Musings of a Jew-Con

Prejudicial Misnomers

noverde — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:57:12 +0000

An OpEd published in the New York Times on January 14th, 2012, claims that Mitt Romney signals to ”a certain type of voter that he [Romney] is the cultural alternative to America’s first black president.” Anyone planning to vote in 2012 is urged to click on the above link and read the article written by Lee Siegel, a piece of writing that I find reprehensible and insulting. It is Mr. Siegel´s contention that racism is the primary factor that would cause anyone to vote against the President in his bid for reelection.

A few months ago the New York Times advised its readers that it would change the direction of its online publication away from objective news and more toward opinion. Since that declaration, The Times has successfully transitioned from being one of the world’s most reputable news sources to a partisan rag.

Using catch phrases is a subtle means of influencing readers; this is especially so when used in a byline with large print. Flaunting the term “First Black President” or “America’s African-American President” invokes visceral reactions from supporters and opponents alike. These descriptions are used deliberately and for a purpose. If one truly wants to combat racism, then the President of the United States should simply be known as “the President.”

The press consistently and conveniently ignores the fact that President Obama is not truly African-American. Perhaps some believe he is a hybrid, since he is the product of a mixed-race marriage. We should remember that not too long ago a union of mixed races was illegal in some states. So we might logically conclude that the election of a person of mixed color as president represents a far greater accomplishment than the election of one who is purely African-American.

Labeling often has an underlying political purpose. Sports columnists from the Times never refer to Tiger Woods as the Asian-African-American golfer. Nor do their entertainment columnists refer to mixed race stars like Lenny Kravitz (unfortunately not a relative of mine) as the Jewish-Bahamian-American pop singer.

The Times purposely ignores that, in most of America, people of mixed race, ethnicity or religion barely raise an eyebrow in social circles. There is no denying that prejudice exists; we can only hope it is the minority viewpoint. Still, the liberal media’s political coverage continually emphasizes the fact that President Obama is not white. That same media, as exemplified by Lee Siegel, then draws the conclusion that if one disagrees with the President’s policies or his class warfare rhetoric, then one must surely be a racist.

Lactose intolerance is the beginning and end of my intolerances , so I am offended by and grow weary of others using my political preferences as an indicator of what I believe or don’t believe on any other issue.

Similarly, The Times never misses an opportunity to use the phrase “Vulture Capitalist” when referring to Mitt Romney. It would seem that the two words are synonymous for most of the The Times staff. According to Lee Siegel, Romney is the Waspy-looking Mormon-American presidential candidate who believes America should be a country of opportunity, not of entitlement. That concept seems to be anathema to Mr. Siegel’s readers.

Rhetoric about Mr. Romney’s record at Bain Capital has become the most recent and the greatest weapon in the class warfare campaign. The conversation never touches on why some businesses fail, on how these failing companies are sometimes appropriately absorbed by larger companies (or individuals), or on why, in certain cases, they are allowed to fail. Hedge Funds are a recent addition to the American business landscape; they are not the cause of income inequality or any other ailment the American economy is experiencing.

Capitalism prospers when more efficient companies best their competition. Companies unable to innovate or keep pace must improve their management, operate more efficiently, find an injection of cash–compete effectively–or they must yield to market forces. Those willing to risk their own money on these failing businesses are entitled to a reward and certainly not every risk provides a reward. A vulture to some, a savior to others.

After his upset primary victory in South Carolina, The Times target will undoubtedly shift to Newt Gingrich, a born-again Catholic with a rich history of inconsistency, indiscretion and inappropriate comments. Gingrich will be catnip for ideologues who pose as journalists. I can’t wait to read the next Siegel or Krugman OpEd.

The Media and the Great Debates

noverde — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:38:49 +0000

My friends that are staunch supporters of the Democrat Party are in a sublime mood these days as the Republican debates have been a feeding frenzy between the candidates vying for the GOP nomination. It has suddenly become in vogue for those on the left to not miss a single Republican debate. They are glued to their TV sets with their bowls of carrot sticks and tofu enjoying the orgy of attacks prospective candidates are hurling at each other. The winner may be the last man standing, but I am no longer certain anyone will be left standing.

It has always been amazing to me how anyone seeking public office would allow themselves and their families to be scrutinized so ruthlessly by the media, their competitors and even their friends. It is more amazing how any candidate would think he or she could hide the most minute detail of their private or public lives, or think these details might go unexposed during a campaign.

One by one nearly every candidate has fallen victim to something he or she said or did or to a position taken in the past. Some candidates are being tormented for statements made over two decades ago, or they are being ridiculed for a change of their position. Most of us, as seemingly mature individuals, quite likely think differently about various issues at 60 years old than we did at 40. If we never changed our opinion about anything, we would be in the same job, living in the same location and be married to the same partner for the entirety of our lives.

The three Republican candidates that have been the most consistent in their policies—Bachmann, Santorum and Paul—are all but scorned by the liberal media. These candidates firmly espouse the concept of having America return, in their view, to traditional or homespun values. In this cycle, the media has gorged by mocking fiscal conservancy, family values and less government leading one to wonder whether the remaining candidates or the other party want to steer America in the opposite direction? The world has changed and issues like gay unions or women’s choice are far down the list of American concerns compared to the national economy, unemployment or national security. A viable candidate must grasp the salient issues of our times.

