tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-330762182012-01-17T13:46:19.715-05:00Political Commentary by Jack KrupanskyJack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.comBlogger5421100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-89486405010314253722012-01-17T13:46:00.001-05:002012-01-17T13:46:19.750-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>There has certainly been a lot of activist clamor about the latest National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), suggesting that it some kind of gross new infringement on the rights of American citizens, but much of the criticism of NDAA is simply factually wrong. The single criticism that is true is that the FBI is now required to turn over terrorist suspects associated with al Qaeda to the military for detention. That's it. That's the only criticism that is new and true. All of the other recent criticism is either old or factually false. In particular, the NDAA as signed by President Obama does not authorize the military to engage in "domestic policing" or to "pick up" or even to "detain" American citizens.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Part of the confusion stems from the fact that <A href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540eh/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540eh.pdf">the version of the bill passed by the House</A> was in fact a little more draconian, but <A href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540eas/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540eas.pdf">the bill differed in the Senate</A> and was further modified in the conference committee, so that criticism of the original House bill is not necessarily application to <A href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf">the NDAA as signed into law by President Obama</A>.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>An easily way to tell if a critic is referring to the original House bill is if they refer to "section 1031." In the final bill from the conference committee that provision was renumbered to "1021." Most of the criticisms I have heard or read referred to 1031. In fact, I haven't heard or read a single criticism that referred to 1021.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Section 1021 has some rewording to respond to a request from President Obama, specifically to assure that the measure would not affect American citizens. Most notably, he had paragraph "(e)" added: "<EM>(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,&nbsp; or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.</EM>" Section 1031 of the Senate version of NDAA included that same language.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Technically, it has always been true that the President has the right to detain anybody anytime in the interests of national security, provided that he issue a "presidential finding" justifying such action, but that is not a new "authority" granted by NDAA this year.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">So, paragraph (e) simply clarifies that no new authority is being granted for detention of terrorists. And the President clarified this as well in his signing statement.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Section 1021 is actually careful to limit itself to al Qaeda and the Taliban. It refers specifically only to "<EM>Covered Persons</EM>", including those involved with the 9/11 attacks, al Qaeda specifically, the Taliban specifically, and "associated forces" of those two specifically, but not to terrorist suspects overall. So, even if a person aided Hamas or Hezbollah or some other terrorist group or was a lone wolf terrorist or part of a home-grown domestic terrorist group, or a member of the Occupy movement or the Rotary Club, section 1021 does not apply to them.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Section 1022 of the final bill concerns the military custody issue. Nothing in the NDAA authorizes domestic policing by the military or authorizes the military to "pick up" American citizens. The whole "military detention" or "detain by the military" thing has been blown out of proportion. The relevant section is 1022 which is entitled "<EM>MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS</EM>" and the text makes clear that it only covers persons who are "<EM>a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda</EM>". Subparagraph (b)(1) specifically states that "<EM>The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section <STRONG>does not extend to citizens of the United States</STRONG>.</EM>" And, of course, the section title makes quite clear that the military custody applies only to "FOREIGN" terrorists, and only "AL-QAEDA" terrorists at that.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">How much more clear could the language be that the military is not being authorized to detain American citizens?</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Again, I suspect that part of the problem is that activists and critics read the original House bill and not the final signed bill.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><A href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1540:">All versions of the NDAA for 2012 are listed here</A>.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><A href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540eh/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540eh.pdf">The version of NDAA for 2012 passed by the House is listed here</A>.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><A href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540eas/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540eas.pdf">The version of NDAA for 2012 passed by the Senate is listed here</A>.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">And finally, <A href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf">the final conference committee version of the bill that President Obama signed is here</A>.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-8948640501031425372?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-52844396634108033572012-01-14T13:41:00.001-05:002012-01-14T13:41:38.907-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Although there are some semi-legitimate concerns about the <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act">Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)</A>, my personal feeling is that SOPA is a good step in the right direction for protecting intellectual property in this age of the Internet and World Wide Web. A fair amount of the more virulent opposition to SOPA comes from the anti-globalism, anti-capitalism crowd, as epitomized by the Occupy movement (notably its Occupy Wall Street (OWS) subsidiary), and is based primarily on opposition to the very concept of intellectual property (IP). I simply don't support their efforts, on the whole, even if on occasion they do make a few good points. If they want to reform and refine the system, great, fine, have at it, but they seem obsessed with demonizing the system and committed to either subvert it if not completely overturn it.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>The legitimate concern is that sometimes well-meaning people or businesses (or non-profits or even governmental institutions) will make mistakes and inadvertently infringe on somebody's alleged intellectual property rights and then have hell to pay for it. I'm sure that we will stumble onto occasional horror stories where best intentions go awry, but overall I really do think that most well-meaning people and firms will do the right things and things will work out. Just because the system may fail on occasion is not a reasonable argument against the system overall.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>It appears to me that most of the opposition to SOPA by Internet service vendors is simply that enforcement of SOPA will be an added cost and a pain for them. I accept that SOPA may in fact increase their expenses, but nobody has provided any evidence that such costs would likely be prohibitive or even anything other than merely incidental. Intellectual property is a fact of life and any Internet service vendor should by now have a budget for assuring that they and their users do not maliciously or inadvertently fail to respect intellectual property rights. It is not that they don't believe in IP, but that IP is an inconvenient distraction.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>As far as the argument that SOPA will result in censorship, I find that argument completely empty and without merit. The concept of censorship is based on the actual content of the message, not the form of the message. I think the issue here is that some people want to illegally re-use or re-purpose the content of others and consider efforts to thwart that desire as censorship, which is a completely nonsensical argument. Parody and fair use are still legal, so the censorship claim is empty. The censorship claim simply amounts to yet another smokescreen which is an appeal to emotion to cover up for the underlying disbelief in the very concept of intellectual property.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>And if there are bugs in the legislation, I'm sure we will quickly find out and they can be fixed. But I simply do not buy the argument that since the legislation might have speculative negative side effects that it should not be enacted at all.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>So, let people provide their input, Congress can then adjust the legislation as they, as representatives of the people, see fit, President Obama can sign it, and we can all move forward.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>But this idea of the critics that SOPA will kill or cripple the Internet is just complete nonsense that is simply a smokescreen to cover for their true, anti-intellectual capital, anti-business, anti-capitalism intentions.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-5284439663410803357?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-47238820515439184872012-01-02T11:00:00.001-05:002012-01-02T11:00:26.894-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>I can't speak to the prospects of the Occupy movement in other countries since the United States is such a completely different case, but as we start the new year I would like to summarize my perception of where the movement is (in the U.S. only) and what prospects the movement has for the rest of this new year. Basically, the movement started and persists as a "protest" movement. They seek "change" if not "revolution" (whatever that means), but to date they have only managed a number of half-hearted protests of limited size. Sometimes they manage to stage larger rallies with the cooperation of (some) labor unions and students, but other than relatively minor disruptions, they continue to come up empty on the "change" and "revolution" fronts."</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Although the movement grew dramatically in October, they seemed to taper off and stagnate in November and December. Who knows, maybe that was the weather, but if that is true then the movement is even less potent than they seem.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>The big, open, make-or-break question for the whole Occupy movement (in the U.S., at least), is the degree of support and actual participation that will come from average Americans, who although they appear to offer some sympathy for the demands of the movement, seem determined to remain on the sidelines.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>It appears to me that although the movement can easily attract the unemployed, the students without jobs and large student loans, and the otherwise disaffected of society, they stand little chance of actively engaging the vast majority of average Americans with jobs and families and otherwise busy with their daily jobs. Sure, plenty of those people will honk their horns in support or maybe even donate a few bucks or maybe one of their kids will join the movement, that's about as far as they themselves will go.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>One of the reasons that the Occupy movement will not make deeper inroads into the American psyche is that the unity of the movement is only at the level of vague aims, like fairness, political corruption, and social justice, but when you drill down and listen to what individuals in the movement are actually saying and promoting, things like commitment only to direct democracy and opposition to representative democracy and opposition to capitalism itself, it is difficult to imagine that such specific goals are going to be very appealing to many average Americans. In other words, as the movement starts to clarify and detail its goals, their level of support among the general public will wither rather quickly.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>I suggest that you evaluate the movement at three levels: 1) sympathy, 2) support, and 3) commitment. Yes, their has been and will continue to be a significant degree of sympathy for the movement in terms of the issues they raise. There will even be some degree of support, although financial donations have already dropped off dramatically. Commitment is the really tough nut to crack. Sure, the movement appears to have a diehard core that really is truly committed, but that base doesn't appear to be growing and shows little prospect for dramatic growth in the months ahead, and without such growth the movement has little prospect of achieving the degree of "change" and "revolution" they seek.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Another factor impacting the movement in the U.S. is that America is very diverse and geographically distributed. Egypt, Cairo, Tahrir Square, and the Egyptian people were all relatively synonymous. But in the U.S., New York and Wall Street are geographically separated from our political capital of Washington, D.C. And we have quite a number of major business centers all over the country. That means that Occupy has to try to be everywhere, which means that it has to divide itself, its people, its resources, and its attention, and not have the kind of central focus it had in any of the countries of the Middle East. Even with a more lax and permissive attitude, the D.C. occupation has been only very modest in size. Despite the difficulties caused by the financial crisis, recession, and weak recovery, Americans overall are still in much better shape and have a much brighter outlook on the future, and have a much more diverse range of life styles, aims, and interests than the average crowd outside the U.S. or in the Middle East specifically. Occupy Wall Street has been and remains the central focus of the movement in the U.S., but our social and political diversity and geographic distribution have been severe impediments to the movement.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>In summary, yes, the Occupy movement will remain with us for the coming year, but only as a shadow of their grand vision of last summer and fall. Yes, we will see a number of protests, rallies, and popup disruptions and flash mobs, but overall the level of disruption will be no worse than your garden variety of urban traffic jams and the like. Crowds will number in the dozens and hundreds and only occasionally in the thousands, but not consistently grow into the tens or hundreds of thousands that an effective movement would need on a sustained and regular basis to succeed as a force of change. Yes, the police will remain a constant, vigilant presence, but their response will become more measured as the protests fall into more predictable patterns. Yes, there will be a few protests that get out of hand and become near or actual riots, but overall the protests will be more at the level of minor annoyance and mere street theater spectacle than true "revolution" ala the protests in the Middle East. To put it simply, the United States, for all of its problems, is simply not the Middle East. Besides, the results from Tahrir Square are not looking so appealing of late.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-4723882051543918487?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-28157711935915068722011-12-28T09:16:00.001-05:002011-12-28T09:16:53.692-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>I certainly believe that there is a very bright future for solar power, but there is also no question that the sector was heavily over-hyped in the past decade. Now as a lot of the hype has gotten burned off over the past year, maybe we can get back to the real business of focusing on real demand and real economics. I enjoyed reading the summary of the plight of the solar power sector in <EM>The Wall Street Journal</EM> by Yuliya Chernova entitled "<A href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204552304577117140511996840.html">Dark Times Fall on Solar Sector</A>", but the article left the issue hanging.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>My personal view is that economics matter tremendously and we need to walk a fine line between government promotion via subsidy and simply standing back and letting markets work their magic. Maybe we are finally at the stage where government subsidies are hitting diminishing returns and we should focus more attention on focusing solar power on applications where raw cost is not the primary issue. For example, a lot of consumers really would prefer to pay a little more for "clean" energy that helps to fight Global Warming and Climate Change. There are also plenty of remote government facilities which would benefit from being less reliant on supplies of fossil fuels.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>A lot of the debt taken on by fledgling solar power companies was clearly misguided and we will certainly see a dramatic shakeout of the industry, but that is a very good thing and is quite typical of emergent industries.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>At some point the Chinese government subsidies for the solar power sector will peak and the sharp decline in component costs will become more moderate, at which point I am sure there will be plenty of U.S. private equity capital available to roll up the remaining viable domestic solar manufacturers at fire-sale prices into a more profitable structure and then move forward.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Exactly what the structure of the solar power sector will look like five or ten years from now is anybody's guess, but at least that longer-term future is very bright indeed, even if well beyond the limited and shortsighted vision of the WSJ.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>And meanwhile we should be profusely thanking the Chinese government for helping to push solar power to be a much more economic option for the production of electricity.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-2815771193591506872?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-63392777969277454982011-12-27T18:22:00.001-05:002011-12-27T18:22:56.478-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>The headlines suggest that the Democrats are worried about keeping "control" of the Senate in 2012 now that Ben Nelson has announced that he won't seek reelection in 2012, but I assert that the question is more relevant for 2013 and beyond since Nelson will be free to vote for the entire year of 2012, and further that he will now be able to "vote with his heart" since he doesn't have to vote in a manner to assure the reelection that he will not seek. The real, urgent question is how Nelson will vote in 2012. It is hard to say. Given that his current voting record has been masked by his desire to get reelected, we don't know how his "heart" would vote.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>In any case, the good news, for Democrats is that they at least have a chance that in 2012 they may have another liberal progressive vote rather than a right-moderate, quasi-Republican voter in their midst.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-6339277796927745498?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-64563691439097060152011-12-18T11:18:00.001-05:002011-12-18T11:18:21.303-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Embedded in the extension of the payroll tax holiday is the Keystone oil pipeline decision. President Obama could go either way on this one. It will be a tough decision, but he wins either way.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>If he turns down the pipeline, he scores major points with his environmental allies, albeit at the expense of his union allies and giving the Republicans an "anti-jobs" club to beat him with in the election.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>If he lets the pipeline go forward, he alienates his environmental allies, but wins on all other fronts.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>He has the luxury of deciding either way.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Ultimately it will hinge on where his political advisers think he sits in February relative to winning the election in November. If he is ahead by enough, he'll toss the bone to his environmental allies, but if the November outlook is dicey, he'll talk up the environmentally-friendly path right up to the last minute in February and then go the "pro-jobs" route at the last minute.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-6456369143909706015?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-19665084980642568932011-12-18T11:15:00.001-05:002011-12-18T11:15:44.460-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Although all manner of pundits, commentators, and politicians are lamenting that Congress was only able to extend the payroll tax holiday for two months, I actually think this is a good deal since there is a lot of uncertainty about the economic outlook for 2012. Q4 has been shaping up quite nicely, so it is actually unclear whether the U.S. economy will need the payroll tax cut in 2012 at all. On the flip side, Q4 may be a "last hurrah" before we slip into a recession, in which case the economy will need a lot more financial medicine than the limited palliatives that Congress was considering this past week.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>In the former scenario, the expiration of the payroll tax holiday will be just fine. And if the economy continues to improve, the fiscal health of the Social Security program will be enhanced by letting the holiday expire ASAP.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>In the latter scenario, extending the payroll tax holiday will become a no-brainer, if not as part of an expanded stimulus package.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>What's not to like with either outcome?</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Okay, sure, from a purely political perspective, somebody "wins" and nobody wants to be the "loser", but from an economic perspective, it will be a win-win.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">And even from a purely political perspective, it allows both sides to re-make their political points early in the election season. Another win-win for both sides, although each side will attempt to spin it as a loss for the other side.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-1966508498064256893?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-50883297166048341322011-12-17T13:36:00.001-05:002011-12-17T13:36:19.466-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Despite the push by certain parties to promote the theme of the 1% vs. the 99% based on income and wealth, <A href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/151556/Fewer-Americans-Divided-Haves-Nots.aspx">a recent Gallup poll</A> shows a decline in recent years of the number of Americans, 58%, who think of Americans as divided into haves and have-nots. 41% of Americans see the country as divided. And if forced to choose, a clear majority, 58%, see themselves as haves, even with incomes as low as $30,000. Only at incomes below $30,000 do a majority of Americans, 55%, consider themselves have-nots.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Gallup notes that "<EM>The current poll was also conducted as the Occupy Wall Street movement continues to focus on the disparities between the wealthiest 1% of Americans and everyone else.</EM>"</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Gallup concludes by telling us that:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <DIV><EM>Americans' views of their own position as "haves" or "have nots" have been remarkably stable, even as the nation's economic problems have intensified. Still, the finding that fewer Americans now than in 2008 consider U.S. society as divided into "haves" and "have nots" suggests a decreasing -- rather than increasing – level of worry about unfair income distribution in the U.S. at this time.</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><EM>As populists and politicians have made inequality more of a political issue, <STRONG>moderates and independents in particular are turning away from the idea of a society divided in two</STRONG>. Thus, Americans as a whole are no more likely to see the country as divided into haves and have nots than at any time in the past two decades.</EM></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>This is further evidence of what I assert is an attempt by various parties to instigate "class warfare" where it doesn't naturally exist.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-5088329716604834132?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-39499622187711476022011-12-15T10:47:00.001-05:002011-12-15T10:47:42.839-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>The <A href="http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/15/frustration-with-congress-could-hurt-republican-incumbents/">latest Pew survey</A> shows that Americans are still struggling with how to view the Occupy Wall Street movement. More Americans support the movement than oppose it, 44% to 35%, but that is not a majority of Americans. More Americans agree with the "concerns" of the protesters than disagree, 48% to 30%, but still not an overwhelming majority. Most notably, only a minority of Americans, 29%, approve of the way the protests are being conducted, although only slightly less than a majority disapprove, 49%. A lot of people are simply still unsure about the movement.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Sure, plenty of Americans, 51%, are concerned that Wall Street "<EM>hurts the American economy more than it helps it</EM>", and that plenty of Americans, 61%, believe that "<EM>the economic system in this country unfairly favors the wealthy</EM>", and plenty of Americans, 71%, believe that "<EM>a few rich people and corporations have too much power in this country</EM>", but somehow the protesters are getting the mistaken impression that they have more of a license for mayhem and throwing the baby out with the bathwater than the American people are actually willing to give them.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">In short, although there is plenty of sympathy for the movement, there is also a much larger disconnect between the movement and the American people. In other words, the "representation" of the 99% by the protesters is of only mediocre fidelity, a somewhat poor facsimile. Of course, one might say the same thing about Congress.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">One glaring problem with this or other surveys is that it doesn't ask the critical question of whether people agree or disagree with the aim of the protesters to completely discard our current system of representative democracy and replace it with "direct democracy."</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-3949962218771147602?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-75764546196143314782011-12-15T00:10:00.001-05:002011-12-15T00:10:18.178-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>I've certainly heard members of the Occupy movement claim that they "are not going away", but I was amused to read today when <A href="http://twitter.com/#!/mollyknefel">one of them (Molly Knefel) tweeted</A> that "<EM>This movement is not going anywhere</EM>", since that is ambiguous; she obviously meant the same as "not going away", but "not going anywhere" is also a possible Freudian slip suggesting the onset of frustration with the fact that the movement is not gaining traction, "not getting anywhere", and not achieving any significant results.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">AFAICT, to date, not a single change to any government or business structure or policy has occurred since the advent of the Occupy movement here in the United States (or maybe even anywhere else in the world.) In other words, no concrete results. This from <A href="http://occupywallst.org/">a movement that claims</A> that it "<EM>empowers real people to create real change from the bottom up</EM>." Sure, local cells of the "movement" have their smallish "general assemblies" and "working groups", but there is still not a single instance of any "<EM>real change</EM>" that positively affects anybody outside the inner circles of the activists themselves. Yes, they have garnered a lot of "sympathy", but they have given little of concrete value in return for that "support." Maybe more than a few of them have gained "hope", but hope is hardly "<EM>real change</EM>."</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">More than just to occupy this or that or to obstruct this or that or to interfere with this or that, the movement desperately needs to figure out how to do something that is a positive for society and that is appreciated by the vast majority of everyday Americans.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">And the movement is even doing a truly crappy job on the one front where it has some potential strictly at the mental level: education. Mindlessly chanting "We are the 99%!" or blaming "the 1%" for all manner of social ills, or oddly claiming "This is a peaceful protest!" (while engaging in very aggressive, angry, non-peaceful protesting), or equally-oddly claiming that one of their unruly, un-permitted protest marches "is what democracy looks like!", are all very poor uses of time that could be much more focused on practical education about whatever economic, social, and political issues they wish to address. Right now, they seem more focused on "protesting just for the thrill of protesting" rather than actually trying to reach out and connect with average real Americans, many of whom actually do have jobs and families and communities and even governments that they wish to keep (albeit with incremental improvements over time) rather than to throw away in the name of idealistic pursuit of "the dissolution of the American Empire" or similar grandiose "visions" that various promoters of the movement have proposed.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Who knows, maybe someday the movement will in fact begin to gain traction and finally actually produce some of the supposed "<EM>real change</EM>" that it claims that it is committed to, but there is absolutely zero hard evidence that such a day is coming anytime soon.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">For now, Molly has it absolutely right, <EM>This movement is not going anywhere</EM>.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Two or three weeks from now, I can't wait to read and hear about the movement's New Year's resolutions, although Adbusters (Culture Jammers HQ up in Vancouver, BC) has already promised that the movement will be much more "militant", in a "nonviolent" manner, supposedly.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-7576454619614331478?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-63714484003611447982011-12-14T19:08:00.001-05:002011-12-14T19:08:42.248-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Okay, yeah, I guess I can see the "logic" that TIME's editors used to pick <A href="http://www.time.com/time/person-of-the-year/2011/">"The Protester" as the TIME Person of the Year for 2011</A>, but still, it seems rather off-key and slightly off-base. I do see that the protesters in the Middle East are very deserving of such recognition; if TIME had endorsed them, that would seem quite reasonable indeed, but to lump the Occupy Wall Street (et al) protesters into the same boat seems far too much of a stretch, almost as much as Obama getting the Nobel Peace prize for imagined future actions rather than actual accomplishment.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>The <A href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2101745_2102132,00.html">TIME Cover Story</A> does give a little background on the Occupy Wall Street (et al) movement, but no significant new detail and maybe simply a little different color. For example, they mention that organizer/anarchist David Graeber coined the phrase "We are the 99%!" The writer of the article also chronicles his own nephew's involvement in the movement in NYC. The article notes that Graeber "<EM>nudged the group to a fresh vision: a long-term encampment in a public space, an improvised democratic protest village without preappointed leaders, committed to a general critique — the U.S. economy is broken, politics is corrupted by big money — but with no immediate call for specific legislative or executive action.</EM>" Kind of lame for a self-professed "anarchist", but hardly a vision worthy of "Person of the Year." Well, even though Graeber and the other "organizers" weren't selected as "Person of the Year" themselves for their instigation, the results to date for the OWS protesters who followed them hardly seem noteworthy enough for such a nomination.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Maybe the best I can say is that the editors were "stuck" and even though the accomplishments of OWS in terms of "real change" were hardly noteworthy, they were "protesters" and that somehow magically entitled them to sit in the back of the same bus as the Middle East guys who actually did achieve some real change.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-6371448400361144798?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-66019894032097463382011-12-13T20:45:00.001-05:002011-12-13T20:45:50.723-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Although the protesters at the various Occupy West Coast Port Shutdown actions seemed to be at least moderately successful in terms of media attention, noise, and disruptions, I would said that the overall outcome is still a bit fuzzy.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>In some cases (e.g., Oakland) they seemed to have a moderate turnout, but overall the turnout seemed a bit light to me, given the supposed maturity of the "movement." The police (and rain) seemed to frighten them away in Long Beach. At other ports there was either only a moderate, temporary shutdown or "picket" lines and other protest activities that were not at all what one would consider a hard-core, massive shutdown of the entire west coast.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>It is still not clear how much, if any, of this action will continue in the coming days. There may be some lingering activity in Oakland, but there is little in the way of evidence that that "action" will continue, let alone grow in strength.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>So far, I would grade them a "B" for the protest, a "C-" for the shutdown, and an "incomplete" for whether this "action" has any longer-term ramifications, other than an irreverent "Is that all you've got?" I'm sure they could have done better, but for whatever reasons they didn't.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>The "solidarity action" here in New York City was basically a joke. They huffed and puffed and talked about "storming" Goldman Sachs, but only around 100 or so activists held a so-so rally in front of the new Goldman Sachs building across from the World Trade Center site (diagonally-opposite corner from Zuccotti Park) and then lamely attempted to stage an impromptu "dance party" in the Winter Garden of the World Financial Center where their boisterous behavior quickly drew the attention of security and the cops. I doubt that the operation of Goldman Sachs was disrupted in the slightest. The only people who might have been disrupted probably were a few tourists or tenants who expected to enjoy a few quiet moments in the palm-treed atrium, a privately-owned public space that nonetheless is subject to the rules and whim of the property owner and manager. The cops did roughly handle a New York Times photographer and a few of the activist "media", but overall it was simply little more than a scuffle.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-6601989403209746338?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-91793324398345622362011-12-12T20:13:00.001-05:002011-12-12T20:13:56.179-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>There is another good background article on the Occupy (Wall Street) movement in <EM>The New Yorker</EM> by Mattathias Schwartz entitled "<A href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/28/111128fa_fact_schwartz?currentPage=all">Pre-Occupied - The origins and future of Occupy Wall Street</A>." I found the link on the <A href="http://www.adbusters.org/">Adbusters web site</A>, so that is about as close to an official endorsement by the movement itself as you could possibly get.