I promise, some economic and market stuff is coming. Please be patient. There's just too much political fodder out there to deal with right now.
Item 1: Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has accused someone currently campaigning for the US presidency of inciting Georgia into conflict with Russia.
Please. All one need to to incite conflict between Georgia and Russia is wake up in the morning.
Conflict in that region is as much a given as is conflict in the Middle East, where they've been killing each other since Abraham kicked Ishmael out of the tent.
Putin didn't name names. But he said it was someone who stood to benefit from the conflict.
Hmmm ... could it be ... maybe ... John McCain?
After all, McCain got a boost in the polls following the skirmish. Little wonder; his considerable legislative experience, combined with his in-depth military knowledge, give McCain an edge for the commander-in-chief role that only a purely partisan Dem could discount.
So what does this tell us? Gee, it sure looks to me like the guy's trying to start some rumors about McCain inciting violence abroad for his own political gain. I'm pretty sure he didn't need to do that - like I said, violence in that region brews just below the surface all the time.
And I don't think that he would do that - any more than Clinton's supporters thought he would have wagged the dog following the Lewinsky affair by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan.
Now, why would Putin want to hurt McCain's chances for the presidency? Apparently he'd prefer an Obama White House. That way he'd be free to nationalize oil and gas interests, rebuild the Bear's nuclear arsenal, and invade former republics at will, without the repercussions that might exist under a McCain presidency.
Hey, it's not necessarily what I think. It's obviously what Putin thinks. He's a smart, savvy guy. Certainly more knowledgeable about politics, diplomacy, espionage, and stuff like that than little old me.
And if Vladimir Putin supports Obama for president, that's all the reason I need not to.
************
Okay, on to the the GOP veep pick. A stellar choice in my book.
Before I explain why, I need to pat myself on the back. I said on a message board recently that McCain should pick a woman, and I panned Kay Bailey Hutchinson for being too old, Libby Dole for being even older, and Christie Whiteman for being pro-choice, which would alienate too many of the Republican base that's already a bit skittish about McCain's moderatism. Then I said that Sarah Palin would be a great pick - she's 44, she's a governor, she knows energy and environmental issues inside and out, she's ethical to a fault, and she's pro-life. But nobody's heard of her.
Well, I was right on all but the last count. Now, everybody's heard of her.
What do I like about the pick? All of the above.
She's 44 - a nice counterbalance to McCain's age. She's a governor. Unlike the other three people on the tickets, she's actually run something. She's been a chief executive, in other words. As a CEO myself, let me tell you what that means. A senator, if he or she serves long enough (longer than one term, Barack) might get to be a committee chairman.
I was a committee chairman when I was in my fraternity, in college.
A senator looks at two or three issues a year, and co-sponsors legislation on those issues with one or more other senators. They debate. They give speeches. They vote on stuff (if they're not out campaigning for a higher office).
With a CEO, the buck stops here. You make decisions - broad decisions. You have to look at all issues. You don't vote. You don't rely on a committee. You confer with the smart people that you're smart enough to surround yourself with. But at the end of the day, you make decisions. A day as a CEO is worth a year as a committee chairman.
She's a woman, which could help attract some of the disgruntled Hillary supporters, as well as the "security moms" that helped W win re-election. She knows energy and environmental issues, like I said. She's pro-life, and pro-family - she herself has five kids, one of whom has a disability.
She's been in the business world. She's smart, well-spoken and down-to-earth. She relates well - not just to audiences, like Obama. But to individuals. She's the antithesis of "elitist." You'll never hear her say people are bitter, and cling to their guns and their God. Because she gets people.
She's a fiscal conservative. She jettisoned the gubernatorial jet, in a state where you can't get there from here by road, to save money. Money she put back in the people's pockets. She runs surpluses. And hey, she only has one house!
She's telegenic - I wish we didn't care about that, but the reality of post-TV politics is that it matters. And she has strong ethics - she earned her way into the office of governor on her reputation as a whistle-blower on corrupt state politics, even taking on her own party. She's a maverick's maverick. She is change, but in a tangible sense - not just rhetoric. It's change we can truly believe in, because it's been demonstrated.
There are, however, a few things I don't like - at least politically, in terms of her chances. The fact that she's a woman could alienate some extremists within the GOP that see a "soft" moderate prez nominee teamed up with a woman. I don't feel that way, but there may be some that do. I'm just saying it's a risk of the pick. But McCain's a risk-taker, and I applaud that.
The second thing is the experience factor. Personally, it doesn't bother me. She has a great deal of life experience that could benefit her in the role. And I'd take her experience as CEO of a state 600 times the size of Joe Biden's home state over Barack Obama's 140-odd days actually in the office any day of the week. But the Dems will point out that a half-term governor and former mayor of a town of 9,000 people will be a heartbeat away from the leadership of the free world.
That's okay. The retort is obvious. Better that than having the leader of the free world be a guy who's a half-term senator - and has been campaigning for president most of that time, and who was a state senator before that. A guy Hillary Clinton said "has that speech he gave." A guy Joe Biden said wasn't ready for the presidency. See, I think that the veep role is one where some on-the-job training is okay.
The third thing that could hurt the ticket is the supposed "scandal" brewing over her ousting Alaska's Public Safety Commissioner, who claims he was canned for refusing to fire a trooper who was married to Palin's sister, with the marriage ending in a contentious divorce and custody battle.
If that's true, it tarnishes her image as an ethical standard-bearer. But I always take the word of a "disgruntled former employee" with a grain of salt. Probably because I've had some of them come after me, or I've had to go after them, and I've always prevailed. Truth will out. And in a campaign with a Keating Five alum, Rezko's pal, and a guy who spends four grand a month on train fare and shows up for work a few minutes past nine every day, if that's the biggest ethical knock against her, it shouldn't hurt the ticket much.
This race hearkens back to 1988. You had a relatively inexperienced Democratic presidential nominee, who, in apparent acknowledgment of that inexperience, chose as his running mate a seasoned member of the Senate to bolster up the ticket. Many people said at the time they'd have voted Democratic if the ticket had been reversed.
Including yours truly. Bentsen was a Texas Democrat, which is pretty much like a Republican just about anywhere else.
As for the GOP, you had a Republican candidate that many in the party felt was too moderate. Kemp was the better choice at the time to carry on the Reagan legacy, just as there were better candidates in this year's GOP primary than McCain, in my view. But then, as now, the moderate won the nomination. And he selected an unknown running mate that satisfied the Kemp crowd.
This time it's a little different. McCain's pick wasn't made just to please the GOP base, but also to be inclusive, to appeal to the disenfranchised women who felt the Democrats left them in the lurch. And unlike Dukakis' pick of Bentsen, I'm not so sure Obama's does anything to temper his reputation as being to the far left in his ideology.
And, to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, "I saw Dan Quayle in action. And Sarah Palin is no Dan Quayle." (Thank goodness.)
************
Maybe it's just me, but it seems to bode ill for the Democrats that the only way they feel they can attack John McCain is by saying he's just like George W. Bush.
It's so ignorant - just look at his voting record. (I know, the Dems ran an ad saying he voted with Bush 90% of the time. But they cherry-picked the last eight years to come up with that number - they simply chose to exclude the many, many more times he voted against his own party. At least he was there to vote, and not out campaigning for all but 140 days of his last Senate term.)
And think about where he did agree with Bush. He felt the world was better off without Saddam Hussein. (So do I.)
He was highly critical of the way the war was conducted under Rumsfeld. (So was I - but that runs against the Bush Administration.)
And, he acknowledges that the surge worked - as do I, and every other thinking American.
Now, he wants our troops back home. So do I. But he wants to make sure we withdraw in a way that doesn't do more harm than good. So do I. Because he remembers Vietnam. So do I.
Maybe if one has no experience on which to campaign, one can only campaign on the demonization of one's opponent, and on lying to the American people by saying he's "more of the same."
But if that's all you've got, you may be in trouble. And it's getting old. I just hope that, thirty years from now, Dems will have something a little more solid to campaign on than "he's just like George W. Bush." After all, you don't see Republicans campaigning on, "he's just like Jimmy Carter."
