The Supreme Court's decision this morning to uphold the basic tenets of the Affordable Care Act was a considerable surprise. Chief Justice John Roberts had given no indication of what he finally decided to do, which was to join with the four liberal justices and uphold the mandate for individuals to get health insurance which lies at the core of the ACA's program.
Yes, the majority opinion he wrote stated that the bill exceeded the Constitution's limits on the applicability of the clause which allows Congress to govern interstate commerce. Yes, he ruled that the Health and Human Services Department could not withhold all Medicaid support to states which do not cooperate with the law's provisions, which include a requirement that states set up an exchange of health insurance programs meeting Federal standards and allow/require citizens of the states to purchase health insurance. Yes, he gave the Republicans some political fuel by only approving the mandate's fine--to be applied to those who have sufficient income but do not get health insurance--as a form of tax, which allows Republicans to claim, justifiably, that the Democrats have created a new tax.
Those complaints are minor. Yes, it's a new tax, but it is relatively small, only applies to people with sufficient income, and only those who choose not to pay for health insurance. In that sense, I'd say the tax is eminently fair, levied upon those who can afford it, but instead would try to get a free ride on the cost of public hospitalization. The libertarians hate it, but it's a deal the insurance companies accepted long ago, and it makes it possible for tens of millions of Americans who could not get insurance before to protect themselves against catastrophic illness. It will end up making our society stronger, and opposing this Supreme Court decision is not going to play particularly well nationally for the Republicans. As far as repealing the bill, it's a nice talking point, but there is no chance: the Republicans would need 60 votes for repeal in the Senate in 2013, and they would not approach that number even with a big Romney victory.
The remarkable thing about the decision, though, was the position taken by Chief Justice Roberts. In his confirmation hearings, he had insisted that he supported the principle of "stare decisis", that laws and precedents should be allowed to stand unless there was strong reason to override them, and that he was uncomfortable with laws being overturned by narrow, partisan 5-4 Supreme Court decisions. He had a golden opportunity to do one of those: his four colleagues on the right were dead set against the bill and its expansion of Federal authority. Until today, his confirmation words had seemed hollow, designed to do little more than just get him confirmed. Today, though, he took a courageous stand for the principles of law that he had espoused, when it really counted. I may consider him lots of things, but I will not accuse him of hypocrisy in the future. His was a stand worthy of the high office that he holds.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
My 62.5 Cents' Worth from the Atlantic (Part 2)
Third bit
In this month's (I should say, July/August's) Atlantic, they feature their annual list of big ideas. The "23 1/2" ideas range from good ("Fix Law Schools") to mediocre (a lot of them, for example "Boot the Extra Point" in football), to overstated (most of them, good examples being "The End of the Checkbook" or "Ban Gasoline") to terrible ("Islamists are Our Friends", "Abolish the Secret Ballot", "Don't Treat the Sick if they're Poor"); however, there is one really great idea that I fully endorse. In fact, I endorsed it 2 years ago in this blog, where I republished an essay I'd written about it 18 years ago.
They call it "Less Work, More Jobs"; I called it "More Jobs? How About Less Work?" The idea is fairly simple: Just as much as inequality in wealth, America today is marked by huge inequality of work. There are many millions who would like, or need, to work more; there are equally many who would like to be able to hold their jobs but are overworked. There are many possible solutions--the Atlantic piece, by Don Peck, their features editor, proposes "work-sharing", particularly in situations of layoffs--but they boil down to some people working less (preferably those who want to work less, and they are many) and allowing those who need it to work more.
The big problem with making this a realistic option for many, as I see it, is the cost of health insurance if not purchased through the employer-sponsored route. That is, of course, a different and difficult issue to solve. As things stand, though, some sort of initiative to encourage more part-time employment could still work for many dual-income families, allowing the possibility of sharing child-rearing duties, and could even work for some single parents if built around school hours. (and I still strongly recommend reading the post I wrote back in 1994)
Fourth Bit
The piece in the issue that has drawn all the attention is the lengthy essay by former State Department official and Princeton professor Anne-Marie Slaughter on "Why Women Still Can't Have It All". Slaughter left her high-ranking job at State to spend more time with her family--no really, she did. As Peck does and my ancient post, she also addresses the inequality of employment in her way, though the principal thrust of her lament is that professional women just can't do their jobs and also do justice to the challenges of raising children. Her solutions are somewhat radical--get women in charge and change the rules of society--but she also makes some suggestions for the shorter haul, like increasing the possibility to work from home, and better work-life balance for all.
I am not going to put down her aspirations and certainly not her good intentions, but I will point out a couple/three facts: 1) Men have these issues, too, to the extent they are committed to time with family (which seems increasingly to be the case for many men); 2) Many make the perfectly legitimate choice of focusing on career, not family, and those people will always have an edge in the workplace (even if it's just not fair); and 3) The people who really have it tough are the single parents.
Fifth Bit
The final one comes from the Atlantic itself; not the magazine, but the ocean. I have to speak a few words of praise for the best of the many attempts to commemmorate the 100th anniversary of the episode of the ocean liner Titanic, its brief career and its spectacular end. National Geographic's April 2012 issue has articles by respected historian Hampton Sides and a contribution by the film director James Cameron. Cameron helped bring to fruition a hugely ambitious effort to photograph all the ruins of the ship from the bottom of the ocean (part of it 15,000 down), and the issue shows the current state of the wreck, a mosaic built from hundreds of photos spliced together. It's something that shows our technology at its best, its most ambitious, its purest. Which is not to say its most practical use.
In this month's (I should say, July/August's) Atlantic, they feature their annual list of big ideas. The "23 1/2" ideas range from good ("Fix Law Schools") to mediocre (a lot of them, for example "Boot the Extra Point" in football), to overstated (most of them, good examples being "The End of the Checkbook" or "Ban Gasoline") to terrible ("Islamists are Our Friends", "Abolish the Secret Ballot", "Don't Treat the Sick if they're Poor"); however, there is one really great idea that I fully endorse. In fact, I endorsed it 2 years ago in this blog, where I republished an essay I'd written about it 18 years ago.
They call it "Less Work, More Jobs"; I called it "More Jobs? How About Less Work?" The idea is fairly simple: Just as much as inequality in wealth, America today is marked by huge inequality of work. There are many millions who would like, or need, to work more; there are equally many who would like to be able to hold their jobs but are overworked. There are many possible solutions--the Atlantic piece, by Don Peck, their features editor, proposes "work-sharing", particularly in situations of layoffs--but they boil down to some people working less (preferably those who want to work less, and they are many) and allowing those who need it to work more.
The big problem with making this a realistic option for many, as I see it, is the cost of health insurance if not purchased through the employer-sponsored route. That is, of course, a different and difficult issue to solve. As things stand, though, some sort of initiative to encourage more part-time employment could still work for many dual-income families, allowing the possibility of sharing child-rearing duties, and could even work for some single parents if built around school hours. (and I still strongly recommend reading the post I wrote back in 1994)
Fourth Bit
The piece in the issue that has drawn all the attention is the lengthy essay by former State Department official and Princeton professor Anne-Marie Slaughter on "Why Women Still Can't Have It All". Slaughter left her high-ranking job at State to spend more time with her family--no really, she did. As Peck does and my ancient post, she also addresses the inequality of employment in her way, though the principal thrust of her lament is that professional women just can't do their jobs and also do justice to the challenges of raising children. Her solutions are somewhat radical--get women in charge and change the rules of society--but she also makes some suggestions for the shorter haul, like increasing the possibility to work from home, and better work-life balance for all.
