It is only a question of, "How Successful?"

I take the opportunity as history is unfolding to create the case for how to answer "how successful will Colorado's legalization be?"

We are almost at the end of the first quarter.  The preliminary figures for the state indicate $2.1 million per month Recreational and about $1.4 million per month for medicinal.

Therefore, , Governor H. et. al., who opposes the purpose or promise, and cautiously enforces the will of the people and law, put out an estimate that the right was quick to glom upon saying that $137million is the revised estimate, not the projected $578million!

Disappointed??  

Okay, so lets review the situation from the point of view of a Business Broker.

(A) Dispensaries and Recreational Dispensaries have the unique problem of being required by law to run an all cash business... only now being solved.  If taxation requires compliance, but compliance means not opening up a Federally Insured account, then we have a reporting problem by definition!

Business operators famously keep poor records.  They are involved in servicing their clients, meeting customer demand, and coordinating vendors.  So, why do we expect the skill sets include math, accounting, or record keeping?  

My experience reviewing hundreds of business opportunities over the years suggest that of the whole: 80% are well meaning but sloppy or contain some small errors; 10% are well kept; and 10% are just outright sad.

I think you must realize that most business owners are working ten hour days almost every day of every year.  No matter how well intentioned, mistakes can be made.  I would put bad actors at about 1 ~ 3% depending on how you define "bad."

Now try doing the whole thing as a cash basis accounting, with only cash.  That adds burden at least, and for comparison if you legally compelled McDonalds, Verizon or Comcast to have to operate that way they would declare Bankruptcy overnight.

(B) January sales figures?  Ever hear of "seasonally adjusted?"  We have endless data about how the cold weather this winter has reduced retail activities across the board.  This is only mitigated by the pent up demand, but there is also novelty effect to consider.  

The pent up demand may skew the figure higher, but number of dispensaries was very limited.  The novelty is a wash-- you would have customers who were trying it out to see what happens, and you would have regular clients possibly holding back to see how "safe" the situation appears.  Therefore, the Season and travel prohibitions (not to mention that in January most licenses for Rec hadn't been approved.... most places are getting their permits in Summer) take the most weight for the adjustment.

So if adjustments are a push, and the skew goes to "January figures," we include that January will probably in five years time be known in the business cycle of Cannabis that January is typically an average month to the mean.

(C) I was wrong, or right it doesn't matter:

1. kilv ‏@kilv Protected Tweets  Jan 21

   One store that was permitted in CO on Jan 1, '14, reported off the record that they had sold approximately $250,000 in the first two weeks.

   •  Reply 
   •  Delete 
   •  Favorite

   Collapse

   6:39 AM - 21 Jan 2014 · Details
2. kilv ‏@kilv Protected Tweets  Jan 29

   from that anecdote I estimate ~$500MM in annual tax revenues for CO directly attributable to legalization! Closer to $1BB counting knockons

    Hide conversation

   •  Reply 
   •  Delete 
   •  Favorite

   10:02 AM - 29 Jan 2014 · Details

   
   

Okay, so if there are (A) underreporting and (B) adjustments, then we have to consider the truth of how accounting and valuations work... We wont have the actual final and adjusted January '14 numbers until July of 2015!!!

TIME TO PANIC?

Oh no, this really hasn't worked out... I guess this has just been a disappointing experiment in personal freedom and individual liberty.

I relented, now I ask critics of anti-prohibition to relent and admit that actually in these government projections they have met the threshold (where the first $40 million goes to schools) for revenue to run the program, the powers that be will have surplus to spread around, and once again, because Macroeconomics is so vastly complex and so mundanely precise, is an inaccurate art; that therefore any law that pays for itself, improves freedom and liberty, and pays for other state functions-- by definition in Business is a success!

MY PREDICTION?

I am going to hang my hat on the ~$170million mark as the definition for Rec Sales Tax of success.  I will wait until July 2015 to see the whole picture, and then I will ask how the knock-on effects are calculated: employment, employees paying taxes, income generated being sent back into the economy; immigration; and other net benefits to the State.

I will point out that taken as a whole, the fuller effect, the net benefit to the economy will meet my prediction in my tweet, but again I am not that attached to how accurate my prognostication.  That isn't my job!

The state probably has included to some effect the above considerations, but the willingness to structure the dialogue of a government program that not only pays for itself, but earns, as one of disappointment and failure is a non-starter for what will inevitably become the very early days of a multi billion dollar legitimate industry!

Peace goes perfect with Savings

I was unsure if I would even comment on "Silly Season," at all this year, but here is one man's humble opinion:

(A) Republicans-Romney-Ryan-R-r-r...

An 8 page plan, half of which is a critique of the Administration, where four competing ideas, are assured to us to somehow compose the basis to run an entire nation, is the only "detail," released by the R team.  The rest seems code, insider talk, and self reference for we dont like the current president-- for whatever reason.

Realistically, another "r" word, cutting taxes, reducing deficits, and balancing budgets appeals to the fiscal conservative in me, except that the fiscal conservative knows math, and economics.  This strategy will wreck Social Security, Obamacare, and probably eventually destroy medicare and other long standing social networks necessary for an empathetic and humanistic society-- unless there is fundamental change.

Ad naseums of trickle down sunsets from 1970 ~ 2008 are enough for me, just because the Republican says it (over and over) doesn't mean it somehow becomes true over time.  Just ask Romney's sons.

Republicans in general halted a majority of ordinary congressional business for the last two years-- dump the bums!


(B) Obama Administration, and Dems

Occupying the center on most rational issues, Romney has no room to create differentiations, and as they both agree on a majority of the Corporate Agenda-- Obama has come up very short on the progressive radar.

Over the four years he has made proforma moves long in the works, and the cornerstone of his efforts, especially when the Democrats held majority powers,  becomes Obamacare.

On that criteria alone, there was literally no difference between Romney, who created a similar program for Mass., and the President.  Only Romney pretending to be some different version of himself created some platform to repeal Obamacare-- easier said than done, and a total waste of energy, because it throws out many babies with the bathwater.

The major issues this election are Liberty, Freedom and Peace.


(C) Liberty, Freedom, and Peace

Not discussed, but actually alluded to by Obama on his recent appearance on The Daily Show, are the lifting of Emergency Powers and restoration of habeus corpus.  Without these actions by the executive we are still electing to be compared to the best of fascist regimes, not the best of all human governance systems.  We must restore the balance of powers, and lift the permanent state of war.

Freedom to start business, be lent money upon a equitable basis, and to succeed.  Onerous tax systems, fee and regulatory, and ambiguous State powers to assist Sole Proprietors, Small Businesses, and entrepreneurs all are part of the sluggish recovery.

Common sense and easy to understand regulations are necessary for entry, but then additional reorganization of the SBA and CofC systems to help all the incoming generations of highly distracted, creative and slightly entitled Americans are only secondary to furthering easy access to proper community development loans by the banks we allowed to survive past 2009 by making them loans as taxpayers with faith in the powers that be.

Yet, now the banks restored, have tightened guidelines, so the rich grow richer, and the businesses, and taxpayers, continue to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.  Where are our new business loans?  Where are the mortgage streamlines?  Where are the forclosure forestallments?

