The Foghorn

We're Back (and moving)!

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Anthe) — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 09:18:00 +0000

After a very long hiatus, I'm getting back on the blogging bandwagon. For a variety of reasons, I'm moving the blog off of Blogger (lack of development support, limited customization options are a few of the reasons).

I'm also renaming it to something less esoteric - please join me over at Politics in Purple (www.politicsinpurple.com). At PiP my goal is to get past the false choices and empty arguments you see on TV and actually try to get at some of the real issues and choices we face. While I'm still very much liberal in my views, I don't want to be boxed into "liberal"/blue or "conservative"/red labels. Mainly, I don't care that much about the labels, I just want to focus on real problems and get to solutions that work, so I can go back to worrying about other parts of my life. :-)

Please join me and update your bookmarks. Thanks to all of my readers and I hope to hear from you some more!

Does Mayor Nickels have absolutely zero pull in Olympia?

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Anthe) — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 04:59:00 +0000

I've been processing the fact that out of the $300+ million dollars in stimulus money that Washington money is receiving for transportation projects, exactly zero of those dollars are allocated to Seattle. At all. For anything.

Forget bridge repair. Or the viaduct. Or the Mercer street changes. How is it that the single largest city in Washington state is getting none of these dollars for any improvements or repairs?

Nickels seemed to do a lot of huffing and puffing about being left out and not being able to depend on any of these dollars for any projects, but I can't tell if Gregoire and Nickels have some kind of feud going on, or the Seattle delegation to Olympia have no influence, or what is going on, but this does seem very strange.

Does anyone have any thoughts or ideas as to what is going on here?

The Credit Crisis explained visually

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Anthe) — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 09:28:00 +0000

I really have to give credit to Facebook for this one, some friends of mine found this and shared it, and I think it's the best way to explain what happened and how we got here (even better than my earlier attempts to explain it).

It's a 10 minute video that walks through who the players are, how things got out of control, and why we are now in a credit crisis. Check it out, it's a great piece of work.

Some great info on the current banking crisis

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Anthe) — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 09:20:00 +0000

This American Life on NPR ran a great episode explaining the current banking crisis: how we got here, and why it is we are stuck talking about bailing out the banks rather than just letting them fail. The explanation is in plain language, and explains the basics really well. Be sure to check it out.

Gary Locke is a great pick for Commerce secretary

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Anthe) — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 09:17:00 +0000

As someone who moved to Washington state while Locke was governor, I think he is a great pick for Commerce secretary by Obama (way better than Richardson, actually). Locke is a true wonk, a focused administrator who is knowledgable and enjoys working on the details and not needing to be in the limelight. His experience with being governor of Washington state, a very trade-dependent state, will be a big plus for him as Commerce secretary. Nice choice by Obama.

Rush Limbaugh is the keynote speaker of the conservative movement?

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Anthe) — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 09:04:00 +0000

Really? Out of all of the possible folks in the Republican party who could be considered conservative leaders: Romney, Huckabee, the conservative wing of the GOP believes that Rush Limbaugh is their current standard-bearer, and gave him the keynote speaker position at their conference in Washington, D.C.

A man who reiterated in his speech that he hopes Obama fails is not someone that I would think the GOP would want to take their marching orders from. But apparently, the GOP would rather tie itself more strongly to a shrieking, radical base than actually think about governing an entire country.

How could I not blog during the most incredible Presidential election in our lives?

noreply@blogger.com (Charlie Anthe) — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:23:00 +0000

Not really sure, except that between trying to help run a new small business and getting used to a new job, I really didn't have time to do nearly as much as I wanted.

However, now that the elections are over and we're down to the dirty business of actually governning, I have a lot of interest in what's going on. Particuarly more at our local and state levels, as the hard costs required to bring budgets in line will force some hard choices on both our executive and legislative branches at all levels.

There's some unfortuante cuts being made to local service, non-profit, and education programs throughout our region. I'm looking forward to digging into some of the debates going on and bringing them up into the spotlight.

It's 2009 - and now some real hard work begins.

Vice Presidential Debate Drinking Game (Sarah Palin Edition)

noreply@blogger.com (2009 Journal Writer) — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:40:00 +0000

It's too good an opportunity to pass up. Thursday night's match up of Biden v. Palin will be awesome for it's staggering mis-match.

Here are some suggestions to drink along at home with the debate. I recommend having several bottles of your favorite beverages available, this could be a high scoring game.

For Palin

1 drink whenever she refers to the moderator or Biden by her/his first name
1 drink whenever she says "executive" when she means "governor"
1 drink whenever she answers a question about national defense by talking about energy/oil
Heck, 1 drink whenever she answers a question by talking about something else. Make that a shot or a chug if she does it 3+ times in one answer like here:

COURIC: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
PALIN: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

1 drink whenever she can't remember a word
1 drink whenever the moderator helps her out
1 drink whenever she gets called out in a followup question (as in "You never answered the question.")
1 drink whenever she refers to Russia or Canada as "foreign experience"
1 drink whenever she says "thanks but no thanks"
1 drink whenever she refers to herself or McCain as a "maverick"
1 drink whenever she says we have to "reform Washington"
1 drink if she ever promises to "get back to that"
Chug if she ever refers to a "Palin administration"!

