I was watching Gwen Ifill's excellent public TV public affairs show "Washington Week" tonight when the cable signal began breaking up, then dropped completely. Outside, thunder rumbled in the distance from yet another tempest, none of which has yet been able to break this execrable heat wave.
Ifill & Co. were discussing the hubristic failure of the Obama-Boehner talks on a grand deal to reduce the deficit towards coming up with an increase in the debt ceiling. They made a mistake going for too big a deal, one that necessarily had cuts in Medicare and Social Security as well as tax increases on the rich. All well and good, I say (the increase in eligibility age for Medicare and indexation formula for S.S. are coming, sooner or later, as are the tax increases), but Obama's party rebelled against one, and even more forcefully, Boehner's rebelled against the other, and Boehner had to pull out So to speak.
Our political leaders now basically have one weekend to get a deal together, the necessary characteristics of which I outlined recently. Monday, if there is no deal (or a fig-leaf kind of deal with no significant budget cuts agreed), Armageddon will be visited upon us in the form of a massive selloff of both stocks and bonds. If you can get some gold on the weekend, Sunday night would be a good time.
*with honor due to Ray Bradbury for the title
Friday, July 22, 2011
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Live By the 120th Minute Tying Goal and Penalty Kicks...
The US women's soccer team victory over Brazil in the quarterfinals of the Women's World Cup last weekend was one of the most exciting games I've seen in any venue. Abby Wambach's 122nd-minute goal, tying the score at 2-2 and putting the outcome into a penalty kick shootout (which the US, with that kind of momentum, finished successfully), was a thing of beauty, equalled by Megan Rapinoe's crossing pass from some thirty yards away right onto Wambach's forehead.
In today's final, Wambach had a similar goal (crossing pass, just by a diving defender, straight off her forehead, though the cross was from shorter range) that put the US up in overtime 2-1 with a dozen minutes or so to go. Problem was, Japan's team had seen this show and wanted to play their part. Today, they got the goal with a couple minutes to go, took the momentum into the PK shootout, and we were the ones left devastated.
I congratulate the Japanese women's team on an impressive, inspirational effort through the whole tournament (they knocked out tourney favorite, host team, and two-time defending champion Germany the same weekend the US pulled off its win over competitive rival Brazil). They came back--twice--courageously against the US women, and, given their country's tragedy this year, are more than deserving of our emotional favor. I also congratulate the US women's team, for which nothing was easy (they barely made it into the WC field, after losing a key qualification match vs. Mexico). They accomplished a great deal and should be proud of it.
In today's final, Wambach had a similar goal (crossing pass, just by a diving defender, straight off her forehead, though the cross was from shorter range) that put the US up in overtime 2-1 with a dozen minutes or so to go. Problem was, Japan's team had seen this show and wanted to play their part. Today, they got the goal with a couple minutes to go, took the momentum into the PK shootout, and we were the ones left devastated.
I congratulate the Japanese women's team on an impressive, inspirational effort through the whole tournament (they knocked out tourney favorite, host team, and two-time defending champion Germany the same weekend the US pulled off its win over competitive rival Brazil). They came back--twice--courageously against the US women, and, given their country's tragedy this year, are more than deserving of our emotional favor. I also congratulate the US women's team, for which nothing was easy (they barely made it into the WC field, after losing a key qualification match vs. Mexico). They accomplished a great deal and should be proud of it.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Slow Trains Coming Together on the Same Track
It's disappointing, but it became clear this week that the $4 billion deficit reduction deal is not going to happen. It seemed close at one point about a week ago, with Speaker Boehner and President Obama negotiating directly on a package of that size--the size that a number of parties have indicated all along was needed for credible deficit reform--that included some reductions in entitlement costs and tax revenue increases, both of which were clearly necessary for an agreement of that size.
What happened since then is that Speaker Boehner was rebuffed by his party's caucus in the House. The problem is the Grover Norquist Pledge to vote against any net increase in Federal taxes--most House Republicans, and sufficient Senate Republicans, have signed it--and most who've signed it are unwilling to go back on it. Republican House Minority Leader Eric Cantor became the mouthpiece of those House Republicans, and they effectively undercut Boehner's ability to negotiate a deal of this magnitude.
So, there will be no tax increases, and there will be no corresponding ground offered on Medicare cuts (My proposal, to make Medicare benefits taxable, would make the two items--increase in revenue, and effective reduction in Medicare costs--equal, without making an explicit tradeoff, but I haven't heard it proposed yet, just "means tests" to make Medicare benefits more expensive for the wealthy.) This seems to limit the cuts that can be agreed upon to something like $1.5 billion over the next 10 years.
Boehner laid down a principle that the budget cuts should exceed the approved amount in the debt ceiling, which would need to be some $2.5 billion to get the government safely past the 2012 elections (or so I'm told). This is where the nefarious scheming of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell comes in. He's proposed some kind of complicated approach would give Obama the power to increase the debt limit for some amount of time unless two-thirds majorities of both houses voted to block it; it has the benefit of removing debt limit increases as a stumbling block for the economy, and it would allow most Republicans to vote against Obama's Debt Limit Increases.
So, the outlines of the final deal become clear--at least to me. $1.5 billion in cuts over ten years, some small increases in taxes through loophole closing, offset entirely by extensions of the payroll tax cut (so, no net increase in taxes and no violation of the Norquist Pledge), which would ensure sufficient Democratic votes for passage, and the McConnell clause which would come up in a year or so, during the election campaign, to allow Obama to get the debt limit past the election, but in a sufficiently politically damaging fashion to please Republican Congresspeople.
Tea Party Economics
Michele Bachmann has emerged as the anti-Romney candidate for at least the first portion of the 2012 Republican nomination race--I still think she will fade, and that Rick Perry will take up the torch--but that will happen sometime around when she loses in New Hampshire, gets creamed in Nevada, and doesn't do quite well enough in South Carolina. Meanwhile, her strong standing in polls, particularly in Iowa, make her someone everyone has to notice.
What she's saying about the debt ceiling is that Tim Geithner and Company are not telling us the truth if they say we will default on our debts on August 3rd if the debt ceiling is not raised. In this, I think she is factually correct, but completely wrong in the conclusion she draws from this, namely that it is OK to deny President Obama an increase in the debt ceiling, something she's basically promised to vote to do.
The statements of Geithner and Obama on this have been careful and are relatively clear. The Federal government is limited by statute to $14.8 billion (or whatever the exact number) in debt. When we reach that debt, they will pay some bills from cash on hand, they will raise money by selling assets to pay other debts, and they could challenge the constitutionality of the statute (on the 14th Amendment grounds), though they don't mention that one. They could prolong any default on any debts for some number of months--not a lot, but long enough to create a major crisis and probably break the resolve of Republicans to prevent a debt limit increase--if they had a resolve to do that.
I think it is clear that they do not have such a united resolved. The Republican leaders in both the House and Senate have shown that they recognize the danger: it's not so much an economic danger (more of that in a moment), but a political one that they don't want to face. They don't want to re-do 1995, which had a shutdown crisis which caused the Republicans to lose their hard-won House majority and go into the 1996 Presidential election already defeated. Something like half of the Republican members of the House have a hardcore Tea Party view like Bachmann's and will vote against any debt limit increase, but that will be offset if there is a compromise that is acceptable to a comparable number of Democratic House members.
The economic consequences of an actual government default are huge, but that is not going to happen, for the political and administrative reasons I've outlined. An economic catastrophe could still happen, though, and it would look something like this: we get to the last week in July and there is still no deal. Wall Street and the global capital markets finally decide the crisis is real and interest rates shoot up dramatically, led by Treasuries, but including all forms of debts. A small, late deal is produced by August 2, or shortly thereafter, so there is no default, but the meager nature of the deal inspires no confidence--rates come down very little or not at all, the country is plunged back into recession (with the rest of the globe following), and the political consequences--well, they would be severe, most likely punishing both parties somehow, with some kind of third-party desperation move (or multiple ones) emerging (Bloomberg? Donald Trump? Something even worse?)
I would conclude that it is in the interest of both parties to come up with that middle-small, face-saving deal that I outlined, and that they should do it in the next 10 days.
What happened since then is that Speaker Boehner was rebuffed by his party's caucus in the House. The problem is the Grover Norquist Pledge to vote against any net increase in Federal taxes--most House Republicans, and sufficient Senate Republicans, have signed it--and most who've signed it are unwilling to go back on it. Republican House Minority Leader Eric Cantor became the mouthpiece of those House Republicans, and they effectively undercut Boehner's ability to negotiate a deal of this magnitude.
So, there will be no tax increases, and there will be no corresponding ground offered on Medicare cuts (My proposal, to make Medicare benefits taxable, would make the two items--increase in revenue, and effective reduction in Medicare costs--equal, without making an explicit tradeoff, but I haven't heard it proposed yet, just "means tests" to make Medicare benefits more expensive for the wealthy.) This seems to limit the cuts that can be agreed upon to something like $1.5 billion over the next 10 years.
Boehner laid down a principle that the budget cuts should exceed the approved amount in the debt ceiling, which would need to be some $2.5 billion to get the government safely past the 2012 elections (or so I'm told). This is where the nefarious scheming of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell comes in. He's proposed some kind of complicated approach would give Obama the power to increase the debt limit for some amount of time unless two-thirds majorities of both houses voted to block it; it has the benefit of removing debt limit increases as a stumbling block for the economy, and it would allow most Republicans to vote against Obama's Debt Limit Increases.
So, the outlines of the final deal become clear--at least to me. $1.5 billion in cuts over ten years, some small increases in taxes through loophole closing, offset entirely by extensions of the payroll tax cut (so, no net increase in taxes and no violation of the Norquist Pledge), which would ensure sufficient Democratic votes for passage, and the McConnell clause which would come up in a year or so, during the election campaign, to allow Obama to get the debt limit past the election, but in a sufficiently politically damaging fashion to please Republican Congresspeople.
Tea Party Economics
Michele Bachmann has emerged as the anti-Romney candidate for at least the first portion of the 2012 Republican nomination race--I still think she will fade, and that Rick Perry will take up the torch--but that will happen sometime around when she loses in New Hampshire, gets creamed in Nevada, and doesn't do quite well enough in South Carolina. Meanwhile, her strong standing in polls, particularly in Iowa, make her someone everyone has to notice.
What she's saying about the debt ceiling is that Tim Geithner and Company are not telling us the truth if they say we will default on our debts on August 3rd if the debt ceiling is not raised. In this, I think she is factually correct, but completely wrong in the conclusion she draws from this, namely that it is OK to deny President Obama an increase in the debt ceiling, something she's basically promised to vote to do.
The statements of Geithner and Obama on this have been careful and are relatively clear. The Federal government is limited by statute to $14.8 billion (or whatever the exact number) in debt. When we reach that debt, they will pay some bills from cash on hand, they will raise money by selling assets to pay other debts, and they could challenge the constitutionality of the statute (on the 14th Amendment grounds), though they don't mention that one. They could prolong any default on any debts for some number of months--not a lot, but long enough to create a major crisis and probably break the resolve of Republicans to prevent a debt limit increase--if they had a resolve to do that.
I think it is clear that they do not have such a united resolved. The Republican leaders in both the House and Senate have shown that they recognize the danger: it's not so much an economic danger (more of that in a moment), but a political one that they don't want to face. They don't want to re-do 1995, which had a shutdown crisis which caused the Republicans to lose their hard-won House majority and go into the 1996 Presidential election already defeated. Something like half of the Republican members of the House have a hardcore Tea Party view like Bachmann's and will vote against any debt limit increase, but that will be offset if there is a compromise that is acceptable to a comparable number of Democratic House members.
The economic consequences of an actual government default are huge, but that is not going to happen, for the political and administrative reasons I've outlined. An economic catastrophe could still happen, though, and it would look something like this: we get to the last week in July and there is still no deal. Wall Street and the global capital markets finally decide the crisis is real and interest rates shoot up dramatically, led by Treasuries, but including all forms of debts. A small, late deal is produced by August 2, or shortly thereafter, so there is no default, but the meager nature of the deal inspires no confidence--rates come down very little or not at all, the country is plunged back into recession (with the rest of the globe following), and the political consequences--well, they would be severe, most likely punishing both parties somehow, with some kind of third-party desperation move (or multiple ones) emerging (Bloomberg? Donald Trump? Something even worse?)
I would conclude that it is in the interest of both parties to come up with that middle-small, face-saving deal that I outlined, and that they should do it in the next 10 days.
Monday, July 04, 2011
In Which We Attempt to Solve Some Major Sports Issues
MLB: How to Realign
It's been reported that Major League Baseball is taking a hard look at realignment. What I've heard is, first, that the playoffs would be expanded to five teams per league, the first round being a brief elimination contest between the fourth- and fifth-place teams; and second, that one team would go back to the AL, bringing each league to 15 teams. Finally, there is a notion of eliminating the divisional races i, simply having the playoffs consist of the top five teams in each league.
My advice would be to keep the first two ideas, but lose the third. Another round of playoffs means a few more high-ratings games in the fall (hopefully cutting deeper into the early-season ratings of the NFL), and it could be constructed in such a way that the three divisional winners get more of an advantage vs. the wild card survivor than is currently the case (they'd get the days off, but there could also be a more pronounced home-field advantage in the next round).
I get the idea, and I sympathize with it: The lords of baseball would like to enhance interest in the regular season, and in the playoffs, too; however, I think that having six playoff races (or at least two or three, with the inevitable Wild Card year-end frenzy) is better than—at best—two, and those would probably be for the unenviable fourth and fifth spots, with the league leaders coasting in.
The key question for the realignment is probably the team that will need to go over from the NL to the (I hate to say it, as a NL fan, but tougher) AL. The answer is definitely not the one I've heard, of moving over, so it can compete with its natural rival, the Texas (Dallas) Rangers. Houston should play Texas, but as its “natural rival” in interleague play, which will become more fundamental—going throughout the year—when both leagues are at 15 and there will need to be an interleague game in any full-schedule day of play. No, I'd say it should be an NL West team—Colorado, San Diego, or Arizona, and probably one of the latter two—that should go over, with Houston moving to the NL West.
That would achieve the key objective of balancing out the league with 6 divisions of five teams each (just like the NBA), with a good natural pairing for each team: a lot are obvious, but one pairing would be America's Team (Atlanta) vs. Canada's (the Blue Jays), and another would be the best in the NL, 2011 version (Philadelphia) vs. the AL's best (Boston).
Under this framework, there is a very natural breakdown of the schedule, as follows: 64 games vs. one's own division (16 per each opponent), 80 vs. the other teams in one's league (8 per), and 18 vs. the other league's teams in the same geographical division—three vs. four of them, and six vs. the natural rival. In terms of interleague, this is a slight increase—288 games vs. the 2011 schedule's 252—but not a big change. The AL teams already played 18 interleague games each this year (NL teams played differing amounts; for some reason unknown reason MLB did not go with the logical number of 224, which is 16X14).
There would be a stable set of appealing matchups, and the home vs. away nature of the interleague games against secondary rivals would alternate. Seems pretty fair, except that there would be some variation in the interleague difficulty for purposes of Wild Card qualification—but I don't consider that a big problem if the divisional races are fair. Compared to today's approach, it is much more fair, and the amount of change is small (except for the team convinced to move, which should be generously compensated).
My honest advice would be more ambitious: expand MLB to 36 teams, adding two in Asia (Korea and Taiwan—leave Japan's league alone), two in Latin America (San Jose/Santo Domingo and Mexico City) and two more in Canada (Montreal and Seattle's only real natural rival, Vancouver). To those who think it would water down the talent, I would respond that the talent is out there, it just needs a heightened worldwide interest level in the game in order to emerge (again, see the NBA). I think it will happen; I hope I live to see it.
NBA: Don't Be Blockheads
On the tail of probably the most successful season ever for the league—in terms of quality playoffs in all rounds, high fan interest in the finals, and (I presume) TV ratings—the owners have chosen to put a gun to their own heads and are threatening to use it. They've already fired a warning shot in the form of announcing a lockout, the same player-and-fan-unfriendly tactic currently in use by the NFL's greedy, blockheaded owners.
Unlike the NFL owners, the NBA's have been fairly open about their books, which show that they are not making much money, at least in relation to the cost (or value) of their franchises. The bad news is that they are looking to make up huge amounts of money in a new deal, unrealistic amounts. The good news is that the relations with the players' union are fairly respectful, and that the players are motivated to make a deal. NBA players are a relatively small number, compared with baseball and football, and they are really very well compensated, and they know it.
