Update no.380

Update from the Heartland
No.380
23.3.09 – 29.3.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- Another interesting opinion on earmarks:
“Earmark Madness”
by Daniel Henninger
Wall Street Journal
Published: March 19, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123742181856478765.html#mod=djemEditorialPage
-- Hopefully, as a closing marker on the grotesque Austrian incest case, the German newspaper Der Spiegel coined an appropriate term for Josef Fritzl [334, 379] and his ilk – “kellerinzestmonster” = basement incest monster.
-- It seems this is an Update edition for other opinions:
“The Real AIG Scandal – It’s not the bonuses. It’s that AIG’s counterparties are getting paid back in full”
by Eliot Spitzer [327]
Slate.com
Posted Tuesday, March 17, 2009, at 10:41 AM ET
http://www.slate.com/id/2213942/
The former governor and prosecutor offers his opinion regarding the AIG bonus fiasco in the light of the greater bailout debacle. We, the People, are paying on AIG’s insurance policies to cover the highly risky foolishness of collateralized debt obligations and the credit default swaps [355].
-- According to the Wall Street Journal, American and Pakistani intelligence officials are constructing new target lists for offensive Predator drones [209, et al]. I wonder how this normal and proper warfighting activity sits with the uber-Left?

President Obama held a cyber-space townhall meeting on Thursday, where he took eMail and vidclip questions from citizens – probably not randomly selected. One of the questions that attracted the most Press attention dealt with legalization of marijuana to help stimulate the economy. POTUS laughed off his response as he said, no, he did not think it was a good idea. I can discount his response, as the notion could never be justified as an economic stimulation action, but legalization of the psychotropic substance use is a proper topic for public debate; and, POTUS does have a fair amount on his plate at the moment. I will continue to hope and argue for legalization of drugs for the myriad of reasons I have offered previously. We can huff and puff ‘til we make ourselves blue, but we will never be able to prohibit what is predominantly private conduct. The best we can do is to minimize the collateral damage, and we are a very long way from that mature state.

News from the economic front:
-- The Treasury Department presented a program to use US$75-100B in TARP funds, combined with private capital, to buy up to US$500B in toxic bank assets. The proposal was received well by the market. We shall see how is actually works.
-- According to the National Association of Realtors, existing-home sales rose 5.1% in February, climbing to a 4.72 million annual rate, exceeding expectations. Yet, foreclosures and short sales reflected about 45% of total existing-home sales. As a consequence, the median price for existing homes fell to $165,400 in February, down 15.5% from $195,800 in February 2008.
-- Goldman Sachs is reportedly considering selling part of its 4.9% stake in Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) that could raise more than US$1B and could be used to repay some of the US$10B it received from the U.S. government last October. Goldman’s shares in ICBC are valued at about US$7.5B.
-- New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo indicated that 9 of the top 10 AIG bonus recipients have given back their bonuses. He also said 15 of the top 20 bonus recipients at the disastrous Financial Products Division had given back an estimated US$30M in bonus funds.
-- During opening remarks before his prime-time press conference, President Obama suggested there were “signs of progress” in the economic recovery as a result of the government’s economic stimulus plan, the efforts to stabilize the housing market, and Treasury’s toxic assets program. The President also sounded defiant as he justified his US$3.55T budget request as “inseparable” from the recovery process.
-- The Commerce Department reported new-home sales climbed 4.7% during February to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 337,000, the first month-to-month increase since last July. The median price of a new home fell to $200,900, from $206,800 in January, down 18% from a year earlier. In another positive sign for the economy, durable-goods orders unexpectedly rose 3.4% during February.
-- The opening shot of the inevitable financial reformation was fired this week. The administration seeks to extend federal oversight of markets for financial derivatives and for previously unregulated financial companies, including large hedge funds and major insurers. The government also would set new uniform standards for all large financial companies, including banks, imposing significant limits on the scope and riskiness of their activities.