For Biden (Note: I haven't watched as much of Biden so I appreciate suggestions)

1 drink whenever he comes off as a know-it-all ("What you don't understand is....")
1 drink whenever you feel like he just should have...stopped....talking......... please stop!
1 drink whenever he smiles while stabbing Palin in the back (metaphorically)
1 drink whenever he mentions growing up in Scranton
1 drink whenever he mentions traveling to a foreign country
1 drink whenever you think about a President Biden versus a President Palin and you get that shiver down your spine....

Please add any suggestions/comments! And have fun at the debate!

How did we get here? Chapter 2

noreply@blogger.com (2009 Journal Writer) — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:23:00 +0000

In Chapter 1, I provided the background of how mortgages were bundled into debt securities called CDOs and then sold out to investment firms everywhere. Housing prices were going up, everyone was making money, and life was good.

Then, a black swan appeared. In mathematical theory, a black swan is an event that is not "supposed" to happen, happens. When it does, it disrupts existing markets and systems in unexpected ways (usually negative).

In this case, the black swan was the rise in interest rates, followed by the rapid rise in the price of oil. The first case caused lenders to start to have to charge more for mortgages, which naturally slowed down the rate of mortgage buyers and refinancers. The price of oil suddenly increased inflation and the price of goods everywhere, making it harder for folks to make mortgage payments.

Combined, these two forces made it a.) more difficult for new homeowners to afford mortgages and b.) vastly increased the mortgage payments for folks in sub-prime "exotic" mortgages, such as ARMs (Adjustable Rate Mortgages), interest-only loans and "pick your payment" loans. Foreclosures started to rise, making those who issued CDOs having to scramble to come up with cash to cover the interest payments owed to CDO holders.

Worse, as foreclosures started to rise and fewer new homeowners entered the market, housing prices started to fall. For those who had purchased homes strictly for "investment" purposes, or for those who the only way they could afford a mortgage was to re-finance it later at a higher price, this was a disaster. Suddenly more people couldn't afford to make their payments, and foreclosures increased again. This enters a negative-feedback loop, where events combine to effectively make market conditions worse.

The end result is suddenly CDO issuers could no longer afford to make interest payments. Those holding CDOs were now stuck with an "asset" (the bond/CDO) that was no longer worth what it was supposed to be worth. On their quarterly financial statements, those CDOs had to have a price. They knew it wasn't worth face value, but they didn't know what they could price it at. Accounting rules stipulate that you have to "mark-to-market", or price assets at what the market says they are worth.

The problem for the companies is: If they mark the CDOs down too low, they'll have to make up the difference somewhere else in order to meet their obligations. For a company that is too heavily invested in CDOs, they have no way to make their books balance. Therefore, they refuse to sell for any price that doesn't work for them in the hopes that prices will eventually rise.

Repeat this problem at enough companies, and the situation you get into is: Nobody wants to sell, because the only price offered is too low. Those buying don't want to offer more because they don't know where the bottom of the market is, if they end up paying too much, they'll end up taking a loss as well. With no one buying or selling, no one is setting a price and the market freezes from fear.

Those with money don't want to lose it, they figure if they wait longer they'll be able to get a better price or less risk. Those without money are desperate to sell, but only for a price that allows them to remain in business, otherwise they'll just hold on to what they have and hope for the best.

Congratulations, you are now in a credit freeze. No one will lend anyone else any money, because they have no guarantee that they'll ever get paid back. Markets work on trust and transparency. If you don't trust you'll ever get paid back or that the item you are purchasing is worth what you paid for it, why conduct business at all?

This would be fine if all it affected were CDO payments, but since these large investment banks are responsible for so many other segments of the economy, the result starts to get really bad. Banks stop buying "commercial paper", or short-term loans that are typically at low interest payments that allow companies to maintain cash flow. Suddenly credit gets much more expensive, this raises interest rates, making it more expensive for all kinds of loans: car loans, business loans, home loans. This crimps the ability for companies to build new building, buy equipment, and hire new employees. The economy starts to grind down to a very slow crawl.

So where does that leave us: Companies that invested too heavily in CDOs have failed, generally because they were unable to raise enough cash flow to keep their day-to-day business running. No one still wants to buy any CDOs, because no one knows what they are worth, so the credit market is still stuck. At this point, any company with a positive cash flow is fine, but anyone who needs additional capital to keep things running is trying to "beat the clock" to keep enough cash until the CDO market unwinds enough for them to effectively figure out how bad things are.

So, how do you fix it? That comes next. :-)

118 days left for the Bush Presidency

noreply@blogger.com (2009 Journal Writer) — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:32:00 +0000

There are now fewer days left in the Bush Presidency then a baseball season. For Christmas my wife gave me a fun gift - a George W. Bush Countdown Calendar, that allows me to count the number of days left, and each day has a fun (or scary) quote or issue from the history of our President.

From Sunday, September 21:

"[President Bush's] aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
-- From "Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush," by Ron Suskind, in the New York Times Magazine, October 17, 2004

Please just read that a few times. Reality is not what you see around you. It's what you say it is. I'll try that on my next speeding ticket.

