John Law was a Scot. He was a brilliant economist and monetary theorist. But he was a Scot. Which, by definition, meant that he had a propensity for trouble-making. By the time he croaked, he was persona non grata in several European nations. He wound up in charge of the French money supply after Louis XIV croaked and France was deeply, almost hopelessly, in debt. There had been wars to finance, don't you see?
So, Law withdrew all coinage from circulation, and outlawed the export of gold and silver. In substitution, paper currency was issued which was backed by the coinage that contained precious metals and had actual value. Law thought that the French citizens would accept the new paper money, and for a while, they did. And Louis XV loved the stuff. It allowed him to retain all the gold and silver.
To keep the French economy humming right along, the king kept the printing presses running to ensure that everyone had enough cash in their pockets. Pretty soon, people noticed that it took a whole lot of the paper money to buy stuff, and they wanted their coins back. When the government declined these requests, the currency collapsed and John Law went to live in Italy.
Note to Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke: This is Peoria, not Paris.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
MARCO POLO AND CHINESE CURRENCY
From 1271 to 1295, Marco Polo went around China and saw a bunch of things. Kublai Khan was running the place. (Coleridge tells us that Kublai decreed that a stately pleasure dome be built in Xanadu, but I think he made that up.) Anyway, among the strange things that MP saw was paper money that was being printed in vast quantities. He thought this was a brilliant idea, because it cost Kublai nothing to produce it. MP thought that printing paper money was akin to alchemy.
Later on, he saw the results of China's experiment with paper money. He observed thusly:
"Population and trade had greatly increased, but the emissions of paper notes were suffered to largely outrun both... All the beneficial effects of a currency that is allowed to expand with a growth of population and trade were now turned into those evil effects that flow from a currency emitted in excess of such growth. These effects were not slow to develop themselves... The best families in the empire were ruined, a new set of men came into the control of public affairs, and the country became the scene of internecine warfare and confusion."
Note to Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke: This is Peoria, not Peking!
Later on, he saw the results of China's experiment with paper money. He observed thusly:
"Population and trade had greatly increased, but the emissions of paper notes were suffered to largely outrun both... All the beneficial effects of a currency that is allowed to expand with a growth of population and trade were now turned into those evil effects that flow from a currency emitted in excess of such growth. These effects were not slow to develop themselves... The best families in the empire were ruined, a new set of men came into the control of public affairs, and the country became the scene of internecine warfare and confusion."
Note to Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke: This is Peoria, not Peking!
Friday, January 29, 2010
DOING AS THE ROMANS DID
Here's a little history for you as it relates to the debasement of currency and the collapse of economic empires:
The silver content of Roman coins was continually reduced.
In the beginning of the first century, it was essentially pure silver.
By A.D. 54: 94%
By A.D. 100: 85%
By 218: 43%
By 244 : 0.05%
At the collapse in 476: 0.02%. Nobody wanted it anymore.
Message to Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke: This is Peoria, not Pompeii!
The silver content of Roman coins was continually reduced.
In the beginning of the first century, it was essentially pure silver.
By A.D. 54: 94%
By A.D. 100: 85%
By 218: 43%
By 244 : 0.05%
At the collapse in 476: 0.02%. Nobody wanted it anymore.
Message to Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke: This is Peoria, not Pompeii!
Thursday, January 28, 2010
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STATE OF THE UNION PROMISES
President Obama, being the free-trader that he is, promises to get the free-trade agreements with Columbia and Panama approved. Wow! What has been taking so long? Nancy Pelosi?
Now the president also wants to pursue nuclear power and off-shore drilling for oil. What has been the hold-up on this? Nancy Pelosi?
Let's see who wins these arguments. And let's find out if the president really has his heart in these things, or is just appearing to shift to the Republican positions. President Obama had no interest at all in any of these things as a candidate.
Now the president also wants to pursue nuclear power and off-shore drilling for oil. What has been the hold-up on this? Nancy Pelosi?
Let's see who wins these arguments. And let's find out if the president really has his heart in these things, or is just appearing to shift to the Republican positions. President Obama had no interest at all in any of these things as a candidate.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
OBAMA GIVETH, THEN TAKETH AWAY
The $787 billion stimulus package had a little provision called the "Make Work Pay" tax credit. This how President Obama gave a "tax cut" to 95% of Americans. It wasn't a cut in marginal rates, as tax cuts are commonly understood. It was a tax credit, but not as tax credits are commonly understood, either. Usually, if you get a tax credit, it doesn't come until you file your tax return, and then it is deducted from the amount you owe, or is added to the amount of your refund. That's not how this one worked.
This tax credit was given to tax payers in advance by a decrease in the amount of federal withholdings. For individuals, it amounted to about $400; for joint filers, about $800 over the course of a year.
But wait...
What if a person had more than one job? Or was drawing a pension or Social Security while still working? OOPS! In these cases, both paychecks had reduced withholdings. There was a double-dip when the worker was entitled to only one scoop of tax credit. What now?
They'll have to pay it back. It's like getting a loan that you didn't ask for, and didn't know you had received. But on April 15, the loan is due in full. Millions of taxpayers don't know what's in store for them.
That's the bad news. The good news is that the IRS expects that most taxpayers who will have to pay back their tax credit will not have to send in additional money with the amount they would ordinarily owe to pay their taxes. They will simply get a smaller refund than they were expecting.
