Despite the fact that I have been blogging on this subject for months (most recently July 12, if you need a refresher) . . . I still can not believe that our country is about to host a witch hunt to punish the very individuals who sacrificed so much to keep us safe. The men and women who put it on the line for us, to fight people who live in the gutters of the World, on our behalf.
We are going to look back from a safe distance at the decision-making of policymakers during the duress of post-9/11 and at the actions of those who worked several layers down under the guidance of written legal opinions and executive orders. This is totally un-American.
I simply can not believe that it has come to this.
What a huge mistake we are making right now. Where are we going to be next time we need some tough action to save American lives? Who is going to stand up next time if this is how we treat our warriors?
What are we doing?
Friday, August 28, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Is it true?
That President Obama called the head of the Congressional Budget Office to the White House for a meeting after the CBO came out with its study that none of the current health care legislation being considered will actually reduce what we spend on health care, as claimed by the President?
If this is true, this seems awfully close to the line of inappropriate meddling by the Executive in the business of the Legislative. The CBO was created to cut through the politics of the budgetary process so that somewhere, somehow, Congress could get honest numbers on what they are spending.
Do you think the President was just being social or calling the CBO to the carpet for coming out with numbers that contradicted his?
If this is true, this seems awfully close to the line of inappropriate meddling by the Executive in the business of the Legislative. The CBO was created to cut through the politics of the budgetary process so that somewhere, somehow, Congress could get honest numbers on what they are spending.
Do you think the President was just being social or calling the CBO to the carpet for coming out with numbers that contradicted his?
The Crusader . . .
When you think you are on a (capital C) Crusade to save America . . . the potential exists for you to miss signals that maybe, possibly, you may not be correct in your assumptions. If you feel you are "right" and doing the "right" thing, then damn the opposition and plow ahead because you are on a Crusade to save the People. To right the wrongs. To cure the ills. To create an idealic future for us all. Peace, love and understanding will prevail if you succeed.
And, those that stand in the way of your goals are obstructionists, tied to the status quo. They are evil-doers with immoral motivations. If they aren't for you, they are against you and therefore, against all that is right and just in your Crusade to create a better World. The opposition wants the Old World to continue, where injustice and cruelty rule the day. They are evil insurance companies (motivated by . . . YIPES . . . Profit.) They are caustic Republican Right-Wingers stirring up the emotions of the mob with untruths and lies. They are cynical political operatives trying to hurt the Crusader so he doesn't succeed in creating a better World.
When you are on a Crusade, it is easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys.
When you are on a Crusade, the World is a very simple place to figure out. Those who are with you are The Light and those that are opposing you are the Dark Forces who must be defeated.
Does any of this sound familiar to you? It should ring a bell of sorts.
This is an unhealthy environment to lead the Country. If you de-legitimize the opposition, you miss hearing what they have to say. And, what they have to say may actually help you because the opposition is not created out of thin air. It exists because of real concerns of real citizens. And, you are the leader of all the citizens, not just the ones who voted for you. Which means, you need to listen to them all, and hear them out. And, not pretend that what they have to say is somehow tainted by the fact that they are anti-Crusaders.
Unless . . . your Crusade is more important and you know what is "right" for the People and how to make the World better. Then, damn the opposition. Full steam ahead!!!
And, those that stand in the way of your goals are obstructionists, tied to the status quo. They are evil-doers with immoral motivations. If they aren't for you, they are against you and therefore, against all that is right and just in your Crusade to create a better World. The opposition wants the Old World to continue, where injustice and cruelty rule the day. They are evil insurance companies (motivated by . . . YIPES . . . Profit.) They are caustic Republican Right-Wingers stirring up the emotions of the mob with untruths and lies. They are cynical political operatives trying to hurt the Crusader so he doesn't succeed in creating a better World.
When you are on a Crusade, it is easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys.
When you are on a Crusade, the World is a very simple place to figure out. Those who are with you are The Light and those that are opposing you are the Dark Forces who must be defeated.
Does any of this sound familiar to you? It should ring a bell of sorts.
This is an unhealthy environment to lead the Country. If you de-legitimize the opposition, you miss hearing what they have to say. And, what they have to say may actually help you because the opposition is not created out of thin air. It exists because of real concerns of real citizens. And, you are the leader of all the citizens, not just the ones who voted for you. Which means, you need to listen to them all, and hear them out. And, not pretend that what they have to say is somehow tainted by the fact that they are anti-Crusaders.
Unless . . . your Crusade is more important and you know what is "right" for the People and how to make the World better. Then, damn the opposition. Full steam ahead!!!