The main problem, as I see it, is the owners' zeal to compete has caused them to make a lot of very bad guaranteed contracts to a fairly sizable set of players who are underperforming or perennially injured. My solution does not cover the bad performers—owners just need to be a little more restrained about giving the big contracts to guys who are unproven (and that especially applies to big men jumping from Europe or skipping college)--but I think the injuries are a problem they can easily be protected from losing money upon. The players should offer to fund insurance, on the order of $300 million in potential annual benefit, to the owners. The conditions should be no more than $20 million in a year, $50 million in five years, and no more than three players at a time. If the owners need more injury insurance benefit than that, they're gambling on too many physically shaky individuals.
P.S. Congratulations to Dirk Nowitzki, Jasons Kidd and Terry, and the rest of the Mavericks' players for their championship win over Miami. They earned it, for sure.
Tennis: A Midyear Championship Series?
While we're at it, I congratulate Novak Djokovic for his success this year, capped by his gaining the No. 1 ranking, then defeating Rafael Nadal in the Wimbledon final. I have to say it's a good thing that he won the final (though he didn't need to do it to attain the top ranking). I'd be in favor of a midseason championship series—maybe just the top four players, playing on three different surfaces—as a big moneymaker which might make the ratings a lot less important in our consideration of the game.
The women's game shows how bad things are: unlike the men's game, where the top four are clearly known, and, despite intense competition, show up in the semis and finals with regularity, the women's game has no one deserving of the top spot. It's been that way since Kim Clijsters and the Williams sisters went out with injuries (the Williams' just got back, but not quite all the way) and Justine Henin retired. Suppose they had a championship series and no one qualified?
NFL: Just Give Up
The owners are doing their best imitation of Congress: they dither and make unreasonable demands until the last minute, then they will rush a deal, force the players (who've been locked out of training) to show up for their precious preseason travesties, and make other moves to grind the players' brain pans and limbs into glue and dust.
My only advice is: the players should refuse any deal in which they have to play more than two preseason games—this year, especially, and for the future, too. Other than that, I continue to enjoy the absence of the NFL and continue my boycott of all things related, until we get a new set of owners.
It's been reported that Major League Baseball is taking a hard look at realignment. What I've heard is, first, that the playoffs would be expanded to five teams per league, the first round being a brief elimination contest between the fourth- and fifth-place teams; and second, that one team would go back to the AL, bringing each league to 15 teams. Finally, there is a notion of eliminating the divisional races i, simply having the playoffs consist of the top five teams in each league.
My advice would be to keep the first two ideas, but lose the third. Another round of playoffs means a few more high-ratings games in the fall (hopefully cutting deeper into the early-season ratings of the NFL), and it could be constructed in such a way that the three divisional winners get more of an advantage vs. the wild card survivor than is currently the case (they'd get the days off, but there could also be a more pronounced home-field advantage in the next round).
I get the idea, and I sympathize with it: The lords of baseball would like to enhance interest in the regular season, and in the playoffs, too; however, I think that having six playoff races (or at least two or three, with the inevitable Wild Card year-end frenzy) is better than—at best—two, and those would probably be for the unenviable fourth and fifth spots, with the league leaders coasting in.
The key question for the realignment is probably the team that will need to go over from the NL to the (I hate to say it, as a NL fan, but tougher) AL. The answer is definitely not the one I've heard, of moving over, so it can compete with its natural rival, the Texas (Dallas) Rangers. Houston should play Texas, but as its “natural rival” in interleague play, which will become more fundamental—going throughout the year—when both leagues are at 15 and there will need to be an interleague game in any full-schedule day of play. No, I'd say it should be an NL West team—Colorado, San Diego, or Arizona, and probably one of the latter two—that should go over, with Houston moving to the NL West.
That would achieve the key objective of balancing out the league with 6 divisions of five teams each (just like the NBA), with a good natural pairing for each team: a lot are obvious, but one pairing would be America's Team (Atlanta) vs. Canada's (the Blue Jays), and another would be the best in the NL, 2011 version (Philadelphia) vs. the AL's best (Boston).
Under this framework, there is a very natural breakdown of the schedule, as follows: 64 games vs. one's own division (16 per each opponent), 80 vs. the other teams in one's league (8 per), and 18 vs. the other league's teams in the same geographical division—three vs. four of them, and six vs. the natural rival. In terms of interleague, this is a slight increase—288 games vs. the 2011 schedule's 252—but not a big change. The AL teams already played 18 interleague games each this year (NL teams played differing amounts; for some reason unknown reason MLB did not go with the logical number of 224, which is 16X14).
There would be a stable set of appealing matchups, and the home vs. away nature of the interleague games against secondary rivals would alternate. Seems pretty fair, except that there would be some variation in the interleague difficulty for purposes of Wild Card qualification—but I don't consider that a big problem if the divisional races are fair. Compared to today's approach, it is much more fair, and the amount of change is small (except for the team convinced to move, which should be generously compensated).
My honest advice would be more ambitious: expand MLB to 36 teams, adding two in Asia (Korea and Taiwan—leave Japan's league alone), two in Latin America (San Jose/Santo Domingo and Mexico City) and two more in Canada (Montreal and Seattle's only real natural rival, Vancouver). To those who think it would water down the talent, I would respond that the talent is out there, it just needs a heightened worldwide interest level in the game in order to emerge (again, see the NBA). I think it will happen; I hope I live to see it.
NBA: Don't Be Blockheads
On the tail of probably the most successful season ever for the league—in terms of quality playoffs in all rounds, high fan interest in the finals, and (I presume) TV ratings—the owners have chosen to put a gun to their own heads and are threatening to use it. They've already fired a warning shot in the form of announcing a lockout, the same player-and-fan-unfriendly tactic currently in use by the NFL's greedy, blockheaded owners.
Unlike the NFL owners, the NBA's have been fairly open about their books, which show that they are not making much money, at least in relation to the cost (or value) of their franchises. The bad news is that they are looking to make up huge amounts of money in a new deal, unrealistic amounts. The good news is that the relations with the players' union are fairly respectful, and that the players are motivated to make a deal. NBA players are a relatively small number, compared with baseball and football, and they are really very well compensated, and they know it.
The main problem, as I see it, is the owners' zeal to compete has caused them to make a lot of very bad guaranteed contracts to a fairly sizable set of players who are underperforming or perennially injured. My solution does not cover the bad performers—owners just need to be a little more restrained about giving the big contracts to guys who are unproven (and that especially applies to big men jumping from Europe or skipping college)--but I think the injuries are a problem they can easily be protected from losing money upon. The players should offer to fund insurance, on the order of $300 million in potential annual benefit, to the owners. The conditions should be no more than $20 million in a year, $50 million in five years, and no more than three players at a time. If the owners need more injury insurance benefit than that, they're gambling on too many physically shaky individuals.
P.S. Congratulations to Dirk Nowitzki, Jasons Kidd and Terry, and the rest of the Mavericks' players for their championship win over Miami. They earned it, for sure.
Tennis: A Midyear Championship Series?
While we're at it, I congratulate Novak Djokovic for his success this year, capped by his gaining the No. 1 ranking, then defeating Rafael Nadal in the Wimbledon final. I have to say it's a good thing that he won the final (though he didn't need to do it to attain the top ranking). I'd be in favor of a midseason championship series—maybe just the top four players, playing on three different surfaces—as a big moneymaker which might make the ratings a lot less important in our consideration of the game.
The women's game shows how bad things are: unlike the men's game, where the top four are clearly known, and, despite intense competition, show up in the semis and finals with regularity, the women's game has no one deserving of the top spot. It's been that way since Kim Clijsters and the Williams sisters went out with injuries (the Williams' just got back, but not quite all the way) and Justine Henin retired. Suppose they had a championship series and no one qualified?
NFL: Just Give Up
The owners are doing their best imitation of Congress: they dither and make unreasonable demands until the last minute, then they will rush a deal, force the players (who've been locked out of training) to show up for their precious preseason travesties, and make other moves to grind the players' brain pans and limbs into glue and dust.
My only advice is: the players should refuse any deal in which they have to play more than two preseason games—this year, especially, and for the future, too. Other than that, I continue to enjoy the absence of the NFL and continue my boycott of all things related, until we get a new set of owners.
Friday, July 01, 2011
Halperin's Painful Boner
Warning: As with my recent posting on Anthony Weiner, this posting contains an excessive amount of silly reference--direct and indirect--to male sex organs. I apologize for the necessity.
Last week, Time political editor and MSNBC regular talking head Mark Halperin went on Joe Scarborough's "Morning Joe" show to talk about President Obama's news conference the day before. Obama had scolded Congress for failing to do its assignment of finding a way to pass the debt limit and warned them that, if they didn't get their work done, the public would give them bad grades, in the process comparing them unfavorably to his daughters.
Helperin was asked about his opinion of the Obama scolding. He indicated his honest opinion should be bleeped out and checked that they could and would do so, then said, "basically, I think he was being a dick". Pretty soon, he was mortified to find out that the producer had tried to use bleep the comment (using the six-second delay on this type of telecast), but had failed to do so. Halperin "manned up" (boy, I hate that expression) and apologized, on air at the time, and since then.
Helperin has been suspended indefinitely by MSNBC and probably will be disciplined in some way by Time. Personally, I think this unfair: if anybody's job should be endangered, it's the producer (or the person who trained him/her and didn't sufficiently emphasize the necessity of keeping his/her thumb by the button at all times). Whether or not you believe in the appropriateness of the delay and the squelch button, this was one time it should have been used, as Halperin's comments clearly show he meant the characterization should be off the record. I think that an appropriate punishment for Halperin is for him to live with a new nickname, a dimutive of Richard.
The Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page had it about right in today's column when he pointed out that the real issue is not "Dick" Halperin's mild vulgarity or "Morning Joe's" failure to push the button, but whether Obama's scolding isn't right on target. It's not "being a dick" to expect them to do their job. He should be playing hardball, and wielding the bat is how to do it.
Finally, it's way past due for me to credit Garrett Epps, writing in the Atlantic Monthly, for a brilliant constitutional argument that the debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional. A provision of the 14th amendment, passed during Reconstruction, clearly states that the Federal government's debt must be honored. It's certainly not a strategy to be preferred, but if the stalemate looks to go past August 2, it is now looking like a possibility for Obama to announce that he will require all debts be honored, and, if necessary, challenge the constitutionality of the ultimate debt ceiling legislation ("the debt shall not exceed $XXX trillion").
Last week, Time political editor and MSNBC regular talking head Mark Halperin went on Joe Scarborough's "Morning Joe" show to talk about President Obama's news conference the day before. Obama had scolded Congress for failing to do its assignment of finding a way to pass the debt limit and warned them that, if they didn't get their work done, the public would give them bad grades, in the process comparing them unfavorably to his daughters.
Helperin was asked about his opinion of the Obama scolding. He indicated his honest opinion should be bleeped out and checked that they could and would do so, then said, "basically, I think he was being a dick". Pretty soon, he was mortified to find out that the producer had tried to use bleep the comment (using the six-second delay on this type of telecast), but had failed to do so. Halperin "manned up" (boy, I hate that expression) and apologized, on air at the time, and since then.
Helperin has been suspended indefinitely by MSNBC and probably will be disciplined in some way by Time. Personally, I think this unfair: if anybody's job should be endangered, it's the producer (or the person who trained him/her and didn't sufficiently emphasize the necessity of keeping his/her thumb by the button at all times). Whether or not you believe in the appropriateness of the delay and the squelch button, this was one time it should have been used, as Halperin's comments clearly show he meant the characterization should be off the record. I think that an appropriate punishment for Halperin is for him to live with a new nickname, a dimutive of Richard.
The Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page had it about right in today's column when he pointed out that the real issue is not "Dick" Halperin's mild vulgarity or "Morning Joe's" failure to push the button, but whether Obama's scolding isn't right on target. It's not "being a dick" to expect them to do their job. He should be playing hardball, and wielding the bat is how to do it.
Finally, it's way past due for me to credit Garrett Epps, writing in the Atlantic Monthly, for a brilliant constitutional argument that the debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional. A provision of the 14th amendment, passed during Reconstruction, clearly states that the Federal government's debt must be honored. It's certainly not a strategy to be preferred, but if the stalemate looks to go past August 2, it is now looking like a possibility for Obama to announce that he will require all debts be honored, and, if necessary, challenge the constitutionality of the ultimate debt ceiling legislation ("the debt shall not exceed $XXX trillion").
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Political Catchup Post
(I'm thinking of the messy red stuff, a good image to describe our domestic economy, and also the fact that I've been remiss in commenting on recent political news.)
Why Isn't Capital Making Jobs Here?
This is, more or less, the theme of a discussion on the business social network Linked In, to which I contributed the following post:
Unfortunately, there is no law of economics that means everyone who wants a decent job can get one, even in times of prosperity. We have raised productivity and outsourced jobs to the point that I see an oversupply of labor--under any government--for the next 15 years or so (until the Baby Boomers are largely out to pasture). It is true that the cost of medical benefits to employers means less will be employed; this is nothing new, though, and we failed to fix this problem with the health care insurance reform.
We can't spend our way out of this--the 2009 program was the best we could do, politically, in a crisis, and it wasn't enough. Tax cuts to create jobs are a joke, it wasn't even funny in the '000's (job market was weak, held up temporarily by wars, building houses we didn't need, and phony mortgages), and the party out of power is selling the same snake oil in the same bottle with a new label.
Here are three things I think could help on the margin:
1) A government-and-bank-supported effort to reclaim and restore foreclosed homes in ravaged neighborhoods.
2) Make a low-cost catastrophic health care insurance plan available to all (a/k/a the public option) so people can live on part-time jobs; and
3) Reduce future entitlement liabilities by making Medicare benefits taxable, and by allowing people going into well-funded retirement to give up their Social Security benefits in exchange for unused Federal land in trust (a new homesteading program).
While Playing Golf...
Here are some points the President might make with his orange-hued playing partner:
1) We are going to make a proposal that is going to revitalize the states that are hardest hit by the recession (see #1 above). It will be very popular, and you will oppose it at your peril. If you go along, we will all benefit.
2) We have some major suggestions to reduce future deficits (see #2 above), including $500 billion or more in defense spending, totalling some $2 billion, which will take this off the table until 2013. Again, you will oppose them at your peril, because we are prepared to take steps to prevent default and keep the government running indefinitely without an increase in the debt limit, but it will destroy your party's political fortunes.
3) We will consult with you on the Libya campaign, but a vote is not required, and we will ignore any measure that ties the hands of NATO in the program. We look to wrap it up within 60 days, one way or another.
4) We are close to a political deal in Afghanistan, and the troop withdrawals are going to be very real.
Mitt and the Seven Dwarfs
I have to admit that I couldn't watch the Republican Presidential debate the other night--it was too much for me to stand. So I'll take the word of those who watched it that Romney won (by not losing), Pawlenty missed his big chance to lay mitts on, and Bachmann emerged as the purest anti-Romney, anti-Obama, anti-government Tea Party-type candidate. Fine.
I recommend Larry Sabato's recent column handicapping the candidates--Sabato's a political scientist with moderate to conservative leanings, but on something like this is very reliable and well-informed. So I will accept his point of view that Ron Paul's support is too much on the margins of the party primary electorate to be a serious threat to Romney, that Cain (who I see as a black redneck, if such a thing is possible) will yield his support to Bachmann if she takes the early lead with a strong performance in Iowa.
Fine. I would still say that there is an opening for a major entrant, and it looks to me that it will be Rick Perry (not Palin, not Christie). I have to say that this disturbs me more than a little, and I will not dismiss his chances by saying what should be obvious--we've seen his like before, and we're just starting to recover from it. Perry's popularity in Texas is at a peak now--2016 will be too late for him--he's got the bug to run, he'll get Bushite money, and his story might just gull the voters yet again, even in the general election. So, I see the race as being Romney and Bachmann leading early, Perry trying to break in before South Carolina, and Romney and Perry being a very typical high-forehead white-guy Republican nomination battle.
As for the VP nominee, whoever the Presidential nominee will be, I think he/she/it will choose Marco Rubio. I think it's clear he would take the job, add value to the ticket (in Florida, and with Hispanics), and any nominee would be crazy not to choose him.
Now, I was originally thinking of the race as Mitt and the Seven Dwarfs: Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, Pawlenty, and Huntsman. But, in trying to cast the original (Gingich is Grumpy, or maybe Doc, Huntsman--the last guy to appear--Sleepy, etc.) it occurs to me that Bachmann is actually better cast as Snow White (with Palin as the Wicked Stepmother, who will bring a poisoned apple to her at some point--a tainted endorsement?), and Romney is really one of the dwarfs (Dopey?) Then there's Perry, Prince Charming, who would come to S.W.'s rescue when her campaign becomes paralyzed, winning the nomination and rides off into the sunset with her riding behind as the V.P. It works better--as an analogy, as a dramatic plot--but is it realistic? Then again, the GOP has been living in a fantasy world for quite a while.
Why Isn't Capital Making Jobs Here?