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Adbusters also links to an opinion piece on <EM>Al Jazeera</EM> by David Graeber, the self-described "anarchist" who was instrumental in getting Occupy Wall Street underway on the ground in New York City, entitled "<A href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/2011112872835904508.html">Occupy Wall Street's anarchist roots</A>."</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><EM>The New Yorker</EM> article highlights an interesting perspective on this so-called "leaderless movement":</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <DIV><EM>After the August 2nd gathering, the movement's center of gravity shifted from Vancouver to New York. The protesters planning the September occupation met again, on August 9th, at the Irish Hunger Memorial, near Battery Park; all subsequent meetings were held on the south side of Tompkins Square Park. Early on, they decided to call the organization the New York City General Assembly.</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><EM>In theory, the job of facilitating the meetings rotated among the eighty or so attendees. In practice, facilitation fell to a much smaller set of people who had experience with the general-assembly process. <STRONG>The leaderless movement was developing leaders</STRONG>. <STRONG>Graeber was among this first rank of equals, as was Marisa Holmes, a twenty-five-year-old anarchist</STRONG> and filmmaker. Holmes is dark-haired and eloquent; she has the parliamentarian's trick of making harsh ultimatums sound palatable, even breezy.</EM></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Interesting reading to complement the mind-numbing "We are the 99%!" propaganda-rhetoric of the "protesters" themselves.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-9179332439834562236?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-63674800939635207552011-12-11T21:52:00.001-05:002011-12-11T21:52:47.553-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Although the Occupy movement can certainly be readily sustained as a mere protest movement, its ability to expand beyond mere protest is now seriously in doubt. The whole "tent thing", seeming to be the heart and soul of the movement is clearly losing momentum at an accelerating pace. Rather than seriously attempting to build long-term sustainable communities, the tents now appear to have been more of a mere statement of protest. Although remnants of the tent communities remain, they don't appear to be growing in any dramatic manner. The movement is still able to pull together pop-up protests and disruptions of various sorts, but mostly very modest in size and effect.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Tomorrow, Monday, October 12, 2011, will be a moment of truth for Occupy as they literally attempt to <A href="http://westcoastportshutdown.org/">shut down all ports on the west coast of North America</A>. Further, <A href="http://twitter.com/occupytheport">they threaten</A> that "<EM>If there is ANY police violence on #D12 we will extend the port shutdown.</EM>" "#D12" is the Twitter tag for the "operation" and "D12" is the same "operation" naming convention used by the anti-globalization movement for naming their "operations" – "D" is for December and "12" is for the 12th of the month.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>The open question is how many activists can be mustered in each port locale, how many average Americans join the activists in their port shutdown, as well as how various unions respond, and finally how the police and other law enforcement responds.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>I'm sure the protesters can disrupt and maybe even shut down port operations to some limited extent, which qualifies them as a protest movement, the real question is whether they will actually succeed in moving beyond a mere protest movement to accomplishing anything substantial or graduating into a full-blown "insurrection" or even "revolution." So far, most of what they have been about is simply idealistic protest and no real substance. They can probably get away with a fair bit more "mere protest" before people get tired of the disruptions and distractions.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>I think the general attitude of the average American is "show us some results or... we change the channel to something more interesting." Occupy still retains some novelty and interest of non-participants, but the clock is ticking for them. After all, Americans have shown a powerful penchant for a limited attention span.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>The bar is fairly high for "results" from this port shutdown. Unless the movement comes through with absolutely stunning and sustained success, their days will be numbered. If they do last into the spring and summer, it will be interesting to see them compete for attention with the 2012 elections.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Meanwhile, this past week the Occupy movement has managed to divert attention to themselves that might otherwise have been focused on the big UN global warming talks that were also having trouble getting results.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-6367480093963520755?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-29610462143745531852011-12-07T10:01:00.001-05:002011-12-07T10:01:42.394-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>During a recession the idea of economic stimulus such as a payroll tax cut makes sense, but in truth it is more of a political salve to show that politicians are "doing something" even though the actual, real, practical effect of the alleged stimulus may be quite meager at best. Right now, I am ambivalent about the economic value of the payroll tax cut. If it happens, fine, I'm okay with it, but if it doesn't happen this time around I'm okay with that too. Either way, I won't lose any sleep, nor will I jump with joy.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>The U.S. economic outlook is weak enough that the payroll tax cut may make a (barely) noticeable difference in 2012, but I can't say that I am fully convinced of its efficacy. I think I would rather see a narrowing of the budget deficit and a strengthening of Social Security than a meager, one-time only gain in GDP.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>The political value of the payroll tax cut is much more significant. Democrats want it so they can claim that they are "helping the middle class." On the flip side, Democrats would also like to see passage of the payroll tax cut fail so that they can use it as a club to convince the electorate how "mean-spirited" and "out of touch" Republicans are.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Republicans are lukewarm about the payroll tax cut. Many of them do see political value with being seen as "helping the middle class", but a significant fraction of them see greater value with being "fiscally responsible."</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>In short, Republicans could go along with a payroll tax cut deal that both costs them little and even gives them something in return, but since they gain political bonus points for being fiscally responsible (which includes refraining from excessive taxation) they stand to gain from failure to reach a deal.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>So, ultimately, it comes down to how badly the Democrats want the payroll tax cut. They can have it if they want to pay for it politically, but they may decide that it simply isn't worth the price and that the economy will limp along well enough and that the "club" value of Republican "obstinacy" is worth its cost in terms of failing to "help the middle class."</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Me? Right now, I'd prefer to see the "gimmick" of a payroll tax cut go away. If anything, I would rather see both an increase in the payroll tax rate and an increase in Social Security benefits. I think the latter would provide an economic stimulus as well as being "good for society."</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-2961046214374553185?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-6015612212475246092011-12-06T17:23:00.000-05:002011-12-06T17:24:03.406-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>I agree with President Obama when in <A href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obamas-economic-speech-in-osawatomie-kans/2011/12/06/gIQAVhe6ZO_story.html">today's economic speech in Kansas</A> he said that "<EM>This is a make or break moment for the middle class...</EM>" It certainly is, but maybe not the way he wanted it to be. The middle class of our parents is plain and simply "over." Gone. Kaput. RIP. And, it is not coming back, at least in its old form.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>We are in the process of recovering from the collapse of what I will call "The Middle Class Bubble" that dates back to the 1960's (if not earlier) as unions coerced or connived with corporate management and politicians to artificially boost so-called "middle class" incomes and benefits in a grossly unsustainable manner.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>That bubble started to deflate/burst in the late 1970's and early 1980's and the recent housing bubble and debt/financial crisis was simply the final nail in the coffin of that old, unsustainable model of the "middle class" of the late 20th century.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>So, to answer the President, yes, this is that defining moment, and we now need to formally acknowledge that the old middle class simply is no more, and is now being replaced with a newer and more sustainable middle class, with lower pay and benefits to be sure, but more sustainable, which is the important thing.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Also, we need to acknowledge that there really is still a separate "working class" and that past misguided economic policies improperly boosted members of the working class into the middle class bubble in an unsustainable manner and now many of those workers need to formally acknowledge that they really are "working class" and not "middle class."</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">In short, this is literally a "make or break" moment, or actually a "break and make" moment, where we break from the old, unsustainable economic model of a bloated middle class and make a new and much more sustainable economic model with a leaner middle class and a thriving working class.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-601561221247524609?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-12229790118013318842011-12-06T12:40:00.001-05:002011-12-06T12:40:59.969-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>There is an article in <EM>The Washington Post</EM> entitled "<A href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/experts-struggle-to-express-direness-of-infrastructure-problem-to-a-wary-public/2011/12/01/gIQATflfZO_story.html">Experts struggle to express direness of infrastructure problem to a wary public</A>" which clearly expresses that there are looming (if not current) problems with our infrastructure, but then does quite a poor job of explaining the true financing aspects. These "experts" somehow misguidedly presume that only the federal government should be taking the lead in financing of infrastructure. I would submit that the primary burden of planning and financing of infrastructure should be at the state and regional level, with emphasis on regional consortiums such as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Sure, the federal government should have a role, such as in setting standards for quality and safety, but there is no good reason for the extremely inefficient mechanism of taking money out of states up to the federal government and then parceling that money back to the states. Let the states, or those regional consortiums, handle the financing, whether through state and local taxes, bonds, or user fees.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>In some cases, the federal government may have national interests beyond the interests of the states and regions, so in some few cases maybe the federal government may need to take the lead in financing, but those would be exceptions and not the bulk of the cases.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>There might also be a need for a federal bond guarantee program, but that should be based on standards and having financial standards and financial reviews for states and regional consortiums issuing infrastructure debt that must be met in order to secure such a debt guarantee before it is granted.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-1222979011801331884?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-24810648882947045412011-12-06T12:08:00.001-05:002011-12-06T12:08:28.698-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>There is an interesting essay on <A href="http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/99/long-night-left.html">Adbusters.com</A>, the mother ship and puppet masters for the Occupy movement, by Jessica Whyte entitled "<A href="http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/99/long-night-left.html">Awakening the Giant - Is the long night of the left drawing to a close?</A>" which basically reveals that the true goal of the whole Occupy movement (not no much the rank and file foot soldiers, but the theorists behind the curtain) is to supplant Western-style democracy and capitalism ("neoliberal democracy") with... no, not socialism, but... communism. As the essay ends:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <DIV><EM>Libya provided the opportunity for the Western powers, who had reacted with fear to the revolts in Egypt and Tunisia, to use a humanitarian cover to reinsert the numerous possibilities opened up by the Arab Spring into the familiar narrative of neoliberal democracy. ... what is at stake today... the isolation of the communist idea may yet give rise to a new collective subject finally capable of realizing communism.</EM></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">That is the significance of the many tent "communities" with their leaderless structures and "general assemblies" and "working groups", to more closely approximate true "communes" suitable for a "communist collective."</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Ultimately, the Occupy movement is doomed to fail, precisely because it has a conflict of interests between its three main factions, the communist theorists, the militant anarchists who don't need or want the communist structures, and the vast masses of mere foot soldiers who actually never really signed up for either the communist or anarchist agendas and really do simply want to engage in truly non-violent, truly peaceful protest to pursue "change we can believe in", but well short of actual revolution that the first two factions seek. This is why the movement is currently so indifferent to being explicit about goals – to hide from the true goal of communism and to deny the inherent conflict between communism and anarchism. The current vagueness works for all parties, but eventually the conflicts of interest will surface.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-2481064888294704541?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-43079017353631795622011-12-03T13:40:00.001-05:002011-12-03T13:40:49.805-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Here is some interesting background on the Occupy movement, straight from the horse's mouth, a post by former Yale Professor David Graeber, one of the "organizers" and promoters, on the Adbusters web site entitled "<A href="http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/99/world-revolution-2011.html">Situating Occupy - Lessons from the revolutionary past</A>."</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>From the <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber">Wikipedia article for the author, David Graeber</A>:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <DIV><EM>Graeber has a history of both direct and indirect involvement in political activism, including <STRONG>playing an organizing role in, and speaking in favor of the Occupy Wall Street protests</STRONG>. Comparing it to the Arab Spring, he claimed that this and other contemporary grassroots protests represent "<STRONG>the opening salvo in a wave of negotiations over the dissolution of the American Empire</STRONG>."</EM></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Ultimately, we are still left with the same question as before, namely, is the Occupy movement "just a protest movement" or is it "a revolution"? Protests can wax and wane and still contend that they have done their job, but a "revolution" ("<EM>the dissolution of the American Empire</EM>") either makes progress and achieves its goal or fizzles and dies. Or maybe Occupy will simply be a pseudo-revolution (revolutionary aspirations with lots of "big talk") that morphs into a protest movement and then claims "victory" in the sense of "we raised awareness of the issues."</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>The whole "occupy" meme is rather bizarre, with the tents and all. Were the tents supposed to be truly meaningful or just symbolic stage props? Now, after the "evictions", they talk as if they really didn't need the tents, but they still use the "occupy" meme.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Graeber is a self-admitted "anarchist", but it remains to be seen what his real motives are, as well as to what extent they are shared by the rank and file "membership" of the movement. What are participants in "Occupy" really signing up for? Do they know? Do they care?</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-4307901735363179562?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-71125378407822723392011-12-03T13:25:00.001-05:002011-12-03T13:25:13.813-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>There was an interesting commentary by Jena McGregor on Barney Frank's management/leadership style in <EM>The Washington Post</EM> entitled "<A href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-leadership/post/barney-frank-and-the-cult-of-brash-bosses/2011/04/01/gIQAKR8CHO_blog.html">Barney Frank and the cult of brash bosses</A>."</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <DIV><EM>Must leaders be nice to be noteworthy?</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><EM>We don't have to look much further than Steve Jobs to see they don't have to. The former Apple CEO could be, as we all know by now, a grade-A jerk who threw tantrums, parked in handicapped spots, and was fully capable of so-called gratuitous nastiness. Some are even worried that "with the death and canonization of Steve Jobs and the emergence of the Jobs biography as a kind of sacred text for managers," writes Tom McNichol over at the Atlantic, "the ranks of bosses who see Bad Steve's nastier traits as something to imitate is liable to swell." Jobs, he writes, is considered by too many people in Silicon Valley to be "living proof" that being an ass was a big part of leading a good company.</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><EM>Of course, Steve Jobs was not a phenomenal innovator because of his leadership style; he was wildly successful in spite of it. And no, I'm not going to draw some pained parallel between the brilliance of Steve Jobs and the ornery intelligence of Barney Frank. But it's worth considering when being a nasty boss can help and when it hurts. In a world in which extreme attention to detail is needed—like, say, technology development—or when there's a real need for motivation, there could be some virtues to having a controlling jerk in the top chair. Because many such managers are equally good at turning on the charm when needed, McNichol writes, their salesmanship could outweigh their bad sides. And occasionally, brash thinking (and unfortunately, brash behavior) goes hand-in-hand with an appetite for innovation and risk that other more measured leaders can't really summon from themselves.</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><EM>But in most cases, it's obvious that over-the-top petulance stands in the way of accomplishment. That's especially so in a place like Congress where negotiating skills and relationship building are supposedly the keys to success. Sure, a combative and abrasive style might win leaders points in the highly polarized dysfunction that is today's Congress. But it could also cause them to lose the most accomplished legacy possible.</EM></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Maybe bosses are like (removing) band-aids, "fast or slow", choose your style of pain.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@BaseTechnology.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-7112537840782272339?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-78114914478620538712011-12-03T12:19:00.001-05:002011-12-03T12:19:28.645-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Here's a long <EM>Bloomberg Businessweek</EM> article on former Yale Professor David Graeber, one of the chief puppet masters behind the whole Occupy Wall Street movement, entitled "<A href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/david-graeber-the-antileader-of-occupy-wall-street-10262011.html">David Graeber, the Anti-Leader of Occupy Wall Street - Meet the anthropologist, activist, and anarchist who helped transform a hapless rally into a global protest movement</A>."</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>To summarize the birthing of the Occupy Wall Street movement:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <DIV><EM>Graeber began the summer on sabbatical, moving back to New York from London and frequenting an artists' space called 16Beaver. It was an intellectual activist salon, located near Wall Street, the sort of place where people would discuss topics like semiotics and hacking and the struggles of indigenous peoples. Like many other American activists, Graeber had been deeply moved by the occupation of Cairo's Tahrir Square and by the "Indignados" who had taken over central Madrid; <STRONG>in mid-July, he published a short piece in Adbusters asking what it would take to trigger a similar uprising in the West</STRONG>. For much of the summer, the discussions at 16Beaver revolved around exactly that question. When a local group called Operation Empire State Rebellion called for a June 14 occupation of Zuccotti Park, four people showed up.</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><EM><STRONG>On July 13, Adbusters put out its own call for a Wall Street occupation, to take place two months later, on Sept. 17</STRONG>. Setting the date and publicizing it was the extent of the magazine's involvement. <STRONG>A group called New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts—student activists and community leaders from some of the city's poorer neighborhoods—stepped in to execute the rest</STRONG>. For three weeks in June and July, to protest city budget cuts and layoffs, the group had camped out across the street from City Hall in a tent city they called Bloombergville. They liked the idea of trying a similar approach on Wall Street. <STRONG>After talking to Adbusters, the group began advertising a "People's General Assembly" to "Oppose Cutbacks And Austerity Of Any Kind" and plan the Sept. 17 occupation.</STRONG></EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><EM>The assembly was to be held in Bowling Green, the downtown Manhattan park with its famous statue of a charging bull pawing the cobblestones. Graeber had heard about the meeting at 16Beaver, and the afternoon of Aug. 2 he went to Bowling Green with two friends, a Greek artist and anarchist named Georgia Sagri and a Japanese activist named Sabu Kohso (who is also the Japanese translator of Graeber's books).</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><EM>...</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><EM>When Graeber and his friends showed up on Aug. 2, however, they found out that the event wasn't, in fact, a general assembly, but a traditional rally, to be followed by a short meeting and a march to Wall Street to deliver a set of predetermined demands ("A massive public-private jobs program" was one, "An end to oppression and war!" was another). In anarchist argot, the event was being run by "verticals"—top-down organizations—rather than "horizontals" such as Graeber and his friends. Sagri and Graeber felt they'd been had, and they were angry.</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><EM>What happened next sounds like an anarchist parable. Along with Kohso, <STRONG>the two recruited several other people disgruntled with the proceedings, then walked to the south end of the park and began to hold their own GA, getting down to the business of planning the Sept. 17 occupation.</STRONG> The original dozen or so people gradually swelled, despite the efforts of the event's planners to bring them back to the rally. The tug of war lasted until late in the evening, but eventually all of the 50 or so people remaining at Bowling Green had joined the insurgent general assembly.</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><EM>...</EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><EM>For Graeber <STRONG>the next month and a half was a carousel of meetings</STRONG>. There were the weekly GAs, the first held near the Irish Hunger Memorial in Battery Park City, the rest in Tompkins Square Park in the East Village. He facilitated some of them and spent much of the rest of his time in working group meetings in people's apartments. (On Aug. 14 he tweeted, "I am so exhausted. My first driving lesson … then had to facilitate an assembly in Tompkins Square Park for like three hours.") He organized legal and medical training and classes on nonviolent resistance. <STRONG>The group endlessly discussed what demands to make, or whether to have demands at all—a question that months later remains unresolved.</STRONG></EM></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">-- Jack Krupansky</DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-7811491447862053871?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-8698159080529845392011-11-25T18:50:00.001-05:002011-11-25T18:50:45.079-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>As my bank and brokerage account balances will attest, I am not part of the 1%, but I certainly don't feel any affinity for these people who claim to be the 99% ("We are the 99%!") and who stand in opposition to the supposed 1%. Rather, I consider myself to belong to the 100%, which is a group of public-spirited individuals who eschew the kind of class warfare that seeks to divide and isolate the American people into antithetical classes of the 1% and the 99%.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>We in the 100% consider that we are all in the same boat, whether rich or poor, employed or unemployed; we are all in this together. The U.S. Declaration of Independence assures every one of us, every member of the 100%, that we all have the same unalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", regardless of our financial condition.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Trying to divide us into separate classes called "The 1%" and "The 99%" is misleading and counterproductive.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>It is indeed unfortunate that quite a few normal Americans have been suckered into falsely believing that they are part of some mythical 99% that somehow is less fortunate than the rest of us in the 100%.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><STRONG>We are the 100%!</STRONG></DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-869815908052984539?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-74653764681980487762011-11-25T12:40:00.001-05:002011-11-25T12:40:53.924-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Columnist Harold Meyerson penned an opinion piece in <EM>The Washington Post</EM> entitled "<A href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-growing-tension-between-capitalism-and-democracy/2011/11/22/gIQAuYOitN_story.html?tid=pm_pop">The growing tension between capitalism and democracy</A>" in which he ponders the questions of "<EM>Do capitalism and democracy conflict?</EM>" and "<EM>Does each weaken the other?</EM>" He concludes by suggesting that "<EM>Conflicts between capitalism and democracy are breaking out all over. And Europeans — and even Americans — may soon have to face a question they have not contemplated in a very long time, if ever: Which side are they on?</EM>" I'm not fully persuaded by his arguments. He has most of his facts right, but his reasoning is a different story and more along the lines of a socio-political "narrative" than analytic reasoning.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>To be clear, our political system and our economic system are separate and distinct but joined at the hip. We have a representational democracy, which by definition is not a "pure" democracy. We also have campaign donors, lobbyists, and private ownership of stock in businesses by politicians, making our political system even a bit more less than purely democratic. Our system has always been that way. There is nothing new about any of that.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Our economic system is basically capitalism, but not a pure, unregulated open market. A fair number of people and many billions of dollars of investment are due to government spending at all levels of government, including spending for regulation of the economy, so we are even less of a pure capitalist system than many critics speak of America as being.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>With unemployment insurance, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, welfare, the postal service, FDIC, and a variety of social services, we clearly have a hybrid political/economic system that certainly does have elements of socialism. That is the "joined at the hip" quality of our system.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Tension? Sure. Absolutely. But we've always had it. We've always had those lobbyists and special interest groups and politicians having an interest in businesses. Our political and economic systems are far from pure and hardly free from tension, but that makes the system stronger and is not the weakness that critics claim. Sure, they would like a more pure democratic political system, but they never have a clearly articulated vision and well-thought out plan for the economic system, maybe because they are closet socialists.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>But if they think that capitalist economics skews our political system, don't they realize how socialist economics would almost completely dominate the political system? That's why socialism basically won't work, because it perverts the political system by so thoroughly dominating it in a much deeper sense than even our current capitalist system.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-7465376468198048776?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-62186734085189272062011-11-24T20:28:00.000-05:002011-11-24T20:29:04.709-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>There has been various chattering about the need for a third party in our political system. We occasionally have a third-party candidate, but no true, durable alternative to the current two-party political system. Recently some liberal progressives have been muttering about their disgust with Obama and the need for a much more left-wing progressive liberal third party, and now we read in <EM>The Washington Post</EM> in an article entitled "<A href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/moderate-americans-elect-group-hoping-to-add-third-candidate-to-2012-election-ballot/2011/11/21/gIQAtPpMtN_story_1.html">Moderate Americans Elect group hoping to add third candidate to 2012 election ballot</A>" about the efforts of a group called <EM>Americans Elect</EM> to prepare for running a moderate centrist candidate to be picked using a populist Internet voting system. I'm all for moderate centrists, but with so many groups jockeying for who would be the third party, I don't see that any third party would really be able to win out over the two entrenched parties. Sure, a third party gives one group of voters a sense that they had a voice, but to what end other than merely to have a voice just for the sake of having a voice? My preference would be to have two new centrist parties, one moderate conservative centrist and one moderate liberal centrist and let the left and right-wing extremists who "control" the two existing parties keep them.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>So, what I envision is simultaneously and symmetrically creating those two new moderate centrist parties and then encourage the moderates from the Republican and Democratic parties to migrate to their respective moderate centrist parties. It might take a few election cycles to complete the transition, but eventually we would have a four-party system in which everybody gets a much stronger voice to express their political views.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>I think this would be a win-win for all parties and the American public individually and as a whole.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Hard-core conservatives would control the old Republican party and not have to feel that their positions and policies are being "watered down" by moderate centrist conservatives.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Hard-core liberal progressives (and even socialists) would control the old Democratic party and not have to feel that their positions and policies are being "watered down" by moderate centrist liberals.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Moderate centrist conservatives would control the new center-right party and know that they can "compromise" and work with the new center-left party without being restrained by far right wingnuts.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Moderate centrist liberals would control the new center-left party and know that they can "compromise" and work with the new center-right party without being restrained by far left wingnuts.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Voters would be able to express their votes in a way that more truly expresses how they feel, and in an average election a voter for either moderate centrist party could sleep well at night knowing that a win by the other moderate centrist party is not going result in feeling that they are going to get really screwed as seems to be the case today.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Voters would also be able to cross over and vote for the other moderate centrist party if they felt that it was better positioned to win or had a more appealing candidate, or if the opposing wingnut party was actually threatening to attract a winning collection of voters due to some special issues in a particular election. And, sometimes, one party simply doesn't offer a truly great candidate for the voters.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Sometimes both centrist parties may have very similar goals, but one has either a more appealing plan or a candidate who just seems more capable of pulling off the plan (and being elected first.)</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>There might even be situations where the two centrist parties decide that their agendas are close enough and that one or both of the wingnut parties is a big enough threat that it makes more sense to pool their interests and have one of the two centrist candidates voluntarily drop out and strongly urge his or her supporters to vote for the other moderate centrist candidate.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>To me, this would be a much more sensible political party system and go a long way in addressing the complaints of both the left and right extremes and citizens who feel that the extremes have two much power in their respective parties and are preventing desirable moderate centrists from being nominated.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-6218673408518927206?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-17956656600831319482011-11-23T18:14:00.001-05:002011-11-23T18:14:50.670-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Despite the wide disparity of political beliefs and left vs. right and liberal vs. conservative divisions in America we still manage to maintain an overall moderate form of government. Sure, sometimes it is a little too liberal for some folks and sometimes it is a little too conservative for other folks, but on average the policies of the U.S. government are moderate and fairly centrist. How do we do it?</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Overall, our government policies tend to be reasonably moderate and centrist even if in the short-term they may be quite volatile and leap from very liberal to very conservative and back again in a rather violent manner.