Chicken Delight May 7, 2001February 19, 2017 Dennis Hoffman: ‘Great tip on Greatmeals.com. I came across it a few weeks ago and ordered one entree just to check it out – it was fantastic. I’ve ordered quite a bit from them since. Their prices are as reasonable as the grocery store and the quality is much better. I haven’t bought TIVO yet (my business partner promised one to me for my birthday) but I expect that GreatMeals.com is just as much a life changer. I know it gets me to eat better.’ Brooks Hilliard: ‘Three Jewish sons left home, went out on their own and prospered. Getting back together, they discussed the gifts they were able to give their elderly mother. ‘The first said, ‘I built a big house for our mother.’ ‘The second said, ‘I sent her a Mercedes with a driver.’ ‘The third smiled and said, “I’ve got you both beat. You remember how Mama enjoyed reading from the Torah? And you know she can’t see very well. So I sent her a remarkable parrot that recites the entire Torah. It took elders in the congregation 12 years to teach him. He’s one of a kind. Mama just has to name the chapter and verse, and the parrot recites it.’ ‘Soon thereafter, Mom sent out her letters of thanks: “‘David,’ she wrote one son, ‘the house you built is huge. I live in only one room, but I have to clean the whole house.” “‘Saul,’ she wrote to another, ‘I am too old to travel. I stay most of the time at home, so I rarely use the Mercedes. And the driver is so rude!” “‘Dearest Irwin,’ she wrote to her third son, ‘you have the good sense to know what your mother likes. The chicken was delicious.'”
Privatizing Social Security May 4, 2001March 25, 2012 Some things do make sense . . . like raising the annual IRA limit from $2,000 to $5,000 and the 401k limit from about $10,500 to $15,000, as have recently been proposed. Why? Because these hikes give people the incentive to shift behavior from consumption to saving. In the long run, saving more for retirement builds greater retirement assets. Obviously. But what would be the effect of siphoning 2% – nearly a third – of the employee’s share of Social Security tax to private accounts? The first effect would be to take a huge bite out of the funds we currently set aside to pay benefits to the tens of millions of people who are already retired or soon to be retired. The system was going to run out of funds in 2038, if I remember the latest estimate right (I may not) . . . and so now it would run out much sooner. Big problem. The Bush solution is simply to make up that 2% out of ‘general revenues’ – instead of funding Social Security benefits with Social Security taxes, we’d fund them partly with general tax revenues. That in and of itself, it seems to me, does not make us richer. In fact, because I don’t trust the 10-year budget-surplus projections, it makes me nervous. Nor do I see why it would lead to more national saving. The 2% we would have saved collectively, through the Social Security trust fund, would now be saved in 150 million separate little investment accounts. Some people, seeing these accounts, might even wind up saving less – why sacrifice to set aside extra savings when they’re already doing this, they might wonder. (So before, you had Social Security and your IRA. Now, you might wind up with this new version of Social Security – but nothing more.) The magic bullet, of course, is the assumption that, left to their own devices, 150 million amateur money managers could efficiently and effectively manage these accounts better than Uncle Sam. There are problems with this. One is that some people may screw up. John McCain was on TV suggesting that to protect against that, there should probably be a guarantee that, however badly you did investing the money, Uncle Sam would make sure you got at least as much as you would have gotten from traditional Social Security benefits. But that’s a problem, too. First of all, it could be costly. Second, it would send a signal to 150 million people to take lots of risk. If you’re lucky, it will pay off. If you’re not, no problem – Uncle Sam to the rescue. To the extent a portion of the nation’s Social Security funds should be invested in stocks (and I’ll get to that in a second), it’s not at all clear to me that the best way to do it is to split the money over 150 million separate managers, most of them novices. Would it not save an awful lot of administration and paperwork and commissions and fees simply to have this money invested in one massive market-weighted global index fund? Or is the idea that, on average, the 150 million amateur investors would – even after the costs of administration and fees – do better than the index averages? (If so, who would be doing worse? In any pursuit, it’s hard for ‘most people’ to be above average.) But whether the money were invested in stocks efficiently, without appreciable fees, commissions or paperwork . . . or inefficiently, with 150 million amateur managers . . . the larger question is: would shifting this 2% of the Social Security tax into stocks really make us collectively richer? If so, it would presumably be because the current capital structure in the U.S. suffers from a lack of equity capital. Starved for equity, we do not start or expand businesses as we might, and thus stunt our future prosperity. But does that really describe the last decade or two? I don’t think so. There are already plenty of incentives for equity capital (such as not taxing appreciation until a sale is made, and then giving it favorable tax treatment) . . . and there is a ton of money in 401k plans and elsewhere that could easily be shifted from bonds to stocks if people thought it made sense to do so. Siphoning off the 2% that’s currently, in effect, lent to Uncle Sam at a modest rate for future Social Security payments, simply leaves Uncle Sam – you and me – with a need to replace it at a higher rate. Or else cut benefits. Or else raise taxes. How does any of this make us richer or our retirements more secure? Social Security privatization purports to be a free lunch. I don’t buy it.
