Politics Make for Strange Bedfellows

I’ve been watching some of the links showing up here at my blog and also at The Confluence.  Something really STRANGE is going on.  The Republicans are abuzz with praises for Pumas.  I’m reading blog after blog on the right saying that PUMAS may very  well save the country.  Check out these links.  It will make you a believer in the old saying that politics make strange bedfellows.

 

From Redstate:  More on Why McCain should Win:  The Puma Factor

From McCain Democrat Clinton Republican:  People Want to know about Puma

From Death by a 1000 papercuts:  Pumas the Democrats the Media Doesn’t Want to Talk About

To be real honest, I’ve had a feeling that folks have been reading many of our sites for some time.  This includes the media.  I also know that some of the things that have been discussed here on The Confluence and on other Puma sites have shown up a few days after the topic was completely dissected by the PUMA community.  Several times we’ve been accused of passing right wing memes when I swear the points were discussed here prior to being tossed around on right wing blogs and even right wing radio shows.

Several stories broken here (including SimoFish’s posting of the Hillary Fundraiser where Hillary says she thinks that putting her name up for a roll call vote would help her supporters gain closure) and on No Quarter. ( Think ACORN  and most of the ACORN threads including the Obama expenditure on “lights, etc” which turned out to be voter-registration related .)  These were first discoverd in the PUMA world.

You may feel discouraged and think that we’re not making a difference, but you really shouldn’t.  This should tell you that our voices are being heard and that our cause has been well-argued.  Now is the time for us to finally decide where to put our final action: OUR VOTE.  As for me, I’ve gone into a voting pack with SM77 who lives in the swing state of Florida.  I will be voting for Cynthia McKinney for her, here in New Orleans, LA.  Louisiana is a red state.  She will be casting my vote for John McCain in Florida.  

Please, PUMAs, stick to your guns and cast your vote in accordance with our principles.  It is up to us to show the DNC that denying one-man one vote to TWO states, stacking primaries so that small states out count large swing sates, and allowing rampant caucus frauds are not behaviors we wish the democratic party to undertake.  Let them know that we don’t appreciate them putting a candidate with no accomplishments and a race-baiting, misogynistic campaign to the front of the line.  Vote your conscious!  Vote like a PUMA!  Even the Republicans know that we can make a difference!


The Bailout: More Oversight or More Overlook?

More bailout news today as the Fed pledges $540 billion to shore up mutual funds.  The New York Times outlined the proposed plan to help provide short term debt that many money market mutual funds use to finance their investments.  When the Treasury refused to bail out Lehman brothers, shares of its Reserve Fund fell below $1.  This caused problems in many money market mutual funds as the investors realized their money may not be safe.

Since then, many funds have experienced redemption requests.  This has caused fund managers to move to safer and more liquid sources to shore up their funds.  Many fund managers no longer look to commercial paper and have switched strictly to Treasuries and other investments considered highly safe.  This has squeezed lending to companies looking for bridge loans and working capital sources.  The details have not been finalized, but the Fed is hoping to negoitiate the deal and is looking to JP Morgan Chase to carry out many of the required actions.  This basically expands the lines of businees that taxpayers are now shoring up for financial companies.

While the Fed and Treasury have been forthcoming with plans and money, it is still uncertain when we will actually see them get around to solving the problems instead of doing triage.  We are experiencing more and more situations where taxpayer money is being used to supplement private investments and loans to corporations (including the very financial corporations responsible for this mess).  What we are not seeing is the increased oversight that must go along with the flow of funds into the financial sector.  It is really time for Congress to act now before more money flows to these players who will not be held to account.

Corporate Governance is one of those things that should not be overlooked.  The Treasury’s bailout seems to have more to do with a short term shore up of markets, than rooting out the bad players and ensuring these funds are not abused.  It appears that some of the corporate governance and executive compensation rules originally part of the bail out plan have been watered down.  Many in congress and the Treasury itself stated earlier that any of these financial institutions benefiting from government funds must adapt stricter corporate governance rules and executive compensation limits.  Corporate Governance is a broad set of that basically protect shareholders from executive malfeasance.

The first concern with corporate governance discussed in the bailout was that executive pay should not encourage unnecessary and excessive risk.  In other words, the pay should not INCENT the managers to go after short term profits that endanager the safety of the firm.  Market Report states a very important point here.

The Treasury’s interim final rule requires that the compensation committee of a company’s board of directors review executive pay to make sure it doesn’t encourage management to take too many risks.