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Basically we have two sides, one side rather liberal and one side rather conservative. Although we sometimes have bipartisan agreement to stay approximately in the center on policy, much of the time one of the sides manages to secure "power" and policy suddenly lurches in that side's direction. Not to worry, because usually it doesn't take too long, maybe a single election cycle or in some cases a decade or two or three and then the American people grow weary of the limitations of that one-sided power and the balance among voters suddenly flips over and people vote to give the other side the opportunity to balance out or otherwise compensate for the excesses of the previous regime.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Alas, the side in charge rarely stops when they hit the center line of moderate policies and just keep going towards the other extreme and once again voters grow weary of the extremism and the balance of voters flips again.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Rinse and repeat. The result is that over time we average out to that magical moderate centrist center line, not by precise design but simply as a result of lurching to and fro, like a drunken driver careening from guardrail to guardrail. Hey, it may not be a pretty sight, but it does manage to give the desirable average end result of a roughly moderate centrism.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>I do think that in a very real sense we can say that we achieve a moderate centrism by balancing the liberal and conservative agendas. Not a static, fixed balance, but a continuously variable dynamic balancing.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>And I do think the U.S. government is healthier and more functional with this constant rebalancing. It gives us the opportunities to experiment with policy elements that are a bit further from dead center than if we merely had a single mega-centrist party or even two parties that were more finely hewed to near-center agendas.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Can we do better and simply stay in the rough vicinity of the moderate center line without the disruptive detours? Maybe, but I personally am not convinced. I think the problem with that hope is that although there may be a silent majority that is moderate, that is the problem: they are silent and passive and not as active and passionate in politics as the left and right extremists and political opportunists are.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Now here we are at the threshold of another election cycle. Are the American people in a mood to sit back and tolerate only a little rocking of the boat, or are they ready to do some heavy leaning and shifting of weight, either further to the liberal left, or are they ready to give up on liberalism for now and put their weight into leaning towards the right? My personal sense is that we will see a lot of little side-to-side rocking but overall maintain roughly the same direction. Although there may be a lot of disappointment with the current lean to the left, they don't really want to lean a lot further in that same direction just yet, nor do they want to radically switch directions. They simply want to give the current direction a little more time and then decide what to do based on what results get achieved. Individuals may disagree strongly with staying the course, but averaging the left-leaning with the right-leaning in terms of vote counts probably just balances out. Whether this is really the case remains to be sorted out next November.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>In any case, the angst and the anxiety and all the boat-rocking are simply core components of the American political experience. It really is who we are, not so much as individuals, but collectively, and that is all that really matters. Our incredible diversity and how we manage to balance it is a key aspect of our core strength and will allow us to survive just about anything.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-1795665660083131948?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-9194886715492268522011-11-22T18:27:00.001-05:002011-11-22T18:27:43.167-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers has an opinion piece in <EM>The Financial Times</EM> entitled "<A href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/66102f44-11db-11e1-a114-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1eTkmLqLY">We have to do better on inequality</A>" in which he proposes a few ideas for dealing with inequality and concludes by saying that "<EM>Neither the politics of polarisation nor those of noblesse oblige will serve to protect the interests of the middle class in the post-industrial economy. We will have to find ways to do better.</EM>" I'm not terribly persuaded by his arguments, but they are worth considering. I think his only idea that is indisputable is that we need to assure that higher education is affordable by all. His other two ideas were basically that we shouldn't reward the wealthy with special "concessions" as well as to charge market-based premiums where government provides implicit or explicit insurance, and that the estate tax should not be "eviscerated." I would note that he did not distinguish income inequality from wealth inequality.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-919488671549226852?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-14558630055555821652011-11-22T16:04:00.001-05:002011-11-22T16:04:45.278-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Given the failure of the deficit supercommittee and a sense that Congress can't come to any agreement, I realized that I actually have a deficit reduction plan that can actually work and doesn't require anybody in Congress to even lift a finger since it all happens automatically.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>My "Go Simple" approach to deficit reduction gets us most of the way to where we need to be, with just two components that don't require any agreement/deal to achieve:</DIV> <OL> <LI>The automatic $1.2 trillion in spending cuts. <LI>The automatic expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2012 gives us $4.7 trillion (the CBO estimate of $3.9 trillion plus $800 billion of interest to borrow that $3.9 trillion.)</LI></OL> <DIV>That's a total of $5.9 trillion over 10 years, more than even any of the so-called "Go Big" plans.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>The beauty of this plan is that this is in fact what will happen if Congress decides to "do nothing."</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Granted there is still more work to be done to solve the deficit long term, including Medicare and Social Security reform, but at least my plan is a better start.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-1455863005555582165?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-35383569293171674072011-11-22T08:58:00.001-05:002011-11-22T08:58:24.730-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Interesting question: Is disturbing the peace un-peaceful by definition? I think so.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Here are some forms of behavior that clearly can be categorized as "disturbing the peace" and hence should not be considered "peaceful":</DIV> <UL> <LI>Very loud music. <LI>Large crowds that restrict access to public space and pathways. <LI>Loud noise (music, yelling, drumming, etc.) during "quiet hours" (say, 11 PM to 6 AM.) <LI>Mob-like or gang-like activity that intimidates the general public. <LI>Any behavior designed or perceived to be a "psychological assault", such as loud drumming or noisemaking for many hours on end.</LI></UL> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-3538356929317167407?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-30358071433329869822011-11-22T08:42:00.003-05:002011-11-22T09:15:10.388-05:00<div dir="ltr"><div style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">There are plenty of forms of behavior that may be nominally legal or tolerated by society as forms of protest or even tolerated as forms of civil disobedience, but there are definitely limits to what can be considered "peaceful." Peaceful doesn't just mean a lack of hard-core violence where blood is drawn and bones and windows are broken. Peaceful means... peaceful, both the absence of the use of force and restraint from physical resistance and verbal assault.<br /><br />Here are a few more forms of clearly un-peaceful behavior that I have seen recently in videos or media reports:<ul><li>Blocking traffic.<br /></li><li>Physically resisting a police officer, by pushing or pulling back.<br /></li><li>Attempting to push past a police or other security barricade.<br /></li><li>Yelling at a police officer. This may be protected speech, to some degree, but clearly is not peaceful.<br /></li><li>Refusing to move when requested by a police officer or security guard.<br /></li><li>Yelling with a tone of anger. Technically this is protected "speech" to some extent but is definitely not "peaceful."<br /></li><li>Any destruction of property of others.</li><li>Rowdiness.</li><li>Engaging in provocation. Basically incitement.</li></ul><div style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">-- <a href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</a></div></div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-3035807143332986982?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-2278484013274601892011-11-21T23:59:00.000-05:002011-11-22T00:00:38.925-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>As widely expected, the joint congressional deficit supercommittee threw in the towel and admitted that they could not reach a deal, opening the door to the automatic across the board $1.2 trillion in spending cuts starting in 2013. That's fine with me and will be a much-needed strong dose of medicine for what ails the federal budget. There will be plenty or more work to do on the federal budget in the coming months and years, but these automatic cuts are a great next step.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Although there is some chatter about reducing or redirecting some or all of the automatic cuts, there simply aren't the votes for such actions. In fact, President Obama has now publically stated that he will veto any such attempts to prevent the automatic cuts.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Some are criticizing Obama for not being involved in the supercommittee negotiations, but I would suggest that it was not his job and that he already did his job during the negotiations that set up the supercommittee back at the end of July.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Besides, I think Obama is making the wise political decision to distance himself a little from Congress to focus on his own reelection. It is now up to the American people to decide how to vote for Congress next year to refocus them as voters see fit.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-227848401327460189?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-22640734904084335242011-11-21T23:31:00.001-05:002011-11-21T23:31:19.271-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>I just barely missed an Occupy protest at Baruch College. I was walking down Lexington Avenue and as I crossed 25th Street I saw a bunch of small clumps of cops and students and police vans around Baruch and down 25th Street towards 3rd Avenue I noticed a much larger group of people out in the street and I heard a lot of loud voices. I was on my way to a New America event so I didn't have time to check out what was going on and simply assumed that it was an Occupy event. I also saw a helicopter hovering a couple of blocks further west on 25th Street. The <A href="http://occupywallst.org/article/cuny-attacks-protest/">Occupy Wall Street web site</A> says that this was an Occupy CUNY protest where occupiers were prevented from entering a CUNY public event where tuition hikes were to be discussed.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>The protest was <A href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/education/cuny-students-clash-with-police-in-manhattan.html">covered by the New York Times</A> as well. And <A href="http://manhattan.ny1.com/content/top_stories/151175/occupy-wall-street-protesters-take-on-cuny-tuition-hikes">NY1 News</A>.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>I can understand objections to being excluded from a public meeting, but given the track record of the Occupy movement, let's just say that their reputation has preceded them. I would simply assert that well-behaved citizens of course have a right to attend and speak at public meetings, but only to the extent that they exhibit a sense of decorum, follow the rules, and respect the rights of others to listen to the proceedings of the meeting without disruption.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-2264073490408433524?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-24014113533919138392011-11-21T09:09:00.001-05:002011-11-21T09:09:23.874-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>I don't concur with critics of Congress and Washington that our government is "dysfunctional." The primary argument they have, in fact the only argument they really have, is that gridlock indicates dysfunction. That's where I disagree with them. Gridlock is a function, not dysfunctional. Gridlock simply indicates that bipartisan agreement has not been reached. That's all. If members of Congress or the administration wish to put forward partisan proposals that do not have broad bipartisan support, that is their prerogative and there is nothing wrong or dysfunctional with that since they do so knowing full well in advance that partisan proposals are intended merely to score political points rather than to secure bipartisan support and become law. Passing more legislation just for the sake of passing more legislation is not automatically better government or more functional government or less dysfunctional government. Gridlock is merely a check on government, an assurance that important legislation has broad bipartisan support before in becomes law. That is an important function of the process, not dysfunction.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>The makeup of Congress merely reflects the broad makeup of the entire country, albeit roughly and without precision per se. Members of Congress represent their constituents; if their constituents feel otherwise they are free to vote them out in the next election. If Congress seems gridlocked, that usually simply indicates that the country as a whole lacks a consensus, and in such cases the right thing for Congress to do is... nothing. And that is very functional since it better represents the country as a whole.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Even non-starter partisan proposals are not really dysfunctional since they give a voice to the various constituencies that exist in this country. That also is an important function of government. Even if there is no broad bipartisan consensus on a particular issue or proposal, at least the various constituencies can have their voices heard so that future proposals can find broader bipartisan support.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The impending failure of the deficit super-committee is a perfect example. Sure they may "fail" (although there is still time for a last-minute breakthrough), but that is primarily due to the partisan nature of the proposals and the strength of the partisanship merely indicates that there is strong anxiety across the entire country about both rising taxes and reduction of government services, whether the reduction is for defense or social services. This particular gridlock is a good thing since there is not broad bipartisan support right now for doing anything other than the default which is the across the board $1.2 trillion in spending cuts. For all intents and purposes there does appear to be broad bipartisan support for going with the default spending cuts as unappealing as they may seem to various constituencies. It's called shared sacrifice, each side giving up some of its sacred cows for the greater good. And, it is a sign of a functional government, not dysfunction.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Polls may show that a majority of Americans are unhappy with their government and Congress in particular, but I think that is more a matter of each partisan constituency being unhappy that their partisan agenda is not advancing (achieving smaller government and lower taxes on the right and enhancing government services on the left), or with independents merely expressing the opinion that they don't like partisan politics despite the fact that a lot of Americans do.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Does the unhappy majority really agree on an acceptable solution? Nope. That means that gridlock is the answer until somebody comes up with a broad bipartisan approach that the majority does find acceptable. As unhappy as many people are with the status quo, maybe it just happens to be that the status quo is the optimal solution for the present time. There is nothing dysfunctional in that.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Finally, gridlock on Congress or Washington does not mean we have gridlock in all of America. People continue to go about their daily business, businesses continue to spend and hire (or fire as the case may be), farmers continue to plant and harvest crops, Detroit cranks out cars and trucks, etc. Life goes on. Imagine that – life can go on even if Congress doesn't pass any new legislation. That's a tough concept for some people to swallow, but that is the nature of reality.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Maybe the economy would grow faster with more government stimulus and spending, or maybe with lower taxes. Could be (and likely is), but maybe growing at a more leisurely and more sustainable pace right now is actually better for the long-term sustainable economic health of the whole country, despite what any partisan constituency might say.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-2401411353391913839?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-71123540613566141292011-11-20T23:46:00.001-05:002011-11-20T23:46:50.587-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>AFAICT, it looks as if the failure to reach a deal on how to cut the federal deficit will be mostly a moot point for the markets. Sure, there are probably traders and speculators more than willing to use any negative news as an excuse to push the market down, but <A href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-20/expectations-dim-for-a-u-s-debt-supercommittee-agreement-over-tax-divide.html">according to Bloomberg, Moody's Analytics' economist Mark Zandi said</A> "<EM>I don't think there'd be much of a reaction</EM>" by markets to a supercommittee failure to agree on a plan. He said "<EM>It's all relative to expectations</EM>" and investor expectations with regard to the committee "<EM>have been and are still very, very low</EM>."</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">We could even see a modest rally in relief that the uncertainty of the outcome of the supercommittee's deliberations is finally resolved.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">OTOH, lingering uncertainty about any contagion from the European debt crisis and uncertinty about the economic outlook in the U.S. could be a continuing drag on the stock market, although one would think that much of that uncertainty should already have been priced into the market.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>One other lingering uncertainty for 2012 is whether certain existing tax cuts, unemployment aid, and the payroll tax cut will simply expire at the end of this year or whether Congress may agree to extend them again for 2012. If not extended, the economy could take a hit of some degree for 2012. These are different from the Bush tax cuts which automatically expire at the end of next year (end of 2012.)</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-7112354061356614129?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-9138217418642663642011-11-20T23:25:00.001-05:002011-11-20T23:25:40.365-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>I have no problem with the general proposition that the federal deficit should be closed with a combination spending cuts and tax increases (as well as higher growth over time providing higher tax revenues), but I do have a problem with the ideological targeting that quite a few Democrats are using when they absolutely insist on a "millionaire's tax" and ideologically insist that "the rich" are not paying their "fair" share (whatever that really means) and that anything else would be "balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and the middle class." Ideology should not have any place in the deficit talks. There are plenty of people in the middle class, including myself, who are more than capable of footing a higher tax burden for paying down the deficit. There is simply no non-ideological reason for suggesting that it must be only "the rich" who must have their taxes raised to pay down the deficit.</DIV> <DIV><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-913821741864266364?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-37761256643340064422011-11-20T14:43:00.001-05:002011-11-20T14:43:51.136-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Add to my list of actions which should be construed as violence by their nature and inherently not peaceful, refusal to obey reasonable requests by the police and outright defiance of police authority. Again, not that civil disobedience is not a time-honored tradition and maybe even appropriate in some situations, but refusing to comply with a police request is simply not a peaceful act. Most commonly this will occur when protesters are already being disruptive, maybe even passively such as blocking a public space or pathway with a sit-in or parading in the street without a permit, so adding refusal to comply with a reasonable police request simply makes the protesters' activities doubly less non-violent and non-peaceful.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-3776125664334006442?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-44145107978791984392011-11-20T14:25:00.001-05:002011-11-20T14:25:56.486-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Even if the joint congressional debt/deficit super-committee fails to arrive at some grand deal by tomorrow, as now seems likely, this is still a "win" for everybody but Congress and the two political parties since we will still automatically see $1.2 trillion in across the board spending cuts in 2013.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>And, the Bush tax cuts automatically expire at the end of 2012 within any "action" required by Congress, equivalent to another $800 billion over ten years. Between the two, plus incremental economic growth as the recession recovery gradually build steam, plus winding down of Iraq and Afghanistan, plus winding down of corporate tax deductions for losses during the financial crisis, and the result is that two years from now the federal budget deficit won't look anywhere near as bad as it does today in hindsight.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-4414510797879198439?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-34284310287038253342011-11-20T14:12:00.001-05:002011-11-20T14:12:16.721-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>The puppet masters of the Occupy Wall Street "leaderless movement" have now spoken publically in the mainstream media. Kalle Lasn and Micah White, editor in chief and senior editor of Adbusters magazine, have penned an opinion piece in <EM>The Washington Post</EM> entitled "<A href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-occupy-wall-street-will-keep-up-the-fight/2011/11/17/gIQAn5RJZN_story.html">Why Occupy Wall Street will keep up the fight</A>." It provides a little background and a little bit of a roadmap for where the movement may be headed.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>If there was any doubt that the <A href="http://www.adbusters.org/">Culture Jammers at Adbusters</A> were "behind" the Occupy Wall Street movement, they state it explicitly:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <DIV><EM><STRONG>The Occupy Wall Street meme was launched by a poster in the 97th issue of our international ad-free magazine, Adbusters</STRONG>, the hash tag #OCCUPYWALLSTREET and <STRONG>a "tactical briefing" that we sent to our 90,000-strong "culture jammer" global network of activists, artists and rabble-rousers in mid-July.</STRONG> The movement's true origins, however, go back to the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. That was when the world witnessed how intransigent regimes can be toppled by leaderless democratic crowds, brought together by social media, that stand firm and courageously refuse to go home until their demands for change are met. Our shared epiphany was that America, too, needs its Tahrir Square moment and its own kind of regime change. Perhaps not the hard regime change of Tunisia and Egypt, but certainly a soft one.</EM></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>They say they want a "<EM>Tahrir Square moment</EM>", but then what? As we are currently seeing on a daily basis with <A href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/second-day-of-clashes-in-egypt-could-lead-to-second-revolt/2011/11/20/gIQA1nvJeN_story.html">angry protests in Egypt</A> with hundreds being injured and a few dying every day, the magic of any "moment" is quickly lost as reality sinks in. To me, if you want some grand change, you really need a hard-core plan for the long run to actually make the change happen in a sustainable manner, not just some clever scheme to achieve that magic "moment" of "regime change", even if it is a "soft regime change." I mean, I think most people recognize that "toppling" is relatively easy compared to governing. Ask former President Bush about his little adventure into Iraq.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">One not so obvious point needs to be raised. The piece says that "<EM>Occupy was born because we the people feel that <STRONG>our country and our economy</STRONG> are moving precipitously in the wrong direction</EM>", but it has to be noted that the head puppet master, Kalle Lasn, is <EM>not</EM> an American citizen and does <EM>not</EM> live in America (he's an Estonian emigree, now a Canadian living in Vancouver, BC), so this immediately puts into question the true meaning of "we", "us", "our", and "our country" and "our economy." Deputy puppet master Micah White is indeed an American citizen, but he is a resident of Berkeley, California, which is about as separated from mainstream America as one can get (other than maybe Washington, D.C.)</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The puppet masters promise us that "<EM>we will see clearly articulated demands emerging.</EM>" The piece lists a few of the more predictable ones, consistent with the usual agenda of the liberal progressives.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">They say they will be entering a "<EM>visceral, canny, militantly nonviolent phase of our march to real democracy</EM>." I don't know how they can possible imagine non-violence that is simultaneously "militant" in nature. It sounds like somebody is going to get defrauded if not hurt in such a deal.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">And finally they assure us that they "<EM>will build momentum for a full-spectrum counterattack when the crocuses bloom next spring</EM>." Once again, they are giving lip service to peaceful and truly non-violent protest while using the language of violence to promote such efforts. How could anyone think that "<EM>a full-spectrum counterattack</EM>" could be anything but violent?</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">For reference, here is a similar, but milder opinion piece that the same puppet masters penned for <EM>The Guardian</EM> back on September 19, 2011, entitled "<A href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/19/occupy-wall-street-financial-system">The call to occupy Wall Street resonates around the world</A>."</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-3428431028703825334?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-28675644315787907092011-11-20T11:58:00.001-05:002011-11-20T11:58:49.740-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Granted, some police responses have been excessive, but are a lot of the Occupy protests truly non-violent? Is peaceful vs. violent a simple black and white, or is it more of a gradient? Is speech always by definition non-violent, or can it be just as threatening and harmful as physical violence? Can passive inaction be considered a form of violence? I would submit that extreme forms of speech and even some forms of seemingly passive inaction can indeed constitute forms of physical force or low-grade violence and definitely non-peaceful behavior.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>But before I elaborate, I did want to mention that a lot of apparently excessive police activity is usually simply an attempt to preemptively avoid allowing the situation to get out of hand. That was a big lesson from N30, the protests against the WTO that did turn rather violent before the police cracked down on them. So, police "learned" their lesson from that episode and what we see today played out all across the country is that lesson that the N30 protesters "taught" the police.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>To me, peaceful people share public space and pathways and facilities, so any attempt to monopolize a public space or pathway or facility by protesters is clearly not "peaceful." It may be an act of civil disobedience, but physically blocking the use of this public space is indeed an act of force or low-grade violence against the non-protestors.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Locking arms and standing still to block public access or any other seemingly passive behavior may nominally seem to be non-violent, but since it retains the element of physical blockage and intimidation it is indeed a form of violence, albeit low-grade.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Civil disobedience is by definition unlawful, but can in fact be peaceful. A sit-in that does not block all access can be quite peaceful, non-threatening, non-intimidating, and indeed non-violent. There is some kind of line or gray area between action or peaceful inaction and physically infringing on the rights of others.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Chanting can be peaceful, for sure. But when the volume and intensity results in intimidation or the language is threatening or intimidating, then indeed it can be violent in nature. Incitement clearly needs to be treated as a form of violence, if only because it can quickly lead to violence. There can be nothing peaceful about threats or intimidation. Protesters can claim to be peaceful, but only to the extent that they refrain from crossing the line into threats, intimidation, name-calling, or incitement. Many protesters are in fact peaceful, but even if a very few cross the line and become aggressive, the quality of peaceful can quickly evaporate for the whole group.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>We're all used to disruptions of various sorts in our daily lives and tolerate them when they are minor and temporary, so protesters can get away with a very limited amount of disruption, but the truth is that disruption is a physical act, an act of force, even if that act is nominally passive. It is its physical quality that makes it an act of force, and hence an act of violence, albeit low-grade. Even very short temporary disruptions run the risk of inciting unexpected and possibly violent reactions, and hence need to be characterized as physical force and indeed at least a low-grade of violence.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>To be clear, to me, low-grade violence or any "show of force" and intent to disrupt or threaten or intimidate is clearly not peaceful in nature.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">So, yes, many protests and protesters can clearly be truly peaceful and truly non-violent, but it is equally true that many forms of protest involve a physical element and various forms of intimidation if not outright incitement and hence need to be considered at least a low-grade of violence. And since violence begets violence, there is a great risk that even low-grade violence can lead to hard-core violence.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">There is the practical problem that a protest can be made of of smaller groups of protesters, each with their own agenda and personality, so that some groups can be very peaceful and respectful of others even as other groups or individuals in the same overall protest can be quite the opposite. It is the latter who may taint the character of the entire protest, unfair as that may be. Unfortunately, it is the prospect of those latter "bad apples" that force the police and civic leaders to act preemptively and sometimes excessively to all protesters.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-2867564431578790709?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-23882677783763542342011-11-20T11:03:00.001-05:002011-11-20T11:03:37.924-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>On my way back up to midtown on my usual walk around lower Manhattan yesterday (11/19) I passed by the TD Bank branch on the corner of 14th Street and Fifth Avenue and saw some "occupy" banners hanging above the bank signs and even a tent hung on the side of the building above the bank. Looking closer I saw a lot of posters in the windows of the second floor. The occupied space is actually leased by the New School (supposedly from Wells Fargo) who is supposedly willing to tolerate <A href="http://occupywallst.org/article/spotted-ny-mili-tents/">the occupants</A> in that portion of a student study center.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">There is certainly a lot of vacant commercial, retail, and office space around that people could theoretically "occupy." Maybe that is a possible next phase of the occupy movement. But they're not really occupying "Wall Street". They're really occupying "the lingering effects of the recession" or "the weak recovery."</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">One of the banners is quite telling: "Annihilate Capitalism." That doesn't seem oriented towards garnering broad support and would tend to limit the movement to being a narrow niche and not being able to appeal to mainstream America. OTOH, it is kind of a trademark action of a "culture jammer" that Adbusters would probably appreciate.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">During the minute or so that I stopped at the curb to read all the posters and banners I saw almost nobody else stop or even apparently notice them. One woman stopped and took a picture. That was it. Interesting. This suggests that even if the movement can stay in this mode of operation, they may quickly lose the attention of the general populace.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- Jack Krupansky</DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-2388267778376354234?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-90465167663643744692011-11-19T11:45:00.001-05:002011-11-19T11:45:44.451-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Yes, it is absolutely true that the numeric value of the financial wealth of a "rich" person is greater than for a "poor" person or even a "middle class" person or a "working class" person, but in our system of representational government each still gets a single vote. The "inequality" of financial income or wealth is a red herring and completely irrelevant when it comes to choosing representatives. There is a myth or "narrative" that money buys access, but there is plenty of access in our system and the perceived extra access provided by money is grossly overrated. If there is so much money in politics it is precisely because it doesn't manage to buy the degree of access and control or even influence that progressive liberals and groups such as Occupy Wall Street and the rest of the national Occupy movement imagine it does.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Lobbying and bribery are not the same. Bribery and extortion are crimes and of course should be prosecuted, but lobbying and otherwise legally seeking to influence government is neither a crime nor inherently evil or "corrupt." Even unions, environmental groups, state and local governments, and a variety of social advocacy groups pursuing "social justice" engage in lobbying in Washington. Lobbying is hardly limited to business and "corporatists."</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Liberal groups are lobbying as much as conservative groups. If conservatives raise a lot of money for lobbying, it is precisely because they are competing against the lobbying of liberal groups.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Sure, the rich have more money, but there are fewer of them. Sure the middle class and working class have less individual income and wealth, but there are more of them. It actually kind of balances out, in a rough sense. In fact, as famed economist Joseph Stiglitz's own numbers show, the 1% only have 25% of total income and only 40% of total wealth. Yes, the 99% actually do get the lion share of the income, 75%, and possess a modest majority of the total wealth, 60%. But when it comes to votes and winning elections, which is all that politicians actually really care about, it is number of votes and not the income or wealth of the individual voters that determines who wins the elections. Sure, campaign funding does matter, but once again there is no clear indication that a smaller number of large donations really "buys" more votes than a larger number of small donations.