So what do you think about that?

Rejecting stimulus money

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:48:00 +0000

It’s looking like Florida’s legislature is going to reject some stimulus money, despite Republican Governor Charlie Crist's very vocal support for the package.

Interestingly, in most states where rejection of stimulus money has already happened or is being considered, it’s the governor who’s done the rejecting: Alabama, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas. (Note: Alabama Gov. Sanford backed down at the last minute and said he would take the money; others may have followed suit.)

But here in Florida, it’s the legislature that’s balking. According to the Sun-Sentinel on April 3:

Florida is eligible to receive $777 million in federal money that would provide 20 more weeks of jobless benefits, in addition to the 59-week maximum now allowed. Those who have exhausted their benefits but have not yet found a job would qualify, as well as those just recently laid off. The state also could receive another $444 million to bolster the Florida unemployment compensation trust fund, which is the pool of money collected from state businesses to cover jobless benefits....
[But] some legislators have been hesitant to extend unemployment benefits because of potential costs to Florida businesses.
Without federal stimulus money, [Florida's] trust fund is projected to have a deficit of $76 million by August, according to the revenue department and the state Office of Economic and Demographic Research.

According to a piece posted Friday at MiamiHerald.com titled Federal stimulus cash pumped through Florida's budget):

... the Legislature will likely reject about $440 million in additional workers' compensation benefits that could trigger a higher tax on businesses.

To me, that’s bad news. With an unemployment rate approaching 10% and an unemployment trust fund that’s clearly in trouble, Florida can’t afford to pass up this money. If our state doesn’t take it, someone else’s will – but we taxpayers will all be on the hook to pay it back.

What do you think? Should Florida take the money? Or should it oppose it because of the strings attached?? If you’re not in Florida, what is your state doing?

Connect Now!

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:20:00 +0000

Connect Now is a community dialog, sponsored by The Education Foundation of Collier County, in which a group of trained volunteers facilitated 54 "living room conversations" with small groups of folks from all over the county. The facilitators asked them about their hopes and expectations for their community and their schools. People from Immokalee to Port Royal were excited to be asked, whether they were mature winter residents or young parents, whether they speak Creole, Spanish or English. Additional conversations were held with teachers, school administrators and students.

Then last month, the Connect Now team brought together about 40 people who participated in the original discussions and 10 who didn't (including me) to help prioritize the themes that emerged from the community conversations and to form the basis of a statement of collective values for our community and our schools. That statement - our "Community Contract" - summarizes the community’s priorities around education that can and should be used by the school district administration, the school board, and others to ensure their decision-making is responsive to the community's values. It will be publicized this Sunday in our local paper, The Naples Daily News, in the Perspective section, and presented formally to the school board at its April 16th board meeting.

I'm honored to have participated in the Connect Now Congress. It has motivated me to explore ways I can participate in the education process in our community.

Please take a minute to view this video clip (I appear in it twice - once from the back, and once speaking in the front of the room - but don't blink, or you'll miss me!), and watch for the Connect Now Community Contract in this Sunday's paper.

Then ask yourself, "If educating kids for the future is important, how can I help?" If you're local, check out The Education Foundation of Collier County. There are some great opportunities available! And tell them I sent you!

Action Alert: Health Care and Climate at Risk

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 01:03:00 +0000

As soon as tomorrow, Congress will begin voting on the president's budget. The League of Women Voters emailed its members "ACTION ALERT: Health Care and Climate at Risk -- Support the President's Budget." On March 25, they wrote:

The upcoming votes in the House and Senate will be the first real political tests for health care reform and curbs on global warming. Opponents of both these important initiatives are mobilizing to defeat the President's budget because they know that's the easiest way to sidetrack reform. We can't let them succeed!

Tell your Senators and Representative that you support health care reform and cutting global warming. Ask them to vote for the President's budget.

In today's economy, it is more important than ever to support a budget that includes solutions to America's toughest problems. The President's proposal includes $630 billion over ten years for health care reform and $646 billion over the same time period to reduce the greenhouse gases that are causing global warming.

The House and Senate Budget Committees are expected to release their budget resolutions soon, with votes scheduled quickly after. Make sure your Representative and Senators know that any budget that Congress passes must include investments in two of our toughest challenges - health care reform and global warming.

PLEASE - take a few minutes and email or call your congressmen as soon as possible. They're prepared for your call; I could tell when I made mine! They were courteous, and asked for my zipcode so they could record my call.

To email your representatives via the League's website, click here and scroll to the bottom of the page to enter your zipcode.

To call your representatives' Washington offices directly, click here to look up their names and numbers via your zipcode.

Our future is in OUR hands. Thanks.

The wrong villains

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 20:09:00 +0000

I just read a very good article from The New York Review of Books titled "How We Were Ruined & What We Can Do," by Jeff Madrick that clearly reviews and explains the history of today's financial crisis. It's worth your time.

As I read the article, I was struck by how misplaced today's anger over the AIG bonuses really is. It's clear that Congress - long asleep at the switch - has finally woken up to the fact that something is very wrong, and has decided to lash out at the nearest and most convenient scapegoat. But the AIG traders who received their bonuses last week are just the last folks standing when the music stopped playing. My take from Madrick's article: they're the wrong people to be vilifying.

Here are some of the people who really deserve the blame (quotes are from Madrick's article):

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for trying to "maximize their profits and justify large salaries and bonuses for their executives." Fannie and Freddie, which had been "packaging federally insured mortgages since the 1970s and selling them to investors," got carried away with the profit motive since becoming publicly-traded companies in 1989, seemingly forgetting that their mission was only to provide liquidity and stability to the primary and secondary U.S. housing and mortgage markets.