I am not going to put down her aspirations and certainly not her good intentions, but I will point out a couple/three facts: 1) Men have these issues, too, to the extent they are committed to time with family (which seems increasingly to be the case for many men); 2) Many make the perfectly legitimate choice of focusing on career, not family, and those people will always have an edge in the workplace (even if it's just not fair); and 3) The people who really have it tough are the single parents.
Fifth Bit
The final one comes from the Atlantic itself; not the magazine, but the ocean. I have to speak a few words of praise for the best of the many attempts to commemmorate the 100th anniversary of the episode of the ocean liner Titanic, its brief career and its spectacular end. National Geographic's April 2012 issue has articles by respected historian Hampton Sides and a contribution by the film director James Cameron. Cameron helped bring to fruition a hugely ambitious effort to photograph all the ruins of the ship from the bottom of the ocean (part of it 15,000 down), and the issue shows the current state of the wreck, a mosaic built from hundreds of photos spliced together. It's something that shows our technology at its best, its most ambitious, its purest. Which is not to say its most practical use.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Court Watch
With the basketball season completed, we turn to a different court for spectator sport. Within a few hours, or possibly a few days, the US Supreme Court, in order to complete their season (they call it a "session"), will need to produce some decisions on critical cases they have agreed to consider.
The biggest is the challenge made by a large number of Republican-controlled state governments to the mandate to buy health insurance in the Affordable Care Act, a/k/a Obamacare. Questions from the Court when arguments on the case were heard have convinced Courtside spectators that the key votes, Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts, are inclined to argue that the requirement to purchase private health care insurance, or pay a fine, has a toe or more beyond the out-of-bounds line permitted by the Commerce clause of the Constitution. Apparently, the four consistently liberal (or Democratic) votes of the Court are expected to uphold the bill's provisions, and the three extreme right-wingers (Alito, Scalia, and Roberts) will not.
Roberts has said, though, that he does not want the Court to make major opinions through 5-4 decisions (which has been the pattern for the past decade or so), which would suggest he might be looking for a way out of the box. From what I've read, there is precedent for ruling that a court should not decide on the validity of a tax until it is collected, and the fine envisioned by the law does not take effect until 2014. He might therefore be able to put together a majority to kick the can down the road until then, while offering some guidance to the Congress, and the President, about what would make the mandate--something essential to the whole program of reducing healthcare costs through universal insurance--a constitutional one.
I do not dismiss out of hand the argument that there is some issue in requiring citizens to purchase a product from private providers, even if the law has provisions to ensure standards in the product offered, to control costs, and encourage competition, and even if the fine is relatively small and difficult to collect. I think the requirement could fully pass legal muster if there were more options: a government-provided option would be nice (!); people could post a bond guaranteeing payment (if they were rich); or there could be a (larger) fine if public hospitals take on uninsured patients who could have completed their civic duties related to insuring themselves, and the public, aginst their health costs. (Something also should be done to consider those from other countries--whether legally in the country or not--who get sick here, especially if we want to continue getting those tourist dollars, which we should.)
So, that's what I will "predict"--a 6-3 majority for delaying any judgment at this time, while offering some suggestions to make the mandate a constitutional one, with the three hardcore justices marginalized into outright opposition to any imposition on our freedom to sponge off others' responsible behavior. Actually, I think this is the best outcome I can hope for, so wishing it were so is the best I can do.
I think that Roberts and Kennedy will be moved by knowledge that simply overturning the will of the people, as expressed by Congress, exposes them to contempt and intolerable political pressure. President Obama will be able to attack the Court's decision and show it as an example of why he must be re-elected, to have a chance to bring more nominees who will bring reason and equity to the Court.
Two other significant cases that are likely to be decided: the Justices are likely to uphold the Arizona anti-illegals law which requires state officials to try to identify likely immigration violators and hold them if the Feds want to deport them. There are probably four strong votes against that decision, but a majority in favor of profiling and deportation. Second, the Montana state law prohibiting corporations from contributing to state elections has been challenged under the understanding coming from the Court's spurious "Citizens United" decision authorizing unlimited private (and corporate) "free speech" independent of official campaign contributions. The law is 100 years old and was enacted because of obvious corruption issues that come from wealthy interests seeking to legislate through campaign contributions. This is a chance to pull back a little from the extreme Citizens United decision, based on the horrors the Court must be observing in the current campaign. I don't think they are sensible enough to do that, though.
The biggest is the challenge made by a large number of Republican-controlled state governments to the mandate to buy health insurance in the Affordable Care Act, a/k/a Obamacare. Questions from the Court when arguments on the case were heard have convinced Courtside spectators that the key votes, Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts, are inclined to argue that the requirement to purchase private health care insurance, or pay a fine, has a toe or more beyond the out-of-bounds line permitted by the Commerce clause of the Constitution. Apparently, the four consistently liberal (or Democratic) votes of the Court are expected to uphold the bill's provisions, and the three extreme right-wingers (Alito, Scalia, and Roberts) will not.
Roberts has said, though, that he does not want the Court to make major opinions through 5-4 decisions (which has been the pattern for the past decade or so), which would suggest he might be looking for a way out of the box. From what I've read, there is precedent for ruling that a court should not decide on the validity of a tax until it is collected, and the fine envisioned by the law does not take effect until 2014. He might therefore be able to put together a majority to kick the can down the road until then, while offering some guidance to the Congress, and the President, about what would make the mandate--something essential to the whole program of reducing healthcare costs through universal insurance--a constitutional one.
I do not dismiss out of hand the argument that there is some issue in requiring citizens to purchase a product from private providers, even if the law has provisions to ensure standards in the product offered, to control costs, and encourage competition, and even if the fine is relatively small and difficult to collect. I think the requirement could fully pass legal muster if there were more options: a government-provided option would be nice (!); people could post a bond guaranteeing payment (if they were rich); or there could be a (larger) fine if public hospitals take on uninsured patients who could have completed their civic duties related to insuring themselves, and the public, aginst their health costs. (Something also should be done to consider those from other countries--whether legally in the country or not--who get sick here, especially if we want to continue getting those tourist dollars, which we should.)
So, that's what I will "predict"--a 6-3 majority for delaying any judgment at this time, while offering some suggestions to make the mandate a constitutional one, with the three hardcore justices marginalized into outright opposition to any imposition on our freedom to sponge off others' responsible behavior. Actually, I think this is the best outcome I can hope for, so wishing it were so is the best I can do.
I think that Roberts and Kennedy will be moved by knowledge that simply overturning the will of the people, as expressed by Congress, exposes them to contempt and intolerable political pressure. President Obama will be able to attack the Court's decision and show it as an example of why he must be re-elected, to have a chance to bring more nominees who will bring reason and equity to the Court.
