I'm sitting in my condo in Maui, from whose lanai I can see the ocean. From our pool, I can see the islands of Lanai, Molokai and Oahu in the far distance. The beach could be better - some seaweed and rocks - but I'm not complaining, as within a mile's drive (or walk) are some phenomenal, clean, sandy beaches. Life is good.
So I have little about which to complain. But I will say that this morning, I caught a snippet on the news about President Obama being in Ghana, with his children. They showed a clip of him saying how important it was for his children to be there, what a great educational experience that was for them.
Great. Having paid for a romantic Valentine's Day weekend with the missus in Sweet Home Chicago, then a Broadway Show in New York that he purportedly promised her while on the campaign trail - apparently the first campaign promise he's kept - now we, the humble taxpayer (which disqualifies us from his cabinet, by the way) get to pay for a family trip to Ghana so the kiddoes can get in touch with their African heritage.
The news bit I was watching then attempted to cut to a speech he reportedly gave before the Ghanan version of our Congress. But instead, we were treated to a repeat of the clip of him saying what an important trip it was for his daughters.
Which begs the question: did he even speak before the Ghanan lawmakers? Or was he absent from their proceedings, as he usually was during his all-too-brief tenure as a US Senator?
I do hope his daughters learned a great deal from their experience. The plight of many in Africa is deplorable. And I hope they learn enough to ask Daddy some questions. Such as, "Daddy, are you going to do something about the holocaust in Darfur?" Or, "Daddy, do you plan to continue providing aid to sub-Saharan Africa to fight AIDS, like your mean old predecessor, George Bush? Or is that one of 'the failed policies of the last eight years' that you mention every other sentence?"
Or, "Daddy, can we go see great-Grandma this trip? Or do we simply not have enough time, like your last visit here?"
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
My Obama
As I sit in the Salt Lake City airport, still groggy from the crack-of-dawn flight here from Kansas City following the three and a half hours' sleep I got, and awaiting the six-plus hour flight to Maui, here's a little gem I penned a while back. I do some songwriting (one of my pieces may wind up on a CD soon), and occasionally I'll re-work the words to a familiar tune, usually for the sake of satire. This is an example.
My Obama
(To the tune of “My Sharona”)
Ooh, you love to tax and spend, tax and spend,
When you gonna give us a break, Obama?
All this madness has to end, it has to end,
How much do you think we can take, Obama?
Treasury is broke, that’s no joke, Geithner’s printing fast,
China and Japan plan a ban, so it cannot last
My my my I yi – woo!
M-m-m-my Obama!
M-m-m-my Obama!
You want health care for us all, for us all,
Where’s the money coming for that, Obama?
Government will overpay, every day,
Will you tax us for being fat, Obama?
All the Docs will quit, pack their kit, practice somewhere else,
Then if we get sick, up a creek – universal health?
My my my I yi – woo!
M-m-m-my Obama!
M-m-m-my Obama!
Now you wanna run GM, run GM,
Do you even know what it takes, Obama?
What else will you wanna seize? We’re on our knees!
Please, you gotta put on the brakes, Obama!
You can’t socialize; it’s not wise – take a look at France
Even they now say: “USA, time to change your stance”
My my my I yi – woo!
M-m-m-my Obama!
M-m-m-my Obama!
Didn’t pay my income tax, that’s a fact –
Can I get a spot on your team, Obama?
Simple little oversight, it’s alright,
Wasn’t some nefarious scheme, Obama!
Cabinet gets a pass, don’t harass, get upset or curse;
See the bank execs – what the heck? What they did was worse!
My my my I yi – woo!
M-m-m-my Obama!
M-m-m-my Obama!
My Obama
(To the tune of “My Sharona”)
Ooh, you love to tax and spend, tax and spend,
When you gonna give us a break, Obama?
All this madness has to end, it has to end,
How much do you think we can take, Obama?
Treasury is broke, that’s no joke, Geithner’s printing fast,
China and Japan plan a ban, so it cannot last
My my my I yi – woo!
M-m-m-my Obama!
M-m-m-my Obama!
You want health care for us all, for us all,
Where’s the money coming for that, Obama?
Government will overpay, every day,
Will you tax us for being fat, Obama?
All the Docs will quit, pack their kit, practice somewhere else,
Then if we get sick, up a creek – universal health?
My my my I yi – woo!
M-m-m-my Obama!
M-m-m-my Obama!
Now you wanna run GM, run GM,
Do you even know what it takes, Obama?
What else will you wanna seize? We’re on our knees!
Please, you gotta put on the brakes, Obama!
You can’t socialize; it’s not wise – take a look at France
Even they now say: “USA, time to change your stance”
My my my I yi – woo!
M-m-m-my Obama!
M-m-m-my Obama!
Didn’t pay my income tax, that’s a fact –
Can I get a spot on your team, Obama?
Simple little oversight, it’s alright,
Wasn’t some nefarious scheme, Obama!
Cabinet gets a pass, don’t harass, get upset or curse;
See the bank execs – what the heck? What they did was worse!
My my my I yi – woo!
M-m-m-my Obama!
M-m-m-my Obama!
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Random Pre-Vacation Musings
Tomorrow morning I board a plane at the unspeakable hour of 6 am - bearing the colors of the unspeakable airline, Delta - to fly to Maui for a well-deserved (if I do say so myself) vacation with my two favorite people in the world. Before I go, some random thoughts on three topics.
First, a follow-up to my proposed reforms posted yesterday. Here are some more, some proposed by my good buddies at d2football.com, some fleshed out from what I already came up with, and some that I forgot about, or came up with later.
1. I'd also do away with the party conventions. I'd like to do away with the parties, period, and have the election process simply be "Citizen A running for president, not Member X of the RNC," as one of my d2 pals put it. Not sure how to pull that off though.
2. I'd also do away with caucuses, in favor of primaries. And no dual-selection processes like we have in some places in Texas.
