2/29/08
Mark Gongloff makes some insightful points in his “Ahead of the Tape” column on page C1 of today’s Wall Street Journal, but he misses the magnitude, and some key aspects, of the problem he is describing.
Mr. Gongloff writes:
“Adjusted for inflation, after-tax incomes have contacted in two of the past three quarters. To keep spending, households have effectively stopped saving. Many were happy to do that during the housing boom. It was easy to borrow against their appreciating homes instead. Now that credit is tight and home equity is evaporating, plain old income will become much more important.” (Emphasis mine)
He concludes his article with:
“With credit tight now and households in need of building up their savings, a deeper spending slowdown could be on the way this time.” (Emphasis mine)
There is very little with which to argue in Mr. Gongloff’s article, except….
First, households’ ceasing saving is not something that has happened over the last three quarters or so. Americans stopped saving years ago; the savings rate has flitted back and forth between negative and positive readings for years before seemingly getting stuck in negative readings over the last few years. We have become such prodigious spenders that the entire world economic system (described, perhaps neither ironically nor coincidentally in an article by Mr. Gongloff’s colleague, Scott Patterson, that immediately follows Mr. Gongloff’s article) depends not on Americans’ spending all of their income, but on American’s spending more than all of their income.
Second, Americans will no longer spend more than they make not because they are in need of building up their savings; they have been in need of building up their savings for at least the last ten years. Americans will no longer spend more than they make simply because they can’t, largely due to the reluctance of foreigners’ to continue to finance our prodigious spending, as described by Mr. Patterson.
Americans’ inability to borrow money coupled with weakening household incomes in the U.S. will lead to a more dramatic cutback in spending than most people, and certainly most “experts,” anticipate. In the long run, this could be a good thing if Americans rediscover the virtue of saving, a virtue with which their (in some cases) parents and grandparents seemingly were born and thus had no need of learning or discovering. In the short run, however, the consequences for the world economic system, built around Americans’ profligacy and the world’s willingness to finance that profligacy, will be dire.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
IF ONLY THESE GUYS WOULD DO AS THEY SAY…
2/28/08
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal on the housing market yesterday, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson said the following:
“I’m seeing a series of ideas suggesting major government intervention in the housing market, and these things are usually presented or sold as a way of helping homeowners stay in their homes. Then when you look at them more carefully, what they really amount to is a bailout for financial institutions or Wall Street.”
Mr. Paulson was close to being right in this utterance; the reason that he was not completely right is discussed more thoroughly below. What is especially salient in Mr. Paulson’s statement is not that he was not completely right but rather that he displays the malady endemic to Republicans: saying the right thing and then doing the near opposite. What Mr. Paulson has consistently presented since the onset of the “housing crisis,” after initially echoing his Wall Street and Administration colleagues’ contention that it was nothing to worry about, an isolated incident that could easily be handled by the wunderkinds on the Street, is a series of schemes that involve Washington intervening in the market without completely losing its virginity: knocking heads in order to get financial institutions to go along with schemes to exonerate overextended homeowners and, by extension, foolish traders and investors, effectively forcing banks into a (now failed, thank God) super-conduit to bail clueless banks out of yet another idiotic foray into areas of the market they created but did not understand, cheering on Obsequious Ben as he doggedly pursues a policy of debasing the dollar and igniting inflation in order to provide sucre to Wall Street free marketeer tough guys, etc. Indeed, in the same interview in which he uttered the above free market pieties, Mr. Paulson cited the good work, and his involvement in fostering, the Hope Now alliance that cajoles lenders into various Rube Goldberg refinancing schemes. He also said he “planned to keep the pressure on mortgage servicers to cut a deal with homeowners who are current on their payments but might slip into delinquency if rates were to jump.” He further said that he would “press the (financial) industry to expand the program to reach borrowers struggling with prime-rate and other mortgages.” (I quote the article, not Mr. Paulson.) So, clearly, Mr. Paulson talks a free market game while pursuing just another form of market intervention, as do all but a few Republicans.
As I said above, not even Mr. Paulson’s quote cited above is entirely accurate. Even if the programs he is pressuring (forcing, really) financial institutions to participate in were limited to “helping homeowners stay in their homes,” that would not make them desirable. Mr. Paulson and his co-enablers on the Democratic side talk as if it is always a good thing to keep people in their homes and that their “solution” is not designed to help speculators and/or Wall Street. However, amateur and professional real estate speculators, while a large contributor to our difficulties, are not the major source of the housing problem. The major source of the problem is addle-brained “homeowners” who simply bought more house than they could afford or borrowed against their already heavily mortgaged homes and are now looking for a bailout from people on whom they would normally look down their noses. (In fact, a cynic (realist) might argue that one of the major motivations for these people’s buying more homes than they could afford was that it would give them justification for looking down their noses at the people they are currently begging for a handout, but that is grist for past and future posts.) Why should these people be protected? Why should financial foolishness be rewarded and encouraged? If someone bought too much house and/or borrowed against his house in order to achieve or maintain a “lifestyle” (another one of those namby-pamby words that clear thinkers despise) that was beyond his reach and/or is suddenly surprised by a (clearly stated in the contract) rate readjustment or a decline in the price of their home (which these geniuses assured people like yours truly could never happen), that is his, and his lender’s, problem. If they can, and wish to, negotiate some kind of solution, that is great; that is how a free market, with freedom to contract, is supposed to work. But no one should force either of the parties into a financial arrangement. And responsible taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize irresponsible home buyers. That is not only anathema to the free enterprise system, it is morally wrong.
The largest problem with Mr. Paulson’s plans is not that they are the equivalent of financial heavy petting or that his perception of what the government can or should do is still skewed in favor of activism. The biggest problem is that one gets the nagging notion that something bigger and that involves direct taxpayer subsidies is on the way. (See my 1/25/08 and 1/17/08 posts.) It might be something the full effect of which will not be felt until long after George Bush is back in Texas and Hank Paulson is back in New York, but a scheme under which the financially prudent will bail out the financially feckless is on its way.
In fairness to Mr. Paulson and to the Administration, at least they are paying verbal homage to free markets, delaying a full scale taxpayer bailout of the financially foolish (perhaps for political reasons), and at least trying to appear virtuous.. The Democrats want to jump right in the sack and get it done. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) want to use $10 billion of your money to, in most cases, keep people in homes you and I could only dream of. He also wants the FHA, originally designed to (not, as you might understandably suspect, destroy neighborhoods on the south side of Chicago in the ‘60s, but, I digress) help lower income people buy homes, guarantee mortgages in amounts approaching $750,000. Senator Barack Obama (D., the campaign trail), wants to use your money to create a $10 billion fund to help overextended homeowners refinance (as if the overextension was somehow forced upon these big spenders) and to (get this) help people buy first homes, thus putting more people who can’t afford homes into homes they can’t afford. The other senator from the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton, has a plan that is even more fecund of future folly: she wants to declare a 90 day moratorium on foreclosures, which punishes the formerly admirable actions of homeowners who struggled, scraped, and denied themselves in order to avoid foreclosure while rewarding those who just had to have the new BMW and the vacation in Maui while denying lenders the foreclosure option that enabled them to make relatively low cost loans in the first place, and to impose a five year interest rate freeze on ARMs. This will reward those who couldn’t be bothered to read their mortgage contracts (apparently too busy either for self-government (See my 2/26/08 post.) or for managing their own finances; those gormless situation comedies take up lots of time, you know) and completely destroy banks’ incentive to provide adjustable rate mortgages. Great idea.
All of these programs, whether from proudly interventionist Democrats or sneakily interventionist Republicans, have one thing in common: They use the heavy hand of government to “solve” a problem that cannot be solved by government, and will exacerbate the problems we will face in the future. But, hey, it’s not the pols’ money and there is a good chance that these estimables will be out of office when the product of defecation really hits the climate management device. The “mortgage crisis” will only be solved through the market finding its own level and by private parties’ working out their own means of mitigating their mutual financial difficulties without the government either holding a cudgel over their heads or handing them large sums of money in order to reward them for their mendacious and/or purblind financial behavior.
And if the market is allowed to play out, if people are not saved from the consequences of their financial irresponsibility and arrogant, misguided approach to investing, there is a chance that Americans will learn to live within their financial means and that the financial “pros” will actually learn to think before investing other people’s money. If the government “rides to the rescue,” we will merely continue on our self-destructive path to financial and societal doom.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal on the housing market yesterday, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson said the following:
“I’m seeing a series of ideas suggesting major government intervention in the housing market, and these things are usually presented or sold as a way of helping homeowners stay in their homes. Then when you look at them more carefully, what they really amount to is a bailout for financial institutions or Wall Street.”
Mr. Paulson was close to being right in this utterance; the reason that he was not completely right is discussed more thoroughly below. What is especially salient in Mr. Paulson’s statement is not that he was not completely right but rather that he displays the malady endemic to Republicans: saying the right thing and then doing the near opposite. What Mr. Paulson has consistently presented since the onset of the “housing crisis,” after initially echoing his Wall Street and Administration colleagues’ contention that it was nothing to worry about, an isolated incident that could easily be handled by the wunderkinds on the Street, is a series of schemes that involve Washington intervening in the market without completely losing its virginity: knocking heads in order to get financial institutions to go along with schemes to exonerate overextended homeowners and, by extension, foolish traders and investors, effectively forcing banks into a (now failed, thank God) super-conduit to bail clueless banks out of yet another idiotic foray into areas of the market they created but did not understand, cheering on Obsequious Ben as he doggedly pursues a policy of debasing the dollar and igniting inflation in order to provide sucre to Wall Street free marketeer tough guys, etc. Indeed, in the same interview in which he uttered the above free market pieties, Mr. Paulson cited the good work, and his involvement in fostering, the Hope Now alliance that cajoles lenders into various Rube Goldberg refinancing schemes. He also said he “planned to keep the pressure on mortgage servicers to cut a deal with homeowners who are current on their payments but might slip into delinquency if rates were to jump.” He further said that he would “press the (financial) industry to expand the program to reach borrowers struggling with prime-rate and other mortgages.” (I quote the article, not Mr. Paulson.) So, clearly, Mr. Paulson talks a free market game while pursuing just another form of market intervention, as do all but a few Republicans.
As I said above, not even Mr. Paulson’s quote cited above is entirely accurate. Even if the programs he is pressuring (forcing, really) financial institutions to participate in were limited to “helping homeowners stay in their homes,” that would not make them desirable. Mr. Paulson and his co-enablers on the Democratic side talk as if it is always a good thing to keep people in their homes and that their “solution” is not designed to help speculators and/or Wall Street. However, amateur and professional real estate speculators, while a large contributor to our difficulties, are not the major source of the housing problem. The major source of the problem is addle-brained “homeowners” who simply bought more house than they could afford or borrowed against their already heavily mortgaged homes and are now looking for a bailout from people on whom they would normally look down their noses. (In fact, a cynic (realist) might argue that one of the major motivations for these people’s buying more homes than they could afford was that it would give them justification for looking down their noses at the people they are currently begging for a handout, but that is grist for past and future posts.) Why should these people be protected? Why should financial foolishness be rewarded and encouraged? If someone bought too much house and/or borrowed against his house in order to achieve or maintain a “lifestyle” (another one of those namby-pamby words that clear thinkers despise) that was beyond his reach and/or is suddenly surprised by a (clearly stated in the contract) rate readjustment or a decline in the price of their home (which these geniuses assured people like yours truly could never happen), that is his, and his lender’s, problem. If they can, and wish to, negotiate some kind of solution, that is great; that is how a free market, with freedom to contract, is supposed to work. But no one should force either of the parties into a financial arrangement. And responsible taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize irresponsible home buyers. That is not only anathema to the free enterprise system, it is morally wrong.
The largest problem with Mr. Paulson’s plans is not that they are the equivalent of financial heavy petting or that his perception of what the government can or should do is still skewed in favor of activism. The biggest problem is that one gets the nagging notion that something bigger and that involves direct taxpayer subsidies is on the way. (See my 1/25/08 and 1/17/08 posts.) It might be something the full effect of which will not be felt until long after George Bush is back in Texas and Hank Paulson is back in New York, but a scheme under which the financially prudent will bail out the financially feckless is on its way.
In fairness to Mr. Paulson and to the Administration, at least they are paying verbal homage to free markets, delaying a full scale taxpayer bailout of the financially foolish (perhaps for political reasons), and at least trying to appear virtuous.. The Democrats want to jump right in the sack and get it done. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) want to use $10 billion of your money to, in most cases, keep people in homes you and I could only dream of. He also wants the FHA, originally designed to (not, as you might understandably suspect, destroy neighborhoods on the south side of Chicago in the ‘60s, but, I digress) help lower income people buy homes, guarantee mortgages in amounts approaching $750,000. Senator Barack Obama (D., the campaign trail), wants to use your money to create a $10 billion fund to help overextended homeowners refinance (as if the overextension was somehow forced upon these big spenders) and to (get this) help people buy first homes, thus putting more people who can’t afford homes into homes they can’t afford. The other senator from the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton, has a plan that is even more fecund of future folly: she wants to declare a 90 day moratorium on foreclosures, which punishes the formerly admirable actions of homeowners who struggled, scraped, and denied themselves in order to avoid foreclosure while rewarding those who just had to have the new BMW and the vacation in Maui while denying lenders the foreclosure option that enabled them to make relatively low cost loans in the first place, and to impose a five year interest rate freeze on ARMs. This will reward those who couldn’t be bothered to read their mortgage contracts (apparently too busy either for self-government (See my 2/26/08 post.) or for managing their own finances; those gormless situation comedies take up lots of time, you know) and completely destroy banks’ incentive to provide adjustable rate mortgages. Great idea.
All of these programs, whether from proudly interventionist Democrats or sneakily interventionist Republicans, have one thing in common: They use the heavy hand of government to “solve” a problem that cannot be solved by government, and will exacerbate the problems we will face in the future. But, hey, it’s not the pols’ money and there is a good chance that these estimables will be out of office when the product of defecation really hits the climate management device. The “mortgage crisis” will only be solved through the market finding its own level and by private parties’ working out their own means of mitigating their mutual financial difficulties without the government either holding a cudgel over their heads or handing them large sums of money in order to reward them for their mendacious and/or purblind financial behavior.
And if the market is allowed to play out, if people are not saved from the consequences of their financial irresponsibility and arrogant, misguided approach to investing, there is a chance that Americans will learn to live within their financial means and that the financial “pros” will actually learn to think before investing other people’s money. If the government “rides to the rescue,” we will merely continue on our self-destructive path to financial and societal doom.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
OH, THE DEPRIVATION!!!
2/27/08
This morning, CBS radio news reported that consumers are having to give things up in the wake of the economic travails our once great nation is experiencing. The news report cited people (horrors!) forgoing $3.00 cups of coffee, refilling bottles of water from the (Can you imagine this?) tap, and (gasp!) skipping trips to the spa. (Parenthetical remarks mine, of course.)
Is there no end to the sacrifice required of us? How much more can we take? Our parents and grandparents surely did not have to endure forgoing $3.00 cups of coffee, refilling their bottled water from the tap, and skipping trips to the spa! Oh, the humanity!
Just keep repeating to yourself: “This is the greatest, toughest, most dominant nation on earth! We are willing to make any sacrifice, bear any hardship, and assume any burden life throws in our path. We are battle hardened, tested, and ready to tell every other nation how to conduct its affairs because we have been toughened and made wise and have figured it all out. The best is yet to come! The best is yet to come!”