Investment banks - "Salomon Brothers in particular" - who "discovered a profitable new source of business in these mortgage-backed securities and began packaging them in a way that made them more like conventional bonds, except that they paid higher interest." And First Boston, whose "innovative banker" Larry Fink "divided packages of mortgages into several different tiers of risk with appropriately graduated interest rates.... Fink's innovation attracted many more clients, including pension funds and major money market institutions, to invest in mortgage-backed securities than did the government."

Greedy investors - According to Madrick, "It was principally the investor appetite for the mortgage-based securities and the easy profits made by the banks and mortgage brokers that led to the mortgage-writing frenzy in the 2000s, not encouragement by the federal government to lend to low-income home buyers."

Commercial and investment bankers, who "expanded the market for new forms of insurance, called credit default swaps, which would supposedly guarantee holders of mortgage-backed securities against losses incurred by defaults."

The ratings agencies, which rated the mortgage-backed obligations. "The ratings agencies were paid by the commercial and investment banks, who sold the packages of mortgages according to their rating, and who invariably benefited more the higher the rating."

Government officials, who in the 1990s opposed regulating derivatives (then Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, then Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and then Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan) and supported the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, the New Deal restriction separating investment and commercial banking (Rubin and Summers).

The Fed and the SEC, for not exercising their power (and, some would say, responsibility) to "examine the quality of mortgage lending" (the Fed) and to examine the books of investment banks (the SEC).

There is a lot of blame to go around, and there will be plenty of time to investigate the history in depth. But now's the time for action to get us out of this mess. Piling on about the AIG bonuses may make people feel good, but not only is that not helpful in this crisis, but the bonuses are the least of the problem.

Nuance

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 20:35:00 +0000

One of the things that's striking about Obama's approach to foreign policy is that it is full of nuance, whereas Bush's foreign policy was so black and white / with us or against us. Obama's willingness to consider talking with the Taliban is just one example.

There is an interesting article in the March 9 issue of Newsweek by Fareed Zakaria titled "Learning to Live with Radical Islam" and it's worth the read. Zakaria writes, "We don't have to accept the stoning of criminals. But it's time to stop treating all Islamists as potential terrorists."

The article concludes:

The veil is not the same as the suicide belt. We can better pursue our values if we recognize the local and cultural context, and appreciate that people want to find their own balance between freedom and order, liberty and license. In the end, time is on our side. Bin Ladenism has already lost ground in almost every Muslim country. Radical Islam will follow the same path. Wherever it is tried—in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in parts of Nigeria and Pakistan—people weary of its charms very quickly. The truth is that all Islamists, violent or not, lack answers to the problems of the modern world. They do not have a world view that can satisfy the aspirations of modern men and women. We do. That's the most powerful weapon of all.

A March 7th piece on NPR.org titled "Obama Willing to Talk to Taliban" says:

The idea of cooperation with some in the Taliban has been talked about for many months by American military commanders including Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command.
"If you talk to Gen. Petraeus, I think he would argue that part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us," said Obama. "There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and the Pakistani region, but the situation in Afghanistan is, if anything, more complex," Obama added.
Last month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that Washington could accept a political agreement between the Afghan government and the Taliban if the insurgents will lay down their arms and accept the government's terms.

Obama was roundly criticized as being "naive" during the campaign for suggesting the possibility of talking with our enemies. Now, as he moves forward with this approach, he has Gen. Patraeus and Def. Sec. Gates on board.

I agree with this nuanced approach. Do you?

A picture's worth a thousand words...

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:27:00 +0000

It's been a busy week, filled with even more gloom and doom, and while I've got lots I want to write about, I don't have time right now. So in keeping with the notion that "a picture's worth a thousand words," this cartoon about sums up the angst in Tallahassee after the first week of the legislative session. It's by Chad Lowe of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, and it was their editorial cartoon of the week:

Soon, it may be the story in Washington, too.

There's more...

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 03:03:00 +0000

How's this for an eye-catching headline: "Hidden Pension Fiasco May Foment Another $1 Trillion Bailout "?

It appeared on Bloomberg.com today around 11AM, and has been with me all day.

Here's the story:

Public pensions in the U.S. had total liabilities of $2.9 trillion as of Dec. 16, according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. Their total assets are about 30 percent less than that, at $2 trillion. With stock market losses this year, public pensions in the U.S. are now underfunded by more than $1 trillion.

If the pension funds are unable to meet their obligations, taxpayers take the hit. Why?

By law, states must guarantee public pension fund debts. With the recession that started in December 2007, cities and states are running huge deficits, which they’re closing by cutting services and firing employees. The economic downturn gives state legislatures another reason to cut back on funding pensions.

So far the news has been focused on autos, mortgages, and financial service firms. Yet we know that states are also hurting and having to make tough choices because they are required to balance their budgets - no deficit financing for them. So soon we'll be hearing more about those decisions, like the one to cut back on funding their pension plans, and it will be the next big shoe to drop.

I hate to be the voice of doom, but doom is hard to avoid these days. Hunker down. Tighten your belt. We still have a long way to go.

Remember AIG??

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:59:00 +0000

A friend who blogs via email sent this around today:

In 2000, 70% of the mortgages were originated at banks, insured by the Government, and sold to investors. These were largely owner occupied, fully documented, and required 20% down.