-- General Motors’s Chairman And Chief Executive Officer George Richard "Rick" Wagoner, Jr., is expected to resign immediately, just as President Obama prepares to unveil the administration’s rescue plans for the ailing American auto industry. Industry experts expect the administration to demand deeper restructuring from General Motors and Chrysler before they would get any more government loans.

Comments and contributions from Update no.379:
“I have to say that this is the first time I have been truly disappointed with your blog. I don't intend to carry on a long involved discussion with you on this but simply put: Obama seems very good at firing the flames of public outrage, when it suits him - getting on the right side of the tidal wave, so to speak, before it sweeps him away. But as you know, or should know, there is a lot more to the AIG Bonus story than 'bailout' money going to individual bonuses. A lot more to it. More than just ‘keeping talent;’ more than congressmen grandstanding for the cameras; more than contractual commitments and more than Dodd and Geithner knowing full well that it was part of the package, etc. Certainly I agree with you in principle, but defending principle does not excuse putting blinders on to how the real world really works, regardless of how popular it is. You don’t like Rush Limbaugh because you think he is ‘over the top.’ In my opinion, you are doing the same thing by focusing on the outrageous – creating heat, but no light. The only difference is you think your cause is just and his is not – or at least not just enough to justify his hyperbole.
“I don't think I have ever before seen you take the low road on something like this just to further your own (commendable) crusade against corruptions and greed. It’s just not this simple. You and I both know beyond a shadow of a doubt that quick easy answers, particularly when they are popular and espoused by indignant politicians, are almost always wrong. And the fact that you totally ignored Congress’ blatantly unconstitutional, publicity grabbing, blame-deflecting, grand standing, targeted and retroactive 95% tax on the bonuses (you ignoring blatant unconstitutionality!) knowing full well that it has no chance of making it through the court system, well - like I said, disappointed.
“OK, I owe you a free shot. Just an opinion - I do not intend to follow up.”
My response:
Here is my shot. And, I hope you do follow-up; after all, that is the point of this humble forum. Also, I am afraid Update no.379 will not be the last time you will be disappointed in my words. It is the nature of the beast, as they say. Hopefully, we can continue to argue with respect.
To leave the impression I am aligned with “indignant politicians” is an error of the most grievous sort, and a weakness and consequence of trying to keep my opinions short. I am no fan of Congress, of the Executive, and most of the Supreme Court; yet, they are the government we have, and I try to see the good in people.
As I noted, the text of the House bill had not been posted on the Library of Congress website as of Sunday, so I reserved my judgment. I simply noted the House passage as well as the President’s comments. I want the Wall Street bankers to feel just a smidgen of pain and worry the rest of us feel. Personally, I think they are already over-compensated at the base salary, set aside massive bonuses on top of that, IMHO. I have also offered my opinion about bonus compensation.
I am not an expert on economics, financial systems, banking processes, et cetera. Nonetheless, I am not stupid, either. Wall Street bankers did not create this mess, no more than AIG did, but they sure as hell helped it along. Since day one of the banking crisis, I have laid the root cause upon individual citizens like you and me, who thought they could get something for nothing by signing their names to 125% mortgages on homes already inflated 2, 3, 4 times or more over the real value, thinking they would continue to inflate forever. We can also levy an accusatory finger at Congress that enabled mortgage lenders to operate beyond banking regulations, making their contribution to the insanity that became the mortgage crisis, and at Congress that practically brow-beat Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac into participating, to make the illusion of home ownership available to lower & lower income level citizens. [I invite you to return to Update no.358, if you would like to see more of my opinion.] Oh yes, indeedie, there is plenty of blame to go around, but that doesn’t matter a hoot in keeping our citizens employed.
I think President Obama has done a remarkable job, so far, with more than a few mistakes along the way, and I am unwilling to condemn his efforts, just yet. Barack did not create this mess, and he is hardly to blame for the crisis, yet he carries the burden of helping us recover as quickly as possible. We can argue about the wisdom of the Federal government doing anything whatsoever to lessen the severity of the recession, but in this case, as I have written before, action (even the wrong action) is better than inaction. The administration’s efforts are not perfect, but at least they are trying.
