Part One:

We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. . . What’s at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them.

The State of the Union address covered a lot of ground. There is a lot to be gained if the framework he presented is taken seriously by our legislators. Presidents Obama’s overarching message was about fairness. It is my sense that fairness this will remain the centerpiece of his campaign right up to and beyond his re-election.

Witnessing the heated atmosphere pervasive every level of government and the unbroken chain of negativity among Republican presidential candidates is there reason to believe that Gabby Giffords’ commendable service to her constituents and indomitably positive personal spirit will serve as a light to guide elected officials throughout the coming months?

Given the time in which we find ourselves, there may be no more important focus than the recognition that the role of lawmakers is to legislate and to do so wisely and fairly.

Please contribute your thoughts on the State of the Union or the state of the union, in general, for inclusion in a newsletter later this week.  Share your point of view.  Write to mkyankee@gmail.com.

Part Two: The Beat Goes On–Reaganomics

President Obama’s SOTU speech was terrifically responsive to the range of critical economic issues confronting us and the lives of millions upon millions of Americans who continue to suffer financially. Each point the president made deserves careful consideration (those of you who listen to Thom Hartmann’s broadcasts, are hearing a very thoughtful and supportive analysis). I’ll be digesting the speech for a few days and trying to address much of it. Those of us gathering at the Main Event Tuesday evening were very much impressed with the speech. The only major issue I had was that the president did not demand that the banks write down mortgage principal (or did I miss it?) to relieve what is the largest impediment to an improved economy.

In the meantime, share your thoughts Don’t put it all on me.

Unfortunately, Gingrich and Romney and their ilk will just stick to their talking points. Now we know that we can add Mitch Daniels to the list of do-nothings whose sole mission in life is to prevent the president’s re-election. The governor’s response to the address made that so transparent. He is further to the right than any of the current candidates. I am glad his wife did not let Little Mitchie go out to play at the time Republicans were considering a run for the presidency. This guy’s a horror show without even getting into the right-to-work stuff that is so badly damaging his state.

In order to fully appreciate the key points, revisiting the roots of the problem seems worthwhile. Anything I do will necessarily result in a very superficial analysis. Here’s an cursory attempt to identify the critical problems that have led to the disaster suffered in 2008. It is necessary to understand the SOTU address.

Recall that David Stockman was Reagan’s budget director. Stockman now (now? now!) contends that the cornerstone of Reaganomics has failed egregiously. What conservatives call supply-side economics, what Bush I labelled voodoo economics, and what reasonable people know to be trickle-down economics all work against the economic interests of all but the very wealthiest of Americans regardless of what you call it. Hence, Romney clings to these tenets to protect his assets and amass even greater fortune.

Reaganomics: The Beginning

We find ourselves caught up in a perfect storm of economic issues that we would likely have avoided had Reagan not enacted his tax cuts and Bush had not pushed through tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Despite the words of wisdom of Gingrich (who manages to take credit everything–including the delicious egg cream I enjoyed at lunch), President Clinton lowered the debt and balanced the budget with no Republican votes in either the Congress or Senate.

So, as the GOP candidates continue to extol the virtues of Reagan’s economics, let’s see him for what he was:

Here’s Stockman on the Reaganomics Disaster   (stay with this a minute or two)

Consider: the national debt went up under Carter 41%, Reagan 186%, Bush Sr. 53%, Clinton 40%, Bush W. 77%. I guess such a large number is difficult for some people to remember. But, if you’re a person running for president perhaps you might want to keep a cheat-sheet handy.

On the other hand, take our current president’s economics: Barack Obama declared in a 2008 presidential campaign ad, “The old trickle-down theory has failed us”–that which Stockman now argues serves to line the pockets of the rich. Despite this conclusion, the trickle-down theory remains the way to a return to prosperity per Gingrich, Romney and company.

That Obama seeks to end trickle-down policy is certain. Let’s see how big a role this debate plays leading up to the presidential election.

The bottom line is Stockman’s unabashed admission that None of us really understood what was going on with all these numbers and that supply-side economics -’was always a Trojan Horse to bring down the top rate.

