Update from the Heartland
No.396
13.7.09 – 19.7.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.396
13.7.09 – 19.7.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor [389] concluded this week. She was called to task for several of her foolish, inflammatory, public comments; however, I detected no chink in her stoic façade, and I believe she will be confirmed by a substantial margin
-- A belated thought on the negotiations between Swiss bank UBS & the USG [357, 366, 375, 395] . . . While it is generally good to publicize such initiatives, especially running down American tax evaders, the acknowledgment of such actions in what could become a criminal investigation hardly seems wise or productive. Surely, if a citizen has the knowledge, money and chutzpah to move money off-shore illegally, they must have the ability to see what is coming and move their money to some other tax haven, of which there are more than a few.
-- After having his name and reputation maligned by many and a legal challenge by a traitor {Padilla v. Yoo [391]}, former deputy assistant attorney general John Choon Yoo [381] decided to add his voice to the public forum.
“Why We Endorsed Warrantless Wiretaps – The inspectors general report ignores history and plays politics with the law”
by John Yoo
Published: July 16, 2009
Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124770304290648701.html#mod=djemEditorialPage
Yoo hit the nail squarely, “In FISA, President Bush and his advisers faced an obsolete law not written with live war with an international terrorist organization in mind.” If you would like to appreciate the other side of the electronic surveillance question from the popular Bush-bashing routine, please read Yoo’s opinion.
-- Two, near simultaneous, improvised explosive devices detonated in the J.W. Marriott and Ritz Carlton hotels in Jakarta, Indonesia, on Friday {07:40 (G) [00:40 (UTC); 19:40 (CDT), Thursday, July 16.7.09]}. The event has all the earmarks of Jemaah Islamiyah [240, et al], an affiliate of al-Qaeda [16, et al] and perpetrators of the Bali bombings [12.10.2002 & 1.10.2005]. We still have a long way to go.
--The title of an Op-Ed column says it all [134, et al]:
“Judges Don't Belong on the Battlefield – Recent decisions have altered the way we're fighting in Afghanistan”
by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
Wall Street Journal
Published: July 17, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124779656089055677.html#mod=djemEditorialPage
The absolute absurdity and foolishness of the mounting string of court cases raised on behave of captured battlefield combatants along with the profound adverse impact of Judicial injection in military operations will not serve this Grand Republic or our principles. This unfortunate aspect of the War on Islamic Fascism will undoubtedly be recorded by history as a monumental misstep that threatens the security of the Republic and might even be the harbinger of our downfall. Do I really think this issue is that bad? Yes, absolutely and without equivocation!
A New York Times editorial caught my attention, not so much for the title as the abstract, which said, “Homeland Security should be deep-sixing its 287(g) program, which enlists local law-enforcement agencies to hunt illegal immigrants, not tweaking or widening it.” Of course, the Times being a consistent and persistent Bush-basher amplified my curiosity.
“More Immigration Non-Solutions”
Editorial
New York Times
Published: July 12, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/opinion/13mon2.html?th&emc=th
The 287(g) program to which they refer is actually derived from a section of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) [Division C, Title I, Section 133; 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g); 110 Stat. 3009-546;], passed as part of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 [PL 104-208; H.R. 3610; House: 370-37-1-26(1); Senate: 72-27-0-1(0)], signed into law by President Clinton on 30.September.1996. Now, after all that historic notation trivia, the essence of the 287(g) program involves provisions in Federal law to train and empower local police agencies to assist the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) service with respect to enforcement of immigration law. The 287(g) program is not as the Times editorial staff has portrayed it. The law allows for coordination and outreach rather than impressment as the Times would have us believe. If a citizen reads only the New York Times editorial page, he will have a particularly biased view of events. Yet, the Times is vital; it keeps stimulating my curiosity and inquiry.
Former Secretary of Defense and Director of Central Intelligence James Rodney Schlesinger offered up an interesting and worthy opinion.
“Why We Don't Want a Nuclear-Free World – The former defense secretary on the U.S. deterrent and the terrorist threat”
by Melanie Kirkpatrick
Wall Street Journal
Published: July 13, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124726489588925407.html
This opinion is worth your time to read and especially as a topic of public debate.