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The simple fact is that big business needs workers and consumers and has a vested interest in jobs, healthy incomes, and (relatively) happy workers. The problem with declining incomes over the past few decades is a problem, not a "feature" for businesses. Sure, businesses seek to keep expenses down, but they also seek to retain workers and keep them reasonably happy.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>A lot of the decline in incomes over the past few decades has far less to do with some devious scheme of the rich and all to do with a needed adjustment after the excesses of unreasonable wage hikes due to union extortion in the 1960's and 1970's ("pay up or we strike!" and state and local politicians "buying" the support of unions) coupled with the high expense of dealing with the ballooning regulatory environment in the U.S. in that period as well. Starting in the early 1980's and even late 1970's, increased foreign competition (e.g., cheaper imported compact cars and electronics and textiles) and the maturing of the Baby Boomers as consumers resulted in intense pressure on businesses to cut costs. They really had no choice. There was no longer a growing market for the products and rising prices that they had depended upon during the earlier period when they passed the cost of higher wages and regulatory expenses directly on to consumers. And the Federal Reserve under Paul Volcker put an end to elevated inflation as well. Competition was changing, consumers were changing, technology was changing, government and regulation were changing, etc. None of that was any kind of grand conspiracy by The 1%.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>And it is simply true that far too many middle class, working class, and poor consumers spent too much and saved too little. There was simply too much "consumerism." Was there some grand conspiracy by The 1% to encourage an excess of consumption and a deficit of savings? No, not that I am aware of. Sure, there was lots of advertising to encourage consumption, but there was certainly a dearth of discipline and responsibility on the part of The 99%. To assert that they were not responsible for their own actions is absurd. It is also true than many (most) of us got very poor if any financial education in how to properly budget for the future and how to properly prioritize saving over spending.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>If the activists and promoters of the class warfare tactic of blaming income/wealth inequality and blaming The Rich for that inequality believe they have a good case for their beliefs, I have yet to hear that case. Yes, I have heard their arguments, but as I note above, their arguments ring hollow and do not amount to a solid case.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Yes, we have high unemployment and underemployment and stagnant incomes, but businesses stand to benefit from addressing these issues as much as workers themselves, so this really is more of a 100% of us in the same boat than the divisive argument of The 99% vs. The 1% and blaming The Rich for all social and economic ills.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Income/wealth inequality is an ideological "talking point", not an enlightening path to a solution to anybody's problems.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-9046516766364374469?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-7934050749214666852011-11-18T18:33:00.001-05:002011-11-18T18:33:56.655-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>If the term "redistribution of wealth" is a surefire sign of a socialist (or at least a socialist at heart), "wealth extraction" is certainly a rock-solid indication of a socialist as well. The (socialist) theory is that The Rich get rich by "extracting wealth" from The Poor. As the Socialist Central Committee of America's Socialist Party says in their "<A href="http://www.scc-asp.org/agenda.html">Socialist Agenda</A>":</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <DIV><EM>Capitalism is an exclusive economic system that extracts wealth from lower ranked families to subsidize the affluent lifestyles of families in the upper ranks.</EM></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>Personally, I hadn't heard the term "wealth extraction" or "extraction of wealth" very often in the past , but since Occupy Wall Street popped onto the scene it is getting bandied about much more frequently.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-793405074921466685?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-62998954606890022532011-11-18T13:45:00.000-05:002011-11-18T13:46:07.779-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>The multiple Occupy Wall Street protest events yesterday were a mixed bag. The "Shut Down Wall Street" protest in the morning did attract some attention, but was on the small side and really didn't "shut down" the stock market, banks, or other financial markets in any way. Maybe that's all they really wanted: a little attention. I've seen absolutely zip in terms of any coverage of the "Occupy the Subways" phase in the afternoon. The only real success of the day was when students and union members joined in moderate-sized marches from Union Square and Cooper Union down to Foley Square. The march down Fifth Avenue was probably the most successful since the police were focused on the march down Broadway and so preoccupied with keeping the Broadway marchers on the sidewalk that the Fifth Avenue marchers were able to walk out in the street between the cars and trucks and vans disrupting rush-hour traffic (a little compared to the normal disruption of rush-hour traffic itself.) That said, I'm not sure that disruptive and chaotic "march" delivered much of a coherent "message" to anybody. After Foley Square the marchers walked across the Brooklyn bridge, uneventfully. Later, livestream showed only a few dozen diehard "occupiers" hanging out at Zuccotti Park, actually being "peaceful."</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Without all those students and union members, who can't be counted on 24x7, the Occupy Wall Street movement is barely hanging in there.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>One amusing anecdote... Late Thursday evening a young woman stopped by the livestream in Zuccotti Park for just a couple of minutes, saying how she missed out on all the action because she "had to work" and she had to go home to get some sleep so she could "work tomorrow." Another guy from Utica, NY lamented that their camp shut down because all but two of them had jobs to go to and needed to get some sleep at home. The press has been filled with examples of people who left jobs to come down to protest.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>So much for the idea that a lack of jobs is "fueling the movement."</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>This really is a movement of the elite. Sure, there are probably plenty of unemployed characters sucked into the frenzy as well, but it really does seem to be more of a social/political movement than an economics-based movement.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>People in the movement seem to want "change" not to help create sustainable jobs for real people, but in support of their social/political ideology and agenda.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>The whole 1%/99% angle seems less about achieving the results of more and better jobs than picking an ideological fight. It sure smacks of "class warfare" to me.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Occupy Wall Street seems quiet today. Nothing but reruns on the main <A href="http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution">livestreams</A>.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>There have been no new instructions from The Mother Ship, the puppet masters at <A href="http://www.adbusters.org/">Adbusters, Culture Jammers HQ</A> in Vancouver, BC (Canada) today. In fact, none since Wednesday.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Maybe the main accomplishment of the day was probably a quote from one of the kids hanging out at Zuccotti late in the evening who had a great retort to an interloper who referred to them by their own moniker of being "a leaderless movement" – he said "No, we're not a leaderless movement, we're a movement of leaders."</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>I'll probably stop by Zuccotti on my usual Saturday walk around all of Lower Manhattan, not that I expect to see much that I haven't already seen on livestreams. Before Occupy Wall Street there was always a modest crowd of vendors, tourists, and the homeless and skateboard crowds hanging out there.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Other than that, I think I can safely put Occupy Wall Street on my "ignore" list for the rest of the year, but I'll keep an eye open for any major new developments, other than random noise such as the kind of protests we saw yesterday.</DIV> <DIV><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-6299895460689002253?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-80864054855882654292011-11-16T20:53:00.001-05:002011-11-16T20:53:28.364-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>I know that last week I said I was going to ignore the Occupy Wall Street movement for the rest of the year, but the "reset" of the movement's occupation of Zuccotti park in Manhattan kind of "changes everything" or at least has the prospect of changing everything. In fact, the movement's Mother Ship, the puppet masters at <A href="http://www.adbusters.org/">Adbusters</A> Culture Jammers HQ in Vancouver, BC, just issued <A href="http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/tactical-briefing-19.html">Tactical Briefing #19 – Our Existential Moment</A>, which bluntly states that:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <DIV><EM>Our movement is living through an existential, make-or-break moment.</EM></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>That's actually a semi-grim admission for a movement based on blind optimism, but part of that is probably simply to frighten the movement's members and supporters and promoters into a higher level of commitment and involvement.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>The self-styled Culture Jammers admit the importance of New York to their movement, referring to Zuccotti Park as "<EM>our movement's spiritual home.</EM>"</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>The "briefing" goes on to say:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <DIV><EM>This assault has stiffened our resolve. <STRONG>Now begins the second, visceral, canny, militant phase of our nonviolent march to real democracy.</STRONG> We regroup, lick our wounds and <STRONG>begin our counterattack as early as tomorrow.</STRONG></EM></DIV> <DIV><EM></EM>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><EM>We will turn this winter into a training ground for precision disruptions – flashmobs, stink bombs, edgy theatrics – against the megacorps and the unrepentant 1%, a festival of resistance in the snow with, or without, an encampment that'll <STRONG>lay the tactical foundation for our Spring Offensive.</STRONG></EM></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>I note that although they superficially claim nonviolence, they resort frequently to the language of violence: "<EM>militant phase</EM>", "<EM>counterattack</EM>", "<EM>disruptions</EM>", "<EM>bombs</EM>", "<EM>resistance</EM>", and "<EM>Spring Offensive.</EM>" If noviolence is truly the goal, why resort to so much language of violence? Don't they accept that "words have meaning"? Or maybe they do.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>I may or may not comment on the activities of the movement on "<A href="http://occupywallst.org/article/ows-calls-nonviolent-solidarity-november-17th/">N17</A>" which is their code word for their "Day of Action" tomorrow (November 17th.) They say they intend to "Shut Down Wall Street" and "Occupy the Subways", but that remains to be seen and I am rather skeptical that they will get much further than some flash mobs, some union rallies, minor disruptions, and a bunch of arrests. I note that they use the same naming nomenclature as the <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-globalization_movement">anti-globalization movement</A> (N30, A16, J18, etc.) But after tomorrow I hope and expect to go back to ignoring the movement unless they hit some other new and significant existential make-or-break moment or milestone.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-8086405485588265429?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-28153541342160848512011-11-16T15:29:00.001-05:002011-11-16T15:29:44.006-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Matt Taibbi of <EM><A href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-i-stopped-worrying-and-learned-to-love-the-ows-protests-20111110">The Rolling Stone</A></EM> is yet another member of the gang of outsiders seeking to co-opt the Occupy Wall Street movement. In his article entitled "<A href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-i-stopped-worrying-and-learned-to-love-the-ows-protests-20111110">How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the OWS Protests</A>" he re-interprets the "aims" of the movement as:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <DIV><EM>... I'm beginning to see another angle. Occupy Wall Street was always about something much bigger than a movement against big banks and modern finance. It's about providing a forum for people to show how tired they are not just of Wall Street, but everything. <STRONG>This is a visceral, impassioned, deep-seated rejection of the entire direction of our society</STRONG>, a refusal to take even one more step forward into the shallow commercial abyss of phoniness, short-term calculation, withered idealism and intellectual bankruptcy that American mass society has become. If there is such a thing as going on strike from one's own culture, this is it. And by being so broad in scope and so elemental in its motivation, it's flown over the heads of many on both the right and the left.</EM></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Who knows, maybe a lot of the true, card-carrying, legitimate members of the OWS movement&nbsp; may agree with Matt or at least his general sentiments, but then we are once again faced with the prospect of a supposedly leaderless organization being "lead" by someone outside the organization.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Or maybe we will essentially get a new OWS-Prime social-political "movement" that is the original movement (co-opted) wrapped in the protective ideological cloak of the co-opters, whatever that might really be.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-2815354134216084851?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-22324874681803916012011-11-16T13:46:00.001-05:002011-11-16T13:46:26.621-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>The real issue is not what's next for Occupy Wall Street or whether they will accomplish anything at all, but which socio-political faction will win at co-opting them. That would appear to the the far-left progressive liberal wing of the Democratic party, exemplified by the Big Three economists, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, and Jeffrey Sachs, as well as Thomas Friedman, Elizabeth Warren, and others. Most of them are not political activists per se, but have clearly been cheerleading for the Occupy Wall Street movement.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>The far-left progressive wing has so far failed to fully capture the agenda of the party and be a "real force" on the national political front. They excel at flitting in and out of the political scene, but also excel at avoiding any deep commitment to the party and even occasionally flirt with hinting at "a third party."</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Elizabeth is running for Senate, so we'll have to see how she does and how she may try to further co-opt the OWS movement.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>So far, the movement itself has expressed no political aspirations other than <A href="http://occupywallst.org/">to insist that</A> "<EM>we don't need politicians to build a better society</EM>."</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="http://Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-2232487468180391601?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-2063879403482648262011-11-16T13:27:00.001-05:002011-11-16T13:27:57.712-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Huh, I just noticed that I was incorrectly spelling Zuccotti as Zucotti (one "c.") Oops. My mistake. My vision or at least my visual acuity must be weakening.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-206387940348264826?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-69481902121583679022011-11-16T08:14:00.001-05:002011-11-16T08:14:34.642-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>After "cleaning" Zucotti Park, the police barricaded the park and instituted controlled access with inspection of bags, as well as lots of private security patrols within the park, and very strict prohibitions against sleeping, and then eventually permitted protesters to re-enter the park, but does this really constitute "occupying" the park (and Wall Street) that Occupy Wall Street is now claiming? Doesn't seem so to me. As of when I write this, 7:55 AM, 11/16, <A href="http://www.livestream.com/occupynyc">the livestream for the park</A> shows just a few people and mostly the private security guys.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Granted, the movement is certainly not "gone", at least yet, and maybe/probably they are regrouping (and awaiting instructions from The Mother Ship, the puppet masters up in Vancouver, BC, at <A href="http://www.adbusters.org/">adbusters.org</A>), but in truth it is simply too soon to tell what the future holds for the movement.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>For right now, at this moment, "occupation" is dead in NYC. But like and good zombie attack don't get complacent betting that they will necessarily "stay down", for long. Stay tuned.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>I'm sure there will be plenty of follow-on "pop-up", flash mob protests, but will they merely be post-mortem involuntary twitches or something more?</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>As I close, I see that the "boring" scene on the <A href="http://www.livestream.com/occupynyc">livestream</A> has been replaced with... reruns of the raid videos. Is that the future of the movement, reruns to relive the "glory days" of the movement?</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-6948190212158367902?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-58760506521920242772011-11-15T13:29:00.001-05:002011-11-15T13:29:11.971-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>A lot of protesters, pundits, and progressive liberals are making a big stink about "The 1%" vs. "The 99%" or "The rich" and "The Rest of Us", but the simple truth is that we are a society of shades of gray rather than simple black and white. I see our socio-economic system broken down into "strata" of the rich, professionals, the middle class, the working class, the poor, unemployed youth, and "the rest."</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>At the top of the heap we do have the "super rich" who either don't work or if they do work it is despite the fact that they don't need to work to survive and thrive perfectly well without income from work.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Then we have the professionals, the elite workers who certainly take down hefty paychecks, but only because they work for it and have a significant investment in professional training. This includes executives, managers, doctors, lawyers, scientists, professors, accountants, engineers, elite sales people, etc. They commonly have a graduate degree of some sort, or at least a professionally-oriented undergraduate degree, although in rare cases exceptional individuals can do the "Horatio Alger" thing. Even today, we have college dropouts that created monster successes such as YouTube and FaceBook, not to mention Microsoft and Apple.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Then we have the Middle Class. Technically many of the professionals are part of the middle class as well, at least from the perspective of raw income level, but the bulk of the Middle Class are the workers who have an undergraduate college degree but not necessarily one that is strictly professional in nature. They may have only a liberal arts degree or a degree from a community college. They have jobs that have some degree of complexity and frequently require creative problem solving or significant people skills. They are typically, but not necessarily white collar, office workers. This would include many teachers, supervisors, lab technicians, sales people, etc. Some teachers may have the advanced degrees or experience to qualify for the professional class, but that less typical.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Then we have the Working Class. Although some may have college degrees, that would be atypical. More typical is a high school education, possibly some vocational training, possibly a degree from a community college. Their work tends to be more structured and well-defined and much lower in complexity or complex in a very narrow technical sense such as a mechanic or manufacturing worker. I would put most soldiers in the working class, although some (e.g., senior officers and pilots) qualify as professionals as well.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>In recent decades we have had a significant blurring of middle class and working class, if not a virtual merger of the two, but I think that was a mistake (distinction in education level, task complexity, and people skills) and accounts for a lot of the anxiety over the "decimation of the middle class." In particular, a lot of non-degreed manufacturing workers (among others) were considered middle class when in truth they were simply at the high-end of the working class. Now, especially over the past decade, we have seen that trend reverse so that we are getting a much cleaner delineation between the middle and working classes.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Then we have the poor. They are "chronically unemployed", either never having a job or alternating between short spurts of temporary employment and longer periods of unemployment. Limited education is a factor, but social problems tend to be the underlying cause of their poverty. They may truly want jobs but simply aren't able to surmount their social problems. Their main "hope" for employment is to gain assistance and perseverance at dealing with those social problems.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: ">We also have a relatively new category of unemployed youth. They have the education, the degrees, to possibly even start out as entry-level professionals, but due to economic weakness and high unemployment they simply aren't "needed." Technically, one could assign each of them to the unemployed of the other relevant categories as if they could find work, but they are special in some sense, namely that they never had a chance and it is not for a lack of education or hard work or trying.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: ; COLOR: ">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Finally we have "the rest", people for whom employment is not an option, including those in prison or jails, those in mental institutions, the disabled, the mentally ill, etc.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">This is my overall model of our socio-economic system. I think it provides a more enlightening and productive framework than the 1% vs. 99% "model" which seems more focused on class warfare than enlightenment and productivity.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">I'll reserve a discussion of "inequality" for another post.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-5876050652192024277?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-14746551108987753282011-11-15T10:33:00.000-05:002011-11-15T10:34:00.103-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Now that they have been "evicted" from Zucotti Park, the Occupy Wall Street crowd are at a turning point and will have to decide what their new focus will be. I'm sure that they will not be "going away", but I doubt that they can succeed at "occupying" any other space in Manhattan. If they try occupying a public park in NYC they will quickly run afoul of the new "no smoking" ordinance, not to mention the camping prohibition. I'm sure they will have lots of "pop-up" protests in the coming weeks and months. My guess is that they will try to "shut down" street intersections or business locations on occasion. Social media will facilitate such "flash mobs", but also make it just as easy for the police to keep tabs on them. But New Yorkers are used to occasional disturbances and closures from street fairs and parades to conventions and fires and accidents, so it is hard to imagine what the protesters could do to "phase" New York. And they have the problem of finding something to do that will attract the sympathy and support of the vast majority of the general public without annoying them and turning them off in the process.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>If the "occupy" movement reverts to simply a "protest" movement, I'm not sure what they will accomplish. Sure, they will exercise their rights to peaceable assembly and free speech and make their grievances know, but is that really all they want, a permanent protest movement?</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>So, the open question is whether the occupy movement is about to fizzle out or morph into something else that is not known at this time.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>I did walk by and through the "camp" on Saturday and it seemed to have less people than the previous Saturday, although it was now dark (5:30 PM) due to the time change, so maybe there is a natural waxing and waning of the camp size as the day progresses. Still, I would say that OWS was NOT "growing" in NYC. I think it had peaked and people were starting to lose some of their passion and commitment (and tolerance for the weather.) Not the hard-core who stayed until the police dragged them away earlier this morning, but the "hangers-on" and "tourist" protesters/activists and other "supporters" whose commitment was tentative at best. Sympathetic, yes, but deeply committed, not so much.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>To me, the critical issue was whether or not the movement was poised to attract participation from the vast majority of the general public, and it seemed to me that the answer was a fairly resounding "no." Sympathy, maybe, commitment, nope.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>That said, we will have to see how the movement decides to remake themselves in the coming days, simply as a protest movement or something else, and whether that something else draws in the participation of the vast majority of the general public. That's the essential question, whether to remain a "niche annoyance" or to "go mainstream." Personally, I don't think they have any chance of succeeding at the latter, but know knows what they may turn themselves into.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Meanwhile, back at The Mother Ship in Vancouver, BC, "Culture Jammers HQ", Adbusters.org, the puppet masters of the "Occupy" movement, have issued "<A href="http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/adbusters-tactical-briefing-18.html">Tactical Briefing #18</A>" to provide guidance and inspiration to the "Occupy" movement, but that was issued before Zucotti Park was "cleared." It will be interesting to read what the movement's puppet masters come up with next. Their "tactical briefing" advises us:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><EM>We declare "victory" and throw a party... We dance like we've never danced before and invite the world to join us. Then we clean up, scale back and most of us go indoors while the die-hards hold the camps. We use the winter to brainstorm, network, build momentum so that we may emerge rejuvenated with fresh tactics, philosophies, and a myriad projects ready to rumble next Spring.</EM></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-1474655110898775328?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-81184208956826412802011-11-13T22:01:00.001-05:002011-11-13T22:01:17.817-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>I was personally quite heartened to see seasoned economists put in charge of both Greece and Italy. Granted that is no guaranteed silver bullet solution, but at least it is a solid step in the right direction. Both countries, and Europe in general, still have lot of difficult decisions to make about their fiscal policies (and the EU's united monetary policy), but the willingness to give sane economic policies a shot is a very welcome development.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Sure, euro critics/skeptics will continue to remind us that they consider this a mere band-aid that will buy the EU a few months or maybe even just a few weeks or even days and that the euro is doomed, but that's what we should expect them to say, no matter what positive developments occur.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Now, whether the markets continue to respond positively as they did on Thursday remains an open question. It could easily go either way. Thursday's pop could already have discounted any amount of positive news, or maybe not. After the big decline on Wednesday, the partial recovery on Thursday may simply have been a classic "dead-cat bounce" and simply have been due to short-sellers locking in a profit ahead of a long weekend when anything can (and did) happen. Another risk is that a lot of professional speculators may still have a "sell into any rally" bias which weakens the market as it moves higher. That means that even if stock futures are higher, any initial pop at the open could be eroded as the day progresses. But if there is any true underlying bullish sentiment, the market could (maybe) move up through any superficial cynicism.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">I don't mean to be cynical about the market outlook for the coming week, but simply to highlight the downside risks despite any superficial good news. There is still plenty of room for excessive volatility.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">But getting back to the headline question, I do actually expect that the economists will save Greece and Italy, and Europe as well. Maybe not in a single week but over time.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-8118420895682641280?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-20672890106616000772011-11-12T13:46:00.001-05:002011-11-12T13:46:23.137-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Here's the most recent list of the Top 10 largest banks in the U.S., as of June 30, 2011, courtesy of the <A href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/lbr/current/default.htm">Federal Reserve</A>:</DIV> <UL> <LI>1. JPMorgan Chase &amp; Co (JPMORGAN CHASE BK NA/JPMORGAN CHASE &amp; CO, COLUMBUS, OH) <LI>2. Bank of America (BANK OF AMER NA/BANK OF AMER CORP, CHARLOTTE, NC) <LI>3. Citigroup (CITIBANK NA/CITIGROUP, LAS VEGAS, NV) <LI>4. Wells Fargo (WELLS FARGO BK NA/WELLS FARGO &amp; CO, SIOUX FALLS, SD) <LI>5. U.S. Bank (U S BK NA/U S BC, CINCINNATI, OH) <LI>6. PNC Bank (PNC BK NA/PNC FNCL SVC GROUP, WILMINGTON, DE) <LI>7. BNY Mellon (BANK OF NY MELLON/BANK OF NY MELLON CORP, NEW YORK, NY) <LI>8. HSBC Bank USA (HSBC BK USA NA/HSBC NORTH AMER HOLD, MCLEAN, VA) <LI>9. FIA Card Services (FIA CARD SVC NA/BANK OF AMER CORP, WILMINGTON, DE) <LI>10. State Street (STATE STREET B&amp;TC/STATE STREET CORP, BOSTON, MA)</LI></UL> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">I'm note sure why FIA is separated from Bank of America, but I suspect it may be their credit card operations.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>I am amused that Citigroup is listed as being in Las Vegas. Makes sense. Others may not be as amused as me.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>And here is the list of the next ten to round out the Top 20 Largest banks in the U.S.:</DIV> <UL> <LI>11. TD Bank (T D BK NA/TD US P &amp; C HOLD ULC, WILMINGTON, DE) <LI>12. SunTrust Bank (SUNTRUST BK/SUNTRUST BK, ATLANTA, GA) <LI>13. BB&amp;T (BRANCH BKG&amp;TC/BB&amp;T CORP, WINSTON-SALEM, NC) <LI>14. Capital One (CAPITAL ONE NA/CAPITAL ONE FC, MCLEAN, VA) <LI>15. Regions Bank (REGIONS BK/REGIONS FC, BIRMINGHAM, AL) <LI>16. Citibank SD (CITIBANK SD NA/CITIGROUP, SIOUX FALLS, SD) <LI>17. Chase Bank (CHASE BK USA NA/JPMORGAN CHASE &amp; CO, NEWARK, DE) <LI>18. Citizens Bank/RBS Citizens (RBS CITIZENS NA/CITIZENS FNCL GROUP, PROVIDENCE, RI) <LI>19. Fifth Third Bank (FIFTH THIRD BK/FIFTH THIRD BC, CINCINNATI, OH) <LI>20. Goldman Sachs (GOLDMAN SACHS BK USA/GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP THE, NEW YORK, NY)</LI></UL> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">I have no idea why Citibank SD is listed separately, but I suspect it may be their credit card operations. Ditto for Chase Bank.<BR></DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">TD Bank is actually a Canadian bank ("T" for Toronto, the "D" is for Dominion.) I have a local checking account with them. TD had bought CommerceBank which was based in New Jersey and with branches in New York where I opened an account.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Interesting that only two out of the Top 20 are based in New York and only one of the Top 10. And Wells Fargo is based in South Dakota. Yeah, right. These legal shenanigans are annoying.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">It's also a real pain trying to get the exact name of a bank. In most cases they publically use a trade name rather than their actual legal name. And with so many subsidiaries and parent and holding companies it is quite a... shell game. Again, lots of legal shenanigans.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Most of my money is in two smaller banks, one in Texas, and one in Ohio. I also have a fair amount of money in <A href="http://www.smartypig.com/">SmartyPig.com</A>, which is aactually held "on deposit" in Compass Bank or BBVA or BBVA Compass or BBVA Compass Bancshares ("<EM>BBVA Compass is a trade name of Compass Bank, a member of the BBVA Group.</EM>", according to <A href="http://www.bbvacompass.com/">their web site</A>) which is at #29 on the Federal Reserve list and based in Birmingham, AL. I hope they weren't holding too many of Jefferson County's bankrupt bonds. But, not to worry, as long as you have FDIC protection.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-2067289010661600077?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-16638283315391957032011-11-12T12:35:00.000-05:002011-11-12T12:36:10.246-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Isn't economics really just a lot of numbers and math? So, why can't economists agree on... just about anything? Ah, well, yes, maybe there is a lot of numbers and math, but there are also a lot of assumptions behind that math and a lot of interpretation of the numbers and the mathematical results and subjective values on those interpretations. In fact, it is all such a mess that economists refer to "<A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_economic_thought">schools of economic thought</A>", which basic means groups of people who can't with other groups of people. The Wikipedia gives us this list of 27 schools of economic thought (and more!):</DIV> <OL> <LI>Ancient economic thought <LI>Islamic economics <LI>Scholasticism <LI>Mercantilism <LI>Physiocrats <LI>Classical political economy <LI>American (National) School <LI>French liberal school <LI>German historical school <LI>English historical school <LI>French historical school <LI>Utopian economics <LI>Marxian economics <LI>State socialism <LI>Ricardian socialism <LI>Anarchist economics <LI>Distributism <LI>Institutional economics <LI>New institutional economics <LI>Neoclassical economics <LI>Lausanne school <LI>Austrian school <LI>Stockholm school <LI>Keynesian economics <LI>Chicago school <LI>Carnegie school <LI>Neo-Ricardianism <LI>Modern schools <LI>Current heterodox schools <LI>Other 20th century schools <LI>Viewpoints within mainstream economics <LI>Viewpoints outside economics</LI></OL> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Even to get agreement between the prominent Chicago, Austrian, and Keynesian schools&nbsp; would be difficult enough, but we have so many diverse views on so many of the factors that influence how the basic numbers and math of economics are interpreted. Even for seemingly simply issues such as the role of government in commerce.