From this morning’s Wall Street Journal:

‘No’ Votes Came From All Directions

The fatal “no” votes to the financial rescue package came from a strange-bedfellows coalition of lawmakers, from the most conservative to the most liberal members of the House, with a large number of representatives from low-income districts angry that Wall Street seems to be getting handouts while people getting tossed out of homes would get minimal aid.

One common strand that tied some of the diverse opponents together: a tough re-election fight. Eighteen of the 21 most vulnerable Republicans up for re-election, and 10 of the 15 Democrats in the closest races voted against the $700 billion financial rescue, illustrating the political hazards of bailing out Wall Street without offering an equally generous hand to taxpayers.

To me, this illustrates that the members of the House aren’t really thinking about doing what’s best for the country, even if it’s unpopular, but just care about protecting their jobs. It does make me wonder how many of those “no” votes would have been “yes” votes if we weren’t only 5 weeks from Election Day?

As Juvenal said in Roman times, “Two things only the people anxiously desire — bread and circuses.”

If everything was left solely to the people, do you think we’d be paying any taxes? But without tax revenue, how would vital government programs, such as say … Defense … be funded? Taxes are not popular, but are vitally important to ensure that our government can continue to function.

Putting together a plan, even an initially flawed plan that can be revised down the road, is vital to getting our economy back on track. The current ad hoc approach causes more uncertainty, more panic, more consolidation, less competition, and certainly doesn’t seem to be working.

What is going to happen if the Citigroup, Bank of America, and JP Morgan Chase acquisitions of WaMu, Wachovia, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch lead to their own financial troubles?

Sec 8. Minimization of Long-Term Costs and Maximization of Benefits for Taxpayers.

(a) Long-Term Costs and Benefits.–The Secretary shall use the authority under this Act in a manner that will minimize any potential long-term negative impact on the taxpayer, taking into account the direct outlays, potential long-term returns on assets purchased, and the overall economic benefits of the program, including through improving the economic activity and the availability of credit, limiting losses to the savings and pensions of individuals, and reducing losses to the Government.

(b) Use of Market Mechanisms.–In making purchases under this Act, the Secretary shall maximize the efficiency of its use of taxpayer resources in making purchases by using market mechanisms, including auctions or reverse auctions, where appropriate.

(c) Direct Purchases.–Where the Secretary determines that the purposes of the Act are best met through direct purchases from an individual Financial Institution where no bidding process or market prices are available, the Secretary shall pursue additional measures to (a) ensure that prices paid for assets are reasonable; and (b) share potential benefits or losses of the purchase to the Financial Institution, including, but not limited to, warrants, loss participations, or other similar mechanisms. In determining whether to engage in a direct purchase from an individual Financial Institution, the Secretary shall consider the strength of the Financial Institution in determining whether the purchase represents the most efficient use of funds under this Act.

This should ease some people’s concerns about Paulson making decisions without any review.

Update 09/24/2008: The former Section 8 is now Section 12, and has been expanded to 39 words. There is no way I’m going to support the Paulson Plan unless there is some sort of review and oversight process.

Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention - Yahoo! News

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth.

Some examples:

PALIN: “I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending … and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress ‘thanks but no thanks’ for that Bridge to Nowhere.”

THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a “bridge to nowhere.”

When she was running for governor in 2006, Palin said she was insulted by the term “bridge to nowhere,” according to Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein, a Democrat, and Mike Elerding, a Republican who was Palin’s campaign coordinator in the southeast Alaska city.

So she was for the bridge before she was against it.

And while she did cancel the bridge project after she was elected, $223 million in funds had already been allocated to Sarah Palin’s Alaska, were delivered and accepted by Sarah Palin’s Alaska, and have yet to be returned to the Federal Government by Sarah Palin’s Alaska.

And while Mayor of Wasilla, she hired the town’s first ever lobbyist, who secured over $27MM in Congressional earmarks for the town; earmarks which were specifically condemned by Senator McCain.

I guess she was for earmarks, before she was against them.

PALIN: “There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate.”

THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. To demean that accomplishment would be to also demean the work of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign policy voice in the Senate. In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation.

Gosh! Look at that! Major legislation co-sponsored in a bi-partisan manner!

That major ethics reform legistion? That’s the FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2006, introduced on 4/6/2006 by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), with three initial co-sponsors: Barack Obama (D-IL), Thomas R. Carper (D-DE), and JOHN S MCCAIN (R-AZ).

I guess Governor Palin doesn’t consider ethics reform legislation co-sponsored by her running mate to be a major legislation … I guess because Senator Obama’s name is on the bill as well.

PALIN: “The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.”

THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama’s plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain’s plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.

Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.

He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.

