The Policy Boy

The Rush Problem

2009-10-22T13:04:00.001-07:00

Not totally about policy, but last week Rush Limbaugh was dropped from a prospective investment team to buy the St. Louis Rams. This came after the outcry from many (especially the left) who said that he should not be able to own a team because he's a big fat idiot or something. This of course, is crazy talk. Limbaugh, even if you think he's an idiot, should be allowed to own a football team if he has the money. I'm bringing this up mainly because Limbaugh defended himself in the Wall Street Journal the other day. It's an interesting defense saying that:
a) He didn't say racist things like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have.
b) He didn't say anything that was pro-slavery.

Now, if he was misquoted, then by all means, set the record straight Rush. But the fact that I'm sitting here thinking, 'it wouldn't surprise me if Rush Limbaugh said he was in favor of slavery' well... you have a PR problem. And while Rush apparently didn't say that he's a fan of slavery, he has said a lot of horrible things about blacks, Obama and America.

That said, I've been thinking about Rush for a while now. He represents the problem the Republican party has with America right now. Because of the lack of leadership within the Republican party, Rush has almost become the unofficial mouth piece of the party (with assists from Sarah Palin (even though she's been non-existent the last few months) and Glenn "I'm going insane in front of the entire nation" Beck. To most of America, what Rush has to say—"Obama is an "angry black guy"" or "Obama's entire economic program is reparations" or that he wants Obama to fail—does not play well to most of the nation.

And that's the problem for the Republican party right now. The party cannot separate itself from Rush. While Rush is very good and getting the Republican base involved and excited, when his message starts to become the only thing that the country hears, it's problematic. Rush is an entertainer. His goal is to get high radio ratings which then lead to higher advertisement spots which then means more ~~pills~~ money for Rush's bank account (and the radio stations). Rush will say things to get people to tune into his show (just as Howard Stern or your network TV drama will). And because of the lack of leadership in the party, what Rush says suddenly becomes what the Republican party says.

The GOP can easily fix this, they just need someone from somewhere within the party to step up. They need to have someone who will deliver a kinder, gentler, and more tactful message to America. That person is some where (it's not Palin and it's probably not Huckabee), but the longer it takes for that person (or people) to step to the plate, the more damage Rush is going to do to the party itself. Clearly some in the party get this: “We need more voices,” said House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, one of the party’s up-and-coming leaders. “Our party’s challenge has been that we need to be more inclusive — we need to attract the middle again..."

America is changing, it's becoming more diverse and continues to become more urban. A party that is seen as narrow minded and for white males only represented and lead by guys like Rush and Beck won't fly. It won't work. The GOP has to reinvent itself, even if it means pissing off the base. The right in Europe has done this successfully by adopting "left" policy positions like being less anti-gay (or pro gay in some cases) and concerned about the environment. Those would be two easy places and positions that the Republicans could adopt today. Immigration would be another smart move for the party to turn more to the left on. Sure it would piss off the Rush Limbaugh's of the right, but the base isn't going to leave over issues like the environment and the party will probably pick up some votes for changing positions.

But I don't see that leadership in the GOP right now. It's a rudderless party that's being lead by the entertainment wing. And when it comes to winning elections, that's a bad thing, even if the first 10 months of Obama continue to be fairly unimpressive. So the sooner Rush Limbaugh goes back to being a guy who preaches to his conservative choir, the better off the Republican party, and America, will be.

The Chicago Police Department's Image Problem

2009-10-19T17:27:00.001-07:00

Second City Cop rips a new program/policy that the Chicago Police Department is undertaking, the “Customer Satisfaction Survey Pilot” Program. He rips it. To shreds.

Now, I've never been a cop. Will never be a cop. But I'll say this, Chicago Police Officers, for the most part are assholes. Sorry, but they are. I can't recount one positive encounter I've had with them. I've never been arrested, never been questioned, but I don't even bother asking them questions because they just look down their noses as if to say, 'I'm protecting you, prick.'

I get it, being a cop ain't easy. I thank them all for what they do. But they're total jagoffs 90% of the time. I'm sure they're good fathers and mothers and husbands and wives, but in the uniform, they're pricks.

I'm sick of Chicago Cops running red lights and stop signs because they don't want to wait. I'm sick of them standing around as if their shit don't stink in the Loop. I hated when they were total pricks as we ran though the city in high school for cross country practice. I'm sick of reading headlines them treating protesters as if they were an Iraqi prisoner.

The CPD has a major public image problem. Second City Cop can bitch about the customer service survey, but to the law abiding, ain't causing no trouble sector of the population (aka the majority), the CPD is a bunch of jagbags. And while we appreciate what they do for us as a whole, we also know that you guys stopped policing last year because you were upset about Weis. We know that you racially profile. We know all this. And we don't always like it.

So yes, the survey might be a little misguided, but you guys also have a public image problem. The public doesn't like you because you guys are dickheads. We don't like you because you guys turn on your lights every single time you're at an intersection that has a red light, roll though, and then flip them off. So you might not like the survey and other shit that's coming from 25th and Michigan, but you guys are, in part to blame for the Weis Era.

When the State Gets Local

2009-10-16T07:55:00.001-07:00

I'd say, for the most part, I'm more of a Hamilton than Jefferson guy when it comes to the relationship between governments in our federal system. I don't want the states to have a lot of power. I'm not a states right guy. But I'm also not a fan of the bigger government telling the governments bellow it what to do and how to write their constitutions or by laws (in policy speak, I like home rule over Dillon's rule). If Cook County wants to have a four-fifths threshold to override a veto, let them have a four-fifths threshold. It's their law and the state of Illinois shouldn't tell them other wise. Same goes for the income tax level... I'm not sure a larger government should be telling a lower government what their tax rates should be. The Tribune disagrees with me, I guess because they don't like the Cook County tax rate and bylaws. But just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should not be.

As the Capital Fax points out, it sets a horrible precedent and pretty much invites the state to get involved in other local tax issues. The Tribune is parading a very undemocratic view: if the people don't like the sales tax in Cook County, they'll have a chance to vote the bums out of office in February or November of 2010. This is how democracy works. Getting a larger governmental body just because you don't like it is stupid, short sighted, and undemocratic.

Ladies and Gentlemen... the George W. Bush years!

Jones, who was employed by a Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, which was fighting oil fires, recounts a pattern of subsequent behaviour by the company, including locking her in a container under armed guard and the loss of crucial forensic evidence, that she says amounts to a cover-up.

Halliburton/KBR used a clause in Jones's contract requiring disputes to be settled by arbitration to block legal action, a policy her lawyer says has encouraged assaults by creating a climate of impunity.

I mean come on, we really needed the Senate to get involved here? Shouldn't these guys been prosecuted without having to go to the U.S. Senate? Isn't rape rape even if Halliburton is involved? Why did the US government turn a blinds eye to this? Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

And to show just how far the banks have to go, Bank of America lost a cool $2.26 billion this quarter. This shouldn't be a huge shock since we've known that the banks are in a tough spot. We aren't out of the woods until the banks are fully deleverage (thus screwing you and me over). It's clear that the government won't let any of the big banks fail, but also won't do anything that will piss off share holders/the market. Thus the process is going to take longer than anyone would probably like.

While most people don't think about s...

2009-10-15T08:57:00.001-07:00

While most people don't think about sport when contemplating policy and politics, they do matter. A lot. If you don't believe me, go to a local American city and check out all the new stadiums and arenas that the state (ie public tax payers) paid to build. Those things aren't cheap (and a total waste of public money, but not going to tackle that today (did you get the pun? hahahame)). Or look at the impact that hosting a major sporting tournament has on a city or country. Also, as we learn more and more about the horrors of football (American) and what it does to those who play the game, there's a chance that the government may step in some day. If you read Macolm Gladwell's piece in the New Yorker, you may be like me and consider never watching another NFL game ever again.

Anyway, I have no clue if there are any elections coming up in any of these soccer loving nations, but knowing how fickle democracies are, I'd put any government whose national teams disappointed in qualification on notice. (Greece and Portugal just had elections and both of those teams made the EURO playoff). At the moment, it doesn't look like any of the 'big' soccer nations are left out of the World Cup (though the playoffs may change that) so there may be no reason for concern for the major teams/democracies. However, some of the upstart nations who qualified... maybe that will spark a major policy or political change? I wouldn't put it past a democracy.

As far as the World Cup, it's going to be held in South Africa in what will probably be one of the most followed sporting events of all time. Not just in terms of fans watching, but also in terms of media attention since this is the great experiment in modern sport: What will a major sporting event be like in Africa? Will it work? Will it be wonderful? Will it be blah? Will it be a disaster? It will be interesting to follow next summer.

The Trib's editorial on charter schools is puzzling just because the information on charter schools is so non-conclusive (or inconclusive if you prefer):

One rap on charter schools is that they succeed only because they draw parents and kids who are motivated to succeed. Not so fast: The Hoxby study compared the performance of charter school kids against kids who had applied to a charter but didn't gain a spot through an admissions lottery. Those kids had the same motivation to apply and the same demographic makeup.

But this is only one study. There are other studies that show that charter schools aren't so hot. And Hoxby is a controversial figure in education circles.

Plus the charter schools that don't do well are simply closed—left as if they never existed. Therefore, it's very hard to do a long term study on all charter schools. This isn't to say that charter schools are bad, but they also aren't the answer to all our education problems. Longer school days, a longer school year, and more early childhood education would go a lot further in improving education in America than opening more charter schools.

Finally, E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post says something that I've been saying for a while: the most powerful people in American federal politics are Obama, Snowe, and Collins. Got to love how long it takes the Beltway to figure this shit out.

Health Care Inches On

2009-10-14T09:34:00.001-07:00

The Senate Finance Committee approved a health care bill which will now go to the Senate. The Republicans, even with Olympia Snowe, can't filibuster the bill. The Democrats didn't need Snowe's vote in the Finance Committee but picking her up is interesting because if the GOP does try and filibuster, I think they can now count on her to kill it. But I'm not sure the GOP will even try that at this point. What will be interesting is to see what other GOP Senators will jump on board with this bill. Susan Collins, also from Maine, seems like she will also support the bill. Will other GOP Senator's follow? That all depends on where they live and if their state supports it. Senators from the Midwest and Northeast who are Republicans may very well join Collins and Snowe... but remember they're doing this for political reasons. The bill has already been passed at this point... their votes will just be so they can go home and tell their constituents that they supported health care reform (and there may be a few Democrats who decide that they won't vote for the bill for the same reason).

I'm surprised there is so much resistance to health care reform in the US. When, as the Wall Street Journal points out, Massachusetts reformed health care in their state things didn't go as planned, however this isn't a reason to NOT do anything. Why? Because health care costs are like a cancer in this country right now. It will eat us from the inside out. Something has to be done, and anyone who tells you other wise is basically rooting for America to fail. Reform is never perfect, politics gets in the way of policy, but a step in the right direct is a good thing. It may not be exactly what the left wants, and it's probably not what the right wants at all (though if they could tell me what they wanted that would be helpful and I'd actually allow them to enter the debate), but it should help to keep costs down. Yet as pieces like this WSJ editorial show, the conservatives have yet to say what would be a better option, because doing nothing is the worst option on the table at the moment.

It looks like the fall of the dollar is going to be the next big "story" in the months to come, which is some what interesting because politically that falls into both Bush and Obama's lap. Conservatives are going to try and pin as much government spending as they can on Obama, but he's only going to be responsible for some of it. Much of it Obama inherited from George W. Bush, whose cut taxes and spend money ways helped create the financial bubble and put the government into major debt to begin with. Plus, it was W who pushed and passed his own stimulus along with the (necessary) TARP bill last year. While they both don't equal what the Obama stimulus will end up costing, a half a trillion dollars is a lot of money for a Republican President to spend and try and blame on a Democrat.

Finally, not much of a policy issue but worth the mention.

Congrats! You're Not George W. Bush! Here's the Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-09T10:22:00.001-07:00

The big news, of course, is that President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize today. Now, I know this award isn't always given to the most awesome people (come on down Mother Teresa, Kofi Annan, Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat!) but the committee gets the award right more than they get it wrong.

Which is why Obama winning it is even more confusing. He won "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". Which is nice and dandy and great and I'm happy Obama is President (I voted for him in full disclosure). But Nobel Peace Prize? Really?

But then again, maybe it makes TOTAL sense because between September 11, 2001 and January 20, 2009, the United States refused to listen to anyone about anything. Obama on the campaign trail and since he has become President has said, "We're going to listen, we might not (and probably won't) do want you want us to do, but we'll listen." And for that, for just listening, he has won the Nobel Peace Prize. He won because he did want we should have been doing all along. Which again, I don't think is necessarily a reason to win... but hey whatever. It's not my award.

Now the right will be pissed off. Partisan politics will rear its petty head and people will be upset about him winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Their anger will be something like "he's in bed with the European left" blah blah blah. (which is hilarious because the Europeans apparently didn't like him last week when they voted for Madrid over Chicago for the Olympics; they hated him last week but love him this week go figure). But I don't think winning the Nobel Peace Prize is a bad thing. In fact it is a good thing, and it restores some honor to the United States and the Office of the President (our last two Presidents either cheated on their wives or decided to pick wars or fights with other countries; it hasn't been a good 16 years for the Office of the President).

So to recap:
Did Obama deserve it? Probably not.
Why did he win? Because he listens to other countries.
Really? Yes.
He won because he listens? Yes. And he's not George W. Bush.
You're kidding? No.
That's kind of cool? In a fucked up way, yes.
But sort of sad? Yes totally sad that you can now win the Nobel Peace Prize for listening.
Is Obama winning a bad thing? No.
Should we be upset that he won? No.
Should we dislike him more now that he won? No.
Then why will people be upset? Because they're petty and they hate to see the other guys do well (I'll confess, I hate it when the Cubs or Red Wings win).
Does this help or hurt Obama? I say help him. But others will disagree. There's really no way winning the Nobel Peace Prize can hurt you. Unless you go to war three years from now because of oil/distract the world from the fact that you let the real enemy get away.

Until later...

Healthcare and Early Childhood Education

2009-10-08T12:20:00.001-07:00

Today should be two separate posts, and maybe if it gets long it will be... away!

Healthcare is going to get done. And while the left is going to be upset because it's not what they voted for and how much it will control costs is iffy (which is really the main long term problem with healthcare in the USA), it looks like healthcare will get done. I'm not sure what the Republicans will bitch about considering that this bill will reduce the deficit... but I'm sure they'll find something. Goes to show how weird and hypocritical politics are—if anyone should be upset it should be Democratic voters because what they voted for is not getting done, yet they'll cheer this on as Obama being awesome. Meanwhile, the Republicans will be against the bill because... I don't know, they're the opposition party and that's what they have to do. Or something lame like that. ANYWAYS, the bill coming out of the Finance Committee will be more than cost neutral, it's going to be cost negative, which is something every American should be able to get behind. And if they don't? They're idiots.

The fall out from Derrion Albert's beating death on Chicago's South Side continued yesterday (this is the little story that keeps running, three week legs). But the story is starting to change. Instead of blaming the neighborhood this took place in, the media is getting it right and focusing on the SOCIAL breakdown and what we can do about it. There is a parenting crisis in this country, but there is a parenting crisis in every country and has been since the dawn of time so this is nothing new. So to fill that gap we need to put in place social networks and safeguards to help. The government can't do all the work, but it can do some of the heavy lifting. This story from the Trib points out:

Many others point to quality early-childhood education as crucial, and President Barack Obama made it a central premise of his presidential platform and has promised to pump millions of dollars into evidence-based programs.

Striking empirical evidence from the Perry Preschool experiment in Michigan showed large differences between the arrest rates of students in the intensive preschool effort and a control group not in the program. Some have estimated that the preschool program generated $13 in benefits for every $1 spent, with most of the savings because of a reduction in the criminal behavior of boys.

Okay, a 1,200% return is pretty fucking awesome and probably a policy initiative we should look into. And even if you don't buy the Perry Preschool experiment, there are a tons of other places were you can look and find pretty awesome success stories. Hey, if you don't believe me, believe the Nobel Prize winner.

I'm not going to rail on and on and on about how much human capital is wasted in the Untied States, even though I should, because no one will listen because no one wants to spend money on anyone other than themselves. I know, it's one of the awesome aspects of democracy. Sigh. But we have so much wasted talent in the United States that we should all be ashamed. Maybe the awareness that the Derrion Albert story is bring to early childhood education a bit more to the forefront. And if something is done and changed, then we all benefit because the more human capital there is, then there is more capital for all of us.

Yay.

Saturday Night Live's opening sketch ...

2009-10-07T07:07:00.001-07:00

Saturday Night Live's opening sketch with Obama telling the right wingers to not worry about socialism since he hasn't gotten anything done... and then listed all the things he hasn't done was pretty good. Although it does look like healthcare is going get done eventually; Obama, so far, can really only claim victory: the stimulus.

I think at this point we can all agree that the stimulus was not a bad thing. Flawed? Yes. Taking too long for the money to start flowing? Sort of (but think of it this way, wouldn't rushed projects be a bad thing?). Was it bad? Unless you're a hard core libertarian (i.e. the government shouldn't even pave roads)—No.

But with state and local governments out of money and things not getting any better any time soon, maybe the stimulus money should have gone to the states, helping bail them out of the financial bind they're in. It would save a lot of jobs in the short run and stimulate local economies. Bailing out GM was nice, but couldn't the people of California use that money more? Wouldn't it have been better served to plug those budget gaps in Chicago? Because as the state and local governments lay off workers, roll back on projects, and stop providing services that the market usually does not provide at a low cost or at all (ie education, mental illness services, homeless services, etc.,) it hurts the local economy. I guess what I'm saying is that wouldn't we, as a country, be better off with moral hazard problems in the state government than at GM or AIG?

Illinois does not have to offer "Choose Life" licence plate... hopefully it's because there are bumper stickers for that. However, if I was the left, I'd respond by having my very own "Choose Life" licence plate with a falsely convicted person who is behind bars. And can we get a ruling on when the right wants more government and when the left wants less government and how/when it's cool? Thanks.

I don't like the new Capital Fax.

I'm sure Colbert will touch on this... but seriously, what's up with the UN? The USA coming in 13th in best places to live? That's 12 places too low. Everyone knows that the USA is the best country on Earth and the best place to live. Our healthcare is awesome, violence not as bad as South Africa's, and our Gini Index (the income gap between the rich and the poor) is on par with Ghana, Senegal and Thailand.

Swine Flu freak outs are going to happen because people love to think they're going to die. And while I would venture to guess we'll see an up tick from flu related deaths in 2009-2010 remember this: 36,000 Americans die of the flu each year. Also, those who are older (ie, Baby Boomers and up) are much less likely to come down with H1N1 because they've/you've built up immunity towards it. This isn't to say that we shouldn't worry or do anything about it, but take a deep breath before you start thinking that you're going to die. So far most Americans have lived to tell about having Swine Flu.

More Olympic fall out from Second City Cop. Don't disagree with much that he/she says here. However a suggestion for Mayor Daley. If the city really does have a $600 million budget shortfall, why not start by trimming all the non-Chicago residents on the City parole.

Woah. First round elimination. Even...

2009-10-05T07:49:00.001-07:00

Woah. First round elimination. Even I took that as a slap in the face and punch to the stomach. I'm shocked, just as everyone else is. I wanted to lose to Rio in the final...

But the reality is, Chicago dodged a bullet. The Olympics never are an economic winner. They're an excuse used to build infrastructure and it's easier to sell spending billions on the Olympics than on just straight up infrastructure. That's too bad that we have to find ways to lose money to spend money on quality projects.

Let's put this to rest now: Chicago losing did not hurt Obama. Sure the FoxNews types will say it did, but it's the Fox News people. They'd hate Obama if he gave them a trillion dollars and world peace. As Zorn points out, the Obama's were the only people to actually deliver on Friday. (I'm not going to post the stupid WashPost coverage... thanks for showing up about three years after the fact guys! We really needed your opinion! Why couldn't you know, not say anything?) In the end this wasn't the 2016Obama Olympics, it was the 2016 Chicago Olympics. Chicago lost because it's funding was very questionable and the USOC has pissed off the IOC. Rio won because IOC members wanted the games there. If Obama looks bad because Chicago didn't win, then you're a hater. Blast him for going over there and stumping for Chicago, but don't blast him because Chicago didn't win. This was much bigger than Obama (and I'd guess 95% of Americans don't care).

If you ever needed proof that elections are unfair (all elections) and there is no such thing as a fair election, let Friday's IOC vote be a reminder. First, it's pretty clear that Europe is highly over represented in the IOC. Madrid would have been awarded the Olympics if they had only done one round of voting. Yes, we don't know who voted for who, but Madrid really had no business in the final two because Europe had the games in 2004 and will have them in 2012 (not to mention Italy in 2006 and Russia in 2014). Europe is overly represented in all international organizations, in part because when they were set up they were the richest and most powerful countries on Earth. But it's the 21st century now, the world has and is changing. It's time to allow other organizations to reflect this (I'm looking at you, United Nations). The G-8, sorry, G-20 has already made that move. And it was a smart one over all.

I agree, the loss does hurt Daley:

Daley, who had derided the Olympic selection process before throwing his weight behind a Chicago bid in 2005, was counting on a win to boost Chicago’s economy and reinvigorate his own standing. The quick loss represents an embarrassment of international and local dimensions for a mayor who has dominated the city landscape and is used to getting what he wants.

If you don't think DC is a seedy place, check this out. And shockingly, another Family Values Republican is caught in bed with woman who is not his wife. Are there bigger hypocrites on Earth other than the Republican party right now? It's like they're trying to make sure that anyone under the age of 30 never votes for them.

Detroit can't bury her dead because they're broke. Watching this city over the last ten years is like watching an... Adverse Selection Death Spiral. So sad.

We're not out of this recession and banks are still deleveraging... yet why does everyone keep tell us that we are okay (or will soon be?) Getting over and past what happened last fall will take years. Yet everyone seems to be saying, 'now that the recession is over, lets move on to the deficit.' Only the recession isn't over and won't be
until the banks are okay. Krugman: "Look, I know more stimulus is a hard sell politically. But it’s urgently needed. The question shouldn't be whether we can afford to do more to promote recovery. It should be whether we can afford not to. And the answer is no."

The Canadian Government didn't fall last week. But the fact that it almost did makes you wonder if it's going to be the Italy of the 21st century. (Steven Harper also looks like he should be British, like the Tory MP from some stuck up English county).

And finally, because it's never too early to talk about 2012. But I have nothing to say about it.

The Olympics... Tomorrow... or Today... I don't know how to feel

2009-10-01T18:42:00.003-07:00

Okay, so the decision on the Olympics will be made later today (Copenhagen time)... so I figured I'd try and find some positive stories about hosting the Olympics. But that's proving to be difficult. Ben Joravsky's plea to not award Chicago the Games in the Reader was pretty good. Seriously, everyone from and in Chicago is saying 'We Don't Want Them! We know what will happen! And it's not good! The IOC, which is sort of a joke as it is, will only made to look a bigger joke! Don't you realize there will be thousands of stories about corruption and graft and project behind schedule stories?' I can now sort of understand why the Trib wants the games: they'll sell newspapers reporting on all the corruption and inside deals that come out of Chicago getting the games.