O tempora, o mores!
This morning, CBS radio news reported that consumers are having to give things up in the wake of the economic travails our once great nation is experiencing. The news report cited people (horrors!) forgoing $3.00 cups of coffee, refilling bottles of water from the (Can you imagine this?) tap, and (gasp!) skipping trips to the spa. (Parenthetical remarks mine, of course.)
Is there no end to the sacrifice required of us? How much more can we take? Our parents and grandparents surely did not have to endure forgoing $3.00 cups of coffee, refilling their bottled water from the tap, and skipping trips to the spa! Oh, the humanity!
Just keep repeating to yourself: “This is the greatest, toughest, most dominant nation on earth! We are willing to make any sacrifice, bear any hardship, and assume any burden life throws in our path. We are battle hardened, tested, and ready to tell every other nation how to conduct its affairs because we have been toughened and made wise and have figured it all out. The best is yet to come! The best is yet to come!”
O tempora, o mores!
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
TODAY’S UPLIFTING MESSAGE OF HOPE
2/26/08
The below is a response to an e-mail sent by a good friend commenting on my last several posts. This particular friend is one of the most original thinkers and brilliant people I know. Not coincidentally, he agrees with me on most issues.
Note that, since my correspondent’s e-mail dealt with political issues, my response was limited to our country’s political and governance decline. I did not address the sewerification of our culture, deification of artifice and denigration of honesty and good character, decline (near absence, really) of meaningful educational standards, spiritual bankruptcy, crass materialism, personal financial irresponsibility, decline in the family, ubiquitous me-meism and disregard for our fellow person, collective unwillingness to control our borders or defend the concept of our nationhood, or the other maladies that permeate modern American society and give us further cause for believing that, as the blowhard Rush Limbaugh would say, our best years lie ahead of us.
Thanks.
2/26/08
I've thought for at least the last twenty years that this country was doomed. It took Rome (depending on the point at which you start, and, arguably, the point at which you end) about 250 years to fall from its peak to oblivion. Things move more quickly now; we won't have that much time.
The problem is that people have not taken their responsibilities as citizens of
a self-governing nation seriously. Self-government is just that--governing that
you have to do yourself, and hence involves some work. If you don't want to do
the work on, say, your house or your lawn, you can hire someone to do it for
you. Similarly, if you don't want to do the work necessary for self-government
(keeping informed, reading up on the issues, thinking about things), someone
will do it for you, and that someone will expect to be paid. That is just what has happened. People have anesthetized themselves with sports, TV, movies, etc. while protesting that they are just "too busy" to follow what is going on in their country (like
Letterman's top ten or the Bulls' latest exercise in futility is REALLY
compelling), leaving the work of governance to someone else--the manipulators,
the money people, the swindlers, the con-men, the hornswogglers, the professional trough sloppers. That is why we have this choice of three patheticoes for our next president.
Yes, self-government requires some time and effort, that is why it is called
SELF-government. If we're too busy for self-government, well, I guess we're too
busy for self-government.
To use (again) perhaps my favorite Mencken quote, "The American people get the
government they deserve, and they get it good."
The below is a response to an e-mail sent by a good friend commenting on my last several posts. This particular friend is one of the most original thinkers and brilliant people I know. Not coincidentally, he agrees with me on most issues.
Note that, since my correspondent’s e-mail dealt with political issues, my response was limited to our country’s political and governance decline. I did not address the sewerification of our culture, deification of artifice and denigration of honesty and good character, decline (near absence, really) of meaningful educational standards, spiritual bankruptcy, crass materialism, personal financial irresponsibility, decline in the family, ubiquitous me-meism and disregard for our fellow person, collective unwillingness to control our borders or defend the concept of our nationhood, or the other maladies that permeate modern American society and give us further cause for believing that, as the blowhard Rush Limbaugh would say, our best years lie ahead of us.
Thanks.
2/26/08
I've thought for at least the last twenty years that this country was doomed. It took Rome (depending on the point at which you start, and, arguably, the point at which you end) about 250 years to fall from its peak to oblivion. Things move more quickly now; we won't have that much time.
The problem is that people have not taken their responsibilities as citizens of
a self-governing nation seriously. Self-government is just that--governing that
you have to do yourself, and hence involves some work. If you don't want to do
the work on, say, your house or your lawn, you can hire someone to do it for
you. Similarly, if you don't want to do the work necessary for self-government
(keeping informed, reading up on the issues, thinking about things), someone
will do it for you, and that someone will expect to be paid. That is just what has happened. People have anesthetized themselves with sports, TV, movies, etc. while protesting that they are just "too busy" to follow what is going on in their country (like
Letterman's top ten or the Bulls' latest exercise in futility is REALLY
compelling), leaving the work of governance to someone else--the manipulators,
the money people, the swindlers, the con-men, the hornswogglers, the professional trough sloppers. That is why we have this choice of three patheticoes for our next president.
Yes, self-government requires some time and effort, that is why it is called
SELF-government. If we're too busy for self-government, well, I guess we're too
busy for self-government.
To use (again) perhaps my favorite Mencken quote, "The American people get the
government they deserve, and they get it good."
Saturday, February 23, 2008
SHUT UP AND PAY
2/23/08
Today I heard Bob Brinker (the host of Money Talk, a syndicated radio talk show on money heard in Chicago on WLS on Saturdays and Sundays at 3:00 p.m.) express an opinion that deserves comment. I don’t mean to pick on Mr. Brinker alone because he is not the only “fiscal conservative” to voice such a glaringly inconsistent argument; he just happened to be the last person I have heard express it.
Mr. Brinker was in the middle of his usual lambasting of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when he uttered the oft-heard contention that he didn’t know who was going to pay for all the promises these two have made. I want to clear up two things. First, as readers of the Pontificator know, I certainly have no problem with anyone blasting either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton, or any politician for that matter. There is plenty to criticize. Second, one of the ripest grounds for criticism of either Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton is on fiscal matters; I wholeheartedly agree that no one has any idea who is going to pay for the promises of these two purblind pols. Certainly, neither of these two poltroons has come forth with a credible method of paying for all of the promises that he or she has made.
However…
It’s curious that I never hear Mr. Brinker or any other self-styled “fiscal conservatives” say something like “I just don’t know how who is going to pay for Mr. McCain’s plan to continue, and possibly expand, the war in Iraq for generations.” Mr. McCain has never advanced a plan to pay for his military ambitions, but the Bob Brinkers and the other “fiscally conservative” types of the world never get around to pointing this out.
It would seem to this fiscal conservative that some consistency is demanded here. And maybe the faux fiscal conservatives do think they are consistent: They are protective of the public purse when it’s the Democrats who are spending our money. And, for these self-stlyed guardians of the public purse, that is good enough.
Today I heard Bob Brinker (the host of Money Talk, a syndicated radio talk show on money heard in Chicago on WLS on Saturdays and Sundays at 3:00 p.m.) express an opinion that deserves comment. I don’t mean to pick on Mr. Brinker alone because he is not the only “fiscal conservative” to voice such a glaringly inconsistent argument; he just happened to be the last person I have heard express it.
Mr. Brinker was in the middle of his usual lambasting of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when he uttered the oft-heard contention that he didn’t know who was going to pay for all the promises these two have made. I want to clear up two things. First, as readers of the Pontificator know, I certainly have no problem with anyone blasting either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton, or any politician for that matter. There is plenty to criticize. Second, one of the ripest grounds for criticism of either Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton is on fiscal matters; I wholeheartedly agree that no one has any idea who is going to pay for the promises of these two purblind pols. Certainly, neither of these two poltroons has come forth with a credible method of paying for all of the promises that he or she has made.
However…
It’s curious that I never hear Mr. Brinker or any other self-styled “fiscal conservatives” say something like “I just don’t know how who is going to pay for Mr. McCain’s plan to continue, and possibly expand, the war in Iraq for generations.” Mr. McCain has never advanced a plan to pay for his military ambitions, but the Bob Brinkers and the other “fiscally conservative” types of the world never get around to pointing this out.
It would seem to this fiscal conservative that some consistency is demanded here. And maybe the faux fiscal conservatives do think they are consistent: They are protective of the public purse when it’s the Democrats who are spending our money. And, for these self-stlyed guardians of the public purse, that is good enough.
“HERE IS COME TO SAVE THE DAY!”
2/23/08
The stock market turned around abruptly yesterday on news that a private bailout was being arranged for Ambac. The experts assure us that Ambac is at the heart of the current financial difficulties we are facing and thus that solving Ambac’s (along with FGIC’s and the other bond insurers’) problems would put us back on the path to nirvana. Hence the rally in stocks on news of the bailout.
Leave aside that this will probably not prove to be an entirely private operation; though details are scarce on the bailout, everyone agrees that New York Eric Dinallo was a major player in the dealing that led to the plan, and the U.S. Treasury was involved, reports say, only to assure that the arrangement involved no taxpayer money. (A realist (er, sorry, a cynic) might add the words “for now” to that prior sentence, but I digress.) What else is wrong with this embryonic bailout plan?
This might be simplistic thinking, but I have long held that if a little more simplistic thinking, rather than the highly sophisticated financial sophistry in which the Wall Street deep thinkers appear to revel, had been employed in the recent past, we might not be in the financial soup in which we are currently swimming. So here goes:
Again, while details are scare, it looks like the deal will involve various banks’, investment banks’, and other financial institutions’ investing $2.5 billion in equity and $500mm in debt in Ambac. Some credible analysts estimate that Wall Street firms could have as much as $40 billion in exposure if the bond insurers endure further downgrades. Note that that $40 billion in losses could result if all the insurers get downgraded. So, in order to adjust for Ambac’s share of the bond insurance market, which I admittedly don’t know, let’s just say that it would take three times as much capital, say $9b, to bail out all the insurers along the lines of the inchoate Ambac plan. That number could be smaller, but probably wouldn’t be much larger.
So, for a $9b investment, the investment banks and other financial denizens can avoid $40 billion in losses. Who wouldn’t do such a deal all day? I understand the concept of leverage at least as well as most people, but wasn’t it leverage, real and notional, that got us into this trouble in the first place? How will a generous dollop of more aggressive leverage save us from a problem that had its origins in excessive leverage? This deal sounds sounds too good to be true from the perspectives of both the banks and the economy as a whole, and, at the risk of again sounding too simplistic in this era of sophistication for the sake of sophistication, it probably is. Yes, I know that the plan supposedly works because it will be sufficient for the rating agencies to restore Ambac’s and its cohorts’ AAA (or Aaa) ratings, but how much acuity have the rating agencies shown of late in these matters? A restructuring that leads to a rating upgrade will only, at best, postpone the problem.
The problems with which we are dealing arose because a lot of people made a lot of foolish financial decisions. In the case immediately at hand, as I’ve said before, debt analysis involves more than asking looking up a rating and/or asking “Is it insured?” In order for whatever vestiges of free enterprise that remain in our economy to function, those who made those poor financial decisions must be allowed to suffer the consequent financial pain. Financial wizardry (Some might say financial black magic.) aimed at avoiding this simplistic reality can only delay, and exacerbate, the damage that our economy will suffer.
The stock market turned around abruptly yesterday on news that a private bailout was being arranged for Ambac. The experts assure us that Ambac is at the heart of the current financial difficulties we are facing and thus that solving Ambac’s (along with FGIC’s and the other bond insurers’) problems would put us back on the path to nirvana. Hence the rally in stocks on news of the bailout.
Leave aside that this will probably not prove to be an entirely private operation; though details are scarce on the bailout, everyone agrees that New York Eric Dinallo was a major player in the dealing that led to the plan, and the U.S. Treasury was involved, reports say, only to assure that the arrangement involved no taxpayer money. (A realist (er, sorry, a cynic) might add the words “for now” to that prior sentence, but I digress.) What else is wrong with this embryonic bailout plan?
This might be simplistic thinking, but I have long held that if a little more simplistic thinking, rather than the highly sophisticated financial sophistry in which the Wall Street deep thinkers appear to revel, had been employed in the recent past, we might not be in the financial soup in which we are currently swimming. So here goes:
Again, while details are scare, it looks like the deal will involve various banks’, investment banks’, and other financial institutions’ investing $2.5 billion in equity and $500mm in debt in Ambac. Some credible analysts estimate that Wall Street firms could have as much as $40 billion in exposure if the bond insurers endure further downgrades. Note that that $40 billion in losses could result if all the insurers get downgraded. So, in order to adjust for Ambac’s share of the bond insurance market, which I admittedly don’t know, let’s just say that it would take three times as much capital, say $9b, to bail out all the insurers along the lines of the inchoate Ambac plan. That number could be smaller, but probably wouldn’t be much larger.
So, for a $9b investment, the investment banks and other financial denizens can avoid $40 billion in losses. Who wouldn’t do such a deal all day? I understand the concept of leverage at least as well as most people, but wasn’t it leverage, real and notional, that got us into this trouble in the first place? How will a generous dollop of more aggressive leverage save us from a problem that had its origins in excessive leverage? This deal sounds sounds too good to be true from the perspectives of both the banks and the economy as a whole, and, at the risk of again sounding too simplistic in this era of sophistication for the sake of sophistication, it probably is. Yes, I know that the plan supposedly works because it will be sufficient for the rating agencies to restore Ambac’s and its cohorts’ AAA (or Aaa) ratings, but how much acuity have the rating agencies shown of late in these matters? A restructuring that leads to a rating upgrade will only, at best, postpone the problem.
The problems with which we are dealing arose because a lot of people made a lot of foolish financial decisions. In the case immediately at hand, as I’ve said before, debt analysis involves more than asking looking up a rating and/or asking “Is it insured?” In order for whatever vestiges of free enterprise that remain in our economy to function, those who made those poor financial decisions must be allowed to suffer the consequent financial pain. Financial wizardry (Some might say financial black magic.) aimed at avoiding this simplistic reality can only delay, and exacerbate, the damage that our economy will suffer.
NO BIAS HERE, NO SIR
2/23/08
In its largely fluffy weekend edition today, The Wall Street Journal reports that Representative Rick Renzi has been indicted on 35 counts of extortion, money laundering, embezzlement, and other nefarious manifestations of public corruption. So one of our public servants is indicted with his hand, directly or indirectly, in the till. Nothing new here.
What is interesting about the Journal story, however, is that it never explicitly identifies Rep. Renzi as a Republican. My interest in this aspect of the story was piqued when I noticed that there is no “(R., Arizona)” after his name anywhere in the story. Then, as I read the story, I noted that never in the story is Renzi’s party directly identified. Admittedly, in the fourth paragraph, there is the statement
“Those probes (of corrupt, and, in the Journal’s view, as long as they are Republicans, presumably selfless, public servants) are likely to lead to more troubling headlines in the months before the election, especially for Republicans.”
and one could infer from that statement that Rep. Renzi is a GOPer, but, then again, maybe not. The word “Republican” again appears in the very last sentence in the story, to with
“His (Rep. Renzi’s) future in Congress now is uncertain; on Capitol Hill, Republican House leaders have said they have taken a ‘zero tolerance’ approach with members facing federal investigation.”
and in this sentence, the inference that Rep. Renzi is a Republican is easy to draw. Still, the very last sentence? And then only to compliment the GOP leadership over its supposed diligence against corruption?
Note also that this story was not in the opinion section of the paper, but in the supposedly news section of the paper (page A3).
