Mitt-ila The Hun

The man came from the east, and rode aboard a midnight black steed, with angry fire in its eyes. The steed seemed reluctant to allow anyone but its rider to even get close to it. The mount whinnied uneasily, and lived for moments it could swoop in and, with its rider cause confusion and destruction. Once its rider saddled up, they were unstoppable. Always riding all-out, and never looking back, they rode without care nor conscience.
One of the most infamous raids, that so many remember, came one day in the 90s, in the middle of the country. Mitt-ila with his steed, Bain, came to the steel mill, licking his lips, and casing everything that he would soon own and be able to plunder and turn asunder. Sparks flew from the horse’s hooves  as they rode onto the grounds. The horse and its master began the blood-letting – the guild members, their pay, the equipment – they began laying waste to everything in sight…Soon, their nefarious plans were complete, and the tiny factory was no more.

What is this? This is the Newt-would-approve-if-he-read-it-version of Mitt Romney’s time at Bain Capital. This is the, politically-expedient version of what happened in Kansas City. Mitt of course, the ardent anti-capitalist and destroyer of all that he touched, only wanted the companies Bain invested in for their liquidity values, right? I mean, why would anyone invest in a company that they may be able to resurrect, and restore to profitability (and make far more money, than just relying on the liquidity value)? Once a company is seen to have its best days behind it, the person who attributes this “un-profitable operating” designation could never have any ways of turning it around – its only value is in plundering anything and everything that still has any value. Right? So it is raid and plunder away.

Except – that is not always the way that business happens. I would venture to guess it is seldom that a capital company step in and buys a company solely for its liquid assets, before it has declared bankruptcy, when the investing company can buy it for a song. That seems like paying extra for the “privilege” of going through bankruptcy proceedings and haggling with creditors. With the intention of retrofitting and upgrading the facilities at Kansas City located “GST Steel”, Bain made investments and attempted to turn the troubled steelmaker around. After investments of $100 million were sunk into the plant, due to myriad mismanagement issues, tons of cheap Chinese-made steel (made and sold at a loss, to gain market share), and the debt-load created to save the plant, it still had to be closed. 750 people lost their jobs as a result.

It should be mentioned, but seldom seems to be, that the Chinese steel is probably more to blame for GST’s failure than any other factors, including: Bain Capital’s “raiding”, more competitive American steel foundries, and obsolescing equipment. Add to that, some of the most misguided management that I have ever read about (like hiring managers for this steel plant, that had previously worked in retail for Wal-Mart), and it appears that the factory was always doomed. Some 40+ other American steel companies went under in the same time GST was slowly rusting away.

My main issues with the attack of Romney (and attacks of him, under the guise of attacks of Bain) are the fact that supposed conservative and right-wing candidates are making the majority of them. The fact that some are using Romney’s time at Bain as a way to compare him to Bernie Madoff, and his criminal Ponzi scheme (that was James Clyburn), is also disheartening. As a matter of fact, Mitt wasn’t even with Bain at the time GST finally gasped and was shuttered. Now it’s like all hands on deck for a thrashing of the mechanism that built this country, and gave so many people the lives we enjoy.

The way that I see it, if a person is going to attack a function of capitalism, and stand behind their point, whether it is legitimate or not, it would also mean that the same arbitrary condemnation could apply to any function of capitalism. You don’t like paying some of your bills – then don’t, because you think it’s “unfair.” You don’t like having to pay a manufacturers’ makeup? Well, don’t pay it then – you’ve deemed it “unfair” too. When we slip into a mindset of the left, where, this is fair, that is unfair, this group over here has more than you (and you really deserve it more than they do), and that some big, bad, government boogie-man is piling on with those filthy rich fat cats, it is easy to find yourself getting angry. The trick is to channel that anger and frustration – almost like using that destructive feeling for something…Creative.

Insider Trading; Not for the Hoi Polloi

I made HOW MUCH from that tip?! Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

So, beginning with a CBS, 60 Minutes exposé this past Sunday evening, politicians began scrambling to attempt to explain their habit of using inside information to make themselves rich. So far, the biggest names involved are: former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, Senator Diane Feinstein, current Speaker of the House, John Boehner, and Representative Spencer Bachus. While the posts held by Pelosi and Emmanuel seem to lend the most leverage to playing the market unfairly, Bachus finds himself being held accountable by his own party. His seeming lack of knowledge of the stock market evaporated after he joined the House of Representatives.

