January 14-16, 2014
Jan 14 03:27 Rosenstone's signature, Omann's writing? Jan 14 10:58 Getting out of a bad deal Jan 14 03:22 How toxic is Obamacare? Jan 14 12:42 The Obama-Panetta Benghazi cover-up Jan 14 21:24 Exceptional pay; exceptional performance? Jan 15 04:33 Predicting the 'unexpected' Jan 16 00:24 President Potter's International Bet Jan 16 04:34 Benghazi's smoking gun report
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Rosenstone's signature, Omann's writing?
Recently, Bill Couette sent a letter to MnSCU Chancellor Steve Rosenstone. Mr. Couette is a SCSU graduate in Aviation. He's now the VP of Administration for the Airline Pilots Association, International, aka ALPA. Here's Chancellor Rosenstone's reply to Mr. Couette:
Dear Mr. Couette,
Thank you for your email regarding the aviation program at St. Cloud State University.
I am very familiar with Jeff Johnson's activities regarding SCSU's fall 2010 decision to discontinue the aviation program. A number of Minnesota State Colleges and Universities leaders, both at SCSU and the system office, have addressed Mr. Johnson's concerns on multiple occasions. It may be helpful to provide you with additional background information related to the aviation program closure at SCSU.
A steep decline in state financial support (a 48% reduction between 1999 and 2011) for Minnesota's public colleges and universities, necessitated significant budget reductions for fiscal year 2012 at SCSU and Minnesota's other public colleges and universities. To help address the budget situation at its campus, SCSU undertook an extensive review of all of its academic programs, which included consultation with various internal and external constituents. As part of the review of the aviation program, this included meetings with several aviation industry representatives.
As a result of its review process, SCSU identified 32 programs for closure or suspension, including aviation. One factor in the aviation decision was a 60% decline in the number of aviation program degrees awarded (from 52 in 2002 to 21 in 2010), which included an 89% decline in aviation majors with a concentration in professional flight (from 18 in 2002 to 2 in 2010). The cost structure of the aviation program was also a concern. Budget calculations indicated that in FY2010, expenditures for the program exceeded revenue by approximately $250,000. Feedback from industry representatives and the accrediting body for the aviation program indicated that an additional investment of approximately $500,000 would be required to provide the degree program in the future. The continued availability of aviation education programs at other higher education institutions in the region, including Minnesota State University, Mankato, Lake Superior College, Duluth, Northland Community and Technical College, Thief River Falls, and Minneapolis Community and Technical College, was also a key consideration.
In the fall of 2011, Mr. Johnson appealed the university's decision to the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system office. Under the leadership of our Vice Chancellor of Academic and Student Affairs, the office reviewed SCSU's decision and the process used in making the decision. This review found that the university conducted required and appropriate consultations and assessments that informed its decisions, and found no grounds upon which to question or overturn the university's decision.
The university is committed to maintaining accreditation of the aviation program through the end of the 2013-2014 academic year and serving the remaining students with the highest-quality program.
I understand and appreciate your input regarding the aviation program at SCSU. I want you to know that decisions to close or suspend programs, while necessary, are never easy and are taken seriously by me, our Board of Trustees and by the presidents of our colleges and universities.
Respectfully,
Steven J. Rosenstone
Chancellor, Minnesota State Colleges and Universities
30 7th St. E. | Suite 350 | St. Paul, MN 55101
Several things jump out at me as outright spin. Here's one example:
The cost structure of the aviation program was also a concern. Budget calculations indicated that in FY2010, expenditures for the program exceeded revenue by approximately $250,000. Feedback from industry representatives and the accrediting body for the aviation program indicated that an additional investment of approximately $500,000 would be required to provide the degree program in the future.
The costs from the SCSU General Fund paid the salaries and benefits for its faculty and staff. That's it. The simulators were purchased with student fees. The airplanes were paid for by Wright Aero, a small business located at the St. Cloud Regional Airport.
It's disgraceful that President Potter used this spin to rationalize getting rid of Aviation. Here's more spin:
Under the leadership of our Vice Chancellor of Academic and Student Affairs, the office reviewed SCSU's decision and the process used in making the decision. This review found that the university conducted required and appropriate consultations and assessments that informed its decisions, and found no grounds upon which to question or overturn the university's decision.
