11/25/10
We had my niece and her family over for Thanksgiving yesterday. As always, a good time was had by all. My nephew-in-law, if you will, is a Republican political operative out here in DuPage County and a very keen observer of the political situation whose opinion is always worthy of consideration and respect. Naturally, some of the conversation, at least over the pre-meal snack table, centered on politics.
My nephew-in-law, and friend, asked me who I would most and least want to run against in a run-off if I were Rahm Emanuel.
The above query carries two implicit assumptions. First, it assumes that there will be a run-off. While I earlier thought there was a possibility that we could once again see who our next mayor will be in February (AND THEN THERE WERE FOUR…, 10/15/10):
It is October 15 and we have already reached the point at which there are only four viable candidates for mayor: Tom Dart, Rahm Emanuel, James Meeks, and Gery Chico. Sure, there are plenty of others still technically in the race, but they represent quite slim pickings. Who really thinks Ricky Hendon, Miguel del Valle, or Carol Moseley Braun has any chance of becoming our next mayor? In fact, I would go so far as to say that, as the deal making continues (Does anyone think Luis Gutierrez dropped out to concentrate on his immigration crusade in Congress?) and the field narrows further, we could see the mayor chosen in February, with no need for an April runoff, just as we have seen since the inception of the non-partisan mayoral election in 1999.
I went on to say in the next paragraph
Note, though, that it is still early; the race only began about five weeks ago and the February preliminary is still almost four months away. Anything could happen. If, say, Lisa Madigan or Danny Davis gets into the race, both unlikely, the former more than the latter, everything changes.
And indeed, things have “happened.” With Tom Dart’s leaving and Danny Davis’s entering, it’s hard to see how there won’t be a runoff. Some of the more learned, and in the tank for Emanuel, in the press think there is a chance their guy wins outright. If I know, or have spoken to ANYONE in the city, I simply cannot see how this can happen, unless Emanuel buys off, or otherwise wins over, the powerful ward organizations both in the inner city and on the geographic fringes of the city. But then, most of the people that I know don’t live in the Fifth Congressional District and so, in the eyes of the media, don’t count. But I digress.
The second assumption is that Rahm Emanuel makes it to the run-off. Even though I don’t see the groundswell for Emanuel, indeed, his near inevitability, that the denizens of the press corps. see, it seems to be clear that Emanuel will be one of the last two men standing. The existence of at least two, and maybe three, serious black candidates makes Emanuel’s survival a near certainty.
So the question remains valid: If you were Rahm Emanuel, who would you most want to face in the run-off? Who would you least want to face?
If I were Rahm, I’d most want to face James Meeks, assuming that Carol Moseley Braun and Roland Burris are not serious candidates. Harold Washington became mayor in 1983 because he was able to assemble a coalition of blacks, lakefront liberals, a substantial chunk of the Hispanic vote, and a small number of white Machine Democrats who, admirably, remained loyal to party despite the racial overtones of the campaign. (I understand that Washington did win under vastly different electoral circumstances; there was no run-off system in 1983 and Harold was thus able to win with 37% of the vote in the Democratic primary. But the aforementioned coalition came into play in the general, when Harold won by a mere 4% (52%-48%) against unlikely Republican Bernie Epton in a racially charged election.) One of the vital elements of that coalition likely would not be with Meeks in a one-on-one against Emanuel because of Meeks’ conservative social views and Rahm’s being the very apotheosis of the near north side, brie munching, white wine sipping, always certain, seldom right yuppie type. Why do you think the press, heavily populated with the aforementioned types, loves him so? Further, in a one-on-one match up with Meeks, who has compared the Chicago Teachers’ Union with street gangs regarding damage done to the black community, labor will be completely in Rahm’s corner, NAFTA or no NAFTA.
Who Rahm would least like to run against is a more interesting question. The easy answer is Gery Chico. That answer assumes, however, that Chico assumes the mantle, abdicated by Tom Dart, of, for lack of a better term, the white ethnic candidate who garners support from the strong ward organizations on the geographic fringes of the city. Speaking very openly about race and ethnicity, as we must do when discussing Chicago politics, despite Chico’s last name, he is clearly the white ethnic candidate in the race, largely because his mother was Greek and Lithuanian and, more importantly, because there are no other white, non-Hispanic candidates of any consequence in the race. He also, again, speaking frankly of race, doesn’t look or sound as Hispanic as, say, Miguel del Valle. But Chico is still Hispanic, which is definitely a plus in this town. (Only in Chicago would one have to state that a guy named “Chico” is indeed Hispanic, but I digress.)
The difficult half of the above assumption regarding Chico is his ability to garner the support of the remaining powerful ward organizations on the fringes of the city. (Roll call: Burke, Madigan, Zalewski, Cullerton, O’Connor, Levar, Schulter, O’Shea (or, more properly, the people behind O’Shea), Mell, Pope, etc.) These people play their cards close to their vests and aren’t about to come out for anybody until it makes sense for the home team to do so. One would think, though, as I have said before, that they would not be amenable to a Rahm candidacy for a number of reasons, including his outsider status, his ethnic background’s, and his association with Barack Obama, being a hard sell in some of those wards, his Napoleonic attitude, or at least his advertised Napoleonic attitude, their lack of desire for another dictator, benevolent or otherwise, on the Fifth Floor, etc. However, these guys are very skilled politicians who understand and crave power and money far more ardently than they regard such trendy piffles as ideology or title of office. They could be bought off with the kind of dealing that characterizes them and, to a lesser extent, characterizes Rahm Emanuel. If they end up in Rahm’s camp, then Chico becomes an easy guy to beat. If not, it becomes a race and, as I have said before, provides an answer to the question of whether the Machine still exists. Remember, also, for what it’s worth, that Gery Chico’s first big job in city government was as a senior staffer on Ed Burke’s City Council Finance Committee and that Ed Burke is, reportedly, fond of Gery Chico. Whether that means anything to those for whom money and power are more important than old times and sentiment is open to question, but that background is worth considering.
How about Danny Davis? If Rahm can buy off the ward organizations, then Chico becomes a non-entity and Davis would be the guy against whom Emanuel would least want to run. Davis would have solid support in the black community and has at least a chance of assembling the old Washington coalition, sans the Machine guys who put Party over race, who will be in Emanuel’s camp. Note that a portion of Davis’s congressional district is composed of self-styled urban sophisticates on its eastern edge and in Oak Park. While those Oak Parkers can’t vote in the mayor’s election, perhaps his ability to appeal to them can translate to their sui generis superior types in the tonier wards on the city’s near north side and in Hyde Park. This will be tough, considering that such types’ predisposition to vote for their own kind, despite their tendency to sneer at others who do so, will probably lead them to vote for uber-yuppie Rahm Emanuel. But Davis, despite his problems with, for example, Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s crown, is the race’s closest candidate to Harold Washington. Note that Congressman Harold Washington also had some problems, not with Sun Myung Moon’s crown but, rather, primarily with the IRS, that he overcame to become Mayor Harold Washington.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
THE CHAIRMAN’S CHALLENGE AVAILABLE AT BOOKIE’S
11/24/10
For those of you who live on the far South Side or south suburbs, or who are passing through the far South Side or south suburbs, The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, is now “in stock and ready for immediate delivery,” along with the original Chairman, at Bookie’s, on 103rd and Artesian (one block west of Western). Bookie’s is a book lover’s dream. No fancy dark wood, coffee bar, or new age music playing in the background, just a (literally) bulging inventory of books of almost every imaginable stripe, and a staff that could not be more helpful and accommodating. And you can get coffee at the 7-11 next door.
The Chairman’s Challenge should soon be in stock at Anderson’s, one of the nation’s premier independent book stores, in downtown Naperville. Meanwhile, Anderson’s would be happy to order the book for you, as would any book store. The original Chairman is in stock at Anderson’s.
Both books are available at virtually any online bookseller in physical and e-book formats.
Thanks; have a wonderful, blessed, grateful Thanksgiving.
For those of you who live on the far South Side or south suburbs, or who are passing through the far South Side or south suburbs, The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, is now “in stock and ready for immediate delivery,” along with the original Chairman, at Bookie’s, on 103rd and Artesian (one block west of Western). Bookie’s is a book lover’s dream. No fancy dark wood, coffee bar, or new age music playing in the background, just a (literally) bulging inventory of books of almost every imaginable stripe, and a staff that could not be more helpful and accommodating. And you can get coffee at the 7-11 next door.
The Chairman’s Challenge should soon be in stock at Anderson’s, one of the nation’s premier independent book stores, in downtown Naperville. Meanwhile, Anderson’s would be happy to order the book for you, as would any book store. The original Chairman is in stock at Anderson’s.
Both books are available at virtually any online bookseller in physical and e-book formats.
Thanks; have a wonderful, blessed, grateful Thanksgiving.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
YES SIR, SENATOR!
11/23/10
Yesterday was the last day on which candidates for mayor of Chicago could file their nominating petitions. Two surprises emerged from that day’s late entries. First, Rahm Emanuel’s tenant filed enough signatures, at least before challenges, to appear on the ballot. Second, representatives of a “draft Burris” movement filed enough signatures, again, before challenges, for former Senator, Attorney General, et. al., Roland Burris to run for the chance to add “Mayor of Chicago” to his already formidable and wordy tombstone.
I’ll leave the first of the aforementioned developments for a later blog post. The second is far more interesting. I would remind voters that this may be a rehash of recent history. Recall that in 2002, a young, ambitious, hirsute congressman named Rod Blagojevich was running in the Democratic primary for governor of Illinois with the help of his father-in-law, 33rd Ward Boss, and consummate Chicago politician, Dick Mell. The race was neck and neck between former Chicago School Superintendent Paul Vallas and young Mr. Blagojevich. Mr. Vallas’s strength came primarily from the black community due to his more than passable job with the long neglected Chicago Public School system. Well into the campaign though, one Roland Burris, one heck of a nice guy but little more than a minimally competent cog in and front man for the Chicago Machine (two characteristics that, by the way, often cohabitate in the same person; see two excellent books on the subject, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics, and its sequel, The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, by the ever insightful Mark M. Quinn.) entered the race. Enough of the black vote swung to Mr. Burris to tip the primary to Mr. Blagojevich. Mr. Blagojevich went on to beat the inaptly surnamed Jim Ryan in the general election, and the rest is history.
Now I’m not necessarily saying that Mr. Burris is acting as someone’s perhaps unwitting stooge to siphon votes from James Meeks, Danny Davis, and Carol Moseley Braun, the other serious (Well, perhaps in Ms. Braun’s case, that’s too laudatory an adjective. She has, however, helped raise money for La Rabida Children's Hospital, which counts for a lot in the Quinn household. But I digress.) black candidates in the race. But this is Chicago, after all.
Don’t you just LOVE the politics of our town? I sure do.
Yesterday was the last day on which candidates for mayor of Chicago could file their nominating petitions. Two surprises emerged from that day’s late entries. First, Rahm Emanuel’s tenant filed enough signatures, at least before challenges, to appear on the ballot. Second, representatives of a “draft Burris” movement filed enough signatures, again, before challenges, for former Senator, Attorney General, et. al., Roland Burris to run for the chance to add “Mayor of Chicago” to his already formidable and wordy tombstone.
I’ll leave the first of the aforementioned developments for a later blog post. The second is far more interesting. I would remind voters that this may be a rehash of recent history. Recall that in 2002, a young, ambitious, hirsute congressman named Rod Blagojevich was running in the Democratic primary for governor of Illinois with the help of his father-in-law, 33rd Ward Boss, and consummate Chicago politician, Dick Mell. The race was neck and neck between former Chicago School Superintendent Paul Vallas and young Mr. Blagojevich. Mr. Vallas’s strength came primarily from the black community due to his more than passable job with the long neglected Chicago Public School system. Well into the campaign though, one Roland Burris, one heck of a nice guy but little more than a minimally competent cog in and front man for the Chicago Machine (two characteristics that, by the way, often cohabitate in the same person; see two excellent books on the subject, The Chairman, A Novel of Big City Politics, and its sequel, The Chairman’s Challenge, A Continuing Novel of Big City Politics, by the ever insightful Mark M. Quinn.) entered the race. Enough of the black vote swung to Mr. Burris to tip the primary to Mr. Blagojevich. Mr. Blagojevich went on to beat the inaptly surnamed Jim Ryan in the general election, and the rest is history.
Now I’m not necessarily saying that Mr. Burris is acting as someone’s perhaps unwitting stooge to siphon votes from James Meeks, Danny Davis, and Carol Moseley Braun, the other serious (Well, perhaps in Ms. Braun’s case, that’s too laudatory an adjective. She has, however, helped raise money for La Rabida Children's Hospital, which counts for a lot in the Quinn household. But I digress.) black candidates in the race. But this is Chicago, after all.
Don’t you just LOVE the politics of our town? I sure do.
“FOR 95 (YUAN) DOWN, I’LL PUT YOU IN A CAR…”
11/23/10
On today’s (Tuesday, 11/23’s) Wall Street Journal’s op-ed page (A23), Paul Ingrassia, perhaps the nation’s best automotive business writer, argues that the success of the new GM is no slam dunk. He cites a laundry list of potential pitfalls for GM, but concentrates primarily on the work rules in the UAW contract. While I wouldn’t argue with Mr. Ingrassia on this article, or about much in general, a few points came to mind as I read the article.
