Author: A.T.

I’ve just finished reading Blood Sport, my friend Jim Stewart’s latest #1 best-seller that meticulously examines “Whitewater.” (Whitewater, needless to say, has become a metonym* for all alleged Clinton wrongdoing.)

According to Blood Sport, the Clintons are not perfect.

But it also turns out, as regards the substance of the attacks against them, there’s very little there.

To me, the most interesting example of this was Hillary’s $100,000 profit trading cattle futures. After all, I’m the guy who for decades has been advising people to steer clear (pun sort of intended) of commodities because “you’ll lose your money.” And you will. I’ve certainly always lost mine when I’ve tried it. So how did Hillary do so well?

It turns out to have been even more innocent than I had assumed. Her mistake was in not coming right out, from the start, and stating, simply: “The truth is, I knew nothing about commodity trading. My good friend Jim Blair hooked me up with a broker who had an amazing run for all his clients, and I was very lucky to be one of them. I haven’t a clue how he did it.”

Because it turns out that’s really all it was. Yes, the broker in question had an inside track with a huge cattle magnate, which gave him an edge (insider trading is not illegal in the commodities markets, which is one reason why, as an outsider, you’ll lose your money).

I had always assumed that, unbeknownst to her, there had been an arrangement to make the future First Lady lucky, putting the successful trades in her account and the losers elsewhere. But Blood Sport makes it clear that even this — which, so long as she hadn’t known what they were up to, would not have been wrongdoing on her part — did not happen. She really did nothing wrong in making this $100,000.

So why didn’t the First Lady just tell all from the outset? I suspect part of it was just a knee-jerk “it’s none of your business” reaction, from someone grown deeply resentful of public prying into her private affairs.

Part may have been worry that maybe there had been something wrong about the trades that, although she hadn’t known about it, might reflect badly on her and be yet another distraction from what she and her husband were trying to accomplish, like health care reform.

Part may have been the desire to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest: Jim Blair was counsel to the Tyson chicken people, and to be perceived to owe him a favor could look bad.

And part may simply have been pride: a brilliant woman’s reluctance to acknowledge that her big score was just dumb luck on her part.

The details of all this make for interesting reading. But the bottom line of the $100,000 commodities “scandal” is: There’s nothing there.

——————————-
*And “metonym” has become my new favorite word. Sort of a combination metaphor and synonym. Metonymy is the device of using a part of something, or a related something, to represent the whole. When you say, “counting heads,” you mean “counting people” — and heads is a metonym. When you say “it vexed the crown” you mean it vexed the monarch or the government. And so on. Was this on the S.A.T.’s and I just forgot?

Tomorrow: Whitewater

I just finished doing my taxes with what is now called Kiplinger TaxCut, and once was called Andrew Tobias’ TaxCut, but has really always been Dan Caine’s TaxCut (Dan is the guy who conceived and wrote and slaved over it).

I no longer have any stake in it — I bought my copy — but I must say I took double satisfaction in using it this year. It is so spectacularly good, I had the satisfaction of doing my elephantine taxes easier than ever, and the satisfaction of knowing that those who got hooked on TaxCut over the years on my recommendation (back when I did have a stake in it) were not steered wrong.

Naturally, I’m only a sample of one. I’d appreciate — and share — any horror stories you may have. But for me, this has been a superbly useful, friendly software program.

It’s really pretty exciting to see how far software has come in the mere decade and a half “the public” — folks like us — had any reason to think about it.

If you haven’t yet done your taxes (for me, August 15 usually winds up being the real deadline, because of late-arriving K-1s or other problems), and if you’ve never tried a tax program, you should really pick up a copy of TaxCut and see what I’m raving about.

Tomorrow: Blood Sport — Hillary Rodham’s $100,000 Commodities Profit

“It is fairer to tax people on what they extract from the economy, as roughly measured by their consumption, than to tax them on what they produce for the economy, as roughly measured by their income.”—Thomas Hobbes

Not just fairer: smarter.