How did we get here? Republican Economic Policy Disaster, Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (2009 Journal Writer) — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:46:00 +0000

Over the past few days, I've found myself explaining how we've gotten into this economic mess. The question I get from a lot of my friends and acquaintances is "How can banks with billions of dollars be bankrupt?"

It's a valid question, and here I am going to try to translate the complex financial mechanisms that have been going on.

Caveat: I am not an economist, or hold an MBA. I'm just a guy who happens to believe that the confusion most people have with how major finances work allows those in power to manipulate those who are not for their own advantage, leaving millions of us to pay billions for a few who should have known better.

To explain what went wrong, we first have to go into how things are supposed to work.

Imagine Main St. Bank (MSB). MSB has thousands of customers who deposit their paychecks and their savings with them. For this privilege, MSB pays them a small interest rate for their deposits. With these deposits, MSB needs to do something with this money that has been deposited so they can make enough money to pay their depositors' interest, pay for their operations, and make a profit. So, they lend their depositors' money back out to others who need loans.

Here's the first dirty little secret of modern (retail) banking: Banks don't actually have your money. By regulation, most banks only have to keep about 10% of your deposits in reserve, the rest they can then lend out. This is known as fractional-reserve banking, and is a cornerstone of money creation in the economy. Banks, in effect, create money from nothing. This allows capital (money) to be used effectively in keeping the economy moving. If banks had to keep all of their deposits on hand, the money would be tied up and they could not offer loans.

The reason why banks can get away with this is that most people don't actually withdraw all their money, or they do so rarely. Therefore, by keeping 10% on hand in reserve, they can meet the usual needs of their customers who wish to withdraw money and still have loans outstanding. This breaks down if a large percentage of customers all simultaneously decide to withdraw money at the same time: this is known as a bank run (or a run on a bank), and was the cause of a lot of bank failures during the Great Depression. In response, the government created the Federal Depositor Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which is basically an insurance policy for banks. The government guarantees $100,000 of deposits in a bank, so customers have confidence their money is safe even if the bank fails, thus avoiding "panic withdrawals" if a bank is rumored to be failing, which would cause a bank run.

Now imagine Joe. Joe wants to buy a house, so he needs a mortgage. Joe goes to MSB to get a mortgage. MSB has money to lend out, so they loan Joe $100,000 after performing due diligence to make sure Joe can repay the loan. Joe gets $100,000, the bank loses $100,000 in cash but gains a $100,000 loan + interest payments over the life of the loan that it keeps on its balance sheet, and classifies the loan as an asset (since they can plan for it to be repaid).

Here's the first problem: MSB can only hand out so many loans before it hits it's reserve requirement. This means there's a limit to how much money they can make, as once they run out of money to lend they have to either a.) get more depositors or b.) wait for loans to be repaid. This is slow, and may result in qualified candidates not being able to get a loan, and no one wants to turn down business.

Therefore, MSB looks to sell its loan to someone else. It might sell its $100,000 loan to Joe to another bank (let's call them Bigger National Bank or BNB) for $105,000. Why would it do this? Well, MSB would get its $100,000 back, plus a small profit up front. It can now pocket the $5,000 profit and make another $100,000 loan. BNB is betting that Joe will continue to pay the loan for a number of years, allowing them to make more money over the life of the loan, so everyone wins.

BUT, this is still slow. Joe makes payments monthly, but it will take years for this to payoff. In the meantime, BNB is stuck servicing Joe's mortgage, answering his questions, etc. Plus, BNB is out its $105,000 in cash it paid for Joe's mortgage, reducing its own reserve requirements. There are only so many banks that can buy a mortgage, eventually someone has to be stuck holding the mortgage until Joe pays it off.

What gets created now is something new and very untested, a collateralized debt obligation CDO (Note Wikipedia link is technically dense). BNB takes thousands of mortgages like Joe's and combines them into a pool of similar characteristics. It then takes that giant pool of money and creates bonds to hand out to investment groups to purchase. The cash flow from the mortgage payments are used to fund the debt payments on the bonds.

Why is this appealing?

The investors buying the bonds are buying rated-bonds that allow them (in theory) to accurately price risk while achieving profit rates that were above the market average.
The banks free up additional capital to issue new mortgages. This is appealing because the commercial banks need to maintain adequate reserves, and want to make a profit on the mortgage rates (which were high as they went deeper into sub-prime borrowers). The investment banks made money on the packaging and issuing of CDOs.

Therefore, all the major financial players had an interest in increasing the number and amount of CDO issuances. Everyone was making a lot of money on the issuing of mortgages and CDOs. CDO issuances in the US jumped from nearly nothing in the 1990s to $157 billion in 2004 to $503 billion in 2006.

Because these CDOs are unregulated, there is no government accountability or requirements to ensure that adequate reserves or safeguards were in place should unforeseen events occur. Therefore, while there was unlimited upside to this market, there was also unlimited downside.

Can you see the problem? The entire system only works as long as a.) housing prices continue to increase and b.) new mortgages are issued to feed the machine of CDO issuances. Should either of these decline, the entire system starts to fall apart. (Although if the number of issuance went down, just profits would be affected, the existing CDOs would still hold their value).