Add this to Alan Greenspan’s testimony to Congress that he was very wrong about the need for regulation and you get a pretty good idea of why we are where we are at today.

In essence ex-Fed chairman Greenspan is saying: I made a mistake thinking that the banks would self-regulate to protect people and not act consistently in a self-serving way.

   Just listen! Greenspan: Mea Culpa Kinda

So, just maybe the economic situation President Obama inherited in 2008 deserves a little more time to be fixed.

Ya think?

Let’s say–for just the the briefest of moments–that I am a Republican. Let’s say I was watching last night’s debate for the purpose of seeing and hearing a future president who showed presidentiality. Let’s say I had to swear on a stack of bibles that I liked either (any) of the candidates. Let’s say I preferred one of them over their rivals. Let’s say I’d be lying.

Because I can’t make myself believe that, in their heart of hearts, Republicans look favorably on either candidate at his point. I get the “electability” notion when the crowds cheer as either attacks President Obama in this sense: That rousing cheer is not based so much on the outcome of the election; rather, the raucous response to derision is their look ahead to the newt debating the President in anticipation of a WWE wrestling grudge match. The outcome matters less than seeing blood and gore and going home feeling they’d gotten their money’s worth.

(Full disclosure: I have on one occasion been at an MSG wrestling match, 45 or so years ago. The devil made me do it. It’s not a pretty crowd–hopefully nobody is offended. A lady with a cowbell behind me; a tattooed guy who I refuse to describe further to my left; a leather-lunged chap who spoke some English dialect just ahead, were all jumping out of their seats at obviously compelling moments).

The difference between the last two debates was primarily the crowd noise cheering and booing (with some provocation) of night #1 and the silence of night #2. The newt smells blood and throws his opponent to the mat with a right-cross. The crowd erupts. Romney responds with a further-right jab which the newt steps back from suggesting his opponent is just an angry guy who lies with conviction. 

All this leads me to share my tv experience Thursday night. Was I re-watching the Woody Allen movie, Zelig. Zelig has the ability to make himself omnipresent. Very much like like the newt reciting his participation in every event since Carthage. I imagine that, as with Zelig, some of this may not be entirely factual. How can he–smart as he may be–recall instantaneously where he was at 10:20, Monday, February 11, 1984? Apparently he has been involved in everything that has happened in DC since his bar-mitzvah (you didn’t know?)

Not one but two Zeligs performed last night. Listening to Romney, I hear Zelig. He is a social chameleon with an uncanny ability to transform himself to resemble anyone who comes near him.

I kept hearing Steven Stills’ rendition of Love the One You’re With. (Do not take this as a plug to thank Crosby & Nash for their free performance at YWC!LI’s Obama Concert in the Park in ’08).

 
My biggest peeve with last night’s debate–those two guys were actually there on stage before a live audience. Thereby making Zelig the least unfavorable of the threesome.This has been, from day one, Romney’s style. That makes rendition the operative term here. Lyrics an

d tunes evolve every time the man opens his mouth to speak. How might he keep all those balls in the air if and when he has to engage in national debates? Not our problem.

The greatest difference between the debates and the movie? The latter was written by Woody Allen to to be a mockumentary.

That is, until I was standing in line for the teller. It came to mind, What was that guy doing in a suit and tie?  Shouldn’t he be basking in the sun watching the waves roll in with a beer in hand?  The two major industries in the Caymans, after all, are tourism and financial services.

Perhaps I could be hand-delivering my deposits to a bank teller on Grand Cayman Island. How might I justify the trip? I’d never get away with it (you’ve not been quite that generous)–they likely don’t accept deposits of fewer than seven digits at a time). Conditions there are quite favorable to those with a bigger chunk of change:

So why might a person running for president of the United States deposit his family’s/firm’s money outside the country?  They give dishes maybe?  Green stamps (dating myself)?  I know, an IPad. That’s gotta be it.

Hmmmmmmm.