(And speaking of fair: “Why shouldn’t the American people take half my money from me? I took all of it from them.”—Edward A. Filene)

Tomorrow: Doing My Taxes with TaxCut

Yesterday I suggested the benefits of buying airline tickets far in advance, at great prices, even if you’re not sure you’ll use them. (You might want to click “Yesterday” for more on that.)

Another pointer for you not-so-frequent fliers is that ticket prices go up and down daily — hourly, sometimes — as the flight date approaches. Don’t assume, just because the cheap seats are all sold out two weeks before you want to leave, that some may not materialize a few days later. Keep trying.

But here’s what I wanted to tell you today, and that’s the value of “stand-by.” Today I was supposed to fly from Cincinnati to Miami at 12:55 on a supersaver ticket purchased for peanuts. Unfortunately, the non-stops were full, so I had to buy a ticket that routed me with a stop in Atlanta. Non-stops are nicer, but in this case flying non-stop would have cost several hundred dollars more.

Normally, what someone does in this situation is simply show up for the 12:55 flight to Atlanta, switch planes, and arrive a little worse for wear in Miami. Indeed, all too often I would probably do that too. But it’s often worth it to remember the stand-by option.

When I got to the airport, I saw there was a non-stop leaving at 12:30. I “stood by” and not only got on (it was badly overbooked, they had told me, but I gave it a shot anyway), but got two seats to myself. So I got to Miami almost three hours faster (and enjoyed a longer flight, which makes it easier to open up the laptop and write this comment).

Had I not made it, I would just have walked down the concourse to my scheduled flight.

I realize this is not earthshaking news. But do understand your supersaver options when you buy your ticket. Stand-by can work out nicely.

Tomorrow: Pay Your Taxes

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who never have occasion to board an airplane. Those who do so only every so often. Those of us who live up here.

If you never fly, skip this comment. If you always fly, you probably know at least as many nuances of the game as I do. But if you’re somewhere in between, I have a couple of suggestions.

Obviously, it’s imperative to join the frequent flier programs — surely you’ve done that — and, where possible, to concentrate all your flying on one airline, and all your credit card purchases on one airline-affiliated credit card (or the American Express or Diners Club “Express Miles” programs) so you build up maximum points and maybe even qualify for a “gold card” or “medallion level” or some equivalent category that will generally keep you from getting stuck in the center seat on a crowded flight.

You also know to book your flights as far ahead as possible — and that the “nonrefundable” tickets ARE refundable, with a $50 charge, in the sense that you can apply them against other tickets. So it can make sense to buy five round-trip supersavers now, for this summer, even if you only wind up taking two of the trips. The cost: $150 lost on those three other tickets. The gain: fares like $300 transcontinental round trips instead of the full-fare $1,400.

Do call the airline to cancel once you know for sure you won’t be using one of your tickets — it’s not required, but you should do it.

But otherwise, especially if you can afford to do this without going into debt on your credit card (and therefore incurring not just the $50 but also 18% interest on all five tickets), here is a cheap way to maintain lots of flexibility in your summer (or any other) travel plans without paying the normal high fares.

Have you got your ticket for Labor Day week-end yet? You should. And if you’re not sure whether you’ll be spending it on Cape May or Cape Cod, that’s the point: buy your super-savers to both, and forfeit $50 for having the privilege of deciding what you want to do right up to the last minute.

Tomorrow: Stand-By

I’ve just spent two months running around California. Compared to the way people used to do it — on horseback — the United Shuttle (800-SHUTTLE) is a vast improvement. But compared to air travel as we’ve come to know it — or to competitor SouthWest (800-I-FLY-SWA), it’s awful.

I’m sure this isn’t fair, but apart from any other negative comments one might make (Calcutta comes to mind), my own unscientific conclusion is as follows: on a sunny day, the Shuttle will be half an hour late. If there are clouds, an hour. Rain, between two and three hours. Light fog — canceled.

I realize this comment may not be all that helpful to you. How many people fly from LA to San Francisco to Sacramento on a regular basis? And of those who do, how many could possibly have failed to notice that they are sitting around a chaotic waiting area for hours with several hundred other unhappy people?