First, Mr. Ingrassia writes
“Climbing only halfway back (from trough to peak in unit industry North American vehicle sales), to sales of 14 million or 15 million vehicles, should allow Detroit’s car companies and their suppliers to start making serious money…”
True enough, especially given GM’s and Chrysler’s new capital structures, courtesy of their former bondholders and the U.S. taxpayers. However, the chances of our seeing 14 million to 15 million sales years on anything like a regular basis any time in the foreseeable future are slim. Why? Pricing. To use just a small example, I test drove a Chevy Cruze, Chevy’s new C segment (small, competing with the Corolla, the Civic, and the Focus) entry. Admittedly, it was loaded and it was a very nice car, but the sticker price was approaching $27,000, about $3,000 north of a comparably equipped Civic, which itself is quite pricey for what it is. And that’s for a compact econocar. Most people, including yours truly, would not buy such a car with such an opulent array of features, but a rather modestly equipped Cruze was also on the lot and it stickered for more than $20,000. Such stories, along with tales of $40,000 Ford Tauri, seem to indicate that the car manufacturers, “domestic” and “foreign,” are delusional on pricing.
Why such pie-in-the-sky pricing? Because, in the past, when cars commanded such prices, people, or at least most buyers, weren’t paying for cars with real money. They were taking out home equity loans or taking advantage of juicy lease or other incentive deals. Guess what? There is no home equity left to “tap,” in the anodyne terminology of the finance industry. And any attractive lease deals will have to come out of the car company’s pocket. People simply don’t have the incomes to support 15 million unit sales every year, and they didn’t have the incomes to support the 17 million unit sales we saw before reality set in.
Second, as I said in my now seminal 9/13/10 post, PEOPLE CALL IT AN “ECLECTIC” BLOG FOR A REASON…(PART II), which itself was reacting to an Ingrassia article, one can talk until one is blue in the face about GM’s prospects in North America, but it really doesn’t matter. GM sells more cars in China than in North America, and that’s not about to change. GM’s future is in China; how it will do for its shareholders depends on how it will do in China. As the years pass, North America will become inconsequential to the General. No one can say that publicly; to do would be politically incorrect in an environment in which American taxpayers spent billions to bail out GM, still own 35% of it, and have little chance of recouping their investment any time soon. But count on it: GM is a Chinese company. Fortunately for American taxpayers, the General does very well in China. And, by the way, Rick Wagoner and the “old, failed” management that the press and the Bush/Obama administration take such gusto in castigating, deserve the credit for those Chinese operations that make GM viable and potentially very successful.
On today’s (Tuesday, 11/23’s) Wall Street Journal’s op-ed page (A23), Paul Ingrassia, perhaps the nation’s best automotive business writer, argues that the success of the new GM is no slam dunk. He cites a laundry list of potential pitfalls for GM, but concentrates primarily on the work rules in the UAW contract. While I wouldn’t argue with Mr. Ingrassia on this article, or about much in general, a few points came to mind as I read the article.
First, Mr. Ingrassia writes
“Climbing only halfway back (from trough to peak in unit industry North American vehicle sales), to sales of 14 million or 15 million vehicles, should allow Detroit’s car companies and their suppliers to start making serious money…”
True enough, especially given GM’s and Chrysler’s new capital structures, courtesy of their former bondholders and the U.S. taxpayers. However, the chances of our seeing 14 million to 15 million sales years on anything like a regular basis any time in the foreseeable future are slim. Why? Pricing. To use just a small example, I test drove a Chevy Cruze, Chevy’s new C segment (small, competing with the Corolla, the Civic, and the Focus) entry. Admittedly, it was loaded and it was a very nice car, but the sticker price was approaching $27,000, about $3,000 north of a comparably equipped Civic, which itself is quite pricey for what it is. And that’s for a compact econocar. Most people, including yours truly, would not buy such a car with such an opulent array of features, but a rather modestly equipped Cruze was also on the lot and it stickered for more than $20,000. Such stories, along with tales of $40,000 Ford Tauri, seem to indicate that the car manufacturers, “domestic” and “foreign,” are delusional on pricing.
Why such pie-in-the-sky pricing? Because, in the past, when cars commanded such prices, people, or at least most buyers, weren’t paying for cars with real money. They were taking out home equity loans or taking advantage of juicy lease or other incentive deals. Guess what? There is no home equity left to “tap,” in the anodyne terminology of the finance industry. And any attractive lease deals will have to come out of the car company’s pocket. People simply don’t have the incomes to support 15 million unit sales every year, and they didn’t have the incomes to support the 17 million unit sales we saw before reality set in.
Second, as I said in my now seminal 9/13/10 post, PEOPLE CALL IT AN “ECLECTIC” BLOG FOR A REASON…(PART II), which itself was reacting to an Ingrassia article, one can talk until one is blue in the face about GM’s prospects in North America, but it really doesn’t matter. GM sells more cars in China than in North America, and that’s not about to change. GM’s future is in China; how it will do for its shareholders depends on how it will do in China. As the years pass, North America will become inconsequential to the General. No one can say that publicly; to do would be politically incorrect in an environment in which American taxpayers spent billions to bail out GM, still own 35% of it, and have little chance of recouping their investment any time soon. But count on it: GM is a Chinese company. Fortunately for American taxpayers, the General does very well in China. And, by the way, Rick Wagoner and the “old, failed” management that the press and the Bush/Obama administration take such gusto in castigating, deserve the credit for those Chinese operations that make GM viable and potentially very successful.
MAYBE TURKEY DAY IS AN APT DESCRIPTION
11/23/10
It’s not Turkey Day. The purpose of the day is not to gorge ourselves on turkey. It’s also not the official start, or, more properly in our more enlightened age, the midway point, of the SWAG (Stress, Wantonness, Anxiety, and Greed) Season, which I now officially refuse to call the Christmas Season. (Yes, that other annual screed is coming shortly.) The purpose of the day is not to get out the ads and plan our Black Friday Day of Debauchery that marks the very essence, and low point, of the SWAG season. It’s not even a day to anesthetize ourselves on food and drink and idle away the day watching football.
No, for those of you too young to remember, the day is called THANKSGIVING Day, not TURKEY day, though, the way many people act during this day, perhaps the second moniker is indeed more fitting. The day was first declared by George Washington, an eminence, much to the surprise of the modern situation comedy and reality show addled American, whose importance at least equaled that of Bristol Palin in the American consciousness, and was declared a national holiday in 1863 by Abraham Lincoln, a fellow who was once at least as prominent as Kate Gosselin, or however she spells her name. The ideas was to commemorate the sacrifices of the Pilgrims, who arrived on our shores in one of the early waves of immigration that have made our nation great, and more importantly, to GIVE THANKS, a completely foreign concept in modern America, in which we have decided we are entitled to everything simply by virtue of the Olympian traits that automatically accrue from being Americans who were born after our forefathers.
And for what do we have to give thanks? The list is endless, but living in America, a once great nation that our ancestors left to us to fritter away on our selfish pursuits of self-indulgence and groundless self-assurance, has to be near the top. Unparalleled prosperity, or at least the final stages of unparalleled prosperity, would be near the top of the list as well. Our families and our friends, the love of a God whose infinite patience (Thank Him…especially now) is beyond being tried would be near, or, in the case of most of us, at, the top as well. The generosity of people who have helped us on our often perilous journey through life would have to be a biggie. The sacrifices of those who have left us, and who protect, this great nation is another huge gift for which to be grateful. The ability to think, write, speak, and worship God reasonably freely would also be at the top of our Thanksgiving list. Simple pleasures, like a good book, a great newspaper, a wonderful meal, or that special simple pleasure thing that especially appeals to us (in my case, ice water, iced tea, and White Castle) should be considered at this time of the year.
This is indeed a near desperate plea to save the one holiday that has not yet been completely destroyed by a society characterized by materialism, excerebrosity, and an obsession with groundless self-congratulation. Don’t make Thanksgiving just a staging point for the SWAG season, the sacrilegious remnant of what was once called the Christmas season until our self-obsessed society had its predictable way with it. Don’t make what is obnoxiously called “Turkey Day” become a day to stuff yourself with both food and satisfaction at your self-reliance. PLEASE remember to give THANKS on THANKSgiving, to God and to others, if you are a believer, or to others and good fortune if you are not.
God bless you and your family at Thanksgiving and always.
It’s not Turkey Day. The purpose of the day is not to gorge ourselves on turkey. It’s also not the official start, or, more properly in our more enlightened age, the midway point, of the SWAG (Stress, Wantonness, Anxiety, and Greed) Season, which I now officially refuse to call the Christmas Season. (Yes, that other annual screed is coming shortly.) The purpose of the day is not to get out the ads and plan our Black Friday Day of Debauchery that marks the very essence, and low point, of the SWAG season. It’s not even a day to anesthetize ourselves on food and drink and idle away the day watching football.
No, for those of you too young to remember, the day is called THANKSGIVING Day, not TURKEY day, though, the way many people act during this day, perhaps the second moniker is indeed more fitting. The day was first declared by George Washington, an eminence, much to the surprise of the modern situation comedy and reality show addled American, whose importance at least equaled that of Bristol Palin in the American consciousness, and was declared a national holiday in 1863 by Abraham Lincoln, a fellow who was once at least as prominent as Kate Gosselin, or however she spells her name. The ideas was to commemorate the sacrifices of the Pilgrims, who arrived on our shores in one of the early waves of immigration that have made our nation great, and more importantly, to GIVE THANKS, a completely foreign concept in modern America, in which we have decided we are entitled to everything simply by virtue of the Olympian traits that automatically accrue from being Americans who were born after our forefathers.
And for what do we have to give thanks? The list is endless, but living in America, a once great nation that our ancestors left to us to fritter away on our selfish pursuits of self-indulgence and groundless self-assurance, has to be near the top. Unparalleled prosperity, or at least the final stages of unparalleled prosperity, would be near the top of the list as well. Our families and our friends, the love of a God whose infinite patience (Thank Him…especially now) is beyond being tried would be near, or, in the case of most of us, at, the top as well. The generosity of people who have helped us on our often perilous journey through life would have to be a biggie. The sacrifices of those who have left us, and who protect, this great nation is another huge gift for which to be grateful. The ability to think, write, speak, and worship God reasonably freely would also be at the top of our Thanksgiving list. Simple pleasures, like a good book, a great newspaper, a wonderful meal, or that special simple pleasure thing that especially appeals to us (in my case, ice water, iced tea, and White Castle) should be considered at this time of the year.
This is indeed a near desperate plea to save the one holiday that has not yet been completely destroyed by a society characterized by materialism, excerebrosity, and an obsession with groundless self-congratulation. Don’t make Thanksgiving just a staging point for the SWAG season, the sacrilegious remnant of what was once called the Christmas season until our self-obsessed society had its predictable way with it. Don’t make what is obnoxiously called “Turkey Day” become a day to stuff yourself with both food and satisfaction at your self-reliance. PLEASE remember to give THANKS on THANKSgiving, to God and to others, if you are a believer, or to others and good fortune if you are not.
God bless you and your family at Thanksgiving and always.
STRIPPING FOR THE COWARDS
11/23/10
Everyone is talking about the especially intrusive security procedures put in place at our nation’s airports by the Bush/Obama administration. A common opinion, expressed by everyone from the random traveler into whose face a microphone is thrust to those at the acme of the media and political worlds, is that these assaults on our dignity as human beings are perfectly acceptable as long as they keep us safe.
Aside from its frontal assault on the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin, this “I’ll pay any price for security” attitude is way off base on at least two fronts. First, no procedure, no matter how lascivious and intrusive, can keep us completely safe. If terrorists really want to take down an airplane, they will figure out a way to do it, either through the cargo hold, by enlisting the aid of a person or people with security clearances, or any number of ingenious ways, assuming they are the terrorist masterminds our government would have us believe, that we haven’t yet considered.
Yes, having us submit to what would be sexual assault in any other context in our otherwise hyper-sensitive society, will make the terrorists’ evil designs more difficult, but there are more effective and less intrusive, at least to the typical flier, ways to make their tasks more difficult, as the Israelis have shown us. And, yes, I am speaking of, inter alia, profiling, i.e., looking for the bomber rather than the bomb. But the Bush/Obama administration would never even consider something as intrusive and degrading as profiling…no, sir. Instead, they have decided to burst bags of urine on kidney patients, strip down crying little boys, and feel up people in wheelchairs, all in the interest of “keeping us safe.”
As Richard Nixon liked to say, “Make no mistake.” You aren’t providing gratuitous thrills to TSA agents, and denizens of the Bush/Obama administration, in order to be made safe. You are being subjected go such humiliation in order to allow the Bush/Obama administration to avoid having to engage in more effective, but more politically sensitive, counter-terrorism measures. You are being forced to do an electronic burlesque act in order to allow the politicians in Washington to remain the gutless, spineless, milquetoasts that they are. And, of course, to reward the manufacturers of the scanning machines, who have spent nearly $10 million lobbying the Washington Weenies over the last two years.
Everyone is talking about the especially intrusive security procedures put in place at our nation’s airports by the Bush/Obama administration. A common opinion, expressed by everyone from the random traveler into whose face a microphone is thrust to those at the acme of the media and political worlds, is that these assaults on our dignity as human beings are perfectly acceptable as long as they keep us safe.
Aside from its frontal assault on the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin, this “I’ll pay any price for security” attitude is way off base on at least two fronts. First, no procedure, no matter how lascivious and intrusive, can keep us completely safe. If terrorists really want to take down an airplane, they will figure out a way to do it, either through the cargo hold, by enlisting the aid of a person or people with security clearances, or any number of ingenious ways, assuming they are the terrorist masterminds our government would have us believe, that we haven’t yet considered.
Yes, having us submit to what would be sexual assault in any other context in our otherwise hyper-sensitive society, will make the terrorists’ evil designs more difficult, but there are more effective and less intrusive, at least to the typical flier, ways to make their tasks more difficult, as the Israelis have shown us. And, yes, I am speaking of, inter alia, profiling, i.e., looking for the bomber rather than the bomb. But the Bush/Obama administration would never even consider something as intrusive and degrading as profiling…no, sir. Instead, they have decided to burst bags of urine on kidney patients, strip down crying little boys, and feel up people in wheelchairs, all in the interest of “keeping us safe.”