Somehow the banks feel that their request for $6 trillion in 2008 was more imperative than the last person they just turned down for the foreclosure prevention.  The sense of corporate citizenship needed to be a part of the conditions for TARP funds.

But it all belies the pretext, which is we rely upon perpetual escalation, warfare, and conflict in order to justify our War Economy.  Neither candidate is offering a vision of Peace, pax americana, or otherwise, where we save Billions by suing for peace, and restoring multilateral order as organized by International Laws and standards.


CONCLUSION

When the US grows up and more nimbly interacts with it's allies to defend our allies, then a huge peacetime savings will accrue.  Interestingly, the $5 trillion deficit most economists agree the RR "5-points" would incur, I estimate could be saved once a complete peace has been negotiated.

Except neither candidate is talking about restoring Liberty, Freedom, or Peace!

I already voted, and refrain from endorsing either candidate.  God save the USA, and may we vote without consideration of party.  VOTE!

Hague Gaddafi

What we are witnessing in the Mid-East today is full of hope and promise, yet signals the beginning of a long road for each of these societies filled with peril and danger.

To that end we begin to see the result of a dictator of convenience to oil consuming nations, thoroughly ensconced in the best soldiers, weapons, and hiding places in his capitol city bitterly beginning his attempt at counter-revolution-- like that picture of the little fish trying to eat the big fish! Except, the big fish is turning around to swim at them and say, "I'm gonna git you sukka!"

Dont worry little fish, stay true to your purpose, and next thing you know the big fish is back to where he once was... moments away from being eaten-- just the opposite direction.

We are witnessing the promise of the world wide web truly materializing-- democratization through information.

In the Reagan era, they called this The Information Age. A bit overstated, but undeniable, too.

When they made the Internet something that anyone, who happened to have a computer, residence, phone line, and subscription, could access we heard of all the exciting potentials.

In this day and age of the $100 computer, multi-function hand held devices with wireless internet access, and the general saturation of technology over time the other shoe has begun it's foot fall.

So, this simple suggestion to the West in general and USA in specific from your humble observer:

This is the opportunity in clearest daylight for the USA and Obama Administration to back the Court of International Justice in Hague, it's processes, and all that it represents for the future of International Justice.

Obviously, events must play themselves out, but when Gaddafi is captured or escapes to his island hideaway, ala Dr. No from James Bond, we Americans must agree that The Hague Court was set up to deal with dictators actively killing their citizens in popular revolt. Where else should we have him tried as a consistent War Criminal and human rights abuser?

That move would continue the momentum we see for transparency, democracy, and set the model for future dictators subject to popular rejection. It would also reverse yet another backward Bush-era policy.

Silly Season: Open for Hunting

Dems have always had constituent group politics: gays, latinos, blacks, labor, etc.

Those groups, or factions, dont always agree, and often dont get everything they wanted, either.

This flexibility is something the Pubs are not known for; if anything they are know as being in lock-step, on-message, and in-synch-- a real machine. Except now, they really dont agree with one another on how best to proceed, and Boehner may risk (political) life and limb trying to get the stump out of the thresher-- to use a farming metaphor.

In other words, they now actually have sub-groups!

How Boehner deals with the transition to a group process format for these expressed interest will be measured by the body count in the 2012 elections. Try focusing on that instead of screwing Obama, and by the transitive property the nation as well-- First reason, it's what you guys did last time you were "in power."

Lest we should forget that neither party wants to talk about the real pain points, and so most of what is being fed as the primary proceedings of the political dialogue in DC really amounts to irrelevant misdirection to keep the interested confused and the rest of us bored with all of the lying!

A New FHA for Consumer Credit: Deficit Neutral and No New Taxes Required

QUALIFIED FEDERAL CONSUMER LOAN PROGRAM PROPOSAL
(CLP) 1-50K

Premiss. In today’s economic reality debt is an admissable “sin,” that is not only permitted, rather it is encouraged on the whole by church and state, so simply we are told to spend, buy, and consume... and this we do.

Debt is a modern reality for every individual, family, and even local government!

As such, we must see that an eighteen year old today looking to become a “college educated,” independent person must then be admittting to entree of no less than $50,000.00 of debt ceiling in a very humble estimate of “standard,” education.

If we are expected to have an “average” college level of training, and earn a “reasonable” salary, then we should pretty much be planning with debt as a reality, not an “escape, or emergency.”

By dealing with debtor’s thinking only in crisis type situation we create and engage in unrealistic, non-methodological, and, often, rash decisions and decision making processes.

This applies to the emblematic purchases, such as mementos, and translates all the way through to extraordinary purchases (home, auto, business, etc.).

So, even college educated, especially the most recently graduated, speaking as the last ‘wave’ (or two) of persons graduated in a similarly desperate Employment Situation, I was similarly disappointed for many reasons (1995, not being the best day to enter into the “economy,” laden with debt loads that at this vantage seem simple and easy) after graduating college. See Affordability.



Imagining a Consumer Loan Program. The image of a pup-tent... Four tent-pegs and a tent post (or two):


Peg One. Using “Sallie Mae-style Rules,” herein referred to as the 1-50K (that’s one dash fifty kay), would require the first fifty thousand in debt of any individual American Consumer to be treated with the forbearance, interest rate restrictions, and fair regulation and rules treatment, similar to if it was a student loan.

The proposal here may potentially include minor Consumer Loan Protection adjustments and improvements to the Sallie Mae Rules, but it does not and should not affect the actual Sallie Mae Program.

A new entity, or possibly branch or division of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is proposed to be sponsored by the government for these purposes, as it relates to individual debt;

(A) Government Guarantee to it’s citizens (for that first $50,000)

(B) Regulate the micro-loan ($1 to $50,000 dollars US) markets, and to a lesser extent simplify the small business lending process ($50,001 to $250,000 dollars US) for micro (under $250,000) business loans

(C) Work with existing regulatory and oversight bodies to ensure consumer protections

(D) Independent oversight to expand recommendations for counsel with various regulatory and economic agencies


Government backing will create a secondary market to resell pools of bonds like Sallie, Freddy and Fannie. In this recommendation, we strongly urge the oversight of regulations and the simplicity and transparency of rules, and suggest this could become a means for clarifying, and making positive change in the bond and securities markets, extant.

Micro-loans, those under fifty-thousand dollars, to individuals, as secured by real property, tangible property, or without security are all considered equivalent in this regard, and refer to those US citizens to whom there is such indebtedness, often above and beyond just this loan amount.

I imagine that if this program and set of reforms were so implemented, by having no required loan minimums, we may expect this provision would create a swarm of micro credit availability and lending programs.

Working in concert with existing laws agencies and institutions, new modified and streamlined rules would allow for a massive wave of refinancing of consumer debt.

In some cases, individual credit may be extended.

This proposal amounts to a non-bankruptcy proposal to the American citizen, and an admission by it’s leaders’ that the economic policies for the last decades have not (i) improved affordability, (ii) fully redressed income or prosperity gaps, nor (iii) have fully redressed income discrimination or dispairities.

Debt is unfortunately inevitable, and we (apparently continue to) follow the example of our leaders.


Peg Two. Consumer Rights, Responsibilities, and Limitations

(A) Interest. Your interest rate may not be usurious. Rates are here proposed to have a regulated minimum of 2.5% and a maximum of 7.5%.