I don’t think I’ll rush out and buy UAL stock just yet.

Tomorrow: Super-Savers

Yesterday, I described my GM MasterCard and how it credits me with 5% of everything I charge toward a new car. Sort of.

Today, though, let me tell you what rubbed me wrong about the good folks who live inside the GM MasterCard computer (or, more likely, their marketing department).

It was simply this. Printed on my monthly statement was this message:

AS A VALUED CARDMEMBER, WE WOULD LIKE TO OFFER YOU THE OPTION OF SKIPPING YOUR PAYMENT THIS MONTH. THIS IS ANOTHER WAY THE GM CARD GIVES YOU THE FINANCIAL FLEXIBILITY YOU EXPECT. WE’LL BILL YOU AS USUAL NEXT MONTH. (FINANCE CHARGES WILL ACCRUE.) WE APPRECIATE YOUR BUSINESS.

Leaving aside the English (“as a valued cardmember, we . . .” they are not a valued cardmember, I supposedly am), the point of this message was, of course, not to offer me something good at all. It was to offer me something bad. Namely, a chance to borrow from GM at 18.65%, non-tax-deductibly . . . and not just on that month’s balance, but on any new purchases I made during the month, since once you get on the debt treadmill, you’re on it in full until you get off. Which they hope you won’t.

I can’t blame GM for trying to convert me from a smart credit-card user (one who uses them for convenience only) to a dumb one (one who uses them to borrow — as 60% or more of all the people who use credit cards do).

But just in case you’re not aware of it, offers like this, or the “checks” they send you to be “helpful” around tax time — write one of the checks to anyone you like — are just ways to try to get you to start the interest-rate clock ticking.

Thanks but no thanks.

Tomorrow: The United Shuttle

I have one of those General Motors MasterCards that credits me with 5% on every charge I make toward the purchase of a new GM car. Which means — sort of — that everything I charge on the card costs me 5% less.

I say “sort of” because there’s a limit of $1,000 credit a year for a maximum of $7,000 over seven years . . . but if you do wait seven years to use your credits, then, because of the time-value of money, those earned in the early years are worth somewhat less. You “earned” $1,000 rebate in year one, but it sits fallow and is still only worth $1,000 seven years later. Which means that in today’s dollars, that $1,000 is really only worth $547 (if you think if you think you can compound your money at 9% after tax — few can) or $759 (at a more realistic 4%).

So maybe the nominal 5% discount for using the card is more like 4% when you take this time factor into account. (It all depends on what you think you could earn on your money, but also on how long you wait to cash in those rebates.)

It’s also only “sort of,” because the assumption is you’ll be buying a new car (until recently, I always bought used cars — a great way to save money), and that it will be a GM car or truck. What if you’d rather buy a Taurus or a Honda? Or even a Saturn — the rebate doesn’t apply to a Saturn (nor to a Saab or Lotus, which are also GM products). It’s hard to quantify, but for most people there is a “cost” in this lack of flexibility.

So it can be a good deal — a lot of people DO buy new GM cars! — but it’s only sort of 5%.

But that’s not what’s got me exercised. For that, please tune in tomorrow.

Tomorrow: The GM MasterCard: Don’t Do Me Any Favors

The last few days I’ve been moaning about the defeat of three California ballot initiatives I worked on.

All three would have been good for the people of California but bad for lawyers.

Even in California “the people” outnumber the lawyers by a handy margin, yet the lawyers won. How come?*

Partly, as described yesterday, they just lied. Lie loud enough, long enough, and — especially on a subject that requires some analysis to fully understand — you can persuade the electorate of anything. (Unless, as sometimes happens, the opposition has enough money to answer all your charges with an even larger TV ad campaign, which we did not.)

But what really made the lawyers’ lies credible were the list of endorsers joining them in opposing Props 200, 201 and 202. “Join Ralph Nader and vote no” ran the commercials. And along with Nader were just about every liberal and labor group you can think of.