The next time the Journal assumes its disingenuous “We aren’t for any political party; we are merely for free men and free markets” pose, and then goes on to castigate the “mainstream media” for its liberal Democratic bias (which does exist, by the way) take the Journal’s posturing for what it is: blatant, shameless artifice.
In its largely fluffy weekend edition today, The Wall Street Journal reports that Representative Rick Renzi has been indicted on 35 counts of extortion, money laundering, embezzlement, and other nefarious manifestations of public corruption. So one of our public servants is indicted with his hand, directly or indirectly, in the till. Nothing new here.
What is interesting about the Journal story, however, is that it never explicitly identifies Rep. Renzi as a Republican. My interest in this aspect of the story was piqued when I noticed that there is no “(R., Arizona)” after his name anywhere in the story. Then, as I read the story, I noted that never in the story is Renzi’s party directly identified. Admittedly, in the fourth paragraph, there is the statement
“Those probes (of corrupt, and, in the Journal’s view, as long as they are Republicans, presumably selfless, public servants) are likely to lead to more troubling headlines in the months before the election, especially for Republicans.”
and one could infer from that statement that Rep. Renzi is a GOPer, but, then again, maybe not. The word “Republican” again appears in the very last sentence in the story, to with
“His (Rep. Renzi’s) future in Congress now is uncertain; on Capitol Hill, Republican House leaders have said they have taken a ‘zero tolerance’ approach with members facing federal investigation.”
and in this sentence, the inference that Rep. Renzi is a Republican is easy to draw. Still, the very last sentence? And then only to compliment the GOP leadership over its supposed diligence against corruption?
Note also that this story was not in the opinion section of the paper, but in the supposedly news section of the paper (page A3).
The next time the Journal assumes its disingenuous “We aren’t for any political party; we are merely for free men and free markets” pose, and then goes on to castigate the “mainstream media” for its liberal Democratic bias (which does exist, by the way) take the Journal’s posturing for what it is: blatant, shameless artifice.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
HA! IT’S ABOUT AS LIKELY AS A CREDIT CRISIS!
2/21/08
Yesterday, I heard Alan Skrainka, chief market strategist for Edward D. Jones, state that, despite the big January CPI increase announced yesterday (0.4% overall, 0.3% core), inflation would not be a problem because the economy is slowing down. Hmm… Skrainka seems to be a pretty sharp guy, and E.D. Jones is a firm for which I have a measure of respect. But how could Mr. Skrainka make such a statement? Doesn’t he remember the late ‘70s when stagflation was the most salient feature of the U.S. and, to a large extent, the world, economy?
This morning, learned experts on CNBC were, unlike Ed Skrainka, discussing the possibility of stagflation, and largely dismissing that possibility. This morning’s Wall Street Journal featured a page A1 article on stagflation. Perhaps its most interesting aspect was a quote from UC Berkeley economist Christina Romer, to wit:
“The reason we’re so unlikely to see a repeat (of stagflation) is we’re not adding irresponsible policy.”
On what grounds does Professor Romer make such a statement? Ben Bernanke is proving to be the most irresponsible Fed chairman since Bill Miller (I suspect that, given sufficient historical perspective, Alan Greenspan will vie for that title, but that is grist for another post.). As I have said in numerous posts in the past (See, inter alia, AND ANOTHER THING…, 10/31/07, AN EVER VIGILANT CENTRAL BANK, 11/8/07, “NOW, NOW, KIDS…DADDY WILL MAKE EVERYTHING RIGHT. YOU JUST WAIT AND SEE.”, 12/12/07, “SHINE YOUR SHOES, MR. STREET?”, 12/15/07), Obsequious Ben appears to see it as his mission to provide sucre to the tough guy free marketeers on Wall Street whenever it looks like those financial swashbucklers will suffer so much as a stubbed toe. Virtually all the reductions he has made in the fed funds rate have been made in response to market declines or even mere harbingers of market declines. Ironically, today the Journal ran a story on page A2 concerning the minutes of a Fed January 9 conference call, convened between scheduled meetings on December 11 and January 29-30. The article noted that the conference call was convened (if that is the right verb) in response to an unexpected jump in unemployment. On the call, a cut in rates was discussed, but such a reduction was not implemented because the Fed was “reluctant to appear overly responsive to a single economic report.” But this reluctance to appear “overly responsive” did not stop the Fed from cutting the fed funds rate by 75 basis points on January 22 after European markets plunged on January 21. (Our markets were closed for the Dr. King holiday on January 21.) This was not an isolated incident, but was typical of the Fed: the markets fall, Obsequious Ben, who apparently judges his performance by the volume of cheers from Wall Street, cuts rates or comes up with some Rube Goldberg scheme to make the financial denizens who have done so much to bollix up our economy feel better.
It’s not as if Obsequious Ben is alone in this desire to make everything right for the kids on Wall Street. On ABC’s This Week last Sunday, self proclaimed free marketeer and presumptive Republican nominee John McCain (Did you know he was a POW in Vietnam?) said “I would have liked to have seen faster rate cuts and earlier than they were done by him.” (Sic) Mr. McCain (Did you know he was a POW in Vietnam?) also was non-committal when asked whether he would reappoint Dr. Bernanke to another term as Fed Chairman. Don’t count on Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to be any less eager than Mr. McCain (Did you know he was a POW in Vietnam?) for Dr. Bernanke to debase the currency, either. When one combines Obsequious Ben’s natural tendency to want to ingratiate himself with anyone on Wall Street or Washington with the pols’ calling for a seemingly painless Fed provided solution to our economic difficulties, one can guess where short term rates, and inflation, are headed.
Soaring commodity prices, a weak dollar (Yes, I know the greenback has been strong of late, but, in the big picture it remains very weak.) are clearly signs of inchoate inflation. When one throws an irresponsible Fed, headed by a man seemingly obsessed with the approval of those he considers to be important, into the mix, the possibilities for stagflation are very real, despite the assurances to the contrary given by the same experts who told us the “sub-prime mortgage” problem was a mere blip, isolated to one sector of the financial markets one sector of the economic spectrum.
Yesterday, I heard Alan Skrainka, chief market strategist for Edward D. Jones, state that, despite the big January CPI increase announced yesterday (0.4% overall, 0.3% core), inflation would not be a problem because the economy is slowing down. Hmm… Skrainka seems to be a pretty sharp guy, and E.D. Jones is a firm for which I have a measure of respect. But how could Mr. Skrainka make such a statement? Doesn’t he remember the late ‘70s when stagflation was the most salient feature of the U.S. and, to a large extent, the world, economy?
This morning, learned experts on CNBC were, unlike Ed Skrainka, discussing the possibility of stagflation, and largely dismissing that possibility. This morning’s Wall Street Journal featured a page A1 article on stagflation. Perhaps its most interesting aspect was a quote from UC Berkeley economist Christina Romer, to wit:
“The reason we’re so unlikely to see a repeat (of stagflation) is we’re not adding irresponsible policy.”
On what grounds does Professor Romer make such a statement? Ben Bernanke is proving to be the most irresponsible Fed chairman since Bill Miller (I suspect that, given sufficient historical perspective, Alan Greenspan will vie for that title, but that is grist for another post.). As I have said in numerous posts in the past (See, inter alia, AND ANOTHER THING…, 10/31/07, AN EVER VIGILANT CENTRAL BANK, 11/8/07, “NOW, NOW, KIDS…DADDY WILL MAKE EVERYTHING RIGHT. YOU JUST WAIT AND SEE.”, 12/12/07, “SHINE YOUR SHOES, MR. STREET?”, 12/15/07), Obsequious Ben appears to see it as his mission to provide sucre to the tough guy free marketeers on Wall Street whenever it looks like those financial swashbucklers will suffer so much as a stubbed toe. Virtually all the reductions he has made in the fed funds rate have been made in response to market declines or even mere harbingers of market declines. Ironically, today the Journal ran a story on page A2 concerning the minutes of a Fed January 9 conference call, convened between scheduled meetings on December 11 and January 29-30. The article noted that the conference call was convened (if that is the right verb) in response to an unexpected jump in unemployment. On the call, a cut in rates was discussed, but such a reduction was not implemented because the Fed was “reluctant to appear overly responsive to a single economic report.” But this reluctance to appear “overly responsive” did not stop the Fed from cutting the fed funds rate by 75 basis points on January 22 after European markets plunged on January 21. (Our markets were closed for the Dr. King holiday on January 21.) This was not an isolated incident, but was typical of the Fed: the markets fall, Obsequious Ben, who apparently judges his performance by the volume of cheers from Wall Street, cuts rates or comes up with some Rube Goldberg scheme to make the financial denizens who have done so much to bollix up our economy feel better.
It’s not as if Obsequious Ben is alone in this desire to make everything right for the kids on Wall Street. On ABC’s This Week last Sunday, self proclaimed free marketeer and presumptive Republican nominee John McCain (Did you know he was a POW in Vietnam?) said “I would have liked to have seen faster rate cuts and earlier than they were done by him.” (Sic) Mr. McCain (Did you know he was a POW in Vietnam?) also was non-committal when asked whether he would reappoint Dr. Bernanke to another term as Fed Chairman. Don’t count on Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to be any less eager than Mr. McCain (Did you know he was a POW in Vietnam?) for Dr. Bernanke to debase the currency, either. When one combines Obsequious Ben’s natural tendency to want to ingratiate himself with anyone on Wall Street or Washington with the pols’ calling for a seemingly painless Fed provided solution to our economic difficulties, one can guess where short term rates, and inflation, are headed.
Soaring commodity prices, a weak dollar (Yes, I know the greenback has been strong of late, but, in the big picture it remains very weak.) are clearly signs of inchoate inflation. When one throws an irresponsible Fed, headed by a man seemingly obsessed with the approval of those he considers to be important, into the mix, the possibilities for stagflation are very real, despite the assurances to the contrary given by the same experts who told us the “sub-prime mortgage” problem was a mere blip, isolated to one sector of the financial markets one sector of the economic spectrum.
EMBARGO OUR SYCOPHANTIC POLS, NOT THE IMPOVERISHED CUBAN PEOPLE
2/21/08
With Fidel Castro’s stepping down this week as President for (I guess not) Life of his Caribbean Eden, our country has been presented with a golden opportunity to begin to erase fifty years of bad policy toward Cuba by lifting our economic embargo on that Tropical Workers’ Paradise.
We will not seize this opportunity, of course, any time soon due to the old political (and, I suppose, social and personal) concept of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs, or vice-versa, in this case. In the case of Cuba, most Americans are in favor of lifting the embargo and would enjoy very marginal, or at least apparently very marginal, benefits from our country’s doing so. However, a small, wealthy, powerful, and politically active group of people (the “Miami Cubans”) perceives that lifting the embargo would cause them great pain and/or impose a heavy cost on them. How this would be true is not clear, but clarity rarely drives policy. In such a situation, in which a vocal, motivated minority perceives a great cost and a largely silent and relatively indifferent majority are on differing sides of an issue, the vocal minority wins. The minority cares deeply, the majority cares very little. Intensity counts much more than sheer numbers.
So the embargo will not be lifted due to purely political considerations. From the standpoint of sound policy, however, the embargo should be lifted, and should have never been put in place. Why?
First, the embargo is hypocritical. The same GOPers who are so enamored of free trade and who have no problems trading with China, the ruling regime of which is not noted for its benevolent attitude toward its citizens, refuse to consider trade, other than cash agriculture deals, with Cuba due to its abominable human rights record. Could this refusal have anything to do with the relative profitability to the GOP’s core corporate constituency of trade with China and Cuba, or with the importance of the Miami Cubans in the electoral dynamics of this country? The Republican attitude on this issue should come as no surprise; hypocrisy is what defines Republicanism.
Lest one think I am showing an anti-GOP bias, Senator Barack Obama was all for lifting the embargo in 2006, when he was merely representing Illinois, which has a microscopic Cuban-American population. However, now that Mr. Obama is running for president, this profile in courage now favors only loosening some travel restrictions and increasing the amount of money that can be sent to Cuba, precisely the stance of the Miami Cubans. Hypocrisy clearly is not the exclusive domain of the GOP.
Second, the embargo is immoral. With the people of Cuba in dire economic straits, we are bound to do what we can to help them with their plight. One could, and should, argue that the economic misery in Cuba is not the product of the American embargo but, rather, the logical result of Fidel Castro’s excerebrose and evil economic system. This is surely true, but lifting the embargo could help at the margin, and life takes place at the margin, and we are obligated to do what we can to help these people.
The undeniably factual argument that Cuba’s misery is a result of Castro’s nefariousness, not our embargo, leads to my next argument.
Third, the embargo is counterproductive. First, it gives Castro another cudgel to use to beat his people into submission. He has argued for the last fifty years that Cuba’s economic problems are not the inevitable fruit of a Communist economic system, but rather the result of the Yanqui embargo. Lifting the embargo would invalidate that argument. Second, and more important, Castro’s rotten system would wither like the seed scattered on rocky ground were it exposed to the light of the outside world. Just as the Soviet Union could not stand once its economy, and, to some extent, its society was opened to the outside world, and just as the days of the Chinese regime (which can hardly be called Communist any more) are numbered due to the opening of China to the world economy, so (now) Raul Castro’s regime would fall in short order if Cuba were opened. One could certainly argue that Fidel Castro would have been gone a long time ago had not our foolish embargo enabled him to deflect blame from his idiotic economic policy and to keep his people in the dark.
Our maladroit Cuban embargo should be ended…now. It has made us an effective accomplice to Castor’s scrofulous and nescient economic and political system. But the embargo won’t be ended because our lily-livered politicians consider their careers more important than the lives of the desperate Cuban people.
With Fidel Castro’s stepping down this week as President for (I guess not) Life of his Caribbean Eden, our country has been presented with a golden opportunity to begin to erase fifty years of bad policy toward Cuba by lifting our economic embargo on that Tropical Workers’ Paradise.
We will not seize this opportunity, of course, any time soon due to the old political (and, I suppose, social and personal) concept of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs, or vice-versa, in this case. In the case of Cuba, most Americans are in favor of lifting the embargo and would enjoy very marginal, or at least apparently very marginal, benefits from our country’s doing so. However, a small, wealthy, powerful, and politically active group of people (the “Miami Cubans”) perceives that lifting the embargo would cause them great pain and/or impose a heavy cost on them. How this would be true is not clear, but clarity rarely drives policy. In such a situation, in which a vocal, motivated minority perceives a great cost and a largely silent and relatively indifferent majority are on differing sides of an issue, the vocal minority wins. The minority cares deeply, the majority cares very little. Intensity counts much more than sheer numbers.
So the embargo will not be lifted due to purely political considerations. From the standpoint of sound policy, however, the embargo should be lifted, and should have never been put in place. Why?
First, the embargo is hypocritical. The same GOPers who are so enamored of free trade and who have no problems trading with China, the ruling regime of which is not noted for its benevolent attitude toward its citizens, refuse to consider trade, other than cash agriculture deals, with Cuba due to its abominable human rights record. Could this refusal have anything to do with the relative profitability to the GOP’s core corporate constituency of trade with China and Cuba, or with the importance of the Miami Cubans in the electoral dynamics of this country? The Republican attitude on this issue should come as no surprise; hypocrisy is what defines Republicanism.