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Tin Ears and Arrogance
An interesting phenomena is happening now across the country. Congressmen are going home on recess and having town hall meetings, where they are soliciting comments from their constituents on the health care legislation now before Congress. These town hall meetings usually have a nice, civil tone in which the adoring public (usually mostly made up of campaign contributors and supporters of the politicians) praises the Congresspeople for their wonderful deeds, and asks for things for the local community.
These more recent meetings, however, have been filled with discontent (to say the least), rancor, disrespect for the politicians and fear. People are afraid of the change that is being talked about in Washington. They have read about it and they don't like what they are reading. And, they are letting their elected officials know they are unhappy by telling them to their face, and laughing at them while they try to sell their plans (because everyone knows they are lying about the financial impact of the legislation, and they know they will pay for these lies). And, it turns out that America's elected officials don't like getting lip from their constituents. They much prefer the praise they have been receiving at these meetings.
The reaction of (mostly) Democratic political leaders has been the dangerous part, not the public's reaction to the legislation. The politicians are quick to write off the reaction they are getting as being orchestrated somehow by the Republican "Right". This is a big mistake and illustrates how far these politicians have drifted from the electorate. And, they proceed with their legislation at their own peril.
The problem for the Dem Leadership stems from the fact that they operate in their Washington cocoon, which is so very well insulated from the viewpoints of actual citizens (see for yourself how hard it is as an actual, concerned citizen, to get an audience with an elected official - they won't see you unless your name is affixed to a five digit check to their campaign). So, when they come face to face with real people (who, nominally, are their bosses), and when those people tell them things they don't want to hear, they think to themselves "there must be an explanation for this that absolves me of any responsibility". And, then they trot out the Boogie Man Right-Wing Conspiracy.
Time for politicians to pay attention to their constituents and listen to what they have to say.
These more recent meetings, however, have been filled with discontent (to say the least), rancor, disrespect for the politicians and fear. People are afraid of the change that is being talked about in Washington. They have read about it and they don't like what they are reading. And, they are letting their elected officials know they are unhappy by telling them to their face, and laughing at them while they try to sell their plans (because everyone knows they are lying about the financial impact of the legislation, and they know they will pay for these lies). And, it turns out that America's elected officials don't like getting lip from their constituents. They much prefer the praise they have been receiving at these meetings.
The reaction of (mostly) Democratic political leaders has been the dangerous part, not the public's reaction to the legislation. The politicians are quick to write off the reaction they are getting as being orchestrated somehow by the Republican "Right". This is a big mistake and illustrates how far these politicians have drifted from the electorate. And, they proceed with their legislation at their own peril.
The problem for the Dem Leadership stems from the fact that they operate in their Washington cocoon, which is so very well insulated from the viewpoints of actual citizens (see for yourself how hard it is as an actual, concerned citizen, to get an audience with an elected official - they won't see you unless your name is affixed to a five digit check to their campaign). So, when they come face to face with real people (who, nominally, are their bosses), and when those people tell them things they don't want to hear, they think to themselves "there must be an explanation for this that absolves me of any responsibility". And, then they trot out the Boogie Man Right-Wing Conspiracy.
Time for politicians to pay attention to their constituents and listen to what they have to say.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Obamacare . . . is bad economics
Here are a couple reasons why I feel this way . . .
1. The plan requires $1 Trillion in new spending. One Trillion dollars of new spending . . . at a time when our budget deficit is expected to be close to $2 Trillion this year and $1.5 Trillion next year and $1 Trillion in 2011. All told, we are projected to rack up 10 Trillion dollars in new debt in the next eight years. That's a lot of beakers, my friends.
Is it just me or does it seem that maybe now might not be the absolute best time to be proposing new Trillion dollar social programs. We are not exactly flush. By the way, we all know that if politicians say something will cost $1 Trillion, it will really cost (at least) twice that. And, as with all entitlement programs ever enacted . . . it will be permanent and it will be very difficult to modify.
2. Tax Plan. The Democrats in the House have a plan to address part of this dilemma. They plan to tax upper income Americans at rates of over 5% on income over a certain threshhold. To pay for half of the Trillion dollar plan. The other half is going to come from "efficiency gains" (whatever the heck that means).
By the way, this plan to pay for health insurance by taxing the top 1% of taxpayers with a surtax is in direct response to polling figures that show that Americans want health insurance reform . . . as long as someone else is paying for it. So, the Democrats took care of that little problem by foisting the bill onto the tiny sliver of America at the top of the income scale. That's leadership for you . . . or at least that's one version of leadership (the kind that doesn't lead, but follows.)