If these propositions were really good for the people, how could that be? Isn’t it more likely that I’m the one lying to you, not the lawyers?

Certainly millions of people of good will could conclude that — and did. Had these same groups all been fighting for the propositions, I think they would have won handily.

Now, I wasn’t “there,” but here’s what I think happened.

It begins with Ralph Nader and his man-in-California Harvey Rosenfield, a self-described consumer advocate. Ralph has always opposed any form of no-fault auto insurance, even for the 30 years Consumers Union, publishers of =Consumer Reports/= , strongly favored it. He even opposed the form of no-fault they have in Michigan, the state Consumer Reports has credited as having the best auto insurance system in the nation (and the one that comes closest to what Prop 200 would have provided).

Nader denies getting any appreciable support from the trial lawyers, but he has in fact worked hand-in-glove with the trial lawyers for decades (often to good and beneficial result). He denies it, but his various efforts have gotten tremendous financial support from trial lawyers. So our three lawyer-limiting initiatives are proposed and Nader sees his power base threatened. Can they use his name against them? Sure.

Not because he’s corrupt, but because he really believes that any encroachment on a citizens right to sue, no matter how slight, is not worth making, no matter what the benefit. And because when you’ve worked so closely all your productive life with a group of people who’ve loyally supported you, and on whose loyal support you count for the future, you just naturally tend to see things their way.

(Nader told the New York Times recently he’s gotten “less than 1 percent” of his support from lawyers. But here’s what some nationally known trial lawyers told Forbes a few years ago: “We are what supports Ralph Nader. We contribute to him, and he fundraises through us.” — Fred Levin. “I can get on the phone and raise $100,000 for Nader in one day.” — Herb Hafif. “We suport him overtly, covertly, every way possible. We have supported him for decades. I would think we give him a huge percentage of what he raises.” — Pat Maloney.)

So now Ralph goes to his closest associates — people like Joan Claybrook, who runs the Nader-founded Public Citizen and who is on the board of Consumers Union, and Harvey Rosenfield, his disciple in California — and he says (as I imagine it), “Listen, there are some really bad corporate dudes out to screw the rights of the little guy in California –can you help me?” And they fall all over themselves wanting to help. Who wouldn’t?

Never mind that with regard to by far the most important of the three initiatives, the overwhelming majority of “little guys” would benefit dramatically, with hundreds of dollars more in their pockets each year, and with far greater assurance that, if badly hurt in a car crash, their financial loss would be covered.

So Rosenfield becomes a man with a mission. Though he periodically claims to the press that “less than 10%” of his support comes from trial lawyers, his own records, misfiled in Sacramento (they were never meant to be made public), show that essentially 100% of his support comes from trial lawyers. He just flat-out lied.

But other consumer groups didn’t know this when Rosenfield approached them — starting, presumably, with the ones he and Nader had worked most closely with in the past — and said (again, as I imagine it), “Listen, there are some really bad corporate dudes out to screw the rights of the little guy in California — can I add your name to Ralph Nader’s and mine in opposing them?”

So the inner circle said yes — heck, there was a time I would have said yes — without ever investigating or hearing the other side of the story.

So now Harvey had maybe a dozen names to go along with his own and Nader’s, and he could approach the slightly-less-inner-circle. “Would you join all of us in signing a statement?” And the next circle, seeing the fine names of their traditional allies, and hearing the terrible ways auto insurance rates would rise and injured people would fare worse (lies, but convincingly told) — they signed on, too. Again, without ever having called us to hear our side.

By June 29 of last year, without our even knowing it, they had assembled 75 names — everyone from Consumers Union to the NAACP and some AIDS groups — to sign a statement many of them had probably not even read, let alone investigated for accuracy. It contained by our count 41 deceptive, unfair, misleading or outright untrue statements. And of course, we documented all this and sent it to as many of the 75 as we could locate.

But by then the battle had been largely lost. Do you know how hard it is to get someone to change a public position? (“Well, we didn’t hear both sides of the story, we didn’t do our homework, so now we’re switching sides.”) Do you know how hard it is to get someone to disassociate himself, let alone oppose, a group of 75 traditional allies?