************
I'll close with this gem. I may have actually found a reason to vote for Barack Obama.
The House Democratic Caucus chairman told American Banker that an Obama presidency would bring significant financial regulatory reforms (which I don't doubt in the least). He said Obama would bring to the markets "more transparency ... so we don't have this opaqueness where nobody knows who owns what and where the bottom is."
Wait - Obama is going to bring regulatory reforms to the markets that will allow everybody to know "where the bottom is"? That's not transparency, it's clairvoyance!
Sign me up - I'll make a lot of money off knowing where the bottom of every market is.
Of course, there's one little problem. Somebody would have to be on the other side of that trade. The only way to create a market where everybody knows exactly what they need to know to profit, is to just print money and hand it out, something some in the liberal camp embrace. Otherwise, the good chairman is describing an impossible scenario.
But hey - there's always hope!
Friday, August 29, 2008
Credit Where Credit Is Due
In an effort to maintain my status as an equal-opportunity offender in the political arena, I'm going to give props to someone I normally wouldn't: Bill Clinton.
I expected Clinton's DNC speech to go off-topic, and for him to try to steal the limelight away from Barack Obama. So serve up the crow. But Clinton did steal the limelight.
His speech was masterful. He said all the right things. He was professional. He rose above the partisan divisiveness that has become the standard in American politics. He did not once invoke the name of George W. Bush, try to imply that John McCain is just like Bush, or use the worn-out phrase, "the failed policies of the last eight years."
Would that the Democratic candidates for prez and veep were so professional. Or Clinton's own wife, for that matter. But they're cast in the attack dog roles that have also become the standard in American politics.
No, Clinton drew contrasts between the fundamental differences between the Republican and Democratic platforms over the last 25 years. And that's fine. Even if I don't agree with him, I recognize that he was addressing the Democratic convention. So it's only natural for him to point to the differences between the tenets of that party and its opposition.
I didn't agree with everything he said. That's okay, too - I wouldn't expect to. And for that matter, I don't agree with everything John McCain says.
I also can't say that I respect the man himself, overall. He's done many things in his public life to lose my respect. And I'm not just talking about his getting caught in flagrante delicto with Ms. Lewinsky (and yes, given that the aforementioned took place on the job, with another public employee, in the Oval Office - which is paid for by the US taxpayer - it was part of his public life). But, I do respect the speech he gave, immensely.
There now. I've had about all the crow I can eat. But there's still some left. So I'd be happy to share it with those who erroneously opined, after I exposed the man behind the Biden myth, that I wouldn't say anything negative about a Republican, or anything positive about a Democrat.
Those people are the problem. Would that they - and that we all - could follow the example Clinton presented in his speech, and rise above the labeling and stereotyping that have reduced the political process to the current bitter, divisive lunacy. But that's why the candidates themselves go negative, play attack dog, and demonize one another.
They merely give us what we want. And if society has become that way, it's only natural that the leaders we elect out of our society will be that way.
I expected Clinton's DNC speech to go off-topic, and for him to try to steal the limelight away from Barack Obama. So serve up the crow. But Clinton did steal the limelight.
His speech was masterful. He said all the right things. He was professional. He rose above the partisan divisiveness that has become the standard in American politics. He did not once invoke the name of George W. Bush, try to imply that John McCain is just like Bush, or use the worn-out phrase, "the failed policies of the last eight years."
Would that the Democratic candidates for prez and veep were so professional. Or Clinton's own wife, for that matter. But they're cast in the attack dog roles that have also become the standard in American politics.
No, Clinton drew contrasts between the fundamental differences between the Republican and Democratic platforms over the last 25 years. And that's fine. Even if I don't agree with him, I recognize that he was addressing the Democratic convention. So it's only natural for him to point to the differences between the tenets of that party and its opposition.
I didn't agree with everything he said. That's okay, too - I wouldn't expect to. And for that matter, I don't agree with everything John McCain says.
I also can't say that I respect the man himself, overall. He's done many things in his public life to lose my respect. And I'm not just talking about his getting caught in flagrante delicto with Ms. Lewinsky (and yes, given that the aforementioned took place on the job, with another public employee, in the Oval Office - which is paid for by the US taxpayer - it was part of his public life). But, I do respect the speech he gave, immensely.
There now. I've had about all the crow I can eat. But there's still some left. So I'd be happy to share it with those who erroneously opined, after I exposed the man behind the Biden myth, that I wouldn't say anything negative about a Republican, or anything positive about a Democrat.
Those people are the problem. Would that they - and that we all - could follow the example Clinton presented in his speech, and rise above the labeling and stereotyping that have reduced the political process to the current bitter, divisive lunacy. But that's why the candidates themselves go negative, play attack dog, and demonize one another.
They merely give us what we want. And if society has become that way, it's only natural that the leaders we elect out of our society will be that way.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Pick-cher Perfect
Gotta hand it to Barack, he did it. He picked the perfect veep candidate. For me, anyway.
See, I don't plan to vote for the guy. In fact, given my druthers, I hope he loses the election. And I think Biden - of all the front-runners that were rumored for the job - gives Obama the best chance of a big L come November. I'll explain that later.
The second reason I'm elated over the pick is related to my business. You see, it's highly counter-cyclical. We tend to thrive on recessions. The worse the economy gets, the better we do. So selfishly, I'm always hoping for the economy to tank.
(Not just selfishly in this cycle, actually; I do have a conscience. But as long as Americans allow themselves to be duped into the notion that if they'd only spend more, borrow more, take on more debt, buy more stuff, our nation would be stronger, the more we place ourselves in economic peril. Better a healthy dose of pain now, to shock us back into the economic reality that it is savings, not spending, that is the engine of growth, than that we continue to dig a hole so deep it reaches all the way to China, which will eventually own us anyway at the rate we're going.)
But I digress. In terms of the overall threat to the economy, my dream Dem candidate was John Edwards, he of the "two Americas" shtick. Okay, so now it seems his shtick was otherwise occupied, and his biggest threat was to his own family.
So now, we have Obama and Biden - two uber-liberals, neither of whom understands the first darn thing about global macroeconomics. Given the troubles already a-brewing, these two create a perfect storm scenario - for me, at least. Biden's the bomb - literally, for the economy. The guy is actually left of Obama.
As for why I think Biden hurts Obama (and I'm not alone; just look at the polls in the two days since the pick), there are several factors. One, he flies in the face of Obama's "change" message. He is the epitome of the Washington Insider. He's the new Strom Thurmond. He went straight from Pull-Ups to the Senate. He's the establishment. He's the reason Michelle has never been proud of her country.
Two, he's the loosest cannon in Washington. He makes Howard Dean look reserved. His off-the-cuff (but on-the-record) comments get him in hot water. The good news is he'll take the spotlight off Michelle's gaffes, at least somewhat. The bad news is, he - not Michelle - will be the guy a heartbeat away from the red phone. (Speaking of his habit of sticking his foot in his mouth, do you suppose the reason he's attracted to the Obama ticket now is that he gets to pair up with an "articulate, bright, clean and nice-looking" African-American guy?)
The third reason comes to us courtesy of the Miranda card: "Anything you say can and will be used against you." He said Obama wasn't ready for the job. Heck, Obama's selection of him only serves to ratify that assertion - after all, why else would you pick the most entrenched guy in the Beltway to hop on your "Change Express," if you weren't acknowledging that you needed some depth on your ticket to counter-balance your own 200 days of experience (most of which were spent campaigning for president)? And he's also said America would be better off with John McCain as president.
Okay, now that I've explained why I just love this pick, I want to take a poke at the announcement itself, then I want to peel back the layers of false hype surrounding Mr. Biden to reveal the man behind the myth.
I thought the whole text message thing was a joke. But then, I'm a curmudgeon, not into "texting" (since when did that become a verb, for crying out loud?). It only reinforced McCain's Britney/Paris ad, as well as the whole "our candidate's a rock-star" crap that the Dems seem to be puking out, which makes me want to puke myself.
And I think it's funny - given all the criticism of McCain for not being tech-savvy - that the stupid text message scheme apparently didn't even work. Hey, if the guy can't work a simple cell phone, how do we expect him to handle missile defense?
