The reason that Romney will not win the battle for the leader of the free world is precisely because of who he is, has been, and always will be.  He bases his entire campaign on his experience as a CEO and his success making lots of money (though he admitted at the Trump endorsement silliness that he hasn’t been nearly as successful as the repugnant don). The two of them together on stage at a Vegas hotel, awkwardly embracing, not really knowing what to say or how to act, is just what will hurt Romney more than all of Gingrich’ attacks collectively.

It is a visual that tells us who Romney is as a person. As a wannabe CEO-in-chief of the country he will act as he has always acted.  He will run the country as a venture capitalist would. He knows no other way to do things.  We see this every time he opens his mouth.  We see it when his mouth is shut.

Recall Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.  He presents a pyramid with the largest and most fundamental levels of needs at the bottom (us); the need for self-actualization at the top (Romney).  Physiological needs are the requirements for human survival. If these requirements are not met, the human body, the family, the community, cannot continue to function.  I wonder if Romney’s power point board room presentations include Maslow’s hierarchy.

Maslow lists the needs of personal security, financial security, health and well-being, and a safety net against adversity as fundamental to humanity.   Did Romney have this in mind when he explained his real meaning of what he meant by, I’m not

concerned about the very poor.

I think not.  I know not.  That is not how CEOs of venture capital firms think.  Bet you ten thousand bucks.

Romney relies upon his business background to explain his preparedness for running a country. His focus at Bain is to make money.  He focuses on the books.  How to cut expenses.  How to mask the actual status of a company’s spreadsheets. In short, how to plunder. If the company succeeds, that’s success.  If the company goes under, that’s business, not failure. Easy come, easy go.

What does a CEO envision? Romney’s CV does not include creating a new product or service.  He does not hire workers to build a product or perform a service.  He does not hire people to market stuff.  When a CEO of a venture capital company looks at a target, he sees columns of numbers. Which numbers get reduced or eliminated?  How does the process benefit the equity group in terms of fees and such? Where can the syndicate borrow money to keep the company afloat until we pawn it off or shut it down?

When a CEO of a venture capital company looks at a target, he does not see people with lives and families and hopes and dreams of their own.  That kind of thinking just gets in the way of the profit motive.  How many jobs will we cut? How many workers must we keep? Of those we might decide to keep, how much can we save by cutting their hours, salary, benefits, and pensions?

Private equity CEOs fire people to cut payroll. Romney tells us that he licks his chops at these opportunities. Sometimes he may generously offer workers opportunity to return to the same job at lower salaries/wages.  If they opt to return to their jobs they do so out of desperate need for income. You’ve got to feed the kids. Benefits are reduced substantially or, better yet, eliminated. Pensions become history.  And when the company folds under the weight of its bloated indebtedness, while Romney and his liquidators make enormous profits in fees and such, the workers find themselves, once again, looking for work.

It is only large corporations that attract corporate vultures, so often the company is the major employer for a town.  As the company goes kaput, so may the town.

When Romney told the auto industry to take a hike, he turned his back on its employees, their families, their salaries, their benefits, their pensions, their communities, the nation’s economy.  This will not be forgotten.  Once past the Republican debacle of the moment, the stressed out faces of these people and their families will be in our faces constantly, unforgettably, rightfully.

When Romney offered his solution to the foreclosure crisis by permitting the free enterprise system to function as intended, he was saying let the market do its thing by allowing millions of homeowners to lose their houses, their kids’ schooling, their stake in America.  Let them relocate, find jobs elsewhere, leave their houses behind.  Allow the homes of the community to lose their value because of a growing abundance of occupant-free properties. Not Romney’s problem. It isn’t his concern as CEO.  Why might anyone think it would be his concern as president?

It’s not Romney’s increasingly frequent and repugnant verbal flubs that will hurt him nearly as much as people coming to recognize him for whom he is and what he would bring to the table as president.  Romney’s choices of words are not flubs.  They are habit.  They are ingrained.  They reveal his inner self, his core beliefs.  They inform us as to how he envisions the presidency.

‘We don’t have to worry about the very poor’ tells a story. Non-fiction.  The man’s autobiography.  It would be our mistake to fail to recognize that these are not misstatements; they are rare moments of complete honesty. No flip-flopping here. He really means this stuff.  He just didn’t mean to let us in on the secret.  Romney’s statements that tell us who the man who wants to be president really is.