As Richard Nixon liked to say, “Make no mistake.” You aren’t providing gratuitous thrills to TSA agents, and denizens of the Bush/Obama administration, in order to be made safe. You are being subjected go such humiliation in order to allow the Bush/Obama administration to avoid having to engage in more effective, but more politically sensitive, counter-terrorism measures. You are being forced to do an electronic burlesque act in order to allow the politicians in Washington to remain the gutless, spineless, milquetoasts that they are. And, of course, to reward the manufacturers of the scanning machines, who have spent nearly $10 million lobbying the Washington Weenies over the last two years.
Friday, November 19, 2010
WHO KNEW THAT GEORGE PRADEL REALLY WANTED TO BE MAYOR OF POTTERSVILLE?
11/19/10
As loyal and regular readers know, my wife is not enamored of the idea of a Show Me’s (sic) Restaurant, which I described in an earlier post as “a bar/café very much akin to those paragons of good taste and refinement, Hooters and The Tilted Kilt, but with (believe it or not) less class and less clothing on the servers” (See my 10/27/10 post CURIOUS GEORGE INDEED.) opening about a block from our house complete with a 2:00 license and two parking lot exits to residential side streets. In fact, Susan has been one of the leaders of the charge against what Naperville Mayor George Pradel has described as “a nice friendly place to watch a game or have dinner” based on an exploratory visit to Show Me’s (sic…Show Me’s’s?) Springfield, IL location. (One would think the fictional Springfield would be a better location for this chain that apparently caters to a crowd of Aqualung wannabes whose idea of a good time is ogling young women while dreaming of things that they can’t, and won’t, be getting any time soon. Homer Simpson would seem to be the epitome of their target clientele. But I digress.) Susan has repeatedly called the Mayor’s office, asking for updates on the progress of the place’s liquor license. She has appeared on both Naperville and Chicago television news shows, decrying the presence of such an establishment bordering a school bus stop in a neighborhood filled with kids. Despite the efforts of the neighborhood to keep Show Me’s out of our neighborhood, it looks like a done deal; George Pradel, as mayor, is also liquor commissioner and has sole discretion over granting the license, and he’s going to grant it.
In an interview I did with Naperville Community Television, I, trying to be fair to Mr. Pradel, pointed out that he is in a tough spot. The laws are the laws and the regulations are the regulations and, as long as Show Me’s complies with the laws and regulations, it would be difficult for Mr. Pradel to deny the license; legal problems for him and the city would surely ensue.
Now, however, I am sorry that I ever tried to be fair or reasonable to this man. Why?
Today was the Grand Opening of an Aldi food store a few blocks from our house. My wife loves Aldi and I, too, am a great fan of the store: good products, fresh produce and meat, great prices, helpful people, convenient, in-an-out approach to shopping. So Susan, delighted that the store was opening in our neighborhood, could not wait for its arrival and was there when the doors opened. And who else happened to be there? That’s right: Mayor George Pradel. If you know my wife, she is not one to let things go and is not one to shy away from a fight, especially when a cause is important to her. So she introduced herself to the Mayor, who, in his typically unctuous manner, said “Oh, I’ve heard your name.” And Susan, of course, brought up Show Me’s and, while not having been there, I am sure she was not shy or demure about challenging him. And perhaps I can understand his being upset at being challenged by citizens at a forum that he might consider inappropriate. But it is what he said to MY wife about MY kids in the course of their exchange that shows the man’s real character. He said to MY wife that the place really wasn’t bad, that the girls at Naperville North dress in a more provocative manner than the waitresses at Show Me’s, and then, with another bout of his obnoxious, buffoonish, insulting laughter, he said to MY wife
“I’ll bet your daughters will end up working there.”
What does one say about that? How does one react to such an insult to one’s daughters, besides the obvious, which could be construed as both illegal and tortious? My wife was exasperated, replying
“Over my stone cold dead body will my daughters EVER work there, Mr. Pradel!”
That about ended the conversation, which I am sure was Mr. Pradel’s objective. His new objective ought to be an apology to my wife and daughters, but I’m not counting on it.
Why did I post this on the blog? I concluded my 10/27 piece CURIOUS GEORGE INDEED with, inter alia, the following:
--The next time Mr. Pradel goes to one of our elementary schools to read to the kids, perhaps he ought to point out to the little girls in the audience that a worthy career aspiration would be waitressing at the “nice, friendly” Show Me’s (sic).
I didn’t realize that I was literally correct in my ruminations regarding Mr. Pradel’s estimation of the proper place for the young women of his community.
As loyal and regular readers know, my wife is not enamored of the idea of a Show Me’s (sic) Restaurant, which I described in an earlier post as “a bar/café very much akin to those paragons of good taste and refinement, Hooters and The Tilted Kilt, but with (believe it or not) less class and less clothing on the servers” (See my 10/27/10 post CURIOUS GEORGE INDEED.) opening about a block from our house complete with a 2:00 license and two parking lot exits to residential side streets. In fact, Susan has been one of the leaders of the charge against what Naperville Mayor George Pradel has described as “a nice friendly place to watch a game or have dinner” based on an exploratory visit to Show Me’s (sic…Show Me’s’s?) Springfield, IL location. (One would think the fictional Springfield would be a better location for this chain that apparently caters to a crowd of Aqualung wannabes whose idea of a good time is ogling young women while dreaming of things that they can’t, and won’t, be getting any time soon. Homer Simpson would seem to be the epitome of their target clientele. But I digress.) Susan has repeatedly called the Mayor’s office, asking for updates on the progress of the place’s liquor license. She has appeared on both Naperville and Chicago television news shows, decrying the presence of such an establishment bordering a school bus stop in a neighborhood filled with kids. Despite the efforts of the neighborhood to keep Show Me’s out of our neighborhood, it looks like a done deal; George Pradel, as mayor, is also liquor commissioner and has sole discretion over granting the license, and he’s going to grant it.
In an interview I did with Naperville Community Television, I, trying to be fair to Mr. Pradel, pointed out that he is in a tough spot. The laws are the laws and the regulations are the regulations and, as long as Show Me’s complies with the laws and regulations, it would be difficult for Mr. Pradel to deny the license; legal problems for him and the city would surely ensue.
Now, however, I am sorry that I ever tried to be fair or reasonable to this man. Why?
Today was the Grand Opening of an Aldi food store a few blocks from our house. My wife loves Aldi and I, too, am a great fan of the store: good products, fresh produce and meat, great prices, helpful people, convenient, in-an-out approach to shopping. So Susan, delighted that the store was opening in our neighborhood, could not wait for its arrival and was there when the doors opened. And who else happened to be there? That’s right: Mayor George Pradel. If you know my wife, she is not one to let things go and is not one to shy away from a fight, especially when a cause is important to her. So she introduced herself to the Mayor, who, in his typically unctuous manner, said “Oh, I’ve heard your name.” And Susan, of course, brought up Show Me’s and, while not having been there, I am sure she was not shy or demure about challenging him. And perhaps I can understand his being upset at being challenged by citizens at a forum that he might consider inappropriate. But it is what he said to MY wife about MY kids in the course of their exchange that shows the man’s real character. He said to MY wife that the place really wasn’t bad, that the girls at Naperville North dress in a more provocative manner than the waitresses at Show Me’s, and then, with another bout of his obnoxious, buffoonish, insulting laughter, he said to MY wife
“I’ll bet your daughters will end up working there.”
What does one say about that? How does one react to such an insult to one’s daughters, besides the obvious, which could be construed as both illegal and tortious? My wife was exasperated, replying
“Over my stone cold dead body will my daughters EVER work there, Mr. Pradel!”
That about ended the conversation, which I am sure was Mr. Pradel’s objective. His new objective ought to be an apology to my wife and daughters, but I’m not counting on it.
Why did I post this on the blog? I concluded my 10/27 piece CURIOUS GEORGE INDEED with, inter alia, the following:
--The next time Mr. Pradel goes to one of our elementary schools to read to the kids, perhaps he ought to point out to the little girls in the audience that a worthy career aspiration would be waitressing at the “nice, friendly” Show Me’s (sic).
I didn’t realize that I was literally correct in my ruminations regarding Mr. Pradel’s estimation of the proper place for the young women of his community.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
A RANDOM WALK INTO SOME DECENT INVESTMENT ADVICE
11/18/10
I sent the following note to my students; I thought readers of the Pontificator might also find it both enjoyable and helpful:
BEST INVESTMENT ARTICLE OF THE SEMESTER
11/18/10
Perhaps the best article that you can read on investing this semester can be found on today’s (i.e., Thursday, 11/18’s) Wall Street Journal’s op-ed page (A23).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608623469465624.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0
The only problem I have with the article, brilliantly written by Professor Burton Malkiel of Princeton, and of “A Random Walk Down Wall Street” fame, is its title “‘Buy and Hold’ Is Still a Winner.” The article is not at all an argument for buying and holding stocks. Rather, it is an argument for holding index funds and for regularly rebalancing one’s portfolio and is, for you Investments students, a preview of my last lecture for the year. In fact, what Professor Malkiel does not tell you is that if his balanced mix of index funds had been skewed more heavily toward bonds than the 33% he posited, provided the additional bond allocation came from the U.S. stock allocation, the portfolio would have delivered a better performance over the 2000-2009 than the 91.9% (6.7% annualized) it did deliver. In this sense, the article confirms the wisdom of my long seminal 9/3/10 Pontificator piece, YOU PROBABLY DIDN’T HAVE TO BE TOLD THIS AFTER THE LAST FEW YEARS BUT…
at
http://insightfulpontificator.blogspot.com/
Also interesting in today’s Journal is the front page article (“California Bond Woe Bodes Ill For States.”) on the problems facing the municipal bond market. The underlying problem, of course, is that many of our states and municipalities are broke, and it isn’t necessarily because of “the poor economy,” as the politicians who spent us into oblivion like to tell you.
Thanks.
I sent the following note to my students; I thought readers of the Pontificator might also find it both enjoyable and helpful:
BEST INVESTMENT ARTICLE OF THE SEMESTER
11/18/10
Perhaps the best article that you can read on investing this semester can be found on today’s (i.e., Thursday, 11/18’s) Wall Street Journal’s op-ed page (A23).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608623469465624.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0
The only problem I have with the article, brilliantly written by Professor Burton Malkiel of Princeton, and of “A Random Walk Down Wall Street” fame, is its title “‘Buy and Hold’ Is Still a Winner.” The article is not at all an argument for buying and holding stocks. Rather, it is an argument for holding index funds and for regularly rebalancing one’s portfolio and is, for you Investments students, a preview of my last lecture for the year. In fact, what Professor Malkiel does not tell you is that if his balanced mix of index funds had been skewed more heavily toward bonds than the 33% he posited, provided the additional bond allocation came from the U.S. stock allocation, the portfolio would have delivered a better performance over the 2000-2009 than the 91.9% (6.7% annualized) it did deliver. In this sense, the article confirms the wisdom of my long seminal 9/3/10 Pontificator piece, YOU PROBABLY DIDN’T HAVE TO BE TOLD THIS AFTER THE LAST FEW YEARS BUT…
at
http://insightfulpontificator.blogspot.com/
Also interesting in today’s Journal is the front page article (“California Bond Woe Bodes Ill For States.”) on the problems facing the municipal bond market. The underlying problem, of course, is that many of our states and municipalities are broke, and it isn’t necessarily because of “the poor economy,” as the politicians who spent us into oblivion like to tell you.
Thanks.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
ATTA BOY, GOVERNOR QUINN!!!
11/1710
Lest I be accused of never saying anything positive about my namesake in the governor’s office, my hat is off to Governor Quinn for so far resisting the entreaties of the Ricketts family to use incremental amusement tax revenues to refurbish Wrigley Field. It is never a good idea to use public money to subsidize private enterprise, no matter how many billions consultants hired by the potential recipients of our largesse tell us we will make in the deal. And just because we have gotten in the habit of doling out dollars to proprietors of various modern manifestations of the public circus doesn’t make the practice any less dyspeptic. Doing so is especially appalling in the case of the new Cubs owners, who bought the team only about a year ago knowing that they were buying a rickety old stadium badly in need of repairs as part of the deal. Furthermore, Tom Ricketts’ initial plea for the money was pathetic; he cited the fact that Wrigley does not have its own kitchen, so all food served at the stadium must be (apparently Mr. Ricketts is as good as any modern Fortune 500 type in throwing around meaningless drivel disguised as sophisticated terminology of the cognoscenti.) “staged” elsewhere. He made it sound like he needed $200mm for a kitchen. Surely, there are plenty of contractors, even politically connected contractors, around town who could build Mr. Ricketts a very nice kitchen for a sum considerably less than the amount for which he wants to dip into our pockets. But I digress.
Proponents of your reaching into your pockets to further enrich the Ricketts family (chieftains at construction unions, various pols who represent districts in reasonable proximity to Wrigley Field, and Chamber of Commerce types whose most salient features are their hands outstretched while their mouths proclaim their fidelity to the principles of free enterprise and rugged American individualism) argue that no existing public funds will be used for the stadium refurbishment; only the growth in amusement taxes coming from the stadium will be spent. So, they argue, the expansion plans are virtually costless. Hmm…notice how these types react when those few pols who make a legitimate feint toward fiscal responsibility propose spending freezes. Why, these same parasites who in this instance are arguing that incremental revenue is not really taxpayers’ money scream, yell, and roll around the floor kicking their feet while wailing that those future expenditures to be nixed in a spending freeze are “vital,” “necessary,” and “essential,” but I digress again.
