conservatives. Another 26 group names refer to “liberty,” though that list does include some groups that are not discernibly conservative in orientation.
Among the groups that appear to trend liberal are three with the word “occupy” in their name.
And then there are some surprising names, including three state or local chapters of the League of Women Voters — a group with a long history of nonprofit work.
Some of the most active and prominent tea party groups snared in the targeting aren’t on the class-action list. At least some of them opted not to be part of the joint legal action to preserve their own lawsuits.
Congressional Republicans say IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, who was brought in by President Obama to clean up the agency after the targeting scandal, has failed — and even misled Congress during the investigation. Some Republicans are even pursuing impeachment against Mr. Koskinen, accusing him of defying a subpoena for former senior IRSexecutive Lois G. Lerner’s emails by allowing computer backup tapes to be destroyed.
Even outside of impeachment, the House GOP has proposed a new round of budget cuts for the IRS, aimed at trying to deliver a message that Mr. Koskinen’s tenure has been unacceptable.
And the tax agency is still defending itself in a series of court cases. In addition to the NorCal class action case, the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., is currently considering an appeal by tea party groups who argue the targeting is still going on.
“One thing remains clear: Continued litigation is the only way to force theIRS‘ hand in order to expose its targeting scheme that was coordinated with the help of the DOJ and other federal agencies so that we can obtain justice for those patriotic Americans who were unconstitutionally targeted by their own government,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, which is representing some of the plaintiffs in the appeals case.
In yet another case, the conservative group Cause of Action has been pursuing the IRS to turn over documents the group believed would show White House officials requesting secret taxpayer information on conservatives.
But in a filing Friday, the IRS said it has conducted a final search and can’t find any evidence that the White House either asked for or received protected information.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
One of the unintended results of minimum wage theory is how the artificial wage increase affects those workers who were not recipients of the government’s generosity. The sudden jump to $13 or $15 an hour for the lower income workers does not translate into the same sort of wage increase for the middle income workers — and this act breeds contempt. Those that have worked hard and earn a decent wage see below them receive this pay increase, and they understandably now want the same kind of jump. And why shouldn’t they? Should they be able to demand the same wage treatment? Will this beget a slippery slope? Or does this expose the very reason why government should stay out of the business of picking winners and loser among workers in the private sector?
by | BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
You can count on Bernie Sanders to be consistent. He loves pointing to Sweden as the hallmark of Socialist success. But a recent compelling article in Reason magazine does an excellent job laying out the history of Sweden’s economic failures and successes, and shows how Sweden’s current approach to business and has rendered their economy more free and flourishing than the United States.
Some key points:
- Real wages in Sweden fell by around 5 percent between 1975 and 1995. Nominal wages increased, but runaway inflation devoured it.
- But in the early 1990s Sweden began to abandon its brief detour into Bernienomics. It deregulated, privatized, reduced taxes, and opened the public sector to private providers. The two decades that followed saw real wages increase by almost 70 percent.
- In the summary Fraser Institute rankings, Sweden and Denmark are more economically free than the United States when it comes to legal structure and property rights, sound money, free trade, business regulation, and credit market regulations. We don’t have the multitude of occupational licensing laws that block competition in the United States.
The article is worth reading in its entirety. If Bernie truly believes Sweden is a blueprint for success, he would do well to pay attention to the Sweden of today, and not the Sweden of 40-50 years ago, when he was coming-of-age in his Socialist beliefs. If Bernie wants America to be like Sweden — America would need a good dose of deregulation and lower taxes, exactly the opposite of what Bernie espouses for America! Perhaps then the American economy would finally begin to recover, because freer markets mean a freer economy and a freer people.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Marketwatch is reporting dismal numbers related to economic growth in the first three months of 2016; expansion is “the slowest pace in two years as business slashed investment by the steepest amount since the Great Recession.”
GDP growth was significantly reduced as well — recording a .5% annual growth rate. The prior three quarters were 1.4%, 2% and 3.9% in the preceeding year, per quarter.
Marketwatch suggests that some economists contend this sluggishness is an anomaly and will bounce back this spring, estimating a 200,000 job growth for April numbers, which will be released on the first Friday in May. Those with this sentiment predict that “the economy will speed up to a 2.6% annual clip in the spring, typically the fastest growing quarter of the year. The same pattern occurred in both 2015 and 2014.”
On the other hand, I tend to side with economists who are a little bit leery about a robust-growth outlook. “A tepid global economic scene and a tumultuous U.S. presidential election marked by heavy anti-corporate rhetoric appears to have made business executives more cautious.”
Business investment is certainly anemic, and we’ve recently crossed the threshold of more businesses closing than opening. None of this is a sign of a healthy economy, and I doubt very much that the April numbers will be so rosy.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
The Hill has an interesting article about Obamacare, premium costs, and insurance companies. Insurers have been losing money as a result of the Obamacare set-up, and many are facing increased financial security. From the article:
Insurers say they are losing money on their ObamaCare plans at a rapid rate, and some have begun to talk about dropping out of the marketplaces altogether.