Next post: A black swan appears.

How we got here

noreply@blogger.com (2009 Journal Writer) — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 06:49:00 +0000

Is it OK if I say I told you so?

Back in January I posted about how the Republican-led repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act had created the framework for our mortgage bubble fiasco. Back then, the problem was just record foreclosures and billion dollar losses. Now, the issue has grown to the demise of a number of investment banks, the complete collapse of the US credit market, and the need for a half trillion dollar government bailout. Funny how the earlier problems seemed so quaint today.

I didn't foresee this level of disaster, but certainly it's further proof that the era of deregulation is over (thank God). I'm actually surprised the Obama campaign hasn't made more hay out of this issue - the Act that repealed Glass-Steagall was sponsored by Sen. Phil Gramm, who was Sen. McCain's economic advisor until his recent "whiners" comment. McCain also voted for the final version of the bill.

I'm just really surprised Obama isn't pushing a comprehensive plan for the economy. I know he has one, but I'm not hearing a coherent message. Maybe it will be revealed during the debates, but it's clear McCain has no idea how to handle an economic crisis. With the emphasis off of Palin (finally!) and back onto domestic issues, it would seem the perfect time to seal the deal. Bush, for all of his MBA credentials, has no idea how to handle a situation where he can't just sit back and let "the market work", which is why you see him making 5 minute speeches and leaving the heavy lifting to Bernanke and Paulson. I think Bush may actually realize he has no idea what he's doing, at least leaving things to folks who have a clue. It may be the first smart decision he's made, too bad it took 8 years for him to figure it out.

Yes, the Republicans are angry, and that's all they are

noreply@blogger.com (2009 Journal Writer) — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:17:00 +0000

Apparently I'm not the only one who noticed that the RNC speeches seemed to feature a lot of sound, fury and anger. Paul Krugman over at the New York Times has an op-ed piece today pointing out the same concepts:

On Tuesday, He Who Must Not Be Named — Mitt Romney mentioned him just once, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin not at all — gave a video address to the Republican National Convention. John McCain, promised President Bush, would stand up to the
“angry left.” That’s no doubt true. But don’t be fooled either by Mr. McCain’s long-ago reputation as a maverick or by Ms. Palin’s appealing persona: the Republican Party, now more than ever, is firmly in the hands of the angry right, which has always been much bigger, much more influential and much angrier than its counterpart on the other side...
What the G.O.P. is selling, in other words, is the pure politics of resentment; you’re supposed to vote Republican to stick it to an elite that thinks it’s better than you. Or to put it another way, the G.O.P. is still the party of Nixon.

Apparently when you're out of ideas (or worse, your ideas have been proven disastrous), just getting angry is the way to go. Liberals, the media, the "elite", all vague boogeymen that are easier to blame than doing some hard self-assessment and dumping what doesn't work (deficit spending, focus on wealth instead of income, rampant deregulation without safeguards).

Maybe Republicans are just mourning, moving through Denial (2006 election) and Anger (today). Hopefully soon we'll get to Bargaining (if I accept gays I can still be sexist and anti-abortion!). I hate to see what a Depressed Republican party would look like in 2010. I think Acceptance is still probably at least another full election cycle away.

Eh

noreply@blogger.com (2009 Journal Writer) — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 07:10:00 +0000

That pretty much sums up my reaction after McCain's speech tonight. Not a word about the economy, or what he plans to do about it. Not really a word about health care, other than just to say that Obama wants to put the government between you and your doctor (funny how they don't mention that part when they talk about abortion).

Instead, a lot about his personal values. I respect and admire those values, but I don't vote someone for President on those alone. That's how we got Bush, remember?

Really, it just seems like 2000 all over again. The Republicans can't campaign on the economy (back then it was going well and the Democrats were in charge), so we get a lot of talk about values and principles, which are well and good, but I don't buy that McCain is the only guy with values. Obama spoke to his own values at length, so I don't see how this is a win for McCain -other than it keeps us from talking about Iraq, the economy, and how they are related.

If Obama wants to tie McCain to Bush, let's just go back to 2000. McCain was running then too, and Bush talked about honor and dignity to the White House. I'll trade those in for competence and results now, thanks, and I think that's all Obama has to do for the next 60 days to crush McCain.

Can our expectations for candidates & government get any lower?

noreply@blogger.com (2009 Journal Writer) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:32:00 +0000

Coming into Sarah Palin's acceptance speech at the RNC, many pundits were already lowering the bar so low that pretty much her just showing up without wearing a burqa would probably be hailed as "successfully introducing herself to the American people".

This got me thinking about the expectations on the DNC speakers. Personally, I found the speeches by Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton to all be way more dynamic, engaging, comprehensive, and effective. Obama had an awesome speech. Yet for each of these speakers, not only were the expectations super high, but pundits spent hours debating them and knocking them down.

Hillary endorsed Obama but wasn't effusive in her praise for him or his readiness to be commander-in-chief. Michelle was too fluffy. And for Obama himself, he got dinged for "not taking advantage of the moment in history", for being too detailed, too vague, and not wowing the crowd the way he did in 2004. In all of these, it's as if Democrats have to continue to prove that they're worthy of being serious candidates.

