CakeOrDemocracy

What Pennsylvania had the good sense to do that the rest of you haven't figured out

2012-03-07T08:27:00.000-05:00

Would you vote for someone running for president if he said some of the following things? For now let’scall him Mister X.

Mister X referred to schools as “factories,” and argued thatthey are a tragic blip on the historical radar. After the IndustrialRevolution, Mister X said “people cameoff the farms where they did homeschool or had a little neighborhood school,and into these big factories … called public schools.” He added: “The idea thatthe federal government should be running schools, frankly much less that thestate government should be running schools, is anachronistic.”

Mister X said “We were put on this Earth as creatures of Godto have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, butfor our benefit not for the Earth’s benefit,” Mister X then went on to call climate change“an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who,in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis forgovernment to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life.”

Mister X continued onthe subject of global warming “When you have a worldview that elevates theEarth above man and says that we can’t take those resources because we’re goingto harm the Earth; by things that frankly are just not scientifically proven,for example, the politicization of the whole global warming debate — this isall an attempt to, you know, to centralize power and to give more power to thegovernment,”

Mister X said regarding birth control "It's not okay,because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to howthings are supposed to be," "They're supposed to be within marriage,for purposes that are, yes, conjugal... but also procreative."

In his book It Takes a Family, Mr. X called "masseducation" an "aberration," writing, "It's amazing that somany kids turn out to be fairly normal, considering the weird socializationthey get in public schools."

Mister X said “There are no Palestinians, All the people wholive in the West Bank are Israelis. There are no Palestinians. Thisis Israeli land,".

Mister X said "President Obama wants everybody inAmerica to go to college. What a snob ... Oh, I understand why he wants you togo to college. He wants to remake you in his image.”

Mister X on the Crusades "The idea that the Crusadesand the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our partis absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by theAmerican Left who hates Christendom. ... What I'm talking about is onwardAmerican soldiers. What we're talking about are core American values."

Mister X on same sex marriage "Is anyone saying same-sex couples can'tlove each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, Ieven love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage,too?" "What about three men?" "If you think it's OK fortwo, you have to differentiate for me why you're not OK with three. Any twopeople, or any three, or four." "That'snot to pick on homosexuality," Mister X said in another interview."It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case maybe," he said.

Mister X said “Mutually consenting adults do not have aconstitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts.”

Mister X said that this year’s election was like the timebetween 1940 and 1941 when Americans didn’t act against Adolf Hitler becausethey thought he was “a nice guy” and not “near as bad as what we think.” “It’sgoing to be harder for this generation to figure this out. There’s nocataclysmic event,” he explained, but similar urgency. “Is anybody reminding uswho we are, what made us great, and what these assaults are all about?”

I am sure you have figured out by now that Mr. X is noneother than Rick Santorum. Maybe you hadn’t seen all of the above quotes.

Now I get thatRepublicans are frustrated and I get the lack of love for Mitt Romney. With all his money and the extensive politicalmachine that has been in place for years he can’t shake Rick loose. I get thatRepublicans love Jesus more than Democrats. And no one loves Jesus more thanRick. Heck I love Jesus too (see my previous blog) but I haven’t lost mymind. The good people of Pennsylvania hadthe sense to vote Santorum out of office. In the November 7, 2006 Senate election,Santorum lost by over 700,000 votes, the largest margin of defeat for anincumbent senator since 1980. Come on people, draft Jeb or Christy or dig upthe Gipper you can’t seriously elect someone who believes that God willreplenish the earth after we ruin it or government shouldn’t be running schoolsor that birth control is wrong. Do we need to have the good people of Pennsylvania to slap some sense into us?

Jesus is alright with me (it’s just you he’s not sure about)

2012-03-03T10:29:00.000-05:00

Actually that’s not really true; I have no idea what Jesusthinks about you. How would I or anyone else for that matter. I was raisedCatholic and am currently an atheist. But recently, and no thanks to the words andactions of certain Christians, I have been considering my own spiritualbeliefs. I’ll get to that later but for now I want to talk about that group ofChristians.

Dammit Jim I'm a blogger not a Theologian

I know I am on thin ice here talking about Jesus but I know a lot of people(my son included) who believe in Jesus as their savior and follow histeachings. I see their commitment to Jesus’ value system and instructionsregarding the treatment of the poor.

“Overall, Jesus talksabout mercy to those weaker and needier than oneself 24 times, tells people notto judge others 34 times, tells people to love and forgive even their enemies53 times, tells people to love their neighbors as themselves and treat otherslike you would want to be treated 19 times, and tells people to help the poorand/or spurn riches and the wealthy 128 times.”

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/what-bible-is-santorum-treading_b_1288094.html).

It’s also hard not to notice a group of Christians whothrough their actions and words either do not appear to focus on the aboveaspects of Jesus’ teachings or somehow they have a different understanding. Itseems that in defense of “conservative principles” they often quote from theOld Testament to support their beliefs. The Old and New Testaments seem verydifferent to me. I will quote Mike Lux again to help me with my point.

“ConservativeChristians' primary argument regarding Jesus and politics is that all he caredabout was spiritual matters and an individual's relationship with God. As aresult, they say, all those references from Jesus about helping the poor relateonly to private charity, not to society as a whole. Their belief is that Jesus,and the New Testament in general, is focused on one thing and one thing only:how do people get into heaven.

The Jesus of the NewTestament was of course extremely concerned with spiritual matters: there is nodoubt whatsoever about his role or interest in the issues of the day, that thespiritual well-being of his followers was a major interest of his. How much hewas involved with or interested in the political situation of the day is amatter of much debate and interpretation. Some say it was a lot and others thatit was pretty limited or, as conservatives would say, not at all. However, muchof a priority or focus it was, though, if you actually read the Gospels, it isclear that Jesus' main concern in terms of the people whose fates he caredabout was for the poor, the oppressed, and the outcast. Comment after commentand story after story in the Gospels about Jesus relates to the treatment ofthe poor, generosity to those in need, mercy to the outcast, and scorn for thewealthy and powerful. And his philosophy is embedded with the centralimportance of taking care of others, loving others, treating others as youwould want to be treated. There is no virtue of selfishness here, there is no"greed is good," there is no invisible hand of the market or lookingout for Number One first. There is nothing about poor people being lazy,nothing about the undeserving poor being leeches on society, nothing about howI pulled myself up by my own bootstraps so everyone else should, too. There isnothing about how in nature, "the lions eat the weak," and thereforewe shouldn't help the poor because it weakens them. There is nothing aboutcharity or welfare corrupting a person's spirit. Old Testament – animal sacrifice,masturbation, trashing gay people, and hanging out with women who aremenstruating. New Testament But mercy, kindness, and concern for the poor andthe weak and the outcast seems to matter a lot more, with literally severalhundred verses referencing those agenda items. If you are a progressive, thatis a pretty good ratio.”

I have seen it written that Jesus never condemnedhomosexuality or abortion for that matter. Obviously there were issues of his time – perhaps his message offorgiveness or not judging covered those topics? Just saying? He certainly wasn’ttaking up the cause for the job creators was he?

I am pretty unsure about Jesus’ DNA but I can’t see the harm in following his teachings or Gandhi or Buddha for that matter.

Ray Wylie Hubbard - awesome Texas songwriter

"Buddha was not a Christian,but Jesus would have made a good Buddhist." –from the song “Conversationwith the Devil” by Ray Wylie Hubbard

That we,as the collective us – we are the government, do we really want to pass thebuck on who feeds the poor or provide help to the less fortunate? How does thatfit in with the words of the great teachers? Tell that to the next homelessperson you see, or the father who lost his job and can't feed his children."Sorry man, you shouldn't get help from the big bad government. You shouldget it from the people individually.

Back to my own spirituality issue – lately I have beenwondering about the existence of some “omni” like being. Not for the need forany organized religion but just whether there is a God. I’m sure Jesus lived Ijust sure not sure about his DNA. A dear friend of mine (BFBF) suggestedconsidering Pascal’s wager as a good place to start.

Pascal's Wager (also knownas Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher,mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal that since the existence of Godcannot be proved (or disproved) through reason, but since in his view there wasmuch to be gained from wagering that God exists (and little to be gained fromwagering that God doesn't exist), a rational person should simply wager thatGod exists (and live accordingly).

I appreciated BFBF’s support and I am not sure where my spiritual journey will take me but I will turn to Mike Lux again for ending this post.

“I decided about four decades ago that since there was no way for sure about the nature of God or the soul or all that metaphysical stuff, I wasn't going to spend much time thinking, caring, or worrying about it. If that sends one to hell, at least I'll be there with a lot of my favorite people”.

How we lost our focus on Global Warming or: How I learned to stop worrying and love Venus

2012-02-19T09:32:00.001-05:00

A brief introduction - one of my favorite posters on this site and a friend of mine is Medina64. He has demonstrated his knowledge and passion on many topics but clearly has an wealth of knowledge on Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming - AGW. I thought it would be informative and beneficial to get him to share his thoughts with all of us. Thanks M64!

OK, here is my response to COD’s call forAGW guest blogs. I’m not going to talkabout the technical aspects of AGW - IPCC, RealClimate, Tamino, and, of course,Jim Hansen (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/) do that infinitely better than I could. Instead, I want to talk about how we lost our focus on AGW.

First, some context. The IPCC has said that we should limit CO2 to no more than 450 ppm andthis was the generally accepted thought until about 5 or 6 years ago whenHansen and his colleagues began investigating in detail the effects of allowingCO2 to reach that level. Part of theimpetus behind this was that the last time we had that much CO2 in theatmosphere was about 50 million years ago, when it was much warmer and therewere no polar ice caps. The results ofthese investigations are summarized here, http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126 , andin his book “Storms of My Grandchildren”. The conclusions are, broadly, that at 450 ppm we risk crossing a tippingpoint from which we will not be able to retreat and which will have severeconsequences for both human civilization and the biosphere in general - we haveall evolved to live in much different conditions that will exist at 450ppm. Furthermore, if we continue to burncoal, oil, gas, and tap into the Athabascan tar sands, consequently pushing CO2concentration well above 450 ppm, there is a significant, non-zero, probabilitythat the Earth could become like Venus, essentially wiping out all life on theplanet. For reference, we are currentlyat 392 ppm and are going up at 3 ppm/yr. Therefore, for people with young kids or grandchildren, it is verylikely that those kids will be confronted with the changes associated with CO2at or above 450 ppm. That thought wasthe main impetus for Hansen to write his first and only book.

With that context, how did we get to this point? When Hansen gave his now famous talk beforeCongress in 1988 it seemed like we were going to get our shit together and facethis problem (note, LBJ mentioned the need to do something about AGW in amessage to Congress in 1965). The story ofwhy change was stalled is told in http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/. Essentially there were a handful ofvery good scientists: Fred Seitz – physicist and former president of theNational Academy of Science, Fred Singer – physicist and a leader in thedevelopment of the first weather satellites, William Nierenberg – physicist andonetime head of the Scripps Institute, and Robert Jastrow – physicist and onetime head of Goddard Institute of Space Studies. All had worked on Cold War projects andSeitz, Nierenberg, and Jastrow had worked on the atomic bomb during WW II. For various reasons, these guys were pissedoff – a lot of it had to do with the opposition that occurred to Star Wars,some of it was personal friction with other scientists, and some of it was thefeeling that the country was being taken over by people who didn’t understandCommunism or the importance of the Cold War. They then recruited others with similar feelings. The fight began with denying that cigarettesmoking causes cancer (to this day, leading climate denier and brilliant scientistRichard Lindzen says that it has not been proven that cigarettes cause cancer),then moved on to denying that coal burning causes acid rain, that CFCs werecausing holes in the ozone layer, that second hand cigarette smoke causescancer, that global warming is real, and are now involved in attacking RachelCarson and saying that DDT is not a problem.

Denial started out for reasons of ego, pride, and beingpissed at others but as time went on, and the big money began to flow, andthere was an economic incentive to do it also. Early in cigarette/cancer fight, the strategy adopted was to attack thescience and scientists behind the claims, even though the tobacco companiesthemselves had proven in the early 60’s that cigarettes cause cancer. This strategy was refined as time went on andapplied to all subsequent fights. OK, atthis point, those who have kept reading are probably wondering how I keep mytin hat on when the wind is blowing and when am I going to start talking aboutthe New World Order. In response, I askyou to go to http://www.legacy.library.ucsf.edu/which is the Legacy Tobacco Document Library (LTDL) which was formed to houseand maintain internal documents obtained during the lawsuits that occurredagainst the seven major tobacco companies. Do some or all of the following searches:

Global warming – Why the fuck are there hundreds of docs in the LTDL concerned with AGW? Turns out the tobacco industry was also a large funder of AGW denial.
The names of the above scientists – look at some of what they authored and proposed.
“A Challenge to Scientific Judgment” – written in 94, note one of the coauthors is Sallie Baliunas, a noted AGW denier who has had to eat her words on several occasions. In this doc we learn that asbestos is fine for brakes, acid rain is not a problem, we need to loosen pesticide regulations, PCBs aren’t a problem, AGW is BS, and there is no problem with the ozone layer.
“Bad Science A Resource Book” – this was a pamphlet put together by the tobacco companies that essentially laid out templates for attacking the science behind second hand smoke/cancer. The templates require little change to refer to AGW.