Two other significant cases that are likely to be decided: the Justices are likely to uphold the Arizona anti-illegals law which requires state officials to try to identify likely immigration violators and hold them if the Feds want to deport them. There are probably four strong votes against that decision, but a majority in favor of profiling and deportation. Second, the Montana state law prohibiting corporations from contributing to state elections has been challenged under the understanding coming from the Court's spurious "Citizens United" decision authorizing unlimited private (and corporate) "free speech" independent of official campaign contributions. The law is 100 years old and was enacted because of obvious corruption issues that come from wealthy interests seeking to legislate through campaign contributions. This is a chance to pull back a little from the extreme Citizens United decision, based on the horrors the Court must be observing in the current campaign. I don't think they are sensible enough to do that, though.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
My 62.5 Cents' Worth from the Atlantic (Part 1)
The Atlantic, for decades the Atlantic Monthly, has emerged for me as the best (non-daily) periodical of general interest in the country. Time and The Daily Beast Called Newsweek have sunk beyond consideration, Vanity Fair retains its 10-months-of-gossipy-drivel, two-good-issues format, and the New Yorker is too much the New Yorker for someone who doesn't live there. The Nation is worthy of mention, but calling it general interest is unfair to those who don't share its views--which sometimes (see Alexander Cockburn most of the time, and frequently Katha Pollitt) even I have trouble swallowing: it's basically preaching to its choir.
The Atlantic has a good mix of some short pieces, both random items and recurring features (my favorite is the hilarious advice column spoof, "What's Your Problem?" by Jeffrey Goldberg), as well as a few quite lengthy, well-researched and provocative articles going into selective topics in more depth. They might have a slightly left-of-center tendency, but that is not universally true.
A good example of that variety was a piece in the June issue on modern-day Vietnam by Robert D. Kaplan. Kaplan is listed as a Senior National Correspondent, but he is actually an International Correspondent, a person who goes to "the ends of the earth" (the title of a book from 1997 by him; I highly recommend it) and tries to both understand what is going on in these forsaken places and what does it mean for the rest of the world. Though he goes to these places to observe and report, he is, frankly, a neoliberal: a hawk who is primarily concerned about the US' geopolitical strategy and how these little players may be played to our advantage. If he's not on the CIA's payroll, he should be.
Anyway, the piece on Vietnam: Kaplan provides a lot of useful information about Vietnam's path since the days when we were actually paying attention to what went on there (they ended about 1975, when we completed the pullout of our last advisers as the Communists completed its conquest of the South). After some hairy days which included invasion from China and invading--and getting stuck in--Cambodia, Vietnam has been walking the Chinese road for 25 years or so, combining Communist political dominance with capitalist economics. The Vietnamese attitude toward the US is a curious mix of love and hate: one could say they really hate and resent us, but they wouldn't say it, because they need and want us. We rate somewhere in the middle of their many historical bugaboos and oppressors.
Here's the thing: in the latter part of the article, Kaplan throws in this sentence, stated as a fact: "The United States sees the world as Vietnam does: threatened by growing Chinese power." Whoa. To be fair, he spends a lot of the article going into the more nuanced view the Vietnamese actually have toward the Chinese, who are their largest trading partner, a major military threat (in the past, and potentially in the future), rival for offshore resources, and role model in some ways.
I object instead to the blanket statement that the Chinese are a threat to us. He's been talking to too many paranoid global strategists. The Chinese may threaten our sense of unique, ubiquitous global hegemony, if we have one, as they are a major regional power. They may threaten our manufacturing in many areas; as our creditor, they could threaten economic blackmail, though they've never done anything of the sort. They are no kind of threat to our national security, our way of life, or to global harmony and peaceful development. With regard to the latter, their economic and political emergence, along with India's, is something we should welcome, one of the best developments of the last 25 years.
Second Bit
The second item, also in that issue, is a letter from an ecologist named Andrew L. Mack to Megan McArdle, a Senior Editor who reports on Business, who had written an article on the European economic crisis and the underlying problems of demographics there (low birthrate, aging population). Mack undercuts McArdle's belief in a return to "strong growth" for the region, once the demographic issue is overcome:
Note the lack of confidence McArdle shows toward the idea that continued growth is possible, just an insistence that we must grow. That kind of heedless forward flight presages a cliff of unimaginable depth. With clearer understanding than most, she can see the wall of woe coming toward us. She blinks, and offers the counsel that we continue going ahead.
Three more bits from the Atlantic in Part 2.
The Atlantic has a good mix of some short pieces, both random items and recurring features (my favorite is the hilarious advice column spoof, "What's Your Problem?" by Jeffrey Goldberg), as well as a few quite lengthy, well-researched and provocative articles going into selective topics in more depth. They might have a slightly left-of-center tendency, but that is not universally true.
A good example of that variety was a piece in the June issue on modern-day Vietnam by Robert D. Kaplan. Kaplan is listed as a Senior National Correspondent, but he is actually an International Correspondent, a person who goes to "the ends of the earth" (the title of a book from 1997 by him; I highly recommend it) and tries to both understand what is going on in these forsaken places and what does it mean for the rest of the world. Though he goes to these places to observe and report, he is, frankly, a neoliberal: a hawk who is primarily concerned about the US' geopolitical strategy and how these little players may be played to our advantage. If he's not on the CIA's payroll, he should be.
Anyway, the piece on Vietnam: Kaplan provides a lot of useful information about Vietnam's path since the days when we were actually paying attention to what went on there (they ended about 1975, when we completed the pullout of our last advisers as the Communists completed its conquest of the South). After some hairy days which included invasion from China and invading--and getting stuck in--Cambodia, Vietnam has been walking the Chinese road for 25 years or so, combining Communist political dominance with capitalist economics. The Vietnamese attitude toward the US is a curious mix of love and hate: one could say they really hate and resent us, but they wouldn't say it, because they need and want us. We rate somewhere in the middle of their many historical bugaboos and oppressors.
Here's the thing: in the latter part of the article, Kaplan throws in this sentence, stated as a fact: "The United States sees the world as Vietnam does: threatened by growing Chinese power." Whoa. To be fair, he spends a lot of the article going into the more nuanced view the Vietnamese actually have toward the Chinese, who are their largest trading partner, a major military threat (in the past, and potentially in the future), rival for offshore resources, and role model in some ways.
I object instead to the blanket statement that the Chinese are a threat to us. He's been talking to too many paranoid global strategists. The Chinese may threaten our sense of unique, ubiquitous global hegemony, if we have one, as they are a major regional power. They may threaten our manufacturing in many areas; as our creditor, they could threaten economic blackmail, though they've never done anything of the sort. They are no kind of threat to our national security, our way of life, or to global harmony and peaceful development. With regard to the latter, their economic and political emergence, along with India's, is something we should welcome, one of the best developments of the last 25 years.
Second Bit
The second item, also in that issue, is a letter from an ecologist named Andrew L. Mack to Megan McArdle, a Senior Editor who reports on Business, who had written an article on the European economic crisis and the underlying problems of demographics there (low birthrate, aging population). Mack undercuts McArdle's belief in a return to "strong growth" for the region, once the demographic issue is overcome:
Perpetual “strong” economic growth is not possible, not even in theory, unless you perform the contortionist groupthink of the policy makers who have brought us the current mess. Continual growth relies on a growing population, as Ms. McArdle adroitly explains. But it also depends on unlimited and cheap resources, free waste disposal into our air and water, relentlessly longer hours at work (paid or unpaid) at the expense of leisure time, and ever greater waste. Inefficient and obsolescent products drive growth, as do canny marketers who persuade people to borrow money to buy ever more unnecessary crap. Continued growth depends on borrowing, both as formal loans, and through a plethora of investment and bond mechanisms. Most individuals, businesses, and governments within mature economies are now growing only thanks to borrowed money.Here is the first portion of McArdle's rebuttal to Mack's letter:
Whether or not continuous economic growth is possible, or desirable, the fact remains that modern economies are predicated on the assumption that it will happen. Both individuals and governments have planned for a future in which incomes steadily rise, allowing people to enjoy lengthy retirements, advanced health care, independent living, and of course, repayment of the massive debts that almost everyone has accumulated over the past few decades. If that growth doesn’t materialize, the shock will be enormous.In a few sentences, the dialogue between the two has captured the dilemma of our age. Continuing the compounded economic growth rates of recent decades is believed a necessary condition for social harmony, and pretty much defines what we mean when we think of progress. A very high rate of growth is needed for the impoverished nations of the Fourth World (just to keep up with populaton growth), as well as for nations like China--which has built its legitimacy on delivering it--Turkey, Brazil , Indonesia, etc. The developed countries require lesser, but still positive, rates. We are seeing now just how little tolerance there is in the US for growth rates that don't expand employment or float all the boats sufficiently. The externalities of such growth might be reduced through a clever focus on reducing waste and creating value from efficient use of resources, at least for a while.