(B) Credit. Your “credit rating” can be calculated by a monkey. Five percentage points between 2.5 and 7.5 percent, create five categories of credit-worthiness:

a. Real Estate Attached and Full Documentation (Only)
b. Tangible Property Attached and Full Documentation
c. Tangible Property Attached and Low Documentation
d. Signature Only and Full Documentation
e. Signature Only and Low Documentation

(C) Limits. Your Loan Limit will be one factor where affordability and litmus tests can come into play. (It’s a government-backed loan, not a guarantee that someone will lend.)

(D) Tax Deduction. Any Interest paid on these loans is a write-off, so long as the item purchased isn’t also being depreciated in the tax year interest is written off.

(E) Business. Aside from a shot in the arm with refreshed credit sources, and credit availability, (S, SE, Sole Proprietorship, and 1099) small businesses and contractors will get an additional allowance of benefit in their own category, and these three elements of credit availability and liquidity combined should act as a serious stimulus for Main Street.

(F) Families. Any individual who claims any (one or more) dependant will automatically qualify for an additional $5000.00 credit limit.

(G) Responsibility. Although any Individual or business may refinance the first amount of debt ant any time, without pre-payment penalties, the debt may only be paid-off, and cannot be discharged through Bankruptcy.


Central Tent Pole. Insurance.

In a counter-balance to the risk of “no BK,” or ‘bankruptcies,’ to the consumer there is, aside from the potential for a secondary market in the government backed securities, another mitigating factor to the macro investors, as well as the creditors themselves.

There needs to be a tent pole in place that assures there is a sound investment proposal, otherwise this becomes a government-propped scheme, as opposed to a government operated trust on behalf of the Consumer.

Although no “insurance requirement” is here recommended to be used as a factor for making any one loan, an “insurance component,” that would be available to be opted in to any loan at any time, and in accordance with Federal and State rules, that allows for the expense of servicing to cover the costs of an insurance premium that benefits the Debt-Holder.

These policies do not have to be that simple, but they should follow some rules of the road, and is here recommended can not add to the expense of having taken the loan.

First off, according to this recommendation, like the loans have no pre-payment penalties, these insurance policies can be bought back by the consumer. After a debt is satisfied, the Debt Holder, must offer the consumer a fair right to redeem the Policy being held on his or her life.

Further, that right (1. to satisfy the debt, and 2. to retain the benefit of policy) is best if it also transfers to one’s legatees, heirs, and/or estate tax free, and no undue delay may be created by the Debt Holder.

Finally, a Debt Holder will be required to follow certain time periods that describe normal and requisite response times from Consumer to retrieve such a benefit.

However, in the event of a default, or the death of any consumer, after following procedure in concert with appropriate notification, waiting and response times, the Debt Holder may be considered in first position to discharge all costs against the benefits of any policy so entrusted, before transferring any fully accounted and audited remainder to the Consumer’s legatees, heirs, and/or estate tax free.

By including this insurance component with the government backed facility, (A) we have a secondary guarantee to have any consumer debt satisfied, (B) we have mitigated risk, so justifying the limits on interest rates and fees.

As Mortgage Insurance does for FHA Loans, so for the Debentures and Debts this private Life insurance market will act to mitigate risks posed by individual Consumers acting as borrowers, and secondarily will have the collective benefit of mitigating risks of recoupment of principle. Overall, this should be very attractive to investors, particularly if these debentures remain dollar denominated.


Peg Three. Resultant Savings.

If any of this remains unclear, for whatever reason, just do some basic research and consumer financial education and find out the difference between a typical credit card loan = a negatively amortized revolving loan with fees and rates between 6.99 and 29.99%, and the proposal here to make a flat rate of forbearable interest, fee restrictions, and a rate range from 2.50 and 7.50%-- this will save the average American family $1152 per year!
-
Just three ideas and a comment, from what would certainly be an eventual plethora as a result of these recommendations, of ways to improve the Consumer outcome in dealing with Affordability and Debenture, as a net benefit from these rule ideas, for this peg of the tent that may all be simultaneously executed:

(A) In Loan Work-outs, refinances, and/or other incentivized restructuring programs, a tax-free savings account (under rules similar to the HSAs [see Health Savings Account]) may be set up on behalf of the Consumer as a “Learning to Save,” qualification for any business that would so seek to be qualified. That tax free account would eventually revert to the Consumer, after all debts have been satisfied. Lawyers, insurance Agents, Brokers, as well as Credit Counselors, Not for Profit Debt Agencies, et. al. would be ideal candidates to assist in this program by becoming tested, qualified and bonded as a credentialed, licensed and recognized Trustee.

(B) In consumer credit devices, a similar tax-free savings account (under rules similar to the HSAs) may be set up as an incentive to qualify for lower interest rates (still have to be between 2.5 and 7.5% however), and may also with certain restrictions be set up as an overdraft protection mechanism.

(C) After a debt has been satisfied, any remainder due the consumer, with or without any insurance component(s), may be set into a new or existing tax-free savings account.

(D) Comment: Creditors are here recommended to be fully compliant as Trustees and meet additional requirements to participate in housing the principle sums for individual Consumers' Savings Trusteeship accounts that qualify for the FDIC sponsored savings program(s), preferable to local banks, Credit Unions, and Bonded Agents already insured by FDIC.


Peg Four. Business.

Loan Limits here proposed: for individual are $1 ~ $45,000 and then an additional $5,000 if you claim any dependant.

If you file Jointly, then as a couple your combined maximum limit for tax-deductable interest payments on qualified consumer loans is $90,000 and then an additional $5,000 for your first, and second $5,000 if you claim any dependants numbering 2 or above.

If you file as a Sole Proprietor, SE, S-Corp, or 1099, then under additional rules you may apply for “SBA Rules,” or 51-250K (that’s fifty-one dash two-hundred fifty kay [as in loan limits from $51 ~ 250 thousands]), which only should have in common with SBA Loans (1) they’re for Business Purposes, and (2) the government acts as backer of last resort.


Otherwise, only a Board of Advisors role is recommended by this proposal to be held something like at an annual meeting between this Consumer Loan Program (CLP) and the Small Business Administration to coordinate and harmonize lending rules would seem to be potentially necessary.

Same Interest Rate Limits as the first tent peg.

Same 5 credit categories as the first tent peg.

Same tax deduction, same everything, except (i.) loan limits go higher (up to $250,000), but may be slightly more restrictive, and (ii.) may potentially have pre-payment penalties, or other restrictions.

Cash flow of the business, credit worthiness, and net worth should all come into play, but ideally not be so inflexible as to stifle our nations Entrepreneurs from getting a second, third, or even fourth chance at success, the pursuit of happiness, and creation of Jobs!


Conclusion to this proposal. Imaging Purpose; The Second Tent Pole.

The government must act as debtor of last resort in order to encourage the Lending Institutions, and the Financial Industry in general, to effectuate a new game plan, which better enables and ennobles our American Citizenry—A Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—all three things that Lending can do when capital is properly employed.

This proposal is intended to be tax neutral, and highly stimulative to the economy.

Finally, I suggest a slogan to this Agency, Consumer Loan Program, or what-have you, and it reads simply:

Indifference and Forbearance


To whit a philosophy:

This agency in its oversight shall be indifferent to the “whom,” and focus only on the ‘what and how’ in order to protect the consumer, detect fraud and abuse, and foster equal lending practices at the micro-Business and individual Consumer levels.