“Something has to give,” said Larry Levitt, an expert on the health law at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “Either insurers will drop out or insurers will raise premiums.”
While analysts expect the market to stabilize once premiums rise and more young, healthy people sign up, some observers have not ruled out the possibility of a collapse of the market, known in insurance parlance as a “death spiral.”
In the short term, there is a growing likelihood that insurers will push for substantial premium increases, creating a political problem for Democrats in an election year.
Insurers have been pounding the drum about problems with ObamaCare pricing.
The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association released a widely publicized report last month that said new enrollees under ObamaCare had 22 percent higher medical costs than people who received coverage from employers.
A report from McKinsey & Company found that in the individual market, which includes the ObamaCare marketplaces, insurers lost money in 41 states in 2014, and were only profitable in 9 states.
“We continue to have serious concerns about the sustainability of the public exchanges,” Mark Bertolini, the CEO of Aetna, said in February.
The Aetna CEO noted concerns about the “risk pool,” which refers to the balance of healthy and sick enrollees in a plan. The makeup of the ObamaCare risk pools has been sicker and costlier than insurers hoped.
The clearest remedy for the losses is for insurers to raise premiums, perhaps by large amounts — something Republicans have long warned would happen under the healthcare law, known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
“The industry is clearly setting the stage for bigger premium increases in 2017,” said Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Insurers will begin filing their proposed premium increases for 2017 soon. State regulators will review those proposals, and then can either accept or reject them.
Michael Taggart, a consultant with S&P Dow Jones Indices, pointed to data from his firm showing per capita costs for insurers are spiking in the ObamaCare marketplaces.
“We made a significant change in the rules with the ACA and we’re still working through the process to see how that market stabilizes,” Taggart said at a panel on Wednesday. “Is [a death spiral] a possibility? Sure it’s a possibility. I wouldn’t attempt to put a probability on it because I think there are a lot of things going on.”
One factor helping to prevent a death spiral is ObamaCare’s tax credits, which cushion the impact of premium increases on consumers.
“What we’re likely to see is more of a market correction than any kind of death spiral,” Levitt said. “There are enough people enrolled at this point that the market is sustainable. The premiums were just too low.”
Dr. Mandy Cohen, the chief operating officer of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), said in an interview that there is “absolutely not” a risk of a death spiral or collapse in the ObamaCare marketplaces.
While acknowledging that “companies are needing to adjust” to the new system, she pointed to the 12.7 million people who signed up this year, 5 million of whom were new customers, as a sign of success.
“What brings us the most confidence about the long term stability and health of the marketplace is its growth,” Cohen said.
Another risk, should regulators reject large premium increases, is that insurers could simply decide to cut their losses and drop off the exchanges altogether.
“Given that most carriers have experienced losses in the exchanges, often large losses, it only makes sense that most exchange insurers will request significant rate increases for 2017,” said Michael Adelberg, a former CMS official under President Obama and now a consultant at FaegreBD.
“Market exits are not out of the question if an insurer is looking at consecutive years of losses and regulators are unable to approve rates that get the insurer to break-even.”
The most prominent insurer eyeing the exits is UnitedHealth, which made waves in November by saying it was considering whether to leave ObamaCare in 2017 because of financial losses. The company last week announced that it is dropping its ObamaCare plans in Arkansas and Georgia, and more states could follow.
The Department of Health and Human Services argues that the attention on UnitedHealth is overblown, given that the insurer is actually a fairly small player in the marketplaces.
It’s more important to watch what happens with Blue Cross Blue Shield plans, which are the backbone of the ObamaCare marketplaces.
There have been some rumblings of discontent from Blue Cross plans. The plan in New Mexico already dropped off the marketplace there last year after it lost money and state regulators rejected a proposed 51.6 percent premium increase. Now, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina says that it might drop out of the marketplace because of its losses.
Blue Cross of North Carolina CEO Brad Wilson said in an interview that the company had lost $400 million due to its ObamaCare business.
“We’re not alone and I think that that also is evidence to suggest that there are systemic and fundamental challenges that we all need to have a civilized conversation about,” Wilson said.
He said a key factor in the decision on whether to stay in the market next year will be whether regulators approve whatever premium increase the company ends up proposing so as to try to make up for its losses.
Asked about the risk of a death spiral, Wilson said he is not worried about that happening “tomorrow,” but has concerns if the situation does not change over time.
“There’s not going to be something magical happen that will cause this to turn around,” Wilson said. He is pressing for changes like further tightening up extra sign up periods that insurers say people use to game the system, and repealing the Health Insurance Tax, which could help lower premiums.
Dr. Cohen of CMS said that her agency is in close touch with insurers and Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina in particular. But she pushed back on talk of Blue Cross of North Carolina dropping out of the marketplace, stating flatly that, “I have no concerns about them leaving the market.”
She referred to problems the company has had with its computer systems that have led to some people being enrolled in the wrong plan, along with other issues that have added to the company’s administrative costs.