And it comes down to this: everyone realizes that the Olympics put cities behind the eight ball financially. They usually don't make money. Sydney and Barcelona are the exceptions to the rule. The successful Olympics, now, have served as coming out parties for either cities or countries. Barcelona worked because it was pretty much given second citizen status during Franco's regime, so people were not as aware of the city. Beijing worked because it was China's coming out party. But what about Calgary or Turin or Athens or Atlanta? Those are all modern Olympics and I'm not sure anyone is saying, man, I can't wait to go to Calgary! Or Lillehammer! Or Atlanta! Because they had the Olympics!

I know you can make that argument for Chicago -- that even in the US it isn't that well known of a city because it's in the Midwest and L.A. and Vegas and New York and D.C. get all the press and international guests. But that's selling Chicago short. It's a huge huge huge financial center (second most important in the US and one of the most important in the world). It's still huge (easily the 3rd largest city in the US). And it has tradition and arts and culture and all that you'd ever want in a city. It's a city that most American cities would kill to be. Outside of San Fran or L.A. or New York and maybe Seattle and Boston, Chicago has more to offer than your home town. Chicago's case is not like Barcelona's story. And Atlanta... we don't even think of Atlanta here.

Chicago already is a world class city. We don't need the Olympics to prove that or to become that. I remember when I was living in England that there was this promotion at McDonald's or something that the winner when on an all expenses trip to... Chicago. Why? Because house music originated here. Apparently Europeans come to Chicago to listen to house music. Think about that.

Look, I'm not saying it wouldn't be fun to have them. I'm not saying it would not be exciting. Getting the games would do wonders for public transit in Chicago, we might even catch up to New York and by pass DC's public transportation systems. And I'd probably even end up making money off of the games... but I don't want the game for three reasons:

1) Corruption. Chicago does corruption as well as New Jersey and New Orleans—maybe better. Giving the games to us is pretty much saying, 'here people connected to Daley, here are billions of dollars for you to put in a Swiss bank account.' Meanwhile, the average, every day tax payer is screwed.

2) Money. The city can't afford the games right now and the Feds aren't going to bail us out because the Feds just spend about $5 trillion dollars bailing out Wall Street and another $.8 billion on a stimulus (not really exaggerating there). Yes, in a weird way, the US government has infinity dollars but it's not going to start dropping billions on Chicago just because. Chicago has major issues: education, crime, transportation, funding pensions, housing... and the Olympics will probably only fix one of those issues (transportation) and maybe another (housing). Now is not the time to take on an event like the Olympics. Three years ago? Maybe. Now? No.

3) Daley's face. I want to see the look on his face if we don't get the games. This is a man who has gotten what he wanted for the last 20 years. No one says no to him, and if they do, he destroys them. But the IOC can say no. And no I hope they say just to see how he reacts.

The Olympics... Tomorrow... or Today... I don't know how to feel

2009-10-01T18:42:00.001-07:00

One Day...

2009-10-01T07:40:00.001-07:00

One day until the big announcement on who will hold the 2016 Summer Olympics. I have to say, I'm nervous, bad nervous, like I would imagine this is how I would feel if the Cubs were up 3-0 after seven innings, up 3 games to 2 in the NLCS... sure it'd be cool if the Cubs won, but I don't want them to. Same thing with the Olympics, sure it'd be cool if Chicago won, but I don't want them. And I'm not alone. I think, going into tomorrow, it's Rio's to lose. They've got Pele. We've got Oprah. I'll take Pele.

Once again, if Chicago doesn't get the Olympics, the Derrion Albert tragedy will be a major reason why. Two Sun-Times columnists chime in this morning. Roper states the obvious. Mary Mitchell does her thing. And the Trib had a chilling editorial on youth violence in Chicago. Second City Cop chimes in about the rumors of a squad car being near the scene where Albert was beaten and not doing anything.

And then just when Daley and company in Copenhagen thought it couldn't get worse... another student is beaten, this time on the North Side. Thankfully, this one is in the hospital. I can't believe I just typed that.

Talks with Iran begin today. Follow them here if you'd like. Will Obama drop by tomorrow since he'll be in Copenhagen anyway?

And by the way, Obama going to Copenhagen is the biggest joke in his almost nine months in office. Really Obama? Going to Copenhagen just to pitch Chicago? Really? On the U.S. tax payers dime too? And what about all the green house gases you're releasing just for a "what's up, IOC and Danish peeps?" What a joke. I know your house will probably increase in value if Chicago gets the Olympics, and you going is totally rational by going to Copenhagen since you have the means and if we get it then your house will be worth more... but come on. There are much much bigger issues going on in the world today.

I know everyone keeps telling us the economy is getting better and the stock market has reacted as such... but the last week has been nothing other than "banks continues to deleverage" and "____ was lower than expected". Are we starting to see a drop in the market again? There's been a lot not good news, but the market has been acting like there has been a good news. I'm not sure what the true value of the US stock market is, I'm not expert there, but it does seem high to me for what it's worth.

Lastly, interesting editorial in the Trib today on... Cuba (I know, you'd think they would run something Olympic or Iran or health care or clout related...). It's good, it's interesting, but just weird timing. "U.S. businesses are eager to do business with Cuba. And Cuba has a lot to offer the U.S. market -- everything from sugar to cigars to major league pitchers." However, Cuba doesn't have sugar to offer us because we have a stupid sugar tariff which probably costs the American consumer more than you'd ever guess. Seriously, our sugar policy might be the second most backward policy in this country (the Cuba embargo, probably takes the cake... and I forgot about Iraq, so
maybe we'll move sugar to #3).

Just thinking out loud, but if Chicago does get the Olympics, who runs them? Who would Daley appoint? Who could Daley appoint? He only has a few options because of the 'brain drain' that has occurred with Obama taking half the city to D.C. and I'm assuming that no one there would leave D.C. to run the Olympics...

Morning Round Up

2009-09-30T07:14:00.001-07:00

Kass thinks Olympics will make Daley King. Hard to disagree, though isn't he already? If we get the Olympics won't it be more like Moscow 1980 than LA 1984?

New CTA stop at Morgan and Lake on the Green line in the West Loop. Being built with TIF money. See TIFs aren't always bad.

Also apparently about people were protesting and ripping down Olympic stuff at Daley Plaza and then tried to burn it in the eternal flame there. I would say most people here in Chicago either don't want them or don't care. And when I say most, I mean like 65%. Daley has every company (even the Tribune!) flying Chicago 2016 flags and backing the bid. But it's the most unenthusiastic backing one could imagine. Compared to a year ago when the City had Obama fever... this is nothing. It's all fake I'd even say. Most of the support is coming from people who don't live in Chicago... people form the burbs.

BTW, if/when Chicago doesn't get the Olympics, the tragic and horrible beating death of a Chicago Public School student will be the reason why. This story won't go away and went INTERNATIONAL.

And the 2016 team is literally making stuff up now about the Olympics and Chicago support for it. They've got the media wrapped around their fingers, I know, but where is all this support they're talking about? They have money, sure, but where is the actual support?

We're not stupid, we know how this will work. We know that their $4.8 billion bid (the lowest of the four bids) is a pipe dream. London is already over budget. Vancouver, VANCOUVER, CANADA, is over budget. How is Chicago, a town that is still ripe with graft and clout, going to be on budget?

Think about this for a second. Vancouver is $400 million over budget. Their original budget was $1.2 billion. That means they are 33% over budget. London's 2012 budget is currently... $15 billion! Chicago's big is about a third of that price. And a 33% increase on Chicago bid would put costs at $6.4 billion. This is going to be a disaster if Chicago gets the bid.

Only 50 odd hours to go until they make their decision. I'll break down how I think the vote will go one of these hours...

Fed Catch the Bad Guy?

2009-09-24T14:16:00.001-07:00

Yay?

The FBI had a drug informant become friendly with Finton, according to the complaint. The informant told agents Finton had talked about wanting to get terror training and to fight in Gaza against the Israelis. Agents then worked to set up an "opportunity for action that we controlled," began recording contacts with him and put him in touch with an undercover agent who told Finton he was an al-Qaeda operative.

In a July conversation, Finton allegedly told the agent he was considering attacks on "government buildings, banks and police stations." His hope was that an attack would cause the U.S. military to withdraw from conflicts overseas.

The headline sounds great. Feds catch terrorist. But, um, was this guy actually going to be a terrorist before the Feds got involved? I think it's fair to say that the Feds caught a guy who they created. Which is sort of scary when you think about it. This is not like someone going undercover with the Mifa... this is leading someone on to think thinking they're going to kill Americans and letting them believe that they were being given everything they need to do so. They only caught this guy red handed because the Feds were the one giving him everything he needed.

Now there are two sides to a coin... and this case seems like a coin situation. It's easy to argue that Finton was in fact a terrorist in waiting and if he had hooked up with the real bad guys, bad things would have happened.

But the other side of the coin is what I'm starting to think the more I hear about the Feds catching guys who, um, they sort of created.

I mean, was Finton ever really a threat? Sure he wanted to cause some harm, but was it real or was he pushed by the FBI? If the FBI had left him alone would anything had happened? It's hard to say of course, and on the face of it the country is safe... but is it? Because at the same time the Feds were focusing all this energy on this one man who may not have even been a threat if the Feds had left him alone urban America continues to decay. How many gang wars does the American city have to suffer through? How many young people have to die before we start focusing on another form of terrorism happening blocks away from where you're reading this?

You couldn't make this stuff up.

2009-09-17T14:04:00.001-07:00

You couldn't make this stuff up:

Protesters who attended Saturday’s Tea Party rally in Washington found a new reason to be upset: Apparently they are unhappy with the level of service provided by the subway system.

Rep. Kevin Brady asked for an explanation of why the government-run subway system didn’t, in his view, adequately prepare for this past weekend’s rally to protest government spending and government services.

Seriously.

I mean, you can be all anti-taxes and government for all I care, but please, whatever you do, do not bitch about there not being enough government or service. You just look silly. You look stupid. And you make me wonder if you and your constituents are educated. And I don't want to think that half the Republican Representatives from the South and their constituents are morons. I don't want to think that my tax dollars go towards enabling these people to be stupid, because that's a billion times worse than the made up "Welfare Queen" whom you blame for all our problems.

You seriously couldn't make this shit up. The South everyone, let's give it up for the South! They may have caught up with us economically, but we're still waiting for them to catch up with us intellectually!

What am I missing?

2009-09-16T11:46:00.001-07:00

Bloomberg headlines at about 1:30 (CST) today:

Stocks, Commodities Gain on Speculation Global Economy Returning to Growth
Global Confidence Index Holds at Record High on Signs Recession Has Ended
Ireland Will Spend $79 Billion to Purge Financial System of Toxic Assets

Huh? Irleand is going to drop nearly 29% of it's GDP in an attempt to get rid of Toxic Assets and the world economy is getting better? And there are stories like this almost EVERY DAY. Banks on the brink... banks failing... yet all of a sudden things are getting better?

I am totally lost. Sure things are better than they were six months ago, but let's not for a second believe that because the DOW is up 2% every day now that things are back to normal and the Sept. 15, 2008 — Sept. 1, 2009 was just a minor bump in the road. Governments are keeping banks alive and without banks then there is no capitalism.

It's going to take a long time for us, as a nation and world, to get back to where we were in 2007. But then again, as we found out, much of that money in 2007 was... well... not real.

(Un)Constructive Summer

2009-09-14T15:00:00.001-07:00

Frank Rich points out what, frankly, I should have realized and pointed out more directly: the summer of 2009 has been a total waste from a policy perspective:

This was a silly summer, as wasteful in its way as the summer of 2001, when Washington dithered over the now-forgotten Gary Condit scandal while Al Qaeda plotted. The president deserves his share of the blame...

a certain damage has been done — to Obama and to the country. The inmates took over the asylum, trivializing and poisoning the national discourse while the president bided his time. The lies that Obama called out so strongly in his speech — from “death panels” to “government takeover” — ran amok. So did all the other incendiary faux controversies, culminating with the ludicrous outcry over the prospect that the president might speak to the nation's schoolchildren on a higher plane than, say, “The Pet Goat.”

The problem with health care has been the lack of leadership from Obama. He finally stepped the plate on Wednesday. But it took far too long. His political capital is less than it was five months ago, and health care is going to take a lot of political capital. It was a wasted summer.

And just as all four years of Bush's second term was a waste because nothing happened on the domestic front, 2009 hasn't looked too much better. Yes, stimulus got done, which is more than Bush can say about 2005-2008, but it's not enough. Obama came in with more political capital and power than any President since probably FDR in 1932. And what does he have to show for it? A disliked stimulus and a bunch of two bit rumors started by idiots. That's what I'd call an (un)Constructive Summer.

It finally happened. Now will it hap...

2009-09-10T10:21:00.001-07:00

It finally happened. Now will it happen?

That's what I'm left wondering this morning. Obama finally came out and told Congress what he wants. I'm sure he'll get something close to what he outlined last night. So what did he say... going to the newspapers... oh wait, it is impossible to get a news article that talks about what Obama wants. The New York Times? NOPE. Chicago Tribune? SUCKS. Washington Post? STINKS. Seriously, can someone in the media tell me what Obama said last night? Did anyone in the media listen to his speech? This is amazing at how poorly it's being covered. This lifeline from Politico is the best I can send you... Hey, but at least we know they pointed out that Joe Wilson is a fucking idiot! Oh wait, we knew that last night.

So I'll do it myself. <sighs/> Anything in italics is Obama's words from last night.

We are the only advanced democracy on Earth – the only wealthy nation... Then there’s the problem of rising costs. We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it.

Amazing when you think about it. Why is the GOP and some Dems against reform again? If universal coverage was so bad, then why does everyone else have it?

First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.

Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most...

They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime... And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse...

Now, if you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who don’t currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices... We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices....

That’s why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance – just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers...

And the insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that, but an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange... I've insisted that, like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums its collects... The public option is only a means to that end, and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal....

I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I've talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs.

So let's review:

1) Insurance companies cannot deny anyone coverage. They also cannot drop coverage when they want to.

2) There will be no maximum on coverage (I'm sure most people don't realize this, but most plans have a lifetime cap, if you hit, you're SOL).

3) There will be something called an insurance exchange were people and businesses can go to shop for health insurance.

4) Everyone in America will be forced to buy health insurance.

5) He wants a Public Option... but he doesn't have to have a public option. Apparently, the public option is like the iPhone, it'd be cool to have but I don't have to have it.

6) Malpractice/tort reform won't solve everything, but we should probably do something about it.

7) If you have insurance, you can keep your insurance.

Okay... seven things. Laid out nicely for us. What to think?

Requiring everyone to buy health insurance isn't a cure all, end all... but it is a start. This won't necessarily control costs, but it will increase the insurance pool. And Obama's right about tort reform, it's not a silver bullet. (What he is doing is throwing the GOP a bone. Will they work with him? Of course not. Why? Because they're fucking dickheads at the moment. The real question is, why is the Republican party refusing health care reform? If we don't do anything about health care, things will only get worse, and it will start to eat and destroy America from the inside out... who wants that?)

Final Thoughts:
This is a start. Obama finally said what he wants. It should make things a bit better. But I'm still not sure how it controls costs. Health care—in and of itself—should improve under his plan. However, are incentives being given for people to get preventive care? Are their disincentives to going to the ER or the doctor for a cold? What about end of life treatment? And who is going to pay to keep a premature baby alive for the necessary time until it can live on his/her own? Prescription drugs? The insurance exchange seems... how will it work?

There are a lot of questions out there to be answered still. This isn't the kind of health care reform that will totally change the face of America or drastically reduce costs or provide results that are as good as Cuba's, let alone Frances. But it's a start. And Obama telling Congress and American what he wants was necessary. Now, let's get it done.

Sun-Times Saved

2009-09-09T06:50:00.001-07:00

Good day in Chicago yesterday. The Oprah thing went fine. Jay-Z played for free (though someone did get stabbed). Cubs had 8 straight hits to start the game and won... and it looks like the Chicago Sun-Times will be saved.

Yup, Chicago continues to be a two paper town. If only the Sox had won... at least the deal reminded me of Mike Royko.

I'm sure Trib Tower is a bit upset. They've been waiting for years for the Sun-Times to fold. 'Any day now,' they would say to themselves. Then make a glib remark about Ebert writing them to discontinue publishing the Red-Eye because it was the Red-Eye that was killing the Sun-Times. Once the Sun-Times was gone then they'd have a nice little monopoly over Chicago and, I guess in theory, make a lot of their financial problems go away. But I guess they'll have to continue to be the paper in bankruptcy.

Chicago wakes up to both the Trib and the Sun-Times. The Almighty Tribune and it's harder working, better Chicago reporting red headed step child Sun-Times. The real winners? Anyone who lives in Chicago.

Sold on the Stimulus

2009-09-08T09:39:00.001-07:00

Day late and a dollar short? Or at this point, do we still need to be sold on it? I know the bill was passed seven months ago and it's been showing itself in cash for clunkers and high speed rail ideas ever since. Next year, that money will flood the US economy. However, all summer we've been told that things are getting better and that the stimulus was unnecessary.

Well those people are wrong. I rediscovered this graph and even though I've always been pro-stimulus, I was 100% resold when seeing it again.

But looking forward, the Taylor rule says that the Fed should cut rates a lot from here — in fact, to negative 6%. That’s not surprising: we’re clearly opening up a huge output gap, inflation is turning into deflation.

The problem, of course, is that you can’t cut interest rates below zero (if you try, lenders will just hoard cash.) So the Fed simply can’t do what the rule says it should.

This is why we need a huge fiscal stimulus, unconventional monetary policy, and anything else you can think of to fight this slump. Quite literally, the usual rules no longer apply.

No matter what we we told all summer, things are not getting better. Banks are still not fixed. Business are not growing. People are out of work and continue to be out of work. Things are really really bad. Maybe not 1932 bad, but they're as bad as anyone born after World War II has seen. And they are not getting better. Don't listen to the GOPers or the White House. We have a ways to go.

However as wrong as both parties are about the economy (nothing says out of touch as when you say one thing and your constituents look around see and tell you another), the GOP is more 'wrong'. This idea that the stimulus wasn't need is wrong—Iraq has WMDs wrong. The Fed was out of tools back in the Fall and Winter of 2008. A huge injection of money—the hope, promise, and reality of—was a necessity.

Now, I think people are too often confusing the stimulus (Obama) and the bank bailout (started with Bush, lead by the Fed and pretty much non-political/partisan). The credit crisis and thus the bailouts, are what should make us all go, Holy Shit. Those numbers are so large, that it's pretty much impossible for us to fully understand them in our heads. Check this out if you haven't already - it compares policies like the Marshall Plan to the credit crisis. Wow.

And of course, that's lead to a whole new mess—already big banks taking on the sick banks to create even bigger banks which of course can't fail. It's a moral hazard that is TRILLIONS of dollars worse than any welfare program only two bit idiots have an issue with. But of course, some how, in the mess of the last year, everyone is confusing policy, politics, GOPers and Dems... and as a result, lots of misinformed people (ie main stream media, Sarah Palin) are placing a lot of blame on all the wrong shoulders.

If you have the 90k a year job and think the stimulus was a bad thing... well, be happy you have the 90k a year job because there is a better than you might think chance that you might not have it without the stimulus.

Signs that your country is screwed: #29,483,283

2009-09-04T09:14:00.001-07:00

When people bitch about the President giving a small speech to grade school students to the point where it becomes a story.

The GOP is complaining and giving their usual "socialist" bullshit stupid ass ignorant argument. However, to be fair, back in the early 90s, Dems complained about Bush (the not bad one) giving a small little address to 3rd graders.

Come on people, let's let the President say hi to the kids and encourage them to stay in school. It's really not a big deal. He isn't going to start talking about health care policy or the stimulus or some socialist program. Why? Because he's talking to 9 year olds. And 9 year olds aren't interested in socialists agendas.

So let's chill the fuck out. No one is forcing every school student to watch this. It's totally optional if they want to hear the shout out that Obama's gonna lay on 'em. Let's just move on before we fuck this country up any more talking about stupid shit.

Et tu, Daley?

2009-09-03T08:40:00.001-07:00

Well one report from the IOC and the Chicago media goes crazy. I'm happy about it of course—the media is finally starting to catch up with the public.

The stories and editorials are coming fast and furious. But the Mayor has to be starting to panic: His constituents don't want the Olympics any more:

Nearly as many city residents oppose Mayor Richard Daley's Olympic plans, 45 percent, as support them, 47 percent. And residents increasingly and overwhelmingly oppose using tax dollars to cover any financial shortfalls for the Games, with 84 percent disapproving of the use of public money.

Daley has, for the last two or three years, put all his eggs and political capital and connections and ego and time and effort and you know... everything... into getting the Olympics. The thought was two fold:

1) The Games would be Daley's final 'stamp' on Chicago. His legacy. They would be the Daley Olympics, not Chicago's, Daley's.

2) Money. Daley also needed the Olympics because of the money it would bring in. Not the ticket sales and the bullshit multiplier effect that they try to sell us. But rather federal money. The city for a bunch of reasons, is out of money (or sitting on billions depending on who you believe) and Daley is/was hoping that the Feds would come in and build him some new public transportation lines and help with crime which would allow him to throw more money at the schools. But ever since the Federal government started bailing out the banks, it's hard to believe that they're going to send much (any?) money Chicago's way.

The people of Chicago will put up with a lot as long as you: pick up the garbage, keep the city open spaces clean, and plow the snow. But even Chicagoans will start to feel a bit rebellious after three years of over all decline throughout the city.

The decline isn't exactly noticeable to the untrained or out of town eye. The Loop still looks the Loop and the Lakefront is amazing on a sunny day. But if you were to walk the streets every day, the difference starts to become obvious. Crime is up, cops don't have a contract, schools are out of money, if you park your car on the street someone seems to find a way to give you a ticket, it seems like we're being hustled by our own government at every street corner. And thus, the air, the rhythm of the city, doesn't feel right. Every Chicago resident feels ignored—we know when the Mayor takes off for China or Moscow and we feel a little, well, neglected.

It hasn't helped that the Olympics have been rammed down our throat. We haven't had a say in any of this. That's partly our fault. But at the same time, Daley and his buddies at Aon (who are working on the details of this bid) haven't allowed us to speak, let alone listened. Daley figured that we want the Olympics because HE WANTS the Olympics. But this time he misjudged us. We aren't upset because of the money or the financing. This is about being ignored.

Every Chicago resident knew what was going to happen the moment this process started years ago. We knew there would be corruption. We knew that the Olympic people would be paid a ton of money. We aren't stupid. But as Daley realizes that we, his constituents, know that he can't deliver everything his promised and that we feel ignored... well I'm not sure what he's going to do. With a month to go, he has to sell the Games to us, something he never thought he'd have to do. And now, as the last leg of this journey begins, Daley is still pandering to the world.

He can shut down Michigan Avenue and let Oprah become the #2 cheerleader for all the world to see. But with every stunt that Daley does to impress the World, he loses another one of His Own. The people of Bridgeport have been saying this for years—ever since he left the 'hood. They'll tell anyone and everyone their own Ritchie story, and none of them are ever good. And we non-Bridgeporters would smile and think, "oh come on, he's not that bad."

But the truth is, they were right. And now, as we all walk down Ashland or Irving Park or Longwood or Kosner making that quick, slight eye contact with the passerby, we both share a moment where we both thing:

Et tu, Ritchie?

So close...