Further, the Ricketts plan involves more public money than Tom Ricketts lets on. The bonds that will be sold and serviced through those incremental amusement tax revenues will be backstopped by the 2% hotel tax that currently is being used to finance two other notable boondoggles in town, Soldier and U.S. Cellular Fields, once the bonds used to fund those subsidies to the rich and famous are retired. If memory serves me correctly, that 2% hotel tax was introduced as part of the scheme to finance yet another public boondoggle, the McPier Authority, which was charged with stealing from the taxpayers, visitors, and conventioneers in order to build the new Navy Pier (My family really likes Navy Pier; therefore, in the interest of maintaining familial peace, I will refrain from commenting extensively on the merits of Nay Pier as currently configured.) and refurbish that other oddity on the lake front, McCormick Place. When this tax was initially levied, we were assured that it would be temporary. Once the bonds used to impose the “new” Navy Pier and McCormick Place were retired, visitors to our fair city would no longer be further discouraged from visiting us by this onerous tax. But then tearing down one of America’s great old ballparks and replacing it with a cookie cutter tribute to the banality of professional sports had to be built. Then a UFO and to land, or a toilet bowl had to be implanted, within the walls of Soldier Field, so the 2% hotel tax had to be continued. Now the Ricketts family needs a $200mm kitchen. Then there will be something else. The temporary tax that a vastly outnumbered few of us (I was active in the Civic Federation and the City Club at the time these tributes to profligacy with the public purse were proposed and fought strenuously, and, of course, futilely, against the tax and the projects it was designed to finance.) argued would be with us long after we had departed this mortal coil has achieved the closest thing to eternal life this world offers. But I digress a third time.
Governor Pat (no relation) Quinn, though, has so far stood steadfastly against using any public money, present or future, to build the Ricketts their $200mm kitchen, and my hat is off to him; he is showing the type of grit and determination that goes with his last name. His motivation for his opposition may be impure; talk is that his only objection to funding the Ricketts’ $200mm kitchen had its genesis in Tom Ricketts’ having approached House Speaker Mike Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton before coming to him, upsetting the Governor’s apparently fragile ego. But we can’t count on people’s motivations or we would never get anything done; St. Francis of Assisi has been gone a long time, and he has left few genuine imitators. The beauty of capitalism, by the way, is that it doesn’t count on honorable motivations to achieve salubrious ends, but I digress yet again. Whatever the reasons, though, we have a Governor who is, for now, sticking up for the taxpayers.
Why do I keep repeating “for now” when I cite the Governor’s bravery in this matter? Given the Governor’s track record, I am quite confident that as soon as it is demonstrated that the Ricketts’ $200mm kitchen will somehow benefit one of the governor’s actual, potential, or imagined constituencies, anyone who can come up with a quasi-convincing sob story, or one of the many who make their living around this town nurturing real or imagined grievances, the Governor will fold more quickly and completely than the team that plays in the Field that apparently badly needs a $200mm kitchen.
Am I being unfair in assuming that the Governor will soon be doing an imitation of the team that plays in the world’s largest open air singles’ bar, or at least the world’s largest open air singles’ bar not equipped with a $200mm kitchen? Perhaps I am. So here is my challenge to my namesake Governor: prove me wrong, Governor (no relation) Quinn; hang tough on this deal and let the Ricketts build their own kitchen. One suspects that, without access to the public purse, the Ricketts family, who are a very clever and resourceful bunch, will find some way to build their kitchen for considerably less than $200mm.
So, again, Governor…prove me wrong and continue to say “No!” to the parasites who feel entitled, by virtue of their connections and/or lineage, to a substantial chunk of the public purse.
Lest I be accused of never saying anything positive about my namesake in the governor’s office, my hat is off to Governor Quinn for so far resisting the entreaties of the Ricketts family to use incremental amusement tax revenues to refurbish Wrigley Field. It is never a good idea to use public money to subsidize private enterprise, no matter how many billions consultants hired by the potential recipients of our largesse tell us we will make in the deal. And just because we have gotten in the habit of doling out dollars to proprietors of various modern manifestations of the public circus doesn’t make the practice any less dyspeptic. Doing so is especially appalling in the case of the new Cubs owners, who bought the team only about a year ago knowing that they were buying a rickety old stadium badly in need of repairs as part of the deal. Furthermore, Tom Ricketts’ initial plea for the money was pathetic; he cited the fact that Wrigley does not have its own kitchen, so all food served at the stadium must be (apparently Mr. Ricketts is as good as any modern Fortune 500 type in throwing around meaningless drivel disguised as sophisticated terminology of the cognoscenti.) “staged” elsewhere. He made it sound like he needed $200mm for a kitchen. Surely, there are plenty of contractors, even politically connected contractors, around town who could build Mr. Ricketts a very nice kitchen for a sum considerably less than the amount for which he wants to dip into our pockets. But I digress.
Proponents of your reaching into your pockets to further enrich the Ricketts family (chieftains at construction unions, various pols who represent districts in reasonable proximity to Wrigley Field, and Chamber of Commerce types whose most salient features are their hands outstretched while their mouths proclaim their fidelity to the principles of free enterprise and rugged American individualism) argue that no existing public funds will be used for the stadium refurbishment; only the growth in amusement taxes coming from the stadium will be spent. So, they argue, the expansion plans are virtually costless. Hmm…notice how these types react when those few pols who make a legitimate feint toward fiscal responsibility propose spending freezes. Why, these same parasites who in this instance are arguing that incremental revenue is not really taxpayers’ money scream, yell, and roll around the floor kicking their feet while wailing that those future expenditures to be nixed in a spending freeze are “vital,” “necessary,” and “essential,” but I digress again.
Further, the Ricketts plan involves more public money than Tom Ricketts lets on. The bonds that will be sold and serviced through those incremental amusement tax revenues will be backstopped by the 2% hotel tax that currently is being used to finance two other notable boondoggles in town, Soldier and U.S. Cellular Fields, once the bonds used to fund those subsidies to the rich and famous are retired. If memory serves me correctly, that 2% hotel tax was introduced as part of the scheme to finance yet another public boondoggle, the McPier Authority, which was charged with stealing from the taxpayers, visitors, and conventioneers in order to build the new Navy Pier (My family really likes Navy Pier; therefore, in the interest of maintaining familial peace, I will refrain from commenting extensively on the merits of Nay Pier as currently configured.) and refurbish that other oddity on the lake front, McCormick Place. When this tax was initially levied, we were assured that it would be temporary. Once the bonds used to impose the “new” Navy Pier and McCormick Place were retired, visitors to our fair city would no longer be further discouraged from visiting us by this onerous tax. But then tearing down one of America’s great old ballparks and replacing it with a cookie cutter tribute to the banality of professional sports had to be built. Then a UFO and to land, or a toilet bowl had to be implanted, within the walls of Soldier Field, so the 2% hotel tax had to be continued. Now the Ricketts family needs a $200mm kitchen. Then there will be something else. The temporary tax that a vastly outnumbered few of us (I was active in the Civic Federation and the City Club at the time these tributes to profligacy with the public purse were proposed and fought strenuously, and, of course, futilely, against the tax and the projects it was designed to finance.) argued would be with us long after we had departed this mortal coil has achieved the closest thing to eternal life this world offers. But I digress a third time.
Governor Pat (no relation) Quinn, though, has so far stood steadfastly against using any public money, present or future, to build the Ricketts their $200mm kitchen, and my hat is off to him; he is showing the type of grit and determination that goes with his last name. His motivation for his opposition may be impure; talk is that his only objection to funding the Ricketts’ $200mm kitchen had its genesis in Tom Ricketts’ having approached House Speaker Mike Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton before coming to him, upsetting the Governor’s apparently fragile ego. But we can’t count on people’s motivations or we would never get anything done; St. Francis of Assisi has been gone a long time, and he has left few genuine imitators. The beauty of capitalism, by the way, is that it doesn’t count on honorable motivations to achieve salubrious ends, but I digress yet again. Whatever the reasons, though, we have a Governor who is, for now, sticking up for the taxpayers.
Why do I keep repeating “for now” when I cite the Governor’s bravery in this matter? Given the Governor’s track record, I am quite confident that as soon as it is demonstrated that the Ricketts’ $200mm kitchen will somehow benefit one of the governor’s actual, potential, or imagined constituencies, anyone who can come up with a quasi-convincing sob story, or one of the many who make their living around this town nurturing real or imagined grievances, the Governor will fold more quickly and completely than the team that plays in the Field that apparently badly needs a $200mm kitchen.
Am I being unfair in assuming that the Governor will soon be doing an imitation of the team that plays in the world’s largest open air singles’ bar, or at least the world’s largest open air singles’ bar not equipped with a $200mm kitchen? Perhaps I am. So here is my challenge to my namesake Governor: prove me wrong, Governor (no relation) Quinn; hang tough on this deal and let the Ricketts build their own kitchen. One suspects that, without access to the public purse, the Ricketts family, who are a very clever and resourceful bunch, will find some way to build their kitchen for considerably less than $200mm.
So, again, Governor…prove me wrong and continue to say “No!” to the parasites who feel entitled, by virtue of their connections and/or lineage, to a substantial chunk of the public purse.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
WAIT, WAIT, WAIT…YOU MEAN THAT IT GETS LIGHT OUT WHEN THE SUN RISES?
11/16/10
Today’s (i.e., Tuesday, 11/16’s) Wall Street Journal features a page A1 article entitled “Bond Market Defies Fed.” It seems that, despite the Fed’s creating money (okay, technically creating reserves for those Pecksniffian types desperately looking for material with which to defend this ongoing debasement of the world’s reserve currency) at a pace that would make Richard Petty dizzy, the bond market is performing badly. Indeed, since September 30, the yields on the 30, 10, and 5 year treasuries are up 64, 37, and 21 basis points respectively. For some reason, this is puzzling to experts both inside and outside the Fed. That this is puzzling to these wunderkinds reminds loyal readers of the Pontificator and its predecessors, the Insightful Weekly Commentary and the Insightful Irregular Commentary, of the bafflement of Alan Greenspan, perhaps world history’s most overrated man, that a sharp reduction in long rates did not follow his profligacy with the money supply as the night follows the day.
As I said in the Insightful Weekly Commentary when Alan Greenspan was playing Rumpelstiltskin with the money supply, what is mystifying is that such renowned experts as Mr. Greenspan, and now Obsequious Ben Bernanke, their henchmen at the Fed, and their sycophants on Wall Street were surprised that spinning new dollars out of (not even) whole cloth had the counterintuitive, to them, consequence of increasing medium to long term rates. While I am apparently no expert, it seems to this troglodyte that creating new money at a nausea inducing pace might just have the effect of causing inflation, a phenomenon that bond markets, for reasons mysterious to the Olympians at the Fed and on Wall Street, don’t seem to like very much. Such inflation, or even apparent inflation, causes the inflation premium in long bond yields to increase. Thus money creation, even if such money creation involves purchasing medium to long term treasuries, should have the effect of steepening the curve and, in most cases, increasing longer term rates. Indeed, since September 30, the 2 year to 10 year and the 2 year to 30 year spreads have increased by 29 and 56 basis points respectively. Indeed, the 2 to 30 year spread, at 383 basis points, is about as wide as I can recall seeing it.
For further confirmation of my theory, which apparently seems an utter absurdity to the Titanic minds at the Fed and on Wall Street, that being fast and loose with the money supply leads to inflation fears that in turn lead to higher long rates, look to the implied inflation expectation in the spread between conventional treasuries and TIPS. Since September 30, the implied inflation expectations imbedded in the 5, 10, and 30 year treasuries have increased 25, 29, and 51 basis points respectively.
The only thing that is surprising about the Fed’s purchasing of long term bonds having resulted in higher long term rates is that the Fed, and most of the economics profession, is surprised by this result. In fact, that these eminent experts, who have been put in charge of the Republic’s, and the world’s, monetary affairs, can’t seem to figure this out is at least as alarming as it is surprising, at least to this non-expert.
Today’s (i.e., Tuesday, 11/16’s) Wall Street Journal features a page A1 article entitled “Bond Market Defies Fed.” It seems that, despite the Fed’s creating money (okay, technically creating reserves for those Pecksniffian types desperately looking for material with which to defend this ongoing debasement of the world’s reserve currency) at a pace that would make Richard Petty dizzy, the bond market is performing badly. Indeed, since September 30, the yields on the 30, 10, and 5 year treasuries are up 64, 37, and 21 basis points respectively. For some reason, this is puzzling to experts both inside and outside the Fed. That this is puzzling to these wunderkinds reminds loyal readers of the Pontificator and its predecessors, the Insightful Weekly Commentary and the Insightful Irregular Commentary, of the bafflement of Alan Greenspan, perhaps world history’s most overrated man, that a sharp reduction in long rates did not follow his profligacy with the money supply as the night follows the day.
As I said in the Insightful Weekly Commentary when Alan Greenspan was playing Rumpelstiltskin with the money supply, what is mystifying is that such renowned experts as Mr. Greenspan, and now Obsequious Ben Bernanke, their henchmen at the Fed, and their sycophants on Wall Street were surprised that spinning new dollars out of (not even) whole cloth had the counterintuitive, to them, consequence of increasing medium to long term rates. While I am apparently no expert, it seems to this troglodyte that creating new money at a nausea inducing pace might just have the effect of causing inflation, a phenomenon that bond markets, for reasons mysterious to the Olympians at the Fed and on Wall Street, don’t seem to like very much. Such inflation, or even apparent inflation, causes the inflation premium in long bond yields to increase. Thus money creation, even if such money creation involves purchasing medium to long term treasuries, should have the effect of steepening the curve and, in most cases, increasing longer term rates. Indeed, since September 30, the 2 year to 10 year and the 2 year to 30 year spreads have increased by 29 and 56 basis points respectively. Indeed, the 2 to 30 year spread, at 383 basis points, is about as wide as I can recall seeing it.