My advice to McCain, to upstage the upstart, is to announce his pick the way Batman gets signaled - use our satellite network to send the name into space, where people around the globe can look up into the night sky and see it emblazoned on the heavens! Ooh! Aah!
Okay, now let's expose this guy.
First, let's explode the myth that he's a "commoner." The Dem propaganda would have us believe he's a "regular guy," he's "one of us."
Excuse me, but I don't live in a mansion.
(Digression: this whole stupid thing about how many houses McCain has is simply ridiculous. All of these guys - McCain, Obama, Biden - are stupid rich. Once you have a $4 million book deal, a $2 million mansion, a "compound," etc., I think you give up the right to cast aspersions on the guy who has seven houses. Heck, I know guys right here in my hometown who have multiple houses - either a vacation house at the lake or a few rental properties around town. Are they uber-rich? Gimme a break.)
Biden gets the love because he drives a Ford F-150. Well, I don't know what year it is, but those things can be pretty nice, and pretty expensive. And pretty thirsty on the petrol. Just hope he's keeping his tires inflated.
He also gets props for taking the train to and from work, for two reasons: first, it shows he's just a regular workin' stiff, taking public transportation like the rest of us. And second, it shows that he's not a "Washington Insider," because he's never had a home in D.C.
Anybody who buys that last argument is just too stupid to vote. You don't have to live in Washington to be an insider. But if you've been a career politician, chances are you are one. Especially when you've voted party line your whole life, as Biden's done. Heck, he's pro-choice, and he's a Catholic. How do you reconcile that one? Easy - either his faith is a front, or he's sold his soul to the party chairman. I'll give him a pass on the former, and bet my net worth on the latter. This guy is as Washington Insider as Ted Kennedy, just without the hiccups and the slurred speech.
Now, about that train. It was reported this weekend that he rides Amtrak's Acela Express, the high-speed commuter train that's the pride of the Amtrak fleet, rivaling the Eurostar. (I've ridden the Eurostar. It's a once or twice in a lifetime treat, at least for an average Joe like me. It's plush.)
The Acela is all business and first-class seating, with snack service at your seat. We recently rode the train to Chicago for our family vacation. We had to walk to the snack car to get our munchies.
From Amtrak's website: "Enjoy superior comfort, upscale amenities, and polished professional service — at speeds up to 150 mph." Oh, yeah, Joe's a busy guy. Time is money, after all, and he's one of the leaders of the free world. So he needs the speed. It's not about the amenities with him, no, sir.
Of course, Amtrak does have a regular coach train - like the one I rode to Chicago - that makes the D.C.-Wilmington run just a half-hour slower than the Acela. But again, time is money.
How much money, you ask?
Well, the aforementioned slower train costs about $86 for a round-trip between D.C. and Wilmington, and you can buy even cheaper passes for it. The Acela?
Between $208 and $250 a round-trip. Read that again.
No passes. No senior discount (yeah, Joe's an old fart - wait, wasn't that a reason we shouldn't elect McCain?). An average of $229 per day.
That works out to about $4,400 a month, if he works 21 days a month like the rest of us stiffs (which he likely doesn't). I checked bankrate.com for the D.C. area, and that monthly payment would get you a mortgage of about $729,000 with 20% down. That equates to a home price of around $900,000. So I then checked a D.C. realtor's website (I just like to know what the heck I'm talking about, so I'm prone to research), and I found that $900,000 will buy you a nice condo, townhome or single-family residence in tony Georgetown.
Ever been to Georgetown? I have. It's nice. Remember the cool neighborhood where Tom Cruise lived in "A Few Good Men?" Where he drove down the street in the rain, chasing after Demi Moore after calling her "monumentally stupid?" That was Georgetown, home of not just a handful of our nation's lawmakers.
So, let's not be drinking the "Biden rides the train because he's one of us" Kool-Aid. He ain't. I don't know about you, but I can't drop four grand a month on my daily commute. And again, if you buy the crap about his riding the train to avoid becoming a Washington Insider, I've got some real estate to sell you. In Florida, Southern California, Vegas, or Phoenix. Heck, you can even finance it with an option ARM.
Actually, he started riding the train because just before he was sworn into his first term in the Senate, his wife and infant daughter were killed in a car accident, and he wanted to be home every night with his other three kids. Now that's a story I can relate to. That's a story I can give him much credit for. But that's not the story Dems want to sell. Why? I dunno, maybe family values just aren't a plank in their platform. But for my benefit, give the guy props for being a family man. Just don't try to tell me he's a thrifty dude who's not a Washington Insider. Truth is, he's a fat cat who's as entrenched as any of them. But he loves his kids, and that's cool.
Oh, I should also mention that the earliest Acela Express train gets into D.C. at 8:55 am. The regular coach train gets in earlier, but hey, it's coach, right? Gotta walk for your snacks, and you don't get a free paper (or, as the case may be, a $140 paper, since that's about the fare difference). So, as BTO said, "if your train's on time, you can get to work by nine." That's assuming he can make the 12-block trip from D.C.'s Union Station to his office in the Russell Senate Office Building in five. No doubt we the people buck up for a fast car to get him there, though. (See, I really do look all this crap up.)
Okay, I'll bust three more myths, then I'm off to bed. Biden supposedly grew up "poor" in Scranton, PA. Well, I checked on that, too. His family actually moved to Wilmington when he was ten. So half his formative years were spent there. Poor? His dad was a car salesman. I don't know how well he did selling cars, but he sent Joe to a prep school that today carries a tuition tab of about $18,500 a year. Plus books. Now, a bright kid can get a scholly. Of as much as $1,000. Woo, hoo. I'm sending my daughter off to college next year, and if her college - much less her high school - cost me twenty grand, I'd be swallowing, hard. I'd say the Bidens did okay, compared to my family, and we're far from poor.
Second, there's his foreign policy experience. Yes, he has considerable foreign policy experience.
Ralph Cioffi had considerable bond trading experience, too. That didn't stop him from blowing up his hedge funds, Bear Stearns, and the credit markets.
The point is, experience doesn't always lead to good things. Dick Cheney had a ton of foreign policy experience too, and there are a lot of people who aren't very happy with where that's gotten us.
Some of Biden's foreign policy ideas are nothing short of loony. To wit: his Iraq solution is to split the country into thirds, forcibly re-locate people into the separated lands according to their religious sect affiliation (Sunni, Shiite, Kurd), and then let them live like that until at some point in the future they can get along.
Like I said, he's a good father for wanting to be home with his kids every night. But this "each of you go to your room until you can play nice" approach just doesn't translate well from child-rearing to foreign policy. It's not only a dumb idea, it's just plain wrong. For the US to forcibly divide a sovereign nation and relocate its people is every bit as wrong as invading and occupying that nation. And two wrongs don't make a right. (I seem to recall something about the Trail of Tears, and Apartheid, and Biden's proposal sounds pretty similar.)
Finally, there's this whole "he's the poorest guy in the Senate" song and dance. Folks, that's like saying "Woe is me, I'm dead-last on the Forbes 400 list." Or, "I have the smallest house in the Hamptons." Every US Senator, by your and my standards, is doggone rich. Joe Biden's no exception.
I'm not alone in lauding this pick. Every Democrat out there (except the umpteen-thousand bitter Hillary supporters, which represent a whole 'nother blog topic) calls this a great pick.
Of course, those people would applaud Obama's picking Attila the Hun - or even Al Sharpton - as long as he had a (D) behind his name. It's the "anybody but Bush" syndrome, and it has about half of America not thinking at all. And that's the saddest thing about this election:
Barack Obama is the Pied Piper. And those who would follow him right off the face of the earth deserve both him and their fate. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Bush, though I don't demonize him, and I can cite some things he's done right. But there's risk in desperation, in saying, "We need somebody different, so let's pick ... that guy in the parking lot."
Change sounds great, but it can always be change for the worse. Anybody who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves. But I hope I'm wrong about that. If I'm not, at least my bonus checks will be bigger. Good thing, since they'll be taxed at a much higher rate.