This is, more or less, the theme of a discussion on the business social network Linked In, to which I contributed the following post:
Unfortunately, there is no law of economics that means everyone who wants a decent job can get one, even in times of prosperity. We have raised productivity and outsourced jobs to the point that I see an oversupply of labor--under any government--for the next 15 years or so (until the Baby Boomers are largely out to pasture). It is true that the cost of medical benefits to employers means less will be employed; this is nothing new, though, and we failed to fix this problem with the health care insurance reform.
We can't spend our way out of this--the 2009 program was the best we could do, politically, in a crisis, and it wasn't enough. Tax cuts to create jobs are a joke, it wasn't even funny in the '000's (job market was weak, held up temporarily by wars, building houses we didn't need, and phony mortgages), and the party out of power is selling the same snake oil in the same bottle with a new label.
Here are three things I think could help on the margin:
1) A government-and-bank-supported effort to reclaim and restore foreclosed homes in ravaged neighborhoods.
2) Make a low-cost catastrophic health care insurance plan available to all (a/k/a the public option) so people can live on part-time jobs; and
3) Reduce future entitlement liabilities by making Medicare benefits taxable, and by allowing people going into well-funded retirement to give up their Social Security benefits in exchange for unused Federal land in trust (a new homesteading program).
While Playing Golf...
Here are some points the President might make with his orange-hued playing partner:
1) We are going to make a proposal that is going to revitalize the states that are hardest hit by the recession (see #1 above). It will be very popular, and you will oppose it at your peril. If you go along, we will all benefit.
2) We have some major suggestions to reduce future deficits (see #2 above), including $500 billion or more in defense spending, totalling some $2 billion, which will take this off the table until 2013. Again, you will oppose them at your peril, because we are prepared to take steps to prevent default and keep the government running indefinitely without an increase in the debt limit, but it will destroy your party's political fortunes.
3) We will consult with you on the Libya campaign, but a vote is not required, and we will ignore any measure that ties the hands of NATO in the program. We look to wrap it up within 60 days, one way or another.
4) We are close to a political deal in Afghanistan, and the troop withdrawals are going to be very real.
Mitt and the Seven Dwarfs
I have to admit that I couldn't watch the Republican Presidential debate the other night--it was too much for me to stand. So I'll take the word of those who watched it that Romney won (by not losing), Pawlenty missed his big chance to lay mitts on, and Bachmann emerged as the purest anti-Romney, anti-Obama, anti-government Tea Party-type candidate. Fine.
I recommend Larry Sabato's recent column handicapping the candidates--Sabato's a political scientist with moderate to conservative leanings, but on something like this is very reliable and well-informed. So I will accept his point of view that Ron Paul's support is too much on the margins of the party primary electorate to be a serious threat to Romney, that Cain (who I see as a black redneck, if such a thing is possible) will yield his support to Bachmann if she takes the early lead with a strong performance in Iowa.
Fine. I would still say that there is an opening for a major entrant, and it looks to me that it will be Rick Perry (not Palin, not Christie). I have to say that this disturbs me more than a little, and I will not dismiss his chances by saying what should be obvious--we've seen his like before, and we're just starting to recover from it. Perry's popularity in Texas is at a peak now--2016 will be too late for him--he's got the bug to run, he'll get Bushite money, and his story might just gull the voters yet again, even in the general election. So, I see the race as being Romney and Bachmann leading early, Perry trying to break in before South Carolina, and Romney and Perry being a very typical high-forehead white-guy Republican nomination battle.
As for the VP nominee, whoever the Presidential nominee will be, I think he/she/it will choose Marco Rubio. I think it's clear he would take the job, add value to the ticket (in Florida, and with Hispanics), and any nominee would be crazy not to choose him.
Now, I was originally thinking of the race as Mitt and the Seven Dwarfs: Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, Pawlenty, and Huntsman. But, in trying to cast the original (Gingich is Grumpy, or maybe Doc, Huntsman--the last guy to appear--Sleepy, etc.) it occurs to me that Bachmann is actually better cast as Snow White (with Palin as the Wicked Stepmother, who will bring a poisoned apple to her at some point--a tainted endorsement?), and Romney is really one of the dwarfs (Dopey?) Then there's Perry, Prince Charming, who would come to S.W.'s rescue when her campaign becomes paralyzed, winning the nomination and rides off into the sunset with her riding behind as the V.P. It works better--as an analogy, as a dramatic plot--but is it realistic? Then again, the GOP has been living in a fantasy world for quite a while.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
"Bulworth" in Real Life
It's not new, but in going through my old emails the other day I ran across this incredible piece in the New Yorker about Rodrigo Rosenberg of Guatemala, and his decision to arrange a hired killing--of himself:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/04/110404fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all
The article, by Curtis Grann, is very well written and suspenseful, so I won't spoil it any more. The upper class of Guatemalan society is extreme in its no-holds-barred, rough-and-tumble battle for power and all it brings. Rosenberg comes off as someone who was too credulous for full-tilt Machiavellianism.
"Bulworth", of course, was the movie starring Warren Beatty from the '90's in which the Senator pays hit men to kill him off, then he falls in love (with a character played by Halle Berry), and changes his mind and tries--unsuccessfully--to call it off. It's quite amusing, particularly when Beatty/Bulworth, with nothing to lose, starts telling the truth--in rhymes, white-man hip-hop style. Rosenberg's story is not at all humorous, but it is fascinating in its own way.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/04/110404fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all
The article, by Curtis Grann, is very well written and suspenseful, so I won't spoil it any more. The upper class of Guatemalan society is extreme in its no-holds-barred, rough-and-tumble battle for power and all it brings. Rosenberg comes off as someone who was too credulous for full-tilt Machiavellianism.
"Bulworth", of course, was the movie starring Warren Beatty from the '90's in which the Senator pays hit men to kill him off, then he falls in love (with a character played by Halle Berry), and changes his mind and tries--unsuccessfully--to call it off. It's quite amusing, particularly when Beatty/Bulworth, with nothing to lose, starts telling the truth--in rhymes, white-man hip-hop style. Rosenberg's story is not at all humorous, but it is fascinating in its own way.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Weiner: Cooked
It's hardly worth debating whether Rep. Anthony Weiner should resign or should have to resign or should be somehow removed from his job (the latest I heard was to gerrymander his district out of existence). He will resign; the pressure on him will increase steadily, irresistibly, until he gives up--and it won't be long.
Speaking of which, I would say that someone with his name has three choices: 1) don't be a "weiner", 2) admit his "weiner-ness", or 3) try to change what it means to be one. As someone often known as "stoner", I should know: I've tried them all, settled on 3) (hence the blog).
Speaking of "should know", the most bizarre aspect of this has been watching former Gov. Elliot Spitzer commenting to other talking heads (on his CNN show "In the Arena") about how Weiner should handle his sex scandal. I feel like those folks should be saying, "well, Elliot, he should do what you did and hide from public view until he shows up with his wife to announce his resignation". Wonder what Spitz would say to that one?
I have to disagree with those who say that it was his lie--not his sins--that has let the animals permanently out of his barn. For one thing, it was the fact of his denial! One must not deny such things, true or not true. There are two valid responses to an accusation of this sort (and I repeat, true or not): "I don't remember" or "None of your business". I would suggest the following: "I've got two answers, take your pick: 'I don't remember' or 'None of your business'. Or both." The key is to use that answer consistently, not just when there is something embarrassing that you'd rather not admit.
Beyond that, though, it's not true that it was his lie, not his sin, that brought him down. It was the disclosure (and clearly, his poor choice of the target(s) of his indiscretions)--after that, it was just a matter of how, and how long. Americans are prudes, and voyeurs, and journalists are the worst of them, dogs with a bone they just can't ever give up. Andrew Breitbart, the contemptible right-wing blogger who has apparently been exonerated of misdeeds in this case, said on Spitzer's show that he was not part of the Morality Police, and in the next sentence said that public figures should never do anything that could subject themselves to blackmail. The point is, there's always a reason to drag it out until the climax, the public confession, the denouement.
I want three, and only three, things of my elected representatives: 1) to take no compensation for the job beyond the publicly approved amount; 2) to be informed enough to know what they are talking about; and 3) to faithfully represent the views and interests of their constituents (in this case, me). I could not care less about what they are 'tweeting', to whom, whether they are good spouses/parents, whether they show up in a clown costume, whatever. If they broke the law (not venally), well, they may have to go to jail, so that only impacts their ability to represent me.
Finally, my advice to the young: fame is an illusion and a calamity. Avoid it if you can, and if you can't, try to limit its damage.
Speaking of which, I would say that someone with his name has three choices: 1) don't be a "weiner", 2) admit his "weiner-ness", or 3) try to change what it means to be one. As someone often known as "stoner", I should know: I've tried them all, settled on 3) (hence the blog).
Speaking of "should know", the most bizarre aspect of this has been watching former Gov. Elliot Spitzer commenting to other talking heads (on his CNN show "In the Arena") about how Weiner should handle his sex scandal. I feel like those folks should be saying, "well, Elliot, he should do what you did and hide from public view until he shows up with his wife to announce his resignation". Wonder what Spitz would say to that one?
I have to disagree with those who say that it was his lie--not his sins--that has let the animals permanently out of his barn. For one thing, it was the fact of his denial! One must not deny such things, true or not true. There are two valid responses to an accusation of this sort (and I repeat, true or not): "I don't remember" or "None of your business". I would suggest the following: "I've got two answers, take your pick: 'I don't remember' or 'None of your business'. Or both." The key is to use that answer consistently, not just when there is something embarrassing that you'd rather not admit.
Beyond that, though, it's not true that it was his lie, not his sin, that brought him down. It was the disclosure (and clearly, his poor choice of the target(s) of his indiscretions)--after that, it was just a matter of how, and how long. Americans are prudes, and voyeurs, and journalists are the worst of them, dogs with a bone they just can't ever give up. Andrew Breitbart, the contemptible right-wing blogger who has apparently been exonerated of misdeeds in this case, said on Spitzer's show that he was not part of the Morality Police, and in the next sentence said that public figures should never do anything that could subject themselves to blackmail. The point is, there's always a reason to drag it out until the climax, the public confession, the denouement.
I want three, and only three, things of my elected representatives: 1) to take no compensation for the job beyond the publicly approved amount; 2) to be informed enough to know what they are talking about; and 3) to faithfully represent the views and interests of their constituents (in this case, me). I could not care less about what they are 'tweeting', to whom, whether they are good spouses/parents, whether they show up in a clown costume, whatever. If they broke the law (not venally), well, they may have to go to jail, so that only impacts their ability to represent me.
Finally, my advice to the young: fame is an illusion and a calamity. Avoid it if you can, and if you can't, try to limit its damage.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Sports Update
During this past holiday weekend, the major leagues reached the 1/3 mark for the regular season--it would have been a bit sooner except for the persistently bad weather this spring in many parts of the country.
One-third of the season is a good place to look at the emerging races for the divisional leads, the wild card, and to project some of the full-season stat levels.
The single player who deserves most comment is Toronto's Jose Bautista, who is on a pace to hit 60 or so homeruns this year. That's nowhere near the asterisk-tainted 73 of Barry Bonds, of course, but close to the old standard of a superlative slugging year before steroids.
One would think it impossible in today's era of frequent drug-testing that Bautista's performance would be enhanced artificially, but last year he did follow the pattern of many past juiced-up batters who emerged from ordinary pro levels with monster seasons. He has failed to regress; instead he is hitting them out at even a faster pace, so one must somewhat grudgingly admit his credibility as a legit big-time slugger.
I would also note the Yanks' centerfielder Curtis Granderson, one of my favorite active players even if he did go over to the Dark Side, the Cardinals' Matt Holiday (similar comments apply) and the surprising re-emergence of his teammate Lance Berkman, and the Reds' lefty-hitting combo of Joey Votto and Jay Bruce (manager Dusty Baker usually tries to sandwich in a righty hitter like Scott Rolen between them).
In terms of pitching, there are few standouts to note, even though the pitching in general has had the upper hand so far this season. Some young bucks are emerging as top starting pitchers, such as Tim Lincecum, but also Jair Jurrjens in Atlanta and Jared Weaver of the Angels.
In terms of the races, there are a couple of major surprises whose success this year remains less than assured--the Indians in the AL Central and Arizona in the NL West--but the teams that looked the best, the Phillies and Red Sox, are emerging as leaders despite injuries, in the first case, and a horrific start in the second. A lot of teams are bunched around .500, so the opportunity will be there for a team to break out of the pack if they've hung around close and then can get it together. My Reds are a feared opponent because of their hitting and defense, but they can't keep five good starters in a rotation, so I'm not overly optimistic.
....Get Out of the Kitchen
That's my advice, if you can't stand the (Miami) Heat. I've overcome my resistance to players' engineering their own core squad, as the Heat did and the Celtics more or less did a few years ago. They faced down a tough Bulls team in the Eastern Conference, and I would make them slight favorites in the Championship series.
First, though, I have to express my gratitude to the Mavericks for putting the Lakers down so decisively, and to salute Dirk Nowitzki for some of the finest late-game heroics (in the Mavericks' series with the Oklahoma City Thunder in the Western Conference finals) since Dwayne Wade's in the Miami-Dallas finals of five years ago.
Some Shorts
I should have posted my predictions for the Preakness; better yet, I should've bet them. Shackleford had looked like a good front-runner in the Derby, staying close until the final 1/16th of a mile, so I thought it would have a good shot of winning the Preakness, which it did. I might've even wheeled the four top horses and gotten that $6000+ Perfecta, even though it had the two horses with the shortest odds in it.
Now, as for the Belmont, Shackleford would definitely be a horse to avoid; Animal Kingdom should have a great shot, and (if it runs) Dialed In, which runs way to the back and charges late--too late to contend in the Derby and the Preakness, but that Belmont stretch goes on...forever.
Chelsea wasted no time in booting its coach, Carlo Ancelotti, after a campaign in which the squad got no trophies and finished second in the Premier League. He got no residual credit for having won two trophies (the F.A. Cup and the Premier League) the previous year. His greatest sin seems to have been to push for the signing of yet another high-priced forward who couldn't fit in (Fernando Torres this year), and his second was losing to Manchester United, repeatedly, in Manchester (particularly in the Champions League quarterfinals). At least Man U. lost in the finals to Barcelona.
One-third of the season is a good place to look at the emerging races for the divisional leads, the wild card, and to project some of the full-season stat levels.
The single player who deserves most comment is Toronto's Jose Bautista, who is on a pace to hit 60 or so homeruns this year. That's nowhere near the asterisk-tainted 73 of Barry Bonds, of course, but close to the old standard of a superlative slugging year before steroids.
One would think it impossible in today's era of frequent drug-testing that Bautista's performance would be enhanced artificially, but last year he did follow the pattern of many past juiced-up batters who emerged from ordinary pro levels with monster seasons. He has failed to regress; instead he is hitting them out at even a faster pace, so one must somewhat grudgingly admit his credibility as a legit big-time slugger.
I would also note the Yanks' centerfielder Curtis Granderson, one of my favorite active players even if he did go over to the Dark Side, the Cardinals' Matt Holiday (similar comments apply) and the surprising re-emergence of his teammate Lance Berkman, and the Reds' lefty-hitting combo of Joey Votto and Jay Bruce (manager Dusty Baker usually tries to sandwich in a righty hitter like Scott Rolen between them).
In terms of pitching, there are few standouts to note, even though the pitching in general has had the upper hand so far this season. Some young bucks are emerging as top starting pitchers, such as Tim Lincecum, but also Jair Jurrjens in Atlanta and Jared Weaver of the Angels.
In terms of the races, there are a couple of major surprises whose success this year remains less than assured--the Indians in the AL Central and Arizona in the NL West--but the teams that looked the best, the Phillies and Red Sox, are emerging as leaders despite injuries, in the first case, and a horrific start in the second. A lot of teams are bunched around .500, so the opportunity will be there for a team to break out of the pack if they've hung around close and then can get it together. My Reds are a feared opponent because of their hitting and defense, but they can't keep five good starters in a rotation, so I'm not overly optimistic.
....Get Out of the Kitchen
That's my advice, if you can't stand the (Miami) Heat. I've overcome my resistance to players' engineering their own core squad, as the Heat did and the Celtics more or less did a few years ago. They faced down a tough Bulls team in the Eastern Conference, and I would make them slight favorites in the Championship series.
First, though, I have to express my gratitude to the Mavericks for putting the Lakers down so decisively, and to salute Dirk Nowitzki for some of the finest late-game heroics (in the Mavericks' series with the Oklahoma City Thunder in the Western Conference finals) since Dwayne Wade's in the Miami-Dallas finals of five years ago.
Some Shorts
I should have posted my predictions for the Preakness; better yet, I should've bet them. Shackleford had looked like a good front-runner in the Derby, staying close until the final 1/16th of a mile, so I thought it would have a good shot of winning the Preakness, which it did. I might've even wheeled the four top horses and gotten that $6000+ Perfecta, even though it had the two horses with the shortest odds in it.
