Forget Beer, It's Time for a Fender Bender

Presidential Elections are the most famous popularity contests in the world.

 

Famously, we like to think we are voting for an Angel, rather than settling for a Devil by the thought exercise, “which candidate would you rather have a beer with?”  (Yes, like a good American grammarian I ended the survey question a preposition with.)

 

Except, we are in extraordinary circumstances:

 

Hundred Year Pandemic

Chronic Systemic Deferred Maintenance

Climate Change Proven beyond a Doubt

Reconciliation of Civil Rights a precipitous necessity

Worst Economic statistics since measurements began from The Great Depression

 

You can see how people might be willing to choose the best devil in such terrible circumstances, rather than the nicest angel.  Whose Executive Administration will be able to handle the massive macroeconomic issues?

 

Almost makes you not even care if you even like the person, so long as you think they may help?

 

So, which Candidate would you rather get into a low speed fender bender with?

 

 

Thought Exercise

 

You are driving your crap auto called US, and the timing belt needs adjustment, tires are worn, and the brakes have been squealing for months, but like most Americans you don’t have an extra $400 to fix them.

 

As you approach an intersection at the speed limit, you anticipate a yellow light ahead and begin your squeaking brakes.  As the light turns, you are a quarter mile from the stop line, and of the two cars ahead of you the car directly in front of you, a new silver Mercedes-Ferrari Electric Hybrid, has stopped about 500 feet away.

 

Your brakes engage, squeak as loud as you have ever heard, and for one reason or another you hit the $456,000 four door sedan that tops off at 155 MPH in 12 seconds.  The bumper, replacement cost your annual salary, after installation, is broken.  Don’t ask for details, it just needs $45,000 worth of work from a 15 MPH fender bender.

 

Out comes (A) either driver, Presidential Candidate (take the test again, and replace with either Major Political Party), and from the shotgun position (B) a Secret Service agent who will witness and back whatever Mr. A says, no matter how awful.

 

Two more facts: 1. They are self-insured, so they have no Insurance, if it is their fault; and 2. Mr. B pressed the emergency oil slick button as they drew to a halt at seven miles per hour—thus it is 100% their fault.  Oil is everywhere, and the Intersection Camera clearly can show the before and after.

 

Which one of these two gentlemen would you then like to encounter in what, without the super tip-top-secret auto, (a) wouldn’t have been an accident, nor (b) be considered potentially your fault and liability? 

 

That is a more accurate measure for where we are today.

 

 

Lest we should consider this the Junior High School election, remember that the Executive of the USA typically administers directly to a force of hundreds of thousands of people, lest the millions directly commanded.  So, which group do you pick... go ahead take the thought exercise a third time, and remember to Vote!

The Case for and Probability of a Sanders Presidency

Before we address the reasons Mr. Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist who has been in Congress for years as an Independent and caucused with Democrats, could win The Electoral College (as well as maybe even over 53% of the popular vote) in a General Election, let us start by comparing him to his very real rival for nomination; it is sort of hers to lose, as she has sort of begun to do; Hilary Clinton.

Foreign Policy is considered a big part of how the former Lawyer, Senator and Secretary of State via Pennsylvania, Little Rock, and New York could beat the former Mayor, Congressman, and current Senator from Vermont with a proven track record of say what you mean, and do what you say.

Further, some of the ideas about Sec. Clinton (her actual highest rank in service to the American people) revolve around that she’s the ‘realist.’ 

Except, this supposed argument of foreign policy realism, hinges upon 20^th century political dialogues about communism and the USSR?

I argue, as an Economist, that any Federal Economic Policy is the foundation upon which both Foreign and Domestic Policy rest.

And we have been a mixed capitalist system (meaning a socialist-capitalist democracy) since The Great Depression (1932). 

Sanders freely works with these truths:  Plus, progressive, underserved, and younger voters sense or know these operational truths of economics; therefore, as we enter four score years, since we began guaranteeing our citizens as a national government, Bernie is the actual realist in the race from strictly economic principles, but I digress.

