Here's a short quote from George Will:
Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama.
Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" -- disconnected from knowledge and principle -- had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does."
read the rest at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202583.html
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Bailout Prevention: Derivative Disclosure
Here's my idea to prevent a recurrence of the present debacle:
Broaden the definition of a 'security' to include all financial instruments sold in any market and require that each be subject to full disclosure laws just like stocks and bonds.
Apparently, the salesmen selling the junk could not even understand it - no wonder we have a disaster.
If you use the idea, the price is $1.00
For more, read Pat Buchanan here: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28670
Broaden the definition of a 'security' to include all financial instruments sold in any market and require that each be subject to full disclosure laws just like stocks and bonds.
Apparently, the salesmen selling the junk could not even understand it - no wonder we have a disaster.
If you use the idea, the price is $1.00
For more, read Pat Buchanan here: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28670
Monday, September 22, 2008
Palin/McCain - Too Dumb, 4 - Reckless
From The Sunday Times
September 7, 2008
The fright begins as John McCain reveals his reckless side
Sarah Palin has opposed his key policies, so why did he pick her?
Andrew Sullivan
There is one reason the job of vice-president exists. In a system with a single executive, you need someone to fill in if the president is incapacitated or dies. In war time this is especially important. More salient: McCain just turned 72 and would be the oldest first term president in American history with four cancer scares and the awful residue of Vietnamese torture in his bones.
The pick is also the first presidential-level decision a candidate has to make. You learn a lot about the candidate. And with Obama and McCain, we have two men who have never been executives - just legislators, book-writers and celebrities. So the decision is the first time we can compare the two men on a presidential decision
level.
In Joe Biden, Obama revealed his core temperamental conservatism. It was a safe choice of someone deeply versed in foreign policy, and with roots that connected to the working class white ethnics he needed. It wasn't flashy; and was even a little underwhelming; but it was highly professional.
What we have learned about John McCain from his selection of Sarah Palin is that he is as impulsive and reckless a decision-maker as George W. Bush. We know this not because of what we have learned about this Pentecostalist populist since she exploded on the scene last Friday morning (and God knows we have learned more than we ever wanted). We know it because of how McCain made the decision. He wanted his best friend, Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic vice-presidential candidate for Al Gore. That pick would have been remarkable for its bipartisan nature, would have impressed independents, and signaled a centrist presidency centered on foreign policy.
It would have been bold while not being rash.
But McCain is in charge of a party that is now, at its core, religiously motivated. Joe Lieberman, for all his political talents, is Jewish, pro-choice on abortion, gay-inclusive, and domestically liberal. McCain faced an insurrection in his party base if he picked him. Without the evangelical base, he wasn't going to win. So last week, McCain picked someone he had only met once before.
I repeat: he picked someone he had only met once before. His vetting chief sat Palin down for a face-to-face interview the Wednesday before last. It's very hard to overstate how nutty and irresponsible this is. Would any corporate chieftain pick a number two on those grounds and not be dismissed by his board for recklessness?
The recklessness was much more fatal in the new media world than in the old one. In the old media world, the Republicans could try to control the flow of information, browbeat the press and prevent the entire weird family background and series of scandals and rumors of quite incredible events from getting into the mainstream. But those days are over. Within minutes of the announcement, everyone reached for oogle. I recommend for starters the two following stories that appeared in the Anchorage Daily News last March and April.
Within hours, the McCain campaign was under siege, as the vetting process the professionals didn't do was done by thousands of bloggers and citizen journalists. Palin's reality show family life, her vendetta against her ex brother-in-law, her endorsement of a mayoral candidate who ran against her own mother-in-law, her attempt to ban books in her local library, her friendship with one of her husband's former business partners, and on and on: this was the first major campaign event that was covered by the underground media before it reached the mainstream. The American mainstream press spent a large part of last week wondering how much truth the public could bear to hear.
McCain's entire campaign, moreover, was based on his superior experience to Obama, who was allegedly too unknown and risky for the Oval Office, and too jejune on foreign policy. And then McCain turned around and picked a total unknown who
had been a mayor of a town in Alaska of a few thousand and then had only just got elected as governor of a very strange state with 700,000 people. More to the point, there is virtually no record anywhere of her views on foreign policy in the public record.
There is one documented instance. It came in an interview with the Alaskan Business Monthly in December 2006. She was asked about the central issue of McCain's campaign: the surge in Iraq, which he championed. She said she hadn't focused on the war with Iraq but had heard about the surge "on the news." She then said that she hoped there was an "exit plan." That was it. So on the central issue of McCain's campaign, Palin took the opposite position to John McCain.
McCain's major domestic issue in the election, moreover, is the economy and the rocky time many middle class Americans are having. All the polls show that he needs to offer something tangible to counter Obama's reconstructed Clintonomics and universal healthcare. By his own admission, he has never been that interested in economic issues. And his vulnerability is the sense that he doesn't get how distressed many Americans feel. So who does he pick? A governor whose state is essentially an oil company and whose major problem in the two mintes she has been in office has been what to do with a $5 billion oil surplus! She decided to send half a billion dollars' worth of checks to every Alaskan this summer. And people wonder why
she's popular in her state.
It would be very hard to pick a governor in America who knows less about the struggles of most Americans in the current economy. Alaska's economy is currently like Russia's: booming because of commodity prices. And her one key policy issue in Alaska has been drilling for oil in the protected Alaskan National Wilderness Reserve - a policy McCain, against most of his Republican colleagues, has always opposed! Oh, and she's against protecting the polar bears as well. This is McCain's
green conservatism: building pipelines, drilling in protected wildernesses and screwing the polar bears.
There are other obvious liabilities with Palin. To say the very least, her private life and family are colorful. The rumors about them do not stop coming, and the tabloid press has only just arrived in what can only be called Arkansas with penguins.
Palin, moreover, currently has two ethics investigations into her conduct in the 18 months she has been in office - and one report is scheduled to go public days before the election. What was McCain thinking? And Palin's edcuation? Six colleges in five years ending in a degree in sports journalism from the University of Idaho. That's the background of someone who could be president of the United States at any moment after next January.
Who does John McCain think he's kidding? And what on earth was he thinking? This was a rash, impulsive, reckless pick. We have no idea where it's headed - and i wouldn't hazard a wild guess what we will have found out about Palin in a week's time. Maybe it will win some votes from evangelicals. Maybe Palin will reveal herself as something more than a former sportscaster who can deliver a speech. But it shows a deep unseriousness about governing the most powerful nation on earth at a time of great peril.
If you thought a president who went to war on flawed intelligence with no plan for the aftermath was reckless, then I have news for you. You haven't seen anything yet. Imagine the kind of decision-making McCain has just demonstrated applied to life-and-death decisions with respect to Iran and Russia.
Yes, you have permission to be afraid.
Read
September 7, 2008
The fright begins as John McCain reveals his reckless side
Sarah Palin has opposed his key policies, so why did he pick her?
Andrew Sullivan
There is one reason the job of vice-president exists. In a system with a single executive, you need someone to fill in if the president is incapacitated or dies. In war time this is especially important. More salient: McCain just turned 72 and would be the oldest first term president in American history with four cancer scares and the awful residue of Vietnamese torture in his bones.
The pick is also the first presidential-level decision a candidate has to make. You learn a lot about the candidate. And with Obama and McCain, we have two men who have never been executives - just legislators, book-writers and celebrities. So the decision is the first time we can compare the two men on a presidential decision
level.
In Joe Biden, Obama revealed his core temperamental conservatism. It was a safe choice of someone deeply versed in foreign policy, and with roots that connected to the working class white ethnics he needed. It wasn't flashy; and was even a little underwhelming; but it was highly professional.
What we have learned about John McCain from his selection of Sarah Palin is that he is as impulsive and reckless a decision-maker as George W. Bush. We know this not because of what we have learned about this Pentecostalist populist since she exploded on the scene last Friday morning (and God knows we have learned more than we ever wanted). We know it because of how McCain made the decision. He wanted his best friend, Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic vice-presidential candidate for Al Gore. That pick would have been remarkable for its bipartisan nature, would have impressed independents, and signaled a centrist presidency centered on foreign policy.
It would have been bold while not being rash.
But McCain is in charge of a party that is now, at its core, religiously motivated. Joe Lieberman, for all his political talents, is Jewish, pro-choice on abortion, gay-inclusive, and domestically liberal. McCain faced an insurrection in his party base if he picked him. Without the evangelical base, he wasn't going to win. So last week, McCain picked someone he had only met once before.
I repeat: he picked someone he had only met once before. His vetting chief sat Palin down for a face-to-face interview the Wednesday before last. It's very hard to overstate how nutty and irresponsible this is. Would any corporate chieftain pick a number two on those grounds and not be dismissed by his board for recklessness?
The recklessness was much more fatal in the new media world than in the old one. In the old media world, the Republicans could try to control the flow of information, browbeat the press and prevent the entire weird family background and series of scandals and rumors of quite incredible events from getting into the mainstream. But those days are over. Within minutes of the announcement, everyone reached for oogle. I recommend for starters the two following stories that appeared in the Anchorage Daily News last March and April.
Within hours, the McCain campaign was under siege, as the vetting process the professionals didn't do was done by thousands of bloggers and citizen journalists. Palin's reality show family life, her vendetta against her ex brother-in-law, her endorsement of a mayoral candidate who ran against her own mother-in-law, her attempt to ban books in her local library, her friendship with one of her husband's former business partners, and on and on: this was the first major campaign event that was covered by the underground media before it reached the mainstream. The American mainstream press spent a large part of last week wondering how much truth the public could bear to hear.