Got a hot tip on how a new law’s fine print may affect a company, or how companies may benefit from pending legislation? Call your broker. While you are a member of the U.S. Congress, unbelievably, there is no rule against profiting. CBS.com notes, “Out of 975 federal entities, Congress and the Supreme Court are the only two that have no rules or laws prohibiting them from trading securities based on nonpublic information.” Things that have gotten traders on Wall Street hauled into jail, mean nothing to legislators in the United States. Raj Rajaratnam must be banging his head on his desk, knowing that he could have beat his insider trading case, if only he had run and won a Congressional seat first. For his efforts, Rajaratnam is estimated to have made somewhere around $19.7 million.

A simple trader, found guilty of insider trading. Serving an 11-year prison sentence.

The massive amount of backlash against these practices has lead to Rick Perry producing a new advertisement saying legislators guilty of these practices should be thrown into jail. Senators Scott Brown(R-MA) and Kristin Gillibrand (D-NY) have introduced legislation to prevent Congressman from partaking of the money-making activities. The “Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge” or STOCK Act of 2011, will be introduced today. It bars not only legislative members from profiting on their inside knowledge, but executive employees as well. That would apply to the former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, who made a bundle dumping Fannie Mae stock before the agency crashed and burned during the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

It is far from a partisan issue – everybody, it seems, is taking advantage of the inside info. Spencer Bachus is said to have shorted the market in 2008, just as the entire market fall hard. Andrew Breitbart has both lead the charge, calling for Bachus’ resignation, and closely monitored ongoing information about all the indicated, enriched legislators. Senator Feinstein invested $1 million in a biotech start-up, shortly before the company received a $24 million government grant. The following year, the company held an IPO where they netted $85 million.

Even putting stocks into a blind trust may not be enough of a bulwark against trading on privileged information – all a legislator would have to do is call up the holder of the securities, and tip-toe around subject matter that would affect the portfolio. A sort of “wink-wink, nudge-nudge”, buy or sell signal. Plausible deniability would be the order of the day. In the past, there has been legislation introduced in the House of Representatives attempting to ban Congressional insider trading. It never received more than 14 supporters.

My Rights Are More Important Than Your Rights

The Bill of Rights, along with the Declaration of Independence, are two of the nation's most sacred documents.

Right? I mean, we hear politicians in Washington claim that one’s rights are more important than some other, and they proceed to attempt to weigh the rights of one group over another constantly, depending (it seems) on how many votes that the bureaucrats need, and how much monetary support those with the “more important” rights can give. The special interests claim as well, that they have earned some special consideration – usually based in a perceived wrong or slight. This is all too typical, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers and the documents that they left this great country describes exactly the opposite. “…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” goes the wonderful line of the Declaration of Independence, flies into the face of the special-interest rights-givers in Washington. The claim seems to be, that somehow, these stingy-rights-givers now know better than the Creator, which people deserve certain rights, and when those rights may be invoked.

We have seen for nearly two months now, a group, first devoted to tackling the economic structure of the United States – since everybody knows it is inherently unfair, and is stacked against those just entering the job markets from college. Whatever happened to the promise they were given of six-figure salaries, generous retirement benefits (early, naturally), and four-day work weeks? Just go to college, experiment with everything you can get your hands on, and when you graduate, the world will be laid out in front of you, laid at your feet, like your own personal pearl. When this fictional Utopian world does not match the reality of graduates, there is understandable cognitive dissonance.

“Surely, there must be a way that these things can be made right!? This was not what was promised! This is unfair!” And, so, along come the politicians, always looking for the next batch of useful idiots. The politicians recycle the usual, “Yes, we understand – it is unfair what has happened to you – and darn it, if you vote for me, I am gonna do something about it for you!” And so the useful idiots, once again buying the hype, throw their support behind the over-promising, always under-delivering politician. Usually, we know how the drill goes from here – it is a sort of “rinse, lather, repeat” scenario, where the politician finds a scapegoat, and pins their own failing to deliver on promises on that poor goat. Before long, the goat is defeated in elections, and the next class of useful idiots are graduating from college, and the pearl is laid before them once again.