For further confirmation of my theory, which apparently seems an utter absurdity to the Titanic minds at the Fed and on Wall Street, that being fast and loose with the money supply leads to inflation fears that in turn lead to higher long rates, look to the implied inflation expectation in the spread between conventional treasuries and TIPS. Since September 30, the implied inflation expectations imbedded in the 5, 10, and 30 year treasuries have increased 25, 29, and 51 basis points respectively.
The only thing that is surprising about the Fed’s purchasing of long term bonds having resulted in higher long term rates is that the Fed, and most of the economics profession, is surprised by this result. In fact, that these eminent experts, who have been put in charge of the Republic’s, and the world’s, monetary affairs, can’t seem to figure this out is at least as alarming as it is surprising, at least to this non-expert.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
FOUR MORE YEARS OF “VITAL” AND “ESSENTIAL” SPENDING
11/13/10
In his further efforts to force fulfillment of his “mandate” for an income tax increase (See my 11/9/10 post TAX ME, NOT THAT FELLOW BEHIND THE TREE!) down the throats of those of us who have not spent our lives on the public payroll, Governor Pat Quinn (no relation) has taken to calling the income tax hike a “surcharge for education.” As the Governor explains on this weekend’s edition of “At Issue” on WBBM Newsradio 78, “We’re going to need more revenue for education.” This is a curious and schizophrenic approach. In one moment, the Governor is telling us that we need an income tax hike to solve our fiscal woes; in the next he is telling us we need the money for the politicians’ all-purpose ipecac ameliorator “education.”
So we should ask the Governor a few questions. If we are raising taxes in order to spend more money on “education,” how does that help solve our fiscal problems? Such a move would imply no net reduction of our deficit. Of course, to the Governor, all spending on education, or almost anything, is “vital” and “essential," so he might argue that we would "have to" spend it in the future anyway. But just how vital and essential, by definition, is any future spending? If such spending is vital, how are we surviving now despite not spending that money?
The Governor argues that his income tax increase might be paired with some form of property tax relief. This, of course, is a favorite sleight of hand of pols from Dawn Clark Netsch to Jim Thompson to Rod Blagojevich to Pat Quinn, a sleight of hand for which the citizenry has not yet fallen. But leaving aside the virtual certainty that such property tax relief, even if it were to appear, would be evanescent while the income tax hike would be permanent, how would such a swap help the state’s fiscal condition? Property taxes are levied by local governments. The income tax is levied by the state of Illinois. The Governor surely knows this.
Governor Quinn’s efforts to apply syrup to the income tax increase by calling it a “surcharge for education” shows us that he is either ignorant of the workings of government or, as a lifelong public payroller, willing to try anything to get his hands on our money and is counting on us to fall for the “but it’s for education, for the kids” ploy that occasionally works for the more gullible among the suburbanites. Since no one can accuse the Governor of being ignorant (naïve, surely, but not ignorant), we can only conclude the latter.
In his further efforts to force fulfillment of his “mandate” for an income tax increase (See my 11/9/10 post TAX ME, NOT THAT FELLOW BEHIND THE TREE!) down the throats of those of us who have not spent our lives on the public payroll, Governor Pat Quinn (no relation) has taken to calling the income tax hike a “surcharge for education.” As the Governor explains on this weekend’s edition of “At Issue” on WBBM Newsradio 78, “We’re going to need more revenue for education.” This is a curious and schizophrenic approach. In one moment, the Governor is telling us that we need an income tax hike to solve our fiscal woes; in the next he is telling us we need the money for the politicians’ all-purpose ipecac ameliorator “education.”
So we should ask the Governor a few questions. If we are raising taxes in order to spend more money on “education,” how does that help solve our fiscal problems? Such a move would imply no net reduction of our deficit. Of course, to the Governor, all spending on education, or almost anything, is “vital” and “essential," so he might argue that we would "have to" spend it in the future anyway. But just how vital and essential, by definition, is any future spending? If such spending is vital, how are we surviving now despite not spending that money?
The Governor argues that his income tax increase might be paired with some form of property tax relief. This, of course, is a favorite sleight of hand of pols from Dawn Clark Netsch to Jim Thompson to Rod Blagojevich to Pat Quinn, a sleight of hand for which the citizenry has not yet fallen. But leaving aside the virtual certainty that such property tax relief, even if it were to appear, would be evanescent while the income tax hike would be permanent, how would such a swap help the state’s fiscal condition? Property taxes are levied by local governments. The income tax is levied by the state of Illinois. The Governor surely knows this.
Governor Quinn’s efforts to apply syrup to the income tax increase by calling it a “surcharge for education” shows us that he is either ignorant of the workings of government or, as a lifelong public payroller, willing to try anything to get his hands on our money and is counting on us to fall for the “but it’s for education, for the kids” ploy that occasionally works for the more gullible among the suburbanites. Since no one can accuse the Governor of being ignorant (naïve, surely, but not ignorant), we can only conclude the latter.
Friday, November 12, 2010
DIDN’T HE SAY HE ALWAYS WANTED TO BE A U.S. SENATOR?
11/12/10
There has been fervid talk on a myriad of media outlets over the last few days that Illinois Treasurer and failed banker and Senatorial candidate Alexi Giannoulias may run for the big job on the Fifth Floor of City Hall. This will, in all likelihood, not happen; young Alexi is probably just another of the names that surfaces now and then only to quickly fade like an ash ascending from a campfire. The latest of these was former Cook County State’s Attorney Dick Devine, who, unlike young Alexi, had the potential, and experience, to be a great mayor. Rumors that Devine was considering a run surfaced in Mike Sneed’s Sun-Times column on Wednesday, 11/10 and were quashed in the same column on Thursday, 11/11. So it will probably go with Giannoulias, except that young Alexi’s outsized ego will probably make him string out the rumors for a bit longer; the Treasurer loves to read his name in the paper.
But this being Chicago, we love to talk about such things, and I am guilty as the next guy. So why would rumors of Alexi’s considering a run surface? In the Machiavellian tradition of my home town, I can come up with two reasons:
First, the cabal of committeemen who are forming, or have formed, an “anybody but Rahm” front across the city’s neighborhoods have encouraged such whisperings, and maybe even a possible run, in order to split the brie and fern bar, dazzling self-styled urbanite, hyperventilating media vote that is Rahm Emanuel’s natural consistency. Such trendy sycophantic types nearly had accidents over young Alexi’s senatorial bid and would doubtlessly find themselves stressed to their therapists’ limits if faced with a choice between their two heart throbs, Rahm and Alexi.
Second, Alexi simply floated his name in a bid to be bought off by Rahm Emanuel. He just ran an expensive campaign, is looking for a job, and has no discernible skills.
One more thing to keep in mind when considering possible candidates for mayor is that candidates only have ten more days to file 12,500 petition signatures and probably twice that to be safe. While there are a few big names and/or committeemen with strong organizations who would have no problem getting such signatures in a couple days, the field looks pretty much set at this juncture. It is composed of, in no particular order:
Rahm Emanuel
James Meeks
Gery Chico
Danny Davis
Carol Moseley Braun
Miguel del Valle
That woman who nobody has ever heard of but who ran some pretty good commercials on election night.
Some other fringe candidates who are of no consequence politically
There has been fervid talk on a myriad of media outlets over the last few days that Illinois Treasurer and failed banker and Senatorial candidate Alexi Giannoulias may run for the big job on the Fifth Floor of City Hall. This will, in all likelihood, not happen; young Alexi is probably just another of the names that surfaces now and then only to quickly fade like an ash ascending from a campfire. The latest of these was former Cook County State’s Attorney Dick Devine, who, unlike young Alexi, had the potential, and experience, to be a great mayor. Rumors that Devine was considering a run surfaced in Mike Sneed’s Sun-Times column on Wednesday, 11/10 and were quashed in the same column on Thursday, 11/11. So it will probably go with Giannoulias, except that young Alexi’s outsized ego will probably make him string out the rumors for a bit longer; the Treasurer loves to read his name in the paper.
But this being Chicago, we love to talk about such things, and I am guilty as the next guy. So why would rumors of Alexi’s considering a run surface? In the Machiavellian tradition of my home town, I can come up with two reasons:
First, the cabal of committeemen who are forming, or have formed, an “anybody but Rahm” front across the city’s neighborhoods have encouraged such whisperings, and maybe even a possible run, in order to split the brie and fern bar, dazzling self-styled urbanite, hyperventilating media vote that is Rahm Emanuel’s natural consistency. Such trendy sycophantic types nearly had accidents over young Alexi’s senatorial bid and would doubtlessly find themselves stressed to their therapists’ limits if faced with a choice between their two heart throbs, Rahm and Alexi.
Second, Alexi simply floated his name in a bid to be bought off by Rahm Emanuel. He just ran an expensive campaign, is looking for a job, and has no discernible skills.
One more thing to keep in mind when considering possible candidates for mayor is that candidates only have ten more days to file 12,500 petition signatures and probably twice that to be safe. While there are a few big names and/or committeemen with strong organizations who would have no problem getting such signatures in a couple days, the field looks pretty much set at this juncture. It is composed of, in no particular order:
Rahm Emanuel
James Meeks
Gery Chico
Danny Davis
Carol Moseley Braun
Miguel del Valle
That woman who nobody has ever heard of but who ran some pretty good commercials on election night.
Some other fringe candidates who are of no consequence politically
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
“TEACH YOUR CHILDREN WELL…”
11/10/10
As many of you know, one of my various jobs is that of college instructor at various institutions of higher learning in the Chicagoland area. I am teaching three investment related classes this semester and require my students to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and point out to them articles that I think are especially relevant to topics we discuss in class. When one of those “Read this article” missives is especially interesting, I like to share it with my readers. The below note qualifies.
TIMELY ARTICLE IN TODAY’S WALL STREET JOURNAL
11/10/10
The day after we discussed such financial machinations in the MBA class, today’s Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, 11/10/10, page C1) reports that HCA is borrowing $1.5 billion in the junk market to pay its private equity owners, including KKR and Bain Capital, a dividend of $2.0 billion. This is on top of $2.25 billion HCA has already paid in dividends, bringing total dividends just $1.25 billion short of the $5.5 billion HCA’s owners have put into the company. Nice work if you can get it.
The junk deal will be done at the holding company level and is therefore structurally subordinated to operating company debt, and is, to use a term that I have perhaps just made up, lightly covenanted. The deal will probably be priced on Wednesday and demand is brisk at a projected coupon of 7.75%, which, admittedly, in this rate environment is an eye-popping spread, but which does not necessarily make the deal cheap. So far this year, according to S&P, companies, primarily junk rated companies, have borrowed $40.3 billion in “dividend related financing loans and bonds.”
I was privileged and blessed as a young man to have worked for one of the great leaders and true gentlemen in the junk bond market and in the investment world in general. His name was Bill Buecking and he was a wise manager of both money and people with a perspective on the markets and life that his young minions, and especially one of his young minions, were a long way from acquiring. I am reminded of him when I look at deals like this HCA issue. Whenever we would bring a deal that stretched (broke in some cases) formerly established boundaries for prudence in the market to Bill for his review, he would listen to our presentations, read the documents, shake his head, and say “We’ve come a long way, haven’t we?” The only good thing about deals like this, in my opinion, is that they remind me of Bill’s wisdom.
As I said in my missive yesterday, and as we discussed in the MBA class, this high yield market looks bubblier than a whole pack of Bazooka gum. But I would have thought that last year and would have missed all the froth generated in the subsequent period. A little humility (believe it or not) is a prerequisite for long term success in investing.
Also in today’s Journal, and also on page C1, is an article that points out the risks to the municipal bond market of cities’ deciding they simply don’t want to make good on guarantees of their special use debt, much like homeowners’ deciding that the rules of finance don’t apply to them and therefore there is no ethical barrier to simply walking away from underwater real estate loans.
Thanks.
As many of you know, one of my various jobs is that of college instructor at various institutions of higher learning in the Chicagoland area. I am teaching three investment related classes this semester and require my students to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and point out to them articles that I think are especially relevant to topics we discuss in class. When one of those “Read this article” missives is especially interesting, I like to share it with my readers. The below note qualifies.
TIMELY ARTICLE IN TODAY’S WALL STREET JOURNAL
11/10/10
The day after we discussed such financial machinations in the MBA class, today’s Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, 11/10/10, page C1) reports that HCA is borrowing $1.5 billion in the junk market to pay its private equity owners, including KKR and Bain Capital, a dividend of $2.0 billion. This is on top of $2.25 billion HCA has already paid in dividends, bringing total dividends just $1.25 billion short of the $5.5 billion HCA’s owners have put into the company. Nice work if you can get it.
The junk deal will be done at the holding company level and is therefore structurally subordinated to operating company debt, and is, to use a term that I have perhaps just made up, lightly covenanted. The deal will probably be priced on Wednesday and demand is brisk at a projected coupon of 7.75%, which, admittedly, in this rate environment is an eye-popping spread, but which does not necessarily make the deal cheap. So far this year, according to S&P, companies, primarily junk rated companies, have borrowed $40.3 billion in “dividend related financing loans and bonds.”
I was privileged and blessed as a young man to have worked for one of the great leaders and true gentlemen in the junk bond market and in the investment world in general. His name was Bill Buecking and he was a wise manager of both money and people with a perspective on the markets and life that his young minions, and especially one of his young minions, were a long way from acquiring. I am reminded of him when I look at deals like this HCA issue. Whenever we would bring a deal that stretched (broke in some cases) formerly established boundaries for prudence in the market to Bill for his review, he would listen to our presentations, read the documents, shake his head, and say “We’ve come a long way, haven’t we?” The only good thing about deals like this, in my opinion, is that they remind me of Bill’s wisdom.