The objective of this agency is to promote the free flow of capital investment to the farthest reaches of our economy.

Policy and procedure are the foundation, Rule of Law the building, and the marketplace of American Citizens shall be the people whom would so enjoin to make Consumer Loans.

This agency shall preserve the mission to forbear, for the Government must lead by example, and that purpose is: (i) a tolerant and quiet strength with efficiency in motion, (ii) an unyielding belief in Americans as a group and as individuals, (iii) and straightforwardness of purpose.

To bring to bear the proper practices available to the Consumer on the economy.

And, to create opportunities for the American Citizenry in their pursuits of Life, Liberty and happiness.

Remember 1994

We in CA are on the verge of a historical change where the ethically and economically unsound National stance on Hemp may soon begin its final chapter. I would like to offer a compare/contrast for those who are seeking to #Pass19:

I volunteered for Initiative 622 in Washington State in 1994 mostly giving the campaign free access to K.A.O.S. shows I was involved in, and in composing OpEds for broadcast and publication (almost entirely in the CPJ [Cooper Point Journal]).

I tried to look up last night what the final vote count was, but I just recall we got hammered. So, what, do I recall, happened (or more accurately what went wrong);

(1) Message. 622 focused on I. Industrial, II. Medicinal, and III. Recreational usage all being simultaneously legal. This was before CA landmark 1996 Prop 216 passed. It was too much too soon for such an "omni" approach, but now we have seen that for over 14 years Medicinal Cannabis has been legal-- society continues unharmed, if not improved.

(2) Organization. WA 622 had no real backers in the legitimate world. Mostly individuals making a good effort (and arguably laying the ground work as the frontlinesmen and women for CA 216) in organized chaos, where the adjective "organized" is, from what I witnessed, generous. On the contrary, Prop 19 seems to be enjoying major support from Labor, Law Enforcement, Religious, and other "real world" groups.

(3) Backing. 622 was social science at the state capitol. 19 was one of three major ideas from the leading groups with over 16 years of experience, 14 years of success, and better than a dozen years of profits from the result of that success! Although there are small contributers, having Lee's Oaksterdam as a backstop (as opposed to the NORML or Herrer initiatives that didn't gather enough signatures, but could have also conceivably had the same effect phenomenally) is very important!

(4) Continuity. 622 was like the Zen koan, "when a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?" There was no real community of beneficiaries. There were drug dealers and users, and that was all the opposition had to point out. And they won. Now, in CA with Prop 19, there is a network of patients, lawyers, activists, industrialists, not to mention local and state government(s) who have seen the benefits of this nascent industry ready to burgeon, blossom, and recover from it's manufactured retardation by almost seventy years of criminalization.

(5) Timing. Both the major parties are showing up this election year as moral debtors: Republicans are asking us to take them back, even though almost none of what they propose is any different from how we got into this economic situation; and the Democrats are typically diffusive and lackluster in handling major issues-- gradual change we can eventually expect technical results from (as opposed to "change we can believe in"). Our state is leading the nation, but unfortunately this time it's in disastrous budgetary management.

Again, nationally, by continuing unsound Bushian fiscal policy, Democrats are arguing for a ~$3T unfunded tax break, while the Republicans are arguing for a ~$4T unfunded tax break by extending the previously unfunded tax breaks instituted during the Republican control of House, Senate and Executive. Both fiddling as Rome burns, and both, as usual, talking not listening to each other to fashion COMPROMISE.

Our state can go from worst to first, regardless of what Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dumb do in DC, by reversing the effects of the originally state led ban on hemp. It was state led in 1931, so let it be state led again in 2010! There is no constitutional argument for or against the ban. As it stands today, the US Government continues to outlaw a multi-trillion dollar industry that would lead to major solutions for our current major problems!


WHAT HASN'T CHANGED

FARMS. Hemp will allow under-utilized and marginal farmlands to be productive without major water demands, giving the small farmer a fighting chance.

FAMILIES. By eliminating criminality, arbitrary and capricious arrests of predominantly minorities will become that much less prevalent; Our heroic enforcement workers can focus on legitimate threats that undermine our collective safety; Our state can restore funding for social netting that has all but vanished; and people will be put back to work!

JOBS. I talked to one Union official off the record, and their number is ~40,000 Union jobs within a year. I had speculated with the entire Hemp Industry coming back to life the number to be ~100,000, and either way this tracks with the rule of thumb that for every 1 Union job another ~1.5 are eventually created. No one has a crystal ball on this one, but in effect California should enjoy a major first mover advantage when Prop 19 passes!

TAXES. Cities that allow Industrial Hemp and Recreation Sales will gain, Counties that create taxes and regulations will gain, and the State non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office has estimated an annual tax boon of ~$1.4BB for our bankrupted state. This is a sorely needed dose of the cure.

REGULATION. By creating rules and regulations, we will enable all citizens greater liberty, by creating avenues of access. Further, for those of us who feel that Business needs clear and simple rules, we can only hope that our input is asked for at the appropriate juncture. Regardless, by bringing into light the dark economy, which is presently CAs #1 crop, we can expect greater civility-- a nice way of saying the International Drug Cartels will have to line up behind citizens to get licenses, permits, and then pay proper taxes, like the rest of us!

Let's be clear: (a) No one is saying people under 21 should have access. As it is, they already have as good or better access to the recreational use (with no clear comprehension of the commercial uses) of cannabis than to alcohol. (b) No one is saying it is okay to be under the influence of cannabis and work, drive, or operate heavy machinery. Again, think of how we tax and regulate alcohol. (c) Although there is some confusion by medicinal users on this issue, no one will be able to bring the provisions of 215 under the taxation or restrictions imposed onto non-medicinal users by the passing of 19.

I await proper logical rebuttal, but have not heard one for over 16 years!

The Shame of Big Oil

Here is the rhetorical question: Imagine if you will the Blob from the 1950's movie of the same title, and it was sweeping the streets removing only the gas stations, refineries, offices, and production facilities of every oil company that existed in five states.

How much money would the oil industry collectively spend to stop the Blob? How fast would that private action (without any help [or probably permission] from the Government-at-large) be done?

Now, if instead of "blob," we read massive uncontrolled oil gusher; we replace the streets with the Gulf of Mexico; and instead of oil companies we read: every fisherman, much of the tourism, a lot of recreational dollars, and the future health of millions of people-- not to mention the immense and incalculable devastation to our aquatic creatures and ecosystems-- we must wonder.

Is it not in every oil companies interest to assist in solving this problem ASAP so as to be able to have opportunity at future access to public waters?

As for BP: It was different to hear within the first days of this tragedy, that BP will honor all reasonable economic claims. That said, sending claimants out to help with the clean up and containment without proper safety (equipment, training, resources, etc.) is in some ways worse, because then they shall have several claims as a class action: (1) economic, and (2) health.

It seems there will probably be many levels of costs for BP, Halliburton, et. al.: (A) immediate, (B) long-term, (C) Criminal claims, (D) Civil penalties, and (E) future opportunity costs.

I also want to make the statement that this situation is not as advertised or spun, "Obama's Katrina." Bush got a four day notice, and if memory serves did nothing for an additional four or so days. When he did it was to reassure people, as opposed to acknowledge the tragedy. That tin ear populism was what created (along with catch phrases like, "heckuva job Brownie,") the sink hole of political legitimacy for Bush.