I am unsure that 99%-ers, Millennials, Social Liberals, Progressives, or Economic realists will agree with my reasoning, in part or whole, yet I guess we may all agree on the bottom line... a better future for our grandchildren and their grandchildren— thinking Seven Generations.

So, here’s my case for what will differentiate Sen. Sanders from his rivals through to November:

WARFARE

On this point, almost anyone who doesn’t respond “bomb them (whoever the enemy is) back to the stone age,” as the best answer to any question of foreign threat to our beloved, misunderstood, and often misguided United States of America; the rest of us need to seriously take a moment to review the clarity and undaunted-ness the Senior Senator has had when it actually counted most to committing American blood, treasure, and resources, especially once we became the unilateral superpower.

On the disastrous move by G. W. Bush, The Younger, to go to War in Iraq on false and manufactured intelligence in 2004, Sanders was one of very few, and even fewer of those still serving in Congress, to have seen through the folly in the moment with foresight, and voted ‘No.’ Clinton voted with the establishment in that same vote.

Besides this, he is the Chair of the Veteran’s Affairs Committee, so Sanders knows the true ongoing costs of making a disastrous decision to go to war.

Clinton voted for endless Emergency Powers, for adventurous wars, and has a record from her time as head of the State Department that isn’t universally admired, if not respected— Sec. Kerry has gone much further to accomplish more substantive results by comparison within and on behalf of the same Administration. 

Thus, even if you disagree with this one of the three points, finding yourself more of a hawkish-dove, than a dovish-hawk, continue reading as to why Sanders can and should prevail against all his rivals in both contests.

WELFARE

Republicans call this “Entitlement Reform,” but what they typically mean is ‘controlling’ entitlements, but most importantly to the actual conservative constituency, in order to manage (or cut) associated costs. 

Republicans continue calls for a re-run straight from the 1980’s of tax-cuts for the 1%, who are already enjoying the best tax benefits, ever, that only translate to eventually pissing off poor, minority, and elderly groups, by capping or eliminating benefits they rely upon to live in exchange for having helped build our nation, but also should be a wholesale alarm to our Veterans and retired civil servicepersons. 

Sanders proposes to afford these programs reinstating what is called Progressive Taxation (lower taxation rates for the poor, and greater taxation rates for the rich), and for the most part was the tradition in our nation, until Ronald Reagan began spending recklessly on the US credit card and playing with Trickle Down Economics, permanent national treasury deficits, and no real wage (adjusted for inflation) increases for the bottom two-thirds of the nation ever since. 

George H. W. Bush, The Elder, observed correctly, before he lost to Ronald Reagan in 1980 to become elevated to Vice President (after having run the CIA for years), that this solutions set was “Voodoo Economics.”  Ad naseum argumentum (arguments that repeat over and over insistently) do not prove right this miserable failure.

Bush the Elder, eventually lost his re-election, since everything he had learned in life, told him he needed to raise taxes on the wealthy, like Reagan did too, because the safety netting for Americans had begun it’s own demolition once Reagan Administration and Republican lawmaking efforts got rolling (and then rolled from the S&L Scandal before ending up into the ditch with the Bank Bailouts— see Neil Bush).

Whatever you call this Economic Policy, it is now a proven failed economic, governing, and fiscal model, in ointments and puddings found around the world since 2008, and we have begun reinstating those safety nets— the enthusiasm across ‘voting blocks,’ indicate Sanders tracks with this trend.

Voters of all stripes, ranks and files must think to not only vote for the children yet to be born, but those who have lost their way in this life, yet still live.  Back when PTSD was called shell shock, this was termed Welfare of the State by the people for the people.

We all want good fiscal policy, and budgetary prudence... the difference— Bernie Sanders also promises to expand Social Security and Veteran Benefits; create Universal Education and National Health Insurance; but also continue the request, to keep the promise written at the foot of The Statue of Liberty, that asks for those “tired, poor, and masses yearning to be free.”   