All right, I’m almost done. What is the issue here? A coregroup of scientists (with no expertise in many of the fields they were publiclyattacking those who did) created a denial methodology based on attackinglegitimate science and scientists in order to achieve their goals. In my opinion, one of the unintendedconsequences of this has been to diminish scientific credibility in thepublic’s eye. That is not good. But I also think it shows how we as humansbehave, we are not rational, we operate on motives that, after a while, areprobably not clear even to us, and if we repeat incorrect shit over and over webegin to believe it ourselves. This hasbeen true throughout history (http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v64/i10/p39_s1?bypassSSO=1), Einstein got death threats over relativity and cancelled talks because ofthem, in the mid 18^th century a guy made his living debatingastronomers all over England claiming the earth was flat – and winning in thepublic eye, or for today’s equivalent go to http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/. In the past, science has eventuallywon out – with AGW it is not clear who will win, nature is a tough competitor. Carl Sagan famously said that probably thereason we have not received any alien broadcasts after years of searching isthat once a species is advanced enough to do that it is advanced enough todestroy itself, and probably does.

Vincent Cocotti and Global Warming

2012-02-14T10:17:00.001-05:00

We can goback and forth all day on the daily shenanigans of politics debating whethercorporations are people my friend or whether you would ever want to live in astate where the standing governor refers to an entire group of job applicants as either on drugs or illiterate.

We are merelyrepeating a process as ancient and as acrimonious as when Plato insulted Socrates by saying he looked like CharlesKrauthammer. We will continue to havepolitical discourse and debate until we crawl back into the oceans from whencewe came or if you believe otherwise, until God un-Adam and Eves us.

What we should be able to say without debateis whether Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) actually exists butunfortunately the debate appears to continue.

Google “man made global warming” and see what comes up.

First link ishttp://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/- is from Dr Roy W. Spencer - “This website describes evidence from my group’sgovernment-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, andthat the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gasemissions and aerosol pollution.”

Thenext link http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/10/scientific-case-man-made-global-warming-fears-dead/41257 claims “a forthcoming Climate Depot A-ZClimate Reality Check report on the failure of the science behind man-madeglobal warming theory will shatter any such illusions that the climate is"worse than we thought."

It is notuntil the fifth link that we see concluded that the possibility the world iswarming because of natural variations in climate (such as increased volcanic orsolar activity) is "increasingly remote." Instead, they firmly pinthe blame on man's burning of fossil fuels.”

So here is myproblem – I am not a meteorologist nor an climatologist nor do I have a Dr.before my name. I’ve read about AGW butno where near enough to be any kind of expert. But given the amount of information available and the stakes at hand you have toform an opinion.

My belief arebased on two things – 1. If you put enough stuff in the toilet it is going tooverflow and 2. You want to avoid the worstthing that can happen.

Number 1 the “toilet”- according to the Union of Concerned Scientists burning coal is a leadingcause of smog, acid rain, global warming, and air toxics. In an average year, atypical coal plant generates:

3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming--as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.
10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.
500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.
10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.
720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.
220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.
170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.
225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.
114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.

Now withscientists, funny group that they are, data should be data except when people take leave of their senses and try to push an agenda like the Climate Research Unit at England's University of East Anglia.

Like the character VincentCocotti said in the movie True Romance “Wouldagot away with it, but your son, fuckhead that he is, left his driver's licensein a dead guy's hand.”. So would havethe Climate Research Unit at England's University of East Anglia had they not lefta bunch of emails in a dead guys’ hand. It resulted in a huge backlash on the position of AGW and cast doubt on the scientific research that supported it. But support ofAGW has since rebounded and the number of AGW voices have increased.

Number 2 - whatis the worst thing that can happen – if we take action to reduce AGW (if it is not to late) therewill be a significant effect (some say dramatic) on the world’s economy. Now tanking the economy is bad – bad wrongfor that matter but when compared to the effects of global warming; dangerousweather patterns, unstable agriculture and economy, effects on animals; a worldwe could potentially leave for our children. Now thatis just unacceptable. No can do.

I wasmotivated to write this blog by comments left during previous posts that referenced global warming – I extend an offer to thosemore knowledgeable than me to use this as a forum. The comment section is too restrictive – writea blog and I will post it here as a guest post.

"I know one thing, that I knownothing" - Socrates

High Heels and Healthcare

2012-02-10T08:08:00.000-05:00

I have no idea what they are protesting.

A lot of people and institutions are up in arms over a new Health& Human Services rule that will require some Catholic institutions, such asuniversities and hospitals, to cover employees' contraceptive costs. Some claim it is an attack on religious freedom, others an attack on women's rights.

There are a couple of things to consider here. Religiousorganizations are to some degree state/federally funded organizations. Their tax-exempt status means they receiveservices and benefits funded from taxes you and I pay. Just from that factalone, they should be forced to follow government guidelines. The same logic would apply to drug testing politicians that want to drug test welfare recipients. I am okay with fair.

Healthcare should notbe used as a tool by any organization based on selected beliefs. Should PETA be allowed to have provisions intheir healthcare that does not allow for certain coverages? Say for brain damage caused by having a giant bitefrom a 3 lb burger block your airway for a few minutes? Healthcare may not be a universal right (it should be but justtrying to avoid that argument for now) but the coverage should be universal.

Anyone with medical insurance can choose not to usecontraceptives. That should be the decision of the insured and not controlledby the Church or any business for that matter. Healthcare should not be acafeteria-like option where employers would dictate employee options. The options should be thesame for everyone and everyone should get to make their own choices. A recent report (Guttmacher Institute) showsthat only 2 percent of Catholic women, even those who regularly attend church,rely on natural family planning. So clearly the congregation is not in stepwith the Catholic hierarchy.

If the argument is based on the morality of fundingsomething a person/organization would be morally opposed to, then what about any number of activities funded by our tax dollars like the IraqWar or Iran Contra affair or authorized interrogation practices that areillegal under U.S. and international law that many including myself strongly disagree with?
It is clear that the major religions are maledominated. There is a long history of ongoing female oppression. I for one would like to see what women would do if they held the power. What would the Catholic Church’s position be if not only did the pope wear a funny hat, but had a nice pair of heels tomatch?

Trump endorses Romney and the flying Dirigible gets renamed

2012-02-06T18:37:00.000-05:00

Let me begin with a personal disclosure - I will own up to having a long-standing dislike of Trump going to the mid-80’s when he burst onto the NY real estate market and was a shameless self-promoter. I thought he was a soulless, aggrandizing pompous ass then and he has done nothing to change my mind. When Trump seemed to fade away in the early 90’s as his empire crumbled, over $900 million in debt, and bankruptcy. I thought it was a clear repudiation of his failed business practices and I was happy to see him go away.

But somehow, to my great dismay, Trump re-injected himself into the mainstream playing himself on TV. In 1999 he began to inject himself into the world of politics – talking out of both sides of his mouth as he donated money to both Kerry and Bush. Since then his political contributions include questioning Obama’s birthplace and flip-flopping on issues. According to an article in Newsweek by Howard Kurtz.

“Trump declared in 2000 that “we must have universal health care”; now he says Obamacare is unconstitutional. He once pronounced himself “strongly pro-choice” but recently discovered that, guess what, he’s pro-life. Obama was “amazing” and “phenomenal,” Trump wrote in 2009; now, not so much. And while Newt Gingrich is branded an adulterer, Trump conducted a tabloid-frenzy affair with Marla Maples, the second of his three wives.”

www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/04/24/the-trump-backlash.html

While endorsing Romney, Trump claimed “ I have a great relationship, as you know, with the Tea Party folks. I mean, I love the Tea Party…..I have a great relationship with the entire Christian Coalition. I have amazing friendships in that whole group. And I love them and I respect them.”

What aspects of the Christian Coalition does Donald exemplify? Shouldn’t the Coalition be objecting to someone like Trump? Does anyone think Trump lives his life with Christian values - can we take any of this seriously?

The Tea Party and Donald? Exactly what points of convergence are there between Trump and the Tea Party. According to a story in the L.A. Times “top issues among the self-identified Tea Party followers are jobs/the economy and the exploding federal deficit.” Does anyone think Trump’s business practices of repeated bankruptcies hasn’t contributed to the federal deficit by fleecing banks? ABC News reports that Trump businesses have actually gone through Chapter 11 bankruptcy four times - in 1991, 1992, 2004 and most recently in 2009. Trump used the government and abused the system to further his own end.

www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-filed-bankruptcy-times/story?id=13419250#.Ty7KqsWXSRg

"I've used the laws of this country to pare debt. ... We'll have the company. We'll throw it into a chapter. We'll negotiate with the banks. We'll make a fantastic deal. You know, it's like on 'The Apprentice.' It's not personal. It's just business," Maybe that's part of what's wrong with the country - it's just business.

Doug Heller, the executive director of Consumer Watchdog, said Trump is the "most egregious, almost comical example" of the disparity between what the average American faces when going through bankruptcy and the "ease with which the very rich can move in and out of bankruptcy."
Lawrence O’Donnell of MNBC referred to Trump as "lying vulgarian" who inflates his wealth and embarks on garish rounds of self-promotion in order to boost the ratings for his show.
I think there should be more people willing to stand up and say the truth. Trump was running his mouth saying that he may be a presidential candidate - has being the President of the United States fallen so low that a huckster like Trump can be a credible candidate.

Trump Hotels& Casino Resorts, the publicly held firm, which owns gambling joints in Atlantic City and Indiana, has lost $170 million since 1996. Its stock, now trading at $6, has tumbled 83 percent from a high of $35 three years ago. The company, saddled with $2 billion in long-term debt, is often mocked by online sites like The Motley Fool and TheStreet.com. The website “thesmokinggun.com” found buried in a March 31 SEC filing that despite these financial woes, THCR has loaned Trump, the firm's chairman, a whopping $24.5 million and even gave the supposed billionaire an advance on his entire 1999 salary and expense account (another $1.5 million). www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/trump-and-crook-0

Self-aggrandizing blowhard – Donald Trump. Now if you want a symbol of what’s wrong with America – we can start there.

If we feel the need to find people to look up to in business why don’twe use the Harris Interactive RQ Study, which measures the reputations of the60 Most Visible Companies in the U.S. In its most recent poll Googleranked highest, supplanting Berkshire Hathaway, which falls to the 4thposition. Johnson & Johnson ranked second again, followed by 3M Company at3rd. Apple continues a steady rise begun in 2002, ranking 5th, as its corporatereputation catches up with its elite brand status. Or how about in Social Responsibility - 1)Whole Foods Market; 2) Johnson & Johnson; 3) Google; 4) The Walt DisneyCompany; 5) Procter & Gamble Co.

I don’t see Trump’s name up there but if you use the search engine from highly respected Google you can find plenty of stories about individuals whohave been royally screwed by Donald Trump.

www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/04/24/the-trump-backlash.html

or if you want to have some fun with it.

www.cracked.com/blog/10-stories-about-donald-trump-you-wont-believe-are-true/
I feel bad now knocking Ferdinand Adolf Heinrich August Graf von Zeppelin in my last blog. Count Von Zeppelin was the inventor of the dirigible or "lighter-than-air aircraft" - kind of a hot air balloon if you like. We shouldn't have called them Zeppelins we should have called them "Trumps".

The Trump explodes over Washington

Oh, the humanity! And all the VOTERS screaming around here. I told you; it—I can't even talk to people, their friends are out there! Ah! It's... it... it's a... ah! I... I can't talk, ladies and gentlemen.

Solyndra and Ferdinand Adolf Heinrich August Graf von Zeppelin

2012-02-02T17:02:00.000-05:00

A pretty cool name ruined by a shitty design

Like Zepplin,Crapper or Steely Dan, the name Solyndra will live in infamy, a symbol to someof the Obama administration’s overall failures. Now maybe it is a stretch to say Thomas Crapper's name will live in infamy but I would not be sure how else to describe what they did to his name. The poor bastard didn't even invent the flush toilet.

Just a shitty name ruined by a good idea

But back to Solyndra - I hadn't followed the story very much and only heard snippets which included accusations against the Obama administration, financial contributors and the company itself.

