Morning Fog

Intel Committee To Investigate?

It's been revealed that the CIA has a secret program (no further details available) of several years' standing, about which, back in the halcyon days of a Republican administration and a Republican Congress, they failed to brief Congress.  Some reports suggest the Bush administration, specifically Vice President Cheney, ordered that Congress not be briefed.

Since then there is increasing chatter that the House Intelligence Committee is intent on "investigating" the incident.  Democratic party pols like Rep. Jan Schakowsky, the chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, seem more interested in exploring who decided not to brief them, than in the nature of the program itself.  Presumably they sense a golden opportunity to raise some political dust, perhaps discredit one or two senior Bush-administration officials, and create an issue that they may find beneficial at mid-term elections.  They're chasing a will-o'the-wisp. 

Nonpartisan observers will surely agree that the underpinnings of any such investigation would be somewhat shaky.  The whole question of what must, and what merely may, be briefed to Congress is unsettled.  We don't know yet what the program consists of, but as news of the failure to brief is being brought by new CIA Director Leon Panetta, an Obama appointee, a logical first step would be for Panetta to look into the matter and determine whether Congrress ought to be briefed now.  (Unless I missed something, he hasn't actually said that.)  After all, the prospects for political gain are minimal here:  Surely anyone who doesn't think, at this point, that most of the senior Bush administration intel officials are already discredited, isn't going to be persuaded by a Democratic-inspired investigative panel.

I sense a golden opportunity too, but of a different sort.  The stakes are small yet both parties recognize that there are some (political) stakes; so wouldn't it be a great step if Democrats were to take the high road, toss a tiny little olive branch toward their opponents, and forgo a formal investigation?  A refusal to keep looking back at the shortcomings of the Bush administration could help - in a small way - to put us on a forward-looking track.

More Pseudo-Science

Scenario:  A couple of reporters want to show the physiological effects of eating some of the country's fattiest, saltiest, sugariest, highest calorie, baddest-for-you fast foods.  Reporter has blood, heart rate, liver function, and other vital indicators measured at some unspecified point just before eating, eats four of these badboy dishes, and then gets the same tests run again.  

Results:  Amazing!  Various vital signs are off the charts in various ways; heart racing, blood full of fats, etc.  Return to normal takes several hours.

What we learned about the effects of bad junk food on our bodies:  Absolutely nothing.  Are we so poorly educated in scientific method after eight years of kowtowing to ignorance, that our intrepid reporters think this demonstrates anything?  One of the keys to any test is to minimize the variables.  Here, the two tests were taken (apparently) at different times of day, one when the subject had eaten nothing recently, the other when she had just eaten a huge meal.  How can we tell what are the effects of eating bad food, and what might resultl just from eating any meal?  We can't.

Proper procedure:  Day 1, reporter eats normal lunch and gets the tests done.  Day 2, same time of day, reported eats the terrible fast food lunch and gets the tests done.  Compare results.  Then we might learn something.  University of Maryland, be ashamed.

For Generations

During my professional life, I spent many an hour sitting through various sociological seminars.  They came in waves of trendiness, like the flavor of the month at the ice cream shop:  leadership, management, sensitivity, diversity. cross-culturalism.  They were supposed to make us smarter, more understanding, and better, more productive employees/managers.  But they always seemed pretty useless to me -- some consultant being paid to explain what basic common sense, and a general consciousness of the world around us, told us anyhow. 

Still, I don't rule out that there are people who go through life mostly unconscious, insensitive, and without common sense (you know the type - he's your boss, right?) and that such people might derive something useful from such seminars.  I suppose that's why the trend continues, with intergenerational interpretation leading the pack these days. 

There are blogs devoted to the subject, and today in the Washington Post you can read a portrait of one such consultant who in her sessions identifies the key characteristics and attitudes that help distinguish Gen Y from Gen X from Boomers (and even the poor pre-boomers, who never even got a name for themselves). 

It's an intriguing idea that generations in the workplace are so different now that they need to be interpreted to one another, and that hired experts are needed for the purpose.  Perhaps there's no harm in it, but I suspect it's very unnecessary.  Ms. Loehr makes the dubious assertion that the first decade of the 21st century is the "first time" four generations have been mingled in the workplace at once.  Really? It seems to me that's always been the case, but the generations have learned to work together without consultants' help.

Second, I have to wonder if the differences between the Gen Y/Millenials and their Gen X parents is really all that "different."  I sense that each generation, like Tolstoy's happy families, is different from the preceding one in much the same ways.  Ms. Loehr tells us that Gen Y is "authentically confident, well-educated, tolerant and diverse, community-focused, tech-savvy, and socially, politically and eco-conscious."   