Yet for the Republican party, the standards seem to get lower and lower. In 2000 and 2004, the expectations for Bush got so low as to be ridiculous. Everyone already decided he couldn't compete with Gore or Kerry, so when he actually managed to sound intelligent, all of a sudden Bush was a big winner.

Now with Palin, we're talking about the quality of one speech instead of her actual qualifications. Somehow the Republicans have the balls to say that the press has asked too much about how being mayor of a small town and governor of a state with a population smaller than my hometown (for 18 months!) is qualified to be Vice-President. Too much? She hasn't even had any interviews with any media publications (unless you count People).

And every time the Republicans mock Democrats as "liberal elitists", I just get mad. Somehow being educated and deliberative became a liability to be President?! How the hell did that happen? If I became a CEO of a Fortune 500 company and I stated my qualification as being a small business owner for 12 months, would that appease shareholders? Doubtful - those same Republican shareholders would be the first ones filing shareholder lawsuits against me and the board of that company. (Hope tort reform doesn't pass)

When will the media, and the rest of the country for that matter, have the courage to stand up and say we want to have higher standards for our leaders and candidates and actually hold them to those standards? And when candidates don't pass the sniff test, we should continue to ask - Why? Why are you qualified? Why should and I other people vote for you?

Asking Why isn't being elitist. It's not abrogating my responsibility to be an engaged citizen. And I'm not going to stop anytime soon.

Is it just me, or are Republicans sounding angry with empty fury?

noreply@blogger.com (2009 Journal Writer) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:21:00 +0000

On my way home from work I listened to Mitt Romney's speech at the RNC in the car (I missed Sarah Palin's speech, but I got the gist from all the commentary).

Listening in the car, without the guided imagery of a television broadcast, a couple of thoughts came to me that seemed to continue the more Romney spoke.

First, the convention hall sounded very empty. Compared with all of the speeches at the DNC, with roars of approval at multiple stages, when there was applause or yelling in Romney's speech, it sounded like 100 people in a huge, empty hall. It really sounded sad, more than anything else. For all the fire and brimstone that gets thrown out during a typical RNC, the volume of the crowd seemed pip-squeak compared to the DNC. It actually just seemed sad more than anything else.

Second, Romney's speech seemed focus on the typical Republican boogeymen of wasteful spending, liberal elite, and tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. Is there really nothing new in thinking from the Republican party? I'm not Republican, so this type of pep talk doesn't really inspire me, but is this really the best the Republican party can offer? The same solutions that we've had for the last 8 years?

And speaking of the same tired tale, I just didn't get what the heck Romney was talking about. He talked about a liberal Washington, except... haven't the Republicans been running Washington for the past 8 years? They controlled both Congress and the White House from 2002-2006. They got their tax cuts, but they also passed the largest increase in entitlements in the past 50 years (Medicare Part D). So, who exactly is Romney railing against? His own party? Does he really think most voters won't put these 2 things together? For that matter, do the rest of Republicans think that?

I just don't get it. Everything Romney railed against was government as of today, except the government today is (and has been), a Republican one! This is a presidential convention, right? We're nominating a presidential candidate? So aren't we railing against the current President? The one named Bush?

So I don't get it, other than just Romney and other Republicans are not angry at Democrats in particular, they're just.... angry. Period.

And empty anger is just something I'm not buying, and I doubt most American voters are either.

Schultz withdraws his lawsuit; last of Sonics Saga is over

noreply@blogger.com (2009 Journal Writer) — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 05:56:00 +0000

Today came the official announcement that former Sonics owner Howard Schultz has voluntarily withdrawn his lawsuit seeking redress of his sale of the Sonics to owner Clay Bennett due to negotiating in bad faith. According to Schultz, recent decisions by the judge made the viability of the suit DOA.

Really, the lawsuit died once the city settled with the Sonics ownership. The likelihood of a federal judge deciding to unwind the sale since the city settled was nil. Possession is 9/10th of the law, and with the team now no longer occupying Key Arena, nothing was going to bring them back.

I was gung-ho when Schultz first announced his lawsuit, although even then I was a bit suspicious that a savvy businessman like Schultz couldn't see the obvious fact that Bennett and Co. wanted to move the team to Oklahoma and were only going to do the minimum required amount of effort to satisfy their legal obligations and get them out of the lease. But, now I'm yawning. Whatever, the Sonics are gone. Good riddance. I just renewed my Seattle Storm season tickets - a team with gold and silver Olympic medalists - that's a quality team!

More on Palin

noreply@blogger.com (2009 Journal Writer) — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 07:20:00 +0000

I will give McCain one kudos on his pick, he's got everyone talking about it, and that means no one is really talking about Obama. Where in the world are Obama and Biden today? Swing state Pennsylvania, although I doubt many folks know that.

But after about a day or two to digest the announcement, I'm convinced this pick is going to implode in McCain's face, and I'm already looking forward to the front row seats everyone is going to have to this when it does. Can someone dim the lights and bring the popcorn?