BTW, I would like to hear your rationale for claiming Congress’ bonus tax is “unconstitutional.” Another BTW, as I said, I’ve not yet read the bill’s text, so I have no counter-argument of offer at the moment.
I am politically a moderate independent – sometimes conservative, sometimes liberal, sometimes libertarian. I criticize the Left as much as the Right; I think they’re both wrong. And, I most often save my vehemence for anyone with a rigid ideology, who is unwilling to seek compromise and balance. I do not object to Rush per se, just his inflexibility and inability to seek compromise solutions. This Grand Republic was founded to foster debate, argument, negotiation and compromise; rigid ideology of any flavor should be an anathema to be shunned.
. . . round two:
“Concur,
“We probably agree on a great many things, like checks and balances. I’m just not sure the Government is equipped to take on the enormous responsibility that we seem to be headed for. The U.S. Post Office comes to mind. Others would argue that the free market system itself will provide the checks and balances if unfettered by Government meddling. I’m neither willing nor capable of having that discussion with you.
“If you are arguing that a 95% punitive, retroactive tax on a targeted, named, group of individuals is, or may be legal, right or constitutional in the United States of America - well we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
“Certainly Capitalism is mean without checks and balances, but we’ve never had a purely capitalistic system. Certainly since FDR it’s been a sliding scale where our leaders and decision makers have been challenged to think of some compromise that works well and ‘feels’ good.
“However, the intersection of the world of ‘feel’ and the world of ‘think’ is a dangerous place for leaders and decision makers. Clausewitz talked extensively about it in terms of passion v. reason. Our own cultural idioms on the subject are plentiful: sometimes you have to ‘go with your gut.’ Sometimes ‘wearing your heart on your sleeve’ is not such a bad thing…sometimes it is. Normal humans are nearly incapable of purely objective, rational decision devoid of all passion or ‘feeling.’ Generally speaking, however, the more important the decision, the more important it is to stay as far to the reason side of the sliding scale as possible. ‘Never spank a child when you are angry.’ ‘What were you thinking?’ ‘Count to ten’…, etc., etc. I don’t think it was anything more than a political ploy, but even President Obama said he didn’t want to make a decision while he was angry.
“I ‘think’ a great many of us, to include some of the very rich, ‘feel’ like there are just some people with too much money in America. And, conversely, some people that are just too poor. Although they targeted the ‘system’ rather than the rich per se, I think this was the basic motivator for Marx and Engels. I doubt that Lenin and Stalin were nearly as altruistic. Mao Tse Tung termed it ‘land reform’ because the audience was rural peasants instead of urban slum workers in China and North Vietnam, but again: same basic motivator; same anti-capitalist thought. Jane Fonda never quite got around to asking how ‘land reform’ actually worked out for the Chinese and Vietnamese. The word ‘gruesome’ comes to mind.
“The point is, all this recent talk about wealth redistribution is not new. It’s been tried before many, many times and has failed (miserably), every time, to improve the lives of either the poor or the rich. So even if we do ‘feel’ like something has to be done about the ‘filthy rich’ in our country, we had better ‘think’ very carefully about what we decide to do about it. Political speeches and mainstream media coverage almost always play to the ‘passion of the people’ as was the case in this Bonus Issue. They have to. Otherwise we’d all be watching C-span and falling asleep. But it’s a dangerous way to make important decisions…or justify them.
“For something I was not going to follow up on, I’ve certainly taken up too much of your time.”