So, yes, with great effort we did get a few people to disassociate themselves from the statement. And yes, we did get some brave Democrats to sign on with us — Roberta Achtenberg and John Tunney and former Massachusetts congressman Chet Atkins; Amfar co-chair Tom Stoddard and Medical Education for South African Blacks co-founders Joy and Herb Kaiser and tobacco-industry-nemesis Joe Cherner; Stanford University President Emeritus Richard Lyman, Democratic Leadership Council President Al From and liberal philanthropist Peter Norton (yes, that Peter Norton of Norton Utilities). And we did have one important grassroots consumer ally, Voter Revolt, whose canvassers knocked on hundreds of thousands of doors and garnered more than 15,000 small donations.

But basically, from Day One, long before the actual campaign began, the entire liberal establishment — to which I often contribute — had circled the wagons against three ballot propositions that would have greatly benefited the people of California.

The lawyers laughed all the way to the bank.

————————
*(That these things are possible in a democracy is perhaps proven by the ease with which Ronald Reagan was able to gain enthusiastic popular support for slashing the taxes of the relatively few richest Americans, while raising taxes on the working class, through a hike in the Social Security tax. Good marketing.)

Tomorrow: The GM MasterCard Sort-Of 5% Rebate

The last couple of days I’ve been commenting (venting? flaming?) on the way California’s lawyers defeated Props 200, 201 and 202.

Basically, they did it by lying — and by enlisting some very well respected liberal groups (whom I generally support and admire) to their cause.

But it’s more interesting than that. Some of the lies, it’s true, were just plain old flat out lies. (E.g., if Prop 202 passed, they said, it would be impossible to find a lawyer willing to work on contingency. Poor people would have to hire lawyers at $300 an hour or be denied access to justice. Simply not true.)

But two of the biggest lies were even more maddening. There’s probably even a debating term to describe the ploy. Maybe they teach it in law school. It is designed not only to win the argument when you’re wrong, but to so infuriate your opposition as to bring on a seizure. (Fortunately, only Hewlett-Packard co-founder David Packard, among our supporters, died during the campaign, and there’s no reason to think his death, at 83, was in any way related.)

The way it works, first you do something really rotten; then you point to that rotten thing itself as proof you’re right. Not very elegant the way I’ve phrased it, but highly effective the way they did it:

* First you sue Al Shugart, co-founder of Seagate Technology, three times for alleged insider trading (the first case was settled for pennies on the dollar to get rid of it, the second was thrown out of court after eating up $3 million in legal fees, the third is still pending); then you blanket the airwaves in his home state with commercials calling him a stock swindler because “he’s been sued three times for insider trading.” You morph his face back and forth with Charles Keating, the notorious convicted S&L felon, never mentioning that investors in Seagate — unlike investors in Lincoln Savings and Loan — have made, not lost, a pile of money.

* First you sabotage the early 1970s drive for no-fault auto insurance, by giving states where you couldn’t beat it “no-fault” in name only. (In states like Massachusetts there’s all the suing and fraud there is in California. You just need to chalk up $2,000 in medical bills to be eligible to sue. In Connecticut, the threshold was a mere $400. These thresholds merely give people an incentive to — often encouraged by attorneys — to get an MRI and a few chiropractic visits they don’t need.) Then, 25 years later when the next generation makes another run at it, you simply point to “no-fault” states like Massachusetts and Connecticut and say, “See? No-fault doesn’t save money. It’s a disaster. An old idea that hasn’t worked.”

That’s right: first sabotage it; then point to the wreckage to prove is doesn’t work. (In Michigan, the one state that comes fairly close to the true no-fault Prop 200 would have provided in California, people actually do pay substantially less for auto insurance than in California, while enjoying VASTLY better protection if they’re badly injured in a crash.)

Got to stop writing now. Feel that seizure coming on.

Tomorrow: How The Lawyers Co-opted the Left