Pubs and haters praying for this to suddenly be Obama's Katrina are going with the old 'argumentum ad naseum,' again, but more startling is their admission that in this (and on several other issues like the economy) matter their last leader with a fully stacked Pub Congress flubbed on issue after issue. I think with the foot falling and the Tea Parties it is clear that the Pubs havent gotten out of circular firing squad formation quite yet....

This situation was precipitated by the Bushies, and the only problem I have with Obama (Administration) is that they did not catch the paper tiger collusion between MMS and Big Oil before it came to this.

So, now as far as I am concerned, we the people must ask the oil companies to verify and prove the statements they made in writing to our governmental bodies in order to acquire permits. If they claim this situation happens only once every 30 years, then they must show they have what it takes to either improve techniques and/or possess the technological wherewithal to mitigate even the slightest damage to our public lands and natural resources.

As far as I am concerned, even the fishermen are missing the bigger picture: they should not just ask for a years wages, or another job... What about charging wholesale prices for every pound of shrimp, dolphins, fish, crabs, clams, crawdads, mollusk, etc. that has been "eaten" by this blob; and what about all the future costs for the billions of creatures that have been aborted in this man made catastrophe facilitated by a chain of fools.

Finally, it is hard to write this knowing I am on track to have to fill up at the gas station in about a week. We are all conspirators at some level of this tragedy, but imagine how much this will cost the tax payers total. It is probably a very incalculable number like say $208,972,340,000.00, just to pick one out of the hat. We have dozens of these rigs out there. If we would just spend that $208,972,340,000.00 x 12 to facilitate electric cars, improved clean technology, solar, and wind, then would we not be in this mess when the next one is due in thirty years or less?

Strategy, Tactics, and Terrorism

I will make this brief.

The idea that we can stop terrorists who seem to be coming in via London, Amsterdam, or other foreign ports into America to set off havoc (and bombs) by essentially removing civil liberties here at home beggars belief.

A phrase that would have been heresy just several years ago, but is now on the TV-machine a lot is "security theater."

Now in my mind this would be the staging area for a secure zone, but in fact means staging an act which is designed to lend the appearance of greater safety.

We still haven't completely implemented the work of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Republicans continue to play petty politics by not conferring a TSA Chief, and meanwhile New safety measures appear arbitrary... I mean here.

The simple Strategical guidance I would offer is simple: We must shift from a Reactionary Defense to a Proactive Defense; We must shift from a Nation-State Invasion Model to a Sectarian Counter-terror Model.

Easier said than done!

That said, Proactive Defense looks more like what the British accomplished in 2005 with the liquid bombers; or the French have been dealing with since Algerian Independence in 1962. A lot of very advanced police work!

Our current reactionary basis has us looking at areas where the opponents last struck. As they say in investing, "past performance does not guarantee future results." This is backwards hindsight mentality.

The balance is to get international cooperation on improved intelligence techniques that somehow maintains reasonable personal privacy and functional civil liberties.

As for our wholesale invasion of places where terrorists live, well that is as delusional as the idea that Terrorists will somehow destroy the Freedom we enjoy in the West.

Our freedoms, our wealth, and our model of social change is not something that people plan on giving up on, and like any good product or service-- it is in high demand!

Ours is not a natural state of governance, but a logical outcrop as a result from hard earned lessons and wars of the past. Ours is the best model, for now, and people basically like Freedom, Liberty and Justice. So the terrorists can't expect random acts of havoc to remove or somehow dethrone this truth.

On the other hand there are dissenters and at the harshest end bad actors, those who would commit terrorist acts, probably in any major nation-state in the world. It becomes a question of what is aspirational and what is operational as to what threats are indeed real to human safety and liberty.

So, to invade yet another country to ensure freedom and democracy is so 20th century, and a very proven failed idea from not just a budgetary, but a benefit-cost, point of view.

Like NASA, our defense and offense needs to get more focused, accurate, and scale appropriate to live within their means.

Keeping Score

Trying not to get totally sidelined by the Obameter!


My God I wish all the Presidents had one of these... It would have been amazing to watch the Bushes break promises, or see more clearly Reagan and Clinton's agendas.


This is truly our first 21st Century President, now being held accountable to every campaign promise, in the golden light of free speech and public access. That is a good definition of transparency, and certainly everything Obama's Administration does to address this extant challenge will set precedent.


So lets see the score card for what it really is:


TOTAL PROMISES:
515

PERCENTAGE ADDRESSED (Jan ~ Oct [so about ten months]):
36% (185/515)

PERCENTAGE ADDRESSED KEPT:
25% (47/185)

PERCENTAGE ADDRESSED COMPROMISED:
6% (12/185)

PERCENTAGE ADDRESSED BROKEN:
4% (7/185)

PERCENTAGE ADDRESSED STALLED:
6% (12/185)

PERCENTAGE IN THE WORK (ADDRESSED and TOTAL):
ADDRESSED; 58% (107/185)
TOTAL; 21% (107/515)

***

Now lets assign a number of time to this data set: we could argue that it has only been ten months, and 10/48 is about 21%. For simplicity lets say that some political capital has been expended and that this report card is emblemic of about one years worth of future work load-- or 25%.

Lets assume a similar rate of success/failure per annum:

9.125% KEPT
2.33% COMPROMISED
1.35% BROKEN
20.777% IN PROCESS


We then get this matrix:

1 2 3 4
KEPT 47 94 141 188
COMPROMISED 12 24 36 48
BROKEN 7 14 21 28
STALLED 12 24 36 48
PROCESS 107 214 281 203
UNSTARTED 330 145 0 0


Which translates to:

By year three all promises will have been addressed. If we count compromises as promises kept thats about a 46% success rate, or without compromise about a .365 batting average-- not bad.

5.44% of promises are broken, and 9.32% are "stalled." If we assume these to be the same we come up with a cumulative 14.76% failure rate.

At this same rate of progress, assuming a re-election, adding an additional 31 promises then by year eight:


5 6 7
KEPT 235 282 329
COMPROMISED 60 72 84
BROKEN 35 42 49
STALLED 60 72 84
PROCESS 125 78 0


That would leave year eight to hammer through the 84 pieces of stalled business and run the new candidate slates.

It translates to the following baseball stats:

Kept .603
Comp .154
Broke .090
Stall .153


I know this methodology is simplistic, but to imagine a President held this accountable that someone like me can do the baseball math-- and to imagine a President who can keep his or her word 75% of the time in the light of public scrutiny-- is a good start.

New Tax Regime for California

The Commission on the 21st Century Economy released their report and recommendations - AP Release.


Notably missing were the calculations showing that their ideas would create a sustainable level of tax receipts at the 4% Business Net Receipts Tax level. The concern is that it may be a number too low that creates additional fiscal restraint, where fiscal restraint is a somewhat separate issue.


That said, the reduction of personal tax rates and small business tax rates (including an elimination of the $800 per year existence fee) yours truly is enthusiastic about (assuming the revenues would be sufficient to meet obligations)!


Further, the idea that they will simultaneously reduce the corporate tax, yet broaden the net to capture revenues generated within the state should seemingly drive new business to our state. But again there is no empirical data on offer to show anything to bolster my assumption here.