I wouldn't say that the "Vice Chancellor of Academic and Student Affairs" supplied leadership. I've written that he supplied the whitewash . Here's Mr. Litecky's response for his supposedly extensive review:
My staff and I remain persuaded that the university conducted required and appropriate consultations and assessments that informed its decisions.
Unfortunately for Chancellor Rosenstone, being "persuaded" isn't the standard required by MnSCU policy. Here's part of the applicable MnSCU policy regarding closing programs:
The academic program closure application must be documented by information, as applicable, regarding
1.academic program need,
2.student enrollment trends,
3.employment of graduates,
4.the financial circumstances affecting the academic program, system college or university,
5.the plan to accommodate students currently enrolled in the academic program,
6.impact on faculty and support staff,
7.consultation with appropriate constituent groups including students, faculty and community,
8.alternatives considered,
With a worldwide pilot shortage, it's impossible for MnSCU or St. Cloud State to document that the academic need for aviation didn't exist. Also, documentation doesn't exist, or least wasn't referenced by Mr. Litecky, that alternatives to closure were considered. Finally, consultation with students and faculty didn't happen. Here's the definition of consultation:
a meeting for deliberation, discussion
Prior to his December 10, 2010 announcement that he was closing the Aviation program, he didn't meet with students or Aviation faculty. That's why I'm using the word announcement. Finally, there isn't documentation proving that staff reductions or alternatives to closing the program were considered.
In short, the allegedly extensive review of the decision to close the Aviation program at St. Cloud State didn't use MnSCU's well-thought-out procedure for closing programs.
Despite the potential growth of the Aviation program, President Potter decided that Aviation would be shut. Then MnSCU rubberstamped President Potter's decision. More important than not following MnSCU procedure is the fact that President Potter said no to the possibility of a reinvigorated Aviation program with increasing Aviation program enrollments.
At a time when SCSU's enrollment is plummeting, shouldn't President Potter welcome the opportunity to increase enrollment? At minimum, shouldn't Chancellor Rosenstone be telling President Potter that he needs to turn SCSU's enrollment around?
Posted Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:27 AM
Comment 1 by Crimson Trace at 14-Jan-14 09:03 AM
This letter has numerous flaws. Rosenstone mentioned that:
The continued availability of aviation education programs at other higher education institutions in the region, including Minnesota State University, Mankato, Lake Superior College, Duluth, Northland Community and Technical College, Thief River Falls, and Minneapolis Community and Technical College, was also a key consideration.
4 out of 5 of these schools mentioned are two year programs. So the only 4 year aviation program left in the state is MSU Mankato. We just eliminated the state's only accredited aviation program. With the huge workforce needs, Rosenstone thinks we need 1 4 year aviation program? Also, Rosenstone said he takes it seriously when programs are closed. With President Potter lying on video about the aviation closure, it's obvious Rosenstone's depth of seriousness is quite shallow. http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=12549
Nothing like a chancellor in full blown denial over his president fibbing on video. It is quite apparent that the chancellor does not want to make the hard decisions by cleaning up this mess.
Comment 2 by Crimson Trace at 14-Jan-14 09:17 AM
Rosenstone only mentioned the pro flight track in this letter which is not the whole truth about the aviation graduates. The fact is that aviation was the 10th largest program on campus according to this recent post:
Clearly, programs adapt and the Professional Flight numbers have declined significantly while the Management and the Operations numbers have remained quite healthy. The aviation faculty found that many professional flight students had switched into the operations or management track to complete their aviation degree without occurring additional flight training costs. These students would often complete their aviation degree and complete their flight training once they were in the work force. When the aviation closure decision was initially announced by former Dean David DeGroote in 2010, some professional flight students made a deliberate switch into the operations and management tracks in order to graduate in a more expeditious manner. http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=15773
Whoever sent the information to Rosenstone sure didn't reveal the whole story. Unfortunately, SCSU set up Rosenstone and it makes him look pretty bad.
Getting out of a bad deal
Cut Our Losses and Get Out of the Coborn's Plaza Apartments!
by Silence Dogood
At the Budget Advisory Committee meeting on October 30, 2013, Dan Pederson, Director of Residential Life, announced that in the fall of 2009, prior to the opening of Coborn's Plaza apartments, occupancy in the on campus dormitories was at 96%. This is an impressive figure! He also announced at the same time that for the first year the Coborn's Plaza apartments were open there was an occupancy rate of 43%, which is certainly unimpressive at best!