Pundits too readily blow off his flip-flopping, ‘Romney doesn’t have a core’.  How wrong they are. He certainly does have a core and it is rotten.

Once past the primary people will come to see CEO Romney as precisely what this country does not need. As CEO you can fire workers and send them home. As president, can you fire the people? Not really, where could you send them?

There are tea-party people who don’t want to lose their social security benefits.  There are workers in seemingly safe industries who don’t want to see their earned benefits cut and pensions restructured. There are people struggling to keep their families in houses and schools and villages central to their being.  There are unions that have been traditionally Republican that will see the error of their ways and not vote for Romney (they might just stay home on Election Day). There are people who rely on society’s safety net, frayed as it may be. Where would they go?

Romney supports Rand Paul’s solution for America–legislation that puts just about all other spending cut plans proposed by Republicans this Congress to shame.  This will come back to haunt him in the general election. He will continue his attempt at playing the chameleon. What does this remind me of? Aha! I remember.

It’s Hans Christian Anderson’s tale re-visited. The CEO is wearing a new suit of clothes. For a while his supplicants see the fine cut of the material.  Courtiers and hangers-on laud him for his new attire seeking benefits and patronage in return for deep bows of deference.  Romney presents himself as a man of the far right, a man with little to no faith in government, a man doing handstands to gain tea-party favor (witness the Trump fraud), a man who has disdain for European countries, a man playing to the anger of the establishment (what have they got to be angry about?).

Anderson would eat this stuff up. As would Grimm.  As would Swift.

Eventually the suit, which fits Romney so well, becomes invisible to those who had been unable to see the CEO for what he is. We hear the cry, ‘The emperor has no clothes.  He isn’t wearing anything at all!’

Come November there will be an election in which a CEO and a president are judged side by side. Compare and contrast: the former will appear naked, flaws fully exposed;  the latter will stand proud and presidential.

Let the best (dressed) man win. ]]> http://www.yeswecanli.org/2012/02/04/hans-christian-anderson-meets-abraham-maslow-why-romney-will-never-be-president/feed/ 0 http://www.yeswecanli.org/2012/02/03/como-se-dice-flip-flop-en-espanol/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=como-se-dice-flip-flop-en-espanol http://www.yeswecanli.org/2012/02/03/como-se-dice-flip-flop-en-espanol/#comments Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:17:57 +0000 Marvin http://www.yeswecanli.org/?p=2266 No matter the language, Romney can’t tell the same story twice. It is no longer surprising that this man will say just about anything. The ‘love the one you’re with’ candidate reinforced his inability to remain consistent again last week.

Recall Iowa (veto the Dream Act), New Hampshire and South Carolina. Romney attacked Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich for their immigration proposals.  He called them “amnesty” for illegal immigrants.

In Florida, where Hispanics make up almost one fourth of the population, Romney changed his tune to make nicey-nicey.  He told the center-right group Hispanic Leadership Network that he would create a “temporary worker permit” for eleven million illegal immigrants in the United States.

He further qualified his remarks emphasizing that when permits expire, workers would not have to leave the United States. Rather, they would decide what would come next depending on their job prospects. Romney contends that many would ‘self-deport’.

In a nutshell, here’s the problem. There are lots of illegal workers in our country.  They did not get here by mistake–theirs or ours. They are in this country because they were encouraged to come here to work–to enable free enterprise.  The hypocrisy of any position that does not honestly deal with the status of our invited worker guests is that there is no good answer.  What happened to the talk of a comprehensive immigration policy?

Sen. Al Simpson citing often repeated, “There is nothing more permanent than a temporary worker.”  He reasoned that stuff happens to people. They take jobs others may not be willing to perform, fall in love, get married, have children, pay taxes, send their kids to school, become part of their communities. This makes the notion of self-deportation ludicrous on the surface and far worse when examined beneath the surface.

How will Romney square the positions he took in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina with the one he professed in Florida?  He can’t.  You can’t square circular reasoning.  Romney comes off as anti-immigrant no matter how he may choose to spin things.