As I said in my missive yesterday, and as we discussed in the MBA class, this high yield market looks bubblier than a whole pack of Bazooka gum. But I would have thought that last year and would have missed all the froth generated in the subsequent period. A little humility (believe it or not) is a prerequisite for long term success in investing.
Also in today’s Journal, and also on page C1, is an article that points out the risks to the municipal bond market of cities’ deciding they simply don’t want to make good on guarantees of their special use debt, much like homeowners’ deciding that the rules of finance don’t apply to them and therefore there is no ethical barrier to simply walking away from underwater real estate loans.
Thanks.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
“WORKIN’ FOR THE YANKEE DOLLAR…”
11/9/10
It seems the whole world has been criticizing U.S. monetary and, by extension, economic and fiscal, policy of late. (See, inter alia, my already seminal 11/5/10 piece, THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL AND THE WESTERN AVENUE APPROACH TO MONETARY POLICY and my 10/8/10 piece, “AW, C’MON…ALL WE NEED IS A LITTLE OPTIMISM, A POSITIVE ATTITUDE!”) A few days ago, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble joined in the fun. While one has to admit that it is far easier being criticized by the Germans than by the Brazilians on monetary policy, Mr. Schauble’s remark’s very profundity and its “right on the mark” or “hitting it right on the head” nature made it especially stinging. In defending German trade and monetary policy, and simultaneously delivering perhaps the best diagnosis of modern America’s economic maladies I have ever read, Mr. Schauble said (Wall Street Journal, 11/8/10, page A17):
“Germany’s exporting success is based on the increased competitiveness of our companies, not on some sort of currency sleight-of-hand. The American growth model, by comparison, is stuck in a deep crisis. The USA lived off credit for too long, inflated its financial sector massively and neglected its industrial base. There are many reasons for America’s problems—German export surpluses aren’t one of them.” (Emphasis mine.)
Wow…talk about friends speaking the truth to friends.
A comment nearly as on the mark as Mr. Schauble’s was made by Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, who, when addressing American monetary (overall economic, really) policy, said (Wall Street Journal, 11/9/10, page A15):
“I don’t think it’s a good decision. You’re fighting debt with more debt.”
We know this is a brilliant statement because it reflects so much of the sentiment expressed over the last few years by the Insightful Pontificator, but I digress.
Messrs. Schauble and Juncker, as I mentioned before, were not alone in trying to get our once great nation off the path that is rapidly taking it (or, perhaps more properly, has rapidly taken it) to second class status. Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, Brazilian (Brazilian! I just can’t get over the Brazilians being in a position to criticize us on our monetary policy. O tempora, o mores!) President-Elect and former socialist revolutionary Dilma Rousseff, Russian G-20 negotiator Arkady Dvorkovich, and Chinese vice finance minister Zhu Guangyao have all tried to tell us that we are on the verge of destroying perhaps the only thing we have left going for us in the world economy—our once strong and revered currency.
Will we ever learn? Perhaps not. Obsequious Ben Bernanke is digging in his heels, insisting that he is right and the rest of the world is wrong. His boss (To deny this employer/employee relationship any longer would be to go beyond disingenuousness to outright fatuousness.) seems to have the same attitude. See one of today’s other posts,
NOW, NOW, CHILDREN…GATHER AROUND AND LISTEN TO UNCLE BARRY.
And why not? Such jingoistic puffery seems to work on the situation comedy addled electorate that dominates the home front.
It seems the whole world has been criticizing U.S. monetary and, by extension, economic and fiscal, policy of late. (See, inter alia, my already seminal 11/5/10 piece, THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL AND THE WESTERN AVENUE APPROACH TO MONETARY POLICY and my 10/8/10 piece, “AW, C’MON…ALL WE NEED IS A LITTLE OPTIMISM, A POSITIVE ATTITUDE!”) A few days ago, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schauble joined in the fun. While one has to admit that it is far easier being criticized by the Germans than by the Brazilians on monetary policy, Mr. Schauble’s remark’s very profundity and its “right on the mark” or “hitting it right on the head” nature made it especially stinging. In defending German trade and monetary policy, and simultaneously delivering perhaps the best diagnosis of modern America’s economic maladies I have ever read, Mr. Schauble said (Wall Street Journal, 11/8/10, page A17):
“Germany’s exporting success is based on the increased competitiveness of our companies, not on some sort of currency sleight-of-hand. The American growth model, by comparison, is stuck in a deep crisis. The USA lived off credit for too long, inflated its financial sector massively and neglected its industrial base. There are many reasons for America’s problems—German export surpluses aren’t one of them.” (Emphasis mine.)
Wow…talk about friends speaking the truth to friends.
A comment nearly as on the mark as Mr. Schauble’s was made by Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, who, when addressing American monetary (overall economic, really) policy, said (Wall Street Journal, 11/9/10, page A15):
“I don’t think it’s a good decision. You’re fighting debt with more debt.”
We know this is a brilliant statement because it reflects so much of the sentiment expressed over the last few years by the Insightful Pontificator, but I digress.
Messrs. Schauble and Juncker, as I mentioned before, were not alone in trying to get our once great nation off the path that is rapidly taking it (or, perhaps more properly, has rapidly taken it) to second class status. Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, Brazilian (Brazilian! I just can’t get over the Brazilians being in a position to criticize us on our monetary policy. O tempora, o mores!) President-Elect and former socialist revolutionary Dilma Rousseff, Russian G-20 negotiator Arkady Dvorkovich, and Chinese vice finance minister Zhu Guangyao have all tried to tell us that we are on the verge of destroying perhaps the only thing we have left going for us in the world economy—our once strong and revered currency.
Will we ever learn? Perhaps not. Obsequious Ben Bernanke is digging in his heels, insisting that he is right and the rest of the world is wrong. His boss (To deny this employer/employee relationship any longer would be to go beyond disingenuousness to outright fatuousness.) seems to have the same attitude. See one of today’s other posts,
NOW, NOW, CHILDREN…GATHER AROUND AND LISTEN TO UNCLE BARRY.
And why not? Such jingoistic puffery seems to work on the situation comedy addled electorate that dominates the home front.
NOW, NOW, CHILDREN…GATHER AROUND AND LISTEN TO UNCLE BARRY
11/9/10
On Sunday, President Obama uttered the following nugget of profundity to a group of Indian students in Mumbai (Wall Street Journal, 11/8/10, page A1):
“It may be surprising for some of you to hear this, but the country that has the biggest stake in Pakistan’s success is India. If Pakistan is unstable, that’s bad for India.”
What wisdom! The next thing you know, Mr. Obama will be telling us that if the rain doesn’t fall, that’s bad for the corn crop.
That Mr. Obama thinks it is necessary for an American president to tell the Indians that an unstable Pakistan is bad for India says a lot about his smugness and smarminess. But it also says a lot about the hubris of the typical politician who feels it is his duty to grace the benighted electorate with his Sinaiesque wisdom and about the now comic, if it weren’t so tragic, American attitude that we know so much more than the rest of the world that we must alert those poor old sots about the dangers that lurk at their very door. See one of today’s other posts, “WORKIN’ FOR THE YANKEE DOLLAR…”
On Sunday, President Obama uttered the following nugget of profundity to a group of Indian students in Mumbai (Wall Street Journal, 11/8/10, page A1):
“It may be surprising for some of you to hear this, but the country that has the biggest stake in Pakistan’s success is India. If Pakistan is unstable, that’s bad for India.”
What wisdom! The next thing you know, Mr. Obama will be telling us that if the rain doesn’t fall, that’s bad for the corn crop.
That Mr. Obama thinks it is necessary for an American president to tell the Indians that an unstable Pakistan is bad for India says a lot about his smugness and smarminess. But it also says a lot about the hubris of the typical politician who feels it is his duty to grace the benighted electorate with his Sinaiesque wisdom and about the now comic, if it weren’t so tragic, American attitude that we know so much more than the rest of the world that we must alert those poor old sots about the dangers that lurk at their very door. See one of today’s other posts, “WORKIN’ FOR THE YANKEE DOLLAR…”
TAX ME, NOT THAT FELLOW BEHIND THE TREE!
11/9/10
So now Governor Quinn (no relation) is parading around telling everyone that his election was a “mandate” for an income tax increase.
Hmm…
There is a chance that an income tax increase is necessary in order to dig ourselves out of the hole into which the bi-partisan political establishment that controls this state has thrust us. There is an even smaller chance that the electorate agrees that such a tax increase is necessary. But the claim that Governor Quinn’s election was a “mandate” for such a tax increase would be lot more credible if his campaign theme were something like
A vote for Quinn (no relation to Mark Quinn) is a vote for higher taxes
rather than what it actually was, to wit,
Vote for Quinn because his opponent is an atavistic misogynist who wants to jail people for their sexual orientation and force women to carry the unborn children of rapists. And he’s not too bright. And he hates you.
So now Governor Quinn (no relation) is parading around telling everyone that his election was a “mandate” for an income tax increase.
Hmm…
There is a chance that an income tax increase is necessary in order to dig ourselves out of the hole into which the bi-partisan political establishment that controls this state has thrust us. There is an even smaller chance that the electorate agrees that such a tax increase is necessary. But the claim that Governor Quinn’s election was a “mandate” for such a tax increase would be lot more credible if his campaign theme were something like
A vote for Quinn (no relation to Mark Quinn) is a vote for higher taxes
rather than what it actually was, to wit,
Vote for Quinn because his opponent is an atavistic misogynist who wants to jail people for their sexual orientation and force women to carry the unborn children of rapists. And he’s not too bright. And he hates you.
Friday, November 5, 2010
THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL AND THE WESTERN AVENUE APPROACH TO MONETARY POLICY
11/5/10
Brazilian Finance Minister Guido Mantega is weighing in on the Fed’s seemingly unbridled enthusiasm for quantitative easing, now known in a media/big business world whose greatest proficiency is the manufacture of banal excuses for witticisms, as “QE2.” Mr. Mantega states (Wall Street Journal, 11/5/10, page A6, “Fed Treads Into a Once-Taboo Realm.”)
“It is doubtful the Fed decision will produce any results. Throwing money out a helicopter doesn’t do any good.”
We are now being lectured, and with more than ample justification, about our monetary profligacy by the Brazilians? Some of us are old enough to remember not only Brazil’s 850% inflation rates of the ‘90s, but also the medal bedecked Latin American dictators of yore, who, when faced with protests that their treasuries, plundered in efforts to ingratiate the junta caudillos with their often restive and problematic populations, lacked the money to embark on the latest image enhancing boondoggle, simply barked “Print more!” We are appalled that those with such a sorry history of monetary excess are now in a position to warn us that we on the road to economic perdition.
Obsequious Ben Bernanke, however, assures us that he has the situation under control, that he is no generalissimo affixing a turbocharger to the printing presses. He says that the Fed’s monetizing of the public debt will continue only as long as inflation stays below 2% and will stop when the economy gets going again or if inflation rises too much. He promises.
One who, like yours truly, spent far too much of his youth in the saloons that line the western side of Western Avenue, hears, in Mr. Bernanke’s protestations, echoes of pledges by enthusiastic patrons of those establishments, who assured their fellow revelers, and themselves, that they would only have maybe five or six beers, or maybe eight or nine, and then go home. As closing time approached, those ill-fated pledges were usually replaced by repeated suggestions that a visit to one of the neighborhood’s famous 4 A.M. (5 A.M. on Fridays and Saturdays) watering holes would be a meritorious endeavor.
One hopes that Mr. Bernanke did not study monetary policy on Western Avenue.
Brazilian Finance Minister Guido Mantega is weighing in on the Fed’s seemingly unbridled enthusiasm for quantitative easing, now known in a media/big business world whose greatest proficiency is the manufacture of banal excuses for witticisms, as “QE2.” Mr. Mantega states (Wall Street Journal, 11/5/10, page A6, “Fed Treads Into a Once-Taboo Realm.”)
“It is doubtful the Fed decision will produce any results. Throwing money out a helicopter doesn’t do any good.”
We are now being lectured, and with more than ample justification, about our monetary profligacy by the Brazilians? Some of us are old enough to remember not only Brazil’s 850% inflation rates of the ‘90s, but also the medal bedecked Latin American dictators of yore, who, when faced with protests that their treasuries, plundered in efforts to ingratiate the junta caudillos with their often restive and problematic populations, lacked the money to embark on the latest image enhancing boondoggle, simply barked “Print more!” We are appalled that those with such a sorry history of monetary excess are now in a position to warn us that we on the road to economic perdition.
Obsequious Ben Bernanke, however, assures us that he has the situation under control, that he is no generalissimo affixing a turbocharger to the printing presses. He says that the Fed’s monetizing of the public debt will continue only as long as inflation stays below 2% and will stop when the economy gets going again or if inflation rises too much. He promises.
One who, like yours truly, spent far too much of his youth in the saloons that line the western side of Western Avenue, hears, in Mr. Bernanke’s protestations, echoes of pledges by enthusiastic patrons of those establishments, who assured their fellow revelers, and themselves, that they would only have maybe five or six beers, or maybe eight or nine, and then go home. As closing time approached, those ill-fated pledges were usually replaced by repeated suggestions that a visit to one of the neighborhood’s famous 4 A.M. (5 A.M. on Fridays and Saturdays) watering holes would be a meritorious endeavor.
One hopes that Mr. Bernanke did not study monetary policy on Western Avenue.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
“YEAH, I’LL GIVE YA A TIP: DON’T PLAY THE HORSES”
Those of you who read the Pontificator frequently and carefully know that I have been long TIPS, GLD, and SLV for a long time. There are also a handful of people whom I advise with varying degrees of closeness on their portfolios and they have put money into all three instruments, but mostly into TIPS. I sent them the following missive today in response to inquiries about the future of TIPS. I thought my readers might find it interesting and a welcome break from the discussions of politics that have dominated the Pontificator over the last few weeks.