Lest one think I am showing an anti-GOP bias, Senator Barack Obama was all for lifting the embargo in 2006, when he was merely representing Illinois, which has a microscopic Cuban-American population. However, now that Mr. Obama is running for president, this profile in courage now favors only loosening some travel restrictions and increasing the amount of money that can be sent to Cuba, precisely the stance of the Miami Cubans. Hypocrisy clearly is not the exclusive domain of the GOP.
Second, the embargo is immoral. With the people of Cuba in dire economic straits, we are bound to do what we can to help them with their plight. One could, and should, argue that the economic misery in Cuba is not the product of the American embargo but, rather, the logical result of Fidel Castro’s excerebrose and evil economic system. This is surely true, but lifting the embargo could help at the margin, and life takes place at the margin, and we are obligated to do what we can to help these people.
The undeniably factual argument that Cuba’s misery is a result of Castro’s nefariousness, not our embargo, leads to my next argument.
Third, the embargo is counterproductive. First, it gives Castro another cudgel to use to beat his people into submission. He has argued for the last fifty years that Cuba’s economic problems are not the inevitable fruit of a Communist economic system, but rather the result of the Yanqui embargo. Lifting the embargo would invalidate that argument. Second, and more important, Castro’s rotten system would wither like the seed scattered on rocky ground were it exposed to the light of the outside world. Just as the Soviet Union could not stand once its economy, and, to some extent, its society was opened to the outside world, and just as the days of the Chinese regime (which can hardly be called Communist any more) are numbered due to the opening of China to the world economy, so (now) Raul Castro’s regime would fall in short order if Cuba were opened. One could certainly argue that Fidel Castro would have been gone a long time ago had not our foolish embargo enabled him to deflect blame from his idiotic economic policy and to keep his people in the dark.
Our maladroit Cuban embargo should be ended…now. It has made us an effective accomplice to Castor’s scrofulous and nescient economic and political system. But the embargo won’t be ended because our lily-livered politicians consider their careers more important than the lives of the desperate Cuban people.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
CYNICAL ENOUGH FOR YA?
2/18/08
A good friend of mine who is one of the most astute people I know sent me a reply to my two posts of 2/16/08, “He’s So Fine” and “Here They Come, Spinning Out of the Turn, Part II,” especially the former.
My friend made the very valid and historically true point that we never know what we get when we elect a president, at least from a policy standpoint; policies change, and Presidents often take U-turns on policy stances once in office. My friend concluded, therefore, that we should vote for the person of the highest character, and, in his opinion, that was Barack Obama in this race.
My friend’s points were, for the most part, valid, but, as you might guess, I felt compelled to reply. I hesitated to post this answer, however, because it reveals a level of cynicism regarding politics and politicians that appears extreme even for me. But then I though “Why not?” As someone once said, the more cynical I get, the harder it gets to keep up.
Thanks.
2/18/08
The only thing on which I disagree with you is your contention that Obama is a man of character. I agree, and I think it comes through loud and clear, that neither McCain nor
Clinton is a person of character (If that doesn't come through, I can't write!).
McCain is despicable; the party of family values will soon have as its standardbearer a man who left the wife who raised his kids while he was in Hanoi to marry some young chickee with lots of dough who could finance his political career. The whole
McCain/Feingold thing is McCain’s effort to exonerate himself for his role in the Keating Five affair, which I could never forget: Chuck Keating used to parade around the Drexel
conferences extolling his great virtue as a devout Catholic and, because we had
the latter in common (The adjective is “devout,” not “perfect.”), he and I talked on several occasions. What a fraud! I guess that makes McCain a whore of a fraud. And, speaking of character, I don't know how you feel about this war, but how can a man of character support continuing this misguided, tragic, protracted, bloody occupation of a country conducted for, for...who knows? How can someone of character justify, and in McCain’s case, revel in, the wanton destruction of the lives of some of our best kids, and of thousands of innocent Iraqis, in this pointless, counterproductive road to self-destruction?
Clinton? Character? Enough said.
Why do you suppose Obama has character? With any politician, I would say guilty
until proven innocent, but, in the case of a guy who plays footsie with Tony
Rezko, what innocence could be proven? That whole real estate deal in South
Shore/Kenwood stinks to high heaven, and Obama knows it. He's the one who
called it "boneheaded." It's worse than that: buying his mansion with the help of Tony Rezko (just as he would have bought the White House with the help of Tony Rezko had he, and Mr. Rezko, not been caught) displayed the arrogance of Obama's thinking he could get away with it because, after all, he is Barack Obama. The shame is that he will get away with it because the media treat him as the second coming of JFK, another pol touted as a man of character who was proven to be anything but.
So I have a hard time thinking ANY politician can be a person of character; I
even think that there must be something nefarious about my candidate Ron Paul.
After all, he is a politician; therefore, there has to be something.
So you DO know what you get when you elect a president--you get a scoundrel,
almost by definition. Why else would anyone pursue a career in politics? (Note that no one just runs for office any more; running for, winning, and leaving office after a term or two to return to private life would indeed be a mark of nobility. But people who do such things don’t exist any more. With very few exceptions, anyone running for office is a career politician or is aspiring to be a career politician.) To save mankind? To make this a better world? I am far too cynical (some might say realistic) to believe that about anybody in politics. I might support a guy for policy reasons (Ron Paul), or maybe because I like the guy and either agree, or don’t radically disagree, with him on policy (Ron Paul, Chris Lauzen, Glenn Poshard, Gale Franzen), or maybe because I know and like the guy and the office in question does not involve any real policy to speak of (various pols of various shades of character from my old neighborhood running for city, county, or minor state offices. I suppose this should be placed in the past tense; politics is not the way of life, or the blood sport, out here in my suburban paradise that it is back home.), but I will never expect a political candidate to be a person of character. If s/he were, s/he would not pursue politics. Too much lying, too much compromising, too much desperation, too much whoring. That is one of the reasons I haven't contributed money to a political candidate in years.
I agree that Obama has the highest sense of character (Huckabee could
probably challenge him on that, but he does not appear to meet the viability
test.) of the remaining viable candidates, but the bar is awfully low. It's
like selecting the most virtuous girl in the bordello.
IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR CHARACTER IN A POLITICIAN, YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE YOUR HEART BROKEN. THEY ARE ALL SCOUNDRELS, KNAVES, CHARLATANS, MOUNTEBANKS, SHAMELESS EGOTISTS, AND UNINDICTED CRIMINALS.
On another note, I admire your political prognostication abilities. I was
almost certain (with the caveat that nothing is certain in politics) that
Hillary would have the Democratic nomination by now, and thought, but with far
less conviction, that Giuliani would be the GOP candidate. So my predictive
ability in politics, never as good as some have supposed, has been especially
poor this year, though Hillary could still be the nominee, as I said in "Here
they come, spinning out of the turn, Part II." It certainly looks at this
juncture, however, like Obama will be the nominee and that he will be our next
president. And that would not be such a bad thing…on a relative
basis.
A good friend of mine who is one of the most astute people I know sent me a reply to my two posts of 2/16/08, “He’s So Fine” and “Here They Come, Spinning Out of the Turn, Part II,” especially the former.
My friend made the very valid and historically true point that we never know what we get when we elect a president, at least from a policy standpoint; policies change, and Presidents often take U-turns on policy stances once in office. My friend concluded, therefore, that we should vote for the person of the highest character, and, in his opinion, that was Barack Obama in this race.
My friend’s points were, for the most part, valid, but, as you might guess, I felt compelled to reply. I hesitated to post this answer, however, because it reveals a level of cynicism regarding politics and politicians that appears extreme even for me. But then I though “Why not?” As someone once said, the more cynical I get, the harder it gets to keep up.
Thanks.
2/18/08
The only thing on which I disagree with you is your contention that Obama is a man of character. I agree, and I think it comes through loud and clear, that neither McCain nor
Clinton is a person of character (If that doesn't come through, I can't write!).
McCain is despicable; the party of family values will soon have as its standardbearer a man who left the wife who raised his kids while he was in Hanoi to marry some young chickee with lots of dough who could finance his political career. The whole
McCain/Feingold thing is McCain’s effort to exonerate himself for his role in the Keating Five affair, which I could never forget: Chuck Keating used to parade around the Drexel
conferences extolling his great virtue as a devout Catholic and, because we had
the latter in common (The adjective is “devout,” not “perfect.”), he and I talked on several occasions. What a fraud! I guess that makes McCain a whore of a fraud. And, speaking of character, I don't know how you feel about this war, but how can a man of character support continuing this misguided, tragic, protracted, bloody occupation of a country conducted for, for...who knows? How can someone of character justify, and in McCain’s case, revel in, the wanton destruction of the lives of some of our best kids, and of thousands of innocent Iraqis, in this pointless, counterproductive road to self-destruction?
Clinton? Character? Enough said.
Why do you suppose Obama has character? With any politician, I would say guilty
until proven innocent, but, in the case of a guy who plays footsie with Tony
Rezko, what innocence could be proven? That whole real estate deal in South
Shore/Kenwood stinks to high heaven, and Obama knows it. He's the one who
called it "boneheaded." It's worse than that: buying his mansion with the help of Tony Rezko (just as he would have bought the White House with the help of Tony Rezko had he, and Mr. Rezko, not been caught) displayed the arrogance of Obama's thinking he could get away with it because, after all, he is Barack Obama. The shame is that he will get away with it because the media treat him as the second coming of JFK, another pol touted as a man of character who was proven to be anything but.
So I have a hard time thinking ANY politician can be a person of character; I
even think that there must be something nefarious about my candidate Ron Paul.
After all, he is a politician; therefore, there has to be something.
So you DO know what you get when you elect a president--you get a scoundrel,
almost by definition. Why else would anyone pursue a career in politics? (Note that no one just runs for office any more; running for, winning, and leaving office after a term or two to return to private life would indeed be a mark of nobility. But people who do such things don’t exist any more. With very few exceptions, anyone running for office is a career politician or is aspiring to be a career politician.) To save mankind? To make this a better world? I am far too cynical (some might say realistic) to believe that about anybody in politics. I might support a guy for policy reasons (Ron Paul), or maybe because I like the guy and either agree, or don’t radically disagree, with him on policy (Ron Paul, Chris Lauzen, Glenn Poshard, Gale Franzen), or maybe because I know and like the guy and the office in question does not involve any real policy to speak of (various pols of various shades of character from my old neighborhood running for city, county, or minor state offices. I suppose this should be placed in the past tense; politics is not the way of life, or the blood sport, out here in my suburban paradise that it is back home.), but I will never expect a political candidate to be a person of character. If s/he were, s/he would not pursue politics. Too much lying, too much compromising, too much desperation, too much whoring. That is one of the reasons I haven't contributed money to a political candidate in years.
I agree that Obama has the highest sense of character (Huckabee could
probably challenge him on that, but he does not appear to meet the viability
test.) of the remaining viable candidates, but the bar is awfully low. It's
like selecting the most virtuous girl in the bordello.
IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR CHARACTER IN A POLITICIAN, YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE YOUR HEART BROKEN. THEY ARE ALL SCOUNDRELS, KNAVES, CHARLATANS, MOUNTEBANKS, SHAMELESS EGOTISTS, AND UNINDICTED CRIMINALS.
On another note, I admire your political prognostication abilities. I was
almost certain (with the caveat that nothing is certain in politics) that
Hillary would have the Democratic nomination by now, and thought, but with far
less conviction, that Giuliani would be the GOP candidate. So my predictive
ability in politics, never as good as some have supposed, has been especially
poor this year, though Hillary could still be the nominee, as I said in "Here
they come, spinning out of the turn, Part II." It certainly looks at this
juncture, however, like Obama will be the nominee and that he will be our next
president. And that would not be such a bad thing…on a relative
basis.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
“HE’S SO FINE…”
2/16/08
Most people with even a hint of objectivity, and even those thoroughly bereft of objectivity, given a sufficient degree of privacy, will admit that Barack Obama is an attractive candidate. He speaks well, excites crowds, and inspires people to vote and otherwise participate in the political process. (The last of which is not necessarily a good thing; see my 11/6/07post “Don’t Vote.”) One frequent criticism of Obama, however, is that we don’t know what he believes, and hence we don’t really know what we will be getting should he become president, which is not a foreordained conclusion. (See the last post.) I, like most of you, am sick of hearing about “change’ from the Obama camp, and from all the political camps, for that matter. The only circumstance in which “change” has any substance in a political context is as grist for the old saw that politicians will take your dollars and leave you with change. This particular saw is not only an eternal verity, but also an objective truth. But I digress. Change means nothing. Hitler brought about change, so did Pope John XXIII. Mao brought about change, so did the founding fathers of our once great nation. You get the point. The contention, however, that the seemingly change obsessed Obama lacks substance, that his is a candidacy, and that he is a man, of mellifluous fluff, is completely illegitimate, but not for the reasons Obama supporters cite.
Obama enthusiasts argue that there is some substance to Obama; one need only read his book “The Audacity of Hope.” I have not read Obama’s book because, if I were to do so, it would be the first book I would have read by an active politician. Why? Because life is short and busy; there is never enough time to read all that I would like to read. Given the regard I have for politicians in general, as reflected in this blog, I am not going to waste time reading the supposedly self-written hagiographies of people with spines of oatmeal and the vision of short order cooks. I have no time for treacly platitudes, which is what any politician gives us in his or her “books.” I suspect, and everything I have heard from objective, non-fatuated readers confirms, that Obama’s book is no different from that of any other politician.
Obama opponents are equally wrong when they argue that Obama’s campaign is completely bereft of substance, that it is merely a catalog of banal platitudes and gormless paeans to “change.” There is plenty of substance to Obama. For example, his economic plan, outlined earlier this week, was full of substance; it is the nature of that substance that is, to many, alarming. Senator Obama’s economic plan is classic, old-line liberalism: handouts to corporations disguised as “investments” and handouts to individuals disguised as “tax reductions for the middle and lower classes.”
More telling of Obama’s substance, however, was a comment he made last week. Senator Obama was enumerating the gargantuan costs of the Iraq war and then referred to these expenditures as “money that could be spent here.” Not “money we didn’t have to spend,” not “expenditures that are driving our country into bankruptcy,” and not “money that could be returned to the taxpayers,” but “money that could be spent here.” That, ladies and gentlemen, sums up Mr. Obama’s approach to governance.
Senator Obama’s approach is fine if one is a liberal. However, I suspect that many of those who compose the crowds enraptured by Mr. Obama are not brimming with enthusiasm for such an “all things to all people with your money” philosophy. Indeed, when people are asked why they support Obama, they do not respond “I like Obama because I favor big, activist government and the huge expenditures and tax increases that go with it,” or even “I favor Obama because he appears to be the most adamant about getting us out of Mr. Bush’s foolhardy and disastrous war.” Instead, they come back with something like “He gives me hope,” “I want change,” or “I don’t know, I just like him.” In America, where people vote (as they increasingly conduct their entire lives) with their hearts, rather than with their minds, this is par for the course.
As H.L. Mencken, to whose writing and general outlook mine are (surprise!) frequently compared, once said “The American people get the government they deserve…and they get it good.”