McCain's entire campaign, moreover, was based on his superior experience to Obama, who was allegedly too unknown and risky for the Oval Office, and too jejune on foreign policy. And then McCain turned around and picked a total unknown who
had been a mayor of a town in Alaska of a few thousand and then had only just got elected as governor of a very strange state with 700,000 people. More to the point, there is virtually no record anywhere of her views on foreign policy in the public record.
There is one documented instance. It came in an interview with the Alaskan Business Monthly in December 2006. She was asked about the central issue of McCain's campaign: the surge in Iraq, which he championed. She said she hadn't focused on the war with Iraq but had heard about the surge "on the news." She then said that she hoped there was an "exit plan." That was it. So on the central issue of McCain's campaign, Palin took the opposite position to John McCain.
McCain's major domestic issue in the election, moreover, is the economy and the rocky time many middle class Americans are having. All the polls show that he needs to offer something tangible to counter Obama's reconstructed Clintonomics and universal healthcare. By his own admission, he has never been that interested in economic issues. And his vulnerability is the sense that he doesn't get how distressed many Americans feel. So who does he pick? A governor whose state is essentially an oil company and whose major problem in the two mintes she has been in office has been what to do with a $5 billion oil surplus! She decided to send half a billion dollars' worth of checks to every Alaskan this summer. And people wonder why
she's popular in her state.
It would be very hard to pick a governor in America who knows less about the struggles of most Americans in the current economy. Alaska's economy is currently like Russia's: booming because of commodity prices. And her one key policy issue in Alaska has been drilling for oil in the protected Alaskan National Wilderness Reserve - a policy McCain, against most of his Republican colleagues, has always opposed! Oh, and she's against protecting the polar bears as well. This is McCain's
green conservatism: building pipelines, drilling in protected wildernesses and screwing the polar bears.
There are other obvious liabilities with Palin. To say the very least, her private life and family are colorful. The rumors about them do not stop coming, and the tabloid press has only just arrived in what can only be called Arkansas with penguins.
Palin, moreover, currently has two ethics investigations into her conduct in the 18 months she has been in office - and one report is scheduled to go public days before the election. What was McCain thinking? And Palin's edcuation? Six colleges in five years ending in a degree in sports journalism from the University of Idaho. That's the background of someone who could be president of the United States at any moment after next January.
Who does John McCain think he's kidding? And what on earth was he thinking? This was a rash, impulsive, reckless pick. We have no idea where it's headed - and i wouldn't hazard a wild guess what we will have found out about Palin in a week's time. Maybe it will win some votes from evangelicals. Maybe Palin will reveal herself as something more than a former sportscaster who can deliver a speech. But it shows a deep unseriousness about governing the most powerful nation on earth at a time of great peril.
If you thought a president who went to war on flawed intelligence with no plan for the aftermath was reckless, then I have news for you. You haven't seen anything yet. Imagine the kind of decision-making McCain has just demonstrated applied to life-and-death decisions with respect to Iran and Russia.
Yes, you have permission to be afraid.
Read
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Palin/McCain - Too Dumb, 3
Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska:
"She doesn't have any foreign policy credentials," Hagel said Wednesday in an interview. "You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything."
See the interview at: http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10435997
"She doesn't have any foreign policy credentials," Hagel said Wednesday in an interview. "You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything."
See the interview at: http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10435997
Monday, September 15, 2008
Palin/McCain - Too Dumb, 2
Columnists Matier & Ross, San Francisco Chronicle, September 15, 2008:
The former Alaska public safety commissioner who refused to fire a state trooper embroiled in a domestic dispute with Gov. Sarah Palin's sister says he holds no grudge, but still believes the GOP vice presidential nominee is too thin-skinned for the job she hopes to fill.
"She apparently has difficulty compartmentalizing personal feelings from official acts," said Walter Monegan, who spent 33 years in the Anchorage Police Department - five years as chief - before Palin named him as the state public safety commissioner late in 2006."
Read the rest at: http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/matierandross/
The former Alaska public safety commissioner who refused to fire a state trooper embroiled in a domestic dispute with Gov. Sarah Palin's sister says he holds no grudge, but still believes the GOP vice presidential nominee is too thin-skinned for the job she hopes to fill.
"She apparently has difficulty compartmentalizing personal feelings from official acts," said Walter Monegan, who spent 33 years in the Anchorage Police Department - five years as chief - before Palin named him as the state public safety commissioner late in 2006."
Read the rest at: http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/matierandross/
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Palin/McCain - Too Dumb To Serve
This duo would be a disaster for the United States.
McCain's primary claim is that he is strong on defense because he stood up to torture. The reason he was shot down and captured is that he disobeyed orders from smart people and flew where he was not supposed to fly.
At the first news of the Georgia/Russia dust up, he pronounced that he was a Georgian and that we should invade South Ossetia and fight Russia.
Even the blood drunk Cheney/Bush duo is smarter than that. The Bush administration took force off the table right away.
Imagine a President dumber than Bush.
Now imagine a President dumber than McCain. That would be Sarah Palin.
McCain will die in office if elected - even Matt Damon knows that.
Then Palin will be President. She echoed McCain's 'Let's fight the Russians' after the issue was firmly in hand by smart people: the EU headed by Sarkozy of France.
The EU made an agreement with Russia that has Russian troops withdrawing and European observers guaranteeing the peace.
C'mon folks, pay attention.
McCain's primary claim is that he is strong on defense because he stood up to torture. The reason he was shot down and captured is that he disobeyed orders from smart people and flew where he was not supposed to fly.
At the first news of the Georgia/Russia dust up, he pronounced that he was a Georgian and that we should invade South Ossetia and fight Russia.
Even the blood drunk Cheney/Bush duo is smarter than that. The Bush administration took force off the table right away.
Imagine a President dumber than Bush.
Now imagine a President dumber than McCain. That would be Sarah Palin.
McCain will die in office if elected - even Matt Damon knows that.
Then Palin will be President. She echoed McCain's 'Let's fight the Russians' after the issue was firmly in hand by smart people: the EU headed by Sarkozy of France.
The EU made an agreement with Russia that has Russian troops withdrawing and European observers guaranteeing the peace.
C'mon folks, pay attention.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Paranoid, Delusional Rant
Sometimes I don't sleep all that well. And, the mind wanders in trying to fit a theory to the facts. So, be warned - the following has no verifiable link to reality and may cloud your mind permanently. Read at your own risk.
It was 2.45 PM on a sunny August afternoon in Washington DC as Lord Darth Cheney paced relentlessly in his shuttered and darkened room. His mind was in a turmoil. 'Fear is money. fear is money', he muttered endlessly.
'My precious, my precious, what will happen to my precious?' he sighed.
His concerns knew no bounds. The Iraq situation was becoming almost stable, just a few deaths per day. Afghanistan was old news.
'How can I get more fear? After all, my precious babies need more food. What will happen if I can't get new contracts for Blackwater, KBR and Halliburton.? I need more fear. Will my precious starve? The democrats and that BLACK Obama will win and undo all my work. Woe is me, woe is me.'
Then a thought, a bolt of inspiration: 'The Cold War! I can bring it back! Oh joy, oh joy. Even Obama can't stop a Cold War.'
A caution crept in to his mind: 'But, Russia is acting maturely and everyone else just wants to live life. How can I bring back the Cold War if no one wants it?'
The answer came in a flash: 'Perception is reality! Ah Ha! I don't have to do anything but create an illusion of Cold War. That's simple. All I need is a trigger.'
Like a bolt from the black, a call on the secure line from Tbilisi: 'Dickie, this is Saak. Just for your info, the usual rocket attacks are happening near South Ossetia. Nothing to get your panties in a bunch...'
Lord Vader, oops.....Cheney, hung up the phone and thought for a bit.
'Ya know,' he said out loud, 'it's perfect. Saak shells the Russian peacekeepers in retaliation for the rocket attacks - oops, I forgot to ask Saak where the rockets were coming from. But, it doesn't matter anyway. Rockets is rockets.
The Russians get pissed and invade Georgia to protect their citizens. Presto. Cold War. It's perfect. No one gets hurt except for a few Georgian and Russian troops and maybe some collateral damage to civilians. What a genius I am'
He calls Tblisi. "Oh, Saak, listen I know it's three in the morning there but we have a real problem. Listen I have reliable reports the Russians and Ossetians are killing and raping Georgian women and children. I can send you photos. You need to get the Ossetians now, right now. The Russians, not a problem. We got your back. NATO is behind you all the way.
No, no, don't worry about our Pres. He can't even find Georgia on a map. He'll probably just confuse your country with our state with the same name. You know, the state in the south, where "Gone with The Wind" was set. Yeah, Atlanta. You got it.
Congress? Don't worry about them, we have the Constitution so screwed up, they never will figure it out. And that's only if they find out at all, which they probably won't.
That's right, Saak baby. Go get 'em. The coast is clear.'
It was 2.45 PM on a sunny August afternoon in Washington DC as Lord Darth Cheney paced relentlessly in his shuttered and darkened room. His mind was in a turmoil. 'Fear is money. fear is money', he muttered endlessly.
'My precious, my precious, what will happen to my precious?' he sighed.
His concerns knew no bounds. The Iraq situation was becoming almost stable, just a few deaths per day. Afghanistan was old news.
'How can I get more fear? After all, my precious babies need more food. What will happen if I can't get new contracts for Blackwater, KBR and Halliburton.? I need more fear. Will my precious starve? The democrats and that BLACK Obama will win and undo all my work. Woe is me, woe is me.'
Then a thought, a bolt of inspiration: 'The Cold War! I can bring it back! Oh joy, oh joy. Even Obama can't stop a Cold War.'