Sadly, we learned of another end-of-life episode. Renown British conductor Sir Edward Thomas “Ted” Downes, CBE, 85, and his wife Joan, 74, with their children, Son Caractacus, 42, and Daughter Boudicca, 39, travelled to the Dignitas clinic in Schwerzenbach , Zurich Canton, Switzerland. Joan was in the terminal stages of liver and pancreatic cancer; Ted had become increasingly frail. Joan and Ted (with their children’s support) decided to end their lives with dignity. May God rest their souls. Of course, many citizens who resent such decisions by other people like Sir Edward and his wife have protested euthanasia and seek laws to prevent such decisions and support. Someday I hope we can all respect the private, individual decisions of every citizen, especially at the end of their lives. In case anyone might be interested or curious, Dignitas charges €4,000 (£3,453, US$5,641) for patients and €7,000 (£6,043, US$9.871) for handling family duties.
I note the passing of Walter Leland Cronkite, Jr., 92 – former CBS Evening News anchor and television journalism icon. He was my choice in those days. I did not always agree with his rendition of the news, but I respected his view. May God rest his immortal soul.
The next Supreme Court case on my reading list was Horne v. Flores [557 U.S. ___ (2009); No. 08-289] – the Nogales, Arizona, challenge to the state’s compliance with the Federal Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA) [PL 93-380; Title II, § 202; 88 Stat. 514; 20 U.S.C. §1703(f)]. Miriam Flores and other Nogales high school students claimed the state was not fulfilling its obligations under Federal law. The district and appeals courts agreed. The case dealt with judicial procedural subtleties, far more so than English education. Ultimately, the Supremes overruled the lower courts and sided with the state. Associate Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, offered an interesting observation, “Federalism concerns are heightened when, as in these cases, a federal court decree has the effect of dictating state or local budget priorities. States and local governments have limited funds. When a federal court orders that money be appropriated for one program, the effect is often to take funds away from other important programs.” How true, how true! Interpretation of the law is rarely easy. The spectrum of interpretation is often reflected in the contrast between the majority and dissent; this 5-4 decision provides a near perfect example. Beyond the law, Flores scrambles up an important public topic – non-English accommodation. In the United States, Spanish appears to be the second common language (primary in some areas). In the Flores case, the Supremes defined “bilingual education” as the teaching of at least some classes in Spanish, while providing separate instruction in English. I understand our magnanimity and acceptance of immigrants, however delaying their integration by accommodation will not help them become productive American citizens. In 2001, I joined an Italian company based in Genova, Italia. A young, American engineer joined the company at just about the same time. He moved his wife and two young boys along with their household goods to Finale Ligure, Provincia de Savona, Italia – the company’s engineering center. The family immersed themselves in the Italian culture. Their boys went to local schools, where they were taught in Italian. They spoke Italian with their friends and neighbors. They spoke a mixture of Italian and English at home. They rapidly grew to be a part of the local community. Their example is how immigrants should be assimilated.
News from the economic front:
-- Perhaps, we have reason to worry. Goldman Sachs Group reported its 2nd Quarter profit rose 65%, widely beating expectations, on revenue up 46% to US$13.76B, and net income of US$3.44B, or $4.93 a share, up from US$2.09B, or $4.58 a share a year earlier. On that news, Chief Executive Lloyd C. Blankfein proclaimed, “While markets remain fragile and we recognize the challenges the broader economy faces, our second quarter results reflected the combination of improving financial market conditions, and a deep and diverse client franchise.” Now, don’t we feel comforted?
-- The Commerce Department reported retail sales increased 0.6% in June, the second consecutive monthly gain, mostly on purchases of gasoline and automobiles. Excluding autos and gas, all other retail sales fell for a fourth straight month.
-- The Labor Department reported U.S. wholesale prices rose 1.8% last month compared with May – hardly a definitive sign of recovery but hopefully there has been some recovery and not the first surges of inflation or worse stag-flation.
-- A stack of bidders for American International Group's (AIG) asset-management unit have withdrawn from the acquisition process. The Wall Street Journal reported, “Questions have emerged about how AIG has managed the talks and why they've dragged on.” Ah yes . . . to be a fly on the wall, we might be truly disappointed and discouraged.
-- The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform called former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson [353-6, 362, 384] to testify regarding his part in the acquisition of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America. BoA CEO Ken Lewis has publicly claimed Paulson threatened him, the bank’s board, and senior management if they backed out of the acquisition. Paulson said, “It would be unthinkable for Bank of America to take this destructive action for which there was no reasonable legal basis and which would show a lack of judgment.” So, it shall be a game of “who shot John.” I am stunned by Paulson’s statement and claim. I think Lewis had a perfect reason to walk-away from the Merrill Lynch acquisition . . . it was going to bring down his company. Oh surprise, surprise . . . it has nearly done just that. I suspect Hank is not going to fair well in this episode.