By 2007, 70% of the mortgages were originated in small storefront mortgage shops, insured by AIG, and sold to investors by Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns and Lehman. These were largely exotic, undocumented subprime loans. Remember? - 'When your bank says No, Champion says Yes!'

He refers readers to a "great article on how AIG blew up the global financial system" in the Business Section of yesterday's New York Times by respected business writer Joe Nocera titled "Propping Up a House of Cards." According to Nocera:

Next week, perhaps as early as Monday, the American International Group is going to report the largest quarterly loss in history. Rumors suggest it will be around $60 billion, which will affirm, yet again, A.I.G.’s sorry status as the most crippled of all the nation’s wounded financial institutions. The recent quarterly losses suffered by Merrill Lynch and Citigroup — “only” $15.4 billion and $8.3 billion, respectively — pale by comparison.
At the same time A.I.G. reveals its loss, the federal government is also likely to announce — yet again! — a new plan to save A.I.G., the third since September. So far the government has thrown $150 billion at the company, in loans, investments and equity injections, to keep it afloat. It has softened the terms it set for the original $85 billion loan it made back in September. To ease the pressure even more, the Federal Reserve actually runs a facility that buys toxic assets that A.I.G. had insured. A.I.G. effectively has been nationalized, with the government owning a hair under 80 percent of the stock. ..
Donn Vickrey, who runs the independent research firm Gradient Analytics, predicts that A.I.G. is going to cost taxpayers at least $100 billion more before it finally stabilizes, by which time the company will almost surely have been broken into pieces, with the government owning large chunks of it. A quarter of a trillion dollars, if it comes to that, is an astounding amount of money to hand over to one company to prevent it from going bust. Yet the government feels it has no choice: because of A.I.G.’s dubious business practices during the housing bubble it pretty much has the world’s financial system by the throat.

Nocera's article does a good job of explaining credit default swaps, and how their creation got us in to this mess. It truly is enough to make you ill. But knowledge is power. Read it at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/business/28nocera.html. Let us know what you think. And be prepared for the Dow to take another big tumble.

I'm still reeling

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:52:00 +0000

I spent my career in corporate finance. I understand securitization and how it expanded the credit markets. Still, I was shocked to realize how big and how important the market for collateralized debt obligations had become in the five years since my retirement, how much it has contracted recently, and how that contraction has contributed to where we are today.

An article in today's New York Times titled "U.S. Tries a Trillion-Dollar Key for Locked Lending" really opened my eyes and I urge you to read it.

In summary:

Most banks no longer hold the loans they make, content to collect interest until the debt comes due. Instead, the loans are bundled into securities that are sold to investors, a process known as securitization. But the securitization markets broke down last summer after investors suffered steep losses on these investments. So banks and other finance companies can no longer shift loans off their books easily, throttling their ability to lend.
The result has been a drastic contraction of the amount of credit available throughout the economy. By one estimate, as much as $1.9 trillion of lending capacity — the rough equivalent of half of all the money borrowed by businesses and consumers in 2007, before the recession struck — has been sucked out of the system.

Here are the most shocking figures cited in the article:

The market for new securities backed by mortgages and other types of loans has collapsed. Last year, investors bought $313.9 billion of these securities, down from $1.6 trillion in 2007 and $2.1 trillion in 2006, according to Dealogic. Last month, banks issued just $1.6 billion worth of such deals.

So on an annualized basis, assuming January 2009 continues as the going rate (and how likely is that? not very) we'll see a market in 2009 of $1.6 billion times 12 or $19.2 billion ... down from $313.9 billion last year.

My reaction: hang on to your hats, folks. Things are going to get a LOT worse before they get better!

Going nuclear

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:02:00 +0000

This post is dedicated to Ann B. and Joyce and Bob E., who told me in the last few days that they missed my blogging, and to Sheilah C. who not only said she missed my blog but that she especially liked my survey questions. Thanks to them, I'm back today.

I participate in one of the Foreign Policy Association's "Great Decisions" discussion groups in my community. Last week's topic was "Energy and the global economy," and there was some talk on the pros and cons of nuclear. Some mentioned the problem of where to safely store the nuclear waste (my biggest concern); others - including one of our members who is a retired nuclear submarine captain - argued that that risk was overstated.

Here's how Wikipedia summarizes the pros and cons of the debate:

Proponents of nuclear energy contend that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil.[78] Proponents also claim that the risks of storing waste are small and can be further reduced by the technology in the new reactors and the operational safety record is already good when compared to the other major kinds of power plants.
Critics believe that nuclear power is a potentially dangerous and declining[79] energy source, with decreasing proportion of nuclear energy in power production, and dispute whether the risks can be reduced through new technology. Critics also point to the unresolved problem of storing radioactive waste, the history of (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island) and continuing potential for possibly severe radioactive
contamination by accident or sabotage, the history of and continuing possibility of nuclear proliferation and the disadvantages of centralized electrical production.
Arguments of economics and safety are used by both sides of the debate.

So with last week's discussion and all these pros and cons in mind, yet without having decided if I'm for or against increased investment in nuclear power in the U.S., I was dismayed to read in today's New York Times that:

In a freak accident, two submarines carrying nuclear missiles, one French and the other British, collided while submerged on operational patrols in the Atlantic early this month.

Both the French and the British, in separate but apparently agreed-on statements, said there was “no compromise to nuclear safety.” According to the Times:

The reference appeared to cover the nuclear reactors that power the submarines and the 16 ballistic missiles carrying nuclear warheads that the British and French vessels each routinely carry on patrols.