3. I'd scrap the electoral college. Not that a popular vote doesn't have its flaws, but the electoral college today simply leads to candidates playing a numbers game, and focusing on "key states" and "swing states" while ignoring others, either because they're a foregone conclusion to go to one party or the other, or because they don't carry enough electoral votes to matter. EVERY vote MUST matter!
4. To clarify, POTUS could take AFOne on a leisure trip, but would have to pay the costs for it and the security detail out of pocket. If s/he can't afford it - too bad. There are plenty of opportunities to visit New York on official government business, and the prez could take in a Broadway show then. Besides, DC has decent entertainment. If a national crisis breaks out on a self-funded leisure trip, of course the taxpayer funds would come into play to pay for the altered travel plans.
5. I might reconsider the deductibility of charitable contributions. If I did, I'd remove the caps. If somebody wants to give 100% of their substantial income to charity, they should be able to do so, and have a tax incentive for doing it.
6. From the same d2 guy, I'd strip all official positions from the political parties, including Speaker and committee chairs. Let the congresspersons run for chairmanships, and be voted on by their peers. There'd be a new voting process with each election cycle.
7. From the same guy (maybe I should make him Chief of Staff), I'd reinstate the peacetime draft, with certain exemptions - disability, or employment in certain fields. Pay would be based in part on length of service commitment.
8. I would provide tax incentives for saving and investment. I'd up the IRA/401k limits, and remove the caps. We have to get back to being a nation of savers and investors, not borrowers and consumers.
************
I hate even giving this blog space, but I'm sickened by the whole Michael Jackson thing. He was a marketing genius who surrounded himself with very good producers; he wrote catchy pop tunes with little substance or meaning; he was a prodigious child talent, but an average singer as an adult; and he could only have been popular as an entertainer in our current/recent culture.
And he was a pedophile.
Yet they're selling tickets to celebrate his life. What does that say about us?
When we heard on the news that there'd be all-day coverage of this media circus today, my wife lamented that it wasn't tomorrow instead: we'll be on airplanes all day.
Some news talking head commented that it was "highly unusual" to find the surgical drug Propofol in a private citizen's home. My first thought was that the words "highly unusual" fit Michael Jackson like ... well, like a glove.
A very excellent book I'm reading called "The Reason for God" made a very appropriate point that applies to Jackson's life. I believe the author, Tim Keller, might have been quoting C.S. Lewis. To paraphrase, he noted that there's a God-shaped hole in all of us. And when someone finally reaches the zenith of one's chosen field - the pinnacle of what one is really good at - and finds they're still the same broken schmuck they were when they were nobody, with all the attendant warts, hurts and demons, it has to be devastating. At that point, what else is there? What else can they do to be somebody different, the somebody they thought fame, fortune, success, whatever, would make them? When they realize that they're not that butterfly, but still the same old worm, what then?
It can only end badly, and we've seen it too many times.
When you've got one puzzle piece left, you fill it with the only piece that will fit. Try filling it with a perfectly round piece, or a square piece, and there's still a hole. Get the message?
************
As a cycling fan, I find this year's Tour de France intriguing. It is fitting proof that experience can often trump youthful vigor. To wit: the sporting press are making a mountain out of the molehill that Lance Armstrong, at age 37, managed to be in the lead group that split from the peloton yesterday, just when the group hit the stiff Mediterranean winds near the French coast, while his compatriot, young Alberto Contador, reportedly and presumably the leader of their Astana team, got caught in the back group.
I say it was no rivalry-bred conspiracy, but a simple matter of the experience of a seven-time Tour winner, who's forgotten more about racing tactics than most in the peloton will ever know, versus the lack of savvy of a young stud who's won three major tours, but with the guidance of cycling's greatest tactician, Johann Bruyneel.
Look back at past Tours. In those nervous, early stages, Armstrong always rode near the front. Always. That's what leaders do. You avoid the surprises, the unexpected breakaways, the field splits, and the crashes. That Conti was leisurely making his way from the back of the pack to the middle at that point just shows that he has a lot to learn.
Former Armstrong lieutenant George Hincapie, now a rival, was in the front group. Conspiracy? Nope. Big George is himself a veteran of 14 Tours. He knows the game. Two Astana teammates were with Armstrong. Team rift? Doubtful. If I were on Armstrong's team, I'd be on his wheel as long as I could hold it. You don't win 7 Tours by being lucky. The only reason I wouldn't be on his wheel would be if I were an arrogant young buck who thought his climbing prowess and his post-Armstrong successes made the leadership of the team his birthright. And that may prove Contador's downfall.
What if Armstrong and his two teammates had stayed back with their "leader," Contador?
Well, first, it was no accident that Astana had positioned itself as the leading team headed into today's team time trial. I have to believe it was part of Astana's strategy. Knowing the TTT was coming on the fourth stage, and that the leading team is last to hit the course, you'd want to be that team, so that you'd know all the other teams' split times at each of the three checkpoints. That strategy was also likely led by Armstrong and Bruyneel.
After stage one, in which Astana smashed the opening time trial, placing four riders in the top ten, and stage two, Astana held the team lead by 31 seconds over yellow jersey Fabian Cancellara's Saxo Bank team. The split between the lead group - containing Armstrong, the two other Astana riders, and race leader Cancellara - and the main group on Wednesday was 41 seconds. There were no other Saxo riders in the lead group.
Had Astana had zero riders in the lead group, they'd have possibly lost the team lead. As it was, Armstrong's two teammates in the lead group put the hammer down, putting distance between the two groups to maximize the TEAM's advantage. (That also fueled the conspiracy theories.)
Of course, with the benefit of being able to start the TTT last, Astana destroyed the field today. Looking at the average times from the lead five riders - those whose times count in the TTT for the team time - from Saxo and Astana from Stage 1's 15.5 km time trial, and extrapolating the distance to today's 39.9 km, produced a 44 second gap between Astana and Saxo Bank.
Astana beat Saxo by 40 seconds, enough to put Armstrong in second by a scant 0.22 second - a margin so small that the race officials had to go back to to Stage 1's results and, combined with today's, calculate the times to the hundredth of a second.
