LONDON—U.S. banks have paid the bulk of the £2.5 billion ($3.81 billion) the U.K. has collected from its bonus tax designed to curb excessive pay, hitting banks’ second-quarter earnings while creating a windfall for the U.K.’s new government.

The one-time tax to collect 50% of bank bonuses above £25,000 was introduced in December by former Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling, who initially estimated it would raise £550 million. . . The charge applies to all bank employees working in the U.K., regardless of where the parent company is located.

According to statements in the past few days from J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the four banks collectively paid at least $2 billion toward the tax in the second quarter. The U.K. five major banks by assets–Barclays, HSBC Holdings PLC, Lloyds Banking Group, Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC and Standard Chartered–collectively paid about $1.1 billion to cover their bonus tax bills.

(NOTE: The Wall Street Journal may ask you to pay to read the whole article. Don’t – read it for free.)

So that’s $2 billion less for these banks’ (predominantly U.S.) shareholders, or $2 billion less in available capital to modify underwater (American) mortgages, or $2 billion less to loan to (American) small businesses – take your pick. Either way, it occurs to me that as an employee, shareholder and customer of one or more of these banks, the British government just levied a tax on me, even though I didn’t get a vote in their election. And the recently elected government is “warn[ing] the industry to be on alert for further taxes and regulations, particularly relating to compensation.”

Haven’t we been down this road before, England? Don’t you remember what happened the last time? I’m pretty sure it made all the papers. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I think I’ll go get myself a cup of tea…

Not interested? No offense taken. Move on to bigger and better things. Up for the discussion? Read on…

Let’s start with health care. I wonder what would have happened had this story about Canada’s health care system hit the newswires before the American health care reform bill passed into law. Some of the key points:

Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada’s provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system.

British Columbia is replacing block grants to hospitals with fee-for-procedure payments and Quebec has a new flat health tax and a proposal for payments on each medical visit.

A few provinces are also experimenting with private funding for procedures such as hip, knee and cataract surgery.

“We can’t continually see health spending growing above and beyond the growth rate in the economy because, at some point, it means crowding out of all the other government services. At some stage we’re going to hit a breaking point.”

Healthcare in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded system, which covers all “medically necessary” hospital and physician care and curbs the role of private medicine. It ate up about 40 percent of provincial budgets last year. Ontario says healthcare could eat up 70 percent of its budget in 12 years, if all these costs are left unchecked

As Ottawa looks to repair its budget balance … one could see these one-time allocations to specific health projects might be curtailed.

Provinces are weighing new sources of funding, including “means-testing” and moving toward evidence-based and pay-for-performance models.

Government-sponsored healthcare costs spiraling out of control? Consideration of a move back to a fee-for-procedure system? Alternative (private) funding options? Cutting health projects because they’re too expensive? It all sounds a lot to me like what the opponents of President Obama’s health care bill were warning us would happen.

All of which serves to reinforce the two things which I believe to be true about American health care: first, that our recent reform law will provide insurance to people who otherwise wouldn’t have had it. And second, that the cost of doing this will be orders of magnitude above the “deficit neutral” claims made by the Obama administration, and confirmed by the CBO through the full knowledge of the CBO’s mandate to use the assumptions it was given, rather than weighing in on the validity of those assumptions.

Moving on to financial reform. I’ve written in these pages before about what I felt were punitive attacks by the current administration on the wealthiest and most visible players in the financial markets, usually to inflame public anger and direct that energy toward a political goal.

Now, with oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico at an alarming rate, the President, like his predecessor, faces unfair criticism about his commitment to responding to an environmental disaster. And, like his predecessor, he cannot resist the urge to respond, telling Matt Lauer of the Today Show, “I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answer so I know whose ass to kick.”

And like the financial crisis, “kicking ass” is defined as finding the most visible players in the crisis, emphasizing their role in causing the crisis, and suggesting punishment. Mr. Obama has said publicly that he would fire BP’s CEO, Tony Hayward. The American Justice Department has announced that it is “planning to take action to force BP to withhold its next dividend payment.” The President and others in his administration have publicly called on BP to pay reparations to every individual on the Gulf Coast that was affected by the oil spill, causing some to question BP’s ability to remain solvent. This latest round of remarks sent BP’s stock price plunging yet again (it’s down roughly 50% from when the oil leak began), seriously harming the pension funds of BP’s 80,000 employees, most of whom had never heard of Deep Water Horizon until it exploded a month and a half ago. In Britian, where President Obama was once considered something of a celebrity, the mood is anger and disillusionment:

The stream of condemnations from Washington has stirred a protective backlash, even in this closest of American allies. Boris Johnson, the Conservative mayor of London, said Thursday that he was worried about “anti-British rhetoric” and “name calling” from American politicians. “When you consider the huge exposure of British pension funds to BP, it starts to become a matter of national concern if a great British company is being continually beaten up on the airwaves,” Mr. Johnson told BBC radio’s Today program.