See, I don't plan to vote for the guy. In fact, given my druthers, I hope he loses the election. And I think Biden - of all the front-runners that were rumored for the job - gives Obama the best chance of a big L come November. I'll explain that later.
The second reason I'm elated over the pick is related to my business. You see, it's highly counter-cyclical. We tend to thrive on recessions. The worse the economy gets, the better we do. So selfishly, I'm always hoping for the economy to tank.
(Not just selfishly in this cycle, actually; I do have a conscience. But as long as Americans allow themselves to be duped into the notion that if they'd only spend more, borrow more, take on more debt, buy more stuff, our nation would be stronger, the more we place ourselves in economic peril. Better a healthy dose of pain now, to shock us back into the economic reality that it is savings, not spending, that is the engine of growth, than that we continue to dig a hole so deep it reaches all the way to China, which will eventually own us anyway at the rate we're going.)
But I digress. In terms of the overall threat to the economy, my dream Dem candidate was John Edwards, he of the "two Americas" shtick. Okay, so now it seems his shtick was otherwise occupied, and his biggest threat was to his own family.
So now, we have Obama and Biden - two uber-liberals, neither of whom understands the first darn thing about global macroeconomics. Given the troubles already a-brewing, these two create a perfect storm scenario - for me, at least. Biden's the bomb - literally, for the economy. The guy is actually left of Obama.
As for why I think Biden hurts Obama (and I'm not alone; just look at the polls in the two days since the pick), there are several factors. One, he flies in the face of Obama's "change" message. He is the epitome of the Washington Insider. He's the new Strom Thurmond. He went straight from Pull-Ups to the Senate. He's the establishment. He's the reason Michelle has never been proud of her country.
Two, he's the loosest cannon in Washington. He makes Howard Dean look reserved. His off-the-cuff (but on-the-record) comments get him in hot water. The good news is he'll take the spotlight off Michelle's gaffes, at least somewhat. The bad news is, he - not Michelle - will be the guy a heartbeat away from the red phone. (Speaking of his habit of sticking his foot in his mouth, do you suppose the reason he's attracted to the Obama ticket now is that he gets to pair up with an "articulate, bright, clean and nice-looking" African-American guy?)
The third reason comes to us courtesy of the Miranda card: "Anything you say can and will be used against you." He said Obama wasn't ready for the job. Heck, Obama's selection of him only serves to ratify that assertion - after all, why else would you pick the most entrenched guy in the Beltway to hop on your "Change Express," if you weren't acknowledging that you needed some depth on your ticket to counter-balance your own 200 days of experience (most of which were spent campaigning for president)? And he's also said America would be better off with John McCain as president.
Okay, now that I've explained why I just love this pick, I want to take a poke at the announcement itself, then I want to peel back the layers of false hype surrounding Mr. Biden to reveal the man behind the myth.
I thought the whole text message thing was a joke. But then, I'm a curmudgeon, not into "texting" (since when did that become a verb, for crying out loud?). It only reinforced McCain's Britney/Paris ad, as well as the whole "our candidate's a rock-star" crap that the Dems seem to be puking out, which makes me want to puke myself.
And I think it's funny - given all the criticism of McCain for not being tech-savvy - that the stupid text message scheme apparently didn't even work. Hey, if the guy can't work a simple cell phone, how do we expect him to handle missile defense?
My advice to McCain, to upstage the upstart, is to announce his pick the way Batman gets signaled - use our satellite network to send the name into space, where people around the globe can look up into the night sky and see it emblazoned on the heavens! Ooh! Aah!
Okay, now let's expose this guy.
First, let's explode the myth that he's a "commoner." The Dem propaganda would have us believe he's a "regular guy," he's "one of us."
Excuse me, but I don't live in a mansion.
(Digression: this whole stupid thing about how many houses McCain has is simply ridiculous. All of these guys - McCain, Obama, Biden - are stupid rich. Once you have a $4 million book deal, a $2 million mansion, a "compound," etc., I think you give up the right to cast aspersions on the guy who has seven houses. Heck, I know guys right here in my hometown who have multiple houses - either a vacation house at the lake or a few rental properties around town. Are they uber-rich? Gimme a break.)
Biden gets the love because he drives a Ford F-150. Well, I don't know what year it is, but those things can be pretty nice, and pretty expensive. And pretty thirsty on the petrol. Just hope he's keeping his tires inflated.
He also gets props for taking the train to and from work, for two reasons: first, it shows he's just a regular workin' stiff, taking public transportation like the rest of us. And second, it shows that he's not a "Washington Insider," because he's never had a home in D.C.
Anybody who buys that last argument is just too stupid to vote. You don't have to live in Washington to be an insider. But if you've been a career politician, chances are you are one. Especially when you've voted party line your whole life, as Biden's done. Heck, he's pro-choice, and he's a Catholic. How do you reconcile that one? Easy - either his faith is a front, or he's sold his soul to the party chairman. I'll give him a pass on the former, and bet my net worth on the latter. This guy is as Washington Insider as Ted Kennedy, just without the hiccups and the slurred speech.
Now, about that train. It was reported this weekend that he rides Amtrak's Acela Express, the high-speed commuter train that's the pride of the Amtrak fleet, rivaling the Eurostar. (I've ridden the Eurostar. It's a once or twice in a lifetime treat, at least for an average Joe like me. It's plush.)
The Acela is all business and first-class seating, with snack service at your seat. We recently rode the train to Chicago for our family vacation. We had to walk to the snack car to get our munchies.
From Amtrak's website: "Enjoy superior comfort, upscale amenities, and polished professional service — at speeds up to 150 mph." Oh, yeah, Joe's a busy guy. Time is money, after all, and he's one of the leaders of the free world. So he needs the speed. It's not about the amenities with him, no, sir.
Of course, Amtrak does have a regular coach train - like the one I rode to Chicago - that makes the D.C.-Wilmington run just a half-hour slower than the Acela. But again, time is money.
How much money, you ask?
Well, the aforementioned slower train costs about $86 for a round-trip between D.C. and Wilmington, and you can buy even cheaper passes for it. The Acela?
Between $208 and $250 a round-trip. Read that again.
No passes. No senior discount (yeah, Joe's an old fart - wait, wasn't that a reason we shouldn't elect McCain?). An average of $229 per day.
That works out to about $4,400 a month, if he works 21 days a month like the rest of us stiffs (which he likely doesn't). I checked bankrate.com for the D.C. area, and that monthly payment would get you a mortgage of about $729,000 with 20% down. That equates to a home price of around $900,000. So I then checked a D.C. realtor's website (I just like to know what the heck I'm talking about, so I'm prone to research), and I found that $900,000 will buy you a nice condo, townhome or single-family residence in tony Georgetown.
Ever been to Georgetown? I have. It's nice. Remember the cool neighborhood where Tom Cruise lived in "A Few Good Men?" Where he drove down the street in the rain, chasing after Demi Moore after calling her "monumentally stupid?" That was Georgetown, home of not just a handful of our nation's lawmakers.
So, let's not be drinking the "Biden rides the train because he's one of us" Kool-Aid. He ain't. I don't know about you, but I can't drop four grand a month on my daily commute. And again, if you buy the crap about his riding the train to avoid becoming a Washington Insider, I've got some real estate to sell you. In Florida, Southern California, Vegas, or Phoenix. Heck, you can even finance it with an option ARM.
Actually, he started riding the train because just before he was sworn into his first term in the Senate, his wife and infant daughter were killed in a car accident, and he wanted to be home every night with his other three kids. Now that's a story I can relate to. That's a story I can give him much credit for. But that's not the story Dems want to sell. Why? I dunno, maybe family values just aren't a plank in their platform. But for my benefit, give the guy props for being a family man. Just don't try to tell me he's a thrifty dude who's not a Washington Insider. Truth is, he's a fat cat who's as entrenched as any of them. But he loves his kids, and that's cool.