It’s going to be real interesting when he gets to Nevada.  He’ll win big there–lots of Mormons next door to Utah.  But the real show will be how he gets the more than one-fourth Nevadans who are Latino to somehow forget what he had said just days before.

To make sure they won’t forget, The Service Employees International Union and PrioritiesUSA (the super-PAC helping Obama’s re-election campaign), produced a television ad just for Nevadans highlighting, once again, that Romney wears one face for Latinos and another for everyone else.  He even wears different faces for different Latino groups.  He knew that Cubans and Puerto Ricans in Florida don’t have a big investment in immigration policy.

It’s one thing for a labor union and a pro-Obama SuperPAC to tell Romney Latino voters don’t trust him.  It’s quite another when his own party’s Latino delegation in Congress writes an open letter to Romney advising him that:

Those of us who have stood by you are now withdrawing our backing in favor of Newt Gingrich.  We’ve come to our decision based on our belief that your support of the Hispanic community is not a clear representation of what we need. . . For example, in Iowa you stated that you would immediately veto the Dream Act. Mr. Gingrich proposes to push an essential part of the Dream Act which offers citizenship to those young men and women who serve in military. Last Tuesday in Florida, you openly agreed with Newt on a partial acceptance of the Dream Act, reversing your original stance on the matter. . . It is clear to us that you have not provided a real solution on behalf of the 12+ million immigrants who live in the shadows of the American communities. You fail to dignify the economic refugees who reside, work, pay taxes, and are otherwise productive citizens in this country. . .  You are unable to understand issues important to the Latino community. Due to this absence, we are unable to support you. 

 Como se dice en espanol, ‘oy vey’?

Not my problem, Mitt.

Let’s begin with a review of President Obama’s initiative providing support for a mortgage refinancing program for all responsible homeowners.  The proposed program would be funded by a small fee on large financial institutions.

Noto bene: I am neither an accountant nor a financial advisor.  I am simply sharing what I understand a t this time with the intention of bringing clarity to the president’s proposals.

In the president’s words: While government can’t fix the problem on its own, responsible homeowners shouldn’t have to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom to get some relief. That’s why I’m sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low interest rates. No more red tape. No more runaround from the banks. A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won’t add to the deficit, and will give banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust. . .We’ve all paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them, and buyers who knew they couldn’t afford them,” Obama said. “It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.

First, lowering interest rates on existing mortgage balances is not nearly as attractive to homeowners as the idea of having banks commit to writing down mortgage principal. Keep in mind that it is my understanding that the new plan would be an update of the largely unsuccessful HARP 1 (Home Affordable Refinance Program). There were, for many, insurmountable exclusions to the original plan.  Homeowners who had not fallen behind in payments but holding mortgages underwater by 125% or more were not eligible.  If this rule is relaxed in HARP 2, more existing  homeowners will qualify.  Homeowners’ eligibility won’t be affected by how far their home’s value has fallen–this is key. Some fees for closing, title insurance and lien processing will be eliminated making refinancing less expensive. And for those refinancing into shorter terms, fees will be waived entirely. However, as before, banks will be under no obligation to refinance a mortgage they hold. As they say the devil is in the details.

Second, there’s writing down mortgage principal.  I’ll keep it brief.  This won’t happen. Banks have shown they’d rather sit on enormous paper losses and wait for the housing market to correct (thank you, Gov. Romney) to a reasonable level.  Since the current response of the big banks does not appear to be negatively impacting executive bonuses, why expect such a change to occur?

     Third, there’s a very reasonable alternative–the security-of-housing proposal–presented by Dean Baker, Center for Economics and Planning, which makes the greatest sense:

Congress can pass legislation granting current homeowners the right to stay in their homes as long as they like, simply by paying the fair-market rent– no one gets tossed out on the street, as long as they can pay the rental value of their house. The fair rent would be determined by an independent appraiser – exactly the same way that a lender is supposed to determine the size of a mortgage that can be issued on a home.

      Homeowners would turn over their property to the mortgage holder. This would generally not be a loss since borrowers currently face crises precisely because they owe more than the value of their house. If the value of the home exceeded their debt, then they wouldn’t have to sign up for the program.

     As a renter with secure tenure, the former homeowner would have incentive to do necessary maintenance and keep the home from falling into disrepair. This would prevent the blight that is already hitting neighborhoods where foreclosures have become commonplace.