Now, as for the Belmont, Shackleford would definitely be a horse to avoid; Animal Kingdom should have a great shot, and (if it runs) Dialed In, which runs way to the back and charges late--too late to contend in the Derby and the Preakness, but that Belmont stretch goes on...forever.
Chelsea wasted no time in booting its coach, Carlo Ancelotti, after a campaign in which the squad got no trophies and finished second in the Premier League. He got no residual credit for having won two trophies (the F.A. Cup and the Premier League) the previous year. His greatest sin seems to have been to push for the signing of yet another high-priced forward who couldn't fit in (Fernando Torres this year), and his second was losing to Manchester United, repeatedly, in Manchester (particularly in the Champions League quarterfinals). At least Man U. lost in the finals to Barcelona.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Is this Really Necessary?
Suppose they held a series of Republican primaries and nobody showed up? No candidates, no primary voters, no one caring to caucus--then whom would they nominate?
My guess is it would have to be Mitt Romney, as he will be out there even if nobody else shows up.
So far, nobody else who should be considered a serious political adversary for President Obama has entered the race. Now, somebody could grow into the job, and somebody will be the anti-Romney in the primaries for those Republican voters who can't handle the Mitt, but that person is not yet evident.
Donald Trump? No, it was just a publicity stunt for his TV program. Sarah Palin? She's disappearing from relevance fast, regardless of whether she tosses her CPO jacket into the ring. Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, Haley Barbour--they all have declared themselves to have too much sense to go into this particular steel cage match, and Mitch Daniels is leaning outward from it (in spite of many trying to push him in).
So, who do they have in there? Gary Johnson, Herman Cain (today), Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul--I think all officially in. Jon Huntsman seems very likely to go in, and Michele Bachmann seems compelled to enter. There's a guy named Buddy Roemer, a former Louisiana governor (one who, incredibly, does not seem to have been convicted of a felony), who for some reason said he would run, though he was not allowed onstage in the first official debate, held by Fox News in South Carolina a couple of weeks ago, because he couldn't break the 1% barrier. (I forgot Rick "Sanctimonious" Santorum--go ahead, nominate him. I dare you.)
Numerically, it's enough to fill the stage, but not enough to provide for an interesting campaign. Gingrich has already self-destructed, violating the Republican script by labeling Ryan's proposed spending cuts "radical" and "right-wing social engineering"; for this truth-telling he was seriously punished, and it appears the old hands who guide the Republican contests didn't want him around, anyway.
The party's plutocratic old farts recognize in Romney the face of the Great Deceiver, so they like him OK, though they are worried he can't carry the day. That's why they are encouraging Daniels to run, and they are tolerating hacks like Huntsman and Pawlenty as contingency candidates if Romney should implode.
The real battle to me still looks to be one that has not yet emerged: between Romney and some right-wing champion who will oppose Romneycare and the tired, failed policies of supply-side economics and neo-con military interventionism. That paladin will be known by his/her white horse and primary win in Iowa. Ron Paul has the credentials to make that case, but will the evangelicals rally to him? Bachmann will hope not, and there's nothing too silly for her to say to turn them off, if she runs. I still see her as a stalking horse, though, not riding one like a knight in shining armor.
I was extremely surprised that Huckabee didn't run, given the very enticing polling numbers he had; Palin should've been able to fill that gap, but seems unready or unwilling. I think there's still a chance she will come in late, but there hasn't been a successful draft nomination campaign since Wendell Wilkie in 1940, and I don't think it's even been attempted since Henry Cabot Lodge in 1964--certainly not since Jimmy Carter changed the nomination game forever with his marathon run in 1976.
Riding the Ripples
Take the weak Republican field and add President Obama's moderate domestic policies and the huge national security success with the Bin Laden raid in Pakistan, and Democrats should be thinking landslide. Instead, regaining the House is very much in doubt, as is the party's chances of holding any kind of Senate majority, and the Presidential campaign is not talking to reporters about an aggressive 50-state smashing win, instead about focusing its resources in a few (less than a half-dozen) critical swing states.
Of course, they shouldn't be overconfident, especially at this early stage, and some of those key states--Ohio, Florida, Virginia--have critical, close races for Senate seats that the Democrats will need to hold to preserve their majorities. (The other two states where they plan a big push, according to this Roll Call article, are Colorado and North Carolina). On the other hand, Missouri, which will have another critical race as Claire McCaskill tries to defend her seat, seems off the priority map, while Nevada and New Mexico--both with key Senate races--are believed safe for the President (or maybe just too small in electoral votes to qualify as priority targets).
Why the bummer mentality? I'd cite two reasons: The first is the hangover from the 2010 elections, and the inevitable, unending slow-motion train wreck on the budget (and now on the debt ceiling). It's unclear whether the voters realize that they (or their fellow citizens, especially some of the non-voting ones) did a bad, bad thing last year. The polls indicate that the majority favoring Republican House candidates is gone, and they don't like the long-term budget resolution plotting the destruction of Medicare that all but four Republican House members (and no Democrats) supported, but they don't want the debt limit raised: they seem to believe the nonsense that we can just cut "waste, fraud, and abuse" and the Federal budget will balance.
Then there's the economy, which seems to have lost its momentum. In my descriptions of the Great Crater, I think I erred: the situation is more a fluid one, less a dry moonscape. Think of a giant whale being dropped into a lake with a Great Bellyflop. We have ridden through the initial wave that produced, and are now riding through the secondary troughs and peaks following, as the whale bobs back to the surface and disturbs the waters again.
It's way too soon to know where our ship of state will be in these unsettled waters in November, 2012, and it's also too soon to foresee the nature of the general election campaign (though the images of what I see as probable Obama-Romney debates are clear enough). I remain hopeful that 2012's ultimate outcome will provide evidence that is clear enough, even for the American electorate, that the Republican party, as it operates today, serves the interests of none of them, even the ones who habitually support it.
In this regard, I thought a recent Gallup poll on public interest in a third-party was interesting. Not that there was a slight majority seeking one; actually, that number has come down from previous high levels, and there is always a majority of independents who want another choice. What was interesting is that a majority of Republicans now want another party: This could reflect the Presidential race, it could be that there are large numbers of Tea party Republicans who find their party's leadership insufficiently obstinate, but I think it's a beginning of a realization that their whole shtick, whether it's preening militarism, 19th-century-style coddling of robber barons, nativism, Reagan-clone haircut pols, or class warfare against the lowest nine deciles of income earners, just isn't cutting it in the 21st century so far.
My guess is it would have to be Mitt Romney, as he will be out there even if nobody else shows up.
So far, nobody else who should be considered a serious political adversary for President Obama has entered the race. Now, somebody could grow into the job, and somebody will be the anti-Romney in the primaries for those Republican voters who can't handle the Mitt, but that person is not yet evident.
Donald Trump? No, it was just a publicity stunt for his TV program. Sarah Palin? She's disappearing from relevance fast, regardless of whether she tosses her CPO jacket into the ring. Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, Haley Barbour--they all have declared themselves to have too much sense to go into this particular steel cage match, and Mitch Daniels is leaning outward from it (in spite of many trying to push him in).
So, who do they have in there? Gary Johnson, Herman Cain (today), Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul--I think all officially in. Jon Huntsman seems very likely to go in, and Michele Bachmann seems compelled to enter. There's a guy named Buddy Roemer, a former Louisiana governor (one who, incredibly, does not seem to have been convicted of a felony), who for some reason said he would run, though he was not allowed onstage in the first official debate, held by Fox News in South Carolina a couple of weeks ago, because he couldn't break the 1% barrier. (I forgot Rick "Sanctimonious" Santorum--go ahead, nominate him. I dare you.)
Numerically, it's enough to fill the stage, but not enough to provide for an interesting campaign. Gingrich has already self-destructed, violating the Republican script by labeling Ryan's proposed spending cuts "radical" and "right-wing social engineering"; for this truth-telling he was seriously punished, and it appears the old hands who guide the Republican contests didn't want him around, anyway.
The party's plutocratic old farts recognize in Romney the face of the Great Deceiver, so they like him OK, though they are worried he can't carry the day. That's why they are encouraging Daniels to run, and they are tolerating hacks like Huntsman and Pawlenty as contingency candidates if Romney should implode.
The real battle to me still looks to be one that has not yet emerged: between Romney and some right-wing champion who will oppose Romneycare and the tired, failed policies of supply-side economics and neo-con military interventionism. That paladin will be known by his/her white horse and primary win in Iowa. Ron Paul has the credentials to make that case, but will the evangelicals rally to him? Bachmann will hope not, and there's nothing too silly for her to say to turn them off, if she runs. I still see her as a stalking horse, though, not riding one like a knight in shining armor.
I was extremely surprised that Huckabee didn't run, given the very enticing polling numbers he had; Palin should've been able to fill that gap, but seems unready or unwilling. I think there's still a chance she will come in late, but there hasn't been a successful draft nomination campaign since Wendell Wilkie in 1940, and I don't think it's even been attempted since Henry Cabot Lodge in 1964--certainly not since Jimmy Carter changed the nomination game forever with his marathon run in 1976.
Riding the Ripples
Take the weak Republican field and add President Obama's moderate domestic policies and the huge national security success with the Bin Laden raid in Pakistan, and Democrats should be thinking landslide. Instead, regaining the House is very much in doubt, as is the party's chances of holding any kind of Senate majority, and the Presidential campaign is not talking to reporters about an aggressive 50-state smashing win, instead about focusing its resources in a few (less than a half-dozen) critical swing states.
Of course, they shouldn't be overconfident, especially at this early stage, and some of those key states--Ohio, Florida, Virginia--have critical, close races for Senate seats that the Democrats will need to hold to preserve their majorities. (The other two states where they plan a big push, according to this Roll Call article, are Colorado and North Carolina). On the other hand, Missouri, which will have another critical race as Claire McCaskill tries to defend her seat, seems off the priority map, while Nevada and New Mexico--both with key Senate races--are believed safe for the President (or maybe just too small in electoral votes to qualify as priority targets).
Why the bummer mentality? I'd cite two reasons: The first is the hangover from the 2010 elections, and the inevitable, unending slow-motion train wreck on the budget (and now on the debt ceiling). It's unclear whether the voters realize that they (or their fellow citizens, especially some of the non-voting ones) did a bad, bad thing last year. The polls indicate that the majority favoring Republican House candidates is gone, and they don't like the long-term budget resolution plotting the destruction of Medicare that all but four Republican House members (and no Democrats) supported, but they don't want the debt limit raised: they seem to believe the nonsense that we can just cut "waste, fraud, and abuse" and the Federal budget will balance.
Then there's the economy, which seems to have lost its momentum. In my descriptions of the Great Crater, I think I erred: the situation is more a fluid one, less a dry moonscape. Think of a giant whale being dropped into a lake with a Great Bellyflop. We have ridden through the initial wave that produced, and are now riding through the secondary troughs and peaks following, as the whale bobs back to the surface and disturbs the waters again.
It's way too soon to know where our ship of state will be in these unsettled waters in November, 2012, and it's also too soon to foresee the nature of the general election campaign (though the images of what I see as probable Obama-Romney debates are clear enough). I remain hopeful that 2012's ultimate outcome will provide evidence that is clear enough, even for the American electorate, that the Republican party, as it operates today, serves the interests of none of them, even the ones who habitually support it.
In this regard, I thought a recent Gallup poll on public interest in a third-party was interesting. Not that there was a slight majority seeking one; actually, that number has come down from previous high levels, and there is always a majority of independents who want another choice. What was interesting is that a majority of Republicans now want another party: This could reflect the Presidential race, it could be that there are large numbers of Tea party Republicans who find their party's leadership insufficiently obstinate, but I think it's a beginning of a realization that their whole shtick, whether it's preening militarism, 19th-century-style coddling of robber barons, nativism, Reagan-clone haircut pols, or class warfare against the lowest nine deciles of income earners, just isn't cutting it in the 21st century so far.
On Plain(e)s Drifting: Was, High; Now, Des
This post marks the first since my transfer from Taos to Illinois. I have changed my subtitle from "High Plains Drifting" to "Des Plaines Drifting"--Des Plaines being the name of a river and a town nearby. Floating downstream--Des Plaines Drifting--is the theme for this new phase in my life.
That being said, my re-emergence into the world of work is hardly an easy downhill coast. Many things have changed, and it is always a significant task to learn the culture and the ways of a new employer. I never comment specifically on my employers, past or present, but I will say a couple things at this point: I am back in the financial services industry, but this time on the "liabilities" (deposits) side. So far, I find it refreshing, and somewhat in line with these times of (attempted) de-leveraging.
And, in case you are jumping to unwarranted conclusions: yes, I used to work on the credit-granting side of banking, but, no, I had nothing to do with the Great Bellyflop (and ensuing Great Crater). The last time I was involved in the USA was in the mid '90's, before the practice had become to give a credit card or mortgage to anyone who asked for one.
All's well so far in Chicagoland--the people are very friendly and helpful. My "training" at 7000 ft. would stand me well in an athletic competition at the <1000 ft. altitude here, but at this stage in my "career", that doesn't seem necessary (unless someone is chasing me).
I'm looking forward to a trip tomorrow from the suburbs into the city, to see Hyde Park and to come within a few hundred yards of the Obama Manse.
That being said, my re-emergence into the world of work is hardly an easy downhill coast. Many things have changed, and it is always a significant task to learn the culture and the ways of a new employer. I never comment specifically on my employers, past or present, but I will say a couple things at this point: I am back in the financial services industry, but this time on the "liabilities" (deposits) side. So far, I find it refreshing, and somewhat in line with these times of (attempted) de-leveraging.
And, in case you are jumping to unwarranted conclusions: yes, I used to work on the credit-granting side of banking, but, no, I had nothing to do with the Great Bellyflop (and ensuing Great Crater). The last time I was involved in the USA was in the mid '90's, before the practice had become to give a credit card or mortgage to anyone who asked for one.
All's well so far in Chicagoland--the people are very friendly and helpful. My "training" at 7000 ft. would stand me well in an athletic competition at the <1000 ft. altitude here, but at this stage in my "career", that doesn't seem necessary (unless someone is chasing me).
I'm looking forward to a trip tomorrow from the suburbs into the city, to see Hyde Park and to come within a few hundred yards of the Obama Manse.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Hey, Hey, Goodbye
I congratulate our military, our intelligence services, our national security team, and our Commander-in-Chief for the brilliantly successful attack into Pakistan which killed Osama Bin Laden and brought his body out to verify that result.
He was killed in "a firefight", as President Obama announced. I had imagined that an act of justice would've been to incinerate him with a flamethrower. I'm sure that our forces didn't do that, as retrieving the body would have been a priority, but I think bringing him back dead was the best outcome. Not just an anonymous drone strike, but our forces had the chance to look him in the eye and take him down once and for all. No need for offshore detention, vulnerable trials, interrogation (what would he be able to tell us anyway, now that we had him?) "Shot while resisting" is better than "shot while trying to escape".
Clearly the government and military of Pakistan must have allowed our helicopters to enter their country and conduct this operation, which was in a small city not far from the country's capital. We need to recognize that at this critical moment, the mission was not compromised and the necessary permission for passage was given.
I have called for President Obama to bring to an end the "Global War on Terror" in his administration: it is premature to declare victory and an end to the struggle against terrorists inspired by religious extremism, but I do think this is the singular highlight of that effort and an important psychological triumph.
A Time to Review, and to Make Changes
Before this extraordinary event, I had been considering a posting on the idea that now, for the first time since September 11, 2001, it was becoming politically possible to consider major reductions in our military posture and our military expenditures.
Two or three recent developments prior to the Osama operation had led me to this conclusion. One is the major reorganization of the intelligence and military leadership, with CIA head Leon Panetta recently named to be the next Defense Secretary and Gen. Petraeus coming to CIA. Current Defense Secretary Gates has done great service to the US in his job (under both the Bush and Obama Administration), and he has broached the idea of cuts in spending. Now Panetta--a hero of the Bin Laden mission, which was run by the CIA--will be a savvy civilian leader who will continue Gates' efforts to trim the military, and he will also be politically in tune with the Administration and responsive to the political need to continue reductions in overseas troop commitments.
Another fascinating development has been the semi-anonymous publication of an article by a pair of high-ranking military officers. Under the name "Mr. Y"-a clear reference to the famous article outlining the strategy of containment of the Soviet Union by George Kennan, in the early days of the Cold War--their article makes a far-sighted appeal for America to change our focus toward investments, education, and a foreign policy based more on values and less on sheer military force. I encourage all to read it. If Mr. Y realizes that we need to move from empire-building and overdevelopment of the military-industrial complex for the future of our country's security, then the usual bureaucratic impediments to military spending reductions should not be operative.