-- In an extraordinary action, more than 175 prominent economists issued a warning against mounting attacks on the Federal Reserve that “the independence of U.S. monetary policy is at risk.” They urged Congress and the President to “avoid compromising [the U.S. central bank's] ability to manage monetary policy as it sees fit” and to refrain from politicizing its decisions on emergency loans to financial institutions. The statement reflects growing unease among the economists that Congress is heading toward laws intended to weaken the freedom the Fed to move interest rates as it see fits. We are on thin ice and need to move carefully but deliberately.
-- CIT Group [360, 395] announced the USG decided that there is “no appreciable likelihood” of government financial assistance in the near term. The struggling commercial lender indicated their discussions with government agencies have ended and its board is evaluating alternatives. The company faces a liquidity crisis as its corporate customers draw down millions of dollars from their credit lines. The Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday that “CIT is expected to announce Monday that it has cut a deal with key bondholders for US$3B in rescue financing, allowing the company to avoid bankruptcy and restructure outside court.” Why does this feel like a game of chicken. To me, CIT’s situation represents a near perfect rationale of why the big banks are too big, must be broken up, and bad decisions allowed to fail. CIT appears to be collateral damage, rather than an agent of the current economy recession.
-- In the shadow of Hank Paulson’s testimony before Congress, we learn that Bank of America is operating under a secret (not so secret anymore) regulatory sanction that requires the bank to overhaul its board and address perceived problems with risk and liquidity management. In an all-too-familiar action, “someone” disclosed a sensitive Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that gives the bank a chance to work out its problems without the glare of outside attention – now that fits with public disclosure doesn’t it. The MOU was imposed in early May, shortly after the bank’s board stripped CEO Ken Lewis of his chairmanship. This action stinks of politics and the government using extra-legal methods to impose its will upon those it wishes. We have not heard the end of what appears to be a rather sordid episode in Federal governance.
-- J.P. Morgan Chase reported 2nd Quarter net income of US$2.72B, up from US$2B a year earlier, on increased revenue of US$25.62B (up 39%). The Wall Street Journal indicated that Morgan-Chase has benefited from competitors’ weakness in the wake of the credit crisis. The company said TARP repayment trimmed $0.27 from the bank’s earnings per share.
-- The Labor Department reported initial jobless claims dropped by 47,000 to 522,000 in the latest week on a seasonally adjusted basis, while total continuing claims – those drawn by workers for more than one week – fell to 6,273,000. The data represented a second straight week of steep declines in the filing of new claims. A Labor Department analyst cautioned that unemployment claims tend to be volatile at this time of year. The data are further complicated by the plight of the auto industry.
-- In an unusual move, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted that the congressional health care reform plan would worsen an already bleak budget outlook and drive nation more deeply into debt – not a particularly encouraging observation.
-- Citigroup reported 2nd Quarter profit rose to a US$4.3B, helped by a US$6.7B after-tax gain from its Smith Barney stake sale. The bank also reported revenue increased 71% to US$29.97B, driven by the Smith Barney gain.
-- A federal judge dismissed a civil insider-trading suit against Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban. The judge decided the SEC had not produced sufficient evidence that Cuban had participated in insider trading when he sold shares in an Internet search engine company, Mamma.com Inc., after receiving confidential information about a private offering in 2004. Sounds a bit thin to me, those are the scales of justice.
-- The Justice Department, Federal Communications Commission and Congress are examining the wireless industry’s practice of long-term contracts like AT&T’s deal with Apple for exclusive use of the iPhone. Verizon Wireless sent a letter to Congress indicating the company intends to shorten the contract period with handset manufacturers so that carriers with fewer than 500,000 customers can offer the models after six months.
The follow-up news items:
-- The Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor [389] concluded this week. She was called to task for several of her foolish, inflammatory, public comments; however, I detected no chink in her stoic façade, and I believe she will be confirmed by a substantial margin
-- A belated thought on the negotiations between Swiss bank UBS & the USG [357, 366, 375, 395] . . . While it is generally good to publicize such initiatives, especially running down American tax evaders, the acknowledgment of such actions in what could become a criminal investigation hardly seems wise or productive. Surely, if a citizen has the knowledge, money and chutzpah to move money off-shore illegally, they must have the ability to see what is coming and move their money to some other tax haven, of which there are more than a few.