     The mortgage holder would get possession of the house, but they would continue to have the former homeowner as a tenant. Otherwise the mortgage holder is free to hold or sell the property as they choose. Being stuck with a renter may reduce the resale value of the house, but intelligent investors knew there was risk when they got into the business.

     To limit the size of the program and to ensure that it only benefits those who are really in need, there can be a cap placed on the value of homes that qualify. For example, Congress could stipulate that only homes with a market value below the median price for an area are eligible for this plan.

     This security-of-housing proposal meets the needs of the homeowners who were victimized by deceptive lending practices and pro-home ownership ideologues. It gives them the right to stay in their home as long as they want. It accomplishes this task in a way that provides minimal opportunities for fraud and should require very little by way of new government bureaucracy.

      It also manages to benefit homeowners in crisis without also rescuing the financial institutions that were speculating in mortgages gone bad. This will give the presidential candidates, and other members of Congress, a clear choice between helping distressed homeowners or bailing out financial institutions that should have known better.

This plan makes far, far, far, far, far greater sense–for all parties.  The homeowners, the banks, the neighborhoods, the local economy, the national economy.  It would be supported by Democrats, though far less likely to receive the support of Republicans if for no other reason than that it might improve the economy and increase the likelihood of Obama’s re-election.

 **********

     Fourth, thanks to President Obama’s proposal there may be an even better way to fairly resolve the housing market crisis. This takes a very different approach that places fault where it belongs–with the big banks including Country Wide, Wells Fargo, CitiBank, and Chase, as well as Fannie/Freddie.

       President Obama’s announcement of a new Special Unit to Prosecute Wall Street, headed by NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, might turn out to be just the right medicine.  This unit will bring together the law, the resources, and the will to hold accountable those most directly responsible for the economic crisis . This could very well provide homeowners with the ammo they need to fight back.

In Schneiderman’s words, The people deserve a robust and comprehensive investigation into the global financial meltdown to ensure nothing like it ever happens again, and today’s announcement by President Obama is a major step in the right direction.

***********

The word  has got to get around. A recent strategy that is working on behalf of

homeowners being foreclosed by the banks has been to demand seeing the mortgage document.  In the growing number of cases in which banks have been unable to produce a mortgage in court, the case has been dismissed and the homeowners remain in their property.

It appears that in their haste to slice and dice the mortgages into big profitable bundles, some banks neglected to do things legally.  Oh, my!

Our greatest hope is that, given the array of models available to resist foreclosure, millions of Americans will be able to remain in their homes, with their children, in their classrooms, nearby their friends and neighbors, avoiding the most difficult situation that any family will confront due to deceptive lending practices.

Launching the Wall Street Investigation

So President Obama has announced an investigation of Wall Street (see above).  You may know that the big banks were trying their darnedest to avoid this situation and had offered c$25 billion to make amends for their wrong deeds.   This unit will focus on Wall Street firms, big banks, and other entities that have escaped scrutiny for their role in the housing crisis. President Obama has shifted the focus away from reaching a settlement between state attorneys general and the large banks based upon foreclosure abuses.   First of all, $25 billion is a ridiculously small number given their sins leading to the fall of our economy.   Second, some things can’t be fixed with pay-offs.   Attorney General Schneiderman has been among the most vocal critics of a proposed settlement. He recognized that an agreement would yield the big banks with immunity, thereby preventing the attorneys general throughout the country from engaging in a larger investigation into the causes of the crisis. The NY Times reports, Mr. Schneiderman intervened to block a proposed settlement between Bank of America and investors in mortgage-backed securities. He argued that the Bank of New York Mellon, which had negotiated the deal as the trustee for the investors, failed to act in their best interest and that the payment represented “a fraction of the losses” involved.    There have been settlements reached with several banks including Countrywide, Goldman Sachs, and Washington Mutual.  Dollars should not get these people off the hook for tax fraud and insurance fraud.   This is the kind of talk we have been waiting to hear. If the president has done the right thing by appointing Eric Schneiderman to head up the investigation, you and I need to do our part.   Click below to go to the White House’ Facebook page and express your demand for a thorough investigation of the big banks that created the foreclosure mess and brought our country near a depression.   As President Obama asks, Tell your member of Congress that it’s time to end the gridlock and start tackling the issues that really matter – an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, American skills and education, and a return to American values. An economy built to last.   Drop a note to the White House

Romney may, given a new aggressive style, have countered Gingrich’own distortions that, until last night, had been working to the latter’s advantage. But Romney ought not savor his victory. It was not earned honestly. His habitual lying is, at least, as aggregious as tall tales conjured by Gingrich. The previous debate captured Romney lying about Romneycare’s coverage of abortion ($50 deductible) and Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law.