2009-09-02T08:00:00.001-07:00

In a way, you've got to feel sorry for the Chicago Tribune Editorial board. Tuesday was supposed to be their big day—the day that the Cook County Sales Tax would be rolled back. They've been waiting for this day for about 18 months. They've been so against the County's tax hike that they have a little clock counting down the days until the next election. In fact, they were so confident that they even wrote an editorial on Monday about the rollback. The excitement was in the air...

But of course this is Chicago and Cook County... the one place were the person who proposed the bill would vote against her own bill:

Sims deserved Tuesday's award for Most Bizarre Commissioner, a floating distinction for which there often are many qualified candidates. In July, Sims co-sponsored, and voted for, a measure to cut in half the full-percentage-point tax increase that took effect 14 months ago. Sims evidently had enough information to justify casting that July vote. Inexplicably, though, she didn't have enough information Tuesday to override Stroger's veto of the very measure she co-sponsored in July.

You can read the rest of that Trib's well written editorial at that link. And while the Sun-Times echoed much of what the Trib said, it didn't have the passion that the Tribune's piece did.

Anyway, what happened at the County yesterday is unique to Chicago and a few other cities in this country: everyone is left wonder just what the fuck is going on. The tax hike was sold on the fact that the County Hospitals needed more money. Well they don't. So the question now is... where did and does all that money go? (Other than the Forest Preserve hacks of course).

Who knows... and the thing is... at a certain point, we don't care. Or better put, we stop caring. And the hacks in the city and county know this. Keep the streets clean, make sure crime only happens in certain neighborhoods, pick up the garbage and get rid of the snow. You do those four things... and you can do and make whatever you want here in Chicago.

Flavorless

2009-08-29T13:21:00.001-07:00

So according to new Tribune hire Scott Stantis, somewhat new Tribune editor Gerry Kern is, "a guy talking about creating a crusading paper, a paper with flavor and spice and passion." That sounds great. But why is it that the Tribune doesn't reflect that? It's hooked one major story -- U of I clout -- and ran with it for what seems like five months now... nearly every day. It's a tired story at this point -- yes clout is bad. No, I'm not shocked that 50 kids got into U of I that should not have. Yes, it's a shame it happened, but it's only 50 kids (less than 1% for those scoring at home). Let's move on with our lives.

However, the full of "flavor and spice" Tribune continues to plug away with the U of I stuff. It's as if nothing else in this city matters. I know, I'm preaching to the choir at this point but what about: crime, the Olympics, CPS, the State budget, the lack of social services, the fact that every single word that comes from the Olympic committee's mouth is bullshit? Today, the Trib ran another story on clout. Okay fine. Whatever, I'm not going to read it, but I'll link it. Meanwhile, this article in the Sun-Times about the Olympics is informative and they call out the pipe dream projections coming from these 2016 Dreamers.

That Sun-Times story? That's a story with spice and flavor and passion.

And I should be fair, the Trib does run a few pieces with spice and passion: look no further than the editorial board. They write about clout a tad too often for my liking, but I'll put up with it because of editorials like today's.

Trib bores, Health Care Turning Point?

2009-08-27T16:28:00.001-07:00

Corruption in the county, City either out of money or Daley is sitting on billions to spend only for the Olympics (which is worse, imo, because he could be feeding millions into policing, education, transportation, etc), State budget is a joke... and what does the Trib editorial board lead off with? Quinn and U of I Clout. Shoot me in the head. Go away. Stop this story NOW.

But I've been thinking... between the Barney Frank video/town hall, the totally insane/nut job town hall anti-health care people, and Sen. Ted Kennedy's death... does health care have new life? [NOTE: I wrote this this morning and then saw this article this afternoon... oh well... it was an original thought at some point]. Never underrate these seemingly non-political moments when it comes to huge policy debates. Some times all it takes is a pitcher of beer at the Times to save a major bill.

Over the last 10 days, the health care debate has sort of shifted. Obama and company have stopped fucking it up. Congress isn't around to do or not do anything. And the TV images of idiots calling Obama a Nazi, Socialist, Muslim terrorist, dove ALL AT THE SAME TIME doesn't help the anti-health care cause. Now, with Kennedy's death, a rallying cry will/has been called to get health care done, "for Ted". I wouldn't underestimate that -- I mean, the irony of DC going out there to the win one from the Gipper is off the charts. And not totally insane when you think about it. "Let's get it done for Ted" is a rally around the flag moment for the Democrats -- this was Kennedy's last wish and something he has pushed for pretty much his entire Senate career. The question is, of course, will Obama continue to insist that they have to work with the GOP even though the GOP doesn't want to work with them?

PS I've been working on a health care manifesto... but it just gets longer and longer and longer so I'm going to have to break it down one of these days into about three posts.

Someone Out There Gets It

2009-08-21T08:27:00.001-07:00

You would think that with all the intelligent advisers in the West Wing they would be telling Obama this every day. But then again, they're all inside the Beltway, and if we know anything about the Beltway it is that it's were the dumbest, most stupid idiots in America move to and live. It took someone outside the Beltway to tell Obama what everyone in the country feels:

"I'm scared out of my mind talking to you here," Joe from Philly blurted out as he was connected to President Barack Obama during a talk radio call-in show devoted to health care Thursday. But when it came to his comment, however, Joe did not hold back.

"I'm getting a little ticked off that it feels like the knees are buckling a little bit," the caller declared, suggesting the president had begun to wobble in the face of pressure from conservative critics.

"You have an overwhelming majority in both the House and the Senate, and you own the whole shooting match. ... It's very frustrating to watch you try and compromise with a lot of these people who aren't willing to compromise with you."

I love how giving common sense advise to the President is headline news. But that's how fucked up the Beltway is. They live in this bubble that no one else in America lives in. These people think they know America, but the fact is they know nothing about America. That's why you get fuck ups like Obama's Health Care "plan".

Kudos to Joe from Philly. I couldn't have said it better myself. Maybe Obama will take his advise to heart and tell the GOP to fuck off. Health care isn't going to get done with their help and the Democrats don't need their help. Why Obama wanted their help even after the GOP has told Obama to fuck off since the moment he took office is beyond me.

The Tribune Takes a Stand!

2009-08-20T14:03:00.001-07:00

It's been a long time coming, but the Trib devoted it's editorial page to the Olympics yesterday.

So imagine my pleasure as I read all the questions they raise:

Will the taxpayer be on the hook?

Will this just be the all time greatest Chicago corruption, who gets the contract corruption shit fest of all time?

How about all those small 'details' that everyone always seems to 'forget' and end up cost just as much as the original price tag?

The Trib, thankfully, raises all these questions.

But where do they stand? Do they want the Olympics? Do they not want the Olympics? Do they think it's a good idea for Chicago?

DRUM ROLL............................................

Mr. Ryan, you and yours would do yourselves a great favor by voluntarily making your committee, and the successor Chicago Organizing Committee, subject to the provisions of Illinois' freedom-of-information law. That would allay the fear that, once you have the City Council on board, Chicago citizens will lose their leverage to protect the huge commitment you're asking of them.

What. The. Fuck. That's it? You want FOIAs on the Olympics? You have to be kidding me. Way to take a stand there Chicago Tribune. You want the most obvious, necessary, no fucking shit, of course guys, demand. Freedom of information.

Why didn't the Trib talk about how Daley has sold the city down the river for the chance to get the Olympics? Why didn't they talk about the soring crime rate, which is due in part, to chasing after the Olympics? Or how the schools are out of money... again because TIF money has been shifted to Olympic wining and dining?

What does it take to get some one, anyone, in this city to raise some tough questions AND dish out some tough opinions? Yeah, we have the Reader. But that's it. No wonder the city is a mess.

Things to read

2009-08-18T15:01:00.001-07:00

- Second City Cop with a good read taking apart Mary Mitchell of the Sun-Times:

The trouble is we're stretched too thin now and what used to be "normal" deployment is more of a stopgap or "reactionary" and doesn't prevent a thing. Not only that, the Uptown eruptions are a direct result of manpower being shifted to higher crime areas and less pressure being placed on the local hood rats who figure out very quickly that they can act out with less repercussions.

- I've been giving newspapers a hard time, but the New York Times has been doing what I suggested for a while. Only, they get actual economists to write about policy and economics. This piece on high speed trains is worth the read:

A second economic argument for high speed rail is that it will revitalize troubled regions of the United States. This argument would never be made about Dallas or Houston, which are booming, but some argue that high-speed rail can save Buffalo, Detroit and Cleveland. Transportation can have a significant impact on urban growth. Josh Gottlieb and I estimated that counties with access to a rail line in 1850 grew 20 percent more over the next 40 years. Gilles Duranton and Matthew Turner found that a 10 percent increase in a metropolitan area’s stock of highways in 1980 caused a 2 percent increase in population growth over the next 20 years.

This logic has led some to think that high-speed rail will do wonders transforming Buffalo into a back office for Manhattan. Buffalo is 376 miles from Manhattan, so a 150-mile-an-hour rail line will take two and a half hours, which is not going to be significantly faster than air. Moreover, vast amounts of low-cost space are closer to Manhattan than the shores of Lake Erie. Faster connections between Buffalo and Toronto might do more, but in that case speed is hampered by the burdens of border crossing.

Remember people will do anything for their pet projects, even if they don't make any sense... Buffalo to New York City? REALLY?!?!?!

- And on the bright side, Illinois is a bit more transparent:

The new law tightens many of the loopholes exploited by public officials to keep taxpayers from prying into their own affairs. It shortens the deadlines for responding to records requests and prohibits governments from charging outrageous fees to produce public documents.

Most significant, it comes with teeth. The law authorizes a public access counselor to mediate disputes over records and issue binding opinions. It provides penalties of up to $5,000 for governments that don't follow the law, and it requires them to pay legal costs if a citizen has to go to court to force the release of a public record.

When it's broke don't blame yourself

2009-08-18T09:14:00.001-07:00

From the Reader:

The vow. Global media mogul Rupert Murdoch this month: "Quality journalism is not cheap. The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive distribution channels but it has not made content free. We intend to charge for all our news websites."

That will work for the Wall Street Journal, but will it for more local newspapers?

No matter, as Miner outlines here, newspapers keep telling themselves that there is a problem and then offer up a million ways to fix it. The problems are always the same: Craigslist, giving away their product for free on the Internet, blogs... all these problems are sort of right, but mostly wrong. Yes, Craigslist eliminates the guy looking for a job or the girl looking for an apartment, but this couldn't have been a large percentage of readership (a free weekly like the Reader probably is hurt more by Craigslist than the dailies). True, newspapers give away their product away for free on the Internet, but that's also not totally true since most papers make money from Internet advertisements. Sure, blogs link and copy parts of stories... but blogs need newspapers more than newspapers need blogs. If anything blogs should only help newspapers.

And then there are the ways to fix newspapers: better copyright laws, payment to read content... but those aren't going to solve the major problem that newspapers have but they refuse to admit to themselves: It's themselves.

As I wrote -- there is little context to far too many stories that are written and reported. The problem with newspapers is that they hire journalists. The journalists who are smart and can give context to a story end up at the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, the paper's editorial board, or go off and do their own thing (magazine writing, columnist, write movies, etc). The average journalist keeps chasing fire trucks or hits up a press conference and then just tells us what happened. That's not enough. In grade school, when asked to write an essay, what do they teach you?

Who? What? Where? When? Why?

Newspapers can do the who and the what and the where and the when... but they never seem to get the why right. The day to day journalist always seems to never quite understand the why.

And why is that?

Well, in the complex world we live it, with specialists and fine print and everything else, the journalist, who is really a generalist, is going to be far behind the person who was educated in economics, biology or law. However, the journalist is required to some how take what happened and then combine them with the complex ideas of a specific study. If a newspaper can't give context to the story or what happened, then why would I, the reader, want to buy the newspaper? Why would I want to go to their website when I know that the stories on the site won't give me the context I'm looking for? The days of telling us what happened are long gone -- newspapers need to realize that covering a press conference is not enough because the reader now has many options. Chicago is called a two newspaper town, but that's false, it's a hundreds newspaper town because there a blogs out there that give context to the stories I want to read. And if you don't believe me, find someone under the age of 30 who still reads a sports section to a local paper -- they don't -- because the coverage is so much better on the blogs. SouthSideSox does a better job analyzing than the Sun-Times or Trib. The same can be said for pretty much every economic or policy story (and I assume most science stories).

I am not saying that over the years a journalist cannot become an expert him/herself. They can and do so. But remember, the good ones leave for another paper or another gig (season Five of the Wire highlighted this problem).

The question newspapers should be asking themselves is why aren't they hiring young lawyers or economists or scientists out of grad school or college? Sure they'll have to offer more money for such people, but they would get better context in their stories. Newspapers need to realize that the Watergate scandal is only part of their job -- uncovering graft is just part of what we, the buying public, wants. The other part of the story we'd like to read about? How about someone being able to explain how property taxes and schools are interconnected...

Newspapers, the Trib, and the Problem with Newspapers

2009-08-17T09:11:00.001-07:00

This article in the Tribune last week isn't bad, but it's everything that is wrong with newspapers these days. The reporting is fine, the writing is clear, but there is absolutely no context to the story itself. I read this and was dumbfounded. After the first line, one can stop reading: "Chicago Public Schools leaders want a 1.5 percent property tax increase to balance this year's budget -- a hike they estimate would cost an extra $18 a year for the owner of a $262,000 home."

So with that in mind, let me fill in the gaps -- either where the story lacks context or doesn't go far enough.

Huberman listed increasing employee pension costs and the state's money woes as leading pressures on the district's spending plans...

The most under reported story over the last few years has been the rises cost of public pensions. It is the major reason why the State of Illinois is in debt. And in education the way pensions often work for teachers is that you work for years, then when it comes close to retirement, the principal starts bumping up your salary. Why? Because you get a percentage of that salary in retirement (these are career teachers). Also, the state itself under funds education because of the state tax system -- read about it here -- and there's more on that below.

City school officials for months have been warning of a budget gap of $475 million or more in their $5.33 billion budget. The $475 million is the largest dollar deficit since Mayor Richard Daley took over the district in 1995. Next year, Huberman is projecting a budget hole close to $1 billion...

Why the budget hole? In part because of the stock market drop over the last year (they'll get to that in a second) but also because property tax revenues are expected to either go down or stay about the same. And since the state of Illinois doesn't really spend any money on public education, most of CPS' money has to come from property taxes. Would part of this hole be filled if Daley's Great TIFS Giveaway wasn't happening? Yes. Does the Tribune mention this? No. Why? I'm not sure.

Last year, the district avoided a property tax increase by dipping into its reserves. That decision followed the biggest property tax hike of Daley's tenure in late 2007 and two sales tax increases approved in 2008.

Again, not to beat a dead horse, but these actions were taken because:

1) The State of Illinois doesn't support public education.

2) Daley's giving TIFS to developers in areas like the Loop -- one of the last places in the City that needs a TIF.

The pension issue looms large. The district is required to fund 90 percent of the pension, which previously had not been a major issue, Msall said. But when the stock market crashed, the value of pension investments dipped and the school district was required to begin making up the difference. That meant $130 million extra this year and an estimated $300 million more next year.

"I think the Chicago Public Schools system faces an enormous financial challenge this year and even more so in the coming years," Msall said. "Basically, it's a pension time bomb."

Oh and the crazy, stupid contract they've worked out with the unorganized organization that is filled with petty infighting yet is some how powerful -- the Teachers Union. Why not point out that the deals that CPS signed with the Teachers Union are much like the deals that GM, Ford, and the steel companies signed with their workers years ago and those pension and health care promises are, in part, what is killing these companies today?

Again, the story itself is fine -- there is nothing wrong with it from a reporting stand point. But if you were grading it what would you give it? Something like a C+? Maybe a B because it has some good information, isn't poorly written? However, there is so much context to this story -- from how pensions work to the State constitution to property taxes -- that it's easy to see why newspapers are failing. Journalists are taught in school on how to chase a fire truck or cover a press conference. That's what was done here. And we have, as a public, moved beyond that in part because of TV news but also because of the Internet. If this story was (and part of it were) posted right after the press conference that's how newspapers should use the Internet get breaking news up there quick and make it easy to find. But the next day in print? Why not file a story with more context, explaining more about what is going on and why CPS is in this bind and wants to raise taxes? Then I (and we) might actually buy your newspaper, but stories like this give me (and us) no reason to do so.

A Year On -- What's the Point of Huffington Post Chicago?

2009-08-14T07:44:00.001-07:00

Out of boredom I ended up clicking on the Chicago Huffington Post page--something I admittedly have looked at twice since they fired that up a year ago--and I realized why I never go there.

It sucks. It totally sucks. It isn't interesting and it says the same freaking things that the Trib and Sun-Times say. There is no point to this site. None. There are posts and headlines on Ozzie saying that the Sox will go after teams that throw at them. There is a Patrick Kane update. There is even a headline... no wait, two headlines, on the U of I Clout story, along with a section on how to make peach donuts and someone praising Italian wines.

So what's the point of this page again? Wasn't Huffington going to some how bring "attitude" to Chicago? Instead, it seems like it's just a rehashing of Tribune/Sun-Times stories, and has little to no actual opinion or counter arguments/reporting to what those two newspapers do. The site is totally uninteresting and pretty much fails at what it set out to do:

"Transferring The Huffington Post's blend of news, opinion, and community -- delivered with our familiar look and attitude -- to a local level, HuffPost Chicago is part local news source, part resource guide, and part virtual soap box -- featuring a collection of bloggers who know and love Chicago, and are looking to share their takes on everything from the Cubs to City Hall to the hot new local band to the best place for Greek food (and I can testify that there is a lot of that in Chicago!)."

However, the site never actually set out to do this. John Cusack talking about how much he loves Chicago doesn't cut it because he doesn't really live here any more and lost all his Chicago cred when he showed up at the Cell in 2005 cheering on the White Sox – this after years of being a Cubs fan. From what I can/could tell Huffington Chicago was supposed to be about Chicago for people not in Chicago... only why would anyone read that?

A year later, they haven't added anything to the conversation. They haven't broken any stories -- not even a clout story -- instead they've just linked to what we already knew. They could have gone the route of the Reader and just hammered home how local media is all over the place or how TIFs are being misused by Daley and his pals. But instead it's just a shittier version of the Trib and Sun-Times, repeating their stories instead of going after new stories or offering up opinion on things like why Chicago shouldn't get the Olympics, or hammering the Tribune for flying 2016 flags when the IOC was in town in the winter. I'm not sure what the point of HuffPost Chicago ever really was – posing as an edgy alternative in a city that hates phony attitude was never going to fly. And it lacks the snark of Gawker... or the off-the-front-page stories of Chicagoist.

I think it's safe to add it to the FAIL Blog.

Kass Points Out What No One Else Will

2009-08-13T08:14:00.001-07:00

Maybe Kass reads there fine little blog, I don't think so, but hey, we seem to be on the same page. At least someone in Chicago knows what's up:

"The details of the crimes have been repeated endlessly in the news.
Unsuspecting taxpayers walking in high-end neighborhoods are approached
by thugs, who punch the taxpayers in the face, beat the tar out of
them, humiliate them further and take their money. It happens in other neighborhoods. But in other neighborhoods,
unfortunately, this wouldn't lead the local newscasts. It would be
police blotter stuff, next to the motor vehicle break-ins and petty
thefts and bleak, one-paragraph accounts of murder...
They'll catch them. Police have made one arrest and cut the suspect
loose for lack of evidence, but sooner or later, the marauders will be
caught. And we'll be treated to another dog and pony show. Politicians
who rule from on high will thump their chests and pronounce Chicago
safe. The real police will snicker and wonder when they'll ever get a
contract."

Next time you complain about the government, remember this

2009-08-12T14:59:00.001-07:00

Saw this one Second City Cop about a fella who decided to punch a police horse during Lollapalooza. Hahaha, what an idiot, insert cheap dumb joke here, blah blah blah.

But as Second City Cop points out things get a little interesting:

"So, a citizen of Mexico without a local address? Illegal? Oh wait, we can't ask that. Never mind."

The Chicago Public Schools face the same problem (really any major public institution in this country faces this problem) -- in fact it becomes a major headache for CPS because it makes identifying and labeling students extremely difficult. Why? Because CPS can't use Social Security numbers to register students. That's the stupidest thing you've ever heard you say... why don't they? Because public education is available and accessible to all young people in this country no matter what their situation may be. Since a students Social Security number can't be used to check if they're in the system, CPS (again, all large public schools) faces problems with duplicates in the system, especially at the early school year levels (K, 1, 2, etc). This makes streamlining information and data all that more difficult -- and part of the reason why everyone thinks CPS can't get their act together. Too many people -- from coordinators to administrators to data analysis -- spend too much time tracking down data on students or making sure they do not have duplicates in their files.

No matter where you stand on the illegal immigration issue, it's little policies or regulations like this that slip though the cracks of media coverage and seem like they don't matter, but have a huge fall out. I have no clue how many hours CPS or the police department loses per year chasing down information like this but it's a lot. And that's a lot of tax dollars and creates huge inefficiencies in the all public departments. So when a bleeding heart liberal says that everyone has a right to public education -- no matter where they're from if they walk though that door, they should receive an education -- I hope they don't complain about the red tape at these public institutions. I'm sure CPS or CPD administrators could spend their time much more productively if they could, you know, ask for a Social Security number.

Next time your complaining about whatever public department or government agency, remember that part of the reason they're so slow or so bad at their jobs is because of the regulations put in place to protect everyone -- you, your friends, even the illegal immigrant.

Crime Crisis Averted... back to the Olympics! UPDATE

2009-08-11T16:06:00.001-07:00

UPDATE 10amish 8/12 -- HOLY FUCKING SHIT -- They released the guy they arrested. So back to lock down on the North Shore! Forget about the Olympics, forget about covering the Olympics, forget even thinking we're going to get the Olympics, there are white people getting mugged on the North Side! And the Cubs played last night on top of it! How is the city going survive this crime wave on the North Side?!?!?! Whatever you do, do not read any of this.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

Phew, the city can go back to Full Olympic Mode! The North Side Mugger has been caught! White people are once again safe! Back to the Olympics!

I was getting worried that white people here in Chicago were going to start paying attention to crime! But, Daley and company can breath a sigh of relief... North Side Lakefront whites won't be focusing on crime any time soon now that they won't be mugged again for a few more months. So let's get back to focusing on getting the Olympics and Clout!

Meanwhile, for those who are a tad more interested in the fate of Chicago (and the country)... read this tragic story. Seems like there is one of these every month, at least, here in Chicago. But as they said in the Season Five of the Wire: Wrong Zip Code.

Now We're Talking

2009-08-07T07:28:00.001-07:00

Wow, nice find by the Trib this morning... this is more like it, I like it.

The Trib is connecting the dots and just tied Michael Scott, Daley (aka Shortshanks if you're a Second City Cop reader (and you should be))... where was I... oh yes, Michael Scott, Daley ally and President of the Chicago Public School Board, has some prime real estate that he'll be able to develop if/when Chicago (sadly) gets the Olympics. Scott of course says he's done nothing wrong. And I guess he's sort of right this being Chicago at all... but let's face it, this stinks of graft.

This Scott story comes just a day after it's been alleged that people close to him were able to get their kid into one of CPS' selective enrollment high schools though back channels. The kid later pulled out after CPS started asking questions... but you've got to wonder now how much longer Scott will be around City Hall and CPS.