There is no request or shown preference at Lady Liberty’s feet for only those people with advanced degrees on Work Visas, exclusion of opportunities for the lower or middle classes, nor does it say “No Mexicans, or Muslims.” 

Aside from that, anyone concerned with Native American Rights, let alone the poor (or the 99%), serious about casting a vote this year for any establishment candidate could only seriously consider the Democratic Party. 

Otherwise, there will be made available third-party protest (each only able to garner under 1%) votes that, once again, won’t be noticed by The Establishment— trust me, like Mr. Sanders, I am not a Democrat, either.

Although his Democratic Establishment rival may again be somewhat analogous to this Democratic Socialist, my truth: Sanders, I feel is someone who would probably agree with my more libertarian advocacy for a simple methodology of expansion for the ACA to ‘not discriminate upon age.’ Unlike the Republicans who seem proud to have earned their mantle of “Do-Nothing-Republicans” by voting to repeal ACA 62 times, WITHOUT COUNTER-OFFER, here is at least my idea:

This could happen any day of the week should any relevant class in California decide to sue the State exchange and Medicaid under the Unruh Act, that bans discrimination by age.  This amendment this would most probably open the door to reform critical health insurance coverage (Medicaid and Medicare) to include any citizen who needed health care, nationally.

This “available model” is favorable to a mandatory model, or even Single-payor, because it is still allowing for self-insurers, and those who prefer an esoteric insurance device to act as a market tamp on pricing by offering capital efficiencies in terms of (much lesser degree direct and) indirect competition. 

But the idea of sending in any candidate, who may be willing to take another thirty years dancing with the powers-that-be to get the citizens some version of National Healthcare whilst the nation suffers; let alone those (Republicans) not willing to admit to a Health Crisis, Poverty Issues, nor Climate Change; simply beggars belief.

I think I will chance it with the guy, Sanders, who once again seems to be facing the actual reality of our geo-political and economic situations:

My macroeconomic fiscal conservative recap in favor of Universal Healthcare;

Without some version of universal coverage in health insurance, it is an unfair competitive advantage to almost every one of our foreign trading partners (who mostly have some form of national state health insurance) that acts as an inverse tariff against our national exports and imports, because our manufacturers and business owners do not have comparable benefit(s). 

Meaning that any good, product or service (imported or exported) includes in its measured value in currency terms the subsidized healthcare costs of our competitors’ workers and citizens, thus allowing our trading partners to attract and retain higher quality labor, as well as creating a “reverse hidden taxation to trade,” or inverse tariff. 

In other words, when we don’t have a comparable benefit to any national competitor, then this acts in favor of foreign competition as hidden cost of goods per export, simultaneous to hidden subsidy (in favor of exporting nation) per import. 

This is economically true of most state social netting programs that reduce costs and burdens to business.  Ending this incongruity, and any other social disadvantages to workforce, manufacturers, exporters, and importers, will benefit Corporate America for generations to come.

When any Republican and any Democrat are held up to be chosen by our vet, disabled, and/or elderly voters around the nation as to which candidate for the POTUS will really be backstopping and improving Healthcare, Social Security, and VA Benefits— The retired citizen with a prospect of living to past age one-hundred with advances in modern medicine, the infirm citizen with a permanent disability, disease, ailment and/or deformity, but also anyone who has served this nation— voters should rightly recoil in horror at the massive cuts to benefits being proposed by that Republican field writ large. 

Winning Republican will have to at best modify Entitlement Reform plans, or at least hedge their speech (i.e. lie) on the stump, if they have even made any policy notes known, to then bestill this vast constituencyship, which seems particularly ebullient this year.  Again any Democrat will probably win.

WEEDFAIR

It is not ‘marijuana,’ it is not ‘weed,’ rather it is the cannabis species in all its forms: industrial, commercial, and medicinal. 

Every Republican has espoused doubling down on Ronald Reagan’s failed, outmoded, and unpopular “war” seeking to repeal these State initiatives by the people and their representative governments!