A caution crept in to his mind: 'But, Russia is acting maturely and everyone else just wants to live life. How can I bring back the Cold War if no one wants it?'
The answer came in a flash: 'Perception is reality! Ah Ha! I don't have to do anything but create an illusion of Cold War. That's simple. All I need is a trigger.'
Like a bolt from the black, a call on the secure line from Tbilisi: 'Dickie, this is Saak. Just for your info, the usual rocket attacks are happening near South Ossetia. Nothing to get your panties in a bunch...'
Lord Vader, oops.....Cheney, hung up the phone and thought for a bit.
'Ya know,' he said out loud, 'it's perfect. Saak shells the Russian peacekeepers in retaliation for the rocket attacks - oops, I forgot to ask Saak where the rockets were coming from. But, it doesn't matter anyway. Rockets is rockets.
The Russians get pissed and invade Georgia to protect their citizens. Presto. Cold War. It's perfect. No one gets hurt except for a few Georgian and Russian troops and maybe some collateral damage to civilians. What a genius I am'
He calls Tblisi. "Oh, Saak, listen I know it's three in the morning there but we have a real problem. Listen I have reliable reports the Russians and Ossetians are killing and raping Georgian women and children. I can send you photos. You need to get the Ossetians now, right now. The Russians, not a problem. We got your back. NATO is behind you all the way.
No, no, don't worry about our Pres. He can't even find Georgia on a map. He'll probably just confuse your country with our state with the same name. You know, the state in the south, where "Gone with The Wind" was set. Yeah, Atlanta. You got it.
Congress? Don't worry about them, we have the Constitution so screwed up, they never will figure it out. And that's only if they find out at all, which they probably won't.
That's right, Saak baby. Go get 'em. The coast is clear.'
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Corruption in the USA - Primer
[Used with permission.]
Lobbying is a sore topic with me.
I have a seminar on "Corruption" which has dealt with it. In short- the US has legalized corruption through our lobbying "regulations."
There are 535 members of congress and many times that number of lobbyists. They in the aggregate spend several million per member each year.
In theory they represent legitimate interest groups. In practice there are very few of my interests represented!
Here is a quick example: a quote from a lobbyist explaining how the laws regulating lobbyists are worth less than the paper we wasted celebrating their passage.*
There is plenty of additional dirt on Google.
"Put it this way, legally, I could donate an unlimited amount of money to anyone I want.
I will give you a generic example, a law is in the process of taxing computers. Some environmental group is stating that the additional costs of recycling a computer is costly and that the people buying them should pay a 10% additional tax to cover the costs. They hired a lobbyist firm to make their cause and now there is a percentage of congress that is on board with this. Now we got tech firms calling us right and left (in this example). The problem is the law states that I can only donate a $5,000 or so per company. IE: The company can only donate $5,000 to a politician. But the system is so freaking backwards that when something like a tax on computers show up in congress that I could spend huge amounts of money for my lobby effort. In this example, I want to stress that this isn't happening.. it's just an example of how much money I could gather in about 8 hours if I needed it for this or that effort.
In this case, I would just inform a counterpart of this problem, and they would address their client within a day I start the ball rolling to have millions of dollars in Washington.
The key is not to have the checks come from my office, the key is to have it come from other like minded areas. So in reality, I generally call another Lobbyist that represents the firm in question.
I would get $5,000 from AOL because they want to continue to throw that 'buy AOL now icon on your desktop.
I would get another $5,000 from Intel because they want to continue to sell processors.
I would get another $5,000 from AMD because they want to continue to sell processors
I would get another $5,000 from Microsoft because they want to sell Vista.I
would get another $5,000 from Norton, because they want to sell their anti-virus stuff
I would get another $5,000 from Valve, because they want to sell video games
I would get another $5,000 from CDW, because they want to sell more products
I would get another $5,000 from Google, because they want more people to visit their site
I would get another $5,000 from Ebay, because they want more people to buy stuff from their site
I would get another $5,000 from Yahoo, because they want more people to visit their site.
I would get another $5,000 from Redhat, because they want to sell more servers
The funny thing is I didn't even get to the computer manufacturers yet
I would get another $5,000 from Dell so their product isn't taxed
I would get another $5,000 from HP so their product isn't taxed
I would get another $5,000 from Apple so their product isn't taxed
I would get another $5,000 from local firm ABZ so their product isn't taxed
I would get another $5,000 from regional firm ACB so their product isn't taxed
When all is said and done, my 8 hours of effort (1 business day) I could have anywhere between 5-10 million - all in $5,000 dollar donations from all the industries and firms that touch the PC."
--
Professor Bruce W. Bean
Lecturer in Global Corporate Law
September 2008
Lobbying is a sore topic with me.
I have a seminar on "Corruption" which has dealt with it. In short- the US has legalized corruption through our lobbying "regulations."
There are 535 members of congress and many times that number of lobbyists. They in the aggregate spend several million per member each year.
In theory they represent legitimate interest groups. In practice there are very few of my interests represented!
Here is a quick example: a quote from a lobbyist explaining how the laws regulating lobbyists are worth less than the paper we wasted celebrating their passage.*
There is plenty of additional dirt on Google.
"Put it this way, legally, I could donate an unlimited amount of money to anyone I want.
I will give you a generic example, a law is in the process of taxing computers. Some environmental group is stating that the additional costs of recycling a computer is costly and that the people buying them should pay a 10% additional tax to cover the costs. They hired a lobbyist firm to make their cause and now there is a percentage of congress that is on board with this. Now we got tech firms calling us right and left (in this example). The problem is the law states that I can only donate a $5,000 or so per company. IE: The company can only donate $5,000 to a politician. But the system is so freaking backwards that when something like a tax on computers show up in congress that I could spend huge amounts of money for my lobby effort. In this example, I want to stress that this isn't happening.. it's just an example of how much money I could gather in about 8 hours if I needed it for this or that effort.
In this case, I would just inform a counterpart of this problem, and they would address their client within a day I start the ball rolling to have millions of dollars in Washington.
The key is not to have the checks come from my office, the key is to have it come from other like minded areas. So in reality, I generally call another Lobbyist that represents the firm in question.
I would get $5,000 from AOL because they want to continue to throw that 'buy AOL now icon on your desktop.
I would get another $5,000 from Intel because they want to continue to sell processors.
I would get another $5,000 from AMD because they want to continue to sell processors
I would get another $5,000 from Microsoft because they want to sell Vista.I
would get another $5,000 from Norton, because they want to sell their anti-virus stuff
I would get another $5,000 from Valve, because they want to sell video games
I would get another $5,000 from CDW, because they want to sell more products
I would get another $5,000 from Google, because they want more people to visit their site
I would get another $5,000 from Ebay, because they want more people to buy stuff from their site
I would get another $5,000 from Yahoo, because they want more people to visit their site.
I would get another $5,000 from Redhat, because they want to sell more servers
The funny thing is I didn't even get to the computer manufacturers yet
I would get another $5,000 from Dell so their product isn't taxed
I would get another $5,000 from HP so their product isn't taxed
I would get another $5,000 from Apple so their product isn't taxed
I would get another $5,000 from local firm ABZ so their product isn't taxed
I would get another $5,000 from regional firm ACB so their product isn't taxed
When all is said and done, my 8 hours of effort (1 business day) I could have anywhere between 5-10 million - all in $5,000 dollar donations from all the industries and firms that touch the PC."
--
Professor Bruce W. Bean
Lecturer in Global Corporate Law
September 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Swagger, Democrats
We are leading and we will win.
We are kicking ass and taking names.
Many Democrats are women who have been scorned by Republicans.
We have long memories.
We are coming for you, IF:
You are Enron and laughed about stealing from little old ladies by manipulating the energy markets. Where is Ken Lay now?
You are oil company directors who bribe congressmen and candidates for tax breaks, then use the money to buy back stock instead of investing in energy alternatives.
You are doctors who scam Medicare for profit.
You are investment bankers who packaged bad loans with good loans and lied about it, thus killing the mortgage market and creating a housing depression.
You are an industrial polluter who relies on Bush appointees and other crooked administrators to look the other way when you break the law.
You are members of Congress who sent our troops in harm's way with inadequate equipment.
You torture or approve torture including waterboarding in the name of the United States of America.
You falsify or distort election returns.
You are anyone who pillages our grandchildren's future for personal profit.
If you recognize yourself above, it is time to get religion or get out.
Bush will be there until January, then we will be looking for change.
We are kicking ass and taking names.
Many Democrats are women who have been scorned by Republicans.
We have long memories.
We are coming for you, IF:
You are Enron and laughed about stealing from little old ladies by manipulating the energy markets. Where is Ken Lay now?
You are oil company directors who bribe congressmen and candidates for tax breaks, then use the money to buy back stock instead of investing in energy alternatives.
You are doctors who scam Medicare for profit.
You are investment bankers who packaged bad loans with good loans and lied about it, thus killing the mortgage market and creating a housing depression.
You are an industrial polluter who relies on Bush appointees and other crooked administrators to look the other way when you break the law.
You are members of Congress who sent our troops in harm's way with inadequate equipment.
You torture or approve torture including waterboarding in the name of the United States of America.
You falsify or distort election returns.
You are anyone who pillages our grandchildren's future for personal profit.
If you recognize yourself above, it is time to get religion or get out.
Bush will be there until January, then we will be looking for change.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Russia
Obama should begin talking with Putin and Medvedev now.
Putin has promised, according to an article by Vladimir Socor, that there will be more problems.
[http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6624&Itemid=67]
Cheney and McCain are sure to make the situation in Europe worse.
What will Obama do?
Let's see a coherent Europe policy that leaves Russia baiting out, focuses on diplomacy and avoids war.