The problem for SCSU is that it entered into a lease with the Wedum Foundation for the Coborn's Plaza apartments. SCSU is on the hook for the lease payments whether or not there are any students living there. The financial loss experienced by the SCSU for the first year of the Coborn's Plaza apartments has never been publically disclosed but based on the losses for years two and three and the anticipated loss for year four, it is probably close to $2,000,000. The combined loss for years two and three came out in a memo on November 12, 2012 from Len Sippel, then Interim Vice President for Finance and Administration:
At the Meet and Confer on September 5, 2013, Patrick Jacobson-Schulte, Associate Vice President for Financial Management and Budget, announced that the loss on Coborn's Plaza for FY14 would be approximately $980,000.
So in the first four years of operation of the Coborn's Plaza apartments, SCSU has paid approximately $5,000,000 for empty rooms! Essentially, the university is averaging losing more than $1,250,000 per year. With declining enrollment, less demand for dorms and apartment space, coupled with the automatic price escalator in the lease agreement, it is not unreasonable to project million dollar payments for empty rooms for years to come.
In reading the lease entered into between the Wedum Foundation and SCSU, it looks to be a pretty sweet deal for the Wedum Foundation. The contract calls for a twenty-year lease with a 2% annual increase in lease payments for years two through twenty. It also calls for a guarantee of a minimum of ten years on the lease with two optional five-year extensions.
Over the first ten years of the lease, SCSU will pay the Wedum Foundation $36,797,659 whether there are any students living there or not. If the lease runs for the full twenty years, SCSU will have paid a total of $81,396,223 to the Wedum Foundation. There is nothing wrong with these numbers if the university receives more in rent that the lease payments. However, thus far the data shows that Coborn's Plaza has not been able to generate enough revenue to cover the lease payments. Thus far, the university has had to cover the shortfall each year out of its budget. Coborn's Plaza is a clear financial disaster - some might call it a dog but I hate to disparage dogs!
If SCSU does not cut it's losses and give notice to exit the lease at the end of 10 years, the cost to the general operating budget will easily exceed $21,000,000. Remember the revenue for the operating budget comes from tuition paid by every student and the legislative appropriation. This means the lucky few living at Coborn's Plaza receive a benefit paid by those who do not live at the 'Plaza.' That's a good deal for a few at the expense of the many. Paying for empty space is clearly a bad deal.
At the April 30, 2013 meeting of the Budget Advisory Committee, Patrick Jacobson-Schulte, Associate Vice President for Financial Management and Budget, informed the committee that even under the best scenario of 100% occupancy, Coborn's Plaza would lose between $50,000 and $150,000 annually. Based on the occupancy rates of the on campus dorms, the availability of low cost rental apartments in the area, the likelihood that Coborn's Plaza will ever be full is a fantasy but even that fantasy has the university losing money every year of the lease.
Fortunately the lease agreement provides for a means to reduce the cost to the university. That portion of the lease agreement between the Wedum Foundation and SCSU is shown below:
From the lease agreement, it is clear that SCSU can get out of the lease at year ten by giving notice to the Wedum Foundation "prior to the end of fifth lease year of the Initial Term or by August, 31, 2015, whichever is later." Hopefully, SCSU will exercise the option to cancel the lease prior to the end of the fifth lease year to end the contract in 2020 and limit the loss to only $11,000,000!
Exiting the lease for Coborn's Plaza in the long run will also help fill the on campus dormitory space. The increase in the occupancy rate at the Coborn's Plaza apartments has come at the expense of on campus dorm occupancy rates. The current occupancy rate of the dorms and managed property Coborn's Plaza apartments is only 78%. Unless additional students want on campus housing, when the Shoemaker Hall renovations are complete and Shoemaker Hall East and West are available in the fall of 2014, the occupancy rate will fall to approximately 73%. This means that 27% of the available dorms and managed property will be unused with room for a total of 937 additional students! The number of empty beds is larger than twice the capacity of the Coborn's Plaza apartments (453).
President Potter, before passing Go and collecting $200, needs to tell the Wedum Foundation that it is giving notice that it is canceling its lease as per the contract. President Potter needs to remember that this is not Monopoly money he is playing with; it's real money! SCSU cannot afford to sustain million dollar a year losses for up to twenty years and certainly do so prior to your leaving so you don't saddle the next SCSU President with a dog, I mean bad investment, that continues to cost the university a million dollars a year.