My parents were born in 1904 and 1909, respectively (Gen Antediluvian).  They might not have used the same terms exactly (especially not the opaque phrase 'authentically confident') yet in comparing me or my sister to themselves, they probably would have come up with much the same concepts.  They were less confident, for example, because their life experience included the Great Depression (which whacked them just as they were entering the work force), and mine did not.  If Gen Y is heavily into networking and contacts, isn't it largely because the technology of the cell phone and social networking websites makes it possible?  But my parents would have perceived that my generation was spending far too much time networking with friends on the telephone.  

Maybe the best lesson Ms. Loehr offers is that a member of one generation considering a member of another must realize it's "not bad or good, it's just what they grew up with."  Tolerance - OK.  But even that can be taken too far, if it's assumed that whatever you grew up with is enough to get you through life successfully.  A "new" generation may have its own take on things, but it will also quite naturally learn a few tricks from its parents' generation.  We humans pass down experience.  We haven't always needed interpreters to help us do so. 

Traffic Headaches

The Texas Transportation Institute has issued the 2009 installment of its annual traffic report, officially known as the Urban Mobility Report . 

Again, our mass media serve us poorly (or are they just giving us what we really want?) by magnifying life's little annoyances into major problems, emphasizing how much traffic has supposedly worsened, just as when gas prices are rising, we get those daily reports of the "oh my god gas went up another penny today" variety. 

I've always found the media reports like those appearing in major newspapers across the country today a little suspect, especially the part they love to play up about "wasted time" and the costs in productivity.  So I went to check out the methodology to see what's behind these numbers.

"Wasted time" and "Delay"  --  How can they decide what time is wasted?  Delayed compared to what?  The statistics compare the time a trip would take on a completely unobstructed road to the time it takes at rush hour.  For statistical reasons we can see why they do that, but it means that all that chatter about the average driver in Metropolis, USA spending 60 extra hours per year behind the wheel is meaningless garbage.  "Rush hour" is by definition the time when everyone is going to or from work; the TTI study measures only this period.  But most of us don't have the option of being on the road at different times of day; to get to or from work, we know we're going to be in traffic, and that congestion is always a part of the equation.  Want to know how much time is "wasted?"  Perhaps it could be defined as the difference between the shortest time for a rush-hour trip, and the longest, averaged over a year.  It would be far less than the numbers that come out of the study.

People often take the UMR data as an indication of the health of the transportation network.  That sounds legit, as far as it goes. but the TTI statistics include what they call "incidents," meaning accidents, construction, and similar blockages. These are of course a part of urban life but they are unpredictable and not a part of the tranportation system.  Even a system that otherwise produces that ideal unobstructed trip will fall victim to accidents that can block up the flow for hours.  Thus for a statistic that would meaningfully reflect what failings of the system inflict on an average driver, these exogenous "incidents" shouldn't be counted as part of the "delays."

"Productivity" -- The UMR calculates a total productivity "loss" based on an average per-hour value of a person's time ($15.47) and a per-hour figure for delay of a commercial vehicle.  The commercial vehicle figure seems fair, but isn't it wrong to assume the hours a driver spends sitting in a car would otherwise be productive time?  If John Q. Public's commute were suddenly halved, from 90 minutes to 45, would he get to his job 45 minutes early?  No, he would adjust his departure time, and spend the extra 45 minutes at home.   Not productive, and not a productivity loss.

The TTI has been doing these reports for decades.  They're a scientific product, aimed at providing data for specialists in transportation and perhaps a yardstick for urban planners.  I'm sure they're useful for those purposes.  The statistics in the UMR aren't really intended for a layman who won't bother to understand them, but put them in the hands of the pop media, and they can become distorted into nonsense.

The best lesson to take away from this year's UMR (the "real story," if any of you media types are reading) is that nationwide, traffic has decreased as a result (probably) of the downturn in the economy.  This provides proof that given incentives of cost, people and businesses can and will reduce their trips.  They're not cutting out anything essential, but perhaps combining trips and avoiding the unnecessary.  And if we can do it when the economy is in the tank, why couldn't we do it even when the economy is growing?  That will have far more lasting effect in reducing traffic than building more roads (which has been proven only leads to temporary improvement).  

Health Care Coupons?

All the big players in health insurance and care are lining up, it seems, to pledge future savings as their part of the sacrifice we will all make for better, cheaper, and more available health insurance.  A while back, pharmaceutical manufacturers pledged $80 billion; now, it's the hospitals' turn, with promises of $155 billion. 

These offers remind me a lot of the offers we get in the mail about once a week:  $300 off your next roofing job, $150 off duct cleaning -- I'm sure you're familiar with these.  They and the health industry's offers are alike in two ways.  First, if you read the fine print on the coupons, most of them say something like "valid only if presented at the time of estimate."  So how do you know if you really get your $300 discount?  There's no way to tell (but anyone who's visited the famous Cave at Emptor can probably make a pretty accurate guess).  