Oh wait, this is Chicago. It's the city that works! Yuppie whites will smile and shrug and say, "Hey, it's Chicago, this stuff is supposed to happen" and tell everyone that they think it's cute. This is a city were alderman, like say, Ed Burke (one of the biggest Hacks to ever walk these city streets) should be able to redo his office with taxpayer money right now even though thousands of city employees are getting laid off.

This Scott and Olympic story should come as no surprise. It's just the first. And it wouldn't shock me if someone either at CPS or City Hall tipped off the Tribune on this one (this is so far out of left field that I sort of have to believe the Trib got help on this one considering it's been a five alarm fire drill in the Tower for the last year). Anyway, if you're cool with stories like these, then sure, keep rooting for the Olympics. The corruption will be off the charts. But if you don't want you tax money to be going to the likes of Michael Scott, then it's time to call your alderman and tell them to vote down the Olympic money.

Trib Website Redesign

2009-08-06T07:05:00.001-07:00

Kudos to the Chicago Tribune for its new website design. I know, I know, it's 2009 and their site now feels very 2004 -- but what they launched last night is about the price for war in Iraq (a.k.a. $3 trillion) times better than what they had yesterday. So let's all raise our coffee mugs to the Trib this morning and welcome them to the 21st century!

Now on to much more important things... CLOUT! The story that won't go away and is past the point of anyone caring is the Trib's main story which sets a new record for "Most Consecutive Days a Newspaper Carries a Story that No One is Talking About" at 162 days. Maybe it's just me and my dorky policy friends who aren't talking about it... but the only people that I talk about this story with is other Trib people and how sick they are of the story too.

But hey, in a town were crime is though the roof, the Olympics are about to fleece every resident, and the state is out of money -- Clout should be the #1 story for 162 days.

It's Not About Jobs, Stupid

2009-08-05T12:28:00.001-07:00

Who needs jobs when the Olympics are coming and will solve all of Chicago's problems!

See when you say things like: "Construction of the store would create200 jobs. The store, once it was running, would provide nearly 500jobs" you're totally missing the point of Chicago and the City Council. The point isn't to create jobs for Chicagoans today because we're talking about hundreds of jobs for Walsh Construction in 2013. See, building a Wal-Mart in Chicago makes too much sense, but of course it will piss off rich, liberal whites who the city needs more than anything else in the world... other than the Olympics of course.

So you're barking up the wrong tree. We don't need Wal-Mart, we need the Olympics. Because it will solve everything. And it won't cost a dime.

Where The New York Times Misses the Boat

2009-05-11T21:25:00.000-07:00

Remember way back in February when Obama decided that getting the stimulus done quickly was more important than getting it done efficiently? Remember how it was a flawed bill that no one really liked? Remember how the Republicans in the House all voted against it and how Snowe, Collins, and Specter flipped in the Senate and were the only reason as to why it was passed? Remember all that?

I remember telling people at the time that this was political stupidly by the G.O.P. Obama asked them to be apart of the bill and the G.O.P. leaders got upset because it wasn't what they wanted, so they decided to give America and Obama the middle finger by not voting for the bill... it was only a matter of time before that came back to bite them in the ass.

And that time is now. With Specter deciding that he HAS to be a Senator and thus switching parties, the G.O.P. is panicking. The change in the Senate pretty much means that the Republicans are completely shut out of the political process.

So when I saw yesterday that the New York Times finally figured this out, I was disappointed that it took until page 22. But as the paper points out, there have been a mad dash of Republicans trying to work with and voting for Democratic bills.

Scores of House Republicans joined Democrats in recent days in pushing through measures meant to rein in credit card companies, increase federal resources to pursue financial fraud and crack down on predatory housing lenders — all legislation opposed by top House Republicans. On the credit card and financial fraud bills, only a minority of Republicans ended up opposing them.

This shouldn't come as any surprise because, as I am now repeating myself, the G.O.P. is currently shut out of the law making process. If they don't work with the Democrats, then they'll get nothing. In other words, they don't bring back the bacon to their home districts. No bacon, no reelection. No reelection, no job...

But here is where the article gets it all wrong:

Democrats say the fracturing suggests that rank-and-file Republicans are growing nervous about their leadership’s near-blanket opposition to the agenda that Congressional Democrats and President Obama are pursuing, particularly on measures that have obvious popular appeal.

They aren't nervous about opposition to Obama, they're nervous about their jobs.

This is where the media really drops the ball, why not tell us that the reason why Republicans are working with Democrats is because if they don't... they get nothing. They HAVE to work with the Dems if they want to stay on the Hill.

There is not a breakdown of Republican unity on the Hill. And to write that there is a problem within the party is lazy and anti-intellectual.

And yet another reason why newspapers are dying.

David Souter: Kicking A Party When It's Down (Even Though It Doesn't Change Anything)

2009-05-04T19:18:00.001-07:00

Republicans never liked David Souter and they probably hate him now. He's stepping down (yeah old news) which means Obama gets to name a Supreme Court justice some time this summer. I'm not going to guess who it's going to be because...

It doesn't matter.

I mean it matters, but it doesn't matter. Souter was a liberal justice (despite being appointed by George H.W. Bush) and the way the Court is currently constructed his leaving probably won't change anything. Obama will appoint another liberal justice who may or may not be further to the left of John Paul Stevens.

So while the media writes stories in the past tense about Souter, his retirement does not change much of anything. Unless Obama's pick to replace Souter is to the right of Justice Kennedy (and let's face it, the Cubs have a better shot at winning the World Series), the Supreme Court will continue to look much like it does now. Only the names behind one of the votes will change.

Right now, the most 'important' member of the Court is Justice Kennedy who is currently the median voter. He is the swing vote. Justices Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter, and Breyer are liberals. Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas are conservatives. In a controversial case, things pretty much always work out that way, it is 4 to 4 and Justice Kennedy comes in and casts the deciding vote. Souter leaving doesn't change the math.

So what really matters on the Court is when/if Scalia or Kennedy decides to retire (they are 73 and 72 respectively). If one (or both) retire when Obama is President, the the nature of the court changes.

The most recent shift in the Court was back in 2005 when Justice O'Connor retired. She had been the swing vote. When Alito/Roberts replaced her (remember Cheif Justice Rehnquist died after O'Connor announced her retirement) the Court did take a step to the right as Kennedy then became the swing vote. Here is an old (for blogs) post on that shows that and touches on how the court was going to change after O'Connor's retirement.

[I should note that being the median voter on the Supreme Court makes you one of the more important and powerful persons in the United States. While, Kennedy probably leans to the right, he votes with the liberal justices enough to prevent total conservative domination on the Court.]

While it's fun to write really crappy articles/posts about who will replace Souter, the fact is, it doesn't REALLY matter. It's a fun Beltway story to talk about over a gin-fizz. Whomever replaces Souter will most likely be young, much like Roberts and Alito (and Thomas), to give the Court a Baby Boomer liberal voice. He/she will probably be to the left of Breyer and maybe Stevens and Ginsberg, (which then puts Breyer in position to be the median voter if Kennedy or Scalia retire). However, other than that, don't expect the Court to change all that much in the short term.

More on Specter's Switch

2009-04-28T15:48:00.000-07:00

And the hits keep coming for the G.O.P. Politically the news couldn't be worse. The Democrats now completely and totally control the House, Senate, and White House. They can (or will once the SNL alum is allowed to go to represent the people who elected him) do whatever they damn well please and the GOP has little or no way of stopping them. Some may think this is a bad thing, but the Democrats aren't nearly as united as the G.O.P. tends to be when in power. The only thing I think this might change is that health care reform, at this point, might actually get done. But even then, don't rule out filibuster support from Dems in states where they have a race on their hands. Nate Silver agrees.

I should also note that Specter's motives are obvious: He wasn't going to win reelection in Pennsylvania in 2010 as a Republican.

And that's what's really interesting about this from a political perspective. The "industrial" north is also socially liberal. Meanwhile the "rural" south is socially conservative. The Midwest is suddenly swimming to the left, while the West is thinking about it. The West Coast is--at this point--the East Coast without a stick up their ass.

The long term effects of Nixon's South stragity has killed his own party (oh yeah, and W's total lack of ability to do anything right). But there are two important trends as to why Our Father's G.O.P. is dead.

1) The G.O.P. of the 20th century was a party with libertarian roots and fiscal motives. It was a party that wanted the government to stay out of every one's business and lower their taxes. However, this was a poor election formal considering that many people lived through the 1930s and saw, or thought they saw, the effects of the New Deal Democrats. But as the Democrats tore themselves apart in the late 60s, Nixon was smart in thinking that he could pick up the South and flip it from red to blue (even if this happened for racist reasons).

This worked beautifully helping get H.W. Bush elected and then W. in 2000 and 2004 (Reagan didn't need the South all that much). However, to keep the new Southern party members happy, the Republicans had to throw them a bone, and that bone was a greater focus on social issues which lead the party to champion Southern Populist ideas. This anti-intellectual arm of the party turned off many Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast to the point where it's impossible to find a Northeast Republican. (There is probably also an interesting study about Roe vs. Wade and how that eventually would hurt the G.O.P. since a majority of Americans favor the woman's right to choose/abortion rights).

2) But this could only happen if the Democrats changed too. And they did. It took over 20 years, but beginning with Clinton (and before, but he was the sign that things had changed within the party), the Democrats started reading economic text books. Suddenly, Chicago School Economics wasn't evil if one throws in a dash of Keynesian economics and everyone tells unions that they're great. Bing, bam, boom, those who were fiscally conservative, the idea of voting for a Democrat wasn't so crazy. It's not that America has moved to the left, as much as the Democrats began looking to the right a bit.

The G.O.P. is it total disarray. There is no leadership. The party is being pulled five hundred different ways. The anti-intellectual, our way or the high way arm of the party seems to be in control. Moderates (i.e. pro-choice G.O.P.ers) are shunned. The party, right now, is fucked. They better get their act together or else Sarah Palin is going to lead this party to a defeat that only George McGovern could get tell her about.

R.I.P. Republican Party

2009-04-28T10:12:00.000-07:00

More later, but with Spector becoming a Democrat, the Republicans are in serious trouble. Or at least, our father's Republican Party is. The 21st century, rudderless, socialist Conservatives live on. But they won't win too many elections.

The Root of All Evil

2009-04-16T14:58:00.000-07:00

People wearing jeans. It's a problem. A major policy problem.

According to George Will.

I know, I know, the economy stinks, people are out of work, North Korea continues to be an issue and China and Russia has their back, East Africa is a mess and everyone seems to think that Mexico is on the brink, Canada has a conservative government, and Obama is talking to the leaders of the New World where Cuba will be issue #1.

Oh yeah, and there is still Iraq and Afghanistan.

But George Will is sick and tired of people wearing blue jeans. So I welcome George Will to the Policy Zone.

On any American street, or in any airport or mall, you see the same sad tableau: A 10-year-old boy is walking with his father, whose development was evidently arrested when he was that age, judging by his clothes. Father and son are dressed identically -- running shoes, T-shirts. And jeans, always jeans.

Oh, no, he's going to talk about race. This is not going to end well.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, he (Akst) has denounced denim, summoning Americans to soul-searching and repentance about the plague of that ubiquitous fabric, which is symptomatic of deep disorders in the national psyche.

Huh? Jeans? Really? Blue jeans? Not credit cards? Not the 'smarter than no one' Wall Street yahoos? Blue jeans are the problem?

Denim on the bourgeoisie is, Akst says, the wardrobe equivalent of driving a Hummer to a Whole Foods store -- discordant.

I'm speechless. I don't know about you, but what is so bad about jeans? And why is dressing 'better' than the 'working class' so awesome?

Long ago, when James Dean and Marlon Brando wore it, denim was, Akst says, "a symbol of youthful defiance." Today, Silicon Valley billionaires are rebels without causes beyond poses, wearing jeans when introducing new products.

Those effing Silicon Valley geniuses! Wearing comfortable clothing and not looking like squares! Don't they know the George Will lives in Washington, D.C. where wearing comfortable cloths is no-no! Don't they know that in DC only navy or black suits may be worn?!?! Don't they know that when it's 95 degrees with 93% humidity suits are the only way to go! This was a nation founded on being a square! How dare they even think about not wearing the national uniform!

Denim is the infantile uniform of a nation in which entertainment frequently features childlike adults ("Seinfeld," "Two and a Half Men") and cartoons for adults ("King of the Hill"). Seventy-five percent of American "gamers" -- people who play video games -- are older than 18 and nevertheless are allowed to vote.

So what? If I were handing out suffrage cards, every white male over the age of 30 in DC would not be allowed to vote. Because guess who's more out of touch with America... that's right! The square in the black suit sweating his ass off!

In their undifferentiated dress, children and their childish parents become undifferentiated audiences for juvenilized movies (the six -- so far -- "Batman" adventures and "Indiana Jones and the Credit-Default Swaps," coming soon to a cineplex near you).

[Bada-Bing!]

Denim is the clerical vestment for the priesthood of all believers in democracy's catechism of leveling -- thou shalt not dress better than society's most slovenly. To do so would be to commit the sin of lookism -- of believing that appearance matters.

You know who does dress well. The Jehovah Witnesses. They dress well. So do those whack-job Mormons who walk around really poor areas in a dress shirt and drank pants and look totally out of place (and pardon my French because I really have nothing against Mormons, but those guys are reason I cross to the other side of the street when I'm out walking about).

I'm not saying that anyone should look like a bum, and if one is going on a job interview, then by all means wear a suit. But I'll be honest. I think we should wear jeans to 90% of all events in life. If I'm sitting in an office all day, why should I be in a suit (or nice pants)? Give me one reason.

Denim is the carefully calculated costume of people eager to communicate indifference to appearances. But the appearances that people choose to present in public are cues from which we make inferences about their maturity and respect for those to whom they are presenting themselves.

Frankly isn't listening to an iPod in public (like shopping, ordering coffee) or doing anything that may require human interaction five hundred times more insulting and disrespectful? If I'm sitting at the airport and I see some guy in a suit, I'm thinking one thing and one thing only: Loser who thinks he's more important than everyone else (this guy will also bitch if he has to check his bag, and the odds that he is white is 99%). If I see someone with an iPod while in line at a coffee shop I'm thinking one thing: Disrespectful jagoff.

This is not complicated. For men, sartorial good taste can be reduced to one rule: If Fred Astaire would not have worn it, don't wear it. For women, substitute Grace Kelly.

Ah, George longs for the 1940s! The truth comes out! The 1940s and 1950s, when few people owned cars, people held low paying manufacturing jobs, universal suffrage was something the Canadians did, and black men were finally allowed to play baseball in the major leagues! The good old days when war was cold and women didn't work!

(A confession: The author owns one pair of jeans. Wore them once. Had to. Such was the dress code for former senator Jack Danforth's 70th birthday party, where Jerry Jeff Walker sang his classic "Up Against the Wall, Redneck Mother." Music for a jeans-wearing crowd.)

What did Mr. Bojangles wear? I think we can settle it right then and there.

Well thank YOU Mr. George Will for finally realizing that America needs to go back to the 1950s and that if we only didn't wear jeans, Medicare wouldn't be an issue any more. Because in a time like this, were the people who you identify with politically are organizing anti-tax rallies against nothing, you write a column about blue jeans. And how they're ruining America. Only, D.C. and the squares who think they're really important... they're the ones ruining America.

[end]

The real question is... does he think they should have fired Weis?

2009-04-01T19:42:00.000-07:00

If you're a veteran of Catholic schools or a Catholic university then you know that nothing sets off the campus quite like a pro-choicer coming to campus to talk. So when it was reviled the President Obama was going to give the commencement speech at Notre Dame this spring it was only a matter of time before this turned into a Holy War.

The Right to Lifers are out in full force, stomping their feet, and talking to anyone in the press that will listen. They're ready to protest. They're ready to denounce Obama. Oh the fun.

Of course this is a case of the minority being really freaking loud. Catholics it turns out are to the left of the nation. This shouldn't be shocking considering the emphasis that the Church places on social justice (don't tell Richard Dawkins of course... because they he wouldn't contined to put his foot in his mouth). While Catholics have somewhat trended towards the GOP in the last twenty years or so, Catholics have been strongly Democratic voters throughout much of their history here in the U.S.A.

Why don't we hear about the non-blue-in-the-face-pro-life-Catholics? Because they aren't the minority--most Catholics don't vote on abortion or the death penalty or gay marriage--those issues are considered but how a 'good' Catholic should vote is for Div students to discuss over a pitcher of beer.

So what does this have to do with policy? Over all not much. There has only been one Catholic President (JFK) but Catholics who for so long were on the outside looking in when it came to the American economic, educational, and political system have become a powerful force in Washington and across the country (for example, five of the nine Supreme Court Justices are Roman Catholic).

But as they've become more and more important in the American political system, the Catholic vote has fragmented. It is no longer strongly Democratic (though Obama won Catholics by a large margin in November). And what that means is that the financially supported, well organized groups with in the Catholic community will be the most vocal and attempt to speak for the population as a whole (unofficially of course). Considering the far left of the Catholic Church in America live on in kind donations within the poor communities of America, the right wing of the Church will always be more vocal in American.

So this 'controversy' is much to do about nothing within the Church itself. Most Catholics (myself included) feel that it's some what hypocritical to have the pro-life groups protest Obama because of his views on abortion, but not W. over his views on capital punishment and the Iraq War.

But for the Catholic Pro-Life Movement in America, two wrongs do make a right.

So About Last Night...

2009-03-27T11:50:00.000-07:00

Okay, so that post about Midwest Bank yesterday? I take it all back.

They moved down the street. So they're still there, just down the street. Maybe their lease was up. Maybe they got a better deal. But the branch is still there. Just a block and a half away.

I'm sorry.

But as I sort of joked about blogs in that post, it does prove a point about the criticisms of blogs. If I were a reporter for a newspaper, I would have to call Midwest Bank and find out what happened. If I had done that, they would have told me that the branch didn't close and they didn't lay anyone off, they just moved down the street. The story would have ended there.

Blogs are different because there is not fact checking process (well not much of one anyway). Observations are useful and provide great insight, but observations need to be checked. Any sort of reporting should actually be reported. Blogs don't work that way, you see it, you write it, you post it. And if it's not true, oh well.

So I'm sorry about that. Midwest Bank, my apologies.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

2009-03-26T13:58:00.000-07:00

[Note: I totally misreported on this post. Go here to check out my mistakes. But there are a few interesting points about Mr. Beef and TARP that I think are worth checking out so I'm going to keep this up.]

So I hop off the #6 at Jackson (sorry New Yorkers, we're talking about a real city here), cross Michigan Ave on my way to work. And as I'm walking west on Jackson I notice something different.

An empty store front--an empty bank.

For months I walked by the Midwest Bank on Jackson and often thought, "I wonder if I'd be any good at banking..." but then dismiss the thought about a block later... but last week I didn't even get to ponder my banking prospects. Instead I was left wondering what happened.

Everything was gone--the computers, the paper, the waste baskets, all of it. All I saw was a big empty room with a few desks. Gone were the people I'd look at while I walked by, gone was the manger who had her own desk and who I'd see talking to the people she managed. Like a Gob magic trick, those employees of Midwest Bank were gone.

Two thoughts quickly came to my mind:

1) What happened to Midwest Bank? Did it go under? Were all those employees laid off?

2) This was the first tell-tale sign of the recession (well other than my classmates and my own struggles finding a good job even with graduate degrees).

I'll tackle the second half of everything first. I like to say that the exception doesn't prove the rule, but in this case it seemed like it did. The recession was real because Midwest Bank closed one of its branches.

Sudden the recession had a face. And that face was the empty Midwest Bank.

I didn't know those people at Midwest Bank, but I was seriously bummed out walking by the empty bank. I assume (probably incorrectly) that they were all laid off (I'm sure some were relocated and the rest let go). And while I know a few people who have struggled to find work, this felt more real. My daily routine had some how changed even though none of it effected me personally.

Over the years I've seen empty store fronts and I've seen a business close. But this is some how different. This is a bank, and banks don't close. Banks get bigger or they get bought out. LaSalle Bank becomes Bank of America. That's how banks work.

But there I was walking by an empty bank front.

So what happened to Midwest Bank? They've taken TARP money and want to close down Mr. Beef (the Mr. Beef story is actually very interesting). However, the CEO of Midwest Bank believes the bank is in a strong position even if it is taking TARP money. The CEO above is new, and the old CEO isn't going to receive a golden parachute because of the stimulus. And here is more on the Mr. Beef story. (the owner of Mr. Beef went to Congress to say that the big bad bank was screwing over the little guy, of course the big bad bank is a pretty small bank, and who knows if Mr. Beef was paying his bills... but hey, he wants some of that TARP money).

Nothing on Midwest Bank layoffs or closing branches. If I was a real reporter, I'd give them a call, but alas, something tells me that if I did give 'em a ring and say "Hey, it's the Policy Boy from ThePolicyBoy.com" they would give me the old Chicago run around.

The Things People Write When They Don't Understand Economics and Don't Want to Blame Obama For Anything

2009-03-25T14:36:00.000-07:00

God I love her. I love Arianna Huffington. Why? Because she's an idiot with a platform. How did she get her? She married rich. Then she made friends with some people in Hollywood and BANG she had a website. And from this website that is loved by people whom I hope to never meet she gives us her opinion about politics and economics! And guess what? She's a complete idiot! So when Arianna speaks, I type.

On February 10th, the New York Times reported that there had been a "spirited" battle within the Obama administration over restrictions on executive pay and bonuses, and over attaching stringent conditions to any bailout money given to banks.

The clash pitted Tim Geithner, who opposed the restrictions and conditions, against David Axelrod, who favored them. According to the Times, Geithner had "largely prevailed."

Nice use of quotations, Arianna. Sweet back handed compliment, Arianna.

In light of what has happened since then, that outcome must now be viewed as a tragic surrender to Geithner, Summers, and the political/Wall Street class -- a "victory" that could lead to the unraveling of the president's entire economic policy.

Yeah. No. But sure. In political movie thrillers, then sure something like the A.I.G. bonuses could bring down the entire country. But in this little thing I like to call reality, I don't think so. In fact, the chances that the A.I.G. bonuses bullshit brings down the Obama economic policy (more on that in a second) are zero.

And speaking of the Obama economic policy... what is it? Yeah yeah, I know, stimulus and more TARP funds and toxic assets off the book, blah blah blah... but it doesn't have a name. It isn't a New New Deal or a New Fair Deal or a Gerater Society. In other words, Obama, like everyone including the FED is flying by the seat of their pants. So to say that the Obama economic policy may fail... well... the problem is there really isn't an economic policy. But it's Arianna's reality and we're just reading it.

Maintaining the public trust is always important for a leader, but especially so during hard times.

I fucking wish I had used this to open my three page paper on FDR in 8th grade history. Fucking fuck. That is an AMAZING opening sentence to an 8th grade paper. Seriously. Read that again. It's 14 year-old gold.

There is a fascinating chapter on Nelson Mandela in Stan Greenberg's new book, Dispatches from the War Room, in which Greenberg writes about how even the revered Mandela suffered a loss of public confidence when change did not come fast enough after he took office. "Don't assume the current euphoria, even with your high approval rating will carry you through," Greenberg counsels Obama, stressing the need to try to build up enough trust so that the public will stay with the president until they can actually experience change.