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-1663828331539195703?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-47287378847328844782011-11-12T11:54:00.000-05:002011-11-12T11:55:13.461-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>I just noticed this Gallup report from yesterday entitled "<A href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/150692/Employer-Based-Health-Insurance-Continues-Trend-Down.aspx">Employer-Based Health Insurance Continues to Trend Down</A>" which notes that only 44.5% of Americans get health insurance from their employer. Gallup says this number has steadily declined since they started tracking it in 2008 (at 49.8% back then.)</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>To me this is further evidence that we need to Repeal Obamacare – and replace it with universal health care (with no fine print!).</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The uninsured rate held steady at 17.3%.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">The U.S. Census Bureau says there are 312.6 million people in the U.S. now, so that is 54 million uninsured. BTW, I am uninsured, but that is my personal preference and I could afford health insurance if I wanted it or felt I needed it. I am essentially self-insured.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-4728737884732884478?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-49834252337383956772011-11-12T10:08:00.000-05:002011-11-12T10:09:06.948-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>I'm going to go ahead and agree with conservative Republicans that Obamacare should be repealed. But, then I would replace the current system with "no fine print" universal health care. The intense struggle to get any kind of health care "reform" through Congress really just reaffirms what Michael Moore already knew years ago: the fundamental basis for our current health care system simply sucks and can't be "fixed" other than by going with a proven system that is known to work: universal health care. And I'd add my own twist: "No fine print", meaning no oddball exceptions and limitations or exclusions or anything that would require that anybody read or understand any fine print. All you need to do is simply show up at a clinic and ask for care.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>How do we get there? Ohhhh... who knows. It will take some time and maybe we'll have to muddle through a few more iterations of "reform" of the current system before we get there, but the way I see things the writing is on the wall and universal health care is inevitable. If for no other reason than that eventually corporations will get tired of having to divert management attention and budgets to dealing with the proverbial endlessly rising health care costs. Ditto for federal, state, and local budgets. And military health care. And Medicare. An Medicaid. We simply have too much complexity and too much bureaucracy and too much paperwork today.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>How to fund it? I propose that we simply have a national sales tax dedicated to health care.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Who would run it? I would have a national "standards" commission to set and monitor health care standards and then leave it to each state to run their own health care system according to those standards coupled with "local sensibilities." Budget based on state population, with some adjustment for the smallest states. Or maybe allow states to form regional health care consortiums. And maybe some of the larger states might want to have multiple regions and possible separate urban and non-urban areas to retain the principle of "local sensibilities."</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Meanwhile, let's continue soldiering on with Obamacare for the indefinite future, tweaking it every year or two as we get more experience with it.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- Jack Krupansky</DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-4983425233738395677?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-88073756655301944022011-11-11T11:25:00.001-05:002011-11-11T11:25:35.757-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>TIME has the headline "<A href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2099297,00.html">2 Dead at Vt., Oakland Occupy Protests</A>". I guess that means the movement has officially "arrived" as a legitimate social phenomenon. It's only a matter of time before web sites start using a "stats box" to give us an updated body count, with killings, shootings, assaults, sexual assaults, arrests, etc.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Up until a week or two ago the Occupy movement had a sense of innocence and purity to it. Now, its rapidly devolving into yet another power struggle, squabble, and thuggish bullying effort that merely mocks free speech.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-8807375665530194402?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-24817473184524595012011-11-11T11:15:00.001-05:002011-11-11T11:15:26.778-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>I don't think anyone definitively knows the exact formula for the endgame of Italy's sovereign debt crisis, but I do think "the writing on the wall" is for a bailout of some sort by the European Commission (EC.) How much comes from the European Central Bank (ECB) or the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) or individual European countries or the IMF or China or the UK or even the U.S., and what haircut debtholders will be asked to "voluntarily" accept remains to be seen, but the bottom line is that "the fix is in"; some sort of bailout will be arranged. It may not be pretty, it may not be what people really want, and it definitely won't satisfy the "euro critics", but it will happen. Why will it happen? What is the guarantee that it will happen? It's simply the way they do things in Europe. It's the whole point of the European Union. There is simply no compelling reason for Europe not to do it.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Is there a magical "window" when it has to happen and is that purported window "closing"? Not really. The Europeans will take their time and work things out at their own pace, regardless of what any "euro critics" think they have to say about the matter. The big benefit of stretching it out is that it helps to eliminate the "moral hazard" of bailouts. Sure, there is a moral hazard for bailouts, but if investors get the message that relief does not come quickly and without pain (e.g., the haircut), the moral hazard is minimized. Stretching out the process assures that everyone has had a full chance to be heard, that all options have been explored, and then as many people as possible are "on board" with the final approach. Yes, stretching the process out builds anxiety, but it also minimizes anxiety at the end.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">So, yes, Italy, et al will continue to quite a drama in the coming weeks and even months, but the ultimate outcome (some sort of bailout) should not be a matter of dispute, even if the details must be haggled over.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-2481747318452459501?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-38477933883428802382011-11-09T18:08:00.001-05:002011-11-09T18:08:35.187-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>Despite significant anxiety about the economy, I think Obama is still a shoe-in for re-election in 2012. I think most people recognize that a lot of what is going on in the economy is simply beyond the control of Obama, Congress, the Fed, Wall Street, Big Business, or anybody else and simply a bad thing that we all have to slog through, and of course that the bad economy is mostly something that Obama inherited. Most importantly, I think most people would prefer a Democrat with a bias towards a better social safety net in bad times. And, to his credit, Obama's team has had a strong pro-business bias even if their rhetoric at times speaks more loudly to his traditional not-so-pro-business liberal "base."</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>The <A href="http://www.intrade.com/v4/home/">Intrade Prediction Market</A> is currently bidding a 50.1% chance of Obama's re-election, even as <A href="http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx">Gallop</A> is reporting only 43% job approval.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">My personal view is that Obama is taking a fairly stridently anti-business tone to appeal to his base right now, long before the election, to shore up that base, but come spring and early summer next year he will shift back to a very pro-business, pro-economic growth tone to appeal to moderate Americans, especially the center-right who he really needs to make in-roads with due to weakness in his base that he simply can't re-capture due to their profound sense of excessive expectations back in 2008.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Intrade currently indicates the Mitt Romney has a 67.2% chance of being the Republican nominee. He's probably the pick of the litter for Republicans, but I don't see that voters in the general election will see enough in him to dump Obama, provided that Obama "stays the course" and lets the economy incrementally improve over the next eleven months.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">This election will be Obama's to lose.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-3847793388342880238?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-27949206670291338002011-11-08T20:35:00.000-05:002011-11-08T20:36:03.369-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>I just finished reading the <A href="http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/IAEA_Iran_8Nov2011.pdf">latest IAEA report on Iran</A> and it is very clearly not as dramatic as various media reports and commentators have suggested. There really aren't any major "smoking guns" an Iran simply isn't "at the threshold" of having even a single nuclear weapon. Yes, Iran is continuing with uranium enrichment, yes Iran continues to drag their feet on answering IAEA questions and accessing all facilities, yes Iran had a number of nuclear weapon design activities going on through 2003, and yes there MAY have been some design and test-related activities in recent years, but the report simply does not detail and recent activity that would suggest that any Manhattan Project-scale of weapon activity is going on in Iran.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Mostly this was simply a current status report of the ongoing IAEA work and a little refinement of details along the timeline of the last decade (and even back to 1997 and even 1987), and a reiteration of the simple fact that the IAEA needs more cooperation from Iran.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>A common theme in the report: "<EM>As a result of Iran's lack of cooperation on those issues, the Agency is unable to verify and report fully on these matters.</EM>"</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>There is some indication of design work occurring in 2005, but nothing truly definitive.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>About the strongest and clearest and specific thing the IAEA can say is:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><EM>The Agency has serious concerns regarding possible&nbsp; military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme. After assessing carefully and critically the extensive information available to it, the Agency finds the information to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. The information also indicates that prior to the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured programme, and that some activities may still be ongoing.</EM></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">They can't definitively tell us that the bulk of these activities ARE ongoing, just that "<EM>some activities may still be ongoing</EM>." Doesn't sound like a Manhattan Project to me.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">We had more than that going into Iraq, and look how well that turned out in terms of validating the purported evidence.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">So, let's keep the IAEA at it and maybe one day they will turn up a truly credible smoking gun.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">But, most importantly, let's cease and desist with the incessant drumbeat for military action in Iran.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-2794920667029133800?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-49801173403003769702011-11-07T19:31:00.002-05:002011-11-07T19:45:55.985-05:00<div dir="ltr"> <div style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <div>"Change" is a mantra thrown about by all activists, but only in a qualified form, such as "Change <em>we can believe in</em>." Well, change doesn't really work that way. Change is an inherent and fundamental force in the natural and manmade world. Accept change or be disappointed. We can't cherry-pick change, adopting the "good" change and rejecting the "bad" change. It's all or... well, it's all, period. My own personal view is that all change is inherently good. In fact, it is the very change that we find least appealing that typically has the most value for us, provided that we manage to effectively exploit that change and not fight it tooth and nail.</div> <div> </div> <div>To state it simply:</div> <blockquote style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"> <div><em>All change is inherently good, especially that change which is least desired.</em></div></blockquote> <div style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">If it sometimes or even frequently seems that some particular change appears to have little positive value or an excessively negative value, it is most likely true that we have simply not tried hard enough to discover creative ways to exploit that change. Maybe we simply have blinders on or some outdated bias that interferes with our ability to see a path to a better future that exploits that change.</div> <div style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> </div> <div style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">-- <a href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</a></div></div></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-4980117340300376970?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-1078173019119711972011-11-02T17:06:00.001-04:002011-11-02T17:06:42.823-04:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>I've followed the whole Occupy Wall Street movement with great interest over the past month, but it is time for me to hit the "ignore" button on them for the rest of the year (at least.) They've gotten repetitive and predictable and don't appear to be likely to do anything truly of long-term interest. Who knows, maybe they'll surprise me and somehow get their act together, but they simply don't appear to be on an upwards trend at this point, in terms of garnering significant additional deeply passionate support from the rest of the so-called 99% that is not already active in the movement. Yeah, sometimes the various unions (a small fraction of Americans all together) join in, but only halfheartedly, like with the so-called "General Strike" in Oakland right now. Sure, things could change at any moment, but I'll make that judgment on January 1, 2012 and determine then whether I can keep them on "ignore."</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>For now, I'll simply write off OWS as an offshoot of the anti-globalization movement. There's a little more to it than that, but that basically summarizes them quite well.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>FWIW, here's how I have been following the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement:</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>The <A href="http://www.adbusters.org/">Adbusters web site</A>. These are the guys/brains/puppet-masters behind the global "Occupy" movement. The "<EM>Culture Jammers HQ</EM>."</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>The <A href="http://occupywallst.org/">Occupy Wall Street web site</A>. The "official" web site for this "leaderless resistance movement."</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>The <A href="http://www.facebook.com/OccupyWallSt">Occupy Wall Street Facebook page</A>.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>The <A href="http://twitter.com/#!/OccupyWallStNYC">Occupy Wall Street Twitter feed</A>.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><A href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;gl=us&amp;tbm=nws&amp;btnmeta_news_search=1&amp;q=%E2%80%9COccupy+Wall+Street.%E2%80%9D&amp;oq=%E2%80%9COccupy+Wall+Street.%E2%80%9D&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=d1d-o1&amp;aql=&amp;gs_sm=e&amp;gs_upl=3377l3377l0l4857l1l1l0l0l0l0l92l92l1l1l0#ds=n&amp;pq=%E2%80%9Coccupy+wall+street.%E2%80%9D&amp;hl=en&amp;sugexp=kjrmc&amp;cp=19&amp;gs_id=6&amp;xhr=t&amp;q=Occupy+Wall+Street&amp;pf=p&amp;sclient=psy-ab&amp;safe=off&amp;gl=us&amp;tbm=nws&amp;source=hp&amp;oq=%E2%80%9COccupy+Wall+Street&amp;fp=4b46acdb570b9d1e">Google News for "Occupy Wall Street."</A></DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>On a typical Saturday on my normal schedule I walk all around lower Manhattan, including Union Square, Washington Square, Battery Park, Battery City Park, the World Trade Center Site, and sometimes Wall Street and even past Zucotti Park, so I am sure I will "notice" if the OWS movement actually does take off. And I regularly walk to, around, and through Central Park on various days of the week as well, so I'll certainly notice if OWS makes good on their "threat" to "occupy Central Park" as they have said they would.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">So, if the OWS movement does actually take off, I'll notice it first hand without having to waste another moment of my time reading about it on the Web.</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-107817301911971197?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-7908350648237709772011-02-20T15:23:00.000-05:002011-02-20T15:25:44.403-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman">Who exactly is rich these days? In other words, what criteria should we use to judge that someone is rich? In recent tax cut debates there seems to be a presumption that $250,000 of income is kind of the dividing line, but I don't quite buy it.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman">To me, the primary criterion for judging someone as being rich should be that they can live a relatively affluent lifestyle <EM>without working</EM>. In other words being rich is not about income per se, but a question of <EM>wealth</EM>. If you have sufficient wealth that you can live your affluent lifestyle <EM>solely on investment income</EM> from your wealth, <EM>then</EM> I would say that you are rich. And that is <EM>after taxes</EM> and <EM>after inflation</EM>. And that also requires a two-to-one <EM>safety margin</EM> so that you need not worry about what the stock market is doing or the state of the economy on either a daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly or even annual basis.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman">Put another way, being rich means you <EM>never</EM> have to <EM>worry</EM> about money.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman">That is what separates the <EM>rich</EM> from the <EM>middle class</EM> -- the latter have <EM>some money</EM> (unlike the poor or lower class who don't have enough money for the essentials of daily life), but are constantly <EM>worrying</EM> about it, frequently because they have chosen to live a level of affluence beyond their means (averaged over booms and busts.)</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman">So, given that base definition, how much money (wealth) do you need to be considered rich?</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman">Even back in early August 2007, just before the first big crumble of the financial crisis, in <A href="http://finaxyz.blogspot.com/2007/08/who-wants-to-be-millionaire.html">Who wants to be a millionaire?</A> I suggested that $50 million in liquid investments was the magic number. At the beginning of April 2008, as the financial crisis was starting to rumble on the backburner with increasing fury, in <A href="http://finaxyz.blogspot.com/2008/04/are-you-wealthy.html">Are you wealthy?</A> I reconsidered but reaffirmed that $50 million number. And today, after further reconsideration and calculation I also reaffirm that $50 million number.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman">I think it is reasonable to say an income of $250,000 (from your investments) is the rock-bottom low-end of being rich. Simply avoiding work is not enough, you need to afford some significant degree of affluence, so that you at least <EM>look rich</EM> (although you may make a tactical decision to "dress down" so that you do not appear to be rich even if you are.)</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman">For purposes of discussion I will assume a very conservative investment style consistent with no worrying about how your investments are doing. To me, that means long-term Treasury bonds. You can choose other investments based on your own risk tolerance, but for the purposes of defining <EM>worry-free rich</EM>, Treasury bonds fit the bill.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman">If you bought 30-year Treasury bonds at the most recent auction you got a yield of 4.75%. If you bought that same bond on the open market on Friday, the yield was 4.68%. For purposes of discussion, I'll presume that you buy only at the quarterly auctions.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman">Ignoring taxes and inflation for the moment, if you bought those 4.75% Treasuries, you would need $5.3 million of them to give you that $250,000 annual income. Unfortunately, taxes are not zero and inflation is not zero. Assuming the most recent annual headline inflation of 1.6%, that 4.75% becomes 3.15% and now you need $8 million for that same income level. I am presuming that you want that $250,000 income to "keep pace with inflation." There is no state or local income tax on Treasuries and I calculate the federal effective tax rate to be 27.05% using the 2010 federal tax tables. You may have deductions too, but let's start by being conservative. 4.75% minus 1.6% for inflation and 27.05% taxes gives us an effective yield of 2.30%, meaning that you would need Treasures in the amount of $10.9 million to give you that magical $250,000 annual income.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman">But wait... didn't I say earlier that you needed $50 million and this calculation shows that $11 million will do it? The answer is a classic "Yes, but..."</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman">It's all about assumptions.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman">First of all, if you really want to be conservative, you need what Warren Buffett's mentor Ben Graham called a "<EM>margin of safety</EM>." There are all sorts of crazy things that can happen in the real world, let alone the worlds of economics and finance. So, I am going to insist that a <EM>two-to-one</EM> margin of safety be used to judge someone as being rich. This is an important factor if you want to be able to <EM>sleep at night</EM> and not have to worry about money. So, that $10.9 million would really be $21.8 million. But even that is still far short of $50 million.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman">Inflation may currently be 1.6%, but that is historically quite low and we have seen times when it was 3% or even 4% or on occasion higher. So, to be conservative, I would say it would be better to assume a 3% inflation rate.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman">Treasury yields can also fluctuate significantly, so to be conservative I will knock that 4.75% yield down to 4.25%, which is what it was in the preceding auction.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman">So, assuming you want $250,000 per year, Treasury bonds yield 4.25%, inflation at 3%, and taxes at 27.05%, my calculation comes up with an effective yield of 0.91%, which translates into needed wealth of $27.4 million. Add in that two-to-one safety margin and you get $54.8 million, modestly more than my $50 million suggestion, but, lets just call it $50 million since we have been quite conservative in its assumptions.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman">Another assumption I made was that you need to live on <EM>income only</EM>, not liquidation of principal. Better to plan on leaving the $50 million as inheritance to family or charity rather that put the vagaries of fate in the financial markets into play and risk the potential for introducing worry into the lifestyle of the supposed "rich."</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman">So where does that leave you if you don't have $50 million in liquid wealth (which includes me, by the way)? If you still need to work to earn your $250,000 a year or are only a <EM>mere millionaire</EM>, you are definitely <EM>well-off</EM> and <EM>upper-middle class</EM>, but I wouldn't call you rich or wealthy.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman">AFAICT, "the rich" is mostly a term of partisan political disparagement and a tool for class warfare than an attempt at economic accuracy. Somehow, some liberal politicians have decreed that an income level of $250,000 defines "rich." It would be interesting to know who precisely started the "meme" of $250,000 of income meaning someone is "rich."</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman">In any case, my number for "rich" is $50 million in liquid investments with an after-tax, after-inflation yield of 0.91%. Anything less than that and you are just <EM>pretending</EM> to be rich.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face="Times New Roman">-- Jack Krupansky</FONT></P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-790835064823770977?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-38615085497395039832010-09-26T14:29:00.001-04:002010-09-26T14:29:46.790-04:00<P>Polarization on political and social issues has been around with us forever, but it seems increasingly intense in recent years. A lot of that is raw, naked opportunism, typically for political, social, and economic advantage (e.g., to sell books or other media), but so much of it recently seems based on outright hatred or fear. The question I have is whether it is simply fear or if there is something special that derives from a deeper and darker hatred. Or maybe hared is simply derived from fear and gains its intensity from the level of fear itself. The infamous so-called Ground Zero Mosque and talk of Koran burning in Florida are merely the latest in a long river of fear or hatred of all things Islam by Americans. And the same can be said for various other political, social, environmental, and economic "conflicts."</P> <P>A lot of the fear stems simply from outright ignorance and can be "corrected" though education and outreach. To the extent that hatred is directly traceable back to fear, education and outreach can help on the hatred front as well. But to the extent that hatred of Islam, et al&nbsp;is based on anything other than simple fear, education and outreach are likely to have little positive impact.</P> <P>These issues run deep and can be very tangled and even interrelated, so it may not be easy to get to the bottom of any of them, but they are worthy of some deeper thought nonetheless.</P> <P>-- <A title="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com&#10;CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-3861508549739503983?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-19768532049654827972010-09-22T20:38:00.001-04:002010-09-22T20:44:26.184-04:00<div><span ></span><span ></span><br /></div> <p>The congressional election in November is shaping up to be simply a battle between <em>the party of "no"</em> and <em>the party of fear</em>. Sure, the Republicans are saying "no" to most of the Democratic agenda, but when the Republicans came out with a more positive <em>Pledge to America</em>, the Democrats responded with negativity. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/us/politics/23repubs.html">The NY Times</a> tells us how a spokesperson for Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded:</p> <blockquote style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"> <p><em>"Congressional Republicans are pledging to ship jobs overseas; blow a $700 billion hole in the deficit to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires; turn Social Security from a guaranteed benefit into a guaranteed gamble; once again, subject American families to the recklessness of Wall Street; and take away patients' rights," the spokesman, Nadeam Elshami said in a statement. "Republicans want to return to the same failed economic policies that hurt millions of American and threatened our economy."</em></p></blockquote> <p>I do wish the Democrats would try to take the high road and tell <em>average Americans</em> (as opposed to the elite and the "Professional Left") what they intend to do for them rather than engage in such crass partisan fear-mongering. I am sure Nancy's statement played well with card-carrying Democrats and the rest of her choir, but what about <em>the rest of America</em>?</p> <p>-- <a title="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</a></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-1976853204965482797?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-42560290429108810182010-09-20T19:20:00.000-04:002010-09-20T19:27:21.557-04:00<P><EM>Don't Ask, Don't Tell</EM>... that's the official GOP policy on witchcraft, right?</P> <P>-- <A title="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com&#10;CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-4256029042910881018?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-73335414331499560092010-09-15T11:00:00.001-04:002010-09-15T11:00:49.053-04:00<P>This is simply a bookmark to remind me (and others) to read this whitepaper by Michael Lind of The New America Foundation from 2007&nbsp;entitled "<A title="http://www.newamerica.net/files/nafmigration/NSC_Citizen_Principles_Paper_7_10_07.pdf&#10;CTRL + Click to follow link" href="http://www.newamerica.net/files/nafmigration/NSC_Citizen_Principles_Paper_7_10_07.pdf">A Citizen-Based Social Contract</A>." In principle, it sounds like a great idea. As usual, the devil is probably in the details. In any case, clearly there are a lot of people in angst and anxiety and outright despair waiting desperately for a revised <EM>social contract</EM> for America.</P> <P>-- <A title="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com&#10;CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-7333541433149956009?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-5612901108353760172010-08-28T08:58:00.001-04:002010-08-28T08:58:20.724-04:00<P>Has New York Mayor Bloomberg shown integrity over how he has handled the alleged Ground Zero Mosque? I watched the video for his speech, made on Governor's Island with the Statue of Liberty in the background. It was a great speech, from my point of view, but you can never tell a politician's true beliefs or true intentions from their words. I think he is sincere, but who can ever be sure. He has so far been consistent in his words since then. Personally, I would definitely say that Bloomberg "has integrity." What does that mean? In this case, in this situation, it means standing up for principle (freedom of religion, et al) and being consistent about it with words and deeds. Bloomberg is very concerned about "community", but with an emphasis on encouraging the "good" forces in the community rather than trying to appease and bow to the ugly voices of mob behavior, cynicism, and ignorance. The fact that some people may be displeased or even angry with his "position" is not an indicator of lack of integrity. The fact that Sarah Palin and Glen Beck are unhappy about his position is not an indicator of a lack of integrity. So called "sensitivity" is not an indicator of lack of integrity. In fact, I would say that the willingness of a politician to take an unpopular position (judging from the polls, both locally and nationally) is a really good indicator that he has a strong sense of integrity, a will to "do what's right" even if it is unpopular.</P> <P>All of that said, Bloomberg is being very pragmatic, or "merely" pragmatic if your wish. New York is suffering greatly in this weak economy, especially downtown. Despite the "health" of "Wall Street", much of downtown is not doing so well, including areas not so far from the World Trade Center site. If you were to walk by the proposed site of the Islamic community center, you would see how run-down the building is and ask yourself why it isn't being condemned and torn down. ANYBODY who intends to replace that dilapidated building with ANYTHING new should be applauded. ANY new building there would be a benefit to the economic future of downtown. As it has turned out, NOBODY else wanted the building, NOBODY else has wanted to build there, and NOBODY else has stepped up and proposed an alternative project for spending a big pile of money on that location which would benefit the downtown economy. From a practical economic perspective the mayor would be an IDIOT for turning down or in any way discouraging ANY economic development of that location, regardless of the purpose. My point is simply that Mayor Bloomberg does have "practical" reasons for support the project, even if he is also taking a principled stand. But... either way, he is exhibiting integrity. Helping to rebuild the economy of New York is a difficult effort and dedication to that effort is also something that requires... integrity.</P> <P>In short, Mayor Bloomberg has shown significant integrity over the Grand Zero Mosque issue. In fact, I can't think of a single politician who has shown more integrity over this issue. He was right there, front and center, from the get-go, and his position was as solid as a rock.</P> <P>-- <A title="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com&#10;CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-561290110835376017?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-41282927108962819372010-08-26T12:47:00.001-04:002010-08-26T12:47:25.526-04:00<P>The "debate" over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque continues, with rationales flying on both sides, but the real bottom line is that the driving force here is an attempt by right-wingers to <EM>bully</EM> the rest of America into giving up&nbsp;its civil rights in favor of right-wing views on what our rights should be. This is&nbsp;<EM>bullying</EM> by the right-wingers, plain and simple. Our response should not be to&nbsp;try to reason rationally with them, but to simply call them out and&nbsp;say "No", that we won't allow them to bully us into giving up our rights. When rights are at stake, so-called "sensitivity" is a non-issue, plain and simple.</P> <P>-- <A title="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com&#10;CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-4128292710896281937?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-21581441935213502592010-08-26T12:00:00.001-04:002010-08-26T12:00:48.026-04:00<P>There is plenty of chatter about whether and how to cut the federal budget to reduce if not eliminate the federal budget deficit, but nobody is raising, let alone addressing the key question of how exactly should we be calculating the optimal size for the federal budget or even the size of the federal government itself. And this is just a fraction of the overall problem of grappling with overall government, including state and local government. I think most people are willing to accept that during a crisis, economic or otherwise, it is temporarily okay to run a federal budget deficit, even a significant budget deficit, until the crisis passes to moderate the crisis itself, to moderate the impact of the effects of the crisis and to help accelerate recovery from the crisis. Judging the acceptable size of a short-term budget overrun is hard enough, but at the same time we need to remain cognizant of managing the underlying non-crisis bulk of the budget and size of government itself so that once the crisis passes we will find ourselves back "on budget."</P> <P>One key problem is that a good fraction of the growth of the economy over the previous decade was basically "fake" in the sense of based on unsustainable finance and business practices which led to the recent crisis, such as companies that would not even exist if credit hadn't been so cheap and readily available. Government itself grew in response to the economy growing, but now that we have "reset" the economy to be more sustainable (with more work still to do), we need to consider how to "reset" government itself. This means we need an extensive and open debate in two areas: 1) how much and how to shrink the baseline size of the federal government to reflect a sustainable growth rate (once all current artificial stimulus is removed), and 2) what areas of government actually need to be beefed up and by how much to assure "good governance" that will avoid a repeat of the difficulties of the past decade.