This is the key distinction for the Democratic nominees.  Although, with hedging language, Mrs. Clinton somehow shows up as a 1990’s Republican talking about ‘states rights,’ on this issue; Sanders can make, and often shows, if not alludes to, the connection; that the ill-conceived adventure called “War on Drugs,” Libertarian and Reganite Ron Paul would agree, has been an escapade, which the taxpaying citizenry has answered back these thirty years later with, ‘black lives matter,’ as the number one civil rights issue facing our nation today.

Assuming we also include any people of color within that sentiment, and add any citizen in any disadvantaged class: that insane effort by the US Government against it’s own people must finally come to a complete end.  

It didn’t work with alcohol: without identifying and addressing the real and underlying social issues belying the symptomologies and behaviors (let alone citizen violations against arbitrary and capricious lawmaking, policy, and now case-precedent that must be overturned or outlawed, itself) sought to be modified, or contained, on such complex social issues; it then fails the actual cause of government to protect and defend its citizens in a reasonable free state of liberty, as ratified and identified by our founders, who all used industrial hemp, at a minimum. 

Further, when incarceration is the primary remedy provided by the opposite party (again, the proven poor solution set since the Drug War began last century under the Reagan Administration), there will be continued disenfranchisement of those felons, disadvantaged, and forgotten citizens who have given up on our cynical system— non-voters.  Ending the failed Drug War will end disenfranchisement of citizens from their system.

Voters have Thanksgiving Dinners with those non-voting folks.  And anyone not thinking of being a voter this time, please plan to vote, if you still have the right, and see what happens!

Repealing the now-proven inefficient prohibition of cannabis will save trillions of dollars across the board!!

It will redirect vital policing mechanisms back to the borders, counter-terror, and actual crimes against policy of State— where they belong.  And, by the way, it will pay for itself, generate billions in taxes annually, and create new jobs.

However, Free Hemp is more importantly the number one Law and Order issue for 2016, in part because by redirecting the resources of state to enforce policy, as we have begun to do in Colorado, then, besides fiscal prudence, it should also expedite the removing of those Federal Emergency Powers (yes, we are still under a State of Emergency) to ideally reinstate the concepts of law derived from the Magna Carta and it’s associated democratic principalia connected to habeas corpus.

WHY SANDERS CAN WIN

Weed States aka The Fab Four: CO, WA, AK, OR, and sort of the District of Colombia, which isn’t actually a State, but does vote.  No one in these states is going to consciously ratify any politician explaining why their States Rights will be invalidated and revoked by the Federal Government, should we choose to vote for them to administer the Executive Offices of the USA. 

23 Medicinal States; 15 CBD Only States; 2 pending Medicinal States. 

This represents 44 States (All Native Nations are free to grow, manufacture and sell cannabis products; probably most of our Commonwealth Members will agree; and our Fab Four, and [again] DC) accepting, honoring and commercializing Hemp in 2016! 

(I added Florida, because last year an Initiative to become the fifth state to fully legalize cannabis was passed by the voters at a phenomenal 58%, but didn’t meet the sixty percent ‘super-majority’ threshold to become amended into the State Constitution.  They are going for it again this year!)

44/50!!

Consistently, our US Population supports legalization of cannabis by a majority since 2002, because it is so very common sense— those who don’t, mostly because they were indoctrinated to believe cannabis to be worse than opium, if you can imagine, are getting older and passing away. 

Support really only continues to grow, as the most important plant in the human pantheon comes back online, and myths become demystified.

And States citizens sincerely voting in 2016 to become #5 (and beyond) to legalize it: Nevada, California, Maine, Arizona, Connecticut, Michigan, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Missouri; all have activated their grass-root bases to follow the Weed States into the actual future— just like climate change, it also does exist!

So, this sea change favors a Progressive crowd to be mobilized at the base in 2016.

Then, the ACA States where a successful state health insurance exchange system has begun to heal millions of Americans, including myself, is set up: CO, HI, WA, OR, CA, NV, NM, MN, IA, MS, KY, MD, NY, VT, MA, RI, and CT. 