What? Nelson Mandela? Stan Greenberg counseling Obama? Where is this going? What is happening?

Geithner's feigned surprise at AIG has been a body blow to public confidence in the president. According to Sunday's Rassmussen poll, just 12 percent of those Rassmussen defines as "Populists" have a favorable opinion of Geithner while those Rassmussen identifies as "America's Political Class" have a 76 percent favorable opinion of him.

What is she talking about? Who calls one's self a populist? Where are these people? And secondly, what is her point? What is she trying to say to us? So 76% of the people who follow this stuff think Geithner is doing a good job. Is that her point? Or is Arianna attempting to tell us that she too is a populist? I'm confused. But I love her.

It was painful to watch Obama, just hours after Geithner had admitted his role in the Dodd/bonus loophole affair, go on Jay Leno and say that Geithner is doing an "outstanding job." Even before Frank Rich's Sunday column was titled "Has a 'Katrina Moment' Arrived?," Obama's assessment had more than a whiff of Bush telling Brownie he was "doing a heck of a job."

Wow. Just wow. Look, let's cool it with the Katrina stuff for starters. But I love how everyone is missing the point with the A.I.G. mess. Why is it that only David Brooks understands this? What is wrong with America? Has the 24 hour news really destroyed our intellectual ability? But wait, this is only going to get better.

My dictionary defines outstanding as "excellent, exceptional, superior to others in the same category."

My dictionary defines condsending as "Arianna Huffington".

So how could Obama say that and then, not a minute later, tell Leno that his administration plans to "open up separate credit lines outside of banks for small businesses" and "set up a securitized market for student loans and auto loans outside of the banking system" in order to "get credit flowing again"?

I don't know Arianna, I don't know how he could say such things. Did she cry when she wrote this sentence? Is it fair to picture Arianna, hair messy, mascarra streaking down her cheeks, saying out loud "How could you Barack! HOW COULD YOU???"

Back in January, after the Senate voted to release the second $350 billion tranche of TARP money, Obama had told the nation that he was "gratified" he'd been given the authority to "maintain the flow of credit to families and businesses."

Now, here he was, just over two months later, basically admitting that we have to find other ways to "maintain the flow of credit to families and businesses" -- completely contradicting a central tenet of the bank bailout, expressed by Axelrod in January when he told George Stephanopoulos that the president was "going to have a strong message for the bankers. We want to see credit flowing again. We don't want them to sit on any money that they get from taxpayers... And we have to make sure that the money doesn't go to excessive CEO pay and dividends when it should be going to lending."

Then Geithner happened. According to the Times, during the internal debate the Treasury Secretary "resisted those who wanted to dictate how banks would spend their rescue money." And we see how well that turned out.

Wait, Geithner was the only guy saying that the government shouldn't tell the banks how to spend their money? Isn't this the real story here? But that aside, let me say this, and I'm only going to say it once: life is not a fairy tail. I'm sure Obama, like everyone else in this country, hoped that the banks would lend out the TARP money. But then a little thing I like to call reality set in (and yes, I know I said that already, but the ObamaHeads need to hear that word a lot). Reality said this: The Banks are Screwed and need to balance out their sheets. When banks don't have a balanced bank sheet, they can't lend money. And yeah, it sucks. It stinks. It's too bad that we can't go into a bank and say, "Hey banker, don't you think I need $50,000 bucks to buy flat screen TVs and new jackets and a vacation to Disney World?" But those days are Ovar. Because banks don't have money. And this might actually be a good thing since the United States as a whole was completely and totally out of it's collective mind from 2003-2008. Cheap money is gone. That's okay. That's good.

The AIG bonus backlash is the first serious threat to the Obama administration. It has created an opening that allows conservatives to storm the populist barricades, suddenly acting like the second coming of Huey Long or Upton Sinclair.

Don't you love it when populists, conservatives, and Huey Long are all used in the same sentence? Should we tell Arianna that Huey Long was more leftist and less conservative? Should we tell her that the conservative moment is lost in the woods? Should we tell her the last conservative populist was George W. Bush?

Shameless opportunists like Mitch McConnell, Richard Shelby, and Eric Cantor, who have all argued against limiting executive pay and bonuses, are now positioning themselves in front of the populist parade, railing against AIG and pointing the finger at Obama for allowing this to happen on his watch.

Notice the non-ironic tone she's using with "shameless opportunists".

But the issue isn't Geithner's delivery, it's what he's delivering: an approach to the crisis that is as toxic as the assets that have hamstrung the economy. Geithner, brilliant and hardworking though he is, is trapped within a Wall Street-centric view of the world and seems incapable of escaping.

She does know that at this point this is a banking and financial crisis and having a guy who is stuck in Wall Street mode isn't a bad thing right?

That's why every proposal he comes up with is déjà vu all over again -- a remixed variation on the same tried-and-failed let-the-bankers-work-it-out approach championed by his predecessor, Hank Paulson. For Paul Krugman, this "insistence on offering the same plan over and over again, with only cosmetic changes, is itself deeply disturbing. Does Treasury not realize that all these proposals amount to the same thing? Or does it realize that, but hope that the rest of us won't notice? That is, are they stupid, or do they think we're stupid?"

It's official, we are in Blame anyone but Obama mode! Anyone but Obama! Tim Geithner is from Wall Street! Blame him! Anyone but Obama! Chris Dodd, you're an idiot asshole! Anyone but Obama!

I don't believe Geithner thinks we're stupid (although he almost certainly doesn't think we're as smart as he is). He just can't change who he is: a creature of Wall Street, habitually sympathetic to the people at the top of the financial system, who he clearly thinks were born to run the world.

Geithner's actions throughout his career are proof that the toxic thinking that got us into this mess is part of his DNA.

Okay, seriously. What. The. Fuck. Tim Geighner was the head of the Fed of New York. He worked for a consulting firm in DC. He worked for the Treasury Department. He worked for the IMF. He did not work for a Wall Street bank or firm.

While President of the New York Fed, he eliminated two key regulatory measures -- a quarterly risk report and a ban on major acquisitions -- that may have prevented (or at least lessened the impact of) the unraveling of Citigroup, which his office was responsible for supervising. Then, together with Hank Paulson, he was instrumental in the original bailout of AIG and the creation of the TARP plan. And he was a key player in the decision to let Lehman Brothers fail.

Look, Arianna knows nothing about what's going on. I don't know all that much. But I can tell you one thing: We need banks. These guys are a lot smarter than you or me when it comes to this stuff. So to have Arianna Huffington second guess the moves by these guys is sort of like any of us second guessing the placement of the bridge in a Beatles song. It's stupid.

And maybe Arianna missed the whole "HOLY FUCKING SHIT THE SKY IS FALLING" moment back in late September and early October when the credit markets totally stopped, the commercial paper market froze and the financial world was at DEFCON 5. But do you know why that is? Because Lehman failed. People got scared and they freaked. Well guess what? A.I.G. is bigger and even more important. If they fail it's gonna be Medieval Times for everyone (hyperbole).

Arianna writes some more stupid shit, but honestly... I can't do this any more. It's over. I can't take the bashing of anyone but Obama. I can't take the Obama can do no wrong BS. I can't take blaming Tim Geithner when he's dealing with half a deck of cards. I can't take Arianna talking about economics when it's clear that she has no clue what's she is talking about. I can't do this any more.

I'm breaking up with Arianna.

Why do airlines charge passengers to check bags?

2009-03-19T15:18:00.000-07:00

I know the country is gripped with the biggest wave of Populism since the early 20th century, but I'm sitting in the Atlanta airport half pissed off because I had to check my bag. It's a backpack, and there was nothing that I needed in the bag for the next leg of my journey (ATL to DC). HOWEVER, backpacks should not have to be checked. They're small and flexible. But since I was one of the last people on the plane, there was no room in the cabin above the seats... and my bag is somewhere in Atlanta.

Enough of my bitching... let's get to the point. Why do airlines charge for passengers checking bags? It seems to me that it would make more sense for airlines to charge for any bag that is not checked. The reasoning is simple.

Airlines can cut costs if they turn the plane around quickly. This cuts down on all sorts of costs--the faster an airline can get the people off the plane, do a quick clean, and then get the next group of passengers on the plane allows them to fly more flights with the same plane, which could possibly eliminate airplanes entirely.

But when passengers bring bags--especially those hard cover, one person weekend getaway type rollers--on to the plane, they store them in the overhead. And it takes forever for people to get those things into the overhead bins and it takes them even longer to get them down and off the plane. Don't believe me? Fly on an international flight sometime. On those flights it seems like they can unload a Boeing 777 or 747 in about five minutes. Yet a Boeing 737 takes about ten minutes to unload.

But airlines give passengers every incentive in the world to not check their bags. Wouldn't airlines be better off to have passengers waiting for their bags at a claim then to have hundreds of people waiting either on the plate or at the gate? Why not charge passages five bucks for ever hard covered, rolling bag? Sure passangers are going to complain because the airline "always loses their bag" (simply not true). Really they're just upset about waiting for their bags (yet anyone who's sat in the bag of a plane knows, by the time one gets off the back of a plane and walks to the baggage claim the bags are there).

It would be a simple system. If you have a bag that is 12" by 24" (or 14" by 28" whatever it is), you can check your bag for free or pay a five dollar fee. If the airline loses your bag, you can claim ten bucks for the inconvenience (and honestly, they could give you twenty bucks because not that many bags are lost so they'd easily make the $20 from people paying to not check their bags). Planes deboard and board quicker... everyone wins. Save the white business guy who is on his cell phone the up until the second the plane takes off. You know that guy. He probably sells insurance. And he isn't that big of a deal because he's sitting coach. But he wants you to think he is. [Editor's note, TPB went on for about 100 words more, but I cut that; END]

Reflections of/the way life used to be

2009-03-13T12:50:00.001-07:00

Something caught my eye the other day when President Obama signed the $410 billion spending bill. Obama signed the bill BUT included a signing statement. No big deal right? Overall, yeah. Who cares. A signing statement is basically the President saying, 'this is what I would have done if I was dictator and I may or may not enforce that part of the bill'. It really doesn't effect or change anything. But it exists. He can do it.

And boy-oh-boy did George W. Bush do it. Bush issued a staggering 1,200 signing statements. That's right, on over 1,200 of the bills W signed, he added his own personal opinion on each one! And you guessed it, the Democrats didn't like it! Including Sen. Obama!

So yeah, like anyone who cares about these things I was bummed out:

At the same time, after Democrats criticized former President George W. Bush's signing statements, Mr. Obama issued one of his own, declaring five provisions in the spending bill to be unconstitutional and nonbinding, including one aimed at preventing punishment of whistleblowers.

Presidents have employed signing statements to reject provisions of a bill without vetoing the entire legislation. Democrats and some Republicans have complained that Mr. Bush abused such statements by declaring that he would ignore congressional intent on more than 1,200 sections of bills, easily a record. Mr. Obama has ordered a review of his predecessor's signing statements and said he would rein in the practice.

Sure, Obama has about 1,199 signing statements to go before he catches up with Bush, but that isn't really the point. And while Obama was wise enough not to say never, the Obama Presidency has a feeling, fifty days in, that it's going to do some of the same things that W did.

And that's the real tragedy here (if you want to call it that). We can't go back. Well, we won't go back. Bush used signing statements. Therefore it's here to stay. For the rest of our lives, Presidents are going to issue signing statements like it's no one's business. That means the President from here on out isn't going to enforce the laws that Congress makes, he/she is going to pick and choose which laws he/she wants to enforce.

Just like George W. Bush.

I think that's what so many people don't realize about the Bush Presidency. He went places that no President had ever dared to go... and was never ever reigned in for such attempts. When Truman attempted to seize the steel industry, he was rebuffed. When Nixon refused to hand over the tapes, the Supreme Court stepped in. Their attempts to expand the President's powers were at least resisted.

But with W, that was almost never the case. Congress, who has been letting the President get away with more and more over the last seventy years, didn't even bother to stop Bush until the Democrats took over in 2007. But by then, it didn't matter? Bush had expanded the authority and power of the President.

And this is what I never ever understood about Obama's Change message... change what? He is really going to give up the powers that W had taken?

That was (and is) always going to be Obama's greatest struggle (after the economy) once he became President. Does he have the character to return some of the powers that aren't explicitly granted to him in the U.S. Constitution which Bush had taken? Would he return the civil liberties? Would he be less secretive?

So far? The answer is mixed. It is apparent that he is going to try and have a more open Presidency with more transparency and is less secretive. But he's already issuing signing statements. He's spending like Bush yet other than letting W's tax cuts for the rich expire, there are no plans to raise revenue.

I was cautiously optimistic about Obama back in November and December. I'm downgrading. I'm now neutral. I don't regret my support but I also believed that Obama had the character to resist the temptation of power...

It's early and things can change. But early returns seem like change isn't coming all that soon.

Chicago now just as expensive as New York

2009-03-10T11:18:00.001-07:00

I find it hard to believe, but the Economist says so:

On the other hand, the strengths of the dollar and the yen have made American and Japanese cities comparatively more expensive in the last five months. This accounts for Tokyo's rise to the top of the ranking and Osaka's surge to second place. But despite the fall of the euro, Western Europe still dominates the table and supplies seven of the top ten cities. Chicago, Los Angeles and New York are the dearest American cities, in joint 23rd position.

I've always noticed New York (at least Manhattan) to be outrageously over priced. And after five years in DC, I found Chicago thankfully cheap (of course I was using the beer and McDonald's index). So I'm shocked to see that Boston and D.C. are not on the list.

Tokyo is the most expensive city now. There just isn't any good news coming out of Japan, eh?

Not maybe, you don't

2009-02-10T16:27:00.000-08:00

Joe Scarborough came out today and told us something that we all already knew:

Cable News has NO CLUE what they are talking about.

Thank you, Joe. You are forever forgiven and shall forever be spared the wrath of Idiot tag. Thank you. And may you never ever say something so stupid that I'll have to take you to task.

Some times it's just too easy

2009-02-03T20:33:00.000-08:00

Great news everyone! Arianna Huffington thought it'd be a good time for her to talk about the stimulus. I haven't even read this one and all I'm thinking, "She's out of her element!" Let see what amazing wisdom Arianna unleashes on us...

Here's a thought: If we are going to spend two trillion dollars (and most likely more) trying to deal with the economic crisis, shouldn't we do it right?

Yes! Yes! Finally we have someone talking some sense! Let's spend that money the right way! In other news, Ms. Huffington is anti-AIDS.

The price of getting it wrong is, after all, extremely high. Think of a patient suffering from a grave viral infection who is treated with antibiotics. Not only will the treatment be unsuccessful, it will delay the proper care dangerously long.

Yes, yes, thank you for the extra long metaphor that isn't even clear, but yes, I'm sure if we don't do it right it will be bad.

So the ways the Obama administration handles the next phase of the bank bailout and the debate over the stimulus package are crucial.

Ms. Huffington is attempting to bury the lead! Can she pull it off? We're three paragraphs in and she either has nothing to say or she's burying the lead. What will it be!?!?! I'm on the edge of my seat.

So far, the debate over the stimulus package is, for starters, getting tied up in -- and dragged down by -- the public's widespread disgust at almost every aspect of the bank bailout, from the lack of transparency to the ongoing cluelessness of the Wall Street Marie Antoinettes to the lack of any recovery bang for our billions of bailout bucks.

We live in a world were Democrats throw words like 'transparency' around like it's no big deal people. And what exactly is a Wall Street Marie Antoinette? A trader who is a teenager from Austria? A Wall Street researcher who likes to pretend that they live a peasant life in Bridgeport, CT? What does that mean? Is this a poorly written reference to something Marie Antoinette didn't say (let them eat cake)? STILL WAITING FOR THE LEAD BY THE WAY.

Even worse than all that is wrong with the original bailout, is the prospect of the new administration repeating the mistakes of the old when Timothy Geithner announces his plans for the remaining $350 billion.

Does anyone in the United States who writes for a newspaper or a on-line publication understand what capitalism is? Do they not know that capitalism needs capital (ie money) to work? With no capital, there is no capitalism. With no capitalism there is feudalism. Who's down with feudalism in the 21st century? Progressive Democrats, sure... but anyone else? That's what I thought. What's so hard about this people? For the hundredth time, without capital (money) banks can't work because they can't lend money. If banks can't lend money you don't get paid. This is a very bad thing. However, no one in the print media is capable of understanding this.

Early indications are that the next bailout tranche will be handed out from an equally Wall Street-centric perspective -- animated by the belief that all that ails us can be cured by pumping a few trillion into our financial institutions. This despite the mounting evidence that the best interests of the banks and the best interests of America are no longer aligned.

[writer stares blankly waiting for the world to end/]

As Niall Ferguson told me in Davos, "It is time to start new banks; the old banks need to be completely restructured."

Did she just name drop Niall Ferguson? And what the fuck is a new bank? Does a new bank use the gold standard or is that too old school? Can Christians work in these new banks? Will new banks not lend money? Seriously, I have no clue how a new bank would be any different from an old bank.

And this includes an end to paying dividends to shareholders -- not to mention an end to bonuses, redecorating, new jets, Super Bowl parties, and stadium naming deals.

You know a bank that doesn't pay dividends is about as good of an idea as a screen door on a submarine. I mean, this might be one of the ten dumbest things ever said. Ms. Huffington wants banks to be the biggest mattresses ever made and every stuffs their money in these huge mattresses. (The mattresses will be American made of course).

President Obama needs to make it clear that the next phase of the bailout is going to be handled radically differently than the first go round. As Bloomberg has reported, Henry Paulson invested twice as much taxpayer money in Goldman Sachs as Warren Buffett, yet gained warrants that were worth one-fourth as much. And the Goldman terms were repeated in most of the other bank bailouts. "If Paulson were still an employee of Goldman Sachs and he'd done this deal," said Joseph Stiglitz, "he would have been fired."

Well it took far too long, but I think we got to the lead. I think. And she's probably right about the Goldman stuff, but it should be pointed out that Henry Paulson worked at Goldman before he went to work for W so it really isn't all that surprising.

This is a mad-as-hell moment (see Sen. Claire McCaskill), and Obama needs to make it clear to the bankers that the American people are not going to take it anymore. And this requires more than finger-wagging -- it requires disgorging

What does this even mean? Seriously? What aren't we going to take? Should I be pissed off that banks still exist? How is averting the collapse of our economic well being a bad thing again?

The administration also needs to use the debate over the stimulus package to rethink its too-timid approach -- otherwise we are going to miss a huge opportunity to both arrest our economic free-fall and create a 21st century economy.

Giving a specific example would have been too difficult apparently.

Rick Levin, president of Yale and an economics professor... "The overall stimulus is about 6 percent of GDP. We did not exit the Great Depression without a stimulus that amounted to about 25 percent of GDP -- we called that World War II... The second problem is with the mix... Only $335 billion worth goes to job creation -- that's about 3.5 million jobs, about $100,000 a job. Three-and-a-half million jobs is only two percentage points on the unemployment rate. That's not enough. I would get rid of the tax cuts and use the entire package for job creation... There are lots of great public works projects that would be well worth supporting. And, in the near term, what about CCC-type activities that put people to work right away, cleaning up public parks, weather-stripping homes, offices, schools, government buildings?"

Okay we finally get something worth while in this piece; anyone else on the edge of their seat wondering how how Ms. Huffington messes it up?

Many experts in the key areas the stimulus package involves -- including healthcare and education -- are equally critical but reluctant to go on the record since, after all, there is something rather than nothing for them in the current bill.

Huh?

One high-ranking expert on education told me off-the-record: "We are really wasting an enormous opportunity..."

WHAT? If one told you something off the record then you don't print it! So this wasn't off the record, this was someone that someone did not want to be named.

Likewise, given the chance to rebuild America's economy, is the current system, with a few hundred billion dollars worth of patches, the one we want to build?

anovs ,m asv' qTP't4q ' ' '

[sorry I just banged my head against the keyboard]

Obama has added or talked about adding several new cabinet-level positions, such as chief technology officer, climate czar, and car czar. How about an advisory cabinet of economic thinkers who can offer the president big ideas for a 21st century economy?

It's called his economic team. I think Larry Summers is somehow involved, but that's just what I read.

Jeffrey Sachs, the Columbia University economist who was instrumental in transitioning the economic system of the former Soviet Union, is also no fan of the stimulus bill, calling it a "a fiscal piñata," an "astounding mish-mash of tax cuts, public investments, transfer payments and special treats for insiders," and "a grab bag of hasty short-run spending."

This is when I point out that the current plan has come from a Democratic House.

In October, Alan Greenspan, one of the poster children of the old system, conceded that there was a "flaw in the model." I'd say that events since then have exuberantly proven that to be an understatement. There's not a flaw in the model -- the model itself is flawed.

Yes, we all know and knew that giving people with little income half a million dollar homes was a bad idea. And yes we all knew that spending more than we make is a bad idea. This isn't anything new. The flaw isn't the model... it's the people who enable that were the problem.

And instead of bailing water out of the sinking ship, we should construct a replacement appropriate for navigating the economic seas of the 21st century -- and steer it in the right direction.

Which is?

Oh. Wait. There isn't anything more. This is it. This is what we're left with, she can't even throw us a bone? Thanks Arianna. Thanks for nothing.

And for that, you get the Idiot tag. Enjoy.

[end]

Obama Effect on Test Scores?

2009-01-30T13:05:00.000-08:00

That's right! In less than three months Obama has reformed schools and raised black test scores!!!

I mean, really? REALLY. Let's break this down quickly.

First things first, there is a stereotype threat. Basically when told or reminded that one belongs to a certain group, said person ends up doing worse than they normally would have done. Example, if a black test taker is reminded that he/she is black prior to the test beginning they do worse than if they are asked what race they are after the test. Here's some more on it:

That gap reflects, in part, what psychologists call “stereotype threat”. In this now well-established phenomenon, being reminded that you belong to a group that, according to prevailing stereotypes, isn’t good at something causes you to do worse on a test of that something than if you were not so reminded. Similarly, if you are told that you are being assessed on something that stereotypes say your group is not good at (“girls can’t do math”) you do worse than it you’re told the test does not... When girls who are about to take a math test are reminded of their sex (basically they just check M or F on a line asking their gender), or when African-Americans about to take a standardized test such as the SAT are reminded of their race, or even when white males take a test that they’re told Asians excel on, they do worse than otherwise.

Okay, so this exists. It's real. And now some guy wants to tell us it doesn't exist with black students any more because of Obama.

Before the convention and in early October, the performance gap was as wide as ever: white students got a median score of 12.1 compared to blacks’ 8.8 before the convention; the scores were 12.9 and 8.4, respectively, in early October. But just after Obama’s convention speech, and just after election day, “when Obama’s stereotype-defying accomplishments garnered national attention,” as the researchers put it, there was a remarkable effect. Among students who watched Obama’s speech, blacks’ and whites’ scores were statistically equal (10.3 vs. 12.1) after the acceptance speech and 9.8 vs. 11.1 after election day.

Okay... by electing a black President we have managed to erase the ENTIRE WORLD HISTORY and treatment of blacks. And here's the kicker, because of this IT PROVES THAT OBAMA HAS BROKEN THE STEREOTYPE THREAT!

JUST

LIKE

THAT.

I mean come on... But here is the real kicker:
"The difference is considered statistically insignificant--that is, likely due to chance."