Some people call this plan “progressive”. Somehow, the thinking goes, it is “progressive” to transfer wealth from one group of people (wealthy individuals) to another group of people (less wealthy Americans). Rather than everyone pays their own way and the American people will together use tax receipts to fund various social programs . . . the approach we are flirting with is . . . everyone who can afford it pays their own way . . . and then this tiny minority of taxpayers pays for everyone who can’t. The inherent problem with this approach, besides the obvious one of fairness (why don’t these top tier taxpayers get to keep what they earn? Did they do something wrong, or is our system designed to reward those that produce more economic benefit?) is that this type of thinking pits this tiny minority in the top bracket against everyone else. Not just those that will receive the transfer of wealth, but those in the middle who don’t have to pay for it because the top tier of taxpayers is footing the bill. Why not eat more ice cream if someone else is getting the calories and the fat?
In my view, this is bad public policy. It becomes someone else’s problem to pay for all these decisions in Washingon and that someone is a very small minority of citizenry. Which means that more and more will be piled on to them (because it is politically expedient to do so). That means more surcharges (why not, they can afford it . . . they make so much money.)
And, then, the golden goose stops laying eggs. That’s what has happened in California where 144,000 taxpayers in a state of 38 Million people, pay more than 55% of state income taxes. The home state of Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman is very progressive. Then those taxpayers experience economic set-backs and guess what? There is a huge hole in the budget because California was taxing the top brackets so heavily that virtually no one else had to share in the burden. It works until it doesn’t. And when it stops working . . . it stops in a big way.
3. Late last week, the Congressional Budget Office (bipartisan organization funded by Congress to get better (i.e. nonpolitical) numbers on budgets and economic conditions) came out with the conclusion that none (as in not one) of the various health insurance plans being discussed in the House, Senate or White House . . . will actually reduce expenses, contrary to the “party line” coming out of the Obama White House on this issue. As if we needed to be told this.
But the point is an important one. These new spending programs will not be short term pain for long term gain, as we are being sold . . . I mean . . . told. We don’t have to spend now to save later. We have to spend now to . . . spend more later. That is what the CBO has said about these cockamamie plans.
Anyone surprised by this? Didn’t think so.
1. The plan requires $1 Trillion in new spending. One Trillion dollars of new spending . . . at a time when our budget deficit is expected to be close to $2 Trillion this year and $1.5 Trillion next year and $1 Trillion in 2011. All told, we are projected to rack up 10 Trillion dollars in new debt in the next eight years. That's a lot of beakers, my friends.
Is it just me or does it seem that maybe now might not be the absolute best time to be proposing new Trillion dollar social programs. We are not exactly flush. By the way, we all know that if politicians say something will cost $1 Trillion, it will really cost (at least) twice that. And, as with all entitlement programs ever enacted . . . it will be permanent and it will be very difficult to modify.
2. Tax Plan. The Democrats in the House have a plan to address part of this dilemma. They plan to tax upper income Americans at rates of over 5% on income over a certain threshhold. To pay for half of the Trillion dollar plan. The other half is going to come from "efficiency gains" (whatever the heck that means).
By the way, this plan to pay for health insurance by taxing the top 1% of taxpayers with a surtax is in direct response to polling figures that show that Americans want health insurance reform . . . as long as someone else is paying for it. So, the Democrats took care of that little problem by foisting the bill onto the tiny sliver of America at the top of the income scale. That's leadership for you . . . or at least that's one version of leadership (the kind that doesn't lead, but follows.)
Some people call this plan “progressive”. Somehow, the thinking goes, it is “progressive” to transfer wealth from one group of people (wealthy individuals) to another group of people (less wealthy Americans). Rather than everyone pays their own way and the American people will together use tax receipts to fund various social programs . . . the approach we are flirting with is . . . everyone who can afford it pays their own way . . . and then this tiny minority of taxpayers pays for everyone who can’t. The inherent problem with this approach, besides the obvious one of fairness (why don’t these top tier taxpayers get to keep what they earn? Did they do something wrong, or is our system designed to reward those that produce more economic benefit?) is that this type of thinking pits this tiny minority in the top bracket against everyone else. Not just those that will receive the transfer of wealth, but those in the middle who don’t have to pay for it because the top tier of taxpayers is footing the bill. Why not eat more ice cream if someone else is getting the calories and the fat?
In my view, this is bad public policy. It becomes someone else’s problem to pay for all these decisions in Washingon and that someone is a very small minority of citizenry. Which means that more and more will be piled on to them (because it is politically expedient to do so). That means more surcharges (why not, they can afford it . . . they make so much money.)