I’d go for the IPad.  But why might a person looking to get elected to the most powerful position on earth need a token gift? The offer must be something more attractive. An image crossed my mind as I moved up in the line, Does Romney fly in a private jet and walk into the bank with an attache case shackled to his wrist?  Nah, he likely uses a secure electronic funds transfer.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Now, I’m into it.  After getting my deposit slip stamped, I approach the bank manager who I’ve known ever since I moved my money to a small, local bank.  She, by her unsolicited admission, is no expert on Caymanian banking.  But she did know there would be advantages that a local bank does not offer.  For example, she had read recently that if there were to be news of an impending national threat, the Caymanian banks will immediately transfer your assets to a safer place outside the island. You mean al Qaeda is thinking about attacking Grand Cayman?  She went on, There are all sorts of ways to transfer money and most get really complicated. She mentioned two common practices: structured transactions and transfer pricing. When she went on about blockers and I realized I was in way over my head now.

Recall that the Cayman Islands have no viable export industry. Earnings come almost exclusively from tourism and financial services. Regarding the former, it beats the snow. Regarding the latter, their banks provide a far better investment environment than, let’s say, Switzerland. The majority of the licensed banks are engaged in offshore business.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Admittedly, I have no answers. Just starting to formulate some questions. I know math but little accounting and less economics (though probably more than John McCain who admitted to having no real understanding of economics on national TV). Unable to avoid the metaphor, I can’t even stick my toe in those waters. But that Romney moment at the most recent debate–when his eyes twinkled and he uttered ’maybe’–riveted Americans’ attention.  There’s that unfairness issue again. It will not go away.  Newt could be seen smacking his lips (do newts have lips?). In time I suspect we’ll find out a lot about Romney’s financials.  That’s not saying he’s done anything illegal. But our government sure could use the revenue.

And someone running for president of the United States might just want to keep that in mind. Is there no element of patriotism for the super-rich? Like they say, It’s not over ’til it’s over. 

This morning Mitt Romney remains at the head of the GOP pack through New Hampshire.  No big surprise here considering the alternatives.  South Carolina may be a pivot point with adversaries realizing this may be their last opportunity to displace him as front-runner.  

Each time we hear him tout his abilities as a CEO, Romney runs the risk of defining a presidency that will be ruthless in its assault on middle class Americans, unions, … When I hear private equity, I think corporate raider. One label has merely replaced the other of necessity given the imagery of greed captured on screen bin the form of Gordon Gekko.

The richest one percent of this country owns half our country’s wealth, five trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do, stock and real estate speculation. It’s bullshit. You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own. We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price per paper clip. We pick that rabbit out of the hat while everybody sits out there wondering how the hell we did it. Now you’re not naive enough to think we’re living in a democracy, are you buddy? It’s the free market. And you’re a part of it. You’ve got that killer instinct. Stick around pal, I’ve still got a lot to teach you.

Although the “corporate raider” label of the 1980s is not often applied to contemporary private equity investors, there is no real distinction between a “corporate raid” and other private equity acquisitions of  businesses.   

Oh, how we yearn for the eighties. Things were so much better for middle America. Yeah, right! Who realized then what was to come? The titans of leveraged buyouts were setting the stage for what we are experiencing today. The result of high leveraging on many of the transactions of the ’80s was frequent failed deals. However, the promise of super-attractive returns on investments attracted greater and greater capital. Private equity firms proliferated:  Blackstone Group, Carlyle Group, Chemical Venture Partners and Bain Capital to name just a few among the most prominent corporate raiders.

Brian Stelter wrote a  terrific piece on the Occupy movement in Thursday’s NY Times.

Most of the biggest Occupy Wall Street camps are gone. But their slogan still stands.

Whatever the long-term effects of the Occupy movement, protesters have succeeded in implanting “We are the 99 percent,” referring to the vast majority of Americans (and its implied opposite, “You are the one percent” referring to the tiny proportion of Americans with a vastly disproportionate share of wealth), into the cultural and political lexicon.

First chanted and blogged about in mid-September in New York, the slogan become a national shorthand for the income disparity. Easily grasped in its simplicity and Twitter-friendly in its brevity, the slogan has practically dared listeners to pick a side.

“We are getting nothing,” read the Tumblr blog “We Are the 99 Percent” that helped popularize the percentages, “while the other one percent is getting everything.”

Stelter’s article provides a perfect lead-in to Yes We Can! Long Island‘s most recent position statement.