In order to reorient our military strategy, it will be necessary to ramp down our military forces abroad, and in particular the major ground forces engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Iraq adventure is finally coming to a conclusion, in full cooperation with the Iraqi government, and withdrawals are promised to being this year in Afghanistan. In this regard, I would recommend reading a second article, by an accomplished investigative reporter named Ahmed Rashid, in a recent Financial Times. Rashid reports that there are now real negotiations going on, with the cooperation of Pakistan and Afghanistan, to engage the Taliban, with the aim being an eventual agreement to bring the war to an end.
Then, of course, there is the running battle over government expenditures, and especially the need to set a series of stakes in the ground to mark expected levels of revenues, spending, and within them the amount committed to various government priorities. Any success we can make now in lowering the trajectory of future military spending--based on rational security needs, not pork-barrel considerations of local basing desires--will make it easier to develop multi-year budget plans that fit within the overall framework of $4 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade.
Finally, there are the incredible developments of the Arab Spring--the successful overthrow of dictatorships in Egypt and Tunisia, and the uprisings in Libya, Bahrain, Syria, and elsewhere. Not all of these are going to end well, some are running into vicious resistance from the powers of the status quo, but there is a feeling that is ultimately unstoppable in these countries. To the extent that Mideast peoples feel they can accomplish changes in their authoritarian regimes, that will cut the legs right out from under al Qaeda and its rationale for violence.
Osama's killing is one more, huge piece of evidence of historic change. We need to adjust our strategy to new realities, and doing so will help us by reducing global tensions and will make possible needed reductions in our level of military spending.
He was killed in "a firefight", as President Obama announced. I had imagined that an act of justice would've been to incinerate him with a flamethrower. I'm sure that our forces didn't do that, as retrieving the body would have been a priority, but I think bringing him back dead was the best outcome. Not just an anonymous drone strike, but our forces had the chance to look him in the eye and take him down once and for all. No need for offshore detention, vulnerable trials, interrogation (what would he be able to tell us anyway, now that we had him?) "Shot while resisting" is better than "shot while trying to escape".
Clearly the government and military of Pakistan must have allowed our helicopters to enter their country and conduct this operation, which was in a small city not far from the country's capital. We need to recognize that at this critical moment, the mission was not compromised and the necessary permission for passage was given.
I have called for President Obama to bring to an end the "Global War on Terror" in his administration: it is premature to declare victory and an end to the struggle against terrorists inspired by religious extremism, but I do think this is the singular highlight of that effort and an important psychological triumph.
A Time to Review, and to Make Changes
Before this extraordinary event, I had been considering a posting on the idea that now, for the first time since September 11, 2001, it was becoming politically possible to consider major reductions in our military posture and our military expenditures.
Two or three recent developments prior to the Osama operation had led me to this conclusion. One is the major reorganization of the intelligence and military leadership, with CIA head Leon Panetta recently named to be the next Defense Secretary and Gen. Petraeus coming to CIA. Current Defense Secretary Gates has done great service to the US in his job (under both the Bush and Obama Administration), and he has broached the idea of cuts in spending. Now Panetta--a hero of the Bin Laden mission, which was run by the CIA--will be a savvy civilian leader who will continue Gates' efforts to trim the military, and he will also be politically in tune with the Administration and responsive to the political need to continue reductions in overseas troop commitments.
Another fascinating development has been the semi-anonymous publication of an article by a pair of high-ranking military officers. Under the name "Mr. Y"-a clear reference to the famous article outlining the strategy of containment of the Soviet Union by George Kennan, in the early days of the Cold War--their article makes a far-sighted appeal for America to change our focus toward investments, education, and a foreign policy based more on values and less on sheer military force. I encourage all to read it. If Mr. Y realizes that we need to move from empire-building and overdevelopment of the military-industrial complex for the future of our country's security, then the usual bureaucratic impediments to military spending reductions should not be operative.
In order to reorient our military strategy, it will be necessary to ramp down our military forces abroad, and in particular the major ground forces engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Iraq adventure is finally coming to a conclusion, in full cooperation with the Iraqi government, and withdrawals are promised to being this year in Afghanistan. In this regard, I would recommend reading a second article, by an accomplished investigative reporter named Ahmed Rashid, in a recent Financial Times. Rashid reports that there are now real negotiations going on, with the cooperation of Pakistan and Afghanistan, to engage the Taliban, with the aim being an eventual agreement to bring the war to an end.
Then, of course, there is the running battle over government expenditures, and especially the need to set a series of stakes in the ground to mark expected levels of revenues, spending, and within them the amount committed to various government priorities. Any success we can make now in lowering the trajectory of future military spending--based on rational security needs, not pork-barrel considerations of local basing desires--will make it easier to develop multi-year budget plans that fit within the overall framework of $4 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade.
Finally, there are the incredible developments of the Arab Spring--the successful overthrow of dictatorships in Egypt and Tunisia, and the uprisings in Libya, Bahrain, Syria, and elsewhere. Not all of these are going to end well, some are running into vicious resistance from the powers of the status quo, but there is a feeling that is ultimately unstoppable in these countries. To the extent that Mideast peoples feel they can accomplish changes in their authoritarian regimes, that will cut the legs right out from under al Qaeda and its rationale for violence.
Osama's killing is one more, huge piece of evidence of historic change. We need to adjust our strategy to new realities, and doing so will help us by reducing global tensions and will make possible needed reductions in our level of military spending.
The Royal Scam
Nice Dress, Kate: Give a Kiss 'Ere, Duchess
I had to skip the nuptials of Prince William and the commoner, Kate Middleton this morning at 4:30 a.m. (Mountain time). It was my duty, I think, as an American not to be among the 2 billion who watched (or is that people who watched something? I am, unavoidably, seeing the highlights, so that might count me in.)
Though I certainly don't begrudge the lovely couple their chance to have a proper marriage, certainly there is something incongruous about a nation which is leading the world in government austerity having such a lavish ceremony. Yes, the royals are supposed to be footing the bills, though I am sure there is a sizeable cost overrun for security, military overflights (William's a Flight Lieutenant--that's "lef-ten-ant"). Maybe all that deficit spending and voyeuristic tourism will assist their nation's flagging recovery a bit--I'm willing to hope so.
The fact is that the royal family is an incredibly large, government-subsidized luxury burden on the nation, a long-running private enterprise of huge wealth (does Fortune bother to include them in their table?) The Queen and her grandson should make the country a wedding gift of a billion pounds or so to help pay for their share of the belt-tightening that everyone else has been told they must take.
And Now, for Something Completely More Interesting
I'm working on a significant project for the blog; its working title is "My Playlist of All Time". I'm planning it as a list of 200 songs, with no more than one from each artist (though I will allow myself to mention one or two others from artists who have multiple cuts of greatness). It'll be rock-centered, with some blues and soul, songs released during my conscious lifetime. The idea would be a playlist that is long enough, diverse enough, and with songs of good enough quality that I would never tire of it (though I may never actually put together the physical collection of the music, and will certainly never listen to it in 24-hour continuous fashion).
Sometimes the line is blurry as to the bounds enclosed by a single artist: for example, think of all the different groups Eric Clapton has played with--how many songs from Clapton will I include? (the answer is, I haven't decided yet). With regard to the Beatles, I will go by lifetime recordings by songwriter--Harrisongs, songs by John Lennon, as a solo artist or ones that he wrote for the band (as best as I can determine, and I took a stab at it last December on the anniversary of his murder), and McCartney's solo songs or ones written for the band.
It will still be a hugely difficult task for some artists--there's only one Bob Dylan, one Stevie Wonder (though I'm going in thinking I will allow myself to differentiate Rolling Stones with Brian Jones and without him). So it is with Steely Dan, defined as Becker + Fagen + whoever (their solo efforts could, in theory, get separate entries).
So, in honor of the royal couple, here is an effort to rank my favorite 25 Steely Dan songs, counting down. The music in all these is so good, it's hard to have much preference. That comes more from the songs effect on my emotions, and from a fairly close study to try and figure out the lyrics. As you'll see, I like least their snobby put-downs (despite great music, such as 'Barrytown' and 'Gaucho' are not included here), not so crazy about their pervasive perversity, I appreciate their "character studies", and love their offbeat philosophical statements.
25: The Royal Scam--A big-time con, not something about the royals. The tone is an admiring one.
24: Haitian Divorce--I like this song for its offbeat musical styling, not for its story of illegitimacy and accidental miscegenation.
23: Two Against Nature--Nice pace in this one, as the duo re-emerge from retirement to take on everything. I have to say I share their point of view on this one more than I usually do.
22: Cousin Dupree--I'm going to hope that this popular recent ditty, about some old geezer's fling with his underage cousin, has no basis in their reality.
21: Your Gold Teeth II--A rarity--the groove was so good, the band had to continue it in a cut from a successive album.
20: Brooklyn--There's a clear tone of nostalgia in this rambling early piece.
19: Sign In Stranger--It's about plastic surgery for mobbed-up criminals, but that doesn't really matter.
18: Third World Man--Satire about the suburbs and desegregation, with a false tension and lyrics perfectly fitting the slow rhythm.
17: Reelin' in the Years--The first SD song I knew, for a long time the only one. Catchy chorus, tight soloing; it's got to be about waste (of time and oneself), but it's hard to tell if the viewpoint is supportive or just nasty.
16: Charlie Freak--A brilliantly-layered musical construction with great tension. The subject? Some poor sap's drug overdose.
15: FM--To me, this is nothing more than a razor-sharp recorded paean to the glory of modern sound reproduction, which the Dan exploited to the max.
14: My Old School--One of the few songs that I think is definitely about the boys themselves, rather than the voice of some twisted folks they know or imagine. The key word is "Annandale", a reference to Annandale-on-Hudson, the location of Bard College, where they went ("studied" would be the wrong word) for a year or so.
13: Chain Lightning--I don't know what it's about, not sure I want to (smoking crack?) Great guitar work.
12: Doctor Wu--See comments on "Chain Lightning".
11: Do It Again--The subject is recidivism--on criminality, gambling, bad romance--and the outlook is clearly pessimistic, the tone reproving, the music uplifting.
10: Your Gold Teeth--A piece that is seriously underrated in the pantheon; one practically never hears it. It has a complex musical format and lyrics that actually approach profundity for once. It's about using the I Ching to answer one's short-term questions, and how that fantasy somehow fits life's real strangeness.
9: Show Biz Kids--This, and the next three titles, are about as political as they get. This one's message is unmistakable, about the phony, self-absorbed Hollywood culture.
8: With A Gun--This one's condemning violent criminality. Perennially relevant in the US.
7: Black Friday--a typical upbeat song on a very dark subject, about heading for the hills when it all comes tumbling down.
6: King of the World--following on the "Black Friday" apocalypse theme; it seems to be about a nuclear holocaust in our area, the Rio Grande. I remember the band playing it on an outdoor stage near Albuquerque in '07(?), a plague of moths--attracted by the light, no doubt--getting in their faces and bugging them.
5: West of Hollywood--My clear favorite from the albums of the Nouveau Dan. Great, long sax solo, piercing lyrics about slacker-ism.
4: Kid Charlemagne--Can a groove be both dark and happy? Invokes nostalgia for the early hippie days, I think--could the title character be Owsley, the king of early-day LSD production?
3: Bodhisattva--I have always loved the Buddhist concept of the enlightened ones staying with us mortal fools to help us fiind the way (meaning of the title). I don't focus on SD's (no doubt perverted) use of the idea; instead I love the non-stop, infectious energy of the song.
2: Pretzel Logic--The band making a statement, I think. A great slow-rocking platform for soloing, with historical and philosophic references, all twisted up. The point of it is exactly that it is not all so straightforward.
1: Aja-Perhaps a bit of a surprise. I remember listening to it repeatedly as I walked the streets of Hong Kong with my new Walkman in 1987. I'm still not sure what it's about (I have a feeling it's something about drug dealing--"when all my dime dancing is through"--but it's seductive and affecting).
I had to skip the nuptials of Prince William and the commoner, Kate Middleton this morning at 4:30 a.m. (Mountain time). It was my duty, I think, as an American not to be among the 2 billion who watched (or is that people who watched something? I am, unavoidably, seeing the highlights, so that might count me in.)
Though I certainly don't begrudge the lovely couple their chance to have a proper marriage, certainly there is something incongruous about a nation which is leading the world in government austerity having such a lavish ceremony. Yes, the royals are supposed to be footing the bills, though I am sure there is a sizeable cost overrun for security, military overflights (William's a Flight Lieutenant--that's "lef-ten-ant"). Maybe all that deficit spending and voyeuristic tourism will assist their nation's flagging recovery a bit--I'm willing to hope so.
The fact is that the royal family is an incredibly large, government-subsidized luxury burden on the nation, a long-running private enterprise of huge wealth (does Fortune bother to include them in their table?) The Queen and her grandson should make the country a wedding gift of a billion pounds or so to help pay for their share of the belt-tightening that everyone else has been told they must take.
And Now, for Something Completely More Interesting
I'm working on a significant project for the blog; its working title is "My Playlist of All Time". I'm planning it as a list of 200 songs, with no more than one from each artist (though I will allow myself to mention one or two others from artists who have multiple cuts of greatness). It'll be rock-centered, with some blues and soul, songs released during my conscious lifetime. The idea would be a playlist that is long enough, diverse enough, and with songs of good enough quality that I would never tire of it (though I may never actually put together the physical collection of the music, and will certainly never listen to it in 24-hour continuous fashion).
Sometimes the line is blurry as to the bounds enclosed by a single artist: for example, think of all the different groups Eric Clapton has played with--how many songs from Clapton will I include? (the answer is, I haven't decided yet). With regard to the Beatles, I will go by lifetime recordings by songwriter--Harrisongs, songs by John Lennon, as a solo artist or ones that he wrote for the band (as best as I can determine, and I took a stab at it last December on the anniversary of his murder), and McCartney's solo songs or ones written for the band.
It will still be a hugely difficult task for some artists--there's only one Bob Dylan, one Stevie Wonder (though I'm going in thinking I will allow myself to differentiate Rolling Stones with Brian Jones and without him). So it is with Steely Dan, defined as Becker + Fagen + whoever (their solo efforts could, in theory, get separate entries).
So, in honor of the royal couple, here is an effort to rank my favorite 25 Steely Dan songs, counting down. The music in all these is so good, it's hard to have much preference. That comes more from the songs effect on my emotions, and from a fairly close study to try and figure out the lyrics. As you'll see, I like least their snobby put-downs (despite great music, such as 'Barrytown' and 'Gaucho' are not included here), not so crazy about their pervasive perversity, I appreciate their "character studies", and love their offbeat philosophical statements.
25: The Royal Scam--A big-time con, not something about the royals. The tone is an admiring one.
24: Haitian Divorce--I like this song for its offbeat musical styling, not for its story of illegitimacy and accidental miscegenation.
23: Two Against Nature--Nice pace in this one, as the duo re-emerge from retirement to take on everything. I have to say I share their point of view on this one more than I usually do.
22: Cousin Dupree--I'm going to hope that this popular recent ditty, about some old geezer's fling with his underage cousin, has no basis in their reality.
21: Your Gold Teeth II--A rarity--the groove was so good, the band had to continue it in a cut from a successive album.
20: Brooklyn--There's a clear tone of nostalgia in this rambling early piece.
19: Sign In Stranger--It's about plastic surgery for mobbed-up criminals, but that doesn't really matter.
18: Third World Man--Satire about the suburbs and desegregation, with a false tension and lyrics perfectly fitting the slow rhythm.
17: Reelin' in the Years--The first SD song I knew, for a long time the only one. Catchy chorus, tight soloing; it's got to be about waste (of time and oneself), but it's hard to tell if the viewpoint is supportive or just nasty.
16: Charlie Freak--A brilliantly-layered musical construction with great tension. The subject? Some poor sap's drug overdose.
15: FM--To me, this is nothing more than a razor-sharp recorded paean to the glory of modern sound reproduction, which the Dan exploited to the max.
14: My Old School--One of the few songs that I think is definitely about the boys themselves, rather than the voice of some twisted folks they know or imagine. The key word is "Annandale", a reference to Annandale-on-Hudson, the location of Bard College, where they went ("studied" would be the wrong word) for a year or so.
13: Chain Lightning--I don't know what it's about, not sure I want to (smoking crack?) Great guitar work.
12: Doctor Wu--See comments on "Chain Lightning".
11: Do It Again--The subject is recidivism--on criminality, gambling, bad romance--and the outlook is clearly pessimistic, the tone reproving, the music uplifting.
10: Your Gold Teeth--A piece that is seriously underrated in the pantheon; one practically never hears it. It has a complex musical format and lyrics that actually approach profundity for once. It's about using the I Ching to answer one's short-term questions, and how that fantasy somehow fits life's real strangeness.
9: Show Biz Kids--This, and the next three titles, are about as political as they get. This one's message is unmistakable, about the phony, self-absorbed Hollywood culture.