That margin almost put Armstrong in yellow for the 84th time in his career. But more importantly, it set up Astana for a cinch victory in this year's Tour. Cancellara can't climb, so he's not a GC contender. The other contenders? They have too much time to make up to overcome the Astana lead. Carlos Sastre, who won last year only because Contador and Astana were excluded from the race (don't get me started on that travesty), is 2:44 behind Armstrong, 2:25 behind third-placed Contador, 2:21 behind fourth-placed Andreas Kloden, and 2:13 behind fifth-placed Levi Leipheimer. Between those four Astana riders, they have 12 Tour podium appearances. Tough to make up that much time on that set of riders.
Two-time bridesmaid Cadel Evans is 2:59 down on Armstrong, and 2009 Giro winner Denis Menchov is nearly another minute back.
Heading into the steep stuff on Friday, Astana also has a couple of other mountain goats in seventh and 11th place. Only Team Garmin's Christian Vandevelde and Columbia's Hincapie have a decent GC shot at this point. Things are setting up nicely for a 1-2-3 finish for Astana, an unprecedented feat that would put a nice feather in Bruyneel's cap, regardless who's in what position.
Armstrong is smart like a fox - ask Jan Ullrich. And Contador can either learn from him, or congratulate him on the podium in Paris.
First, a follow-up to my proposed reforms posted yesterday. Here are some more, some proposed by my good buddies at d2football.com, some fleshed out from what I already came up with, and some that I forgot about, or came up with later.
1. I'd also do away with the party conventions. I'd like to do away with the parties, period, and have the election process simply be "Citizen A running for president, not Member X of the RNC," as one of my d2 pals put it. Not sure how to pull that off though.
2. I'd also do away with caucuses, in favor of primaries. And no dual-selection processes like we have in some places in Texas.
3. I'd scrap the electoral college. Not that a popular vote doesn't have its flaws, but the electoral college today simply leads to candidates playing a numbers game, and focusing on "key states" and "swing states" while ignoring others, either because they're a foregone conclusion to go to one party or the other, or because they don't carry enough electoral votes to matter. EVERY vote MUST matter!
4. To clarify, POTUS could take AFOne on a leisure trip, but would have to pay the costs for it and the security detail out of pocket. If s/he can't afford it - too bad. There are plenty of opportunities to visit New York on official government business, and the prez could take in a Broadway show then. Besides, DC has decent entertainment. If a national crisis breaks out on a self-funded leisure trip, of course the taxpayer funds would come into play to pay for the altered travel plans.
5. I might reconsider the deductibility of charitable contributions. If I did, I'd remove the caps. If somebody wants to give 100% of their substantial income to charity, they should be able to do so, and have a tax incentive for doing it.
6. From the same d2 guy, I'd strip all official positions from the political parties, including Speaker and committee chairs. Let the congresspersons run for chairmanships, and be voted on by their peers. There'd be a new voting process with each election cycle.
7. From the same guy (maybe I should make him Chief of Staff), I'd reinstate the peacetime draft, with certain exemptions - disability, or employment in certain fields. Pay would be based in part on length of service commitment.
8. I would provide tax incentives for saving and investment. I'd up the IRA/401k limits, and remove the caps. We have to get back to being a nation of savers and investors, not borrowers and consumers.
************
I hate even giving this blog space, but I'm sickened by the whole Michael Jackson thing. He was a marketing genius who surrounded himself with very good producers; he wrote catchy pop tunes with little substance or meaning; he was a prodigious child talent, but an average singer as an adult; and he could only have been popular as an entertainer in our current/recent culture.
And he was a pedophile.
Yet they're selling tickets to celebrate his life. What does that say about us?
When we heard on the news that there'd be all-day coverage of this media circus today, my wife lamented that it wasn't tomorrow instead: we'll be on airplanes all day.
Some news talking head commented that it was "highly unusual" to find the surgical drug Propofol in a private citizen's home. My first thought was that the words "highly unusual" fit Michael Jackson like ... well, like a glove.
A very excellent book I'm reading called "The Reason for God" made a very appropriate point that applies to Jackson's life. I believe the author, Tim Keller, might have been quoting C.S. Lewis. To paraphrase, he noted that there's a God-shaped hole in all of us. And when someone finally reaches the zenith of one's chosen field - the pinnacle of what one is really good at - and finds they're still the same broken schmuck they were when they were nobody, with all the attendant warts, hurts and demons, it has to be devastating. At that point, what else is there? What else can they do to be somebody different, the somebody they thought fame, fortune, success, whatever, would make them? When they realize that they're not that butterfly, but still the same old worm, what then?
It can only end badly, and we've seen it too many times.
When you've got one puzzle piece left, you fill it with the only piece that will fit. Try filling it with a perfectly round piece, or a square piece, and there's still a hole. Get the message?
************
As a cycling fan, I find this year's Tour de France intriguing. It is fitting proof that experience can often trump youthful vigor. To wit: the sporting press are making a mountain out of the molehill that Lance Armstrong, at age 37, managed to be in the lead group that split from the peloton yesterday, just when the group hit the stiff Mediterranean winds near the French coast, while his compatriot, young Alberto Contador, reportedly and presumably the leader of their Astana team, got caught in the back group.
I say it was no rivalry-bred conspiracy, but a simple matter of the experience of a seven-time Tour winner, who's forgotten more about racing tactics than most in the peloton will ever know, versus the lack of savvy of a young stud who's won three major tours, but with the guidance of cycling's greatest tactician, Johann Bruyneel.
Look back at past Tours. In those nervous, early stages, Armstrong always rode near the front. Always. That's what leaders do. You avoid the surprises, the unexpected breakaways, the field splits, and the crashes. That Conti was leisurely making his way from the back of the pack to the middle at that point just shows that he has a lot to learn.
Former Armstrong lieutenant George Hincapie, now a rival, was in the front group. Conspiracy? Nope. Big George is himself a veteran of 14 Tours. He knows the game. Two Astana teammates were with Armstrong. Team rift? Doubtful. If I were on Armstrong's team, I'd be on his wheel as long as I could hold it. You don't win 7 Tours by being lucky. The only reason I wouldn't be on his wheel would be if I were an arrogant young buck who thought his climbing prowess and his post-Armstrong successes made the leadership of the team his birthright. And that may prove Contador's downfall.