You've got to be kidding me. There are nuclear submarines trolling the seas "routinely" carrying around that kind of stuff?

I know that nuclear weapons are very different from nuclear power plants. But still. "Freak accident??" Reading this article didn't make me feel very comfortable.

I'm also a fan of the TV series "24". In season four, one of the plots involves the "theft of a device known as the Dobsen-type Override which could be used to take control of (and meltdown) United States nuclear power plants." As a result, "Nuclear power plants across America are sent into a forced meltdown." I urge you to read the plot summary (courtesy of Wikipedia), which is not far-fetched at all, if you ask me.

Where does our president stand on nuclear? According to a December 1, 2008, Newsweek article titled "Obama’s Nuclear Reservations:"

Obama has been cautious whenever he's been asked about the issue. In a "Meet the Press" appearance in May, he hedged when the subject came up. "I think we do have to look at nuclear, and what we've got to figure out is can we store the material properly? Can we make sure that they're secure? Can we deal with the expense?"

Big questions. No answers.

So where does that leave me? Call me cautious, too. I'm NOT willing to accept the risk and make the investment in nuclear - not yet. What about you?

Trying to keep an open mind

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 02:11:00 +0000

While reading an article titled "Stimulus May Provide Relief for States and the Jobless on Health Insurance" in today's New York Times, I had a real-time lesson in the importance of listening to both sides, keeping an open mind, and not jumping to conclusions.

Early in the article, I read that the proposed House stimulus package would, for the first time, "allow states to provide Medicaid to an entirely new group: those who are receiving unemployment insurance benefits, their spouses and children under 19." Further, I read that:

The economic stimulus bill prevents states from enforcing a means test, saying, “No income or resources test shall be applied with respect to any category of individuals” who become eligible for Medicaid because they are receiving unemployment benefits.

So I start reacting. No means test? That's ridiculous! What are the Democrats thinking??

A bit further on in the article, the Times goes on to say:

Republicans wanted to deny the premium subsidies to people who had annual incomes of more than $100,000 or assets of more than $1 million. They also wanted to prevent people with more than $1 million of family income from taking advantage of the Medicaid option for the unemployed. Democrats voted down those proposals in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Representative Nathan Deal, Republican of Georgia, said “the poorest of the poor” had long been subject to income and asset tests when applying for Medicaid. But, Mr. Deal argued, under the new option, a millionaire could get Medicaid benefits, financed entirely by the federal government, without being asked about such matters.

And by now I'm thinking, "I agree with the Republicans! Why would the Democrats be taking such a position? Makes no sense!"

So I keep reading. And finally, towards the end of the article, I find the other side of the story:

The committee chairman, Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, said, “It’s highly unlikely that you are going to find millionaires who would like to go on Medicaid.” Moreover, Mr. Waxman said, the purpose of the new options is to “streamline the enrollment process” and speed assistance to people who are unemployed. “It’s going to set up an unnecessary barrier if we have any income test,” Mr. Waxman said, adding that the enforcement of a means test could require “a whole new bureaucracy.”

"Oh!" I thought. "That's something I hadn't thought of. Are people with income over $100,000 or with assets over $1 million really going to cheat to get on Medicaid? How big a problem might that be in the overall scheme of things? Is Waxman right that setting up a means test would create an unnecessary barrier and a whole new bureaucracy? Or is Deal right that the Medicaid means-test bureaucracy already exists?"

I honestly don't know. One thing is clear: the Times didn't provide balance in its coverage - and it's known as a liberal newspaper, so we can just imagine how the Wall Street Journal might have covered it!

What I did learn from the article is that every one of these issues is more complicated than it appears on the surface, and relying on one media source to present the balanced truth is just naive. It's hard, but it's important to try to keep an open mind, even when reading or listening to sources you trust.

So what do you think about that?

Making Exceptions

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 01:32:00 +0000

I'm somewhat disturbed about two decisions the Obama administration has made as it puts its Cabinet together: excusing Tim Geithner's failure to pay his taxes on time, and granting an ethics waiver for William Lynn, a former lobbyist for defense contractor Raytheon nominated to be deputy secretary of defense, the Pentagon's No. 2 job.

The Geithner saga has been playing for weeks, but the part that is most troubling to me is that, even after being caught on audit for the years 2003 and 2004, Geithner claimed it didn't occur to him to ask whether he had made the same error on his 2001 and 2002 returns, despite the fact that his employment situation in those years was the same. Here's how the Wall Street Journal described that part of Geithner's Senate testimony in an article called "Geithner's Tax Code:"

Perhaps the most embarrassing moment for Mr. Geithner was his attempt to evade the questions by Arizona Senator Jon Kyl on why he had only remedied the error on back taxes for two of the four years. Because the statute of limitations had run out on the 2001-2002 tax payments, Mr. Geithner was not legally required to pay them -- and didn't until a Treasury confirmation hearing seemed possible.
But instead of fessing up that he had obeyed only the letter of the law, he insisted yesterday that, gee whiz, the earlier tax dodge didn't even occur to him -- an excuse that came off as legalistic and implausible. His replies finally brought Mr. Kyl to insist, "Would you answer my question rather than dancing around it -- please?"
Mr. Geithner replied that "I did not believe I was avoiding my liability," and that he had worked in government his entire life and "would never put myself in the position where I was deliberately not meeting my obligation as a taxpayer."

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. Do you?