. . . my response to round two:
I am not an advocate for government intervention. In fact, generally, I am quite the opposite . . . I want the government out of our affairs. Yet, that said, government has a beneficial and contributory place within our society. As I have written, the marketplace can most definitely sort out this mess – the strong survive, the broken parish. And, the robber barons will NOT suffer the consequences. There are bad men on the street, just as there are bad men on Wall Street. We need the police on the street and in the marketplace; they have been scarce in the latter domain during the last decade or so.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the marketplace can take care of business. I am unwilling to accept the collateral damage to largely innocent citizens, so the robber barons can enhance their wealth. Conversely, I want people to be wealthy, to enjoy the benefits of their wealth. I want every citizen to aspire to wealth, to be willing to work hard for wealth. Yet, I cannot tolerate the wealthy destroying other lives to acquire or amplify their wealth.
Again, I am not a fan or supporter of Congress levying a punitive tax on anyone. I have also worked in the executive ranks where a healthy chunk of my income was at risk, dependent upon my performance and the performance of my unit. I make no claim to understanding the employment contracts of the AIG executives, or Merrill Lynch executives, or any of the other Wall Street bankers. Perhaps their employment contracts guarantee them massive bonuses for just showing up at the office – who knows. Bonuses are supposed to be for performance. So, I ask you, or anyone else, help us see the stellar performance that warrants a US$10M bonus to an individual who wrote those insurance policies to cover credit default swaps, derivates, and derivatives of derivatives . . . in essence insuring the highly risky gambling with fictitious instruments. To paraphrase a friend, show me the performance! None of my bonuses were “guaranteed;” every dime was at risk and based on predominantly measurable objectives.
Nice analysis of “passion” versus “reason.” Spot on!
I am not one of those who think some folks have too much money. Further, I have no interest whatsoever in taking wealth away from anyone. Yet, to me, anyone who obtains their wealth by destroying the lives of others will be a target for me. That is the essence of my ire.
My moderate, people-views can be easily labeled in communist terms. I try to show compassion and support for my fellow man. Guilty as charged! I do not like to see anyone taking advantage of anyone . . . not in a marriage, not on the school yard, not in business. War is about killing. Business is not. As I have tried to say, I do not want to take wealth from the wealthy. I am not Robin Hood. Likewise, I do not want the wealthy to take from the poor. I am at a loss where I led you to believe I am advocating for “wealth redistribution.” I am truly at a loss. Perhaps, you would be so kind to help me see that advocacy.
. . . round three:
“Well said and I get the feeling now that we’re down to arguing more over semantics than any fundamental difference. I sincerely doubt that we have any basic disagreement - at least on this issue. We just seem to be attacking from different positions. I don't often get the chance (or time) to carry on this type of discussion. It's a very enjoyable exercise.
“I think most military people have the same inner compass that compels us to want to defend those that need help and stop those that want to do harm. But, all of us are communist to some degree. Our basic social unit is communist. What is a family if not 'from each according to his ability; to each according to his need?'
“My apologies if I insinuated that you were for wealth redistribution. That was not my basic disagreement with Update 379. I was strongly disagreeing with your comment about Obama doing such a good job by jumping on the ‘get the rich bastards’ grandstand. Your discussion, uncharacteristically I might add, I found shallow, one-sided and emotional. And I still do.
“Honest men disagree. No big deal
“But you know how it goes in the ‘heat’ of the discussion. We get on a roll and perhaps allow our own emotions (if not our perceived eloquence) drag us a little of topic. Again my apologize for the ‘drift.’
“All in all, though, I enjoyed the discussion very much.”
. . . my response to round three:
A viable democracy demands constructive conflict – the clash of opinions – and, hopefully, a willingness of find stronger solutions through negotiation and compromise. The political environment of our generation has been marked by calcified, parochial ideology and self-aggrandizement. I am eager to see if our children’s generation can overcome the foolishness.
Good & valid point . . . “all of us are communist to some degree.”
I try to keep emotion out of my arguments and rhetoric. Whether I was gushing with emotional praise for the President’s actions will be for others to judge. I choose to give the man credit where I see credit is due. If I am wrong, then so be it. I make no claims to being correct or right . . . only for having an opinion from the trenches.
The beauty of these exchanges with caring citizens, willing to take the time to express their opinions, shines in the diversity of perspective . . . again, a hallmark of a fertile democracy.