Today I hearda story on NPR’s “Fresh Air”, Washington Post environmental correspondentJuliet Eilperin explaining how and whythe clean-tech industry boom hit a wall. (http://www.npr.org/2012/02/02/146280685/clean-tech-industry-facing-lean-times-after-solyndra). Solyndra was of course included.

And just a cool name for a shitty band

Her reportprompted me to look into the story a little more. Solyndra was a manufacturer of cylindricalpanels of CIGS thin-film solar cells. The CIGS cells were meant to compete and replace the more costly siliconpanels that are currently in use. Two things were responsible for the downfallof Zepplin, I mean Solyndra. One was the dramatic drop in the price of natural gas(fracking) since 2008, down 75% from its high, thereby lowering the incentiveto invest in alternative energies like Solyndra. The second item was the drop in the price ofsilicon, the very material Solyndra’s business model was based on replacing. In 2009 things began to spiral down for CrapperI mean Solyndra. In 2008 silicon forsolar cells cost 450 bucks a kilo on the spot market. In 2009 it was closer to 100 and projectionswere if you waited a month it may be cheaper still. As of 2011 prices for immediate delivery fellto an average $50 to $53 a kilogram as demand dropped after European nationsslashed clean-power subsidies according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance data.

Solyndrabankruptcy and the governments financial backing has become the poster childfor Obama’s failures and has negatively impacted other alternative energiesgoing forward.

Twofundraisers for Obama were linked to Solyndra LLC, the California solar companythat received a $528 million federal loan and then later declared bankruptcy,prompting a federal investigation. Steve Spinner, an Energy Department adviser,raised at least $500,000 and Steve Westly, a venture capitalist who was anunpaid adviser to the department, raised between $200,000 and $500,000.

Listening to JulietEilperin’s story I am not so sure there the criminal accusations being made areentirely correct. In looking into thestory a bit more it seems the Solyndra loan guarantee was a multi-year processthat the Bush Administration launched in 2007. It has been said that the Bush administration tried to conditionallyapprove the Solyndra loan just before President Obama took office. The company’s backers included privateinvestors who had diverse political interests.

The loancomprises just 1.3% of DOE’s overall loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is theonly loan that’s known to be troubled.

Because oneof the Solyndra investors, Argonaut Venture Capital, is funded by George Kaiser— a man who donated money to the Obama campaign — the loan guarantee has beenattacked as being political in nature. What critics don’t mention is that oneof the earliest and largest investors, Madrone Capital Partners, is funded bythe family that started Wal-Mart, the Waltons. The Waltons have donatedmillions of dollars to Republican candidates over the years.

And that about wraps it up for future alternative energy....

It appears thatthere is plenty of shame to go around – there was evidence Solydra’s realizedthat it was in trouble while still touting its chances for success to governmentofficials.

To me theshame in this story is the negative impact on alternative energies going forward.

Below is atimeline published by Climate Progress and verified by Department of Energyofficials - that shows how the loan guarantee came together under bothadministrations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

· May 2005: Just as a global silicon shortagebegins driving up prices of solar photovoltaics [PV], Solyndra is founded toprovide a cost-competitive alternative to silicon-based panels.

· July 2005: The Bush Administration signs theEnergy Policy Act of 2005 into law, creating the 1703 loan guarantee program.

· February 2006 - October 2006: In February,Solyndra raises its first round of venture financing worth $10.6 million fromCMEA Capital, Redpoint Ventures, and U.S. Venture Partners. In October,Argonaut Venture Capital, an investment arm of George Kaiser, invests $17million into Solyndra. Madrone Capital Partners, an investment arm of theWalton family, invests $7 million. Those investments are part of a $78.2million fund.

· December 2006: Solyndra Applies for a LoanGuarantee under the 1703 program.

· Late 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded.Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in thedue diligence process. The Bush Administration DOE moves forward to develop aconditional commitment.

· October 2008: Then Solyndra CEO Chris Gronettouted reasons for building in Silicon Valley and noted that the"company's second factory also will be built in Fremont, since aDepartment of Energy loan guarantee mandates a U.S. location."

· November 2008: Silicon prices remain very highon the spot market, making non-silicon based thin film technologies likeSolyndra's very attractive to investors. Solyndra also benefits from havingvery low installation costs. The company raises $144 million from ten differentventure investors, including the Walton-family run Madrone Capital Partners.This brings total private investment to more than $450 million to date.

· January 2009: In an effort to show it has donesomething to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to takeSolyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama isinaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financialexpertise, remands the loan back to DOE "without prejudice" becauseit wasn't ready for conditional commitment.

· March 2009: The same credit committee approvesthe strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE's credit reviewboard. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue aconditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee.

· June 2009: As more silicon production facilitiescome online while demand for PV wavers due to the economic slowdown, siliconprices start to drop. Meanwhile, the Chinese begin rapidly scaling domesticmanufacturing and set a path toward dramatic, unforeseen cost reductions in PV.Between June of 2009 and August of 2011, PV prices drop more than 50%.

· September 2009: Solyndra raises an additional$219 million. Shortly after, the DOE closes a $535 million loan guarantee aftersix months of due diligence. This is the first loan guarantee issued under the1703 program. From application to closing, the process took three years - notthe 41 days that is sometimes reported. OMB did raise some concerns in Augustnot about the loan itself but how the loan should be "scored." OMBtestified Wednesday that they were comfortable with the final scoring.

· November 2010: Solyndra closes an oldermanufacturing facility and concentrates operations at Fab 2, the plant fundedby the $535 million loan guarantee. The Fab 2 plant is completed that samemonth - on time and on budget - employing around 3,000 construction workersduring the build-out, just as the DOE projected.

· February 2011: Due to a liquidity crisis,investors provide $75 million to help restructure the loan guarantee. The DOErightly assumed it was better to give Solyndra a fighting chance rather thanliquidate the company - which was a going concern - for market value, whichwould have guaranteed significant losses.

· March 2011: Republican Representatives complainthat DOE funds are not being spent quickly enough.

· September 2011: Solyndra closes its manufacturingfacility, lays off 1,100 workers and files for bankruptcy. The news is toutedas a failure of the Obama Administration and the loan guarantee office.However, as of September 12, the DOE loan programs office closed or issuedconditional commitments of $37.8 billion to projects around the country. The$535 million loan is only 1.3% of DOE's loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra isthe only loan that's known to be troubled.

Iran, Ishtar and other Bombs.

2012-02-01T12:23:00.000-05:00

I saw a story today that made my head explode– “Group urgescredible U.S. military threat to Iran" Reuters News

”The United Statesshould deploy ships, step up covert activities and sharpen its rhetoric to makemore credible the threat of a U.S. military strike to stop Iran's nuclearprogram, a bipartisan group said on Wednesday.

Recall if you will the anti-government protests of the Iranian people in 2009and again in 2011. They took great risks in publicly protesting against their government. Protesters were raped, tortured and executed. The United States was criticized for not strongly supporting the 2009 opposition protests that was sparkedby Iran’s disputed elections. The U.S.had another opportunity to support the Iranian people during the 2011 opposition protests. Unlike the U.S. supported “Arab Spring” Egyptian and Tunisian protests the U.S did not provide the same leadership. President Obama’s response to the Iranianprotests was to say that the United States would not directly or indirectlyparticipate in the protests in Iran.

President Obama said of the Iranian proteststhat "Ultimately, these are sovereign countries that have to make theirown decisions. What we can do is offer moral support". Compare that to the U.S./UN military action in Libya and you clearly see the divergence in U.S. policy when it comes to supporting the Iranian people.

But Iran is not so sovereign that we won’t bomb the bejesusout of them. Somewhere in Karoke HeavenRonald Reagan is singing Bomb Iran to the tune of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann. Itappears that the U.S. is more than willing to bomb Iran back to the stonemage but won’t support the Iranian people's attempt to free themselves of tyrannical rule. I am deeply troubled by the disconnect in our policy.

Back to the Reuters story

The report by aBipartisan Policy Center (BPC) task force of Democrats, Republicans andindependents is to be formally issued on Wednesday and comes amid speculationabout the possibility of an Israeli military strike against Iran.”

I am glad to see that our politicians can work together toapprove attacking another country but still can’t agree to reduce the deficitby raising taxes and reducing entitlements. Maybe if we can convince the government that the rich and the elderlyhave banded together and intend to get their hands on some low yield nucleardevices…….

Oh where have you gone Joe DiMaggio... I mean... Phil Donahue

2012-01-25T15:36:00.000-05:00

What would the “Father of Modern Talk Shows” think about the Jerry Springer-like atmosphere manifesting itself at the Republican Presidential debates?

Last September during one of the GOP debates the crowd gave the loudest cheer of the night for Rick Perry at the mention of his record number of executions. Yee doogie.
– Look whether you are for or against the death penalty you don’t cheer it like a *&^^%$% overtime game winning field goal. (Unless you are Billy Cundiff).
Want to take a guess at the percentage of people at that debate that would classify themselves as Christians?
I guess that would be the "eye for an eye" Christians (Old school). Luckily we do have the New age JC followers - he overruled the old man with "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." Thank God eh? We could use a few more of them at the debates.

But I had better be careful here as I am walking on thin ice. Not my expertise and I digress.
Newt Gingrich says he won’t “allow” the moderators of future GOP presidential debates to keep the crowd out of it.
No noise - No Newt – REALLY? When did crowd participation become an integral part of presidential debates???
I went back and at looked at the video of the first televised presidential debate – 1960 Richard Nixon and John Kennedy. I didn’t hear any hooting and hollering – nobody yelling “Git er done or hang him, or you’re the man Tiger”. What the hell – Walter Cronkite would have gone all Dan Rather on 'em.

The debate is …. well it’s a debate, not a talk show or MMA match. Come on! That’s why I didn’t run for class president in high school. Running against the hot shot quarterback - I would have looked like John King after he opened the debate with that question for Newt about his second wife's claims against him. Man - Newt jumped up the corner turnbuckle, walked on the top rope and jumped down on King's chest, knocking the wind out of him and whipping the crowd into a frenzy.
Now, should King have led off with that question – I don’t think so. Was it worth asking – I don’t know but…….

Gingrich performs the Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka on an unsuspecting John King

Newt was appalled and the dogs were let loose – and Mitt was cooked. Listen to the video and hear the crowd chant, hoot and holler. Newt has been masterful at whipping the crowd up and feigning shock at the depravity the media is capable of sinking to (not a bad play for a serial cheater who was reprimanded when he served as the House Speaker. He was ordered to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty; the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.) But Newt’s double barrel blast of the media contributed to his come from behind victory in South Carolina over a gob-smacked Romney.
In the Florida debate that followed the audience was not allowed to spontaneously channel a box car of hillbillies and Romney (in debate style) carved up Newt who looked lost without his cheerleaders.

Following that debacle Gingrich took the opportunity to blast the media.
“I wish in retrospect I had protested when Brian Williams took [the crowd] out of it because I think it’s wrong,” he said. “I think he took them out of it because the media is terrified that the audience is going to side with the candidates against the media, which is what they’ve done in every debate.”
The crowd was asked to hold their applause until the breaks, and moderator Brian Williams did not pull a "John King". Newt didn’t get the Springer-bounce from his supporters as he did in S.C. He was lost.

“We’re going to serve notice on future debates that we won’t tolerate — we’re just not going to allow that to happen,” Gingrich continued. “That’s wrong — the media doesn’t control free speech. People ought to be able to applaud if they want to. It was almost silly.” Free Speech huh? Ever see anyone start yelling critica l things at presidential candidates?
How about we go retro on this and everyone shut their pie hole – Maybe it won’t be exciting but we have plenty of other outlets for that behavior – like executions.
So what happens if Newt becomes president – imagine he’s on the phone with the Russian Prime Minister who is kicking Newt’s ass like nobody’s business. Gingrich feeling he needs to feed off the energy of his followers snaps his fingers and into the oval office walks the South Carolina audience (now working as Newt’s private full time entourage). Newt now energized jumps up on the table and metamorphoses into a woman guest of Jerry Springer show telling Vladimir Putin

"OH NO YOU DI-INT!!!!!”

The trouble with unemployment is that the minute you wake up in the morning you're on the job.

2012-01-24T21:35:00.000-05:00

- Comedian Slappy White

Is everythingold new again? Is the current rhetoric comingfrom the Republican presidential candidates about unemployment and commentsabout Americans aversion to work something new? From my perspective I don’t seem to recall hearing that kind of sentiment in presidentialcampaigns past.

People like HermanCain - "Don't blame Wall Street,don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blameyourself. It is not someone's fault if they succeeded, it is someone's fault ifthey failed,".