Originally posted Tuesday, January 14, 2014, revised 04-Mar 2:09 AM
Comment 1 by Wonderer at 14-Jan-14 04:07 PM
Where were rational advisors when this financial scenario was put together? A long time ago SCSU had a presidential residence, owned (I think) by the Foundation. Then it was sold, as the Foundation decided it "didn't want to be in the real estate business." What happened to that point of view when the Coborn Plaza plan was hyped? Why was involvement of actual university funds, always short, allowed instead of keeping them dedicated to the educational mission of the university? Did ANYBODY run any alternative scenarios to help decide on levels of risk? This situation is another example of presidential ego run amok.
Comment 2 by Jethro at 14-Jan-14 07:36 PM
A 2% inflator per year?? What a sweetheart deal for the Wedum Foundation! Not so good for the students and taxpayers.
Comment 3 by helen catton at 15-Jan-14 08:19 AM
Seems logical ... Reality and prudence!
How toxic is Obamacare?
Yesterday, I wrote this post about the open Senate seat in Michigan being in play. This article tells why Mark Warner is in trouble:
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) is in a lot more trouble than it seems. Despite his ample war chest and approval ratings, only 50 percent of Virginians say Warner should get a second term. And independents, by a margin of 49 to 43 percent, say they would rather have someone new in Virginia's Senate seat.
Moreover, Warner will have to defend his deciding vote for Obamacare during a midterm election that will likely be driven by voter anger over Obamacare. Virginians upset about President Obama's false promise that 'If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan' will be surprised to discover that Warner made the same false pledge, declaring 'I'm not going to support a health-care reform plan that's going to take away the health care you've got right now or a health-care plan that you like.' He did. And if The Post is right that a second wave of Obamacare-driven cancellations is coming in October, just a few weeks before Election Day, that broken promise will be front and center in voters' minds when Virginians go to the polls.
Right now, we're experiencing a mini-lull in the 'Obamacare Storm'. That won't last forever. Mr. Thiessen is right. There's another wave of cancellations coming this October. The bad news for Democrats is that the cancellation notices that were sent out for individual policies will be tiny compared with October's cancellation notices.
At this point, it's total speculation but it isn't a stretch to think that we don't know how toxic the Affordable Care Act, aka the ACA, will be for Democrats. That being said, it isn't speculation to say that Democrats are already attempting to distance themselves from the subject. That's what President Obama's impending income inequality campaign is about.
Thiessen thinks former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie will get into the race. Thiessen also thinks that Gillespie will give Sen. Warner the fight of his life:
Like Obama, Warner will try to shift conversation from Obamacare to income inequality. Gillespie won't let Warner off the hook on Obamacare, but he's more than ready to engage Warner on the economic debate, and is uniquely positioned to do so. He grew up in a blue-collar family, the son of an immigrant who came here from Ireland when his father found work in America as a janitor. His parents ran a corner grocery store where Gillespie worked as a kid. He was among the first generation in his family to go to college and helped pay his way by working as a U.S. Senate parking lot attendant.
Gillespie will argue that the Obama-Warner economic policies, with $1 trillion in new taxes and $7 trillion in new debt, have put the American Dream out of reach for too many citizens. Virginians' share of the national debt is rising while incomes are falling. He will reject the idea that this is the new normal and argue that 'we can do better,' campaigning on a hopeful message of economic opportunity, upward mobility and helping people rise as far as their hard work and ambition will take them.
That isn't the type of opponent Democrats want to face. Gillespie's fundraising abilities are well-documented. His message will be refreshing because people are tired of the difficult economic circumstances they find themselves in.
Gillespie knows how to focus on important issues. In this election cycle, that means tying the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, to Sen. Warner. Let's see how toxic it is as an issue. Let's see if Virginians like paying higher insurance premiums or getting fined for not buying government-approved health insurance. Let's see if Virginians like having the government tell their families what coverages their families need. Let's see whether Virginians prefer making their own decisions.
Gillespie will have strong grassroots support and no problem raising the resources to make sure every Virginian knows that Warner's moderate image is a myth.
Considering the votes that Sen. Warner has cast, that shouldn't be that difficult.
Posted Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:22 AM
No comments.
The Obama-Panetta Benghazi cover-up
FNC's James Rosen has looked through newly declassified documents that say senior Pentagon officials briefed President Obama that Benghazi was a terrorist attack:
Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation's top civilian and uniformed defense officials, headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama, were informed that the event was a "terrorist attack," declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president's Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi for two weeks afterward.