IBM and the Holocaust – II May 2, 2001February 19, 2017 Tim: ‘Got no problem with a rant against the greed that seems to rule the world. I was an auditor for most of my career and know full well about people whose greed allows them incredible blindness to moral and ethical behavior . . . IBM, Ford, whoever. Then, suddenly, bang, you hit me with Jay Leno and Republicans. What’s the connection to Hitler here? Wouldn’t it have been just a little bit closer to connect that old Democratic Bootlegger, Joe Kennedy, to such a tale (which by the way I don’t think would be appropriate either)? After all, if I recall my history correctly, he was a firm advocate of certain fascist views when he was ambassador to the Court of St. James. Andy, everything evil is need not be tied, however tenuously, to your hated Republicans.’ ☞ I don’t remotely hate Republicans, Tim, and I’m sure Jay Leno doesn’t, either. The point is simply that in setting arsenic standards or salmonella inspections or air conditioner-efficiency standards, etc. etc., we really can’t be sure industry executives and their lobbyists will put the public interest first. Even the tobacco industry – so American you’ll find its leaves on the dollar bill – may not always have been forthright in its statements about life-and-death issues. So we really probably do want to be a little concerned about some of this stuff, and not leave it all up to industry, unfettered by government regulation. Yes, I believe the election was stolen in Florida, and that the facts will bear that out – and see no reason why this can’t be a legitimate topic for discussion. It involves no hatred. I also find it dismaying that the President is acting as if he had a strong mandate to move the country sharply to the right – because I don’t believe he does. It saddens me to see the Korean peace process shut down, hundreds of thousands of college students denied financial aid, funding for alternative energy cut back, the global gag rule reimposed – or the nation’s first priority set as massive tax relief for those already doing so much better than everyone else. But despite these disagreements, I have tons of friends who are Republicans – albeit mostly more moderate than the President or Trent Lott or Tom DeLay or Antonin Scalia. Indeed, even the Republican leadership must hold out some hope for me, as just last week I got a letter from ‘the Republican Leadership of the United States Senate’ conveying its ‘pleasure to inform [me] that at a recent meeting of the Republican Senate leadership, [my] name was selected to receive an invitation to serve in the exclusive Republican Senatorial Inner Circle.’ Jack Kouloheris: ‘You might take a look at what respected Holocaust scholars at various Universities have to say about the scholarship of IBM and the Holocaust. While I am in agreement with the general tone of your editorial, there is a danger in overpromoting someone who serious Holocaust scholars view as making sensational claims without following them up with the proper diligence. Also, see the reviews by Gabriel Schoenfeld in the New York Times [It concludes: ‘. . . there is room for a serious study of IBM’s complicated and by no means innocent relationship with Nazi Germany. This book, however, is not that study.’ – A.T.] . . . and by Richard Bernstein, also of the Times. Disclaimer – I do work for IBM. However, were I convinced this was an evil organization, I would leave at once. Noncooperation with evil is a moral necessity.’ ☞ Thanks, Jack. I don’t think I implied that IBM is an evil organization now, or even that it was evil then – just amoral. The Bernstein review you cited says it was clear as early as 1933 that the Nazis were bad guys. Had you been running IBM in the Thirties, you might well have opted for noncooperation, although it would have cost IBM dearly. And therein lay the dilemma.