What if Armstrong and his two teammates had stayed back with their "leader," Contador?
Well, first, it was no accident that Astana had positioned itself as the leading team headed into today's team time trial. I have to believe it was part of Astana's strategy. Knowing the TTT was coming on the fourth stage, and that the leading team is last to hit the course, you'd want to be that team, so that you'd know all the other teams' split times at each of the three checkpoints. That strategy was also likely led by Armstrong and Bruyneel.
After stage one, in which Astana smashed the opening time trial, placing four riders in the top ten, and stage two, Astana held the team lead by 31 seconds over yellow jersey Fabian Cancellara's Saxo Bank team. The split between the lead group - containing Armstrong, the two other Astana riders, and race leader Cancellara - and the main group on Wednesday was 41 seconds. There were no other Saxo riders in the lead group.
Had Astana had zero riders in the lead group, they'd have possibly lost the team lead. As it was, Armstrong's two teammates in the lead group put the hammer down, putting distance between the two groups to maximize the TEAM's advantage. (That also fueled the conspiracy theories.)
Of course, with the benefit of being able to start the TTT last, Astana destroyed the field today. Looking at the average times from the lead five riders - those whose times count in the TTT for the team time - from Saxo and Astana from Stage 1's 15.5 km time trial, and extrapolating the distance to today's 39.9 km, produced a 44 second gap between Astana and Saxo Bank.
Astana beat Saxo by 40 seconds, enough to put Armstrong in second by a scant 0.22 second - a margin so small that the race officials had to go back to to Stage 1's results and, combined with today's, calculate the times to the hundredth of a second.
That margin almost put Armstrong in yellow for the 84th time in his career. But more importantly, it set up Astana for a cinch victory in this year's Tour. Cancellara can't climb, so he's not a GC contender. The other contenders? They have too much time to make up to overcome the Astana lead. Carlos Sastre, who won last year only because Contador and Astana were excluded from the race (don't get me started on that travesty), is 2:44 behind Armstrong, 2:25 behind third-placed Contador, 2:21 behind fourth-placed Andreas Kloden, and 2:13 behind fifth-placed Levi Leipheimer. Between those four Astana riders, they have 12 Tour podium appearances. Tough to make up that much time on that set of riders.
Two-time bridesmaid Cadel Evans is 2:59 down on Armstrong, and 2009 Giro winner Denis Menchov is nearly another minute back.
Heading into the steep stuff on Friday, Astana also has a couple of other mountain goats in seventh and 11th place. Only Team Garmin's Christian Vandevelde and Columbia's Hincapie have a decent GC shot at this point. Things are setting up nicely for a 1-2-3 finish for Astana, an unprecedented feat that would put a nice feather in Bruyneel's cap, regardless who's in what position.
Armstrong is smart like a fox - ask Jan Ullrich. And Contador can either learn from him, or congratulate him on the podium in Paris.
Monday, July 6, 2009
I'm Ba-aack!
I decided to return to the blogosphere after all, and the topic for today is reforms.
Having grown completely and entirely sick, tired and disgusted of all politicians and of politics in general, I spent part of my hiatus from this blog thinking about what I'd do differently "if I were king," to rip off the Wizard of Oz.
If I were prez, this would be my agenda, in no particular order (recognizing that in the current environment in DC I could never accomplish it, and that some of these things would be beyond my purview as POTUS - either states' issues or congressional ones):
1. Complete campaign reform. This includes limiting campaigning for president to a nine-month period running prior to the election - none of this running for two years crap. Debates would be set in advance, limited to three for the primaries and three for the general election, and would follow the same format for each. Every candidate would have an opportunity to answer each question - no more limiting questions to some candidates, as happened to Huckabee and Paul in one of the last GOP debates. The moderator could not come from the mainstream media - I'm not sure whom I'd pick, maybe draw from a lottery, or maybe have all questions submitted from the people, electronically via a website, e-mail or phone. A switch would be placed on each candidate's mic, and when they hit their time limit for a question the mic would shut off. Likewise, if their answer were off-topic, or if they tried to veer off-topic after giving an answer, the mic could be shut off and we'd move to the next question. Three infractions, and they're out of the debate, and all subsequent ones. If they can't play by the rules in a debate, they're unlikely to in office.
There would also be significant campaign finance reform, including the elimination of all PACs, and a cap on funds raised - any funds donated above the cap would go to pay down the national debt.
2. Congressional term limits, two terms for senators and six for representatives. Twelve years is long enough to serve in any job. Also, congressional bennies would expire after a time period equal to the time the congressperson served. So if the lawmaker serves the full 12 years, they'd get 12 years of post-service bennies before they expired and they had to get a real job. If a rep serves one term then loses, they'd get two years of bennies. The bennies would be those they'd get during active service; the pension would be equivalent to 80% of their annual pay the last year they served, with no COLAs during the payout period.
3. Congress could no longer approve their own pay raises. They - and the president - would get an annual COLA equal to headline CPI for that year, period. And in any year there was a budget deficit, they'd get nada. If the deficit exceeded 5% of GDP, they would each take a pay cut that year equal to the deficit as a percent of GDP (this year they'd get whacked by about 13%), with the money going to pay down the deficit. And they'd get no chance to recoup that pay cut, just the annual COLAs.
4. I'd pursue real, meaningful tort reform. There would be caps on awards, including medical malpractice suits, maybe dependent on the nature of the injury. I'd want to consult more on that with my HHS Secretary, a very smart doc I know. I'd also streamline the FDA drug approval process - it shouldn't take any longer to get a drug approved here than in other developed countries. And I'd break the insurance companies' stranglehold on medicine - again, I'd defer to my HHS Secretary on the details.