Second, though the amounts of the coupon discounts sound large, they're usually a pretty small percentage of the typical job cost.  They're designed to hook the customer.  Similarly, the industry group offers sound impressive, but they're a small, small fraction of what's at stake.  And the companies are frank in telling us their pledges buy them "a seat at the table," that is, a seat from which they hope to be able to tailor the contract to enhance (or prevent erosion) of profits amd assure a return much greater than the offered savings.

It's encouraging that hospitals, drugmakers, insurance companies, and other sectors are seeking a seat at the table this time around; certainly no workable proposal could be developed without their input.  But the savings promised along the way will be difficult to confirm when the bill comes due.

U.S. Expectations Of Russia

After a Fourth-of-July break, I was thinking of scribbling a little something about President Obama's upcoming trip to Russia and other destinations, but I see that columnist David Ignatius has already done that work for me.

Of course Obama needed to make this trip early in his term, and with some of the key pieces of the domestic agenda now perking along, the timing is good from the U.S. domestic political point of view.  But meetings can't produce results when one or both parties aren't in the right frame of mind; Russia's current leadership is very much in a Rodney Dangerfield don't-get-no-respect mode, one which has prevailed through much of Russian history going back at least to Peter the Great.   Expectations about what "results" might emerge from Obama's visit should be extremely low.

Short Takes For Summer

With summer fully and officially upon us, another small collection of non-sequiturs and self-deceptions from current news and events: 

Palin's Failin's:  Pride of place surely must go to today's disclosure that Sarah Palin will resign as Governor of Alaska in order to....who knows! ... I'm betting on something iffy that may come to light soon.  If not, will she try to garner support to run for President?  Is it her self-delusion, or am I myself suffering from delusion?  Unfortunately, past history demonstrates that lack of qualification is no bar to getting elected President, so perhaps Palin hopes to steal a march on those dirty ol' Democrats and their "national-media" allies by becoming the first woman to run for President.  She may want to consider whether the staunchly traditional Republican core can be expected to support a woman for the Big Job.   

The Oscarmom: The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has announced that in future, there will be 10 Oscar nominations for Best Picture, rather than just 5.  Huh?  It's a rare year when Hollywood produces even five excellent movies.  Presumably the Academy is responding to critics who have complained the annual Oscar show is not long enough.

Fruits of Health Care:  Anyone who may doubt that there's always a way for a creative corporation to find a way around the spirit and letter of a law may want to read "Cherry-Picking" in this week's Forbes, which describes how health insurance companies work hard to select only the healthiest, least costly population to insure, and flatly predicts that even if reform legislation mandates HMOs to cover anyone who applies, it won't happen.

Franken Sense:  The Minnesota Supreme Court has finally got around to certifying a winner in last fall's Senate election.  It's about time (see "The GOP and Democracy" among my Short Takes about a month ago).  Some see this as a milestone because a 60th Democrat in the Senate supposedly makes the party filibuster-proof, but I expect it will mean little in practice.

Republicans to U.S. Public: Buzz Off!   For a couple of decades, Republicans have been busy mastering the art of relabeling issues and proposals they don't like but can't defeat with reasoned argument.  (Sample: "inheritance tax" becomes "death tax.") The game continues, as this article reports, but I was impressed by the hubris by this attitude attributed to a GOP terminology advisor, who "conceded that the public wants real reform and ... the only way Republicans can defeat Obama's plan is by co-opting the language of reform."  So if people want it, the GOP needs to defeat it?  Can this be good politics?  It worked once; let's see if we the people have sense enough to not allow ourselves to be deceived once again.

Unpopularity Contest:  The Washington Post editorializes today for our senior military to provide the President its best advice without trying to second-guess what he wants to hear.  Absolutely right.  They think the generals should be asking for more troops.  Maybe.  But the editors get addled when they admit that "a larger American force could prompt a backlash by Afghans," but "that is not the problem at the moment," because most Afghans still support the U.S. presence.  So I guess the answer is to increase troop presence until we do get backlash?  Let's not forget that no number of troops we could field would allow us to provide absolute security in Afghanistan's rugged hinterlands.  The whole premise of the administration's approach is a limited-size force with limited objectives.

Retail Banking: Regulators Chase Their Tails

It should come as no surprise to anyone that banks are increasing their fees for various account services at a faster clip than in the recent past.  These fee increases in turn have attracted attention, and led to calls for the Federal Reserve to involve itself in curbing excesses.  Meanwhile, concerned that many people were taken advantage of by lender practices in the home loan industry, the Obama administration now proposes to create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency with broad powers to prevent abuse.  Clearly, and predictably after years of laissez-faire, regulation is fashionable again.

The financial services industry is vigorously opposing the CFPA.  Any sector of business can generally be expected to protest anything that may impose change or restriction, but I wonder why they bother.  As I said in my previous post, neither regulation nor deregulation has worked effectively to protect consumers over the long haul.     