A different contribution:
“With respect to your Why?, Why?, Why?, Why?, Why?: Isn't the purported question really a statement of opinion shrouded as a question? It is my long-time observation that not all but rather most questions really are statements of belief. I would respect the questioner much more if they simply would restate the question accordingly. Early in my employment career one of my managers directed that I was, with him, to never bring his attention to what I believed was a PROBLEM unless I was also ready to OFFER him a SOLUTION. I believe that distinguishes a WHINER from A PROBLEM SOLVER. I believe that is what the WORLD Needs More, PROBLEM SOLVERS. A subsequent employer amplified on that philosophy: He advised that when ever I offered a SOLUTION for a CHALLENGE, that he would treat that as my resignation which would leave him with the freedom or option to rehire or continue my employment if he agreed with me. I found those to be two very correct and appropriate positions that worked very well for me.
“With respect to the child rapist, I believe there is absolutely no evidence that any such sexual predator has ever been or can be rehabilitated; Castration does not reduce the danger to the community that this predator poses. Further I am opposed to imposing on taxpayers the burdens of Lifetime Incarceration support of these Predators. I believe the death sentence should be administered, upon conviction, to all first time offenders, no second chance for any child rapists, period.
“It appears to me that the sodomy of young males, a form of child rape, by Gay Clergymen, particularly with Faiths (Cults) that purport to practice Celibacy are a major producer of adult Gay men. I believe that any church or denomination that shelters such rapists should be banished from existence with participants prosecuted the same as any other child rapist - no mercy and no second chance (in other words, upon conviction all offenders should be sentenced to death, no second chance for the rapist).
“Statutory rape, that is Adult Intercourse with a Consenting Underage Participant, is a parallel but distinctly different problem from child rape and sodomy. The presumption is that the consenting underage participant does not have a legal capacity for that consent, hence the rape. I say this is ‘Bull;’ In my mind, an 11 year old Tramp-Horror is just as culpable as the ‘Adult’ participant. It appears to me that the Predator may just as likely be the Underage Participant as the Of Age Participant. I am unsettled on how this should be treated: But I think the One or Ones deemed by a trier of the facts (the judge or jury) to be the Predator or Predators should be Enuched (Castrated and amputated)(male or equivalent female Medial Surgical Procedure); Again, I do not believe our Taxpayers or Society should be burdened with providing the Predator with extended or life time free room and board incarceration.
“Another related disease our U.S. Citizens are faced with is that of Feminist wives accusing their husbands of domestic rape; I would agree that there is such a thing as domestic abuse which should be treated as and aggressively prosecuted as a crime. But I also believe that it is an even more serious crime for spouses to withhold affection from their mates, and I believe this crime should similarly be aggressively prosecuted. Also, I do not believe a woman should be allowed a right to ‘Say NO’ and to cry RAPE once she has agree to or encouraged the commencement of intercourse. I do not believe there is such a thing as rape of a spouse; short of abuse, intercourse is a right between spouses. A spouse wishing to deny this right must file a criminal and civil suit against their mate and should be held liable for emotional and financial damages to the spouse they seek to abandon, and should have no child custody rights or community property rights. Further, I believe that any divorce or threat of divorce entails both Civil Offenses and Crimes and rightfully the offended parties must be accorded relief in a court of law.
“Also, in any rape accusation, a false accuser should automatically be subjected to the same penalty as the accused would have faced upon conviction, period.”
My reply:
Our society makes sex virtually a forbidden topic, and yet, the Press feeds our appetite for the salacious. We shake with fear to discuss or debate sex education for our children, to seek reformation of our morality (sex) laws, and to find compassion and understanding for those with whom we disagree. So, I continue to tip-toe on the periphery of the topic(s) when the opportunity presents itself.