Note the lack of confidence McArdle shows toward the idea that continued growth is possible, just an insistence that we must grow. That kind of heedless forward flight presages a cliff of unimaginable depth. With clearer understanding than most, she can see the wall of woe coming toward us. She blinks, and offers the counsel that we continue going ahead.
Three more bits from the Atlantic in Part 2.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Sports Report
NBA - Miami is within one game of winning the championship as I write today. I did call for Miami to win it this year, which was not a big surprise to anyone, but hardly a sure thing. The Oklahoma City Thunder is coming up a bit short in the Finals, which is normal for a young team in the last round for the first time. It happened to LeBron with Cleveland, and with the Big 3 in Miami last year, though Dwayne Wade won the championship, with Shaq behind him, in his first shot. The Thunder clearly have enough talent to win it all, as well as the heart--as they showed against the Spurs in the Western Conference Final, or against the Lakers in the second round--it's just a matter of maturity.
Euro Soccer--The first round had some surprise results in individual games, but for the most part--with one exception, the Netherlands--the big-name team/countries made it through. Looking at my picks for the teams coming through the first round, I had five correct, one wrong (Croatia), and I abstained from guessing on the fate of the French and the Dutch. Holland was in a very tough group and underperformed (Portugal got the spot), while France came in as everybody's surprise pick and held up fairly well (though they dumped their last game, 2-0, against a Swedish team that had already been eliminated).
Italy was the team that did better than I expected; their rebuilt squad showed some decent offensive punch--and they still have one of the best, Buffon, at goalie. They will be a tough opponent for my surprise pick, England, in the next round. If England should get by them, only more trouble awaits, probably in the form of Germany, and, after that, Spain. I will earn major pointage if that call turns out right.
Baseball--It's starting to be late to be too early to draw conclusions, so I will do what I must and assess my preseason picks and the remainder of the season. Basically, my groupings will be a combination of how good I thought they would be, how good they've appeared to be, and how good (or not) they really are.
Even Better than I Thought - Yanks, Rangers, Reds. Yes, the Reds (my team), which doesn't mean they will go anywhere in the postseason, as their starters are not consistent enough, but I am feeling even better than I was at start of year about their winning the division (largely a function of the weakness of their chief competition). Meanwhile, the Yanks are successfully overcoming the lack of depth in their starting rotation and the injury to Mo Rivera, which isn't too surprising considering the rest of their squad.
Really Are Good After All--Dodgers, Nationals Which doesn't mean either will even make the playoffs, but I am now convinced of their quality.
Coming up to Where I Thought They'd Be -- Angels, Tigers, Braves, Rays. I had all these teams making the playoffs; if the season ended today, none of them would, but their trends are good and my best estimate is that three-fourths of them will, though none is certain.
Don't Give up on Them Yet--Phillies, Cardinals, Giants, Marlins. Out of these, I actually picked only the Phillies to make the playoffs. Despite the standings and general belief, I still would. I think the others are all still legitimate contenders for the playoffs, though I am not picking them (maybe the Giants, now, if the Dodgers fall off their pace).
I Am Giving Up on Them (at least for 2012) - Diamondbacks, Brewers, Royals, Red Sox. I had Arizona winning the division and Milwaukee in a wild card spot. I probably shouldn't write off Botox, but I think their divisional competition/competency is working against them in the long run.
Really as Bad (or Worse) Than I Thought--Rockies, Cubs, Padres, Astros, A's, Mariners, Twins. Especially the Rockies and Twins. Astros in the AL in '13 could break some all-time records for futiility.
Don't Believe in them Quite Yet - Pirates, Indians, Orioles, Blue Jays, Mets, White Sox. I don't believe any of these teams will make the playoffs, though most have been in nominal playoff slots at some point this year, and all (except the highly-touted 'Jays) have played above expectations.
I had the Tigers beating the Phillies in the World Series; I am not walking away from that prediction yet, not until I see how the Phils do when Utley and Howard are back (and that should be less than a month from now).
BCS: Bites Crushed Sand
(a/k/a: "dust") I considered whether to include the death of the Bowl Championship Series, or whatever the stupid college football championship thing was called, in this sports report or in a soon-to-be-posted obit dept. posting. I guess (sigh?!) it is sports.
Of course, they didn't do the new version right: either they should have gone to an eight-team format, with the seven games required for it being sited and filling in for six of the traditional bowl games (the seventh being the Stupid Championship Game), or the four-team format should feature the winners of four of the most prestigious bowls (either automatically, or, to give them a little of the traditional leeway and fan-engaging debate, with some choice involved about which bowl winners to include). Instead, there will be a committee, no mention of computers, too much mention of "conference champions"--meaning, winners of those stupid, artificial, greedy conference championship games the big groupings have set up.
Still, it is improvement. It was totally necessary with the virtual collapse of ACC and Big East football, and I hope it will bring the eventual demise of those conference championship games, and, within a few years, that they will move to one of the improved approaches I describe above.
As I said, though, at least it (sort of) fulfills one of President Obama's promises: that something must be done about the annual BCS mess.
Euro Soccer--The first round had some surprise results in individual games, but for the most part--with one exception, the Netherlands--the big-name team/countries made it through. Looking at my picks for the teams coming through the first round, I had five correct, one wrong (Croatia), and I abstained from guessing on the fate of the French and the Dutch. Holland was in a very tough group and underperformed (Portugal got the spot), while France came in as everybody's surprise pick and held up fairly well (though they dumped their last game, 2-0, against a Swedish team that had already been eliminated).
Italy was the team that did better than I expected; their rebuilt squad showed some decent offensive punch--and they still have one of the best, Buffon, at goalie. They will be a tough opponent for my surprise pick, England, in the next round. If England should get by them, only more trouble awaits, probably in the form of Germany, and, after that, Spain. I will earn major pointage if that call turns out right.
Baseball--It's starting to be late to be too early to draw conclusions, so I will do what I must and assess my preseason picks and the remainder of the season. Basically, my groupings will be a combination of how good I thought they would be, how good they've appeared to be, and how good (or not) they really are.
Even Better than I Thought - Yanks, Rangers, Reds. Yes, the Reds (my team), which doesn't mean they will go anywhere in the postseason, as their starters are not consistent enough, but I am feeling even better than I was at start of year about their winning the division (largely a function of the weakness of their chief competition). Meanwhile, the Yanks are successfully overcoming the lack of depth in their starting rotation and the injury to Mo Rivera, which isn't too surprising considering the rest of their squad.