First, there's the obvious pandering move. It's one thing to want to go after women's votes and Hillary's disaffected (still? really, grow up - you lost) fans, but Palin has nothing in common with the vast majority of Hillary's supporters. Pro-life, pro-gun - anyone who does a modicum of research will find nothing to transfer their Hillary support to Palin, except, of course, for her gender, which is so transparent a pander that it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

Next, there's the fact that Palin actually limits McCain's attacks on Obama. McCain seemed to be getting traction on his attacks on Obama's unreadiness to be President, yet he has now selected a VP with even less experience than Obama. 18 months as Governor of a state few could find on a map that doesn't have it next to Hawaii in the corner, before that mayor of a town of 9,000. So don't expect to hear a whole lot about experience anymore. If McCain wants to argue Palin is ready for the job, he'll have to shut up about Obama's resume. Good news there.

Third, how the hell was she vetted by the McCain camp? Certainly not by McCain himself, who apparently has admitted he has spoken to Palin all of one time before offering her the VP job. Are you serious? Then there's the current ethics investigation into Palin. This one looks juicy, it involves improper influence, family, a messy divorce - I can almost see it on an episode of Cops. I'm not one to normally pry into people's private lives, except, well, McCain and Palin have put them front and center. Palin has obviously never been on the national stage before, and no one from the press was seriously looking at her resume or history before Friday. I'll guarantee you there are dozens of journalists trying to figure out how to book flights to Anchorage (hint: go through Seattle), who will start pouring through public records, talking to neighbors, friends, and not-so-friends. Expect stories to drip out of Alaska, then start to pour. McCain won't be able to get his message out if he's constantly defending his VP. (psst - it's already happening)

Fourth, it really, really highlights McCain's age. When you look at McCain and Palin on the same stage, I'm not sure whether to laugh or shudder and turn away. McCain makes Palin look like she's 25, and she makes McCain look 80 (at least that one's not so far off). The contrast just highlights all the other issues that her pick creates.

Finally, it's going to make the VP debate a lot of fun to watch. The YouTube clips of Biden chiding Palin on her naivety on matters of international relations or domestic policy will be up within hours and circulating around the Internet.

Goldy over at HorsesAss thinks Palin is being underestimated and will make the race a lot more competitive. I respect his opinion, but I think he's dead wrong. Goldy says Palin helps make sure Alaska stays a red state, saying polls show it was competitive. Here's a news flash: If Alaska is in play the election is already an Obama rout, so it doesn't matter. Also, she helps lock in the base. Well, OK. But there were a lot of other potential candidates that could do that too, so I still don't buy it.

In short, I applaud McCain for the historic choice, making this election guaranteed to break at least one gender or racial barrier (thanks for coming to the show 24 years after the Democrats, by-the-by), and I thank him for quite possibly one of the most bone-headed selections ever.

Shh.... the show is starting...

What an awesome DNC

noreply@blogger.com (2009 Journal Writer) — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:02:00 +0000

As an intrigued TV observer, I have to say - Wow. What a great 4 days. We had the emotional, the personal, the healing, and the red meat. Lots of red meat. :-)

And how did John McCain respond? I guess by trying to throw some red meat to the right-wing conservative portion of the Republican Party. Because that's all he's going to get out of picking Palin as his VP.

Forget Hillary supporters. They didn't put their heart and soul into their candidate to throw it to a woman who a.) was a teenager when most of them were fighting for women's rights and b.) stands for everything they believe against.

At first I thought McCain's choice was savvy - it diminishes the historic nature of Obama's candidacy by making both campaigns historic. Then I actually started to read Palin's resume, and I was thinking, are you kidding me?

Mayor of a town of 9,000. A governor for 18 months. By that standard, I think I'm vice-presidential material. I'm sure there's more to come but for now, I think the Democratic National Convention did everything it needed to do and more to propel Obama into the general election. Way to go!

Makeda Coffee Grand Opening!

noreply@blogger.com (2009 Journal Writer) — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 04:23:00 +0000

I have to take a moment to give a shout-out to Makeda Coffee. This is the coffee shop my wife and I have started, and we're having our Grand Opening celebration this weekend. We have a bunch of fun events going on Saturday and Sunday.

We're at 78th and Greenwood, right around the corner from Pete's Eggnest and Gorgeous George's. Please stop by!

The end of the Sonics Saga

noreply@blogger.com (2009 Journal Writer) — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 03:54:00 +0000

What a letdown. After all the drama, all the arguing, the posturing, the millions in legal fees, the dueling press conferences, the subpoenaed e-mails, the backstabbing, the backroom plotting, this is what we're left with. It almost feels like the ending to a season of 24 - the week to week suspense builds up higher than any ending could satisfactorily give us.

Art Thiel has his laments on the duplicity of the characters involved, namely the city, in stating that the Sonics were an invaluable resource that money could never replace. I still think they honestly believe that, but I think they honestly made the best deal they could under the circumstances.