Iain Armstrong, an analyst at Brewin Dolphin, an investment manager here, said that the situation had become “overpoliticized” and had confused the markets about BP’s actual strength. “It’s gotten completely out of hand,” he said. “Ironically, by being extremely strong financially, BP has become a target.”

Here’s an idea, Mr. President: don’t kick anybody’s ass just yet. Meeting with experts is commendable, but not if its sole purpose is to assign blame. The experts can help you minimize the damage to American citizens and find ways to recover as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Where are the blue-ribbon panels to recommend clean-up strategies? Where is the coordinated response of federal and state aid agencies to assist those whose livelihoods have been damaged (again) in the Gulf Coast states, assess and address the environmental impact, and protect our citizens from further harm? And perhaps most importantly, Mr. President, why must these things wait until we’ve finished blaming and punishing BP? Your job is to make things better for American citizens, not to hand out pitchforks and torches to them.

One more thing, sir: Whether or not BP caused this mess, whether they were negligent, greedy, or simply damn unlucky, and whether or not they are viewed negatively by the public right now, they remain one of the very few entities in the world that can help stop the leak. Standing in the corner and poking them with a stick might feel good, but it distracts their leadership from the important job of solving the problem, and while you may not wish to depend on those who allowed such a tragedy to occur, you really don’t have a choice. A successful “ass-kicking” by you, in the form of harsh financial penalties, changes in the company’s leadership, and possibly even the dissolution of the company itself will not make the oil stop flowing. Much like the way the Wall Street banks need to be healthy and profitable in order to absorb the risk of full-scale small-business and mortgage lending, we must balance the human need to blame and punish with the more practical need of allowing our most qualified resources to do what they do best. The criminals will be punished in good time. The unethical will be shamed into retirement. In the meantime, we have no meaningful financial reform and we have no cap on the oil leak.

(click to enlarge)

Have at it, folks…

Here, word for word, is what Rush Limbaugh said about Haiti (the audio, in case you don’t believe me, is here):

Rush Limbaugh: OK, back to the phones or to the phones. We’re going to start in Raleigh, NC. Justin, you’re first today. Great to have you with us. Hello.

Justin: Mega-Rush, baby, ditto. My question is, why did Obama, in the soundbyte you played earlier, when he’s talking about if you want to donate some money, you can go to whitehouse.gov to be directed…you know, to direct you how to do so. Why would…if I want to donate money to the Red Cross, why do I need to go to the whitehouse.gov page and . . .

RL: Exactly. Exactly. Would you trust that the money is going to go to Haiti?

J: No.

RL: But would you trust that your name is going to end up on a mailing list for the Obama people to start asking you for campaign donations for him and other causes?

J: Absolutely.

RL: Absolutely right.

J: That’s the point.

RL: Besides, we’ve already donated to Haiti. It’s called the U.S. Income Tax.

J: Rush, my mother was going to be on a missionary trip. She was gonna leave at 4:30 this morning to go to Haiti from our church.

RL: That’s another point too. Churches…

J: No government money, Rush.

RL: There are people – exactly right. There are people who do charitable work every day in Haiti. It’s not as though…like Debbie Wasserman Schultz – “It’s our fault.” Like Reverend Wright – “It’s our fault. There’s no excuse for such poverty when there’s a nation as rich as we are so close.” There are people that have been trying to save Haiti just as we’re trying to save Africa. You just can’t keep throwing money at it because the dictatorships there just take it all. They don’t spread it around. And even if they did, you’re not creating a permanent system where people can provide for themselves. It’s a simple matter of self-reliance. Nobody takes that approach down there because this has always been a country run by dictators – incompetent ones…

Now, call me crazy if you wish, but nothing in this exchange suggests to me that Rush Limbaugh doesn’t think private individuals like you and I should donate to Haiti. In fact, it seems pretty clear to me that the opinion he’s expressing is that people, like the caller’s mother, who go to Haiti and help the people directly, are being more effective than our government is being by sending our tax dollars to their government. He’s suggesting that the foreign aid the United States provides to Haiti doesn’t make it to the people who are suffering, and so the Haitian people are better served by private individuals, churches, and the so forth donating time (and, presumably, supplies?) directly to the people who need it.

Now, I have no idea if he’s right about that, and I certainly wouldn’t take Rush Limbaugh at his word about anything. But I think it’s quite a leap to go from the above quote to “Rush Limbaugh [says] Don’t Donate to Haiti Victims,” which is the headline of the above-linked article.

