Update no.623

Update from the Heartland

No.623

18.11.13 – 24.11.13

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

The follow-up news items:

-- The Spanish are at it again [609].

“Spanish ship in 'heated' standoff with Royal Navy in Gibraltar – Spanish survey ship has defied repeated orders from British forces to leave Gibraltar waters”

By Fiona Govan, Madrid

The Telegraph [London]

Published: 19 Nov 2013; 2:18PM GMT

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/gibraltar/10459767/Spanish-ship-in-heated-standoff-with-Royal-Navy-in-Gibraltar.html

The Spanish motive for such provocations remains unclear.  The confrontations appear to be escalating.  If this trajectory continues, someone is going to get hurt.  I certainly hope saner minds in Brussels and Madrid will eventually prevail over whomever is the instigator of the intrusive actions on British sovereignty. 

Here is an opinion with which I wish to quibble.

“Banks aren’t the bad guys”

by Charles Lane

Washington Post

Published: November 18 [2013]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-lane-banks-arent-the-bad-guys/2013/11/18/fa1c7b1a-5073-11e3-a7f0-b790929232e1_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions

As a generalization, yes, absolutely!  I suspect the vast majority of banks were not contributors to the Great Recession [353].  However, the coven of too-big-to-fail banks were major contributors, In My Humble Opinion (IMHO).  I would also heap plenty of contributor blame upon Congress; after all, they enabled the banks to become “too big to fail” and let greed run amok by passing the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (AKA Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) [PL 106-102; 113 Stat. 1338; 12.11.1999] [353] – elimination of the Glass-Steagall {Banking Act of 1933 [PL 73-I-066; 48 Stat. 162; 16.6.1933]}.  The latter helped end the Great Depression as the former enabled the Great Recession (and nearly made it a second great depression).  Last but certainly not least, We, the People, must shoulder a substantial part of the blame for taking on optimistic mortgages that could not be supported under stress, and our own form of greed in believing the illusion that real estate could continuously be flipped for ever increasing capital gains.  Sure, there is plenty of blame to go around, but I still believe the inordinate risk taking, outright gambling and fraud, and rampant greed of the big banks must be at the very heart of the Great Recession.  We have but to look at the on-going LIBOR debacle [552] and J.P. Morgan Chase settlement deal [below] to see the vestiges of their contributions.  Let us not be so quick to absolve the culpability of the too-big-to-fail banks.

We have all heard the news this week of the Senate’s execution of the so-called “nuclear option” (AKA constitutional option), as they voted to amend chamber procedures to prevent the filibuster of administration appointees up to but not including the Supreme Court.  The Italians have a wonderfully descriptive term – Basta! (enough), usually said with volume and sneering emphasis.  The last straw came with Republicans continuing to block the nomination of Attorney Patricia Ann Millett of Virginia to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [PN257].  President Obama nominated her last June.  The Senate Majority Leader moved and sustained the Senate rules change to allow simple majority votes on presidential nominations like Millett’s.  The historic vote (no. 243) passed at 12:35 [R] EST, Thursday, 21.November.2013 – 52-48-0-0(0) with three Democrats voting with the Republicans (Levin of Michigan, Manchin of West Virginia, and Pryor of Arkansas).  Then, just 22 minutes later, the Senate by the new simple majority rule to invoke cloture (to end debate and bring the nomination to a confirmation vote); Senate vote (no.244) 55-43-2-0(0) with Republicans Chambliss of Georgia and Hatch of Utah voting Present.  Senator Reid scheduled the PN257 confirmation vote for Monday, 9.December.2013.

             We have debated the merits of the Senate filibuster [173 & sub].  I have been and remain a long supporter of the filibuster.  In 2005 [173], I wrote, “The purpose of the filibuster is to allow at least one primary mechanism for the minority to resist the domination of the majority.  The implicit aspect of the filibuster is to coax legislators to find compromise for the good of the whole.”              When compromise becomes a profane word, the system breaks down.

