Archive for April, 2010

Newer Entries »

Quick: Name a player on your favorite baseball team …

April 7, 2010

I bet you could … but President Obama couldn’t.

In a TV interview, he declared the Chicago White Sox to be his favorite baseball team.

Then, he  choked on a soft-toss question: “So, who’s your favorite White Sox player ?”

He couldn’t think of one, so he used the opportunity to inject a little class warfare and declare the Cubs (the Homa family’s favorite team) — simply for “wine sippers”.

Where’s the  teleprompter when you need it ?

P.S. Before anybody asks: All-time favorite Sammie Sosa (he was framed on the steroids rap — and on the bat corking incident); current favorite Aramis Ramirez  (he don’t need no juice to make the ball fly)

Short video … worth a look

Posted in Laughs, Obama - Promises Made & Kept | Leave a Comment »

How ROIDs can help bulk up profits

April 7, 2010

Key Takeaway: There is no doubt that a company’s marketing strategy and techniques must evolve over time. As consumer needs, desires, and beliefs change, it is important that organizations address these new insights.

ROIDs marketing focuses on four areas that can help enhance your analysis of the traditional P’s of marketing: responsibility marketing, organizational leadership, insights about customers, and digital marketing.

Perhaps when Mark McGwire recently admitted he ‘roided during his career he was just trying to tell us about his savvy marketing knowledge?

* * * * *

Excerpted from Harvard Business Review, “Putting Marketing on ‘ROIDs'” by Dick Patton, March 1, 2010

In conversation after conversation, CEOs, presidents, and CMOs tell me that their companies are looking to marketing to lead the business into the customer-centric future. And in a future that looks vastly different from the past, natural talent no longer suffices. Looking ahead, they say they want to supplement the indispensable four P’s of the traditional marketing mix (product, price, placement and promotion) with some powerful new elements. They describe this potent brew in various ways, but I think its essential ingredients can be summed up in the easily remembered acronym: ROIDs.

  • Responsibility marketing, including social responsibility, green marketing, and sustainability
  • Organizational leadership, requiring marketing to touch as much of the value chain as possible
  • Insights about customers, based on new analytic techniques that replace yesterday’s market research
  • Digital marketing, requiring companies to master an amorphous bundle of fast-changing media 

    All four elements mean bulking up on knowledge, not simply improving marketing technique. In responsibility marketing alone, the required knowledge could range from understanding carbon footprint and endocrine disruptors to microloans and foreign labor practices. Organizational leadership requires knowing how each step in the value chain can add value for customers. Customer insights rely on exacting new disciplines like Web analytics. Digital marketing obviously means understanding an array of digital media, but with social networking it means knowledge of social dynamics, not merely customer behavior.

    Edit by JMZ

    * * * * *

    Full Article:
    http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/03/putting_marketing_on_roids.html

    • Posted in Mktg - Brands | Leave a Comment »

    TAXES: Read this if you’re married … or if you’re thinking about getting married (or unmarried)

    April 6, 2010

    The Bush tax cuts completely did away with the income tax marriage penalty, right ?

    Au contraire, mon ami. 

    That’s just an urban legend repeated so many times that many have been led to believe it. 

    Me included.

    * * * * *

    Let’s go through the numbers with an example:

    Assume a couple — boyfriend and girlfriend (or any other combination of two people) — each earn $100,000 in taxable income.

    According to the 2009 schedule X tax table (individuals), they’d each pay $21,720 if they file separately. 
    (The tax table is at the end of this post if you want to check my arithmetic)

    So, the unmarried couple pays a total of $43,440 in income taxes (2 X $21,720) — that’s an effective tax rate of 21.7%.

    * * * * *

    What if they were married and filed a joint return?

    Well, the good news is that the standard deduction ($11,400) is twice an individual’s standard deduction — it wasn’t until Bush fixed it.  And, their personal exemption amount ($7,300) is double an individual’s (because they’re below the phase out income level).

    So, we can just pull their number from the $200,000 taxable income line of the 2009 schedule Y tax table (married filing jointly).

    The answer: their tax liability is $44,277.50 — about 2% higher than if they were unmarried and filing individually.

    Technical note: Married filing separately doesn’t make the problem go away.  You’re either married or your not.

    If you think a 2% difference is just rounding error, let’s move up the tax schedule.

    Assume that he & she (or whatever) each earn $200,000 taxable income.    Their combined income tax liability would be $102,285 if they were unmarried and filing individually, and $110,362 if they were married and filing jointly — a spread of almost 8%.

    For sure, that’s some serious money …

    Technical note: The penalty is relative small at incomes below $50,000 (per person) … and relatively small at very, very high incomes that are taxed mostly at the highest bracket rates.

    Bottom line: The marriage penalty may have been reduced, but it’s still there … and in a later post, I show how it swells when Obama lets parts of the Bush tax cuts expire.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    2009 Tax Rate Schedules

    image

    image

    http://www.unclefed.com/IRS-Forms/taxtables/index.html

    * * * * *

    Next up: Those (expletive deleted) Bush tax cuts …

    Posted in Taxes | Leave a Comment »

    Wash Post: The answer was a doozy … “Holy filibuster, Batman”

    April 6, 2010

    Punchline: I once worked with a guy who sorted managers into two categories: simplifiers and complicators … his view: the former always win.

    If ObamaCare is so good and the President is so smart, articulate, and practiced on the subject … why can’t he explain it?

    Here’s the Wash Post recap; below are links to the text & video of the President’s answer … and a great summation by Charles Krathammer.

    From the Washington Post, “Obama’s 17-minute, 2,500-word response to woman’s claim of being over-taxed”, April 2, 2010

    Even by President Obama’s loquacious standards, an answer he gave here in Charlotte on health care was a doozy.

    Toward the end of a question-and-answer session with workers at an advanced battery technology manufacturer, a woman asked the president whether it was a “wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care package”.