5. Neither the president nor congress would have more than six weeks' paid vacation per year, and there would be no junkets. Camp David would only be used if the president had to be whisked out of DC for security reasons, or to entertain foreign dignitaries - never for a leisurely getaway. It would be a working retreat. AFOne could not be used for weekend trips on leisure, at least on the taxpayers' dime - if the president wanted a weekend getaway, he'd still use AFOne and have the appropriate security detail, but it would come out of his own pocket (or hers). In fact, the president and each elected congressperson would have an annual travel budget that could not be exceeded except if there's a national emergency that required travel, and any expenditures over budget would come out of pocket.
6. It would be law that former lobbyists could not be given cabinet appointments, and no elected official could serve as a lobbyist after their term for a period of time equal to the term served in office.
7. The Fed would function solely as a central bank and lender of last resort, and its balance sheet would be limited in size. It could not regulate. And it would be completely independent, by a constitutional amendment if necessary.
8. There would be a line-item veto. Also, no spending bill could be voted on until the people had a chance to review it for three weeks, and no lawmaker could vote on a spending bill without signing an affidavit, subject to legal action, attesting to his/her having read and understood it.
9. The IRS, Dept. of Education, and probably the DEA and ATF would be eliminated. A flat tax would be imposed in place of the current structure, with no itemized deductions.
10. Unemployment benefits could not be extended by Congress. Thirteen weeks, period.
11. Any state that wanted federal funding for education would have to make financial literacy a part of the core public school curriculum, beginning at the elementary school level and continuing through high school.
12. Usury limits would be put in place. Payday lending would be illegal. Any financial institution that offered car loans in excess of five years and/or mortgages other than fixed-rate loans with at least 10% down, documented income, and maximum debt-to-income ratios would have to hold all such loans in portfolio.
13. Derivatives markets would be regulated, and the old CFTC rules relating to hedging would be brought back. Wall Street firms could not qualify as real commodity hedgers, only qualified end users.
14. I'd kill the cap and trade idea.
15. Illegal immigrants would be just that: illegal. If they wanted to apply for citizenship, they could, following the same rules as anyone else, after the appropriate punishment for being in the US illegally. If someone was in the US illegally and had a child, that child could not be a US citizen without going through the application process. No free education, welfare, etc.
16. The US would pull out of the UN, and the UN would be kicked off US soil.
I'm sure I could think of more, but that's a decent start for my first term.
Having grown completely and entirely sick, tired and disgusted of all politicians and of politics in general, I spent part of my hiatus from this blog thinking about what I'd do differently "if I were king," to rip off the Wizard of Oz.
If I were prez, this would be my agenda, in no particular order (recognizing that in the current environment in DC I could never accomplish it, and that some of these things would be beyond my purview as POTUS - either states' issues or congressional ones):
1. Complete campaign reform. This includes limiting campaigning for president to a nine-month period running prior to the election - none of this running for two years crap. Debates would be set in advance, limited to three for the primaries and three for the general election, and would follow the same format for each. Every candidate would have an opportunity to answer each question - no more limiting questions to some candidates, as happened to Huckabee and Paul in one of the last GOP debates. The moderator could not come from the mainstream media - I'm not sure whom I'd pick, maybe draw from a lottery, or maybe have all questions submitted from the people, electronically via a website, e-mail or phone. A switch would be placed on each candidate's mic, and when they hit their time limit for a question the mic would shut off. Likewise, if their answer were off-topic, or if they tried to veer off-topic after giving an answer, the mic could be shut off and we'd move to the next question. Three infractions, and they're out of the debate, and all subsequent ones. If they can't play by the rules in a debate, they're unlikely to in office.
There would also be significant campaign finance reform, including the elimination of all PACs, and a cap on funds raised - any funds donated above the cap would go to pay down the national debt.
2. Congressional term limits, two terms for senators and six for representatives. Twelve years is long enough to serve in any job. Also, congressional bennies would expire after a time period equal to the time the congressperson served. So if the lawmaker serves the full 12 years, they'd get 12 years of post-service bennies before they expired and they had to get a real job. If a rep serves one term then loses, they'd get two years of bennies. The bennies would be those they'd get during active service; the pension would be equivalent to 80% of their annual pay the last year they served, with no COLAs during the payout period.
3. Congress could no longer approve their own pay raises. They - and the president - would get an annual COLA equal to headline CPI for that year, period. And in any year there was a budget deficit, they'd get nada. If the deficit exceeded 5% of GDP, they would each take a pay cut that year equal to the deficit as a percent of GDP (this year they'd get whacked by about 13%), with the money going to pay down the deficit. And they'd get no chance to recoup that pay cut, just the annual COLAs.
4. I'd pursue real, meaningful tort reform. There would be caps on awards, including medical malpractice suits, maybe dependent on the nature of the injury. I'd want to consult more on that with my HHS Secretary, a very smart doc I know. I'd also streamline the FDA drug approval process - it shouldn't take any longer to get a drug approved here than in other developed countries. And I'd break the insurance companies' stranglehold on medicine - again, I'd defer to my HHS Secretary on the details.
5. Neither the president nor congress would have more than six weeks' paid vacation per year, and there would be no junkets. Camp David would only be used if the president had to be whisked out of DC for security reasons, or to entertain foreign dignitaries - never for a leisurely getaway. It would be a working retreat. AFOne could not be used for weekend trips on leisure, at least on the taxpayers' dime - if the president wanted a weekend getaway, he'd still use AFOne and have the appropriate security detail, but it would come out of his own pocket (or hers). In fact, the president and each elected congressperson would have an annual travel budget that could not be exceeded except if there's a national emergency that required travel, and any expenditures over budget would come out of pocket.
6. It would be law that former lobbyists could not be given cabinet appointments, and no elected official could serve as a lobbyist after their term for a period of time equal to the term served in office.
7. The Fed would function solely as a central bank and lender of last resort, and its balance sheet would be limited in size. It could not regulate. And it would be completely independent, by a constitutional amendment if necessary.
8. There would be a line-item veto. Also, no spending bill could be voted on until the people had a chance to review it for three weeks, and no lawmaker could vote on a spending bill without signing an affidavit, subject to legal action, attesting to his/her having read and understood it.