Ron Paul is a unique character and his lifelong Libertarian viewpoints have done well with a near religious following. However, most in the electorate do not want to follow his lead calling for the elimination of many government services especially if it would affect the voting recipient directly. Some call him a reactionary, while others call him a visionary. Enough voters took Ross Perot seriously as a visionary 20 years ago when he expressed his concern over the burgeoning national debt and our faltering ability to pay it.

At the same time, Newt Gingrich is a brilliant loose cannon. He certainly has his share of self-inflicted baggage, but it seems his recent career as a lobbyist or consultant has garnered the most attention. Lobbying is a criminal act that has managed to become part of our corroding political landscape. Lobbyists get paid for their ability to influence Congressional legislation. Anyone in government who accepts campaign contributions from a lobbyist is as culpable as the lobbyist, and government agencies that employ lobbyists are clearly running afoul of their duties to the taxpayers.

The media attention paid to Gingrich is almost comical. In 2008, Christopher Dodd, possibly the most corrupt and incompetent politician in modern times, ran for the presidency, and there was nary a mention by the media of his campaign contributions from lobbyists or his voting record that coincided with specific contributions. At the same time, the press seems to be blind to the process of earmarks or stimulus appropriations and how they were recycled into campaign contributions benefiting candidates from both parties.

Just as comical is the media onslaught of Mitt Romney as a vulture capitalist while John Corzine, former Democratic Senator and Governor of New Jersey, appears unmolested by the press after $1.2 billion has recently gone missing from his firm, MF Global.

At the moment the polls all indicate that Mitt Romney will be the likely Republican nominee. With that in mind, the New York Times coincidentally published two op-ed pieces last Friday, one by Paul Krugman, who presented his case about the pitfalls of having a businessman in the Oval Office. His view that government should not be run as a profitable enterprise has merit, but it should also not be run with an uncontrolled deficit that is rife with waste, duplicity and fraud. David Brooks considered the New York Times conservative columnist only because he is slightly to the right of Krugman, weighed in that leadership and God were missing elements in our existing political system. But Brooks fell far short of associating these ideas to our current administration.

If Romney becomes the nominee, I expect the subterranean Internet to start Mormon-bashing, distorting his successful business record and chastising his evolving positions about key issues. Businesspeople normally don’t vie for public office because the process is too invasive while a career politician deeply embedded into our political system routinely manages to deflect any questionable behavior. This election will hinge on the electorate’s choice of which candidate is more competent - but the media’s spin will opine upon which candidate is or has been less corrupt. That media sway will also have influence over many voters.

The GOP is still deeply embedded in the process, Jon Huntsman has recently thrown in the towel while Rick Perry seems to be gasping for air. During the debates, all the Republican candidates at various moments have walked or talked themselves into a virtual verbal cul-de-sac which will be fodder for the media once the real contest begins. Coincidentally, a good friend just proposed a $10,000 bet about the possibility of an undeclared candidate becoming the final Republican nominee.

2011 – Was it the Best of Times?

noverde — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:04:20 +0000

Though Dickens had another era in mind when he wrote the phrase, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,” post-WWII America certainly looked like the good times were rolling and would never stop. But the good times were created by a confluence of events that allowed America to emerge as the world’s economic and military super power but most of those events have vanished.

My grandparents emigrated from Eastern Europe and Lithuania in the early 1900′s. No doubt they left dire circumstances in the “old country” and came to America, like so many others, for opportunity and to escape religious persecution. Ingrained in their being was a sense of value for their own possessions, a sense of respect for others’ belongings and a vein of frugality born of necessity.

My parents were both born in America during WWI and lived through the Great Depression, WWII and the Korean War. They lived through shortages and rationing and were part of a cohesive national effort to manage the country’s resources through the worst of times. Ours was by no means a unique family, but that Greatest Generation of newer Americans had an innate ability to live with little and to treasure small joys in their lives.

As a product of that upbringing, I still wear clothes until they are worn out and use things until they are broken beyond repair. I am a relic from a bygone era.

Being poor or rich are relative designations. As a teenager, none of my friends took ski trips, vacationed in Europe or played tennis at a local country club. We played stick ball, tag and street hockey during the summer, and we looked forward to the winter when we could make money by shoveling snow from merchants’ sidewalks and neighbors’ driveways. Most of us had one pair of shoes, which were considered worn out once the sole began to flap like Mick Jagger’s tongue. We wore and passed on hand-me-downs, and it was not embarrassing to wear a relative’s clothes regardless of a tight or loose fit.

At some point after the Korean War, Consumerism took hold of the country. Although some of us fear Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Anarchy, Libertarianism, Conservatism, Liberalism or the in vogue Progressive Movement, Consumerism has become the core economic factor in America during the last 50 years and it is a destructive system for those addicted to it.

Our government, the world’s largest debtor, in conjunction with the marketplace, has created a faux prosperity by encouraging debt primarily to people that could least afford it. It has become an American right to acquire everything that one desires. The lines have become blurred between our needs, wants and entitlements and the result is the steady disintegration of the middle class under the weight of their own debt.

The rules of the game changed in the 1950′s, a time when merchants began offering lay-away plans to buy clothes, appliances or other goods. You could simply select a dress or a refrigerator and the store would set up a payment schedule over weeks or months; when you finished paying for the item, you received it. It didn’t take long for that system to morph into the credit card environment we know today or a marketplace of buying now and paying later.

