Lawyers turn to Facebook to serve legal papers - Yahoo! News
Could this lead to service of process rules through electronic service? I can think of innumerable cases of mine where the use of established email communications for service would help.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Who Is at Fault for the Decline of the Big Three? - Michael Barone (usnews.com)
Who Is at Fault for the Decline of the Big Three? - Michael Barone (usnews.com)
Great analysis of why Big Union came to exist in its current form and why it is fighting a cause that died in the 1970's. This fight has lead to the Big 3's problems.
Great analysis of why Big Union came to exist in its current form and why it is fighting a cause that died in the 1970's. This fight has lead to the Big 3's problems.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Whitewashing Fannie Mae - WSJ.com
Whitewashing Fannie Mae - WSJ.com
The source of the problem with Fannie Mae is getting buried by the Democrats.
The source of the problem with Fannie Mae is getting buried by the Democrats.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
The American Spectator : Mark to Market Means Mayhem
The American Spectator : Mark to Market Means Mayhem
Good, quick explanation.
Here is FASB 157. Note that the issue date was September 2006 and the required, effective date was November 1, 2007. My! how fast bad ideas do their damage. We have gone how many centuries with recognizing gains and losses when a transaction took place. In 2 short years of ignoring the tried-and-true, the whole system falls down around our ankles!
Some of this was even foreseen. Not the whole consequence but the first necessary steps of writing off billions of dollars at banks. FASB 157 has been a mess throughout. FASB couldn't even agree how to implement it after it went into effect.
What we do is not easy, but the answer is definitely give up on this revolutionary concept that adds little benefit to the system.
Does it make sense for a performing asset like a mortgage to be artificially devalued on the books because similar assets go down in value? It is performing! Why force a re-evaluation unless an actual transaction that can be recorded as history occurs.
The problem with this whole process is that it started with the presumption that accountants could guess what market value was at any moment for any asset. Now we learn that accountants can only track history well. Everything else is an educated guess.
To me as a businessman, I need to know what is history and what is a guess. Good accounting practice makes history clear and labels all else as pro formas.
This FASB mess has muddled the two concepts.
Good, quick explanation.
Here is FASB 157. Note that the issue date was September 2006 and the required, effective date was November 1, 2007. My! how fast bad ideas do their damage. We have gone how many centuries with recognizing gains and losses when a transaction took place. In 2 short years of ignoring the tried-and-true, the whole system falls down around our ankles!
Some of this was even foreseen. Not the whole consequence but the first necessary steps of writing off billions of dollars at banks. FASB 157 has been a mess throughout. FASB couldn't even agree how to implement it after it went into effect.
What we do is not easy, but the answer is definitely give up on this revolutionary concept that adds little benefit to the system.
Does it make sense for a performing asset like a mortgage to be artificially devalued on the books because similar assets go down in value? It is performing! Why force a re-evaluation unless an actual transaction that can be recorded as history occurs.
The problem with this whole process is that it started with the presumption that accountants could guess what market value was at any moment for any asset. Now we learn that accountants can only track history well. Everything else is an educated guess.
To me as a businessman, I need to know what is history and what is a guess. Good accounting practice makes history clear and labels all else as pro formas.
This FASB mess has muddled the two concepts.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
SEC gets power to suspend the mark-to-market accounting rule - USATODAY.com
SEC gets power to suspend the mark-to-market accounting rule - USATODAY.com
Could a large part of the banks problems be solved in January 2009 with the stroke of a pen? SEC has to study mark-to-market rules for 90 days, then it can suspend them. That would cause bank health just in time for the inauguration. Obama gets credit for new-found confidence in the market because he is finally chief executive, when he didn't do anything! What a fraud.
Could a large part of the banks problems be solved in January 2009 with the stroke of a pen? SEC has to study mark-to-market rules for 90 days, then it can suspend them. That would cause bank health just in time for the inauguration. Obama gets credit for new-found confidence in the market because he is finally chief executive, when he didn't do anything! What a fraud.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
American Thinker: Orwell's Children
American Thinker: Orwell's Children
The danger of Orwellian behavior shown through Democrats . . . although not named.
The danger of Orwellian behavior shown through Democrats . . . although not named.
Why Mark Cubin may not go to jail . . .
Law & Business | Professor Bainbridge
Professor Bainbridge makes a persuasive argument that the case against Mark Cubin is not as strong as the SEC would present. The professor describes the theory that would cause Cubin to go to jail and the theoretical weaknesses in it.
Professor Bainbridge makes a persuasive argument that the case against Mark Cubin is not as strong as the SEC would present. The professor describes the theory that would cause Cubin to go to jail and the theoretical weaknesses in it.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Victory in Iraq Day, November 22, 2008
Victory in Iraq Day, November 22, 2008
So the government won't declare it? Hmmm, sounds about right for these PR dorks.
So the government won't declare it? Hmmm, sounds about right for these PR dorks.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
The Volokh Conspiracy - Return of the Conservative-Libertarian Coalition?
The Volokh Conspiracy - Return of the Conservative-Libertarian Coalition?
A very humorous and insightful look at Libertarians and Conservatives. They need each other.
A very humorous and insightful look at Libertarians and Conservatives. They need each other.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Taxing the Rich
Wayne Huizenga, founder of Blockbuster and owner of the NFL Miami Dolphins, is afraid of the tax situation that allowed him to buy the Dolphins in the first place. The late Joe Robbie's family sold Huizenga the Dolphins, primarily to pay the federal estate taxes caused by Robbie's death.
Now Huizenga fears that he will have to pay high taxes too when he sells the team, whether during life or after his death.
Laying aside the fact that a good estate or tax attorney can minimize these consequences, these are valid concerns. The problem is that these are taxation of wealth issues. For this discussion, wealth means assets owned by a person, regardless if a business asset, personal asset, real estate, stock, politician . . . er, never mind . . . . The point is . . . .
Wealth taxes are different than income taxes. So, what are income taxes, in truth? Income taxes are taxes for money received in exchange for anything other than wealth. If you work and receive a wage, income taxes apply. If you own a rental home, income taxes apply to rental income. If you own a store, income taxes apply to profits. Day-to-day transactions generate income taxes.
In an entrepreneurial environment, income is used to make business grow big. Entrepreneurs with no knowledge of taxes and wealth creation solely focus on managing their businesses by managing income creation. They make a dollar; they pay 40 cents in taxes. That's normal, right?
That's not the way the wealthy play. The wealthy don't run a business. They manage investments. A wealthy businessman knows that his company creates wealth by showing the world he can generate income. Once he puts those numbers on paper, he works to remove that income from the books. Tax cheats do it by stealing the money. Smart, wealthy, scrupulous businessmen do it by finding ways to recharacterize the income as something else. They buy new equipment for their business. They spend money on their businesses to make next year's income go up but save taxes this year. This process causes the income to disappear while increasing the amount that possible buyers of the business would be willing to pay to get control over that income stream.
Making the future income look higher while making current income nontaxable through deductions is good investment management. The wealthy businessman knows that he doesn't need a paycheck today any larger than his mortgage company and auto loan servicer require (assuming he doesn't own these outright already). He is willing to wait for his money. He has that luxury.
Once he can afford to wait for the money, and he has avoided as much in income taxes as possible by making his business work better and have more value to potential buyers, he wants to make sure that no one causes his hard to fall apart. That's where politicians in your pocket are invaluable.
The goal of the wealthy is to cause taxes on wealth to be as small as possible and the tax on income as high as possible. Politicians are happy to do this. They can complain about the wealthy businessman to voters and take the wealthy businessman's contributions at the same time. The typical voter doesn't realize his dream of punishing the wealthy businessman is actually making the wealthy businessman wealthier and more powerful.
The wealthy businessman has avoided the income taxes, now he prevents newer, "greedier" businessmen from knocking him off his thone. Now he gets to sell his business based on its valuer being higher because competitors can't enter the field of play. He sells his business through outright sale or stock offering to the public. He gets to move his investment out of the business into a new investment, sometimes for not a penny in income taxes. Now he can invest in assets like those that will generate no taxes even if it generates income. The usual asset used is municipal bonds. These create no income taxes because they "help cities build roads and bridges, so it helps the community."
Does this sound too good to be true? It's not. That is what wealthy businessmen do every day.
Compare that to the entrepreneur who is solely focused on how much money his business makes. He pays more taxes for every dollar earned than our wealthy businessman. He has to compete with guy down the street. He has his whole life invested in his business, and no one wants to buy it.
Politicians tax these guys the heaviest. Why? Ignorance. Few Americans in public schools learn about wealth, taxes, or business. They sure learn about how great import tariffs were to allow American industry to grow during the pre-income tax era. They don't learn how important the development of real estate and mortgage law was in creating a cash-based society (granted, because the research is rather new).