11/4/10
TIPS have run far and fast; the ETF TIP is up 8.4% YTD, excluding dividends, while the Vanguard Inflation Protected Bond Fund has delivered a 10.02% total return as of last night’s close. In fact, TIPS have run so far that the five year TIP is currently trading at a negative yield of 65 basis points. Several of you have asked what I am currently thinking about TIPS and what I am doing with my very large (for me) position in these instruments.
While a negative yield on the five year TIP is indeed eye-opening, the number to look at is not the absolute TIP yield, but the inflation rate implied by the spread between conventional treasuries and their corresponding TIPS. The implied inflation rate for the five, ten, and thirty year TIPS are currently 1.67%, 2.15%, and 2.68% respectively. When deciding whether to hold, or buy, TIPS, the question you have to ask yourself is whether you think that the inflation rate will come in below or above the aforementioned levels. If you believe that the inflation rate will be below 2.15% over the next ten years, you should hold conventional treasuries. If you think the inflation rate will be above 2.15% over the next ten years, you should hold TIPS. WITH A FED SEEMINGLY BENT ON INFLATING THIS NATION OF UP TO THE EYEBALLS BORROWERS OUT OF THEIR DEBTS, I AM CONFIDENT THAT WE WILL SEE INFLATION RATES FAR IN EXCESS OF THE 1.67%-2.68% RANGE IN THE COMING YEARS, SO I AM HANGING ONTO MY TIPS. Furthermore, conventional treasuries have outperformed TIPS so far this year, meaning that the implied inflation rates have gone DOWN year to date as the treasury markets have bought the “inflation is dead and buried, what we really have to worry about is deflation” drivel. This only enhances the attractiveness of TIPS for those of us who are not at all sanguine about inflation in an era when the Fed seems to be under the control of the monetary equivalent of the Nutty Professor.
Of course, if real rates (nominal interest rates less inflation) were to spike upward, one wouldn’t want to be in TIPS or any fixed income instruments beyond the shortest of maturities. While a spike in real rates is indeed possible, a spike in inflation, in my opinion, is far more likely to take place and to overwhelm any increase in real rates. By holding TIPS, we are protecting ourselves, at least to some extent, from such a bout of inflation.
I am also holding onto my positions in GLD and SLV (the gold and silver ETFs) for reasons remarkably similar to those that prompt me to hold onto my TIPS. GLD is up 25.7% year to date while SLV is up 51.4%. These gains, along with my gains in TIPS, have somehow taken the sting out of my largely missing out on the stock market rally (The S&P 500 and NASDAQ are up 8.8% and 10.5% year to date respectively.) in which the nation is currently basking.
11/4/10
TIPS have run far and fast; the ETF TIP is up 8.4% YTD, excluding dividends, while the Vanguard Inflation Protected Bond Fund has delivered a 10.02% total return as of last night’s close. In fact, TIPS have run so far that the five year TIP is currently trading at a negative yield of 65 basis points. Several of you have asked what I am currently thinking about TIPS and what I am doing with my very large (for me) position in these instruments.
While a negative yield on the five year TIP is indeed eye-opening, the number to look at is not the absolute TIP yield, but the inflation rate implied by the spread between conventional treasuries and their corresponding TIPS. The implied inflation rate for the five, ten, and thirty year TIPS are currently 1.67%, 2.15%, and 2.68% respectively. When deciding whether to hold, or buy, TIPS, the question you have to ask yourself is whether you think that the inflation rate will come in below or above the aforementioned levels. If you believe that the inflation rate will be below 2.15% over the next ten years, you should hold conventional treasuries. If you think the inflation rate will be above 2.15% over the next ten years, you should hold TIPS. WITH A FED SEEMINGLY BENT ON INFLATING THIS NATION OF UP TO THE EYEBALLS BORROWERS OUT OF THEIR DEBTS, I AM CONFIDENT THAT WE WILL SEE INFLATION RATES FAR IN EXCESS OF THE 1.67%-2.68% RANGE IN THE COMING YEARS, SO I AM HANGING ONTO MY TIPS. Furthermore, conventional treasuries have outperformed TIPS so far this year, meaning that the implied inflation rates have gone DOWN year to date as the treasury markets have bought the “inflation is dead and buried, what we really have to worry about is deflation” drivel. This only enhances the attractiveness of TIPS for those of us who are not at all sanguine about inflation in an era when the Fed seems to be under the control of the monetary equivalent of the Nutty Professor.
Of course, if real rates (nominal interest rates less inflation) were to spike upward, one wouldn’t want to be in TIPS or any fixed income instruments beyond the shortest of maturities. While a spike in real rates is indeed possible, a spike in inflation, in my opinion, is far more likely to take place and to overwhelm any increase in real rates. By holding TIPS, we are protecting ourselves, at least to some extent, from such a bout of inflation.
I am also holding onto my positions in GLD and SLV (the gold and silver ETFs) for reasons remarkably similar to those that prompt me to hold onto my TIPS. GLD is up 25.7% year to date while SLV is up 51.4%. These gains, along with my gains in TIPS, have somehow taken the sting out of my largely missing out on the stock market rally (The S&P 500 and NASDAQ are up 8.8% and 10.5% year to date respectively.) in which the nation is currently basking.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
HOW QUINN WON, PROBABLY
11/3/10
It looks like Pat Quinn (no relation) will be elected (The purists out there insist that we not say “re-elected” because he was not elected governor but rather assumed that post when Rod Blagojevich was impeached.) governor. Quinn leads at this writing by 8,349 votes. If there are 30,000 votes to be counted, absentee and otherwise (I have heard numbers all over the map, but 30,000 is one I’ve heard the most.), Brady would have to “carry” those yet to be counted ballots by almost a 2 to 1 margin in order to win. So, barring a preponderance of those ballots’ coming from downstate or something odd in a still unscheduled recount, Pat Quinn will be our governor for the next four years.
While I said in one of yesterday’s posts (MR. TRIPARTISAN, THAT’S I!, 11/2/10) that the governor’s race, along with the senate race, was very close and could go either way, I thought Quinn would lose because his totals in the city would not be big enough to counteract Brady’s big victories downstate and in the collar counties. I cited two reasons for what I thought would be a winning, but relatively weak, performance, in the city. First, I thought that the committeemen in the Machine wards, mostly on the fringes of the city, the guys whom Quinn has spent a career bashing as ethical pygmies, would not be expending any more effort than necessary to roll up the vote totals for the governor in their wards, wards in which many of the residents would look favorably on Bill Brady’s social conservatism in any case. Second, I stated that Quinn might not win the black wards big because of his snubbing of Art Turner for lieutenant governor after Scott Lee Cohen dropped out of the race. As it turns out, he will win because I was wrong, dead wrong, in that prognostication.
Quinn won the city big, getting 75.4% of the vote. He did very well in those “Machine” votes, as these examples illustrate (the site does not handle spacing well, so this isn't as neatly spaced as I would like, but you should be able to follow it...the ward number is first, the committeeman second, Quinn's percentage third):
Ward Committeeman Quinn’s Percentage
11 Daley (John) 64.2%
12 Cardenas 73.9%
13 Madigan 68.5%
14 Burke 76.2%
19 O’Shea 62.5%
23 Zalewski 57.8%
33 Mell 70.3%
36 Banks 59.8%
38 Cullerton 58.3%
40 O’Connor 70.8%
45 Levar 56.0%
47 Schulter 69.0%
48 Ronen 75.3%
Quinn also carried the black wards by percentages in line with historic Democratic performances in those wards, as the following examples illustrate (again, the site doesn't handle spacing well, but the ward comes first, Quinn's percentage comes second):
Ward Percentage
3 89.4%
6 92.8%
7 91.2%
8 92.9%
17 93.0%
20 90.8%
21 92.6%
24 93.0%
You get the picture; apparently, the snub of Art Turner for Sheila Simon apparently didn’t have much impact.
Incidentally, and to no one’s surprise, Brady did best in the 41st Ward, the only ward represented by a Republican alderman, Brian Doherty, who is leaving his post in the city council for a run at Jimmy DeLeo’s state senate seat. Brady got 44.7% of the votes in the 41st, trailing Quinn by 2.8%, a very respectable showing.
It looks like Pat Quinn (no relation) will be elected (The purists out there insist that we not say “re-elected” because he was not elected governor but rather assumed that post when Rod Blagojevich was impeached.) governor. Quinn leads at this writing by 8,349 votes. If there are 30,000 votes to be counted, absentee and otherwise (I have heard numbers all over the map, but 30,000 is one I’ve heard the most.), Brady would have to “carry” those yet to be counted ballots by almost a 2 to 1 margin in order to win. So, barring a preponderance of those ballots’ coming from downstate or something odd in a still unscheduled recount, Pat Quinn will be our governor for the next four years.
While I said in one of yesterday’s posts (MR. TRIPARTISAN, THAT’S I!, 11/2/10) that the governor’s race, along with the senate race, was very close and could go either way, I thought Quinn would lose because his totals in the city would not be big enough to counteract Brady’s big victories downstate and in the collar counties. I cited two reasons for what I thought would be a winning, but relatively weak, performance, in the city. First, I thought that the committeemen in the Machine wards, mostly on the fringes of the city, the guys whom Quinn has spent a career bashing as ethical pygmies, would not be expending any more effort than necessary to roll up the vote totals for the governor in their wards, wards in which many of the residents would look favorably on Bill Brady’s social conservatism in any case. Second, I stated that Quinn might not win the black wards big because of his snubbing of Art Turner for lieutenant governor after Scott Lee Cohen dropped out of the race. As it turns out, he will win because I was wrong, dead wrong, in that prognostication.
Quinn won the city big, getting 75.4% of the vote. He did very well in those “Machine” votes, as these examples illustrate (the site does not handle spacing well, so this isn't as neatly spaced as I would like, but you should be able to follow it...the ward number is first, the committeeman second, Quinn's percentage third):
Ward Committeeman Quinn’s Percentage
11 Daley (John) 64.2%
12 Cardenas 73.9%
13 Madigan 68.5%
14 Burke 76.2%
19 O’Shea 62.5%
23 Zalewski 57.8%
33 Mell 70.3%
36 Banks 59.8%
38 Cullerton 58.3%
40 O’Connor 70.8%
45 Levar 56.0%
47 Schulter 69.0%
48 Ronen 75.3%
Quinn also carried the black wards by percentages in line with historic Democratic performances in those wards, as the following examples illustrate (again, the site doesn't handle spacing well, but the ward comes first, Quinn's percentage comes second):
Ward Percentage
3 89.4%
6 92.8%
7 91.2%
8 92.9%
17 93.0%
20 90.8%
21 92.6%
24 93.0%
You get the picture; apparently, the snub of Art Turner for Sheila Simon apparently didn’t have much impact.
Incidentally, and to no one’s surprise, Brady did best in the 41st Ward, the only ward represented by a Republican alderman, Brian Doherty, who is leaving his post in the city council for a run at Jimmy DeLeo’s state senate seat. Brady got 44.7% of the votes in the 41st, trailing Quinn by 2.8%, a very respectable showing.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
SAY IT’S SO, JOE
11/2/10
In today’s race with the most significant ramifications for Chicago politics, Cook County Board of Review member, 31st Ward Democratic Committeeman, and nominal head of the Cook County Regular Democratic Organization Joe Berrios beat Forest Claypool, a former chief of staff for Mayor Daley and the darling of the reform movement on Chicago’s trendy near north side, in the race for Cook County Assessor. And Berrios beat Claypool early and beat him big.
Why is this so important? As I have said in numerous fora, the assessor’s contest was an indication of the supposedly faltering pulse of the ward based Machine in Chicago. If Claypool had won, you could have stuck a fork in the Machine. But Claypool lost despite his being endorsed by every major media organ in the area and despite the tongue clucking and the “I can’t believe that people can even consider voting for this hack” attitude toward Berrios among the self-designated opinion makers in the city, the county, and the state. Why? Apparently because the Machine can still crank out the vote.
Why is this so important? If the talk that the committeemen who run the Machine don’t want Rahm Emanuel to be mayor is true (See, inter alia, my 10/31 post, IF MACHIAVELLI CAME TO CHICAGO…), Emanuel isn’t able to buy off the committeemen before February, and the guys in charge of the Machine can settle on a candidate, Rahm Emanuel’s chances of becoming mayor of Chicago have just fallen, perhaps dramatically.
In today’s race with the most significant ramifications for Chicago politics, Cook County Board of Review member, 31st Ward Democratic Committeeman, and nominal head of the Cook County Regular Democratic Organization Joe Berrios beat Forest Claypool, a former chief of staff for Mayor Daley and the darling of the reform movement on Chicago’s trendy near north side, in the race for Cook County Assessor. And Berrios beat Claypool early and beat him big.
Why is this so important? As I have said in numerous fora, the assessor’s contest was an indication of the supposedly faltering pulse of the ward based Machine in Chicago. If Claypool had won, you could have stuck a fork in the Machine. But Claypool lost despite his being endorsed by every major media organ in the area and despite the tongue clucking and the “I can’t believe that people can even consider voting for this hack” attitude toward Berrios among the self-designated opinion makers in the city, the county, and the state. Why? Apparently because the Machine can still crank out the vote.
Why is this so important? If the talk that the committeemen who run the Machine don’t want Rahm Emanuel to be mayor is true (See, inter alia, my 10/31 post, IF MACHIAVELLI CAME TO CHICAGO…), Emanuel isn’t able to buy off the committeemen before February, and the guys in charge of the Machine can settle on a candidate, Rahm Emanuel’s chances of becoming mayor of Chicago have just fallen, perhaps dramatically.