Obama's statement:
www.barackobama.com
Statement from Senator Obama on Russia's Decision
to Recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Independent States
August 26, 2008
Chicago, IL -- "I condemn Russia's decision to
recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as
independent states and call upon all countries of
the world not to accord any legitimacy to this action.
"The United States should call for a meeting of
the United Nations Security Council to condemn
Russia's decision in coordination with our
European allies. The U.S. should lead within the
UN and other international forums to cast a clear
and unrelenting light on the decision, and to
further isolate Russia internationally because of
its actions. The OSCE must also send a serious monitoring group to Georgia.
"Georgia's economic recovery is an urgent
strategic priority that demands the focused
attention of the United States and our allies.
That is why Senator Biden and I have called for
$1 billion in reconstruction assistance to help
the people of Georgia in this time of great
trial. I also welcome NATO's decision to
establish a NATO-Georgia Commission and applaud
the new French and German initiatives to continue
work on these issues within the EU. The Bush
Administration should call for a US-EU-Georgia
summit in September that focuses on strategies
for preserving Georgia's territorial integrity
and advancing its economic recovery.
"Russia's government must respect the territorial
integrity and sovereignty of Georgia and other
independent states. Its refusal to do so calls
into question its commitment to the
responsibilities of membership to organizations
such as the OCSE and the Russia-NATO Council, its
application to join the WTO and the OECD, and
makes it impossible for Congress to enact the
civil nuclear agreement. If Russia's government
continues to violate the norms and practices of
the international community, the United States
and our allies must review all aspects of relations with Russia.
"Let us be clear, no one wants to see another
Cold War with Russia. The United States and
Russia have many mutual interests, and Russia has
the potential to become a critical stakeholder in
the international system. But Russia's recent
choices --not American or European decisions --
are threatening this potential and reminding us
all that peace and security in Europe cannot be
taken for granted," said Senator Barack Obama.
DMITRY MEDVEDEV on CNN:
'I have talked about this more than once. We will be ready to work with any American administration that the American people choose. We believe that the most important thing is that the new leaders of the US be guided by the real interests of the American people rather some farfetched ideological scheme. And if this does indeed happen, then I am sure that we will be in a position to reach an agreement on the very widest range of issues. We want to avoid any controversies and we would like to avoid a new edition of the Cold War. We would like to have full-value constructive relationships with our western partners including with the US. But to do so we need a dose of pragmatism and mutual respect.....
As to the missile defense problem, of course we
do not like to see new missile bases and radar
stations being built along our borders. We have
repeatedly stated our displeasure on this
account. But nevertheless, we never interrupted
the negotiating process, we are ready to continue
exchanges on this difficult problem. The issue is
the explanation that was given to us when we
asked why such bases are needed, why these radar
stations and missile bases are being built. They
told us they are designed to confront the threat
posed by rogue states, but than you have to prove
that. Meanwhile, our perception is that all these
weapon systems are being created around our
borders to put further pressure on Russia. We
don?t like this but nevertheless we are quietly
and constructively engaging in dialogue on this topic.'
Putin has promised, according to an article by Vladimir Socor, that there will be more problems.
[http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6624&Itemid=67]
Cheney and McCain are sure to make the situation in Europe worse.
What will Obama do?
Let's see a coherent Europe policy that leaves Russia baiting out, focuses on diplomacy and avoids war.
Obama's statement:
www.barackobama.com
Statement from Senator Obama on Russia's Decision
to Recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as Independent States
August 26, 2008
Chicago, IL -- "I condemn Russia's decision to
recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as
independent states and call upon all countries of
the world not to accord any legitimacy to this action.
"The United States should call for a meeting of
the United Nations Security Council to condemn
Russia's decision in coordination with our
European allies. The U.S. should lead within the
UN and other international forums to cast a clear
and unrelenting light on the decision, and to
further isolate Russia internationally because of
its actions. The OSCE must also send a serious monitoring group to Georgia.
"Georgia's economic recovery is an urgent
strategic priority that demands the focused
attention of the United States and our allies.
That is why Senator Biden and I have called for
$1 billion in reconstruction assistance to help
the people of Georgia in this time of great
trial. I also welcome NATO's decision to
establish a NATO-Georgia Commission and applaud
the new French and German initiatives to continue
work on these issues within the EU. The Bush
Administration should call for a US-EU-Georgia
summit in September that focuses on strategies
for preserving Georgia's territorial integrity
and advancing its economic recovery.
"Russia's government must respect the territorial
integrity and sovereignty of Georgia and other
independent states. Its refusal to do so calls
into question its commitment to the
responsibilities of membership to organizations
such as the OCSE and the Russia-NATO Council, its
application to join the WTO and the OECD, and
makes it impossible for Congress to enact the
civil nuclear agreement. If Russia's government
continues to violate the norms and practices of
the international community, the United States
and our allies must review all aspects of relations with Russia.
"Let us be clear, no one wants to see another
Cold War with Russia. The United States and
Russia have many mutual interests, and Russia has
the potential to become a critical stakeholder in
the international system. But Russia's recent
choices --not American or European decisions --
are threatening this potential and reminding us
all that peace and security in Europe cannot be
taken for granted," said Senator Barack Obama.
DMITRY MEDVEDEV on CNN:
'I have talked about this more than once. We will be ready to work with any American administration that the American people choose. We believe that the most important thing is that the new leaders of the US be guided by the real interests of the American people rather some farfetched ideological scheme. And if this does indeed happen, then I am sure that we will be in a position to reach an agreement on the very widest range of issues. We want to avoid any controversies and we would like to avoid a new edition of the Cold War. We would like to have full-value constructive relationships with our western partners including with the US. But to do so we need a dose of pragmatism and mutual respect.....
As to the missile defense problem, of course we
do not like to see new missile bases and radar
stations being built along our borders. We have
repeatedly stated our displeasure on this
account. But nevertheless, we never interrupted
the negotiating process, we are ready to continue
exchanges on this difficult problem. The issue is
the explanation that was given to us when we
asked why such bases are needed, why these radar
stations and missile bases are being built. They
told us they are designed to confront the threat
posed by rogue states, but than you have to prove
that. Meanwhile, our perception is that all these
weapon systems are being created around our
borders to put further pressure on Russia. We
don?t like this but nevertheless we are quietly
and constructively engaging in dialogue on this topic.'
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Next For Obama
It's a horse race.
Recommendation: Confront McCain on his American beliefs.
For example, McCain thinks the market should solve social issues - let the strong survive.
But, America is a compassionate country, we believe in taking responsibility for all our people. We don't let the weak die from neglect.
That's why the Marines leave no one on the battlefield.
It's the American thing to do.
Recommendation: Confront McCain on his American beliefs.
For example, McCain thinks the market should solve social issues - let the strong survive.
But, America is a compassionate country, we believe in taking responsibility for all our people. We don't let the weak die from neglect.
That's why the Marines leave no one on the battlefield.
It's the American thing to do.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Cheney/Bush: Please Shut Up Now
You are lame ducks.
Sadly, some people may actually believe you. Then, other people will die.
Take a vacation from now until next March, in God's name.
Medvedev outlines six principles to normalize situation in Georgia
1449 GMT
MOSCOW. Aug 12 (Interfax) - The Russian and French presidents have adopted a joint statement calling on the parties to the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict not to use force and stop all military actions.
The statement outlines six principles to settle the conflict, and the two presidents urged the conflicting parties to follow them, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said at a press conference in Moscow.
"First, they must not resort to force. Second, they absolutely stop any military actions. Third, there must be free access to humanitarian aid. Fourth, the Georgian armed forces need to be returned to their permanent bases. Fifth, the Russian armed forces will be moved back to their positions before the military actions. Sixth, the beginning of international discussion of South Ossetia's and Abkhazia's future status and ways to ensure their stable security," Medvedev said.
Sadly, some people may actually believe you. Then, other people will die.
Take a vacation from now until next March, in God's name.
Medvedev outlines six principles to normalize situation in Georgia
1449 GMT
MOSCOW. Aug 12 (Interfax) - The Russian and French presidents have adopted a joint statement calling on the parties to the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict not to use force and stop all military actions.
The statement outlines six principles to settle the conflict, and the two presidents urged the conflicting parties to follow them, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said at a press conference in Moscow.
"First, they must not resort to force. Second, they absolutely stop any military actions. Third, there must be free access to humanitarian aid. Fourth, the Georgian armed forces need to be returned to their permanent bases. Fifth, the Russian armed forces will be moved back to their positions before the military actions. Sixth, the beginning of international discussion of South Ossetia's and Abkhazia's future status and ways to ensure their stable security," Medvedev said.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Advice to Obama: Attack - Don't Be Kerry
John Kerry focused on not losing because voters did not like Bush.
He did not attack.
Sound familiar? read this piece:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-chait31-2008jul31,0,6008771.story
He did not attack.
Sound familiar? read this piece:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-chait31-2008jul31,0,6008771.story
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
McCain Economic Advisor = Neocon
Same old, same old. Bush Redux.
McCain economics represents the classic management philosophy of failed companies: 'If it does not work, do more of it.'
Fresh Air from WHYY, July 24, 2008
Douglas Holtz-Eakin: The Man Behind McCain's Economic Plan
Douglas Holtz-Eakin has previously argued that keeping taxes low and health care costs down are instrumental to reviving the economy.
Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin is the senior economic adviser for John McCain. Prior to working with the presidential candidate, Holtz-Eakin served as director of the Congressional Budget Office. He held positions on the President's Council of Economic Advisers during the administrations of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.
At present, Holtz-Eakin is a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. See at: http://www.iie.com/
McCain economics represents the classic management philosophy of failed companies: 'If it does not work, do more of it.'