So Newsweek is telling us that THIS MEANS NOTHING. IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING. THIS STUDY IS POINTLESS!!!!

Are you kidding me? Not only are they wasting my time writing about this study that has NO STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE but well, I started that sentence poorly.

But I wanted to point out that the Newsweek editors are morons and Sharon Begley should never ever have wasted our time.

The moral: If someone brings this up at a cocktail party, call them an idiot and tell them that the study was statistically insignificant and if it is real, we won't know about it for years.

[end]

Oh, I almost forgot

2009-01-29T20:57:00.000-08:00

Let's give it up to the media!

You know what I could use after the Blago media tour? A little Drew Peterson!

Hey media? Why don't you not book Blago and Drew Peterson for every TV show in the country. You're just feeding into their egos... so you call them disgusting, only, well you, umm, feed into them! You give them the platform for them to promote their disgustingness! And then call them disgusting!

So who's the disgusting one again?

Blagojevich Now an Ex-Governor

2009-01-29T20:50:00.000-08:00

Yawn.

Should the U.S. Postal Service have a monopoly?

2009-01-28T11:19:00.000-08:00

This little piece in the Atlantic this month is a perfect example at how difficult and complicated public policy can be. This seems like a pretty straight forward issue in the U.S. since we have a capitalist economy and have traditionally been a strong proponent of free markets and trade.

From time to time you'll hear that the U.S. Postal Service should not have a monopoly on mail delivery (packages, on the other hand, can be delivered by private companies, FedEx and UPS being the most famous). When one takes a step back and thinks about it, it is a bit odd that only the Postal Service delivers mail.

By law, the U.S. Postal Service has had a monopoly on delivering mail to mailboxes since 1934. Should private couriers like FedEx be able to compete? That could be a big mistake: the government’s highly trained mailmen work with the FBI and other agencies to weed out suspicious packages, prevent identity theft, and alert the public to consumer fraud—a layer of security that could be compromised by opening our mailboxes to hordes of private carriers.

This is a good case of why public policy decisions can be tough. In theory you want competition so that citizens can get the lowest price possible to send their mail. However, it becomes a security issue because if the U.S. Postal Service holds a monopoly over mail delivery it is easier for the government to gain information about suspicious activities. The downside of course, is that it costs 42 cents to send a letter to anyone in the country (with competition it may even be cheaper).

So what does a policy maker do? What is more important—national security or the economic well being of the American citizen?

Personally, I think this is a case where the cost is already so low (if you look hard enough during the day you'll find the 42 cents to buy a stamp) that allowing the U.S. Postal Service to hold their monopoly makes sense. But in other matters it isn't as cut and dry a case.

An interesting case and a good example of how policy works in the world. And here is more from the Rand Corporation on their findings.

Three Greatest Moments of the Bush Presidency (That's George W. mind you...)

2009-01-26T15:37:00.000-08:00

Notice none of these are about policy...

3) Dodging the shoe

Frankly, it's hilarious—some journalist in Iraq decides that he's had enough of Bush and he throws a shoe at him. Straight up, Austin Powers style.

What's amazing is that Bush easily gets away from the shoe-missile, and then when the second shoe is launched, he once again dodges it with ease. And he's unfazed by all of this... the bring it on mentality is in full force during this 'attack'. Bush wants the shoe to be headed straight at him just so he can show his agility and cool, calm demeanor in a pressure situation.

In other words, this was the anti-"My Pet Goat" moment of his Presidency.

2) Throwing a strike during the 2001 World Series

Let's break this down, Hubie Brown style:
Okay, so you're George Bush. You're in New York. You're in Yankee Stadium. Millions of people are watching you on TV. It's just a few weeks after 9/11, people love you right now. LOVE YOU. So you're asked to throw out the first pitch, but being the President, you've got to wear a bullet proof jacket. These things are big, they're heavy, they aren't comfortable. They don't feel natural.

So what do you do?

That's right, you throw a strike down the middle.

That my friends, is pretty cool.

1) The Bullhorn speech
Without a doubt, no matter what you think of W. and his policies or his politics, Bush represented on September 14, 2001 with his "bullhorn" speech:

I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people -- and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!

It was the perfect thing to say on that day. American wanted to be sure that we had someone who could hear us and who would, in turn, make sure the world heard us. It was off the cuff, it was inspirational, it was a great moment in American history.

Sadly, Bush didn't hear most of us in the end. He would waste all the support he gathered and manage to divide the country despite the unity that the country so wanted.

And what's even a bigger bummer for me is the Bush's policy achievements are lacking... domestically they have been a disaster and his foreign policy—to be nice—is incomplete. None of the things on this list have to do with policy... two of them are just sort of fun, or cool moments. They aren't symbolic, they aren't anything thing other than a youtube clip. And while the his greatest moments is truly a great moment, if that is the only thing worth a damn from eight years in office, well... I'm not sure what to say other than what a waste it's been.

If Mr. Easterbrook Didn't Live in D.C., maybe he'd know how bad things actually are

2009-01-23T11:56:00.000-08:00

Today, we're gonna give the treatment to Gregg Easterbrook. Easterbrook's day job is at Brookings and his night job? ESPN.com columnist during the NFL season. For the most part, I like Mr. Easterbrook but...

If Teenagers Borrowed to Spend the Way Washington Borrows to Spend, Adults Would Call Them Irresponsible:

This is true.

Since the taboo against serious deficit spending in peacetime was shattered under Ronald Reagan, presidents and Congress have borrowed lavishly to give constituent groups and special interests whatever they want -- then handed the debt to our children and grandchildren, all the while wagging their fingers about how somebody else must do something about the federal deficit.

Yes, yes, tell me more! I'm one of those children! What happened next? Will the next sentence be as long as the first? I'm at the edge of my seat here.

George W. Bush added the wrinkle of simultaneously cutting taxes and borrowing to increase spending, all the while wagging his finger about the deficit. The result was that the national debt nearly doubled in eight years. But Bush will never have to deal with that, since he will be retired when the bill comes due. Bush took the easiest possible path, cutting taxes and increasing spending... Tax cuts and spending increases are candy.

I agree! I agree! This is right! I like candy also! And tax cuts! And spending! Why can't this work? So what if W was a cut revenue and increase spending President! No one said anything for years and year, so why are we pointing this out now?

Barack Obama was right last week to call Bush's handling of the country's finances "profound irresponsibility," though, of course, Democrats in Congress went along with it.

What? No. Not really. See the GOP controlled both the Senate and House from 2002-2006. It wasn't until 2007 when the Bush spending spree was some what slowed, thanks mainly to the Democrats taking control of Congress. And then 2008 came around and we had to spend.

The soaring debt is worrisome for many reasons, not least because it represents headlong borrowing when there is no national emergency.

Interesting... where is he going with this?

Terrorism is a concern, but not an emergency.

Good way of putting it.

The economy is a concern, but recessions are cyclical and all previous postwar recessions cured themselves.

WHAT? The economy is just a concern? Did Mr. Easterbrook miss September and October? Did he not realize that the credit markets came to a stand still and we were looking at the economic abyss? I know is was only, THREE MONTHS AGO, but the entire system almost broke. And when I say broke, I mean it in the 'people weren't going to get paid' kind of way. The economy is more than a concern and what happened back in the fall wasn't going to correct itself. This wasn't 1992 or 2002. This was 1929/1930, and pretty much every economist agrees with me.

Though life is mainly normal, we're borrowing as if the whole world were at war. If the United States borrows like mad even when things are under control, what's in reserve for a genuine emergency?

Point taken, only life isn't mainly normal. Life may be normal in the L.A. of the East (D.C. is FantasyWorld to L.A.'s FantasyLand), but for most of American—New York, the Midwest, California—things are pretty bad.

Considering the slack economy, some short-term deficit spending may be a lesser evil...

May be? May be a lesser evil? That's an understatement. When banks aren't lending money that's kind of, sort of, a major problem.

Obama said last week, "We're going to have to stop talking about budget reform and totally embrace it" in order to "make a change in the way Washington does business" on the budget. Genuine budget reform will require either deep spending and benefits cuts, or tax increases, or both.

True.

Little of the federal budget is discretionary; most is entitlements (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid), defense and payments on the debt. If you ended agriculture subsidies, shut down the National Park Service, abolished NASA and the Environmental Protection Agency, stopped all federal support for education, and canceled all pending Pentagon weapons programs, there would still be federal deficits.

Yawn... So what?

There just isn't any way out of the debt mess that does not involve long-term tax increases;

Falling asleep... Everyone knows this.

or Social Security cuts (perhaps eliminating benefits to any senior whose household income is above $50,000 annually);

Yeah, yeah, only that doesn't matter since Social Security is really just a Ponzi scheme with transparency. Birth rates rise and fall. In 30 years, with just a few tweaks, we could even lower the Social Security threshold.

or Medicare reduction (perhaps requiring seniors to pay for half their care).

Okay, Medicare is a problem. But no one wants to do anything about it. Why? Because old people vote and for many of them it's the only way they can get health insurance. What private company is going to insure an eight-one year old male with a long list of problems? With private health insurance, there are going to be some losers—children and the elderly in this case.

The question should be about cutting Medicare, it should be how to we reduce medical costs on the whole? That would save billions.

Someone in Congress should introduce the Future Dramatic Spending Cuts Act, which would require big spending cuts, but only once everyone who voted for the bill has left office.

The jokes write themselves people! The joke write themselves... sigh.

With each passing year that the United States refuses to deal with its deficit, the problem gets worse, owing to the compounding of interest... For the past three George W. Bush budgets and at least the first Obama budget, the country is borrowing, borrowing, borrowing as if tomorrow will never come.

And with this he goes back to the N.F.L. Look, part of the reason the U.S. is able to borrow, borrow, borrow is because the U.S.A. has more assets than anyone else. To compare it to the financial crisis is flat out wrong. What happened there was that people with few assets were given homes or credit lines they couldn't afford. What's happening with the federal government is much different. Should we be concerned with government spending? By all means yes, but it doesn't work the way Mr. Easterbrook wants it to work. The Federal government can borrow because Americans and non-Americans want to lend their money to the U.S. And when these people buy Treasury bonds, the U.S. usually don't lose too much money (if any) on the deal because interest rates on those bonds are so low.

[END]

And in the 5th District...

2009-01-22T14:51:00.000-08:00

Hopefully 538 will get all over this race since they live in the district (or blocks away), but I'm interested in it since well. A former professor of mine is running for the Congressional seat—Charlie Wheelan (full disclosure: not only did I have Charlie as a professor, I've volunteered at the campaign a bit).

The race is for Rahm's (and Blago's... and Rosty's...) old seat. It is wide open at the moment—thanks to Blago forcing every elected Illinois politician to keep their mouth shut due to the political climate. Thus the Cook County Dems haven't gotten behind anyone... so everyone and their brother is running at the moment.

But back to Dr. Wheelan... Charlie is a policy guy, which I like, and has an econ background. In a time like this that might come in handy. Bellow is a nice video of Charlie on the campaign trail.

Who else is running? Illinois state representatives Sara Feigenholtz and John Fritchey, Chicago Alderman Patrick O'Connor and Cook County Commissioner Mike Quigley are the main Democrats in the race. But all, despite what they say, have some sort of connection—at some level—to the Chicago Machine. The same Machine which gave us Blago, Jessie Jackson, Jr., and over course Mayor "Olympics or Bust, even if it means crime goes up and the schools fail" Richie W. Daley.

ESPN does Obama better than MSNBC

2009-01-22T09:42:00.000-08:00

I think what's interesting about the entire Obama Era (well the last year of it), is that D.C.—as always—missed the point. The TV heads and hacks on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox always seemed to talk about Obama and his politics and ideas or lack there of and so on and so forth. They see that Obama inspires people, but they can't tell us why.

But most of us, even us Policy Wonks, didn't really focus on Obama the politician. He always was BIGGER than social issues or health care or even—eventually—the economy. The Obama Era is a phenomena, not in a political sense, but rather in a cultural arena. Yet the Beltway types always missed this. The newspapers once in a while came close, but since Obama is an Arts feature that happens to be on the front page, they never nailed it.

News is constant and instantaneous in the 21st century, the need for information isn't as great—we don't have to watch the 5 o'clock news to see what happened during the day—we already know. But TV news hasn't changed, it continues to give us the same story over and over and over again until something new happens (TV news is, after all, completely reactionary; thus I personally find it boring). Newspapers have somewhat changed in that it gives us context of what happened and attempts to look to the future (because we already know what happened). But newspapers are stuck because they are being pulled between the Old Guard and it's 'what happened' and the newer guard attempting to look at what will be.

The media talk of Obama only as a politician, what he did and what he hopes to. This is necessary, but it also misses what people in bars and on the bus are talking about. Obama has transcended the political realm... as I said, he's an arts feature that happens to be front page news every day. And in all that I've read, all that I've heard, all that I've watched... the best conversation or piece on Obama and what he is and means just happens to be on ESPN.com.

Crazy I know, but the conversation between Bill Simmons and J.A. Adande about Obama is fantastic. They capture what he means to the general public, not some 'pretend to know it all' hack on TV inside the Beltway. Those types are treating Obama like they treated Clinton—but that's the wrong way of looking, studying, and reporting on Obama.

Anyway, here is the conversation/podcast, they kick off talking about the NBA but about 20 or 25 mins in they switch to Obama and it's fantastic (the podcast is on the right hand side of the page, download or play from there).

Beat...

2009-01-21T11:28:00.001-08:00

I'm beat from yesterday and even threw up the Roberts GOAT post last night so I'm taking today off.

But if you loved yesterday so much... well then, why not read all about it again?

John Roberts GOAT

2009-01-20T16:44:00.000-08:00

If today's inauguration was a big sporting event—and it's not a crazy comparison—then what happened today during the oath of office has to be one of the biggest choke jobs of all time.

John Roberts totally botched the short oath. What's the sports comparison to this? At first thought I've got to go with Bill Buckner in Game Six of the 1986 World Series. I mean this was a total choke job by Roberts.

1) He seemed to have cut off Obama as he was repeating his name. Though Obama may have jumped the gun, but Roberts did oddly pause... Obama started in and then Roberts suddenly is talking over him... I'm putting the blame on the Chief Justice. Roberts should have let Obama finish saying his name.
2) Roberts completely and totally misplaced the word faithfully, which then threw of Obama a bit, which then forced Roberts to repeat what he was saying... and well it sounded weird and uncomfortable and anything but Presidential or honorable.

I'm sure most people will over look this... but if this was sports? Roberts would be on the front page of every paper, he'd be ripped on the radio and every single columnist... sadly, the hacks will over look this, maybe a joke here or there. But come on, Roberts should be absolutely grilled by the media on this. It's not like repeating the oath of office is a long, complicated thing to do.

The result was that this was pretty unsmooth and played horribly on TV.

Here is how it went according to Reuters:

ROBERTS: I, Barack Hussein Obama…

OBAMA: I, Barack…

ROBERTS: … do solemnly swear…

OBAMA: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear…

ROBERTS: … that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully…

OBAMA: … that I will execute…

ROBERTS: … faithfully the office of president of the United States…

OBAMA: … the office of president of the United States faithfully…

ROBERTS: … and will to the best of my ability…

OBAMA: … and will to the best of my ability…

ROBERTS: … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

OBAMA: … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

ROBERTS: So help you God?

OBAMA: So help me God.

Inauguration -- Live Blog -- Part V

2009-01-20T13:04:00.001-08:00

3:52p.m. -- I need a break... be back in an hour or so if things are still going on... but over all a very very very fun and interesting day.

3:10p.m. -- The crowd has gone to another level. The cold and wind? THIS IS NOTHING FOR THE OBAMA'S! 30 degrees and a wind chill in the teens! This is nothing compared to what we go though in Chicago. Anyway, they just made Obama go back into the car as they pass the Old Post Office Building (which is a bad food court if you're wondering, but a decent view of DC if you go to the top of the tower). There is a weird O-BA-MA chant going.

3:07p.m. -- In 2001 at about 9:30p.m. I did this very same walk. The street was empty, just a few homeless guys trying to sleep and a ton of garbage and protest signs, and I walked up Pennsylvania Ave since the street was still blocked off to cars. It's a huge street with these large, but not tall, buildings lining the street. It's just so cool to watch them walk down this street.

3:04p.m. -- The Obama's just got out of the car and are walking up Pennsylvania Ave. Very very very cool. This, my friends, is how a democracy should be.

Inauguration -- Live Blog -- Part IV

2009-01-20T10:30:00.000-08:00

2:55p.m. -- This parade isn't that interesting. The Obama's are in a car. It is moving slowly. People are cheering and taking pictures and waving flags. The moment today was his speech... but stay with me to see what continues to transpire.

2:46p.m. -- Every person the reporters interview in the crowd is black and they ask them their name, where they're from, and if they'd ever live to see the day of a black President. And Al Roker went insane... I think... he just said that he won't crack. Um Okay.

2:36p.m. -- It looks as if Obama will not be walking... just a slow not even 5mph roll down Penn Ave. Lots of cheers but that's about it...

2:34p.m. -- The parade has finally started... I think...

2:26p.m. -- Brian Williams with the line of the day:
"I imagine President Obama was jonesing for a piece of nicorette gum after that lunch."

2:19p.m. -- Parade starting, the military guys are saluting Obama as they walk/march by. Pretty cool.

2:15p.m. -- So this isn't Inauguration coverage any more... this is Ted Kennedy coverage. But let's compare this to Sunday night when Willis McGhee was almost killed in the AFC Championship Game.

NFL: Players immediately gather around, many start praying, a hush comes over the crowd (however, P.A. is blaring CCR for some reason), get away from the player and let the medical staff take care of everything, hold hands with fellow players in prayer, look concerned but with a relief that it isn't you that was almost killed, once the player is put on the stretcher go over and give him a affectionate touch on the shoulder, then on the first play after the hit everyone goes at about 10% speed of the previous play.

D.C.: Finish lunch, go get coat, talk to media in a somber voice, pretend you really really care and are worried, praise the staff and security, keep Kennedy in your prayers, act like you don't know anything but say that everyone was very helpful, act like you don't want to talk to the media but never walk away from the camera, mention how bittersweet this moment is.

2:07p.m. -- Sen. Kennedy's emergency has got the TV Heads talking again... these guys love this stuff just so they can drop some personal anecdotes about Ted Kennedy. BTW, only in D.C. would people react so ho-hum, did you hear about Kennedy, what a bizarre town. It's like L.A. only more important and even flakier—for example I would assume that 79% of the people at this lunch will not tip the coat check.

This is just crazy. Byrd apparently might have had an emergency too but no one knows.

1:57p.m. -- Byrd is fine. It's Sen. Ted Kennedy who got sick or had some sort of medical emergency, just to clear up the 1:46p.m. update. I'm sure the news sites will have something on that sooner rather than later. The NBC reporter, Kelly something, keeps saying Obama had nothing to do with this... NO SHIT. Stop trying to blame the black man!

1:55p.m. -- Obama gives the it's not about me stuff... but I'm wondering this: Where is Blago? Is he in Springfield? Watching this on the Northwest side of Chicago? Would you be shocked to see him in the crowd along the parade route? Is there a chance that he's trying to crash one of these events tonight? And you know what? I'm rooting for Blago to some how cause a scene today...

1:51p.m. -- Obama is speaking now. He drops Teddy, but NBC just said Byrd was the one who got sick. So I don't know what's going on. Then Barack gives a shout out to the wait service, a nice touch. This has been a long day and it's about 25% of the way over.

1:46p.m. -- NBC is showing this lunch and they're giving Obama a crystal bowl. It isn't interesting. At all. I think they should start talking about if Obama is going to be a post-modern President or if he's to be the first President who fully understands irony and the Ironic Age we live in. After all, Obama did call out cynics today... (and TPB didn't feel at all bad or guilty).

And now Harry Reid, officially the Dumbest Man in D.C., as of this second is giving a speech. They are interrupting his speech to report... Sen. Byrd had a medical emergency and they don't know the details. Obama was not involved. Apparently, everyone blamed the only black man in the room...

1:29p.m. -- Today is D.C.'s day to shine and I've got to say... they don't do that good of a job do they? Everything looks nice, but D.C., being D.C., nothing looks all that genuine.

1:15p.m. -- Talk of the economy and Obama and we're just waiting for him to finish lunch.

1:07p.m. -- Everyone is waiting for Obama to finish lunch...

12:45p.m. -- Last I checked, the DOW is down 187 points (2.2%) on the day... just sayin'.

12:42p.m. -- Two things I can't get over:
1) John Roberts messing up the oath of office.
2) Not canceling the stupid classic music song so that at noon Obama is being sworn in. I mean REALLY? Knowing we're running late, no one can say, screw the song that no one cares about so we're swearing in Obama at the time he becomes President?

12:31p.m. -- It's weird seeing Barack and Michelle Obama enter the room for this lunch... which is a sea of white people. They stick out. It also shows how far we still need to go as a country.

Inauguration -- Live Blog -- Part III

2009-01-20T09:08:00.000-08:00

12:00p.m. (c.s.t) -- I'm going to make lunch, be back in a few...

11:57a.m. -- And this is it for W. We won't see him for a long time. W is about to get on the helicopter that will take him to Andrews and then on to Dallas. An ending to a Presidency we've never really seen, this isn't like Nixon—he left in disgrace and odd circumstances. W leaves differently... unpopular, yet some how revealed. History has yet to judge him and will probably be unkind to him, and at the moment no one is really sad to see him go.

But as W. hugs Obama and gets on the helicopter, he disappears, maybe forever since if history is unkind to him, no one will want his opinion.

The Bush Era is over. That's it. It's finally over. The helicopter lifts off... what an odd moment. Just like that he's off.

George W. Bush is leaving Washington, D.C.

11:50a.m. -- If you want to read some more on what I've said about this movement that Obama has started and what he means... check this out from another blog.

11:46a.m. -- NBC for a moment speaks of Harold Washington... I fully believe that without Washington, Obama isn't up there right now. Obama came to Chicago during Washington's tenure as mayor of this great city. But it was such a racially charged time in this city, just over twenty years ago, but Washington over came that, he won, and the young Obama realized and understood what it meant—if Harold could do it then I can do it.

11:42a.m. -- People are leaving as the ceremony ends... but what a country. What a fucking country. Where else in the world could a viable minority be ELECTED as the leader of the country?

I know, I know, we have a long way to go still. And we haven't elected a woman President... but were in Europe could a black or yellow or brown or red or blue or green man be elected President directly?

11:28a.m. -- This is a speech to the country asking—even demanding—us to be responsible and calling us to service. Government isn't the problem, but it can't save us on its own. We are all in this together, and sitting back and waiting for something to happen isn't enough. And with that, he wraps up. Not a long speech, short and simple, to the point, and he asks very little. He asks us to be realistic, to be responsible, to give, and not to take, that we are one, the United States of America, and to hurt one of us it to hurt all of us.

There wasn't a JFK or FDR moment, I didn't hear a timeless one liner, but it was a hell of a speech. Conservatives can't complain, if anyone should be upset by this address, it's the leftists since Obama's message is about individual sacrifice and responsibility... something we that was never asked from us during the Bush years. We're all in this together.

11:23a.m. -- Addresses the Muslim world and then dictators and the Third World and finally the First World... "the world has changed and we must change with it"... he has spoken of the American spirit a few times now, it's a striking image. Obama goes on to say that the government will be there, but you—America—are those who will really save us all and undertake it with the American spirit.