Or Erick Erickson, the blogger for the right-wing RedState Americans Don't Want to Work in talking about extending unemploymentbenefits he refered to them as the Oneswho are able to collect unemployment longer instead of looking for work.

Former HouseSpeaker Newt Gingrich was asked what he would do about unemployment insurance,particularly in regard to those unemployed workers who had exhausted their 99weeks of benefits. The former speaker suggested that benefitswere being abused by people who were more interested in living off thegovernment dime than in finding actual work. "It is fundamentally wrong togive people money for 99 weeks for doing nothing,".

SharronAngle, Republican candidate for senator of Nevada in the 2010 election. said duringa speech, "We did those things growing up that Americans don't do. Wecleaned bathrooms and made beds. Swept floors. Did laundry." But now,according to Angle, Americans won't do those jobs, and unemployment benefits,specifically Harry Reid's vote to extend them, are to blame.

Getting back to Gingrich who recently said that child labor laws are "truly stupid: told an Iowa audience that children in poor neighborhoods have "no habits of working" nor getting paid for their endeavors "unless it's illegal. "And so I'm prepared if the NAACP invites me, I'll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps," Gingrich said earlier today in Plymouth, N.H.

Most studiesof unemployment insurance have showed that lethargy is not a side effect ofproviding help to the unemployed. The money that is being distributed simplydoesn't cover the salary lost from not having a job. The more cynical mindedwould argue that Gingrich's condemnation of welfare insurance resembles thetype of class warfare that Republicans are often deriding... only in reverse.

Unemploymentlevels in the last two years have spiked as high as 10% and currently hoveraround at 8%. In 2001the unemployment rate was at a low of 4%. It seemed when the jobs were available people worked but in this currentenvironment there are currently 4.3 applicants per job .

Reality is a little different than the picture being painted "Workers receiving the last 20 weeks of benefits – Extended Benefits – have no choice about what job they’ll take. The law says their benefits are cut off if they refuse even a minimum wage job, so they aren’ doing what they have been accused of by holding out for what “really high-paying jobs.”

It seems the message is that the unemployed are responsible for their fate, and that the mass of Americans are just looking for handouts from the “hardworking engines of society”??

Like I said in the beginning - I don’t remember that kind of sentiment being said by Politicians twenty years ago. Do you?

Looking back in time I will quote an article by Tim Dickinson

“The nation is still recovering from a crushing recession that sent unemployment hovering above nine percent for two straight years. The president, mindful of soaring deficits, is pushing bold action to shore up the nation's balance sheet. Cloaking himself in the language of class warfare, he calls on a hostile Congress to end wasteful tax breaks for the rich. "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share," he thunders to a crowd in Georgia. Such tax loopholes, he adds, "sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary – and that's crazy”

Preacherlike, the president draws the crowd into a call-and-response. "Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver," he demands, "or less?"

The crowd, sounding every bit like the protesters from Occupy Wall Street, roars back: "MORE!"

The year was 1985. The president was Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Shoeless Jon Huntsman

2012-01-10T08:32:00.002-05:00

Ever since I saw “Field of Dreams” I have had a fantasyabout going to Iowa and walking the baseball field immortalized in that classicmovie. But something tells me since ShoelessJoe Jackson walked out of that cornfield he took Iowa’s brains with him. Seriously – have you seen the results fromthe Iowa Caucus?

Of course that guy thathas no chance of winning because he’s a Mormon (and they either sacrifice childrenor wear magic underwear I can’t remember which) came in first but it’s the restof results that are just surprising. Iowa LOVES CRAZY – they were all over that beloved gang of social conservative, evangelical,loves America more than we do, and vaccines make you retarded candidates or as most of America sees them (checkthe polls I’m not lying – well, maybe a little) your "GOP Loons Of the Month" –Santorum, Bachmann, and Perry.

But how does a guylike Jon Huntsman get so little love - former governor of Utah, worked in four presidents administrations - with the Gipper for Christ's sake - you should anoint him for that alone. Huntsman was appointed by George H.W. Bush as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce and later as United States Ambassador to Singapore from 1992–1993. Served as Deputy United States Trade Representative under George W. Bush, launching global trade negotiations in Doha, Qatar in 2001 and guiding the accession of China and Taiwan into the World Trade Organization.
He was the CEO of his family's Huntsman Corporation!!! He is Romney on steroids man!. He served as chairman of the Western Governors Association and as a member of the Executive Committee of the National Governors Association. Huntsman was appointed by Obama as the United States Ambassador to the People's Republic of China. He can say Chinese words - I want to have take-out with him.....
He got 0.6% of the vote?????? 745 people (for every 1 Huntsman supporter they are 8.15 Bachmann supporters or 402.69 Santorum supporters or as most of know 402.69 of disgusting name for a foul act if you google Santorum. You don't want any of that.

Look I understand the knock on Huntsman – he servedin the Obama administration as the ambassador to China, he supports civilunions for gays and lesbians and his moderate tone on the campaign trail. I got it – he doesn’t sell pizzas and he ain’tcrazy.

I’m for Obama (another blog might cover how disappointed Iam in him or how I think Hillary would have done a better job but that is foranother time). I want him to win but come on Iowa - New Hampshire is laughing at you. What's with the Republican death wish – don't you want to win?

You continued fascination with crazy – America ain’t buying it guys – you need to let go. I wouldn’t besurprised if your other fancies - the Tea Party doesn’t get its ass handed tothem for being obstructionist during the recent debt ceiling crises.

Let’s look at your GOP-LOMs eh? -

Santorum – a guy who was voted out in his own state and sopissed off the gay community by stating that mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacywith respect to sexual acts and comparing consensual homosexual acts to adultery, polygamy, child molestation,incest, sodomy, and bestiality that they turned his name into a Googleminefield (go ahead google “Santorum”. I'll wait - just make sure you put yourbrowser in the private mode - you won't want your kids to see what you havebeen up to and take a airline sickness bag - you have one don't you?.)

Bachmann - she suggested at a presidential campaign event inFlorida that the 2011 East Coast earthquake and hurricane was a message fromGod, or telling a story of a woman who claims that her little daughter took avaccine and suffered from mental retardation thereafter, or that she tried tochannel long-dead Senator Joe McCarthy when she wished the American media wouldtake a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out: Are theypro-America or anti-America???

Perry - Texas’ smarter Bush - he managed with his despicable gay bashing video to displace Justin Bieber as the most hated videoon youtube. No small task there.

Hell.... Cain who dropped out of the race got 1/12 of the votes of Jon Huntsman – 9.99 that! Huntsman's best quote - "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy"
Well call me crazy too Jon - I don't get the lack of GOP love...

What’s even crazier is that according to polling sites (http://www.realclearpolitics.comand http://www.rasmussenreports.com ) Obama loses to a generic Republican butwhen you plug in your LOM Obama beats them all – What’s that allabout???? What does that say about yourcandidates?

Look don’t listen to me – I want you to lose – but I wouldreally like to respect you in the morning and right now I can’t.

And the final word – in recent Rasmussen report poll 76% ofpeople “ Say Wealthy Like Kim Kardashian Already Pay Enough in State Taxes” – Idon’t know about you but I think the Kardashians can’t pay enough……

Ahhh..... Senator – your fly is open.

2012-01-09T09:45:00.000-05:00

I know Fergie doesn't have anything
to do with this but her fly was open.

That’s right – remember to zip up after your drug test Mr. Lawmaker – if drug testing welfare recipients is your polarizing hot topic then by all means grab your cup and endure what you create.

The past year has seen an unprecedented wave of Republican bills to drug test the poor and jobless. According to the National Association of State Workforce Agencies Twelve (12) states saw legislative activity around drug testing for UI benefits in 2010 and 2011, and one state (Indiana) enacted a law. You have nut jobs like S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley claiming that that fifty percent of recent job applicants at the Savannah River Site (SRS) failed drug tests while the other half “couldn’t read and write properly.”

Drug testing welfare recipients is just one of those polarizing issues that reeks of class warfare and does nothing positive for the people that most need our help – can we do no better than this while slashing other social programs that raise people up instead of isolating and reinforcing stereotypes?

Finally the Democrats have shown some balls and fought back against the blatant class warfare of those whose main emphasis is on drug testing welfare recipients while slashing social programs that support education, childcare and counseling. One of the most recent retorts comes from Georgia, where last month Democratic state Rep. Scott Holcomb introduced a bill requiring members of the local legislature to prove they're not Legislating Under the Influence.

Democrats in Florida, Ohio and Tennessee have done the same thing. Tennessee state representative G.A. Hardaway said his bill to test lawmakers was inspired by constituents annoyed with a Republican welfare-drug-testing bill. "They said to me, 'how do we know y'all aren't on drugs?'" Hardaway told local TV station WMC-TV. "I thought, well, you don't."

Regardless of results (and if you do look at them you will find a low percentage of positive tests and that the programs are losing money). Instead I say let’s look at the causes rather than the symptoms of welfare dependence – poverty, lack of education, childcare, and transportation. Fund those solutions rather than drug testing.

There are additional causes for welfare dependence - mental and behavioral health problem that prevent them from finding and keeping jobs . Wouldn’t the money spend on ineffective drug testing (low % of positive tests) be better spent on the real causes? Wouldn’t counseling and education help make some of these people’s lives better? Perhaps even begin to reduce their dependence on welfare? At the other extreme, chemical testing will identify some casual drug users who do not have clinically significant abuse or dependence, and who have no employment or parenting problems.

Meanwhile states like Florida who implemented drug testing (at $30 bucks a test costing the state 28,000 – 30,000/month) are cutting Healthy Start services supports more than 14,000 women and children that are expected to lose free access to a litany of, such as prenatal care, mental health and substance abuse counseling and parenting education. Oh and by the way according to several news sources in Florida - One of the more popular services at Solantic, the urgent care chain co-founded by Florida Gov. Rick Scott, is drug testing, according to Solantic CEO Karen Bowling. Given Solantic's role in that marketplace, critics are again asking whether Scott's policy initiatives - this time, requiring drug testing of state employees and welfare recipients - are designed to benefit Scott's bottom line. The Palm Beach Post reported in an exclusive story two weeks ago that while Scott divested his interest in Solantic in January, the controlling shares went to a trust in his wife's name.

And if you noted in this post – I didn’t even bring up the number of lawmakers who have been arrested in drug or alcohol incidents – so Mr. Lawmaker grab a cup and be sure to wash your hands when you are done.

Check out some of these resources

Substance Abuse Policy Research Program (SAPRP) http://www.saprp.org/pm_keyResFind.cfm

Drug Testing Welfare Recipients – False Positives, False Negatives , Unanticipated Opportunities by Harold Pollack Department of Health Management and Policy http://www.fordschool.umich.edu/research/pdf/drugtest.pdf

What would Keith Stone say?

2011-12-18T13:18:00.000-05:00

Been away from CoD for awhile and just a couple of things….
The top six executives at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were charged by the SEC with fraud for failing to disclose billions of dollars in risky subprime mortgages.

“Investors were robbed of the opportunity to make informed investment choices on whether or not to invest in the companies,” said Robert S. Khuzami, the SEC’s director of enforcement. “All individuals, regardless of their rank or position, will be held accountable for perpetuating half-truths or misrepresentations about matters materially important to the interest of our country’s investors.”

From the Senate Levin-Coburn Report On the Financial Crisis.
‘Starting in 2004, federal law enforcement agencies also issued multiple warnings about fraud in the mortgage marketplace. For example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) made national headlines when it warned that mortgage fraud had the potential to be a national epidemic and issued a 2004 report describing how mortgage fraud was becoming more prevalent."

The report detailed Goldman Sachs' role in the financial crisis, which found the investment bank profited off purposefully deceiving its own clients at the height of the financial crisis. Levin then said he would recommend some of the investment bank's executives for possible criminal prosecution

Hopefully this is just the beginning of accountability for executives and companies

Can I get an amen….

‘‘Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011’’

As part of this bill the Keystone XL pipeline would be fast-tracked – looking a little deeper it appears there are some issues that need consideration and some claims that may not be true.

Producing tar sands oil creates 82 percent more carbon pollution than conventional oil, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. NASA scientist James Hansen says exploiting the tar sands would be ‘game over' for our efforts to reverse global warming.

Pretty eye opening huh? The EU has banned tar sand oil – it appears that the biggest customer for the oil is China – which I think it can be agreed is hardly one of the more environmentally conscious countries. Right?

So aside from the issue of tar sands oil being one of the more polluting forms of fossil fuel we have the issue of job creation.

"This pipeline is one that would have brought at least 20,000 jobs, at least $6.5 billion worth of economic activity," Rep. Michele Bachmann said. "His entire calculus was based upon his reelection effort. Because quite frankly, the radical environmentalists said to President Obama, you pass Keystone, we're not going to do your volunteer door-to-door work." Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich called any reluctance about the project "utterly irrational."