A small business that makes more than $250,000 a year is doing pretty well, when you consider that “making money” means net profit … i.e., profit after all expenses and overhead, profit after payroll, profit after all of those expenses that can be written off, reducing the business’s tax burden.

And did you know that Palin supported RAISING the sales tax in Wasilla, in order to build a $14.7MM sports center in her hometown of 8000 people?

So she was for higher taxes before she was against them.

From CBS News:

PALIN: “To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House.”

I wonder if this is a recent flip-flop on Gov. Palin’s part, since the birth of her own child with special-needs. Thus far, since she has been in office, Gov. Palin has actually slashed funding for schools for special-needs kids by 62%.

The Budget for Fiscal Year 2007 (pre-Palin) allocated nearly $8.265MM dollars for early development and special needs schools. In 2008 and 2009, that amount was cut to a mere $3.156MM dollars per year. Perhaps Gov. Palin will allocate some of that $223 million she accepted (and has yet to return) for the “Bridge to Nowhere” to education.

So she was against supporting special-needs children before she was for it.

PALIN: “America needs more energy … our opponent is against producing it.”

So, rather than attempting to drill our way out of the mess we’re currently in (a strategy that even noted REPUBLICAN oilman T. Boone Pickens says won’t work), Obama chooses to invest in renewable energy, creating more jobs and cleaner home-grown energy in the United States (because we’re not buying the wind and sun from China or the Middle East). Senator McCain and Gov. Palin prefer to drill off the coast of California, and in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve … a strategry which will add a mere 3% to the world’s oil supply when the United States currently uses 25% of the oil produced, and our needs are growing faster than we’ll be able to increase production.

PALIN: “Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.

And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.”

Apparently, it’s increasing spending and long-term debt. In fiscal 2003—the last fiscal year Palin approved the budget—the total government expenditures of Wasilla, excluding capital outlays, were $7.05MM dollars. In fiscal 1996—the year before Palin took control of the budget—the expenditures were only $4,317,947, an increase of 63 percent.

In addiiton, in fiscal 2003—the last fiscal year Palin approved the budget—the long-term debt was $18.64MM dollars. In fiscal 1996—the year before Palin took control of the budget—there was no general obligation debt … none … zip, zero, nada.

So she was against fiscal responsibility before she was for it …

Shall we go on?

Terrific article on Economist.com this week analysing how Hillary Clinton’s campaign fell apart …

The Economist is a British newsmag, with a moderate lean to the right … but their articles are incredibly insightful and researched, and presented more objectively than any American media outlet.

The post-mortem | The fall of the House of Clinton | Economist.com

THIS time last year it looked as if Hillary Clinton’s path to the Democratic nomination would be a cakewalk. She had the best brand-name in American politics. She controlled the Democratic establishment. She had money to burn and a double-digit lead in the opinion polls. And as the first American woman to have a chance of breaking the presidential glass ceiling, she had a great story to tell.

And Barack Obama? He was a first-term senator with few legislative achievements and a worrying penchant for honesty (in his autobiography he admitted to using marijuana and even cocaine, “when you could afford it”). He knew how to give a good speech. But how could that compare with Mrs Clinton’s assets—a well-oiled political machine and a winning political formula that combined a carefully-calibrated appeal to the centre with hard-edged political tactics?

Today, Mrs Clinton has not only lost the Democratic nomination. She has humiliated herself in the process. She has been forced to lend her campaign more than $11m of her own money. She has cosied up to some of her former persecutors in the “vast right wing conspiracy”, notably Richard Mellon Scaife, a newspaper magnate. She has engaged in phoney populism, calling for a temporary break on petrol taxes, praising “hardworking Americans, white Americans”, vowing to “totally obliterate” Iran and waving the bloody shirt of September 11th. The conservative Weekly Standard praised her as “a feminist form of George Bush”. So how did one of America’s most accomplished politicians turn a cakewalk into a quagmire?

Read the rest of the article.

I’ve got a lot of causes that I support … perhaps too many, because I find I’m always getting solicitations in the mail (and email) asking for more and more of my money.

To some extent, it’s hard for me to even remember everything I’ve given money too, until I go back through my finances every spring to file my taxes.

In the past year, I’ve given money to:

• the Salt Lake City Bike Collective (ongoing monthly donations)
• the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (one-off donation)
• the Marin County Bicycle Coalition (one-off donation)
• KUER (ongoing monthly donations)
• KRCL (ongoing monthly donations)
• the San Francisco Zen Center (ongoing quarterly donations)
• the San Francisco AIDS Foundation
• the American Civil Liberties Union (one-off membership, not tax-deductible)
• the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (one-off donation)
• Barack Obama’s presidential campaign (not tax-deductible)
• Christine’s Fountain (to honor Fastgrrrl’s best training pal, as far as I know, not tax-deductible)
• Susan Nelson’s WIN Fund (Fatty’s wife, who has been battling cancer for years now, not tax-deductible)

There are doubtless other organizations to whom I’ve written a check that I can’t think of right off hand. Altogether, I think I’m going to give away about $2,000 this year. I know it’s going to be well over $1,000.00.