Most people with even a hint of objectivity, and even those thoroughly bereft of objectivity, given a sufficient degree of privacy, will admit that Barack Obama is an attractive candidate. He speaks well, excites crowds, and inspires people to vote and otherwise participate in the political process. (The last of which is not necessarily a good thing; see my 11/6/07post “Don’t Vote.”) One frequent criticism of Obama, however, is that we don’t know what he believes, and hence we don’t really know what we will be getting should he become president, which is not a foreordained conclusion. (See the last post.) I, like most of you, am sick of hearing about “change’ from the Obama camp, and from all the political camps, for that matter. The only circumstance in which “change” has any substance in a political context is as grist for the old saw that politicians will take your dollars and leave you with change. This particular saw is not only an eternal verity, but also an objective truth. But I digress. Change means nothing. Hitler brought about change, so did Pope John XXIII. Mao brought about change, so did the founding fathers of our once great nation. You get the point. The contention, however, that the seemingly change obsessed Obama lacks substance, that his is a candidacy, and that he is a man, of mellifluous fluff, is completely illegitimate, but not for the reasons Obama supporters cite.
Obama enthusiasts argue that there is some substance to Obama; one need only read his book “The Audacity of Hope.” I have not read Obama’s book because, if I were to do so, it would be the first book I would have read by an active politician. Why? Because life is short and busy; there is never enough time to read all that I would like to read. Given the regard I have for politicians in general, as reflected in this blog, I am not going to waste time reading the supposedly self-written hagiographies of people with spines of oatmeal and the vision of short order cooks. I have no time for treacly platitudes, which is what any politician gives us in his or her “books.” I suspect, and everything I have heard from objective, non-fatuated readers confirms, that Obama’s book is no different from that of any other politician.
Obama opponents are equally wrong when they argue that Obama’s campaign is completely bereft of substance, that it is merely a catalog of banal platitudes and gormless paeans to “change.” There is plenty of substance to Obama. For example, his economic plan, outlined earlier this week, was full of substance; it is the nature of that substance that is, to many, alarming. Senator Obama’s economic plan is classic, old-line liberalism: handouts to corporations disguised as “investments” and handouts to individuals disguised as “tax reductions for the middle and lower classes.”
More telling of Obama’s substance, however, was a comment he made last week. Senator Obama was enumerating the gargantuan costs of the Iraq war and then referred to these expenditures as “money that could be spent here.” Not “money we didn’t have to spend,” not “expenditures that are driving our country into bankruptcy,” and not “money that could be returned to the taxpayers,” but “money that could be spent here.” That, ladies and gentlemen, sums up Mr. Obama’s approach to governance.
Senator Obama’s approach is fine if one is a liberal. However, I suspect that many of those who compose the crowds enraptured by Mr. Obama are not brimming with enthusiasm for such an “all things to all people with your money” philosophy. Indeed, when people are asked why they support Obama, they do not respond “I like Obama because I favor big, activist government and the huge expenditures and tax increases that go with it,” or even “I favor Obama because he appears to be the most adamant about getting us out of Mr. Bush’s foolhardy and disastrous war.” Instead, they come back with something like “He gives me hope,” “I want change,” or “I don’t know, I just like him.” In America, where people vote (as they increasingly conduct their entire lives) with their hearts, rather than with their minds, this is par for the course.
As H.L. Mencken, to whose writing and general outlook mine are (surprise!) frequently compared, once said “The American people get the government they deserve…and they get it good.”
“HERE THEY COME SPINNING OUT OF THE TURN” PART II
2/16/08
The ideological and philosophical differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama cannot be described as anything resembling a chasm. In fact, their approach to government and the issues differ only in details. To this I must add the caveat that Mrs. Clinton’s views on anything are subject to change dictated by political expediency. That having been said, at least at this moment the views of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are pretty much in sync. This is the source of Mrs. Clinton’s trouble. Since there are few ideological differences between the two candidates, it comes down to a contest of personalities, and in such a contest, given that Richard Nixon is dead, Mrs. Clinton can always be expected to lose. This is especially to be expected when she is locked in such a race with a personally attractive candidate like Mr. Obama. But I digress.
Since we are left with few ideological differences to discuss, we are left with the horse race aspects of this race as grist for our political conversations for the next few months. This is not entirely a bad thing. First, for people like me, and doubtless for many of my readers, there are few ideological differences to discuss not only within the parties but also between the parties. The differences between the Republicans and Democrats boils down to the direction in which one would like to see the government grow. Oh boy. And both will assuredly grow government in the direction of their paymasters, who, in many, if not most, cases are the same people for both parties. What a choice. Second, for political (but not politician) enthusiasts like me, and doubtless many of my readers, the horse race aspects are always interesting. For reasons I have outlined in many previous posts, and that should be obvious to any sentient reader, this is, from a purely horse race aspect, the most interesting election season in recent, or even less recent, memory.
The conventional wisdom is that Mrs. Clinton must run the table in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania in order to remain viable in the race for the Democratic nomination. This is one of the few instances in which the conventional wisdom is correct, though one must point out that Mrs. Clinton’s being in this precarious position is testimony to the fascinating nature of this race, to wit: How can a candidate win New York, Massachusetts, and California, and convincingly so, and still not be the Democratic nominee? Astonishing. But I digress, again. Mrs. Clinton must win the Big 3, but I think an earlier race will be nearly as fecund for those trying to call this race.
Wisconsin holds a primary on Tuesday. Though Senator Obama is ahead in the polls in Wisconsin, the race in America’s Dairyland might be more interesting than most people think. Wisconsin is not all that much different demographically from Ohio, a state in which Senator Clinton is expected to win. Both are largely blue collar and slightly less educated than the country as a whole. Both are large Midwestern industrial states composed largely of medium sized cities with large pockets of ethnic voters. Both are Whiter than the country as a whole, but not to the degree of, say, Iowa or New Hampshire. Both have been hit hard by the Bush “prosperity” for which Larry Kudlow makes his living cheerleading. Both have heavy union representation. Wisconsin does have a reputation for being more liberal than Ohio, largely because of Madison’s only partially deserved reputation for being something of a Sodom and Gomorrah of liberalism and Wisconsin’s history of being the home of Bob Lafollette’s Progressive movement. But this reputation has been overblown for years.
Given the two states’ similarities, it is hard to imagine that Mrs. Clinton could be far ahead in Ohio and far behind in Wisconsin, as the polls seem to indicate. So watch Wisconsin. If Obama wins, as he probably will, unless he wins REALLY big, nothing changes. But if Clinton keeps it close, the race gets a little more interesting. And if Clinton pulls off the upset, she becomes the frontrunner again.
There is a larger reason than the potential that Wisconsin holds for Clinton for not yet ceding the nomination to Obama. It is obvious that this is Hillary Clinton’s last shot at becoming president, an office of which she has dreamed since adolescence. She is 60 today and will be 61 on Election Day. More importantly, if she manages to blow what was supposed to be a mere coronation for her, it will have proven, even to her, that the American people don’t want another Clinton in the White House. It is also fairly clear from their history that the Clintons will do ANYTHING to obtain and hold power and that the only thing that matters to the Clintons is the Clintons, and I’m not even so sure that “Clintons” ought to be pluralized in this context, and not just for grammatical reasons. Thus, the Clintons will stop at NOTHING to win this nomination, be it dirty tricks, last minute “revelations” about Barack Obama’s past, or even tearing the Democratic Party apart through manipulating, cajoling, or even threatening the super delegates. They will do whatever it takes and worry about the consequences later.
Yes, it looks bleak for Hillary Clinton at this juncture, and many of us who thought, as recently as a month or two ago, that this would be a cakewalk for her are astounded. However, you can never count her out; she and Bill are smart, organized, and devious (and quite entertaining, by the way, but that is another issue). You never know what they might pull in order to get this nomination.
The ideological and philosophical differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama cannot be described as anything resembling a chasm. In fact, their approach to government and the issues differ only in details. To this I must add the caveat that Mrs. Clinton’s views on anything are subject to change dictated by political expediency. That having been said, at least at this moment the views of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are pretty much in sync. This is the source of Mrs. Clinton’s trouble. Since there are few ideological differences between the two candidates, it comes down to a contest of personalities, and in such a contest, given that Richard Nixon is dead, Mrs. Clinton can always be expected to lose. This is especially to be expected when she is locked in such a race with a personally attractive candidate like Mr. Obama. But I digress.
Since we are left with few ideological differences to discuss, we are left with the horse race aspects of this race as grist for our political conversations for the next few months. This is not entirely a bad thing. First, for people like me, and doubtless for many of my readers, there are few ideological differences to discuss not only within the parties but also between the parties. The differences between the Republicans and Democrats boils down to the direction in which one would like to see the government grow. Oh boy. And both will assuredly grow government in the direction of their paymasters, who, in many, if not most, cases are the same people for both parties. What a choice. Second, for political (but not politician) enthusiasts like me, and doubtless many of my readers, the horse race aspects are always interesting. For reasons I have outlined in many previous posts, and that should be obvious to any sentient reader, this is, from a purely horse race aspect, the most interesting election season in recent, or even less recent, memory.
The conventional wisdom is that Mrs. Clinton must run the table in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania in order to remain viable in the race for the Democratic nomination. This is one of the few instances in which the conventional wisdom is correct, though one must point out that Mrs. Clinton’s being in this precarious position is testimony to the fascinating nature of this race, to wit: How can a candidate win New York, Massachusetts, and California, and convincingly so, and still not be the Democratic nominee? Astonishing. But I digress, again. Mrs. Clinton must win the Big 3, but I think an earlier race will be nearly as fecund for those trying to call this race.
Wisconsin holds a primary on Tuesday. Though Senator Obama is ahead in the polls in Wisconsin, the race in America’s Dairyland might be more interesting than most people think. Wisconsin is not all that much different demographically from Ohio, a state in which Senator Clinton is expected to win. Both are largely blue collar and slightly less educated than the country as a whole. Both are large Midwestern industrial states composed largely of medium sized cities with large pockets of ethnic voters. Both are Whiter than the country as a whole, but not to the degree of, say, Iowa or New Hampshire. Both have been hit hard by the Bush “prosperity” for which Larry Kudlow makes his living cheerleading. Both have heavy union representation. Wisconsin does have a reputation for being more liberal than Ohio, largely because of Madison’s only partially deserved reputation for being something of a Sodom and Gomorrah of liberalism and Wisconsin’s history of being the home of Bob Lafollette’s Progressive movement. But this reputation has been overblown for years.
Given the two states’ similarities, it is hard to imagine that Mrs. Clinton could be far ahead in Ohio and far behind in Wisconsin, as the polls seem to indicate. So watch Wisconsin. If Obama wins, as he probably will, unless he wins REALLY big, nothing changes. But if Clinton keeps it close, the race gets a little more interesting. And if Clinton pulls off the upset, she becomes the frontrunner again.
There is a larger reason than the potential that Wisconsin holds for Clinton for not yet ceding the nomination to Obama. It is obvious that this is Hillary Clinton’s last shot at becoming president, an office of which she has dreamed since adolescence. She is 60 today and will be 61 on Election Day. More importantly, if she manages to blow what was supposed to be a mere coronation for her, it will have proven, even to her, that the American people don’t want another Clinton in the White House. It is also fairly clear from their history that the Clintons will do ANYTHING to obtain and hold power and that the only thing that matters to the Clintons is the Clintons, and I’m not even so sure that “Clintons” ought to be pluralized in this context, and not just for grammatical reasons. Thus, the Clintons will stop at NOTHING to win this nomination, be it dirty tricks, last minute “revelations” about Barack Obama’s past, or even tearing the Democratic Party apart through manipulating, cajoling, or even threatening the super delegates. They will do whatever it takes and worry about the consequences later.
Yes, it looks bleak for Hillary Clinton at this juncture, and many of us who thought, as recently as a month or two ago, that this would be a cakewalk for her are astounded. However, you can never count her out; she and Bill are smart, organized, and devious (and quite entertaining, by the way, but that is another issue). You never know what they might pull in order to get this nomination.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
YET ANOTHER IDIOTIC IDEA FINDS A HOME IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
2/14/08
This morning’s Wall Street Journal (2/14/08, page A2) reports that both Congress and the free market Bush administrations are considering a number of plans that “could shift some of the risk for troubled loans to the federal government.” Under especially intense scrutiny is a plan, advanced by Credit Suisse Group, which, purely by coincidence, one can be sure, is up to its neck in bad housing related securities, under which the FHA would guarantee loans originated in order to refinance home loans that have gone sour due to homeowners’ buying too much house and/or borrowing against their homes to finance lifestyles of which you and I, who will be put on the hook for these loans under this plan that intrigues the free market Bushmen, can only dream. I have commented on such “plans” before (most notably and recently in my 1/25/08 (in which I discussed plans to expand the size of the loans the FHA will be allowed to guarantee to, depending on the geographic location of the home being financed, anywhere from $625 thousand to $730 thousand) and 1/24/08 posts) and will continue to discuss them until they are summarily executed by right thinking legislators or, far more likely, come to fruition.
The Journal puts it very succinctly when it says
“The risk: If delinquent borrowers default on their refinanced loans, the federal government would have to absorb the loss.”
Succinctly, but not starkly. The “federal government” is not some amorphous mass dispensing favors and good tidings to the deserving and the well-heeled with a propensity to write campaign checks. The “federal government,” or at least the “federal government’s” finances, is you, or yours, respectively. So, under this plan that free market Bushman and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson seems to think is the bee’s knees, puts you on the hook for mortgages that, in most cases, you wouldn’t even consider for yourself, due to their being out of the question given your income (little did you know how big a mortgage your income would support in the brave new world of Wall Street Whiz Kid finance, but that is another matter) or because you still retain a quaint sense of financial propriety.
The Journal goes on to report that
“Just a few months ago, such proposals would have been considered far-fetched, but these and other unorthodox ideas are gaining credibility.”
And why would that be? As I explained in earlier posts, two key Republican constituencies, the careless, witless, pompous, arrogant, and now hapless financial community and faux wealthy homeowners with a curious compulsion to display their Potemkin wealth, are in trouble, When these constituencies are in trouble, the GOP treats its rhetoric about respecting free markets and the private sector for what it is: dispensable cant designed to hornswoggle those who truly believe in such principles and who are sufficiently ingenuous to believe anything a politician, especially a Republican politician who never saw a public sector job s/he wouldn’t take, says. Essentially, the GOP’s worldview can be encapsulated as follows:
When the poor, or even the average working person, needs help from the government, the free market must be respected and allowed to perform its miracles. When the well off , the privileged, or even the financially frivolous who make a sometimes passable show of being well off or privileged need help due to their own idiocy and insecurity, the free market be damned—we have to DO SOMETHING!!!
Fortunately, there are still some GOP politicians who maintain a sense of propriety, or at least shame, sufficiently strong to shy away from such blatant hypocrisy. For example, Rep. Scott Garrett (R., NJ), when asked his views on the proposals of which the free market Bushmen are so enamored, responded “I would share the concern and nervousness about going in that direction.” Unfortunately, Mr. Garrett is something of a dinosaur in the new, enlightened, Bushite GOP, and he will doubtless be hearing from representatives of our free market President in the near future.
Predictably, the Democrats, led by Chuckie Schumer, have proposed an even more moronic program, involving the government’s even more aggressively buying up bad loans and thus putting the hook even further up taxpayers’….well, you get the idea. The Democrats, of course, disingenuously protest that their plan involves buying the bad loans at (politically determined) “discounts” and thus doesn’t bail out the financial industry, just homeowner who got in over their heads and are now looking for a handout from those on whom they normally look down their noses. Sorry! I, and surely the Democrats, meant to say “financially strapped homeowners.”