    “We are over-taxed as it is”. 

    Obama started out feisty.

    “Well, let’s talk about that, because this is an area where there’s been just a whole lot of misinformation, and I’m going to have to work hard over the next several months to clean up a lot of the misapprehensions that people have.”

    He then spent the next 17 minutes and 12 seconds lulling the crowd into a daze.

    His discursive answer – more than 2,500 words long — wandered from topic to topic, including commentary on the deficit, pay-as-you-go rules passed by Congress, Congressional Budget Office reports on Medicare waste, COBRA coverage, the Recovery Act and Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (he referred to this last item by its inside-the-Beltway name, “F-Map”). He talked about the notion of eliminating foreign aid (not worth it, he said). He invoked Warren Buffett, earmarks and the payroll tax that funds Medicare (referring to it, in fluent Washington lingo, as “FICA”).

    Always fond of lists, Obama ticked off his approach to health care — twice. “Number one is that we are the only — we have been, up until last week, the only advanced country that allows 50 million of its citizens to not have any health insurance,” he said.

    A few minutes later he got to the next point, which seemed awfully similar to the first. “Number two, you don’t know who might end up being in that situation,” he said, then carried on explaining further still.

    “Point number three is that the way insurance companies have been operating, even if you’ve got health insurance you don’t always know what you got, because what has been increasingly the practice is that if you’re not lucky enough to work for a big company that is a big pool, that essentially is almost a self-insurer, then what’s happening is, is you’re going out on the marketplace, you may be buying insurance, you think you’re covered, but then when you get sick they decide to drop the insurance right when you need it,” Obama continued, winding on with the answer.

    Halfway through, an audience member on the riser yawned.

    But Obama wasn’t finished. He had a “final point,” before starting again with another list — of three points.

    “What we said is, number one, we’ll have the basic principle that everybody gets coverage,” he said, before launching into the next two points, for a grand total of seven.

    His wandering approach might not matter if Obama weren’t being billed as the chief salesman of the health-care overhaul. Public opinion on the bill remains divided, and Democratic officials are planning to send Obama into the country to persuade wary citizens that it will work for them in the long run.

    It was not evident that he changed any minds at the event.

    The audience sat politely, but people in the back of the room began to wander off.

    Even Obama seemed to recognize that he had gone on too long. He apologized — in keeping with the spirit of the moment, not once, but twice. “Boy, that was a long answer. I’m sorry,” he said, drawing nervous laughter that sounded somewhat like relief as he wrapped up.

    But, he said: “I hope I answered your question.”

    Source article:
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/04/obamas-17-minute-2500-word-res.html

    Video of Obama’s answer:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jz6y_16NI8

    Text of Obama’s answer:
    http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/04/02/obamas-17-minute-14-second-answer-on-higher-taxes-and-health-care/ 

    => Krauthammer’s rephrasing of the answer:
    http://www.wikio.co.uk/video/krauthammer-20-seconds-correct-answer-obama-rant-3041426

    Posted in Health Care / Medical Insurance, Obama - Promises Made & Kept, Obama Administration | Leave a Comment »

    Ball Park Franks turned Oscar Meyer into just another dog

    April 6, 2010

    Key Takeaway: Sometimes taking advantage of a deep consumer insight is all a brand needs to do in order to be the top dog in a category.

    Ball Park Franks, which focused for years on linking their product to the outdoor grilling experience, realized that mom is the one who does the vast majority of hot dog purchasing in the family.

    By concentrating their marketing efforts on mom’s ability to satisfy their family’s cravings for flavorful, high-quality food, Ball Park was able to appeal to both the purchaser and end-user of its product.

    There is no doubt that Ball Park’s profits plumped when they cooked up this strategy.

    * * * * *

    Excerpted from Brandweek, “How Sara Lee’s Ball Park Brand Became the Top Dog” by Elaine Wong, March 28, 2010

    For years, Ball Park was the No. 2 player in hot dogs. That is, until parent company Sara Lee—maker of Hillshire Farm meats and Jimmy Dean breakfast sandwiches—turned to insights, backed by innovation, to take share from and ultimately usurp the lead spot from Kraft competitor Oscar Mayer…The brand’s ascension was informed by research which showed that moms were the primary buyers of the product, but that teenage boys, too, enjoyed eating it.

    Brandweek: At a recent industry conference, you spoke about how Sara Lee is using insights to drive innovation. Give us an example of how that worked for a major brand.

    Philippe Schaillee:

    For many years, we communicated Ball Park through traditional TV and print, primarily to a male audience. We had this character called Frank, and we’d talk about the grilling occasion and that great experience you’d get from [cooking with] Ball Park hot dogs.

    Looking back, I’d say that was [both] intuition and research-based, but it wasn’t really insights- based.

    As we dove much deeper into an understanding of the consumer and shopper, we learned a few things.

    One was that the brand was overindexing with males. They are looking for the heartiness and real quality of a Ball Park hot dog. But [the brand] was also overindexing more with teenage boys than with adult males.

    Once we learned that, we started to look into the shopper of this [brand] and learned that she was really looking for a hearty solution for her teenage son and husband.

    She [wanted something that wasn’t] just a lower quality snack or that would get them into this mindless eating behavior, but something that was solid, yet still fast and convenient. That [discovery] was a breakthrough.

    BW: And then what?

    PS: We decided we had an opportunity to build this platform around “guy foods.”

    However, the person we had to reach out to and that we had to convince from a purchasing behavior perspective was mom.

    So, from an activation perspective, we shifted our spending radically from what, before, was 80 percent against a male target, to 70 percent [to reach] this female shopper, and the other 30 percent was spent against [targeting] teenage boys.

    Our communication to teenage boys, [meanwhile,] was a radical departure from the past.