Regarding the Lynn appointment, Lynn was (according to a New York Times editorial) "a respected Pentagon official in the Clinton administration" who "has the right resume - except that he was a lobbyist until last year. This clearly violates [Obama's] mint-new [ethics] standard, especially since the Pentagon job is so wide-ranging that recusal on specific issues is impossible." The ethics rules include provisions for waivers in a case of public interest, and a waiver for Lynn has been granted.

There's no question the Obama ethics rules are a huge improvement over existing standards, and they are to be applauded. But a waiver for such a high post with such wide-ranging scope? The Huffington Post subtly calls it "hypocrisy:"

[There] is a second layer to the Lynn issue that also is leaving a bad taste in the mouths of Democrats, good government groups and Republicans eager to cry hypocrisy. Raytheon is no mom-and-pop defense contractor shop. It is the type of industry behemoth that protesters of the Iraq invasion bemoaned for profiting off of the war and encouraging militarization. And as the man who led "the company's strategic planning and [oversaw] the government relations activity," Lynn was intimately involved.

Both these men will most likely be confirmed in the coming days. The Senate will overlook these concerns, and Obama will get the men of his choosing. I've always liked the fact that Obama saw both sides of an argument - that's the best way to build consensus and bring compromise. But I can't help but feel a bit disappointed. How about you?

Calling upon our better angels

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:02:00 +0000

President Obama's inaugural speech called upon us to be the best we can be. It reminded us of our proud history and expressed confidence in our future, both as We the People, and as a nation. It was incredibly moving and inspiring.

Here is one of the passages that moved me the most:

The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

And toward the end of the speech:

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

President Obama reminds us that we, both as individuals and as a nation, have a choice to make. He said:

What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

Now it's up to us. Will we accept our responsibility as Americans and do what we can to help meet the challenges we face? Or will all the pride and happiness and goodwill we saw on TV the past few days from D.C. just fade away? I don't know. I'm counting on President Obama to keep us focused on our responsibility. If anyone can do it, he can.

Obama's benchmarks

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:10:00 +0000

On my walk this afternoon, I was listening to a podcast of Charlie Rose's interview with Rick Stengel, managing editor of Time, about the choice of Barack Obama as Time's Person of the Year 2008. (Yes, I'm catching up - the interview aired 12/18.) It made me wish I had bought the magazine, but thanks to http://www.time.com/, I'm able to read the articles online.

One interesting part of the issue is the transcript of Stengel's interview with Obama on December 5. I was especially interested in Obama's answer to this question: "When voters look at your Administration two years from now, in the off-year election, how will they know whether you're succeeding?"

These are the benchmarks Obama laid out:

On [domestic] policy, have we helped this economy recover from what is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression? Have we instituted financial regulations and rules of the road that assure this kind of crisis doesn't occur again? Have we created jobs that pay well and allow families to support themselves? Have we made significant progress on reducing the cost of health care and expanding coverage? Have we begun what will probably be a decade-long project to shift America to a new energy economy? Have we begun what may be an even longer project of revitalizing our public-school systems so we can compete in the 21st century?
On foreign policy, have we closed down Guantánamo in a responsible way, put a clear end to torture and restored a balance between the demands of our security and our Constitution? Have we rebuilt alliances around the world effectively? Have I drawn down U.S. troops out of Iraq, and have we strengthened our approach in Afghanistan — not just militarily but also diplomatically and in terms of development? And have we been able to reinvigorate international institutions to deal with transnational
threats, like climate change, that we can't solve on our own?
And outside of specific policy measures, two years from now, I want the American people to be able to say, "Government's not perfect; there are some things Obama does that get on my nerves. But you know what? I feel like the government's working for me. I feel like it's accountable. I feel like it's transparent. I feel that I am well informed about what government actions are being taken. I feel that this is a President and an Administration that admits when it makes mistakes and adapts itself to new information, that believes in making decisions based on facts and on science as opposed to what is politically expedient." Those are some of the intangibles that I hope people two years from now can claim.

One of the things that's important in a leader is his commitment to accountability. Not just holding others accountable, but holding himself accountable. Obama has given us the list he will be using to do just that.

A former boss of mine used to say, "If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there." I'm very glad Obama knows where he's going - and how he'll know when he's arrived.

What do you think about that? Do you like where he's going? Has he identified the right benchmarks?

WillyP's Inaugural Adventure

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:22:00 +0000

This is so cool! Will Prather, who I met early in the founding of CCCFO as the SWFLA Obama Finance Team guy-on-the-ground (some of you attended the Michelle event he hosted at the Broadway Palm) is blogging from D.C. about his inaugural adventure.

So far, it's great! Great photos, and reading it gives me a feeling of somehow being there, since someone I know is so up-close-and-personal.

Check it out by clicking here.

As for me, I'm staying here in Naples for the duration. We'll be having a few close friends over for an Inaugural Brunch on Tuesday to watch the festivities.

How about you? How will you be observing/celebrating on Tuesday?? Are you excited??

Official White House photographer chosen

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 03:33:00 +0000

One of the things I do most nights is look at what a couple of other bloggers have posted most recently. Tonight a post by Miryam Ehrlich Williamson titled "A Chance to Relive the Joy of November 4" caught my eye. (I've quoted Ms. Williamson before and I like her writing. You might want to check out her blog called "The Back Forty.")

Through tonight's post, I learned that the chief official White House photographer was chosen today: Pete Souza, an assistant photojournalism professor at Ohio University and former Chicago Tribune photographer who previously worked at the White House photographing Ronald Reagen. (For a related news story, click here.)