Income taxes on businesses prevent job creation and prices for everyday good from falling. Income taxes on businesses allow politicians to brag about their care for the average Joe while stealing them blind.
Fear any politician preaching about equality. How can he want equality for anyone when he is running to be a member of an elite, over the masses? He wants you to be equal with your neighbor so long as he is above you. His tool for both is the income tax on you and no effective taxes on his wealthy buddies.
The solution? Liberty. Less politician written rules. Less room for the politician to generate power bases.
Now Huizenga fears that he will have to pay high taxes too when he sells the team, whether during life or after his death.
Laying aside the fact that a good estate or tax attorney can minimize these consequences, these are valid concerns. The problem is that these are taxation of wealth issues. For this discussion, wealth means assets owned by a person, regardless if a business asset, personal asset, real estate, stock, politician . . . er, never mind . . . . The point is . . . .
Wealth taxes are different than income taxes. So, what are income taxes, in truth? Income taxes are taxes for money received in exchange for anything other than wealth. If you work and receive a wage, income taxes apply. If you own a rental home, income taxes apply to rental income. If you own a store, income taxes apply to profits. Day-to-day transactions generate income taxes.
In an entrepreneurial environment, income is used to make business grow big. Entrepreneurs with no knowledge of taxes and wealth creation solely focus on managing their businesses by managing income creation. They make a dollar; they pay 40 cents in taxes. That's normal, right?
That's not the way the wealthy play. The wealthy don't run a business. They manage investments. A wealthy businessman knows that his company creates wealth by showing the world he can generate income. Once he puts those numbers on paper, he works to remove that income from the books. Tax cheats do it by stealing the money. Smart, wealthy, scrupulous businessmen do it by finding ways to recharacterize the income as something else. They buy new equipment for their business. They spend money on their businesses to make next year's income go up but save taxes this year. This process causes the income to disappear while increasing the amount that possible buyers of the business would be willing to pay to get control over that income stream.
Making the future income look higher while making current income nontaxable through deductions is good investment management. The wealthy businessman knows that he doesn't need a paycheck today any larger than his mortgage company and auto loan servicer require (assuming he doesn't own these outright already). He is willing to wait for his money. He has that luxury.
Once he can afford to wait for the money, and he has avoided as much in income taxes as possible by making his business work better and have more value to potential buyers, he wants to make sure that no one causes his hard to fall apart. That's where politicians in your pocket are invaluable.
The goal of the wealthy is to cause taxes on wealth to be as small as possible and the tax on income as high as possible. Politicians are happy to do this. They can complain about the wealthy businessman to voters and take the wealthy businessman's contributions at the same time. The typical voter doesn't realize his dream of punishing the wealthy businessman is actually making the wealthy businessman wealthier and more powerful.
The wealthy businessman has avoided the income taxes, now he prevents newer, "greedier" businessmen from knocking him off his thone. Now he gets to sell his business based on its valuer being higher because competitors can't enter the field of play. He sells his business through outright sale or stock offering to the public. He gets to move his investment out of the business into a new investment, sometimes for not a penny in income taxes. Now he can invest in assets like those that will generate no taxes even if it generates income. The usual asset used is municipal bonds. These create no income taxes because they "help cities build roads and bridges, so it helps the community."
Does this sound too good to be true? It's not. That is what wealthy businessmen do every day.
Compare that to the entrepreneur who is solely focused on how much money his business makes. He pays more taxes for every dollar earned than our wealthy businessman. He has to compete with guy down the street. He has his whole life invested in his business, and no one wants to buy it.
Politicians tax these guys the heaviest. Why? Ignorance. Few Americans in public schools learn about wealth, taxes, or business. They sure learn about how great import tariffs were to allow American industry to grow during the pre-income tax era. They don't learn how important the development of real estate and mortgage law was in creating a cash-based society (granted, because the research is rather new).
Income taxes on businesses prevent job creation and prices for everyday good from falling. Income taxes on businesses allow politicians to brag about their care for the average Joe while stealing them blind.
Fear any politician preaching about equality. How can he want equality for anyone when he is running to be a member of an elite, over the masses? He wants you to be equal with your neighbor so long as he is above you. His tool for both is the income tax on you and no effective taxes on his wealthy buddies.
The solution? Liberty. Less politician written rules. Less room for the politician to generate power bases.
Washington Times - RAHN: You lose, Soros wins
Washington Times - RAHN: You lose, Soros wins
This article is one of the best reasons to argue against Socialism/Communism.
The biggest advantage of SoCo (why refer to them separately?) is that its marketing is killer: equality for all, using the power of the State.
The biggest disadvantage of SoCo is it is merely a system for getting power and wealth to the biggest players. In the USSR, this was easy to watch and measure. Politburo members were dukes of their fiefdoms. The king, the Party Secretary, had no power without the consent of his Politburo/Privy Council.
As a business attorney, any small business needs to have a business plan. The best and most likely to create wealth for its owner are business plans that are based on "barriers to entry." This is a term of art that means that there is so technological, geographical, or -- most powerfully -- regulatory barrier to allowing competitors to enter the market. One local, highly successful, serial entrepreneur makes no bones about his preferred business plan: one that has high barriers to entry.
He likes radio stations, banks, etc. These two examples have severe requirements to get started. For radio stations, he need a broadcasting license from the FCC. Since these licenses control the number of stations in a market and the range of the signal (as measured by the broadcast signal's power), the FCC licenses are highly sought after.
For banks, to start a new bank, you need to comply with piles of paperwork and raise a lot of capital. In the current banking crisis, these needs become easier to understand the motivations: paperwork to prove investors' honesty, intended business practices, ability to manager crises, experience with money management; the capital to allow the bank to avoid accepting deposits and on the first rumor of bad news, facing a run on the bank.
These businesses have traditionally generated huge profits by limiting competition.
People like George Soros not only like barriers to entry, but strive to create them in more places. If you have a Politburo member in your pocket, you can make money by the truckload by keeping all other competitors out.
By pushing SoCo, Soros is able to prevent other players on his turf and claiming the moral high ground at the same time. He is able to claim the mantel of Robin Hood while truly being the evil Prince John, the usurper to the long crusading King Richard the Lion-Hearted.
Soros may not have created the crisis, but he benefits and thrives in this environment. It is in his best interest for the Bush Treasury to nationalize whatever it can, then get a committed Marxist elected president.
The secret of capitalism is competition and low barriers to entry. This creates both equalities of opportunity and of result. Most of the wealthiest men (and women) are in businesses with high barriers to entry. Consider that.
This article is one of the best reasons to argue against Socialism/Communism.
The biggest advantage of SoCo (why refer to them separately?) is that its marketing is killer: equality for all, using the power of the State.
The biggest disadvantage of SoCo is it is merely a system for getting power and wealth to the biggest players. In the USSR, this was easy to watch and measure. Politburo members were dukes of their fiefdoms. The king, the Party Secretary, had no power without the consent of his Politburo/Privy Council.
As a business attorney, any small business needs to have a business plan. The best and most likely to create wealth for its owner are business plans that are based on "barriers to entry." This is a term of art that means that there is so technological, geographical, or -- most powerfully -- regulatory barrier to allowing competitors to enter the market. One local, highly successful, serial entrepreneur makes no bones about his preferred business plan: one that has high barriers to entry.
He likes radio stations, banks, etc. These two examples have severe requirements to get started. For radio stations, he need a broadcasting license from the FCC. Since these licenses control the number of stations in a market and the range of the signal (as measured by the broadcast signal's power), the FCC licenses are highly sought after.
For banks, to start a new bank, you need to comply with piles of paperwork and raise a lot of capital. In the current banking crisis, these needs become easier to understand the motivations: paperwork to prove investors' honesty, intended business practices, ability to manager crises, experience with money management; the capital to allow the bank to avoid accepting deposits and on the first rumor of bad news, facing a run on the bank.
These businesses have traditionally generated huge profits by limiting competition.
People like George Soros not only like barriers to entry, but strive to create them in more places. If you have a Politburo member in your pocket, you can make money by the truckload by keeping all other competitors out.
By pushing SoCo, Soros is able to prevent other players on his turf and claiming the moral high ground at the same time. He is able to claim the mantel of Robin Hood while truly being the evil Prince John, the usurper to the long crusading King Richard the Lion-Hearted.
Soros may not have created the crisis, but he benefits and thrives in this environment. It is in his best interest for the Bush Treasury to nationalize whatever it can, then get a committed Marxist elected president.
The secret of capitalism is competition and low barriers to entry. This creates both equalities of opportunity and of result. Most of the wealthiest men (and women) are in businesses with high barriers to entry. Consider that.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Huizenga aim: Sell at '07 capital-gains tax level -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
Huizenga aim: Sell at '07 capital-gains tax level -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
So higher taxes won't change big owner's behavior?