This morning’s Wall Street Journal (2/14/08, page A2) reports that both Congress and the free market Bush administrations are considering a number of plans that “could shift some of the risk for troubled loans to the federal government.” Under especially intense scrutiny is a plan, advanced by Credit Suisse Group, which, purely by coincidence, one can be sure, is up to its neck in bad housing related securities, under which the FHA would guarantee loans originated in order to refinance home loans that have gone sour due to homeowners’ buying too much house and/or borrowing against their homes to finance lifestyles of which you and I, who will be put on the hook for these loans under this plan that intrigues the free market Bushmen, can only dream. I have commented on such “plans” before (most notably and recently in my 1/25/08 (in which I discussed plans to expand the size of the loans the FHA will be allowed to guarantee to, depending on the geographic location of the home being financed, anywhere from $625 thousand to $730 thousand) and 1/24/08 posts) and will continue to discuss them until they are summarily executed by right thinking legislators or, far more likely, come to fruition.
The Journal puts it very succinctly when it says
“The risk: If delinquent borrowers default on their refinanced loans, the federal government would have to absorb the loss.”
Succinctly, but not starkly. The “federal government” is not some amorphous mass dispensing favors and good tidings to the deserving and the well-heeled with a propensity to write campaign checks. The “federal government,” or at least the “federal government’s” finances, is you, or yours, respectively. So, under this plan that free market Bushman and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson seems to think is the bee’s knees, puts you on the hook for mortgages that, in most cases, you wouldn’t even consider for yourself, due to their being out of the question given your income (little did you know how big a mortgage your income would support in the brave new world of Wall Street Whiz Kid finance, but that is another matter) or because you still retain a quaint sense of financial propriety.
The Journal goes on to report that
“Just a few months ago, such proposals would have been considered far-fetched, but these and other unorthodox ideas are gaining credibility.”
And why would that be? As I explained in earlier posts, two key Republican constituencies, the careless, witless, pompous, arrogant, and now hapless financial community and faux wealthy homeowners with a curious compulsion to display their Potemkin wealth, are in trouble, When these constituencies are in trouble, the GOP treats its rhetoric about respecting free markets and the private sector for what it is: dispensable cant designed to hornswoggle those who truly believe in such principles and who are sufficiently ingenuous to believe anything a politician, especially a Republican politician who never saw a public sector job s/he wouldn’t take, says. Essentially, the GOP’s worldview can be encapsulated as follows:
When the poor, or even the average working person, needs help from the government, the free market must be respected and allowed to perform its miracles. When the well off , the privileged, or even the financially frivolous who make a sometimes passable show of being well off or privileged need help due to their own idiocy and insecurity, the free market be damned—we have to DO SOMETHING!!!
Fortunately, there are still some GOP politicians who maintain a sense of propriety, or at least shame, sufficiently strong to shy away from such blatant hypocrisy. For example, Rep. Scott Garrett (R., NJ), when asked his views on the proposals of which the free market Bushmen are so enamored, responded “I would share the concern and nervousness about going in that direction.” Unfortunately, Mr. Garrett is something of a dinosaur in the new, enlightened, Bushite GOP, and he will doubtless be hearing from representatives of our free market President in the near future.
Predictably, the Democrats, led by Chuckie Schumer, have proposed an even more moronic program, involving the government’s even more aggressively buying up bad loans and thus putting the hook even further up taxpayers’….well, you get the idea. The Democrats, of course, disingenuously protest that their plan involves buying the bad loans at (politically determined) “discounts” and thus doesn’t bail out the financial industry, just homeowner who got in over their heads and are now looking for a handout from those on whom they normally look down their noses. Sorry! I, and surely the Democrats, meant to say “financially strapped homeowners.”
Monday, February 11, 2008
YET ANOTHER REASON FOR UNBRIDLED OPTIMISM
2/11/08
I was out for my typical early morning walk with the dog this morning when the 5:30 news update reported the results of last night’s Grammy Awards, which I hope I have spelled correctly. That such awards find their way into the “news” at all is further grist for the “our country is going to hell in hand basket” mindset that permeates this blog, but I got to thinking more broadly about what this year’s Grammy Awards say about our society.
It looks as though we have gone, from, say, “That Old Black Magic,” written by Harold Arlen and Johnny Mercer and performed, as was much of the popular music of the day, by many artists, but that is most identified with Louis Prima and Keely Smith and, to a lesser extent, Sammy Davis, Jr.:
“You’re the lover I have waited for, you’re the mate that fate had me created for..”
and, say, “The Way You Look Tonight” written by Jerome Kern and Dorothy Fields and, though done, as was the custom, by many artists, is clearly identified with Frank Sinatra:
“Some day, when I’m awfully low, when the world is cold, I will feel a glow just thinking of you, and the way you look tonight.”
and, say, just a touch more highbrow, “Fanfare for the Common Man,” written by Aaron Copland in 1942, and so good it needed no words, to the ear punishing cacophony of a woman who is actually in rehab protesting that she doesn’t want to go to rehab. This is what constitutes music, indeed, according to the Grammarians (which I guess is what you call these deep thinkers) the Record of the Year or Song of the Year, 2007, or maybe it’s 2008.
Hmm…
No grounds for needless pessimism here. Why, everything is just coming up roses for our nation if only we approach things with optimism, if only we look to a bright future, if only we think good thoughts, nice thoughts, positive thoughts.
I am assuming (hoping, really…if I am wrong here, things are worse than even I thought) that the aural distortion that won the Grammy is what passes for ironic humor nowadays. Also, some alert readers will point out that the annoying screecher who won the award for that convincing imitation of felines in the throes of sexual ecstacy is not American at all, but is British. To that I would respond that the Grammys (Grammies?) are American awards, and perhaps Britain is joining us in our voyage over the falls.
Culture is a reflection of the society that, for lack of a better verb, creates it (though, in this case, "excretes" would be better verb). Thus, what passes for culture in this country, the sludge and the sewage with which we are contaminating the world (No wonder they hate us.) provides more justification for the realism, that only looks like pessimism and cynicism, with which any thinking and concerned American must approach his or her country as it undulates in its final death throes.
I was out for my typical early morning walk with the dog this morning when the 5:30 news update reported the results of last night’s Grammy Awards, which I hope I have spelled correctly. That such awards find their way into the “news” at all is further grist for the “our country is going to hell in hand basket” mindset that permeates this blog, but I got to thinking more broadly about what this year’s Grammy Awards say about our society.
It looks as though we have gone, from, say, “That Old Black Magic,” written by Harold Arlen and Johnny Mercer and performed, as was much of the popular music of the day, by many artists, but that is most identified with Louis Prima and Keely Smith and, to a lesser extent, Sammy Davis, Jr.:
“You’re the lover I have waited for, you’re the mate that fate had me created for..”
and, say, “The Way You Look Tonight” written by Jerome Kern and Dorothy Fields and, though done, as was the custom, by many artists, is clearly identified with Frank Sinatra:
“Some day, when I’m awfully low, when the world is cold, I will feel a glow just thinking of you, and the way you look tonight.”
and, say, just a touch more highbrow, “Fanfare for the Common Man,” written by Aaron Copland in 1942, and so good it needed no words, to the ear punishing cacophony of a woman who is actually in rehab protesting that she doesn’t want to go to rehab. This is what constitutes music, indeed, according to the Grammarians (which I guess is what you call these deep thinkers) the Record of the Year or Song of the Year, 2007, or maybe it’s 2008.
Hmm…
No grounds for needless pessimism here. Why, everything is just coming up roses for our nation if only we approach things with optimism, if only we look to a bright future, if only we think good thoughts, nice thoughts, positive thoughts.
I am assuming (hoping, really…if I am wrong here, things are worse than even I thought) that the aural distortion that won the Grammy is what passes for ironic humor nowadays. Also, some alert readers will point out that the annoying screecher who won the award for that convincing imitation of felines in the throes of sexual ecstacy is not American at all, but is British. To that I would respond that the Grammys (Grammies?) are American awards, and perhaps Britain is joining us in our voyage over the falls.
Culture is a reflection of the society that, for lack of a better verb, creates it (though, in this case, "excretes" would be better verb). Thus, what passes for culture in this country, the sludge and the sewage with which we are contaminating the world (No wonder they hate us.) provides more justification for the realism, that only looks like pessimism and cynicism, with which any thinking and concerned American must approach his or her country as it undulates in its final death throes.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
A NOT SO PURELY LOCAL MATTER
As Tip O’Neil once said, all politics is local, so I sent this letter to the Naperville Sun, the civic cheerleading sheet that masquerades as a newspaper in our town. Even if you live nowhere near the suburban paradise I now call home, you probably have experienced similar problems with your local authorities, or at least can appreciate the politics involved:
2/7/08
Four times this week, snow removal crews from the City of Naperville, or contractors that the City has hired for snow removal, have treated us and our neighbors to piles of snow and/or ice as high as three feet at the end of our driveways. On two of these occasions, the street had already been plowed and thus needed no attention; it seemed as if the snow crews went over the streets, and left their piles, for the sheer joy of tormenting the citizenry. Further, I cannot escape the nagging notion that at least one of these piles was deposited in retaliation for earlier calls to complain of the Mt. Kilimanjaros that the city repeatedly builds for us.
Mayor Pradel is a nice man, but so was Mike Bilandic. Mayor Bilandic’s geniality did not stop him from losing his seemingly secure perch as Mayor Daley’s successor due to the real or, far more likely, merely apparent indifference to the plight of Chicago’s voters reflected in his response to the 1979 snow storm. Mayor Pradel ought to consider this chapter in recent history as his snow crews infuriate increasing numbers of his voters.
When such historical contemplation is suggested, the city comes back with its standard line that Naperville is not Chicago (Yes, I know…Chicago is less corrupt, but that is another issue.) and that, under our system of government, the Mayor is not responsible for snow removal. Any reasonably informed citizen knows that Naperville’s government operates under a city manager system, so one wonders what the Mayor does. There appears to be no line item in our budget for “avuncular elderly gentleman who reads to kids, ingratiates himself with the various GOP hacks who make their living on the public payroll by piously proclaiming their fealty to the private sector, and hands the keys to the city to any developer who comes down the pike.” The Mayor has to take some responsibility for the sloppy work of the City’s snow removal crews, and that responsibility is not absolved by his driving his own truck to pitch in when the snow gets deep.
Mark Quinn
2/7/08
Four times this week, snow removal crews from the City of Naperville, or contractors that the City has hired for snow removal, have treated us and our neighbors to piles of snow and/or ice as high as three feet at the end of our driveways. On two of these occasions, the street had already been plowed and thus needed no attention; it seemed as if the snow crews went over the streets, and left their piles, for the sheer joy of tormenting the citizenry. Further, I cannot escape the nagging notion that at least one of these piles was deposited in retaliation for earlier calls to complain of the Mt. Kilimanjaros that the city repeatedly builds for us.
Mayor Pradel is a nice man, but so was Mike Bilandic. Mayor Bilandic’s geniality did not stop him from losing his seemingly secure perch as Mayor Daley’s successor due to the real or, far more likely, merely apparent indifference to the plight of Chicago’s voters reflected in his response to the 1979 snow storm. Mayor Pradel ought to consider this chapter in recent history as his snow crews infuriate increasing numbers of his voters.
When such historical contemplation is suggested, the city comes back with its standard line that Naperville is not Chicago (Yes, I know…Chicago is less corrupt, but that is another issue.) and that, under our system of government, the Mayor is not responsible for snow removal. Any reasonably informed citizen knows that Naperville’s government operates under a city manager system, so one wonders what the Mayor does. There appears to be no line item in our budget for “avuncular elderly gentleman who reads to kids, ingratiates himself with the various GOP hacks who make their living on the public payroll by piously proclaiming their fealty to the private sector, and hands the keys to the city to any developer who comes down the pike.” The Mayor has to take some responsibility for the sloppy work of the City’s snow removal crews, and that responsibility is not absolved by his driving his own truck to pitch in when the snow gets deep.
Mark Quinn
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
“YOU ONLY FALL FOR LIES AND STORIES WHEN YOU REALLY WANT TO”
2/6/08
There are many things not to like about Mike Huckabee. I get especially nervous when he launches into one of his diatribes about wanting to run the country according to principles outlined in the Bible and how America ought to be a Christian nation. I agree that this country would be better off if we all adhered to principles enumerated in the Bible, even if we all didn’t believe in Jesus or even in God, but I don’t think that the government ought to compel us to follow Christian principles. I have this nagging respect for the First Amendment and the establishment clause, and a lifelong enthusiasm for limited government, that somehow does not allow me to sign up for the government imposed Christianity program. Also, as a Catholic, I am never quite sure that Mr. Huckabee counts me as a member of the club when he uses the term “Christian.” I am haunted by this nagging fear that, if Mr. Huckabee’s most enthusiastic adherents were put in charge, I would end up roasting on some spit as a Papist disciple of the Whore of Babylon.
That having been said, there is plenty to like about Mr. Huckabee. His Fair Tax plan, though it will never be implemented, might be just what our once great country needs to break it of its “Shop ‘til You Drop” pathology that is leading us to inevitable financial ruin. Huckabee is personally witty and engaging, or at least gives that impression. His populism, and attendant distrust of corporate America and Wall Street, are very healthy in our increasingly stratified and polarized society in which the American citizen is increasingly seen as an eminently disposable factor of production rather than as an individual with rights who is deserving of respect and dignity.
From a horse race perspective, Huckabee was one of the big winners last night, carrying West Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and Arkansas, the kind of states which the GOP has any remaining hope of carrying, or at least turning in a respectable performance, in November of this year. The GOP ought to think about that. And I also ought to lose about 30 pounds. So it goes.
What is more important is that Mr. Huckabee’s success shows that there are still some people in the Republican Party who believe that the Party, for a brief, shining moment (Okay, maybe never, but at least there was some mythology to that effect.) was more than a servant boy of Wall Street and corporate America. Or at least there are people who think the party ought to be what it would be if its leaders really believed the pious platitudes mouthed by its leaders (doubtless to barely concealed smirks) and their mouthpieces on talk radio and on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.
Yes, the types of people who voted for Mike Huckabee are naïve and have been completely hornswoggled by the people who really call the shots in the GOP. But there may be some raw material for a new party that will rise out of the ashes of the utter destruction that awaits the McCain led GOP this year. Probably not, but maybe. (Who says the Insightful Pontificator is not a shining beacon of hope?)
There are many things not to like about Mike Huckabee. I get especially nervous when he launches into one of his diatribes about wanting to run the country according to principles outlined in the Bible and how America ought to be a Christian nation. I agree that this country would be better off if we all adhered to principles enumerated in the Bible, even if we all didn’t believe in Jesus or even in God, but I don’t think that the government ought to compel us to follow Christian principles. I have this nagging respect for the First Amendment and the establishment clause, and a lifelong enthusiasm for limited government, that somehow does not allow me to sign up for the government imposed Christianity program. Also, as a Catholic, I am never quite sure that Mr. Huckabee counts me as a member of the club when he uses the term “Christian.” I am haunted by this nagging fear that, if Mr. Huckabee’s most enthusiastic adherents were put in charge, I would end up roasting on some spit as a Papist disciple of the Whore of Babylon.
That having been said, there is plenty to like about Mr. Huckabee. His Fair Tax plan, though it will never be implemented, might be just what our once great country needs to break it of its “Shop ‘til You Drop” pathology that is leading us to inevitable financial ruin. Huckabee is personally witty and engaging, or at least gives that impression. His populism, and attendant distrust of corporate America and Wall Street, are very healthy in our increasingly stratified and polarized society in which the American citizen is increasingly seen as an eminently disposable factor of production rather than as an individual with rights who is deserving of respect and dignity.