Now lest anyone think I’m bragging, let me get to the point. All I give of myself is my money … I can’t think of the last time I volunteered my time to work with an organization because it was the right thing to do, and it was a cause I believed in.

I find it quite ironic that I’m generous with my money (which I don’t have nearly enough of), yet stingy with my time (which I have more than enough of).

So with that in mind, one of my goals for the summer is to find a suitable organization to which I can donate at least 4 hours of my time, and hopefully I’ll find something inspiring enough to give even more my time and myself to.

For time is truly the most valuable commodity which you can give to any organization.

From this morning’s New York Times (online):

Nader Announces Third-Party Run for President - New York Times
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:27 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ralph Nader said Sunday he will run for president as a third-party candidate, criticizing the top White House contenders as too close to big business and pledging to repeat a bid that will ‘’shift the power from the few to the many.”

Nader, 73, said most people are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties due to a prolonged Iraq war and a shaky economy. The consumer advocate also blamed tax and other corporate-friendly policies under the Bush administration that he said have left many lower- and middle-class people in debt.

”You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized and disrespected,” he said. ”You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts.”

”In that context, I have decided to run for president,” Nader told NBC’s ”Meet the Press.”

After being the spoiler costing Al Gore the Presidency in 2000, and incurring the wrath of most Democrats in 2004 when he chose to run again (and dropping from 2.7% of the votes cast in 2000 to a mere 0.3% in 2004), he’s running again … to what end? He has no chance of winning, and is beginning to just sound like a crank rather than a true advocate for the American people.

Give it up, Ralph. It’s a different world that what it was when you declared the Chevrolet Corvair “unsafe at any speed” back in 1965. And while your ideas are not irrelevant, the way you choose to express them are more of a hindrance to change than a help.

Very doubtful I’ll be able to make it out to see Eddie Spaghetti and Jordan Shapiro at the Bar Deluxe tonight … and I’m extremely pissed off about it.

Eddie and Jordan don’t go on until 11:00 (which is another rant … why do bands always start so late?) … but I have to be at work tomorrow at 7:00 for tax training on mandatory overtime … this is a training I’ve taken every year since 1999 when I first started working for my company.

I know what an ordinary dividend is. I know when the deadlines for delivering 1099s are (January 31, unless you’re granted an extension, which we have been the past couple of years). I know that 1099-OID (original issue discount) forms will be updated multiple times before they must be finalized in mid-March. I know that you have until April 15 to make an IRA contribution for the previous year. I know that you have to start taking your required minimum distributions from IRAs in the year in which you turn 70 1/2, and if it’s your first year, you have until April of the following year to do it (i.e., if you turned 70 in October 2007, you don’t have to take your first RMD until April 2009, BUT it’s still a good idea to take it in 2008, because you still have to take an RMD for 2009 as well, and you really don’t want to take distributions for two years in the same year if you can help it).

I know all of this shit, and still my boss is insisting I show up … to pay me time and a half to sit around for 6 hours and listen to some schmuck trainer dumb down all the information enough so that the new hires can understand it … when we could really go over any changes there might have been since last year in about an hour.

I’ve already taken the friggin’ quizzes they want us to take at the end of the training, and scored better than 95% on all of them. What’s the point of wasting the money … why spend the $300?

Oh … it’s because we’re about efficiency and “World Class Service” … but we don’t give our customer service representatives enough time to follow-up on issues because answering the damned phone to reset some dimwad’s password is more important than following through with the varous Ops groups in New York to find out why this $100,000 trade in a client’s $15-million dollar account didn’t get processed properly … so the branch service teams have to back-up the customer-service teams, and the premier/elite teams have to back-up the branch-service teams, and Operations specialists like me end up doing everything in addition to cleaning up the messes left behind by the frontline instead of focusing on our projects because everybody else is busy telling clients they only have $1,500 available on their debit cards because we’re fee-ing them to death to try to get rid of them, because they should really be at a discount firm rather than a full-service firm when they only have $10K to their names.

I’m still trying to figure out how that is “World Class” service … when we leave our big-dollar financial advisors and clients hanging for a couple of days because it’s more important to answer the phone to reset a password. God forbid the little guys we really don’t even want as clients because we actually LOSE money on them have to wait for 2-minutes (instead of 15-seconds) to get their question answered.

Since when did efficiency become more important than effectiveness? What good is it to be able to answer X number of phone calls in a day if you can’t actually accomplish something because you’ve got to get the current caller off the line to answer the next phone call? You’d think a white-shoe firm would know better.

Life in the cube-farm fucking sucks.

Train knows what I’m talking about.