By this time you are likely aware that our organization’s membership has contributed money, cold weather gear, and tents to the group at Zuccotti Park.  We did this, despite having not taken an official position at the time, because we realized that the people putting their bodies on the line for the working middle class deserved our immediate attention. Unfortunately, many of the Occupy locations are being shut down.  However, it is our strong, strong sense that, come warmer weather, the legions will return in greater force, even greater spirit, and,  perhaps, a more focused statement of purpose.

In anticipation of a growing movement representative of, and standing up for, the 99 percent, YWC!LI offers its position on the movement:

The Occupy movement has shined a spotlight on some of the most critical issues confronting our country and threatening our democracy, including social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption and undue influence of corporations on government. Its peaceful, non-hierarchal, inclusive approach has lit a fire under many, including the apathetic, the sick and poor without voice and the young who once thought selfishly of themselves rather than of the whole community.  The issues OWS has raised cannot – and will not – be ignored; the disenfranchised must have their opportunity to be heard.

Yes We Can! Long Island, an organization formed to advocate and work for progressive change, stands in solidarity with the aims of the OWS movement and is committed to keeping these issues in the forefront of our national conversation and working to restore fairness to the lives of the American people.

On one hand, it is so awful that a presidential campaign in America has so much in common with a menagerie.  On the other hand, it is great theater (farce. by any standard).

Rather than a circus sideshow, substitute a baseball metaphor for the capably-challenged GOP team.  Baseball aficionados may debate my choices.  Applying my criteria (their collective failure was enduring and laughable) this team would never win a game.  Hence the metaphor: none of the GOP can win either.

Here’s the All-Time Worst Major League Baseball Lineup:

1B-Marv Throneberry

2B-Mario Mendoza

SS-Dal Maxvill

3B-Craig Paquette

LF-Pete Grey (okay, so he had one arm)

CF-Darren Lewis

RF-Brian Hunter

C-Bob Uecker

P-Bob Kammeyer and Tommy LaSorda

Umpire-Max Patkin (clown prince of baseball)
It’s actually a pleasure watching Mute and Newt go at it.  The people on the street neither like nor trust Mute.  The people in Congress are repulsed by Newt, starting with Boehner who was a force in the removal of Newt as Speaker and whose contempt for the man remains barely beneath the surface.  I had to guffaw when it was said by one analyst that people know Newt is mean and gruff; it will play out that Mute is meaner and less capable of sloughing off his negativity.

I kind of miss Cain already.  He brought a certain something (don’t know what) to the menagerie. Maybe he can get together with Sandusky and run as an independent.  Wondering how that would go over?

Fortunately, Trump has reemerged to add a distinct odor to the GOP campaign.  The buffoon-apprentice is shallow and few respect him unless they are sucking up to him for obviously political reasons.  My sense is that his ‘debate’ will not come off and he will have some explaining to do. His arrogance will then lead him to get back in the mix as an independent, going after both sides with a similar vengeance.

Mute has come out in support of extending payroll taxes and jobless benefits. Unfortunately Mute remains mute when asked how he proposes the pay-for. What a guy.  Terrific candidate.  I hear those visiting the Javits Center and Rockefeller Institute feel the ground beneath them rumbling Jake and Rocky turn over and over in their graves..

Here’s the Teapublican Lineup:

1B-Rick Perry (first class idiot)

2B-Mitt Romney (second is fitting)

SS-Michele Bachmann (shortest run of the group)

3B-Sarah Palin (the hot corner)

LF-Rick Santorum (left out of debates)

CF-Jon Huntsman (center of this group)

RF-Ron Paul (who’s more right?)

C-Herman Cain (likely caught something from a lady)

P-Newt Gingrich (screwball pitcher)

Umpire-Grover Norquist (clown prince of pledges)

To call the slew of ephemeral Teapublican candidates ‘clowns’ is unfair to clowns.  Clowns by design and by temperament are funny and entertaining.  That group should bring about a class action suit for defamation of character.

Gingrich is hardly a clown.  He is neither funny nor engaging.  He is, by design and by temperament, thoroughly unfunny.  His potential candidacy is sad.