Oh, I should also mention that the earliest Acela Express train gets into D.C. at 8:55 am. The regular coach train gets in earlier, but hey, it's coach, right? Gotta walk for your snacks, and you don't get a free paper (or, as the case may be, a $140 paper, since that's about the fare difference). So, as BTO said, "if your train's on time, you can get to work by nine." That's assuming he can make the 12-block trip from D.C.'s Union Station to his office in the Russell Senate Office Building in five. No doubt we the people buck up for a fast car to get him there, though. (See, I really do look all this crap up.)
Okay, I'll bust three more myths, then I'm off to bed. Biden supposedly grew up "poor" in Scranton, PA. Well, I checked on that, too. His family actually moved to Wilmington when he was ten. So half his formative years were spent there. Poor? His dad was a car salesman. I don't know how well he did selling cars, but he sent Joe to a prep school that today carries a tuition tab of about $18,500 a year. Plus books. Now, a bright kid can get a scholly. Of as much as $1,000. Woo, hoo. I'm sending my daughter off to college next year, and if her college - much less her high school - cost me twenty grand, I'd be swallowing, hard. I'd say the Bidens did okay, compared to my family, and we're far from poor.
Second, there's his foreign policy experience. Yes, he has considerable foreign policy experience.
Ralph Cioffi had considerable bond trading experience, too. That didn't stop him from blowing up his hedge funds, Bear Stearns, and the credit markets.
The point is, experience doesn't always lead to good things. Dick Cheney had a ton of foreign policy experience too, and there are a lot of people who aren't very happy with where that's gotten us.
Some of Biden's foreign policy ideas are nothing short of loony. To wit: his Iraq solution is to split the country into thirds, forcibly re-locate people into the separated lands according to their religious sect affiliation (Sunni, Shiite, Kurd), and then let them live like that until at some point in the future they can get along.
Like I said, he's a good father for wanting to be home with his kids every night. But this "each of you go to your room until you can play nice" approach just doesn't translate well from child-rearing to foreign policy. It's not only a dumb idea, it's just plain wrong. For the US to forcibly divide a sovereign nation and relocate its people is every bit as wrong as invading and occupying that nation. And two wrongs don't make a right. (I seem to recall something about the Trail of Tears, and Apartheid, and Biden's proposal sounds pretty similar.)
Finally, there's this whole "he's the poorest guy in the Senate" song and dance. Folks, that's like saying "Woe is me, I'm dead-last on the Forbes 400 list." Or, "I have the smallest house in the Hamptons." Every US Senator, by your and my standards, is doggone rich. Joe Biden's no exception.
I'm not alone in lauding this pick. Every Democrat out there (except the umpteen-thousand bitter Hillary supporters, which represent a whole 'nother blog topic) calls this a great pick.
Of course, those people would applaud Obama's picking Attila the Hun - or even Al Sharpton - as long as he had a (D) behind his name. It's the "anybody but Bush" syndrome, and it has about half of America not thinking at all. And that's the saddest thing about this election:
Barack Obama is the Pied Piper. And those who would follow him right off the face of the earth deserve both him and their fate. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Bush, though I don't demonize him, and I can cite some things he's done right. But there's risk in desperation, in saying, "We need somebody different, so let's pick ... that guy in the parking lot."
Change sounds great, but it can always be change for the worse. Anybody who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves. But I hope I'm wrong about that. If I'm not, at least my bonus checks will be bigger. Good thing, since they'll be taxed at a much higher rate.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Why the Fed Absolutely, Positively Will Not Raise Rates This Year
(Note: this is something I wrote several weeks ago, and never got around to posting here as I was unsure what I was going to do with it. I've since updated it, and it also appears as a commentary in our company's newsletter on our website.)
Okay, I should have written this on July 7 when I was first thinking about it, because Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s comments on July 15, along with events that have unfolded over the last several weeks, have made what I’m about to say more plausible and less contrarian. I prefer to launch my bandwagon when nobody else has yet boarded it, but now I have some company.
So be it. While the Fed left rates alone earlier this month, contrary to the expectations of most Fed-watchers a month or so ago, the current probability of a hike in September is 18%, according to Fed funds futures traders. That’s down from 52% a month ago. But a 25 basis point hike is still priced in at a likelihood of 28% for the October FOMC meeting and 33% in December, and contracts for both meetings reflect a small chance of a 50 basis point increase, with a very slight chance of a 75 basis point hike in December. Futures traders are thus far pricing in no chance of an ease. So there are enough proponents of a tightening bias still out there for me to be bold in saying:
It will not happen. In fact, I believe the next move will be a cut.
There are two reasons for my assertions. First, it’s an election year. And second, nonfarm payrolls are declining, and will continue to decline into next year, with the pace of job losses accelerating. Now, let’s examine the historical basis for each of these pillars of support for my prediction.
Since the Fed went monetarist in 1979 under Paul Volcker, there have been seven presidential elections. Let’s look at each in turn, using the table below for reference (sorry, I'm too tech-challenged to make it look like much of a table, but hopefully you'll get the drift).
Year Winning Party Fed Funds Change Fed Chairman
1980 Challenger +8.50% Volcker
1984 Incumbent -1.50% Volcker
1988 Incumbent +0.875% Greenspan
1992 Challenger -0.75% Greenspan
1996 Incumbent None Greenspan
2000 Challenger None Greenspan
2004 Incumbent +0.75% Greenspan
First, let’s explain the table. The “Winning Party” column should be intuitive, but for example, in 1988, when Reagan’s second term was up and Bush Sr. won the election, it’s noted “Incumbent” since the incoming President was of the same party as his predecessor. Conversely, when Clinton’s second term ended, Bush Jr. won the 2000 election as the “Challenger” from the opposition party.
The next column denotes the change in the Fed funds target rate from June 30 to November 30 of the election year – in other words, from about now until the month of the general election.
Note that when Volcker raised rates nearly ten points in the months prior to the 1980 election, thus choking off economic growth, it spelled doom for Carter’s re-election bid. You may recall – if you’re old enough – that there were heavy protests against the Volcker Fed, with bankrupt farmers driving their tractors onto the street in front of the Fed’s headquarters, blocking access to the building. You may also recall that Reagan’s campaign mantra was, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” With record high interest rates and the highest unemployment since the Great Depression, most Americans weren’t.
In 1984 Volcker eased a point and a half prior to the election, and Reagan won in a landslide. In 1988, Greenspan raised rates, but only modestly, not yet halting growth, and Bush Sr. retained the White House for the Republicans.
But in 1992, even though Greenspan had cut the funds target 75 basis points in the months prior to the election, many viewed it as not enough. Among them was the incumbent President, who famously accused Greenspan of thwarting his re-election bid with the quote, “I re-appointed him, and he disappointed me.” Clinton defeated Bush that year with the campaign slogan, “It’s the economy, stupid.”
Greenspan apparently learned his lesson. There was no change in the funds target in the months prior to the next two elections, in spite of a looming recession in late 2000. In 2004, the Greenspan Fed raised rates in the months prior to the election, but the change was less than a percentage point, and not enough to choke off growth, thus the incumbent retained the White House.
Now, I haven’t bothered to try to determine the level of statistical significance of a policy action of a given magnitude, nor have I correlated this with other related measures, for example, output growth or unemployment. And the correlation isn’t perfect: Greenspan cut rates in 1992, which should have helped Bush Sr., but the point was that he wasn’t cutting aggressively at a time when job growth still hadn’t rebounded and the economy, while growing again after the 1990-91 recession, was languishing.
The bottom line is this: central bankers are loath to give the appearance of influencing presidential elections. That is not an immutable law; if necessary, they will act. But given Bernanke’s comments that suggest the Fed basically doesn’t know what to do right now, with both the threat to growth and the threat to inflation escalating, the pending election further lends support to the Fed holding off on doing anything until after November. (The next FOMC meeting after the election is in mid-December.)
The second reason I’m predicting no rate hike, and indeed, a rate cut as the Fed’s next move, has to do with the central bank’s dual policy mandate. The Fed is charged with fighting inflation, true, and they do that by raising rates, at least under the monetarist regime that’s been in place since Volcker’s chairmanship. But it is equally charged with maintaining “full employment,” which is done by cutting rates to stimulate consumer and business borrowing, thus increasing business activity to the point that companies need to hire more people, creating job growth.