The relatively toothless legislation recently passed by Congress on credit card fees and practices is indicative of the problem.  While making some new requirements regarding notification and other administrative procedures, it sets no effective limits on fees or interest rates (only on how rapidly they may be increased).  Nor should it - broadly, most Americans accept that controls on prices, interest rates, and the like only interfere with, and may badly skew, the action of free markets.  Congress isn't prepared to get that tough; but absent such limits, the protective effects of legislation will be temporary at best.  Already of course, banks are using the changes effected by the credit-card reforms to justify their increases in fees for other banking services.  Where there's a will, there's a way; the sky is the limit where new and/or higher fees on checking accounts are concerned. 

Of course banks, like any other profit-making business, have to come up with a revenue stream that covers their expenses and leaves them a profit.  No one should object to that.  But the question is, at what point does profit-making turn into gouging?  

Is a monthly fee just for having an account reasonable?  My current bank wants $36 for a stop-payment on a check; that seems excessive given the action can be accomplished by a simple mouse-click.  An overdraft is the same price seems more reasonable for an overdraft IF it's the customer's fault; but it should be grounds for mayhem when it's the bank's fault (e.g., they credit your deposit to the wrong account) but they still try to charge you for it.  Electronic check-clearing was passed to make life easier for banks but once again, if the bank's data processors accidentally key in your mortgage payment as 14,000 rather than 1,400, you'll be in for a big surprise and your bank will try very hard to make you pay for being overdrawn.  These are areas (of procedure, not specific fees) where Congressional action may have some result. 

For the consumer, though, the real key to protection is vigilance and information.  The banking sector is still competitive enough that there are always banks willing to make a better deal for your money.  Some megabanks, through amalgamation and acquisition, are working to change that but for now, it's the best protection available. 

Retail Banking, Then and Now

For all the talk these days about about regulation, or legislation to protect consumers in various areas, the skeptic in me says, "don't get your hopes up."  Congress and consumer groups regularly spend inordinate amounts of time pursuing this goal but ultimately, it's a lot like a dog chasing his tail.   At times, Congress has succumbed to the blandishments of industry and trade groups to "deregulate" and let competition work to provide the best outcome for consumers.  At other times (currently), Congressional opinion swings the other way and seeks to legislate an end to abuses.  At the consumer level, neither has worked well or lastingly. 

Let's look at one micro example (checking accounts) in one sector (retail banking).  I begin with a personal experience:  A few years ago, I got tired ot tracking the few cents of interest on my checking account.  I switched to a no-fee, no interest account at the same bank.  Within months, the bank informed me all those no-fee accounts were being unilaterally "upgraded" to a different type of account.  Guess what?  A wonderful interest-bearing account, with fees if minimum balances were not maintained.  Clearly, banks find these interest-bearing accounts very profitable.

That's no surprise.  Years ago, there were few fees on demand deposits (the cost of the checks themselves, and fees for overdrafts or stopped payments); but banks didn't pay interest on the balances.  In that bygone era, of course the banks were able to make a bit of profit on the aggregated amounts they held in demand deposits, but equally central to their profit model was the assumption that the checking account customer would hold savings accounts at the same bank, and come to that bank for his mortgage, or for her car loan.  And for his loyalty, he might even get a free toaster. 

Enter deregulation.  Gradually, banks pushed for less and less regulation, and new types of financial institutions like savings and loan associations, credit unions, stockbrokers, insurance companies, and your Aunt Tillie got into the fray.  I recall smelling trouble at the time, since it seemed that the potential benefit was paltry for most consumers, while banks would make up the difference and then some. 

And so it came to pass:  Interest on your checking account is a worthless gimmick. In return for a few pennies of interest (currently paid by my bank at the phenomenal rate of .02% -- not two percent, but two hundredths of one percent, or 20 cents per year on $1,000), such accounts now have more fees, higher fees, and high minimum balances.  The "minimum balances" usually include all the money you keep in any accounts at that bank, so it fulfills the same function that plain old loyalty used to, encouraging you to keep your savings and loan business under one roof.  If anything has changed, it's that the cost of having a checking account is higher for many people (those who don't shop around, fail to track their balance, or don't pay enough attention to their accounts). 

It's the same deal we had 50 years ago, in different guise, and no free toaster.  Overall, no gain for the consumer.  That's generally been the history of deregulation, in banking and in other industries.  

[Ironically, it was another feature of "old-time" banking that proved most effective in resolving my personal situation above: a branch manager I had worked with for years, after hearing my complaint about fees, just tweaked my account in the computer: no fees to be assessed.  There are fewer banks like this these days (even rarer is a manager who remains in place at one bank for more than six months) but they exist and are worth seeking out.]