So higher taxes won't change big owner's behavior?
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Buraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Buraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So a Buraq (Arabic), Burak (Turkish), or Barak (Swahili, I am guessing, since that is the official language of Kenya) is half human and half donkey? Seriously?
So, what about the later stories that a Barak is half woman, half horse, with the tail of a bird? Wow, the imagery here is enough to make me laugh. Barak with his hand on Bible before the Capitol with full fur and birds feathers.
Now there is a man that can face down Russia and Iran!
And now back to more serious reasons to oppose Obama . . . .
So a Buraq (Arabic), Burak (Turkish), or Barak (Swahili, I am guessing, since that is the official language of Kenya) is half human and half donkey? Seriously?
So, what about the later stories that a Barak is half woman, half horse, with the tail of a bird? Wow, the imagery here is enough to make me laugh. Barak with his hand on Bible before the Capitol with full fur and birds feathers.
Now there is a man that can face down Russia and Iran!
And now back to more serious reasons to oppose Obama . . . .
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Spectator.org
Spectator.org
Is Obama stealing the money with nearly a quarter billion dollars of illegal campaign contributions? No one knows. No one can find out. If Obama wins, no will ever know during his presidency.
The amount of funds he has received tends to leave a standard margin of error causing a larger sum of cash in question. If all candidates have 5% of their money from questionable sources, a million dollar campaign leads to only $50,000 in funny money. A $100 million campaign has $5 million in funny money. A $750 million campaign has nearly $38 million in funny money.
But $200 million in funny money?! That suggests real problems. Since the Federal Election Commission is effectively a dead institution at the moment, it is a prime time to steal an election. We may never know in time.
Is Obama stealing the money with nearly a quarter billion dollars of illegal campaign contributions? No one knows. No one can find out. If Obama wins, no will ever know during his presidency.
The amount of funds he has received tends to leave a standard margin of error causing a larger sum of cash in question. If all candidates have 5% of their money from questionable sources, a million dollar campaign leads to only $50,000 in funny money. A $100 million campaign has $5 million in funny money. A $750 million campaign has nearly $38 million in funny money.
But $200 million in funny money?! That suggests real problems. Since the Federal Election Commission is effectively a dead institution at the moment, it is a prime time to steal an election. We may never know in time.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Nobel literature head: US too insular to compete - Yahoo! News
Nobel literature head: US too insular to compete - Yahoo! News
I have not read extensively on the reaction to this comment, but I would suggest that the Nobel Prize in Literature's overwhelming European focus tends to indicate that the Europeans are too insular.
Without researching, I would hazard a guess that the winners are nearly uniformly Socialist in character and not supportive of the American Dream and related ideals of Enlightenment notions of liberty. They are not likely friendly to notions of struggle and tempering (in the truest sense) of character from the struggles. Too Christian for an atheist Socialist.
If the award gave balance to different political persuasions and religious notions, I would have a greater faith that the European Socialist world-view filter was not being applied.
I have not read extensively on the reaction to this comment, but I would suggest that the Nobel Prize in Literature's overwhelming European focus tends to indicate that the Europeans are too insular.
Without researching, I would hazard a guess that the winners are nearly uniformly Socialist in character and not supportive of the American Dream and related ideals of Enlightenment notions of liberty. They are not likely friendly to notions of struggle and tempering (in the truest sense) of character from the struggles. Too Christian for an atheist Socialist.
If the award gave balance to different political persuasions and religious notions, I would have a greater faith that the European Socialist world-view filter was not being applied.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Mortgage fix: conservatism in a liberal-created world
In the last post, I allude to that mortgage problem was created over 30 years by two Democrat administrations lead to many cases of bank fraud were encouraged and abetted by Democrats in the White House and Congress. For details.
The problem I noted means there is good money and bad money in the system from this problem.
I would assert without much explanation that good money loaned out should not have a significant change. If the loan was properly done, the banks should not receive a windfall and the homeowner who goes bankrupt has other issues that handing out money will not likely solve.
If the problem is bad money loaned out due to bank fraud with the banker's complicity, we need to focus on that. We need to create a method that simply and easily creates a tracking mechanism. The problem was created by Democrats at the cost of the Treasury and we need to be able to see the consequences with the cleansing effect of sunlight. Failure to expose this to sunlight will guarantee that our economy will not recover for a generation or more.
I would suggest that a person who is upside down and the bank wants government assistance, would need to have a report and documentation that shows whether the debtor could not have qualified in the traditional market. If the customer would have qualified, but some new-fangled bell or whistle on the mortgage caused the debtor to go upside down, then Uncle Sam would issue a voucher to allow the issue of mortgage guarantee or a mortgage modification to remove the problem bell or whistle. Through the voucher, Uncle Sam would provide the additional money to provide consideration to underwrite the modification (in non-lawyer terms, Uncle Sam would pay a premium to pay the bank to adjust the terms of the mortgage). The bank would then collect its stack of voucher to Uncle Sam for redemption.
If the banker and the customer could show that the house was appraised at too high a price at the time or that the neighborhood's home values were artificially inflated in this bubble, Uncle Sam could issue a voucher for additional consideration to modify the mortgage.
If the debtor has back payments due that meet these criteria, he could apply for voucher and stay foreclosure proceedings and any collection efforts up to the voucher application up to the applied amount. If the applicant does not receive the amount on the application and the stay reached non-foreclosure matters, the applicant could be charged non-dischargeable interest on the debt of 12% plus $1000 penalty. This would favor likely successful applicants to apply and only seek stays where likely to have intended consequences.
Neighborhoods could be certified as artificially inflated if confirmed by one appraiser and reviewed by an independent appraiser. The neighbors could split the cost. They could receive a voucher for the costs of the appraisal.
This process would cause money to come into banks to pay off the screwed up mortgages and quickly get the mortgages' true values adjusted on their balance sheets. Healthy banks will stand out for struggling banks. Struggling banks will be bought up quickly for their true value. Good practices will have been rewarded.
Persons who were cheated by this Democrat-sponsored fraud will be able to get relief that improves their personal credit ratings. Homeowners have a way to reduce their property taxes where the fair market values are adjusted.
The US government can limit the amount of money spent out of the Treasury.
The remaining problem is what do we do with the bad-money loans that the homeowner committed bank fraud? Those persons need to have some result other than bankruptcy. They need to have a limited, non-dischargeable (for, say, 5-7 years) civl penalty, of $5,000 or 50% of the overage (whichever is higher) per incident. Serial offenders would pay more than single-time offenders. This would prevent the person from easily re-entering the market without paying some money back to the Treasury. It would also force the person into a cheaper property to avoid repeats. Being civil, the fine should be easy to impose, but small to avoid long-term punitive effects for single occurrence.
One of the results of this system, I suspect would be that it would capture many people who are buying and selling houses for investment purposes. I don't know that that serves the purposes for which Fannie Mae was built. Those should be squeezed out of the system. The voucher system would allow accountability for that.
Instead of injecting cash, a system that creates a standardized document and problem assessment will give us feedback on what happened in this situation. This will provide information for future economic historians to account for this problem.
The problem I noted means there is good money and bad money in the system from this problem.
I would assert without much explanation that good money loaned out should not have a significant change. If the loan was properly done, the banks should not receive a windfall and the homeowner who goes bankrupt has other issues that handing out money will not likely solve.
If the problem is bad money loaned out due to bank fraud with the banker's complicity, we need to focus on that. We need to create a method that simply and easily creates a tracking mechanism. The problem was created by Democrats at the cost of the Treasury and we need to be able to see the consequences with the cleansing effect of sunlight. Failure to expose this to sunlight will guarantee that our economy will not recover for a generation or more.
I would suggest that a person who is upside down and the bank wants government assistance, would need to have a report and documentation that shows whether the debtor could not have qualified in the traditional market. If the customer would have qualified, but some new-fangled bell or whistle on the mortgage caused the debtor to go upside down, then Uncle Sam would issue a voucher to allow the issue of mortgage guarantee or a mortgage modification to remove the problem bell or whistle. Through the voucher, Uncle Sam would provide the additional money to provide consideration to underwrite the modification (in non-lawyer terms, Uncle Sam would pay a premium to pay the bank to adjust the terms of the mortgage). The bank would then collect its stack of voucher to Uncle Sam for redemption.
If the banker and the customer could show that the house was appraised at too high a price at the time or that the neighborhood's home values were artificially inflated in this bubble, Uncle Sam could issue a voucher for additional consideration to modify the mortgage.
If the debtor has back payments due that meet these criteria, he could apply for voucher and stay foreclosure proceedings and any collection efforts up to the voucher application up to the applied amount. If the applicant does not receive the amount on the application and the stay reached non-foreclosure matters, the applicant could be charged non-dischargeable interest on the debt of 12% plus $1000 penalty. This would favor likely successful applicants to apply and only seek stays where likely to have intended consequences.