    Teenage boys watch TV, but they are absolutely not loyal. That is not where we should be spending our money, [nor do they] really read any magazines or newspapers. Where we have to be to reach that target is in the individual gaming and online action sports [arena]…

    We teamed up with a couple of sports spokespersons to build credibility and really ensure that the Ball Park brand would be [engaged in and participating in] the action sport, versus just advertising at [the event].

    As for business results, after having eternally been the No. 2 brand in the hot dog category, we overtook Oscar Mayer about two years ago, and we’ve been growing our share advantage every year.

    When looking at equity parameters like awareness and household penetration, our loyalty metrics are inching up, and we’ve seen that with teenage boys, especially. We’ve moved from being not on their radar screen to more on their radar screen.

    Edit by JMZ

    * * * * *

    Full Article:
    http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/news-and-features/direct/e3ie9fc421daf51cf828daadc047e8488cc?pn=1

     

    Posted in Mktg - Brands, Mktg - Positioning | Leave a Comment »

    TAXES: ’tis the season, so …

    April 5, 2010

    I figure that attentiveness to income tax issues is probably at a high point as we close in on April 15, so I have loaded several tax-relevant posts for the next several days. 

    Among the topics:

    • Did the marriage penalty really get eliminated?  Answer: no.
    • Where the Bush tax cuts really just for the wealthy?  Answer: no.
    • So what if Obama let’s the Bush tax cuts expire? Answer: uh-oh
    • What about the 3.8% non-payroll payroll tax on dividends and capital gains? Answer: uh-oh (again)
    • What about the marriage penalty? Answer: it gets a dose of steroids
    • So, what’s like to happen … really? Answer: gonna get interesting

    Stay tuned over the next week or so …

    Posted in Taxes | Leave a Comment »

    Bending the cost curve or just making tax payers bend over ?

    April 5, 2010

    Punch line: ObamaCare intends to squeeze an extra $1.2 trillion over 10 years from a minority of citizens — the taxpayers.

    The key assumption — that tax payers won’t change behavior to contain tax impacts — has been proven to be fallacious in the past, and isn’t likely in the future …

    Excerpted from WSJ: The Rich Can’t Pay for ObamaCare, March 30, 2010

    President Barack Obama’s new health-care legislation aims to raise $210 billion over 10 years to pay for the extensive new entitlements … by slapping a 3.8% “Medicare tax” on interest and rental income, dividends and capital gains of couples earning more than $250,000, or singles with more than $200,000.

    The president also hopes to raise $364 billion over 10 years from the same taxpayers by raising the top two tax rates to 36%-39.6% from 33%-35%, plus another $105 billion by raising the tax on dividends and capital gains to 20% from 15%, and another $500 billion by capping and phasing out exemptions and deductions.

    Add it up and the government is counting on squeezing an extra $1.2 trillion over 10 years from a tiny sliver of taxpayers who already pay more than half of all individual taxes.

    It won’t work. It never works.

    Punitive tax rates on high-income individuals do not increase revenue. Successful people are not docile sheep just waiting to be shorn.

    From past experience, these are just a few of the ways that taxpayers will react to the Obama administration’s tax plans:

    • Professionals and companies who currently file under the individual income tax as partnerships, LLCs or Subchapter S corporations would form C-corporations to shelter income, because the corporate tax rate would then be lower with fewer arbitrary limits on deductions for costs of earning income.
    • Investors who jumped into dividend-paying stocks after 2003 when the tax rate fell to 15% would dump dividend paying stocks in favor of tax-free municipal bonds if the dividend tax went up to 23.8% as planned.
    • Faced with a 23.8% capital gains tax, high-income investors would defer realizing gains in taxable accounts until there are offsetting losses.
    • Faced with a rapid phase-out of deductions and exemptions for reported income above $250,000, any two-earner family in a high-tax state could keep their income below that pain threshold by increasing 401(k) contributions, switching investments into tax-free bond funds, and avoiding the realization of capital gains.
    • Faced with numerous tax penalties on added income in general, many two-earner can become one-earner couples, early retirement would become far more popular, executives would substitute perks for taxable paychecks, physicians would play more golf, etc.

    In short, the evidence is clear that when marginal tax rates go up, the amount of reported incomes goes down.

    Economists call that “the elasticity of taxable income” (ETI), and measure it by examining income tax returns before and after marginal tax rates claimed a bigger slice of income reported to the IRS.

    The federal government has embarked on an unprecedented spending spree, granting new entitlements in the guise of refundable tax credits while drawing false comfort from phantom revenue projections that will never materialize.

    Full article:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304370304575151682845921038.html#printMode

    Posted in Health Care / Medical Insurance | 1 Comment »

    CBS News: Majority of Americans “increasing skeptical” and disapprove of ObamaCare …

    April 5, 2010

    Punchline: More Americans now disapprove of the legislation, and many expect their costs to rise and the quality of their care to worsen; few expect the reforms to help them.

    * * * * *

    Excerpted from CBS News: Most Americans Remain Against Health Care Overhaul, April 2, 2010

    President Obama has continued to tour the country to stump for his new set of reforms  … but, so far, the president’s efforts to build up support for the bill appear to be ineffective.

    Fifty-three percent of Americans say they disapprove of the new reforms, including 39 percent who say they disapprove strongly. In the days before the bill passed the House, 37 percent said they approved and 48 percent disapproved.

    image

    Less than 20% of Americans thinks the new health care reforms will help them personally … 36% think the new reforms will hurt them

    Just over half think the new health care reforms will increase their health care costs, and 39 percent think the quality of their health care will get worse.

    image

    Only 34 percent of Americans approved of the president’s handling of health care — an all-time low.

    Mr. Obama’s overall approval rating also hit an all-time low in this poll at 44 percent, as Americans continue to worry about the economy.

    Full article:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001700-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

    Posted in Health Care / Medical Insurance | Leave a Comment »

    Film execs attempt to strike gold on the silver screen

    April 5, 2010

    Takeaway: 3-D films have drawn customers back into theaters and now film executives are looking to cash in on their captivity.