The Fed’s job is thus to strike a balance between these two mandates. It can certainly be a precarious one; last year I often wrote of Bernanke’s job as walking a tightrope, and alluded to the old Leon Russell song of the same name, which includes the lyrics, “One side’s hate and one is hope,” which is descriptive of Bernanke’s ever-increasing conundrum: raise rates, and you’re hated for sending the economy into a tailspin; cut them, and you feed the hopes of Wall Street and Main Street, but you also feed the inflation monster.
But I digress. I compared the Fed funds target to the monthly change in nonfarm payrolls going back to the beginning of 1980, just five months after Volcker took the helm of the Fed and introduced monetarism to the central bank (that was also the year of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act, which allowed deposit and loan rates to float freely, thus setting the stage for the S&L crisis – but that’s another story).
In only two cases has the Fed raised rates when nonfarm payrolls were falling. Both occurred in 1982, and both represented brief, temporary adjustments to an aggressive course of easing in the face of, as noted earlier, the highest unemployment since the Depression. Within one to three months of each move, the easing resumed. Also, at the time CPI year-over-year was still running in the 6-8% range, compared with 4-5% recently.
However, the Fed has cut rates when nonfarm payrolls are falling on 30 occasions since 1980. Given that the Fed has cut rates – looking at the funds target month-to-month – 72 times since then, and nonfarm payrolls have fallen in 76 months during the same span, I’d say the statistical significance of that pattern is pretty solid.
The upshot of this is that the Fed is steadfastly resistant to raising rates when jobs are being shed. Nonfarm payrolls have fallen every month this year thus far, with a total loss of nearly a half-million jobs. The losses are broadening across industries, and projections of a reversal of the trend are as scarce as – well, jobs.
Moreover, given the Fed’s solid consistency in cutting rates when job losses are mounting, it’s highly likely that, if the payroll trend persists, we’ll see a rate cut before we see a hike.
There are two additional reasons that I believe the next rate move will be downward. First, the Fed is highly unlikely to enact restrictive monetary policy at the same time it is undertaking accommodative actions. Bernanke’s recent announcement that he will likely keep the discount window open to investment banks into next year would contradict an easing of the funds target.
The other reason has to do with Bernanke himself. While the evidence presented above makes it unlikely that any Fed chairman would raise rates this year, Bernanke has certainly shown he is willing to cut rates in the face of rising inflation. In other words, he is more dove than hawk, especially when it comes to his actions. A Paul Volcker might have the resolve to buck the trend. But to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen’s famous retort to Dan Quayle in the 1988 vice-presidential debate, “Mr. Bernanke, you’re no Paul Volcker.”
Okay, I should have written this on July 7 when I was first thinking about it, because Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s comments on July 15, along with events that have unfolded over the last several weeks, have made what I’m about to say more plausible and less contrarian. I prefer to launch my bandwagon when nobody else has yet boarded it, but now I have some company.
So be it. While the Fed left rates alone earlier this month, contrary to the expectations of most Fed-watchers a month or so ago, the current probability of a hike in September is 18%, according to Fed funds futures traders. That’s down from 52% a month ago. But a 25 basis point hike is still priced in at a likelihood of 28% for the October FOMC meeting and 33% in December, and contracts for both meetings reflect a small chance of a 50 basis point increase, with a very slight chance of a 75 basis point hike in December. Futures traders are thus far pricing in no chance of an ease. So there are enough proponents of a tightening bias still out there for me to be bold in saying:
It will not happen. In fact, I believe the next move will be a cut.
There are two reasons for my assertions. First, it’s an election year. And second, nonfarm payrolls are declining, and will continue to decline into next year, with the pace of job losses accelerating. Now, let’s examine the historical basis for each of these pillars of support for my prediction.
Since the Fed went monetarist in 1979 under Paul Volcker, there have been seven presidential elections. Let’s look at each in turn, using the table below for reference (sorry, I'm too tech-challenged to make it look like much of a table, but hopefully you'll get the drift).
Year Winning Party Fed Funds Change Fed Chairman
1980 Challenger +8.50% Volcker
1984 Incumbent -1.50% Volcker
1988 Incumbent +0.875% Greenspan
1992 Challenger -0.75% Greenspan
1996 Incumbent None Greenspan
2000 Challenger None Greenspan
2004 Incumbent +0.75% Greenspan
First, let’s explain the table. The “Winning Party” column should be intuitive, but for example, in 1988, when Reagan’s second term was up and Bush Sr. won the election, it’s noted “Incumbent” since the incoming President was of the same party as his predecessor. Conversely, when Clinton’s second term ended, Bush Jr. won the 2000 election as the “Challenger” from the opposition party.
The next column denotes the change in the Fed funds target rate from June 30 to November 30 of the election year – in other words, from about now until the month of the general election.
Note that when Volcker raised rates nearly ten points in the months prior to the 1980 election, thus choking off economic growth, it spelled doom for Carter’s re-election bid. You may recall – if you’re old enough – that there were heavy protests against the Volcker Fed, with bankrupt farmers driving their tractors onto the street in front of the Fed’s headquarters, blocking access to the building. You may also recall that Reagan’s campaign mantra was, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” With record high interest rates and the highest unemployment since the Great Depression, most Americans weren’t.
In 1984 Volcker eased a point and a half prior to the election, and Reagan won in a landslide. In 1988, Greenspan raised rates, but only modestly, not yet halting growth, and Bush Sr. retained the White House for the Republicans.
But in 1992, even though Greenspan had cut the funds target 75 basis points in the months prior to the election, many viewed it as not enough. Among them was the incumbent President, who famously accused Greenspan of thwarting his re-election bid with the quote, “I re-appointed him, and he disappointed me.” Clinton defeated Bush that year with the campaign slogan, “It’s the economy, stupid.”
Greenspan apparently learned his lesson. There was no change in the funds target in the months prior to the next two elections, in spite of a looming recession in late 2000. In 2004, the Greenspan Fed raised rates in the months prior to the election, but the change was less than a percentage point, and not enough to choke off growth, thus the incumbent retained the White House.
Now, I haven’t bothered to try to determine the level of statistical significance of a policy action of a given magnitude, nor have I correlated this with other related measures, for example, output growth or unemployment. And the correlation isn’t perfect: Greenspan cut rates in 1992, which should have helped Bush Sr., but the point was that he wasn’t cutting aggressively at a time when job growth still hadn’t rebounded and the economy, while growing again after the 1990-91 recession, was languishing.
The bottom line is this: central bankers are loath to give the appearance of influencing presidential elections. That is not an immutable law; if necessary, they will act. But given Bernanke’s comments that suggest the Fed basically doesn’t know what to do right now, with both the threat to growth and the threat to inflation escalating, the pending election further lends support to the Fed holding off on doing anything until after November. (The next FOMC meeting after the election is in mid-December.)
The second reason I’m predicting no rate hike, and indeed, a rate cut as the Fed’s next move, has to do with the central bank’s dual policy mandate. The Fed is charged with fighting inflation, true, and they do that by raising rates, at least under the monetarist regime that’s been in place since Volcker’s chairmanship. But it is equally charged with maintaining “full employment,” which is done by cutting rates to stimulate consumer and business borrowing, thus increasing business activity to the point that companies need to hire more people, creating job growth.
The Fed’s job is thus to strike a balance between these two mandates. It can certainly be a precarious one; last year I often wrote of Bernanke’s job as walking a tightrope, and alluded to the old Leon Russell song of the same name, which includes the lyrics, “One side’s hate and one is hope,” which is descriptive of Bernanke’s ever-increasing conundrum: raise rates, and you’re hated for sending the economy into a tailspin; cut them, and you feed the hopes of Wall Street and Main Street, but you also feed the inflation monster.
But I digress. I compared the Fed funds target to the monthly change in nonfarm payrolls going back to the beginning of 1980, just five months after Volcker took the helm of the Fed and introduced monetarism to the central bank (that was also the year of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act, which allowed deposit and loan rates to float freely, thus setting the stage for the S&L crisis – but that’s another story).