He accused the president of making a decision for reasons of politics rather than national interest.

But an independent report from Cornell University Global Labor Institute raises serious questions about Republican claims. http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

Here are some of the main findings

» The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada’s own data supplied to the State Department.

» The company’s claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing jobs in the U.S is not substantiated.

» There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline permit issuance.

» The industry’s claim that KXL will create 119,000 total jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) is based on a flawed and poorly documented study commissioned by TransCanada (The Perryman Group study). Perryman wrongly includes over $1 billion in spending and over 10,000 person-years of employment for a section of the Keystone project in Kansas and Oklahoma that is not part of KXL and has already been built.

» KXL will not be a major source of US jobs, nor will it play any substantial role at all in putting Americans back to work. Even if the Perryman figures were accurate, and all of the workers for the next phase of the project were hired immediately, the US seasonally adjusted unemployment rate would remain at 9.1%—exactly where it is now.

» KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other spending and will therefore cost jobs.

Obviously there is a large sum of money at stake here but who stands to gain?

The EPA announced Thursday for the first time that fracking may be to blame for causing groundwater pollution.

That “awful job killing entity” once again doing its job – protecting our environment. How did that go before they were around?

Who do you trust to protect your water, your air?

Before 1970, a factory could spew black clouds of toxic into the air or dump tons of toxic waste into a nearby stream, and that was perfectly legal. They could not be taken to court to stop it. There was no EPA, no Clean Air Act, no Clean Water Act. There were no legal or regulatory mechanisms to protect our environment.

Worldwatch Institute reports “A handful of countries have emerged as leaders in renewables development, thanks to strong government support. A study commissioned by the German government found that in 2006 the country had some 259,000 direct and indirect jobs in the renewables sector.6 The number is expected to reach 400,000-500,000 by 2020 and then 710,000 by 2030.”

I would love to see what we could do if we had a Manhattan project for green energy. Better not hold my breath - I think I'll just go to the fridge and have myself a beer.

You're gonna be doing alot of doobie rolling when you're living in a van down by the river!"

2011-12-01T12:37:00.000-05:00

Kudos to two members of the “Super Committee” ; Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.). It has been reported that they have been fairly quiet as of late. Way to go boys – I respect that.

Knowing when to shut your big yapper.....

You were given a simple task of finding 1.2 trillion dollars of deficit reduction over the next ten years.

One analysis I saw claimed based on next years projected budget increase of 8% that they just had to cut the budget by 3.4% resulting in a reduced percentage increase of 5.6%.

They can’t increase spending by merely 5.6% next year?

Meanwhile other members of the Supercommitee are going around spinning their side of the story. The blame for the deficit has been couched like this….

(R) Sen. Pat Toomey said last Tuesday: “What happened that brought about the massive budget deficits and the mounting debt that caused this committee to come into being, was, fundamentally, a spending spree. Remember, it’s been this sequence of stimulus bills, and bailouts, and government takeovers—a huge surge in discretionary spending.”

But there was a template for compromise.

Supercommittee member (D) Chris Van Hollen stated in his op-ed piece in the Washington Post last Sunday “Often in politics there is no objective measure for reasonable compromise. Fortunately, in this case the public has a measuring stick against which to judge competing claims. The recommendations made by the president’s bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (known as Simpson-Bowles, after the Republican and Democratic co-chairs) provide a model for comparing the major plans offered by both sides during the Supercommittee deliberations.”

Obama’s “grand bargain” that Speaker John Boehner wanted as well last summer that cut entitlements and raised taxes, the one that could have averted the debt crisis, couldn’t pass a Republican Congress.

Really what hope did we have for success for the Supercommittee? Anyone who has signed the Grover Nordquist no tax pledge should have not been allowed to participate in the Supercommittee. This intransigence is largely motivated by the shadowy influence of lobbyist Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform, who threatens to serve any Republican who breaks his anti-tax pledge with electoral defeat.

GOP Rep. Mike Simpson (ID) said regarding Norquist’s anti-tax pledge, “I didn’t know I was signing a marriage agreement.” Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) blasted Norquist for “paralyzing Congress.” Freshman Rep. Reid Ribble (R-WI) vowed to never sign another pledge, noting the last straw came when Norquist wouldn’t let Republicans close tax loopholes that subsidize ethanol production. Former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson simply said, “If Grover Norquist is the most powerful person in America, he should run for president” rather than peddle his influence backstage. I don’t remember voting for Gordo???

One other thing that bugs me is the post-failure blame Obama. But Republicans need to convince us he was part of the equation. Gov. Chris Christie blamed both parties for the failure, then blamed the president for not knocking heads together the way.

I do remember as the Supercommittee convened that it was made pretty well clear that for any chance of success that Obama had to stay well clear of the deliberations —anyone care to factcheck that one? I am pretty sure that my sister (on the right) and myself (on the left) could have sat down and got this done.

The failure of the Super Committee by making this a political issue rather than a simple bookkeeping matter should be considered a treasonous act. They should have just put Simpson and Bowles in a room and locked it until they came up with compromise if not - they would be sent to live in a VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER!

How would you like your eggs?

2011-11-12T09:18:00.000-05:00

Mississippi recently held a vote on an amendment to confer protected legal status to fertilized human eggs. The amendment was rejected by a majority of 55%. The state's Republican lieutenant governor — now governor-elect — Phil Bryant, who campaigned hard for the measure was quoted as saying "We're saying this child, once conceived, will have an opportunity to have the same rights as you and I have."

I was struck by that comment as I often hear a similar sentiment from pro-life people – I realize that this is an extremely emotional and to many a moral issue. I see both sides but where I see a disconnect from the pro-life side is their strident belief that they can control other people and claim they are acting in the best interest of fertilized eggs but once those resulting babies are born I don’t see the same commitment. What if that fertilized egg turns out to be a ……..

Gay child – Mississippi joined 11 states that passed Gay-marriage bans in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah. Amendments banning same-sex marriage were passed earlier this year in Louisiana and Missouri. They joined Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada and Nebraska, whose constitutions define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Black - in Mississippi where age gaps between blacks and whites in Mississippi remain substantial. Blacks in Mississippi earn about 69% of what whites earn at the median, among fulltime, year-round workers, while nationally the figure is 80%. The low earnings of black women are particularly striking: this group earns only 69% of the national median for black women, although black men, by contrast, earn 80% as much as their national counterparts. And trends are not promising, based on the most recent data available: the gap between the earnings of whites and blacks in the state widened over the 1999-2006 period. Nationally, the gap remained the same. http://www.ihl.state.ms.us/urc/downloads/africanamerican_economic.pdf

Poor….Not to mention that Mississippi is among the bottom five states on 11 of the 22 measures. That fertilized egg faces a high infant mortality rate at 10.3 deaths per 1,000 live births and a high rate of deaths from cardiovascular disease at 373.7 deaths per 100,000 population. Other challenges for Mississippi face are a high prevalence of obesity at 35.3 percent of the population, a high percentage of children in poverty at 31.9 percent of persons under age 18, a low high school graduation rate with 63.6 percent of incoming ninth graders who graduate within four years, limited availability of primary care physicians with 81.9 primary care physicians per 100,000 population, a high rate of preventable hospitalizations with 97.8 discharges per 1,000 Medicare enrollees. http://www.americashealthrankings.org/yearcompare/2009/2010/MS.aspx.

Or on a more nationwide view -

A woman – where Wal-Mart discriminates against its female employees in making promotions, job assignments, pay decisions and training, and retaliates against women who complain against such practices.

Or an illegal alien where children whose parents are illegal immigrants or who lack legal status themselves face “uniformly negative” effects on their social development from early childhood until they become adults, according to a study by four researchers published Wednesday in the Harvard Educational Review. The study concluded that more than five million children in the United States are “at risk of lower educational performance, economic stagnation, blocked mobility and ambiguous belonging” because they are growing up in immigrant families affected by illegal status.

Now I am pretty sure that Phil Bryant is none of the above ......Just saying…….

Aliens and the Glass-Steagall Act

2011-11-10T09:58:00.000-05:00

Well that about wraps it up for the whole alien thing – the U.S government denies contact with Alien Life.

"The U.S. government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet, or that an extraterrestrial presence has contacted or engaged any member of the human race," Phil Larson of the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy wrote in a statement published Friday (Nov. 4). "In addition, there is no credible information to suggest that any evidence is being hidden from the public's eye."

So now it is a slam dunk that not only have we had contact with aliens but I am pretty sure James Carville is one of them. And all this said without mentioning Michelle Bachmann once. Just saying…….

Having gotten that little tidbit out there here’s where this morphs into post about my having a man-crush on the Glass-Steagall Act and why I miss it so. First a little background. According to a summary by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress:

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, bankers and brokers were sometimes indistinguishable. Then, in the Great Depression after 1929, Congress examined the mixing of the "commercial" and "investment" banking industries that occurred in the 1920s. Hearings revealed conflicts of interest and fraud in some banking institutions' securities activities. A formidable barrier to the mixing of these activities was then set up by the Glass–Steagall Act.
Two separate United States laws are known as the Glass–Steagall Act. Both bills were sponsored by Democratic Senator Carter Glass of Lynchburg, Virginia (mmmm Jack Daniels), a former Secretary of the Treasury, and Democratic Congressman Henry B. Steagall of Alabama, Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency.
The first Glass-Steagall Act of 1932 was enacted in an effort to stop deflation, and expanded the Federal Reserve's ability to offer rediscounts on more types of assets, such as government bonds as well as commercial paper.The second Glass–Steagall Act (the Banking Act of 1933) was a reaction to the collapse of a large portion of the American commercial banking system in early 1933. Literature in economics usually refers to this latter act simply as the Glass–Steagall Act, since it had a stronger impact on US banking regulation.

In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report “Glass-Steagall Act – Commercial vs. Investment Banking” which explored the cases for and against preserving the Glass–Steagall act.

The argument for preserving Glass–Steagall (as written in 1987):

Conflicts of interest characterize the granting of credit (that is to say, lending) and the use of credit (that is to say, investing) by the same entity, which led to abuses that originally produced the Act.
Depository institutions possess enormous financial power, by virtue of their control of other people's money; its extent must be limited to ensure soundness and competition in the market for funds, whether loans or investments.
Securities activities can be risky, leading to enormous losses. Such losses could threaten the integrity of deposits. In turn, the Government insures deposits and could be required to pay large sums if depository institutions were to collapse as the result of securities losses.
Depository institutions are supposed to be managed to limit risk. Their managers thus may not be conditioned to operate prudently in more speculative securities businesses. An example is the crash of real estate investment trusts sponsored by bank holding companies (in the 1970s and 1980s).

The argument against preserving the Act (as written in 1987):

Depository institutions will now operate in "deregulated" financial markets in which distinctions between loans, securities, and deposits are not well drawn. They are losing market shares to securities firms that are not so strictly regulated, and to foreign financial institutions operating without much restriction from the Act.
Conflicts of interest can be prevented by enforcing legislation against them, and by separating the lending and credit functions through forming distinctly separate subsidiaries of financial firms.
The securities activities that depository institutions are seeking are both low-risk by their very nature and would reduce the total risk of organizations offering them – by diversification.
In much of the rest of the world, depository institutions operate simultaneously and successfully in both banking and securities markets. Lessons learned from their experience can be applied to our national financial structure and regulation.

Then, in the Great Depression after 1929, Congress examined the mixing of the "commercial" and "investment" banking industries that occurred i n the 1920s. Hearings revealed conflicts of interest and fraud i n some banking institutions ' securities activities (any of this sounding familiar kids?). The Congressional report categorized the Glass-Steagall Act as a formidable barrier to the mixing of these activities.

So in the end, the main argument for repealing the Glass-Steagall Act kind of went like this........

We, the banks, are not making all the money in the universe (and that’s always a bummer). Because hey we all know that maximizing profit above all else is the driving force, the reason we live and the ultimate good. Never mind that it will cause increased risk and conflicts of interest in U.S. financial markets.

Conflict of interest between investment firms and their customers, conflict of interest between grading agencies and investment firms and conflicts of interest between politicians and the agencies they passed laws to regulate.