The committee has to meet at least once a year with the bank’s chief risk officer to check the relationship between the institution’s risk management and executive pay and incentives, according to the rule.
But the Treasury isn’t replacing any of the directors on the boards of the banks it’s investing in, or adding new directors to represent taxpayer interests. That means there’s no way for the Treasury to check if executive compensation is encouraging too much risk-taking.
If none of the original players have been held accountable and are still in place, how exactly does this change anything?  Remember the old adage, if nothing changes, nothing changes?  Just as before, the
oversight and enforcement will be left to the same folks.  Most of these folks (the board of directors) were in charage of all these big banks and brokerage firms when they were incurring the risky things that led to this melt down.  Most boards were clueless back then. They took the advice of the executives that put their organizations at risk.  So, how are they supposed to suddenly develop knowledge now and do the right thing?  Plus, these folks are supposed to protect the shareholder.  Will they treat the public money with similar weight?
There are a few other rules that were stuck in the bail out terms. One such rule is that banks will not be allowed to deduct executive compensation above $500,000 against taxes.  However, there is nothing saying that they won’t just skip the deduction and pay the executives what they want to any way. Since many executives can go other places, the banks may just pony up the money to retain them.
Also, the original bailout banned golden parachutes.  Now, however,  the Treasury’s interim final rules defined golden parachutes as payments equal to or exceeding three times an executive’s annual salary and bonus.  That means as long as these packages fall under these guidelines, the golden parachutes can remain.
So in conclusion, I’d like to quote from the letter of that 37 year old hedge fund manager that retired with ALL that money betting against the folks that led us down the path to this financial crisis.  Now, not on Mr. Lahde’s plea for legalizing marijuana, but the other one.  The one that says Congress just keeps looking the other way.

On the issue of the U.S. Government, I would like to make a modest proposal. First, I point out the obvious flaws, whereby legislation was repeatedly brought forth to Congress over the past eight years, which would have reigned in the predatory lending practices of now mostly defunct institutions. These institutions regularly filled the coffers of both parties in return for voting down all of this legislation designed to protect the common citizen. This is an outrage, yet no one seems to know or care about it. Since Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith passed, I would argue that there has been a dearth of worthy philosophers in this country, at least ones focused on improving government.

In short, Congress needs to get with it and start protecting the taxpayer’s money with much more tenacity than the protected investor’s money.  Write them and tell them to strengthen the oversight of the bailout plan.


Dead Cat Bounce or a Hint of Bull?

The equity markets some times experience good days even in the worst of bear times.  These up days are frequently just the dread dead cat bounce.  This label comes from the saying that even a dead cat bounces if you throw it.  You’re going to hear two things from me today; probably in two different posts.  The first is just a line by line look at the Obama and McCain approaches to the economic panic.  The second is the Paulson announcement to make $250 billion available to banks to help them recapitalize.  I’m watching some of the interbank lending markets unfreeze, so it might be more than a dead cat bounce.  There might be a hint of the bottom which would be something to celebrate.

I was trying to read this last night as well as a some literature on the Bank Capital Channel of Monetary Policy (something only an economist could love but is important in terms of looking at the possible outcomes for this move).  I unfortunately chose to do it at my local bar and became the immediate target of the shriek of the Obamatrons and all the usual stuff:  “racism, Palin is a c*nt, it’s okay for us to call her that because McCain called his wife that, no Obama NEVER said women get third trimester abortions because they’re blue, do you get all your information from fox news? racism, racism, racism.” I’m beginning to wonder if they hand out an instruction card with the koolaid on how to insult the unindoctrinated? 

Sigh, so I’m working on this for your this morning instead.  You’ll have to give me a wide berth as I try to do this in the peace and quiet of my house over coffee instead of red wine.  Oh, also, just so you know I am now Miss Perfect and Miss Know it all.  It felt like high school ALL over again.  I think they were trying to ensure that the other two ex-Hillary supporters who were resigned to voting for the “ONE” would not leave the fold with anything as meaningless as facts and the truth.  There was also a Republican and a Ron Paul supporter in the room to make things nice and interesting.  For some reason, I got the brunt of the abuse. I can’t tell you how many times I was told to just get over Hillary.

So, any way, here goes the girl with the glasses again.  While the market chews on the Paulson plan, I’ll start with my take on the McCain and Obama crisis plans in this post.

Obama’s plan seems centered on unemployment.  This is a bit odd because the problem at the moment is not unemployment for most of the country.  The only thing I can figure is this, combined with his plan to double the government’s loan guarantees for automakers, is a pander for votes in places like Michigan.  Since the rust belt is important to winning the election, and the rust belt is the only place where unemployment is above normal at the moment, I have to cynically say this has nothing to do with financial crisis but everything to do with the electoral college.

I think giving employers a $3,000 tax credit for each new hire to encourage job creation is a good economic policy.  At the moment, however it is not necessary and expensive.  Until it looks like unemployment in the country as a whole is going to be a problem, I’m sticking with my view that this is just a pander to folks in important swing states in a not so subtle disguise.

His second idea is just plain awful and would create incredible long term problems.  This is the idea that you should allow Americans of all ages to borrow/withdraw from retirementsavings without a tax penalty.  One of our biggest problem right now (long and short) is that folks are NOT saving enough for retirement. Pulling anything out right now ensures those folks will be worse off in the future.  Also, withdrawing funds from these accounts at the bottom of the market is like stealing future life style from people.  People that do not need to do this will be encouraged to do so and it will make their lives worse in the long run.  This is a stinker and I hope folks don’t follow through with it.  If you’re thinking about doing this, please, please don’t.

I’m more hopeful about Obama’s suggestion of creating a mechanism to lend monies to cities and states with fiscal problems if this is done in a reasonable, thoughtful way.  We’d need to see that current Treasury work in the markets is helping the municipal bond function and we need to be careful about exactly how the funds will be used.  I’m afraid this could be turned into an expensive giveaway to interests rather than a real problem solver.  For this suggestion, the devil will be in the details.  This is my same take on his proposal to allow struggling small businesses to apply for loans from the SBA’s disaster funds to the tune of $5 billion.  This sounds good on the surface and could help getting much need operating loans to some of the hardest hit players.  I’d like to see the exact nature of the terms, however.  You need to know what the terms of borrowing are and what kind of things the funds can be used for.  Also, is this for existing businesses or new start-ups?  The new-start ups would be highly risky propositions and subject to fraud.

Obama rehashed the Hillary suggestion of a 90-day moratorium on most home foreclosures.  This would be geared to folks that are trying to make payments or partial payments.  This is a good start, but again, it has to be followed by some kind of way to renegotiate the foreclosures or it’s basically just a few months grace.  Some details are needed on what to do with the frozen mortgages.  My hope is those details may be forthcoming, but I’m not holding my breath.

All of the Obama suggestions are very costly and there are no funding suggestions.  At one time he was talking about windfall profits on oil companies but given the state of the economy now, I doubt there’s going to be any windfall profts on which to draw.  The gas around here is running less than $3.00 a gallon.  I can’t help but think the record level profits of the oil companies are not going to be around the next few quarters.  Oil futures are about $80 a barrel right now, so my guess is no windfall profits to tax.  So, another dimension of all Obama’s points is where is he getting the money?  I always liked Hillary’s plans because they came with funding sources so they were grounded in realism and not promises.

The McCain Plan was introduced today with the Hillary suggestion of the Treasury Departmentbuying troubled mortgages at face value and giving qualified homeowners instead government-guaranteed, low interest mortgages.  I’m already on the record supporting this in earlier posts since I firmly believe the short term solution is to bottom house prices.  The mortgages would be based on the residences’ reduced value.  We need to focus here on the details of ‘qualified’ homeowners because it does not need to be done with speculators or vacation properties.  McCain has said there would be two possible funds for the valuation differences so I’m not clear which one he’s going for or if it’s giong to be some combination of both.  Basically, either the taxpayer or the lenders would pay the difference.

Several other of his proposals are pretty typical of Republican approaches which focus on tax reduction.  They are targeted tax reductions which is something I’m particularly big on.  This is different than just throwing money at the entire market and hoping some of it trickles down and sidewise.  McCain’s first proposal focuses on seniors (an important voting group) and allows them to withdraw from the IRAs or 401k’s in 2009 and 2010 while reducing their taxes to a flat 10 percent.  Since this only applies to those over 59, there are no penalties so it’s different than the Obama plan.  This is okay, since these folks ARE retired and a worktime of compounding is not something they will need in the future.  This plan would cost about $36 billion and I’m assuming it will be financed with deficit spending because there are no specified funding sources.  This would giving a few years of buying power which would be stimulatory to the economy.  It also protects seniors from any unknown problems.  It’s probably partially motivated to get seniors into the McCain camp but it would impact the country as a whole.

There are three other tax measures put forth by McCain.  The first is a 50 % reduction in the capital gains tax on stock profits.  It is currently 15% to 7.5% for a period of two years.  This plan has a price tag of about $10 billion.  If any one is getting many capital gains right now, I’d sure like to meet them.  This probably only benefits the Warren Buffet type and is a nod to Republican business interests.  The more interesting plan is the accelerated tax write off for stock losses.  Americans will be able to deduct $15,000 in losses for the tax years 2008 and 2009.  This is a change from the current $3,000 losses.  He would also suspend taxes on unemployment insurance benefits for both 2008 and 2009.  These targeted proposals may actually help the little guy who is panicking right now and pulling whatever money he has out of stocks.  It would definitely help any one that does become unemployed also.  I’m not sure how big the effect of these would be, but they are not bad ideas.

So, you can chomp on this while I go work out on the details of the Paulson announcement and watch what appears to be a stablizing stock market.  I’ll also go check for bulls, bears, and any bouncing dead cats.  Also, some earnings reports are coming out today, so that should provide some good information to the market.


Protest Voting 101

Player Queen:
Both here and hence pursue me lasting strife,
If once I be a widow, ever I be a wife!

Player King:
‘Tis deeply sworn. Sweet, leave me here a while,
My spirits grow dull, and fain I would beguile
The tedious day with sleep.

Player Queen:
Sleep rock thy brain,
And never come mischance between us twain!

Hamlet:
Madam, how like you this play?

Queen:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230

 

Puma is a protest movement.  Our blogs outline our strategies.  Our votes are our tactics.    I’m not exactly sure how much clearer I can make this but it appears that we have to repeat these simple facts over and over.  If we don’t, no one gets us.

The nature of our protest vote is that is exactly that a PROTEST.  This means that our friends who can’t understand why we might vote for a candidate that doesn’t have a chance (McKinney or Nader) or a ticket that we may not agree with on many issues (McCain Palin) don’t understand what a PROTEST vote means. Protests voting means your vote is a protest.  It simply doesn’t have to make sense to any one else.

I started thinking about this today due to a post by Masslib on Alegre’s blog and a response by Or what Vahalla said. 

Or what Valhalla said (4.00 / 2)
 

The premise of a protest vote is that it’s not issues-related.

What I meant to say, put more succintly 🙂

This also hit me in the face when I saw a response to my own posting “The No NO Sisterhood”.  A post by Ben Kilpatrick assumed I voted all women during the democratic run-off in Louisiana just because I was woman who votes for women as a means to discriminate against men.

Just voting for women is the same as just voting for the black guy, or the republican guy, or or or

And it’s about as smart a move as all of those.

My vote was a protest against the treatment of women candidates this year.  I did not vote for all women because as a woman, I was voting for ALL women. I voted for all women as a protest.  I did not like the way Hillary was treated. I do not like the way Sarah Palin is being treated.  I will not stand for Helena Morena being treated similarly either.  Already, it is starting.  A blog for the local New Orleans business newspaper picked up one quote from my two day postings concerning the second congressional race and all my comments about Ms. Moreno.  You can read it here.  The only line the blog picked up from me about Helena was that most folks here were calling her the “little white girl in the race” which I view as confusing folks on her mixed white/Latina heritage and belittling her status as a woman by calling her ‘girl’.

I’m still thinking about what kind of protest vote I will make this year when I step in the booth to vote for President.  I know I will not vote for Obama.  I will not vote for the issues, for once, because I am protesting how he got the nomination, I am protesting how the DNC actively and underhandedly promoted him over a much more qualified and able woman, and how he has been given a HUGE pass by the MSM.  I know many of my PUMA friends will vote for McCain Palin, others will just skip the vote, others will still vote for Hillary, and some will vote for third party candidates.

We do not have to explain the ‘logic’ of our vote over and over and over again. It’s not about the issues (like Roe v. Wade), it’s not about the economy, and it’s certainly not about voting party lines.  It’s a protest vote.  As such, it only has to make sense to us!  

I think we need to take some time and rethink why we view our votes as protests this year.  This is especially true if you’re thinking of drinking that koolaid and falling prey to the logic of voting on issues at this point.  Puma ceases to become a protest movement at that point.  It’s effectiveness at supporting reform within the democratic party has no teeth at the point we stop protesting.

There is no such thing for PUMAs as ladies (or gentlemen) protesting too much at this point.  Afterall, it is our democracy at stake.

(cross-posted at The Confluence)


I want my money back! (AND my country!)

The U.S. taxpayers provide $50 million per party for these shams called conventions. After watching the chicago version of a staged roll call and what amounted to a real deathblow to democracy, I want to ask every one to write their congressional representatives and senators and demand their money back!  I don’t feel like I need to pay for advertising rigged elections, false unity, and forced results.

I didn’t blog yesterday on Hillary’s speech and I’m really reluctant to do so on Bill’s speech because they both did an excellent job doing exactly what the party demanded.  They were brilliant speeches making the case against McCain and any continuation of the Bush 43 policies.  This was supposed to make the case for Senator Obama.  I felt they tried, but since the case FOR Obama is basically nothing BUT the case AGAINST McCain, even the brilliant oratory of skilled politicians couldn’t do it for me.  I’m glad that many AA’s will get the chance to vote for a black presidential candidate, but there has to be something going for a presidential candidate other than an opponent that doesn’t share your views and historical opportunities.  That candidate has to have a proven record that shows he’s up for the job.  Senator Obama falls woefully short on that account and I cannot turn my country over to another President that requires training wheels and is so obviously over his head on issues regarding the economy and national security.  He may get to appoint a Supreme Court Justice, but he also has to decide what to do with the resurgence of Russian Aggression, Osama Bin Laden, and a stagnant economy that is not providing equal opportunities for all Americans.

I am so damned tired of feeling that the Democratic Party has offered us the lesser of two evils and I just need to fall in, I could scream.  I want to feel inspired by a presidential candidate, not feel like I have to reluctantly go along with whatever the party insiders offer up.  I think, PUMAS, it’s time for a party of our own making.

I’ve spoken about this election to what I consider typical Americans.  I asked several of the women I teach with at the University if they’ve been watching any of the convention.  I’ve talked to my dad and sister in Seattle.  Every one pretty much agrees, once again, we have two choices that none of us really want.  Dad–a Republican–doesn’t want McCain.  Most of the folks I speak to, other than my young students, really don’t want Obama.  I hear so many folks saying that this is the worse choice they’ve had for a long time and they feel like staying home rather than exercising their most sacred duty and wonderful gift from our ancestors, the right to vote for who will lead us.

So what I want to know is why do have to pay for this sham upfront if I’m going to spend the next four years paying for this Hobson’s choice?  Why do I want to scream and say, not again!  This is just another set of mediocre politicans that have pandered to the worst of their party’s interests.

Something has to be done about the two party system.  Since the birth of the televised convention, democracy is becoming less and less vibrant.  It is more a televised attempt at giving us what they want. I even felt that the primaries and caucuses this year were a complete waste of money.  They’ve been fixed and gamed to produce a desired result.  Caucuses need to be eliminated.  Primaries need to be held on a rotating calander and a regional basis with a very short election cycle.  Iowa keeps creating these losers and needs to be put into a pack with the rest of the heartland and no state should have any kind of special status.

Last presidential election cycle, I felt I got stuck with John Kerry by the time Louisiana had it’s primary.  I knew he was a complete loser but went along any way.  By that time, I had no choice in it.  My vote was meaningless.  I also felt that when I voted for him, I knew I was voting for a predestined loser.  This time, I refuse to do it.  Obama cannot win and I refuse to put any effort into pretending he will.  I’m frankly expecting a repeat of the McGovern-Nixon election.  Have any of you ever heard of a situation where a candidate gets a negative bounce with a vp selection and during a convention?  The DNC is too caught up with itself to stop this disaster in process.

I’d like to put my two cents in for the future of the PUMA movement.  It’s something I’ve been putting forward here for some time.  We need to spend the next four years building the infrastructure for a viable THIRD party.  One that is based on the American people.  One that removes itself from corporate control and the control of those loud and obnoxious interest groups we see every convention time.  I don’t want to pander to evangelicals, I don’t want us split up by skin color,  and I definitely don’t want to obsess on wedge issues.  I just want a party that is interested in the economic issues and the safety issues we face every day as americans.  I want to focus on our shared interests.  I want to focus on  our health, our safety, the future of our children, jobs, and an equitable tax system.

Is that too much to ask?