    After deploying the greatest ticket price increases in recent memory, will these executives bring home the gold, or crumble to the critics?
     
    * * * * *
    Excerpt from Wall Street Journal, “Higher Prices Make Box-Office Debut” by Lauren A.E. Schuker and Ethan Smith, March 24, 2010

    Major U.S. movie-theater chains, seeking to capitalize on the surge in revenues fueled by such 3-D hits as “Avatar” and “Alice in Wonderland,” are imposing some of the steepest increases in ticket prices in at least a decade.
    The increases, in one case as much as 26%, vary from theater to theater, but many cinemas are raising prices most—or even solely—for 3-D showings, which accounted for the vast majority of last year’s 10% jump in domestic box-office sales. 3-D movies accounted for 11% of domestic ticket sales in 2009, up from just 2% in 2008.

    At an AMC theater in a Boston suburb, 3-D ticket prices are jumping more than 20% to $17.50 from $14.50, while the adult admission price for a conventional film will remain at $10.50. A 3-D Imax movie at New York City’s AMC Loews Kips Bay will cost $19.50, up from $16.50.
     
    Their moves come on the heels of a record-setting year at the domestic box office, with revenue surpassing $10 billion for the first time. Movie attendance in the U.S. and Canada grew 5.5% in 2009, to 1.42 billion, the highest level since 2004. Ticket sales so far this year are up nearly 10% from a year earlier.

    Movie theaters typically had charged $2 to $3 extra for 3-D tickets. But the brisk demand for those premium-priced tickets led many exhibitors to believe that they were underpriced.

    About 83% of the record $2.6 billion in ticket sales for “Avatar” came from 3-D and Imax screens. And Walt Disney Co.’s “Alice in Wonderland” also set records when it hit 3-D screens earlier this month.

    While the price increases could boost theater owners’ already buoyant revenues, some industry watchers think the could also spark a consumer backlash. Studios, theater operators and trade groups have long touted films as a bargain, compared with other forms of entertainment, intensifying their pitch during the recession.

    “The U.S. economy isn’t in the greatest shape, and there is definitely risk here in pushing price too far in a weak economy,” said a media analyst.

    Some movie-studio executives expressed concern that the price increases might be too much too soon. “The risk we run is that we will no longer be the value proposition that we as an industry have prided ourselves on,” said a distribution executive at one major studio, who added that he was worried movies would become “a luxury item.”

    Warner Bros. executive said: “Sure, it’s a risky move, but so far charging a $3 or $4 premium has had no effect on consumers whatsoever, so I’m in favor of this experiment to raise prices even more. There may be additional revenue to earn here.”

    Studios are also in a bind. While many are wary of appearing to gouge consumers beset by a weak economy, they are also facing higher costs as they produce more movies in the technology-heavy 3-D format. Though ticket prices are set by theater operators, the proceeds are split roughly 50-50 with movie studios.

    Five major 3-D films are opening in theaters over the next three months, starting this weekend with DreamWorks Animation’s “How to Train Your Dragon.” That rich selection is one reason theater owners chose to raise 3-D ticket prices now. It may also help set consumers’ expectations for future 3-D films.
     
    “This is a truly unique event for the movie industry,” said one industry analyst. “I can’t remember the last time I saw such a major change in ticket pricing.”
      
    Edit by BHC
     

    * * * * *
    Full Article:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575142143922186532.html
    * * * * *

    Posted in Mktg - Pricing | 1 Comment »

    Bernanke puzzled by slow job growth … here’s why, Ben

    April 2, 2010

    It’s a mystery that has puzzled even U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke: if the U.S. economy is growing rapidly, why isn’t it creating jobs?

    The Fed and private economists are trying to answer the bigger question of why the labor market shed 8.4 million jobs during this recession. Although the downturn was the deepest since the Great Depression, the job losses were even more severe than most forecasters had predicted based on models that compare economic growth and employment.

    The U.S. unemployment rate is at 9.7 percent, and the consensus view is that it will hold there. Why?

    Bernanke offers two possible explanations: Either the recession was deeper than originally thought … or “productivity gains were greater than we thought they would be when firms were able to cut their work forces and still maintain output.”

    Reuters, The Jobs Puzzle Bernanke Can’t Solve,
    28 Mar 2010
         http://www.cnbc.com/id/36031173

    Well, I’ve got the answer for you Ben.

    In fact, HomaFiles laid it out for you in July, 2009 (link to original post is below)

    Here’s the encore presentation …

    * * * * *

    Why private sector jobs won’t be coming back any time soon
    (Hint: it’s called passive aggressive resistance)

    Team Obama thinks that it has corporate America right where it wants it –- under its thumb.

    CEOs and Boards serve at the pleasure of the President, executive compensation is overseen by a Federal czar, product lines are green-dictated by Federal czars and Task Forces, contract law is suspended at will,  bankruptcy laws are changed on the fly — relegating secured creditors behind politically-favored unsecured ones, ineffective government agencies dictate to stumbling companies, unions are given jolts of legislated adrenalin.

    The Administration has empowered itself to sort out good guys from bad guys, to pick marketplace winners and  losers, and to destine survivors and failures, Companies (and individuals) that question government policy are ridiculed, harassed, and punished; those that oppose the policies are squashed faster than decades-old GM or Chrysler dealers.

    Corporate CEOs are quaking in there boots … or are they ?

    Team Obama –- which consistently demonstrates uncanny business naiveté — may be underestimating a staple of organizational behavior: the power of passive aggressive resistance.  Rather than being openly insubordinate when confronted with undesirable tasks — and getting nailed by vindictive superiors –  employees and organizational units will often just procrastinate and work work inefficiently, in effect, pocket vetoing the unpopular orders from above.   In corporate jargon, it’scalled “slow rolling”.