Fresh Air from WHYY, July 24, 2008
Douglas Holtz-Eakin: The Man Behind McCain's Economic Plan
Douglas Holtz-Eakin has previously argued that keeping taxes low and health care costs down are instrumental to reviving the economy.
Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin is the senior economic adviser for John McCain. Prior to working with the presidential candidate, Holtz-Eakin served as director of the Congressional Budget Office. He held positions on the President's Council of Economic Advisers during the administrations of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.
At present, Holtz-Eakin is a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. See at: http://www.iie.com/
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Two More Banks Fail
Is this the beginning of a deluge??
Let us hope not.
Let us ask the FED to do more.
Let us hope not.
Let us ask the FED to do more.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
900 Banks in Trouble
'Every day in every way, things are getting better and better", probably misquoted from Candide by Voltaire.
The Fed says that 90 banks are in trouble. Independent observers say that the correct total is closer to 900.
Another stink bomb from Phil Gramm.
To repeat the call:
The FED has to be more proactive in bank regulation.
Failure to do so now will damage the national security of the United States.
The Fed says that 90 banks are in trouble. Independent observers say that the correct total is closer to 900.
Another stink bomb from Phil Gramm.
To repeat the call:
The FED has to be more proactive in bank regulation.
Failure to do so now will damage the national security of the United States.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Gramm Gone - Huzzah!!
Gramm resigns.
That's the good news.
The troubling background is that there are many mini-Gramms lurking around the Republicans.
'The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.'
That's the good news.
The troubling background is that there are many mini-Gramms lurking around the Republicans.
'The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.'
Thursday, July 17, 2008
McCain = Gramm = Enron/Indy Mac
Just in case there was a doubt, Robert Scheer connects the dots in his column 'How about tough love for the bankers?' [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/16/EDEP11PPMN.DTL&hw=scheer&sn=002&sc=571]
Phil Gramm advises McCain on economic policy. Phil Gramm was the moving force behind the banking deregulation that gave us the housing melt down and the Enron debacle, so far.
With McCain in the Oval Office, we will see more Enron's and Indy Mac's.
BTW: recent reports suggest that more than 100 US banks are in trouble. As economists know, the banking system is a critical part of the domestic money supply and, by implication, the entire US and world economy.
It is time for the FED to get off its chair and act to secure our money supply from stupid and or crooked bankers.
It is in our national interest.
Phil Gramm advises McCain on economic policy. Phil Gramm was the moving force behind the banking deregulation that gave us the housing melt down and the Enron debacle, so far.
With McCain in the Oval Office, we will see more Enron's and Indy Mac's.
BTW: recent reports suggest that more than 100 US banks are in trouble. As economists know, the banking system is a critical part of the domestic money supply and, by implication, the entire US and world economy.
It is time for the FED to get off its chair and act to secure our money supply from stupid and or crooked bankers.
It is in our national interest.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Oil Shock Inflation
Seems what we have is a classic cost-push inflation.
Trouble is that monetary policy does not work well to contain cost-push inflation.
Resolution is simple: the FED should let the oil shock work through the economy and not raise interest rates to control price increases.
Seems to me that the Fed is a tad overly concerned about inflation and a great deal under concerned about jobs. A little inflation can result in more jobs.
C'mon Ben, give us some jobs. Prices are going up anyway; at least with a job we can buy food.
Trouble is that monetary policy does not work well to contain cost-push inflation.
Resolution is simple: the FED should let the oil shock work through the economy and not raise interest rates to control price increases.
Seems to me that the Fed is a tad overly concerned about inflation and a great deal under concerned about jobs. A little inflation can result in more jobs.
C'mon Ben, give us some jobs. Prices are going up anyway; at least with a job we can buy food.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Mini-Bush McCain
McCain's recent hiring of Bush's campaign manager creates a need and an opportunity to tie him closely to Bush in the strongest language.
The need is because we can expect Bush-like campaign tactics and policies from McCain in the future - unethical, negative, untrue and perhaps effective.
It is an opportunity because a large part of the voting public really wants no more of Bush.
For example - McCain is a fine American and a genuine hero. But, he wants to win so badly that he has made a deal with the Bush/Rove campaign organization. We can expect more swiftboat tactics; and, a possible repeat against Obama of a similar accusation against McCain that he fathered a black child.
Because McCain is doing poorly in the polls he will probably seek the most divisive form of campaigning possible. He will also studiously disavow any questionable tactics while directing and approving them.
Part of his deal will probably be a sell out to corporate interests. So, with a president McCain we will get more of the Enron/Halliburton forces who have ruined the country.
Instead of peace, with a president McCain we will get more torture and more death - all in the name of national security.
Instead of cooperation with nations we will see our country continue to be the international pariah instead of the beacon of hope that it can be.
We will see more free trade agreements that have killed millions of American jobs and created vast overseas slums where people work on starvation wages.
We will continue reliance on oil as our primary energy source. And, we will continue to send US armed forces to act as handmaidens for the oil companies wherever there may be oil reserves.
The list is endless. But, Obama's campaign must make the links explicit and direct. The voting public has a limited attention span - they need to be reminded every day of the disaster that awaits a Bush/McCain presidency.
For example: 'There is a mortgage crisis and people are hurting. A McCain administration will make it worse because he will sell out to the banking interests instead of helping homeowners.'
It would be wonderful to take the high road, but McCain has chosen the low road by his choice of staff.
Reminds me of a misquote that may have some application: 'Yea, though I walk through the shadow of the Valley of Death, I have no fear because I am the meanest SOB in the valley.'
The need is because we can expect Bush-like campaign tactics and policies from McCain in the future - unethical, negative, untrue and perhaps effective.
It is an opportunity because a large part of the voting public really wants no more of Bush.
For example - McCain is a fine American and a genuine hero. But, he wants to win so badly that he has made a deal with the Bush/Rove campaign organization. We can expect more swiftboat tactics; and, a possible repeat against Obama of a similar accusation against McCain that he fathered a black child.
Because McCain is doing poorly in the polls he will probably seek the most divisive form of campaigning possible. He will also studiously disavow any questionable tactics while directing and approving them.
Part of his deal will probably be a sell out to corporate interests. So, with a president McCain we will get more of the Enron/Halliburton forces who have ruined the country.
Instead of peace, with a president McCain we will get more torture and more death - all in the name of national security.
Instead of cooperation with nations we will see our country continue to be the international pariah instead of the beacon of hope that it can be.
We will see more free trade agreements that have killed millions of American jobs and created vast overseas slums where people work on starvation wages.
We will continue reliance on oil as our primary energy source. And, we will continue to send US armed forces to act as handmaidens for the oil companies wherever there may be oil reserves.
The list is endless. But, Obama's campaign must make the links explicit and direct. The voting public has a limited attention span - they need to be reminded every day of the disaster that awaits a Bush/McCain presidency.
For example: 'There is a mortgage crisis and people are hurting. A McCain administration will make it worse because he will sell out to the banking interests instead of helping homeowners.'
It would be wonderful to take the high road, but McCain has chosen the low road by his choice of staff.
Reminds me of a misquote that may have some application: 'Yea, though I walk through the shadow of the Valley of Death, I have no fear because I am the meanest SOB in the valley.'
Monday, June 16, 2008
Obama Anti-Business?
There is a fear - with some justification - among the business community that an Obama presidency with a Democratic Congress will result in more regulation and anti-business laws.
Business interests should ABSOLUTELY NOT be concerned about Obama's business stance.
Here's why: Businesses create jobs and we need more jobs in our country. That means that we need businesses to do well.
In order for businesses to do well markets must function effectively and fairly. To function effectively, markets require stability, transparency and fairness. And, to get better levels of those qualities, markets require effective regulation.
It is no secret that the past eight years has seen a tilting of markets in favor of established interests, away from effective regulation and toward harming the less powerful.
The USA needs to restore a more fair balance of interests in markets. After all, if consumers and investors do not trust businesses - and the polls show that is the case today - then businesses will do less well.
Bottom line is this: businesses need consumers who can afford to buy products.
Business interests should applaud and support any Obama initiatives which level the playing field and provide more stable market environments. It is in their self-interest to do so.
Business interests should ABSOLUTELY NOT be concerned about Obama's business stance.
Here's why: Businesses create jobs and we need more jobs in our country. That means that we need businesses to do well.
In order for businesses to do well markets must function effectively and fairly. To function effectively, markets require stability, transparency and fairness. And, to get better levels of those qualities, markets require effective regulation.
It is no secret that the past eight years has seen a tilting of markets in favor of established interests, away from effective regulation and toward harming the less powerful.
The USA needs to restore a more fair balance of interests in markets. After all, if consumers and investors do not trust businesses - and the polls show that is the case today - then businesses will do less well.
Bottom line is this: businesses need consumers who can afford to buy products.
Business interests should applaud and support any Obama initiatives which level the playing field and provide more stable market environments. It is in their self-interest to do so.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Economic Claptrap from McCain
McCain says he does not understand economics.
When you're right, you're right................
Here is a political response to Cainomics.
The McCain campaign fills the air with pretentious nonsense about economics and they do so very aggressively. Obama's best response is to be even more aggressive, but with logic and compassion.
Here are some examples:
1. Cainomics suggests that businesses need more profits to create more jobs. So, taxes on business must be cut or we will lose jobs.
Response: Confusing claptrap. Businesses hire more people only when they expect more sales. If profits go up with no expectation of sales increases, business owners take a vacation or buy a boat. Cutting taxes on business encourages more consumption by business owners - it does not create jobs.
What it really does is to transfer wealth from working people to business owners.