From a horse race perspective, Huckabee was one of the big winners last night, carrying West Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and Arkansas, the kind of states which the GOP has any remaining hope of carrying, or at least turning in a respectable performance, in November of this year. The GOP ought to think about that. And I also ought to lose about 30 pounds. So it goes.
What is more important is that Mr. Huckabee’s success shows that there are still some people in the Republican Party who believe that the Party, for a brief, shining moment (Okay, maybe never, but at least there was some mythology to that effect.) was more than a servant boy of Wall Street and corporate America. Or at least there are people who think the party ought to be what it would be if its leaders really believed the pious platitudes mouthed by its leaders (doubtless to barely concealed smirks) and their mouthpieces on talk radio and on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.
Yes, the types of people who voted for Mike Huckabee are naïve and have been completely hornswoggled by the people who really call the shots in the GOP. But there may be some raw material for a new party that will rise out of the ashes of the utter destruction that awaits the McCain led GOP this year. Probably not, but maybe. (Who says the Insightful Pontificator is not a shining beacon of hope?)
AND DON’T “COME BACK ‘TIL IT’S OVER OVER THERE”
2/6/08
If you are a military age male (Given what the Bushite “Big Government on a World Scale” approach to foreign policy has done to our military, “military age” is between 18 and 45.) who supports John McCain for president, immediately drop whatever you are doing and enlist in the military, and preferably not the Coast Guard, the National Guard, or any Reserve Branch. I mean active duty, front line military. This goes for every male John McCain supporter who is eligible to join, whether you are a college student, a law student, a master of the universe Wall Street Whiz Kid who just can’t leave your important job figuring out ways to enrich yourself and your employer by further screwing up our economy, a Congressional staffer, a political hanger-on, tradesman, or ditch digger. You simply cannot support John McCain unless you believe wholeheartedly in the Bush/Cheney/McCain Soviet style imposition of the American way of life on the world at the point of a gun, the most salient consequences of which are, and will continue to be, if John McCain has his way, thousands of American deaths, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqi (and Iranian and God knows what other nationals) deaths, making the Middle East safe for terrorism for at least 1,000 years (The people over there have long memories.), and the enrichment of some key GOP constituencies, most notably the oil and armaments companies and their executives.
Don’t try to pull a pusillanimous Dick Cheney move and argue that you have “other priorities.” You doubtless think the war is more important than other people’s priorities. If the war, and its expansion, is such a noble, purposeful idea, it surely is more important than whatever other priorities you might have, even the pursuit of a career in politics sending other people’s kids to fight Mr. Bush’s, Mr. Cheney’s, Mrs. Clinton’s, and Mr. McCain’s wars.
And if you are a parent, and especially a mother, of young children who supports John McCain, don’t complain when the draft is reinstituted and your kids are shipped off to fight in Mr. McCain’s crusade to tell the world how it should live, or else. If your guy wins (and thank God he won’t), your kids are going to go over there to fight and perhaps die. It won’t be someone else’s “noble service” to which you can pay lip service and go about your day any more.
Don’t try to argue that you support John McCain on “other issues” or that you “salute his character” and will support him despite his views on the war. Every other personal characteristic or policy stand of John McCain pales in comparison to his support of the war. If you try to ignore this, or pretend it simply isn’t true, don’t worry about it; the Democrats will remind you from now to election time of the inevitable equation of John McCain with continuing and expanding the war.
Believe me; it pains me to say this. Many young men I know and like (friends, children of friends, students of mine) support John McCain. None is in the military. I don’t really want them to put their lives in danger in order to satisfy the deranged desires of a man who can best be described as a war maniac. I just want them to reexamine their support for John McCain.
Fortunately, John McCain has less chance of becoming our next president than a certain north side ball club has of winning the World Series each year for the next decade. But when someone gets even this close, sane people have to realize how close we are to becoming a modern Sparta, or Rome…in the bad sense.
If you are a military age male (Given what the Bushite “Big Government on a World Scale” approach to foreign policy has done to our military, “military age” is between 18 and 45.) who supports John McCain for president, immediately drop whatever you are doing and enlist in the military, and preferably not the Coast Guard, the National Guard, or any Reserve Branch. I mean active duty, front line military. This goes for every male John McCain supporter who is eligible to join, whether you are a college student, a law student, a master of the universe Wall Street Whiz Kid who just can’t leave your important job figuring out ways to enrich yourself and your employer by further screwing up our economy, a Congressional staffer, a political hanger-on, tradesman, or ditch digger. You simply cannot support John McCain unless you believe wholeheartedly in the Bush/Cheney/McCain Soviet style imposition of the American way of life on the world at the point of a gun, the most salient consequences of which are, and will continue to be, if John McCain has his way, thousands of American deaths, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqi (and Iranian and God knows what other nationals) deaths, making the Middle East safe for terrorism for at least 1,000 years (The people over there have long memories.), and the enrichment of some key GOP constituencies, most notably the oil and armaments companies and their executives.
Don’t try to pull a pusillanimous Dick Cheney move and argue that you have “other priorities.” You doubtless think the war is more important than other people’s priorities. If the war, and its expansion, is such a noble, purposeful idea, it surely is more important than whatever other priorities you might have, even the pursuit of a career in politics sending other people’s kids to fight Mr. Bush’s, Mr. Cheney’s, Mrs. Clinton’s, and Mr. McCain’s wars.
And if you are a parent, and especially a mother, of young children who supports John McCain, don’t complain when the draft is reinstituted and your kids are shipped off to fight in Mr. McCain’s crusade to tell the world how it should live, or else. If your guy wins (and thank God he won’t), your kids are going to go over there to fight and perhaps die. It won’t be someone else’s “noble service” to which you can pay lip service and go about your day any more.
Don’t try to argue that you support John McCain on “other issues” or that you “salute his character” and will support him despite his views on the war. Every other personal characteristic or policy stand of John McCain pales in comparison to his support of the war. If you try to ignore this, or pretend it simply isn’t true, don’t worry about it; the Democrats will remind you from now to election time of the inevitable equation of John McCain with continuing and expanding the war.
Believe me; it pains me to say this. Many young men I know and like (friends, children of friends, students of mine) support John McCain. None is in the military. I don’t really want them to put their lives in danger in order to satisfy the deranged desires of a man who can best be described as a war maniac. I just want them to reexamine their support for John McCain.
Fortunately, John McCain has less chance of becoming our next president than a certain north side ball club has of winning the World Series each year for the next decade. But when someone gets even this close, sane people have to realize how close we are to becoming a modern Sparta, or Rome…in the bad sense.
HE CAN’T BE SERIOUS, CAN HE?
2/6/08
One of my favorite and most self-descriptive expressions is that as cynical as I get, it’s impossible to keep up. Lately, I’ve been joking that John McCain is so obtuse, so out of touch with reality, that he might ask Dick Cheney to be his running mate. Not even John McCain could be that utterly gormless, right?
Well…
There was a report in this morning’s Chicago Sun-Times (Yes, I know it was in Sneed’s column, which is regarded as little more than a glorified gossip column. However, Sneed is pretty up to snuff on politics and is a must read for people in and around our fair city who are in or interested in politics.) that John McCain is considering (Get this.) asking Condoleezza Rice as his running mate! Condoleezza “I love this war and the man who started it” Rice! The only difference between Condoleezza “And don’t forget I helped start this war!” Rice and her two bosses, Bush and Cheney, is that she is not a draft dodger chicken hawk, and that’s only because she didn’t have the opportunity.
As I’ve said in the Pontificator before, not only is John McCain in favor of continuing (for the next hundred years, if he is to be taken at his word) and expanding this war, he is politically tone deaf enough to not let you forget that he just basks in this war. Condeleezza “Don’t tell me about the terrorists, the real enemy is Russia and the real solution is missile defense” Rice will serve as a constant reminder that the GOP has nominated a man who makes George Patton look like Mohandas K. Gandhi.
Thank God he can’t win!
One of my favorite and most self-descriptive expressions is that as cynical as I get, it’s impossible to keep up. Lately, I’ve been joking that John McCain is so obtuse, so out of touch with reality, that he might ask Dick Cheney to be his running mate. Not even John McCain could be that utterly gormless, right?
Well…
There was a report in this morning’s Chicago Sun-Times (Yes, I know it was in Sneed’s column, which is regarded as little more than a glorified gossip column. However, Sneed is pretty up to snuff on politics and is a must read for people in and around our fair city who are in or interested in politics.) that John McCain is considering (Get this.) asking Condoleezza Rice as his running mate! Condoleezza “I love this war and the man who started it” Rice! The only difference between Condoleezza “And don’t forget I helped start this war!” Rice and her two bosses, Bush and Cheney, is that she is not a draft dodger chicken hawk, and that’s only because she didn’t have the opportunity.
As I’ve said in the Pontificator before, not only is John McCain in favor of continuing (for the next hundred years, if he is to be taken at his word) and expanding this war, he is politically tone deaf enough to not let you forget that he just basks in this war. Condeleezza “Don’t tell me about the terrorists, the real enemy is Russia and the real solution is missile defense” Rice will serve as a constant reminder that the GOP has nominated a man who makes George Patton look like Mohandas K. Gandhi.
Thank God he can’t win!
“HERE THEY COME SPINNING OUT OF THE TURN…”
2/6/08
How could someone, especially a Democrat, who has carried New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California not have the nomination sewn up? Regardless of the arcane rules for selecting delegates to the Democratic national convention that has made this race close, one has to concede that Hillary Clinton should have the nomination put away. This should be especially self-evident when one considers that she ought to handily carry the largest state remaining on the primary calendar, Texas, by virtue of her strength among Hispanic voters. It should all be over, but it isn’t. This is testimony to the star power of Barack Obama, a very biased (in favor of Obama, obviously) national media, and the American people’s, even the Democratic electorate’s, profound and eminently understandable unease with Hillary Clinton and her husband.
I still think Hillary Clinton will be the nominee, but, as something of a political junkie, I am delighted that the race will continue. This is exciting.
Some “experts” have argued that, since the Republicans have already decided on their nominee (and they have…don’t be so naïve or blindly hopeful to think that John McCain will not be the GOP standard-bearer, unless he is taken away in a straitjacket, which is not an entirely incredible possibility) and can now concentrate on the general election, the Democrats are at a distinct disadvantage. Don’t believe it. The Republican race is over and thus worthy of no attention. The Democrats will still be attracting all the attention, perhaps, but not likely, all the way to the convention. John McCain, on the other hand, were it not for the “Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran” commercials the Democrats will have been running 24/7, will have been forgotten, or remembered only as the drooling old guy who got the nomination by winning primaries in a bunch of states that the GOP never had a hope of carrying anyway.
The best, or at least the most recent, analogy I can draw is to Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani’s strategy (which, incidentally, I thought would work or at least I liked because I like unconventional thinkers and unconventional approaches) was to ignore the early primaries and focus first on Florida and then on the Super Tuesday states. It failed…miserably. Why? Because the American people, probably due to the dessicatory impact television has had on their brains, have an extremely short attention span. Giuliani was out of sight only for a few weeks, but it resulted in his plummeting from front-runner to laughingstock. A similar fate awaits the GOP, and would even if they were running a viable candidate, simply because the Democratic race remains relevant. Well, that, and the economy, the war, the budget, gas prices, the financial markets…
How could someone, especially a Democrat, who has carried New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California not have the nomination sewn up? Regardless of the arcane rules for selecting delegates to the Democratic national convention that has made this race close, one has to concede that Hillary Clinton should have the nomination put away. This should be especially self-evident when one considers that she ought to handily carry the largest state remaining on the primary calendar, Texas, by virtue of her strength among Hispanic voters. It should all be over, but it isn’t. This is testimony to the star power of Barack Obama, a very biased (in favor of Obama, obviously) national media, and the American people’s, even the Democratic electorate’s, profound and eminently understandable unease with Hillary Clinton and her husband.
I still think Hillary Clinton will be the nominee, but, as something of a political junkie, I am delighted that the race will continue. This is exciting.
Some “experts” have argued that, since the Republicans have already decided on their nominee (and they have…don’t be so naïve or blindly hopeful to think that John McCain will not be the GOP standard-bearer, unless he is taken away in a straitjacket, which is not an entirely incredible possibility) and can now concentrate on the general election, the Democrats are at a distinct disadvantage. Don’t believe it. The Republican race is over and thus worthy of no attention. The Democrats will still be attracting all the attention, perhaps, but not likely, all the way to the convention. John McCain, on the other hand, were it not for the “Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran” commercials the Democrats will have been running 24/7, will have been forgotten, or remembered only as the drooling old guy who got the nomination by winning primaries in a bunch of states that the GOP never had a hope of carrying anyway.
The best, or at least the most recent, analogy I can draw is to Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani’s strategy (which, incidentally, I thought would work or at least I liked because I like unconventional thinkers and unconventional approaches) was to ignore the early primaries and focus first on Florida and then on the Super Tuesday states. It failed…miserably. Why? Because the American people, probably due to the dessicatory impact television has had on their brains, have an extremely short attention span. Giuliani was out of sight only for a few weeks, but it resulted in his plummeting from front-runner to laughingstock. A similar fate awaits the GOP, and would even if they were running a viable candidate, simply because the Democratic race remains relevant. Well, that, and the economy, the war, the budget, gas prices, the financial markets…
UNMITTIGATED GALL
2/6/08
Thank God that Mitt Romney will not get near the Oval Office.
Mr. Romney is fond of telling people that he would be a good president because he has had a job in the “real economy.” Normally, being in favor of the Founding Father’s conception (admittedly often honored in the breach in their cases) of public service as being something one does as a brief, required, and largely selfless respite from whatever one does for a living, I would find such an argument persuasive. However, in Mr. Romney’s case, the electorate thus far has resoundingly and repeatedly told him that what he considers “the real economy,” private equity and management consulting, is not what they consider the “real economy.” And, given the role private equity and management consulting will prove to have had in the decimation our economy is currently experiencing, the voters don’t trust a man with his credentials to fix our economic problems. That Mr. Romney ever was in this race is further evidence of how completely out of touch, and beholden to the moneyed interests, the Republican Party is.
Admittedly, one has to have an outsized ego in order to run for President, and one might even argue that one has to have an outsized ego in order to be a good President, though the humility of Calvin Coolidge, perhaps the most underrated president in American history, offers a counter-argument. However, a grotesquely outsized ego, and that is what we are experiencing in the continued persistence of Mitt Romney in his self-financed, delusional quixotic quest for a job that he feels is his entitlement, is truly frightening.
Even the television addled American electorate has the gumption to reject candidates who assume that they have all the answers and could solve all our problems if only the benighted masses would see fit to accept the gift of their presence they are generously offering us. Or at least Americans have the sense to vote for Democrats if that is what they are seeking in their elected officials.
Normally, one would think that the GOP’s rejection of Mitt Romney would be a good sign both for the GOP and for the good sense of the American people. However, rejecting him for the odious John McCain dashes any brief glimmer of optimism that can be derived from Romney’s well deserved demise.
Thank God that Mitt Romney will not get near the Oval Office.
