Ode to Frank and Obama

Frankly put I'm so sick of the BS.  We all know that bubbles burst when over inflated. It's a question of knowing when to stop blowing. Our recent economic crisis comes as a result of leverage gone bad; too much leverage, not enough back up capital; the balloon was overblown.

Far more important is to recognize that our generation has been plagued with a virus more broad reaching than H1N1 or inside our computers (think S & L failure, think '87 Margin crisis, think Tech bubble, think housing crisis and now sovereign debt, including our own). The disease is hard to recognize only because the symptons are chaotically clouded with layers of complexity overtaking what used to be far simpler and more easily controled.

Current policy seems to be much like a Kadinsky canvass, a mixed between chaos and control. Kadinsky's masterful execution and technique requires considerable time to absorb (I get bored easily looking at dribbles of splatter) so I take my time looking at the so-called chaos created within the boundaries of control. It's not clear at first, but eventually I get it (or pretend to).

What do I really think? It's become far too easy for our government to conduct policy (playing with tax revenues) like a Three Card Monte. Real issues are burried inside a pile of crap; it's a dirty business.

Living amongst Americans with an average IQ of 99 I believe there's an urgent need to "keep it simple stupid" not only to benefit the unsophisticated; but also the highly eductated. After all the geniuses at the helm haven't been able to prevent bubble bursts (not rocket science to prevent is it?).*

* A simple solution: 2 + 2 = 4, so does 1+1+1+1. Time can be extended on mortgages (and payments lowered), a fitting resolution for banks and their customers.

It boils down to who's at the helm driving us in what direction, at what speed. (Personally, my policy is to get out of cars with reckless drivers).

One of my theories has always been that if people are good in their personal lives, they are good in business, and vice versa.  Examples abound.  Look at recent news with one political posterboy (though this theme runs rampant in all branches of our judiciary). Edwards is living, literally, in the dog house (though it's actually his barn). Has he never heard of condoms? With his political career spotlighted on TMZ, I think it's safe to ask, is this the type of foresight we want steering our country?

In the scheme of things this offense is relatively mild, after all there are things far worse than adultery. Right?

As the former New Jersey Governor John Corzine's ex-wife said during his first election campaign, "he let us down".  It may seem a ridiculous question but I have to ask, who are we to trust?

Control over chaos, call it your vote. Midterm elections are on the horizon along with the ability to really make change.

President Obama got his wake up call after last week's election of Scott Brown though in his State of the Union speed he again tried to tell the American people that he was a righteous man who could bring about "change" by "doing the right thing." Thus one has to ask, what change, for who, and at who's expense?

I couldn't have laughed harder when he went to Boston to sing, "the farmer and the cowboy should be friends" followed up with verbally spanking bankers for purported misconduct (he who cast the first stone had best not live in a glass house). 

I'm fed up and angered and not because I'm Republican 'cause I'm not (though I've never been a Bill Clinton lover either. I never got over the "I didn't inhale" remark well before, "I did not have sex....").

So what's my beef? I want leaders I can really look up to. I don't want to hear false promises made just to buy my vote (the after effects makes me feel cheap and used). I don't want to hear excuses that bad conduct happened, "because I could". I want to hear, "I didn't do it 'cause there are far better options". Like how I raised my kids to be decent citizens; I want to hear, "I did not take the easy way out" and "I antied up" when it came to spending money, particularly other people's money.

My complaint list is long, apparantly.

I have little belief that Obama can "change" our society for the better. Noble notion, but no support.  But he's not flat on his ass alone. I read daily chain emails asking that people rally to throw all our congressman and senators out. I couldn't agree more except that I think there are a few really good ones - and here's the interesting part, they tend to be seniors.

I strongly objected with my 21 year old daughter's notion that seniors are senile and out of touch with her youthful world's agenda (with who's money being spent supporting her and others like her). I couldn't get her to believe in the merit of wisdom, lessons learned over time. And I couldn't get her to understand the importance of rules these same seniors put in place long ago coupled with the desire to uphold them.  She sees the world as a bad place much in need of "change". She wanted to trust someone new, fresh and thought to be unspoiled.

What she has witnessed over her short life span, is that society is plagued by spoiled brats with little regard for boundaries who have big guns.  She's not wrong.  She witnessed bankers and businessmen in cohorts with politicians. She was mislead by supposed do-gooders like Michael Moore who claimed to be public advocates but proved themselves otherwise.  What hit her hardest was she now knows they all knew better 'cause I did having told her so along the way.

(In 2006 I was at a small gathering in a private room at the Rainbow Room hosted by a billionaire. The guest list was off the fortune 500 list, and then there was me. I stood out like a sore thumb. They guys went around the table answering the billionaire's question about what would happen when credit markets failed. All of the guests ignored the question instead opting to finesse into their own agenda which was to see if they could sell the billionaire into their businesses. There was one who suggested top shelf real estate as a way to protect and grow capital, like with their stellar portfolio.  Funny, they lost plenty in the crash, starting with holdings in Dubai. Not me, I have no agenda. My answer is the same then as now. My answer was and still is that the financial institutions will find another way to keep credit rolling. Credit markets are not going away. Nor should they, they just need to have strict credit limits.

I didn't take any economic classes except Banking 101.  And I threw a fit when a friend of mine wanted to enter a development deal where one prime bank gave a land appraisal of over $600k/acre while the recent property records showed the same as $60K/acre).

They knew better.

It's so unsavory, even vulgar, that those who think they are deserving of big funding to reward their big brains have not been given the message that their wrongful antics have punishments (like removing priveledges from children who disrespect authority).  I say "claw back" the AIG salaries to the execs. I say, "claw back" Gunthier and Bernake's salaries and don't stop there. "Claw back" the salaries of the SEC, the rating agencies, the appraisers and underwriters, and don't forget those legislatures who were in office and helped to feed the crisis (evident in the voting record). And, don't forget to "claw back" excess campaign funds gifted to politicians who haven't delivered what they promised they could. Why they get to keep this money (tax free, btw) is another misguided antic.  Wouldn't it better serve a committee to keep surplus funds in reserve?

Common sense questions with common sense answers, that is what our children need.  How can we explain the deficit which will weigh them down? She tells me she's aspiring to become middle class. Perhaps taxation is the reason why.

The idea to tax those who are "rich" (those who make over $250K annually) is another misguided scapegoat. In a 2 parent household that's an average earning at the entry level for good jobs; by no means rich (have you watched the commercials for Ladders.com?). This idea is nothing more than an attempt to force redistribution of wealth from those who are most responsible (and not lazy 'cause those earnings did not come without paying a lot of dues)  to others who are not equally able. While the truth may hurt, we are entitled to it (one entitlement I'd really like to see enforced); we're not all the same.

If sharing one's hard earned gains with the less fortunate was the earmark of righteousness, so tell me how many people would have a salary of $50K annually if every uba rich, those with net gains at the $10 Mil annual earnings level, were taxed to give half back to support the needy (Hollywood should help support their fans lest they not have funding to go to the movies anymore)? Imagine what half of $100 Mil could do.

I don't support taxing the hard working while rewarding the rule benders and pigs in business or in politics.  And please tell me where it is written that a first lady, in this case Michelle Obama, is entitled to hire 23 on staff in lean economic times with taxpayer money. Shame on all those who wish to take other people's money just because they can (who's to stop them?).  Shame on the fools who allow it.

I don't want to be lied to. I don't like rule breakers.  Control over chaos, that's all it takes and then to keep it simple stupid. Plain and simple.