I would tell 538.com and any other prognosticators, just put these states into Any Democrat’s column, because the countless stories of relief, respite, and hospice cannot be told considering the millions of improvements we are seeing every day to the actual health of our country.  This will begin to show up as lagging economic statistics, as more of our people continue get the help they need.

If any of those states didn’t break Democratic, then I wouldn’t consider that any final verdict upon the ACA— itself mostly the 1990’s Republican solution set, their counter-offers, after the failed Hilary-care effort, which she cashed-in for the CHP (more or less the current national children’s health insurance program, to her credit), currently referred to as Obamacare.

Because this is so massive and complex of an issue, results are so preliminary, then it is no wonder the Do-nothing Republicans voted to repeal this important social netting— their own ‘90’s policy counter-offers— now 62 times, offering no real new solutions, as of February 2, 2016— THEY JUST DON’T GET IT!

Even if the ACA goes unchanged, only managed, it will realize trillions of dollars in long-term savings to the Federal Government, as is, while continuing to heal America. 

Every Republican wants to end available health care solutions without any real counter-offer, thus no true Republican will be preferred by those citizens experiencing positive ACA results— Americans are just not buying it, even though there do exist also many stories about frustration with implementation.

To guess, there is political inefficiency, disagreement, and/or disorganization that could account for the 18 exchanges that have defaulted to the Federal Program, as they are mostly “red states.” 

Thus, this may indicate a potential anti-Obama trend in some of the Federal Exchange states.

(I did not weight those states in the neither/nor zone still developing their exchange solutions.)

However, Wisconsin, Maine, New Hampshire, and maybe Louisiana and Arizona are the only of these eighteen that could be mitigated by other (weed, jobs, etc.) factors, issues and turnouts to prefer Any Democrat.


Therefore, assuming that voters find Mr. Sanders the more trusted, experienced, pragmatic choices for the Democratic primary; assuming my hypotheses about ACA and Free Hemp are more or less correct; then I expect a final General Election map (Sanders-v-Any Republican) to appear something like this:

I am endorsing Bernard Sanders of Vermont for President in 2016. 

Finally: Please, let us not act like we are the oldest modern democracy by having the most anemic voter turnouts.  Even if you do not agree in part or whole with this argument, as citizens let us demonstrate our vigor of old age; please, make sure to vote in November!

Happy President’s Day!

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!

President's Question Time

An incredible display of the evolution of democracy and accountability was put on by President Obama this week.

To me, this was a culmination of what I am only assuming was fine political calculation.

My assumption, based on absolutely nothing other than life experience alone: This kind of "Prime Minister's Question Time" was something candidate Obama had on his Transparency Wishlist.

But President ranks somewhere between King and Prime Minister here in the USA, so the UK model isn't totally apt; besides this was ('would be' goes the imaginary explanation to then candidate Obama) a radical step which needed to be timed correctly. I cant imagine how much more apt this exercise's introduction to the dialogue of transparency and accountability could have been.

Remarkable points;

(I) Had Obama done this earlier, in say August, the flux af the situation could have greatly distorted outcomes of the various vitriol of the time (people yelling at politicians in town halls about false rumors).

(II) By waiting a full year to watch as the Congress fiddled while the US was burning, Obama has now set himself apart from their poor favorability-- all parties.

(III) Having all but lost this first match (in what is expected to be a three to eight match game) in the health care issue, in spite of many accomplishments by the Congress, the culture of Partisanship was writ large by the election of the Junior Senator from MA. Obama's final answer hammered home the point about no one talking with one another, looking only to score rhetorical points, and the active schadenfreude by both parties and their mouthpieces-- including the acts and deeds to extend and further that attitude of blame and buck passing.

(IV) Responding to the situation of somehow 51 Senators no longer being considered a majority, rather that the threat of cloture and filibuster was so persistent by this sessions Republican's now 60 barely qualified as a majority, he held this first televised question time with the Republican's. He had earlier held question time with Democrats, but did not televise that. This partial version of the UK PM?T, essentially broadsided the Pubs into having to answer for the elephant in the room (pun intended), that of the obstructionist tact.