That's frightening. Gen. Carter Ham, then the leader of AFRICOM, told then Defense Secretary Panetta that Benghazi had been attacked and that it was a terrorist attack:
Ham's account of that fateful day was included in some 450 pages of testimony given by senior Pentagon officials in classified, closed-door hearings conducted last year by the Armed Services subcommittee. The testimony, given under "Top Secret" clearance and only declassified this month, presents a rare glimpse into how information during a crisis travels at the top echelons of America's national security apparatus, all the way up to the president.
Also among those whose secret testimony was declassified was Dempsey, the first person Ham briefed about Benghazi. Ham told lawmakers he considered it a fortuitous "happenstance" that he was able to rope Dempsey and Panetta into one meeting, so that, as Ham put it, "they had the basic information as they headed across for the meeting at the White House." Ham also told lawmakers he met with Panetta and Dempsey when they returned from their 30-minute session with President Obama on Sept. 11.
Despite Gen. Ham's briefing, President Obama insisted that we didn't know what happened in Benghazi, telling Joy Behar of the View that they were still conducting an investigation into what happened that terrible night in Benghazi.
What's worse is that Secretary Panetta and Gen. Dempsey didn't speak out immediately. They were briefed by Gen. Ham that the consulate had been attacked by terrorists. Gen. Ham didn't talk about a demonstration that got hijacked by terrorists. He talked about a co-ordinated terrorist attack.
Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, a first-term lawmaker with experience as an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, pressed Ham further on the point, prodding the 29-year Army veteran to admit that "the nature of the conversation" he had with Panetta and Dempsey was that "this was a terrorist attack."
The transcript reads as follows:
WENSTRUP: "As a military person, I am concerned that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration. I would hope that our military leadership would be advising that this was a terrorist attack."
HAM: "Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack."
WENSTRUP: "And you would have advised as such if asked. Would that be correct?"
HAM: "Well, and with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir."
Minutes before they met with President Obama, Gen. Dempsey and Secretary Panetta were told that terrorists had attacked the Benghazi consulate and that Ambassador Stevens was unaccounted for. It's inconceivable that Panetta and Dempsey didn't brief President Obama that a terrorist attack was underway.
For the first time since the attacks, a timeline of events and briefings is emerging. That's especially important because the timeline involves briefings by the top people in the White House and at the Pentagon. These aren't low-level staffers sharing gossip. These are the top echelons of President Obama's national security cabinet. This especially stings the President:
Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of last year that it was him who informed the president that "there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi." "Secretary Panetta, do you believe that unequivocally at that time we knew that this was a terrorist attack?" asked Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. "There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack," Panetta replied.
Based on this testimony, there's no question that President Obama, Secretary Clinton and Ambassor Rice lied about the importance of the anti-Muslim video. They knew within minutes that this was a precision terrorist attack. Then they told America that a video made the terrorists resort to violence.
President Obama's credibility took a major hit for lying to the American people about keeping the health insurance plan they liked. His credibility will take another major hit for lying about the terrorist attack that got 4 American patriots murdered in Benghazi. Frankly, there isn't a justification for trusting President Obama after all the whoppers he's told.
Posted Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:42 PM
No comments.
Exceptional pay; exceptional performance?
Exceptional Performance?
by Silence Dogood
Since salaries for all state employees are a matter of public record, it is a fairly easy task to find the salary of any state employee. The salaries of the MnSCU University Presidents and System Leadership were recently posted (1/7/14) on the MnSCU website.
From this document, it is clear that all the permanent university presidents got a bonus for 'Exceptional Performance for 2013." Dollar amounts range from $9,000 to $14,423 which turns out to be from 3.84% ($9,000) for the president where the university is in a severe budget crisis and faculty are being retrenched to a high of 6.33% ($14,423) where a new president was put in place.
I'm not sure about you but I get a really good feeling knowing that ALL the MnSCU presidents on extended appointments are exceptional! I guess it goes to show that this really is the state of Lake Wobegon where "all the children are above average."
The document also reveals that the bonuses for FY12 were put into FY13 making the bonuses doubly nice! A quick check shows President Potter's bonuses in FY13 raised his salary $26,000. Not bad for part time work (President Potter is away from campus so much that he might only be considered an adjunct faculty member)!
Let's see what it took for President Potter to receive "Exceptional Performance Pay" in FY13.