IBM and the Holocaust May 1, 2001February 19, 2017 Hitler had Henry Ford’s picture hanging on his wall and the admiration was mutual. That is a pretty well known bit of history. Ford financed a series of newspaper columns that appeared in the Dearborn Independent in 1920 and 1921. Reprinted in four volumes at his expense, the compilation is entitled, THE INTERNATIONAL JEW: The World’s Foremost Problem. One presumes Ford would not have approved of or abetted Hitler’s ‘final solution’ to this foremost problem. But he would hand out copies of the book, inscribed, ‘From your friend, Henry Ford.’ Now comes . . . IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation . . . by Edwin Black. I just listened to an abridged version on my audible.com MP3 player. (Audible gives me two books a month for $10, so it cost me $5, delivered, versus $26 for the book or cassette.) Wow. I’m not suggesting that IBM of the 1930s and 1940s bears much relation to IBM (“The Solutions Company”) today, or that the medal Hitler awarded Thomas J. Watson – richly deserved and proudly received – should be held against the company now. Nor do I think reparations should be sought or class-action suits filed. (And neither, so far as I know, does the author.) But IBM and the Holocaust is very much worth reading. It reminds us that, where money is involved, pillars of the community may turn a blind eye, or worse. Business is business. It’s government’s job, not ours, some business folk feel, to set limits, draw boundaries, close loopholes. Our job is to make money, whoever the customer may be and whatever the consequences. Indeed, if we can keep government from setting those limits or closing those loopholes – or if we can find new loopholes – that’s just smart business. Those who believe government regulation is all bad, government bureaucrats all dead weight, and an unfettered market the solution to all the world’s problems, might read IBM and the Holocaust with this in mind. Or as Jay Leno recently joked, “I guess the Republican theory is you don’t have to test for salmonella because the arsenic in the drinking water will kill the germs.”
Voice Mail Tricks and Easter Eggs April 30, 2001January 26, 2017 Ed Biebel: ‘I have the same voice mail problem that you described Friday. Although I use Cingular for my provider, I decided to try ‘337’ just to see what would happen. It worked! You have saved me countless hours spooling through long messages to get to the one I need.’Steve Gilbert: ‘Using 337 to skip and delete a message works on Sprint PCS, too.’ Sandra Wilde: ‘This also works on my home phone voicemail from Qwest.’ Eric Batson: ‘You are probably on a standard Octel system. They are the market leader. Some more detail: 1 goes back 10 seconds, 11 goes back to the start of a message . . . 3 skips forward 10 sec, 33 goes to the end of a message . . . 4 slows down playback, 6 speeds it up, and every time you press those it goes even slower or faster. These are very cool. The longwinded guy… just hit him with 6 twice…. then when that crucial call back number zips by, hit 1 to rewind, then 444 and he says it slowly while you write it down.’ ☞ The only thing more amazing than how great this is is that AT&T’s ‘quick reference card’ doesn’t say a word about it. Jonathan Hochman: ‘These controls work on most voicemail systems, even though they are not always revealed in the instructions. Undocumented software features are sometimes called Easter Eggs. Most software has some. You can search at Yahoo for pages about Easter Eggs and your favorite software. Here’s an example for excel.
AT&T Wireless April 27, 2001March 25, 2012 A tiny idea, and useless unless you use AT&T Wireless. But if you do use AT&T Wireless, you may be as astounded and grateful as I was when I learned this. You know how frustrating it is to call in for your messages and have to listen all the way through a long, long, LONG one before you can delete it? Someone is going on and on and then you lose your cell connection just before the end, before you can delete it – because you’re in Manhattan, or Washington, say, where a lot of calls get dropped as you round various corners, or even as you stand still – and so you call back in for your messages (one of which you really do need to hear) but before you can get to the one you really do need to hear (the address of the event!) you have to listen to that long, long, LONG one again because you hadn’t gotten to the end to delete it – and again you lose your connection just before the end . . . well, you get the idea. And the thing is, you hold in your hand technology that is basically magic – you put this rock to your ear and can locate anyone else in the country with a rock and make that rock catch your friend’s ear (a tone that says, in effect, ‘put the rock to your ear!’) and then have a conversation with your friend as if she were standing right there in front of you – and yet no one figured out a way to delete an unwanted message without waiting til the end? HEL-LO! And the answer is, of course there’s an easy way to do this, they just don’t tell you about it (or didn’t tell me, anyway – and I’ve asked). Well, yesterday they let me in on the secret, which I now pass on to you: 33. Just press 33 and you go instantly to the end of the message, where you can press 7 to delete it. So 337 gets rid of it right away. You save two minutes of blather, you find out where the event is, you walk in just in the nick of time, sit down at the piano, and begin to play. All because of 337. Have a good weekend.