But in the end if we had left Glass-Stegall in place the banks would have made money the old fashioned way – lending money out and collecting interest. Let’s assume that eventually the security firms and foreign institutions operating without oversight of Glass-Steagall, the very institutions that banks feared would take some of all of the money in the universe away from them would have run into the same problems and that system would have crashed. Those institutions would fail and the government (me and you) would not have been on the hook. We can say that as long as Glass-Stegall was in effect we did not have a financial meltdown. I guess the proof is in the pudding.

disclaimer - the next section is for those who are mildly curious – the rest of you may return to what ever it is you do when you're not reading my blog.

excerpted from the Senate report on United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs report “Wall Street and the Financial Crises: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse”

“A. Rise of Too-Big-To-Fail U.S. Financial Institutions

Until relatively recently, federal and state laws limited federally-chartered banks from branching across state lines. Instead, as late as the 1990s, U.S. banking consisted primarily of thousands of modest-sized banks tied to local communities. Since 1990, the United States has witnessed the number of regional and local banks and thrifts shrink from just over 15,000 to approximately 8,000 by 2009, while at the same time nearly 13,000 regional and local credit unions have been reduced to 7,500. This broad-based approach meant that when a bank suffered losses, the United States could quickly close its doors, protect its depositors, and avoid significant damage to the U.S. banking system or economy. Decentralized banking also promoted competition, in the mid 1990s, the United States initiated substantial changes to the banking industry, some of which relaxed the rules under which banks operated, while others imposed new regulations, and still others encouraged increased risk-taking. In 1994, for the first time, Congress explicitly authorized interstate banking, which allowed federally-chartered banks to open branches nationwide more easily than before.5 In 1999, Congress repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which had generally required banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to operate separately, and instead allowed them to openly merge operations. The same law also eliminated the Glass-Steagall prohibition on banks engaging in proprietary trading regulation. In 2000, Congress enacted the Commodity Futures Modernization Act which barred federal regulation of swaps and the trillion-dollar swap markets, and which allowed U.S. banks, broker-dealers, and other financial institutions to develop, market, and trade these unregulated financial products, including credit default swaps, foreign currency swaps, interest rate swaps, energy swaps, total return swaps, and more.

In 2002, the Treasury Department, along with other federal bank regulatory agencies, altered the way capital reserves were calculated for banks, and encouraged the retention of securitized mortgages with investment grade credit ratings by allowing banks to hold less capital in reserve for them than if the individual mortgages were held directly on the banks’ books. In 2004, the SEC relaxed the capital requirements for large broker-dealers, allowing them to grow even larger, often with borrowed funds. In 2005, when the SEC attempted to assert more control over the growing hedge fund industry, by requiring certain hedge funds to register with the agency, a federal Court of Appeals issued a 2006 opinion that invalidated the SEC regulation. These and other steps paved the way, over the course of little more than the last decade, for a relatively small number of U.S. banks and broker-dealers to become giant financial conglomerates involved in collecting deposits; financing loans; trading equities, swaps and commodities; and issuing, underwriting, and marketing billions of dollars in stock, debt instruments, insurance policies, and derivatives. As these financial institutions grew in size and complexity, and began playing an increasingly important role in the U.S. economy, policymakers began to ask whether the failure of one of these financial institutions could damage not only the U.S. financial system, but the U.S. economy as a whole. In a little over ten years, the creation of too-big-to-fail financial institutions had become a reality in the United States. Over the last ten years, some U.S. financial institutions have not only grown larger and more complex, but have also engaged in higher risk activities. The last decade has witnessed an explosion of so-called “innovative” financial products with embedded risks that are difficult to analyze and predict, including collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, exchange traded funds, commodity and swap indices, and more. Financial engineering produced these financial instruments which typically had little or no performance record to use for risk management purposes. Some U.S. financial institutions became major participants in the development of these financial products, designing, selling, and trading them in U.S. and global markets. In addition, most major U.S. financial institutions began devoting increasing resources to so-called “proprietary trading,” in which the firm’s personnel used the firm’s capital to gain investment returns for the firm itself rather than for its clients. Traditionally, U.S. banks, brokerdealers, and investment banks had offered investment advice and services to their clients, and did well when their clients did well. Over the last ten years, however, some firms began referring to their clients, not as customers, but as counterparties. In addition, some firms at times developed and used financial products in transactions in which the firm did well only when its clients, or counterparties, lost money. Some U.S. banks also sponsored affiliated hedge funds, provided them with billions of dollars in client and bank funds, and allowed the hedge funds to make high risk investments on the bank’s behalf, seeking greater returns.

By 2005, as U.S. financial institutions reached unprecedented size and made increasing use of complex, high risk financial products, government oversight and regulation was increasingly incoherent and misguided. Under the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, certain types of financial institutions had been prohibited from commingling their services. For example, with limited exceptions, only brokerdealers could provide brokerage services; only banks could offer banking; and only insurers could offer insurance. Each financial sector had its own primary regulator who was generally prohibited from regulating services outside of its jurisdiction. Glass-Steagall also contained prohibitions against proprietary trading. One reason for keeping the sectors separate was to ensure that banks with federally insured deposits did not engage in the type of high risk activities that might be the bread and butter of a broker-dealer or commodities trader. Another reason was to avoid the conflicts of interest that might arise, for example, from a financial institution pressuring its clients to obtain all of its financial services from the same firm. A third reason was to avoid the conflicts of interest that arise when a financial institution is allowed to act for its own benefit in a proprietary capacity, while at the same time acting on behalf of customers in an agency or fiduciary capacity. Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999, after which the barriers between banks, brokerdealers, and insurance firms fell. U.S. financial institutions not only began offering a mix of financial services, but also intensified their proprietary trading activities. The resulting changes in the way financial institutions were organized and operated made it more difficult for regulators to distinguish between activities intended to benefit customers versus the financial institution itself. The expanded set of financial services investment banks were allowed to offer also contributed to the multiple and significant conflicts of interest that arose between some investment banks and their clients during the financial crisis.”

Everything that you wanted to know about "Why You Should Monitor Europe" but were afraid to ask.

2011-10-25T08:16:00.001-04:00

A brief introduction - one of my favorite posters on this site is BOz who has demonstrated a knowledge and passion on financial topics. I have enjoyed our exchanges both here and offline and I have learned quite a bit. I thought it would be informative and beneficial to get BOz to share his thoughts with all of us. Thanks BOz!

I was honored when Cake or Democracy (CoD) asked if I would be a guest contributor on this blog. In particular, CoD asked whether I would like to post some thoughts on Too Big To Fail (TBTF) banks along with the many regulators we have in the US. Though I do monitor TBTF banks and regulators, I am not an expert. Any knowledge I have in TBTF banks and regulators was obtained primarily through my interest in staying a step ahead of the next stock market bubble. To do this, I read many reports, analyses, and blogs about the US and global economy. Note I am not a day trader - I just try to heed Warren Buffet’s first rule of never lose money. When asset bubbles pop, losses can add up more quickly than even the Buffalo Bills care to reflect on.

Within the same conversation with CoD, I was later asked whether I thought that “the greece default issue would cause another economic setback.” I knew then I had my first guest topic though be forewarned that I’m barely scratching the surface. An entire book can be written on this subject and I’m only attempting to explain this to someone who may have simply seen a headline about trouble in Greece.

Finally while CoD and I may not agree on a given topic, we both look at this as an opportunity to learn as differences contain far more lessons than agreements. I hope you find my musings informative, thought-provoking, and useful. I look forward to your comments.

Why You Should Monitor Europe

Regardless of where you were in 2008, you knew about the financial crisis that hit the world when Lehman Brothers failed and Congress failed to pass the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Retirement plans fell hard that October and people phoned their Congressional Representative telling them that they needed to fix this situation.

Without getting into details, banks were bailed out. Several trillion dollars worth of stimulus and interest rate easing put a halt to the stock market rout. New laws like Frank-Dodd were passed that would prevent banks from taking too many risks. Indeed a year later, it seemed that government and central bank policy saved the day.

Yet the main problem behind the crisis went unresolved - large amounts of debt.

Now you may wonder why I am going to move the discussion over to Europe considering US debt obligations and the loss of AAA debt status. Simply put, large amounts of debt are not solely a US-phenomenon. With the US debt limit raised, global markets moved forward to find the next weak link that threatens to break the chain of the global financial markets. Thus we turn to Greece, which has the very real potential to inflict far more damage to world financial markets right now than the 2008 crisis.

Greece

The European Union (EU) has an annual GDP at just over $16 trillion. Delving into each individual country’s share, you find Greece’s annual GDP is approximately $300 billion, which accounts for about 2% of EU GDP. In thinking about Europe’s banking system, you would be correct to ask how can such a small country bring down a financial system.

Similar to the US, the Greek government borrowed money for many years to make budgetary ends meet. The loans paid for government services, worker salaries and benefits, and principal and interest on previous loans. According to Eurostat (the EU’s statistical keeper), Greece owed debts of ~$329 billion at the end of 2010. Recalling that the Greek economy creates ~$300 billion annually, you may begin to question whether Greece can service its debts.

In a growing economy, there is a chance that a country can grow its way out a such a debt problem. Economic growth means more tax revenues. Governments can allocate these new revenues toward debt fulfillment.

Greece, however, is not growing. Investors began to lose confidence in the Greek government repaying its debts and demanded more interest on new loans. Eventually, investors deemed the risk high enough that interest rates rose to where the debtor (Greece) could not afford to borrow.

Yet the debt hole was already dug. Remember Greek debt finances payment of interest and principal on previously borrowed money. As Greece cannot repay what it previously borrowed, it either needs to restructure, refinance, or default on this debt. As private investors do not wish to perform these tasks, we look to Europe for a solution.

Why Greece Matters to Europe

Besides not wanting to admit failure, Greece matters to Europe because EU banks are Greece’s primary creditors. When Greece defaults, these banks will be forced to recognize losses on their balance sheet, losses which could make them insolvent. Governments would have to nationalize these banks and repay depositors using taxpayer money.

Additionally, credit default swaps (CDS) written to protect against a Greek default and subsequent bank failures would be paid out. These “insurance-like” products have been called financial weapons of mass destruction for good reason. If the insurer within a swap cannot fulfill its obligation, a potential cascade failure of the banking system may occur as the party that bought the insurance may not be able to pay its own claims. It was CDS that brought down AIG in the US housing bust. Much to my own dismay, the US government via the taxpayer paid out AIG’s obligations. As CDS are not regulated or on an exchange, no one knows who will owe whom what until the event triggers the swap. With the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) estimating the CDS market to be $26 trillion in 2010, the potential risk here could be astronomical.

Furthermore in trying to bail out Greece, the European Central Bank (ECB) allowed banks (both Greek and EU banks) to exchange Greek government bonds for Euros - meaning the ECB loaned money using Greek bonds as collateral. When Greece defaults, the ECB will be forced to recognize this loss and will likely need to be recapitalized too from the EU taxpayers.

What is Europe Doing to Solve this Crisis

The EU, ECB, and IMF (International Monetary Fund) have tried solving the Greek crisis through bailout loans and austerity measures, such as fewer services, higher taxes, and government pay cuts. They hoped this solution would make Greece a growing competitive economy again. Unfortunately this plan failed because it caused the Greek economy to contract. This led to Greece requiring more bailout loans and austerity measures, which have still failed to produce the desired result.

The EU, ECB, and IMF are currently trying to calculate another pain-free method to exit this situation. However more bailout loans are unattractive politically, and debt write-offs are equally unattractive (though necessary) to bondholders.

Misery Enjoys Company

Remember when I said large amounts of debt are not solely a US-phenomenon. Even if a market-acceptable solution is found, Greece is not the only EU country with too much debt. The EU, ECB, and IMF also bailed out and imposed austerity measures on Ireland and Portugal. One of the many reasons why there is no easy Greek solution is whatever the EU resolves to do, it is quite likely trouble will simply migrate to Ireland or Portugal. Hence the EU has to solve for these two countries as well increasing the overall cost.

Furthermore interest rates are rising on Italian and Spanish debt as financial markets begin to lose confidence that their debts will be repaid. While Greece, Ireland, and Portugal are relatively small, Italy is the 3rd largest economy in the European Monetary Union and Spain is the 4th largest. If these countries cannot finance/refinance their debt, the future of the euro is bleak as these countries are too big to bail out.

So How Does this Affect Me Here in the US

There are many avenues that these European troubles can affect you as an individual and as a taxpayer.

Stock market crash - the bank problem alone will cause markets to sell off as investors flee risky assets. Additionally, Europe is one of the US’s largest trading partners. It is also China’s largest trading partner. Hence, global trade will falter causing a US (and global) recession. Furthermore if the euro dissolves, many contracts written with euros will need rewritten and who owes what to whom will have to be decided.

Euro bond markets - you can lose money if you are in international bonds in any EU country.

Money market funds - take a look at where your money market funds (MMF) are invested and you will likely find short-term investments in European banks. These “safe” investments may lose money if that foreign bank fails.

International Monetary Fund - the US contributes to the IMF which is currently providing bailout loans to Greece, Portugal, and Ireland. More loans to Europe are feasible in which case the US taxpayer is at risk.