-- After having his name and reputation maligned by many and a legal challenge by a traitor {Padilla v. Yoo [391]}, former deputy assistant attorney general John Choon Yoo [381] decided to add his voice to the public forum.
“Why We Endorsed Warrantless Wiretaps – The inspectors general report ignores history and plays politics with the law”
by John Yoo
Published: July 16, 2009
Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124770304290648701.html#mod=djemEditorialPage
Yoo hit the nail squarely, “In FISA, President Bush and his advisers faced an obsolete law not written with live war with an international terrorist organization in mind.” If you would like to appreciate the other side of the electronic surveillance question from the popular Bush-bashing routine, please read Yoo’s opinion.
-- Two, near simultaneous, improvised explosive devices detonated in the J.W. Marriott and Ritz Carlton hotels in Jakarta, Indonesia, on Friday {07:40 (G) [00:40 (UTC); 19:40 (CDT), Thursday, July 16.7.09]}. The event has all the earmarks of Jemaah Islamiyah [240, et al], an affiliate of al-Qaeda [16, et al] and perpetrators of the Bali bombings [12.10.2002 & 1.10.2005]. We still have a long way to go.
--The title of an Op-Ed column says it all [134, et al]:
“Judges Don't Belong on the Battlefield – Recent decisions have altered the way we're fighting in Afghanistan”
by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
Wall Street Journal
Published: July 17, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124779656089055677.html#mod=djemEditorialPage
The absolute absurdity and foolishness of the mounting string of court cases raised on behave of captured battlefield combatants along with the profound adverse impact of Judicial injection in military operations will not serve this Grand Republic or our principles. This unfortunate aspect of the War on Islamic Fascism will undoubtedly be recorded by history as a monumental misstep that threatens the security of the Republic and might even be the harbinger of our downfall. Do I really think this issue is that bad? Yes, absolutely and without equivocation!
A New York Times editorial caught my attention, not so much for the title as the abstract, which said, “Homeland Security should be deep-sixing its 287(g) program, which enlists local law-enforcement agencies to hunt illegal immigrants, not tweaking or widening it.” Of course, the Times being a consistent and persistent Bush-basher amplified my curiosity.
“More Immigration Non-Solutions”
Editorial
New York Times
Published: July 12, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/opinion/13mon2.html?th&emc=th
The 287(g) program to which they refer is actually derived from a section of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) [Division C, Title I, Section 133; 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g); 110 Stat. 3009-546;], passed as part of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 [PL 104-208; H.R. 3610; House: 370-37-1-26(1); Senate: 72-27-0-1(0)], signed into law by President Clinton on 30.September.1996. Now, after all that historic notation trivia, the essence of the 287(g) program involves provisions in Federal law to train and empower local police agencies to assist the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) service with respect to enforcement of immigration law. The 287(g) program is not as the Times editorial staff has portrayed it. The law allows for coordination and outreach rather than impressment as the Times would have us believe. If a citizen reads only the New York Times editorial page, he will have a particularly biased view of events. Yet, the Times is vital; it keeps stimulating my curiosity and inquiry.
Former Secretary of Defense and Director of Central Intelligence James Rodney Schlesinger offered up an interesting and worthy opinion.
“Why We Don't Want a Nuclear-Free World – The former defense secretary on the U.S. deterrent and the terrorist threat”
by Melanie Kirkpatrick
Wall Street Journal
Published: July 13, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124726489588925407.html
This opinion is worth your time to read and especially as a topic of public debate.
Sadly, we learned of another end-of-life episode. Renown British conductor Sir Edward Thomas “Ted” Downes, CBE, 85, and his wife Joan, 74, with their children, Son Caractacus, 42, and Daughter Boudicca, 39, travelled to the Dignitas clinic in Schwerzenbach , Zurich Canton, Switzerland. Joan was in the terminal stages of liver and pancreatic cancer; Ted had become increasingly frail. Joan and Ted (with their children’s support) decided to end their lives with dignity. May God rest their souls. Of course, many citizens who resent such decisions by other people like Sir Edward and his wife have protested euthanasia and seek laws to prevent such decisions and support. Someday I hope we can all respect the private, individual decisions of every citizen, especially at the end of their lives. In case anyone might be interested or curious, Dignitas charges €4,000 (£3,453, US$5,641) for patients and €7,000 (£6,043, US$9.871) for handling family duties.