2. Cainomics states that business tax rates are about the highest in the world.
Response: That's true, but only if you consider corporations. If you consider small, unincorporated businesses, US tax rates are about average.
Also, since most jobs come from small businesses, the corporate tax rate has little or nothing to do with job creation.
Here's a proposal - let's cut the corporate, federal tax rate by 5% [to 30%] but in exchange, corporations agree to give up tax treatment that encourages job outsourcing and transferring assets to shell corporation in the Cayman Islands and Vanuatu.
3. Cainomics states that Obama will raise taxes on all people.
Response: This is a flat lie and an embarrassment from a national hero. Come on John - you're better than that.
4. Cainomics states that the economy is fine and that the Bush policies of tax cuts for the rich are working.
Response: They are working to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The average family is in trouble and Bush tax cuts are making them worse off, not better.
75 million people in this country have no health insurance or inadequate health insurance. They don't dare get sick - they are an illness away from financial disaster. That's 42% of the population between the ages of 30 and 65.
5. Cainomics states that regulating business is a failed policy that we have tried before and that did not work.
Response: Wrong.
Fact: Most high growth economies, including the USA, have extensive business regulation.
Fact: Unregulated markets were tried until 1932 when the lack of regulation created the Great Depression. Since then, every country, including the USA, has regulated markets extensively.
Fact: Unregulated free markets always create monopolies and greater income disparities - the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
6. Cainomics states that since savings creates the pool of capital businesses need to invest, any tax increase will reduce savings and reduce job creation.
Response: Pure claptrap.
Fact: Most capital creation occurs in corporations today, not from individual savings.
Fact: The capital pool is growing and readily available to sound business expansion.
Fact: Businesses get capital from a world wide pool of banks, venture capitalists, and wealthy individuals. Changing laws in the USA does not affect the world's capital markets significantly.
When you're right, you're right................
Here is a political response to Cainomics.
The McCain campaign fills the air with pretentious nonsense about economics and they do so very aggressively. Obama's best response is to be even more aggressive, but with logic and compassion.
Here are some examples:
1. Cainomics suggests that businesses need more profits to create more jobs. So, taxes on business must be cut or we will lose jobs.
Response: Confusing claptrap. Businesses hire more people only when they expect more sales. If profits go up with no expectation of sales increases, business owners take a vacation or buy a boat. Cutting taxes on business encourages more consumption by business owners - it does not create jobs.
What it really does is to transfer wealth from working people to business owners.
2. Cainomics states that business tax rates are about the highest in the world.
Response: That's true, but only if you consider corporations. If you consider small, unincorporated businesses, US tax rates are about average.
Also, since most jobs come from small businesses, the corporate tax rate has little or nothing to do with job creation.
Here's a proposal - let's cut the corporate, federal tax rate by 5% [to 30%] but in exchange, corporations agree to give up tax treatment that encourages job outsourcing and transferring assets to shell corporation in the Cayman Islands and Vanuatu.
3. Cainomics states that Obama will raise taxes on all people.
Response: This is a flat lie and an embarrassment from a national hero. Come on John - you're better than that.
4. Cainomics states that the economy is fine and that the Bush policies of tax cuts for the rich are working.
Response: They are working to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The average family is in trouble and Bush tax cuts are making them worse off, not better.
75 million people in this country have no health insurance or inadequate health insurance. They don't dare get sick - they are an illness away from financial disaster. That's 42% of the population between the ages of 30 and 65.
5. Cainomics states that regulating business is a failed policy that we have tried before and that did not work.
Response: Wrong.
Fact: Most high growth economies, including the USA, have extensive business regulation.
Fact: Unregulated markets were tried until 1932 when the lack of regulation created the Great Depression. Since then, every country, including the USA, has regulated markets extensively.
Fact: Unregulated free markets always create monopolies and greater income disparities - the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
6. Cainomics states that since savings creates the pool of capital businesses need to invest, any tax increase will reduce savings and reduce job creation.
Response: Pure claptrap.
Fact: Most capital creation occurs in corporations today, not from individual savings.
Fact: The capital pool is growing and readily available to sound business expansion.
Fact: Businesses get capital from a world wide pool of banks, venture capitalists, and wealthy individuals. Changing laws in the USA does not affect the world's capital markets significantly.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Class Act
I wanted you to be one of the first to know: on Saturday, I will hold an event in Washington D.C. to thank everyone who has supported my campaign. Over the course of the last 16 months, I have been privileged and touched to witness the incredible dedication and sacrifice of so many people working for our campaign. Every minute you put into helping us win, every dollar you gave to keep up the fight meant more to me than I can ever possibly tell you.
On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.
I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.
When I decided to run for president, I knew exactly why I was getting into this race: to work hard every day for the millions of Americans who need a voice in the White House.
I made you -- and everyone who supported me -- a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I'm going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.
I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.
I know as I continue my lifelong work for a stronger America and a better world, I will turn to you for the support, the strength, and the commitment that you have shown me in the past 16 months. And I will always keep faith with the issues and causes that are important to you.
In the past few days, you have shown that support once again with hundreds of thousands of messages to the campaign, and again, I am touched by your thoughtfulness and kindness.
I can never possibly express my gratitude, so let me say simply, thank you.
Sincerely,
Hillary Clinton
On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.
I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.
When I decided to run for president, I knew exactly why I was getting into this race: to work hard every day for the millions of Americans who need a voice in the White House.
I made you -- and everyone who supported me -- a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I'm going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.
I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.
I know as I continue my lifelong work for a stronger America and a better world, I will turn to you for the support, the strength, and the commitment that you have shown me in the past 16 months. And I will always keep faith with the issues and causes that are important to you.
In the past few days, you have shown that support once again with hundreds of thousands of messages to the campaign, and again, I am touched by your thoughtfulness and kindness.
I can never possibly express my gratitude, so let me say simply, thank you.
Sincerely,
Hillary Clinton
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
What Should Hillary Do?
Hillary asks: What should I do?
OK, I am game - here goes.
1. The country needs a Dem as President and it will be Obama.
2. McCain will not be easy - Obama needs all the help you can give.
3. Yes, you received 18 million votes, but they were for the country more than for you.
4. Do NOT cause a floor fight in Denver.
5. DO - get a say in policy - the country needs that from you.
6. VP - not VP - makes no difference - serve your country by vetting ALL Obama's policies.
7. Do - bring your core to the party: older voters, hispanics, working whites, etc. Make Obama's case to them and win the election. Obama cannot do it without you.
8. May God save the United States of America.
OK, I am game - here goes.
1. The country needs a Dem as President and it will be Obama.
2. McCain will not be easy - Obama needs all the help you can give.
3. Yes, you received 18 million votes, but they were for the country more than for you.
4. Do NOT cause a floor fight in Denver.
5. DO - get a say in policy - the country needs that from you.
6. VP - not VP - makes no difference - serve your country by vetting ALL Obama's policies.
7. Do - bring your core to the party: older voters, hispanics, working whites, etc. Make Obama's case to them and win the election. Obama cannot do it without you.
8. May God save the United States of America.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Let's All Be Adequate
What do we all need?
After election - and perhaps as part of the general election campaign - the country needs competence in government.
The Bush legacy is incompetent cronies who systematically encourage law evasion.
The new administration really needs to restore simple competence in governing. As a citizen and taxpayer. I expect at least that from my government.
Let's have a holiday from new laws and just get everything working again.
Markets do a lot of things well, but markets require effective regulation to function best.
The mortgage meltdown is a regulation/Bush failure and not a market malfunction.
Let's fix the problems.
After election - and perhaps as part of the general election campaign - the country needs competence in government.
The Bush legacy is incompetent cronies who systematically encourage law evasion.
The new administration really needs to restore simple competence in governing. As a citizen and taxpayer. I expect at least that from my government.
Let's have a holiday from new laws and just get everything working again.
Markets do a lot of things well, but markets require effective regulation to function best.
The mortgage meltdown is a regulation/Bush failure and not a market malfunction.
Let's fix the problems.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Hillary: Policy Attorney
Assuming Obama's nomination, what's best for the country?
We need a tighter campaign from Obama. He needs to go after Hispanics, women, working whites and the Ozarks aggressively and he needs all our help. He should not write them off, or many may vote for McCain.
Second, he needs some guidance on policy matters. He has demonstrated a tendency to shoot from the hip on critical questions.
If he is elected, then the policy guidance will be central to our country's future.
Hillary is great in policy questions.
Here's an idea: make Hillary Clinton the policy attorney in an Obama campaign and administration. Maybe V.P., maybe not.
Good entrepreneurs never ask an attorney what to do, but they do ask an attorney to make sure that their actions are mostly legal.
Don't know about you, but I would sleep better with that in place.
We need a tighter campaign from Obama. He needs to go after Hispanics, women, working whites and the Ozarks aggressively and he needs all our help. He should not write them off, or many may vote for McCain.
Second, he needs some guidance on policy matters. He has demonstrated a tendency to shoot from the hip on critical questions.
If he is elected, then the policy guidance will be central to our country's future.
Hillary is great in policy questions.
Here's an idea: make Hillary Clinton the policy attorney in an Obama campaign and administration. Maybe V.P., maybe not.
Good entrepreneurs never ask an attorney what to do, but they do ask an attorney to make sure that their actions are mostly legal.
Don't know about you, but I would sleep better with that in place.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Takin' It To The Streets
In North Carolina the senator gives a speech that connects with most Americans. He reaches beyond his base to go after McCain.
See transcript here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/06/AR2008050603099.html
Please keep it up.
See transcript here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/06/AR2008050603099.html
Please keep it up.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
The (W)Right Race
With friends like these, who needs enemies??