SCSU's FYE Enrollment down 6.35% (the largest decline in MnSCU), loss of over $1,250,000 on Coborn's Plaza Apartments due to vacant rooms, dismissal of the Dean responsible for oversight of the ISELF construction four months before its completion leaving an empty building, a transcript scandal involving the removal of the record of registration from student's transcripts for as many as 500 students and attendance at only three of eleven Meet and Confer Meetings.
Let's hope this "exceptional performance" doesn't continue. SCSU can't take much more or there won't be much of a university left when the next president arrives.
Posted Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:24 PM
Comment 1 by Jethro at 14-Jan-14 11:14 PM
Talk about pork. Apparently, the presidents at Moorhead and Metro have been "shown the door" this spring. Will they be refunding their exceptional performance pay?
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 15-Jan-14 02:51 PM
Gary:
If President Porter is getting Exceptional performance maybe they need to create a category "Super Exceptional" since that will allow the other Presidents who might have had good years to show that they did a far better job than President Porter.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Predicting the 'unexpected'
James Taranto's latest column touches on something that conservatives first noticed 5 years ago:
"Expect the unexpected" has been good advice for anyone following American economic news since 2009. That news has usually been bad, and almost always "unexpectedly" so. The surprise is a product of ideological bias: With a kindred spirit in the White House, liberal reporters expect (or at least hope for) good things to happen. A cynical observer might suggest that there is an element of deliberate spin involved, with reporters hoping to keep readers' expectations afloat until next month's report.
The thought that their messiah isn't alway right doesn't sit well with the Agenda Media. They're emotionally invested in President Obama's success to the point that they've lost all objectivity. I predicted in February, 2009 that Obamanomics wouldn't produce the economic growth that Mark Zandi, sometimes known as the father of the stimulus plan, predicted in his testimony to Congress :
The fiscal stimulus is also working. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed early this year has reduced payroll tax withholding, sent checks to Social Security recipients, and provided financial help to unemployed workers whose normal benefits have run out. The cash for clunkers program revved up vehicle sales, and the housing tax credit has boosted home purchases.iii It is no coincidence that the Great Recession ended just as the stimulus began providing its maximum economic benefit (see Chart 1).iv The stimulus is doing what it was supposed to do: short-circuit the recession and spur recovery.
Five years after that testimony, the economy still isn't recovering. With this administration's suspect forecasting, we should've expected that their predictions about the Affordable Care Act, aka the ACA, would be wrong, too. This Reuters article reports what many conservatives predicted:
Data from seven states and the District of Columbia, which are running their own marketplaces, show that of more than 200,000 enrollees, nearly 22 percent are 18 to 34 years old, according to a Reuters analysis.
The administration had hoped that over 38 percent, or 2.7 million, of all enrollees in 2014 would be 18 to 35 years old, based on a Congressional Budget Office estimate that 7 million people would sign up by the end of March. 'The whole insurance relationship is counting on them signing up,' said Dale Yamamoto, an independent healthcare actuarial consultant. 'Otherwise rates will have to increase.'
George Will puts things in focus at the 2:30 mark of this video:
Here's what Mr. Will said that's particularly fitting:
GEORGE WILL: They do not have to come to the table and participate. They can go on strike. Obamacare always counted on the mass irrationality of young people. Normally, that's a good bet but in this case, not so.
Will later noted that "Romneycare didn't instantly become a byword for incompetence" like Obamacare did. The death of Obamacare is inevitable, thanks in part to the fact that the model is fatally flawed:
Such results were in fact entirely expected by those, including your humble columnist, who warned of "adverse selection." ObamaCare severely limits insurers' ability to set premiums based on policyholders' risk profiles. They may not charge the already-sick more than the healthy, and their ability to charge the middle-aged more than the young is highly constrained.
In other words, Obamacare, aka the ACA, instructs insurance companies from doing what insurance companies have done for decades. Specifically, Obamacare tells insurance companies they can't base premiums on a study of risk profiles. Can you imagine if Obamacare told car insurance companies they couldn't charge people with a lengthy history of speeding tickets and reckless driving more than the driver who's never had an accident and who's never gotten a moving violation?
Obamacare explicitly says that a man who's had a heart attack and takes blood pressure medication can't be charged more than a person of the same age who's cholestorol is normal and who's never had a serious health issue. That's downright stupid. It's the type of bill that's destined to fail.