Maybe that's bad news, too.
This tax credit was given to tax payers in advance by a decrease in the amount of federal withholdings. For individuals, it amounted to about $400; for joint filers, about $800 over the course of a year.
But wait...
What if a person had more than one job? Or was drawing a pension or Social Security while still working? OOPS! In these cases, both paychecks had reduced withholdings. There was a double-dip when the worker was entitled to only one scoop of tax credit. What now?
They'll have to pay it back. It's like getting a loan that you didn't ask for, and didn't know you had received. But on April 15, the loan is due in full. Millions of taxpayers don't know what's in store for them.
That's the bad news. The good news is that the IRS expects that most taxpayers who will have to pay back their tax credit will not have to send in additional money with the amount they would ordinarily owe to pay their taxes. They will simply get a smaller refund than they were expecting.
Maybe that's bad news, too.
IT'S THE ENTITLEMENTS, STUPID!
President Obama wants to reduce federal discretionary spending to save $10 billion a year. OK, fine. That makes the president look like budget hawk? Not so much...
The big entitlements (social security, medicare, medicaid) are non-discretionary, and account for 59% of the budget. Everyone knows these programs are on the road to insolvency. The benefits these programs provide are unsustainable. Until spending on these programs is managed, the federal budget is in trouble. Nibbling around the edges of discretionary spending is almost meaningless.
But does anyone think that the House Democrats will be into reducing federal spending? They think more spending is needed to further "stimulate" the economy.
The big entitlements (social security, medicare, medicaid) are non-discretionary, and account for 59% of the budget. Everyone knows these programs are on the road to insolvency. The benefits these programs provide are unsustainable. Until spending on these programs is managed, the federal budget is in trouble. Nibbling around the edges of discretionary spending is almost meaningless.
But does anyone think that the House Democrats will be into reducing federal spending? They think more spending is needed to further "stimulate" the economy.
Monday, January 25, 2010
PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE SPECIAL INTERESTS
President Obama is always screaming about special interest groups, and how they are spoiling our political processes.He especially seems to detest Big Pharma and the health insurance companies. So why is it that the pharmaceutical and insurance industries signed on to the Democrats' health care bill? Because deals were struck. Big Pharma signed on when the president promised not to pursue legislation that would authorize re-importation of medicines from Canada. Why did the insurance companies agree to basically to be regulated like utilities? Because the health care bills contained a provision that would require everyone to buy a health insurance policy. In this way, the profits they might lose in margin would be made up for in volume. So the president isn't above deal-making with special interests, while at the same time blaming them for their influence.
PRESIDENT OBAMA, FACE THE FACTS!
President Obama has to face the facts. Although most people like him personally, the don't like his policies. His pursuit of health care reform has been a nightmare. He out-sourced the writing of the reform bill to Reid and Pelosi in an attempt to avoid a repeat of President Clinton's mistake of formulating a plan without the input of Congress. Since there was no congressional investment in Clinton's bill, Congress had no allegiance to it, and when the American people smelled a rat, no one was willing to support it. Now, no one in Congress is willing to walk the plank for health care reform since the people still smell that rat. President Obama has wasted a lot of time and political capital on an journey that was almost doomed from the start, an almost quixotic quest to where no president had gone before. There is a reason why other presidents have failed to enact health care reform: The American voters don't want anything that approaches a government take-over of the health care system!
Time to face the facts.
Time to face the facts.
Friday, January 22, 2010
HURRY UP AND WAIT
All of a sudden, Nancy Pelosi and Chris Dodd want to slow down on a health care bill. After all the urgency, now they want to "take a breather", maybe for a month or six weeks. Wasn't this what the congressional Republicans were advocating all along? Funny how the senatorial loss in Massachusetts has made Democrats more cautious.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
LEFT-WING VITRIOL
If anyone thinks that the right-wingers are the nasty personal-attack artists, take a look at MSNBC. Rachel Maddow is ripping President Obama a new one. It's not just Evan Bayh or Jim Webb who's being stabbed. It's wild!
OBAMA GETTING THE MESSAGE OUT
In explaining Coakley's defeat in Massachusetts (and the Democrats' losses in the governors races in New Jersey and Virginia), President Obama says that that were so busy solving crises that they weren't able to get their message out to the American people. This "explanation" has become the refuge of every failed politician in recent history. Couldn't get his message out? He's on TV more often than Jay Leno.
He got the message out just fine. The voters simply rejected it.
But he continues to believe the American people acted stupidly, like a bunch of cops who would arrest someone in their own home. Maybe the president will announce a National Beer Summit Day so we can all hear him better, and he can get his point through our thick skulls.
Really now, who's the one not getting the point?
He got the message out just fine. The voters simply rejected it.
But he continues to believe the American people acted stupidly, like a bunch of cops who would arrest someone in their own home. Maybe the president will announce a National Beer Summit Day so we can all hear him better, and he can get his point through our thick skulls.
Really now, who's the one not getting the point?
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
THE PARTY OF "KNOW BETTER"
The Democrats have portrayed the Republicans as "The party of 'no'". They have blamed Republicans for the failure, so far, to pass a health care bill. This, even though they have the presidency, a majority in the House, and (until today) a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The Dems could have passed any bill they wanted. The problem is, they couldn't write a bill they wanted. They could only write bills nobody wants. And I mean nobody.