Neighborhoods could be certified as artificially inflated if confirmed by one appraiser and reviewed by an independent appraiser. The neighbors could split the cost. They could receive a voucher for the costs of the appraisal.
This process would cause money to come into banks to pay off the screwed up mortgages and quickly get the mortgages' true values adjusted on their balance sheets. Healthy banks will stand out for struggling banks. Struggling banks will be bought up quickly for their true value. Good practices will have been rewarded.
Persons who were cheated by this Democrat-sponsored fraud will be able to get relief that improves their personal credit ratings. Homeowners have a way to reduce their property taxes where the fair market values are adjusted.
The US government can limit the amount of money spent out of the Treasury.
The remaining problem is what do we do with the bad-money loans that the homeowner committed bank fraud? Those persons need to have some result other than bankruptcy. They need to have a limited, non-dischargeable (for, say, 5-7 years) civl penalty, of $5,000 or 50% of the overage (whichever is higher) per incident. Serial offenders would pay more than single-time offenders. This would prevent the person from easily re-entering the market without paying some money back to the Treasury. It would also force the person into a cheaper property to avoid repeats. Being civil, the fine should be easy to impose, but small to avoid long-term punitive effects for single occurrence.
One of the results of this system, I suspect would be that it would capture many people who are buying and selling houses for investment purposes. I don't know that that serves the purposes for which Fannie Mae was built. Those should be squeezed out of the system. The voucher system would allow accountability for that.
Instead of injecting cash, a system that creates a standardized document and problem assessment will give us feedback on what happened in this situation. This will provide information for future economic historians to account for this problem.
The mortgage problem: how do we solve failed liberal policies with conservatism?
As everyone knows, this current problem with Fannie Mae, etc., blowing up is bad. Not everyone knows that Fannie Mae became a liberal play toy to follow their racist agenda: more money to the Democrat constituency of "the poor" and "black neighborhoods" that "have been discriminated against for years."
Facts have been proven that a poor family is not a good place to place mortgage. There are better means to develop home ownership.
In essence, we need to solve a problem created by failed liberalism. Conservatism is the solution to failed liberalism. The problem is that sudden changes in economic systems create many additional problems. For example, the changes in real estate taxation practices in the 1986 tax reform act decimated the commercial real estate world. The change was rather sudden. It was difficult.
No matter what the solution, it must be over a period of time. The biggest drawback to this is that the persons hurt by the change have chance to constantly encourage changing the rules of the game. For example Sen. Lugar Farm bill. It is as if it never happened. A five-year turnaround meant short-term changes and long-term stagnation in bad ideas.
What we need to do is balance the need for sudden changes with a natural blocker against the riff-raff who caused the problem regaining its facade of credibility and trying to undo the reform.
Imagine that we are dealing with a flooded house. How do you drain it and start cleaning it? Do you try to pump high-pressure air into the house in order to force the water out of the small openings into which the water had originally flowed? No. You open all doors and windows under water and let gravity take its course. Then you set up siphons and wet-dry vacuums to get to work. You pump as little as you can and let nature do as much of the work as possible. Obviously this system is most effective where doorways are at the lowest level of the house -- floor level and not above basement level. The lesson here is find places where finances can help to naturally clean up the situation.
Where the forces of economics cannot clean out the mortgage-version of a basement, we need to force a financial fix into the system.
Nationalizing all mortgages is the equivalent of closing the ground level doors and to turn on the air pump to force the ground-level water out. It takes too much work and is likely to cause windows to be blown out from air pressure than the water caused. Forcing more money into the system does not help us allow the bad money to flow out as efficiently as possible.
We need a method that tracks what is good money and what is bad money. Then we need to set up a system that pushes out bad money without pulling significant amounts of good money out.
If we can do this, more banks will fail. More people will face foreclosure. However, some banks and people deserve it. Imagine you go into your bank and they offer you a mortgage for $50,000 and you don't have to prove how much money you make. Then the banker tells you that you just need to tell the bank you make more than $80,000 per year. No documents. No follow up. Just your word.
What would you do? How much money would you be tempted to tell the banker you make? If you honesty make more than $80,000, it's a no-brainer. You tell the banker the truth. You get the loan. You can likely repay it. No problem.
If you don't make that much, would you be tempted to lie and tell him, "Funny that you should mention $80,000. That's how much I make!"? Now you get your new-found money! That was easy!
Later you find out that you can't make your monthly payments. You end up in a financial mess. It is your fault or the banker's fault that you are in this situation? The rules of psychology say that if you are the debtor, you blame the banker for suckering you into the loan. You ignore that you had to lie to get the loan.
Is your ill-gotten money, good money or bad money?
I would suggest that it is bad money. You had to commit bank fraud to get it.
Is that a situation that we want to give you Uncle Sam's/the taxpayers' money to fix the situation and keep the liar in his house? Do we want Uncle Sam to reward the banker for not assessing whether the loan was likely to repaid? What if Uncle Sam threatened the banker with sanctions if the banker asked you to prove you had the income to repay the loan?
But here lies the problem: the bankers were encouraged by two Democratic administrations over 30 years with Department of Justice investigations if they asked for basic information about the debtor's financial situation. This Republican administration tried repeatedly to require bankers to ask more questions. Congressional Democrats prevented the fixes from coming to the floor of the US Senate.
Now what do we do to solve it?
Facts have been proven that a poor family is not a good place to place mortgage. There are better means to develop home ownership.
In essence, we need to solve a problem created by failed liberalism. Conservatism is the solution to failed liberalism. The problem is that sudden changes in economic systems create many additional problems. For example, the changes in real estate taxation practices in the 1986 tax reform act decimated the commercial real estate world. The change was rather sudden. It was difficult.
No matter what the solution, it must be over a period of time. The biggest drawback to this is that the persons hurt by the change have chance to constantly encourage changing the rules of the game. For example Sen. Lugar Farm bill. It is as if it never happened. A five-year turnaround meant short-term changes and long-term stagnation in bad ideas.
What we need to do is balance the need for sudden changes with a natural blocker against the riff-raff who caused the problem regaining its facade of credibility and trying to undo the reform.
Imagine that we are dealing with a flooded house. How do you drain it and start cleaning it? Do you try to pump high-pressure air into the house in order to force the water out of the small openings into which the water had originally flowed? No. You open all doors and windows under water and let gravity take its course. Then you set up siphons and wet-dry vacuums to get to work. You pump as little as you can and let nature do as much of the work as possible. Obviously this system is most effective where doorways are at the lowest level of the house -- floor level and not above basement level. The lesson here is find places where finances can help to naturally clean up the situation.
Where the forces of economics cannot clean out the mortgage-version of a basement, we need to force a financial fix into the system.
Nationalizing all mortgages is the equivalent of closing the ground level doors and to turn on the air pump to force the ground-level water out. It takes too much work and is likely to cause windows to be blown out from air pressure than the water caused. Forcing more money into the system does not help us allow the bad money to flow out as efficiently as possible.
We need a method that tracks what is good money and what is bad money. Then we need to set up a system that pushes out bad money without pulling significant amounts of good money out.
If we can do this, more banks will fail. More people will face foreclosure. However, some banks and people deserve it. Imagine you go into your bank and they offer you a mortgage for $50,000 and you don't have to prove how much money you make. Then the banker tells you that you just need to tell the bank you make more than $80,000 per year. No documents. No follow up. Just your word.
What would you do? How much money would you be tempted to tell the banker you make? If you honesty make more than $80,000, it's a no-brainer. You tell the banker the truth. You get the loan. You can likely repay it. No problem.
If you don't make that much, would you be tempted to lie and tell him, "Funny that you should mention $80,000. That's how much I make!"? Now you get your new-found money! That was easy!
Later you find out that you can't make your monthly payments. You end up in a financial mess. It is your fault or the banker's fault that you are in this situation? The rules of psychology say that if you are the debtor, you blame the banker for suckering you into the loan. You ignore that you had to lie to get the loan.
Is your ill-gotten money, good money or bad money?
I would suggest that it is bad money. You had to commit bank fraud to get it.
Is that a situation that we want to give you Uncle Sam's/the taxpayers' money to fix the situation and keep the liar in his house? Do we want Uncle Sam to reward the banker for not assessing whether the loan was likely to repaid? What if Uncle Sam threatened the banker with sanctions if the banker asked you to prove you had the income to repay the loan?
But here lies the problem: the bankers were encouraged by two Democratic administrations over 30 years with Department of Justice investigations if they asked for basic information about the debtor's financial situation. This Republican administration tried repeatedly to require bankers to ask more questions. Congressional Democrats prevented the fixes from coming to the floor of the US Senate.