By now, his opponents having consistently missed opportunities to set the record straight; making those prefabrications old news. Relatively small potatoes. Last night’s (actually ongoing) lie about U.S.-Israel relations was the total whopper. The reason that each of the opponents does not respond to one another’s untruths is that there are just too many. It’s akin to getting out of the way during a rock slide. Now to the Jacksonville debate. There were several whoppers.

Set aside that Romney contended his tax rate is close to forty percent due to his charitable contributions. These are not only taxes, they are deductible expenses. His very words, I’m proud of being successful. I’m proud of being in the free enterprise system that creates jobs for other people. I’m not going to run from that . . . I’m proud of the taxes I pay. My taxes, plus my charitable contributions, this year, 2011, will be about 40 percent. That’s a direct quote from the same guy who picks up pocket change (almost $400,000 a year) making speeches.

He constantly reinvents his own world. Whatever may be convenient at the moment. Should you have the stomach to read more about his total lack of integrity take a look at FactCheck.org. Romney actually sheds a bad light on businessman–his CEO role-models for running a country. Of all the fabrications that Romney continues to spew, it is his continuing deliberate misrepresentation of President Obama’s mid-East policy that may be his most reprehensible.

Romney’s shameful and all too obvious mischaracterization of the United State’s relationship to Israel is destructive to the peace process, self-serving, totally irresponsible, and unpatriotic. Romney consistently states that the President castigated Israel at the U. N. earlier in the fall. That’s patently untrue. And worse, Romney knows this but uses it to his political advantage at every opportunity.

What better place than Florida? Last night he ‘informed’ a national (and unfortunately CNN international) audience that the president made no reference to “thousands of rockets being rained in on Israel from the Gaza Strip”. The fact is that President Obama specifically cited that ‘Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses’. Our president’s commitment to Israel’s security is, undeniably, the strongest that America has ever had. This video attests to that. Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Benjamin Netanayahu, and other leaders describe how President Obama has strengthened the relationship between the United States and Israel.  This past December, President Obama spoke at the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism. Here’s his speech in its entirety. Thirty minutes– important to watch. His humor is engaging. His ease with the topic is apparent. He is trusted, respected, admired.

