An Encompassing Round-up

Took the time to complete a refresh of the page.  I think I like it, but I will probably need to live with the template a while.  I imagine I may get some flack for the new header picture.  I don't really care, I like it.  I find the writings of Ayn (that's "eye-n" for those of you who aren't familiar) Rand thought provoking.  It is of course fiction which is used to prove a point.  I think taking everything in Rand literally would be like taking the entire Bible literally.   The Bible is also a great work of fiction used to prove a point.  Anyway, lots to cover in this edition, so I better get busy!

First up on the docket, The State of the Union speech.  Otherwise known as the start of the Obama Campaign 2010.  I had the opportunity (thanks to capitalism and free speech) to take part in a live blog on Real Clear World.  The best part about taking part in that forum was the consistent civility that was displayed by all participants.  It was a refreshing break from the media spin and spitballing that usually accompanies a political event.

Now there is no doubt that I am not, nor have I ever been an Obama fan.  I still believe (and the SOTU gave me no reason to not believe) that he is an empty shirt with an incredible gift for oration.  That being said, I would like to point out just a few of my many issues with his 70 minute rant.

1. It took him less than three minutes to blame Wall Street for all of our problems.
1. Are some bankers at fault?  Yes, but punishing banks and regulating CEO pay will not be our salvation.
2. He always seem to forget how many of us on Main Street have a rather serious stake on Wall Street.
3. First instance (of many) of the same old rhetoric:  blame the banks, blame big oil, blame the insurance companies.
4. He talks about how TARP worked beautifully, yet failed to mention that it was the Bush administration that crafted that legislation (which I still disagree with).
2. He actually asked for applause.  There were several comments about this on the live blog!  Petty I know, but I have to believe that this is a first in the SOTU.
3. He refuses to even acknowledge that the American people do not want this health care bill!!!!
4. More lies about earmark elimination.  "I'll use this pen to veto..."  Everybody knows that both parties do it.  However, don't look into the camera and be intentionally dishonest regarding this practice. We are not buying it.
5. He basically told both the Senate and the SCOTUS "F*** YOU!".  The Senate on the domestic spending freeze.  The SCOTUS on CU vs. FEC (more on this farther down).  Due deference to separation of powers my foot.
6. The domestic spending freeze is an absolute sham.  $250B over 10 years and it would not even take effect until FY 2011 (well after the mid-term elections).  The irony here is that this is exactly what McCain suggested in debate.  Remember the whole "I'll use a scalpel" reference?
7. Drill Baby Drill.  Apparently, off-shore drilling and clean coal technology have magically become acceptable to this President.   Hey, I'm all for it.  However, once again, you cannot bash the Repubs for saying it and then turn around and say it is a viable option.
8. I was also uncomfortable with his frequent comparison of the US to China.  Is he really using China as a model?  For individual rights, environmental protection, free trade??  Wow.
9. POTUS makes a ludicrous statement with regards to "green" jobs.  Saying that even if you doubt the science of global warming, there is an obligation to legislatively create these types of jobs. HA!  
10. I also have a small problem with our Constitutional scholar of a President: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution, the notion that we're all created equal..." With all due deference the "Constitutional Scholar" pedigree. This notion is enshrined in THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. The Constitution was designed to establish yet limit the power of a central government.

The RCW blog folks graded his speech. These were the results: A-0%, B-19%, C-33%(which is what I gave him in the vote), D-24%, F-24%. These results tell me that most of us didn't buy the sales pitch.

Next on the agenda is the power of the individual when it comes to health care.  My wife forwarded a great article on smart medical consumerism.  This man understands that the human mind is still the greatest power. This re-iterates what I had said before.  We need to be smarter consumers when it comes to health care.  Relying on the government to do this for us will only raise taxes, increase bureacracy, and reduce the standard of care.

While on the subject of self-reliance, I would like to share a slightly embarrassing personal story.  My wife Christine handles the majority of our day-to-day finances (okay, all of them).  She is the queen of arbitrage and we have profited significantly as a result.  However, she recently made a mistake that could have been rather costly to us. I have asked her if I could share the ordeal and she agreed.

She had applied for and received a credit card balance transfer offer from Bank "A".  One of those 0% interest for 6 month type of deals.  Even though we could have paid the balance in full (with a little cash shuffling), the deal was nice because it allowed us to keep a positive cash flow and also earn a few interest dollars along the way.  I should mention that Christine has done this several times and has netted a tidy profit each time.

What makes this instance different is that she somehow missed an important detail.  The offer stipulated that she had to make the monthly minimum payment which she had set up for auto-draft.  However, what she did not notice when she did this, was that there must have been a box checked that auto-drafted the ENTIRE BALANCE! Now rather than having an auto-draft out of our checking account for under $100, Bank "A" took the entire outstanding balance of several thousand.  Now let's just say that we do not keep anywhere close to this amount of money in our everyday checking account (this would be similar to stuffing money into a mattress, i.e. no benefit). 