Now what do we do to solve it?
Bloomberg.com: News
Bloomberg.com: News
Explanation of what really caused the banking troubles. Surprising source to have this tone.
Explanation of what really caused the banking troubles. Surprising source to have this tone.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Gateway Pundit: Busted!... Video of Fannie Mae CEO in 2005 Explaining the "FAMILY" Connection with Dems & Obama
Gateway Pundit: Busted!... Video of Fannie Mae CEO in 2005 Explaining the "FAMILY" Connection with Dems & Obama
So Obama and his cronies have nothing to do with Fannie Mae's mess? Watch the videos for Fannie Mae's understanding.
So Obama and his cronies have nothing to do with Fannie Mae's mess? Watch the videos for Fannie Mae's understanding.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Michelle Malkin » The fit hits the shan on Wall Street
Michelle Malkin » The fit hits the shan on Wall Street
Things look bad on Wall Street.
Secretary Paulsen had sought to get control over mortgage regulation in April, but Democrats wanted to bail out the banks.
This mess seems to indicate that the Democrats have been in deep with these folks for a while. While the mess is not the Democrats fault, the depth of the problem seems to have been made worse because the Democrats cooperated in preventing real fixes to an existing problem.
Even more interesting is the candidates' reactions. O-Bomba wants to blame Republicans for laissez-faire economics for creating the problem without regard to the history of the matter. McCain addresses the corrective action of refusing government capitalization of struggling businesses and fix the regulatory scheme that favors Congressional meddling and dawdling. I don't know what he wants to do precisely, but fewer regulatory bodies allow greater coherence in operation with fewer political interference opportunities that can be hidden from view. Those make sense to me from my personal experience in business.
Things look bad on Wall Street.
Secretary Paulsen had sought to get control over mortgage regulation in April, but Democrats wanted to bail out the banks.
(Italics added for emphasis.)The plan, produced by a lame-duck Republican administration facing a Democratic Congress, would drastically expand the authority of the Federal Reserve to oversee financial markets. It would consolidate federal agencies that regulate the nation’s securities and commodities futures markets. And it would allow insurance companies, which have long been regulated by the states, to choose instead to have a national charter and be supervised by a new federal agency under the Treasury Department.
Mr. Paulson said on Monday that he did not expect the bulk of the plan to be adopted during the current administration — and he said Congress should not even consider adopting most of it until after the current housing and credit crisis ended.
“Some may view these recommendations as a response to the circumstances of the day,” Mr. Paulson said. “That is not how they are intended.”
Senior lawmakers, while praising the administration for raising important points for further discussion, said the odds were long for a major overhaul before Congress all but shuts down for the elections in the fall.
“Since this is opening day in baseball, I might as well make a baseball metaphor,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who heads the Senate Banking Committee. “This is a wild pitch. It is not even close to the strike zone.”
Mr. Dodd and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said in a telephone conference call with reporters that overhauling the regulatory structure was not a high priority. Instead, they said, they were hoping to quickly move legislation that would help homeowners facing higher mortgage rates and foreclosure.
The Democrats’ bill would provide an additional $200 million for counseling for homeowners in danger of foreclosure, would authorize $10 billion in bonding authority for housing finance agencies to refinance subprime loans, and provide $4 billion for local governments to purchase foreclosed properties.
The bill would also change the bankruptcy laws to allow judges to modify mortgages on primary homes — a provision opposed by Republicans who say it will only increase mortgage rates.
This mess seems to indicate that the Democrats have been in deep with these folks for a while. While the mess is not the Democrats fault, the depth of the problem seems to have been made worse because the Democrats cooperated in preventing real fixes to an existing problem.
Even more interesting is the candidates' reactions. O-Bomba wants to blame Republicans for laissez-faire economics for creating the problem without regard to the history of the matter. McCain addresses the corrective action of refusing government capitalization of struggling businesses and fix the regulatory scheme that favors Congressional meddling and dawdling. I don't know what he wants to do precisely, but fewer regulatory bodies allow greater coherence in operation with fewer political interference opportunities that can be hidden from view. Those make sense to me from my personal experience in business.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Other Thoughts on Earmarks
If an earmark is a procedural corruption of Congress, what would have the best chance of reducing the need for earmarks?
Many earmarks that get air play are research projects for strange subjects (academia), museums or special institutions of local interest (arts and humanist subjects), and questionable roadways (public works).
The first two examples are just questionable for national expenditure. Roadways are likely to be of more dubious value if paid for by the federal government rather than state or local governments. Why? Locals know local needs better. I would prefer that the federal government drastically curtail its taxation and involvement in federal highways. This is just an invitation to play legislative games. The bridge to nowhere is fine if Alaskans want it and pay for it. Why should the lower 48 contribute?
An empty highway across Arizona (which one I don't know, I am just trying to paint a mental image) from a town in New Mexico to California may make more sense for the federal government to underwrite, since Arizona gets little benefit. But if it is really that worthwhile to all but Arizona, couldn't a toll road solve the problem for Arizona's budgeting?
Earmarking this project is too much money, too poorly analyzed, and likely too expensive for the benefits obtained. Let's try a different way.
Many earmarks that get air play are research projects for strange subjects (academia), museums or special institutions of local interest (arts and humanist subjects), and questionable roadways (public works).
The first two examples are just questionable for national expenditure. Roadways are likely to be of more dubious value if paid for by the federal government rather than state or local governments. Why? Locals know local needs better. I would prefer that the federal government drastically curtail its taxation and involvement in federal highways. This is just an invitation to play legislative games. The bridge to nowhere is fine if Alaskans want it and pay for it. Why should the lower 48 contribute?
An empty highway across Arizona (which one I don't know, I am just trying to paint a mental image) from a town in New Mexico to California may make more sense for the federal government to underwrite, since Arizona gets little benefit. But if it is really that worthwhile to all but Arizona, couldn't a toll road solve the problem for Arizona's budgeting?
Earmarking this project is too much money, too poorly analyzed, and likely too expensive for the benefits obtained. Let's try a different way.
McCain and Palin castigate the earmarks she seeks - Yahoo! News
McCain and Palin castigate the earmarks she seeks - Yahoo! News
I really don't understand this logic. Governors used to have the ability to go to the legislature-appointed Senators for their states to request cooperation from Washington. Now, with popularly elected Senators, Governors mostly have to act like princeps maximus (in its original pre-Augustus meaning) - first citizen.
My problem with earmarks is not the citizen, governor, or business owner petitioning the Congress for help. My problem with earmarks is when the Senator or Representative buries the authorization for payment so no other member of Congress knows that it is there or puts it in the middle of a "must-pass" bill. These are sleazy tactics designed to do an end-run to debate and informed consent by the other legislators.
So why should governors not ask for Congress to do something for their home state again?
I really don't understand this logic. Governors used to have the ability to go to the legislature-appointed Senators for their states to request cooperation from Washington. Now, with popularly elected Senators, Governors mostly have to act like princeps maximus (in its original pre-Augustus meaning) - first citizen.
My problem with earmarks is not the citizen, governor, or business owner petitioning the Congress for help. My problem with earmarks is when the Senator or Representative buries the authorization for payment so no other member of Congress knows that it is there or puts it in the middle of a "must-pass" bill. These are sleazy tactics designed to do an end-run to debate and informed consent by the other legislators.
So why should governors not ask for Congress to do something for their home state again?
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Why Should Palin and Voters Be Reverent Toward Obama's Community Organizing? - Michael Barone (usnews.com)
Why Should Palin and Voters Be Reverent Toward Obama's Community Organizing? - Michael Barone (usnews.com)
Not only is there a question on why to respect community organizing, but why should we respect socialist governments or overregulating governments with socialist tendencies, like Chicago?
A side question that arises is "Why is Chicago so in need of special agitation practices?"
My proposed answer is that Chicago is highly overregulated, leading to heavy reliance on politicians to constantly tinker with the rules. The greater need to change the rules, the greater need for political agitation (for the poor) or lobbying (for those better endowed with wealth).
My question for each politician that proposes change or even smaller changes: what is the ideal that you seek to implement? What example is closest?
If Chicago is the example that Obama intends to change Washington into (assuming that you don't believe that DC is already there), there will be greater need for Community Organizers also known as agitators.
If less government and fewer rules is what we seek, agitators and lobbyist will have less to do. There will be fewer opportunities for conflict and corruption.
Ironic, huh? Fewer rules promote legal compliance. Not just of the nature, if we removed the ban on murder, there would be fewer crimes reported. More accurately, an overeager land developer seeking to build his building will have less incentive to commit bribery or coercion to have ridiculous and arbitrary zoning rules lifted, amended, or ignored by inspectors.
Not only is there a question on why to respect community organizing, but why should we respect socialist governments or overregulating governments with socialist tendencies, like Chicago?