            History tells us 168 presidential nominees have been blocked by filibuster in the history of this Grand Republic – 82 during the Obama administration (5 years) so far, with 86 during ALL other administrations combined over 224 years.  For the first 128 years of our history, the filibuster was an assumed to be a gentlemanly, open debate process.  Then, on 8.March.1917, the Senate adopted Rule XXII by a vote of 76-3-0-0(17) that allowed a filibuster to be overridden (cloture) by a 2/3-super-majority vote; and, on 7.March.1975, the Senate amended Rule XXII to allow 3/5 majority vice 2/3 majority to invoke cloture by a vote of 56-27-0-0(17).  The Senate’s action this week lowers that threshold once again to 1/2 + 1 for presidential nominations only; presumably, the 3/5 vote is required for cloture on bills, resolutions and treaties.  Sadly, in the last few decades, just the mere threat of a filibuster, often called a block, by just one senator was sufficient to stop a presidential nomination.  At least Senator Cruz had the cojones to carry out a proper filibuster; yes, I am afraid the days of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” are long gone.

            If I was a conspiracist, I might say this is part of a minority party conspiracy to remove the filibuster, i.e., induce the majority leadership to action, so they can repeal the PPACA, impose their moral hypocrisy on all citizens, and stop funding for the poor so they can give all of the treasury to their rich buddies, by a simple majority, if they gain control of the Senate.  This damnable parochial partisanship has gone too far.  President Obama was elected twice; he earned the right to nominate whomever he chooses.  The only reason for rejecting a presidential nominee is the nominated person is not qualified, and the ancillary political motivations must stop.

            To me, Senate Republicans brought this upon themselves.  The wiser, more seasoned members should have “taught” their more zealous junior members that excessive use of the filibuster was not good for this Grand Republic, either party and certainly not for the Senate itself.  They failed to teach moderation.  Now we have a less deliberative legislative body that will be even more so politically parochial, or I might say infantile in their obstinate behavior.

Governments and the Press report on a deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) regarding their nuclear program.  The details have not yet been disclosed, so it is hard to judge the value or worthiness of the arrangement.  Israel was not impressed.  I certainly want this agreement to be the real deal.  The hard part is trusting the IRI.  Unfortunately, we may not know the true worth of the agreement for many years.

News from the economic front:

-- New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, the co-chair of the residential mortgage working group comprised of federal and state investigators, announced a deal between the “too big to fail” J.P. Morgan Chase bank and the U.S. Justice Department for a landmark US$13B settlement.  The deal resolves a number of legal actions against the largest U.S. bank and ends months of wrangling between the government and the bank.  It is not clear whether this deal includes vacation of criminal charges or investigations are included in the civil settlement.

-- The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) lowered its semi-annual forecast for the global economic recovery by 0.5%, and drew specific attention to the uncertainty of U.S. fiscal and central bank policies.  Interestingly, the OECD suggested the United States should abolish the debt ceiling law, and replace it with “a credible long-term budgetary consolidation plan with solid political support.”  Given the contemporary reality in Congress, the suggestion is not likely to be acted upon any time soon.

London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) Debacle [552]:

-- The Financial Times [of London] reported the European Union antitrust authorities reached an immunity deal with the giant Swiss bank UBS that will spare the bank from further fines for its contribution to the LIBOR interest rates scandal.  The report says UBS is being “rewarded” for cooperating with investigators and turning over information about other banks.  Barclays previously reached a similar deal with EU authorities. That means that two of Europe’s largest banks, which are at the center of the interest-rate manipulation scandal, will escape punishment when EU authorities conclude their probe, which is expected within weeks although the timing could slip.  It is not clear what impact the EU immunity deal will have on the investigations by other nations.