Really Are Good After All--Dodgers, Nationals Which doesn't mean either will even make the playoffs, but I am now convinced of their quality.
Coming up to Where I Thought They'd Be -- Angels, Tigers, Braves, Rays. I had all these teams making the playoffs; if the season ended today, none of them would, but their trends are good and my best estimate is that three-fourths of them will, though none is certain.
Don't Give up on Them Yet--Phillies, Cardinals, Giants, Marlins. Out of these, I actually picked only the Phillies to make the playoffs. Despite the standings and general belief, I still would. I think the others are all still legitimate contenders for the playoffs, though I am not picking them (maybe the Giants, now, if the Dodgers fall off their pace).
I Am Giving Up on Them (at least for 2012) - Diamondbacks, Brewers, Royals, Red Sox. I had Arizona winning the division and Milwaukee in a wild card spot. I probably shouldn't write off Botox, but I think their divisional competition/competency is working against them in the long run.
Really as Bad (or Worse) Than I Thought--Rockies, Cubs, Padres, Astros, A's, Mariners, Twins. Especially the Rockies and Twins. Astros in the AL in '13 could break some all-time records for futiility.
Don't Believe in them Quite Yet - Pirates, Indians, Orioles, Blue Jays, Mets, White Sox. I don't believe any of these teams will make the playoffs, though most have been in nominal playoff slots at some point this year, and all (except the highly-touted 'Jays) have played above expectations.
I had the Tigers beating the Phillies in the World Series; I am not walking away from that prediction yet, not until I see how the Phils do when Utley and Howard are back (and that should be less than a month from now).
BCS: Bites Crushed Sand
(a/k/a: "dust") I considered whether to include the death of the Bowl Championship Series, or whatever the stupid college football championship thing was called, in this sports report or in a soon-to-be-posted obit dept. posting. I guess (sigh?!) it is sports.
Of course, they didn't do the new version right: either they should have gone to an eight-team format, with the seven games required for it being sited and filling in for six of the traditional bowl games (the seventh being the Stupid Championship Game), or the four-team format should feature the winners of four of the most prestigious bowls (either automatically, or, to give them a little of the traditional leeway and fan-engaging debate, with some choice involved about which bowl winners to include). Instead, there will be a committee, no mention of computers, too much mention of "conference champions"--meaning, winners of those stupid, artificial, greedy conference championship games the big groupings have set up.
Still, it is improvement. It was totally necessary with the virtual collapse of ACC and Big East football, and I hope it will bring the eventual demise of those conference championship games, and, within a few years, that they will move to one of the improved approaches I describe above.
As I said, though, at least it (sort of) fulfills one of President Obama's promises: that something must be done about the annual BCS mess.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Wars without frontiers (2)
I don't believe I have ever removed or retracted a post once I've put it up, though I have taken a few down for editing. I will not do so with the last post, but after reading it, I see reason both to rebut some of it and to defend some of it.
First, a couple of severe criticisms of how I wrote the last one:
1) It clearly has a stronger feel of warmongering than what I intended. I am not recommending an incursion into Pakistan to hunt down the Haqqanis, but I do think under certain cirucmstances it could be justifiable. It would need to be a very outrageous and dastardly provocation, but those have actually been plentiful; it would also need to be very near to the border (again, not rare).
2) The "Nixon in Cambodia" reference was tossed off without explanation, but is a serious reservation to consider. Nixon's incursion into Cambodia permanently disrupted an uneasy government and led ultimately to one of the worst regimes in modern history, that of the Khmer Rouge. Without the incursion, the Khmer Rouge might never have taken power. An incursion into Pakistan would make an enemy of an unreliable ally, with unforeseeable consequences; it might unify its fractious political forces, or it could cause the overthrow of the current civilian government for something far worse.
Now, a couple of points defending my previous posting:
1) When it comes to warmaking, I'm with Ron Paul: if we're going to fight awar, we should be honest and declare war, and take on the burdens which come with it. This war has never been conducted properly; even now, its legitimacy is questionable because of the hypocrisy behind our war effort.
2) I am serious in my advocacy of war without borders against a defined enemy, but that is not to advocate a resumption of Bush's "global war on terror"; indeed, ending that is one of the key planks of my original platform of support for Barack Obama. If our cause is right, we should be willing to wage war to end it; and the fact that our enemy is not a sovereign nation-state is no limitation on our ability to declare war.
First, a couple of severe criticisms of how I wrote the last one:
1) It clearly has a stronger feel of warmongering than what I intended. I am not recommending an incursion into Pakistan to hunt down the Haqqanis, but I do think under certain cirucmstances it could be justifiable. It would need to be a very outrageous and dastardly provocation, but those have actually been plentiful; it would also need to be very near to the border (again, not rare).
2) The "Nixon in Cambodia" reference was tossed off without explanation, but is a serious reservation to consider. Nixon's incursion into Cambodia permanently disrupted an uneasy government and led ultimately to one of the worst regimes in modern history, that of the Khmer Rouge. Without the incursion, the Khmer Rouge might never have taken power. An incursion into Pakistan would make an enemy of an unreliable ally, with unforeseeable consequences; it might unify its fractious political forces, or it could cause the overthrow of the current civilian government for something far worse.
Now, a couple of points defending my previous posting:
1) When it comes to warmaking, I'm with Ron Paul: if we're going to fight awar, we should be honest and declare war, and take on the burdens which come with it. This war has never been conducted properly; even now, its legitimacy is questionable because of the hypocrisy behind our war effort.
2) I am serious in my advocacy of war without borders against a defined enemy, but that is not to advocate a resumption of Bush's "global war on terror"; indeed, ending that is one of the key planks of my original platform of support for Barack Obama. If our cause is right, we should be willing to wage war to end it; and the fact that our enemy is not a sovereign nation-state is no limitation on our ability to declare war.
Friday, June 08, 2012
Wars without Frontiers
I was listening to my friend Norman Goldman's radio show the other day, and his guest host Dennis Sirota made some rather inflammatory statements, to the effect that the Obama administration is destroying the constitution by "summarily condemning and executing American citizens" and "indiscriminately killing Pakistani civilians with drones".
Sirota was engaging in gross exaggeration, but hyperbole is the talk radio host's stock in trade. Does Sirota have a point, though? Are the actions of the American forces in targeting leaders of hostile forces, in countries like Yemen and Pakistan, illegal by international norms? And what should be done about that?
To my mind, there is a relatively straightforward approach that would largely legitimize acts against our enemies, and, yes, even some unfortunate collateral losses to noncombatants. I have no idea why it has not been used. It is well past time that the United States declared war.
For some unknown reason, there has never been a proposal of a declaration of war against al-Qaeda. It's kind of late for that one; it should have been declared in the late '90's, when Osama declared hostilities against us, or when al-Qaeda bombed our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, or when it attacked the U.S.S. Cole off the coast of Yemen, or, most obviously, when it conducted mass murder of civilians on 9/11. Now, the remnants of al-Qaeda are on the run, hardly worthy of a proper declaration of war.
The Taliban are a different story, to some extent, mostly because they continue to be active. We would have been fully justified in declaring war on the Taliban when they ruled in Afghanistan and permitted al-Qaeda to operate against us from there. Since then, of course, there have been countless aggressions and atrocities they have committed against our forces or against Afghans which would justify a declaration of war. In particular, they have rebuffed our offers, and those of the government we consider legitimate in Afghanistan, to join peace talks. Conducting a proper War against the Taliban could bring them to the table of Peace, which is what we all want.