A side question that arises is "Why is Chicago so in need of special agitation practices?"
My proposed answer is that Chicago is highly overregulated, leading to heavy reliance on politicians to constantly tinker with the rules. The greater need to change the rules, the greater need for political agitation (for the poor) or lobbying (for those better endowed with wealth).
My question for each politician that proposes change or even smaller changes: what is the ideal that you seek to implement? What example is closest?
If Chicago is the example that Obama intends to change Washington into (assuming that you don't believe that DC is already there), there will be greater need for Community Organizers also known as agitators.
If less government and fewer rules is what we seek, agitators and lobbyist will have less to do. There will be fewer opportunities for conflict and corruption.
Ironic, huh? Fewer rules promote legal compliance. Not just of the nature, if we removed the ban on murder, there would be fewer crimes reported. More accurately, an overeager land developer seeking to build his building will have less incentive to commit bribery or coercion to have ridiculous and arbitrary zoning rules lifted, amended, or ignored by inspectors.
The Strata-Sphere » Anyone Still Believe The Liberal Propaganda About Being For The People?
The Strata-Sphere » Anyone Still Believe The Liberal Propaganda About Being For The People?
Strata-Sphere quotes an interesting liberal critique of Gov. Sarah Palin:
Frankly, we see in this quote that "ignorance of world affairs" is defined as a "need to repair America's image abroad." By this definition, a foreign policy that is based on treating America as in the wrong is indicative of knowledge in world affairs. Rejecting this premise is by definition ignorant. The logical consequence of this definition and its application is that any assertion of American propriety and power, regardless how long its proponent has studied the issue, will leave the proponent ignorant and unqualified in foreign affairs.
Further, any person willing to kowtow to foreign powers to raise "America's image" is intellectually enlightened. No study. No writing. No reflection. This person is intellectually adept. Add a Columbia undergraduate degree and a Harvard Law degree to the mix and the proponent is absolutely infallible in foreign policy.
I have looked for stories on Palin's interaction with other countries on these issues and have little to nothing.
Let us extrapolate for a moment, though. Suppose you live near the border of another country or two. Suppose you are involved in an industry that often is affected by international treaties. Suppose that industry is heavily regulated as result of those treaties and other domestic laws. Suppose that those treaties deal with those neighboring countries. As a result, coffee shop conversation between you and your compatriots in that industry are going to have a higher dose of international relations discussions than in my home state of Indiana. Does that qualify you as a stateman? No.
In the shadow of William F. Buckley, I would suggest, though, that you might be more qualified than a few of the names in the State Department's phone directory. I would also hazard a guess that you are going to learn issues related to those countries with interest if you are playing in politics, even at the state level. Does the state's National Guard have a role in Northern Command's defense of the homeland? I should hope. The governor, by her own Commandant's interview with Greta van Sustern, has been active in pushing legislation through the Alaska legislature to address troop and support concerns. She has been involved in budgeting for the Guard. I presume that part of the governor's training in transition into the office involves some orientation from the Guard and the Pentagon. This does not make her a strategic or tactical genius, but it is experience.
So poor definitions of what constitutes experience does not take into account both passive and active sources of information about international issues and command decisions.
Historically, our best presidents have had gubernatorial experience. Admittedly some of our worst were also governors (Carter, for instance).
For that I would merely turn to a lesson that I learned in a sales training class a few years back. The lesson focused on the salesman that had 10 years experience and his fellow salesman in the next cubicle with 2 years experience. If the veteran has bad results because he is using poor technique with no system for self-improvement and attempts to address new challenges, is he truly more experienced than the young whipper-snapper? Does your answer change if the younger salesman routinely studies is efforts and adapts his methods to increase his chances for success? What if the younger salesman keeps seeking different experiences: first with young clients, then older ones, then sales to groups of people, then to businesses directed by boards of directors?
The moral of the lesson: if you keep doing things the same old way, you don't have 10 years experience; you have one year's experience 10 times.
Studying Biden v. Palin, Obama v. McCain, or even Obama v. Palin, I keep hearing this thought in the back of my head that Biden has zero years of executive experience and zero years of real involvement in international affairs (albeit with 100.000 pages of briefing books). Obama has zero years of executive experience and 10,000 pages of briefing books. McCain, well, does 5 years in a foreign country as an adult and officer of the United States count as foreign policy experience, when you are negotiating with your own bones, skin, and blood?
Palin, no documented negotiation experience, but 2 years of supervision of negotiations with international oil companies, several Canadian provinces, and the Canadian federal government. What briefings has she receive from the US State Department on this matter? She has served in a legislative capacity at the most personal and brutal level, where the players can know your kids and see them at a basketball game or a restaurant. No threats suggested, but the politics of the personal is pretty tough. Ask any middle school girl.
Palin does not have the ideal resume. I like it far better than the entire Democrat ticket.
Strata-Sphere quotes an interesting liberal critique of Gov. Sarah Palin:
I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin’s message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision.(Emphasis added.) The whole liberal motif that Sarah Palin is not qualified because she has no foreign policy experience is exposed in this quote. By inference, the same motif suggests Sen. Obama's supposed qualification on foreign policy with the same or less experience (e.g., Palin's involvement with natural gas pipeline through Canada; fishing ground issues with Russia, Korea, Japan, etc. as a commercial fishing family if not at a policy level) because he has been editing and reading policy papers on the subjects for 18 months.
Look at what she stands for:
* Small town values — a denial of America’s global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.
* Ignorance of world affairs — a repudiation of the need to repair America’s image abroad.
Frankly, we see in this quote that "ignorance of world affairs" is defined as a "need to repair America's image abroad." By this definition, a foreign policy that is based on treating America as in the wrong is indicative of knowledge in world affairs. Rejecting this premise is by definition ignorant. The logical consequence of this definition and its application is that any assertion of American propriety and power, regardless how long its proponent has studied the issue, will leave the proponent ignorant and unqualified in foreign affairs.
Further, any person willing to kowtow to foreign powers to raise "America's image" is intellectually enlightened. No study. No writing. No reflection. This person is intellectually adept. Add a Columbia undergraduate degree and a Harvard Law degree to the mix and the proponent is absolutely infallible in foreign policy.
I have looked for stories on Palin's interaction with other countries on these issues and have little to nothing.
Let us extrapolate for a moment, though. Suppose you live near the border of another country or two. Suppose you are involved in an industry that often is affected by international treaties. Suppose that industry is heavily regulated as result of those treaties and other domestic laws. Suppose that those treaties deal with those neighboring countries. As a result, coffee shop conversation between you and your compatriots in that industry are going to have a higher dose of international relations discussions than in my home state of Indiana. Does that qualify you as a stateman? No.
In the shadow of William F. Buckley, I would suggest, though, that you might be more qualified than a few of the names in the State Department's phone directory. I would also hazard a guess that you are going to learn issues related to those countries with interest if you are playing in politics, even at the state level. Does the state's National Guard have a role in Northern Command's defense of the homeland? I should hope. The governor, by her own Commandant's interview with Greta van Sustern, has been active in pushing legislation through the Alaska legislature to address troop and support concerns. She has been involved in budgeting for the Guard. I presume that part of the governor's training in transition into the office involves some orientation from the Guard and the Pentagon. This does not make her a strategic or tactical genius, but it is experience.
So poor definitions of what constitutes experience does not take into account both passive and active sources of information about international issues and command decisions.
Historically, our best presidents have had gubernatorial experience. Admittedly some of our worst were also governors (Carter, for instance).
For that I would merely turn to a lesson that I learned in a sales training class a few years back. The lesson focused on the salesman that had 10 years experience and his fellow salesman in the next cubicle with 2 years experience. If the veteran has bad results because he is using poor technique with no system for self-improvement and attempts to address new challenges, is he truly more experienced than the young whipper-snapper? Does your answer change if the younger salesman routinely studies is efforts and adapts his methods to increase his chances for success? What if the younger salesman keeps seeking different experiences: first with young clients, then older ones, then sales to groups of people, then to businesses directed by boards of directors?
The moral of the lesson: if you keep doing things the same old way, you don't have 10 years experience; you have one year's experience 10 times.
Studying Biden v. Palin, Obama v. McCain, or even Obama v. Palin, I keep hearing this thought in the back of my head that Biden has zero years of executive experience and zero years of real involvement in international affairs (albeit with 100.000 pages of briefing books). Obama has zero years of executive experience and 10,000 pages of briefing books. McCain, well, does 5 years in a foreign country as an adult and officer of the United States count as foreign policy experience, when you are negotiating with your own bones, skin, and blood?