8: With A Gun--This one's condemning violent criminality. Perennially relevant in the US.
7: Black Friday--a typical upbeat song on a very dark subject, about heading for the hills when it all comes tumbling down.
6: King of the World--following on the "Black Friday" apocalypse theme; it seems to be about a nuclear holocaust in our area, the Rio Grande. I remember the band playing it on an outdoor stage near Albuquerque in '07(?), a plague of moths--attracted by the light, no doubt--getting in their faces and bugging them.
5: West of Hollywood--My clear favorite from the albums of the Nouveau Dan. Great, long sax solo, piercing lyrics about slacker-ism.
4: Kid Charlemagne--Can a groove be both dark and happy? Invokes nostalgia for the early hippie days, I think--could the title character be Owsley, the king of early-day LSD production?
3: Bodhisattva--I have always loved the Buddhist concept of the enlightened ones staying with us mortal fools to help us fiind the way (meaning of the title). I don't focus on SD's (no doubt perverted) use of the idea; instead I love the non-stop, infectious energy of the song.
2: Pretzel Logic--The band making a statement, I think. A great slow-rocking platform for soloing, with historical and philosophic references, all twisted up. The point of it is exactly that it is not all so straightforward.
1: Aja-Perhaps a bit of a surprise. I remember listening to it repeatedly as I walked the streets of Hong Kong with my new Walkman in 1987. I'm still not sure what it's about (I have a feeling it's something about drug dealing--"when all my dime dancing is through"--but it's seductive and affecting).
Their Gold, Our Blues
With professional sports, our enjoyment is hostage to the whims of unfeeling plutocrats.
The NFL Loses its Case to A Bunch of Players
I applaud Judge Nelson's decision that the NFL owners have unfairly combined to deny the livelihood of professional footballers, an antitrust violation. She could have taken several different steps--breaking up the league into competing units (such as was done with Ma Bell some 30 years ago) or imposed crippling fines. So the owners should be relieved that she only did what the players wanted her to do: allow them to play again.
If the owners are under the impression that they do not need the players to take the field in order for them to make money from their franchises, they should be disabused of that notion--utterly, completely, violently if necessary, and preferably legally. I support boycotts of NFL merchandise, certainly a total disregard for their "draft" going on tonight (without an Collective Bargaining Agreement with their current stock of players, what do they think are they drafting for?), and I would suggest a process to separate them from their money through fines--real soon. (Though I would presume they would be smart enough not to disobey an injunction to allow "sporting activities", once they have completed their appeals.) As far as I'm concerned, the owners went too far, and they need to be slapped down, with games resuming and no concessions to them.
Frankly, though, this is not enough for me. My plan is to boycott all support of NFL (which, for me, is mostly watching games on TV and blogging about them sometimes)--indefinitely--until they get a better, wiser set of owners. That's probably forever.
What will I lose? I like watching the playoff games, and about half a dozen to a dozen regular season games a year. The Super Bowl, not so much; preseason games, never. We'll give this approach a try for a couple years and see if this is too much to give up--or maybe the owners will give in first.
The Dodgers Get Hit By A Brick
The takeover of the Los Angeles Dodgers by the Major League Baseball organization illustrates a perennial problem: How bad does an owner have to be before the
other owners decide he/she must be replaced? The Dodgers owners--whose sin was a divorce battle so fierce that Mr. McCourt had to start pumping money out of the team to protect his other interests--had gone over the line.
The owners of the New York Mets, the Wilpons (which my friend Muhammad Cohen, in a brilliant pun, has labeled as "WMD: Wilpons of Mets' Destruction"), have a different problem which has not yet put them beyond the pale but may yet do so. The Wilpons were major investors in Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, and Madoff allowed them to retrieve their money before his business collapsed. The threat to the Wilpons, and thus to the Mets as currently constituted, is that the trustee of Madoff's bankrupt enterprise will successfully claim huge sums from the Wilpons', and the Mets', kitty. If it becomes apparent that will happen, the Wilpons would be forced to relinquish their control, just as the Dodgers' McCourts will have to do.
The threshold of pain required before the commissioner acts is very high for the same reason kings, historically, have always been reluctant to endorse regicide: the commissioner is just the agent of the owners, and they realize their turn could be next.
To me, the NFL owners have joined hands and jumped over the line--and off the
cliff. Their league is dead to me (until they get a new set of owners). The
jury is out for the NBA; they have a superb product, and their commissioner is
the smartest one going, but their owners have pulled out their knives and are
threatening to cut their throats unless we yield to their unreasonable demands.
Unlike the NFL, baseball has an exemption from antitrust law granted long ago by Congress. This privilege suggests a possible improvement to the game's management that will never happen. It would be some sort of Congressional oversight on owner behavior and the broad "vision" for the game. I guarantee you that, if there were such for the NFL, there would be a franchise in L.A.
The NBA May Bring the Cruelest Cuts
If there were oversight of the NBA, I guarantee there would not be three franchises in the L.A. area, as is likely to happen after this year. The peripatetic Sacramento Kings, a franchise that started in Rochester, NY, I believe (though that was before my time) came, deluded, and left Cincinnati (as the Royals), then the states of Missouri, Nebraska, and Kansas (when it had the catchy name of the "Kansas City-Omaha Kings"), now plans to leave Sacramento (where their fans have earned the reputation as the most loyal, noisiest supporters of any NBA team) because of the owning Maloof brothers' business shortcomings and dispute about yet another arena they wanted built for them at public expense.
Worse than this travesty, though, would be if the NBA goes the NFL route after this season. The Collective Bargaining Agreement between the players and owners expires, and the threat of lockout has been looming for some time. The owners are claiming that too many of their number are making insufficient returns on their capital, and thus the new agreement will have to reduce players' cut of the overall till, or they will take their (generally publicly-paid) arenas, hoops, and balls and go home.
The irony is that this may have been the best NBA season ever, in terms of sustainable interest provided by a variety of competitive teams without a prohibitive favorite. The first round of the playoffs has been exceptionally exciting--though none of the series may go the full seven games, none of the top seeds has seemed invulnerable in the first round (there was only one sweep in the eight series, the Celtics over the Knicks, the early games at home were very tough for the Celtics, and the sweep only became likely when two of the Knicks' top three players became injured), and plenty of excitement lies ahead.
The issues which separate the owners and players will be portrayed as very abstruse ones about reductions in salary cap, "franchise players" who can be protected from free agency or trade (as the NFL has), and perhaps more provisions to protect owners from overspending on players that are too young or too lame. Because the real issue is the weakness of the franchises in smaller markets, and because the NBA is the sports league in which the players are most recognizable and relatively powerful, the solution will lie in sharing of revenues between teams--but will they find the answer without having to lock out the players and go through the legal struggles the NFL is experiencing?
To me, the NFL owners have joined hands and jumped over the line--and off the
cliff. Their league is dead to me (until they get a new set of owners). The
jury is out for the NBA; they have a superb product, and their commissioner (David Stern) is the smartest and most powerful one going, but their owners have pulled out their knives and are threatening to cut their own throats unless we yield to their unreasonable demands.
The NFL Loses its Case to A Bunch of Players
I applaud Judge Nelson's decision that the NFL owners have unfairly combined to deny the livelihood of professional footballers, an antitrust violation. She could have taken several different steps--breaking up the league into competing units (such as was done with Ma Bell some 30 years ago) or imposed crippling fines. So the owners should be relieved that she only did what the players wanted her to do: allow them to play again.
If the owners are under the impression that they do not need the players to take the field in order for them to make money from their franchises, they should be disabused of that notion--utterly, completely, violently if necessary, and preferably legally. I support boycotts of NFL merchandise, certainly a total disregard for their "draft" going on tonight (without an Collective Bargaining Agreement with their current stock of players, what do they think are they drafting for?), and I would suggest a process to separate them from their money through fines--real soon. (Though I would presume they would be smart enough not to disobey an injunction to allow "sporting activities", once they have completed their appeals.) As far as I'm concerned, the owners went too far, and they need to be slapped down, with games resuming and no concessions to them.
Frankly, though, this is not enough for me. My plan is to boycott all support of NFL (which, for me, is mostly watching games on TV and blogging about them sometimes)--indefinitely--until they get a better, wiser set of owners. That's probably forever.
What will I lose? I like watching the playoff games, and about half a dozen to a dozen regular season games a year. The Super Bowl, not so much; preseason games, never. We'll give this approach a try for a couple years and see if this is too much to give up--or maybe the owners will give in first.
The Dodgers Get Hit By A Brick
The takeover of the Los Angeles Dodgers by the Major League Baseball organization illustrates a perennial problem: How bad does an owner have to be before the
other owners decide he/she must be replaced? The Dodgers owners--whose sin was a divorce battle so fierce that Mr. McCourt had to start pumping money out of the team to protect his other interests--had gone over the line.
The owners of the New York Mets, the Wilpons (which my friend Muhammad Cohen, in a brilliant pun, has labeled as "WMD: Wilpons of Mets' Destruction"), have a different problem which has not yet put them beyond the pale but may yet do so. The Wilpons were major investors in Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, and Madoff allowed them to retrieve their money before his business collapsed. The threat to the Wilpons, and thus to the Mets as currently constituted, is that the trustee of Madoff's bankrupt enterprise will successfully claim huge sums from the Wilpons', and the Mets', kitty. If it becomes apparent that will happen, the Wilpons would be forced to relinquish their control, just as the Dodgers' McCourts will have to do.
The threshold of pain required before the commissioner acts is very high for the same reason kings, historically, have always been reluctant to endorse regicide: the commissioner is just the agent of the owners, and they realize their turn could be next.
To me, the NFL owners have joined hands and jumped over the line--and off the
cliff. Their league is dead to me (until they get a new set of owners). The
jury is out for the NBA; they have a superb product, and their commissioner is
the smartest one going, but their owners have pulled out their knives and are
threatening to cut their throats unless we yield to their unreasonable demands.
Unlike the NFL, baseball has an exemption from antitrust law granted long ago by Congress. This privilege suggests a possible improvement to the game's management that will never happen. It would be some sort of Congressional oversight on owner behavior and the broad "vision" for the game. I guarantee you that, if there were such for the NFL, there would be a franchise in L.A.
The NBA May Bring the Cruelest Cuts
If there were oversight of the NBA, I guarantee there would not be three franchises in the L.A. area, as is likely to happen after this year. The peripatetic Sacramento Kings, a franchise that started in Rochester, NY, I believe (though that was before my time) came, deluded, and left Cincinnati (as the Royals), then the states of Missouri, Nebraska, and Kansas (when it had the catchy name of the "Kansas City-Omaha Kings"), now plans to leave Sacramento (where their fans have earned the reputation as the most loyal, noisiest supporters of any NBA team) because of the owning Maloof brothers' business shortcomings and dispute about yet another arena they wanted built for them at public expense.
Worse than this travesty, though, would be if the NBA goes the NFL route after this season. The Collective Bargaining Agreement between the players and owners expires, and the threat of lockout has been looming for some time. The owners are claiming that too many of their number are making insufficient returns on their capital, and thus the new agreement will have to reduce players' cut of the overall till, or they will take their (generally publicly-paid) arenas, hoops, and balls and go home.
The irony is that this may have been the best NBA season ever, in terms of sustainable interest provided by a variety of competitive teams without a prohibitive favorite. The first round of the playoffs has been exceptionally exciting--though none of the series may go the full seven games, none of the top seeds has seemed invulnerable in the first round (there was only one sweep in the eight series, the Celtics over the Knicks, the early games at home were very tough for the Celtics, and the sweep only became likely when two of the Knicks' top three players became injured), and plenty of excitement lies ahead.
The issues which separate the owners and players will be portrayed as very abstruse ones about reductions in salary cap, "franchise players" who can be protected from free agency or trade (as the NFL has), and perhaps more provisions to protect owners from overspending on players that are too young or too lame. Because the real issue is the weakness of the franchises in smaller markets, and because the NBA is the sports league in which the players are most recognizable and relatively powerful, the solution will lie in sharing of revenues between teams--but will they find the answer without having to lock out the players and go through the legal struggles the NFL is experiencing?
To me, the NFL owners have joined hands and jumped over the line--and off the
cliff. Their league is dead to me (until they get a new set of owners). The
jury is out for the NBA; they have a superb product, and their commissioner (David Stern) is the smartest and most powerful one going, but their owners have pulled out their knives and are threatening to cut their own throats unless we yield to their unreasonable demands.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Enhancement through Lower Regard?
Today the leading credit rating agency Standard & Poor's (S&P) announced that they have given a "negative outlook" to US government debt. This is not a downgrade in itself, but does provide a more specific qualitative assessment when combined with the rating itself.
What does it mean, and what have the reactions been to the announcement? In one sense, it means nothing new at all: the rating remains AAA, and S&P had already provided warnings that it would consider downgrading US debt if we did not get our house in order. S&P indicated that its negative outlook suggested there was a 1-in-3 chance that the rating could actually be downgraded within the next two years.
I am guessing, and I hope that it's true, that this means that about 1/3 of the times that they have provided a negative outlook on AAA debt in the past (over some reasonable amount of time observed), they have ended up downgrading the debt in the following two years. I hope that it does not mean their assessment of "probability" in the specific case of the US government's debt, because that would be completely bogus. The actual event depends on a whole lot of possible contingencies, some political, some economic; it would be ludicrous to estimate a "probability" on the outcome, and anyway I can tell you my strongly felt opinion--the chances that they would downgrade US debt, short of some sort of default, is zero. To do otherwise would be to invite a political cataclysm which would lead inevitably to S&P losing its duopoly status at the top of the credit rating game with Moody's. They aren't that dumb.
One question that has been asked today is: "Who cares what S&P thinks?" This blog has certainly been unstinting in our criticism of the principal rating agencies' performance in recent years, and creation of a new, better business model for rating debt quality is one piece of unfinished business from last year's financial reform. In this case, the US government is not paying S&P to provide a rating, so their opinion may be more untainted than usual, and what I see S&P reacting to, and also trying to forestall, is the fear of a credit crisis due to failure of the US government to a) develop a long-term deficit program of some sort, and b) raise the debt limit when it comes in a month or so. S&P is providing a warning from the credit markets, which both parties' strategists would do well to heed.
This is not to say that the Obama Administration need be governed by the desires of the bond markets; there are lots of forms of long-term debt reduction and short-term debt limit increase which would forestall a crisis. It is also a mistake to think that the markets speak with one voice: there are even some "experts" out there who are advising politicians not to compromise their values, to go up to the brink and even over it if necessary, that a default would not be catastrophic to our attempts to escape the Great Crater. Those voices should not be heeded.
Today's sharp drop in stocks (slight firming in bonds, gold, and the dollar; also a drop in oil and other commodities) may be much more meaningful than S&P's squawking. It appears to me that a new consensus is developing around a slowing of the pace of growth; with any additional government spending cuts around some sort of budget deal, even the partial one that is the best we could expect (see our recent forecast of the kind of agreement we should be able to get), we should expect nothing that will help recovery; only the absence of a collapse. In this scenario, there will be conflicting evidence affecting the markets, with slowed growth accompanied by possible rises in interest rates, prices, and flat job growth.
Thus, while the stock marketed overreacted, as per usual, with its immediate reaction to the "news" (in fact, a third of that reaction was corrected by the end of the day), it may still be in order for there to be a general retreat, until the quarterly earnings reports (and, especially, any future guidance) helps the market sort out the winners from the losers in the next few months.
As for the bond markets, they demand a lot but reward little. Today's announcement and its reaction produced public statements from both parties and from the White House, all pointing in the directions sought--more urgency on budget cuts and entitlement slashing from the Republicans, more urgency for a negotiation from the Democrats and the White House. It all may make a limited deal--the only one that's possible--more likely, but it won't be rewarded by anything more than the absence of a crisis and of a run on bond rates. I guess we should be grateful if we get small favors.
What does it mean, and what have the reactions been to the announcement? In one sense, it means nothing new at all: the rating remains AAA, and S&P had already provided warnings that it would consider downgrading US debt if we did not get our house in order. S&P indicated that its negative outlook suggested there was a 1-in-3 chance that the rating could actually be downgraded within the next two years.
I am guessing, and I hope that it's true, that this means that about 1/3 of the times that they have provided a negative outlook on AAA debt in the past (over some reasonable amount of time observed), they have ended up downgrading the debt in the following two years. I hope that it does not mean their assessment of "probability" in the specific case of the US government's debt, because that would be completely bogus. The actual event depends on a whole lot of possible contingencies, some political, some economic; it would be ludicrous to estimate a "probability" on the outcome, and anyway I can tell you my strongly felt opinion--the chances that they would downgrade US debt, short of some sort of default, is zero. To do otherwise would be to invite a political cataclysm which would lead inevitably to S&P losing its duopoly status at the top of the credit rating game with Moody's. They aren't that dumb.