And, then, the golden goose stops laying eggs. That’s what has happened in California where 144,000 taxpayers in a state of 38 Million people, pay more than 55% of state income taxes. The home state of Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman is very progressive. Then those taxpayers experience economic set-backs and guess what? There is a huge hole in the budget because California was taxing the top brackets so heavily that virtually no one else had to share in the burden. It works until it doesn’t. And when it stops working . . . it stops in a big way.
3. Late last week, the Congressional Budget Office (bipartisan organization funded by Congress to get better (i.e. nonpolitical) numbers on budgets and economic conditions) came out with the conclusion that none (as in not one) of the various health insurance plans being discussed in the House, Senate or White House . . . will actually reduce expenses, contrary to the “party line” coming out of the Obama White House on this issue. As if we needed to be told this.
But the point is an important one. These new spending programs will not be short term pain for long term gain, as we are being sold . . . I mean . . . told. We don’t have to spend now to save later. We have to spend now to . . . spend more later. That is what the CBO has said about these cockamamie plans.
Anyone surprised by this? Didn’t think so.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Wrong on Goldman
A number of you have made observations about the Goldman stock sales that are more likely better explanations of those sales than my posting so . . . I was wrong (I think). Or at least I am willing to entertain that the explanation was more nuanced than I originally proposed. Here are the comments (from those of you who still have not figured out how to post a comment . . . )
Commenter #1
I think you missed on this one. The Goldman insiders sold for a variety of reasons, including margin calls, funding obligations, diversification…maybe even a little fear. However, the decisions of individuals does not alter the strength of the institution. Whether or not Goldman is fairly priced in this new world, their market presence in undeniable and their collective intelligence remains impressive. Ask yourself this question: IF you want to be invested in the financial sector, with whom would you RATHER be invested in than GS?
Commenter #2
I'm no Goldman apologist, but I think you are fuzzing private economic
behavior with the ability of Goldman, as an institution, to make
profits.
I think that individual selling (and $700 million is a rounding error,
in my mind) was attributable to a perfect storm of (i) margin calls,
(ii) too many individual illiquid investments, (iii) inability to pull
capital out of hedge funds and other investments which froze
redemptions, (iv) other short term obligations coming due (the house
in Aspen with a bullet payment due) and (v) smaller bonuses not being
able to finance current cash needs.
I sold at $120 on the way down, and am kicking myself. Of course, I
was feeling pretty smart when GS went to $75.....
Commenter #3
I think it means an amazing number of execs were doubling down with margin accounts that got called. Then they had to sell at the bottom....
Commenter #1
I think you missed on this one. The Goldman insiders sold for a variety of reasons, including margin calls, funding obligations, diversification…maybe even a little fear. However, the decisions of individuals does not alter the strength of the institution. Whether or not Goldman is fairly priced in this new world, their market presence in undeniable and their collective intelligence remains impressive. Ask yourself this question: IF you want to be invested in the financial sector, with whom would you RATHER be invested in than GS?
Commenter #2
I'm no Goldman apologist, but I think you are fuzzing private economic
behavior with the ability of Goldman, as an institution, to make
profits.
I think that individual selling (and $700 million is a rounding error,
in my mind) was attributable to a perfect storm of (i) margin calls,
(ii) too many individual illiquid investments, (iii) inability to pull
capital out of hedge funds and other investments which froze
redemptions, (iv) other short term obligations coming due (the house
in Aspen with a bullet payment due) and (v) smaller bonuses not being
able to finance current cash needs.
I sold at $120 on the way down, and am kicking myself. Of course, I
was feeling pretty smart when GS went to $75.....
Commenter #3
I think it means an amazing number of execs were doubling down with margin accounts that got called. Then they had to sell at the bottom....
Monday, July 13, 2009
Goldman Stock Sales Astounding
Executives at Goldman Sachs apparently sold nearly $700 Million of Goldman stock between September 2008 and April 2009 with the selling peaking between December '08 and February '09 . . . when Goldman traded near record lows.
This is the group of people who want to help us manage our money. They sold their own company's stock, with all the information that they have working at the company . . . at exactly the wrong time. They panicked and sold when they should have been buying by the bushel-full. GS has rebounded quite nicely from late January low of $59 to today's $149. Yet, executives at GS bailed on hundreds of millions worth of their own stock.
Does something strike you as odd about that?
To me, it spells trouble for the retail investor thinking of buying GS.
Woldy
This is the group of people who want to help us manage our money. They sold their own company's stock, with all the information that they have working at the company . . . at exactly the wrong time. They panicked and sold when they should have been buying by the bushel-full. GS has rebounded quite nicely from late January low of $59 to today's $149. Yet, executives at GS bailed on hundreds of millions worth of their own stock.
Does something strike you as odd about that?
To me, it spells trouble for the retail investor thinking of buying GS.
Woldy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)