    Sure, corporate chieftains will tell President Obama what he wants to hear, and may even stand next to him on a stage in a faux show of support.  Why risk the rath of a Presidential punishment, especially when there are other ways to skin a cat?

    Specifically, with respect to continuing job cuts and rising unemployment, here’s a theory of the case.

    First, you can’t  let a good crisis go to waste, right?  Businesses always use tough economic times to clean house.   Fat builds in all organizations over time.  In “normal” times, it’s difficult to get rid of dead wood.  Employment laws –  perhaps well-intended originally –- serve to protect slackers by making it cumbersome and difficult to fire anybody.  When the economic tide rolls out, companies have the air cover they need to resize and purge under-performers en masse. The tendency is to cut deep.  If some muscle gets pared too, so be it.  It can be rehabilitated later.

    In typical business cycles, employment is a so-called lagging indicator of an economic rebound.  That is, when the economy starts to recover, jobs are usually added back very slowly.  Why?  Because businesses have a renewed zeal for productivity, they recommit to keeping the fat from building up again, and they want to be sure that the signs of better economic times aren’t false positives.

    Eventually, open positions are filled and capacity — human and physical –  is added to meet increasing demand.  It may take awhile, but the system eventually gets back in balance.

    If the economy is bottoming out now -– as many experts assert –  employment would be expected to start rebounding in 2010.  But, it won’t. Why?

    Because the rules of engagement have changed.  It has become far more costly and risky for companies to restore or enlarge their payrolls.

    For openers, the minimum wage is scheduled to increase by over 10%, making entry level staffing more costly.  Then, there is the risk that “employer mandate” will force companies to expand health insurance coverage or pay fines – again, making labor most costly.  Then, there is the threat of “card check” legislation turbo-boosting  the mass inionization of U.S. businesses .  And now, there’s the evident risk that government will change rules and regulations on political whims, creating an unprecedented level of uncertainty.

    The bottom line: businesses will resist government policies passive aggressively.  Fewer jobs will get added back than history would suggest, and those that get added back will materialize later than past patterns.  Businesses will add jobs as a last resort rather than trying to build capacity ahead of the economic growth curve.  Why should companies  increase their costs and  risks any more than is absolutely necessary ? Companies will continue to off-shore jobs, but will be more clever and clandestine about it, e.g. by vertically disintegrating and simply buying goods and services from 3rd parties.

    Given the Administration’s anti-corporate rhetoric, actions, and proposed game-changing rules, I doubt that many CEOs will be taking on added costs and risks to boost the administration. More likely, they will let unemployment continue to creep up, and will slow roll the process of rehiring.  Corporate chieftains will sit back and watch the President squirm and spin his “4 million jobs – saved or created”.  As Rev. Wright would say “the chickens will have come home to roost”.  Passively aggressive  resistance at its very best.

    Unfortunately, that means we’ll be seeing double digit unemployment for some time – at least through the 2010 Congressional elections.

    https://kenhoma.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/why-private-sector-jobs-wont-be-coming-back-any-time-soon/

    * * * * *

    Posted in Employment - Jobs | Leave a Comment »

    HIGH ALERT: To the lifeboats … Guam may capsize!

    April 2, 2010

    I got a laugh out this one …

    The pay-off comes right after the geography lesson.

    Keep in mind: the questioner is a US Congressman ( YIPES !)

    Ask yourself: How can the Admiral who is being questioned keep a straight face

    Our government at work …

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg&feature=player_embedded

    Hat tip to Tags for feeding:
    http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/12301.html

    Posted in Congress, Laughs | 1 Comment »

    A rose by any other name … Comcast rebrands as Xfinity

    April 2, 2010

    TakeAway:  The Comcast cable guy and his truck are getting a new look.

    With a reputation for poor service and network problems decided a new name might make people forget.

    We’ll see.

    * * * * *

    Excerpted from Philly.com, “Comcast unveils new brand name and logo,” By Bob Fernandez, February 4, 2010

    Comcast  re-branded its TV, Internet, and telephone services as Xfinity  to signal to customers that this isn’t the same old company.

    Comcast will remain as the corporate name, but the company will emphasize Xfinity in advertisements and on 24,000 service trucks and thousands of employee uniforms.

    The new brand name first appeared in Comcast ads, around the time of the Winter Olympics, in Philadelphia and 10 other markets.

    “This is a pretty big moment where we are upgrading every product area … the new name communicates Comcast’s constant product upgrades and innovation.”

    The new brand name … will appear eventually as a logo on the Comcast TV guide and Web sites, and will also appear on customer bills under headings for different services …

    Xfinity seems to position the company to compete with Verizon, which markets its TV and Internet services as FiOS, and AT&T, which uses U-verse …

    This re-branding comes as Comcast has struggled to rebuild its reputation because of poor service and problems with its network that resulted in telephone and Internet outages. Its customer-satisfaction rating is among the lowest in the industry, but it has improved slightly in the last year.

    Comcast spokeswoman said the re-branding was not an attempt to distance the service from the Comcast name. “This is about our product. It is about providing our customers with products that just keep getting better” …

    Comcast tried to keep more customers happy by limiting its cable rate increases to 6.9 million subscribers in late 2009 compared with 16.2 million customers in the fourth quarter of 2008 …

    Comcast has been on a tear by boosting its Internet speeds, offering more TV channels as a result of its digital transition, and is adding features to its new phone service …

    Edit by TJS

    * * * * *

    Full Article
    http://www.philly.com/philly/business/83522972.html

    * * * * *

    Posted in Mktg - Brandmarks & Logos, Mktg - Brands | Leave a Comment »

    Great idea: How about extending SarbOx to Congress ?

    April 1, 2010

    Several companies have announced mega first quarter earnings charges to reflect the impact of ObamaCare. AT&T’s write-off: a staggering $1 billion.