We brandish the term “sexual predator” with anyone who does not act like our moral values and beliefs feels they should. I narrow the usage of “predator” substantially from the popular notion. To me, a “sexual predator” uses violence, coercion, and intimidation for sex with unwilling individuals. Rape is not about sexual gratification; it is a violent crime, a crime of power over another human being. The crime of rape is a high crime that demonstrates the perpetrator’s paucity of respect for other human beings.
The Czech case that instigated last week’s opinion suggests surgical castration can diminish the capability of the criminal to offend, but as you say, that will not stop the true “sexual predator.” His disrespect for life is not in his missing testicles, but in his brain – a learned / taught deficiency.
I do not share your stated view of an irreversible demarcation of consent to sexual intercourse. I believe anyone can say no at any time, and if such a stop order is given, anyone who respects others will stop immediately. There is no “right” to sexual intercourse . . . not between anyone, including between a husband and wife. I have reviewed numerous related court cases that demonstrate we are still quite conflicted as a society.
Like you, false accusations can never be tolerated, including for sexual offenses, perhaps even especially for sexual offenses as they are predominate private events. Yet, I also believe we would have far less sexual crime, if we shed our Puritanical, Victorian attitudes toward sex, if we recognized sex as important in our lives beyond procreation, and as I have written, if we legalized and regulated prostitution to eliminate the criminal sub-culture associated with that business.
Lastly, I absolutely and categorically disagree with your suggestion that celibate clergy are the source of homosexuality. Some believe homosexuality is predisposed in the genetic code. Some think homosexuality is a deviant trait that can be “corrected” by re-training. The reality is, in my most humble opinion, homosexuality has a part of human existence longer than recorded history. Homosexuality has been a part of human existence and will remain a part of humanity forever. Further, our choices of sexual partners are a private matter and not an issue of public concern; thus, all the foolish, moralistic, prohibitions in law on private conduct must be eliminated post haste.
These are not easy or comfortable topics, but they are important for proper public debate, to help us mature as a society.
. . . some follow-up comments:
“On balance I agree with some of what you offer, but I believe you are absolutely and totally wrong in representing homosexuality as an inevitable - normal human predisposition or part of a genetic code, and therefore an acceptable element in our culture. To me that is a ludicrous means of rationalizing a totally disgusting deviate irresponsible and dangerous conduct. I think one has to have blinders on not to see the damage rendered to our worldwide society by the Catholic and other Church's which have and do continue to tolerate and shelter Homosexual Clergy. I think it is clear that once a young man/boy has been subject to this sodomy that he is permanently scared, for life; he is incurably 'damaged merchandise'. Further, I think there is convincing testimony and evidence that a female dominated environment, that is households and schools, etc., further contribute to nourishing the feministic (homosexual) nature of boys and men. I find no fault in a man choosing a celibate lifestyle, but imposing this un-natural practice by a denomination, or other environmental isolation, for example, historically, the isolation of sailors etc. away from female companionship (sex) I think clearly contributes to homosexuality.
“I find it a distraction for you to quarrel with definitions of a 'Predator' . Your ultimate definition is, I believe, the obvious meaning of the term.
“With respect to consent between a man and a woman, I agree that there is no 'right' and that a 'No' must be honored. However, I believe it is both mental and physical abuse for a marriage (love) partner to withhold affection and as such may be, and often is both a Civil and Criminal offense. When such a relationship is not or ceases to be a 'Love' Relationship it should be terminated. I agree with your suggestion of legalizing prostitution, in which case 'Contract' Law would apply.”
. . . my follow-up replies:
The beauty of our democracy . . . we are free to disagree. I can only ask, how many homosexual men or women have you talked to frankly, about their experience, their feelings? If you have not, I would respectfully suggest you try to understand life from their perspective. I think you are fundamentally and categorically wrong. A person’s sexual orientation has no more bearing on his contribution to society and to humanity than the pigmentation of his skin, or his religion, or any of the other social factors. The best I can say is, there is a lot more you could learn about homosexuality, if you wanted to learn.
