Maybe the bailout needs a better name

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”
- Romeo and Juliet

Maybe the bailout failed to pass because it didn’t have a good name. You remember, whenever the Bush administration really wanted to sell something to the American people they would create a campaign, tell us anything but the truth, and give it a name to rally around. Who can forget some Iraqi war favorites:

Operation Iraqi Freedom
Operation Enduring Freedom
Operation Desert Storm
Operation Anaconda
Operation Red Dawn

Well it seems that this time the Bush administration forgot. Or maybe the name person in the administration quit. Anyway here are a few we could use to help rally the American people before the bailout bill goes back to congress for another vote:

Operation Go For Broke
Operation Hand It Over
Operation Last Red Cent
Operation Takeover

Anyway if you can think of more please send them in or post a comment and I’ll add them to the list.

Contributors:
Operation Regulation Transformation

UPDATE: Today TIME.COM (10/1/08) recommended renaming the bailout bill to help sell it to the American people. Do you think they read this blog?

Digg my article

The financial crisis, Deja vu?

I’ve tried to read about the current financial crises in order to learn how this thing came about and where it may be going. The one thing I learned is that while I’m certainly no expert about financial matters, neither are the so-called financial experts. You know all those MBAs at the investment firms who worked 12 hours a day creating deals and new formulas for pushing more paper around.  So here’s a little bit of history that I learned:

In the late 1920′s people borrowed money from their brokers to buy stock; sometimes small investors were loaned more than 66% of the value of the stock being bought. This speculation pushed stock  prices higher creating a bubble. Brokers were happy to lend the money because the market was going up and they believed they would get their money back when people sold at higher share prices. More people, even those who could not really afford it or even had money were able to borrow, join in, and buy stock. People became millionaires and believed this could go on forever. Then in early September 1929, stock prices started to decline. People couldn’t repay their  brokers or get more money to buy stock. In the weeks that followed the market saw wild swings of up and down days. Well we all know what happened, at least some of us do.

It seems all the MBAs working in government and our financial institutions were out on the day they taught economic history in business school.  Now let’s edit that paragraph a little:

In the early 2000′s more and more people were able to borrow money from their brokers/banks to buy homes. This speculation pushed home prices higher creating a bubble. Brokers and banks were eager to lend more money because the housing market was going up and they believed they would get their money back when the homes were sold. More people, even those without good credit or even income , joined in and got mortgages to buy homes. Everyone was becoming a homeowner. When people couldn’t pay their mortgage they simply refinanced and used the money to pay for the new mortgage. They all believed this could go on forever. Then in 2006, home prices started to decline. People couldn’t pay their  mortgage or refinance to get money to pay the new mortgages. Well we’re all going to see what happens now.

I think Tome Wolfe recognized exactly what was going on on Wall Street in the late 1980s and described it best in Bonfire of the Vanities. Here Sherman’s wife Judy eloquently describes to their son what daddy does:
“Darling, Daddy doesn’t build roads or hospitals or anything, really. Daddy just handles the bonds for the people who raise the money…See, just imagine that a bond is a slice of cake. Now you didn’t bake that cake, but every time you hand somebody a slice of that cake, a little bit comes off, little crumbs fall off. And you’re allowed to keep those crumbs…And that’s what Daddy does. He passes somebody else’s cake around and picks up the crumbs. But you have to imagine a lot of crumbs. And a great golden cake. And a lot of golden crumbs. And you have to imagine Daddy running around picking up every little golden crumb he can get his hands on. That’s what Daddy does.”

So perhaps on a deeper level this is how America has gone astray. Sometime in the 1980′s instead of wanting to build and create things too many young men and women went to college studying how to pick up the crumbs. What’s even sadder they were convinced that crumbs from their crumbs would “trickle down” and build America! Now there are very few crumbs.

Just to clear things up

Just in case you have not seen this e-mail here is how the republicans have clarified the candidate’s differences:

  • If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you’re exotic, different; vs Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers,  a quintessential American story.
  • If your name is Barack you’re a radical, unpatriotic Muslim; vs Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you’re a maverick.
  • Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable vs Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you’re well grounded.
  • If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor,  spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate’s Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of  13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran’s Affairs committees, you don’t have any real leadership experience  vs If your total resume is: local weather girl,  4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor   of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,00 people, then you’re qualified to become the country’s second highest ranking executive.
  • If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you’re not a real Christian; vs If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you’re a Christian.
  • If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society vs If , while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state’s school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you’re very responsible.
  • If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family’s values don’t represent America’s; vs If you’re husband is nicknamed ‘First Dude’,  with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn’t register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

OK, much clearer now?

The “Change Conservative”

John McCain is truly a maverick of change.  He keeps changing what he says. On Monday he said that “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.” On Tuesday he changed that to “the workers of America are the fundamentals of our economy, and our strength and our future.” But on January 18th he said, “I believe the fundamentals of this economy are strong and I believe they will remain strong.” So it seems he likes to change back and forth. He needs to because when it comes to the economy he also said,“The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.”

Well John McCain has changed again. Throughout his career he’s been a proponent of deregulation saying in an interview with the Wall Street Journal “I’m always for less regulation,” he also said “I’d like to see a lot of the unnecessary government regulations eliminated.”

One example is when McCain helped his republican-dominated congress push through The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act aimed to make the country’s financial institutions competitive by removing the Depression-era walls (regulations) between banking, investment and insurance companies. This bill helped pave the way for companies such as AIG and Lehman Brothers to become behemoths laden with bad loans and investments. But ow he’s changed and calling for more regulation and oversight of the intuitions he helped to deregulate.

The “Change Conservative”, that’s as much an oxymoron as the “Compassionate Conservative.”

He’s more like a quick change artist!

Don’t go changing, to try and please me
—Billy Joel

Masters of distraction

It never ceases to amaze me how good the GOP is at distracting the public from the issues. Instead they get the press to spend the day focusing on a “lipstick” comment (taken out of context) or the Palin phenomenon. Just cross another day off the campaign trail.

The GOP seems to be able to keep the press talking about anything but healthcare, the economy, foreclosures, social security, education and how a republican administration and congress took a trillion dollar surplus and turned it into a half a trillion dollar deficit.  What worries me is how many people are buying it. Time will tell, but we’re running out of it.

Conservatives and change

Suddenly John McCain, a proud, self-proclaimed life-long conservative, is touting being the true maverick of change. But isn’t that opposed to the true ideology of being conservative which is defined as:
“con·ser·va·tive
(\kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\) disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.”

In the past John McCain has also been proudly labeled as an ultra-(going beyond others or beyond due limit“) conservative.

So now he’s become the maverick of change. Does that mean he is no longer a conservative? That he has abandoned belief that has been the foundation of his entire career? What is he? What is even more bizarre are all the conservatives and ultraconservatives cheering him.

Eight years ago a “Compassionate Conservative” fooled America; Now it looks like the “Change Conservative” is picking up where he left off.

Digg my article