The National Jewish Democratic Council offers this statement on its website: President Obama: Standing for Shared Jewish and Democratic Values President Barack Obama addressed the Union for Reform Judaism’s Biennial conference and emphasized to the thousands of attendees that the American Jewish community has an ally in the White House. Obama spoke about the values shared between most American Jews and the Democratic Party, including social justice issues, progressive policy reforms, and support for a secure Jewish state of Israel. Excerpts: Obama remarked on the values and partnership shared between the American Jewish community and the Democratic Party: The Jewish community has always understood that the dream we share is about more than just doing well for yourself. From the moment our country was founded, American Jews have helped make our union more perfect. Your parents, your grandparents, your great-grandparents, they remembered what it was like to be a stranger, and as a result treated strangers with compassion. They pursued tikkun olam, the hard work of repairing the world. They fought bigotry because they had experienced bigotry. They fought for freedom of religion because they understood what it meant to be persecuted for your religious beliefs. Our country is a better place because they did. The same values that bring you here today led Justice Brandeis to fight for an America that protects the least of these. … They led Abraham Joshua Heschel to pray with his feet and march with Dr. King. And over the last three years, they have brought us together on the most important issues of our time…. I promise you that as you pray with your feet, I will be right there with you every step of the way. I’ll be fighting to create jobs, and give small businesses a chance to succeed. I’ll be fighting to invest in education and technology. I will fight to strengthen programs like Medicare and Social Security. I will fight to put more money in the pockets of working families. I won’t be afraid to ask the most well-off among us — Americans like me — to pay our fair share, to make sure that everybody has got a shot. I will fight alongside you every inch of the way…. In this moment, every American, of every faith, every background has the opportunity to stand up and say: Here I am. Hineni. Here I am. I am ready to keep alive our country’s promise. I am ready to speak up for our values at home and abroad. I am ready to do what needs to be done. The work may not be finished in a day, in a year, in a term, in a lifetime, but I’m ready to do my part. And I believe that with tradition as our guide, we will seize that opportunity. And in the face of daunting odds, we will make the choices that are hard but are right. That’s how we’ve overcome tougher times before. That’s how we will overcome the challenges that we face today. And together, we will rewrite the next chapter in America’s story and prove that our best days are still to come. He cited several domestic reforms that he partnered with the Jewish community to achieve, including: * Health Care Reform, which expanded health insurance access to millions of Americans; * The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which ensures women receive equal pay for equal work; * Raising fuel efficiency standard as a start to achieving energy reform; * Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” so all Americans can serve their country; * Initiating education reforms to improve America’s schools; and * Appointing two female Supreme Court Justices who are committed to protecting First Amendment rights for all. Obama emphasized his commitment to strengthening the U.S.-Israel relationship: Peace begins with a strong and secure State of Israel. And the special bonds between our nations are ones that all Americans hold dear because they’re bonds forged by common interests and shared values. They’re bonds that transcend partisan politics — or at least they should. We stand with Israel as a Jewish democratic state because we know that Israel is born of firmly held values that we, as Americans, share: a culture committed to justice, a land that welcomes the weary, a people devoted to tikkun olam. So America’s commitment — America’s commitment and my commitment to Israel and Israel’s security is unshakeable. It is unshakeable. I said it in September at the United Nations. I said it when I stood amid the homes in Sderot that had been struck by missiles: No nation can tolerate terror. And no nation can accept rockets targeting innocent men, women and children. No nation can yield to suicide bombers. And as [Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barack] has said, it is hard to remember a time when the United States has given stronger support to Israel on its security. In fact, I am proud to say that no U.S. administration has done more in support of Israel’s security than ours. None. Don’t let anybody else tell you otherwise. It is a fact…. On my watch, the United States of America has led the way, from Durban to the United Nations, against attempts to use international forums to delegitimize Israel. And we will continue to do so. That’s what friends and allies do for each other. So don’t let anybody else tell a different story. We have been there, and we will continue to be there. Those are the facts. He listed just some of the many steps he has taken to support Israel, including:

* Providing “the most funding for Israel in history” in spite of domestic budgetary constraints; * Developing and funding the Iron Dome missile system that continues to save Israeli lives;

* Standing up for Israel at the United Nations, including working forcefully against the Palestinians’ unilateral statehood drive;

* Personally intervening to rescue Israel’s diplomats when its embassy in Cairo was attacked; and

* Promptly giving Israel whatever it needed to fight the 2010 Carmel fire. He also spoke about his efforts to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and stated clearly that all options are on the table: Another grave concern — and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world — is Iran’s nuclear program. And that’s why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And that’s why we’ve worked painstakingly from the moment I took office with allies and partners, and we have imposed the most comprehensive, the hardest-hitting sanctions that the Iranian regime has ever faced. We haven’t just talked about it, we have done it. And we’re going to keep up the pressure. And that’s why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear. Get that, Mr. Romney? Be presidential. Be honest with the people. Be a mensch. IT’S TIME FOR WALL STREET BANKERS WHO BROKE THE LAW TO OCCUPY JAIL. President Obama announced Monday that Eric Schneiderman, New York’s progressive Attorney General, will lead a new Special Unit to prosecute Wall Street illegality. “I would like to thank President Obama for his leadership in the creation of a coordinated investigation that marshals state and federal resources to bring justice for the victims of the misconduct that caused the mortgage crisis. “In coordination with our federal partners, our office will continue its steadfast commitment to holding those responsible for the economic crisis accountable, providing meaningful relief for homeowners commensurate with the scale of the misconduct, and getting our economy moving again. “The American people deserve a robust and comprehensive investigation into the global financial meltdown to ensure nothing like it ever happens again, and today’s announcement is a major step in the right direction.” Get aboard here:

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?

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. 

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.