I note the passing of Walter Leland Cronkite, Jr., 92 – former CBS Evening News anchor and television journalism icon. He was my choice in those days. I did not always agree with his rendition of the news, but I respected his view. May God rest his immortal soul.
The next Supreme Court case on my reading list was Horne v. Flores [557 U.S. ___ (2009); No. 08-289] – the Nogales, Arizona, challenge to the state’s compliance with the Federal Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA) [PL 93-380; Title II, § 202; 88 Stat. 514; 20 U.S.C. §1703(f)]. Miriam Flores and other Nogales high school students claimed the state was not fulfilling its obligations under Federal law. The district and appeals courts agreed. The case dealt with judicial procedural subtleties, far more so than English education. Ultimately, the Supremes overruled the lower courts and sided with the state. Associate Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, offered an interesting observation, “Federalism concerns are heightened when, as in these cases, a federal court decree has the effect of dictating state or local budget priorities. States and local governments have limited funds. When a federal court orders that money be appropriated for one program, the effect is often to take funds away from other important programs.” How true, how true! Interpretation of the law is rarely easy. The spectrum of interpretation is often reflected in the contrast between the majority and dissent; this 5-4 decision provides a near perfect example. Beyond the law, Flores scrambles up an important public topic – non-English accommodation. In the United States, Spanish appears to be the second common language (primary in some areas). In the Flores case, the Supremes defined “bilingual education” as the teaching of at least some classes in Spanish, while providing separate instruction in English. I understand our magnanimity and acceptance of immigrants, however delaying their integration by accommodation will not help them become productive American citizens. In 2001, I joined an Italian company based in Genova, Italia. A young, American engineer joined the company at just about the same time. He moved his wife and two young boys along with their household goods to Finale Ligure, Provincia de Savona, Italia – the company’s engineering center. The family immersed themselves in the Italian culture. Their boys went to local schools, where they were taught in Italian. They spoke Italian with their friends and neighbors. They spoke a mixture of Italian and English at home. They rapidly grew to be a part of the local community. Their example is how immigrants should be assimilated.
News from the economic front:
-- Perhaps, we have reason to worry. Goldman Sachs Group reported its 2nd Quarter profit rose 65%, widely beating expectations, on revenue up 46% to US$13.76B, and net income of US$3.44B, or $4.93 a share, up from US$2.09B, or $4.58 a share a year earlier. On that news, Chief Executive Lloyd C. Blankfein proclaimed, “While markets remain fragile and we recognize the challenges the broader economy faces, our second quarter results reflected the combination of improving financial market conditions, and a deep and diverse client franchise.” Now, don’t we feel comforted?
-- The Commerce Department reported retail sales increased 0.6% in June, the second consecutive monthly gain, mostly on purchases of gasoline and automobiles. Excluding autos and gas, all other retail sales fell for a fourth straight month.
-- The Labor Department reported U.S. wholesale prices rose 1.8% last month compared with May – hardly a definitive sign of recovery but hopefully there has been some recovery and not the first surges of inflation or worse stag-flation.
-- A stack of bidders for American International Group's (AIG) asset-management unit have withdrawn from the acquisition process. The Wall Street Journal reported, “Questions have emerged about how AIG has managed the talks and why they've dragged on.” Ah yes . . . to be a fly on the wall, we might be truly disappointed and discouraged.
-- The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform called former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson [353-6, 362, 384] to testify regarding his part in the acquisition of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America. BoA CEO Ken Lewis has publicly claimed Paulson threatened him, the bank’s board, and senior management if they backed out of the acquisition. Paulson said, “It would be unthinkable for Bank of America to take this destructive action for which there was no reasonable legal basis and which would show a lack of judgment.” So, it shall be a game of “who shot John.” I am stunned by Paulson’s statement and claim. I think Lewis had a perfect reason to walk-away from the Merrill Lynch acquisition . . . it was going to bring down his company. Oh surprise, surprise . . . it has nearly done just that. I suspect Hank is not going to fair well in this episode.
-- In an extraordinary action, more than 175 prominent economists issued a warning against mounting attacks on the Federal Reserve that “the independence of U.S. monetary policy is at risk.” They urged Congress and the President to “avoid compromising [the U.S. central bank's] ability to manage monetary policy as it sees fit” and to refrain from politicizing its decisions on emergency loans to financial institutions. The statement reflects growing unease among the economists that Congress is heading toward laws intended to weaken the freedom the Fed to move interest rates as it see fits. We are on thin ice and need to move carefully but deliberately.