The credit card frenzy gathered steam during the 1960′s. Once you got one credit card, catapulting to 10 or more cards was easy. Each new store or company that offered credit believed the previous issuer of credit did their due diligence. It was a great system; people could even kite credit cards by paying off one card by borrowing money from another.

A decade or two later, home equity loans, second mortgages and home refinancing came into vogue, and many Americans, duly encouraged by banks and credit card companies, leveraged their largest asset – their homes. Washington spent like crazy, too; currently 40% of our current national borrowing is used to service our existing national debt.

America has changed greatly since my childhood from a fiscally sound country producing and manufacturing goods to a country more inclined to consuming goods often produced abroad. Fully 70% of our economy in today’s America is considered a product of services. Another astounding statistic is that the largest portion of the billions made by credit card companies are from late payment fees, not simply from the exorbitant high interest rates.

Since so many countries around the world have emulated the American dream and lifestyle, it’s no wonder that personal and sovereign debt have become consistent headlines. Of course consuming is the motor that drives manufacturing, but a more likely path back to prosperity in America would be to foster innovation, creativity and efficiency instead of devising farcical programs designed to get people into shopping malls. If the current political bandwagon continues, we are simply encouraging a system that will result in some people living well at the expense of their neighbors.

In Washington, our leaders continually fail to address the simplest issues; that is to restructure our tax code and modify entitlements. Doing these two things would take us baby steps toward national solvency but simultaneously jeopardize most politican’s careers and thus, gridlock is the preferred route.

Self-interest on the part of our politicians along with media rhetoric that aims to influence rather than educate continually labels change agents as extremists which in turn has hamstrung any meaningful progress. I believe most Americans—those in a position to do so—would be happy to sacrifice or contribute to create real opportunities for their children and grandchildren and forgo the fallacy of our government’s course of spending our way back into the best of times.

Raising Children, Razing Parents

noverde — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 14:29:40 +0000

For those of us that have acquired or have been acquired by a second family, SPAS (Step Parent Aberrational Syndrome) is a common malady. In my own case, I parented my 16-year-old daughter nearly 30 years ago and I was ill prepared for more modern experiences. More troubling are my recollections that my own daughter at age 16 was perfect in every way, sailing effortlessly through her adolescence with little strain on her parents. Now I am enduring the travails of living with another 16-year-old girl-child in a world that is totally alien to me.

But these are modern times, infiltrated with and complicated by technology. (I admit, I am currently under treatment for SPAS, having gone off the deep end because off my inability to converse with the resident 16-year-old in our abode.) Any attempt at dialog is simultaneously accompanied by hyper-speed typing on the keys of her Blackberry. Short responses to any question are always monosyllabic while relentless typing continues uninterrupted. I am certain the Blackberry is attached to her palm with Velcro, and it is only removed for charging the battery and sometimes for sleeping.

One recent weekend morning, we had a fire in our apartment building and she had been awakened to save her life. She emerged from her room, Blackberry firmly attached to her palm and immediately began conveying text messages, maneuvering the keys like a concert pianist.

I was proud, she was notifying her friends that I had saved her life. But as we waited on the balcony for the fire trucks, it seems the nature of the texts involved questioning the unfashionable circumstances of being awakened before noon on a weekend by someone who actually believed she was in danger.

Occasionally I stop in her room and find the TV tuned to a movie with moderate audio, her stereo playing at full volume, the computer open to Facebook with all kinds of important social networking taking place, her Blackberry and home phone nearby in case anyone chooses a more antiquated form of communication. I once asked if gadget overload ever crossed her mind? Her reply: “I am just multitasking in preparation for the real world and the challenges I will face.” I told her, “in my youth, multitasking meant drinking a glass of milk while eating cookies at the same time.”

Ultimately, I had no choice but to acclimate myself and accept teenage technological superiority. It was probably comparable to our parent’s feelings about radio and TV. On the other hand, I recently read an article about Facebook Addiction Disorder, which is now one of the most prevalent obsessions psychologists treat in young adults. Some articles claim that the personal choice has been removed from the individual and choices had become a dictate of machines. I felt a lecture enlightening the youngster was my duty, but it was met with facial skepticism and a brief giggle.

My next adventure was the acclimation to the local dress code for young ladies. Here in Argentina the teenagers definitely dress differently than back home in Colorado or even New York. On any given party night our 16-year-old emerges from her room with a skirt too short, with heels too high, with earrings too flashy and cleavage too daring. As I do not enjoy fashion vogue status in the household, I immediately notify her mother to inform her daughter that at 16 she does not need to be a seductress. In the midst of the argument, three girlfriends arrive, each one with a shorter skirt, higher heels, huge hoop earrings and more cleavage. I retire to my room, take a Xanax and lie down.

Rearing children is a harrowing task and rearing one with whom one is not genetically connected is even more challenging. In spite of my belief that this teenager has been spoiled and raised with a sense of entitlement, I cannot help but be proud of her accomplishments and happy as good things trickle into her life. I realize she sees me as a Neanderthal with parenting skills oscillating between Homer Simpson and Charlie Sheen, but almost all teenagers consider themselves smarter and more able to cope than their parents.