I would STRONGLY OBJECT to some final version of the recommendation to allow additional oil leases ABSENT any modernization of the oil extraction tax in line with the intent of the voted down (after a massive advertising blitz against) Prop 87. The commission recommends, "The state should permit new oil leases with royalty revenues going to a reserve fund," but if we are still taxing oil at 1.5% where most every nation and state is more towards 5% or above, then this is really just a gift to big oil!


I havent scoured all details of the Full text , but I imagine that by the time the Democratic Congress gets done with it it will change considerably from its current academic and nescient state.


In general I hope the 70% I like and the 20% I strongly dislike will be seriously considered by the legislature, but most the recommendations are common sense (like merging the existing two tax collection agencies). One hopes the common sense elements are left more or less in tact... We'll see!

The 10% (of GDP) Solution

[UPDATED (09/25/09)]

We approach one year since the Government of George W. Bush came to the rescue of Profiteers on Wall Street to create systemic reward for failure in our market driven economy.


Yesterday, Rachael Maddow interviewed Paul Krugman, and

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

In minute five he begins describing the remedies for the current situation and I will be discussing the statements he concludes by about minute six, and among the other interesting points he made he mentioned that in order to get out of the Great Depression we had WWII which required government fiscal input of ~40% of GDP.


He went on to state that the current stimulus is only about 2.5% of GDP.


Now I am not going to spend time checking to see how accurate those numbers are this morning, and I dont agree with everything Krugman says. That disclaimer out of the way, I will say hes probably pretty accurate on those facts, and it is clear (as he also went on to say) that the political fortitude for such a stimulus plan is weak at best (mirroring the point in the one minute clip I could find above).


SO lets take those facts as a rule of thumb. Lets say the economy is twice as efficient now as it was sixty or seventy years ago; Let grant that this Severe Recession isnt exactly the same as the Great Depression (lets say for simplicity its half as bad adding the broader networking of International markets, exchanges, and trade); and we would need about ten percent of GDP in stimulus to really soar past our current problems!


Now lets assume the government has screwed the pooch with Paulson-Cheney's rescue, and that Obama's versions are still too early to call. All that, according to Krugman yesterday is about 4% of GDP (including cash for clunkers, et. al.).


[Lets apply about 1.5% of GDP for Infrastructure improvements, as my memory from first post to this update was off by 1.5%, so that means] we have about another 6% of GDP yet to spend: So thats about $858BB we can still spend.



1. Thats about the estimated cost for the full Health Reform Bill without any efficiency savings



2. My top ten wish list (inclusive of increased infrastructure and health care inclusive of efficiency savings)


or


3. A Citizens Stimulus



Here's the idea: Instead of giving more money to the moneyed interests, give to the citizens! Let's say there are about 200,000,000 individual and family tax payers; There is about $850BB to give for completion of stimulus which is about 1/4th as strong as how we escaped the Great Depression; then we have about $4250 Credit Amount per individual.



A. Order of the Allthing. In Icelandic and Nordic cultures there was the All Thing which basically reconciled all debts every year-- including debt forgiveness. So here would be the thing which I prescribe;


i. First, subtract Federal back taxes and penalties forgiven up to the Credit Amount
ii. Then from that remainder, subtract State back taxes and penalties forgiven up to the Total Credit Amount (This money goes to the States!)
iii. Next from that remainder, subtract local (real estate) tax liens and penalties forgiven up to the Total Credit Amount (This goes to the local governments!!)
iv. Finally, assuming anything is left over, any outstanding judgements, child support, or other unpaid levies would be forgiven up to that Total Credit Amount



B. The way TARP should have been applied.


i. Citizen give government the right to examine credit records (they ostensibly have this data just from Fannie-Freddie)
ii. Government confirms real outstanding balances from an official capacity via subpoena powers (thereby any institution being usurious or illegal would be committing fraud at a Federal level)
iii. Citizen has time to dispute final balances
iv. Creditor has right to re-validate claim(s)
v. Citizen may elect to have any remainder from Allthing process (above) to be applied to some or all participating Creditors to discharge debts in a class manner



C. Citizen may simply bypass this class bailout/credit restoration process and collect remainder form Allthing process.


SO think about this practically! Lets say 33% have something left over and want to participate in this settling of debts. Lets imagine who the money is owed to? In its current configuration (post-bailouts and mergers) something like 90% of all consumer debts are carried by 5 major institutions.


IF we imagine that Citibank (for instance) then recovers something to the tune of 10% of its consumer debt, doesnt that serve the same purpose of stimulus? It also relieves the consumer, and technically allows Citibank to make new loans!


FInally, if all those bailout moneys had been so applied the amount being discussed would be closer to $10K per person, and if we added the idea that mortgages could be included as direct or indirect beneficiaries to the class settlements or the use of funds by individuals who elected to bypass the settlement process some of the foreclosure and real estate market issues would have been rounded out.


You may say I am a dreamer, but I hope someday you will join me...!

Ethics 505: Health Care Solution-Koan

For all who would have an impact on treatment, care, practice, regulation, profit, expense, or any other involvement between the ancient and sacred connexion between physician and patient, they too must forswear all else for the primacy of the Hippocratic Oath, "Above all, Do No Harm."

(That includes Insurance companies, HMOs, Hospitals, Hospices, State and Fedral run Health programs... et. al.)

Why the Republicans are "Communists"

Lets start off by defining communism via copying from Wikipedia;

"Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general."

That very good sentence is not what I mean by referring to the "W" administration as Communist.

Lets shade things in a little:

When I was growing up you were a Pinko, Commie, or as Wally George would say, "Looney Liberal" if you disagreed with trickle down economics.



Aside from Appeal to the Masses approach of name calling, why would I conclude that the label of Communist, as the many Republicanistas I have known over the many decades, would call someone, group, or argument which believed in any hint of the socialist concept of nationalization of wealth, be an appropriate adjective for the Republicans?

Lets construct the argument from the Republicans and their Administration.

(1) Paulson hands in a three page proposal to solicit $750BB by using an Appeal to Fear.

(2) The congress, after some questioning, submits to this request without examining the construct of mechanisms of oversight, re-regulation, or sufficient scientific or public input by certifying the Appeal to Fear and also using an Appeal to Consequences.

(3) Paulson in turn has "bailed out" only the richest and most influential corporations without any calculation towards restoring the credit markets. In doing this he acting as proxy for the "W" Administration has nationalized more dollar for dollar (adjusted) private wealth than did Lenin in the 1917 Russian Revolution.

The main difference between the almost 90 years and two continents? Lenin nationalized means of production, and Paulson/Bush have nationalized private failures.

As sickening as that statement is alone, it in my opinion gets worse.

(4) Now it also turns out that the execs and other elite do not have to take any pay cut for their failures.

The primary argument from all the trickle downers was that through facilitating the elites, you create more jobs, and thus have a social hierarchy which is a form of meritocracy. Often the arguments from those same trickle downers was that to have a state mechanism which takes care of less fortunate, say war veterans or people with disabilities, would reward failure, incompetence, or lacksadaisy. Can you see where I am going on this one?