Mr. Romney is fond of telling people that he would be a good president because he has had a job in the “real economy.” Normally, being in favor of the Founding Father’s conception (admittedly often honored in the breach in their cases) of public service as being something one does as a brief, required, and largely selfless respite from whatever one does for a living, I would find such an argument persuasive. However, in Mr. Romney’s case, the electorate thus far has resoundingly and repeatedly told him that what he considers “the real economy,” private equity and management consulting, is not what they consider the “real economy.” And, given the role private equity and management consulting will prove to have had in the decimation our economy is currently experiencing, the voters don’t trust a man with his credentials to fix our economic problems. That Mr. Romney ever was in this race is further evidence of how completely out of touch, and beholden to the moneyed interests, the Republican Party is.
Admittedly, one has to have an outsized ego in order to run for President, and one might even argue that one has to have an outsized ego in order to be a good President, though the humility of Calvin Coolidge, perhaps the most underrated president in American history, offers a counter-argument. However, a grotesquely outsized ego, and that is what we are experiencing in the continued persistence of Mitt Romney in his self-financed, delusional quixotic quest for a job that he feels is his entitlement, is truly frightening.
Even the television addled American electorate has the gumption to reject candidates who assume that they have all the answers and could solve all our problems if only the benighted masses would see fit to accept the gift of their presence they are generously offering us. Or at least Americans have the sense to vote for Democrats if that is what they are seeking in their elected officials.
Normally, one would think that the GOP’s rejection of Mitt Romney would be a good sign both for the GOP and for the good sense of the American people. However, rejecting him for the odious John McCain dashes any brief glimmer of optimism that can be derived from Romney’s well deserved demise.
Monday, February 4, 2008
BANALITIES ON PARADE
2/4/08
Thank God for the horse race aspects of this presidential election race, which makes it the most exciting since 1980, or maybe 1976. If we had to rely on what passes for discourse, this would be the most torpid race in recorded history. Below is what passes for debate in this race (paraphrasing, not quoting):
REPUBLICANS:
CANDIDATE A:
My friends, my opponent is a liberal and a surrender monkey who doubtless eats cheese. He would have us out of Iraq before he vacates the White House and would have us fighting in Iran within his first year in office. If we nominate him, my friends, the sure consequence will be (Cue the horror film music.) President Hillary! (Audible lamentation arises from the crowd.) I, on the other hand, am just like Ronald Reagan. In fact, if you exhumed the Great Man right now, he would probably look just like me. If you want to nominate a liberal, my friends, nominate my opponent, but if you want to nominate a real man, nominate me. Did I mention that I was POW in Vietnam?
Ronald Reagan! Ronald Reagan! Ronald Reagan!
Liberal! Liberal! Liberal!
CANDIDATE B:
I wish my opponent would stop pretending to be an expert on my record. Call me a liberal, will he? I am not a surrender monkey. In fact, I pledge that if I am elected I will seek a Constitutional amendment forbidding withdrawal from Iraq, and I also pledge to have us fighting in Iran within the first three months of my assuming office. If we nominate my liberal opponent, the consequence will surely be (Cue the horror film music again.) Hillary in the White House! (Wailing and audible gnashing of teeth arises from the crowd.) Furthermore, my liberal opponent is not at all like Ronald Reagan. I am the reincarnation of the Great Man. Why, just look at my hair!
Ronald Reagan! Ronald Reagan! Ronald Reagan!
Liberal! Liberal! Liberal!
At least the Republicans discuss one issue of substance…the speed with which they can replicate the great success of the Iraq war in Iran. The Democrats have completely dispensed with substance (paraphrasing rather than quoting):
CANDIDATE A:
I am the candidate of change. I will build a bridge to the 21st Century. My opponent is the candidate of the status quo who will build a bridge back to the 20th Century. Did I mention that her husband is Bill Clinton?
CANDIDATE B:
I have the experience to build that bridge to the 21st Century while my opponent is a rank, untested amateur who will surely be the ruination of this country due to his youth and inexperience. Did I mention that he is Black, and might have been a Muslim? A Black Muslim, perhaps?
Needless to say, none of these candidates will be mistaken for either Mr. Lincoln or Mr. Douglas. As I said above, thank God for the horse race, and it is interesting. It looks like John McCain (Did you know he was a POW in Vietnam?) is the certain Republican nominee (as I intimated in my last post) and that the GOP is thereby signing its death warrant. The Republicans deserve it after nominating George II twice and then nominating a man who considers Bush’s greatest folly (a VERY high bar, by the way) his greatest triumph.
On the Democratic side, two weeks ago I was virtually certain Clinton would be the nominee. With the gap between her and Obama closing, I still think that her superior organization and contacts with the powers that be will win her the nomination, but my confidence in that prediction has dwindled.
Furthermore, while I thought even two weeks ago that both nominations would be determined tomorrow, if one race were to continue past Super Tuesday, I would have said it would be the Republican contest. Now, it looks like the Republicans will wrap it up tomorrow night and the Democrats will continue their sandbox antics for a few more weeks. Note that while it would have been difficult for either Clinton or Obama to secure the delegates necessary to win the nomination tomorrow, a decisive victory in what amounts to a national primary by one of the candidates would probably have forced, or persuaded, the other to concede. Clinton was in a position to achieve such a victory until very recently. Something like a draw tomorrow, or, more likely, a less than overwhelming victory by Clinton will result in not only neither candidate having the delegates necessary for the nomination but also neither candidate knocked out of the race by the cold, hard reality of having been stomped in a national primary.
Could it go to the convention on the Dem side? While that would be great from the perspective of those of us who are interested in politics, it remains highly unlikely. But we can always hope!
Thank God for the horse race aspects of this presidential election race, which makes it the most exciting since 1980, or maybe 1976. If we had to rely on what passes for discourse, this would be the most torpid race in recorded history. Below is what passes for debate in this race (paraphrasing, not quoting):
REPUBLICANS:
CANDIDATE A:
My friends, my opponent is a liberal and a surrender monkey who doubtless eats cheese. He would have us out of Iraq before he vacates the White House and would have us fighting in Iran within his first year in office. If we nominate him, my friends, the sure consequence will be (Cue the horror film music.) President Hillary! (Audible lamentation arises from the crowd.) I, on the other hand, am just like Ronald Reagan. In fact, if you exhumed the Great Man right now, he would probably look just like me. If you want to nominate a liberal, my friends, nominate my opponent, but if you want to nominate a real man, nominate me. Did I mention that I was POW in Vietnam?
Ronald Reagan! Ronald Reagan! Ronald Reagan!
Liberal! Liberal! Liberal!
CANDIDATE B:
I wish my opponent would stop pretending to be an expert on my record. Call me a liberal, will he? I am not a surrender monkey. In fact, I pledge that if I am elected I will seek a Constitutional amendment forbidding withdrawal from Iraq, and I also pledge to have us fighting in Iran within the first three months of my assuming office. If we nominate my liberal opponent, the consequence will surely be (Cue the horror film music again.) Hillary in the White House! (Wailing and audible gnashing of teeth arises from the crowd.) Furthermore, my liberal opponent is not at all like Ronald Reagan. I am the reincarnation of the Great Man. Why, just look at my hair!
Ronald Reagan! Ronald Reagan! Ronald Reagan!
Liberal! Liberal! Liberal!
At least the Republicans discuss one issue of substance…the speed with which they can replicate the great success of the Iraq war in Iran. The Democrats have completely dispensed with substance (paraphrasing rather than quoting):
CANDIDATE A:
I am the candidate of change. I will build a bridge to the 21st Century. My opponent is the candidate of the status quo who will build a bridge back to the 20th Century. Did I mention that her husband is Bill Clinton?
CANDIDATE B:
I have the experience to build that bridge to the 21st Century while my opponent is a rank, untested amateur who will surely be the ruination of this country due to his youth and inexperience. Did I mention that he is Black, and might have been a Muslim? A Black Muslim, perhaps?
Needless to say, none of these candidates will be mistaken for either Mr. Lincoln or Mr. Douglas. As I said above, thank God for the horse race, and it is interesting. It looks like John McCain (Did you know he was a POW in Vietnam?) is the certain Republican nominee (as I intimated in my last post) and that the GOP is thereby signing its death warrant. The Republicans deserve it after nominating George II twice and then nominating a man who considers Bush’s greatest folly (a VERY high bar, by the way) his greatest triumph.
On the Democratic side, two weeks ago I was virtually certain Clinton would be the nominee. With the gap between her and Obama closing, I still think that her superior organization and contacts with the powers that be will win her the nomination, but my confidence in that prediction has dwindled.
Furthermore, while I thought even two weeks ago that both nominations would be determined tomorrow, if one race were to continue past Super Tuesday, I would have said it would be the Republican contest. Now, it looks like the Republicans will wrap it up tomorrow night and the Democrats will continue their sandbox antics for a few more weeks. Note that while it would have been difficult for either Clinton or Obama to secure the delegates necessary to win the nomination tomorrow, a decisive victory in what amounts to a national primary by one of the candidates would probably have forced, or persuaded, the other to concede. Clinton was in a position to achieve such a victory until very recently. Something like a draw tomorrow, or, more likely, a less than overwhelming victory by Clinton will result in not only neither candidate having the delegates necessary for the nomination but also neither candidate knocked out of the race by the cold, hard reality of having been stomped in a national primary.
Could it go to the convention on the Dem side? While that would be great from the perspective of those of us who are interested in politics, it remains highly unlikely. But we can always hope!
“I AIN’T GOT TIME TO…DISCUSS THE WEATHER, OR HOW LONG IT’S GONNA LAST…”
2/4/08
It’s February in Chicago. It’s cold and it snows. Sometimes it’s very cold and it snows a lot. Surprised? Of course not. But you would think this is some kind of revelation by the way the news media treat our weather. Regularly, throughout January, the lead story on the local news features some immaculately winter-outfitted weather babe standing out in the snow (and/or the cold) saying “Yes, folks, it’s cold out here.” She hands us off to a similarly immaculately winter-outfitted weather empty suit, always immaculately coiffed and sans hat (which always puzzles me—if it’s that cold and snowy, you would think the reporter would have the sense to wear a hat, but then, we are dealing with the media) who tells us “Yes, folks, it’s (mirabile dictu!) also cold and snowy here in another part of the metropolitan area!” Can you imagine that? This is a prime example, perhaps the ultimate progenitor, of NSS (“No S…, Sherlock”) reporting.
The reporters and news readers then go on to warn us (not quoting, but paraphrasing here), that conditions are dangerous, that sure death awaits anyone who ventures out into the cold, that the end of civilization as we know it is upon us, and that our best bet is to cower in our basements and await our inevitable doom.
Those of us who are not so easily cowed then proceed to venture outside to learn that, yes, it is cold, but that it is, after all, the dead of winter in Chicago. While very cold weather is dangerous to people who have to work outside, it is little more than an inconvenience to most of us, even those of us who take public transportation. The roads, which the media do their best to assure us are a veritable cesspool of mayhem and unspeakable carnage, are very manageable. While the adverse weather conditions exacerbate the idiocy of the clueless drivers who make up a growing share of our motoring public, there are fewer of them on the roads, so, on balance, things are okay. Modern cars (Mine has neither traction nor stability control and is neither all wheel nor four wheel drive, but does have front wheel drive and anti-lock brakes and goes through the snow like a sled.) piloted by competent, or even skilled (in the case of yours truly) and weather hardened (again, in the case of yours truly) drivers have no problem with this kind of weather. I, and I am sure many of you, actually enjoy driving in the snow, as I did last night navigating a largely unplowed Ogden Avenue in order to pick up my oldest daughter after a Super Bowl party she attended.
So what is the problem if the media’s coverage of weather in the winters amounts to little more than wild-eyed alarmism? After all, it does get the timid and easily shaken off the roads, making transit easier for those of us who know what we are doing. It does waste valuable news time on what amounts to non-news. However, given the woeful state of TV and, to a lesser extent, radio news, the time saved by not reporting on the eminently predictable winter weather would be squandered with more reports of the drunken and/or drug-addled escapades of barely post-pubescent overindulged brats the American people, in their never ending wisdom, have chosen to deem celebrities. So perhaps diaphanous weather reporting is a net plus in this regard, also.
The problem, however, is a classic “Boy who cried wolf” situation. If the weather ever does get really life threatening, the media will doubtless warn us of impending cataclysm. Sensible people, like yours truly, having heard this song before, will simply ignore the media and go about their business, perhaps genuinely endangering their lives. If the media really want to avoid this sort of peril, rather than pander to an increasingly excerebrose viewership, perhaps they ought to learn how to save the alarmism for those very few times it is justified.
It’s February in Chicago. It’s cold and it snows. Sometimes it’s very cold and it snows a lot. Surprised? Of course not. But you would think this is some kind of revelation by the way the news media treat our weather. Regularly, throughout January, the lead story on the local news features some immaculately winter-outfitted weather babe standing out in the snow (and/or the cold) saying “Yes, folks, it’s cold out here.” She hands us off to a similarly immaculately winter-outfitted weather empty suit, always immaculately coiffed and sans hat (which always puzzles me—if it’s that cold and snowy, you would think the reporter would have the sense to wear a hat, but then, we are dealing with the media) who tells us “Yes, folks, it’s (mirabile dictu!) also cold and snowy here in another part of the metropolitan area!” Can you imagine that? This is a prime example, perhaps the ultimate progenitor, of NSS (“No S…, Sherlock”) reporting.
The reporters and news readers then go on to warn us (not quoting, but paraphrasing here), that conditions are dangerous, that sure death awaits anyone who ventures out into the cold, that the end of civilization as we know it is upon us, and that our best bet is to cower in our basements and await our inevitable doom.
Those of us who are not so easily cowed then proceed to venture outside to learn that, yes, it is cold, but that it is, after all, the dead of winter in Chicago. While very cold weather is dangerous to people who have to work outside, it is little more than an inconvenience to most of us, even those of us who take public transportation. The roads, which the media do their best to assure us are a veritable cesspool of mayhem and unspeakable carnage, are very manageable. While the adverse weather conditions exacerbate the idiocy of the clueless drivers who make up a growing share of our motoring public, there are fewer of them on the roads, so, on balance, things are okay. Modern cars (Mine has neither traction nor stability control and is neither all wheel nor four wheel drive, but does have front wheel drive and anti-lock brakes and goes through the snow like a sled.) piloted by competent, or even skilled (in the case of yours truly) and weather hardened (again, in the case of yours truly) drivers have no problem with this kind of weather. I, and I am sure many of you, actually enjoy driving in the snow, as I did last night navigating a largely unplowed Ogden Avenue in order to pick up my oldest daughter after a Super Bowl party she attended.
So what is the problem if the media’s coverage of weather in the winters amounts to little more than wild-eyed alarmism? After all, it does get the timid and easily shaken off the roads, making transit easier for those of us who know what we are doing. It does waste valuable news time on what amounts to non-news. However, given the woeful state of TV and, to a lesser extent, radio news, the time saved by not reporting on the eminently predictable winter weather would be squandered with more reports of the drunken and/or drug-addled escapades of barely post-pubescent overindulged brats the American people, in their never ending wisdom, have chosen to deem celebrities. So perhaps diaphanous weather reporting is a net plus in this regard, also.
The problem, however, is a classic “Boy who cried wolf” situation. If the weather ever does get really life threatening, the media will doubtless warn us of impending cataclysm. Sensible people, like yours truly, having heard this song before, will simply ignore the media and go about their business, perhaps genuinely endangering their lives. If the media really want to avoid this sort of peril, rather than pander to an increasingly excerebrose viewership, perhaps they ought to learn how to save the alarmism for those very few times it is justified.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