9. The IRS, Dept. of Education, and probably the DEA and ATF would be eliminated. A flat tax would be imposed in place of the current structure, with no itemized deductions.
10. Unemployment benefits could not be extended by Congress. Thirteen weeks, period.
11. Any state that wanted federal funding for education would have to make financial literacy a part of the core public school curriculum, beginning at the elementary school level and continuing through high school.
12. Usury limits would be put in place. Payday lending would be illegal. Any financial institution that offered car loans in excess of five years and/or mortgages other than fixed-rate loans with at least 10% down, documented income, and maximum debt-to-income ratios would have to hold all such loans in portfolio.
13. Derivatives markets would be regulated, and the old CFTC rules relating to hedging would be brought back. Wall Street firms could not qualify as real commodity hedgers, only qualified end users.
14. I'd kill the cap and trade idea.
15. Illegal immigrants would be just that: illegal. If they wanted to apply for citizenship, they could, following the same rules as anyone else, after the appropriate punishment for being in the US illegally. If someone was in the US illegally and had a child, that child could not be a US citizen without going through the application process. No free education, welfare, etc.
16. The US would pull out of the UN, and the UN would be kicked off US soil.
I'm sure I could think of more, but that's a decent start for my first term.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Uncle!
Alright, dammit. I'm going to get on Facebook. But I don't have to be happy about it, do I? No, I'm going to be my typically curmudgeonly self about this. And I'll be damned if I'll Twitter.
It's been some time since I've posted on here, by the way - very busy times, with a daughter graduating from high school and a host of other trials and tribulations in my life these past few weeks. My posts may be few and far between for a while as well, because I plan to undertake writing not one, but two books. So forgive me if my economic and political rants are sparse for a while. On the economic side, you'll get plenty of reading out of one of the books, and on the political side ... well, I'll have to save that one for awhile. The second book will be built on the "All Good" post.
Speaking of "all good," there's another "all good" member of my family - my daughter Sydney, who just graduated from high school, and will attend my alma mater, Pittsburg State University, in the fall - on academic and music schollies, no less. She's bright, beautiful, very well-grounded, talented in art (her major) and music (her minor), and has been accepted into the Honors College at Pitt. We'll be empty-nesters (as much as one can be so with three dogs, including a diabetic), but we'll see her often, as we still have our season football tix, and she'll be at all the games. It will be a new chapter for us, and I'm looking forward to lots of "us-time" with the most wonderful woman in the world, and the best Mom ever.
Watch for the books - I'll post updates on the progress - and in the meantime, I hope to occasionally throw out at least a brief rant.
It's been some time since I've posted on here, by the way - very busy times, with a daughter graduating from high school and a host of other trials and tribulations in my life these past few weeks. My posts may be few and far between for a while as well, because I plan to undertake writing not one, but two books. So forgive me if my economic and political rants are sparse for a while. On the economic side, you'll get plenty of reading out of one of the books, and on the political side ... well, I'll have to save that one for awhile. The second book will be built on the "All Good" post.
Speaking of "all good," there's another "all good" member of my family - my daughter Sydney, who just graduated from high school, and will attend my alma mater, Pittsburg State University, in the fall - on academic and music schollies, no less. She's bright, beautiful, very well-grounded, talented in art (her major) and music (her minor), and has been accepted into the Honors College at Pitt. We'll be empty-nesters (as much as one can be so with three dogs, including a diabetic), but we'll see her often, as we still have our season football tix, and she'll be at all the games. It will be a new chapter for us, and I'm looking forward to lots of "us-time" with the most wonderful woman in the world, and the best Mom ever.
Watch for the books - I'll post updates on the progress - and in the meantime, I hope to occasionally throw out at least a brief rant.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
A Brief One
Most of my posts are nigh unbearably long-winded, so enjoy this brief one. It's actually a cut-and-paste from the D2 football message board I frequent, in response to someone asking if now was the best time for a viable third party.
My short reply was that now would be an excellent time for a viable first or second party.
The thread went on with the token liberals saying the GOP has become irrelevant, and will stay irrelevant forever.
So they hope.
I responded with this summary of the political picture, which I think is pretty accurate:
With all this talk about the demise of the GOP, we've heard this before. We heard it when Nixon made a shambles of his presidency (after LBJ squandered the Dems' political capital, opening the door for the Republicans to get Nixon the W). That paved the way for Carter's win. And when he turned out to be a Frenchman with a Georgia accent, Reagan got elected. Bush I capitalizes on Reagan's political capital, then squanders that with the one-two punch of the infamous "read my lips" flip-flop and a too-slow jobs recovery after a recession (more Greenspan's fault than his, but still a catalyst for Clinton's copying the Reaganism, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"). And again we heard of the death of the GOP. After Clinton made the White House a National Enquirer cover story, that opened the door for W, and a succession of totally lame candidates to run against him both times got him in, until the country reached the point of "let's elect anybody, so long as it's not a Republican." So in waltzes Obama, and all we hear about is that the GOP has become irrelevant. Well, it's happened before, and it'll cycle back. In four, eight, twelve years the country will be sick of what the Dems have done, and it'll open the door for a Republican candidate.
In saying this I'm not defending the Republican party. I'm simply recounting the irrefutable pattern of American party politics over the past several decades. The fact of the matter is that both parties suck, and both parties generally succeed in mucking things up until we're ready for something different. So we vote for the other party, and find that there is no change we can believe in from the current system. There are just different letters after the schmucks' names.
My short reply was that now would be an excellent time for a viable first or second party.
The thread went on with the token liberals saying the GOP has become irrelevant, and will stay irrelevant forever.
So they hope.