Simply put, anyone honest enough to evaluate the Affordable Care Act based on time-tested economic principles knows that it's destined for failure because it can't be sustained. As Charles Krauthammer once astutely noticed, "anything that can't be sustained can't be sustained."
There's nothing surprising or magical about that.
Posted Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:33 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 15-Jan-14 11:04 AM
Of course it is "unsustainable," but the question is how long the gross deceit and unconscionable lies can keep the destruction hidden?
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 15-Jan-14 02:48 PM
Gary:
If you haven't done this you might want to do this since I remember this.
When they proposed the stimulus bill they put out a prediction of what will happen if we did nothing. They put out a line what will happen if the stimulus bill had passed. If you add in the line what did happen you will get three lines where the worse performing line was what actually happened.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
President Potter's International Bet
President Potter's International Bet is a Loser!
by Silence Dogood
Without a doubt, President Potter has traveled internationally more than any SCSU President. This statement is both difficult to prove and difficult to refute since President Potter does not share his calendar of travels publically except through new releases. President Potter has traveled to China at least once each year of his seven years as President of SCSU. He even received an award recognizing him as some sort of "friend" of the Chinese government!
But the President is not the only administrator to frequently travel internationally. A challenge making the rounds at SCSU is: Name one administrator that has not had at least one school-financed international trip in the last couple of years? Many of the faculty on campus tend to look at these trips as "perks" that come along with a job in the administration so they kind of wink and nod and look the other way. However, in light of declining revenues and cuts to budgets and programs, these expenses need to be made public. There should be some level of accountability. As of now, little or no information has been shared about these trips - either their purpose or their outcome. In fact, except by hearing through the grapevine it is not possible to even know who is going on most trips. Certainly, no data has been shared as to how they have increased international student enrollment. In fact, looking at the data, one might argue that there is a negative correlation with international travel by administrators and international student enrollment.
Using data from SCSU's Office of Strategy, Planning and Effectiveness website, the following plot of the fall semester enrollment of international students is obtained:
The growth in international student enrollment from Fall'05 to Fall'08 was 251 students. While the number of students may seem small, it corresponds to a growth of 30.0%. By almost any measure, a three-year growth of 30.0% is pretty amazing!
President Potter came to campus in the summer of 2007 so the enrollment of international students for Fall'07 had little to do with his arrival. The students who enrolled in Fall'07 had already applied and been accepted before the new president was on campus. It is also likely that the enrollment for Fall'08 had little to do with anything the President had done in his first year since universities are typically resistant and slow to change.
Under Potter's leadership, international enrollment held nearly steady in the Fall of 2009 and 2010 averaging an increase of 6 students each year. The fall from SCSU's peak in international enrollment of 1,101 in Fall'10 clearly is something that Potter should own. Enrollment has now dropped to 941 students (Fall'13). This loss of 160 students is a decline of 14.5%. Even though the decline in international student enrollment stabilized (the enrollment from Fall'12 to Fall'13 only dropped 2 students), Dr. Ann Radwan was removed from her position last summer as the Director of the Center for International Studies. It's interesting to note that one of the university publications this fall had a picture of Dr. Radwan and President Potter receiving an award - despite the fact that she was no longer in that position!
It would not be fair to blame President Potter for things he has no control over like the economic conditions in the U.S. that led to the largest recession (December 2007-June 2009) since the Great Depression. However, at some point, the President has to accept that he is responsible for the university's enrollment decline in general and the international student decline in particular. It isn't like the President is leading someone else's administrators nor that he has ignored international matters. Potter picked all but three of the folks on his executive team. The President has the team he wanted. The enrollment decline has been occurring on this team's watch. You would think that a retired captain would know that the performance of the ship is the captain's responsibility and the first step in taking responsibility is to acknowledge the nature of the problem.
Using data from SCSU's Office of Strategy, Planning and Effectiveness website, the following plot of fall semester enrollments is obtained:
The decline in enrollment from Fall'10 to Fall'13 was 2,074 students. As stated previously, the international student decline over the same time period was 160 students. As a result, the decline in international students was responsible for only 7.71% of the total decline.
When the international student enrollment grew 30.0% between Fall'05 and Fall'08, the number the enrollment grew by was only 251 students. If the international student enrollment had grown by 500 additional students for Fall'13, which would correspond to a growth of over 50%, the decrease would have been a decline of 1,574 instead of 2,074. If, by some miracle, the enrollment of international students had doubled for Fall'13 corresponding to a 100% growth, the headcount would still be down by 1,133 students.