    The accounting is relatively straightforward: the companies have a future liability on their balance sheets — benefit payments to retirees for prescription drugs.  That liability was being partially offset by a favorable tax treatment that’s being eliminated by ObamaCare.  So, the liability has to be restated upward by the amount of the lost tax benefits.  That’s done by a non-cash charge to the P&L that must be recognized as soon as it’s evident.

    Now, the Feds want the companies’ CEOs testify and provide evidence of the law’s projected impact.

    Almost immediately, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman of California and Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, chairman of the Oversight and Investigations panel, announced plans to hold an April 21 hearing on “claims by Caterpillar, Verizon, and Deere that provisions in the new health care reform law could adversely affect their company’s (costs) and ability to provide health insurance to their employees. These assertions appear to conflict with independent analyses, which show that the new law will expand coverage and bring down costs.”
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/03/26/companies-charges-prompt-a-hearing/

    One can reasonably expect that the Feds will try to browbeat the companies into making the charges go away (after all, its bad publicity) by recognizing that ObamaCare will substantially bend the health care cost curve downward.

    Yeah, right.

    Under Sarbanes-Oxley, CEOs have to sign off on the integrity of their company’s financial statements under penalty of fines and jail time.

    Now, pardon these CEOs if they conclude — like many other folks — that the administrations’s financial projections re: huge cost savings, premium cuts, deficit reductions, etc., are at best uncertain, or at worst complete BS.

    If that’s what they conclude  — and if they sign financial statements that are based on the incredible projections —  and if the pie-in-the-sky ObamaCare projections don’t materialize — then they get carted off to jail under Sarb-Ox. Uh-oh.

    Perhaps Reps. Waxman and Stupak should have to sign the companies’ financial statements — under penalty of hard time in jail if the ObamaCare benefits don’t materialize.

    Thinking more broadly, why not make all Senators and Congressmen who voted for ObamaCare sign statements that they’ll go to jail if the cost curve isn’t bent down, if the deficit isn’t reduced, and if premiums don’t plummet.  They should be willing since they profess to believe and voted accordingly.

    Or, thinking even more broadly, why not make our sleazy reps sign similar statements every time they sign a bill with economic consequences.

    If not jail time, at least make them forfeit their lucrative government pensions and retirement businesses.

    Why not ?

    Posted in Congress - Senate, Health Care / Medical Insurance | 3 Comments »

    How many government boards, commissions and programs does it take to "not takeover" healthcare ?

    April 1, 2010

    Answer: At least 159

    All being staffed by Fed gov’t employees making 44% more than comparable private sector workers.

    All to improve our healthcare and whittle down costs …

    * * * * *
    Here’s a starter list, right out of the 2,474 page bill, the reconciliation addendum and the Speaker’s amendment.