But even though the American people don't want the House or Senate bills passed, the Democrats think they know better. They really think that when the full provisions of a health care bill kick in (three or four years from now), the American people will love them. Because everybody loves an entitlement. People love Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, unemployment insurance, etc., even though they were too stupid to understand them when they were first proposed. Of course. The Dems think they know better what is best for the nation than the nation itself. They don't understand why anyone would decline health care as a "right", as Senator Harkin believes it is.
But even though the American people don't want the House or Senate bills passed, the Democrats think they know better. They really think that when the full provisions of a health care bill kick in (three or four years from now), the American people will love them. Because everybody loves an entitlement. People love Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, unemployment insurance, etc., even though they were too stupid to understand them when they were first proposed. Of course. The Dems think they know better what is best for the nation than the nation itself. They don't understand why anyone would decline health care as a "right", as Senator Harkin believes it is.
THE MEANING OF THE MASSACHUSETTS SENATE ELECTION
The future of the Democratic Party's health care reform efforts are very much in doubt. Most people think that the only way a bill will be passed is if the House of Representatives swallows the Senate bill whole. Don't look for that. Instead, there will be several smaller bills passed that can be supported by some Republicans. This is what the Republican leadership has been after. This won't satisfy the left wing of the Democratic Party, but it's the best they can get. This way, the Dems can say they got some reforms passed on a bi-partisan basis.
The real consequence of this election, however, does not concern health care. It concerns "cap and trade". As legislation, it is dead. Democrats, after seeing the results in Massachusetts, won't have the stomach for legislation that Candidate Obama conceded would "necessarily" cause energy bills to "skyrocket". Not that President Obama will give up on "cap and trade". He'll just have the EPA impose regulations that will get the same results. This will take congressional Democrats off that particular hook.
But achieving "cap and trade" through administrative fiat will put President Obama on the hook all the way. He already is regarded as arrogant and unconcerned about the popular opinion of his policies. His turning EPA regulators loose on CO2 emission standards will only reinforce the negative opinion that Americans are developing about their president.
The real consequence of this election, however, does not concern health care. It concerns "cap and trade". As legislation, it is dead. Democrats, after seeing the results in Massachusetts, won't have the stomach for legislation that Candidate Obama conceded would "necessarily" cause energy bills to "skyrocket". Not that President Obama will give up on "cap and trade". He'll just have the EPA impose regulations that will get the same results. This will take congressional Democrats off that particular hook.
But achieving "cap and trade" through administrative fiat will put President Obama on the hook all the way. He already is regarded as arrogant and unconcerned about the popular opinion of his policies. His turning EPA regulators loose on CO2 emission standards will only reinforce the negative opinion that Americans are developing about their president.
MASSACHUSETTS SENATE ELECTION
There is much to say about the ironic election of Scott Brown to fill the senate seat of Ted Kennedy. This election is seen by many as a referendum on the agenda of President Obama generally, and on the health care bill specifically. While this may be true, there is one factor which must be kept in mind in interpreting the results of this election. Massachusetts already has had a law on the books which provides health care for its citizens. The health care bill pending in Washington offers nothing for Massachusetts. If it were to pass (and this is not certain), the people of Massachusetts would be taxed to provide health care for the remainder of the nation without receiving any benefit themselves. No wonder the pending national health care bill was unpopular, and this contributed to a big Republican victory.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
THOSE CRAZY TELEVANGELISTS
Perhaps the stupidest people people in America have been called by God to disgrace themselves as televangelists. Among the worst exhibitions of self-loathing ever performed in public was the weeping and wailing of Jimmy Swaggart as he confessed his penchant for prostitutes. Or the spectacle of Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye when Bakker's dalliances were revealed.
I remember Oral Roberts' plea for contributions for some special project he was cooking up. Afraid that his fund-drive would fail, Roberts warned his supporters that God had told him that if the money didn't come in, God would "call him home". I guess the threat must have worked, as Roberts didn't croak until a couple weeks ago.
Then there was the time that Jerry Falwell seriously blamed the 9-11 attack on American gays and lesbians. He never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like.
But Pat Robertson takes the cake. I saw him on TV when a hurricane was expected to hit Virginia Beach where his college/broadcasting complex was. He announced that he had prayed that the hurricane would stay out at sea, take a northeasterly course, and that his property would be spared the devastation that loomed. I thought to myself at the time that his prayer was not nearly bold enough. He should have announced that he had prayed that the hurricane would hit his place directly, bash it mightily for five days, and that when the storm clouds lifted, not a single shingle would have been disturbed, and not a single tree would have been uprooted. Now that would have proved something.
Now Robertson has proclaimed that Haiti's current devastation is the result of its being cursed by God for the nation's deal with the Devil that was struck in 1791 to rid Haiti of its French colonists. I think the nation of Haiti was cursed by the twenty-year rule of mass-murderer Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier who was crazier than Idi Amin. But maybe not as crazy as Pat Robertson.
I remember Oral Roberts' plea for contributions for some special project he was cooking up. Afraid that his fund-drive would fail, Roberts warned his supporters that God had told him that if the money didn't come in, God would "call him home". I guess the threat must have worked, as Roberts didn't croak until a couple weeks ago.
Then there was the time that Jerry Falwell seriously blamed the 9-11 attack on American gays and lesbians. He never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like.