Uh-Ohs April 26, 2001February 19, 2017 H2 . . . UH-OH Bryan Norcross: ‘To clarify. Federal Flood Insurance covers damage from rising water from any type of weather event. It does not, however, cover water damage from above; if your roof blows off and it rains in, for example. The triggering event for the windstorm coverage varies company by company and seemingly event by event in how they interpret the law, but it normally requires that the storm be designated a hurricane by the National Hurricane Center. It does NOT require that the damage be done by hurricane force winds. This all stirred quite a controversy after Hurricane Irene in 1999, when there were no hurricane force winds over land (top winds were 60 mph), but there was lots of damage. Because it technically was a hurricane that caused the damage, the windstorm policy kicked in and that meant that deductibles went up to 2% or more and there was no replacement-value insurance on personal property.’ TIV . . . UH–OH Nothappy: ‘In response to Bob Smouse yesterday re: Tivo. The Sony box comes with a 90 day labor and 12 months parts warranty. My box froze up 4 months after I bought it. I was on the hook for one way shipping and $92 to fix it. I’m not sure how Bob was able to get Tivo to foot the bill, but I think people should know the reality of getting these things repaired. Also, people should be forewarned that Tivo is still a relatively new product and, if my friends’ experiences are any indication, tends to have problems. All that said, it is an amazing product that does change your life, although not necessarily for the better. My Tivo crashing did have an upside — my wife and I actually talked with each other.’ Alan Rogowsky: ‘I am on my 3rd TIVO since early March. In each case it has been the same: the internal modem burned out. I finally got some good advice from their customer service line (which I agree is absolutely the most extraordinarily helpful group of people I have ever dealt with over a phone!). It seems that power surges through the PHONE-line can all too easily do serious damage to the inner workings of TIVO – but that with the help of a $19 Radio Shack super duper 1000+ joules-rated surge suppressor – which takes both power, phone AND cable lines – I feel confident that my troubles are over. They also credited me back for a month and a half’s service in addition to my ‘lifetime’ membership.’ ☞ I’ve bought four TIVOs; two for us, two as gifts. So far, all have worked fine. (Wish I could say that for Creative.com’s lousy stinking Nomad Jukebox and their lousy stinking customer service. But that’s another story.) Cooking Like a Guy with a Credit Card Like to eat, hate to cook, got a freezer, a microwave and a credit card? Try: greatmeals.com. I was so disappointed that I missed the $50-off promotion – a free lunch – that I couldn’t bring myself to try it. But it sure smells good.
What You Didn’t See on ‘Meet the Press’ April 25, 2001February 19, 2017 I have ‘Meet the Press’ TiVo-ed every week, but here is one I missed: BUSH ON HEALTH CARE: THE SMOKING GUN! By Matthew Miller For release 04/23/2001 Tribune Media Services ‘Insurance Plan Would Help Six Million, White House Says,’ Washington Post headline, Friday, April 20 Tim Russert, I’m begging you. Ted Koppel, make ’em squirm. Jim Lehrer, get tough! Thanks to a White House leak the other day – a leak Team Bush obviously thought would make us think even more highly of their compassion – we’ve finally got the goods. Let’s go to the cross-examination – I mean, the videotape – the nation needs: Tim: … Back again with Vice President Dick Cheney. Let’s talk health care. You’ve just issued more details on your plan to expand health insurance. Dick: Yes, the president is very proud of this effort to help those who need health insurance. Tim, we all know how important health coverage is for any family’s peace of mind. I know it from the expensive procedures I’ve had myself recently. The president will devote $70 billion – that’s billion, Tim – over the next 10 years to help lower-income families buy good plans in the private market. We expect this will cover 6 million more people. Tim: That’s very interesting. Mr. Cheney, I have in my hand a 94-page document dated Feb. 6, 1992. It’s entitled, ‘The President’s Comprehensive Health Reform Program.’ Do you recognize it? Dick: No, but … Tim: But you were in the first George Bush’s Cabinet – you do recall he put out a major health plan in 1992? Dick: Yes, of course. Tim: Now here’s what I’m having trouble understanding. There are 43 million Americans without health insurance today. You say President Bush wants to help 6 million buy coverage. But back in 1992, when there were 34 million uninsured, the first President Bush said on page 30 of his plan that he would help 30 million of them get insurance. Why does today’s President Bush want to help so many fewer uninsured Americans than his father did, even though more of them are in need? Dick: Look, Tim, I don’t want to get into a Washington numbers’ game. We think the president has a very solid plan that will help millions … Tim: What about funding – you’re spending $70 billion over 10 years, so that’s about $7 billion a year, right? Dick: That’s right. That’s billions, Tim. Tim: But when phased in, Bush’s