Here is the problem for us all: McCain is a political idiot who will carry forward the Shrub's policy disasters. This is despite his strong personal integrity.
To Obama: you are probably the Dem nominee, but you have a fatal flaw: you seem unable to connect with most real Americans. Race, elite education, apparent discomfort around average people - whatever the cause, you need to correct the impression so McCain does not win.
Here's how: you are a constitutional scholar, so talk about how great the Constitution is, what geniuses were the framers. Piece of cake.
Talk about how you love the country - at every forum. Swallow the criticisms for a time and kiss the Statue of Liberty metaphorically.
Treat your reverend like a deep pile of sewage - there may be something at the bottom, but you don't want to find out.
Play one-on-one with a Chicago Bull. Laugh while you lose your shorts.
Go to Cubs games, sit in the bleachers and drink a beer. Boo the umpires.
Enjoy the perks, for God's sake.
Talk about who is better: Jefferson/Adams/Washington or Lincoln/FDR/Teddy R.
Talk about the American idea and what it means to you - just like a friggin' middle school essay. Won't kill you.
You can NOT rely on policy to get you out of this.
We all need you to get this, or we are in deep.
Here is the problem for us all: McCain is a political idiot who will carry forward the Shrub's policy disasters. This is despite his strong personal integrity.
To Obama: you are probably the Dem nominee, but you have a fatal flaw: you seem unable to connect with most real Americans. Race, elite education, apparent discomfort around average people - whatever the cause, you need to correct the impression so McCain does not win.
Here's how: you are a constitutional scholar, so talk about how great the Constitution is, what geniuses were the framers. Piece of cake.
Talk about how you love the country - at every forum. Swallow the criticisms for a time and kiss the Statue of Liberty metaphorically.
Treat your reverend like a deep pile of sewage - there may be something at the bottom, but you don't want to find out.
Play one-on-one with a Chicago Bull. Laugh while you lose your shorts.
Go to Cubs games, sit in the bleachers and drink a beer. Boo the umpires.
Enjoy the perks, for God's sake.
Talk about who is better: Jefferson/Adams/Washington or Lincoln/FDR/Teddy R.
Talk about the American idea and what it means to you - just like a friggin' middle school essay. Won't kill you.
You can NOT rely on policy to get you out of this.
We all need you to get this, or we are in deep.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Pennsylvania
At this writing Hillary is declared the winner by somewhere between 5% and 10% and the baby wild bunny we call Baby is outside in a gentle rain shower, confused that his favorite spot is wet.
Good for Hillary, but what will the Supers do?
So far Obama can't deliver the win. He outspent her at least 2 to 1 and lost. Hillary has won all the big states we need to take the White House.
He seems unable to connect with the rank and file and older women and he will have to do that to beat McCain. Hillary already does both. But, it looks like he will be the nominee.
Let us hope that Dem chiefs figure out how to tighten up the Obama campaign before Mccain wins.
How do we make him appeal to the Dem base??
Anyone...................
Good for Hillary, but what will the Supers do?
So far Obama can't deliver the win. He outspent her at least 2 to 1 and lost. Hillary has won all the big states we need to take the White House.
He seems unable to connect with the rank and file and older women and he will have to do that to beat McCain. Hillary already does both. But, it looks like he will be the nominee.
Let us hope that Dem chiefs figure out how to tighten up the Obama campaign before Mccain wins.
How do we make him appeal to the Dem base??
Anyone...................
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Democratic Convention
Last Sunday I ran for election as a delegate to the national Democratic convention.
I lost, but was truly impressed with all the candidates. There were 25 or 26 people vying for 3 spots. Any of them will do a great job.
It's good news.
I lost, but was truly impressed with all the candidates. There were 25 or 26 people vying for 3 spots. Any of them will do a great job.
It's good news.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Fixing NAFTA
Trade has raised its lovely head. So, what is the fuss all about anyway, you ask??
An objective observer who looks at trade deals will see some obvious things.
First, while some merchants who can take advantage of foreign markets are making a fortune, many of us are losing jobs to foreign companies which can make things cheaper than we can.
Second, our standard of living is going down as the costs of everything go up while our wages stay the same or go down.
Third, the same thing is happening everywhere, not just here.
Fourth, our politicians seem to be so completely mesmerized by the potential positive effects of foreign trade that they ignore what is happening to us every day.
What should we do about it?
We should ask our politicians to look out for us first. If an agreement will help the world's markets but will hurt workers in our country, then it is a bad deal and should be rejected.
It is that simple.
Look at NAFTA this way, then decide whether to keep it, change it or scrap it based on the net positive job gain to the US.
For any new trade agreements, the trade agreement proponents should be asked to calculate how many jobs will be lost and gained in the home economy from the new trade deal. If there is a positive job gain, then it's a good deal.
Can we put labor standards and environmental safeguards into trade deals so we won't be hurt?
No, we can't.
If an agreement hurts workers in our country, then it is a bad deal.
What about consumers who are able to buy cheaper goods from foreign countries than they can buy from our own companies? Won't they be hurt?
In the short run prices will go up a little. But in the not so distant future, we will all be better off because we will have more jobs and be able to afford more things.
Besides, prices are going up anyway because of the world oil crisis. Protecting jobs at home will hardly be noticed.
This is especially true in the USA because trade is still a small part of our economy. Despite what we think, products from China are only about 2% of our economy.
Why is it that so many politicians sell these deals so hard if there will be negative effects on our economy?
To fully understand the trade debate about NAFTA and the other trade agreements, we need to look at two things: Economic theory and economic reality, or the dollars lost and gained by vested interests.
Looking directly at the bottom line of economic theory we see some theories about markets and trade. These theories provide the base rationalizations for the Free Trade Agreements the US and other nations enter.
The first theory we see is called Comparative Advantage. This theory was written in about 1776 by David Ricardo. Basically it says that merchants in any country can make a profit from trading with merchants in other countries even if their costs are higher in the home country. Home country merchants will buy products made in the home country which are comparatively cheaper than other products made in the home country even though these products are more expensive than world prices; then the merchants will sell the home country products at world prices taking a loss and use the money to buy world products at world prices which they can sell in the home country at a huge profit.
So, the reasoning goes, all the merchants in the home country will specialize in making products which have the relative, comparative advantage in the home market and sell those products in world markets.
When every country's merchants do this, the consumers in all countries will be better off because the merchants in all countries who specialize will create more goods in total.
This is a really wonderful idea even if it doesn't work. It is such a wonderful idea, and also so difficult to understand, that merchants who benefit from trade use this idea to argue against any interference with their trading rights. After all, any taxes on trade (which are called tariffs) will interfere with specialization and reduce the total amount of goods and services produced in the world.
Here is an argument which promises the best of all possible worlds for everyone and is very hard to understand. Is it any wonder that people who gain from agreements based on this idea will defend them tooth and nail?
Second, the twin ideas of Free Markets and Free Trade sound so very good, they must be essentially American. Who can argue with the idea that a free market economy with free trade will bring us the best possible world? And indeed, it has already, hasn't it?
In fact, the USA does not actually have Free Markets or Free Trade. Most markets are regulated very highly today. Most of our complaints about markets happens when government regulators do a bad job, not when a market fails.
The reason for the mortgage crisis we are in now is that we loosened banking regulation on commercial banks and did not regulate the mortgage markets at all. Our crisis today is a failure of regulation, not a failure of markets.
Is there a way out of this mess?
Yes, there is. The federal government needs to manage trade so the harmful effects of trade agreements are minimized. To see how to do that, go to my essay on Balanced Trade here: http://www.mkeever.com/essay.html
For further background see: GLOBAL TRADE AND CONFLICTING NATIONAL INTEREST, Ralph E. Gomory and William J. Baumol, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 2000 ISBN -10: 0-262-07209-2
Copyright, 2008 by Mike P. McKeever, Santa Rosa, CA. This text can be posted in any electronic forum or quoted with attribution in any printed media. For publication in printed form please request permission from the author: email: mpmckeever@earthlink.net.
An objective observer who looks at trade deals will see some obvious things.
First, while some merchants who can take advantage of foreign markets are making a fortune, many of us are losing jobs to foreign companies which can make things cheaper than we can.
Second, our standard of living is going down as the costs of everything go up while our wages stay the same or go down.
Third, the same thing is happening everywhere, not just here.
Fourth, our politicians seem to be so completely mesmerized by the potential positive effects of foreign trade that they ignore what is happening to us every day.
What should we do about it?
We should ask our politicians to look out for us first. If an agreement will help the world's markets but will hurt workers in our country, then it is a bad deal and should be rejected.
It is that simple.
Look at NAFTA this way, then decide whether to keep it, change it or scrap it based on the net positive job gain to the US.
For any new trade agreements, the trade agreement proponents should be asked to calculate how many jobs will be lost and gained in the home economy from the new trade deal. If there is a positive job gain, then it's a good deal.
Can we put labor standards and environmental safeguards into trade deals so we won't be hurt?
No, we can't.
If an agreement hurts workers in our country, then it is a bad deal.
What about consumers who are able to buy cheaper goods from foreign countries than they can buy from our own companies? Won't they be hurt?
In the short run prices will go up a little. But in the not so distant future, we will all be better off because we will have more jobs and be able to afford more things.
Besides, prices are going up anyway because of the world oil crisis. Protecting jobs at home will hardly be noticed.
This is especially true in the USA because trade is still a small part of our economy. Despite what we think, products from China are only about 2% of our economy.
Why is it that so many politicians sell these deals so hard if there will be negative effects on our economy?
To fully understand the trade debate about NAFTA and the other trade agreements, we need to look at two things: Economic theory and economic reality, or the dollars lost and gained by vested interests.