In only two cases has the Fed raised rates when nonfarm payrolls were falling. Both occurred in 1982, and both represented brief, temporary adjustments to an aggressive course of easing in the face of, as noted earlier, the highest unemployment since the Depression. Within one to three months of each move, the easing resumed. Also, at the time CPI year-over-year was still running in the 6-8% range, compared with 4-5% recently.
However, the Fed has cut rates when nonfarm payrolls are falling on 30 occasions since 1980. Given that the Fed has cut rates – looking at the funds target month-to-month – 72 times since then, and nonfarm payrolls have fallen in 76 months during the same span, I’d say the statistical significance of that pattern is pretty solid.
The upshot of this is that the Fed is steadfastly resistant to raising rates when jobs are being shed. Nonfarm payrolls have fallen every month this year thus far, with a total loss of nearly a half-million jobs. The losses are broadening across industries, and projections of a reversal of the trend are as scarce as – well, jobs.
Moreover, given the Fed’s solid consistency in cutting rates when job losses are mounting, it’s highly likely that, if the payroll trend persists, we’ll see a rate cut before we see a hike.
There are two additional reasons that I believe the next rate move will be downward. First, the Fed is highly unlikely to enact restrictive monetary policy at the same time it is undertaking accommodative actions. Bernanke’s recent announcement that he will likely keep the discount window open to investment banks into next year would contradict an easing of the funds target.
The other reason has to do with Bernanke himself. While the evidence presented above makes it unlikely that any Fed chairman would raise rates this year, Bernanke has certainly shown he is willing to cut rates in the face of rising inflation. In other words, he is more dove than hawk, especially when it comes to his actions. A Paul Volcker might have the resolve to buck the trend. But to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen’s famous retort to Dan Quayle in the 1988 vice-presidential debate, “Mr. Bernanke, you’re no Paul Volcker.”
War on the Floor?
It appears defeated Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is a sore loser.
Speaking to supporters - who've formed a group called "PUMA," which stands for "Party Unity, My A**" - Hillary said that while she wasn't going to ask for a floor vote at the Democratic National Convention, if her backers wanted to call for one, she thought that was appropriate. She went on to say that, of course, Obama would continue to have her full support no matter what.
Riiiight. And Bill didn't inhale, nor did he have sex with "that woman."
Hillary was quick - too quick, really - to point out that she's done more to support and campaign for Obama than any other recent Democratic second-place finisher has done for a front-runner. I guess that's why we've seen her on TV stumping for Obama so much of late.
I checked her website, and couldn't really find anything plugging Obama. There was a very large banner on the home page that said, "SHOW HILLARY YOUR SUPPORT." Seems she needs money to pay off her campaign debts. On her blog page, there's a place where you can click to contribute, and a lucky winner gets to have dinner with Hillary.
Just like selling a night in the Lincoln bedroom. No thanks, Hill. I don't think I'd have much of an appetite. Tell you what: why don't you sell the china and silver you snitched off Air Force One when it was flying you and Bill to your new digs in New York? That stuff should fetch a pretty penny on e-bay.
But back to the convention. I read in one article where a Dem strategist justified the notion of a floor vote to give closure to Hillary's supporters basically said that when 1,800 delegates out of 4,400 voted for somebody else, there's bound to be some "latent animosity," and the way to fix that is with a floor vote.
Why is there "latent animosity?" There already was a vote, and their candidate lost. Last I checked, 1,800 is less than half of 4,400, right? Didn't the majority win, as happens in a democracy?
This is what has always confused me about Democrats - seriously. A neighbor of mine, after Bush Sr. won in '88, said, "Well, he's not MY president." So I asked him to which foreign country he was moving, since Bush was the President of the United States, and was therefore President of all US citizens? What, if I don't like the turnout, do I get my own personal, private President?
And when Bush II beat Gore, he was declared the winner and Gore conceded. Then Gore sued over Florida. Then the party revised history to say that "Bush stole the election in the courts." He was the defendant, not the plaintiff, for crying out loud.
Now, the Hillary camp wants a revote. How many times? Until Hillary wins, of course. They can't accept democracy - they just want their way, or else they'll get cranky. Why don't Democrats like democracy? Maybe they should change the party name.
Here's another part of this that is irksome to me. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people on message boards and blogs decry anybody who voted for Bush. One mature individual called Bush a "retard," and said "the only bigger retards are the people who voted for him."
I'll say this: if Obama wins - and I think that's more of a when than an if - he will be MY president, for better or worse. And if he totally screws up and tanks the country, I will be critical of HIM, but I would never, ever criticize anyone for having voted for him. In my opinion, they will have exercised their free will and their constitutional right, and I cannot be critical of that.
But what the heck - I happen to believe in democracy.
Speaking to supporters - who've formed a group called "PUMA," which stands for "Party Unity, My A**" - Hillary said that while she wasn't going to ask for a floor vote at the Democratic National Convention, if her backers wanted to call for one, she thought that was appropriate. She went on to say that, of course, Obama would continue to have her full support no matter what.
Riiiight. And Bill didn't inhale, nor did he have sex with "that woman."
Hillary was quick - too quick, really - to point out that she's done more to support and campaign for Obama than any other recent Democratic second-place finisher has done for a front-runner. I guess that's why we've seen her on TV stumping for Obama so much of late.
I checked her website, and couldn't really find anything plugging Obama. There was a very large banner on the home page that said, "SHOW HILLARY YOUR SUPPORT." Seems she needs money to pay off her campaign debts. On her blog page, there's a place where you can click to contribute, and a lucky winner gets to have dinner with Hillary.
Just like selling a night in the Lincoln bedroom. No thanks, Hill. I don't think I'd have much of an appetite. Tell you what: why don't you sell the china and silver you snitched off Air Force One when it was flying you and Bill to your new digs in New York? That stuff should fetch a pretty penny on e-bay.
But back to the convention. I read in one article where a Dem strategist justified the notion of a floor vote to give closure to Hillary's supporters basically said that when 1,800 delegates out of 4,400 voted for somebody else, there's bound to be some "latent animosity," and the way to fix that is with a floor vote.
Why is there "latent animosity?" There already was a vote, and their candidate lost. Last I checked, 1,800 is less than half of 4,400, right? Didn't the majority win, as happens in a democracy?
This is what has always confused me about Democrats - seriously. A neighbor of mine, after Bush Sr. won in '88, said, "Well, he's not MY president." So I asked him to which foreign country he was moving, since Bush was the President of the United States, and was therefore President of all US citizens? What, if I don't like the turnout, do I get my own personal, private President?
And when Bush II beat Gore, he was declared the winner and Gore conceded. Then Gore sued over Florida. Then the party revised history to say that "Bush stole the election in the courts." He was the defendant, not the plaintiff, for crying out loud.
Now, the Hillary camp wants a revote. How many times? Until Hillary wins, of course. They can't accept democracy - they just want their way, or else they'll get cranky. Why don't Democrats like democracy? Maybe they should change the party name.
Here's another part of this that is irksome to me. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people on message boards and blogs decry anybody who voted for Bush. One mature individual called Bush a "retard," and said "the only bigger retards are the people who voted for him."
I'll say this: if Obama wins - and I think that's more of a when than an if - he will be MY president, for better or worse. And if he totally screws up and tanks the country, I will be critical of HIM, but I would never, ever criticize anyone for having voted for him. In my opinion, they will have exercised their free will and their constitutional right, and I cannot be critical of that.
But what the heck - I happen to believe in democracy.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
A Candidate By Any Other Name ...
Barack Obama!
There, did I make you laugh? No?
Last weekend, Sen. Obama tried to scare his supporters of the big, bad, supposedly racist conservatives thusly: "Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to do is try to make you scared of me. You know, 'he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name.' You know, 'he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.'"
Huh?
Let's break it down, Barack. Hang on, let me grab my money clip (before you do). Okay, I've got two twenties, a ten and some singles. First, the ones. Nope, he doesn't look like George. No ruffled shirt, no powdered wig, no wooden teeth. Of course, McCain doesn't look anything like that, either. Nor has any candidate since, oh, about the 1700s or so.