Thanks to Ms. Williamson's blog post, here is the link to Souza's website (www.petesouza.com), where you can view an amazing slide show of Obama photos. Enjoy!

Vote in this week's survey poll

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:40:00 +0000

<a href="http://www.buzzdash.com/polls/how-successful-do-you-think-the-bailout-efforts-have-been-so-far-141983/">How successful do you think the bailout efforts have been so far?</a> | <a href="http://www.buzzdash.com">BuzzDash polls</a>

Project Innovation

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:49:00 +0000

I personally know several people who have lost their jobs recently, and others who go to work wondering if this will be the day they receive their pink slip. Our local economy here in Collier County, FL, is overly dependent on tourism and real estate, and has been suffering from a dead real estate market for over a year. Now that most Americans have clamped a tight hold on their wallets, our tourism industry is also feeling the effects. And everyone says this will continue for some time.

With this as backdrop, I was impressed to learn about a local effort by the Economic Development Council of Collier County (FL) called Project Innovation, "an exploration into economic innovation and productivity, and how we can create a prosperous and sustainable business community in Collier County."

This is an effort to build a community-based solution to a problem that affects all of us. According to the Project Innovation website (which is pretty innovative itself!):

Project Innovation will identify the means of creating a culture that will attract high wage employees and an environment that will support world class employees. The process will focus on:
bringing community-wide consensus on the importance of economy-building, a step needed to enable substantive change;
fostering creativity in identifying new opportunities, an approach needed to develop a sustainable economy; and
collaboration on delivering needed resources and initiatives, a strategy needed
to put ideas into action.
It will result in a specific, actionable plan to build a healthy economic foundation for current and future generations.

So many of us are filled with a desire to make a difference following the recent presidential campaign. Many will get involved with grassroots political advocacy. Another way to get involved is to devote your energy to making your community a better place to live and work. For more information about Collier County's initiative, visit http://www.projectinnovation.cc/.

Since many of my readers live in Collier County, FL, I'm taking the unusual step of writing about something really local. I hope my non-local readers will read this, too, and let me know if there's anything similar where you live. Because one thing I suspect we all have in common, wherever we live, is that our nation's economic disaster is touching all of us.

Civil union, gay marriage and the Warren decision

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:42:00 +0000

While Obama’s decision to have Rick Warren give the inaugural invocation (see last week’s post) was not the impetus for Newsweek's 12/15 cover story "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage" (the passage of Proposition 8, seeking to ban gay marriage, was), it certainly helped further the dialog, and that's a good thing. In the words of Newsweek editor Jon Meacham:

[I]t would seem to make sense for Americans to look anew at the underlying issues on the question of gay marriage. One can decide to oppose it in good faith, but such opposition should at least be forged by those in full possession of the relevant cultural and religious history and context.

And that's what the article attempts to provide. One part of the article I especially agree with is this:

"Marriage" in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will.

In my opinion, government should have no place in deciding what a religion can recognize as "marriage.” Nor should religion have a place in deciding which of our citizens are entitled to civil rights under the laws of our land.

According to the change.gov website, the Obama-Biden plan to strengthen civil rights includes:

Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: Barack Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.

Some (myself included) think Obama's decision to have evangelical minister Rick Warren give the inaugural invocation was a mistake. Some are disappointed that Obama has refused to support gay marriage. But if the word "marriage" is given just a religious, not a civil, meaning, Obama takes the right (in my few) position on the policy issue, whatever his reasons for choosing Warren. So what do you think about that?

The Warren decision

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:14:00 +0000

I have a problem with Obama's choice of Rev. Rick Warren to give the invocation at his Inauguration.

I just don't understand why Obama would allow one of his last pre-vacation decisions be as controversial as this one. Surely his team knows that the 24-hour-a-day talking heads will need material to re-hash over and over in the coming week. So now this gets added to the Blagojevich - Caroline Kennedy - Bernie Madoff cycle. Who needs it?

I suspect that many if not most of the Christian religious leaders who could have been chosen would share the views of Warren with respect to gay marriage, not to mention the belief that non-Christians can not get in to Heaven. But naming someone less visible would have avoided the hurt feelings and in some cases betrayal some are now experiencing.

Obama needs to pick his fights, and the religious arena, to me, was a wrong place to make a stand. It reminds me of Clinton's getting side-tracked with his gays-in-the-military comment early in his presidency. Why go there?

Here's Obama's response to that very question in a news conference on Thursday (click here).

I don't disagree with anything he said, but to me he hasn't answered the question of "Why Rick Warren." He's answered "Why not?"

If you've not seen Rick Warren in action, there are lots of YouTube videos you can check out. Here's just one: Warren in support of California's Proposition 8.

For you Rachel Maddow fans, here's Rachel on the decision (click here). Rachel calls it Obama's first big mistake post-election. I agree. What do you think?

Take action for more early voting sites

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 19:07:00 +0000

In October, I wrote several posts about the challenges of early voting that affected the November elections, including too-few sites open for too-few hours here in Florida, and no early voting at all in my niece's state of Virginia.

According to an editorial in today's St. Petersburg Times titled "Improve on early voting successes:"

Nearly one in three of the 8.4-million Florida voters who cast ballots in the Nov. 4 election went to an early voting site. A month after the election, it's easy to forget how burdensome the option was for some, particularly in South Florida where waits were routinely three hours. In Pinellas County, where Supervisor of Elections Deborah Clark offered early voting only at three of her offices, a line in downtown St. Petersburg stretched three blocks the weekend before the election....
A 2006 state law restricts sites to elections supervisors' offices and branches, city halls and public libraries — locations that may not always be the most convenient when it comes to parking, as voters in downtown St. Petersburg found.