I expect male suitors to show up at the door, soon, and my overprotective nature will likely ruin all of her intended liaises. As in the case of my own daughter, I doubt any of the boys will meet the high standards I have formulated for a male companion. Knowing full well how young men think, there could be blood and broken bones at the doorstep before a suitor even introduces himself. But the local dating hour starts at midnight, and I would most likely be snug under the covers, avoiding any serious encounter.

Imaginary Interview with Herman Cain

noverde — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:02:48 +0000

Lou: Mr. Cain, what a pleasure to have you in our studio today. Have you enjoyed your brief visit to Westcliffe?

Cain: It is a lovely town and the pristine vistas of snow-capped mountains are staggering. But, there seems to be a conspicuous absence of brothers in this town.

Lou: This is Middle America and primarily a conservative ranching community. Brothers, even liberal ideas are welcome, but we try and stifle anyone clamoring for government programs, except for our farm and ranch subsidies and tax breaks for agricultural enterprises.

Cain: I am against all subsidies unless they foster a freer market environment.

Lou: Don’t subsidies impede the free market?

Cain: Yes, but as long as they alter the market in America’s favor then they are OK.

Lou: Let’s jump to your 9-9-9 plan, which has been the subject of a lot of scrutiny by economists.

Cain: There may be some holes in my plan, but it has launched a serious dialog about the flat-tax concept. The current tax code has been modified more than Obama’s speeches on the economy, and it needs to be simplified so simple people can understand it.

Lou: Michele Bachmann has brought to everyone’s attention that the plan turned upside down is 6-6-6, the sign of the Devil.

Cain: If Michele Bachmann were turned upside down, she would fit the same description.

Lou: If I can be candid, you are labeled as a Black conservative, which some consider an oddity. Princeton Professor Cornel West, an African-American, griped that you need to “get off the symbolic crack pipe” and added that you have “mediocrity, mendacity, mean-spiritedness toward the poor, and now mean-spiritedness toward Black people fighting for their lives in this very ugly economy.”

Cain: Academicians enjoying tenure at an Ivy League school are as far removed from the inner city problems of minorities as most of the crackers in the current administration.

Lou: You’re attempting to become the presidential nominee for the Republican Party, which has come to represent reactionary, racist and greedy anti-intellectuals. On top of that challenge, few believe the country will elect consecutive African-American presidents.

Cain: I am a mathematician, and if you are playing roulette, the odds of two black numbers coming up consecutively is the same as one black number coming up randomly. As America was ready for a change in 2008, it is ready for a complete renovation in 2012. Racism exists in America, but I am certain good leadership can trump it.

Lou: What is your basic plan to lift us out of this economic malaise?

Cain: For the last few decades our economy has been built on consumption and not production. Everyone from seniors to students feel they are entitled to take more from the system than they have put in, and they want to live more luxuriously but less expensively. We cannot move forward without growth, and people that want growth from government are just too damn lazy to do things for themselves. If a company is not growing and it’s debt service is increasing exponentially, the result would be obvious. In a world of competing nations, why should the result be any different on a sovereign level than on a corporate level?

Lou: Are you totally against government prodding the economy?

Cain: Government can do it intelligently. For example, states used to issue bonds to build schools, roads and fund other needed capital improvements. Now states are issuing bonds for operating expenses or patching deficits in pension plans. On a federal level, we continue issuing more debt instruments, which are not used for growth but to kite the debt we’re already accumulated.

Lou: Would you run the country in the same manner in which you ran Godfather Pizza?

Cain: If I did there would be immediate cost cutting in every government department. There would be scrutiny over every government purchase and every expenditure. Congress would work for minimum wage, and they can kiss their fluffy pensions and health plan good-bye. We would become lean and mean like the Godfather machine.

Lou: Why do you think there is a reluctance in America to elect a businessperson as opposed to a career politician. After all, as Calvin Coolidge said, “the chief business of the American people is business.”

Cain: Business people deal in reality—politicians deal in fantasy scenarios. The electorate would rather hear a fairy tale than the truth.

Lou: How would you feel about debating President Obama?

Cain: If you remember “The Thrilla in Manila,” then this debate would be “The Thrilla without Vanilla.”

Lou: Any comments about the “Occupy Wall Street” movement?

Cain: Some of the protesters have historical amnesia. The financial industry is steeped in greed and they have operated with unabated arrogance because government regulators have been asleep. The protesters should be camped out at the Capital building or the White House.

Lou: I cannot let you leave without mentioning the sexual innuendos and accusations now brought forward by a number of women.

Cain: Legally, one is innocent until proven guilty. In politics, one is guilty until proven innocent. A casual remark made at the wrong moment might be taken as a caustic assault. I stand by my innocence.

Lou: It has been a pleasure having you here in our studio. I wish you luck in your political endeavors.

Cain: It has been a rough but an interesting ride. I noticed your assistant, Joan, keeps glancing at me. Do you suppose she’s busy tonight?

The future’s so bright, you need to wear shades

noverde — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 14:22:43 +0000

With the presidential election looming in 2012, I’ve dusted off the crystal ball for a look at the years leading up to 2022—one decade hence.

It starts with President Obama having to return his Nobel Peace Prize. After killing several hundred alleged domestic and foreign terrorists, the Nobel committee decides that short of a Texas accent, not much separates President Obama from his predecessor, so they rescind the award.