What was really the best case scenario? The city wins, the Sonics are a lame duck team for 2 seasons. What are the odds the state legislature is going to cough up a couple hundred million in the midst of a national recession and a looming budget shortfall? Especially when we still don't have a plan for the 520 bridge or the viaduct? The city would still not make enough money to cover the bonds on the arena renovation, the Sonics would still leave in 2 years, with everyone a bit poorer and bitter(er)? At least this way the city gets as much money as we could reasonably expect, we pay off our debt, and try to move on.

The part I don't get is why the hell settle now? Why wait until minutes before the decision of a trial that has humiliated everyone? The city looked like the Bad News Bears, taking a sure thing and doing everything possible to lose it, or at least look like idiots. Maybe it was the six straight days of the judge questioning the maturity of the city's attorneys that made the city blink. Thiel has it right that it would have better to settle and let everyone look a lot more mature. As it is now, K&L Gates looks like a bunch of amateurs (who may end up losing their city business, or at least has some serious ethical make up work to do), the mayor and council look like a bunch of two-faced politicians (it's just sadder when it's on display so blatantly), and a whole bunch of fans who got their hopes out that the city was their for them now end up holding a big fat bag of resentment. Don't be surprised if this comes back to bite Nickels in the ass come re-election time. Sports fans remember, and they vote.

So really, I feel like the city made the right decision at the wrong time. The better thing would have been to be honest up front "Look, these guys are a bunch of liars and we're going to wring every dollar out of them we can, keep the Sonics history here in Seattle, and push for a new team." Instead, they decided they got swindled, and they wanted to take their revenge out, which might have some emotional value but little realistic purpose. Except if you're going for revenge, you have to friggin' go all the way. You can't go to a bunch of effort and then give up!

Oh well, at least we have the Mariners.

Nothing Bush does or says anymore surprises me

noreply@blogger.com (2009 Journal Writer) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 06:52:00 +0000

Just this past week Addington and Yoo, 2 architects of the Bush administration's torture policy, were summoned to Capitol Hill to testify about how, exactly, the policy that has now been decried and revoked ever made its way to official sanctioning. Yeah, good luck figuring that one out.

On my desk I keep a daily calendar that my wife gave me as a Christmas gift with a countdown of days until Bush leaves office (still over 200!), and each day is another Bush-ism or ridiculous idea or action. And, I wish I could still get outraged anymore. But I just can't. I'm outraged-out (outrage-fatigue?)

It's just that as shocking as anything is, the fact that this guy and his cronies are still in office and will be until January 20th, 2009, is just a fact I've learned to accept for my own blood pressure. I mean, when it gets so bad that you refuse to open an email in order to avoid reading about an environmental policy your own EPA says it recommends, and then insist on them sending another (more ineffective) one to meet your own political agenda, that just is really sad.

If you wonder why it is government can be so ineffective, imagine you worked at the EPA. You really believed in trying to make our environment better while taking into consideration the needs of people and businesses. You labor for years to craft comprehensive, well thought out recommendations to our leaders to review, comment on, argue about, and finally implement in some way or another. And then, when you're finally ready to have it reviewed by our highest leader, he not only rejects it, he refuses to even read it! And insists you throw away all your work and come up with something more "business friendly". What would you do? Would you stay and craft up something you didn't even believe in to meet a particular political agenda, or would you go someplace where your experience and expertise were respected, leaving a political hack to take your place and come up with political hack policies and laws?

Guess which one we have right now. Guess why.

So, we have an economic policy that was blind to facts and experience and based on political expediency, and it got us a housing meltdown and a financial crisis. We have a foreign policy based not on reality but on "looking into a man's eyes" (and determining Putin was a man to be trusted as he re-creates the Soviet Union in his own image) or invading a country that posed no immediate threat to us, and it's got our army trashed and us spending $2 trillion to find no weapons of mass destruction and a hotbed of terrorist training ground. And the list goes on and on and on.

So, no, I'm not really surprised. Sad. And counting the days one by one at my desk.

Sonics Trial: The Greatest Show on Earth!

noreply@blogger.com (2009 Journal Writer) — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 17:03:00 +0000

With the possible exception of Tiger Woods' incredible story winning the 2008 US Open at Torrey Pines this year (I'm a golf fanatic, so you'll have to give me a break), I think the most fascinating and fun story in sports right now is the Sonics trial happening in US Federal Court this week.

Cubs v. White Sox? Blah.
Celtics v. Lakers? Been there, done that.

In fact, the NBA might get better ratings by hyping up the trial rather than the blow out that was the NBA Finals this year. I mean, come on, insider e-mails, nefarious plots, backstabbing characters, it's better than a Robert Ludlum novel.

So far, we've had Clay Bennett up on the stand trying to say with a straight face that he was "possessed" about keeping the Sonics in Seattle (to an ownership group that had just sunk a few hundred million into a mediocre team 2000 miles away), while just days later asking the NBA about an early move. Either that or he can't read a balance sheet when deciding to purchase the team, buying a known losing team (both franchise and financially) with a locked-in lease until 2010.

(side note: Kudos to the Seattle Times for their awesome pic of Bennett in court with his chin jut - not since Jack Abramoff showed up to court wearing his fedora/pin stripe 1930s Chicago gangster look has a defendant looked so guilty at the start. Way to go for the hometown cropping...)