But Pat Robertson takes the cake. I saw him on TV when a hurricane was expected to hit Virginia Beach where his college/broadcasting complex was. He announced that he had prayed that the hurricane would stay out at sea, take a northeasterly course, and that his property would be spared the devastation that loomed. I thought to myself at the time that his prayer was not nearly bold enough. He should have announced that he had prayed that the hurricane would hit his place directly, bash it mightily for five days, and that when the storm clouds lifted, not a single shingle would have been disturbed, and not a single tree would have been uprooted. Now that would have proved something.
Now Robertson has proclaimed that Haiti's current devastation is the result of its being cursed by God for the nation's deal with the Devil that was struck in 1791 to rid Haiti of its French colonists. I think the nation of Haiti was cursed by the twenty-year rule of mass-murderer Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier who was crazier than Idi Amin. But maybe not as crazy as Pat Robertson.
I THINK YOU MISUNDERSTOOD THE PRESIDENT
He didn't say anything about "carpet tacks". He said "CARBON TAX".
HOME-GROWN TERRORISTS
Coming soon to a shopping mall near you.
These guys are game-changers.
I think that the Christmas Day attack was rather an impromptu affair. I think Abdulmutallab walked into the al-Qaida office in Yemen, and told them he wanted to kill himself by blowing up a plane-ful of Americans. They looked him over, said "OK",and enrolled him in a "training program" just so they could keep an eye on him long enough to check him out a bit. Then they bought him a ticket, packed his pants, and drove him to the airport. They left some of the operational details up to him, and this resulted in the bomb's failure.
I don't think we'll see a similar plan next time. Next time, they'll be home-grown.
No passport/visa issues, no "watch list" problems. No international cell phone intercepts. Lots simpler. Much more difficult to predict. Even "profiling" won't help. They will be Americans who've never been to the Middle East. Citizens. Under the radar. Educated middle-classers. Dozens of them.
These guys are game-changers.
I think that the Christmas Day attack was rather an impromptu affair. I think Abdulmutallab walked into the al-Qaida office in Yemen, and told them he wanted to kill himself by blowing up a plane-ful of Americans. They looked him over, said "OK",and enrolled him in a "training program" just so they could keep an eye on him long enough to check him out a bit. Then they bought him a ticket, packed his pants, and drove him to the airport. They left some of the operational details up to him, and this resulted in the bomb's failure.
I don't think we'll see a similar plan next time. Next time, they'll be home-grown.
No passport/visa issues, no "watch list" problems. No international cell phone intercepts. Lots simpler. Much more difficult to predict. Even "profiling" won't help. They will be Americans who've never been to the Middle East. Citizens. Under the radar. Educated middle-classers. Dozens of them.
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Some of you may recall my suggestion at the time this agency was created, that airports should be assessed for security needs considering such factors as: 1) Whether international flights terminate at the location. 2) Whether the airport as been the target (or rumored target) of an attack. 3) The volume of air traffic including both passenger and commercial flights. 4) The "propaganda value" of an attack at the airport.
When such an assessment was complete, the government could have then decided which airports most needed security enhancements, decide the kinds of physical and procedural security measures which would be most appropriate, and initiate changes beginning with the vulnerable airports. As far as I know, the TSA was established at all U.S. airports at virtually the same time, using the same security policies and procedures in all locations.
The result has been a cookie-cutter approach to airport security. Because one size fits all, an older female passenger flying from Dayton to Daytona passes through the same security protocol as a younger male passenger flying from Boston"s Logan airport to Dulles International in Washington, D.C. I never thought this made sense.
OK, I know what you're saying to yourself: "Where would the Detroit airport have fit into this security scheme"? On the second tier, of course. Detroit was not a "chosen" as a site for a terrorist attack in the same way the Twin Towers were. Amsterdam was chosen as a departure site, and Christmas Day was chosen as a time for the attack, and the plane was full of passengers. These were the things that mattered. The fact that the flight was bound for Detroit was incidental.
Not every prison in America is a maximum security facility. Not every airport in America need be a maximum security facility, either. The "security" afforded by the TSA and their silly procedures is an illusion anyway, and to impose them in every airport equally is a waste of money and resources.
When such an assessment was complete, the government could have then decided which airports most needed security enhancements, decide the kinds of physical and procedural security measures which would be most appropriate, and initiate changes beginning with the vulnerable airports. As far as I know, the TSA was established at all U.S. airports at virtually the same time, using the same security policies and procedures in all locations.
The result has been a cookie-cutter approach to airport security. Because one size fits all, an older female passenger flying from Dayton to Daytona passes through the same security protocol as a younger male passenger flying from Boston"s Logan airport to Dulles International in Washington, D.C. I never thought this made sense.
OK, I know what you're saying to yourself: "Where would the Detroit airport have fit into this security scheme"? On the second tier, of course. Detroit was not a "chosen" as a site for a terrorist attack in the same way the Twin Towers were. Amsterdam was chosen as a departure site, and Christmas Day was chosen as a time for the attack, and the plane was full of passengers. These were the things that mattered. The fact that the flight was bound for Detroit was incidental.
Not every prison in America is a maximum security facility. Not every airport in America need be a maximum security facility, either. The "security" afforded by the TSA and their silly procedures is an illusion anyway, and to impose them in every airport equally is a waste of money and resources.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
UNIVERSITY of PHOENIX
This school is owned by The Apollo Group (Nasdaq: APLO). The Apollo Group has flying high for several years, making a lot of money. The money basically was from the federal government Title IV program which gives out grant money and guarantees student loans. U of P caters to part-time students, a lot of whom are already employed, but looking to improve their work situation. They spend a lot of money in advertising. Their recruiters are apparently very aggressive, and earn bonuses based on their enrollment of new students.