In in 2012, Herman Cain wins the presidential election by a landslide, and the nation embraces his 9-9-9 plan, a tax strategy that imposes a 9% business flat tax, a 9% individual flat tax and a 9% national sales tax. Unfortunately, a dozen additional tax increases quickly changed the original 9-9-9 to the 20-20-20 plan. Further complicating Cain’s attempt to balance the budget is President Obama’s executive order on his last day in office, abrogating all liabilities for student loans for both students and parents. This adds an additional trillion dollars worth of liabilities to the federal government and it is the final attempt to prove the administration’s ”trickle-up” theory.

Mandatory drug testing for Congresspeople becomes law in 2014, causing the downfall of several representatives. Several districts, from the known methamphetamine-crazed middle of the country to the big coastal cocaine areas, suffer without consistent representation in Congress. A the same time, Congressional Twittering of self styled nude photos becomes the norm and Anthony Weiner makes his political comeback.

Surprisingly, a few years later, the Green Party captures nearly a third of both branches of Congress. Green Party members, donning Ralph Nader T-shirts and wearing Birkenstock sandals, rise to power with their showcase plan of extending college from four to eight years, albeit with the same curriculum. “Keeping children in college longer reduces the labor force and brings down unemployment,” explains Chuck Schumer (G-NY), former Democrat and current Green Party spokesperson.

At the same time, the aged Koch Brothers of Koch Industries, who have historically referred to the Green Party as the former Pink Party, saw their political influence wane since the invention of the power bean. The energy source—a genetically modified mung bean–was developed by a teenager in India; it abrogates the need for fossil fuels in motor vehicles. The dilemma of storing excess crude oil provokes a landmark lawsuit by the Sierra Club, which objects to Big Oil’s plans to pump surplus oil back into the Earth. According to the Sierra Club, this “is a clear case of wanton polluting of the environment.”

Towards the end of Herman Cain’s time in office, a select Congressional committee has determined the overhang of surplus housing and the need for infrastructure repair are not problems that are mutually solvable. Construction workers able to build homes are not trained nor equipped to build or repair bridges, roads or ports. The startling result encourages Congress to pass a bill subsidizing new home construction while neglecting infrastructure. “We already have enough people employed rebuilding America’s highways and byways, but unemployment is still far too high in the home construction segment and that is the place help is needed” bellowed Harry Reid, the current Senate minority leader.

In spite of the Green Party’s power, 2020 sees Eric Cantor ascend to the presidency. In a conservative effort to reduce debt, Cantor discovers not one American can name all of the United States’ protectorates. Cantor sells all of them which include, American Samoa, Baker Island, Guam, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Palmyra Atoll, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and Wake Island to China in a deal reducing our national debt by a staggering 70%. Chinese businessmen quickly set up knock-off factories in most of their new possessions, and as a consequence, Chinese mainland labor laws took immediate effect. The ACLU has already filed a suit claiming American labor laws should have been grandfathered and further questioning the legality of selling property not actually owned by the American government.

By 2022, the Obama health care plan, Medicare and Medicaid have all been dissolved and are replaced by travel vouchers entitling ill patients to airfare, accommodations and medical treatment in foreign countries duly designated by the Department of State. This innovative plan, which includes countries like Iran and North Korea, turns out to be a boom for the struggling airlines and for hotel construction by American conglomerates working in foreign countries, especially in the Third World. In yet another victory by lobbyists, the Send the Ill People Abroad Act (SIPA) has been promoted as bolstering America’s image globally by encouraging not only medical but also cultural exchange. Due to losing their core business, a few of the American health care companies are planning to build geriatric centers in Cuba.

Finally, in 2022, the Chicago Cubs defeat the New York Yankees and win a World Series after a 114-year drought and the Buffalo Bills, after losing eight more Super Bowls (2014 through 2021) finally win one.

Crystal Ball

noverde — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:07:26 +0000

If the economic gurus in Washington had crystal balls in 2008, they might have taken a different approach to the three major problems plaguing our economy then and today. The first being the housing crisis—or the housing opportunity if you have enough cash to buy during this time of steeply discounted prices.

When it became clear we had a housing crisis, Warren Buffet was asked to recommend a solution. He half jokingly suggested leveling the 2 million surplus units as a formula for immediately removing the glut. No one took him seriously, but in retrospect, he was probably right; surplus housing is now being routinely leveled.

Another solution was to offer unoccupied housing units at market values to anyone overseas that could pay cash. In exchange the government would grant a green card as a path to citizenship to the buyer, provided he or she and their families occupied the house for a minimum of five years. Instead, Washington attempted a feeble, if not impotent, program supporting renegotiation, or in essence, modestly subsidized mortgages. The necessary reams of paperwork required discouraged many applicants from even applying, and the recidivism rate of successfully renegotiated mortgages that have defaulted has been nearly 50%. And, we still have the same housing glut we had two years ago.

The second poorly addressed problem is unemployment, which unfortunately has created a segment of “unemployables.” Although some of my friends place me in that category, it more aptly applies to people who lack the benefit of advanced education or those who have been left behind because of the technology revolution. It’s worse for young people of color in inner cities; their unemployment rate is nearly 40%. Not only are they unable to find any employment now, but also they are likely to face difficulties for most of their adult lives.

It appears little is being done to tackle this problem, and the social costs over the next generation or two will be staggering. Although my DNA is mostly Libertarian, there is no way out of this situation without massive government intervention, the type that creates opportunity not charity. But with current budget and deficit restraints, any massive short or long-term program seems impossible.