I responded with this summary of the political picture, which I think is pretty accurate:
With all this talk about the demise of the GOP, we've heard this before. We heard it when Nixon made a shambles of his presidency (after LBJ squandered the Dems' political capital, opening the door for the Republicans to get Nixon the W). That paved the way for Carter's win. And when he turned out to be a Frenchman with a Georgia accent, Reagan got elected. Bush I capitalizes on Reagan's political capital, then squanders that with the one-two punch of the infamous "read my lips" flip-flop and a too-slow jobs recovery after a recession (more Greenspan's fault than his, but still a catalyst for Clinton's copying the Reaganism, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"). And again we heard of the death of the GOP. After Clinton made the White House a National Enquirer cover story, that opened the door for W, and a succession of totally lame candidates to run against him both times got him in, until the country reached the point of "let's elect anybody, so long as it's not a Republican." So in waltzes Obama, and all we hear about is that the GOP has become irrelevant. Well, it's happened before, and it'll cycle back. In four, eight, twelve years the country will be sick of what the Dems have done, and it'll open the door for a Republican candidate.
In saying this I'm not defending the Republican party. I'm simply recounting the irrefutable pattern of American party politics over the past several decades. The fact of the matter is that both parties suck, and both parties generally succeed in mucking things up until we're ready for something different. So we vote for the other party, and find that there is no change we can believe in from the current system. There are just different letters after the schmucks' names.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Must've Been A Typo
First, let me apologize for the long hiatus. It's not that there's been a lack of economic and political goings-on to ponder, it's just that I've been busy. My praise band recently played a concert at the state prison in Lansing, and before that we played for a men's retreat at a church near Baldwin City, Kansas. I played lead guitar for the prison concert, so between rehearsals and the performances themselves, I was kept hopping, and when it was all done, as John Lennon famously shouted at the end of Helter Skelter on The White Album, "I've got blisters on my fingers!" So anyway, now I'm back at it. I'll eventually do a post on the concert experience, and also on my daughter's upcoming high school graduation, which will keep me pretty busy for the next couple of weeks. But first, I want to dissect President Obama's 100th day "press conference."
Before I begin, though, let me explain the post title. Remember his campaign slogan, "Change you can believe in?" I'm beginning to suspect it was a typo, and what he really meant was "Change what you believe in."
Now the President is very articulate - a fine speaker, with or without his teleprompter, though he does much better with. I chalk that up to inexperience. Once his on-the-job training is completed, as his now-Secretary of State once warned he'd need, I imagine he'll be a fine extemporaneous speaker. He's also affable, and can be funny - all in all, very engaging.
But every time he talks, I'm reminded of what Hamish said to William Wallace in Braveheart, just before the battle at Stirling: "Fine speech. Now what?"
See, President Obama talks a good game. But his actions run counter to his words, and there were a number of examples of that in the "press conference." One more aside before I tuck into that, though. The reason I put "press conference" in quotes is that it isn't really a press conference, it's an orchestrated speech. He takes the podium with a pre-set list of which reporters he's going to call on and in what order. And when they ask their questions, he blathers for too long in response to each, so that the number of questions is very limited. And in so blathering, he basically talks about whatever he wants. Sort of reminds me of the "debates."
But on to the Q&A.
He began by talking about the swine flu (I could digress and pick on Joe "Stand up, Chuck!" Biden here, but I won't), then segued into the budget:
"The second thing I'd like to mention is how gratified I am that the House and the Senate passed a budget resolution today that will serve as an economic blueprint for this nation's future." Mr. President, if that's the blueprint, I'm not so sure I want to live in the house, at least not without a hard hat.
"We began by passing a Recovery Act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs ..." Whoa, gotta call BS here. The US has lost 1.2 million jobs since he took office - likely to grow to about 1.9 million by next week's jobs report. And his economic team has thus far refused to release how it counts said jobs "saved or created" - and that terminology makes the numbers murky at best, as estimating "jobs saved" is pure speculation.
"And we launched a housing plan that has already contributed to a spike in the number of homeowners who are refinancing their mortgages, which is the equivalent of another tax cut." Again, bovine poo. A tax cut is a tax cut. And the only people who've refinanced their mortgages are people who already could qualify for a conforming loan, who probably didn't need the added cash. Now, his point was that the freed-up cash from refinancing, in addition to the extra 12 bucks a month most of us are getting in our paychecks, will stimulate the economy. There are a couple of problems with this.
First, some of the refi candidates were folks who qualified for a conforming refi but did need to pare down some other debt. They'll use the extra cash to do that. The rest were financially astute enough to not be in debt trouble, but weren't going to look a gift horse in the mouth when mortgage rates fell to record lows. They're smart enough to save the extra dough.
The other problem stems from juxtaposing that assertion with his next statement: "We can't go back to an economy that's built on a pile of sand: on inflated home prices and maxed-out credit cards; on over-leveraged banks and outdated regulations that allow recklessness of a few to threaten the prosperity of all."
Well, hear, hear! I wholeheartedly and curmudgeonly agree! But if that's the case, why is he still clinging to the notion that the way out of the economic morass is to help free up cash in people's pockets so they'll spend it? If he wants us to get away from over-leveraging ourselves, where are the incentives to save? The disincentives to borrow? Why are we bailing out only the "reckless few," both the homeowners and the banks? Why the pressure on the banks to lend more? And, most importantly, where's the fiscal restraint at the federal level?
Okay, the first question was about the swine flu, then one on Chrysler. Then he got a couple from reporters trying to get him to say that the Bush administration sanctioned torture, which he side-stepped. Then came a gem from Chuck Todd of MSNBC - a guy I can't stand from a network I can't stand - that illustrated why I'm too much of a smart-ass to ever be president.
Chuck Todd: "Thank you, Mr. President. I want to move to Pakistan."
I'd have immediately replied, "I'd be all for that, Chuck - I'll even loan you Air Force One to get you there. I'm sure we could get a photo op out of it even."
The rest of my comments are largely fluff. In response to a question on abortion and the freedom of choice act, he said, "The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that position casually." Au contraire, Mr. President. I think too many women who are pro-choice take too many positions too casually (rimshot).
Then he got Jeff Zany - er, Zeleny's - odd question: "During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office, enchanted you the most about serving in this office, humbled you the most and troubled you the most?"