Surely a resolution to declare war against the Taliban (we may as well include the remnants of al-Qaeda, while we're at it) could get the required support in Congress; it might even be a rare occasion for bipartisanship. What is holding us back? Just some archaic notion that we can only declare war against another sovereign state.
Once that nicety is taken care of, I don't see anything particularly criminal or unconstitutional about the way the US is actually conducting war. I have discussed drone attacks before, and I don't see anything particularly immoral about that form of bombing--if we are in a war; in fact, it causes a lot less collateral casualties than many other forms of aerial attack.
One final point: under the "rules of war", it is allowed for military forces to cross a border in "hot pursuit" of an enemy. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's recent comments about how he is losing patience with the Pakistanis providing safe haven to the Taliban suggest to me that the way may being prepared for such an incursion, in which American/NATO forces would cross into uncontrolled Pakistani territories, brushing aside Pakistani border patrols if necessary, to take the Taliban out in their havens. This could be the October surprise the Republicans--justly--fear. It would surely make relations with Pakistan boil over and could have other ramifications, and it is bit too "Nixon into Cambodia" to make me feel comfortable. That being said, I could not say--war having been declared--that it would be unjustified or illegal; it might even be successful--either by weakening the Taliban or convincing them to enter into peace talks. Oh, and it would probably clinch the election.
Sirota was engaging in gross exaggeration, but hyperbole is the talk radio host's stock in trade. Does Sirota have a point, though? Are the actions of the American forces in targeting leaders of hostile forces, in countries like Yemen and Pakistan, illegal by international norms? And what should be done about that?
To my mind, there is a relatively straightforward approach that would largely legitimize acts against our enemies, and, yes, even some unfortunate collateral losses to noncombatants. I have no idea why it has not been used. It is well past time that the United States declared war.
For some unknown reason, there has never been a proposal of a declaration of war against al-Qaeda. It's kind of late for that one; it should have been declared in the late '90's, when Osama declared hostilities against us, or when al-Qaeda bombed our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, or when it attacked the U.S.S. Cole off the coast of Yemen, or, most obviously, when it conducted mass murder of civilians on 9/11. Now, the remnants of al-Qaeda are on the run, hardly worthy of a proper declaration of war.
The Taliban are a different story, to some extent, mostly because they continue to be active. We would have been fully justified in declaring war on the Taliban when they ruled in Afghanistan and permitted al-Qaeda to operate against us from there. Since then, of course, there have been countless aggressions and atrocities they have committed against our forces or against Afghans which would justify a declaration of war. In particular, they have rebuffed our offers, and those of the government we consider legitimate in Afghanistan, to join peace talks. Conducting a proper War against the Taliban could bring them to the table of Peace, which is what we all want.
Surely a resolution to declare war against the Taliban (we may as well include the remnants of al-Qaeda, while we're at it) could get the required support in Congress; it might even be a rare occasion for bipartisanship. What is holding us back? Just some archaic notion that we can only declare war against another sovereign state.
Once that nicety is taken care of, I don't see anything particularly criminal or unconstitutional about the way the US is actually conducting war. I have discussed drone attacks before, and I don't see anything particularly immoral about that form of bombing--if we are in a war; in fact, it causes a lot less collateral casualties than many other forms of aerial attack.
One final point: under the "rules of war", it is allowed for military forces to cross a border in "hot pursuit" of an enemy. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's recent comments about how he is losing patience with the Pakistanis providing safe haven to the Taliban suggest to me that the way may being prepared for such an incursion, in which American/NATO forces would cross into uncontrolled Pakistani territories, brushing aside Pakistani border patrols if necessary, to take the Taliban out in their havens. This could be the October surprise the Republicans--justly--fear. It would surely make relations with Pakistan boil over and could have other ramifications, and it is bit too "Nixon into Cambodia" to make me feel comfortable. That being said, I could not say--war having been declared--that it would be unjustified or illegal; it might even be successful--either by weakening the Taliban or convincing them to enter into peace talks. Oh, and it would probably clinch the election.
Tuesday, June 05, 2012
In The Wake of Wisconsin
Tonight's recall election in Wisconsin is going to have major ramifications, which we will analyze as the evening goes on and the results come in. They will come in one of three packages: 1) Walker rebuffs the recall threat easily, which will highlight the danger President Obama faces in November from big-money blitzes and ill-will, in Wisconsin and nationally; 2) The result comes down to a tight finish, but Walker survives: that would suggest the prevailing theory, that Obama will not have it easy but should be able to ride incumbency and the weaknesses of his opponent and its party to survive; or 3) Walker loses, in any form or fashion: Wisconsin will go big for Obama in November, the Republicans are going down, and the questions are how big? and Can the Democrats recover control of Congress? (8:00 p.m., polls just closing)
I do not actually think I am overstating the importance of this classic "by-election", because it tests a lot of the real themes of this year's election: the influence of unlimited money, the degree to which the parties can rally their relative voting bases, the leanings of those few true independents who decide close races, and, in particular, the ability of focused campaign efforts to swing those purple states.
If It's Really About Jobs...
Walker should lose, as Wisconsin's economy has recovered worse than most, but in fact his approval ratings have recovered somewhat.
If the national election is really about "jobs, jobs, jobs", they may as well just cancel the whole thing. After watching the Sunday morning talk shows this week, it's clear that neither party has a clue what it will do. Romney's plan is a Bowles-Simpson Lite one: revenue neutral, "everything on the table" (meaning nothing), large unspecified cuts. He gives general support for Paul Ryan's plan without getting too specific. Obama's plan is to take the tax increases and spending cuts that are specified in the agreement/non-agreement and rewrite them, depending on what he can get support for. The way things are looking, Congress-wise, that will be approximately nothing, either in the lame duck session or thereafter. He will advocate investments in infrastructure and the like, but that will be stalled or eviscerated. So, fellow Americans, don't count on any change in the jobs situation after the election; instead, there will be a whole lot of debate before the election which will break new ground in misinterpreting unemployment statistical trends, and a whole lot of money spent to no good purpose: A few jobs at media companies will be saved by the engorged political advertising spend, at least for a little while. .
Of course, there are other reasons to care about this year's election. Mostly they have to do with the tone of civil society, and with the military/foreign policy sphere, in both of which a President can wield real power. Romney's brand of car salesman flim-flam could be effective, Reagan-style, in defusing the intense polarization present, or it could morph into a Nixon-like 1% vs. 99% open civil strife situation. I'm thinking that he would want the former, but the latter is more likely. From a social sense, the other big factor is the power of the President to nominate federal judges, and in particular, Supreme Court judges. I have the feeling that the swing vote on the Court for the last decade, Anthony Kennedy, might be about ready to retire from the wars; whenever he does, there is going to be unparalleled partisan warfare when his replacement is nominated, regardless of the President nominating or the Senate composition at the time.
As for the military-industrial complex, Romney gives plenty of reason for concern. Where Obama's policy has been little short of brilliant, Romney has zero experience and his statements show little depth of understanding or any of the nuance required for successful foreign policy.
The Lessons of Wisconsin (9:53 p.m.)
We still don't know what the final percentages will be--the exit polls which had a very close race were apparently wrong--but Gov. Walker's win seems clear, by a margin somewhere in the range of 7-9 percent. This is very close to the six-point margin in the average of final pre-election polls cited on 538.com. The result is closer to scenario 1) than scenario 2) above. Hence, the following conclusions:
1) Huge money moved support back to Walker, through the combination of ads and a massive turnout campaign by the Republicans. This effort will be duplicated in the general election, and Obama's forces will be desperately hawking money in every corner from now until November.