Palin, no documented negotiation experience, but 2 years of supervision of negotiations with international oil companies, several Canadian provinces, and the Canadian federal government. What briefings has she receive from the US State Department on this matter? She has served in a legislative capacity at the most personal and brutal level, where the players can know your kids and see them at a basketball game or a restaurant. No threats suggested, but the politics of the personal is pretty tough. Ask any middle school girl.
Palin does not have the ideal resume. I like it far better than the entire Democrat ticket.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Obama's "community organizer" phase was about political power, not soup kitchens | The Windy Citizen
Obama's "community organizer" phase was about political power, not soup kitchens | The Windy Citizen
This is the first explanation of what "community organizer" means in practice.
Even more interesting is the summary explanation of Alinsky and his methods at http://www.laviedesidees.fr/Saul-Alinsky-la-campagne.html. For those that don't speak French, a computerized translation is here.
Even Barry didn't believe in Community Organizing. He left its impoverishing and unfulfilling work for Harvard Law School.
This is the first explanation of what "community organizer" means in practice.
Even more interesting is the summary explanation of Alinsky and his methods at http://www.laviedesidees.fr/Saul-Alinsky-la-campagne.html. For those that don't speak French, a computerized translation is here.
Even Barry didn't believe in Community Organizing. He left its impoverishing and unfulfilling work for Harvard Law School.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Power Line: Shale Oil To Be Developed, But Not Here
Power Line: Shale Oil To Be Developed, But Not Here
I have a great idea for increasing our oil reserves 100-fold within 24 hours! Vote Republican in November. (Assuming that the weak-kneed Republicans vote correctly on January 4, 2009!!)
This is an important point: the US having 3% of the world's oil reserves is part fact (oil in ground) and part regulation (oil we are ALLOWED to access).
We know the oil is in the ground in many locations. The US Geological Survey has established that (even in its extraordinarily conservative methodology). Kudos for good science.
Now we just need to purge the Democrats from Congress that prevent us from being the Middle East Oil Supply Killer that we have the potential to be.
What would happen to world politics if the barrel price of oil fell to $45 with little chance Middle East politics would change that? What if most of the money for oil extraction stayed in the US? What if the Saudis, Venzeulans, and Russians made far less profit margins? What would the US State Department's job be?
Palestinian terrorists with less money. Poorer Wahabiists in Arabia. Impoverished Russian politicians. Chavez with no bank account. Wealthier Americans, Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, Malaysians, Australians, Africans (outside of Nigeria), Dhubai subjects.
Which world would you prefer to live in?
I have a great idea for increasing our oil reserves 100-fold within 24 hours! Vote Republican in November. (Assuming that the weak-kneed Republicans vote correctly on January 4, 2009!!)
This is an important point: the US having 3% of the world's oil reserves is part fact (oil in ground) and part regulation (oil we are ALLOWED to access).
We know the oil is in the ground in many locations. The US Geological Survey has established that (even in its extraordinarily conservative methodology). Kudos for good science.
Now we just need to purge the Democrats from Congress that prevent us from being the Middle East Oil Supply Killer that we have the potential to be.
What would happen to world politics if the barrel price of oil fell to $45 with little chance Middle East politics would change that? What if most of the money for oil extraction stayed in the US? What if the Saudis, Venzeulans, and Russians made far less profit margins? What would the US State Department's job be?
Palestinian terrorists with less money. Poorer Wahabiists in Arabia. Impoverished Russian politicians. Chavez with no bank account. Wealthier Americans, Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, Malaysians, Australians, Africans (outside of Nigeria), Dhubai subjects.
Which world would you prefer to live in?
Monday, August 11, 2008
Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency | U.S. | Reuters
Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency | U.S. | Reuters
This is an old story by this point, but it is enough to scare me off windmills as a good source of stable, steady energy source. I wouldn't mind if we have batteries or electricity storage capacity to even out the distribution of electricity. But we don't. Solar and wind have peak production times and no-production times. Not natural gas. Not coal. Just shovel more coal and you have more electricity. Regardless of the whims of mother nature.
The secret to wind power is that you need to have natural gas or coal on emergency backup. One estimate that I heard suggested that it needs to use nearly 90% of the energy that using natural gas and coal as the primary source.
Ten percent is nothing to sneeze at, but why waste billions of dollars to make low marginal savings that could be spent on increasing the fossil fuels efficiencies?
This is an old story by this point, but it is enough to scare me off windmills as a good source of stable, steady energy source. I wouldn't mind if we have batteries or electricity storage capacity to even out the distribution of electricity. But we don't. Solar and wind have peak production times and no-production times. Not natural gas. Not coal. Just shovel more coal and you have more electricity. Regardless of the whims of mother nature.
The secret to wind power is that you need to have natural gas or coal on emergency backup. One estimate that I heard suggested that it needs to use nearly 90% of the energy that using natural gas and coal as the primary source.
Ten percent is nothing to sneeze at, but why waste billions of dollars to make low marginal savings that could be spent on increasing the fossil fuels efficiencies?
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
AGW: Short on Science, Long on Religion - Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)
AGW: Short on Science, Long on Religion - Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)
Devestating review of global warming.
I especially appreciate the hypothesis that 96 hours without sun would make the land masses temperature fall below zero.
Devestating review of global warming.
I especially appreciate the hypothesis that 96 hours without sun would make the land masses temperature fall below zero.
Friday, June 13, 2008
History News Network
History News Network
Fascinating view from Europe on Bush's legacy and the consequences of the 2008 Presidential election.
Fascinating view from Europe on Bush's legacy and the consequences of the 2008 Presidential election.
Michelle Malkin » Prayers for the Scouts
Michelle Malkin » Prayers for the Scouts
The comments are touching.
To the fallen boys . . . "May the Master of all Scouts be with you until we meet again." God bless them. God bless those Scouts and Scouters remaining and their dedication to the Scout Law:
"A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent."
Their trustworthiness to do their duty, their loyalty to their fellow scout, their helpfulness, their kindness, their bravery were all on full display for the world to see.
I call on all to support their local Scout troops, Cub Packs, and Venture Posts so that we can teach more boys and girls to be like these Scouts.
The comments are touching.
To the fallen boys . . . "May the Master of all Scouts be with you until we meet again." God bless them. God bless those Scouts and Scouters remaining and their dedication to the Scout Law:
"A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent."
Their trustworthiness to do their duty, their loyalty to their fellow scout, their helpfulness, their kindness, their bravery were all on full display for the world to see.
I call on all to support their local Scout troops, Cub Packs, and Venture Posts so that we can teach more boys and girls to be like these Scouts.
Friday, June 06, 2008
Pajamas Media » Why We Need More Leaders Like Vaclav Havel
Pajamas Media » Why We Need More Leaders Like Vaclav Havel: "“What is a concentration camp but an attempt by Utopians to dispose of those elements which don’t fit into their Utopia?”"
Now that is a catch phrase for the Republican Party!
Now that is a catch phrase for the Republican Party!
Friday, May 30, 2008
American Thinker: Obama, Black Liberation Theology, and Karl Marx
American Thinker: Obama, Black Liberation Theology, and Karl Marx
For anyone who doubts that Barack is Communist, even if of a non-revolutionary variety, here's strong evidence of the truth.
For anyone who doubts that Barack is Communist, even if of a non-revolutionary variety, here's strong evidence of the truth.
Pajamas Media » Obama Dodging Fact-Finding Trip to Iraq?
Pajamas Media » Obama Dodging Fact-Finding Trip to Iraq?
Why would Obama wish not to go to Iraq? I don't believe it is because he does not wish to learn.
Can you imagine the news photos of peaceable Iraqis without tanks surrounding Obama? What would that do to his campaign? What would that do for Republican campaign ads in the fall?
Why would Obama wish not to go to Iraq? I don't believe it is because he does not wish to learn.
Can you imagine the news photos of peaceable Iraqis without tanks surrounding Obama? What would that do to his campaign? What would that do for Republican campaign ads in the fall?
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Hillary picked the filly and . . . condolences
Hillary picked the filly. I have been waiting since the horrible news about Eight Belles came out to see if there would be a discussion of the irony.
The first whiff of it I found was here: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/hillarys-horse.html.
By tomorrow morning there will all sorts of people trying to discuss it: fortune? simple irony? warning? untouchable story line?
Personally I believe it will be most interesting in hindsight, say from after the General Election. Then we can look back and see what thematic parallels were there for us to study or what fate mislead us to believe. Either way this types of events are interesting for literary types.
The first whiff of it I found was here: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/hillarys-horse.html.
By tomorrow morning there will all sorts of people trying to discuss it: fortune? simple irony? warning? untouchable story line?
Personally I believe it will be most interesting in hindsight, say from after the General Election. Then we can look back and see what thematic parallels were there for us to study or what fate mislead us to believe. Either way this types of events are interesting for literary types.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Study on Economy & Tax Increases
This article demonstrates that Capital Gains Tax increases are hurting our economy already.