Seriously? "Enchanted" you the most? The President made light of the question, stopping Zeleny to repeat the four-part question so he could write each part down. But the "enchanted" piece shows just how the mainstream media fawns over this president, failing to call him to task for things like the massive deficits we're creating, or the bungled bank bail-out efforts that leave taxpayers on the hook while providing windfalls to Tim Geithner's cronies, and on scaring the devil out of lower Manhattan for a photo op that could have been taken care of with Photoshop (he didn't get a single question about that, by the way).
He also addressed his bipartisan efforts, which brought to mind the infamous "I won" comment. And he said something about the fine team he'd assembled, which made me wish once again that I hadn't filed my taxes. And he said that the sooner the government gets out of the business of running banks and auto companies, the better off we'll be, to which I also say, hear, hear.
The bottom line is this: the ideology and the actions don't match the words. And that troubles me. The strategy seems to be "tell 'em what they want to hear, and do whatever you want." And that tells me that what he really wants too many Americans to do is change what they believe in.
Before I begin, though, let me explain the post title. Remember his campaign slogan, "Change you can believe in?" I'm beginning to suspect it was a typo, and what he really meant was "Change what you believe in."
Now the President is very articulate - a fine speaker, with or without his teleprompter, though he does much better with. I chalk that up to inexperience. Once his on-the-job training is completed, as his now-Secretary of State once warned he'd need, I imagine he'll be a fine extemporaneous speaker. He's also affable, and can be funny - all in all, very engaging.
But every time he talks, I'm reminded of what Hamish said to William Wallace in Braveheart, just before the battle at Stirling: "Fine speech. Now what?"
See, President Obama talks a good game. But his actions run counter to his words, and there were a number of examples of that in the "press conference." One more aside before I tuck into that, though. The reason I put "press conference" in quotes is that it isn't really a press conference, it's an orchestrated speech. He takes the podium with a pre-set list of which reporters he's going to call on and in what order. And when they ask their questions, he blathers for too long in response to each, so that the number of questions is very limited. And in so blathering, he basically talks about whatever he wants. Sort of reminds me of the "debates."
But on to the Q&A.
He began by talking about the swine flu (I could digress and pick on Joe "Stand up, Chuck!" Biden here, but I won't), then segued into the budget:
"The second thing I'd like to mention is how gratified I am that the House and the Senate passed a budget resolution today that will serve as an economic blueprint for this nation's future." Mr. President, if that's the blueprint, I'm not so sure I want to live in the house, at least not without a hard hat.
"We began by passing a Recovery Act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs ..." Whoa, gotta call BS here. The US has lost 1.2 million jobs since he took office - likely to grow to about 1.9 million by next week's jobs report. And his economic team has thus far refused to release how it counts said jobs "saved or created" - and that terminology makes the numbers murky at best, as estimating "jobs saved" is pure speculation.
"And we launched a housing plan that has already contributed to a spike in the number of homeowners who are refinancing their mortgages, which is the equivalent of another tax cut." Again, bovine poo. A tax cut is a tax cut. And the only people who've refinanced their mortgages are people who already could qualify for a conforming loan, who probably didn't need the added cash. Now, his point was that the freed-up cash from refinancing, in addition to the extra 12 bucks a month most of us are getting in our paychecks, will stimulate the economy. There are a couple of problems with this.
First, some of the refi candidates were folks who qualified for a conforming refi but did need to pare down some other debt. They'll use the extra cash to do that. The rest were financially astute enough to not be in debt trouble, but weren't going to look a gift horse in the mouth when mortgage rates fell to record lows. They're smart enough to save the extra dough.
The other problem stems from juxtaposing that assertion with his next statement: "We can't go back to an economy that's built on a pile of sand: on inflated home prices and maxed-out credit cards; on over-leveraged banks and outdated regulations that allow recklessness of a few to threaten the prosperity of all."
Well, hear, hear! I wholeheartedly and curmudgeonly agree! But if that's the case, why is he still clinging to the notion that the way out of the economic morass is to help free up cash in people's pockets so they'll spend it? If he wants us to get away from over-leveraging ourselves, where are the incentives to save? The disincentives to borrow? Why are we bailing out only the "reckless few," both the homeowners and the banks? Why the pressure on the banks to lend more? And, most importantly, where's the fiscal restraint at the federal level?
Okay, the first question was about the swine flu, then one on Chrysler. Then he got a couple from reporters trying to get him to say that the Bush administration sanctioned torture, which he side-stepped. Then came a gem from Chuck Todd of MSNBC - a guy I can't stand from a network I can't stand - that illustrated why I'm too much of a smart-ass to ever be president.
Chuck Todd: "Thank you, Mr. President. I want to move to Pakistan."
I'd have immediately replied, "I'd be all for that, Chuck - I'll even loan you Air Force One to get you there. I'm sure we could get a photo op out of it even."
The rest of my comments are largely fluff. In response to a question on abortion and the freedom of choice act, he said, "The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that position casually." Au contraire, Mr. President. I think too many women who are pro-choice take too many positions too casually (rimshot).
Then he got Jeff Zany - er, Zeleny's - odd question: "During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office, enchanted you the most about serving in this office, humbled you the most and troubled you the most?"
Seriously? "Enchanted" you the most? The President made light of the question, stopping Zeleny to repeat the four-part question so he could write each part down. But the "enchanted" piece shows just how the mainstream media fawns over this president, failing to call him to task for things like the massive deficits we're creating, or the bungled bank bail-out efforts that leave taxpayers on the hook while providing windfalls to Tim Geithner's cronies, and on scaring the devil out of lower Manhattan for a photo op that could have been taken care of with Photoshop (he didn't get a single question about that, by the way).
He also addressed his bipartisan efforts, which brought to mind the infamous "I won" comment. And he said something about the fine team he'd assembled, which made me wish once again that I hadn't filed my taxes. And he said that the sooner the government gets out of the business of running banks and auto companies, the better off we'll be, to which I also say, hear, hear.
The bottom line is this: the ideology and the actions don't match the words. And that troubles me. The strategy seems to be "tell 'em what they want to hear, and do whatever you want." And that tells me that what he really wants too many Americans to do is change what they believe in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)