One question that has been asked today is: "Who cares what S&P thinks?" This blog has certainly been unstinting in our criticism of the principal rating agencies' performance in recent years, and creation of a new, better business model for rating debt quality is one piece of unfinished business from last year's financial reform. In this case, the US government is not paying S&P to provide a rating, so their opinion may be more untainted than usual, and what I see S&P reacting to, and also trying to forestall, is the fear of a credit crisis due to failure of the US government to a) develop a long-term deficit program of some sort, and b) raise the debt limit when it comes in a month or so. S&P is providing a warning from the credit markets, which both parties' strategists would do well to heed.
This is not to say that the Obama Administration need be governed by the desires of the bond markets; there are lots of forms of long-term debt reduction and short-term debt limit increase which would forestall a crisis. It is also a mistake to think that the markets speak with one voice: there are even some "experts" out there who are advising politicians not to compromise their values, to go up to the brink and even over it if necessary, that a default would not be catastrophic to our attempts to escape the Great Crater. Those voices should not be heeded.
Today's sharp drop in stocks (slight firming in bonds, gold, and the dollar; also a drop in oil and other commodities) may be much more meaningful than S&P's squawking. It appears to me that a new consensus is developing around a slowing of the pace of growth; with any additional government spending cuts around some sort of budget deal, even the partial one that is the best we could expect (see our recent forecast of the kind of agreement we should be able to get), we should expect nothing that will help recovery; only the absence of a collapse. In this scenario, there will be conflicting evidence affecting the markets, with slowed growth accompanied by possible rises in interest rates, prices, and flat job growth.
Thus, while the stock marketed overreacted, as per usual, with its immediate reaction to the "news" (in fact, a third of that reaction was corrected by the end of the day), it may still be in order for there to be a general retreat, until the quarterly earnings reports (and, especially, any future guidance) helps the market sort out the winners from the losers in the next few months.
As for the bond markets, they demand a lot but reward little. Today's announcement and its reaction produced public statements from both parties and from the White House, all pointing in the directions sought--more urgency on budget cuts and entitlement slashing from the Republicans, more urgency for a negotiation from the Democrats and the White House. It all may make a limited deal--the only one that's possible--more likely, but it won't be rewarded by anything more than the absence of a crisis and of a run on bond rates. I guess we should be grateful if we get small favors.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Miral
I have been lax in documenting and reviewing the movie "Miral", the new movie directed by Julian Schnabel ("The Diving Bell and the Butterfly", one of my top 10 movies of the last decade). On a recent visit to New York about two weeks ago, I happened upon the opportunity to watch the movie, followed by a Q&A session with Schnabel himself, and with the writer of the screenplay and the memoir upon which the movie was based, Israeli Palestinian Rula Jebreal.
Jebreal's book is also named "Miral"; the movie and the book are the story of her youthful experiences growing up a Palestinian in Jerusalem, as well as stories about her mother and about a remarkable woman--named Hind Hussein--who started an orphanage and school there in the aftermath of the chaos around the creation of the Israeli state in 1947. Rula Jebreal was "Miral", a character named after a flower that grows by the side of the road in that region, and she grew up in the orphanage, attending the school, after the suicide of her mother (I believe it was the early '70's).
Filmed in a variety of great locations in Israel and the West Bank, the movie shows the misery and strife of military occupation from the point of view of Palestinians. Rula/Miral has the status of being an Israeli citizen, as her ancestors never left, and finds her identity as a Palestinian as a teenager. Miss Hind, the towering figure of the orphanage/school for some 40 years from the time she founded it, provides hope for the young girls there and does her best to protect them from the dangers of the intifada (uprising). At the story's end, she arranges for Miral to go to Italy to attend university, then dies, a local hero.
Rula's experiences include an infatuation with a young intifada leader who first supports the Al Fatah (PLO) position, then runs afoul of them and is killed as an accused traitor; she is taken by the Israeli authorities, interrogated, then blindfolded, bound, and beaten; her Israeli citizenship saved her from more prolonged imprisonment. Still, her experiences are not nearly as harsh as those the film recounts of her mother, who was abused and degraded, falsely imprisoned by the Israelis, and afterwards could not live with herself. Miral's "father" (the parentage was shown not to be biological) is one of the few positive male characters, a complicated character who was a devout Muslim, loyal to Miral's mother despite her infidelity, and a loving father, yet one who gives up custody of his daughter to the orphanage.
Beyond the range of the movie's story, Rula Jebreal became a journalist in Italy (as she said, "the first 'black' TV presenter there"). She spoke passionately at the Q&A session of her desire to raise awareness in the world of the plight of the Palestinians, though affirming her love of the area and acknowledging that she loves Israel as well. One thing she does not accept, and of which her life is testimony, is the Zionist notion that Israel is a Jewish state; though she came to have Jewish friends and appreciate their culture (some of which is shown in the movie), she wants a unitary state for all who live there.
The film is deeply affecting, though perhaps not as much as Schnabel's "Diving Bell". Frieda Pinto, the female lead of the smash 2009 movie "Slumdog Millionaire", is a bit of a controversial choice for the difficult role of Miral, but I will say that she brings to it something like the limpid beauty which I witnessed that evening from Rula herself. Her father was played by an actor, Alexander Siddig, who seemed very familiar but I could not place: turns out he was a regular, Dr. Bashir, on "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" (not a great recommendation, I know). The other two key roles, both very challenging to portray, were those of Hind Hussein and of Miral's mother Nadia, played by more conventional Palestinian actresses, Hiam Abbass and Yasmine El Masri, respectively. Willem Dafoe and Vanessa Redgrave both lent their presence to the movie, though their roles are relatively small and peripheral to the story.
Schnabel spoke of the difficulty in getting official permissions to film in many locations, but also of the cooperation and passionate support for his effort that he sometimes found, and of the beauty of the region. (There is an extensive listing in the credits of each of the scenes and where it was shot.) He is known primarily as a painter, and is the son of prominent Jewish leaders, but has taken a courageous, independent political stance with this effort. He has run into some resistance from the Hollywood community, not too surprising considering the subject matter; he didn't need their help to make the film, but he will need it (and will not get it) to get broad enough distribution for him and Rula to accomplish their aim of raising political awareness. They may have to settle for the satisfaction of telling a compelling story beautifully, as both their political aims and commercial success will no doubt lie beyond their capability.
P.S. I have to mention the scene when Miral and her cousin's Jewish girlfriend are hanging out in an apartment in Jaffa, listening to Pete Townshend's spoken introduction to the first cut in his album of demos and rarities, "Scoop" (a personal favorite). It provides the occasion for Miral to be informed of the existence of something called "The Who". Not too critical, except to illustrate the degree that Miral's upbringing in her school was both sheltered and deprived of exposure to the outside world.
Jebreal's book is also named "Miral"; the movie and the book are the story of her youthful experiences growing up a Palestinian in Jerusalem, as well as stories about her mother and about a remarkable woman--named Hind Hussein--who started an orphanage and school there in the aftermath of the chaos around the creation of the Israeli state in 1947. Rula Jebreal was "Miral", a character named after a flower that grows by the side of the road in that region, and she grew up in the orphanage, attending the school, after the suicide of her mother (I believe it was the early '70's).
Filmed in a variety of great locations in Israel and the West Bank, the movie shows the misery and strife of military occupation from the point of view of Palestinians. Rula/Miral has the status of being an Israeli citizen, as her ancestors never left, and finds her identity as a Palestinian as a teenager. Miss Hind, the towering figure of the orphanage/school for some 40 years from the time she founded it, provides hope for the young girls there and does her best to protect them from the dangers of the intifada (uprising). At the story's end, she arranges for Miral to go to Italy to attend university, then dies, a local hero.
Rula's experiences include an infatuation with a young intifada leader who first supports the Al Fatah (PLO) position, then runs afoul of them and is killed as an accused traitor; she is taken by the Israeli authorities, interrogated, then blindfolded, bound, and beaten; her Israeli citizenship saved her from more prolonged imprisonment. Still, her experiences are not nearly as harsh as those the film recounts of her mother, who was abused and degraded, falsely imprisoned by the Israelis, and afterwards could not live with herself. Miral's "father" (the parentage was shown not to be biological) is one of the few positive male characters, a complicated character who was a devout Muslim, loyal to Miral's mother despite her infidelity, and a loving father, yet one who gives up custody of his daughter to the orphanage.
Beyond the range of the movie's story, Rula Jebreal became a journalist in Italy (as she said, "the first 'black' TV presenter there"). She spoke passionately at the Q&A session of her desire to raise awareness in the world of the plight of the Palestinians, though affirming her love of the area and acknowledging that she loves Israel as well. One thing she does not accept, and of which her life is testimony, is the Zionist notion that Israel is a Jewish state; though she came to have Jewish friends and appreciate their culture (some of which is shown in the movie), she wants a unitary state for all who live there.
The film is deeply affecting, though perhaps not as much as Schnabel's "Diving Bell". Frieda Pinto, the female lead of the smash 2009 movie "Slumdog Millionaire", is a bit of a controversial choice for the difficult role of Miral, but I will say that she brings to it something like the limpid beauty which I witnessed that evening from Rula herself. Her father was played by an actor, Alexander Siddig, who seemed very familiar but I could not place: turns out he was a regular, Dr. Bashir, on "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" (not a great recommendation, I know). The other two key roles, both very challenging to portray, were those of Hind Hussein and of Miral's mother Nadia, played by more conventional Palestinian actresses, Hiam Abbass and Yasmine El Masri, respectively. Willem Dafoe and Vanessa Redgrave both lent their presence to the movie, though their roles are relatively small and peripheral to the story.
Schnabel spoke of the difficulty in getting official permissions to film in many locations, but also of the cooperation and passionate support for his effort that he sometimes found, and of the beauty of the region. (There is an extensive listing in the credits of each of the scenes and where it was shot.) He is known primarily as a painter, and is the son of prominent Jewish leaders, but has taken a courageous, independent political stance with this effort. He has run into some resistance from the Hollywood community, not too surprising considering the subject matter; he didn't need their help to make the film, but he will need it (and will not get it) to get broad enough distribution for him and Rula to accomplish their aim of raising political awareness. They may have to settle for the satisfaction of telling a compelling story beautifully, as both their political aims and commercial success will no doubt lie beyond their capability.
P.S. I have to mention the scene when Miral and her cousin's Jewish girlfriend are hanging out in an apartment in Jaffa, listening to Pete Townshend's spoken introduction to the first cut in his album of demos and rarities, "Scoop" (a personal favorite). It provides the occasion for Miral to be informed of the existence of something called "The Who". Not too critical, except to illustrate the degree that Miral's upbringing in her school was both sheltered and deprived of exposure to the outside world.
The Obama Plan
I watched most of President Obama's speech on deficit reduction today and later read the text of it. I have no problems with any of it, including the political positioning, which is clearly front and center, and I disagree with those who want or expect more specifics at this point.
Obama seeks to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 12 years as compared to current projections--these projections include considerable improvement in the economy, which, if true, will reduce the cumulative deficit, through reductions in social-net expenditures and improvements in tax receipts from individuals and businesses, just as much as all of this effort. That is one area--the need to continue the recovery--is one that Obama perhaps should have stressed more. His proposal is one that has $2 trillion of spending cuts (roughly 40% from areas agreed in the recent battles, 40% from defense, and 20% from Medicare/Medicaid), $1 trillion of revenue enhancement, and $1 trillion in reductions in interest on the debt (which result from the other reductions).
Of course his proposal is not the final form of what will happen. Congressman Ryan's proposal is just as far away, and the proposals of the Bowles-Simpson Commission are also far from being approvable by Congress in their current forms. What they all have in common, though, provides the basis of something important that can be done--now--to prevent a near-miss, slow-motion, high-kinetic-energy train encounter such as the one we had last week.
There can be agreement on a trajectory of deficit reduction--through a combination of recovery benchmarks, revenue increases, and spending reductions--over time, and on some agreed mid-course corrections if the rate of improvement in the budget deficit misses targets beyond certain margins of error. For example, if the economy improves on schedule but revenues do not, there should be automatic increases in tax rates or reductions in tax deductions; if the unemployment rate remains higher-than-projected, spending reductions--and the departments which would suffer them--should be specified; if interest rates rise, either these would be reflected in faster growth or both spending and revenue adjustments would be required to stay on track. Finally, these targets need to have teeth, such that a veto-level supermajority of both houses would be required to change them. This would allow for something like a declared major war which would have to change the picture dramatically.
Agreeing on these measures would not be easy, and that agreement would leave huge issues unsettled and fair game for the 2012 election, like what to do with health care entitlements, the level of defense spending, the type of "tax expenditure reforms" (changes in loopholes and deductions), corporate taxes, and marginal rates for the wealthy. But agreement on the trajectory--something that's comparable in all three framework proposals--would provide a basis to simplify annual budget battles (like the one expected for the 2012 budget), provide the needed reassurance to world markets, and give the public the impression that the government is no longer out of control.
Obama seeks to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 12 years as compared to current projections--these projections include considerable improvement in the economy, which, if true, will reduce the cumulative deficit, through reductions in social-net expenditures and improvements in tax receipts from individuals and businesses, just as much as all of this effort. That is one area--the need to continue the recovery--is one that Obama perhaps should have stressed more. His proposal is one that has $2 trillion of spending cuts (roughly 40% from areas agreed in the recent battles, 40% from defense, and 20% from Medicare/Medicaid), $1 trillion of revenue enhancement, and $1 trillion in reductions in interest on the debt (which result from the other reductions).
Of course his proposal is not the final form of what will happen. Congressman Ryan's proposal is just as far away, and the proposals of the Bowles-Simpson Commission are also far from being approvable by Congress in their current forms. What they all have in common, though, provides the basis of something important that can be done--now--to prevent a near-miss, slow-motion, high-kinetic-energy train encounter such as the one we had last week.
There can be agreement on a trajectory of deficit reduction--through a combination of recovery benchmarks, revenue increases, and spending reductions--over time, and on some agreed mid-course corrections if the rate of improvement in the budget deficit misses targets beyond certain margins of error. For example, if the economy improves on schedule but revenues do not, there should be automatic increases in tax rates or reductions in tax deductions; if the unemployment rate remains higher-than-projected, spending reductions--and the departments which would suffer them--should be specified; if interest rates rise, either these would be reflected in faster growth or both spending and revenue adjustments would be required to stay on track. Finally, these targets need to have teeth, such that a veto-level supermajority of both houses would be required to change them. This would allow for something like a declared major war which would have to change the picture dramatically.
Agreeing on these measures would not be easy, and that agreement would leave huge issues unsettled and fair game for the 2012 election, like what to do with health care entitlements, the level of defense spending, the type of "tax expenditure reforms" (changes in loopholes and deductions), corporate taxes, and marginal rates for the wealthy. But agreement on the trajectory--something that's comparable in all three framework proposals--would provide a basis to simplify annual budget battles (like the one expected for the 2012 budget), provide the needed reassurance to world markets, and give the public the impression that the government is no longer out of control.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Trump's Birther Baloney
It is shameful that Donald Trump has seized on the question of President Obama's birth certificate as a means of pandering to the right wing of the Republican party. Like most things he does, it's a publicity stunt, but it is one that is part of a plan that aims at a thought almost too terrible to consider, the first stage of which is to get enough support among Republicans that he can win primaries and delegates.
I believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, and that Hawaii was part of U.S. territory at the time (one would have to go back to the legality of the resolution in 1895 that made it so, and it was truly an abuse of power, but not illegal under U.S. law). His father seems to have been a Kenyan who had some Muslims among his forebears, but it is ridiculous to think that religion is specified on a birth certificate, so what is it they are looking for?
The whole "investigation", to dignify it overly, is wrong-headed. It actually doesn't matter, for Obama's legal qualification to be President, where he was born. He was born of a native-born (white) American mother, so he's a native citizen and eligible for the Presidency, no matter where the birth occurred. In order to question his status, one would have to establish he was not borne by his mother.
End of story.
I believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, and that Hawaii was part of U.S. territory at the time (one would have to go back to the legality of the resolution in 1895 that made it so, and it was truly an abuse of power, but not illegal under U.S. law). His father seems to have been a Kenyan who had some Muslims among his forebears, but it is ridiculous to think that religion is specified on a birth certificate, so what is it they are looking for?
The whole "investigation", to dignify it overly, is wrong-headed. It actually doesn't matter, for Obama's legal qualification to be President, where he was born. He was born of a native-born (white) American mother, so he's a native citizen and eligible for the Presidency, no matter where the birth occurred. In order to question his status, one would have to establish he was not borne by his mother.
End of story.