Then, in the past few days, we've had back room conspiracies involving the city of Seattle, Ballmer, McGraw, Nickels, and others all trying to bleed Bennett dry to try and force a sale of the team. OMG, there were PowerPoint presentations! Surely this is how the evil geniuses at SPECTRE plotted their evil plans.

I mean, seriously, the NBA Finals had nothing on this. Yawn. Stern would do better to bribe the judge to allow cameras in the trial, add 2 FOX News talking heads, and use it as a scare tactic for any other city thinking about not funding their next stadium renovation. "What's that? You don't want to pony up $200 million in taxpayer dollars? Well, we can air your dirty laundry just like Seattle!"

I'm more in shock that somehow these two sides didn't settle. Both had to know they had dirty laundry that they didn't want to see in the light of day. This is a court fight in uncharted territory, meaning anything can happen, and probably will. I'm not a lawyer, but there's probably little case law in this particular matter, so I'm guessing that gives the judge wide latitude to decide the case, with little hope for appeal to whichever side loses (which will probably be both, in some way).

And I gotta think the Howard Schultz attorneys are hurling curses at the city for their bungling attempts to manipulate the situation. The same judge will be presiding over their suit some months from now, meaning that if the judge decides now that both sides have acted in bad faith, she may find little sympathy for Schultz to try and un-do the sale. The city fired the one bullet in the gun available, and missed.... badly.

Obama "bump" starts to appear

noreply@blogger.com (2009 Journal Writer) — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:16:00 +0000

The most recent tracking polls from both Gallup and Rasmussen (taken from 6/7 - 6/9) both show Obama with a 7 point lead against McCain. What's interesting about these is that they cover both likely voters and registered voters (likely voter samples tend to be more accurate). It will be interesting to see if Obama's lead over McCain widens more over the next several days.

The punditry is saying Obama should be able to open up a double digit lead on McCain. In the expectations game I'm not sure if that's reasonable, but we'll have to see what comes out.

Will he? Will she?

noreply@blogger.com (2009 Journal Writer) — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 06:45:00 +0000

The current favorite political game right now is the veep-stakes, where we spend countless hours debating who each of the presidential candidates will pick as a running mate based mainly on their sole qualification of not screwing them over in the election and then completely ignoring them once in office (Dick Cheney being the obvious exception).

Picking a VP seems a lot like getting married, only there's no honeymoon and as soon as the wedding is over you move to separate bedrooms (heck, forget bedrooms - separate homes!)

I don't know anyone who's picked a presidential ticket because of the VP ("I may not like Nixon but that Agnew character is my kind of guy..."), so this whole exercise is really just a fun parlour game to play to get us through until the conventions get closer.

I predicted a while ago that if Obama becomes the nominee, McCain will be forced to move further to the right in his VP pick because he won't be able to depend on the conservative vote as much as he could if Clinton were the nominee. Namely because the irrational Clinton hatred by the right wouldn't be a motivator to get conservatives to get past their ambivalence around McCain.

Which makes an interesting proposition for Obama. Clinton has (finally) gracefully bowed out of the nomination race. Everyone is now waiting to see if Obama will offer her the VP spot. Clinton is dropping hints she would take it if offered. And recent polls show a majority of Democrats would prefer an Obama/Clinton ticket.

All of which is meaningless, and really dangerous territory.

1. It doesn't matter what a majority of Democrats want as the ticket. Because you don't win a national election by winning a majority of Democrats - you win by winning a majority of voters. And a whole heck of a lot of voters (for reasons I won't explain, defend, or argue) hate Clinton. I mean hate hate. It would seem fool-hardy for Obama, after winning the nomination and promising "Change" to now bring back the single most polarizing figure in national politics in the previous decade.

2. Would Hillary really want to be VP? Vice Presidents don't get to do much but hope (very quietly) that their counterpart offs and dies (after the election, obviously). You don't get to pass legislation, or hold hearings, or even give speeches that will be on C-SPAN 2. Nor do you get to run the government or anything else interesting. I think most folks want the role of VP to go back to the meaningless figurehead it's been for generations and not continue the Dick Cheney "shadow government" role for the VP. So why would Hillary want to go into exile? Do you really think she'd willingly take the role of dutiful subordinate? It (almost) sounds like her role as First Lady - why would she want to take that step backwards from where she is today?

No, the much better role for Clinton is either back in the Senate, burnishing her credentials, or I think even better would be in a Cabinet post. I can see Clinton as an excellent Secretary of Labor, or Education, or Health & Human Services. Could you see Clinton working to drive universal health care, only succeeding this time? It's an executive role that honors her service and experience.

Fortunately, Obama seems to know this. He's a sharp operator (one of many reasons why he'll be a good President). He's not going to pander for the short term solution, but he also needs to maintain the loyalty of Hillary's die-hard supporters. So I see him thinking about the VP spot for a while, and then quietly asking Hillary for a cabinet spot. It'll be up to her if she wants to take it or stay in the Senate.

But I'd like to see more of Hillary's die-hard supporters understand that her weaknesses as a candidate are exacerbated in the VP slot, and it's probably not in the best interests of the party for her to be the VP. But she has plenty of additional opportunities ahead of her in the near future.