Don't wait, suffer now!
Don't wait, suffer now!
Monday, February 25, 2008
Lorne Gunter: Welcome to the new ice age - Full Comment
Lorne Gunter: Welcome to the new ice age - Full Comment
So Ice Age or Global Warming fiasco?
I vote for neither being a likely provable hypothesis.
So Ice Age or Global Warming fiasco?
I vote for neither being a likely provable hypothesis.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Conservatism and Lack of Ideas
Has Conservatism run out of ideas? Has it reached its end?
These are themes that I have heard bantered about lately, particularly as related to the rise of John McCain in the primary votes and Obama's discussion of Reagan's transformational effect on the body politic that Hillary Clinton tried to distort into a praise of Reagan over Bill Clinton.
Let's lay these current issues aside and deal with a growing myth that conservatism is out of ideas.
To say that a political movement is out of ideas is to assume that political movements are driven but specific legislative proposals. This is inherently false. That is not the way the human mind works.
(Since 80% of the human population is visually oriented in their method of thought and analysis, allow me to use the vocabulary of this method of thought to discuss this topic. The idea can easily be adapted to auditory and kinesthetic thought, too.)
People have a photograph or a movie in their respective minds of what the world should be in the ideal. They analyze the world of politics based on how close the political proposals come to that ideal or come to making that ideal come true. Some seek an ideal of process. ("Don't be mean in debate or advertising! I don't care the outcome as much.") Some seek an ideal of result. ("Don't make a hospital do THAT by legislation!")
Those who focus on the ideal of process tend to swing widely between different ideas and are very hard to keep on one side of the political aisle or the other. They tend to describe themselves as "moderates." They want the process of politics to similar to calm, academic debate that ends in polite applause and a genial trip to the pub with the loyal opponent to bask in the glory of an evening well spent.
Those who focus on the ideal of result tend to stick tenaciously to the result sought from politics, legislation, and executive action. The tend to identify themselves relative to a politic doctrine, so long as that is not likely to make them a social pariah at the cocktail party on Friday night.
Then there are those that seek to combine these two together. The order of process over result or result over process is likely to follow political success. Emphasis on result over process leads to more aggressive political behavior. Since winners in all forms of competition tend to be the more aggressive, choosing result over process tends to create short-term winners.
In the long term, this focus on success tends to create short cuts favoring small group benefits that anger the larger population. This creates a pendulum swing against the focus on results due to "corruption" of the desired result. Inherently, this small group benefit focus is what sunk the Democrats in 1994 with the House Banking Scandal and the Republicans in 2006 with earmarks and other petty scandals.
Consequently, long term political success is a blend of focus on a desired effect while not excessively favoring small groups which would derail the pursuit of the desired result.
The desired result goes back to the mental photograph or movie in the body politic's collective mind. Inherently, people are constantly updating their mental picture that they seek. They can never run out of ideas.
The question is can all these pictures be collected in a proper and orderly fashion that motivates those focused on result while not offending too many of those that are focused on process.
All this is to say, when a pundit claims that a politic party is out of ideas, they are really saying that they have a central, unifying message. It may be because the focus on the ideal of process suggests that the political message has been lost to backroom favoritism. It may be because the previously prevalent goals have been accomplished to the satisfaction of the average voter(e.g., Welfare Reform), become anachronistic (e.g., anti-Soviet, anti-Communism), or been proven a false goal (e.g., Bull Connor segregationism).
Neither the Republican Party or Democrat Party is out of ideas. The Democrat Party can't talk about many of their ideas publicly in great details, because they lose popularity when the public can analyze the likely outcome of their goals. They can't keep those with focus on result in the fold over time. They can easily lose those focused on process by the common tactics of their supporters, like labor union activists.
The Republican Party in Washington has lost credibility that it is willing to pursue the goals described by Conservatives. Those focused on result are angry and unwilling to facilitate those like John McCain who suggests that he is focused on the process without regard to any clear sense of the result sought.
Now let the melee begin in the darkness of little guiding picture of the actual results sought on either side of the aisle.
These are themes that I have heard bantered about lately, particularly as related to the rise of John McCain in the primary votes and Obama's discussion of Reagan's transformational effect on the body politic that Hillary Clinton tried to distort into a praise of Reagan over Bill Clinton.
Let's lay these current issues aside and deal with a growing myth that conservatism is out of ideas.
To say that a political movement is out of ideas is to assume that political movements are driven but specific legislative proposals. This is inherently false. That is not the way the human mind works.
(Since 80% of the human population is visually oriented in their method of thought and analysis, allow me to use the vocabulary of this method of thought to discuss this topic. The idea can easily be adapted to auditory and kinesthetic thought, too.)
People have a photograph or a movie in their respective minds of what the world should be in the ideal. They analyze the world of politics based on how close the political proposals come to that ideal or come to making that ideal come true. Some seek an ideal of process. ("Don't be mean in debate or advertising! I don't care the outcome as much.") Some seek an ideal of result. ("Don't make a hospital do THAT by legislation!")
Those who focus on the ideal of process tend to swing widely between different ideas and are very hard to keep on one side of the political aisle or the other. They tend to describe themselves as "moderates." They want the process of politics to similar to calm, academic debate that ends in polite applause and a genial trip to the pub with the loyal opponent to bask in the glory of an evening well spent.
Those who focus on the ideal of result tend to stick tenaciously to the result sought from politics, legislation, and executive action. The tend to identify themselves relative to a politic doctrine, so long as that is not likely to make them a social pariah at the cocktail party on Friday night.
Then there are those that seek to combine these two together. The order of process over result or result over process is likely to follow political success. Emphasis on result over process leads to more aggressive political behavior. Since winners in all forms of competition tend to be the more aggressive, choosing result over process tends to create short-term winners.
In the long term, this focus on success tends to create short cuts favoring small group benefits that anger the larger population. This creates a pendulum swing against the focus on results due to "corruption" of the desired result. Inherently, this small group benefit focus is what sunk the Democrats in 1994 with the House Banking Scandal and the Republicans in 2006 with earmarks and other petty scandals.
Consequently, long term political success is a blend of focus on a desired effect while not excessively favoring small groups which would derail the pursuit of the desired result.
The desired result goes back to the mental photograph or movie in the body politic's collective mind. Inherently, people are constantly updating their mental picture that they seek. They can never run out of ideas.
The question is can all these pictures be collected in a proper and orderly fashion that motivates those focused on result while not offending too many of those that are focused on process.
All this is to say, when a pundit claims that a politic party is out of ideas, they are really saying that they have a central, unifying message. It may be because the focus on the ideal of process suggests that the political message has been lost to backroom favoritism. It may be because the previously prevalent goals have been accomplished to the satisfaction of the average voter(e.g., Welfare Reform), become anachronistic (e.g., anti-Soviet, anti-Communism), or been proven a false goal (e.g., Bull Connor segregationism).
Neither the Republican Party or Democrat Party is out of ideas. The Democrat Party can't talk about many of their ideas publicly in great details, because they lose popularity when the public can analyze the likely outcome of their goals. They can't keep those with focus on result in the fold over time. They can easily lose those focused on process by the common tactics of their supporters, like labor union activists.
The Republican Party in Washington has lost credibility that it is willing to pursue the goals described by Conservatives. Those focused on result are angry and unwilling to facilitate those like John McCain who suggests that he is focused on the process without regard to any clear sense of the result sought.
Now let the melee begin in the darkness of little guiding picture of the actual results sought on either side of the aisle.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
The Belmont Club: Saving your face, losing your pants
The Belmont Club: Saving your face, losing your pants
I have struggled with how to say this point for a long time. I would have to look as to whether I have blogged by attempts before. Here Wretched makes a great summary of my point.
I disagree vehemently that law exists outside of civilization. The battlefield is hardly civilized. While two civilizations can agree to put limits on the battle's methods, basic game theory would suggest that the advantage, all other things being equal, will go to the cheater.
How can there be law when the incentive to break the rules for the sake of mere survival is greater than the incentive to play within the rules?
Judges and courts are irrelevant to battle once this rule-breaking gives the advantage to the aggressor who flaunts the rules. History is not the only thing written by the victor.
I have struggled with how to say this point for a long time. I would have to look as to whether I have blogged by attempts before. Here Wretched makes a great summary of my point.
I disagree vehemently that law exists outside of civilization. The battlefield is hardly civilized. While two civilizations can agree to put limits on the battle's methods, basic game theory would suggest that the advantage, all other things being equal, will go to the cheater.
How can there be law when the incentive to break the rules for the sake of mere survival is greater than the incentive to play within the rules?
Judges and courts are irrelevant to battle once this rule-breaking gives the advantage to the aggressor who flaunts the rules. History is not the only thing written by the victor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)