11:19a.m. -- Obama calls for new energy plans and better schools and says we will do it... "the question isn't if our government is too big or too small, it is if it works." And he says that the government will be held accountable. I'm not saying this because I have a policy degree, but this is truly the first President who has an idea of public policy, an understanding of economics, and the power of statistics... a shot of W. he looks distant, as if he isn't too upset that he's leaving D.C.... "We are ready to lead once more" and the crowd cheers... Obama is basically saying that Bush's foreign policy was wrongheaded... to the terrorists: "you cannot out last us and we will defeat you."

11:14a.m. -- NBC's cameras continue to show blacks in the crowd... "we must pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off and begin remaking America."

11:10a.m. -- Obama speaks of confidence—and a lack there of—in America. Calling the challenges real and we will meet them. He's going after Bush's policies... and calls for unity as a country. "The time has come..."

11:08a.m. -- Obama starts his Inauguration Address. Has the hype and expectations for a speech ever been so high? If he doesn't hit a grand slam it will be a disappointment. That's pressure, my fellow Americans.

Inauguration -- Live Blog -- Part II

2009-01-20T08:17:00.000-08:00

11:07a.m. -- A shot of New York for some reason. Gots to love the media.

11:05a.m. -- It's go time... Chief Justice John Roberts and President Barack Obama recite the oath... and it couldn't go worse. Obama's stepping on Roberts, Roberts isn't pausing... it's amateur hour in D.C. for some reason. But he's sworn in. EVEN THOUGH HE WAS ALREADY PRESIDENT.

11:04a.m. -- WE MISSED OBAMA BECOMING PRESIDENT BECAUSE WE HAD TO LISTEN TO SOME CLASSICAL SONG. I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP.

11:03a.m. -- This is beyond lame. Obama is officially President since it's after noon eastern. Yet he hasn't been sworn in. Nice job U.S. Government. This song was totally worth it.

11:02a.m. -- Well it's about to happen folks... after this song by John Williams. REALLY? THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING? A SONG??? Who is putting on this inauguration, some sports exec at NBC? The production is out of hand... just swear in Barack already. I mean we're not in a recession or anything, it's not like we could use this money on something useful... no one in America cares about this.

10:58a.m. -- Joe Biden is sworn in as Vice President. The Bush/Biden Presidency has begun!

10:53a.m. -- A lot is being made of the White House and U.S. Capitol being built by slaves, and while the metaphor of Obama and the slaves is striking, but...

Obama's ancestors were not American slaves. He is not a decedent of American slaves. So it's sort of weird to point out every time that they show a picture of the Capitol that it was built by slaves. It's not factually incorrect, but it feels forced at the same time. I'm doing a poor job at articulating this, but the achievement gap between the decedents of former slaves and blacks of Caribbean or African parents who immigrated in, say the 20th century, is huge.

My point: We still have a long way to go. And it took time for those decedents of slaves to accept Barack as their own in this election cycle...

10:48a.m. -- We are praying to the Christian God who is a male... as a Roman Catholic I take issue with this on two levels:
1) God probably is genderless
2) I AM FROM THE ONE TRUE RELIGION
This prayer sort of sucks.

10:45a.m. -- The crowd is going crazy. Not Yankee Stadium during the 2001 World Series crazy, but crazy non-the-less. Let's get this inauguration rolling...

10:43a.m. -- The Mall is packed. The TV Heads won't shut up. The morons of the Democratic party are trotted out. This day is so over the top... it should be about the President but the little guys need their moment in the sun to fill their ego...

And here he comes... Wow

10:40a.m. -- And here comes Barack... He looks poised and at peace.

It might get a little dusty here in Hyde Park... where is Jim Nantz to say, "What a moment!"

10:36a.m. -- W is introduced as President of the United States for the last time. No one cries. Everyone lets out a deep breath. The question should be... can he mess this inauguration up too or is it too little too late?

10:34a.m. -- The other big news of the day? Kaka is not moving to Man City. I know I know. But this is huge. Man City was going to drop 91 million pounds ($127) on Kaka! Wow.

10:29a.m. -- Obama's daughters come on out... in a way they're the most interesting people today. Think about it... they're 10 and 8 (iirc) and they're dad is becoming the President of the United States. What's going on in their little minds? They know what's going on... but what is it like to be a little kid and your dad, who already is larger than life, actually becomes larger than life to pretty much every human on Earth? Has to be a weird thought/feeling.

Anyway, it's cool to have little kids in the White House. Nothing bad can come of that right?

Oh, and Brian Williams said that people around the Mall are pissed because of security... I told you so!

10:24a.m. -- Moving vans are moving the Bush's out of the house!!! It's happening folks!! The worst policy President of the last 80 years is leaving the White House!

10:21a.m. -- And here comes Bill Clinton!!! Everyone has a soft spot for Bill because... well... we still want him to be President deep down. Admit it, you liked the 90s, you loved the 90s, you NEED the 90s. And Bill Clinton is the 90s.

Bill was perfect, he's the first (and only) post-modern President, who was totally aware of what he was doing and what he wanted back in the 90s. I miss Bill even if I don't really care for his policies.

10:17a.m. -- As the old Presidents gather round and get ready to go out there, I post another song... by Dylan and sung by Mason Jennings.

The Times They Are A Changin' ...

Inauguration -- Live Blog -- Part I

2009-01-20T06:55:00.001-08:00

10:14a.m. -- What a song...

A Change Is Gonna Come - Sam C...

10:05a.m. -- As a veteran of an inauguration (2001), I can't tell you how insane the security is. There are marines with guns, cops every five feet, checkpoints a few blocks from the Mall and lines that stretch blocks long to go though. It's crazy. And I can't imagine what it's like today.

There were a lot of people out there in 2001 supporting or protesting Bush... but by all accounts this blows that day out of the water in terms of numbers. I can't imagine what it's like. I can't imagine why people want to go other than just to say they were there. The amount of security really takes away from the event. This is a peaceful transition, but the security is something out of the Third World. Maybe I'm a sucker for the old stories about Andrew Jackson and what democracy should be about (the people and the free moment of people). It's a fine line between freedom and security and I can't tell you were that line is. But in 2001 I thought it was too much.

Anyway here is a bit of what I wrote back in 2001 and I'm not sure why I was so angry:
"So I ask this, what is so peaceful about this event? This was not peaceful! This was like some third world country. There is nothing peaceful about men with guns and in riot gear trying to 'control' the crowd. Okay so they weren't standing on every corner with a big ole' AK-47, but they were intimating. It made you think twice about anything and everything. Just the fact that it was so freakin' hard to get any were pissed me off. Anyone that wanted to get on the parade rote was searched. It's not like you could walk up there, they checked your bags, and it seemed like they were doing a little pad down work too. There were cops everywhere, and there were a ton of military people too. I saw like 200 marines just marching down the street like it was no big deal. And the fencing! It was like they were expecting a billion dogs with out owners to show up. Everything was fenced. The sidewalk was fenced from the parkway which was fenced from the street. It was like a jail, because you couldn't go any were with out someone stopping you. This was not peaceful this was intimidation. If this was truly peaceful then all the fencing and officers and military people would not be necessary. Now I'm not saying there should be no security, I just think that this was a little too much. What was the point? I'll tell you, to scare the hell out of people and make it hard for them to do get around." -- REO, Jan. 20, 2001

9:48 a.m. -- W and Obama come out and get in the limo. Cheers go up (W probably doesn't think they're for him right?) What do these two talk about? My bets are on John Danks, who Bush said is his favorite baseball player and Danks just happens to pitch for Obama's favorite team, the White Sox. So I"m going to go with a five minute discussion on the maturation of John Danks over the 2008 baseball season.

Anyway, the motorcade is off. It really isn't that interesting. So just imagine what Bush and Obama are talking about...

9:46a.m. -- Cheney is in a wheelchair... the Dr. Evil joke is too easy right?

9:44a.m. -- A Barbara Bush sighting!! Not H.W.'s wife, but rather W's daughter who picked up and left for New York about three years ago and was rumored to be a pill popper/party who loved the Georgetown area! Why no one has done a feature on her, I'm not sure...

9:42a.m. -- This has nothing to do with the inauguration, but a nice feature on Charles Wheelan who is running for Congress for Rahm's old seat (the 5th here in Illinois). Here is his website.

(Note: Charlie was our professor at U of C over the last two years).

9:35a.m. -- I'm flipping between ESPN, NBC, and MSNBC (full disclosure, I owe 6 shares of G.E. stock). NBC has former CUA student, Brian Williams; MSNBC features Olbermann (more on him later), and ESPN is LIVE talking about the Cowboys!!!

Other blogs:
L.A. Times
Chicago Tribune

9:25a.m. -- John Cusack sighting on NBC!!!! Is there a quasi-Chicago event he doesn't show up at? I love John as much as the next girl, but after his "I'm a Sox fan" routine in 2005... Die Cusack, die.

9:05a.m. -- A few over bets to get out there:
** Over/under **
Number of times "Change is Gonna Come" today on the radio: 1,387
Number of times the TV heads say John F. Kennedy: 937
Number of times the TV heads say Abraham Lincoln: 3,498
Number of times the TV heads say Martin Luther THE King: 2,974

More to come as the day progresses.

8:55a.m. (c.s.t) -- We are coming to you LIVE from Hyde Park—two blocks from Obama's barber and six blocks from Obama's house—here on a not that cold, snowy Chicago, Illinois!!! Obama just got out of the limo and took a picture with W. and then walked into the White House.

Stay with me today as I live blog the shit out of this inauguration. Who needs the NYTimes or the WashPost attempting to make Obama their own when I've got TV crews a block from my house?

Back

2009-01-19T11:40:00.000-08:00

I'm back... starting tomorrow... where I'll be living blogging the last hours of George W. Bush and the first hours of the LeBron James of politics.

A Wire Tap on a Governors Phone?!?!?!

2008-12-12T14:29:00.000-08:00

While I enjoyed this actually sort of humorous piece in the Trib the other day, I think it missed the over all point.

When news broke that Gov. Rod Blagojevich allegedly got busted on tape gabbing about various shakedown schemes, you had to wonder, hasn't he ever seen "The Sopranos"? How could he ignore the lessons of TV crime shows? Everybody knows:

1. Never talk "business" on your home or office phone. Ever. There was a reason Tony Soprano had his underlings use pay phones. And considering that the feds have been on his heels since 2003, perhaps the governor should have known better.

Okay as for point #1... very true. Never talk business on the phone. But Tony and company always worked under the assumption that they were being listened to by the Feds. Blago had no reason to think this because, you know, getting a wire tap on a governor's phone is unheard of in this country.

I mean that's something that you only seen in bad summer blockbuster movies or the next John Grisham novel. This never ever happens in real life--a wire tap on the governor's phone. It still amazes me.

This Blago stuff is one of the most amazing stories, frankly, ever in American politics. Attempting to get writers fired from the Chicago Tribune, selling the Senate seat, shamlessly trying to extort money from a children's hospital... I mean, it's all stranger than fiction. Disgusting... and absolutely hilarious in that 21st century ironic kind of way.

Oh and to Cliff Schecter of the Guaridan who asked "Where the hell is Eliot Ness when you need him?" His name is Patrick Fitzgerald and he has been doing his job quite well.

Because it's fun to not know what you're talking about

2008-12-11T11:49:00.000-08:00

Apparently Harold Meyerson had so much fun sounding like an idiot last week, that he did it again this week. What was the topic at hand? Why Chicago politics!! And if the inner Beltway doesn't know anything, it's Chicago politics. Thankfully for us/me, Mr. Meyerson started typing.

Chicago's Karma
by Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, December 10, 2008; Page A25

At moments like this, it's worth remembering that Illinois gave us both Abraham Lincoln and Al Capone.

It also gave us Ronald Reagan, Dwyane Wade, Miles Davis, Luis Farrakhan, Roger Ebert, and Vince Vaughn. But hey, I'm sure there is a reason why he picked Lincoln and Capone (both of whom were not born in Illinois).

Plainly, some sort of karmic balance controls the destiny of that heartland state. For every inspiring leader that Illinois produces, it must also turn out a scoundrel or two -- petty thieves in governmental office, egomaniacal monsters in corporate suites -- who share an indifference to the idea of a public trust.

He clearly doesn't know his Illinois history or politics. There have been a lot more bad than there has good. And oh yeah, Al Capone never held political office, but again, with Harold, that's just details.

On Monday, Sam Zell, the nation's only newspaper mogul who genuinely detests journalism, placed Chicago's signature Tribune Co. into bankruptcy -- effectively wiping out his employees' equity in the company and a share of their pensions, while still managing to come out pretty well himself.

If there is one thing journalists hate, it's Sam Zell and Harold seems to hate Zell more than most. You would think that Zell was a baby seal killer who kicked puppies while paving over a beach. God forbid someone different buy a newspaper. Has the Zell Era worked out? No, not really. But guess, what, neither is the Old Era.

Yesterday, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was indicted for allegedly trying to dispose of what had been Barack Obama's Senate seat in a private auction, with all proceeds to go to the care and feeding of Rod Blagojevich.

Just remember, Blagojevich's website in 2006 was www.rodforillinois.com. We should have known then that anything was possible with Rod, he is a Cub fan after all. But why does Harold bring up Blago right after Zell? I wonder what they have in common.

At their core, however, the stories of Blagojevich and Zell tell essentially the same tale -- that of men in positions of great power who believed that their only real responsibility was to themselves.

WHAT?!?!?! Did he just compare a totally corrupt governor to a real estate mongul—granted with a big ego—who hasn't broken the law?

It's been a great week for resurrecting stereotypes: Not only does Blagojevich come off as machine pol straight out of "The Front Page," but Zell has more than a passing resemblance to the guy who gets hired this time of year to play Scrooge.

No, no it hasn't been a great week for stereotypes. Blago is a sick, disgusting human being (if guilty). Zell is a businessman whose recent business move didn't work out. Big difference Harold. Very big difference.

But Dickens never contemplated a Scrooge with so much power. Zell disparaged and to a considerable degree dismantled the staffs of the major newspapers he owned, one of them (the Los Angeles Times) a great national paper. He did so to pay down the debt he incurred when he bought Tribune last year -- debt he incurred by refusing to put much of his own money into the paper.

Should we tell Harold that the old owners of Tribune agreed to the deal? That they couldn't give away the Tribune Co. two years ago? That in a weird way, Zell saved the day, and then being the savvy businessman that he is, he didn't put much of his money on the line. Should we also tell Harold that most business deals go down this way? Or is that too much detail?

...Zell stands to recoup a decent share of his own $315 million investment because he structured it in such a way that a bankruptcy court must treat him as a creditor. Smart guy, that Zell. As for the multitude of reporters, editors and other laid-off employees who are still collecting their severance payments, Tribune has announced that their payments will come no more.

Harold got one thing right, Zell is smart. But guess what, he didn't bring down the Tribune or the L.A. Times! There are major cuts at non-Zell owned papers like the New York Times and Boston Globe! But hey, let's compare Zell to Blago because they're clearly on the same level on the horrible people scale.

Zell isn't the sole culpable party in the disgrace that is Tribune.

The board members who sold him the company could have sold it, in disaggregated parts, to buyers who were willing to put up their own money.

So now you admit that Zell isn't the problem? So everything you said about Sam is just you running your fingers? Make up your mind Harold! Important people may be reading! So let's get to the end where I'm sure you'll tie this all up and clearly lay out why you're comparing Sam Zell to Blago.

It's been a rough week for employees in Chicago. Last Wednesday, the workers at Republic Windows and Doors were informed that their factory would close last Friday and that they would not receive the 60 days' pay mandated by federal plant-closing statutes. Republic's workers occupied the plant, pledging to stay until either their employer -- which seems to have bought a lower-wage plant in Iowa -- or its lender, Bank of America, paid them what they were owed. Yesterday, Bank of America agreed to do just that.

Good for the sit-downers. Blagojevich may be a throwback to a cruder age, and Zell may be the boss from hell, but in their lack of responsibility to the people who vote or work for them, they are emblems of the same moral fecklessness that the Republic workers fought -- fecklessness that has depressed the prospects of ordinary Americans throughout the long age of Reagan that is now, one hopes, coming to an end. Barack Obama means to build a more equitable nation, but it would help him in that task if more workers sat down, or hauled the Sam Zells of the nation into court. It's not just Illinois' karma that could use some upward balancing.

To quote Bill Simmons, I will now light myself on fire. What happened to Capone and Lincoln? Why did the Republic Windows guys come into play? And once again, why is Harold comparing Blago to Zell? And why didn't the Washington Post editors:

1) Edit this

2) Kill this column?

[end]

The Most Popular Person In Washington, D.C.

2008-12-08T14:22:00.000-08:00

It was always a long shot but it is now official. The Democrats will not have a filibuster proof 60/40 split in the Senate. Saxby Chambliss'* victory in Georgia on Tuesday night was the first 'official' sign that the Democrats weren't going to have the SUPER-MAJORITY needed and while things in Minnesota are still up in the air, it now appears that Norm Coleman^ will win in Minnesota. So what does this all mean... well now the Democrats need two Republicans to invoke cloture and thus bring a vote to the floor of the Senate (little know fact about the U.S. Senate, it actually operates at the SuperMajority level of 60 votes).

So who might these people be? 538 ran them down the other day and there are no major surprises:

59. Snowe (ME). Obama won Maine by 18 points, making it the bluest state to be home to a Republican senator -- and in fact, it has two of them. Per Voteview, Olympia Snowe is incrementally more liberal than Susan Collins; she's also up for re-election two years sooner. It will be very interesting to see how the two of them will legislate under an Obama administration.
60. Collins (ME). See above.
61. Specter (PA). Under re-election pressure in a state that Obama carried by double digits. Mitigating factor: possible that he'll be under pressure from the right too in the form of a primary challenge.
62. Lugar (IN). On good terms with Obama, who (barely) won his state. Voteview has him becoming slightly more liberal over the past several Congresses.
63. Voinovich (OH). Under serious re-election pressure. Has often been moderate -- or even slightly left of center -- on pocketbook issues, and increasingly so on other ones.

What does this mean? The state of Maine is going to be getting a ton of money over the next two years for pet projects. But I think it gets more complicated than that. With the Democrats so close to having a filibuster proof Senate, clever GOPers will position themselves so that they are that final swing vote. This will bring home the bacon for their constituents—so expect to hear Specter and Voinovich's names, along with Snowe and Collins, a lot in the next two years.

Also, I would expect Mary Landrieu and other conservative Democratic Senators to move to the right. That seems odd, but again, it puts them in a better position to bring pork projects for their state. This looks good to the constituents and helps in re-election campaigns.

Politics aside, the Democrats are in a fantastic position to get a lot of things done without consulting the Republicans. Since they're only going to need two votes to get whatever they want done, the Republicans have little chance of stopping them. Snowe, Collins, Specter, and Lugar are all better off ditching their party on most issues if it allows them to get money or projects for their home state.

* Doesn't sound like a very American name does it? Who names their child Saxby? Okay so his first name is Clarence. But Saxby... really?
^ If there was ever a 'Soter name, this is it.

Harold Meyerson: Idiot

2008-12-03T13:29:00.000-08:00

I've been saying for years that the most overrated newspaper in America is the Washington Post. Sure, they cover the political side of D.C. very well but they still get out scooped far too often when you consider they have homefield advantage. But their entertainment coverage is sub-par. They do a bad job with world news and they do a horrible job covering the metro area (note: I lived in D.C. for five years between 2000 and 2006).

But what I always found interesting about the Post was that their lack of good columnists. I've always enjoy Marc Fisher but their op-ed page and writers have always seemed more reactionary than at the forefront. And now I can see why, because when they try to be out there at the forefront of the news you get crap like this. So in honor of Fire Joe Morgan calling it quits, it's the policy equivalent of what Ken Tremendous et all used to do. Our subject today? Harold Meyerson.

As he prepares to move back to Texas, our 43rd president is the beneficiary of Bush fatigue. The nation has long since repudiated him. Americans are looking ahead to the promise of Barack Obama.

Good start. How can this possibly go wrong? An anti-Bush column is harder to mess up than the Bush Administrations handling of pretty much anything!

And it's lucky for George W. Bush that they are, because his handling of our plunging economy is Hooverian in both its substance and inadequacy.

Ummm, okay. What's happening here?

Herbert Hoover, we should recall, had a program for dealing with the Depression. It consisted of lending to banks but opposing fiscal stimulus or direct aid to individuals. Which is why Hank Paulson's frenzied endeavors to prop up the banking sector and Bush's dogged resistance to assisting anybody else amount to pure neo-Hooverism.

Harold, Harold. Did you forget that we already had a stimulus? And about those banks... oh wait a second... okay.

Under immense pressure to do something, in late 1931 Hoover asked Congress to establish the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, to provide funds to banks it deemed creditworthy.

Yes! See this is the problem Harold! Hoover reacted TOO SLOWLY. It had been nearly two years, bank runs had taken place, Hoovers cash injection to banks happened at least 12 months too late. You can call W a lot of things, but he and his people did not wait too long to get money to the banks. They acted very quickly there, within weeks, but hey I'm going to guess you've never taken a history or economics class so this 'fact' is lost on you.

As breadlines lengthened, he vetoed a bill appropriating funds for public works on the grounds that it was inflationary and contained pork-barrel spending. Bankers would be saved; everyone else was effectively damned.

But see, this really didn't work out too well for FDR—the public spending that is. It actually didn't really help the American economy at all in the short run.

The Bush administration's approach to today's meltdown is to direct all its energies and largess to lending institutions. There is, as yet, no program to help floundering homeowners renegotiate the terms of their mortgages.

Yeah, but that's what they should have done. This is what the Swedes did in 1992 and what the Japanese didn't do in the 1990s. You're basically arguing that Bush should be more like Japan and Hoover (do nothing) and less like the Swedes (do something).

It's becoming increasingly clear, however, that while saving the banks may limit further calamities, it doesn't really save anybody else. Even with government-guaranteed lines of credit, financial institutions are refusing to lend money.

But it does! See if the banks don't have any money they won't lend it to anyone! Right now they have money and are hopefully just letting things sort out. Maybe Mr. Meyerson is calling for more bad loans from banks? I'm not sure... and yeah, I'm a little worried that banks aren't lending money right now, but you know what... maybe they're just getting their house in order. Figuring out what they own and who they owe money to. If banks are not lending money in six months, then yes, let's panic. But just because things haven't turned around in TWO MONTHS doesn't mean jack shit.

And this is the problem with the reporting of the Wall Street meltdown, credit crisis, and now the recession. Most of the media is expecting this to go away tomorrow. That just like this everything will be fixed. But it doesn't work that way. It takes time.

In a sense, Bush's inactivity is even less excusable than Hoover's. Unlike Hoover, Bush could learn from the successes of New Deal and World War II-era programs to revive the economy.

But he is doing something! Haven't you been paying attention? Bush and friends are giving billions (I mean trillions) of dollars away! Did you miss the bailout?

What's more, virtually every reputable conservative economist, from Martin Feldstein on down, now supports a government stimulus program.

True, but Congress needs to pass this and Congress is going to play politics, hold their breath for a few weeks, and let Obama sign that law.

So where's the outrage? Why aren't demonstrators besieging the White House? Where are the "Welcome to Bushville" signs in those neighborhoods where abandoned homes outnumber the occupied ones?