The third major issue revolves around the highly politicized regulation of the financial sector, which has been touted as legislation that will avoid a replay of 2008. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), who was quoted in 2008 as saying, “The two entities (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), who has had his share of financial peccadillos, drafted the Dodd-Frank Bill. Bernie Madoff may have done a better job drafting legislation that dealt more specifically with financial manipulation.

One of the most startling provisions allowed shareholders to vote on executive compensation. It turns out, shareholders at 98.5% of companies approved with only 39 of 2,532 companies rejecting proposed compensation packages. These votes are non-binding; in other words, companies don’t have to change anything even if shareholders disapprove. These aren’t rules but suggestions.

Not to be left out, Dick Durbin (D-IL) added an amendment to the bill limiting bank charges on debit cards, checking accounts and other everyday financial instruments. The result, as is always the case with legislated price controls, many the banks have aggressively raised a number of existing charges not covered by the legislation.

If there were a crystal ball in 2008, the first logical order of business might have been to simply reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act originally enacted in 1933 but rescinded in 1999. This act prohibited banks from entering other financial services, specifically investments and insurance. The masterminds behind rescinding Glass-Steagall were Phil Gramm (R-TX), Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. The latter two individuals were former Secretaries of the Treasury under Bill Clinton. At the same time, the trio also fought and won a battle against regulating derivatives.

Larry Summers later helped fashion the 2009 stimulus. One might ask how someone integrally involved in laying the groundwork for the financial crisis was later recruited to devise a plan out of it?

For more than 65 years the Glass-Steagall Act prevented financial institutions from becoming too big such that their failure might precipitate an economic crisis. Dodd-Frank leaves the decision of “too big to fail” in the hands of Federal Regulators and it does nothing to prevent any institution from growing too big, especially in a reckless fashion.

I am not sure who is peeking into the right crystal ball in 2011. Surveys show a wide margin of national pessimism with a general feeling that Washington has become too corrupt, too arrogant and in many cases too ignorant to formulate a positive economic long-term template. Everyone hopes for new dynamic leadership, yet voters poll in the sweet spot of the mainstream indicating they want patches to the problems, not revolutionary or ingenious solutions.

It was not so long ago when the United States had an economic sneeze and the rest of the world caught a cold. The world has changed dramatically, and we are quickly losing our economic superiority. A malaise about maintaining our country’s traditional global leadership role has taken a back seat as we deal with numerous internal fractures.

We may not agree with the President’s assessment that we have become soft, but it certainly appears we are reluctant to do the heavy lifting. It is much easier to make temporary repairs to our problems, kick the can down the road and believe our neighbor’s crises do not affect us. If we continue to patch or even build on an outdated foundation, no one will need a crystal ball to forecast the future.

I Can See Clearly Now………….

noverde — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 21:03:51 +0000

I can see clearly now… (listen to the music)

I have been wearing glasses for nearly half a century and like most people my eyesight has gotten progressively worse with age. I have astigmatism in each eye along with either nearsightedness or farsightedness (myopia and hyperopia). I was never certain which imperfection caused blurriness at short or long distances and I thought I had them both.

Each subsequent prescription for corrective lenses brought new-found technology and fashion to eyewear—smooth-transition trifocals were the latest.

I had a brief stint with contact lenses but that lasted only a day or two. I felt completely uncomfortable having little plastic discs in my eyes and more uncomfortable putting them in and taking them out.

Here in Buenos Aires, one of the meccas of cosmetic and corrective surgery, I discovered several laser-eye treatment options. My colleague, Maria, had her eyes corrected and she was completely satisfied with the treatment and with the doctor. In March 2010 I walked the six blocks from our office to the practice of Dr. Guemes.

Dr. Guemes was educated in Buenos Aires but he received his advanced degree in Ophthalmology at the Cleveland Clinic and his use of the English language was perfect. I make a habit of using many of the medical services in Buenos Aires and most doctors have a working knowledge of English and many had some educational or medical experience in America or Europe.

After nearly having the surgery done early in 2010, I got busy and put it off until last week. The surgical fee had changed noticeably in line with the general inflation in Argentina and had risen nearly 50% in 15 months. Nevertheless, this time I was committed.

After the required EKG and a few other tests, I was deemed in good health and ready for the laser.

Surgery here requires prepayment unless one has a local medical plan – Medicare is not accepted. The day before the operation I went to the doctor’s office to handle the monetary transaction. Unfortunately, my Spanish is poor and I did not comprehend everything on the printed forms given during my first visit or ”Cirugia refractiva con Laser Eximer (por ojo) mas IVA.” IVA is the national value-added tax or an additional 21% – not to mention I thought the price was for both not each eye. But I was committed and anxious enough to get it done so I happily paid the entire amount.

The operating theater was in a converted apartment, not unusual in Buenos Aires, but the conditions were immaculate. Neither of the doctor’s assistants spoke English and they missed my joke about asking if this was the right place for my sex change operation.

The procedure took less than five minutes for both eyes on Swiss-made laser equipment and after a day of protective bandages and keeping my eyes closed for 6 hours, I returned for an office visit. Daily drops of an antibiotic and a lubricant for about two weeks are standard after laser surgery.

I am now at my computer working without wearing glasses.