Sadly, though, the public zeitgeist has been poured and hardened: Rush Limbaugh thinks we should just let the people of Haiti suffer. And, thanks to Pat Robertson’s preaching about “pacts with the devil” on the same day, the two men are now inextricably linked in every news article, suggesting that Limbaugh believes that Haitians are devil worshipers as well. To dispute this storyline is as foolhardy as spitting into the wind.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go wash my face…

So when she showed up at a Costco in Salt Lake City, the store manager took steps to prevent another drive-by fruiting:

While going through the check-out lane, again with no wait, [Helen Rappaport] told the clerk she forgot to get some grape tomatoes, which she loves, so she would be right back. That’s when the bells went off. The clerk told her they had no tomatoes that day. No tomatoes? At Costco?

As she was leaving, she noticed a man with a store manager’s name tag and asked him why they had no tomatoes. He informed her the store did have tomatoes, but they were taken off the shelves for a few hours. It turns out that Palin had been pelted with a tomato at an earlier stop on her book tour and the management at the Costco was determined it wouldn’t happen here. The manager told an employee to go into the storage area and get Rappaport some tomatoes, which he gave her for free.

The Costco store manager believes, apparently, that someone out there had decided to throw things at Sarah Palin when she visited the local Costco, went to Costco empty-handed, proceeded immediately to the tomato aisle, saw there were no tomatoes available, and then decided to give up and go home, rather than, you know, throwing something else at her.

Score one for the ingenuity and quick action of the Salt Lake Costco manager…

Adam Lambert emerged from his #2 finish on American Idol as one of the most promising singing talents in years. At the American Music Awards, he decided to make his performance a social statement, rather than make it about the music. He’s since been cancelled by ABC from Good Morning America, Jimmy Kimmel Live, and New Year’s Rockin’ Eve. And the shows that are letting him on suddenly want to talk about nothing else but the AMA’s. I’m disappointed. Not because I have a particular opinion about his “cause,” but because he’s allowed his cause to overshadow his music, which I was looking forward to enjoying. On the upside, I think maybe he’s realizing his mistake. Here’s what he told Ellen Degeneres:

It was maybe a little too far. I think in hindsight I look back on it and I go, “OK, maybe that wasn’t the best first impression to make again, the first second impression.” I mean, I had fun up there, I had a good time, my dancers had fun and the band had fun. I respect people and feel like people walked away from that feeling disrespected. I would never intend to disrespect anybody. So that was not my intention.

What he needs now is a musical “reset” – another spotlight moment, like the AMA’s, in which he knocks everyone’s socks off musically, and convinces people that music is his thing, not social commentary.

Tiger Woods released the following statement yesterday:

[N]o matter how intense curiosity about public figures can be, there is an important and deep principle at stake which is the right to some simple, human measure of privacy. I realize there are some who don’t share my view on that. But for me, the virtue of privacy is one that must be protected in matters that are intimate and within one’s own family. Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn’t have to mean public confessions.

Whatever regrets I have about letting my family down have been shared with and felt by us alone. I have given this a lot of reflection and thought and I believe that there is a point at which I must stick to that principle even though it’s difficult.

I wish every celebrity in the world would memorize these two paragraphs and recite them whenever some nosy reporter presumes to suggest that his/her private life is somehow my business.

Tiger had a car accident and knocked over a fire hydrant. He needs to explain that to the police, and hence, to the public. If someone were knocking over fire hydrants in my neighborhood, I’d want to know who, where and why. That’s a public safety issue and a law enforcement issue. However, if the answer to “Why?” is “domestic dispute” or “private matter,” then I have no need or desire to know more.

Michaele and Tareq Salahi are the latest in a series of Reality TV inspired stupidity. Years ago, people would do dumb things to get noticed, to be sure, but the result was rarely more than the standard fifteen minutes of fame. Today, with the institutional backing (and financing) of a Reality TV Show’s production company, exhibitionists like these have the capability of distracting the entire nation for fifteen days, not fifteen minutes. The Salahi’s, like the Balloon Boy family before them, only benefit from their actions if they get caught. And even though the news media knows this, they play right into the perpetrators’ hands, because they also know that it sells soap. My only hope is that the largely negative reaction to both the Salahi’s and the Heene’s dissuade Reality TV producers from pulling stunts like this in the future. Because the media is certainly not going to show any restraint.