MR. TRIPARTISAN, THAT’S I!
11/2/10
I sent the following missive to a very good friend of mine, a San Franciscan, a Democrat, and a guy with a great handle on national politics, in response to his request for my thoughts on today’s election. While I am reluctant to make predictions, or at least outright predictions, and am perhaps a touch reluctant to reveal whom I vote for, I think my writers might enjoy this particular exercise in crystal ball gazing and might be surprised by some of my selections in this contest, so I decided to post it in redacted form:
11/2/10
First, I was going to e-mail you today on another matter. I don’t think you are much of a baseball fan, but I wanted to congratulate you on the Giants’ great victory in the Series. I suspect your dad is quite happy about it. I am, even though I care not a whit about baseball once we venture very far from 35th Street, and then only due to historic/cultural concerns rather than out of any genuine enthusiasm for that most boring of sports.
On weightier matters:
I try not to make political predictions. That having been said, I would guess that the conventional wisdom is about right while the more enthused among the Republicans are getting carried away. I would think a pick up somewhere in the low to mid-50s is about right while people talking 65, 70 seats in the House are a bit overly febrile. Having said that, the Journal said this morning that “close to 100 seats are at least marginally competitive.” If that is true, the huge blowout that the more spirited are predicting and hoping for might just happen.
In the Senate, the GOP holds onto Kentucky (the one I really care about) and picks up Colorado, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Washington, which is not enough. Reid hangs on; he always manages to hang on. Note he beat Ensign by less than 1000 votes last time. This is the one, however, I think I am most likely to be most wrong on. Murkowski doesn’t win the write-in; it’s just too tough, especially with a name as tough to spell, for those who don’t live in Chicago, like Murkowski. But we won’t know for a long time.
Brown and Boxer win in your state. Brady and Giannoulias win in my state. But my predictions for Illinois are very shaky; these are both very close and I could just as easily predict the opposite in both races. However, I think Quinn loses largely because he won’t carry Chicago by 400,000 votes, widely accepted as the necessary margin of victory in order for a Democrat to win the state. Why? First, he’s going to have trouble in the “machine” wards on the fringes of the city, where the voters like Brady’s social conservatism and the bosses are not going to be busting their hindquarters for a guy who’s made his career telling the world that they are moral pygmies while he is an ethical giant. (See, inter alia, my 10/23/10 post, AFTER ALL, THEY’RE BOTH IRISH-CATHOLICS, RIGHT?). Quinn will carry those wards, but not by enough. Similarly, while he will carry the black wards overwhelmingly, he won’t run up the totals he needs due to simmering resentment over passing over Art Turner, the runner-up in the lieutenant gubernatorial primary, in order to select Sheila Simon, whose qualifications are more than exhausted once when gets past her last name.
I see nothing but gridlock in the next Congress. It would be instructive to see how things went from ’94 to ’96, when the GOP controlled Congress and thought it might have a chance to win the White House in ’96. As I recall, the serious compromising that made Clinton a great president (After Bush, I have come to regard my former nemesis as a great president who I really wish was back in the White House.) didn’t get underway until after the ’96 elections, but my memory is foggy on that one. As I said, though, examining that era would give us clues as to how things will develop over the next two years. Of course, you know with my political philosophy that gridlock is a wonderful thing, my fervent hope for the future of our Republic. Even when Clinton and Gingrich were compromising, both were thwarted in their more enthusiastic efforts to grow government in their particular direction.
Personally, you will be happy to know that I will be voting for several Democrats, mostly for the relatively obscure offices of Attorney General (But the incumbent AG for whom I will vote, is Lisa Madigan, Mike’s daughter, so this is an important, but by no means close, race. She will draw more votes than anyone in the state of Illinois. She is immensely popular and is being widely urged to run for Mayor. I suspect she won’t, but if my namesake wins reelection, she will be thinking hard about running for Mayor.), Comptroller, and Secretary of State. I’m voting for Jesse White for Secretary of State because Jesse, and amiable hack and protégé of former 42nd Ward Boss George Dunne, Richard J. Daley’s successor as Chairman of the Cook County Regular Democratic Organization, is widely loved, mostly for the Jesse White tumblers, and has done a reasonable job with that snake pit bastion of patronage we call the Secretary of State’s office in the Land of Lincoln. The Republican candidate for Comptroller is Judy Baar Topinka, who is, ironically, very much one of the boys who have driven our state to bankruptcy by making it their personal piggy bank. Voting against her is tough because she is a real piece of work whom I personally like very much. However, her being endorsed by AFSCME was the last straw for me. One could make the same arguments against voting for Madigan and White, but they are Democrats so one would expect them to be endorsed by AFSCME and to be agents of the evil cabal that has driven our state to bankruptcy. For a Republican to be endorsed by AFSCME requires a degree of obsequiousness that would make a mule gag. And Topinka’s opponent is a dentist, so he actually does something rather than run for office and preen for the cameras, unlike just about every other politician.
Of course, I’m voting for Brady for governor. He’s a conservative and a businessman, my kind of guy, though I have some suspicions about the mental horsepower at work there. But we all had the same suspicions about one Ronald Reagan, and he turned out to my liking, perhaps the second best president of my lifetime.
Now, for Senator…I can’t vote for Giannoulias, an incompetent, weasely, dyspeptic, narcissistic, ingenuous type of person about whom one can easily have frightening dreams. But I can’t vote for Kirk; he was way too much of a cheerleader, to put it nicely, for Bush and is one of those guys who sees it as the country’s duty to go to war with the entire planet in order to make us safe from the latest boogeyman under the bed. So there is no way I can vote for this guy. I’ll vote Libertarian for this one.
I sent the following missive to a very good friend of mine, a San Franciscan, a Democrat, and a guy with a great handle on national politics, in response to his request for my thoughts on today’s election. While I am reluctant to make predictions, or at least outright predictions, and am perhaps a touch reluctant to reveal whom I vote for, I think my writers might enjoy this particular exercise in crystal ball gazing and might be surprised by some of my selections in this contest, so I decided to post it in redacted form:
11/2/10
First, I was going to e-mail you today on another matter. I don’t think you are much of a baseball fan, but I wanted to congratulate you on the Giants’ great victory in the Series. I suspect your dad is quite happy about it. I am, even though I care not a whit about baseball once we venture very far from 35th Street, and then only due to historic/cultural concerns rather than out of any genuine enthusiasm for that most boring of sports.
On weightier matters:
I try not to make political predictions. That having been said, I would guess that the conventional wisdom is about right while the more enthused among the Republicans are getting carried away. I would think a pick up somewhere in the low to mid-50s is about right while people talking 65, 70 seats in the House are a bit overly febrile. Having said that, the Journal said this morning that “close to 100 seats are at least marginally competitive.” If that is true, the huge blowout that the more spirited are predicting and hoping for might just happen.
In the Senate, the GOP holds onto Kentucky (the one I really care about) and picks up Colorado, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Washington, which is not enough. Reid hangs on; he always manages to hang on. Note he beat Ensign by less than 1000 votes last time. This is the one, however, I think I am most likely to be most wrong on. Murkowski doesn’t win the write-in; it’s just too tough, especially with a name as tough to spell, for those who don’t live in Chicago, like Murkowski. But we won’t know for a long time.
Brown and Boxer win in your state. Brady and Giannoulias win in my state. But my predictions for Illinois are very shaky; these are both very close and I could just as easily predict the opposite in both races. However, I think Quinn loses largely because he won’t carry Chicago by 400,000 votes, widely accepted as the necessary margin of victory in order for a Democrat to win the state. Why? First, he’s going to have trouble in the “machine” wards on the fringes of the city, where the voters like Brady’s social conservatism and the bosses are not going to be busting their hindquarters for a guy who’s made his career telling the world that they are moral pygmies while he is an ethical giant. (See, inter alia, my 10/23/10 post, AFTER ALL, THEY’RE BOTH IRISH-CATHOLICS, RIGHT?). Quinn will carry those wards, but not by enough. Similarly, while he will carry the black wards overwhelmingly, he won’t run up the totals he needs due to simmering resentment over passing over Art Turner, the runner-up in the lieutenant gubernatorial primary, in order to select Sheila Simon, whose qualifications are more than exhausted once when gets past her last name.
I see nothing but gridlock in the next Congress. It would be instructive to see how things went from ’94 to ’96, when the GOP controlled Congress and thought it might have a chance to win the White House in ’96. As I recall, the serious compromising that made Clinton a great president (After Bush, I have come to regard my former nemesis as a great president who I really wish was back in the White House.) didn’t get underway until after the ’96 elections, but my memory is foggy on that one. As I said, though, examining that era would give us clues as to how things will develop over the next two years. Of course, you know with my political philosophy that gridlock is a wonderful thing, my fervent hope for the future of our Republic. Even when Clinton and Gingrich were compromising, both were thwarted in their more enthusiastic efforts to grow government in their particular direction.
Personally, you will be happy to know that I will be voting for several Democrats, mostly for the relatively obscure offices of Attorney General (But the incumbent AG for whom I will vote, is Lisa Madigan, Mike’s daughter, so this is an important, but by no means close, race. She will draw more votes than anyone in the state of Illinois. She is immensely popular and is being widely urged to run for Mayor. I suspect she won’t, but if my namesake wins reelection, she will be thinking hard about running for Mayor.), Comptroller, and Secretary of State. I’m voting for Jesse White for Secretary of State because Jesse, and amiable hack and protégé of former 42nd Ward Boss George Dunne, Richard J. Daley’s successor as Chairman of the Cook County Regular Democratic Organization, is widely loved, mostly for the Jesse White tumblers, and has done a reasonable job with that snake pit bastion of patronage we call the Secretary of State’s office in the Land of Lincoln. The Republican candidate for Comptroller is Judy Baar Topinka, who is, ironically, very much one of the boys who have driven our state to bankruptcy by making it their personal piggy bank. Voting against her is tough because she is a real piece of work whom I personally like very much. However, her being endorsed by AFSCME was the last straw for me. One could make the same arguments against voting for Madigan and White, but they are Democrats so one would expect them to be endorsed by AFSCME and to be agents of the evil cabal that has driven our state to bankruptcy. For a Republican to be endorsed by AFSCME requires a degree of obsequiousness that would make a mule gag. And Topinka’s opponent is a dentist, so he actually does something rather than run for office and preen for the cameras, unlike just about every other politician.
Of course, I’m voting for Brady for governor. He’s a conservative and a businessman, my kind of guy, though I have some suspicions about the mental horsepower at work there. But we all had the same suspicions about one Ronald Reagan, and he turned out to my liking, perhaps the second best president of my lifetime.
Now, for Senator…I can’t vote for Giannoulias, an incompetent, weasely, dyspeptic, narcissistic, ingenuous type of person about whom one can easily have frightening dreams. But I can’t vote for Kirk; he was way too much of a cheerleader, to put it nicely, for Bush and is one of those guys who sees it as the country’s duty to go to war with the entire planet in order to make us safe from the latest boogeyman under the bed. So there is no way I can vote for this guy. I’ll vote Libertarian for this one.
Monday, November 1, 2010
WHERE’S COUNT FLOYD WHEN YOU NEED HIM?
11/1/10
I, like doubtless many of you, spend a lot of time listening to Newsradio 78. (For those of you outside the Chicago area, Newsradio 78 is our all news CBS radio affiliate, the equivalent of WCBS in New York.) As an avid listener, I must endure the many inane commercials on this otherwise outstanding station promoting the network’s visible fare. One such ad that seems to have just started this morning features a hapless and gormless couple trapped by their navigation system in a loop that will not let them leave their home. The nav system explains to them that if they leave their house now, they will miss CBS’s Monday night lineup and then goes on to list the figurative cow excrement that CBS serves up to the addle-brained on Mondays: Two and Half Men, Spike and Jolly, Why I Ditched Your Mother, etc. (or something like that).
Two thoughts…
--Someone got paid a lot of money to produce this ad. And someone got paid a lot of money to produce these shows. Admittedly, I’ve never considered my time so utterly valueless that I have seen any of these abominations before God and man, but that they actually make money for someone nearly shakes my faith in the free market.
--A scary musing, too late for Halloween but just in time for Election Day: the people who idle away their time anesthetizing their grey matter watching such drivel actually get to vote. Talk about scary! For the sake of the Republic, let’s hope they find the bout of mental flatulence served up by the networks on Tuesday prior to election coverage so compelling that they just can’t make it to the polls.
I, like doubtless many of you, spend a lot of time listening to Newsradio 78. (For those of you outside the Chicago area, Newsradio 78 is our all news CBS radio affiliate, the equivalent of WCBS in New York.) As an avid listener, I must endure the many inane commercials on this otherwise outstanding station promoting the network’s visible fare. One such ad that seems to have just started this morning features a hapless and gormless couple trapped by their navigation system in a loop that will not let them leave their home. The nav system explains to them that if they leave their house now, they will miss CBS’s Monday night lineup and then goes on to list the figurative cow excrement that CBS serves up to the addle-brained on Mondays: Two and Half Men, Spike and Jolly, Why I Ditched Your Mother, etc. (or something like that).
Two thoughts…
--Someone got paid a lot of money to produce this ad. And someone got paid a lot of money to produce these shows. Admittedly, I’ve never considered my time so utterly valueless that I have seen any of these abominations before God and man, but that they actually make money for someone nearly shakes my faith in the free market.
--A scary musing, too late for Halloween but just in time for Election Day: the people who idle away their time anesthetizing their grey matter watching such drivel actually get to vote. Talk about scary! For the sake of the Republic, let’s hope they find the bout of mental flatulence served up by the networks on Tuesday prior to election coverage so compelling that they just can’t make it to the polls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