And there's the rub. The feds are evidently suspicious of U of P's practices in this regard, and wonder if the money they are passing on to U of P is really benefitting students, or just boosting the market cap of The Apollo Group.
This is worth watching as U of P is not the only private proprietary "institution of higher learning" that has been raking in the federal dollars. Kaplan has been doing pretty well, too.
And there's the rub. The feds are evidently suspicious of U of P's practices in this regard, and wonder if the money they are passing on to U of P is really benefitting students, or just boosting the market cap of The Apollo Group.
This is worth watching as U of P is not the only private proprietary "institution of higher learning" that has been raking in the federal dollars. Kaplan has been doing pretty well, too.
SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN
As noted previously, President Obama had given Iran only until the end of the year to make major concessions on their nuclear program, or they would face a new round of "tougher, smarter" sanctions than ever before. What's with that? Isn't Iran's time up?
Oh, wait. President Obama was really hoping that China would be on board with the sanctions program. And they're not. Security Council resolutions are out of the question So, now what? Will the president assemble a "coalition of the willing" to impose sanctions outside of the U.N.? Or will he do that cowboy thing and go it alone?
Probably not. Really, as Hillary said, the only purpose for further sanctions in the Obama foreign policy was to force Iran back to the negotiation table anyway. That's great. Everyone loves a good, tough negotiation. Especially when you have no leverage.
Lots of people have formed the opinion that the Obama administration has reconciled itself to Iran actually possessing nuclear weapons. They think that they can deter the actual use of the weapons just like the Soviets were deterred. Or in the way that North Korea has been deterred.
Hope has its place, but there is no hope that Iran will abandon its nuclear weapons program. My hope is that President Obama snaps out of it.
Oh, wait. President Obama was really hoping that China would be on board with the sanctions program. And they're not. Security Council resolutions are out of the question So, now what? Will the president assemble a "coalition of the willing" to impose sanctions outside of the U.N.? Or will he do that cowboy thing and go it alone?
Probably not. Really, as Hillary said, the only purpose for further sanctions in the Obama foreign policy was to force Iran back to the negotiation table anyway. That's great. Everyone loves a good, tough negotiation. Especially when you have no leverage.
Lots of people have formed the opinion that the Obama administration has reconciled itself to Iran actually possessing nuclear weapons. They think that they can deter the actual use of the weapons just like the Soviets were deterred. Or in the way that North Korea has been deterred.
Hope has its place, but there is no hope that Iran will abandon its nuclear weapons program. My hope is that President Obama snaps out of it.
TAXING THE BANKS
The federal government is beginning to think that they are not going to recover about $120 billion in TARP money that was used to bail-out American car companies and AIG. What's the surprise? GM never had any hope of repayment. So now, what to do? To get about $100 billion, President Obama is considering taxing what he believes are the windfall profits of the biggest banks in the U.S.
These are the same banks that themselves got a TARP bail-out, and have repaid the money with interest. Wasn't that the deal?
Now that the banks are in "bonus season", everyone is watching to see how huge the banks' bonus pay-outs will be. No doubt, they will be large. And a lot of people will be angry about this, President Obama among them. His rationale for taxing the banks will be based on their bonus payments, and his belief that the banks' accepting TARP money in the first place creates a social obligation on their part to pay the debts of other companies that cannot pay their own.
So what will be the consequence for large banks which will be taxed? Well, for one thing, they will have less money to lend. (I know they are not lending anyway. That's not the point. We've been over this before.) Secondly, President Obama's apparent hostility toward profit-makers will be demonstrated once again. This will create the suspicion among the business community that they will also be subject to new taxation in the future. This will contribute to the "uncertainty" that most people believe is causing businesses to avoid new hiring. And that defeats any jobs program you can name.
These are the same banks that themselves got a TARP bail-out, and have repaid the money with interest. Wasn't that the deal?
Now that the banks are in "bonus season", everyone is watching to see how huge the banks' bonus pay-outs will be. No doubt, they will be large. And a lot of people will be angry about this, President Obama among them. His rationale for taxing the banks will be based on their bonus payments, and his belief that the banks' accepting TARP money in the first place creates a social obligation on their part to pay the debts of other companies that cannot pay their own.
So what will be the consequence for large banks which will be taxed? Well, for one thing, they will have less money to lend. (I know they are not lending anyway. That's not the point. We've been over this before.) Secondly, President Obama's apparent hostility toward profit-makers will be demonstrated once again. This will create the suspicion among the business community that they will also be subject to new taxation in the future. This will contribute to the "uncertainty" that most people believe is causing businesses to avoid new hiring. And that defeats any jobs program you can name.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
MARK McGUIRE IS DELUDED
A delusion is a false belief that cannot be modified by reasoning or a demonstration of facts. Sometimes, delusions are a feature of psychosis, like paranoia. Sometimes they exist in a milder form in otherwise normal personalities, and while they remain entrenched, do not interfere with relationships or adversely affect a person's ability to manage daily life. We have all known people who believe things about themselves or others which are preposterous, and we have given up trying to convince them otherwise. (For example, an untalented writer may create a blog, thinking that he is performing a public service. Or an untrained and unlicensed person may attempt psychological diagnosis to try to impress others with his "insight".) As long as the delusions of others are not worrisome, they are minimized and dismissed as "quirks", superstitions, or oddities of other descriptions.