Well for starters 25% of Americans aren't unemployed and the farms haven't gone under and people's entire savings weren't wiped out... but that's details Harold. Details!

Yet in the hearts of his countrymen, Bush's place is already fixed. Even before the financial collapse, he was in the ninth circle of presidential hell, with Buchanan and Hoover.

Well at least you got one thing right.

[end]

Obama and Education

2008-12-01T15:31:00.000-08:00

With Barack Obama now only a few weeks away from becoming the 44th President, let’s take a look at what he said during the campaign about education and what his education policy might look like. While education is probably about tenth on his list of things to do; some of Obama’s most interesting policy ideas during the campaign were in education.

First the facts about U.S. education—it ain’t fair and the Federal government has little to do with it. Less than 10% of total spending on schools comes from the Feds. That means the states and local governments come up with over 90% of all school funding. This reduces the Feds roll in education.

However, one of the few major domestic policies that George W. Bush was able to get done was No Child Left Behind. When this was passed at the beginning of Bush’s tenure, it was a bi-partisan effort and when completed everyone patted each other on the back. Sadly, NCLB looks much better on paper than when put into action.

It’s hard to criticize a policy where policymaker’s hearts were in the right place, but NCLB has been a minor disaster. It was poorly thought out, somewhat unjust, and gave the states far too much control for what was supposed to be a national policy. NCLB set national standards that schools had to meet, but the catch was that each state was allowed to design their own means of evaluation—most states crated easy standardized tests. The result is bizarre numbers like this: 90% of Mississippi 4th graders were declared proficient by the state, but only 22% met the national standard.

Can and will Obama bother fixing NCLB? It’s hard to say and nothing in his campaign rhetoric leads me to believe that he will. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, throwing more resources and money at NCLB probably would be a mistake.

So what can we look for Obama to do? Recent academic work has discovered that early intervention of “at risk children” or pre-school aged kids by non-profit services and/or educators has had promising results. Obama has mentioned pre-school programs and other programs that would involve early intervention a number of times on the campaign trail—I would expect this to be his pet project (and this is also a post for another day…)

Obama has suggested a $4,000 tax-credit for college fees noting fears that nearly 2 million Americans will not go to college between 2002 and 2010 because they can’t afford it. I find this somewhat hard to believe. There are plenty of options students have to pay for school—student loans are not that difficult to obtain—and while costly, they’re worth it. The lifetime earnings a college grad are much greater than those of a one with only a high school education. On the flip side college is very expensive for the middle class and there isn't a lot of money for them to help pay for university.

In September Obama announced that he would double federal funding for charter schools. This is exciting news as charter schools have, thus far, gotten great results in urban America.

Obama would also like to create a career ladder for teachers. A policy like this would create a pay structure for teachers based on classroom results and a clearer career path. This is actually ingenious—if it works. How do you measure results in the classroom? And setting out a career path for teachers—which has been ignored—could be a roaring success if done correctly.

All in all, some very interesting ideas coming out of the Obama camp in regard to education. Personally, I’m more than sold on the early childhood intervention and education and I would love to see work done there. Everything else is pretty sound and one would have to nit-pick at these proposals to find any problems with them. Outside of Obama’s rhetoric, his education ideas are probably the most exciting and most sound.

What's the Fed to do?

2008-11-24T14:24:00.000-08:00

Even though Wall Street has suddenly decided that American companies are worth 15% more than they were worth at about 2:00p.m. est on Friday. I still don't think that anyone has any clue what's going on with the American and global economy. Last week was mostly bad news all around. This is a short week here in the States and I expect it to be quiet.

But of interest is a continuation of what I touched on Friday... what is the Fed to do?

Right before Halloween, the Fed set the target rate for federal funds at 1%. But the reality is much lower than that: the effective rate according to the Economist is 0.25% (it is now about 0.50%):

The irony is that, were the gap to disappear, there would be a de facto tightening of monetary policy. On the other hand, if the effective rate remains near zero, the Fed will have to turn to more unconventional means of stimulating growth. Michael Feroli of JPMorgan Chase proposes outright purchases of mortgage-backed securities—another faint echo of Japan.

So what are unconventional means?

I'm not sure, but one suggestion: Don't do what Japan has done since the 1990s.

And suddendly things look bad again...

2008-11-21T09:16:00.000-08:00

The stock market is down, unemployment is up, consumer spending is down, banks aren't loaning money to anyone... that's right the economy still looks bad. And while we might have dodge a total collapse of the credit markets, the key word is "might". A week ago I think most people would have assumed that we/the world had done so. Now? Not so much.

And on top of all this the truly scary word of deflation has begun to be uttered after the announcement this week that consumer prices had fallen 1% in October.

Deflation is, simply, a continuous fall in the general price level of goods and services. This sounds like a great thing—prices go down meaning you and I can buy more stuff. But that's in the very short term. If firms are making less from their goods or services, that means they have to cut back on costs—that can mean anything from cutting jobs, wages, or closing factories. And therefore you and I will be making less, and thus not spending more.

The other worrisome aspect of deflation is that firms and consumers may decide to wait to build/expand their business or wait to purchase goods. If prices are falling, I may wait to buy a new TV or car knowing that in 9 months it will cost less. A firm may wait to build a new factory because the price of the material goods and labor will be less in six months than it is today. What this means is that people aren't spending money and therefore demand continues to fall.

From a policy perspective there is only so much a government can do. Interest rates can only be cut so low—zero percent obviously. The Fed has set interest rates at about 1%. So it can't cut rates too much more (and more on that later).

Krugman and some others have begun to call for a huge stimulus. This makes sense since it would inject billions into the U.S. economy (if Americans are good at anything, it's spending money). While this might be problematic—people might just save that money, pay off debt, or invest it in some market—it also may fix the problem at hand if people spend the money.

But again, policy makers can only do so much in a deflation cycle or period. However, we are seeing policy makers acting quickly and doing something, and as I've aruged, something is better than nothing. Why? Becuase the last time we did nothing, the Depression went from bad to Great. Japan did nothing and it's stuck in 1991. Sweden did something at it is still one of the strongest economies in the world. So although you and your neighbor and some talking heads on TV might not like, sitting on our hands has proven to be the wrong decision.

Three Reasons Why We Should (and Should Not) Bailout GM (and maybe Ford)

2008-11-19T14:23:00.000-08:00

Although it doesn't look likely at the moment, The Big Three from Detroit have gone to Congress asking for money to bail them out.

I'm working under the assumption that Chrylster is unsavagable. Also, as a disclaimer, your author owns seven shares of GM stock. That's right, $20 bucks! Drinks on me!

Why the U.S. Government Should Bailout GM (and maybe Ford)
1.) According to David Cole of the Center for Automotive Research if:

Detroit’s production falls by 50%. He estimates that in the first year that
would cost 2.5m jobs: 240,000 from the carmakers themselves; 795,000 from
suppliers and 1.4m from other firms indirectly affected. The cost in transfer
payments and lost taxes would exceed $100 billion over three years. Some of Mr
Cole’s assumptions are likely to be too pessimistic, but his blood-curdling
forecast and others like it have helped to convince legislators that the $50
billion of help that the carmakers are asking for would be cheap at the price.

If the Center for Automotive Research's cost/benefit analysis is even sort of on target, giving the money to GM and Ford is a no brainier.

2.) The long term prospects of each company are actually pretty good. Both have a strong presence in Europe (especially Ford) and other emerging markets (especially GM). They have both started producing competitive compact and fuel efficient cars (everyone seems to rave about the Focus) moving away from the SUVs that American drivers demanded for such a long time. And in 2007 GM and Ford struck a deal with the UAW union which allowed them to cut costs by about $1,000 a car.

Should they have been making more fuel efficient cars? Probably, but that's easy to say today. The SUV market in the 90s and early 2000s was not a result of Ford and GM forcing American buyers to buy big gas guzzling cars. SUVs were attractive to American consumers because gas was so cheap... thanks in part to the U.S. government levying such small taxes on gasoline.

3.) Lehman Brothers - When the Treasury let Lehman Brothers die everyone seemed to support the decision. But it quickly became evident that letting Lehman 'die' might have been a huge mistake. The financial world simply was not ready for a bank as big as Lehman Brothers to go "buh-bye". Is the American economy ready to lose a few million jobs? And what about the pressure the bankruptcy of GM and Ford would have on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp--the Federal agency that insures benefits to retirees in the auto industry and other industries?

Why the U.S. Government Should NOT Bailout GM (and maybe Ford)
1.) When Becker speaks, I listen:

Nevertheless, I believe bankruptcy is better than a bailout for American consumers and taxpayers. The main problem with American auto companies is that during the good times of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, they made overly generous settlements with the United Auto workers (UAW) on wages, pensions, and health benefits...

It is not that cars cannot be produced profitably with American workers: the American plants of Toyota and other Japanese companies, and of German auto manufacturers, have been profitable for many years. The foreign companies have achieved this mainly by setting up their factories in Southern and border states where they could avoid the UAW, and thereby introduce efficient methods of production. Their workers have been paid well but not excessively, and these companies have kept their pension and health obligations under control while still maintaining good morale among their employees.

Bankruptcy would help GM and Ford become more competitive by abrogating significant parts of their labor contracts with the UAW.

2.) A.I.G. - What a mess this has become. This is in part the fault of the Treasury which basically has given A.I.G. billions upon billions of dollars without out any oversight. Conservatives cannot complain about welfare anymore after the A.I.G. fiasco. These guys are paying themselves bonuses for running the company into the ground... why? Because they don't want to lose the talent that nearly caused the company to disappear. Congress and taxpayers are right to be cautious about handing any private company billions of bucks after watching A.I.G. reward themselves for being total fucking morons (pardon my French).

3.) While I don't agree with much of Mitt Romney's reasoning he does make an important point in his Op-Ed today:
Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.
A bailout does not guarantee further restructuring within Ford and GM. Both companies need further diversification in their products--the pickup truck and SUV business was lucrative until gasoline became expensive. And since both companies relied far too much on those big gas guzzlers and didn't really have smaller, fuel efficient cars to offer consumers, they're in the position that they're in today. Giving them a few billion won't guarantee a change in philosophy in Detroit, something we should all be worried about.

Not surprisingly Joesph Stiglitz has Some Good Ideas on How To Fix Everything

2008-11-17T08:07:00.000-08:00

Nobel Prize laureates Joesph Stiglitz has been busy over the last two months writing about the economy. But of interest for us here, is his 'State of the Economy' piece in Vanity Fair "Reversal of Fortune." Let's break it down... Dr. Jack style.

The real meat of the essay is towards the end, but he does pick apart the policy decisions that got us into this mess. And he places much of this blame on George W. Bush. This is a tad harsh—there were fundamental policy problems prior to Bush taking office. But Stiglitz is correct to place more blame on Bush's handling of the economy (if you can call it that) than other non-critics:
...the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 set the stage for the current crisis. They did virtually nothing to stimulate the economy, and they left the burden of keeping the economy on life support to monetary policy alone. America’s problem today is not that households consume too little; on the contrary, with a savings rate barely above zero, it is clear we consume too much. But the administration hopes to encourage our spendthrift ways.
He is on the mark with this assessment. What is happening today is a result of the spend today worry about tomorrow... tomorrow ways of the last five plus years. The Bush administration encouraged everyone to spend, spend, spend. Aside from cutting the capital gains taxes, Americans weren't encouraged to save money.

I haven't railed against it too much here, but I am against our current policies towards corn ethanol. Giving any sort of tax credits or subsideis to corn ethanol production is silly as Stigliz sums up:

Our ethanol policy is also bad for the taxpayer, bad for the environment, bad for the world and our relations with other countries, and bad in terms of inflation. It is good only for the ethanol producers and American corn farmers. It should be scrapped. We currently subsidize corn-based ethanol by almost $1 a gallon, while imposing a 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on Brazilian sugar-based ethanol. It would be hard to invent a worse policy.

And on to fixing the current housing mess:

Remember, too, that we already give big homeowner subsidies, through the tax system, to affluent families. With tax deductions, the government is paying in some states almost half of all mortgage interest and real-estate taxes. But many lower-income people, whose deductions are meaningless because their tax bill is too small, get no help. It makes much more sense to convert these tax deductions into cashable tax credits, so that the fraction of housing costs borne by the government for the poor and the rich is the same.

A ways back I was critical of the Feds handling (or lack there of) concerning inflation. Stiglitz points out that I was off base:
The standard analysis coming from financial markets these days is that inflation is the greatest threat, and therefore we need to raise interest rates and cut deficits, which will restore confidence and thereby restore the economy. This is the same bad economics that didn’t work in East Asia in 1997 and didn’t work in Russia and Brazil in 1998. Indeed, it is the same recipe prescribed by Herbert Hoover in 1929.

It is a recipe, moreover, that would be particularly hard on working people and the poor. Higher interest rates dampen inflation by cutting back so sharply on aggregate demand that the unemployment rate grows and wages fall. Eventually, prices fall, too. As noted, the cause of our inflation today is largely imported—it comes from global food and energy prices, which are hard to control. To curb inflation therefore means that the price of everything else needs to fall drastically to compensate, which means that unemployment would also have to rise drastically.

This makes total sense. Worrying about inflation during a recession or depression is silly, and when the cause of inflation is not a result of domestic economic forces, attempting to control it is only more difficult for central bankers.

Finally, like any good economist, Stigliz believes that American economic policy should follow:

Spending money on needed investments—infrastructure, education, technology—will yield double dividends. It will increase incomes today while laying the foundations for future employment and economic growth. Investments in energy efficiency will pay triple dividends—yielding environmental benefits in addition to the short- and long-run economic benefits.

If growth is the goal of capitalism, then techonology is probably the biggest force in economic expanision. And techonology and innovation comes about though strong education. We could have a debate about how big of a role the government should play in the building and maintaining infrastrucutre; but I think the government should play a bit, if not the biggest role, in infrastrcutre projects.

Anyway, I highly suggest checking out the entire essay, there are some really good ideas, sorry common sense, in there.

Spreading the Wealth Around

2008-11-11T11:37:00.000-08:00

I got this chain e-mail from a friend of mine a few days ago and heard some GOP Talking Head mention it on the radio a day or two later.

Yesterday on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' necktie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I showed him a ten-dollar bill and told him that I was going to 'redistribute' his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy seemed genuinely grateful. (surprised me).

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed the money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

A few things about this e-mail:
1) The homeless guy is working and he earned that money... he's hustling. He got 10 bucks out of his efforts/work. While some people might not find pan-handling working, it technically is: one is using their time sitting or standing in high foot traffic areas hoping to get contributions (a wage) from passer bys. And that's what work is—a worker is paid for his/her time for someone else.

2) Obama does not want to take all of Paul's money to give to someone else. And that's what happening in this story, all the money is being taken away from the waiter and given to the pan-handler. No where in Obama's policy proposals does he even imply that he'll do this. While his now somewhat infamous quote to Joe the Plummer about how he wants to "spread the wealth around" is the reasoning behind this story above, Obama is not talking about taking all the money people make and dividing it equally.

Rather Obama is more speaking about closing the gap between the wealthiest and poorest in this country. This indicator, called the Gini Coefficient, has increased over the last 20 to 25 years at a pace that probably worries most policy makers and economists. According to the UN, the U.S. Gini Coefficient is 40.8, which is about the same as Georgia, Sri Lanka, Ghana, Turkmenistan, and Mali. And another recent study showed that American cities are as unequal as those in Latin America or Africa.

Slowing down or even closing the gap between the have and have nots in this country isn't the worst idea in the world; espiecially if it's done so in an intellegent, pragmatic way.

Is the Culture War Over? Did it ever begin?

2008-11-10T12:18:00.000-08:00

One of the reasons that Sarah Palin was chosen to be John McCain's running mate was because of her cultural values. A social conservative, Palin helped McCain bring the GOP base together. For a week, it looked like Palin was the perfect pick.

But then Lehman Brothers went under and the credit crunch got rolling... and the voting public became very worried about the economy. The economy was always the biggest issue during the 2008 election, and pretty much every issue (the War on Iraq, energy policy, education) was all put on the back burner. And cultural issues, which weren't a big issue during the summer, became a complete non-factor.

Why? Because people don't care as much about gay marriage, abortion, and school prayer when they're not sure where their next pay check is coming from.

What about Proposition 8 in California? True, cultural issues still exist, but when it comes to voting for a President or Senator or Representative or any elected office, the candidates cultural views do not matter as much as the media and social conservatives (and some social liberals) would like us to believe. If voters did care as much about cultural issues as some would like us to believe, Obama would not have won Califorinia.

And here in lies the problem with the Republican party today—they have lost their way obsessing over cultural issues. True, it delivered back-to-back Presidential victories for Geroge W. Bush (barely), but the fact that the Republicans barely won should have been a sign that as a policy issue, it is a fickle issue. An issue that matters only when things are going very well economically, and even then that's debateable. The cultural divide that we hear so much about actually isn't that deep.

Poll after poll, focus group after focus group show that the vast majority of Americans -- the Silent Majority, perhaps? -- are pragmatic, independent and un-partisan in their basic views. They are eclectic: "liberal" on some matters, "conservative" on others. They are not slaves to that hobgoblin of small minds, consistency. On fundamental matters such as belief in equality for women and minorities, or how large a role religion and family play in individuals' lives, the consensus among voters is broad. Unlike other times in U.S. history, there simply are no issues such as slavery, Prohibition or Vietnam that inspire violent protest or social disruption.

However, no matter what, God has made his decision and therefore social conservatives just have to have faith that it was the right one.

A Most Peculiar Editorial

2008-11-05T13:40:00.000-08:00

Lame title, I know... but let's just get down and dirty to one of the more peculiar editorials out there today:

His triumph was decisive and sweeping, because he saw what is wrong with this country: the utter failure of government to protect its citizens. He offered a government that does not try to solve every problem but will do those things beyond the power of individual citizens: to regulate the economy fairly, keep the air clean and the food safe, ensure that the sick have access to health care, and educate children to compete in a globalized world.

This is true, but it reeks of anger and raises a fair question: Did W fail to protect America and American citizens? I think it's a bit harsh. Where many of his policies either misguided or short sided? Yes. Is he—most likely—going to go down as one of the worst Presidents in history? Yes. But Bush did not expose this nation to harm. No a better way to say what he failed to do was that... well he failed to do anything.

Mr. Obama inherits a terrible legacy. The nation is embroiled in two wars — one of necessity in Afghanistan and one of folly in Iraq. Mr. Obama’s challenge will be to manage an orderly withdrawal from Iraq without igniting new conflicts so the Pentagon can focus its resources on the real front in the war on terror, Afghanistan.

Obama was not elected to fix or end Iraq. For Obama's political sake, I hope he realizes this.

The campaign began with the war as its central focus. By Election Day, Americans were deeply anguished about their futures and the government’s failure to prevent an economic collapse fed by greed and an orgy of deregulation. Mr. Obama will have to move quickly to impose control, coherence, transparency and fairness on the Bush administration’s jumbled bailout plan.

A harsh critique of W... but the Times is on the right path here. Obama was elected to fix the economy. But unlike Paul Krugman, the NYT editorial board doesn't totally get it.

Climate change is a global threat, and after years of denial and inaction, this country must take the lead on addressing it. The nation must develop new, cleaner energy technologies, to reduce greenhouse gases and its dependence on foreign oil.
Mr. Obama also will have to rally sensible people to come up with immigration reform consistent with the values of a nation built by immigrants and refugees.
There are many other urgent problems that must be addressed. Tens of millions of Americans lack health insurance...

This editorial is exactly what Obama should not listen to and HAS to avoid when he takes office. Obama needs to realize that he was elected to fix the economy—not Iraq, not immigration, not education, not energy—and to a certain extent health care. So why is the New York Times calling for Obama to leave Iraq, bring about immigration policy changes, fix the environment, and change energy policy?

Because the New York Times doesn't get it. They're too busy believing that Obama has this huge mandate to change everything W has done and fix everything he didn't bother to deal with. This would be a mistake. Those are issues you deal with as time moves on. And these were the issues that prevented John Kerry and Al Gore from being elected.

The New York Times is calling for Obama to be ambitious and to tackle a buch of issues quickly. This would be a mistake. There is a lot to be done, but slow and steady wins the race. If Obama can come in and do something about the economy, then he'll have the political capital to fix everything the New York Times wants. But to waste his political capital on something like, oh, climate change or immigration reform, would be a gigantic mistake since there is a good chance nothing would get done. And as we saw with W; once you burn your political capital, it ain't ever coming back.

So much to blog... editorals first

2008-11-05T09:08:00.000-08:00

First congratulations to Barack Obama for yesterday's victory over John McCain to be come the President elect of the United States.

So what does this mean? Where to start? Let's look at editorials first.

What's interesting is that they focus on race... which isn't all that shocking until you realize, they the media ignored race throughout most of this election cycle.

From the Chicago Tribune:

Obama’s victory is one of those events that reveal how far the nation has traveled. When he was born in 1961, African-Americans risked death merely to register to vote in some Southern states. The pivotal civil rights and voting rights laws had yet to be enacted. Yet today, the nation is willing to entrust its future to a man whose father was black. His election is a moving vindication of the ideals on which this nation was founded...

Most Americans are ready to give Obama a chance to show he can deliver needed improvements. The financial crisis has also made them open to ideas they would not have considered before. But their motivation is pragmatic, not ideological, and the new president will be judged on results rather than intentions.

And from the LA Times:

By any measure, this is a monumental day in our nation's history. African Americans are rightly proud. The brutal facts of black existence -- slavery, segregation and the stunting of social and political ambition -- have dashed the hopes of black progress time and again. The election of Barack Obama symbolizes the resurrection of hope and the restoration of belief in a country that has often failed to treat its black citizens as kin. For millions of blacks abandoned to social neglect and cultural isolation, Obama's words and vision have built a bridge back into the American family.

And then the BBC:

Back in June, on the night when he finally saw off the challenge from Hillary Clinton, his celebration speech made no reference to his historic racial first, and noticeably he dedicated his victory to his white grandmother.

Throughout the campaign, Mr Obama has emphasised his whiteness as much as his blackness. The president-elect understood one of the great paradoxes of the civil rights era.
While it helped pave the way for his ultimate success, it also made it more difficult for northern candidates, like him, to win the presidency.

And I leave with one of the most condescending pieces of crap journalism ever written. As only the Brits can do:

They did it. They really did it. So often crudely caricatured by others, the American people yesterday stood in the eye of history and made an emphatic choice for change for themselves and the world. Though bombarded by a blizzard of last-minute negative advertising that should shame the Republican party, American voters held their nerve and elected Barack Obama as their new president to succeed George Bush. Elected him, what is more, by a clearer majority than one of those bitter narrow margins that marked the last two elections.

Thanks but no thanks guys. We did something you guys could only dream about.

Taking the Day Off

2008-11-04T14:59:00.000-08:00

Not a ton of policy to talk about on the purest political day of the year (or of every four years).

I will say, no matter who wins, both Obama and McCain—from a policy position—should be much better than George W. Bush. I'll tackle Bush from a policy perspective in the next few days.

However, I will say this about election day... voters should not have to wait very long in line. There should not be long queues and hour plus waits for people to vote. This only encourages and creates disenfranchisement. So from a policy perspective, we should do what is necessary to keep those lines fairly short.