</P> <P>Ultimately, the key question is what level of "services" does the government need to provide to society to assure that public safety, civil rights, and economic security are "protected." This depends on also answering the questions of what roles and responsibilities should be played by individuals, families, local and state governments, businesses, and private organizations. And of course we have the issue of what the federal government needs to do as opposed to state and local governments.</P> <P>Maintaining the status quo is always a bad answer, especially in a society and economic system that is growing and as dynamic as ours. As a trivial question, if population grows by X% and GDP grows by Y%, what Z% should government grow by? I have seen nobody even begin to address these types of questions.</P> <P>I am not ready to propose answers here because to me the first step is that we have to get the questions right. If we as a society cannot even agree on what the "right" questions, agreement on the answers is moot.</P> <P>To put the question simply, <EM>if you didn't know the size of the federal government and its budget, how would you go about calculating what size both should be?</EM></P> <P>-- <A title="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com&#10;CTRL + Click to follow link" href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-2158144193521350259?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-78627677418320093492010-08-15T11:32:00.001-04:002010-08-15T11:32:19.803-04:00<P><FONT face=Calibri><FONT face="Times New Roman">There has been quite a bit of chatter that somehow the location of an Islamic community center two blocks from the World Trade Center site is "insensitive" to the families of those killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Congressional&nbsp;Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. on CNN's State of The Union addressed that issue squarely, <A title="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/08/obama-makes-proposed-mosque-in-new-york-a-national-issue/1&#10;CTRL + Click to follow link" href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/08/obama-makes-proposed-mosque-in-new-york-a-national-issue/1">as reported by USA Today</A>:</FONT></FONT></P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><FONT face=Calibri><FONT face="Times New Roman"><EM>As much as I respect the sensitivities of people, there is a fundamental mistake behind it ... The fallacy is that Al Qaida attacked us --<STRONG> Islam did not attack us ... It is only insensitive if you regard Islam as the culprit</STRONG>, as opposed to Al Qaida as the culprit..</EM></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT> <P>My point exactly.</P> <P>Somehow, a lot of people out there have misguidedly confused themselves into believing that Islam and the Islamic world attacked us on 9/11. There is no compelling factual basis for such a belief. So, we are faced with the fact that those who rant about "insensitivity" are in fact more interested in promoting and inciting a <EM>crusade</EM> against Islam than being honest about who perpetrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Or, in some cases, they are mere opportunists who have latched onto a wedge issue that they can exploit for personal gain.</P> <P>The 9/11 attacks were&nbsp;almost nine&nbsp;years ago, so there has been more than ample passage of time for the families of the victims to grieve and get over their loss and move on with their lives. Sure, in the first couple of years after the event it was quite appropriate to give them space and cut them some slack, but what we are seeing now is raw, naked exploitation by some of these people and the people who pander to them. 9/11 is now a page of history, not a current event that people should be obsessing over. It really is time for these people to move on with their lives. Those who continue to obsess after all of these years are dysfunctional or opportunists and either need professional counseling or simply need to be called out for their misguided actions.</P> <P>In short, there was in fact a time for sensitivity, but that time is long past and everybody should be moving on with their lives. The only sensitivity needed now is to be sensitive to trying to creative a new and better future for all. We need to call out and say "No" to any and all pandering of or to those misguided individuals and groups who see Islam as the culprit, especially those seeking to hide their anti-Islamic agenda behind alleged "sensitivities" of families of the victims.</P> <P>So, superficially the location of the Islamic community center may <EM>appear</EM> to be insensitive when <EM>framed</EM> improperly as some are doing, below the surface there is no significant issue of insensitivity that&nbsp;any of us needs to be <EM>beholding</EM> to.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-7862767741832009349?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-51558995178023434992010-08-03T16:46:00.001-04:002010-08-03T16:46:17.616-04:00<P>The so-called "<A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Zero_mosque">Ground Zero mosque</A>" is not at all "on" or "at" or even next to the World Trade Center site. It's two blocks northeast of the site and not even visible from most of the site. The&nbsp;vicinity of the WTC site is not a "cemetery" (although there is an old cemetery and Church to the east of the site.) Sure, it's fine to have a memorial to 9/11, and the site design includes such a memorial (the two tower footprints), but it is too much of a stretch to consider the entire WTC site, let alone the surrounding blocks as so-called "hallowed ground."&nbsp;It&nbsp;It has been almost <EM>nine years</EM> since 9/11, so I think the time for grieving is long past and it is time for everyone, including families of the victims of 9/11 to move on and get on with their own lives. There is no non-political benefit to obsessing on 9/11 or the lives lost any further. Sure, there are plenty of politicians and special interest groups and fear-mongerers of all stripes&nbsp;who will seek to milk the event for as long as they can, but we do need to say <STRONG><EM>No</EM></STRONG> to all of them, including the families of 9/11 victims, but especially to the fear-mongerers. The proposed Islamic community center and mosque in downtown&nbsp;Manhattan&nbsp;is a perfectly reasonable effort to bridge religious and cultural gaps.</P> <P>Besides, the entire downtown area of Manhattan is still suffering from economic decline, so every dollar of incoming investment should be welcomed. The site of the proposed center, formerly the Burlington Coat Factory, has been unused for quite some time. Rehabilitation of that block would be most welcome by New Yorkers who frequent the downtown area, including myself.</P> <P>I surmise that there may in fact be a <EM>few</EM> 9/11 families that <EM>may</EM> be hurt by the center, but there is no evidence presented that any great harm would result, while there is every reason to believe that such a center would be a net positive for society.</P> <P><FONT face=Calibri><FONT face="Times New Roman">The fact that the Landmark Commission voted 9-0 (yes, that's a zero) to allow the project to go forward&nbsp;even in such a politically-charged environment is a good sign that maybe New York City is finally able to "turn the page" and move on from 9/11 and not have 9/11 hung around its neck like an albatross.</FONT></FONT></P> <P>The sad thing about this episode is that it highlights the extent to which there is a sizable number of people who are really on a passionate anti-Islam <EM>crusade</EM>. Some&nbsp;are sleazy and hide behind the veil of protecting 9/11 families, but many are outright public about their fear and hatred&nbsp;of Islam and a belief that only harm can come from any accommodation of Islam. We do need to say <STRONG><EM>No</EM></STRONG> to them, and quite strongly.</P> <P><FONT face=Calibri><FONT face="Times New Roman">It is a big relief to see some public officials finally saying <STRONG><EM>No</EM></STRONG> to the fear-mongerers. Kudos to Mayor Bloomberg for saying <STRONG><EM>Yes</EM></STRONG> to the proposed center.</FONT></P></FONT> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-5155899517802343499?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-81130910203515570162010-08-02T18:01:00.000-04:002010-08-02T18:02:11.803-04:00<P><FONT face=Calibri></P> <P></FONT>The "official" position of the U.S. government and various European governments is that Iran is "intent" on developing nuclear weapons, notwithstanding the simple fact that they have only a circumstantial case and little in the way of hard evidence that Iran's "nuclear ambitions" extend to developing nuclear weapons. In fact, other than the fact that Iran has a uranium enrichment capability, the U.S. and friends have something close to <EM>zero</EM> in the way of hard evidence of a credible Iranian nuclear weapons program. The "case" against Iran smacks of the case that the U.S. had against Iraq, or thought they had, or claimed they had. You'd think they would have learned. Or, maybe they did. Maybe the case against Iraq was really just a stalking horse, an indirect casus belli (cause for war) that didn't have to be true, just emotionally believable and viable as a means to get to war rather than a desire for enlightenment and a path to truth. Maybe that is exactly what is happening here with Iran as well. Sure, we don't have Neo-conservative Republicans leading the charge, but you still have a lot of politicians financially beholding to the so-called Pro-Israel lobby (Hillary and Barack among them.) In any case, the bottom line remains, as with Iraq, that there is no clear-cut case for believing that Iran is on a path to developing nuclear weapons. Yes, you can sleep well at night.</P> <P>The first big problem is that the fear-mongerers have a field day by exploiting the ambiguity of the term "nuclear ambitions". The term includes both peaceful non-weapons programs and military weapons programs. By raising the term based on the fact of Iran's nuclear energy efforts, the fear-mongerers exploit the ambiguity and use it to <EM>allude</EM> to weapons when the facts do not support a weapons program.</P> <P>Some argue that Iran has oil so it has no need for nuclear energy, but regardless of whether you believe in Peak Oil and Global Warming, oil is still a non-viable option for betting the energy future of any country, including Iran. Besides, crude oil is a great source of foreign exchange, so burning oil internally is not a preferable economic alternative.</P> <P>Some argue that Iran should accept limits on uranium enrichment and contract out enrichment to other countries. That is fine as far as it goes, but violates Iran's sovereignty and puts Iran at risk of being subject to the whim of foreign powers, which is a non-starter given the record of Europe and the U.S. in the region. There is nothing a priori evil or sinister with Iran wanting to do its own enrichment and being in full control of the nuclear fuel cycle.</P> <P>Some argue that once you get to 20% enrichment of uranium that it is "easy" to go all the way to 90% weapons-grade, but there is no factual basis for that claim. And, most important, no evidence of any Iranian intention to do so.</P> <P>The most recent <A href="http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf">National Intelligence Estimate for Iran and its nuclear ambitions</A> back in 2007 pulled the rug out from under the fear-mongerers by concluding that "<EM>we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons</EM>." Since the resultant firestorm of criticism by the fear-mongerers, the U.S. government has adopted a <EM>political</EM> conclusion rather than an intelligence assessment conclusion that Iran <EM>intends</EM> to develop nuclear weapons, despite the fact that they lack hard evidence. Earlier this year people were awaiting the imminent release of a revised intelligence estimate that was expected to come down on Iran more harshly, but here we are six months later and still no new assessment. So, the 2007 assessment still holds, despite the political <EM>calculation</EM>.</P> <P>So, despite the fact that there is no <EM>imminent threat</EM> from Iran on the nuclear weapons front, the U.S. <EM>politically</EM> "needs" to act as if there were. In other words there is a "gap" between reality and the political view espoused by the fear-mongerers who hold the politicians and hence the government captive.</P> <P>As far as I can tell the real focus of these nuclear fear-mongering efforts is a belief that Iran will attack Israel&nbsp;or give nukes to terrorists. There is zero evidence to support either misguided belief.</P> <P>Although much gets made of the animosity between Israel and Iran, including alleged quotes about "wipe Israel off the map" and "death to Israel", all of this need to be put in the context of the fact that Israel is still not recognized by a number of countries in the region and heated rhetoric is rarely indicative of true intentions. Iran has indicated that they would intend to retaliate if attacked first by Israel, but that is hardly the same as a direct threat against Israel. The reference to wiping off the map is more a matter of who nominally occupies Jerusalem, which is a matter of international dispute even absent Iran. In short, the fear-mongerers are over-reading a few rhetorical flourishes. Absent their over-reading, there is zero evidence that Iran seeks to attack Israel in a forceful manner with or without nuclear weapons.</P> <P>Fear-mongerers also make too big a deal of Iran's support for Hamas and Hezbollah and their lame efforts to attack Israel with rockets. Those attacks amount to little more than harassment, with damage to property and loss of life still rather limited compared to a vigorous military campaign. To suggest that they somehow represent what Iran would do if they had nuclear weapons is a very unwarranted extrapolation based on zero evidence. The fear of the fear-mongerers is nothing but conjecture, fiction, fantasy, and fabrication.</P> <P>In truth, Iran is a sovereign nation and every sovereign nation has the right to decide for itself whether it wishes to develop a nuclear weapons capability. That includes Iran. They <EM>do</EM> have a right to develop nuclear weapons if they should so choose. They do have various international treaty obligations, but those are essentially technical details rather than an obstacle in principle.</P> <P>Even if Iran did pursue and fulfill a full-blown nuclear weapons development program, there is still little in the way of hard evidence that Iran would use those weapons. That is no accident since nuclear weapons are primarily a deterrent. The fear-mongerers have no significant evidence on their side to support their claim that Iran would "use" nuclear weapons if they had them. Use as a deterrent, yes, but use to strike at Israel or the U.S. or whoever, no. But, as the lack of evidence shows, we are not even remotely closely to being there yet.</P> <P>I am still waiting for the fear-mongerers to drag out the Goldwater/Rice argument that we shouldn't wait for the evidence of a mushroom cloud. That is fear-mongering and paranoia at its worst. Emotion rarely leads to a rational decision. Stick with facts, evidence, and reason.</P> <P>In short, there is no good reason for any American citizen to lose even a single moment of sleep worrying about Iran and nuclear weapons. Just say <EM><STRONG>No</STRONG></EM> to the fearmongerers.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-8113091020351557016?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-15190439157446909902010-08-01T20:36:00.001-04:002010-08-01T20:36:37.630-04:00<P>Since 9/11 there has been a lot of chatter about the risks of terrorists getting hold of nuclear weapons and so-called dirty bombs. Should we lose any sleep worrying such risks? In short, the answer is a very clear <STRONG><EM>No</EM></STRONG>. Yes, the government should and does take such risks seriously and should and has programs in place to minimize such risks, but there are&nbsp;three simple and compelling facts: 1) No terrorist has ever obtained let alone used a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb, 2) the technical complexity of do so is far greater than pundits and the media suggest, and 3) there is no evidence whatsoever that terrorists are making <EM>any</EM> progress on either front. Sure, terrorists may certainly <EM>want</EM> to obtain and use such weapons, but desire rarely leads to capability when dealing with such technical complexity. Yes, we expect our government to continue to be vigilant on this front, so there is no good reason for any American citizen to lose even a single moment of sleep worrying about terrorists and nuclear weapons and so-called dirty bombs. Just say <STRONG><EM>No</EM></STRONG> to the fearmongerers.</P> <P>There has also been a lot of chatter suggesting that Iran would give nuclear weapons to terrorists if they had them. That is a ridiculous assertion. First there is no evidence to suggest that the assertion might be valid. Even North Korea has not given or sold nuclear technology to terrorists. It is extremely unlikely, virtually certainly unlikely that Iran would give nuclear weapons to terrorists. Sure, Iran finds Hamas and Hezbollah useful tools of foreign policy, but there would be no possible benefit to Iran of risking the wrath of the U.S. or Israel with the clumsy use of a nuclear weapon by a typical terrorist group. The "mullahs" of Iran may seem inscrutable to many naive people in the U.S., but they are certainly not as mindless and stupid as the fearmongerers&nbsp;are suggesting. In fact, the available evidence indicates that they are quite pragmatic.&nbsp;Finally, there is zero evidence that Iran has even ever contemplated taking such an action. Is is fiction and fantasy and fabrication&nbsp;of those who seek to incite conflict with Iran. Once again, there is no good reason for any American citizen to lose even a single moment of sleep worrying about Iran providing terrorists&nbsp;with nuclear weapons and so-called dirty bombs. Again, just say <STRONG><EM>No</EM></STRONG> to the fearmongerers.</P> <P>Is it <EM>hypothetically</EM> possible that terrorists could obtain nuclear weapons or dirty bombs? Yes, it is <EM>hypothetically</EM> possible, but <EM>extremely unlikely</EM>. Those of us who are <EM>pragmatic</EM> base our thinking and decisions on what is <EM>likely</EM>, not what is <EM>hypothetically</EM> possible in the extreme case. That is one of the purposes of government in the pragmatic worldview, to design and implement pragmatic programs to cover extreme cases so that citizens need not worry about them and can sleep at night. How effective are such government programs? Well, the available evidence is that they are <EM>extremely effective</EM>, with a failure rate to-date&nbsp;of... <EM>zero</EM>.<FONT face=Calibri></P></FONT> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-1519043915744690990?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-15451510607122668652010-07-30T18:02:00.000-04:002010-07-30T18:03:08.387-04:00<P>The release of the so-called <A href="http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/">Afghan War Diary by Wikileaks</A> resurrected concern over what is really going on in Afghanistan. Besides what is actually happening on the ground on a daily basis and the nominal administration strategy, the big issue is what will likely happen in the years to come. Here is my "forecast." There is no clear and clean "win", no matter what strategy is pursued. Afghanistan is too much of a patchwork of cultures and personalities and nosy neighbors&nbsp;to be "woven" into some new, mythical, ideal "nation" in the western model. That is not to say that we cannot improve institutions and the lives of citizens, but simply that the end result will not look anything like anything that the administration would expect us to expect. The bottom line is that I think we will leave Afghanistan better off than when we got there, but that will still be woefully short of any of the current goals being espoused. It won't be a good thing, but it will be an okay thing.</P> <P>We will spend the next couple of years exterminating <EM>some </EM>percentage of the Taliban, but the Taliban will still be around when we "leave" a couple of years from now. We can probably arrange for the major urban areas and areas of strategic importance to be controlled by the western-friendly government (corrupt and inept as it might still be even a couple of years from now), but the Taliban will control a number of "areas" of the country. Some of that control will be sanctioned and negotiated, but some of that control will be de facto due to the inability of either the U.S. or the Afghan government to control 100% of such an ungovernable "country."</P> <P>U.S. military forces will turn over most operations to the Afghan military, but maintain a significant "presence", both to render assistance if the Taliban seeks to expand out of their "recognized" informal sanctuaries, or if al Qaeda seeks to gain a foothold. The U.S. will continue to execute limited, surgical strikes against the Taliban as needed, but otherwise let them be as long as they stay put and do not harbor or aid al Qaeda.</P> <P>The U.S. military will likely maintain a number of bases in Afghanistan, but more as a strategic presence to "balance" and deter&nbsp;Iran and extremists in Pakistan than for ongoing warfighting. Maybe they will call them something like "stabilization forces."</P> <P>So, the U.S. will ramp up warfighting and economic and social improvements over the next one to two years, and then gradually drawdown those forces over the subsequent one to three years. The U.S. will maintain ongoing covert operations in the Pakistani border region, but that will not require any sizeable U.S. presence comparable to current operations in Afghanistan.</P> <P>It could take another year (or two)&nbsp;and another surge (or two)&nbsp;to finally convince the Taliban to abandon all major urban areas and limit themselves to more isolated areas. That interim period will be quite messy and disconcerting, but that is the price we need to pay to get to "the other side" where we finally convince the Taliban that we mean business.</P> <P>As far as the idea that an advertised withdrawal date will "embolden our enemies" to hide and wait until we leave, that doesn't seem to recognize the mentality of these people. Right now, there are too many foreign fighters that are "gung ho" to fight Americans. Give them another year (or two)&nbsp;or so and increased U.S. military pressure and that enthusiasm will have waned dramatically.</P> <P>To be sure, we will have effectively pruned and "trained" the Taliban into a more elite cadre&nbsp;over the next year or two, but a more mature Taliban, a significant portion of which will be controlled by "warlords" with economic objectives more than political objectives, is likely to be more willing to settle into a more stable and durable "standoff" with the U.S. if it means retaining the bulk of their power and forces unchallenged, albeit in more limited and dispersed geographic areas.</P> <P>As long as the U.S. retains a local capability to conduct counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan, a fragmented Taliban is not really a strategic threat to either the continental U.S., or U.S. "interests" (including Israel) in the region.</P> <P>In short, it is okay to ignore all the nasty news about Afghanistan and feel free to sleep well at night, every night.</P> <P>That's it in a nutshell.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-1545151060712266865?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-89228199175203414882010-03-11T16:00:00.001-05:002010-03-11T16:00:50.635-05:00<P>Although the U.S. economy is clearly recovering from "The Great Recession", companies are still cutting jobs. Why is that?&nbsp;There are a&nbsp;bunch of distinct causes:</P> <OL> <LI>There are still plenty of weak companies that formerly thrived on overly-easy and&nbsp;overly-cheap credit. That credit has evaporated and will not be coming back. The weaker companies vanished quite quickly. The stronger companies, especially those with cash in the bank or optimistic investors, have lasted longer. Some of them will successfully restructure and adapt to lower amounts of more-expensive credit. Many will not, but they will try. As their remaining resources gradually drain away, they continue to shed workers. Eventually that process will end, but there was simply a huge amount of that easy and cheap credit over a significant number of years. <LI>Ongoing commercial construction projects shed workers as they near completion, with few new projects to employ those workers, even with all of the federal "stimulus". <LI>State and local governments do not have the federal government's ability to issue vast amounts of debt, so they continue to lay off workers as they struggle to close budget deficits as tax revenues fall short of expectations. They may have held off with many layoffs in the hope that the economic recovery would be stronger or sooner, but the reality of lower tax receipts forces their hand and the pink slips continue to flow and will continue to flow until the private sector starts creating enough new jobs to lead to net growth of tax receipts at the state and local level. Falling home prices will also be a drag on property tax revenues. <LI>Many vendors had been getting a significant portion of their revenues from state, local, and federal governments. Spending cuts (including the federal government) result in layoffs at these vendors. <LI>Productivity improvements. Newer technologies and more-focused management enable companies to deliver the same level of product and service output with fewer employees. So, even as the economy recovers and output increases, that does not necessarily mean an immediate increase in employment. Offshoring of work is a drag on domestic employment as well. <LI>Incremental population growth soaks up "new" jobs with little room for accommodating workers who have lost jobs. Although experience has some value, companies are eager to sign up young, flexible, energetic, healthy, and enthusiastic kids. <LI>Ongoing pressure to improve operating margins force companies to shed workers that they ordinarily might have been seeking to hire. Cost of benefits, including health insurance, is a distinct drag on operating margins. <LI>Intense uncertainty about the near and medium-term economic outlook forces companies to have a more pessimistic attitude towards hiring and firing, resulting in an extreme bias against hiring and keeping workers.</LI></OL> <P>How long before these negative factors end or at least moderate? Actually, these factors will continue for some time, maybe even several years, but the hope is that as the overall economic recovery gains traction, "new" jobs, especially at new companies pursuing and employing new technologies,&nbsp;will gradually be created at a faster pace than the ongoing shedding of "old" jobs.</P> <P>In the near term, we are seeing weekly unemployment insurance initial claims in the 475,000 range. That is over <EM>two million</EM> jobs lost every month. <STRONG><EM>Two million.</EM></STRONG>&nbsp;The good news is that recently the net of new minus lost jobs has been less than&nbsp;a net loss of 50,000 jobs, so we actually are seeing quite a few new jobs being created, or at least companies rehiring for positions that they shed over the past two years. Unfortunately, we are also seeing a lot of <EM>discouraged</EM> workers dropping out of the workforce as they encounter extreme difficulty finding jobs.</P> <P>To be sure, the U.S. economy is <EM>creating</EM> lots of new jobs, but the net of creation minus shedding is still not strongly positive and probably will not be for months to come.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-8922819917520341488?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-88280574720012408752010-03-10T18:56:00.001-05:002010-03-10T18:56:49.273-05:00<P>I currently do not have any health insurance. That actually works out fairly well since I happen to be healthy. But just out of curiosity, I decided to check to see how much health insurance costs. After all, if so-called "health insurance reform" passes, people such as me will supposedly be "required" to purchase health insurance (or pay a "fine.")</P> <P>So, I go to Google, enter in the keywords "health insurance", and the first result is for <A href="http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/">eHealthInsurance.com</A>. I click to that site, enter a little info and it shows me some results, ranging from $176 (junk insurance?) to $1,228 (Cadillac plan?).</P> <P>Actually that $176 is for a hospital-only plan that does not include doctor visits or treatments or prescriptions&nbsp;outside of the hospital. Interesting. That is actually a very interesting data point about where health care costs go or don't go.</P> <P>Both plans are from Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield. The hospital-only plan is called "Tradition Plus Hospital Program." The expensive plan is called "Empire Direct Pay HMO." Hmmm... "HMO"... that's considered <EM>evil</EM>, right? ("<EM>Empire... evil</EM>", "<EM>Evil... Empire</EM>", oh, I get it!).</P> <P>I had to enter some personal contact info somewhere along the line here and a rep called me to ask if I had any questions. I just said I was doing research for health reform and she left me alone. But she also emailed me some info and links. One link takes me to a table showing <EM>three</EM> plans, those two, and a third plan, even more expensive, called "Direct Pay HMO/POS" for $1,549 per month that has lower copays, limited out-of-network coverage, and some other extras.</P> <P>Now, in truth, I have no clue as to how to evaluate and compare all of these plans. My goal here was to focus on the price of the Cadillac plan. After all, if I were to get health insurance, I would want it to cover, well, <EM>everything</EM>.</P> <P>So, $1,549.30 per month works out to $18,591.60 per year. <EM>Gulp</EM>. Ummmm... last year I&nbsp;earned only $19,000 from work. Hmmm... the math doesn't seem to "work" for me.</P> <P>And, $18,591.60 per year works out to <STRONG>$185,916</STRONG> over ten years. <STRONG><EM>YIKES!!</EM></STRONG> And that is assuming premiums don't go up -- right!</P> <P>I am sorry guys, but there is <STRONG><EM>no way</EM></STRONG> that I am going to pay $185,000 over the next ten years, for services that I probably won't need.</P> <P>Actually, I probably only need <EM>nine</EM> years of insurance since I'll turn 65 in just over nine years and get admitted to the promised land of Medicare, but that does not change the overall picture here.</P> <P><STRONG><EM>$185,000</EM></STRONG></P> <P>That is a <EM>very big</EM> number, to me.</P> <P>I do not even have that much money put aside for retirement.</P> <P>Granted, insurance <EM>may</EM> be lower under health reform, but even <EM>half</EM> or a <EM>third</EM> or even a <EM>quarter</EM> of this amount is still <EM>way too much</EM>.</P> <P>So, how much will the "fine" be if I don't buy health insurance under "health insurance reform." Actually, that is still up in the air, and depends on how the House and Senate Bills are "reconciled." Given the president's latest proposal, if my income was low, it would be a fixed dollar amount (increasing each year), in the range of $325 to $695, but for a reasonable income level it would be a percentage, currently 1% in 2014, 2% in 2015, and 2.5% in 2016 and after. So, if I had $100,000 of income in 2014 and beyond, I would pay an "assessment" (technically, not a "fine") of $1,000 in 2014, $2,000 in 2015, and $2,500 in 2016 and beyond. And, <EM>key point</EM>, I would pay this money to <EM>the U.S. government</EM> for whatever purpose it deems fit, <EM>not</EM> to some insurance company.</P> <P>At least to me, right now, paying $2,500 to Uncle Sam is <EM>infinitely preferable</EM> to paying even $0.01 to <EM>any</EM> insurance company. The insurance companies of America need to radically rethink their approach to customers before they can get my attention, even under health insurance reform with "mandatory" insurance.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-8828057472001240875?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-73912710825833942602010-03-07T07:37:00.000-05:002010-03-07T07:38:03.605-05:00<P>There was an interesting article this week on <EM>Bloomberg</EM> by Amanda Bennett entitled "<A href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&amp;sid=avRFGNF6Qw_w">End-of-Life Warning at $618,616 Makes Me Wonder Was It Worth It</A>" which chronicled her personal saga with dealing with end-of-life health care for her husband. The article also appears as the cover story of <EM>Business Week</EM> entitled "<A href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_11/b4170032321836.htm">Lessons of a $618,616 Death - Two years after her husband's death, Amanda Bennett's cover story examines the costs of keeping one man alive</A>".</P> <P>Ultimately she seems to conclude that spending all of that money was worth it since she believes that it bought her husband another 14 months of life beyond the three that his doctors expected:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>... those 17 months included an afternoon looking down at the Mediterranean with Georgia from a sunny balcony in Southern Spain. Moving Terry into his college dorm. Celebrating our 20th anniversary with a carriage ride through Philadelphia's cobbled streets. A final Thanksgiving game of charades with cousins Margo and Glenn.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>She also tells us how it was a very personal struggle for both her and her husband. In other words, different people might have dealt with the same situation in a different manner.</P> <P>Was it really worth it? She tells us:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>Would I do it all again? Absolutely. I couldn't not do it again. But I think had he known the costs, Terence would have fought the insurers spending enough, at roughly $200,000, to vaccinate almost a quarter-million children in developing countries. That's how he would have thought about it.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Lucky for her, she had good insurance:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>Terence and I didn't have to think about money, allocation of medical resources, the struggles of more than 46 million uninsured Americans, or the impact on corporate bottom lines. Backed by medical insurance provided by my employers, we were able to fight his cancer with a series of expensive last chances like the one I asked for that night.</EM></P> <P><EM>How expensive? The bills totaled $618,616, almost two- thirds of it for the final 24 months, much of it for treatments that no one can say for sure helped extend his life.</EM></P> <P><EM>In just the last four days of trying to keep him alive -- two in intensive care, two in a cancer ward -- our insurance was charged $43,711 for doctors, medicines, monitors, X-rays and scans. Two years later, the only thing I know for certain that money bought was confirmation that he was dying.</EM></P> <P><EM>Some of the drugs probably did Terence no good at all. At least one helped fewer than 10 percent of all those who took it. Pharmaceutical companies and insurers will have to sort out the economics of treatments that end up working for only a small subset. Should everyone have the right to try them? Terence and I answered yes. Each drug potentially added life. Yet that too led me to a question I can't answer. When is it time to quit?</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>This is a difficult issue. On the one hand we don't want the insurance companies (or the government) deciding when to "pull the plug on granny", but if it is really true that a significant number of Americans will incur upwards of $500K to $750K for end-of-life care, how is that expenditure to be financed? And people wonder why health insurance companies would dare to raise rates by 40%.</P> <P>So, who is to pay for all of this? Ultimately, all of us do, one way or another.</P> <P>In my view, sooner or later we as a society are going to have to draw a line and give a hard answer to that question of "<EM>When is it time to quit?</EM>" In Ms. Bennett's case, they quit only when no other options were available, at any price. I do not see that as a sustainable approach. As a society we need to come up with a robust model for when and how to "pull the plug" in terms of when to simply let nature take its course and fall back on simple palliative care. To my mind, the focus should be more on <EM>moderation</EM> and <EM>moderate measures</EM>&nbsp;and less on <EM>extreme</EM> and <EM>extreme measures</EM>. In my view, <EM>desperation</EM> should not have any role in any stage of health care.</P> <P>Nonetheless, Ms. Bennett's article does put both a personal and human as well as financial face on the issue of end-of-life care.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-7391271082583394260?