-- CIT Group [360, 395] announced the USG decided that there is “no appreciable likelihood” of government financial assistance in the near term. The struggling commercial lender indicated their discussions with government agencies have ended and its board is evaluating alternatives. The company faces a liquidity crisis as its corporate customers draw down millions of dollars from their credit lines. The Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday that “CIT is expected to announce Monday that it has cut a deal with key bondholders for US$3B in rescue financing, allowing the company to avoid bankruptcy and restructure outside court.” Why does this feel like a game of chicken. To me, CIT’s situation represents a near perfect rationale of why the big banks are too big, must be broken up, and bad decisions allowed to fail. CIT appears to be collateral damage, rather than an agent of the current economy recession.
-- In the shadow of Hank Paulson’s testimony before Congress, we learn that Bank of America is operating under a secret (not so secret anymore) regulatory sanction that requires the bank to overhaul its board and address perceived problems with risk and liquidity management. In an all-too-familiar action, “someone” disclosed a sensitive Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that gives the bank a chance to work out its problems without the glare of outside attention – now that fits with public disclosure doesn’t it. The MOU was imposed in early May, shortly after the bank’s board stripped CEO Ken Lewis of his chairmanship. This action stinks of politics and the government using extra-legal methods to impose its will upon those it wishes. We have not heard the end of what appears to be a rather sordid episode in Federal governance.
-- J.P. Morgan Chase reported 2nd Quarter net income of US$2.72B, up from US$2B a year earlier, on increased revenue of US$25.62B (up 39%). The Wall Street Journal indicated that Morgan-Chase has benefited from competitors’ weakness in the wake of the credit crisis. The company said TARP repayment trimmed $0.27 from the bank’s earnings per share.
-- The Labor Department reported initial jobless claims dropped by 47,000 to 522,000 in the latest week on a seasonally adjusted basis, while total continuing claims – those drawn by workers for more than one week – fell to 6,273,000. The data represented a second straight week of steep declines in the filing of new claims. A Labor Department analyst cautioned that unemployment claims tend to be volatile at this time of year. The data are further complicated by the plight of the auto industry.
-- In an unusual move, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted that the congressional health care reform plan would worsen an already bleak budget outlook and drive nation more deeply into debt – not a particularly encouraging observation.
-- Citigroup reported 2nd Quarter profit rose to a US$4.3B, helped by a US$6.7B after-tax gain from its Smith Barney stake sale. The bank also reported revenue increased 71% to US$29.97B, driven by the Smith Barney gain.
-- A federal judge dismissed a civil insider-trading suit against Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban. The judge decided the SEC had not produced sufficient evidence that Cuban had participated in insider trading when he sold shares in an Internet search engine company, Mamma.com Inc., after receiving confidential information about a private offering in 2004. Sounds a bit thin to me, those are the scales of justice.
-- The Justice Department, Federal Communications Commission and Congress are examining the wireless industry’s practice of long-term contracts like AT&T’s deal with Apple for exclusive use of the iPhone. Verizon Wireless sent a letter to Congress indicating the company intends to shorten the contract period with handset manufacturers so that carriers with fewer than 500,000 customers can offer the models after six months.
Comments and contributions from Update no.395:
From the blog:
“Just a few easy potshots:
“The New York Times story to which you linked did not say what the intelligence program in question concerned except that it dealt with neither interrogation nor domestic intelligence. I don't know the Wall Street Journal's sources, but it seems a strange thought that such intense secrecy would surround the existence of an anti-bin Laden campaign. That the US government sought to kill or capture Osama bin Laden after 9/11/2001 by any means available was public knowledge worldwide. Perhaps the program was something else.
“Having worked in civil service, I will note that nothing ever ceases becoming more complicated in that field, not even through a Supreme Court decision. I wish all parties in New Haven well, especially those in need of well-managed firefighting services.
“I will note here that Ford Motor Company has improved its image in my eyes by not joining Chrysler and General Motors in the welfare line. We would do well to examine what Ford has done differently; it's working.
“I also would like to see the high-risk markets regulated to some degree. The reforms made after the Great Depression might make a good model for that. Some people will remain able and willing to take great risk in order to make great profit, but we as a nation cannot afford to let that risk-taking reach the point of endangering our national economy again.
