Dan Erwin

How Will Obama Respond to Ryancare?

Fareed Zakaria argues well that Paul Ryan's sweeping budget plan is a character test for Barack Obama.  And, asks Zakaria, will Obama choose to be a statesman or a candidate?  Like Zakaria, I believe that Ryan's budget plan is a courageous act. In fact, kudos to Paul Ryan for his act.  But there's not a chance in hell that it'll pass.  Still, at least one budget plan is on the table.  

Typical of Republican thinking, the underlying thesis of the plan is that if individual's have to pay for their health care, they'll shop around, looking for the best bargain, and that that will drive down costs. Nahhhh. Health is a unique, economic good and won't follow the usual market patterns.  Look at higher education: consumers pay for much of the cost, but the prices still rise at three times inflation every year.  When it comes to doctor care, I doubt that I'm unusual.  I always go for the top expert and the hell with the costs. If they didn't have the insurance to cover much of the cost, some consumers might shop for cheaper, but I'm unconvinced.  

Back to Obama: how will he respond?  Zakaria summarizes the issue this way:

Obama has an obvious script in front of him. He could turn every item in Ryan's plan into an attack ad, scare the elderly and ride to victory in 2012. But that would probably mean we had pushed off reform of entitlement programs one more time, hoping that someone sometime in the future will lead this country.

Read more at Time Magazine.

Wanna Play Hooky This Afternoon?

It's a beautiful Spring day and you're tired of the snow and the rain, and you'd really like to hit the links this afternoon.  Uness you're the Governor of South Carolina or self-employed, it's hard to disappear from work--especially in the middle of the day.  (BTW: Many of us who are self-employed laugh at the idea that we've got more time to play hookey.  I worked a lot less--and a lot fewer hours when I was an employee.) 

BloombergBusinessweek had three ideas for playing hooky.  Distract your boss and the other employees by saying that somebody from HR is coming in to inspect everybody's computer files.  If that doesn't work, sabotage the copy machine.  A second is to set up a Skype conversation from your office computer to your smartphone--and then just disappear.  A third one is to leave your desk, cubicle or office a mess.  Nobody's going to think your gone when he/she sees that. 

Well, after you've decided those three are nutty, here's one that often works, especially if you've been overloaded recently.  Just ask your boss if you can't disappear after one or two-o-clock this afternoon.  If you're a good worker and you've got a decent relation with your boss, you'll be surprised how often you'll get an OK.  Since they don't want to condone such absence, many bosses avoid the "yes" when they mean yes.  I was sitting in a CIO's office sometime ago when a guy stuck his head in and asked the question.  The boss, ever politically correct, smiled broadly at him and said, "I can't imagine you asked me that."  One CEO, with about 150 employees will comment to the question this way: "I'm sure I won't be walking by your cubby to check up on you this afternoon."  If you've been the recipient of a unique "yes," I'd like to hear about it.

The BusinessWeek article also laid out some unsuprising statistics that revealed that Americans, especially in contrast to the Brits and the French, put in some whopping long hours.  Statistics from the Center for American Progress reveal that 86% of men and 67% of women work more than 40 hours a week.  Furthermore, the International Labour Organization claims that Americans spend 260 more hours a year at the office than the Brits.  Americans also spend a whopping 499 hours a year at the office than the French.

So what's a hard worker like you supposed to do?  Once in a while, just go play hooky. 

Should the US Be Worried About China?

China is not much of a threat, says Lee Kwan Yew, in a conversation with Charlie Rose.  According to Yew, the man who shaped Singapore during 31 years in power, the US is the only mover and shaker, the only real leader on the globe.  Yew dissects China's real agendas with a scalpel.  China is the second-largest economy, but she has no world-wide interests.  Because of its history, the Chinese culture is notoriously self-centered.  (We might be too, if we'd gone through all they've experienced.)  Her interest is in herself, and so she concentrates on those areas where she needs oil and other resources.  Yew believes that it will take China more than 20 years to become a technological power.

So what, according to Yew, do the Chinese need?

• China needs the US market.  It has a growing middle class, but the inequalities and poverty in China outside the coastal cities are profound.  The social disparities are so significant that the politicians always worry about civil disorder and severe discontent.
• China needs US technology.  To a high degree American technology grows out of its entrepreneurial culture.  It's well known that the Chinese culture is not entrepreneurial, but driven by state capitalism.  Not a formula for adventuresome technologists.
• China needs to have students go to the US.  Without a backlog of US trained grads China will be cut off from information and technology.

Perhaps the better question is what the US should do.  One thing for sure is that Washington should not cut off research support, one of the first moves of the new congress.  Somebody needs to challenge that political idiocy whenever there are attempts to limit student support, university and research funding. That's not an issue of can't support the institutions, it's an issue of gutlessness and lack of strategy.  I expect that of two-year wonders in the House of Representatives, but not of the Senate.

Many business leaders talk out of both sides of their mouth about taxes, but when it comes to supporting research most of them are not too upset over a shaking down.  After all, business gets more tax subsidies than the population.  I will never understand how the population stays so unaware of the tax advantages and subsidies government provides to business.  I believe that business tax advantages have gotten far too large.  The only remedy will be tax reform to remove the thousands of loopholes.  The business tax loopholes are a far larger piece of the deficit problem than taxpayers realize.

So should the US be worried about China?  Not especially.

Quotation of the Week: Gerard Schellenberg, Alzheimer's Research

As many understand, much scientific research is limited by the cultural model in which researcher's jealously guard their data.  The vast gene study of Alzheimer's, reported in yesterday's NYTimes, would not have been possible without the footwork of Dr. Schellenberg.  Thus, the quote:

I spent a lot of time being nice to people on the phone.

Schellenberg, a pathology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, got what he wanted: nearly every Alzheimer's center and Alzheimer's geneticist in the country cooperated.  The scientists were able to analyze the genes of more than 50,000 people in the US and Europe.  They now have intriguing clues to why Alz strikes and how it progresses.

In a previous post, I argued from a huge body of research that being nice to people is not enough.  You've also got to be competent.  Obviously, Schellenberg is both nice and exceedingly competent, the real keys to his success. 

The study showed, with a very strong level of research, that there are 10 genes involved in Alzheimer's. 

It is known that one of the first signs of Alzheimer’s disease is an accumulation of beta amyloid, or a-beta, a protein that forms plaques. And it is known that later in the disease, twisted and tangled proteins — tau — appear in dead and dying nerve cells.

But what is not known is why a-beta starts to accrue, why the brains of people with Alzheimer’s cannot get rid of its excess, or what is the link between amyloid and tau.

As Schellenberg concludes, We are pretty sure more stuff will pop out.