Archive for October 26th, 2009

Gut check: what are Americans’ core values ?

October 26, 2009

Ken’s Take: If you buy the premise that  Americans’ core values are individual choice, personal accountability, and rewards for ambition then the rest of the argument falls neatly into place. 

My question: These days, how pervasive and strong are these core values ?

Call me cynical, but I’m starting to think that too many folks would rather leave their decisions to other, blame others for their irresponsibility and claim entitlement without ambition.

More ‘Take’ follows …

* * * * *

Excerpted from: WSJ, Why Government Health Care Keeps Falling in the Polls. Oct 25, 2009

Regardless of how President Barack Obama’s health-care agenda plays out in Congress, it has not been a success in public opinion. Opposition to ObamaCare has risen all year.

We continue to hear both sides of the health-care debate argue about particulars of insurance markets, the deficit impacts of reform, and the minutiae of budgetary assumptions. These arguments, while important, do not address the deeper issues involved.

Public resistance stems from the sense that the proposed reforms do violence to three core values of America’s free enterprise culture: individual choice, personal accountability, and rewards for ambition.

First, Americans recoil at policies that strip choices from citizens and pass them to bureaucrats. ObamaCare systematically does so. The current proposals in Congress would effectively limit choice across the entire spectrum of health care: What kind of health insurance citizens can buy, what kind of doctors they can see, what kind of procedures their doctors will perform, what kind of drugs they can take, and what treatment options they may have.

Second, Americans believe we should be responsible for the consequences of our actions. Many citizens bitterly view the auto and Wall Street bailouts as gifts to people who took imprudent risks, imperiled the entire economic system, and now appear to be walking away from the mess. Similarly, Americans are cold to a health-care system that effectively rewards individuals for waiting to get insurance until they get sick—subsidizing their coverage by taxing those who responsibly carry insurance in good times and bad.

Third, ObamaCare discourages personal ambition. The proposed reforms will institute a set of government mandates, price controls and other strictures that will make highly trained specialists, drug researchers and medical device makers less valued now and in the future. Americans understand that when you take away the incentive to make money while saving lots of lives, the cures, therapies and medical innovations of tomorrow may never be discovered.

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574495131591949574.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

* * * * *

More Ken’s Take: I think the resistance is more fundamental: everybody wants uninsured citizens to get healthcare– just so they don’t personally have to fund it. 

The 50% of people who pay income taxes don’t want their rates goosed up; Seniors don’t want Medicare cut; Juniors don’t want to buy health insurance that they don’t need; Union members don’t want to pay taxes on their gold-plated plans; Companies don’t want to pay higher taxes — unless they can pass them on to consumers.

It’s as simple as that.

About that 4 year old who bought her 1st home and got the $8,000 tax credit … call me suspicious

October 26, 2009

Ken’s Take: The finding of extensive fraud in the new home owners’s tax credit program can not possibly surprise anybody. But, I am a bit startled by the magnitude — likely to be in the billions when the dust settled.

Just wait until the analysis is done on Cash for Clunkers.  My bet: will make this look like chump change.

* * * * *

Excerpted from WSJ: Home-Buyer Credit Tempts Tax Cheats, Oct. 23, 2009

The Treasury tax-oversight office told Congress that “tens of thousands of people” submitted suspicious — and possibly fraudulent — claims for a federal tax credit meant for first-time home buyers. 

The credit, adopted as part of the February stimulus bill, modified and expanded on a tax credit that was first passed by Congress in 2008. The current credit is available only to first-time buyers who purchased a primary residence since April 9, 2008. The full credit is available to individuals with incomes of less than $75,000 and $150,000 for married couples.

The IRS is conducting more than 100,000 examinations that could require filers to give back the credit and pay civil penalties.

At least 19,000 filers who hadn’t bought homes claimed $139 million in tax credits and were reimbursed.

An additional 74,000 tax-credit claims, valued at $500 million, for people who previously owned a home. 

More than 500 people under the age of 18, including a 4-year-old child, also had their names on applications for the credit, which has no minimum-age requirement. Most of the claims involving children were made by parents who purchased a home but were ineligible for the credit because their incomes were too high.

The authorities blamed a lack of safeguards, including lack of documentation requirements, for the extent of the problems.

* * * * *

Rep. Charles Boustany Jr. (R., La.) said the problems show the dangers in creating refundable tax credits that give money to filers even if they didn’t owe any taxes. “Every time Congress creates a new refundable credit…the incentive for fraud is magnified,” he said.

The credit’s main sponsor, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R., Ga.), said he is “cautiously optimistic” that an extension — with procedural safeguards added — can move in the Senate next week. “Just because someone used fraud [to claim the credit] doesn’t mean the credit is a bad idea, it means there are some bad folks running around,” he said.

* * * * *

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125622884824101553.html

Why It Pays to Apologize …

October 26, 2009

Ken’s Take: In personal life, apologies can clear the conscience and “clear the air”.

In business, apologies make for good customer relations …

* * * * *

Excerpted from Business Week, Why It Pays to Apologize, Oct. 12, 2009

What’s the best way for a company to disarm a disgruntled customer? A simple apology beats a cash rebate, according to a new study.

Researchers at Britain’s Nottingham School of Economics worked with a large German wholesaler that sells goods on eBay, tracking the lukewarm or negative comments posted on the site by the company’s customers over six months.

They then responded to the 632 complaints—about defective salt shakers, say, or the late delivery of a leather belt.

Half of the e-mailed responses offered a brief apology. Half offered instead a “goodwill gesture” of a small cash rebate (from $3 to $8). All the e-mails asked the customers to remove the comments they had posted online. For those offered the rebate, it was a condition of receiving the cash.

The result?

About 45% of customers who received an apology withdrew their so-so or negative ratings, compared with 21% of those offered money to do so.

It’s worth noting that the e-mailed apologies were effective even though they were brief and impersonal — and asked for something in return.

Why?

Despite the suspicions people might harbor, “apologies trigger a biological instinct to forgive that is hard to overcome.”

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_41/c4150btw802994.htm

* * * * *

Tomorrow: Getting personal – 8 principles for making your apologies count …