    1. Grant program for consumer assistance offices (Section 1002, p. 37)
    2. Grant program for states to monitor premium increases (Section  1003, p. 42)
    3. Committee to review administrative simplification standards  (Section 1104, p. 71)
    4. Demonstration program for state wellness programs (Section 1201, p.  93)
    5. Grant program to establish state Exchanges (Section 1311(a), p. 130)
    6. State American Health Benefit Exchanges (Section 1311(b), p. 131)
    7. Exchange grants to establish consumer navigator programs (Section  1311(i), p. 150)
    8. Grant program for state cooperatives (Section 1322, p. 169)
    9. Advisory board for state cooperatives (Section 1322(b)(3), p. 173)
    10. Private purchasing council for state cooperatives (Section  1322(d), p. 177)
    11. State basic health plan programs (Section 1331, p. 201)
    12. State-based reinsurance program (Section 1341, p. 226)
    13. Program of risk corridors for individual and small group markets  (Section 1342, p. 233)
    14. Program to determine eligibility for Exchange participation  (Section 1411, p. 267)
    15. Program for advance determination of tax credit eligibility  (Section 1412, p. 288)
    16. Grant program to implement health IT enrollment standards (Section  1561, p. 370)
    17 Federal Coordinated Health Care Office for dual eligible  beneficiaries (Section 2602, p. 512)
    18. Medicaid quality measurement program (Section 2701, p. 518)
    19. Medicaid health home program for people with chronic conditions,  and grants for planning same (Section 2703, p. 524)
    20 Medicaid demonstration project to evaluate bundled payments  (Section 2704, p. 532)
    21. Medicaid demonstration project for global payment system (Section  2705, p. 536)
    22. Medicaid demonstration project for accountable care organizations  (Section 2706, p. 538)
    23. Medicaid demonstration project for emergency psychiatric care  (Section 2707, p. 540)
    24. Grant program for delivery of services to individuals with  postpartum depression (Section 2952(b), p. 591)
    25. State allotments for grants to promote personal responsibility  education programs (Section 2953, p. 596)
    26. Medicare value-based purchasing program (Section 3001(a), p. 613)
    27. Medicare value-based purchasing demonstration program for critical  access hospitals (Section 3001(b), p. 637)
    28. Medicare value-based purchasing program for skilled nursing  facilities (Section 3006(a), p. 666)
    29. Medicare value-based purchasing program for home health agencies  (Section 3006(b), p. 668)
    30. Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality (Section 3012, p.  688)
    31. Grant program to develop health care quality measures (Section  3013, p. 693)
    32. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 3021, p. 712)
    33. Medicare shared savings program (Section 3022, p. 728)
    34. Medicare pilot program on payment bundling (Section 3023, p. 739)
    35. Independence at home medical practice demonstration program  (Section 3024, p. 752)
    36. Program for use of patient safety organizations to reduce hospital  readmission rates (Section 3025(b), p. 775)
    37. Community-based care transitions program (Section 3026, p. 776)
    38. Demonstration project for payment of complex diagnostic laboratory  tests (Section 3113, p. 800)
    39. Medicare hospice concurrent care demonstration project (Section  3140, p. 850)
    40. Independent Payment Advisory Board (Section 3403, p. 982)
    41. Consumer Advisory Council for Independent Payment Advisory Board  (Section 3403, p. 1027)
    42. Grant program for technical assistance to providers implementing  health quality practices (Section 3501, p. 1043)
    43. Grant program to establish interdisciplinary health teams (Section  3502, p. 1048)
    44. Grant program to implement medication therapy management (Section  3503, p. 1055)
    45. Grant program to support emergency care pilot programs (Section  3504, p. 1061)
    46. Grant program to promote universal access to trauma services  (Section 3505(b), p. 1081)
    47. Grant program to develop and promote shared decision-making aids  (Section 3506, p. 1088)
    48. Grant program to support implementation of shared decision-making  (Section 3506, p. 1091)
    49. Grant program to integrate quality improvement in clinical  education (Section 3508, p. 1095)
    50. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health  (Section 3509(a), p. 1098)
    51. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women’s Health (Section  3509(b), p. 1102)
    52. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women’s  Health (Section 3509(e), p. 1105)
    53. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women’s  Health (Section 3509(f), p. 1106)
    54. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section  3509(g), p. 1109)
    55. National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council  (Section 4001, p. 1114)
    56. Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative  and Public Health (Section 4001(f), p. 1117)
    57. Prevention and Public Health Fund (Section 4002, p. 1121)
    58. Community Preventive Services Task Force (Section 4003(b), p. 1126)
    59. Grant program to support school-based health centers (Section  4101, p. 1135)
    60. Grant program to promote research-based dental caries disease  management (Section 4102, p. 1147)
    61. Grant program for States to prevent chronic disease in Medicaid  beneficiaries (Section 4108, p. 1174)
    62. Community transformation grants (Section 4201, p. 1182)
    63. Grant program to provide public health interventions (Section  4202, p 1188)
    64. Demonstration program of grants to improve child immunization  rates (Section 4204(b), p. 1200)
    65. Pilot program for risk-factor assessments provided through  community health centers (Section 4206, p. 1215)
    66. Grant program to increase epidemiology and laboratory capacity  (Section 4304, p. 1233)
    67. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 4305, p.  1238)
    68. National Health Care Workforce Commission (Section 5101, p. 1256)
    69. Grant program to plan health care workforce development activities  (Section 5102(c), p. 1275)
    70. Grant program to implement health care workforce development  activities (Section 5102(d), p. 1279)
    71. Pediatric specialty loan repayment program (Section 5203, p. 1295)
    72. Public Health Workforce Loan Repayment Program (Section 5204, p.  1300)
    73. Allied Health Loan Forgiveness Program (Section 5205, p. 1305)
    74. Grant program to provide mid-career training for health  professionals (Section 5206, p. 1307)
    75. Grant program to fund nurse-managed health clinics (Section 5208,  p. 1310)
    76. Grant program to support primary care training programs (Section  5301, p. 1315)
    77. Grant program to fund training for direct care workers (Section  5302, p. 1322)
    78. Grant program to develop dental training programs (Section 5303,  p. 1325)
    79. Demonstration program to increase access to dental health care in  underserved communities (Section 5304, p. 1331)
    80. Grant program to promote geriatric education centers (Section  5305, p. 1334)
    81. Grant program to promote health professionals entering geriatrics  (Section 5305, p. 1339)
    82. Grant program to promote training in mental and behavioral health  (Section 5306, p. 1344)
    83. Grant program to promote nurse retention programs (Section 5309,  p. 1354)
    84. Student loan forgiveness for nursing school faculty (Section  5311(b), p. 1360)
    85. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors and outcomes  (Section 5313, p. 1364)
    86. Public Health Sciences Track for medical students (Section 5315,  p. 1372)
    87. Primary Care Extension Program to educate providers (Section 5405,  p. 1404)
    88. Grant program for demonstration projects to address health  workforce shortage needs (Section 5507, p. 1442)
    89. Grant program for demonstration projects to develop training  programs for home health aides (Section 5507, p. 1447)
    90 Grant program to establish new primary care residency programs  (Section 5508(a), p. 1458)
    91. Program of payments to teaching health centers that sponsor  medical residency training (Section 5508(c), p. 1462)
    92. Graduate nurse education demonstration program (Section 5509, p.  1472)
    93. Grant program to establish demonstration projects for community- based mental health settings (Section 5604, p. 1486)
    94. Commission on Key National Indicators (Section 5605, p. 1489)
    95. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled  nursing facilities (Section 6102, p. 1554)
    96. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities  (Section 6103(a)(3), p. 1561)
    97. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section  6103(b)(3), p. 1568)
    98. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing  facilities and nursing facilities (Section 6112, p. 1589)
    99. Demonstration projects for nursing facilities involved in the  culture change movement (Section 6114, p. 1597)
    100. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p.  1619)
    101. Standing methodology committee for Patient-Centered Outcomes  Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1629)
    102. Board of Governors for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research  Institute (Section 6301, p. 1638)
    103. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (Section 6301(e),  p. 1656)
    104. Elder Justice Coordinating Council (Section 6703, p. 1773)
    105. Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation (Section  6703, p. 1776)
    106. Grant program to create elder abuse forensic centers (Section  6703, p. 1783)
    107. Grant program to promote continuing education for long-term care  staffers (Section 6703, p. 1787)
    108. Grant program to improve management practices and training  (Section 6703, p. 1788)
    109. Grant program to subsidize costs of electronic health records  (Section 6703, p. 1791)
    110. Grant program to promote adult protective services (Section 6703,  p. 1796)
    111. Grant program to conduct elder abuse detection and prevention  (Section 6703, p. 1798)
    112. Grant program to support long-term care ombudsmen (Section 6703,  p. 1800)
    113. National Training Institute for long-term care surveyors (Section  6703, p. 1806)
    114 Grant program to fund State surveys of long-term care residences  (Section 6703, p. 1809)
    115. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 8002, p. 1926)
    116. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 8002, p. 1927)
    117. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 8002, p. 1931)
    118. Personal Care Attendants Workforce Advisory Panel (Section  8002(c), p. 1938)
    119 Multi-state health plans offered by Office of Personnel  Management (Section 10104(p), p. 2086)
    120. Advisory board for multi-state health plans (Section 10104(p), p.  2094)
    121. Pregnancy Assistance Fund (Section 10212, p. 2164)
    122. Value-based purchasing program for ambulatory surgical centers  (Section 10301, p. 2176)
    123. Demonstration project for payment adjustments to home health  services (Section 10315, p. 2200)
    124. Pilot program for care of individuals in environmental emergency  declaration areas (Section 10323, p. 2223)
    125. Grant program to screen at-risk individuals for environmental  health conditions (Section 10323(b), p. 2231)
    126. Pilot programs to implement value-based purchasing (Section  10326, p. 2242)
    127. Grant program to support community-based collaborative care  networks (Section 10333, p. 2265)
    128. Centers for Disease Control Office of Minority Health (Section  10334, p. 2272)
    129. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Minority  Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
    130. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Office  of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
    131. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Minority  Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
    132. Food and Drug Administration Office of Minority Health (Section  10334, p. 2272)
    133. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Office of Minority  Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
    134. Grant program to promote small business wellness programs  (Section 10408, p 2285)
    135. Cures Acceleration Network (Section 10409, p. 2289)
    136. Cures Acceleration Network Review Board (Section 10409, p. 2291)
    137. Grant program for Cures Acceleration Network (Section 10409, p.  2297)
    138. Grant program to promote centers of excellence for depression  (Section 10410, p. 2304)
    139. Advisory committee for young women’s breast health awareness  education campaign (Section 10413, p. 2322)
    140. Grant program to provide assistance to provide information to  young women with breast cancer (Section 10413, p. 2326)
    141. Interagency Access to Health Care in Alaska Task Force (Section  10501, p. 2329)
    142. Grant program to train nurse practitioners as primary care  providers (Section 10501(e), p. 2332)
    143. Grant program for community-based diabetes prevention (Section  10501(g), p. 2337)
    144. Grant program for providers who treat a high percentage of  medically underserved populations (Section 10501(k), p. 2343)
    145. Grant program to recruit students to practice in underserved  communities (Section 10501(l), p. 2344)
    146. Community Health Center Fund (Section 10503, p. 2355)
    147. Demonstration project to provide access to health care for the  uninsured at reduced fees (Section 10504, p. 2357)
    148. Demonstration program to explore alternatives to tort litigation  (Section 10607, p. 2369)
    149. Indian Health demonstration program for chronic shortages of  health professionals (S. 1790, Section 112, p. 24)*
    150. Office of Indian Men’s Health (S. 1790, Section 136, p. 71)*
    151. Indian Country modular component facilities demonstration program  (S. 1790, Section 146, p. 108)*
    152. Indian mobile health stations demonstration program (S. 1790,  Section 147, p. 111)*
    153. Office of Direct Service Tribes (S. 1790, Section 172, p. 151)*
    154. Indian Health Service mental health technician training program  (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 173)*
    155. Indian Health Service program for treatment of child sexual abuse  victims (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 192)*
    156. Indian Health Service program for treatment of domestic violence  and sexual abuse (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 194)*
    157. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (S. 1790,  Section 181, p. 204)*
    158. Indian youth life skills demonstration project (S. 1790, Section  181, p. 220)*
    159. Indian Health Service Director of HIV/AIDS Prevention and  Treatment (S. 1790, Section 199B, p. 258)*