Most of my friends in America questioned the wisdom of having such delicate surgery done in Argentina. The system here is not dissimilar to the one in America. If one has enough money, although significantly less is required in Argentina compared to America, one has access to incredibly good medical care. An added bonus is that the doctors care about their patients and usually give them unlimited time and attention.

The other bonus here is that all prescription drugs, whether manufactured locally or abroad, are about 20% of the price we are accustomed to paying in America. Another subtlety is that once one gets to know their neighborhood pharmacist, prescriptions are not always required.

Perhaps this is part of the growing trend of medical tourism? Airfares from America are usually about $1,200 round trip–come on down and get a slice of the action.

Poll Dancing With The Tea Party

noverde — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:57:23 +0000

I am not a believer in polls because pollsters can ask loaded questions that will elicit a particular or preferred response. Some polls use a specific geographic, ethnic or cultural sampling to demonstrate the desired result: political questions asked in Westcliffe would likely bring decidedly different answers than the same questions asked in an “inner city.”

Statistics become synonymous with polls, but even pollsters using truly unbiased scientific methodology will have large margins of error. Statistics are usually not much better than the polls producing them and are easily manipulated to make a point. Or, in the words of Aaron Levenstein, “Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.”

Polling questions normally allow 2, 3 or 4 responses, but we have all seen responses lumped together in order to make a point for various media outlets. Unbiased questions will typically produce a bell curve, with the majority in the middle and the extreme margins more or less equal. In one recent poll, respondents were asked if Social Security is a very good system for the country, a good system or a bad system. An overwhelming majority responded that it is a good system, but once this figure was combined with that of respondents claiming it is a very good system, a commentator on TV was conveniently (and misleadingly) able to claim that 87% of Americans feel Social Security is a good or very good system.

These days it is practically impossible to get 87% of Americans to agree on anything, but nearly the same percentage of people in that particular poll also stated their belief that Social Security benefits were paid entirely from money they and their employers had paid in, plus interest. Although not reflected in the poll, I am sure many of the same respondents would say they wanted the Government to stay clear of their Social Security benefits.

In another poll, it was revealed that people are apt to vote for a specific political candidate while an identical percentage of respondents will vote specifically against another political candidate. Personality and party affiliation give voters the representation in Washington that is well deserved. It’s no surprise that political advertising focuses on a candidate’s positive credentials but focuses more on the negatives of the competitor.

It doesn’t take a brilliant pollster to describe the current negative feelings for the President, Congress and local politicians. But in spite of the negativity, incumbents enjoy over a 90% return rate. For this, we can credit an electorate that–amazingly– believes everyone else’s Congress person is corrupt and incompetent, but not their own.

In other polls, the Tea Party seems to have lost a bit of its gloss and currently suffers an approval rating slightly below 20%. The Tea Party’s fortunes demonstrate a classic example of media corruption in America. Few media script writers or news people writing virulent reviews have actually been to a Tea Party rally. The participants of Tea Party events have not been as boisterous as state workers in the Wisconsin capitol building or the masked Verizon strikers recently exhibiting their displeasure in front of the home of Verizon’s CEO. But, the media paints a much different picture.

The Tea Party suffers from a public image that has been created by the media itself. If someone just landed on Earth from Mars and picked up Neal Gabler’s column in the Boston Globe entitled “Screaming Extremism,” that Martian would read that the Tea Party is the domestic equivalent of al-Qaeda. Additionally, the Martian would learn that Tea Partiers are racist, sexist, homophobic, stupid and violent Timothy McVeigh prototypes. Mr. Gabler does not use statistics or facts but simply uses emotional triggers to influence his readers. After digesting Mr. Gabler’s diatribe, our friendly Martian would likely respond negatively if polled about the Tea Party’s influence on the American political landscape.

Further, the Vice President of the United States and two renowned New York Times columnists referred to the Tea Party members serving in Congress as terrorists. The Vice President and one of the columnists eventually withdrew and apologized for their comment or, rather, stated their remarks were taken out of context. It would be more reassuring, however, to think that important members of our government were able to discern between a Tea Party supporter and the Taliban.

The Media is intent on portraying every Tea Party member as being anti-gay marriage, pro-life, agitators, bullies and–worst of all sins–clingers to core Christian values. Some have blamed the Tea Party for the recent ratings downgrade of government credit. The Tea Party was apparently the cause of the debt ceiling impasse in Congress, which miraculously resulted in the first large reduction of the deficit seen in this country in decades.

On Labor Day, Jimmy Hoffa Jr. was the opening act for President Obama before an audience of union workers in Detroit. I don’t think his speech was metaphoric when he said, “President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong.” (Disclaimer – this author was a member of the Teamster Union for several years while the union was under the leadership of the beloved Jimmy Hoffa Sr.)

One the same day, Vice President Biden stated, “This is a different kind of fight. This is a fight for the heart and soul of the labor movement. This is a fight for the existence of organized labor. You are the only ones who can stop the barbarians at the gate. That is why they want you so bad.” Oddly, neither speech received much attention in or was even mentioned by prominent big city newspapers. Had this type of rhetoric emanated from the Tea Party, it would be a call to arms for those in opposition.

Yes, I am ignoring the polls and I am defending the Tea Party because through a sea of malaise they brought the national debt and deficit to the public’s attention. They brought it peacefully through organized rallies and they brought it to the voting booth in 2010. Suddenly, nearly every politician on both sides of the aisle is promoting “revenue neutral” expenditures and an end to the waste that has characterized Washington for two generations and more.