President Potter has laid a huge bet on international enrollment in both his time and our treasure. It's extremely unlikely that there is any scenario by which the number of international students will grow by 100% during the remainder of President Potter's presidency. And even if he was successful in doubling the international student enrollment, it is clear that the university will not solve its enrollment problems by simply increasing the numbers of international students. To be sure, increasing the numbers of international students may help with enrollment. However, it will not singlehandedly stop the enrollment decline.
So the bet that international student enrollment will save the university may have slightly better odds than winning the Powerball lottery. However, most statisticians will tell you that increasing something that is only 5.8% of the total enrollment (the percentage of the enrollment due to international students), will not have a significant impact if the total enrollment is down 11.3%. Most would recognize this situation as a sucker's bet. Too bad President Potter doesn't. Let's hope for SCSU's sake President Potter does not double down!
Posted Thursday, January 16, 2014 12:24 AM
Comment 1 by Wonderer at 16-Jan-14 10:57 AM
Wonder what it would take to get the information on how much Dr. P's govt has actually spent (and is still spending) on these international trips? What was the justification for each trip? Justification = specific desired outcomes that would be achieved by the expenditure of the resources. As Silence explains, there was no payoff in increased enrollment of tuition-paying, full-time international students. In fact, fewer enrolled. Also, why was Dr. P so frequently accompanied by a retinue of favored employees and what was, in each case, the direct necessity for each person to be there? I suspect there is a general feeling that these were part of the reward/punish mode of operating on campus.
Benghazi's smoking gun report
Catherine Herridge's reporting in this video is the smoking gun that the Left's apologists say doesn't exist:
Here's part of Herridge's article :
Several Al Qaeda members emerged as 'leaders of the pack' in last year's Benghazi attack, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told Fox News following release of a bipartisan report blowing apart claims the assault was the work of local extremists with no formal terrorist connections.
The former Guantanamo detainee Sufian bin Qumu, first identified by Fox's Bret Baier as a suspect 16 months ago, at the very least helped lay the groundwork for the operation.
"Certainly Qumu was involved in planning in this...he is a member of a group that is affiliated with Al Qaeda so in my mind that makes him Al Qaeda," said Chambliss, R-Ga.
According to the timeline that's been put together from the House Armed Services Committee testimony, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama knew that Benghazi was a terrorist attack within fifteen minutes of the start of the attack. The Senate Intelligence Committee's report said that there were direct ties to a former Gitmo detainee who was part of al-Qa'ida's network. That's proof that President Obama and Hillary Clinton lied about the origin of the attack. We know this because Hillary accused an obscure filmmaker of triggering the terrorist attack in Benghazi.
This information from the Senate Intelligence Committee's report doesn't help the administration either:
It concludes that the Benghazi attackers came from two official Al Qaeda affiliates, bin Qumu's Ansar al-Sharia, and a fourth group, the Jamal network, whose leader is connected to the Al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan.
"Individuals affiliated with terrorist groups including AQIM, Ansar al-Sharia, AQAP and the Mohammad Jamal Network participated in the September 11, 2012 attacks,' the report said.
That doesn't leave the administration any wiggle room on whether this was a professionally coordinated terrorist attack. This information mocks the State Department's spin that "core al-Qa'ida" wasn't involved in planning the Benghazi assassination of Ambassador Christopher Stevens. People in New York, at the Pentagon and across the country don't care whether "core al-Qa'ida" planned Stevens' assassination. They're just worried that Detroit is bankrupt and al-Qa'ida is alive and well in north Africa, the Arabian Peninsula and southwest Asia.
People are worried that the terrorists are gaining more sanctuaries where they can plan and train for their next major terrorist attack. People don't care whether the State Department's narrative is spin. They care about whether their families are safe. Based on what we've seen happening during this administration's time in office, people have a right to be worried that another terrorist attack is right around the corner.
The Obama/Hillary/Panetta national security team has been close to worthless. They killed bin Laden, the leader of a psychotic movement. Then they let that movement grow and flourish. Al-Qa'ida in Iraq had been demolished. Their training bases in Afghanistan had been demolished. Then President Obama and Secretary Clinton abandoned Iraq to appease their nutjob anti-war supporters. Now al-Qa'ida is alive and well in north Africa, the Arabian Peninsula and southwest Asia.
Posted Thursday, January 16, 2014 4:34 AM
No comments.