2) Organized labor continues to lose political ground against the forces of large wealthy entrepreneurship. Romney will embrace the latter; will the labor movement and Obama unite effectively, or not?
3) Wisconsin will be a hugely tempting gambit for both parties, but the election will be decided in Ohio and Florida.
4) Obama better stop listening to his cautious advice, get out of the White House, and involve himself personally.
5) Exit polls, and polls in general, should be treated with a fair bit of skepticism; I'm tempted to suggest there may have been a bit of "David Duke Effect" of people saying they supported Obama and voting, privately, for Gov. Walker.
The Coverage, and Other Electoral News
I have to say that CNN's coverage was pathetically bad; what I saw of Fox News' effort was frankly more impressive. After all this time, there seemed to be little understanding of what drove the results. A good example was the very interesting, but inconclusive, exit poll results on voters' approval or lack of approval of Gov. Walker's attempts to break the public employee unions. It was a remarkable cleavage issue: the 38 and 37% who strongly approved or disapproved went 90-10 on the recall vote, the 12% each way who mildly approved or disapproved broke 65 to 70% in the same direction. So, Dana Bash said that this issue was not the topic of debate in the final days, instead it was "specifically on general issues". What is that supposed to mean?
As for the New Mexico primary held tonight, I couldn't even find anything on CNN's web site. It is not final, but looks pretty predictable--the Albuquerque district Representative, Martin Heinrich, will take on the former Representative of that seat, Heather Wilson, in a very close Senate contest. As for the seat Heinrich vacated for the Senate run, the leader in the Democratic primary appears to be Michelle Lujan Grisham, who leads one of the most progressive candidates for major office in the nation, Eric Griego. Lujan Grisham is a distant relative of Representative Ben Ray Lujan of our district. The Lujans have been major figures in New Mexico politics, in both parties, for several decades.
I do not actually think I am overstating the importance of this classic "by-election", because it tests a lot of the real themes of this year's election: the influence of unlimited money, the degree to which the parties can rally their relative voting bases, the leanings of those few true independents who decide close races, and, in particular, the ability of focused campaign efforts to swing those purple states.
If It's Really About Jobs...
Walker should lose, as Wisconsin's economy has recovered worse than most, but in fact his approval ratings have recovered somewhat.
If the national election is really about "jobs, jobs, jobs", they may as well just cancel the whole thing. After watching the Sunday morning talk shows this week, it's clear that neither party has a clue what it will do. Romney's plan is a Bowles-Simpson Lite one: revenue neutral, "everything on the table" (meaning nothing), large unspecified cuts. He gives general support for Paul Ryan's plan without getting too specific. Obama's plan is to take the tax increases and spending cuts that are specified in the agreement/non-agreement and rewrite them, depending on what he can get support for. The way things are looking, Congress-wise, that will be approximately nothing, either in the lame duck session or thereafter. He will advocate investments in infrastructure and the like, but that will be stalled or eviscerated. So, fellow Americans, don't count on any change in the jobs situation after the election; instead, there will be a whole lot of debate before the election which will break new ground in misinterpreting unemployment statistical trends, and a whole lot of money spent to no good purpose: A few jobs at media companies will be saved by the engorged political advertising spend, at least for a little while. .
Of course, there are other reasons to care about this year's election. Mostly they have to do with the tone of civil society, and with the military/foreign policy sphere, in both of which a President can wield real power. Romney's brand of car salesman flim-flam could be effective, Reagan-style, in defusing the intense polarization present, or it could morph into a Nixon-like 1% vs. 99% open civil strife situation. I'm thinking that he would want the former, but the latter is more likely. From a social sense, the other big factor is the power of the President to nominate federal judges, and in particular, Supreme Court judges. I have the feeling that the swing vote on the Court for the last decade, Anthony Kennedy, might be about ready to retire from the wars; whenever he does, there is going to be unparalleled partisan warfare when his replacement is nominated, regardless of the President nominating or the Senate composition at the time.
As for the military-industrial complex, Romney gives plenty of reason for concern. Where Obama's policy has been little short of brilliant, Romney has zero experience and his statements show little depth of understanding or any of the nuance required for successful foreign policy.
The Lessons of Wisconsin (9:53 p.m.)
We still don't know what the final percentages will be--the exit polls which had a very close race were apparently wrong--but Gov. Walker's win seems clear, by a margin somewhere in the range of 7-9 percent. This is very close to the six-point margin in the average of final pre-election polls cited on 538.com. The result is closer to scenario 1) than scenario 2) above. Hence, the following conclusions:
1) Huge money moved support back to Walker, through the combination of ads and a massive turnout campaign by the Republicans. This effort will be duplicated in the general election, and Obama's forces will be desperately hawking money in every corner from now until November.
2) Organized labor continues to lose political ground against the forces of large wealthy entrepreneurship. Romney will embrace the latter; will the labor movement and Obama unite effectively, or not?
3) Wisconsin will be a hugely tempting gambit for both parties, but the election will be decided in Ohio and Florida.
4) Obama better stop listening to his cautious advice, get out of the White House, and involve himself personally.
5) Exit polls, and polls in general, should be treated with a fair bit of skepticism; I'm tempted to suggest there may have been a bit of "David Duke Effect" of people saying they supported Obama and voting, privately, for Gov. Walker.
The Coverage, and Other Electoral News
I have to say that CNN's coverage was pathetically bad; what I saw of Fox News' effort was frankly more impressive. After all this time, there seemed to be little understanding of what drove the results. A good example was the very interesting, but inconclusive, exit poll results on voters' approval or lack of approval of Gov. Walker's attempts to break the public employee unions. It was a remarkable cleavage issue: the 38 and 37% who strongly approved or disapproved went 90-10 on the recall vote, the 12% each way who mildly approved or disapproved broke 65 to 70% in the same direction. So, Dana Bash said that this issue was not the topic of debate in the final days, instead it was "specifically on general issues". What is that supposed to mean?
As for the New Mexico primary held tonight, I couldn't even find anything on CNN's web site. It is not final, but looks pretty predictable--the Albuquerque district Representative, Martin Heinrich, will take on the former Representative of that seat, Heather Wilson, in a very close Senate contest. As for the seat Heinrich vacated for the Senate run, the leader in the Democratic primary appears to be Michelle Lujan Grisham, who leads one of the most progressive candidates for major office in the nation, Eric Griego. Lujan Grisham is a distant relative of Representative Ben Ray Lujan of our district. The Lujans have been major figures in New Mexico politics, in both parties, for several decades.
Saturday, June 02, 2012
New Misdeeds, Same Street
President Obama must be in a bit of a quandary whether to say anything about the new round of recent screw-ups in our biggest bank/investment houses. He needs their money for his Super PAC, and this time around, it's going to be harder to win them over, but it must be so tempting--and fitting with his Romney-bashing attacks on "vulture capitalism" (Rick Perry's phrase referring to Romney's business activity, to be fair), to say something topical and incisive about J.P. Morgan Chase's so-stupid-it's-almost-criminal screw-up and the gross inequity around the Facebook IPO. It's probably better if one of his surrogates connect the Wall Street dots and put Mitt in the center of the box.