Next up, the twenty. Andy Jackson. No powdered wig, but one heck of a head of hair. I'm jealous. So is McCain. And Andy's wearing some kind of funky collar - no ruffles, but I don't see Obama wearing that either. Nor - again - any other candidate for the last 100 years or so.
Last but not least, the ten. No, Obama doesn't look like Alexander Hamilton, eith- heeeyyy, wait just a darn minute here. Hamilton wasn't a president, he was Treasury Secretary! Somebody doesn't know their history. Or their currency. (But then, maybe the U.S. dollar isn't "citizen of the world" Obama's currency. Maybe he prefers euros, like Gisele Bundchen. Smart move.)
Look, Barack. I could care less if you look like the presidents on the bills. For that matter, I could care less what you look like.
Now, about that name. It just doesn't strike me funny, I'm not sure why. Maybe if I try this game: "Barack, Barack, bo-bock, banana-fanna-fo-fock ..." Nope. Just not cracking up here. Maybe I'm just having a down day.
But listen: your name could be Twinkletoes McChowderhead, and I still wouldn't care.
As for your patriotism, I suppose you're referring to the picture of you supposedly not covering your heart when you said the Pledge of Allegiance (I know, it was the National Anthem, and you said you were taught to cover your heart during the Pledge and sing during the Anthem - although your mouth was shut), or your refusal to wear a flag lapel pin.
Again, I don't care. I don't think wearing a flag pin or singing the Anthem makes you a patriot, nor do I think not doing those things makes you less of a patriot. Frankly, I can't say that you're not patriotic (now your wife, your preacher and some of your buds are another matter).
See, Barack, I - like most voters - don't care what your name is, what you look like, or what pins you wear. I care about your stand on the issues, your experience, your ideas, your vision for America. Why don't you want to talk about those things, instead of talking about what Bush and McCain are going to make me think about you?
Don't worry, Barack, I'm my own man. George Bush and John McCain can't possibly make me scared of you.
You've managed that perfectly well on your own.
************
Case in point: your gas rebate idea. Tax the oil companies to pay for a $1,000 gas rebate for every taxpayer. Great. Just one question: did you ever take an econ class? Didn't you say you turned down a job on Wall Street? Good thing - the Street's got enough problems without that kind of bone-headed thinking.
First, if you increase taxes on the oil companies to the tune of $1,000 for each of the 117 million taxpayers in America, that's $117 billion. That's just a tad less than the combined total net income of the five largest oil companies.
Okay, so you're going to take the entire industry's profits. Who will you hurt?
Sure, you'll get those fat-cat CEOs and their cigar-chomping boards. You'll get the big-time investors.
But Chevron and Exxon Mobil are components of the Dow, and all of the big 5 are in the S&P. There are an awful lot of index funds in 401k plans out there, Barack. A lot of small investors, socking a few bucks away for retirement, that would also be affected.
And what do companies do when their costs - like taxes - go up? They pass along the higher costs to their customers. So, your plan would just jack oil prices up to the point where every taxpayer's paying $1,000 more on gas.
Now true, you gave us the check to pay that difference, so we're at least no worse off than we were, right?
Wrong. Back to Econ 101. Higher oil costs drive up the price of virtually everything else, because everything's gotta be shipped to market. Higher oil prices also increase demand for substitute goods like ethanol, which means higher prices for the inputs to ethanol - like corn and soybeans. Things we eat. So food prices go up too. And net-net, we're worse off than before we got the check.
Finally, aren't you planning to raise my income taxes while you're handing me $1,000 of the oil companies' profits? So aren't you really just taxing them directly? And at the end of the day, am I not now a lot worse off than I was before you put your half-baked plan in place?
Tell you what. You mull this over for a while, maybe even ask Paul Volcker about it - Paul can explain it to you, trust me - while I step out for a minute.
Gotta check the air pressure in my tires.
There, did I make you laugh? No?
Last weekend, Sen. Obama tried to scare his supporters of the big, bad, supposedly racist conservatives thusly: "Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to do is try to make you scared of me. You know, 'he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name.' You know, 'he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.'"
Huh?
Let's break it down, Barack. Hang on, let me grab my money clip (before you do). Okay, I've got two twenties, a ten and some singles. First, the ones. Nope, he doesn't look like George. No ruffled shirt, no powdered wig, no wooden teeth. Of course, McCain doesn't look anything like that, either. Nor has any candidate since, oh, about the 1700s or so.
Next up, the twenty. Andy Jackson. No powdered wig, but one heck of a head of hair. I'm jealous. So is McCain. And Andy's wearing some kind of funky collar - no ruffles, but I don't see Obama wearing that either. Nor - again - any other candidate for the last 100 years or so.
Last but not least, the ten. No, Obama doesn't look like Alexander Hamilton, eith- heeeyyy, wait just a darn minute here. Hamilton wasn't a president, he was Treasury Secretary! Somebody doesn't know their history. Or their currency. (But then, maybe the U.S. dollar isn't "citizen of the world" Obama's currency. Maybe he prefers euros, like Gisele Bundchen. Smart move.)
Look, Barack. I could care less if you look like the presidents on the bills. For that matter, I could care less what you look like.
Now, about that name. It just doesn't strike me funny, I'm not sure why. Maybe if I try this game: "Barack, Barack, bo-bock, banana-fanna-fo-fock ..." Nope. Just not cracking up here. Maybe I'm just having a down day.
But listen: your name could be Twinkletoes McChowderhead, and I still wouldn't care.
As for your patriotism, I suppose you're referring to the picture of you supposedly not covering your heart when you said the Pledge of Allegiance (I know, it was the National Anthem, and you said you were taught to cover your heart during the Pledge and sing during the Anthem - although your mouth was shut), or your refusal to wear a flag lapel pin.
Again, I don't care. I don't think wearing a flag pin or singing the Anthem makes you a patriot, nor do I think not doing those things makes you less of a patriot. Frankly, I can't say that you're not patriotic (now your wife, your preacher and some of your buds are another matter).
See, Barack, I - like most voters - don't care what your name is, what you look like, or what pins you wear. I care about your stand on the issues, your experience, your ideas, your vision for America. Why don't you want to talk about those things, instead of talking about what Bush and McCain are going to make me think about you?
Don't worry, Barack, I'm my own man. George Bush and John McCain can't possibly make me scared of you.
You've managed that perfectly well on your own.
************
Case in point: your gas rebate idea. Tax the oil companies to pay for a $1,000 gas rebate for every taxpayer. Great. Just one question: did you ever take an econ class? Didn't you say you turned down a job on Wall Street? Good thing - the Street's got enough problems without that kind of bone-headed thinking.
First, if you increase taxes on the oil companies to the tune of $1,000 for each of the 117 million taxpayers in America, that's $117 billion. That's just a tad less than the combined total net income of the five largest oil companies.
Okay, so you're going to take the entire industry's profits. Who will you hurt?
Sure, you'll get those fat-cat CEOs and their cigar-chomping boards. You'll get the big-time investors.
But Chevron and Exxon Mobil are components of the Dow, and all of the big 5 are in the S&P. There are an awful lot of index funds in 401k plans out there, Barack. A lot of small investors, socking a few bucks away for retirement, that would also be affected.
And what do companies do when their costs - like taxes - go up? They pass along the higher costs to their customers. So, your plan would just jack oil prices up to the point where every taxpayer's paying $1,000 more on gas.
Now true, you gave us the check to pay that difference, so we're at least no worse off than we were, right?
Wrong. Back to Econ 101. Higher oil costs drive up the price of virtually everything else, because everything's gotta be shipped to market. Higher oil prices also increase demand for substitute goods like ethanol, which means higher prices for the inputs to ethanol - like corn and soybeans. Things we eat. So food prices go up too. And net-net, we're worse off than before we got the check.
Finally, aren't you planning to raise my income taxes while you're handing me $1,000 of the oil companies' profits? So aren't you really just taxing them directly? And at the end of the day, am I not now a lot worse off than I was before you put your half-baked plan in place?
Tell you what. You mull this over for a while, maybe even ask Paul Volcker about it - Paul can explain it to you, trust me - while I step out for a minute.
Gotta check the air pressure in my tires.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)