“Potential investors and customers of AIG would do well to examine the mental soundness of their management before becoming involved with such nonsense.
“I suspect that small businesses would spread TARP money around the USA more than the multinationals. The small businesses operate mostly in local areas; the jobs they create would not be in Singapore or such places.
“On Sarah Palin: surely conservative Republicans can find a better standard bearer. She comes across not as a female ally of Newt Gingrich or other well-spoken conservatives but as a person who might need her medications adjusted. If this is the best Republicans can do, it is time for the "loyal opposition" to be the Libertarians or someone else.”
My reply in the blog:
That section of Update 395 had four newspaper sources. Two of the sources indicated the “secret program” was the bin Ladin mission; seems odd to me as well, but that is what they reported. I have rather classical views of intelligence, and what has been happening in his country for decades now is not classical intelligence. National intelligence should never be a matter of public disclosure & debate, and least of all become a political football to be kicked about by Pelosi & her minions.
The New Haven case is interesting at many levels. The bottom line is performance of the fire service. Reading the case suggests far deeper problem in the governance and service for citizens of New Haven.
I’m w/ you on Ford . . . amazing contrast.
Regulation is important in any public venue including financial markets; the more people involved, the more defined it should be. Some of the New Deal initiatives were good and productive, but others not so much. The key is finding proper balance. Risk is vital to progress, to innovation, to profit. I am not against risk. I encourage it. However, I did not choose to take so much risk and yet, we are all paying a very heavy price for the risks of others that I did not choose to take as well. The bad part of this government intervention (TARP, ARRA, etc.) is too many of the enablers are NOT paying the price for the risks they took. Clearly, AIG did not charge anywhere near enough for the risks they were insuring. It is one thing for an individual to take his money and place his bets on the roll of the dice. It may be tolerable for the owner/CEO of a company to gamble on the fate of his company, although I have considerable sympathy for the customers, share holders & employees of the company. It is altogether a different proposition for banks, lenders, markets and governments to gamble; the collateral damage is often incalculable. An unhealthy chunk of the current recession must be attributed to unmitigated risk realized. On top of that, insurance against that kind of risk anesthetized the investor to the real risk being taken. As we have seen, when insurance companies start taking those unbridled risks, the whole network scheme becomes a house of cards. I dare say that investors would not have been so bold or prolific if they did not have insurance to make themselves feel better.
Good point regarding support for small businesses.
Thank you for your comments including on Sarah Palin. We have always had a need / requirement for a “loyal opposition;” however, all too often they are either not so loyal or not much of an opposition.
A British friend and contributor sent this article & query:
“UPDATE 1-US top court nominee accepts gun rights decision
by James Vicini
Reuters
Published: Tuesday, July 14, 2009; 3:08pm EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1443533620090714
“Just found the above from Reuters.
“The right to bear arms IAW the second amendment. You know of course that even our police don’t routinely carry weapons. The procedure here for even just a shotgun licence is mind boggling complex.
“Having signed off an application for a gun licence it is always the police who have the last word. It’s simple Cap it’s only the bad guys that carry the guns. What’s your views?”
My reply:
There were many grievances delineated in the Declaration of Independence. Just two of those grievances were:
“[The king] has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
“[The king] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”
The 2nd Amendment grew from such grievances . . . self-defense, ready militia, hunting, and other purposes as a citizen may choose or determine. Even to this day, we have vast expanse of the country that have no ready police force with reasonable response time. Self-reliance has been a hallmark of American history. The 2nd Amendment has been as much a part of American history as any other element of the Constitution. So, if no one is carrying guns except the bad guys, who will stop the bad guys? If it takes the police 10 minutes to respond to a home invasion call (if I could even make the call), who will defend my family? Prohibition of firearms may work in other countries. I cannot imagine such a concept ever working in the United States. Firearms have been part of American history from the get-go. So it is, so it shall be.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
From the blog:
“Just a few easy potshots:
“The New York Times story to which you linked did not say what the intelligence program in question concerned except that it dealt with neither interrogation nor domestic intelligence. I don't know the Wall Street Journal's sources, but it seems a strange thought that such intense secrecy would surround the existence of an anti-bin Laden campaign. That the US government sought to kill or capture Osama bin Laden after 9/11/2001 by any means available was public knowledge worldwide. Perhaps the program was something else.