Looking directly at the bottom line of economic theory we see some theories about markets and trade. These theories provide the base rationalizations for the Free Trade Agreements the US and other nations enter.
The first theory we see is called Comparative Advantage. This theory was written in about 1776 by David Ricardo. Basically it says that merchants in any country can make a profit from trading with merchants in other countries even if their costs are higher in the home country. Home country merchants will buy products made in the home country which are comparatively cheaper than other products made in the home country even though these products are more expensive than world prices; then the merchants will sell the home country products at world prices taking a loss and use the money to buy world products at world prices which they can sell in the home country at a huge profit.
So, the reasoning goes, all the merchants in the home country will specialize in making products which have the relative, comparative advantage in the home market and sell those products in world markets.
When every country's merchants do this, the consumers in all countries will be better off because the merchants in all countries who specialize will create more goods in total.
This is a really wonderful idea even if it doesn't work. It is such a wonderful idea, and also so difficult to understand, that merchants who benefit from trade use this idea to argue against any interference with their trading rights. After all, any taxes on trade (which are called tariffs) will interfere with specialization and reduce the total amount of goods and services produced in the world.
Here is an argument which promises the best of all possible worlds for everyone and is very hard to understand. Is it any wonder that people who gain from agreements based on this idea will defend them tooth and nail?
Second, the twin ideas of Free Markets and Free Trade sound so very good, they must be essentially American. Who can argue with the idea that a free market economy with free trade will bring us the best possible world? And indeed, it has already, hasn't it?
In fact, the USA does not actually have Free Markets or Free Trade. Most markets are regulated very highly today. Most of our complaints about markets happens when government regulators do a bad job, not when a market fails.
The reason for the mortgage crisis we are in now is that we loosened banking regulation on commercial banks and did not regulate the mortgage markets at all. Our crisis today is a failure of regulation, not a failure of markets.
Is there a way out of this mess?
Yes, there is. The federal government needs to manage trade so the harmful effects of trade agreements are minimized. To see how to do that, go to my essay on Balanced Trade here: http://www.mkeever.com/essay.html
For further background see: GLOBAL TRADE AND CONFLICTING NATIONAL INTEREST, Ralph E. Gomory and William J. Baumol, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 2000 ISBN -10: 0-262-07209-2
Copyright, 2008 by Mike P. McKeever, Santa Rosa, CA. This text can be posted in any electronic forum or quoted with attribution in any printed media. For publication in printed form please request permission from the author: email: mpmckeever@earthlink.net.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Pelosi: Vote Your Conscience
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the superdelegates who may ultimately decide the Democratic party's presidential nominee have a right to vote as they wish.
See article on link above
See article on link above
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Obama's Iraq Plan
Senator Obama obliges us with a speech March 19 about the war. Read the prepared transcript at the link above.
Sadly, I am underwhelmed and concerned for the future of the country.
Are there any experienced adults who vet the speeches at all?
Some of the material is just embarrassing.
Do you really want to send foreign service officers and USAID staffers to posts where they may be killed?
Has NATO consulted with you about their positions before you chastised them for inadequate action?
Memo the the Senator: We get that you opposed the war in a 2002 speech; you do not have to make an issue of it every time you address the war.
What do we do now?
Sadly, I am underwhelmed and concerned for the future of the country.
Are there any experienced adults who vet the speeches at all?
Some of the material is just embarrassing.
Do you really want to send foreign service officers and USAID staffers to posts where they may be killed?
Has NATO consulted with you about their positions before you chastised them for inadequate action?
Memo the the Senator: We get that you opposed the war in a 2002 speech; you do not have to make an issue of it every time you address the war.
What do we do now?
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Reflections about Race
So, it's good that Obama talks about race.
But, IMHO, the real question is class.
He missed a great opportunity to talk about race and class.
He chose to talk about race only.
Too bad for the USA.
But, IMHO, the real question is class.
He missed a great opportunity to talk about race and class.
He chose to talk about race only.
Too bad for the USA.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Snake Oil
Some may ask: what is the problem with Obama anyway?
Good question. Especially in the light of the race issue raised recently. As an old white guy, I am really afraid to even mention the issue. I don't say that lightly.
Watching Chris Matthews' Hard Ball discussion of Obama the other night, I was disheartened to hear the following statement from Chris, to the best of my memory:"If you don't like Obama you are racially prejudiced." I turned off the show at that point.
Here's my problem: his campaign is run at the lowest common denominator of politics. His web site asks you to believe in him on its home page. Then his campaign, very cynically in my view, promises people that he will solve all their problems without mentioning any specifics. It's a religion, not a political campaign.
Reminds me of the frontier years: 'This oil is made from genuine snake skins and is available only today - it will cure your colds, fix your cancer, stop the gout and plow the back 40. You have my personal guarantee. Only one measly dollar a bottle. Who will be the first among you?'
Senator Obama: as a nation we are at a crossroads. Either we will go down the road of increasing divisions between the government and the people or we will reverse the trends and move toward restoring the American Dream.
But, we can't move in the right direction based on hope and trust. We are Americans. We deserve answers, not platitudes.
Senator Obama: I don't care if you are black or purple with yellow stripes. I do care that you insult my intelligence and patriotism with vague promises.
Show us your concrete plans and talk about them. Your website has lots of policy proposals. Now is the time to flesh them out and name some people who will accomplish the specific tasks we need accomplished in a competent fashion.
Good question. Especially in the light of the race issue raised recently. As an old white guy, I am really afraid to even mention the issue. I don't say that lightly.
Watching Chris Matthews' Hard Ball discussion of Obama the other night, I was disheartened to hear the following statement from Chris, to the best of my memory:"If you don't like Obama you are racially prejudiced." I turned off the show at that point.
Here's my problem: his campaign is run at the lowest common denominator of politics. His web site asks you to believe in him on its home page. Then his campaign, very cynically in my view, promises people that he will solve all their problems without mentioning any specifics. It's a religion, not a political campaign.
Reminds me of the frontier years: 'This oil is made from genuine snake skins and is available only today - it will cure your colds, fix your cancer, stop the gout and plow the back 40. You have my personal guarantee. Only one measly dollar a bottle. Who will be the first among you?'
Senator Obama: as a nation we are at a crossroads. Either we will go down the road of increasing divisions between the government and the people or we will reverse the trends and move toward restoring the American Dream.
But, we can't move in the right direction based on hope and trust. We are Americans. We deserve answers, not platitudes.
Senator Obama: I don't care if you are black or purple with yellow stripes. I do care that you insult my intelligence and patriotism with vague promises.
Show us your concrete plans and talk about them. Your website has lots of policy proposals. Now is the time to flesh them out and name some people who will accomplish the specific tasks we need accomplished in a competent fashion.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Veeps Away
Here's the Dem problem: Hillary and Obama have voting blocs of about the same size, even though the blocs are very different.
To drastically oversimplify: Hillary's bloc is based on white women, blue collar and Latino voters while Obama's is based on blacks, upper middle class and younger voters.
The burning question is what will each candidate's bloc do when the candidate loses?
Hillary has made it clear - she will encourage Obama's bloc to vote democratic even if he loses. She has done that by offering him the Veepship. This is a move to unite the party.
But, Obama has not made a similar move to Hillary. Absent a similar move, he seems to prefer splitting the party and jeopardizing the general election to uniting the party.
Memo to Senator Obama: It's time to grow up. You cannot win the nomination without the superdelegates, just like Hillary. It is time to act like a politician instead of a preacher.
If politics is the art of the possible instead of the art of the pure, then Hillary is demonstrating politics at its highest.
To date, Senator Obama has responded only that he is not running for the Veepship.
He is absent from the discussion so far, seeming to prefer preaching to his choir.
To drastically oversimplify: Hillary's bloc is based on white women, blue collar and Latino voters while Obama's is based on blacks, upper middle class and younger voters.
The burning question is what will each candidate's bloc do when the candidate loses?
Hillary has made it clear - she will encourage Obama's bloc to vote democratic even if he loses. She has done that by offering him the Veepship. This is a move to unite the party.
But, Obama has not made a similar move to Hillary. Absent a similar move, he seems to prefer splitting the party and jeopardizing the general election to uniting the party.
Memo to Senator Obama: It's time to grow up. You cannot win the nomination without the superdelegates, just like Hillary. It is time to act like a politician instead of a preacher.
If politics is the art of the possible instead of the art of the pure, then Hillary is demonstrating politics at its highest.
To date, Senator Obama has responded only that he is not running for the Veepship.
He is absent from the discussion so far, seeming to prefer preaching to his choir.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Meet The Press: Rendell on why Hillary
GOV. RENDELL: Well, sure, Tim, because, number one, Hillary Clinton has won states with about 260 electoral votes. Barack Obama has won states with about 190. And we decide the presidency not by a popular vote, we decide it by the electoral vote. And the traditional role of the superdelegates is to determine who's going to be our strongest candidate. Tim, you and I have been doing this for a long time, as Tom has, and we know the big four in any presidential election recently are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Michigan. And in all four of those states--Pennsylvania hasn't voted yet, but I assume we're going to do real well--Hillary Clinton will have taken those states, if it--she takes Pennsylvania, and will have taken them by significant majorities. She's clearly the strongest candidate in the states that Democrats must win to have a chance. Look, it's great that Barack Obama is doing wonderfully well in Wyoming and Utah and, and places like that, but there's no chance we're going to carry those states. Whether he gets 44 percent as opposed to 39 percent doesn't matter, but we're not going to carry those states. We do have a chance to carry the big four. We've got to in three of the big four. Hillary Clinton's the strongest candidate to do that. That's been proven by the voters in the--those states and hopefully by Pennsylvania as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