father was proposing $35 billion a year. When you adjust for inflation since 1992, that’s $50 billion. Every year. Why did Bush the Father offer a plan seven times richer than the one Bush the Son is offering – when Bush the Father was facing $300 billion budget deficits and the son has come in with huge budget surpluses? Shouldn’t the American people think there’s something wrong with this picture? Dick: Well, Tim, 1992 isn’t 2001. Different times demand different solutions. And we’ve learned from a lot of failed liberal experiments that throwing money just isn’t the answer. Tim: What does this administration suggest people use to buy health insurance if not money? Dick: Well, that’s not what I meant, Tim, if you’re going to twist my … Tim: But wouldn’t you agree the problem is bigger now, and we have more money to address it? Dick: Yes, that’s why we’re taking decisive action. Tim: But how decisive is it for the 37 million uninsured Americans your plan, by your own admission, ignores? Dick: Well, but … Tim: And the $70 billion for health care is less than one-twentieth of the size of the tax cut you offer mostly to wealthy Americans … Dick: That’s a totally different … Tim: Dick Cheney, is that your final answer? Dick (flashes villainous grin; he’s snapped): OK, YES, YOU’RE RIGHT! WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG, SMARTY-PANTS? WE’VE MOVED THE DEBATE SO FAR TO THE RIGHT, IT’S DIZZYING! AND NO ONE’S EVEN NOTICED! EVEN ‘LIBERALS’ LIKE TED KENNEDY AND JAY ROCKEFELLER FEEL THEY HAVE TO SAY THEY WANT TO ELIMINATE THE NATIONAL DEBT AND RAISE DEFENSE SPENDING BEFORE GIVING HEALTH CARE TO THESE FOLKS! AND YOU PRESS PEOPLE ARE SUCH FOOLS YOU CAN’T SEE WHAT’S HAPPENED UNLESS THE OTHER SIDE SPOON-FEEDS IT TO YOU! WE’VE WON! ISN’T IT AMAZING? Tim: Next up on our ‘Meet The Press’ minute: Republican Richard Nixon proposes universal health coverage – in 1972. Back after this break. Matthew Miller’s e-mail address is mattino@worldnet.att.net. © 2001 MATTHEW MILLER DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC. If you want, you could print this out and mail to: Tim Russert NBC News 4001 Nebraska Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20016
TiVo and Tax-Frees April 24, 2001January 26, 2017 TIVO Bob Smouse: ‘I bought a Tivo about 1 1/2 years ago. It worked perfectly and was a wonderful advance over using the VCR. It went bad about a month ago. I called Tivo service, they made arrangements to replace it (no charge except for mail cost) quickly and efficiently. I got the replacement, hooked it up, and it had some problems. I called Tivo service, they made arrangements immediately to replace it, even paying for the mail cost to send it back. As soon as I got a tracking number from UPS, they immediately started the process to send me a replacement, so I was without my Tivo for the shortest possible time. I have never had such good service from any other company, and I highly recommend Tivo, both for its spectacular flexibility in recording TV programs, and for the wonderful service they provide after the sale. Your recommendation for Tivo is right on the money.’ ☞ Full disclosure: After recommending TIVO to all of you (and buying several myself), I became a small shareholder. I’m not at all sure the stock is a good buy, but I remain as enthusiastic as ever about the product. How did we live without it? Imagine watching a TV – in a hotel, say – without TIVO. You mean, I can’t pause Tom Brokaw? Can’t play back something I wasn’t sure I heard? Have to sit through commercials? It’s the Stone Age! TAX-FREES Ed Shoben: ‘The idea of taking out a mortgage and investing in Tax-frees is a better idea than your column lets on. If one is careful and buys low-coupon or non-callable munis, then the outcome can be better than you imply. Suppose, for example, that interest rates continue to decline. Then you can refinance your mortgage and keep your bonds (which have risen in value and haven’t been called away) so you win both ways. If rates rise, then you feel smug about your lower mortgage and can either hold your bonds (maintaining the after-tax spread between their coupons and your effective mortgage rate) or you can sell the bonds for a tax-loss and put the hedge on again at now more favorable rates. It’s certainly better to do when rates are abnormally high (as they were in the early 80s when I first did this), but given that neither of us knows where rates are going, it’s really a very good and VERY low-risk hedge.’ ☞ Good points. Just be careful not to borrow against the house and then use that money specifically to buy tax-free bonds. The IRS disallows the tax advantage of borrowing to buy tax-frees. On the other hand, people with home mortgages may certainly own tax-free bonds. Remember, too: (a) Unless they are ‘general obligation’ bonds, be very careful what bonds you buy. (b) Buying in small quantity – which anything under $100,000 or even $1 million is – is easy to do, but selling at a fair price, especially for more obscure issues, is likely to involve your taking a small beating. So unless you plan on holding to maturity, you might want to go with the most actively traded municipals you can find. (c) They’re only free of your own state income tax if they were issued within your own state.