I have no desire to offer any defense for clergy who have abused their position and especially with children . . . regardless of whether their victims are male or female. Sometimes, I think the church is far more concerned with the image of the church and its clergy than in saving souls.
I quarrel with definitions like “sexual predator” because those labels can do such enormous damage. Case in point, my definition of marriage may be broader and perhaps more liberal and tolerant than yours. Yet, regardless of our opinions regarding homosexuality, child sexuality, marriage, or anything else, they are matters of individual choice and our fundamental right to privacy. We choose for ourselves and our families. We must allow and accept the choices of others . . . as long as no one is injured. We must respect the choices of others, if we expect them to respect our choices.
Spot on! Contract law should and would apply to the business of prostitution.

Another contribution:
“Well, I think we have some common ground on Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, Dodd, Rains, Franks, ACORN and all the politically correct yahoos that refused to step up to the plate simply because opposing the ridiculous lending practices initiated during the Clinton Administration was not politically expedient. How could a politician come out against homes for poor people?
“I will also defer further comment on your defense of the President. I also hope he succeeds with his economic plan as long as it doesn't turn us into the Socialist States of America in the process. We'll see - as you say it's much too early to give up hope.
“I think a lot of people are paid too much, but that doesn't mean I want to legislate their salaries. Way too many possible unintended consequences with that course of action.
“I do not see how anyone could think that a 95% punitive tax, targeting a specific group of people, retroactively could be either right or constitutional. It's simply grandstanding, fanning the flames of already out of control passions, and political defilade. No matter how bad you are, if you can point to somebody worse, it makes you look better. And the President was just as much to blame as Congress.
“One last comment. No, Obama did not create this mess, but neither did Bush create 911. The fact that Obama convinced 52% of American voters that he could FIX this problem, probably cinched the election for him. And sooner or later he's going to have to stop using that 'inheritance' crutch. He promised hope and change and that he was the man to bring it to Washington. If the problem was too much for him maybe he should not have been so positive on the campaign trail.”
My response:
I can trace this economic crisis back to, at least 1977 {Community Reinvestment Act [PL 95-128] [356]}, just as I can trace the War on Islamic Fascism back to at least 1979. This fiasco took a long time to set up and explode. We are in the conflagration now. As with all wars, it is the common citizens who pay the heavy price; the monied elite rarely do. Wall Street bonuses in the grips of a serious recession smacks of Nero’s fiddle.
IMHO, pure, unchecked capitalism is just as destructive as communism or fascism. I remain convinced that stability can only be achieved by checks & balances. Congress pulled the stops out of the mortgage lending machine . . . common, instinctual, human greed took advantage of few if any checks. I have absolutely no objection to gambling, but I do object to people gambling with other people’s money. One young trader single-handedly destroyed the venerable Barings, PLC, bank in 1995; we had signs. And, what did we do? Congress passed the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 [PL 106-102; AKA Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act] [353], pulling out even more stops. My objective is quite simple – rules; checks & balances. As we bear direct witness, an unrestrained free market benefits everyone when times are good, but benefits only the wealthy & powerful when times are bad. I just want to walk down Main Street at High Noon without being shot by some young gun who does like my size.
The Constitution makes no statement regarding punitive taxation. The assumption in the document holds that compromise will prevail – checks & balances. Ill-gotten gains are always a target. Likewise, I am not in favor of Congress meting out punishment, yet there is precedent for Congress using legislation to recover ill-gotten gains that are acquired beyond the law. Nonetheless, the foolish bonus tax bill [H.R. 1586] appears to be DOA in the Senate. FWIW, the bonus tax bill may have been ill-advised, but it was not unconstitutional.
We can disagree on the potential of Barack Obama, but the fact is, he is the duly-elected President of the United States. If he succeeds, we succeed. I hope and pray he will not be another Jimmy Carter – a man of good & noble intentions, who failed as POTUS. We shall both remain observant and critical. As is my nature, I shall try to find the good in the man, just as I did with George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, and all the others in leadership positions.

My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)