(V) Finally, like a breath of fresh air, this display of scholarly brinksmanship, artful rhetoric, and skilled debate highlighted the features of a qualified President! It does not matter what that President's policies are... the question is do we have an Executive truly capable and qualified to be the Chief? A command of details and issues, clarity in thought and actions, and accurate language to reflect the inner mind of a political genius. All POTUS' are by definition political geniuses (sorry rabid detractors of Bush II), because somehow they got there to the station of our republic's modern Ceasar. If somehow Obama makes this a regular feature of our modern 21st Century 24 hour News democracy/political cycle, then we can expect it, like the State of the Union, to be an essential set piece for the abilities of any future POTUS or would-be POTUS-- much as it is already standard form for any PM or shadow Minister to be able to stand the hot seat of the multiparty question time held in the UK's House of Commons almost weekly.

***

SO my humble suggestions:

(A) Next time, treat it exactly like the PM?T and have all members of either the Senate or House (not both at the same time, but from all parties) voluntarily attend the televised question time. This will then promote a semblance of dialogue, because by then calling from the various parties and factions in alternate, there approximates the status of a political conversation or national dialogue (NOT DIRECTED BY THE MEDIA!).

(B) To be fair to everyone, let's have these events as more or less scheduled set pieces, no sudden TV cameras in the room at the last minute. That said, probably one of these per quarter is more towards our Corporation style republic model, as opposed to the weekly meeting of Ministers and MPs in just the lower house version in UK. (Also, probably best to have these set about two to three weeks after recess has ended so (i) the members would have fresh info from constituents, (ii) any changes from elections and such would be more or less in place, and (iii) everyone was making a fresh start-- more or less.)

(C) Like PM?T, maybe have some Cabinet Members available to be referred to for details? I think in the case of our financial mess, this would either secure Geitner as a great choice or put him on the fast track to join the millions of unemployed!

(D) Like the UK, sometimes the PM cant make it, so why not Pelosi, Reid, or even >gulp< Biden to make interim question times?

+++

Kudos to Obama, and I think anyone from any party, who believe transparency and accountability is important for our nation and its political system to begin to heal and repair itself, would have to agree!

Arnie's Brinksmanship

Okay, to paraphrase the bible, here is Arnold Schwarzenegger's political future in a nut shell:

You enter by riding someone out on a rail, then you may very well be ridden out on your own rail.

The Republicans in California seem intent on tying themselves to a sinking ship (and taking the state down with them), rather than admit mismanagement (or lack of leadership, foresight, or any other reasonable excuse for their stubbornness) and allow everyone to get onto the lifeboats (to extend the metaphor).

The near extremist ideologue mentality that somehow interprets the career of Reagan as some seminal message that government must not raise taxes at all costs is a myth. Reagan raised taxes as Governor and President (http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh060804.shtml), and that fellow who campaigned after Reagan who expanded the "No Tax" myth of the invisble government:



Ooops...

So much for theory...

In practice Bush Jr's endless effort to manipulate an economic reality to demonstrate the magic of trickle down vodounomics has had precipitous results which are now as plain as the nose on your face my Dear Governor!

The definition of mental illness is when you attempt to get different results from the same methods without accepting, adjusting, adapting or improving that technique in the face of data set information gathered from past failures and consequences.

In my book, Metaeconomics, I premiss that the events of the fall 2008 have in my experience granted our generation a tremendous opportunity (within the context of major crisis) that of having proven in a non-laboratory environment that no pure theory of economics works all the time, in all economic conditions, and laws are amended to fashion and enhance illusions of mass perception (thus creating an appearance of function) within the macro economy (which is harder to provide contextual illusion to microeconomies for reasons not worth going into right here).

Governor, please stop this game of chicken, which is already set to effect thousands of children and millions of people adversely.

If the Republicans in congress are able to create a compromise that you then Veto, I would imagine the other aspect of our democracy could come into effect, much like it did for Gov. Davis, IMPEACHMENT!

You have a moral responsibility to end your governorship in a responsible manner, even if your political career my be over.

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!