Now Mark McGuire presents himself in a prepared statement, and in a nationally televised interview with Bob Costas. The subject is his use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. His motivation, he says, is to "come clean" and to apologize. These are things which he says he was unable to do in the past. His admissions were unnecessary as historical data in the present, as no one needed confirmation that he had used steroids. If he thought his confession would be a revelation to anyone, even his family, about his behavior, he was wrong. In making his mea culpa, Mark McGuire's revelation is that he is delusional.
He said with sincerity that he used steroids for "health purposes", not to increase his strength. He said he used them to help him heal, and to prevent future injury. He implied that his use of steroids after being injured brought him back to "even", and did not enhance his performance. He said that his achievements on the field were a product of his God-given talent, hard work, and understanding of the science of hitting a baseball. He said these things with a straight face. He believed he was telling the truth. No one else does. His beliefs are his alone. They are his delusions.
By definition, he cannot abandon these delusions. Were they merely rationalizations for his conduct, he could renounce them. Had he misunderstood the nature of steroids, he could plead ignorance. Had they been given to him unsuspectedly, he could claim to have been a victim. But clearly, he has developed a delusional system to protect his ego and to maintain his psychological equilibrium.
Under these circumstances, how are we to respond to Mark McGuire? Is he more to be pitied than scolded? Is he to be forgiven? Is he to be dismissed as a unrepentant liar and cheat? Should we care about Mark McGuire at all?
I do care about McGuire. I hate his delusional guts.
Now Mark McGuire presents himself in a prepared statement, and in a nationally televised interview with Bob Costas. The subject is his use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. His motivation, he says, is to "come clean" and to apologize. These are things which he says he was unable to do in the past. His admissions were unnecessary as historical data in the present, as no one needed confirmation that he had used steroids. If he thought his confession would be a revelation to anyone, even his family, about his behavior, he was wrong. In making his mea culpa, Mark McGuire's revelation is that he is delusional.
He said with sincerity that he used steroids for "health purposes", not to increase his strength. He said he used them to help him heal, and to prevent future injury. He implied that his use of steroids after being injured brought him back to "even", and did not enhance his performance. He said that his achievements on the field were a product of his God-given talent, hard work, and understanding of the science of hitting a baseball. He said these things with a straight face. He believed he was telling the truth. No one else does. His beliefs are his alone. They are his delusions.
By definition, he cannot abandon these delusions. Were they merely rationalizations for his conduct, he could renounce them. Had he misunderstood the nature of steroids, he could plead ignorance. Had they been given to him unsuspectedly, he could claim to have been a victim. But clearly, he has developed a delusional system to protect his ego and to maintain his psychological equilibrium.
Under these circumstances, how are we to respond to Mark McGuire? Is he more to be pitied than scolded? Is he to be forgiven? Is he to be dismissed as a unrepentant liar and cheat? Should we care about Mark McGuire at all?
I do care about McGuire. I hate his delusional guts.
Friday, January 8, 2010
BONDS HAVE ISSUES
The U.S. government is hoping to raise $160 billion in an upcoming bond auction. It will be successful, but the issue for the U.S. is how long we'll be able to sell them, and at what rate of interest. Dubai recently faced default in its sovereign debt, and it's looking bleak for the P.I.G.S (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain). Greece may be the first to go. Whether the E.U. will bail them out by buying or guaranteeing the debt remains to be seen. In the last year, the bond issues of Germany and the U.K. have gone over like lead balloons, and the U.K.'s bond rating has recently dropped. The only thing that maintains our ability to borrow internationally is a belief that the U.S. is too big to fail. With our level of national debt, it's not out of the question that our bond rating may drop as well.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
BAD BOMB
The Nigerian Christmas bomber took some powerful explosives onto an airplane, and couldn't light a match to blow up the plane. Michael Moore could have farted and done better than that.
DORGAN, DODD, REID, AND BOXER
Yesterday, Dorgan hit the eject button, and today, Dodd reached for the doorknob. Dorgan is a doofus, and enough said about him. He knew he was through, and better to clear out than be embarrassed by the the rejection of the voters. Good riddance.
I took some pleasure in Dodd's announcement. For two reasons. He's a crook and a liar. Got two (count 'em - two) sweetheart mortgage deals from Countrywide, and then said with a straight face that he didn't know they had made it good to him. He's chair of the Senate Banking Committee, and he doesn't know what the current mortgage rates are? Then he made sure that AIG executives could retain the bonuses they received after the bail-out. The fact that AIG maxed out their contributions to his campaign had nothing to do with that, however.
Harry Reid will be the next one to drop out because he knows he can't get re-elected. How he ever got elected in the first place is a mystery to me, much less becoming Majority Leader. Together, he and Dodd have screwed this country up. (Don't get me started on Pelosi.) Dodd enabled the financial collapse, and Reid bought enough votes in the Senate to get the disastrous health care bill approved.
Barbara Boxer won't run again, either. At least she won't have to watch herself on YouTube anymore.