HBO recently aired the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame’s 25th Anniversary Concert. Culling through two nights of music, they presented a “mere” four hours of musical genius, ranging from Stevie Wonder to Simon & Garfunkel to Aretha Franklin to Crosby, Stills & Nash to U2 to Metallica to Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band. Add to that a truly amazing array of “guest stars,” such as James Taylor, Joe Cocker, Smokey Robinson, Sting, BB King, Bonnie Rait, and Billy Joel. As I watch these folks float on and off the Madison Square Garden stage, all I can think is, “These are the masters that today’s musical acts can only dream of approximating.” I’m not a fan of every musical style in the show, but the amount of raw musical talent on display is so far and away beyond the artists of today, that one wonders what the 50th Anniversary show could possibly have to offer. Maybe it’s just my age showing…

That afternoon, the first man sprang into action. He contacted the local politicians, told them of the accident, and demanded that the wall be removed from the highway. The politicians agreed with him that the accident was a tragedy, but told him that the cost of removing the wall was prohibitively large, and that despite the accident, influential members of the community did not want the wall removed. They promised to give the matter a thorough investigation.

Unsatisfied, the man contacted several of his friends and colleagues, all of whom were influential and well-connected in the community. Together, they held demonstrations at the wall. They spoke passionately about the need to remove the wall from the highway. The local news media covered the demonstrations, providing publicity for the cause. Before long, this “anti-wall movement” had become very successful. The national news media picked up the story, and the man and his friends were granting interviews on all the major news networks. Hollywood celebrities joined the cause. Further demonstrations were held, both at the wall itself, and at other locations throughout the country. Awareness about the wall was up, as was public opinion about the need to remove it. Occasionally, another car would come over the hill and crash into the wall, resulting in the death of still more people. The anti-wall movement would hold memorial services for these victims, mourning their loss, while simultaneously using the incidents to further highlight the urgent need for action.

Politicians on both sides of the issue were forced to defend their positions publicly. Those in favor of removing the wall promised swift action, while those opposed promised a vigorous defense. Debates were held, bills were introduced. And yet, despite all of this progress, the wall remained. Anti-Wall organizers vowed continued vigilance.

At some point, the first man began to wonder about the second man. Ever since the afternoon of that first accident, when the two men had vowed to take action, the second man had disappeared. He had not attended a single Anti-Wall demonstration. He had not granted one television interview. He had not donated any of his time, money, or support for what had become a major movement across the country.

As he continued to ponder the second man, his curiosity turned to annoyance and then quickly to anger. How could the second man abandon him when so much needed to be done? He began to criticize the second man, at first only to fellow Anti-Wall movement organizers, and then eventually in public. He spoke out against the second man’s absence in media interviews, at protest rallies, and at other public functions. Still, there was no response from the second man.

Some time later, the first man once again met the second man walking along side the highway. “Where have you been?!?” exclaimed the first man. “Did we not make a solemn vow to do everything in our power to tear down that wall?” “No,“ said the second man, visibly annoyed. “We vowed to do everything in our power to prevent further car accidents. You vowed to tear down the wall.”

The second man explained that while the first man was creating the Anti-Wall movement, he had been purchasing a series of “Detour” signs, and had posted them at all of the intersections on all of the roads surrounding the wall. By his count, he explained, he had prevented several hundred cars from driving down the road and potentially injuring or killing themselves and their passengers by crashing into the wall.

“I applaud your efforts to tear down the wall,” the second man told the first man, “but I’m deeply offended at your recent personal attacks against me for not participating in them. You have clearly forgotten that failing to support a cause is not the same as opposing it. In fact, sometimes, those who do not support you have simply chosen to take a different road.”

To the reader: Consider what you believe to be the biggest problem facing our country today. The wall represents that problem. The two men represent our two political parties. Which man are you? Have you considered the problem from the perspective of the other man?

Our friends at the Associated Press do their best impression of Jay Leno’s “Jaywalking” routine:

A ban on denial of coverage because of pre-existing medical problems: 82% in favor

A ban on denial of coverage because of pre-existing medical problems that would probably cause most people to pay more for health insurance: 43% in favor

---

Everyone should be required to have at least some health insurance: 67% in favor

Everyone should be required to have at least some health insurance, or face a federal penalty: 28% in favor

---

All companies should be required to give their employees at least some health insurance: 73% in favor

Companies that don’t give their employees at least some health insurance would face a fine: 52% in favor

So, to sum up: require coverage for more people, but don’t raise my premiums and don’t penalize in any way those who ignore this new requirement.

Ah, democracy…

Seems like a pretty innocuous veto, until you read down the left-hand column of letters, that is. ;-)

(I had to scale the image down to make it fit on the blog. Click on the image itself (or click here to see a clearer version of the note).

Very strange – I would think President Obama would have people that could do that for him. You know – without having to call me and all. Maybe he should nominate a Fight for Jon Corzine Czar? Besides, I’m too busy to fight for Jon Corzine today. I mean, at a minimum, I need to stay home and field all these calls!

I hope there isn’t a Fight for Jon Corzine draft. But just in case there is, I think I better find out who, exactly, is fighting against Jon Corzine. I mean, maybe it’s someone we really don’t have to worry about. Like the Boston Red Sox…