    *Section 10221, page 2173 of H.R. 3590 deems that S. 1790 shall be  deemed as passed with certain amendments.

    Thanks to JC for feeding the lead

    Posted in Health Care / Medical Insurance | Leave a Comment »

    Will marketing tactics save NYC airlines from the tyranny of 100

    April 1, 2010

    TakeAway:  The airline game just got a little more interesting. 

    The coveted shuttle routes from Washington to NYC, which were previously dominated by Delta and U.S. Air, are now home to three players – Delta, U.S. Air, and JetBlue. 

    Does this mean that the previous unspoken rules about pricing are going to go out the window? 

    And, the game gets even better because American is going to aggressively challenge Delta on many more routes. 

    Will clever marketing tactics be able to save the day for Delta?  Or is the tyranny of 100 going to result in the slow death of a player?

    Excerpted from WSJ, “American Airlines, JetBlue Swap Landing Rights at JFK, Reagan,” By Nathan Becker, March 31, 2010

    American Airlines it will enhance service at New York City airports and also agreed to partner with JetBlue to offer connections to some of its East Coast flights, setting up a two-way battle for New York business travel.

    American’s plan to bolster New York service will add seven new destinations served by 23 additional flights to and from New York City’s two airports …

    The JetBlue agreement … should create a battle for control of the fragmented New York business travel market, which Delta has set out to “own” through route expansion and marketing deals such as those with the city’s Major League Baseball teams.

    However, Delta is limited by aging facilities at JFK Airport and efforts by regulators to limit its expansion plans at LaGuardia Airport.

    JetBlue will begin flying to Reagan National Airport as it obtained gate rights from AMR in return for rights at JFK airport. JetBlue is tied to the Star Alliance through Deutsche Lufthansa’s stake in the U.S. airline, while American is part of the rival oneworld alliance.

    American also said it plans to expand its marketing efforts to New York travelers and designated a new executive position that will have responsibility for airport operations and “broad oversight” over the company’s New York operations.

    The agreement with JetBlue will allow JetBlue customers “simple connections to American’s international flights and new convenient domestic flight options on JetBlue for American’s customers in and out of New York and Boston.” The partnership will focus on routes into and out of JFK and Boston that “extend and complement each others’ networks.”

    Full Article
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304252704575155601088251666.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection&mg=com-wsj 
    Edit by TJS

    Posted in Airlines | 1 Comment »

    Newer Entries »