The Leviathan, Beached
As I read somewhere, and the writer was correct, Jamie Dimon of JPM-Chase "had a good crisis"--of the major banks, his came out of the 2008-09 disaster looking the best. Morgan/Chase swallowed up a failed mortgage company, Washington Mutual, but did not choke on it (like Bank of America did with Countrywide), and it repaid its TARP money fairly quickly and resumed profitability. Dimon had been a major critic of Dodd-Frank "over-regulation" and of the "Volcker Rule", which was designed to prevent big banks like Dimon's from taking big chances with its funds.
Then, three weeks ago, Dimon had to eat his big words. His trading office in London had run huge trading positions (so large, their trader was internally referred to as "the Whale"), supposedly hedging against possible investment losses with the company's capital, but these turned sour and he had to acknowledge some $2 billion in losses (the number has since grown, and the company has compounded its errors by selling too many of its profitable holdings to help maintain the profit record). Dimon survived bitter shareholders' attempts to get even and reduce his compensation or remove him as chairman, but the aura of professional competence he had cultivated over decades is pretty badly shot, as is his argument that the big banks don't need such restrictions.
In fact, the Volcker Rule is not yet finalized, let alone effective (that would be a couple years down the line, to allow a transition), but JPM's maneuvers apparently would not even have violated it--in the form legislated, banks were allowed to "hedge" with such poisonous concoctions.
My conclusion is that these big, ugly monsters are "too big to manage"--basically Dimon admitted that he didn't know what they were up to in London, even though formal approvals are on record. Chase, Citi, and B of A should be broken up into two large shards each: a commercial/investment bank--allowed to have trading operations houses and trade for its own account--and an international consumer bank, which, because of the FDIC insured deposits and brokerage/mutual fund operations, should not. One would be high risk/high return, the other would be very large, with more predictable, though cyclical, profitability. The alternative would be to require penalty-level FDIC premiums and Tier 1 capital requirements at such high levels that the big monsters would choose on their own to split up.
Facebook's IPO: Should the Deal Have Been Face Down?
Facebook's stock was over-hyped, over-distributed, and over-sold, but worst, it was privately trashed by its lead managers to key institutional investors in the days prior to the Initial Public Offering (or in this case, it should be called "Insiders Peddle Offal"). With IPO's, especially tech stocks, we are used to the hype, the excessive number of shares offered, the price being unsustainably high, but we still expect that the lucky ones holding the shares on Day 0 will be able to take profits on Day 1 (unless they are blocked from doing so). There was a period of a few hours when it was up from the initial price, but it didn't last through the first day, and has gone down since. So, a few who got the secret word--that Facebook's future revenues will not be all they were cracked up to be--managed to dodge a bullet. I hope they're grateful.
CEO James Gorman of the lead investment bank Morgan Stanley has been quoted this week as saying that investors who expected Facebook to rise were "naive". He is right, but I would classify his comment as defecation in the same place he feeds. I don't think there will ever be another IPO of this magnitude; from now on, there will be the semi-public offerings to insiders, but the mass offerings are a thing of the past: having been bitten, the public won't bite.
There will be ramifications for Morgan Stanley, or for others who may have provided information that was not publicly distributed. I'm sure Mark Zuckerberg has reason for litigation against those who were supposed to be serving his interests; dozens or hundreds of second-stage investors (after the venture capitalists, before the IPO) got the shaft and will be looking for revenge.
That Facebook's business model is a bit lacking is not too surprising, though. It's not a place to go shopping; and the curse of the Internet is that those who use it most are basically just looking for what they can get for free. Still, I figure any medium that has access to some 1 billion eyeballs has to have some value; the question is what that should be. Not the IPO per share offered price, though; that was the truth that was not dealt out face up, which is what the "public offering" part is supposed to require.
The Leviathan, Beached
As I read somewhere, and the writer was correct, Jamie Dimon of JPM-Chase "had a good crisis"--of the major banks, his came out of the 2008-09 disaster looking the best. Morgan/Chase swallowed up a failed mortgage company, Washington Mutual, but did not choke on it (like Bank of America did with Countrywide), and it repaid its TARP money fairly quickly and resumed profitability. Dimon had been a major critic of Dodd-Frank "over-regulation" and of the "Volcker Rule", which was designed to prevent big banks like Dimon's from taking big chances with its funds.
Then, three weeks ago, Dimon had to eat his big words. His trading office in London had run huge trading positions (so large, their trader was internally referred to as "the Whale"), supposedly hedging against possible investment losses with the company's capital, but these turned sour and he had to acknowledge some $2 billion in losses (the number has since grown, and the company has compounded its errors by selling too many of its profitable holdings to help maintain the profit record). Dimon survived bitter shareholders' attempts to get even and reduce his compensation or remove him as chairman, but the aura of professional competence he had cultivated over decades is pretty badly shot, as is his argument that the big banks don't need such restrictions.
In fact, the Volcker Rule is not yet finalized, let alone effective (that would be a couple years down the line, to allow a transition), but JPM's maneuvers apparently would not even have violated it--in the form legislated, banks were allowed to "hedge" with such poisonous concoctions.
My conclusion is that these big, ugly monsters are "too big to manage"--basically Dimon admitted that he didn't know what they were up to in London, even though formal approvals are on record. Chase, Citi, and B of A should be broken up into two large shards each: a commercial/investment bank--allowed to have trading operations houses and trade for its own account--and an international consumer bank, which, because of the FDIC insured deposits and brokerage/mutual fund operations, should not. One would be high risk/high return, the other would be very large, with more predictable, though cyclical, profitability. The alternative would be to require penalty-level FDIC premiums and Tier 1 capital requirements at such high levels that the big monsters would choose on their own to split up.
Facebook's IPO: Should the Deal Have Been Face Down?
Facebook's stock was over-hyped, over-distributed, and over-sold, but worst, it was privately trashed by its lead managers to key institutional investors in the days prior to the Initial Public Offering (or in this case, it should be called "Insiders Peddle Offal"). With IPO's, especially tech stocks, we are used to the hype, the excessive number of shares offered, the price being unsustainably high, but we still expect that the lucky ones holding the shares on Day 0 will be able to take profits on Day 1 (unless they are blocked from doing so). There was a period of a few hours when it was up from the initial price, but it didn't last through the first day, and has gone down since. So, a few who got the secret word--that Facebook's future revenues will not be all they were cracked up to be--managed to dodge a bullet. I hope they're grateful.
CEO James Gorman of the lead investment bank Morgan Stanley has been quoted this week as saying that investors who expected Facebook to rise were "naive". He is right, but I would classify his comment as defecation in the same place he feeds. I don't think there will ever be another IPO of this magnitude; from now on, there will be the semi-public offerings to insiders, but the mass offerings are a thing of the past: having been bitten, the public won't bite.
There will be ramifications for Morgan Stanley, or for others who may have provided information that was not publicly distributed. I'm sure Mark Zuckerberg has reason for litigation against those who were supposed to be serving his interests; dozens or hundreds of second-stage investors (after the venture capitalists, before the IPO) got the shaft and will be looking for revenge.
That Facebook's business model is a bit lacking is not too surprising, though. It's not a place to go shopping; and the curse of the Internet is that those who use it most are basically just looking for what they can get for free. Still, I figure any medium that has access to some 1 billion eyeballs has to have some value; the question is what that should be. Not the IPO per share offered price, though; that was the truth that was not dealt out face up, which is what the "public offering" part is supposed to require.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