So here's a bit of good news: recently, Florida's Secretary of State Kurt Browning said he would ask the Florida Legislature to rewrite that 2006 state law. And the Times' editorial says "Browning should go a step further and push the Legislature to require each county supervisor to offer a minimum number of early voting sites per capita, particularly in major urban counties like Pinellas."

This is just the sort of initiative that concerned, informed Floridians should get behind quickly. If there's one thing we learned from the success of our grassroots efforts working with the Obama campaign, it's that ordinary people, working together, can accomplish extraordinary things -- maybe even influencing Florida's legislature to make voting more accessible for its citizens!

Take a moment now and email your state representative and state senator and urge him/her to support efforts to increase the number of early voting sites in Florida. If you voted early and had a long wait, describe your experience. If you volunteered at the early voting sites, handing out water and trying to keep people's spirits up (as a few of my friends did), write about that. If you didn't vote early because you heard about the long wait, tell that story, too. Personal stories get legislators' attention.

And if you live in another state, this issue may be relevant to you and you may want to contact your legislators, too!

Wherever you live, you can identify your representatives and click a link to their email addresses at a handy League of Women Voters website; just click here and enter your zip code in the search box.

One of the easiest ways to influence the public policy decisions that affect us and our communities is to use the Internet to be informed and to use email to communicate with our elected representatives. From time to time, I'll use the bully pulpit of this blog to ask my readers to do just that. I hope you will - and let us know about the experience!

Pull up a chair and take your seat at the table

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 14:39:00 +0000

Yesterday, John Podesta, co-head of Obama's Transition Team, announced a "transparency policy" in which "any documents from official meetings with outside organizations will be posted on our website [http://www.change.gov/] for people to review and comment on."

Michael Strautmanis is Director of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs, reporting to Obama advisor and co-Transition chief Valerie Jarrett. Strautmanis talks about this new "seat at the table" program in a short video clip you can watch by clicking here.

Stratmanis says, "The Office of Public Liaison is really the entry point for all kinds of people and organizations and leaders outside of the transition to come in to the transition.... People can post materials, they can give commentary on the things that have been posted, they can offer their own ideas. We're actually looking through everything that's posted on our website."

What an awesome and unprecedented undertaking! What an incredible opportunity being offered to the American people!

As an example, one of the most recent posts as of the time of this writing is the Testimony of Timothy Sparapani “Opposing the Creation of a ‘No-Work’ List through Mandated Employment Eligibility Verification Prescreening.” Sparapani is the Senior Legislative Counsel at the Washington Legislative Office of the American Civil Liberties Union, and this is his June 10th testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law at a hearing regarding the Electronic Employment Verification System.

Already, 114 people have taken the time to read and post comments about this testimony; you can read the comments by clicking here. If immigration reform, and specifically mandated employment eligibility verification, is important to you, you can share your views, too.

If you are an environmentalist, you might be interested in a report titled "Transition to Green: Leading the Way to a Healthy Environment, a Green Economy, and a Sustainable Future" that highlights priority environmental recommendations for the Obama administration transition team endorsed by a coalition of national environmental and conservation organizations. So far, 119 people have shared their comments.

I got involved in the election campaign so I would know that I did everything I could to influence the choice of our next president. Now President-elect Obama is making it possible for us to influence the policy decisions that will shape the future.

I hope that each of us will take advantage of this opportunity. Start small. Choose a policy area that's important to you. Search for it on the Your Seat-At-The-Table website at http://change.gov/open_government/yourseatatthetable. Read one of the documents posted, think about it, and then add your comments. And let us know what you've done and how it went.

Ending the "global war on terror"

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:58:00 +0000

The Republican Party has been incredibly clever and effective in using language to shape a discussion before it even starts. My favorite example has always been their use of the word "pro-life," which tacitly says that those who support a woman's right to choose are "anti-life." We're on the defensive right off the bat.

Another example is the term "war on terror." Who wouldn't support a war on terror? Should we let terror go unpunished? But really - is war the best approach?

An "insider forum" discussion on The Online Newshour yesterday titled "Obama to Face Lengthy Foreign Policy To-Do List" got me thinking. One of the program's guests was Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C., whose most recent book is "Ending the Iraq War: A Primer." Here's what she said that grabbed my attention:

I think the first thing that should be done by the Obama administration is announce the end of the so-called global war on terror and say that we are launching a new campaign based on diplomacy and cooperation with the goal of reaching out all around the world to governments, to civil-society, to engage in a struggle to change and challenge all of the things that lead to terrorism.

Doesn't that make a lot of sense? Especially in the context of the Mumbai terror attack, which now looks like it was planned in Pakistan, it's clearly time to recognize that governments are not necessarily responsible for the terrorist acts of their citizens. Should India go to war with Pakistan over the Mumbai attacks? Or should the two governments, supported by the rest of civil society, to use Bennis' words, let go of their mutual mistrust and work together to route out the bad guys, wherever they are? And then, more importantly, work together to "to change and challenge all of the things that lead to terrorism?"

Seems pretty obvious to me; if only it were so simple. It would be great if Obama were to do as Bennis suggests. What do you think? Is it possible? Or "dangerously naive?"