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-74266547111550609302010-03-04T18:02:00.001-05:002010-03-04T18:02:41.378-05:00<P>The general sentiment seems to be that our federal government in Washington is "broken" and "dysfunctional", but I disagree. Yes, there is plenty of <EM>conflict</EM> between the major parties and interest groups&nbsp;in Washington, but that by itself does not mean that the government is dysfunctional. The government <EM>mirrors</EM> the people of the country. America is a very <EM>diverse</EM> country with a lot of strong and often divergent interests. Sometimes these divergent interests can come together and compromise and agree&nbsp;to changes in laws and regulations, and sometimes not. Compromise can sometimes be a very good thing, but sometimes interests are too far apart and compromise cannot be achieved at any given moment of time. That is a real part of real life, and neither necessarily good nor bad nor even "evil."</P> <P>People throw the term "gridlock" around as if it were necessarily dysfunctional in government, but it simply means that there is not agreement sufficient to pass a particular legislative agenda. Sure, maybe some particular compromise might have prevented gridlock, but maybe that compromise would not necessarily be what is best for the country. Not all change is necessarily good or appropriate. The function of government is to <EM>balance</EM> and <EM>moderate</EM> change and the status quo. Even if "change" is expected or perceived as needed, that does not mean that any particular legislative agenda is necessarily "good" or "best" compared to maintaining the status quo.</P> <P>Not everybody is happy with the speed (or lack thereof) at which Washington operates, but that is not necessarily a bad thing, and rapid action is not necessarily an indication of the quality of an action. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin resolution?</P> <P>Instant gratification and "the urgency of now" or labeling a given initiative as "the change we need" should never be used as excuses to short-circuit the balancing mechanisms built intentionally into our system of government in Washington. Maybe some people would prefer a dictatorship or even a monarchy. Fine, but that is not the system we have. Deal with it. Accept it.</P> <P>Sure, the sight of a single Senator holding up some very needed job and construction&nbsp;money can be disheartening, but it would be even more disheartening if there were no way for a lone voice to appeal (briefly)&nbsp;against a perceived tyranny of the majority.</P> <P>Looking&nbsp;at it up close (as one might inspect a sausage factory) on a daily basis&nbsp;is a very, very&nbsp;poor way to judge Washington. Washington, as any large institution, should be judged by the test of time, over a very extended period of time, judged over decades and even generations. Besides we, the people, have a strong say every two, four, and six years as to whether we are content with our congressional representatives, senators,&nbsp;and even the president.</P> <P>We have a representative democracy, so let our representatives do their jobs and let Washington do its job of balancing competing interests. Come November 2010 and November 2012 we can all "vote" our displeasure if needed, but otherwise we should all just back off and let our elected leaders and representatives do the jobs we pay them so handsomely&nbsp;to do.</P> <P>Sure, we can all imagine an "ideal" government which all sorts of wondrous things, but we live in a real country, not some perceived ideal country.</P> <P>So, much of the anxiety and "voter anger" is simply hyped, generated, and incited by the media (and quasi-media commentators, like us bloggers and representatives of political parties&nbsp;and interest groups) for their own profit and agendas. By all means, please let your elected leaders and representatives know how you feel and what you expect on all issues that you care about, <STRONG><EM>but</EM></STRONG> DO NOT allow the media or these quasi-media commentators to <EM>dictate</EM> to you what those issues <EM>should</EM> be or what your positions on those issues should be. And just remember that if you <STRONG><EM>do</EM></STRONG> allow the media to define or control or in any way influence what you believe or how you feel about any issue then you have effectively <EM>abdicated</EM> your primary responsibility as a <EM>citizen</EM> and a <EM>voter</EM> since Washington will ultimately be no better than the voters who send leaders and representatives to it.</P> <P>Washington is <STRONG><EM>us</EM></STRONG>. So if you still believe that Washington is dysfunctional, maybe it is you yourself who is dysfunctional or at least out of sync with the rest of the country. There is a lot of conflict and uncertainty around, between, and within us, and that will be reflected in our government. Deal with it. Accept it. It is you. It is us.</P> <P>Even in the best of times, on our best days we each encounter and deal with conflict and uncertainty. It's what we do. It is what we are designed to do, both as individuals and as a country. It is what we do best. Maybe in some limited cases our response is simple, but frequently it is not so simple even if mentally we paper it over and brush it off. But, then, sometimes we struggle and allow others (the media, et al)&nbsp;to con us into believing that all hope is lost. What nonsense.</P> <P>At least from where I sit, I see a Washington that is truly a thing of awe. That so many interests can be brought together and achieve <EM>anything</EM> at all is, to me, truly amazing.</P> <P>Sure, various groups struggle for power and control in government in the near-term, but that in no way detracts from the overall vision and mission of what Washington is really all about, serving the long-term needs of the people.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-7426654711155060930?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-87876020146144499602009-12-30T18:40:00.001-05:002009-12-30T18:40:44.971-05:00<P>It has certainly been interesting over the past few days to observe all of the hyper-ventilating over the failed terrorist bombing on the Detroit-bound flight from Amsterdam. I just wanted to put it all into perspective, or at least express my perspetive on the incident, in the form of some key points to keep in mind going forward. I am going to list them in reverse priority order, lowest priority first:</P> <UL dir=ltr> <LI>6. Of course we saw a "systemic failure" and numerous improvements are needed in our counter-terrorism efforts. That should go without saying.</LI> <LI>5. Simple fact that gets ignored: The terrorist bomber <EM>failed</EM> to bring down the plane or cause any significant damage or harm to human life. Sure, he did succeed at <EM>terrorizing</EM> the passengers for a brief time, but the over-reaction of law enforcement after the incident probably terrorized the passengers even worse than the terrorist incident itself.</LI> <LI>4. Zero risk a great goal to <EM>aim</EM> for, but should never be used as our daily criteria for whether we have faith in our system. Incidents are bound to happen. Sure, we want to minimize their occurrence, but <EM>absolute zero risk</EM> is probably simply impossible, let alone affordable financially and in terms of loss of freedom of movement.</LI> <LI>3. We should put risk of damage or harm from terrorism in the same perspective of comparable damage or harm from non-terrorist incidents such as accidents and negligence. Whether you die or are harmed from an act of terrorism or an act of negligence should not be material. It is mere political posturing to consider them as distinct. After all, both could be avoided.&nbsp;It is the fact that you were killed or harmed that matters, not <EM>how</EM> it happened. Terrorism may impact "air safety", but run the numbers of <EM>actual</EM> harm and lets see how safe or unsafe air travel is compared to past years or alternatives modes of transportation. If the absolute level of harm is very low, let's not obsess over it.</LI> <LI>2. Public officials should be up-front about the simple fact that <EM>life is full of risk</EM> and that as much as we try to minimize risk, sometimes incidents will happen. The fact that an incident has happened (or almost happened in this case) should <EM>never</EM> be treated as some <EM>great horror</EM>. As long as the freuency of incidents is kept reasonably low and on average the impact of each incident is reasonably low, we should consider that <EM>overall, the system is working</EM>. And that is a good thing.</LI> <LI>1. The media terrorized the American public far more than even the terrorist himself. I am not suggesting that there be a media "black out" for terrorist incidents, but the literal <EM>explosion</EM> of media coverage, with wave after wave of repetition and alarmism and alarmist rhetoric has been simply unconscionable. The media should simply report the news and move on. The media should not be in the business of <EM>making news</EM> or puffing up over-reaction. It should not be the function of the media to <EM>amplify</EM> the work of terrorists. That should be as illegal as the terrorism itself.</LI></UL> <P>The short summary is that nothing happened last week that should overly-alarm any American. The hyper-ventilation and over-reaction by the media did more to aid and abet the cause of the terrorists than the actions or intentions of that one terrorist himself. That is the kind of perspetive we need to focus on.</P> <P>So, our priorities should be:</P> <OL> <LI>Dampen media coverage of terrorist activities.</LI> <LI>Public officials should focus on risk assessment and risk management and and present risks <EM>in perspective</EM> and remind citizens that they have a responsibility to&nbsp;accept that incidents of terrorism cannot be allowed to <EM>take over</EM> our public discourse.</LI> <LI>Expect that most terrorist plots will fail. But most importantly, do not treat those failures as if they were successful terrorist actions.</LI> <LI>Improve our <EM>technical measures</EM> and foreign policy efforts as feasible, but accept that they will never be foolproof.</LI></OL> <P>-- Jack Krupansky</P> <P>&nbsp;</P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-8787602014614449960?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-39098110357276122142009-12-30T16:34:00.001-05:002009-12-30T16:34:27.274-05:00<P>Spurred by <A href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704152804574628251361922352.html">news that GM had hired lobbyists</A>, someone asks if I "could explain how a company which is 63% owned by the US Government could justify spending money to hire lobbyists?" Here is my response...</P> <P>Personally, I do not subscribe to the notion that&nbsp; "lobbying" is some kind of social "evil" that is counter to the interest of citizens. Lobbying is primarily an informational process, with the lobbyist trying to "paint a picture" that is advantageous to their client, frequently in terms of how legislation or regulation may help or harm "jobs" and "businesses" in the politician's local district.&nbsp;Lobbying per se is not directly tied to illegal political "contributions" or bribes.</P> <P>Whether the government owns 0% or 100% of a firm has no bearing on the business-value of engaging in lobbying of Congress and regulators. If the will of Congress and the regulators can affect your business, you have a right and fiduciary obligation to your owners (including Uncle Sam) to make sure that Congress and the regulators are informed of the business and economic ramifications of their actions.</P> <P>The U.S. Treasury is the nominal owner of that 63% government ownership. They have a fiduciary duty to their "owners", the citizen taxpayers of the U.S., to get a "return" for that investment. Treasury certainly has an obligation to make sure that the firm acts in the best interests of the firm and assuring that Treasury gets its return.</P> <P>That is not to say that every action of the firm is 100% aligned with Treasury's interests, but generally Treasury can "justify" the actions of the firm if those actions are likely to be in the best interests of the firm's survival and health and "return" of the investment money to Treasury.</P> <P>Sometimes the interests of firms are way out of line with the interest of U.S. citizens (e.g., Wall Street "banks"), but that is more the exception than the rule.</P> <P>The simple truth is that Congress and the regulators depend on the lobbyists because the lobbyists generally tend to have a better grasp of the facts and principles involved than the politicians and regulators and their staffs. The problem is weeding out the bad apples without throwing out the overwhelming majority of good apples.</P> <P>Of course, political partisans who have a contrary interest to the legislative and regulatory priorities of the firm may not agree with the positions being "lobbied" by the firm, but that is all about politics and not about whether lobbying is "justified" or not.</P> <P>I understand the negative popular image of lobbyists and the political "power" that accrues from attacking them, so maybe it is just another one of those "grimace and bear it" scenarios where you publicly deplore what you privately support. The old saying in Washington is "Never confuse public pronouncements with private intentions."</P> <P>So, in short, Treasury should publicly decry and excoriate the use of any of the taxpayers' money for lobbying, but privately encourage them to lobby as aggressively as they need to and maybe even offer to help them do it.</P> <P>But let me reiterate that this is all independent of any illegal financial "contributions" from any firm to any member or staff of Congress or any regulator.</P> <P>I also understand that many naive individuals lump the legal forms of lobbying in with illegal activities and call the whole collection "lobbying" with no distinction, but that is a misuse of the term. Put more simply, not everyone who "lobbies" is necessarily a "lobbyist". True lobbyists must be registered and are regulated by the government.</P> <P>In any case, I have no problem with GM lobbying Congress and the regulators. The (temporary)&nbsp;majority ownership by the U.S. Treasury should have no impact on what lobbying activities the firm can engage in.</P> <P>Ditto for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.</P> <P>-- Jack Krupansky</P> <P>&nbsp;</P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-3909811035727612214?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-34580895992570044222009-12-20T11:21:00.001-05:002009-12-20T11:21:46.139-05:00<P>Sure, maybe the proposed health insurance reform may finally be enacted early next year, but its not too soon to start thinking about how to address issues beyond the superficial issues addressed in this first phase of health insurance reform. The issue that seems most intractable to me is how to deal with the cost of catastrophic health crises. Private health insurance can easily cope with the full range of "normal" health contingences that most people run into during their daily lives, things like flu, broken bones, pregnancy, contagious disease, even heart attacks. Health insurance companies, just like life insurance companies, can gather and study detailed historical actuarial data and reasonably project potential expenses and set premiums to cover those projected expenses plus a moderate profit. The problem comes on three fronts: 1) catastrophic health crises, 2) severe chronic conditions, and 3) end of life care. The basic problem is that the costs of all three can be so high and so unpredictable that no mere mortal (let alone an insurance company) can forecast what the "reasonable" cost should be on average so that it can be fully funded from normal premiums without either a high risk of financial ruin for the insurance company or excessively high premiums for "normal" people - the latter being what most people are experiencing today. My solution is to put a reasonable upper-end cap on such expenses, with the federal government covering the excess costs, and insurance companies and insurees would pay a moderate premium amortized over all insurees of all insurance companies&nbsp;to cover a sizable portion of the excess costs, and to do it in a way that is predictable enough that insurance companies have no excuse for "fat" premiums simply to compensate them for the extra risk that were taking before. This also eliminates the motivation for insurance companies to refuse to insure high-risk individuals or those with pre-existing conditions, and to do it in a way that doesn't put upwards pressure on premiums or that encourages them to seek compensation elsewhere in the business in a way that has negative consequences for insurees.</P> <P>In addition, the federal government might also contract out private reinsurance to cover a sizable fraction of excess catastrophic health care costs. Putting it simply, ask Warren Buffett what piece of that reinsurance business he would want (since that is a business he is already in) and use that as a guideline. The federal government and taxpayers would have to eat the rest. Congress and government health care agencies would be responsible for trying to keep such costs down, but at least insurees would no longer have to fight with the insurance companies over such costs.</P> <P>End of life care can be extremely expensive, especially as people live longer and with more underlying chronic conditions, and as new medical technology and new treatments tend to add to costs by keeping people with chronic conditions alive even longer. There is no way to reasonably expect that private insurance companies can take on the totality of these costs without passing them along as dramatic increases in the health insurance premiums of&nbsp; average and healthy individuals. Better to set an average end-of-life cost that insurance companies and health insurance premiums should cover, and then "lay off" the excess to the federal government, which would then amortize the cost over all taxpayers and then somehow proportion that amount between tax revenues and higher insurance premiums.</P> <P>There is also the issue of "older" persons who are now within "striking distance" of end of life. There simply are not enough years left until the insurance company needs to expect that on average such persons will start incurring end of life expenses. We still want there to be a significant financial incentive for private insurance companies to offer insurance coverage to such individuals for all "normal" health expenses, but not have either the insuree or the insurance company take on some impossible financial burden. The insuree should continue to pay "normal" insurance (same as an early&nbsp;middle-aged person, say 40 years old), with the federal government and private reinsurance covering 100% of all excess health care costs, both end of live and the incremental increase of health care costs expected due to being past "prime" health stage of life. This should address outrageously high health insurance premiums for those over 50.</P> <P>A similar model is needed for pre-existing conditions and for those who are "at risk". Maybe part of the overall premiums collected by a health insurance company need to be "mandated" to specifically target subsidy of those two categories so that their premiums can remain "normal" at no loss to the insurance company. This should be done based on real actuarial data, with government subsidy beyond "reasonable" expenses. So, for example, if the sum of all chronic condition treatment costs exceeds a mandated fraction of total premiums collected by that insurance company, the government begins to pick up the tab for the excess for new insurees&nbsp;so that there is no financial disincentive for the insurance company to turn down pre-existing conditions or those at risk.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-3458089599257004422?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-84933383745711556992009-12-14T07:29:00.000-05:002009-12-14T07:30:57.982-05:00<P>I have been using the term <EM>predatory capital</EM> to refer to large amounts of short selling by hedge funds and the in-house proprietary trading desks of "banks" to attack and even destroy individual firms in the stock market. By artificially pushing the stock price of a company down fast and steep enough,&nbsp;predatory capital can dramatically restrict or even eliminate&nbsp;a company's ability to raise capital, and in&nbsp;the world of modern finance virtually all but a few large technology companies are constantly raising and rolling debt and other forms of capital.&nbsp;We saw this in spades during the recent crisis with Bear Stearns, Lehman, AIG, Fannie, Freddie, Citibank, Merrill Lynch, et al essentially shut out of raising <EM>any</EM> capital which prevented them from surviving without government intervention. This was a complete failure of "free and open markets."</P> <P>In a "normal" market, a modest or even moderate level of short selling is okay and maybe a healthy thing. Short selling adds no productive capacity to either the economy or the markets, but is tolerated since it gives idle capital an opportunity to earn a higher return than if left idle.</P> <P>But in a market under stress, as we had in 2008, that "idle" capital was not seeking to find "productive" assets and investments that would be of long-term value to the economy, but simply short-term profit for the sake of short-term profit with no long-term beneficial effect.</P> <P>Short selling for short-selling's sake is not investment and does not add any productive "information" to the markets.</P> <P>In a properly functioning market, the balancing of participants increasing or decreasing their economic stake in companies creates the information that shows us how the market values a company and its prospects. Sure, we tolerate people using short-term trading, options, and even short-selling to "tag along" with the market trend, but those "followers" are tolerated precisely because they merely "follow" the flow of information and do not <EM>distort</EM> the flow of information in any significant manner.</P> <P>But once that short-term <EM>trading</EM> and <EM>speculation</EM> becomes the preverbial <EM>tail wagging the dog</EM> and begins to distort the flow of information about participants who are buying or selling true, long-term <EM>economic</EM> stakes in companies, then the markets are no longer providing accurate information or prices. That is what we saw in 2008.</P> <P>In fact, the improvement in the economy over the past six months <EM>proves</EM> that stock prices in the latter half of 2008 were <EM>not</EM> accurately forecasting the future of the economy and the improvement in revenues and earnings of companies.</P> <P>I will not claim the term <EM>predatory capital</EM> as my own invention, but it is not commonly used. In fact a Google News search finds <EM>zero</EM> hits. Nor is the term or any search matches found in the Wikipedia.</P> <P>A Google search does come up with some mediocre and unhelpful results, but I did find this interesting result from a <A href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D02E4D6133AE733A25755C0A9639C946497D6CF">review of Jack London's book War of the Classes</A>&nbsp; in <EM>The New York Times</EM> dated 1905, that sounds eerily prescient&nbsp;of our current times:</P> <P align=center><IMG style="WIDTH: 365px; HEIGHT: 537px" border=0 hspace=0 alt="" align=baseline src="http://finaxyz.com/predatory_capital.jpg" width=447 height=557></P> <P>Hmmm... "<EM>predatory capital wandering the world over seeking where it may establish itself</EM>". I couldn't have put it better myself.</P> <P>But whether corporations absorb the government or government absorbs the corporation does not seem to be any dominant trend. We do a little (or a lot) of both, but the pendulum continues to swing in both directions with no clear bias towards one direction or the other. The point is that predatory capital exploits any such <EM>chaotic</EM> motion, not just as a source of modest short-term profit but to profit from the decimation or even destruction of capital that is productively deployed.</P> <P>My apologies to Mr. London if I have distorted his intended meaning of the term predatory capital.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-8493338374571155699?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-60237460264225566062009-12-12T20:13:00.000-05:002009-12-12T20:14:02.055-05:00<P>I will not claim to have invented this phrase, but I had not ever heard it used before it materialized in my head: <STRONG><EM>position of luxury</EM></STRONG>. A <EM>position of luxury</EM> is a position, typically political or social in nature, but possibly technical as well, that would have significant negative consequences if everybody took that position, but if only a minority take that position then they reap the benefits that accrue from the consequences of the majority taking an opposing position. An example would be an antiwar stance or a conscienscious objector stance&nbsp;which permits the person to gain the benefits of strong national defense and successful prosecution of wars. There is nothing wrong with such a position per se, but it is a weaker position morally since the person is getting benefits <EM>for free</EM>, or at least without the full costs that persons taking an opposing stance may face.</P> <P>The core of this concept is that a person can or is depending on others to take action based on an opposing position.</P> <P>As another example of a position of luxury, a person could <EM>safely</EM>&nbsp;oppose use of severe or lethal force by law enforcement authorities, knowing that the majority will likely support an&nbsp;<EM>appropriate</EM> level of force regardless of any opposing positions.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-6023746026422556606?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-27266844731627568902009-10-25T20:28:00.000-04:002009-10-25T20:30:17.398-04:00<P>It looks like the U.S. Senate is finally on the verge of coming up with a winning formula for the "public option" for a health reform bill&nbsp;that can attract enough votes to pass in the Senate. The "opt-out" modification for states&nbsp;to the public option looks as if it should do the trick. Granted, a fair amount of additional tinkering may be required to arrive at the final bill that will finally get enough votes to pass, but that's to be expected. The imprtant thing is that the overall process appears to have finally "turned the corner." My senator, Chuck Schumer, is doing a great job carrying the torch and "lobbying"&nbsp;for a robust and passable&nbsp;health reform bill. Read some of his latest comments in a <EM>MarketWatch</EM> article by Deborah Levine entitled "<A href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/senate-has-votes-for-health-care-plan-schumer-2009-10-25-13500">Senate Demos have votes for public health plan: Schumer</A>".</P> <P>One way or another, some sort of health reform bill is a virtual "slam dunk" this fall.</P> <P>The whole process may seem extremely chaotic (and it is!), but that really is "par for the course" when trying to push dramatic change through Washington, D.C. Sure, a lot of people are "appalled" with the process, but personally I am "okay" with it. Sure, I would prefer a smoother process, but I also recognize that we have a very diverse range of political views in this country. That's why I am a <EM>centrist</EM>.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-2726684473162756890?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-6050888022534830942009-09-09T18:59:00.001-04:002009-09-09T18:59:47.494-04:00<P>Sure, the media and punditry is chattering about how Pres. Obama's address to the joint session of Congress tonight is a really, really big deal and that it is a "make or break" moment of his presidency, but all of that is pure hype, silliness, and nonsense. Yes, it is simply a bit of theater. Besides, if there is one thing that Barack Obama has <EM>proven, repeatedly</EM> it is that he knows how to give a great speech. Slam dunk. End of story. This one speech will not and&nbsp;is not intended to "save health reform." Yes, it will be a pep talk, both to rally supporters and to persuade non-supporters that this president is not out to get their blood and that "change" can work out well for <EM>everyone</EM>. At most, the speech will simply <EM>remind</EM> people that all of the remaining hard work on health insurance reform will occur in private meetings long after the final applause for this speech has died off.</P> <P>Sure, maybe there will be a few new ideas or new formulations in the speech to spice it up, but that is besides the core purpose&nbsp;of simply pulling a lot of the loose threads together and reminding people exactly what the president asked Congress to do way back in June.</P> <P>Personally, I do not think the speech is technically needed at all, but given the bizarre ways that the media and punditry and random politicians "operate", it may in fact be <EM>psychologically</EM> needed to persuade those "professionals" that everything is fine, we really are on track, and the big dogs really do know what they are doing and that the results are likely to be fairly decent, despite all of the chatter.</P> <P>Sure, a lot of average Americans out there are quite confused and anxious about it all, but that is primarily because the media and punditry have gotten themselves "all wee-weed up" and need an adult to calm them down a little. Besides, the average American is really only interested in how the final result actually works in the real world, not all of this "inside baseball" of the Washington political machinery.</P> <P>I am quite sure that once the president has finished speaking and the media and punditry have had their say tonight, by tomorrow morning people will not be so... wee-weed up. Sure, there are still plenty of details to be negotiated and ironed out, but that is all par for the course. Health insurance reform really is solidly on track.</P> <P>I just wish I could write the opening line of the president's speech:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>Thank you. Thank you... How is everyone doing?... Is everybody all wee-weed up?</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-605088802253483094?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-16340634833706215042009-09-03T17:49:00.001-04:002009-09-03T17:49:31.316-04:00<P>The media and pundits are making it sound as though Pres. Obama is ready to call it quits on his "dream" of bipartisanship. While it is certainly true that his record to date on enlisting bipartisan support&nbsp;has been pathetic, that is more a measure of the depth of the problems in Washington, D.C. than a measure of the president's resolve. Bipartisanship is a <EM>core value</EM> of this president. He could no more give it up than he could give up his own skin. Bipartisanship is something that Pres. Obama really, <EM><STRONG>REALLY</STRONG></EM> believes in. Just because you believe in something does not mean that you can achieve it overnight or in six months, but when it comes to core, <EM>unshakable</EM> beliefs, short-term failure is not a good predictor of long-term results.</P> <P>Sure, quite a few of the left-wing "progressives" would <EM>like</EM> for the president to give up on bipartisanship and compromise and "all of that", but the simple truth is that... <EM>it simply is not going to happen!</EM></P> <P>It will not be because of what the president or any of us <EM>want</EM>, but because of <EM>who he is</EM>.</P> <P>Bipartisanship <EM>is in his blood</EM>. Bipartisanship <EM>flows through his veins</EM>.</P> <P>Sure, Pres. Obama has to deal with the "reality" of his party and the people he has to work with in Washington, D.C., but reality has a funny way of evolving over time so that the reality of tomorrow can be radically different from the reality of today or yesterday.</P> <P>It may take a lot of time to see genuinely bipartisan results, but that is par for the course when it comes to difficult goals.</P> <P>So, reports of the death of bipartisanship are premature. Pres. Obama is not about to pull the plug on bipartisanship, not today, not tomorrow, not any day.</P> <P>As they say: <STRONG><EM>Stay tuned.</EM></STRONG></P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-1634063483370621504?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-83599712574948216032009-09-02T18:50:00.001-04:002009-09-02T18:50:38.706-04:00<P>If you believe the media coverage you probably think that the health reform effort is on its last legs and simply waiting for somebody to pull its plug. Unfortunately, the media is not providing us with an accurate assessment of the state of the health reform effort. Sure, there has been plenty of criticism and scorn heaped on the health reform effort. True enough. But, criticism is only one side of the equation and the media does revel in focusing on drama. Sure, polls do show that public support for "the" health reform "plan" has slipped and now only a minority support "it." True enough. But, there is no well-defined "it" yet, with four different plans and various negotiations and talks underway to finalize what "it" might be. And, polls are <EM>notorious</EM> for being influenced by media coverage. So, in short, the media is giving plenty of details, but not anything resembling "the big picture."</P> <P>The other major problem with the media coverage is that each politician has <EM>multiple</EM> audiences to cater to, multiple regions "back home", multiple demographic sectors, multiple categories of backers, and then multiple audiences in Washington, D.C. Some of these audiences are public and some are private. Each audience has its own interests, issues, agendas, and "language."&nbsp;The point is that each public pronouncement, or each leaked private statement, is <EM>usually</EM> intended for the target audience. Sure, every audience hears every statement, but in general most audiences only pay attention when the politician is speaking directly to them. The media of course pays attention to all statements to all audiences, but that ends up giving us an extremely distorted view of a politician's views on any topic or issue. Each audience has to be addressed on its own terms and in its own "language." Trying to transport a message literally&nbsp;from one audience to another is usually a fool's errand. So, just because politicians did a lot of posturing for various audiences back home is <EM>no indication</EM> of their attitude on various issues back in Washington, D.C. To wit, Senator Grassley's office reaffirmed today that health reform talks are continuing, despite a media message to the contrary and impressions that Grassley may have given back home.</P> <P>August is traditionally a rather slow time in Washington, D.C. That give people plenty of opportunity for political mischief. We still have the traditional Labor Day weekend coming up. Congress will not be back in the saddle in force until the middle of next week. And now we hear that Pres. Obama has been "invited" to address a joint session of Congress on... health reform. So, real soon the health reform process will be heating up in earnest again, but right now it is simply sputtering through the lazy end of summer. No surprise there. At least it <EM>shouldn't</EM> be any surprise, except that the media has made a big deal about it.</P> <P>My hunch is that within two or three&nbsp;weeks a lot of the puzzle pieces will be brought together and there will be greater clarity about the "plan".</P> <P>On process, it is okay for the House to pass its own plan and then the Senate passes a somewhat different plan. That would result in formation of a "conference committee" which would resolve the two different bills. In practice, that means that the leaders from both sides and from both the House and the Senate would get together in the proverbial "smoke-filled back room" and engage in the proverbial "horse trading" to come up with a compromise bill which could be quite different from either the House or Senate bill. So, don't get too excited in the Senate talking about one plan while the House is voting on a different, seemingly incompatible plan.</P> <P>In any case, health reform is still <STRONG><EM>on track</EM></STRONG> and still very likely to be completed within the next two or three&nbsp;months.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-8359971257494821603?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-32985647185663331032009-08-26T11:36:00.001-04:002009-08-26T11:36:49.693-04:00<P>My other eternal memory of Ted Kennedy is his famous contribution to ARPANET lore, the <EM>"Interfaith Message Processor</EM>." In all honesty, Ted did make a significant contribution (albeit non-technical)&nbsp;to the ARPANET, the forerunner of today's Internet. Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN)&nbsp;was the major contractor for much of the ARPANET development. Being a big-deal government contractor and a Massachusetts-based company, BBN was <EM>championed</EM> in Washington, D.C. by Ted Kennedy and the other members of Massachusetts' congressional delegation.</P> <P>Back in 1974/1975 (or so I recall) a few us from Stevens Institute of Technology drove up to Cambridge, MA to "visit" the famed AI lab at MIT one summer Saturday evening. A couple of the guys knew some people and had been there before. There was hardly anybody in the lab, we had the place to ourselves. We didn't do anything other print out some code, copy some&nbsp;LISP and assembler&nbsp;code onto tape,&nbsp;and take some copies of the infamous "AI Memos" from their storage room.</P> <P>Mostly I just wandered around to see what all of their computer hardware was. They had old PDP-10 boxes from Digital Equipment Corporation with special virtual memory hardware and their homegrown ITS operating system.