-- So we don’t lose focus . . . the infamous 16, involved, international banks are:

• ·      Barclays [UK] – US$454M fine [550]; Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Bank of America [U.S.] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      BTMU [Japan] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Citigroup [U.S.] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Credit Suisse [Switzerland] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Deutsche Bank [Germany] – US$654M LIBOR profit [578]; set aside €500M (US$641M) for LIBOR liability [589]; Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Lloyds TSB [UK]
• ·      HSBC [UK] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      HBOS [UK]
• ·      JPMorgan Chase [U.S.] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Norinchuckin [Japan]
• ·      Rabobank [Netherlands]
• ·      RBC [Canada]
• ·      RBS [UK] – £390M (US$612.6M) in fines, 21 employees involved [582]; Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      UBS [Switzerland] – US$1.5B fine, two charged [575]; Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      West LB [Germany]

Added to the list by the Monetary Authority of Singapore [600]:

• ·      ING [Netherlands] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      BNP Paribas [France] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Crédit Agricole [France] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      DBS [Singapore] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation [Singapore] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Standard Chartered [UK] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      United Overseas Bank [Singapore] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. [Australia] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Macquarie [Australia] – Singapore sanctions [600]
• ·      Commerzbank [Germany] – Singapore sanctions [600]

Others involved:

• ·      ICAP [UK] – fined US$87M + three executives charged [615]

I trust none of us will lose sight of what these banks have done.  Lest we forget!

Comments and contributions from Update no.622:

Comment to the Blog:

“Cap, I thought this article appropriate for your ACA comments, and with your background in IT, I'm sure you will find it meaningful. If you haven't seen anything on the UK solution to government IT, it's worth checking out, too.”

The article noted above:

“Forget Big Versus Small — Our Government’s Needless Complexity Is a Big Problem”

by Joshua Holland

billmoyers.com

Published: November 15, 2013

http://billmoyers.com/2013/11/15/forget-big-versus-small-our-governments-needless-complexity-is-a-big-problem/

My response to the Blog:

Craig,

            Kludgeocracy . . . great term, love it . . . very descriptive and apropos in our current situation, it seems to me.  I suspect it has become an artifact of our political system, along with the intransigence of our political parties.

Another contribution:

“The auto insurance minimum standards are for liability ins. That is to protect others. You still do not have to insure your auto if you do not have a loan on it.”

My reply:

Frank,

            First and foremost, great to hear from you.  I hope and trust all is well.  I would sure like to see more contributions to this humble forum from you.

            Re: liability.  That was precisely my point.  When an uninsured/underinsured person goes to the emergency room for treatment of a minor ailment, we all pay for that medical treatment, and what’s worse those uncollectible expenses are “hidden” in their overhead, which makes the cost of everything from band-aides to lobotomies far more expensive than need be.  For another citizen to not have medical insurance is a liability to all the rest of us.  Further, as I’ve mentioned before, if we can convince the medical folks to not treat anyone regardless of severity who does not have medical insurance or paid for treatment in cash in advance, then I am good with folks declining medical insurance.  Since that is not likely to happen, folks need medical insurance just like they need car insurance (if they have a vehicle).  We have got to break down this damnable Gordian Knot.

Another comment to the Blog:

“The Administration has been inexcusably clumsy in its execution of PPACA. I understand that the government purchasing system does poorly with IT projects, but the figures I have are 55 contractors with no lead or coordinating company or agency. The blame for that negligence goes all the way from the top to the least temporary worker (a.k.a. contractor). The notion of simply allowing substandard insurance to continue does not work either. Eventually it will so dilute the purpose of PPACA that the benefits will be lost.

“I found it unpleasant enough that the entire enterprise was/is a gift to the insurance companies, but even they apparently were not interested enough to make it work. Another idea has been advanced in progressive circles. That would expand a program that already works, Medicare, to cover those not otherwise insured.

“Cutting the goal for ethanol production does me no harm as an environmental advocate. I had not been aware of the varnish issue, but the production of ethanol from corn consumes about as much energy as it produces and increases the demand and price for a vital food source.