How Can I Protect My Assets

As I post this article without knowing you, your age, or your risk tolerance, I will refrain from making investment advice. Its also important to realize that Europe and Greece are only one piece in the global financial market puzzle. Trying to position your assets for this one piece without regard to the other puzzle pieces (that are beyond this article) could prove detrimental to your nest egg.

However, I will share a few words from the Wizards of Wisdom:

Don’t let your investments keep you up at night. If they do keep you awake, you are taking more risks than you are comfortable with. Talk to a professional about reallocating to less risky investments so that you can sleep. During your conversation with said professional, ask why they believe that their recommendation is less risky. If you are not convinced by their explanation, don’t invest. Remember it’s your nest egg.

Opportunities are easier to make up than losses. I’ve been conservatively invested since 2007 when I felt that I stood to lose more of my nest egg than gain by being invested in the stock market. While I missed much of the rebound in the stock markets from March 2009 to present, my portfolio also did not take any large losses. Furthermore a new bull market will present itself someday. When it does, I’ll be ready.

Looking forward to progressing through towards better times...

BOz

Goldman S*chs

2011-10-18T22:27:00.000-04:00

I am feeling a little cranky today –

So what has my dander up?
That people don’t realize, that at a minimum during the recent Wall Street Crash begining September 16, 2008 there was plenty of criminal intent. Not criminal intent like I accidentally didn't fill out the right form but rather I can make a boat load of money while defrauding you. We were cheated in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

According to Matt Taibbi , who in my opinion is a great reporter
Nobody goes to jail. This is the mantra of the financial-crisis era, one that saw virtually every major bank and financial company on Wall Street embroiled in obscene criminal scandals that impoverished millions and collectively destroyed hundreds of billions, in fact, trillions of dollars of the world’s wealth — and nobody went to jail. Nobody, that is, except Bernie Madoff, a flamboyant and pathological celebrity con artist, whose victims happened to be other rich and famous people. The rest of them, all of them, got off. Not a single executive who ran the companies that cooked up and cashed in on the phony financial boom — an industrywide scam that involved the mass sale of mismarked, fraudulent mortgage-backed securities — has ever been convicted

So why no criminal charges - the NY Times ran an article asking that very question.
As the crisis was starting to deepen in the spring of 2008, the Federal Bureau of Investigation scaled back a plan to assign more field agents to investigate mortgage fraud. That summer, the Justice Department also rejected calls to create a task force devoted to mortgage-related investigations, leaving these complex cases understaffed and poorly funded, and only much later established a more general financial crimes task force.
Leading up to the financial crisis, many officials said in interviews, regulators failed in their crucial duty to compile the information that traditionally has helped build criminal cases. In effect, the same dynamic that helped enable the crisis — weak regulation — also made it harder to pursue fraud in its aftermath.
A more aggressive mind-set could have spurred far more prosecutions this time, officials involved in the S.&L. cleanup said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all

I thought I would go to the source.

A Senate Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan, alongside Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma released a 650-page report
“Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse,”

It has been described as an unusually scathing bipartisan report also includes case studies of Washington Mutual and Deutsche Bank, providing a panoramic portrait of a bubble era that produced the most destructive crime spree in our history — "a million fraud cases a year" is how one former regulator puts it. But the mountain of evidence collected against Goldman by Levin's small, 15-desk office of investigators — details of gross, baldfaced fraud delivered up in such quantities as to almost serve as a kind of sarcastic challenge to the curiously impassive Justice Department —

I searched for and downloaded the report. Being the lazy bastard that I am, I merely searched the report for the word “Goldman” and then excerpted the majority of the hits (I did not consciously leave any reference out that did not support my position but rather just go tired and stopped, feeling I pretty much feel I proved my point). The report speaks for itself. We all should be pretty pissed about this.
So without further ado – the rest of the blog is directly excerpted from the senate report. It's a little long but so worth it.
Enjoy it, you paid for it it spades.

The Goldman Sachs case study focuses on how it used net short positions to benefit from the downturn in the mortgage market, and designed, marketed, and sold CDOs in ways that created conflicts of interest with the firm’s clients and at times led to the banks profiting from the same products that caused substantial losses for its clients.

Two case studies, involving Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank, illustrate a variety troubling practices that raise conflicts of interest and other concerns involving RMBS, CDS, and ABX related financial instruments that contributed to the financial crisis.

Throughout 2007, Goldman sold RMBS and CDO securities to its clients without disclosing its own net short position against the subprime market or its purchase of CDS contracts to gain from the loss in value of some of the very securities it was selling to its clients.

From 2004 to 2008, Goldman was a major player in the U.S. mortgage market. In 2006 and 2007 alone, it designed and underwrote 93 RMBS and 27 mortgage related CDO securitizations totaling about $100 billion, bought and sold RMBS and CDO securities on behalf of its clients, and amassed its own multi-billion-dollar proprietary mortgage related holdings. In December 2006, however, when it saw evidence that the high risk mortgages underlying many RMBS and CDO securities were incurring accelerated rates of delinquency and default, Goldman quietly and abruptly reversed course.

Over the next two months, it rapidly sold off or wrote down the bulk of its existing subprime RMBS and CDO inventory, and began building a short position that would allow it to profit from the decline of the mortgage market. Throughout 2007, Goldman twice built up and cashed in sizeable mortgage related short positions. At its peak, Goldman’s net short position totaled $13.9 billion. Overall in 2007, its net short position produced record profits totaling $3.7 billion for Goldman’s Structured Products Group, which when combined with other mortgage losses, produced record net revenues of $1.1 billion for the Mortgage Department as a whole.

The case study examines in detail four CDOs that Goldman constructed and sold called Hudson 1, Anderson, Timberwolf, and Abacus 2007-AC1. In some cases, Goldman transferred risky assets from its own inventory into these CDOs; in others, it included poor quality assets that were likely to lose value or not perform. In three of the CDOs, Hudson, Anderson and Timberwolf, Goldman took a substantial portion of the short side of the CDO, essentially betting that the assets within the CDO would fall in value or not perform. Goldman’s short position was in direct opposition to the clients to whom it was selling the CDO securities, yet it failed to disclose the size and nature of its short position while marketing the securities.

While Goldman sometimes included obscure language in its marketing materials about the possibility of its taking a short position on the CDO securities it was selling, Goldman did not disclose to potential investors when it had already determined to take or had already taken short investments that would pay off if the particular security it was selling, or RMBS and CDO securities in general, performed poorly. In the case of Hudson 1, for example, Goldman took 100% of the short side of the $2 billion CDO, betting against the assets referenced in the CDO, and sold the Hudson securities to investors without disclosing its short position. When the securities lost value, Goldman made a $1.7 billion gain at the direct expense of the clients to whom it had sold the securities.

In the case of Timberwolf, Goldman sold the securities to its clients even as it knew the securities were falling in value. In some cases, Goldman knowingly sold Timberwolf securities Throughout 2007, Goldman sold RMBS and CDO securities to its clients without disclosing its own net short position against the subprime market or its purchase of CDS contracts to gain from the loss in value of some of the very securities it was selling to its clients.

Goldman took a substantial portion of the short side of the CDO, essentially betting that the assets within the CDO would fall in value or not perform. Goldman’s short position was in direct opposition to the clients to whom it was selling the CDO securities, yet it failed to disclose the size and nature of its short position while marketing the securities. While Goldman sometimes included obscure language in its marketing materials about the possibility of its taking a short position on the CDO securities it was selling, Goldman did not disclose to potential investors when it had already determined to take or had already taken short investments that would pay off if the particular security it was selling, or RMBS and CDO securities in general, performed poorly.

While Goldman sometimes included obscure language in its marketing materials about the possibility of its taking a short position on the CDO securities it was selling, Goldman took 100% of the short side of the $2 billion CDO, betting against the assets referenced in the CDO, and sold the Hudson securities to investors without disclosing its short position. When the securities lost value, Goldman made a $1.7 billion gain at the direct expense of the clients to whom it had sold the securities.

In the case of Anderson, Goldman selected a large number of poorly performing assets for the CDO, took 40% of the short position, and then marketed Anderson securities to its clients. When a client asked how Goldman “got comfortable” with the New Century loans in the CDO, Goldman personnel tried to dispel concerns about the loans, and did not disclose the firm’s own negative view of them or its short position in the CDO. In the case of Timberwolf, Goldman sold the securities to its clients even as it knew the securities were falling in value. In some cases, Goldman knowingly sold Timberwolf securities to clients at prices above its own book values and, within days or weeks of the sale, marked down the value of the sold securities, causing its clients to incur quick losses and requiring some to post higher margin or cash collateral. Timberwolf securities lost 80% of their value within five months of being issued and today are worthless. Goldman took 36% of the short position in the CDO and made money from that investment, but ultimately lost money when it could not sell all of the Timberwolf securities

. In the case of Abacus, Goldman did not take the short position, but allowed a hedge fund, Paulson & Co. Inc., that planned on shorting the CDO to play a major but hidden role in selecting its assets. Goldman marketed Abacus securities to its clients, knowing the CDO was designed to lose value and without disclosing the hedge fund’s asset selection role or investment objective to potential investors. Three long investors together lost about $1 billion from their Abacus investments, while the Paulson hedge fund profited by about the same amount. Today, the Abacus securities are worthless.

In the Hudson and Timberwolf CDOs, Goldman also used its role as the collateral put provider or liquidation agent to advance its financial interest to the detriment of the clients to whom it sold the CDO securities. Both Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank underwrote securities using loans from subprime lenders known for issuing high risk, poor quality mortgages, and sold risky securities to investors across the United States and around the world. They also enabled the lenders to acquire new funds to originate still more high risk, poor quality loans. Both sold CDO securities without full disclosure of the negative views of some of their employees regarding the underlying assets and, in the case of Goldman, without full disclosure that it was shorting the very CDO securities it was marketing, raising questions about whether Goldman complied with its obligations to issue suitable investment recommendations and disclose material adverse interests.

Goldman Sachs had helped to build an active mortgage market in the United States and had accumulated a huge portfolio of mortgage related products. In late 2006, Goldman Sachs decided to reverse course, using a variety of means to bet against the mortgage market. In some cases, Goldman Sachs took proprietary positions that paid off only when some of its clients lost money on the very securities that Goldman Sachs had sold to them and then shorted. Altogether in 2007, Goldman’s mortgage department made $1.1 billion in net revenues from shorting the mortgage market. Despite those gains, Goldman Sachs was given a $10 billion taxpayer bailout under the Troubled Asset Relief Program,70 tens of billions of dollars in support through accessing the Federal Reserve’s Primary Dealer Credit Facility,71 and billions more in indirect government support.

So there you go. Pissed? You should be and this is only the tip of the iceberg.

If you enjoyed that, you read the whole report. mmmmmmmmmmm

Get off my lawn!

2011-10-05T22:19:00.000-04:00

When I first heard of the “Wall Street” protests my reaction was one of support. The initial government knee-jerk reaction of gloom and doom if we don’t bail out the “too big to fail” financial institutions and some of the subsequent reactions i.e. the post-crash overly restrictive loan policies the same bailed out with our money financial institutions instituted which caused an unnecessary crunch on small businesses that contributed to the ongoing recession were at the root of our current economic situation.

And this was all done while Wall Street payed out even higher bonuses to their employees then before they had wiped out half of my 401K savings. (I have the receipts to prove it).Then I saw the news – interviews with the protesters - I didn’t hear anyone clearly articulate what the protest was about – certainly not the things I believed in. In some cases I thought “they are half-wits – we are doomed” (of course trusting the media to fairly interview representative members of the protesting parties really wasn’t a good idea).Then I heard U.S. Representative Peter DeFazio’s speech on the Wall Street Protest– he so clearly spoke to the very heart of what the protests are all about and why they happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNNYWAZlCow

If the link doesn’t work than you can just cut and paste – it is well worth it.There is also a good article online at Slate.com posted by Annie Lowrey (link below)

It is not easy to say just what Occupy Wall Street wants; there is no concise list of specific demands. But the gist of the quickly snowballing movement is clear. Wall Street has not accepted responsibility for its role in the financial crisis and ensuing recession. It has done more harm than good for average citizens and businesses.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/10/occupy_wall_street_says_the_top_one_1_percent_of_americans_have_.html

and as Annie Lowery stated at the end of her article

Whether Occupy Wall Street can help to rectify that imbalance—who knows. But there is certainly value in at least making sure Americans know just how unequal the country is.

"Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges"

2011-09-29T13:19:00.000-04:00

While working feverishly in my head (which means I haven't written a word) on my next post which will deal the question whether the wealthiest pay an unjust share of federal taxes . I heard a story on NPR I thought worth sharing.

Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep interviewed Ellen Schultz, the author of "How Companies Plunder and Profit from the Nest Eggs of American Workers". I have my own inclination to be suspicious of business (evident in my last blog "Why I hate Michael J. Fox") as it seems most of corporate culture revolves around maximization of profit with little attention to social responsibility.Schultz a former reporter for the Wall Street Journel strikes me as a credible researcher - I am curious on how accurate her book is. It is a bit frightening to hear of such abuses while on some level hardly surprising. Here is a brief excerpt from the NPR website

As companies have been moving away from traditional pension plans, they have been shifting employees to new retirement plans, such as 401(k)s, that transfer the cost — and the risk — to workers.

Companies have claimed for years that old-style pensions were unsustainable. Author Ellen Schultz tells Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep that there's another explanation."The main narrative is that [companies] are struggling to pay both their pensions and these unexpectedly high health care costs for the retirees," Schultz says. "What isn't known is that companies were well-prepared for this phenomenon. The plans were in fact significantly overfunded. They had more than enough to pay every dime for every person currently employed and already retired."

Schultz investigated the changes in pension plans as a reporter for The Wall Street Journal .You can listen to the interview by clicking here
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=140344871&m=140895203

and you can read a longer excerpt here

http://www.npr.org/books/titles/140334949/retirement-heist-how-companies-plunder-and-profit-from-the-nest-eggs-of-american?tab=excerpt#excerpt

I looked for some reviews to see how the book was received and its credibility - so far so good. I will keep my eye out for more as they are written. Below are links to two of them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/business/when-retirees-are-shortchanged-for-corporate-profits.html?scp=1&sq=Retirement%20Heist%27:%20How%20Firms%20Trimmed%20Pensions&st=cse

http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-59184-333-7

Why I hate Michael J. Fox……………………………

2011-09-20T08:06:00.000-04:00

Because he played a character called Alex P. Keaton on a sitcom called Family Ties in the early 80’s. Keaton, a fictional character, represented Ronald Reagan’s America. A land favored by the Creator that looked like a scene from a Norman Rockwell painting. A country abound with opportunities. If you couldn’t make it on your own there was no room for you.

"The Alex Keaton generation was rejecting the counterculture of the 1960s and embracing the wealth and power that came to define the '80s."

Over the last 30 years this Keatonesque mindset has led us to worship big business and the CEO’s who run them. You can’t go very far without seeing the faces of CEOs plastered across magazine covers – leaning up against their desks with their sleeves rolled up like they just hard working stiffs. Guys like Dick Fuld who led Lehman into the business of subprime mortgages. Stan O’Neal who guided Merrill Lynch's from fee businesses like asset management into creating collateralized debt obligations, which were largely made of subprime mortgage bonds. And let’s not forget Dennis “Mr.$15,000 dog-shaped umbrella stand” Kozlowski CEO of Tyco International, convicted in 2005 of crimes related to his receipt of $81 million in purportedly unauthorized bonuses, the purchase of art for $14.725 million and the payment by Tyco of a $20 million investment banking fee to a former Tyco director.

Much like a lot of politicians who long for the good old days in the U.S of A, I too long for the good old days. Not the ones they do - when America had “values” – never mind there were Jim Crow laws in effect and that we’ve needed at least three waves of feminism to get y’all up to second class citizens. I long for different set of good old days.

Days when we didn’t worship the Captains of Industry and the businesses they ran – I miss when we viewed business and those who ran them with a bit more of a jaded eye. To recall what U.S. political and economic commentator Matthew Josephson (1934) called the economic princes of his day - Robber Barons.

President Theodore Roosevelt spoke of the "malefactors of great wealth" and embraced a public, political role for the government in "anti-trust": controlling, curbing, and breaking up large private concentrations of economic power.

With this jaded eye legislation was passed to protect the consumer – like the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era regulation to prevent bankers from turning our economy into a giant gambling casino for the super rich – as they had done in the 1920’s. In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the U.S. government struggled with anti-competitive practices between businesses. Part of the concern was related to artificial pricing practices that harmed consumers. In response to these monopolies, cartels, and trusts, Congress passed two major pieces of legislation: The Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act. I am not advocating a reenactment of one hundred year old laws but I am trying to remind us of a day when we didn’t trust big business to take care of the average American.

I am asking us to hold companies to a higher standard than just optimizing corporate profits and increasing stock prices – we should be expecting, no - demanding them to demonstrate corporate social responsibility .

“(CSR, also called corporate conscience, corporate citizenship, social performance, or sustainable responsible business)[1] is a form of corporate self-regulation integrated into a business model. CSR policy functions as a built-in, self-regulating mechanism whereby business monitors and ensures its active compliance with the spirit of the law, ethical standards, and international norms. The goal of CSR is to embrace responsibility for the company's actions and encourage a positive impact through its activities on the environment, consumers, employees, communities, stakeholders and all other members of the public sphere. Furthermore, CSR-focused businesses would proactively promote the public interest by encouraging community growth and development, and voluntarily eliminating practices that harm the public sphere, regardless of legality. CSR is the deliberate inclusion of PI into corporate decision-making, that is the core business of the company or firm, and the honoring of a triple bottom line: people, planet, profit.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility

Until we can get companies to demonstrate CSR – I would like to keep the concept of robber barons alive.

So let’s take a moment to remember those great captains of industry who were described by Josephson for their most ruthless actions, their plunders and conspiracies, and their lack of ethics. The system they created led to the Great Depression.

And maybe just maybe if we could hold companies accountable and they were able to embrace their social responsibilities I just might be able to forgive Michael - I hear he is a nice guy. I am sure knowing what we know now and given another chance he would have turned Alex P. Keaton into a tree hugging, progressive like me ;)

John Jacob Astor (real estate, fur)—New York City

Andrew Carnegie (steel)—Pittsburgh and New York

Jay Cooke (finance)—Philadelphia

Charles Crocker (railroads)—California

Daniel Drew (finance)—New York

James Buchanan Duke (tobacco)— Durham, North Carolina

James Fisk (finance)—New York

Henry Morrison Flagler (railroads, oil)—New York, Florida

Henry Clay Frick (steel)—Pittsburgh and New York City

John Warne Gates (barbed wire)

Jay Gould (railroads)--New York

Edward Henry Harriman (railroads)—New York

Mark Hopkins (railroads)—California

Andrew W. Mellon (finance, oil)—Pittsburgh

J. P. Morgan (finance, industrial consolidation)—New York City

Henry B. Plant (railroads)—Florida

John D. Rockefeller (oil), Cleveland, New York

Charles M. Schwab (steel) Pittsburgh and New York

John D. Spreckels (sugar)— California

Leland Stanford (railroads)—California

Joseph Seligman (banking)

Cornelius Vanderbilt (water transport, railroads)--New York

Charles Tyson Yerkes (street railroads)--Chicago

Troubling news in Andy Land

2011-09-14T12:43:00.000-04:00

I heard this morning that the Census Bureau reported another 2.6 million people slipped into poverty in the United States last year, and the number of Americans living below the official poverty line, 46.2 million people, was the highest number in the 52 years. The nation's official poverty rate in 2010 was 15.1 percent, up from 14.3 percent in 2009 ─ the third consecutive annual increase in the poverty rate. Additionally the real median household income in the United States in 2010 was $49,445, a 2.3 percent decline from the 2009 median.
http://www.census.gov/

This started the voice in my head that sounds an awful lot like the whiny old curmudgeon – Andy Rooney, or at least, that’s what I think the voice sounds like. Although inevitably the voice morphs into a variant of Christopher Walken as all my voices do. My wife thinks my eyebrows look like Andy Rooney’s and but thinks I always sound like Walken.

Why are the numbers of U.S. millionaires expected to double before end of decade I whine, feeling the accelerated growth of my left eyebrow as I begin to morph into Andy.

Why are income trends among 90% of Americans relatively unchanged over the last decade. I ask with a sneer, as the Rooney metamorphosis accelerates - my right eyebrow extends to touch my left one.

Whoa - I quickly shake my head as I realize I am actually changing into Mickey Rooney and I can’t afford to get any shorter (for those who have no idea who the 170yr old former child actor is, substitute Andy Dick into the punch line – that should work).

So back to the matter at hand – the number of people who are rich and the number who are poor are both increasing? Not that one causes the other but it would seem if things are going well for a number of people then at least things shouldn’t get so much worse for so many? I understand that is a simplistic statement but clearly y’all have heard about the issue of the redistribution of wealth. Why is only one segment of the population (and a small one at that) doing so well?

And another point - now the rich have an additional burden – the Republicans in an effort to justify not increasing their taxes refer to the rich as the “job creators”. But as the number of “job creators” have increased (the number of U.S. millionaires increased by 8.3% in 2010, according to a report by Spectrem Group) the number of jobs have decreased causing as discussed early –increased poverty and lower average incomes.

That's a far cry from the 1950s, when the suburban American dream ruled: the bottom 90% of Americans controlled about 68% of the economy. http://money.cnn.com

These are complicated issues and I am not even sure how much they have to do with each other – certainly there is no single cause or solution for that matter. I just find it worth sharing and I find the trends extremely disturbing………….

And when that happens the Christopher Walken voice in the role of Vincenzo Coccotti starts playing in my head and no amount of cowbell can stop it.

Ponzi sues Perry for character slander

2011-09-11T08:19:00.000-04:00

Charles Ponzi, the original Ponzi schemer, was an Italian immigrant, "a razzle-dazzle kind of guy" with "tremendous charisma."

We Italians haven't had a lot of heroes to look up to in the last hundred or so years - sure we had our hey day of a bunch of Renaissance guys running around in long robes with names that sound like pizza toppings. Name me an Italian in the last century or so. Not many huh? Charles Ponzi was an entrepreneur - probably the kinda of guy that today's Koch Brothers would hang with - he probably would have been a Republican - a proponent of less government and laizze-faire. Less regulations my friend (wink).
Having said that all tongue in cheek of course (I mean no disrespect to my Republican or Tea Party friends - said in the best Joe Pesci voice you can muster in your head) - but I must speak up for my brethren Charles, who would be greatly offended that Governor Exemplar of Texas Rick Perry, Republican candidate for President has characterized Social Security as a Ponzi scheme.
Charles clearly was in the business of swindling people - setting up a fraudulent scheme to bilk people out of their hard earned money. Charles had bad things in mind when he started - from the "gitty up" as they say in Texas. Charles would have been horrified to be linked to a government program that was set up help people - to use their money to help themselves.
Does social security need reform - I think we can all agree upon that. Even the "Great Communicator" himself said "the Social Security system must be preserved." and as we all know Ronnie Regan was no fan of the government.
So come Rick - let's leave Charles alone. You don't want trouble with "those" people. Let's let sleeping fish lie and let's get Social Security fixed.

Social Security is a good thing - it has provided a return on its participant's investment and has helped those in need - it has worked for years and I hope it will continue to work for years to come.

Wow - this is a lot harder than I thought .....

2011-09-10T21:48:00.000-04:00

So when the going gets tough - change your job description. I posted my first blog this year! - unfortunately it seemed like a year ago. That was followed by my second post which was slightly less well researched and written than the first one. I thought I would pumping these blogs out on a weekly basis. Not so much.......

My goal was to use my scientific background to provide thoughtful detailed analysis of political and economic issues so that I could better understand them and develop my beliefs and share that information with my friends. Apparently that is way too hard for someone who has a full-time job, as many interests as a I do an adorable wife and a mild case of A.D.D. .......SQUIRREL!
So rather than than feel bad because I don't have the time to do what I want - I am going to change the charter of this blog -
I am going to still write about political issues (for the most part) but I am not going to provide thorough
detailed technical analyses but rather provide thoughtful and slightly researched issues with a dash of my personality. So exit the scientist and enter the personality.

US Tax Revenue as a Fraction of GDP by Component

2011-07-29T09:32:00.000-04:00

Quick post - while we are on the topic of taxes - I have been researching tax revenue as a percentage of GDP - and have found some great resources on the web i.e.- US Census Statistical Abstracts.
In the meantime before publishing my data I found a blog that does a nice job of presenting the numbers http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/. I thought this would be informative until I can finish crunching the numbers.

US Tax Revenue as a Fraction of GDP by Component

Looking at the components of the revenue is illuminating as well. The rise of Social Security tax revenue seems to neatly offset the decline in corporate tax and the miscellaneous taxes over the years. Personal income tax, always the largest source of federal revenue, also seems pretty range bound (albeit with a good deal of volatility). It'd be interesting to try to disentangle the effects of income, employment levels and marginal tax rates here. It's clear, however, that overall economic health plays a large role in how much income tax is collected. Peaks and troughs seem to correspond with recession start and end dates from visual inspection. ( from http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/tax-revenue-as-a-fraction-of-gdp/)