</P> <P>Off in one corner was their ARPANET IMP. The IMP, Interface Message Processor, is the box that hooked their computers up&nbsp;to "the net".</P> <P>Taped onto the front of the IMP was a clipping of some text that basically said that Senator Edward Kennedy was congratulating BBN on getting a big-deal contract for development of their... <EM>Inter<STRONG>faith</STRONG> Message Processor</EM>. We thought it was really funny. It let us technies feel <EM>infinitely</EM> more superior to a <EM>mere politician</EM>.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-3298564718566333103?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-36729132192336350082009-08-26T10:58:00.001-04:002009-08-26T10:58:58.115-04:00<P>Time is certainly marching on. The oldtimers are dropping like flies. Is this fate telling us that they are no longer needed or a warning to the rest of us that we need to get our collective acts together? Probably the latter.</P> <P>I was never a great fan of Ted's, but he did deserve a lot of respect for his public service.</P> <P>I never met him personally, but I did see him a few times.</P> <P>Back in the early 1980's I was working at Wang Loaboraties in Lowell, MA. Ted was on the board of directors since Wang was a big deal in Massachusetts at the time. I remember looking out the window and seeing Ted get out of his limo on one of his visits to the company.</P> <P>I once saw Ted in a Senate hallway while walking to the public Senate Gallery. He was talking to some kids.</P> <P>And once I saw him in a fancy seafood restaurant in downtown Washington, DC.</P> <P>I wanted to check a detail on&nbsp;<A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy">his Wikipedia page</A>, but boy was I surprised how mean and viciously his page has been hacked. It is currently completely unusable. Oops... I just checked again and it has been restored, but maybe not for long. These idiots have no sense of decency or limit to their idiocy.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-3672913219233635008?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-64164930371945140422009-08-21T10:55:00.001-04:002009-08-21T10:55:13.902-04:00<P>I personally am 100% behind President Obama's health insurance reform efforts. Sure, the process is rather "bumpy", but that's par for the course and not unexpected in any way. I am absolutely confident that President Obama will find a <EM>compromise </EM>solution that can pass muster in Congress, notably the Senate. Unfortuntely, although "compromise" is a <EM>good</EM> word in the vocabulary of centrists and moderates, it is a <EM>horribly evil</EM> word to many liberals (or right-wingers for that matter), especially the so-called "progressives." The political extremists have a rigid and extreme&nbsp;"vision" of the <EM>one</EM> "truth" that they can accept. <EM>Compromise</EM> is something that they can <EM>never</EM> accept. So, I can only imagine the <EM>horror</EM> experienced by the elitist left-wing progressive extremists when <A href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/20/AR2009082002660.html">President Obama said</A> that "<EM><STRONG>we're happy to make sensible compromises.</STRONG></EM>" Ouch. That must have felt like a dagger to the heart by the progressives.</P> <P>The president did go on and say very soothing words:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>What we're not willing to do is give up on the core principle that Americans who don't have health insurance should get it, that Americans who do have health insurance should get a better deal from insurance companies and have consumer protections.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>But, the mere mention of the word "compromise" must have had the progressives seething and weeping in despair. Not to mention that the president had used the <EM>plural</EM> form, suggesting that <EM>multiple compromises</EM> may be in store.</P> <P>President Obama is doing a great job at tackling health care reform. It may not be perfect, but it is certainly a <EM>great</EM> effort.</P> <P>As far as those covered by Medicare or Medicaid, they really do not need to worry about losing <EM>any</EM> of their coverage or care. The current reform efforts will only <EM>improve</EM> and <EM>strengthen</EM> the coverage and care that seniors and the disabled get.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-6416493037194514042?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-76345865658060430572009-08-20T19:39:00.000-04:002009-08-20T19:40:25.268-04:00<P>George Lakoff, Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at UC Berkeley, Author, and blogger for <EM>The Huffington Post</EM> has an interesting post entitled <A href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/the-policyspeak-disaster_b_264043.html">The PolicySpeak Disaster for Health Care</A>&nbsp;on what he believes are communications mistakes that have been committed by the Obama administration when selling people on health care reform. It is a very long and detailed post, so I am not going to try to summarize it with accuracy&nbsp;here in any detail. He starts out:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>Barack Obama ran the best-organized and best-framed presidential campaign in history. <STRONG>How is it possible that the same people who did so well in the campaign have done so badly on health care?</STRONG></EM></P> <P><EM>...</EM></P> <P><EM>What has been going wrong?</EM></P> <P><EM>...</EM></P> <P><EM>The answer is simple and unfortunate: The president put both the conceptual framing and the messaging for his health care plan in the hands of policy wonks. <STRONG>This led to twin disasters.</STRONG></EM></P> <P><STRONG><EM>The PolicyList Disaster </EM></STRONG></P> <P><EM>The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. </EM></P> <P><EM>Howard Dean was right when he said that you can't get health care reform without a public alternative to the insurance companies. Institutions matter. The list of what needs reform makes sense under one conceptual umbrella. It is a public alternative that unifies the long list of needed reforms... one idea, properly articulated, takes care of the list: An American Plan guarantees affordable care for all Americans. Simple. But not for policy wonks.</EM></P> <P><EM>The policymakers focus on the list, not the unifying idea...</EM></P> <P><STRONG><EM>The PolicySpeak Disaster</EM></STRONG></P> <P><EM>PolicySpeak is the principle that: If you just tell people the policy facts, they will reason to the right conclusion and support the policy wholeheartedly. </EM></P> <P><EM>...</EM></P> <P><EM>To many liberals, PolicySpeak sounds like the high road: a rational, public discussion in the best tradition of liberal democracy. Convince the populace rationally on the objective policy merits. Give the facts and figures. Assume self-interest as the motivator of rational choice. Convince people by the logic of the policymakers that the policy is in their interest.</EM></P> <P><EM>But to a cognitive scientist or neuroscientist, this sounds nuts. The view of human reason and language behind PolicySpeak is just false. Certainly reason should be used. It's just that you should use real reason, the way people really think. Certainly the truth should be told. It's just that it should be told so it makes sense to people, resonates with them, and inspires them to act. Certainly new media should be used. It's just that a system of communications should be constructed and used effectively.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>The good professor details what he believes is a flawed model of how people <EM>reason</EM>:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><STRONG><EM>What Is Reason Really Like? </EM></STRONG></P> <P><EM>PolicySpeak is supposed to be reasoned, objective discourse. It thus assumes a theory of what reason itself is -- a philosophical theory that dates back to the 17th Century and is still taught. </EM></P> <P><EM>Over the past four decades, cognitive science and neuroscience have provided a scientific view of how the brain and mind really work. A handful of these results have come into behavioral economics. But most social scientists and policymakers are not trained in these fields. They still have the old view of mind and language. </EM></P> <P><EM>The old philosophical theory says that reason is conscious, can fit the world directly, is universal (we all think the same way), is dispassionate (emotions get in the way of reason), is literal (no metaphor or framing in reason), works by logic, is abstract (not physical) and functions to serve our interests. Language on this view is neutral and can directly fit, or not fit, reality.</EM></P> <P><EM>The scientific research in neuroscience and cognitive science has shown that most reason is unconscious. Since we think with our brains, reason cannot directly fit the world. Emotion is necessary for rational thought; if you cannot feel emotion, you will not know what to want or how anyone else would react to your actions. Rational decisions depend on emotion. Empathy with others has a physical basis, and as much as self-interest, empathy lies behind reason.</EM></P> <P><EM>Ideas are physical, part of brain circuitry. Ideas are constituted by brain structures called 'frames' and 'metaphors,' and reason uses them. Frames form systems, called worldviews.</EM></P> <P><EM>All language is defined relative to such frames and metaphors. There are very different conservative and progressive worldviews, and different words can activate different worldviews. Important words, like freedom, can have entirely different meanings depending on your worldview. In short, not everybody thinks the same way. </EM></P> <P><EM>As a result, what is taken as "objective" discourse is often worldview dependent. This is especially true of health care. All progressive writing supporting some version of health care assumes a progressive moral worldview, in which no one should be forced to go without heath care, the government should play a role, market regulation is necessary, and so on.</EM></P> <P><EM>Those with radical conservative worldviews may well think otherwise: that everyone should be responsible for their own and their family's health care, that the government is oppressive and should stay out of it, that the market should always dominate, and so on.</EM></P> <P><EM>Overall, the foundational assumptions underlying PolicySpeak are false. It should be no wonder that PolicySpeak isn't working.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Ultimately, he claims to know what to do to fix the problem, but then suggests why progressives are not receptive to such a fix:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>They may find it hard to comprehend <STRONG>framing, metaphor, and narrative as the way reason really works</STRONG> -- as what you need to do to communicate truth. Instead, they may well think of framing as <STRONG>merely manipulation and spin, as the mechanism that the right wing uses to communicate lies</STRONG>.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I'll try to summarize:</P> <UL> <LI>Lists of features don't "sell" people on anything of importance.</LI> <LI>Traditional, classical, 17th century&nbsp;"reasoning" doesn't sell people.</LI> <LI>Ignore recent advances in neuroscience and cognitive science at your peril.</LI> <LI>Framing is essential.</LI> <LI>Metaphor is essential.</LI> <LI>Narrative is essential.</LI> <LI>Empathy and emotion are essential.</LI> <LI>Tools do not lose their validity just because "the other side" uses them against you.</LI></UL> <P>I actually do not agree with everything he says and I believe that the Obama administration really is following the optimum path given the realities called Washington and America, but many of his ideas do have merit, at least in an abstract sense on paper. In truth, I believe that the Obama administration is in fact already following the essence of a lot of his advice even if not to the degree and specificity that he would prefer.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-7634586565806043057?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-15220781125106684202009-08-17T20:25:00.000-04:002009-08-17T20:26:07.443-04:00<P>Just in case you cannot access the <A href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:">"official" text of the H.R. 3200</A> House Energy and Commerce Committee health care reform bill at the Library of Congress Thomas web site, you can find it here:</P> <UL> <LI><A href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf">House Energy and Commerce Committee web site</A></LI> <LI><A href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&amp;docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf">Government Printing Office web site</A></LI> <LI><A href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text">Open Congress web site</A></LI></UL> <P>The official name of the bill ("Act")&nbsp;is "<EM><STRONG>America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009</STRONG></EM>."</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-1522078112510668420?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-67889589851909294522009-08-17T10:33:00.001-04:002009-08-17T10:33:36.630-04:00<P>The public option for health insurance reform has been on shaky ground for about a month or so, ever since the Senate Finance Committee effectively endorsed co-ops as a preferred alternative. Even before the recent town meeting brawls, President Obama had taken to emphasizing the public option more lightly or even de-emphasizing it. Does that mean that the public option is dead? No, not at all. What it does mean is that the supporters and proponents of the public option are on notice that they <EM>must</EM> come up with a <EM>reformulated</EM> public option which is a lot more palatable and far less "socialist" than the current proposals, otherwise the public option will die in favor of the co-op approach. Personally, I do not expect the public option crowd to simply roll over and play dead, but I am not necessarily optimistic that they are emotionally ready to admit defeat and "go with the flow."</P> <P>Personally, I think the president really does <EM>want</EM> the public option, but he is enough of a <EM>politician</EM> to be able to read the writing on the walls and recognize that "the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good."</P> <P>I personally even think the president <EM>really wants</EM> a single-provider solution, but he is enough of a realist, pragmatist, and moderate to understand that single-provider is a non-starter, now and for the foreseeable future.</P> <P>I would rate the prospects for the public option at 50-50. The votes in the Senate are close enough that the balance between the public option and co-ops probably wobbles back and forth on a weekly if not daily basis. How the vote might go today is not an indication of how the vote might go in September or October, especially if the public option is <EM>reformulated</EM>, possibly even with a "trigger" that puts the insurance companies on notice that it is up to them to take the lead in reforming themselves, otherwise the public option would almost automatically be "triggered" into existence.</P> <P>The bottom line is that <EM>regardless</EM> of the fate of the public option, President Obama is still definitely on track to preside over passage of health insurance reform legislation before the end of the year.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-6788958985190929452?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-22469012327355017762009-08-08T09:18:00.001-04:002009-08-08T09:18:38.152-04:00<P>Boisterous protesters at health reform forums certainly get great press coverage, but will they actually have any significant impact on the decisions about whether and how reform will occur? I think not.</P> <P>Even without the noisy protesters, there are still plenty of thorny issues up in the air. That is why there were four separate reform proposals floating around in Congress and why Congress decided to punt and defer further decisions until September.</P> <P>The protesters simply add another <EM>layer</EM> to the discussion and are simply raising the volume for the <EM>pre-existing</EM> objections from conservative Republicans.</P> <P>Put simply, the protesters are not adding any <EM>new information</EM> to the debate.</P> <P>In fact, by highlighting <EM>extremist</EM> positions and clearly <EM>false claims</EM> about health reform the protesters are inadvertently undermining the case against health reform.</P> <P>I think that national (and local) <EM>polls</EM> are a much more valuable indicator of the level of support for health reform and the level and type of concerns that people have about both the current system and any proposed reform.</P> <P>Clearly there are plenty of (non-protesting) Americans who have deep concerns about the reform "plan". And they should! After all, that is why there are four <EM>separate</EM> plans and key issues that are unresolved.</P> <P>The good news is that Pres. Obama is striking a reasonable balance between staying out of the specific details of the reform proposals and staying engaged and keeping the <EM>heat</EM> on moving forward with a <EM>credible</EM> plan as soon as possible. In other words, he is being <EM>very realistic</EM> and <EM>very pragmatic</EM>. He knows what is at stake, both from the perspective of health care and health insurance on the one hand and the political reality of America on the other.</P> <P>There are still plenty of important details which will be decided at the eleventh hour, which is typical of how Washington works, but sometimes that is actually a great way to get all of the relevant parties to focus more intensely on the decisions that really matter. At that stage, the extremist rantings of a few thousand mindless protesters will carry very little weight at all.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-2246901232735501776?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-18636120570251813432009-08-07T15:46:00.001-04:002009-08-07T15:46:50.113-04:00<P>All of us Americans have a constitutionally-protected right of "freedom of speech", but do we have a protected right to <EM>listen</EM> and <EM>hear</EM> what someone else is saying and do we have a protected right to be <EM>heard</EM> by those who we are speaking to? Maybe or maybe not.</P> <P><EM>Amendment I</EM> of the <EM>Bill of Rights</EM> of the&nbsp;<EM>U.S. Constitution</EM> simply says:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ...</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>That does not necessarily guarantee that you can and will be heard whenever and wherever&nbsp;you want, but simply forbids Congress from trying to stop you from speaking.</P> <P>That same amendment gives us the right to assemble:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>What if one or more citizens seek to prevent you from being heard?</P> <P>What if one or more citizens seek to prevent you from hearing what someone else has to say?</P> <P>Do constituents have a right to hear what their elected representatives and officials have to say?</P> <P>Is trying to "shout someone down" constitutionally-protected exercise of "freedom of speech"?</P> <P>Stray hecklers are to be tolerated, but is the same true if large numbers of them <EM>gang up </EM>and act in concert as a <EM>mob</EM>, seeking to prevent a speaker or a citizen from being heard and preventing others from hearing what is being said?</P> <P>Do <EM>members of a mob of hecklers</EM> have a right to use&nbsp;their constitutionally-protected&nbsp;"freedom of speech"&nbsp;to <EM>intimidate</EM>, both physically and verbally, citizens from speaking, being heard, and hearing others?</P> <P>Does the constitutional protection of "freedom of speech" extend to using that speech to <EM>disrupt </EM>a constitutionally-protected and lawful gathering of citizens?</P> <P>Does the right of assembly really permit hecklers from outside the district to "pack" the available seating of a venue to <EM>prevent</EM> citizens of the district from peaceably assembling?</P> <P>Lately there have been quite a number of incidents where "right-wingers" have been <EM>nominally</EM> exercising their constitutionally-protected rights&nbsp; to freedom of speech" and "peaceably to assemble" at "town halls" of numerous congressmen across the country, but with their <EM>extreme heckling</EM> and&nbsp;<EM>mob-like behavior</EM> having&nbsp;the <EM>effect</EM> of causing <EM>extreme disruption</EM>, and as I suggest here <EM>interfering</EM> with the ability of citizens to: 1) assemble in a peaceable manner,&nbsp;&nbsp;2) hear what their congressman has to say, 3) to speak and be heard by their congressman, and 4) to hear what their fellow citizens have to say to them and their congressman.</P> <P>In my view, this kind of behavior is in fact <EM>abridging</EM> the rights to freedom of speech and assembly&nbsp;of the non-hecklers and their congressmen, and that this behavior is in fact a <EM>misuse</EM> of the freedoms of speech and to assemble, analogous to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or inciting a mob to disruptive and disorderly behavior.</P> <P>Where exactly to draw the line for what is protected and proscribed is a thorny matter. Nonetheless, it is deeply disturbing that we do not have "community standards" of <EM>decency</EM> and <EM>courteous conduct</EM> that would cover these types of situations.</P> <P>I would hate to have to make it a crime for a group of people to heckle and heckle loudly, but it is ridiculous that this type of behavior should be tolerated&nbsp;let alone contemplated&nbsp;here in the 21st century.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-1863612057025181343?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-82830251566712851302009-08-07T11:36:00.001-04:002009-08-07T11:36:35.128-04:00<P>Various people are complaining about Wall Street bonuses and how "banks" are still carrying&nbsp;so much in&nbsp;"toxic" assets on their books at uncertain valuations, so I have the solution to all of these problems:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>For the foreseeable future, until the value of these toxic assets goes to zero, <STRONG>require </STRONG>all Wall Street bonuses to be paid in the form of these toxic assets that are on the firm's books.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Give these bozos a taste of their own medicine. Yeah!!</P> <P>The beauty of this approach is that lets management balance discounting of the value of the toxic assets on the one hand and the willingness of the bozos to accept such assets on the other hand.</P> <P>In truth, a lot of sharp financial gurus would in fact accept a lot of these assets if only the discount was steep enough.</P> <P>Of course banks don't want a steep discount because that decimates their capital. Somewhere in the middle is a balance that both sides can accept. The bozos certainly won't get as steep a discount as they would want, but that is probably okay with the American people, the taxpayers, the people who <EM>bailed out</EM> these bozos.</P> <P>So, what do you think? Great idea, or am I being too unkind to the bozos on Wall Street?</P> <P>I really think this could work.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-8283025156671285130?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-25916096817965943792009-08-05T18:43:00.000-04:002009-08-05T18:44:10.040-04:00<P>I am personally all in favor of <EM>diplomacy</EM>, but between the badmouthing of diplomacy by the right and the "diplomacy by public pontification"&nbsp;of the left, it is all but <EM>extinct</EM>. Until yesterday, when former President Bill Clinton reminded everyone (by example) how it is done: <EM>in private</EM>. Private talks with no public pontification in advance that is likely to <EM>poison</EM> the actual talks.</P> <P>Now, whether such <EM>private</EM> diplomacy will ever again be tolerated in a Washington that is obsessively focused on <EM>public pontification</EM> remains to be seen.</P> <P>There is plenty of opportunity for working towards a "working relationship" with Iran, but it will take a lot of this "true" (private) dipomacy, especially when just about everybody is poised, itching to jump up and say something <EM>incredibly stupid</EM>&nbsp; and counterproductive in public.</P> <P>Hopefully such private "preparations" are already underway with Iran. But all of the incessant public babbling about "nuclear ambitions" and sanctions really is counterproductive and <EM>useless</EM> compared to true, <EM>private</EM> dipomacy.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-2591609681796594379?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-52857463571770108842009-08-04T19:51:00.000-04:002009-08-04T19:52:15.787-04:00<P>Anybody out there have even the slightest clue as to what our <EM>strategy for <STRONG>winning</STRONG></EM> in Afghanistan really is? Or what our <EM>exit strategy</EM> is for Afghanistan? As far as I can tell&nbsp;<EM>there isn't any</EM>!</P> <P>Yeah, sure, you can read about "<A href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/03/27/A-New-Strategy-for-Afghanistan-and-Pakistan/">A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan</A>" on the White House web site, as of March 27, 2009, including the six-page "<A href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/afghanistan_pakistan_white_paper_final.pdf">White Paper of the Interagency Policy Group's Report on U.S. Policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan</A>", but it basically only tells us what we <EM>wish</EM> we could do rather than a <EM>true, hard-core strategy</EM> that will actually <EM>get there</EM>:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>... <STRONG>the core goal of the U.S. must be to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its safe havens in Pakistan, and to prevent their return to Pakistan or Afghanistan.</STRONG></EM></P> <P><EM>...</EM></P> <P><EM><STRONG>Objectives</STRONG></EM></P> <DIV><EM>Achieving our core goal is vital to U.S. national security. It requires, first of all, realistic and achievable objectives. These include:</EM></DIV> <UL> <LI><EM>Disrupting terrorist networks in Afghanistan and especially Pakistan to degrade any ability they have to plan and launch international terrorist attacks.</EM></LI> <LI><EM>Promoting a more capable, accountable, and effective government in Afghanistan that serves the Afghan people and can eventually function, especially regarding internal security, with limited international support.</EM></LI> <LI><EM>Developing increasingly self-reliant Afghan security forces that can lead the counterinsurgency and counterterrorism fight with reduced U.S. assistance.</EM></LI> <LI><EM>Assisting efforts to enhance civilian control and stable constitutional government in Pakistan and a vibrant economy that provides opportunity for the people of Pakistan.</EM></LI> <LI><EM>Involving the international community to actively assist in addressing these objectives for Afghanistan and Pakistan, with an important leadership role for the UN.</EM></LI></UL></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Those are all truly great things to do, but that still does not constitute a hard-core strategy <STRONG><EM>to win</EM></STRONG> and to <STRONG><EM>get out</EM></STRONG>.</P> <P>Notice, for example, that it seeks to get the Afghan security forces <EM>only </EM>to a level where they can fight with&nbsp;"<EM>reduced U.S. assistance.</EM>" How about a <EM>goal</EM> of <STRONG><EM>zero</EM></STRONG> U.S. assistance? There simply isn't a game plan in place for that.</P> <P>Notice, for example, that it seeks to <EM>"disrupt</EM>" terrorists and to "<EM><STRONG>degrade </STRONG>any ability they have to plan and launch international terrorist attacks</EM>." Yes, "degrade" is good, but it is not <EM>good enough</EM> to <STRONG><EM>win and get us out</EM></STRONG>. No strategy or plan is offered to <STRONG><EM>eliminate</EM> </STRONG>"<EM>any ability they have to plan and launch international terrorist attacks</EM>." If there is no <STRONG><EM>elimination</EM></STRONG> of the threat, then guess what? The implication is that we have to <STRONG><EM>stay</EM></STRONG>, potentially for a very long time.</P> <P>Go ahead and pore through that white paper as closely as you can, but you won't find any mention of two concepts: <STRONG><EM>win</EM></STRONG> and <STRONG><EM>exit</EM></STRONG>.</P> <P>Sure, the white paper tells us of "<EM>the desired end state</EM>":</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>the removal of al-Qaeda's sanctuary, effective democratic government control in Pakistan, and a self-reliant Afghanistan that will enable a withdrawal of combat forces while sustaining our commitment to political and economic development.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>And it even gives a set of "<EM>steps</EM>" that <EM>must</EM> be taken&nbsp;and they are indeed great steps to take, but there is still a <EM>massive disconnect</EM> between lofty goals and "steps" on the one hand and how to actually <EM>close the deal</EM> and <EM>win</EM> in a way that leads to a full wind-down of U.S. military involvement and realistic <EM>exit</EM>.</P> <P>If we intend to stay as long as al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other "bad actors" (including drug lords) are running around, I would simply say that is a <EM>fair assessment of <STRONG>the problem</STRONG></EM>, but it is not a <EM>strategy for winning</EM>.</P> <P>Adding more troops is not a <EM>strategy</EM> either. Double, triple, quadruple the troops. Increase by an <EM>order of magnitude</EM>. Whatever. There is no number of troops that would assure the complete elimination of all of the "bad guys." Especially, if they can <EM>easily</EM> slip across the border into Pakistan, Iran, or wherever.</P> <P>Even if we did eliminate all of the "bad guys" that we could find, Afghanistan is still a relatively uncivilized and tribal country that simply does not have a <EM>robust social structure</EM> that could <EM>deter</EM> a <EM>reemergence</EM> of "bad actors" in the future. The <EM>lure</EM> of poppies and opium assures that, no matter what.</P> <P>Pres. Obama said a lot of the right words back in March:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course.&nbsp; Instead, we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable.&nbsp; We'll consistently assess our efforts to train Afghan security forces and our progress in combating insurgents.&nbsp; We will measure the growth of Afghanistan's economy, and its illicit narcotics production.&nbsp; And we will review whether we are using the right tools and tactics to make progress towards accomplishing our goals.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Unfortunately, that means that we are still <EM>essentially clueless </EM>as to what "progress" really is in terms of a complete <EM>elimination</EM> of the terrorist threat.</P> <P>The really key problem is that the phrase "<EM>our goals</EM>" essentially and effectively&nbsp;means a collection of <EM>tools and tactics</EM> to "pursue" rather than <EM>tangible real-world&nbsp;targets</EM> to <EM>objectively</EM> obtain.</P> <P>In truth, my hunch is that the "bad guys" <EM>in</EM> Afghanistan is only a <EM>small part</EM> of the reason why we are there. The <EM>big</EM> reason we are there is more likely as a semi-permanent <EM>base</EM> to <EM>deter Iran</EM> in the region.</P> <P>In any case, the bottom line is that we have no strategy or plan to <EM>end the war in Afghanistan and exit the region</EM>.</P> <P>How&nbsp;long are we going to simply keep adding more troops with no realistic strategy for how they will actually achieve a <EM>conclusion of hostilities</EM>?</P> <P>How high will the body count get before the American people finally say <EM>enough</EM>?</P> <P>The bottom line is that a large U.S. force in Afghanistan is simply a long-term losing proposition. Eventually, a U.S. president will come to that same conclusion and we will some years from now simply pull out, much as the Soviets did. Meanwhile, the infamous "consensus" is that increased troop levels in Afghanistan is "the way to go."</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-5285746357177010884?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-84334426861879285242009-07-29T15:06:00.000-04:002009-07-29T15:07:08.984-04:00<P>Yes, <EM>everybody</EM> has to hold their noses when they dig into the gory details of the various health insurance reform proposals grinding their way through the digestive system of the snake called Congress, but the simple truth is that there <EM>is</EM> a lot of <EM>good </EM>stuff in there that will be a solid foundation for future health reform efforts. Sure, it would be nice to have a <EM>better</EM> proposal or even a <EM>perfect</EM> proposal, but we have got to focus on what is <EM>doable</EM> in the current political and economic environment. In any case, the various proposals are incrementally changed to make them more palatable to a broader political base. The net result is that we are getting closer and closer to a legislative package that can actually be passed by Congress and signed into law. This really is going to happen!</P> <P>A vote in September is <EM>almost assured</EM>. Or, they <EM>could </EM>spend more time in September to improve the bill further, but that would be even better.</P> <P>This is not the <EM>end-all</EM> of health reform. My personal view is that the <EM>real end-all</EM> proposal will&nbsp;come 3 to 5 years down the road after our social and economic and political system digests the actual reforms in the real world and <EM>then</EM> we will have solid support for a better, more comprehensive&nbsp;longer-term proposal.</P> <P>I expect that we will have at&nbsp;least&nbsp;<EM>annual</EM> congressional efforts to tweak the reforms as we gain more real-world experience. Maybe even a couple revisions <EM>every</EM> year.</P> <P>My condolences to those left-wingnuts who want a pure single-payer system. Ain't gonna happen. Ever.</P> <P>My assurance to those right-wingnuts worried about a federal government takeover of the health care system. Ain't gonna happen. Ever.</P> <P>To everybody else, there is something in reform for everybody. Maybe even including me.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-8433442686187928524?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-24235581172221253722009-07-24T18:22:00.000-04:002009-07-24T18:24:04.746-04:00<P>Given all of the "uproar" over the arrest of Prof. Henry Gates and Pres. Obama's own foray into the discussion, I think it makes perfect sense for the President to offer to sit down and have a "chat" with just the three of them present. It might not resolve anything or change anything, but it is just the president's kind of opportunity to show him at his "community organizing" best.</P> <P>Right now, the "discussion" is happening in the national media, which is a <EM>truly horrible</EM> venue for resolving conflicts.</P> <P>Pres. Obama could also go to Cambridge and host the "chat" there.</P> <P>I really do think it would do some good, and give the president a chance to positively demonstrate his conciliatory abilities.</P> <P>It would also be good because it would <EM>push</EM> the national media out of the picture. As well as any activists who might be <EM>spoiling for a fight</EM>.</P> <P>The issue should not be how Prof. Gates is going to "fight" the Cambridge Police Department, but rather the issue should be how Pres. Obama can use his skills and the presidential office to actually make a <EM>dent</EM> in racial confict in America.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-2423558117222125372?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33076218.post-82952759716914718062009-07-22T10:28:00.000-04:002009-07-22T10:30:04.058-04:00<P>I just wanted to clarify that although plenty of criticism can be heaped on current health care reform efforts, even by me, I am nonetheless 100% supportive of President Obama's effort to pass a comprehensive health care reform package <EM><STRONG>real soon</STRONG></EM>. I am 100% supportive of his discretion as to whether the package gets completed before the August congressional recess, or whenever he agrees to shift it. And, I am 100% supportive of his discretion to negotiate exactly which elements of reform are included in the final package (which can always be revised and extended in future years.)</P> <P>As far as the timing, personally, I would not lose any sleep if it took another month or two or&nbsp;year or two, but I am 100% supportive of President Obama's "<EM>the urgency of now</EM>" philosophy. I also believe that health care reform falls under the "<EM>If not now then when?</EM>" philosophy since continued delay means... endless delay.</P> <P>Maybe health care reform would be better next year or the year after, but it could also be a lot worse if the resolve to actually <EM>do it</EM> dissipates and politicians begin feeling that their reelection prospects are <EM>safer</EM> by continuing to delay.</P> <P>Personally, I do not think that a delay of a month or two or a year or two will result in a substantially better package than the current options in Congress, so if we are really going to do it, we should just get it done, <STRONG><EM>now</EM></STRONG>.</P> <P>So, let's have <STRONG><EM>Health Care Reform Now!</EM></STRONG></P> <P>And then we can all move on to other things!</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/33076218-8295275971691471806?l=politicaldesk.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0