Here is where diligence pays off.  Christine checks our financial activity daily.  I highly recommend the same habit.  She noticed (on a saturday) the autodraft of the full balance on the credit card account from our checking account (Bank "B").  She immediately called Bank "A" to see if she could stop the auto-draft.   The person she spoke to told her that she would have to speak to the payment department which did not open until Monday.  However, they did mention that they would put a note on her file saying that she had called and that the payment was in error.  Shen then spoke to Bank "B" (checking account) to see about raising our overdraft protection limit.  Bank "B" told her that by the time the application went through for the overdraft increase, they more than likely would have refused the payment due to NSF.  Situation looks rather dire doesn't it?

Well, since Christine took a most courteous tone with the PERSON she spoke to at Bank "B' they told her that since this was the first time this had ever happened, they would waive any NSF fees that would customarily be levied against our account by them.  Score a point for the home team! 

Fast forward to the following Monday.  Christine calls and e-mails Bank "A's" (credit card bank) payment department to explain the situation.  Remember that at this point we are facing not only expensive fees, but also losing our favorable no-interest transfer rate!  Bank "A" tells her that the payment had been refused by Bank "B".  This is relatively good news because this means that Bank "B" has not sent the money that was in our account to Bank "A" for payment or activated our overdraft line of protection.  Score another for the home team!

So now, the only damage that can possible be done to us from a financial standpoint is the possible loss of our favorable transfer rate and the fees levied by Bank "A".  Another e-mail/call and what might you think happened???

Bank "A" replies by saying that they value our business and they have maintained our balance transfer at the agreed upon terms and have credited back the fee for the returned payment request!!!!   Home team victory.  After all that, no harm, no foul. 

So, what's the point of this long-winded escapade?  Be courteous, diligent, and forthright.  Banks have PEOPLE that work for them, and they usually operate with reason (i.e. their own rational self-interest).  All that without government intervention.

Moving on...I was saddened to hear about the death of Howard Zinn.  I enjoyed the History Channel's airing of "The People Speak".  Although, I could have done without all of the musical interludes.  This made little sense to me in a piece such as this.  I look forward to reading his "A People's History of United States" which is what the HC's program is based on.

The death of J.D. Salinger is another blow to the seemingly dwindling literary profession.  "Catcher in the Rye" is a must-read while one is still struggling with the tribulations of teen youth.  Salinger clearly highlighted that the teenage years are unpredictable, agonizing, and X-rated! 

Last, but not least, onto (as prefaced above)the recent SCOTUS decision on Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission.  Lots of emotional rhetoric from both sides on this issue.  The dissenters (including POTUS) saying that we have now sold out our elections to foreign interests.  The majority (on the court)saying that the 1st amendment has been protected.  Although non-populist, I tend to lean toward the majority.  I will attempt to explain why.

After reading the 183 page opinion which includes the dissenting view, I do believe that it was consistent with the Buckley v. Valeo ruling in 1976.  The per curiam decision in Buckley, of which Justice Stevens was a part, clearly stated that although limitations on direct contributions to federal campaigns were constitutional, limits on independent expenditures by individuals or groups were constitutionally infirm under the first amendment.  In other words, spending money to influence an election is constitutionally protected speech.

I know that some like to say that the "money is speech" argument is inconsistent with other cases. In particular, the Hare Krishna airport case.  However, this is an apples to oranges comparison.  The Krishna's were attempting to solicit donations on government-owned property and in a place that jurisprudence would not consider a public forum.  Sorry professor Kairys, I don't buy it.  More on that here.

So then the real argument revolves around the question: "do corporations have the same rights as people?"  Although my comfort level is not extremely high with this scenario, let's consider some facts.

• Corporations are entities made up of individuals (shareholders).  
• Corporations pay taxes separate from the individuals that make it up.
• Corporations can be sued and file suit.
• Although you cannot put a corporation in physical jail, you can limit its freedom.
• Even if all of the shareholders in a corporation were to die, the corporation would still exist.
• Late eighteenth century English law defines a corporation as: "a collection of many individuals united into one body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested, by policy of the law, with the capacity of acting, in several respects, as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, of contracting obligations, and of suing and being sued, of enjoying privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights, more or less extensive, according to the design of its institution, or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time of its creation, or at any subsequent period of its existence."

In short, a corporation (which again, is made up of a group of individual stakeholders) is in a legal sense "a person".  Also, since the corporation's money was gained in the "economic marketplace" it has a right to spend that money as it sees fit.  I might be in favor of some sort of rule put into corporate charters that allow for a shareholder vote prior to political spending, but not government intervention.

What is truly interesting about this whole case is that it could have been avoided.  If the FEC had let Citizens United (who voluntarily asked if they were within their rights) advertise the film, this case never would have been heard.  I believe a case could also have been brought against Oliver Stone and the Hadida brothers for the October 2008 (well within the 60 day window set by the FEC) release of "W".  Since the Obama campaigns whole strategy was to tie McCain to Bush, did this not violate the electioneering rule? This film, to pile on the irony, was financed completely by foreign investors!

Hopefully, I have made at least some sense of all this mud.  The fact remains, if you want to be an active citizen of this republic, you need to do a little homework.  DO NOT LET POLITICAL SPITBALLING AND GOOFY CAMPAIGN ADS SWAY YOUR DILIGENCE.  We have access to more information than ever, use it wisely.  Want to see what should really determine your vote in an election?  Click here.

AA