I took some pleasure in Dodd's announcement. For two reasons. He's a crook and a liar. Got two (count 'em - two) sweetheart mortgage deals from Countrywide, and then said with a straight face that he didn't know they had made it good to him. He's chair of the Senate Banking Committee, and he doesn't know what the current mortgage rates are? Then he made sure that AIG executives could retain the bonuses they received after the bail-out. The fact that AIG maxed out their contributions to his campaign had nothing to do with that, however.
Harry Reid will be the next one to drop out because he knows he can't get re-elected. How he ever got elected in the first place is a mystery to me, much less becoming Majority Leader. Together, he and Dodd have screwed this country up. (Don't get me started on Pelosi.) Dodd enabled the financial collapse, and Reid bought enough votes in the Senate to get the disastrous health care bill approved.
Barbara Boxer won't run again, either. At least she won't have to watch herself on YouTube anymore.
WHEN IMMIGRATION REFORM AND HEALTH CARE COLLIDE
Some sort of health care plan will become law within the next month or so. It will likely not contain two major provisions that were originally at the heart of the plan. These are a "public option" and "universality" of care. The first has received a lot of attention, but the latter... not so much. Although health care coverage will be expanded, millions of people will remain uninsured. Who are they, and why isn't this the subject of more discussion?
The people who will remain uninsured are illegal immigrants. The Republicans don't want to discuss this, because they are cool with it. Democrats don't want to discuss it because they are embarrassed by it, and besides, they have in mind a couple other ways to skin this cat. One way around the exclusion of illegals from the health care plan is to allow them to purchase participation in a health insurance exchange with their own money. This will be debated by Democrats during reconciliation. While this might find its way into the final bill, many illegals will still find it too expensive to participate. So, what then?
Well, when the Dems turn their attention to immigration reform, this will be resolved when they propose an easy path to citizenship for illegals. Having attained citizenship, these people will entitled to participate fully in the health care program, and universal coverage will be achieved.
The people who will remain uninsured are illegal immigrants. The Republicans don't want to discuss this, because they are cool with it. Democrats don't want to discuss it because they are embarrassed by it, and besides, they have in mind a couple other ways to skin this cat. One way around the exclusion of illegals from the health care plan is to allow them to purchase participation in a health insurance exchange with their own money. This will be debated by Democrats during reconciliation. While this might find its way into the final bill, many illegals will still find it too expensive to participate. So, what then?
Well, when the Dems turn their attention to immigration reform, this will be resolved when they propose an easy path to citizenship for illegals. Having attained citizenship, these people will entitled to participate fully in the health care program, and universal coverage will be achieved.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
SHOW TRIALS
All the world loves a good show trial. They're like a mash-up of Judge Judy and Blazing Saddles. Hilarious courtroom antics! Now, THAT'S entertainment!
The one I liked best was when the Soviet Union put a CIA U-2 (no, not that U-2) pilot named Francis Gary Powers on trial after they shot his spying ass out the sky in 1960 or so. It was real funny. See, the U.S. thought they'd just say that Powers wasn't spying, he was innocently checking up on Russian weather, just to see if they had any. They figured Powers had blown himself up before he crashed, or that he had at least had the courtesy or patriotism to cyanide himself. But, no, the plane was in great shape, and Powers lived to have his little show trial. It was real theater in Moscow, and real theatre in London.
Now the stage is being set for a new round of show trials in New York, New York. They'll be off-Broadway, but not far off ground zero. The only questions are: Who will have the starring role? Who will get center stage? Will the defense attorney up-stage the federal prosecutor? Will the terrorists steal the scene? If the judge accepts a supporting role, whom will he support?
We'll laugh, we'll cry! We'll have a great time, just witnessing history left and right! We won't want it to end, and it most assuredly never will.
The sequel is already being written. Part Two will be "The Appeal". The story-line goes like this: The terrorists/defendants didn't get a fair trial. They were not tried by a jury of their peers, as no Jihadists were even in the jury pool, at least as far as we knew. And besides, the President and the Attorney General had already found them guilty before the trial even started, and assured everyone that the verdict really didn't matter anyway, because the defendants would never get out of prison no matter what.
So what is the real purpose of having such a trial? To SHOW the world that we are a nation of laws. That's the ticket!
The one I liked best was when the Soviet Union put a CIA U-2 (no, not that U-2) pilot named Francis Gary Powers on trial after they shot his spying ass out the sky in 1960 or so. It was real funny. See, the U.S. thought they'd just say that Powers wasn't spying, he was innocently checking up on Russian weather, just to see if they had any. They figured Powers had blown himself up before he crashed, or that he had at least had the courtesy or patriotism to cyanide himself. But, no, the plane was in great shape, and Powers lived to have his little show trial. It was real theater in Moscow, and real theatre in London.
Now the stage is being set for a new round of show trials in New York, New York. They'll be off-Broadway, but not far off ground zero. The only questions are: Who will have the starring role? Who will get center stage? Will the defense attorney up-stage the federal prosecutor? Will the terrorists steal the scene? If the judge accepts a supporting role, whom will he support?
We'll laugh, we'll cry! We'll have a great time, just witnessing history left and right! We won't want it to end, and it most assuredly never will.
The sequel is already being written. Part Two will be "The Appeal". The story-line goes like this: The terrorists/defendants didn't get a fair trial. They were not tried by a jury of their peers, as no Jihadists were even in the jury pool, at least as far as we knew. And besides, the President and the Attorney General had already found them guilty before the trial even started, and assured everyone that the verdict really didn't matter anyway, because the defendants would never get out of prison no matter what.