Friday, April 08, 2011
Intrade Odds
...of this moment (Friday, April 8, at 3:39 p.m. EDT)
Odds of a government shutdown (by June 30, 2011, but essentially now): 57.8%
Odds of Muammar Qaddafi leaving his position at head of Libya's government by end of year: 65%
Of the Democratic party winning the Presidential election in 2012: 62.7%
Of the Republicans holding control of the House in the 2012 elections: 55%
Of the Republicans winning control of the Senate in 2012 (51 seats, or 50 if they win the Presidency, not counting Independents): 66%
Chances of selected individuals to win the Republican nomination in 2012: Mitt Romney 27.4%, Tim Pawlenty 16.5, Mitch Daniels 8.5, Michele Bachmann 7.3, Donald Trump 5.9, Mike Huckabee 5.5, Sarah Palin 4.9, Haley Barbour 4.8, Jon Huntsman 4.7, Newt Gingrich 3.9, Chris Christie 2.3, Ron Paul 1.7, Gary Johnson 1.5, Paul Ryan 1.3, Rudy Giuliani 1.0. Many others listed, all below 1.0%.
My take on these odds: bet against Qaddhafi, and Republicans winning the Senate; in favor of Obama, Romney, Daniels, Huckabee, and Paul Ryan, and against all the other Republicans. I think the odds on Republicans' holding the House are about right. I'm surprised by Pawlenty's number, but on the other hand, I read that Obama does worst against an anonymous Republican opponent than against any named one. In that case, Pawlenty would be a good choice for them, and the odds may be right in line. I think Romney's chances are closer to 40% on the nomination.
Intrade has a new look to their web site--more friendly, less geeky. I think they're looking to make it less an investment site, more a game site. Got to get the dumb money in there if it's going to predict events well over the long haul, I think.
The odds on the shutdown have risen rapidly, but now are stabilizing. As it may go down to the last hour, it's hard to be sure, but I think it will be solved--at least for this week!
Odds of a government shutdown (by June 30, 2011, but essentially now): 57.8%
Odds of Muammar Qaddafi leaving his position at head of Libya's government by end of year: 65%
Of the Democratic party winning the Presidential election in 2012: 62.7%
Of the Republicans holding control of the House in the 2012 elections: 55%
Of the Republicans winning control of the Senate in 2012 (51 seats, or 50 if they win the Presidency, not counting Independents): 66%
Chances of selected individuals to win the Republican nomination in 2012: Mitt Romney 27.4%, Tim Pawlenty 16.5, Mitch Daniels 8.5, Michele Bachmann 7.3, Donald Trump 5.9, Mike Huckabee 5.5, Sarah Palin 4.9, Haley Barbour 4.8, Jon Huntsman 4.7, Newt Gingrich 3.9, Chris Christie 2.3, Ron Paul 1.7, Gary Johnson 1.5, Paul Ryan 1.3, Rudy Giuliani 1.0. Many others listed, all below 1.0%.
My take on these odds: bet against Qaddhafi, and Republicans winning the Senate; in favor of Obama, Romney, Daniels, Huckabee, and Paul Ryan, and against all the other Republicans. I think the odds on Republicans' holding the House are about right. I'm surprised by Pawlenty's number, but on the other hand, I read that Obama does worst against an anonymous Republican opponent than against any named one. In that case, Pawlenty would be a good choice for them, and the odds may be right in line. I think Romney's chances are closer to 40% on the nomination.
Intrade has a new look to their web site--more friendly, less geeky. I think they're looking to make it less an investment site, more a game site. Got to get the dumb money in there if it's going to predict events well over the long haul, I think.
The odds on the shutdown have risen rapidly, but now are stabilizing. As it may go down to the last hour, it's hard to be sure, but I think it will be solved--at least for this week!
It's Shutdown Friday!
Actually, it will be Shutdown Saturday tomorrow; today is Brinkmanship Friday, as Senate Democrats and Congressional Republicans posture about the nature of the disagreement: Speaker of the House of Orange John Boehner claims it's because Democrats won't agree to enough cuts in the budget, while Senate Majority Leader Reid says it's because the Republicans insist on a policy of defunding Planned Parenthood. For his part, President Obama, trying to preserve a role of impartiality to help get a deal done, is staying silent about which of the two is lying (and it could be both).
The nastiest turn involves the paychecks for our military, which have been made hostage to a deal: the Administration has determined that under current law there is no provision to pay them in the case of a shutdown, the Republicans cynically proposed a bill to fund the military for the rest of the fiscal year, but added some of their dreaded policy riders. Obama said he'd veto it, and the Senate won't take it up; neither House of Congress has put forward a "clean" military funding bill that pays the military's personnel costs without a bunch of political statements, something both sides claim to want.
Splitting the Difference
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, the head of the Tea Party Caucus, has been able to take a surprisingly objective view of the dispute. She's not going to vote for any budget agreement, because the negotiations were not aggressive enough for her, particularly in de-funding the provisions of the health care insurance reform act passed last year. This allows her some perspective: she argues for a clean military funding bill if general agreement can't be achieved in time, but she believes the problems can be resolved, and she believes the issue of policy riders (new provisions of law added to the budget) has been resolved.
If this is true, that would be a major step toward resolution: in particular, the riders seeking to prevent the E.P.A. from enforcing the Clean Air act and water protections were unacceptable, to me and to President Obama, and would have put blame for a shutdown squarely on an indefensible will to prevent enforcement of the law. The tipoff that the EPA policy rider has indeed been taken off the table was a series of votes in the Senate to restrict the EPA that failed, despite the support from a few Democrats in coal-mining states.
The issue to de-fund Planned Parenthood is a little different, not just a matter of a policy rider, and I'm somewhat sympathetic to the Republican view. Not that the government should refuse to fund the women's health services Planned Parenthood provides, but I understand an objection to the way it is done. Funds for services such as these should be grants provided on a competitive application basis to the organization(s) that can do them most effectively, not an entitlement--the same goes for the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's assistance to rural radio, an issue which also seems to have dropped off the table. Planned Parenthood does not use the money provided to pay for abortions--that is already prohibited by law--but if it can count on the Federal government for 30% of its funding every year, that affects its general funding strategy. I liken this to the battles the higher education institutions have to get money from the US government: those are for specific purposes, loss of grants have consequences on their general funding, and there is competition for them.
Bachmann said that Boehner told his caucus there is a $6.5 billion gap in the cuts agreed. To her, that was a minor amount, a couple of tenths of a percent of the budget, but with so many areas off the table, it sounds like a pretty large portion of a small number of agencies' funding. What I have read is that there is a disagreement about certain agencies which get their appropriations over a multi-year plan: the Democrats have agreed to cut some of the money from this year's portion, while the Republicans don't trust that money would not be spent later. There would seem to be a fairly easy solution: reduce the multi-year budget by the agreed amounts.
Deficits: Don't Worry!
For a completely different perspective, I recommend reading this article in The Nation (April 4 issue) by Australian economist William Mitchell; his argument is that both sides are wrong, and the budget deficits do not matter (particularly in this economy). Essentially, because governments like the US issue their own currency, there is no need to balance budgets, and inflation results from deficit spending only when the economy is at full capacity (which we are currently nowhere near). One point in particular struck me--his argument that the deficit does not have to be converted into debt through sale of bonds.
An interesting argument, one that deserves to be heard, but certainly one going against a strong public opinion in favor of deficit reduction, and one that seems disingenuous in a couple of ways: 1) tell it to the bond markets!--regardless of economic reality, they would likely react quite harshly, in terms of effective interest rates for bonds and Treasury bills, to a decision not to move against deficits or monetize them in bond sales; and 2) I think his argument would be stronger if he addressed the looming demographic issue in some way.
Paul Ryan Contra "Stoner"
We agree with those who say this shutdown skirmish is a waste of ammunition; the real issues are larger ones of long-term military investment strategy, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Wisconsin Republican Representative Paul Ryan tried to inject long-term issues into this mess of small-ball this week; he has drawn praise from "adults" of all political persuasions for his effort.
Representative Ryan is a serious man, and an honorable one; however, his specific proposal on Medicare is a declaration of war on...me, among others, and so I have no choice but to declare him my enemy.
He proposes to convert Medicare from a defined-benefit, fully-paid Government health care insurance program for the elderly (OK, except for co-pays) to one in which the government will provide a specific amount of money to beneficiaries for them to get private insurance. He would propose to convert the program starting for those turning 65 in 2122, and thereafter. There is no doubt: this conversion would be made to save money for the Federal government and would be a reduction in the value of benefits for those currently more than 10 years away from receiving them--I suppose 10 years being exactly the amount of time those people need to make other plans for payment of their healthcare costs for their lives as seniors.
I am one of those who will be 65 in 2122, and while I don't know the fine-print detail of which side of the line I'll be on, I resent the line-drawing in either case: either I will be drawing a much larger benefit than my comrades a few months younger, or I will be hugely penalized for not being born a few months sooner. What's he got against people my age?
(I remember a similar line drawn on the draft when I was 19: I was in the last cohort subjected to the draft lottery; my birthdate got #13 of 366 that year, though they didn't actually call people up, so in a similar way I was both lucky and unlucky, for no good reason).
Politically, I can only view Ryan's ploy as an attempt to split the Boomers (already a hugely politically-cloven group)right down the middle (coincidentally, or not, that is right at the peak of number of annual births at the height of the postwar Baby Boom), or to placate the seniors at the expense of the young. Mostly, though, it's yet another Republican sop to the rich: the real solution, the one that is certain to be adopted in the end, is to make those who can afford it pay more for their Medicare benefits.
What I would support is an approach that broadens Medicare eligibility by age, identifying the value of the benefit (X=cost of the program annually/number of recipients), and having recipients report that value as income and paying tax, if they are required to do so. The elderly and poor would thus be protected from the remedy to the cost problem, thus preserving the original intent of Medicare. I would also offer up this bone to the wealthy: they could deduct X as a cost the Federal government does not need to spend if they decline their Medicare coverage and get private coverage (to the standards of the Affordable Care Act) instead--since they can already deduct health insurance if they itemize, this would be a substantial double benefit, might make private healthcare for the elderly more competitive (which it surely is not now, and would not be affordable under the Ryan plan).
I've got an alternate to the Ryan plan, one just as likely or unlikely to become law, one that is no more or no less unfair than his, and which would do just as good a job of saving Federal expense: if these healthcare subsidy payments are such a good substitute for Medicare benefits, let's put all his constituents, those privatizing, union-busting Wisconsinites who elected him, on those vouchers right now, and use the savings to pay for Medicare/Medicaid benefits for all the constituents of my Congressional district (NM-3) who need them.
The nastiest turn involves the paychecks for our military, which have been made hostage to a deal: the Administration has determined that under current law there is no provision to pay them in the case of a shutdown, the Republicans cynically proposed a bill to fund the military for the rest of the fiscal year, but added some of their dreaded policy riders. Obama said he'd veto it, and the Senate won't take it up; neither House of Congress has put forward a "clean" military funding bill that pays the military's personnel costs without a bunch of political statements, something both sides claim to want.
Splitting the Difference
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, the head of the Tea Party Caucus, has been able to take a surprisingly objective view of the dispute. She's not going to vote for any budget agreement, because the negotiations were not aggressive enough for her, particularly in de-funding the provisions of the health care insurance reform act passed last year. This allows her some perspective: she argues for a clean military funding bill if general agreement can't be achieved in time, but she believes the problems can be resolved, and she believes the issue of policy riders (new provisions of law added to the budget) has been resolved.
If this is true, that would be a major step toward resolution: in particular, the riders seeking to prevent the E.P.A. from enforcing the Clean Air act and water protections were unacceptable, to me and to President Obama, and would have put blame for a shutdown squarely on an indefensible will to prevent enforcement of the law. The tipoff that the EPA policy rider has indeed been taken off the table was a series of votes in the Senate to restrict the EPA that failed, despite the support from a few Democrats in coal-mining states.
The issue to de-fund Planned Parenthood is a little different, not just a matter of a policy rider, and I'm somewhat sympathetic to the Republican view. Not that the government should refuse to fund the women's health services Planned Parenthood provides, but I understand an objection to the way it is done. Funds for services such as these should be grants provided on a competitive application basis to the organization(s) that can do them most effectively, not an entitlement--the same goes for the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's assistance to rural radio, an issue which also seems to have dropped off the table. Planned Parenthood does not use the money provided to pay for abortions--that is already prohibited by law--but if it can count on the Federal government for 30% of its funding every year, that affects its general funding strategy. I liken this to the battles the higher education institutions have to get money from the US government: those are for specific purposes, loss of grants have consequences on their general funding, and there is competition for them.
Bachmann said that Boehner told his caucus there is a $6.5 billion gap in the cuts agreed. To her, that was a minor amount, a couple of tenths of a percent of the budget, but with so many areas off the table, it sounds like a pretty large portion of a small number of agencies' funding. What I have read is that there is a disagreement about certain agencies which get their appropriations over a multi-year plan: the Democrats have agreed to cut some of the money from this year's portion, while the Republicans don't trust that money would not be spent later. There would seem to be a fairly easy solution: reduce the multi-year budget by the agreed amounts.
Deficits: Don't Worry!
For a completely different perspective, I recommend reading this article in The Nation (April 4 issue) by Australian economist William Mitchell; his argument is that both sides are wrong, and the budget deficits do not matter (particularly in this economy). Essentially, because governments like the US issue their own currency, there is no need to balance budgets, and inflation results from deficit spending only when the economy is at full capacity (which we are currently nowhere near). One point in particular struck me--his argument that the deficit does not have to be converted into debt through sale of bonds.
An interesting argument, one that deserves to be heard, but certainly one going against a strong public opinion in favor of deficit reduction, and one that seems disingenuous in a couple of ways: 1) tell it to the bond markets!--regardless of economic reality, they would likely react quite harshly, in terms of effective interest rates for bonds and Treasury bills, to a decision not to move against deficits or monetize them in bond sales; and 2) I think his argument would be stronger if he addressed the looming demographic issue in some way.
Paul Ryan Contra "Stoner"
A noble man...can endure no other enemy than one in whom there is nothing to despise and very much to honor.
---Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals
We agree with those who say this shutdown skirmish is a waste of ammunition; the real issues are larger ones of long-term military investment strategy, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Wisconsin Republican Representative Paul Ryan tried to inject long-term issues into this mess of small-ball this week; he has drawn praise from "adults" of all political persuasions for his effort.
Representative Ryan is a serious man, and an honorable one; however, his specific proposal on Medicare is a declaration of war on...me, among others, and so I have no choice but to declare him my enemy.
He proposes to convert Medicare from a defined-benefit, fully-paid Government health care insurance program for the elderly (OK, except for co-pays) to one in which the government will provide a specific amount of money to beneficiaries for them to get private insurance. He would propose to convert the program starting for those turning 65 in 2122, and thereafter. There is no doubt: this conversion would be made to save money for the Federal government and would be a reduction in the value of benefits for those currently more than 10 years away from receiving them--I suppose 10 years being exactly the amount of time those people need to make other plans for payment of their healthcare costs for their lives as seniors.
I am one of those who will be 65 in 2122, and while I don't know the fine-print detail of which side of the line I'll be on, I resent the line-drawing in either case: either I will be drawing a much larger benefit than my comrades a few months younger, or I will be hugely penalized for not being born a few months sooner. What's he got against people my age?
(I remember a similar line drawn on the draft when I was 19: I was in the last cohort subjected to the draft lottery; my birthdate got #13 of 366 that year, though they didn't actually call people up, so in a similar way I was both lucky and unlucky, for no good reason).
Politically, I can only view Ryan's ploy as an attempt to split the Boomers (already a hugely politically-cloven group)right down the middle (coincidentally, or not, that is right at the peak of number of annual births at the height of the postwar Baby Boom), or to placate the seniors at the expense of the young. Mostly, though, it's yet another Republican sop to the rich: the real solution, the one that is certain to be adopted in the end, is to make those who can afford it pay more for their Medicare benefits.
What I would support is an approach that broadens Medicare eligibility by age, identifying the value of the benefit (X=cost of the program annually/number of recipients), and having recipients report that value as income and paying tax, if they are required to do so. The elderly and poor would thus be protected from the remedy to the cost problem, thus preserving the original intent of Medicare. I would also offer up this bone to the wealthy: they could deduct X as a cost the Federal government does not need to spend if they decline their Medicare coverage and get private coverage (to the standards of the Affordable Care Act) instead--since they can already deduct health insurance if they itemize, this would be a substantial double benefit, might make private healthcare for the elderly more competitive (which it surely is not now, and would not be affordable under the Ryan plan).
I've got an alternate to the Ryan plan, one just as likely or unlikely to become law, one that is no more or no less unfair than his, and which would do just as good a job of saving Federal expense: if these healthcare subsidy payments are such a good substitute for Medicare benefits, let's put all his constituents, those privatizing, union-busting Wisconsinites who elected him, on those vouchers right now, and use the savings to pay for Medicare/Medicaid benefits for all the constituents of my Congressional district (NM-3) who need them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