In a recent credible poll, over 70% of respondents said they consider the national debt and deficit serious issues that would have an impact on their vote in 2012. No one can guess how far the Tea Party will go or if the 2010 election was the zenith of their success.

Perhaps the drama will end with Al Franken, a modern-day Joseph McCarthy, in charge of a Senate committee investigating the Tea Party along with Michael Moore making a movie about the hearings.

Social Security: Myth or Magic?

noverde — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:49:08 +0000

Here in Westcliffe, Colo. during happy hour, you can buy Bud Lights for $1.50/bottle. During my last trip to Manhattan, a top-shelf martini cost $18 with a $2 tip expected by the bartender.

You can’t compare beer to vodka or gin, but the cost of living, and the cost of doing business varies greatly throughout the country. Earning the maximum Social Security benefit in Westcliffe might allow someone to manage without luxury, while the same benefit amount hardly pays for monthly parking in Manhattan. Wealth has a geographical relativity.

In our diverse country, nothing seems to discourage a “one-size-fits-all” approach by Washington exacerbating any chance to fix the U.S. budgetary entitlement woes. Washington’s attempt to homogenize the nation economically has resulted in more economic diversity, not less. Some states or areas with moderate weather and lower costs of living have become meccas for retirees, who in turn have become a vibrant political force, who in turn have become the greatest obstacle for any changes to the system.

It is not just the elderly voters but also the politicians heavily relying on those voters that resist even a slight alteration to the system. A suggested minor revision would bring out Charles Schumer and Nancy Pelosi along with a sea of bald men and blue-haired women in Florida that would make the recent London riots look tame. At the moment, no one is discussing cutting current benefits, but even talk of raising the retirement age to 67 for future generations has AARP and their constituency in an uproar.

But before focusing any discussion on Social Security or other entitlements, the nation should define the meaning of entitlement. Should we get a benefit because we contributed to it? Should that benefit outstrip our contribution? Should people receive said benefit without ever having contributed?

Most Social Security recipients believe they are simply receiving money they and their employers paid into a “trust fund.” The phrase “trust fund” is a misnomer, because there is no hard money in the fund but only specially issued government bonds. Principal and interest on these bonds must be repaid by future generations, according to law. The bonds in the Social Security “trust fund” are counted both as an asset of the trust fund and as a liability in the overall federal accounting. One hand of the government owes the other hand, and the investments in the “trust fund” are not separate from the entity that sponsors the “trust fund.”

More succinctly put, the taxes we pay from payrolls go into the large pot used for all government expenditures, including paying of principal and interest on current government debt, while the “trust” receives more government IOU’s.

There was a time Social Security was a “pay-as-you-go” system, where current tax collections paid for current benefits. Starting in 2010, because of demographic changes and less FICA taxes collected, the system was forced to pay out more than the federal government collected which amounted to about $30 billion. That trend will continue into the foreseeable future. Some members of Congress claim Social Security is still considered pay-as-you-go, but the difference is that future generations will pay for both the benefits’ outlay and the repayment of principal and interest on the special government bonds in the trust fund.

Social Security is only one of the entitlement programs aching for revision. If Warren Buffet had his way, anyone over a certain income bracket might become ineligible for benefits, or the yearly income ceiling for FICA payments might be increased for highly paid employees or the wealthier self-employed. People with high yearly incomes already pay tax on their benefits but should they even receive benefits? Currently, it is against the law to refuse Social Security benefits after the maximum trigger age of 72 or to direct those payments directly to a charity. Although no one is going to jail for refusing their payments, perhaps the law should be revised to allow individuals to opt-out with a tax credit or that wealthier recipient’s benefits are curtailed once they have received the entirety of their contribution?

According to government actuaries, the special bonds in the Social Security Trust Fund pay an average interest rate comparable to U.S. Treasury Bonds. Economists estimate each individual’s contribution–employer contribution and interest less administration expenses–translates to recipients exhausting their Social Security assets in far less than 10 years. With life expectancies approaching 80 or higher, the benefit gap between the age of eligibility and death is increasing exponentially. If you multiply that gap by 40 million Baby Boomers then the equation doesn’t compute to solvency.

Perhaps someone should have raised a red flag after paying the first Social Security recipient. Ida May Fuller was born in 1874. She worked as a legal secretary most of her career, and after three years of paying Social Security payroll taxes, she retired in 1939 at the age of 65. In the three years she paid into the system, her contribution was $24.75.

Ida May lived until 1975 and by the time she reached 100, she had collected $22,888.92 in benefits. Ida May received a 92,480% return on investment. Interestingly, the Social Security website mentions Ida May, her contributions and her status as the program’s first beneficiary, but it avoids mentioning the amount of benefits she received.

Many superfluous benefits have been added to and are now draining the Social Security Trust Fund. Most of these have been included as political collateral to enhance certain politicians’ chances for re-election. For instance, if someone my age were to marry a significantly younger woman–say 21-years old–after my death, my young widow would be eligible to collect my benefits for her entire life should she never remarry. This would be true even if she never contributed to the system (eligible candidates can apply through the website).

Call it good government or a Ponzi Scheme, but this 75-year-old law needs major revisions, not only to reflect a more modern world, but also considering our country’s current and future financial realities.