So what is the real purpose of having such a trial? To SHOW the world that we are a nation of laws. That's the ticket!
FREE CAR INSURANCE
I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by fleeing the scene of an accident.
But here's how to get your car insurance for free: First, switch to 21st Century and save $434 per year. Then switch immediately to Allstate. This will save you $382 per year. Then switch right away to AmFam to save $265 more per year. By this time, your insurance will be free. If you actually want to make money by owning car insurance, switch again to Geico for an additional 15% savings. It works for me.
But here's how to get your car insurance for free: First, switch to 21st Century and save $434 per year. Then switch immediately to Allstate. This will save you $382 per year. Then switch right away to AmFam to save $265 more per year. By this time, your insurance will be free. If you actually want to make money by owning car insurance, switch again to Geico for an additional 15% savings. It works for me.
Monday, January 4, 2010
THREE WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT
The Obama administration has blamed Bush/Cheney for every problem under the sun. They want to constantly point out what a hole they started out in. Complain about what they inherited. Whine about the mess they have to clean up. In fairness, they are right about a lot of it. But, isn't it the height of audacity when they also justify their own mistakes by saying, "Well? Bush did the same thing"!
I think President Obama is nuts to want to close Gitmo. "But Bush wanted to close it, too"!
It's nuts to send detainees from Gitmo to Yemen. "But Bush did it, too"!
It's nuts to try terrorists in federal courts. "But Bush did it, too"!
Sure, Bush did these things, too. But we have to learn from mistakes, not willfully repeat them. President Obama will have to be held accountable for the results of his own decisions. It's not on Bush anymore.
I think President Obama is nuts to want to close Gitmo. "But Bush wanted to close it, too"!
It's nuts to send detainees from Gitmo to Yemen. "But Bush did it, too"!
It's nuts to try terrorists in federal courts. "But Bush did it, too"!
Sure, Bush did these things, too. But we have to learn from mistakes, not willfully repeat them. President Obama will have to be held accountable for the results of his own decisions. It's not on Bush anymore.
TRIAL BY ERROR
John Brennan, President Obama's Assistant National Security Advisor, made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows. He seemed to have two points to make. The first was that Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, is not the fool that she appeared to be when she said "the system worked" in the Christmas attack on a U.S. airliner. He assured us that the president has full confidence in her. I think at this very moment that Janet is evaluating whether she should be spending more time with her family back home.
Brennan's second message was that the terrorist, Abdulmutallab, (trained, armed, and directed by Al-Qaida in the Arab Peninsula) was properly charged as a criminal defendant, rather than being detained as an enemy combatant. He acknowledged that this second course was available, but the administration's considered judgement was that the guy should be treated as a criminal with full constitutional protections. This must be a lie.
Abdulmutallab was immediately arrested by the FBI. There was no time for anyone to debate the issue, flip a coin, or bounce it by Barack. Clearly, it is the considered opinion of the president and Eric Holder that all terrorists who survive suicide bombing attacks deserve the constitutioonal protections we would grant a car-jacker.
Brennan was asked if it would not have been preferable for the terrorist to have been questioned by military or intelligence personnel to see what kind of exigent information he might have offered regarding other pending attacks, or his own contacts with Al-Qaida. Brennan allowed that the guy did start talking immediately, but after he was lawyered up, he stopped talking.
However, this did not mean to Brennan that the terrorist would never talk. No, Brennan felt that when the guy saw what kind of trouble he was in, he would start talking again in a plea-bargain scenario.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? We already plan to negotiate with the terrorist? We think a would-be suicide bomber may be so afraid of a lethal injection that he will beg to snitch so that he can live for 50 years in a super-max prison?
So President Obama is compounding his mistake of trying Kaleed Shiek-Mohammad in federal court in New York. And he is doing it to show that, being a nation of laws, we are being true to our values. What a load of crap!
Brennan's second message was that the terrorist, Abdulmutallab, (trained, armed, and directed by Al-Qaida in the Arab Peninsula) was properly charged as a criminal defendant, rather than being detained as an enemy combatant. He acknowledged that this second course was available, but the administration's considered judgement was that the guy should be treated as a criminal with full constitutional protections. This must be a lie.
Abdulmutallab was immediately arrested by the FBI. There was no time for anyone to debate the issue, flip a coin, or bounce it by Barack. Clearly, it is the considered opinion of the president and Eric Holder that all terrorists who survive suicide bombing attacks deserve the constitutioonal protections we would grant a car-jacker.
Brennan was asked if it would not have been preferable for the terrorist to have been questioned by military or intelligence personnel to see what kind of exigent information he might have offered regarding other pending attacks, or his own contacts with Al-Qaida. Brennan allowed that the guy did start talking immediately, but after he was lawyered up, he stopped talking.
However, this did not mean to Brennan that the terrorist would never talk. No, Brennan felt that when the guy saw what kind of trouble he was in, he would start talking again in a plea-bargain scenario.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? We already plan to negotiate with the terrorist? We think a would-be suicide bomber may be so afraid of a lethal injection that he will beg to snitch so that he can live for 50 years in a super-max prison?
So President Obama is compounding his mistake of trying Kaleed Shiek-Mohammad in federal court in New York. And he is doing it to show that, being a nation of laws, we are being true to our values. What a load of crap!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)