“I have enough nerve that the EU's ‘mix of stagnation, weak prices and high unemployment’ likely stems from the much-touted austerity measures pressed on Southern Europe and Ireland by their wealthier neighbors.

“So how do you support your contention that spies ‘are working mightily to keep this Grand Republic safe’? I will need clear evidence before I can support any such idea.

“I am not certain how this will ‘come through.’ I have largely changed to a Linux setup (Pinguy with a Gnome desktop) and have yet to bring up my usual word processing software. This is simply a plain text utility.”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: PPACA.  Indeed!  It is tragic to endure the incompetence.  They chose the contractor(s), probably by the lowest bid (you get what you pay for), and then did not adequately supervise them.  There should have been milestone testing over the last 3+ years, which should have given them plenty of forewarning.  Watching the administration’s performance for the last seven weeks has given me the impression even the proponents were convinced it was not going to work – like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

            Re: substandard insurance.  Agreed.  The President could have put a simple qualifier on his statement for those who like their insurance can keep it as long as it meets the minimum standard.  Our medical insurance coverage exceeds the minimum standard.  There has been no detectible impact to us.

            I am of Medicare age, but I have not yet used it.  The combination of my military retired insurance should give us adequate coverage once I formally retire from industry.

            Re: ethanol.  I have not researched it on-line, as I have had practical experience.  A hard lesson to learn.  I imagine the same thing will happen to automobiles & motorcycles, if I don’t keep turning over the fuel.  Also, once the fuel goes bad, you must dispose of it properly, which is a complication I had not previously had to deal with.  Life goes on, one step forward, two steps back.  The key for ethanol is “renewable.”  It can be grown.  Once the fossil fuels run out, there is no more.  Although as they say, necessity is the mother of invention; as the Germans did during WW2, synthetic fuels will evolve to replace fossil fuels.

            Re: spies.  I would request you watch the movie, “Zero Dark Thirty,” while a fictionalization of actual events, it does portray the kind of work the intelligence services perform on a daily basis.  Also, I must add, who do you think develops and provides the targeting data for the strike drone program?  Just because we are no permitted to see inside the IC, does not mean they are bad people.  They are hidden for their protection and the protection of the information they develop.

            Your Linux test worked fine as simple text.  I see no difference from what you were using previously.

Round Two:

“We are in agreement on the mistakes with Obamacare (or PPACA if you prefer the more difficult term). We may hope for an advocate in the near future who can use Obamacare as Lesson A in reforming the government purchasing system, which has become part of the military-industrial complex President Eisenhower warned about and reaches far beyond that.

“I favor the simpler approach of using the long-proven Medicare system to provide for those of us who do not have insurance through work or some other source.

“Ethanol made from corn is only renewable in a technical sense due to the large amount of energy used to grow the corn. That equation provides little or no net energy to society. Other bioethanol sources, including algae and switchgrass, show better promise but have not yet reached commercial production. I am aware that Brazil produces bioethanol from sugar cane but I have not studied that recently enough to comment on the environmental or economic factors involved.

“I would not watch any movie other than a well-researched and documented documentary to gather real-world information. Movie makers in the commercial market do whatever they do to sell tickets or views with no obligation either to do complete research or to stick to whatever part of the truth they learn. Citing the drone-strike program harms your cause; those drones kill far more innocent people than ‘enemies,’ even given the extremely loose definition of enemies used in that program. Claiming a good intention does nothing. Without any doubt, Jack the Ripper would have claimed a good intention had he been caught. After all, he killed prostitutes and in his time prostitutes were seen as evil. Any history student can give many more examples of the error of mistaking good stated intentions for sound results.

“I am glad that little word processing program worked well. I have since activated LibreOffice, in which I have confidence. Given those two options I can function in any situation I will encounter soon.”

My reply to Round Two:

            Re: “PPACA.”  I prefer the proper legal term, vice the popular, politically charged version.  I doubt anyone in the USG has an interest in reforming the USG purchasing system; after all, like defense contractors, lawyers, lobbyists, insurance companies, et all, they all live off of the Federal teat.

            Re: “Medicare.”  Perhaps.  I fear the companies like mine may get lazy and cancel medical insurance group plans to save money, and force the USG to pick ‘em up.  There are provisions in PPACA based on the size of the companies, but it is only a matter of time before we see that size threshold inching upward.  Medical insurance coverage started as an incentive to join one company over another.  I do not recall having medical insurance in my youth.

            Re: “renewable fuels.”  I am not defending corn as a source, or even sugar cane, as they are food sources as well.  What I remained convinced of is, we must wean ourselves off of fossil fuels; they are not renewable.

            Re: movies.  I am not suggesting any movie is a definitive source of facts on anything . . . even documentaries.  History can be portrayed, and hopefully some of it is verifiable.  Some of them serve as clues.

            Re: spies.  I truly hope we do not acquire documented evidence on the operations of any part of the Intelligence Community (IC).  In fact, I wish they would disappear from public awareness and scrutiny.  I will not ask you to trust me or anyone else.  I suspect you will continue to be frustrated in your quest for openness / transparency in the IC.  I cannot think of any way to satisfy any transparency demand and maintain the safety and effectiveness of the IC operations. 

            Re: “claimed good intention.”  There are myriad examples of bad “good intentions,” e.g., westward expansion, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseum.  I will dispute your claim that “those drones kill far more innocent people than ‘enemies.’”  It is a convenient, populist notion that folks in the vicinity of bad guys are innocent.  Families, neighbors, and such, who support the bad guys are no different from logistics, intelligence, financial, and other support functions; they enable the bad guys to do their work.  I will NOT go so far to claim that truly innocent people have not been injured by drone strikes, but those actions are far more discriminant than London, Coventry, Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Further, how does one define “innocent” in the War on Islamic Fascism?

Round Three:

“With Obama himself using ‘Obamacare’ for the program, I doubt any political force remains.

“Unfortunately, you are probably right about the interested parties not wanting to change the Federal procurement system.

“I certainly agree that we must end our dependency on fossil fuels. Regardless of other details, they face the limitation of a finite supply. There are, of course, many of those ‘other details,’ including pollution and the strife they engender. Signs of progress include hydrogen fuel-cell cars introduced this week at the Los Angeles Car Show and in Japan.

“The spy community, pretty much by definition, will not accept and would not work with transparency. That gives me no reason to trust them, though.

“The people in the vicinity of alleged terrorists often include children under 10 years old. Do you exclude them from innocence? And the definition of targets remains too loose to support.”

My response to Round Three:

            Yeah, I know POTUS uses the paternalistic term.  If I was in his position, I would not and I would discourage anyone from using that term.  The 111th Congress created and passed the PPACA, not Obama.  President Obama signed the bill, adding his affirmation to the law.  If I remain a minority of one, so be it.

            We will have to confront fossil fuel depletion eventually, probably not in my remaining lifetime, but it will come.  My advocacy is for an orderly, preferably peaceful transition – not likely, but we can always dream.

            If the IC ever has transparency, it will cease to exist as a viable intelligence operation, and that will leave us highly vulnerable to the bad guys.  We need them to be invisible.

            The definition of targets in the War on Islamic Fascism is not too loose for me.  Operatives and systems collect data; analysts study and correlate the data; and supervision validates a target.  Then, another process begins to determine the means and moment.  There is no doubt in my little pea-brain that the operatives look for the best available moment to exclude or minimize collateral damage, but children cannot be a perpetual shield for the bad guys.  Are mistakes made or excesses experienced, yes, without a doubt, but they are many orders of magnitude better and more discriminant than acceptable in 1943.  War is nasty business.  The best solution is peace.

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)