Major strings for the automakers

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 03:05:00 +0000

Many people much smarter than I am have strong opinions about an auto bailout, but there's no unanimous opinion. And that troubles me.

On the one hand, there's the “No bailout, no way” view expressed by Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, the senior Republican on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. According to a November 17 piece on pbs.org/hewshour, Shelby "called the U.S. auto industry a "dinosaur" whose demise would simply be stalled by a bailout. 'I don't believe the $25 billion they're talking about will make them survive," said Shelby on NBC's Meet the Press. "It's just postponing the inevitable.'"

I worked in the steel industry in the late 80s, which was another industry that could be called a "dinosaur." Like the auto industry, it had exceedingly high unionized labor costs relative to foreign producers, and legacy costs for retiree pension and healthcare costs that made the situation even worse.

A November 23 piece in the International Herald Tribune titled "Revival of U.S. steel industry offers lessons for automakers" offers a review of the government's long but ultimately unsuccessful history of attempting to prop up the steel industry, and concludes that the bankruptcies that came after two-plus decades of very costly attempts to avoid them were ultimately necessary:

Bethlehem Steel, whose steel was used in Hoover Dam, the Chrysler Building and the George Washington Bridge, filed for bankruptcy in October 2001. It was followed by National Steel, Weirton Steel, Georgetown Steel and many others. The pain was great.
And necessary, some say. "If the steel companies had gotten all they wanted in terms of loan guarantees and import quotas, they would never have gotten better," said Richard Fruehan, director of the Sloan Study on Competitiveness in the Steel Industry. "The bankruptcies forced their hand."

On the other hand, what about the argument that the economy is too weak right now to absorb the job losses and other effects of a major automaker going under?

The trouble is, there's no way of knowing who's right. On a gut level, I agree with Shelby. The auto industry has made bad decisions for too long, and this $25 billion will most likely not be the last request. But then again, maybe those who predict terrible things for the economy are right. Am I willing to take that chance?

A November 11 blog post titled "The Real Difference Between Bankruptcy and Bailout" by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich seems to strike the right balance. Avoid bankruptcy, but condition any bailout on major "strings:"

In exchange for government aid, the Big Three's creditors, shareholders, and executives should be required to accept losses as large as they'd endure under chapter 11, and the UAW should agree to some across-the-board wage and benefit cuts. The resulting savings, combined with the bailout, should be enough to allow the Big Three to shift production to more fuel efficient cars while keeping almost all its current workforce employed. Ideally, major parts suppliers would adhere to the same conditions.

I don't know if this is true or not. In fact, one of the biggest challenges is knowing that one can prove anything with numbers. But if we're not willing to chance the economic effects of bankruptcy, "strings" seems like the way to go. MAJOR strings.

So that's where I come out. What do you think?

Clinton as Secretary of State

noreply@blogger.com (sparker) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:26:00 +0000

The possibility (and now probability) that Hillary Clinton will be named Obama's Secretary of State has provided hours and hours of content for the pundits to debate. Almost every one I've heard or read has nothing but raves about Clinton's intelligence and respect around the world. The other day I even heard James Baker support her candidacy! But there are at least two concerns I keep hearing as well.

The first concern is that Hillary won't be a good soldier and team player. Nothing's worse than foreign powers suspecting an ounce of space between the President and the SecState, they say. The SecState must be completely removed from politics and function solely and purely as the President's representative. And they suggest that Hillary can't or won't be able to do that, and will instead stake her own claim in setting policy -- either for reasons of ego, or because her eye is on her next run for President.

My husband had the best response to that view: If Hillary wants to run for President in the future, the most important thing for her to do is an outstanding job as SecState. Why would anyone vote for her if she didn't? So if she takes the job, she'll study hard, work hard, and give it the best she's got. Makes sense to me.

The second concern is a more interesting one. The Secretary of State is the nation's number one diplomat. Yet Hillary is not schooled or versed in international diplomacy and diplo-speak. Of course, she'll be surrounded by deputies who do have the training. But does her lack of actual experience in the area matter?

A quick search on Google tells me the answer is ... no, it doesn't.

Condoleeza Rice had an impressive resume when named George W. Bush's Secretary of State. She'd been on the Stanford faculty since 1981, a highly-regarded Russia expert. She served, during the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, in the senior Bush's Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. But her expertise is in policy; she had no direct diplomatic service experience.

Madeleine Albright had an even more impressive resume before being named Bill Clinton's Secretary of State. She had served as a member of President Clinton's Cabinet and National Security Council, and as the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations. (Does that count as diplomacy??) Before that, she was President of the Center for National Policy, a non-profit research organization formed in 1981 by representatives from government, industry, labor and education to promote the study and discussion of domestic and international issues. Llke Rice, she was a principally a policy expert.

That's enough for me. Clinton, like Rice and Albright, is an incredibly smart, accomplished, hard-working, well-intentioned professional. While she not an expert in foreign policy, she's certainly smart enough to learn, and I have no doubt she'll be surrounded by the best. (In fact, rumors are swirling that Jim Steinberg will be named Deputy SecState and that retired four-star general and former Marine commandant Jim Jones will be named National Security Advisor. Both are apparently extremely well-regarded and tough.)

My conclusion? Clinton knows what's she's getting into and what the pitfalls and risks are. She wants to be the best at whatever she takes on, and she learns from her mistakes. So while I still have nagging doubts and can't say I'm completely comfortable with the idea of Clinton as SecState, I also can't tell you why. I guess I have to conclude that she'll do a terrific job. Time will tell.

What do you think?