“Having worked in civil service, I will note that nothing ever ceases becoming more complicated in that field, not even through a Supreme Court decision. I wish all parties in New Haven well, especially those in need of well-managed firefighting services.
“I will note here that Ford Motor Company has improved its image in my eyes by not joining Chrysler and General Motors in the welfare line. We would do well to examine what Ford has done differently; it's working.
“I also would like to see the high-risk markets regulated to some degree. The reforms made after the Great Depression might make a good model for that. Some people will remain able and willing to take great risk in order to make great profit, but we as a nation cannot afford to let that risk-taking reach the point of endangering our national economy again.
“Potential investors and customers of AIG would do well to examine the mental soundness of their management before becoming involved with such nonsense.
“I suspect that small businesses would spread TARP money around the USA more than the multinationals. The small businesses operate mostly in local areas; the jobs they create would not be in Singapore or such places.
“On Sarah Palin: surely conservative Republicans can find a better standard bearer. She comes across not as a female ally of Newt Gingrich or other well-spoken conservatives but as a person who might need her medications adjusted. If this is the best Republicans can do, it is time for the "loyal opposition" to be the Libertarians or someone else.”
My reply in the blog:
That section of Update 395 had four newspaper sources. Two of the sources indicated the “secret program” was the bin Ladin mission; seems odd to me as well, but that is what they reported. I have rather classical views of intelligence, and what has been happening in his country for decades now is not classical intelligence. National intelligence should never be a matter of public disclosure & debate, and least of all become a political football to be kicked about by Pelosi & her minions.
The New Haven case is interesting at many levels. The bottom line is performance of the fire service. Reading the case suggests far deeper problem in the governance and service for citizens of New Haven.
I’m w/ you on Ford . . . amazing contrast.
Regulation is important in any public venue including financial markets; the more people involved, the more defined it should be. Some of the New Deal initiatives were good and productive, but others not so much. The key is finding proper balance. Risk is vital to progress, to innovation, to profit. I am not against risk. I encourage it. However, I did not choose to take so much risk and yet, we are all paying a very heavy price for the risks of others that I did not choose to take as well. The bad part of this government intervention (TARP, ARRA, etc.) is too many of the enablers are NOT paying the price for the risks they took. Clearly, AIG did not charge anywhere near enough for the risks they were insuring. It is one thing for an individual to take his money and place his bets on the roll of the dice. It may be tolerable for the owner/CEO of a company to gamble on the fate of his company, although I have considerable sympathy for the customers, share holders & employees of the company. It is altogether a different proposition for banks, lenders, markets and governments to gamble; the collateral damage is often incalculable. An unhealthy chunk of the current recession must be attributed to unmitigated risk realized. On top of that, insurance against that kind of risk anesthetized the investor to the real risk being taken. As we have seen, when insurance companies start taking those unbridled risks, the whole network scheme becomes a house of cards. I dare say that investors would not have been so bold or prolific if they did not have insurance to make themselves feel better.
Good point regarding support for small businesses.
Thank you for your comments including on Sarah Palin. We have always had a need / requirement for a “loyal opposition;” however, all too often they are either not so loyal or not much of an opposition.
A British friend and contributor sent this article & query:
“UPDATE 1-US top court nominee accepts gun rights decision
by James Vicini
Reuters
Published: Tuesday, July 14, 2009; 3:08pm EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1443533620090714
“Just found the above from Reuters.
“The right to bear arms IAW the second amendment. You know of course that even our police don’t routinely carry weapons. The procedure here for even just a shotgun licence is mind boggling complex.
“Having signed off an application for a gun licence it is always the police who have the last word. It’s simple Cap it’s only the bad guys that carry the guns. What’s your views?”
My reply:
There were many grievances delineated in the Declaration of Independence. Just two of those grievances were:
“[The king] has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
“[The king] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”
The 2nd Amendment grew from such grievances . . . self-defense, ready militia, hunting, and other purposes as a citizen may choose or determine. Even to this day, we have vast expanse of the country that have no ready police force with reasonable response time. Self-reliance has been a hallmark of American history. The 2nd Amendment has been as much a part of American history as any other element of the Constitution. So, if no one is carrying guns except the bad guys, who will stop the bad guys? If it takes the police 10 minutes to respond to a home invasion call (if I could even make the call), who will defend my family? Prohibition of firearms may work in other countries. I cannot imagine such a concept ever working in the United States. Firearms have been part of American history from the get-go. So it is, so it shall be.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment