Somethings You Can’t Make Up

Given the choice between posting my final grades and my morning coffee or perusing some of the latest presidential antics and my morning coffee, I chose the latter.  The latest front pager at the Confluence, Steven Mather started a great conversation on Obots and willful blindness.  Since I was following a tweetathon last night between Glenn Greenwald and Jack Tapper on the latest about face, it seems appropriate to start there.  This just comes under the heading of reality taking on dimensions of science fiction.

Every one is trying to figure out how Military Tribunals under Bush will be different the Military Tribunals continued by Obama.  Given I’ve been following the financial bailouts under Bush and the virtual continuation of the same policy under Obama, I’m thinking the progressive blogosphere should be blowing a few gaskets now.  After all, they were just told to lay off the torture photos and  any hope of prosecution of what can only be labeled the Cheney Torture Policy. What we appear to have is straight forward continuation of nearly all the major Bush policies with major re-framing.  It’s not going to be the old Nixon War on Drugs, it’s going to be the Obama “complete public-health model for dealing with addiction”.  Somebody seems to think just morphing the lexicon makes it seem less Republican.  Some one needs to tell Axelrod it’s the policies, not the labels.

So Greenwald is calling it  Obama’s kinder, gentler military commissions .

It now appears definitive that the Obama administration will attempt to preserve a “modified” version of George Bush’s military commissions, rather than try suspected terrorists in our long-standing civilian court system or a court-martial proceeding under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Obama officials have been dispatched to insist to journalists (anonymously, of course) that Obama’s embrace of “new and improved” military commissions is neither inconsistent with the criticisms that were voiced about Bush’s military commission system nor with Obama’s prior statements on this issue.  It is plainly not the case that these “modifications” address the core criticisms directed to what Bush did, nor is it the case that Obama’s campaign position on this issue can be reconciled with what he is now doing.  Just read the facts below and decide for yourself if that is even a plausible claim.

Oh, do go read the facts listed in the article. Don’t forget those koolaide goggles, because willful blindness is about the only way you’re going to see much difference.

deficitMeanwhile over on Bloomberg, I read up on the latest Obama-would-rather-not-be-held hostage- by-the-oval-office town hall meeting where Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ‘Unsustainable’. I have to join Seth and Amy in a “Oh, really?” moment here.  I think you all will remember the graph on the left from earlier pieces that  I’ve done on the Obama stimulus package and budget.   Let’s just use the Bloomberg piece as a refresher.

President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

Holders of U.S. debt will eventually “get tired” of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, Obama said. “It will have a dampening effect on our economy.”

Earlier this week, the Obama administration revised its own budget estimates and raised the projected deficit for this year to a record $1.84 trillion, up 5 percent from the February estimate. The revision for the 2010 fiscal year estimated the deficit at $1.26 trillion, up 7.4 percent from the February figure. The White House Office of Management and Budget also projected next year’s budget will end up at $3.59 trillion, compared with the $3.55 trillion it estimated previously.

Two weeks ago, the president proposed $17 billion in budget cuts, with plans to eliminate or reduce 121 federal programs. Republicans ridiculed the amount, saying that it represented one-half of 1 percent of the entire budget. They noted that Obama is seeking an $81 billion increase in other spending.

Meanwhile, we’ve seen protests erupt as the Senate started discussing health care reform while leaving single payer solutions off-the-table.  No single payer is another Obama missive and another Republican-like policy.  On May 5th,  those most radical of all elements in this country, doctors and nurses, staged a protest at a senate hearing insisting single payer should be on the table.

I still can’t believe the Republicans are calling Obama a socialist.  The only thing we’ve socialized so far are those incredible losses coming out of the finance sector.  Everything else is Republican-lite.

All I gotta say is ya got played folks!   Maddoff is a small fry scammer by comparison.

Please Digg!!! and Share!!!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine


Rightwing Canards 101

left wingIn 2008, I decided to go from blog lurker, to thread poster, to front-pager.  It has been one strange trip that has been both oddly satisfying and exasperating. I think I popped out of the womb with an opinion and a need to express it.  If my first grade teacher Miss Pearl Jensen of Herbert Hoover elementary school could speak to this, she’d probably say, that child has too much to say and I just felt the need to “shake the toenails off her” all the time.   She used to pick  me up, shake me, and scream that at me. I assume she’d do that again if she met me today.

My mother was always being called to school about me because I was always saying something.  In fourth grade, I refused to say the pledge of allegiance because I saw absolutely no use in it.  I announced in fifth grade, after reading my social studies assignment on eastern religions, that I must be a Buddhist because it’s the first religion I’d read about that didn’t seem less real than ‘The Hobbit’.  I’ve always been in trouble throughout my corporate work life for being ‘verbose’, ‘glib’, and ‘mouthy’.  Thank goodness for academic freedom where I can now get away with it.  So,  I guess you shouldn’t be surprised that I would eventually find a home as a front pager some where.

Since front-paging really doesn’t come with instruction manuals, other than the usual, wow, we like the sound of how you write, knock yourself out here, I’ve had to learn by the hunt and peck method.  I’ve learned which buttons attract what type of nasty comments.  I usually avoid pushing those buttons because frankly, unless it’s really important, I hate doing troll duty.  Some how, there’s just one button I keep pushing.  It is the “I hate your source” so you must be a ______ button.

Look, I’m used to writing scholarly stuff and finance reports.  I recognize that sometimes the people who drive you the craziest can some times come up with a good point and good data.  Other times, the people you really want to support and put forward can come up with some stinkers.  This is a blanket warning to every one who ever reads my stuff.  People that you disagree with can frequently be quotable as more than just examples of wingnuts.  On the other hand, some times people that you disagree with, and get quoted a lot can be very very very wrong and what they say will be printed over and over and over and over.  The only thing I think is completely over the top is taking a comment out of context and creating a moonbat feeding frenzy with it.

With that statement and story, I present to you Michael Tomasky of the Guardian (last time I checked both reliably liberal and credible sources) and ” How they lie: a case study; Did an Obama judicial nominee really express a preference for Allah over Jesus? No, not by a long shot”.  Tomasky basically chases down one of those right wing memes around the web, then exposes that meme as untrue by actually using (gasp) facts  and showing the context.  His gut told him with a title like that,  it was undoubtedly one of those right wing smear jobs, but he didn’t just take it at gut or face value.  He chased down the truth before he pounded out the story.  In other words, he acted like a journalist who writes a blog rather than a blogger that acts out what he supposes is journalism.

Read the rest of this entry »


PUMA forward

puma-paw2You think it’s too late to plan some kind of commemorative/commiserative event for the 5.31 rules committee meeting that led to the birth of PUMA? Maybe make it net/blog based? Any interest?

Digg!!!! Share!!!!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine


The “Incompetence Crisis”

rassie-pollAll last year,  ALL  I heard was how experience didn’t matter.  I heard that being ‘ready on day one’  was a meaningless campaign slogan.  I was told that what mattered was perceived good judgment, intelligence, and speaking skills.  I remember watching the first Democratic Debates and thinking, this guy isn’t ready to be dogcatcher, let alone President. There were no wonky answers on economics or foreign policy.  There was never a show of any detailed plan.  There was always just a nice speech read from a teleprompter with a preacher’s patois, incredible (somewhat contradictory) promises, and messages that could have come from a motivational seminar instead of a political campaign.  I never got on the bandwagon.

I finally found a home over here in the Pumasphere with people of similar thought after being treated like a scourge by other sites (blog or MSM) that had gone over to the hope side.  I’ve been getting used to my role as pariah. I was thinking I’d have to live with it for at least a year.  I figured I’d start getting the you were so right calls sometime in the fall.

Boy, was I wrong!

I figured that because of my experience during the early calls for the Iraq war.  I was the one saying “Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11.  Iraq is a different agenda.  Iraq is a bad idea.”   I actually had some one get up in a restaurant to tell me what a lousy, unpatriotic American I was that didn’t deserve to live in the US. I became a the scourge of all true American patriots.  I’ve been thinking that my 9/11 protest was just a character building experience that would serve me well during the Obama fascination period and that it would probably take a few years of, yet again, being a scourge to all true American patriots before the worm would turn.  Luckily, I found a other like minded out in the Pumasphere so I don’t have to be quite alone as I was with my opinion on the Iraq Invasion.

I think I can honestly speak for a number of us around here.  We didn’t expect to be proven so right so quickly.  At least I didn’t. I was hoping that maybe it wouldn’t be as bad as my gut and head had deduced.  So many of my friends said, he’s not Dubya, so he’s got to be better, you’ll see.   After all, we’d get rid of a lot of really evil signing statements that restrict women’s reproductive choices, the right of all people to love and marry whom they wish, and we’d move ahead on science again.  I’ve said this before, but nearly any democrat would have done any of those things–including Joe Lieberman. Lieberman is one of those folks that I consider marginally a democrat, but even he would have done those things if he were POTUS.  We certainly wouldn’t see any nasty supreme court appointments either.  These were marginal hopes and small changes that I could cling to while knowing that eventually, I would be proven right.  I just didn’t even imagine it would wind up quite like this, quite so fast.

So, if I haven’t made myself clear here, Rush Limbaugh and Governor Jindal may be cheering for a failure.  I’m not in that camp at all.  I’ve just been quietly sitting here telling myself that with all the beautiful things written into the constitution as well as the resiliency of the American people, that perhaps it won’t be quite as bad as I thought it would be.   After all, we survived the incompetency of George Bush and the lunacy of Dick Cheney. Things can’t fall apart that fast!

Boy, was I wrong!

Pumas are the new Cassandras.  Our warnings, unheeded, demonized, and marginalized, are now the stuff of MSM op ed pieces.  I’d like to point you to a few that are searing Obama with legitimate criticisms.   I would think they came from one of the edgier Puma sites but they don’t.  One is from CNN. The other from the UK’s Prospect.  I also have two from the NY Times.  These comments are simply alarming.

Read the rest of this entry »


Moral Hazard and Corporate Governance

I usually stick with the Economics side of my degree instead of the Finance when I blog because macroeconomics is highly linked to politics and policy.  Today, I’m going to switch over to the one field specialty I took in graduate school that’s not considered economics.  (My economics fields are monetary and international.)  My finance field is corporate finance.  The two theories I spend time researching  in the corporate area are two that are frequently at the middle of financial crisis.

Moral Hazard is a  problem in situations where there are multiple parties, differing levels of information about the situation, and differing levels of exposure to the risk inherent in the situation.   Evaluating how folks operate in different risky situations with varying amounts of information  using mathematical models is basically a big old exercise in calculus that I’m not going to do here.  The theory is a useful one that explains,as an example, why you drive faster if you’ve got a seatbelt on and are insured.  Basically, between seatbelts and insurance, you don’t feel as ‘at risk’ so you behave in a riskier way.

Corporate Governance Laws and Executive Compensation packages are designed to overcome the moral hazard implicit in one of the most basic moral hazard models.  It’s called the  principal-agent problem.  Basically this theory shows the problems that can occur when the owner(s) of a firm (the principal) hire managers (the agent) to run the firm.   The owners (like common stock shareholders) don’t have the same level of information about firm performance that the executives do.  They have to rely on the executives for information.  Also, the owners can loose lots of money if the executives make bad decisions and slack off and don’t work as hard as they should.  In this model, the principals have to find a contract that will force the agents to act in their interests.  They must force them to work hard and return the maximum wealth to the shareholders.  That’s what corporate governance laws and executive compensation packages are designed to do: align the interests of the executives and the shareholders.  If designed properly, they should eliminate the moral hazard problem.  Corporate Governance creates a more transparent environment where the executives can’t hide information.  Property designed executive compensation packages reward the executives for doing their best by shareholders.

Read the rest of this entry »