The beneficiaries of the decades of pro-corporation, deregulatory, and trickle down thinking has been turned on its head by those very same people who would have argued (in the face of say a $700BB package to allow individuals who earn less than $50K per annum to write down their losses [not pay taxes], be reimbursed for incompetence, and be availed of debts incurred from their poor decisions by the US government) against such a blatant avoidance of capitalist consequences.

Those who would argue that somehow the Clinton years were not in this bag of hammers are dead wrong. Clinton worked with the Knut Gingrich congress to get those lazy welfare mothers back to work, for instance. Only Jimmy Carter tried to oppose the Nixonian economic dismantling of the Great Society and the New Deal-- and he was absolutely punished (for not doing a very good job of trying to swim against the current).

So, was Paulson's appeal true or false? Probably a little of both. Yes, the sky was falling, but not in the way anyone could comprehend-- or at least anyone who truly comprehended this did not say. (On a separate note, how convenient is it of the anti-government Republicans to not only have built the largest American bureaucracy in history, but to have also spared us poor innocent citizens from the awful and complex truth involved in the facts {thus a defacto Nanny State mentality, to boot}?)

So, was Congress reasonable or irrational to take such drastic action? Probably a bit of both. On the one hand to it was fairly unpopular (especially at first blush), but to have gone into lame duck session without action could have been political poison for reelection.

So will the companies chosen to be bailed out be a good or poor move by the collective US Government? Probably a bit of both, again: On the one hand if we are truly getting preferred stock interest, corporate bonds, and other repayment guarantees, then there is a real probability (say 30 ~ 55% chance) that the US government (and hence the taxpayer) will come out ahead in dollar for dollar inflation adjusted numbers at the end of two or three decades. On the other hand it is in my estimation also a fair probability that dollar for dollar we could come out behind.

Effectively the US Government will have to now manage a portfolio. On the other hand, it will control certain of these groups (like Fannie-Freddie). All the while being the regulator for these corporations! This is a Corporatist Socialism model which in large part has been the fantasy of many of the Pro-Business "Libertarians" I have read.

They showed Soylent Green on TV yesterday, and that is taking the overreach and complicit conspiracy between corporation and government to a natural and far reaching (if not simplistic) conclusion.



My recommendations for the new administration:

(a) Re-enforce various merit based pay systems/anti-golden parachute provisions for these loans, or they will become due. The Republicans (and many Dems) are fond these days of talking about mortgages and other legal devices as if these are mutable documents. The basis of law is the immutable nature of such binding agreements in writing and witnessed. If there is going to be any flexibility in interpreting legal agreements lets start with the fact that the intention of the parties was NO GOLDEN PARACHUTES!

(b) Envigorate and expand regulatory mechanisms. Further this by making public oversight commissions to review this triangle between the US Government as Stock/Bond holder, US Government as regulator and enforcer of laws, and as shepherd of tax dollars thus invested. (Think Customer, Regulator, and Broker-- of which US Govt is now all three.)

(c) Create new rules for this new use of tax dollars to further discourage cronyism, quid pro quo, and other unsavory action which could clearly emerge over time from this unholy trinity by creating trust fund and anti-collusion rules for the US Government as Broker.

(d) Create timelines (not in terms of time, rather in terms of event mile markers) which delineate the divestment of these holdings (as Customer).

(e) Enforce the bloody rules that are on the books! And simplify them so that even the company Receptionist could theoretically blow the whistle upon detecting malfeasance or felonious behaviour!!

So now I am going back in time, to 1987, Reagan is President, and I am going to visit Wally George and be on the lame-ass Hot Seat show to say, "We need to infuse business with $700BB in order to allow them to avoid losses, keep their jobs, and 'stimulate the economy.' I believe the government should become three times bigger than it is today. I think it will be good for us to avoid confusing our consumers, I mean citizens, with any real information or data germane to the decision making processes, because politicians know best. And then I believe as regulator, primary stock holder, and investor the US Government shouldn't be burdened by little details like accounting for how those funds are used by the corporations we deign to be worthy of state investments!"

Commie!

Bretton Woods 3 and #44

Great article in the New Republic which breaks down the global financial mess in plain speak.

Most of my whinging has been about our Domestic Policy: Reduce the IRS to a minor agency by simplifying tax code; Return the Fed to its role as a clearinghouse between banks, and close the "window" to the big businesses who keep talking "poor mouth;" and modify laws to being Plain English so that there can exist bright lines that enable transparency, enforcement, and whistle-blowing (self-regulation).

What of Foreign Policy?

Well, sir, as Isolationist as my instinct are, the reality is that the actual value of the average fiat currency dollar in your pocket whizzes around the world once a day or more.

Therefore it begs definition that there really are no "Isolationists," anymore, and further no major power in the post-industrial economy could afford to be.

As in the article great minds, and Gordon Brown (who I admire, has a great mind, but is the Prime Minister-- so you have to have a cup of salt around for anything he will say, in spite of the fact that he was after all the Chancellor {Finance Minister} for Blair), are calling for a new Unification of the monetary system-- they refer to it as Bretton-Woods III.

I mentioned before that there needs to be a swords to plowshares mentality in the world for there to be avoided some great depression, and the penchant to harmonize and unify is a deep instinct among we human beings. That said, let us examine that there really hasn't been a "Free Market" in currency in modern times.

One good reason is that if you look at the aftermath of The Great War (WWI), The German Mark was deeply punished by the victors and was only brought out of depression by making ready for WWII-- Bretton Woods "I" aside. Currency and collusion between allies against a smaller nation can be a form of War.

On the other hand creating a Universal Fiat would essentially strip many powers of nations to regulate their economic and financial policy decisions... which is the consequence of losing a War, so is essentially a non-starter.

Therefore, as I mentioned before, Trade Zones and the trading parties should have the ability to create Defensive alliances (as in the creation of "Greece"), and conversely current Defensive Alliances (NATO, et. al.) should have the ability to create currency agreements in order to buy and sell at discount, prop up weaker economies in the alliance, and "attack" other economies.

If you remove the warfare from currency, then you will create a greater warfare (most probably, goes my thinking), so you must allow for regulated and controlled violence of the market that can be appropriately contained.

Simultaneous to these exceptions (for instance if NATO agrees it is a dollar denominated Alliance, then all decisions are made in dollars by that Alliance, even though some of those allies might rule in Euros, Pounds, etc.) should be bright line rules of the game for a semi-free form currency market which allows for nations to set policy (such a false rate of Yuan or Yen) towards their own betterment, yet somehow hold them to account. If for instance the Chinese insist in undervaluing their currency to increase exports, the deficits can not enjoy a knock on by the false values. This doesnt mean the Importing nation can not enjoy the discount on goods or services, but it does mean that the reconciliation of Real-versus-Declared value would suffer. (Hence those NATO Allies in that theoretical dollar denominated Defense would still be subjected to the Real Weight of the Dollar according to the rules, and thus affect the larger Commercial Economy.)

I threw out a lot of complex ideas which may not entirely make sense to even studied economists, because I am using my knowledge-- and a lot of it I didnt just get from reading books.

As for what a new Administration can do, well like others, I await the breath of fresh air (as did the G-20 last weekend).

Aftergloworm Turning

One week since a huge landslide in Presidential politics for the historic figure Mr. Obama.

I imagine, although I've been busy, like most people, cobbling together the means to afford the predicament of this economic situation, the MSM has been focusing on several other items not related to presidential politics, or at least that is what I would hope will be happening.

Not to say that I dont appreciate a good honeymoon... thats all fine, for christsake the "O" Administration doesnt get into power for another 70 days, and it would be too bad if after his first month the desperately unimaginative and incurious Media are already "looking back to the 'first' 100 days."

That said, the fourth estate has been an overwhelming disappointment during the "W" administration. I think when some anchors got the Katrina "scoop," in other words it wasnt being covered or handled properly (a) some of the real news hounds smelled a story, but alas, I am growing cynical, I also think that some of the corporate execs felt there may have been liability in under reporting (or to be accurate in my guess, 'that the disinformation of the government around events and items related to the catastrophe in LA and secondarily in MS could subject that reporting organization to liability.' But of course that didnt or wouldnt bother Fox as a quasi-offical bully pulpit for the W admin.), therefore they put boots on the ground to investigate-- and began to WAKE UP.

If every MSM vendor is serving up the exact same pile of tripe in varying portions and from minutely differing vantages to form slightly different piles of the same garbage, then we have truly learned nothing in the past eight years.

How cool would it be (a la Woodward and Berstein) to actually scoop the Congressional Investigations? Go ahead reporters in waiting, cub reporters, and various CSI/Inspector Clouseau/Mrs. Marple wannabes... I would estimate there are literally dozens (if not thousands) of reports to be filed that discover real evidence of how foul the government and its administration has been and how we have been led astray. All of them potentially original, a potential scoop, and vitally important to the restoration of communication, democracy, and law and order in our society.

That is the duty of the Fourth Estate. Not to burnish the non-sequitur utterances of incompetents, nor to buy into the lies without introspection or vigorous discussion and examination. Sure there will be mistakes, but rather an honest mistake done for duty and country, than as a tool of the state, say I.

Lets explore the issues... Going into the meta of number of mortgages in default is fascinating for economists, chartists, and financial students like me... But how many reports of hardship, heartache, and wrongdoing can be found within these types of numbers? Countless.

The "horse race" type reporting was cheap, easy, and allowed the execs, reporters, and much of their field staff to drive small distances (with apologies to those who actually rode tirelessly with the campaigns) and appear to be offering comprehensive coverage of "what is happening in America."

Thank Gawd the two year Presidential Campaign is now finally over, and not to diminish from (oh theres another ten thousand stories) all the personal emblematic meaning Americans have from this historic result, but lets start ACTUALLY reporting on the Actual events from actual places on this earth in order to more clearly see how far we have been led astray-- and how much ground our society and the world need to make up for the unmitigated disaster of these last eight years!

Esoteric Critique for McCain reserved for after the Campaign (Part 2)

MESSAGE, Message, and message....

To illuminate my next critique, I will first choose the thing that Obama did (amongst other things [but in this case from strictly a marketing point of view]) oh so very right: He picked a brand identity and stuck with it.



If memory (yes, I am not googling it or whatever) serves me, then I believe he had the trademark blue "O" with the red stripes of the American flag as hills (or waves) more or less at his announcement in Springfield. I also believe it was fairly early on (before Iowa) wherein he used the one word slogan "Change." He stuck by those now famous messages throughout his effort.

Hilary gave him as stiff a challenge as she could (and still hope for a personal political future aside from her husbands shadow), and barely lost in her efforts to peel away at the brand of a cool intellectual who stood firmly for change and chose most words carefully most of the time.

She did throw the kitchen sink at him. But she also tried (again from memory only) the better part of half a dozen slogans, and dozens of various straw man sticking points with varying degrees of truth buried within the message-- all designed to run against Obama.

Last mention of Obama here, and then onto McCain, Obama (and his exploratory committee) seemed to calibrate the message (brand identity+slogan+platform) squarely against ALL COMERS, not just his next nearest competition.

McCain's team in March clearly failed to assess that (A) Obama's message was fairly consistent throughout a grueling Democratic primary, and (B) his Brand and Identity were fairly unshakable. That would seem to imply that (1) In order to appear more unshakable, unflappable, AND experienced a granite bedrock and marble foundation of a message needed to be developed during that down time from March to June, and (2) It was going to be an all out effort which required coordination and harmonization at every level-- especially the ground.

So, lets focus just on McCain: identity = servant to the nation, war hero, and maverick; slogan and platform... well that never quite got straightened out by the "Straight Talk Express."

If he was going to continue riding around in the STE, then a heavy dose of Straight Talk would have really been helpful. I mean how high would his polling numbers have shot up if he had said, "I know President Bush has been unpopular, hey personally I think he's even a bit of a Jerk, but in order to win these wars you have to make some unpopular decisions."

What part of that statement could the Dems have disagreed with? You then refocus on the messy details of how to win wars.

My Proviso here is that I am assuming the Pubs had some sort of strategy (other than continuing to prolong the war and siphon tax dollars to no bid contracted cronies for shoddy work and non-accountability), but if I am wrong then moreover they deserved to lose!

On the Economy (and I already suggested that Romney should have been the VP... there would have been a much more contentious battle in the West, Rust Belt, and to a lesser degree New England), if he were to have said, "I know there are some people struggling, but its the job of the government to give a hand-up-- not a hand out!"

Again, thats an oldy but a moldy from the Reagan playbook Maverick 2000 McCain would agree with, but somewhere the message was coopted to please the Rovian Sith Hordes (a.k.a. NeoCons) and so any talk of assistance to anyone (used here to include the "personhood" of corporations) not worth billions was taboo.

On Immigration, "My friends, I could prattle on about my long record on immigration and human rights, but lets get one thing straight-- We need to fix this broken down Immigration and border system."

Vague enough to not completely freak out the borders only crowd, but tongue firmly in cheek enough to give the wink to his true base of Pro-Life Hispanics who have some concerns for workers rights, and deep fear for some of the more draconian suggestions posited by the NeoCons.

Finally, although this may not be entirely "message," but it fits into the category of "Non-verbal." When you go into your convention a landslide victor, your party needs to conform its platform to your overarching gameplan and strategy.

That most certainly didnt happen.

No, as became clear on September 15th, McCain surrounded himself with people who could tolerate his bullshit, and (probably) feared him enough to not be able to simply point out his errors or fallacies. Someone had approved a script saying "The fundamentals of the economy are strong," when most economists worth their salt were at least tipping their hand that the "R" word was around the corner if not nearer. What on Gawds green monster sign were they thinking?

Here are some great stats about how to measure Recession, and why I would never have ever approved of that message (if McSame was my boy), as we have technically been in Recession for years.

He then panicked, "suspended" his campaign (even though in fact there were commercials, surrogates, and Palin romping around), scuttled a deal brokered in Congress with the President, and then resumed his campaign only to vote FOR the bailout. Think "My Pet Goat," on Viagra, uppers, and Scotch....

I have to believe that the absolute shit sandwich (all of those many many served to him 'special order' over the years) that McCain was served as part of the 2000 campaign and its subsequent events (including the absolutely dishonorable attack against fellow Vietnam Hero Kerry) had (as they say in Poker) put on Tilt a personality and temperament which could really not afford to be on Tilt.

So what possible message could you construct with all of those facts?

Suggestion for the trial balloon meeting that should have been on or around March 25th, 2008;

It takes a nation of millions to hold us back.