So, while we watch a seemingly endless vignette of GOP candidates emerging from a Volkswagen (for those of you old enough to have seen this famous circus clown stunt), their routine is unamusing, melancholy, and tragic.

Gingrich, currently ascending, is no fool. That doesn’t mean he is not foolish.  In the past week alone he has managed to offend every sound-minded American who has been listening.  For those of you who may not have known Gingrich prior to his recent reincarnation, here’s a brief history of Newt based upon just a few of his more inane, bizarre, and offensive utterings.  I used to think Gingrich was a sinister character who patrolled the halls of Congress having been thrust out by his own party.  Now I view him as a sinister character who is lurking to control the White House.

Take him at his word and see why he remains the pioneer of incivility:

• I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time [my grandchildren are] my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American. [Address to Cornerstone Church in Texas, March 2011]
• The idea that a congressman would be tainted by accepting money from private industry or private sources is essentially a socialist argument. [To Mother Jones magazine,October 1989]
• It doesn’t matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live. – [Newt's explanation for why his multiple affairs won't damage his political fortunes, as told to his jilted wife).
• This is one of the great tragedies of the Bush administration. The more successful they've been at intercepting and stopping bad guys, the less proof there is that we're in danger.... It's almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us. [At a book talk in Huntington, NY, April 2008]
• How can you have the mess we have in New Orleans, and not have had deep investigations of the federal government, the state government, the city government, and the failure of citizenship in the Ninth Ward, where 22,000 people were so uneducated and so unprepared, they literally couldn’t get out of the way of a hurricane. [Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference, March 2007]

Now the reincarnate has jumped back into his bizarro world with new proclamations that reflect his continued melancholy belligerence.  Within just the past week or so, Gingrich has said any number for of vapid, offensive and cruel things.  Tell me this man is presidential in any manner, shape, or form.

He has painted a picture of a second class of Americans–red carded illegal immigrants who may remain in this country to work but never to be able to gain citizenship. All they need to have done to deserve this honor is live here for a couple decades, raise families, pay taxes, send kids to school, attend church, and (I extrapolate) continue to work for below the minimum wage.

Put the remainder of illegal immigrants on buses back ‘home’ (several million people by any count–that’s a lot of buses) ignoring that our government, our culture, has (wink-wink) welcomed them to perform work that others had not wanted to do.

Fire school janitors.  Replace them with children who can mop and sweep as well as any union worker.  Apparently, there are no child labor laws in Newt’s world.  He’s never seen a union worker he’d not like to fire on the spot and with no provocation.

The poor have no working habits. Hence, by Gingrich’s extrapolation, their offspring have no sense of how, when, or where to work to make money–unless it is cash for illegal activities.

Much of what is happening in Congress today, the polarizing of our two great political parties, is rooted in Gingrich’ earlier go-round.  Here we go again.

Staying with a theme, there are always a handful of people who are at the top of my list at any given time.  The five who top my list this week are: (Share your favorites and brief share your reason below.  I’ll keep this going as long as interest is shown).

Barack Obama continues his pitch for extending and expanding the temporary cut in the Social Security payroll tax that was the biggest item in his $447 billion jobs proposal which has been blocked by Republicans in Congress.

Elizabeth Warren is our best hope for fairness.  She’ll likely remain in my ‘top five’ for the duration. Watch this: Elizabeth Warren on Healthcare and Families

Jed Rakoff for putting CitiCorp on notice, aptly labeling them recidivists, and putting the financial corps on notice that there are rules that need to be followed. Pay up! If you haven’t Moved Your Money from Citibank, despite the inconvenience this entails, perhaps this will provide the necessary motivation.

General R F Amos, the highest ranking Marine, opposed the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell last year.  He now says of the change in policy: “I’m very pleased with how it has gone.”

Senator Dick Durbin excoriated Bank of America. His support of  Move Your Money has made this a very successful grass roots action. People fed up with the power and influence of the big banks continue to move their accounts to credit unions and local banks.  Tens of millions of dollars have been moved over the past months despite the major inconveniences to banking customers that changing banks presents.

Who makes your top five? My Top Five (December 1 2011)