To bring us back from the scenario of Utopia and the new graduates’ pearls, I reiterate that the politicians have always been reluctant to even try to deliver on their promises. After all, there was always that poor scapegoat. Simply blame, excuse, and move on. Somewhere along the line though, it seems like the politicians, sensing a way both away from the goat, and a way to “lock-in” support, decided to change the dynamics of their relationship with their supporters. They seem to have found a permanent scapegoat – the so-called 1%, and other business owners, many of which(ironically enough), have been given promises by the same politicians.

America's worst mayor? Oakland's Jean Quan

Rights are somehow more noble when a movement makes a semi-cogent, nearly-pertinent point, right? We are told that this group or that, simply must be given some special considerations, because they have been wronged in the past. I do not buy that explanation for a second. Even if a person supports the “Occupy your-city-here” movement, it does not give excuse the behavior of its members. Forgetting the hundreds of violent crimes against people committed at the camps (all allegedly, of course, and being handled from within) – for the mayor of one of the largest cities in the country to turn a blind eye to wanton property destruction and violence, and the further threat of violence, is unforgivable. Various stores are shown with broken windows, and road blocks are piled and set afire. The protesters left one threat that, “We came unarmed – this time.” If Oakland’s Jean Quan stoops any further to cater to the violent protesters, she will be in the midst of the riots, handing the protesters rocks and bottles to throw at her own police force and at city businesses. Think this is mere hyperbole? She has already gone as far as posting her office phone number on Twitter, and asking the protesters to call her! Here is your new set of promises, occupiers!

This is madness. While certain media personalities talk of the end of the country and ripping apart of American ideals, I am less certain.  Once these same Machiavellian politicians re-discover the power that they hold onto so tightly before the OWS movement began, and the first mayor in a city with a sizable OWS camp sends in the riot police, the rest of the mayors will follow. This first mayor will spark something that will quickly spread. I find it is amazing – for all of the politicians and mayors’ use of scapegoats, they show themselves to be little more than sheep.

Our Worst of Society (or OWS)

"God bless those protesters..."

As Occupy Wall Street camps into its second month as a movement, various special interests still seek to pre-empt and quiet the movement. As I mentioned in a previous post, for this movement to have any real shot at creating a change, it should develop and stick to a singular, easily relayed, and cogent message. Another measure necessary to ensure that once a message was adopted, that outside influences would not attach their own concerns to the movement. For anyone who has been watching and kept up with the movement, you should realize by now that both of these fatal actions have taken place.

While conservative and other GOP-members seem to be either disgusted or confused by the protests, I cannot recall any of them whole-heartedly embracing the protests. It is interesting to see them identify with some of the concerns of the protesters though: bailouts were a terrible idea (and that the market should have healed itself), that the politician-bosses of some of these Fortune 500 financial companies do not need a “Golden Parachute” for running their companies into the ground, and to a far lesser extent for the protesters, that the politicians themselves need voted out of office.

Democrats, for their parts, seem to have completely embraced the protests, and started to do so from early in its development. This has led to an embarrassing tendency for the democrats’ support be marred by violence, flagrant  drug use, and ties to less than savory agencies and personalities. Even with such dangerous and damaging behaviors, I cannot recall any democrats withdrawing their support, and so, they continue tacitly to approve of the dangerous conduct. This week, it was revealed that a dis-honorably discharged, neo-Nazi, illegally (because of felony convictions) carrying an AR-15 rifle was providing security for the Occupy Phoenix movement. In the case of Tea Party members, who were observed legally openly carrying sidearms, the left and media could not decry it quickly enough.

The left in this country seems to feel as though the movement is a sort of completely grassroots, organic, entity, being driven by concerns of worried young people. This, despite so much evidence to the contrary. Large media companies (Adbusters) and SEIU and ACORN-leftovers have been identified as lending support, both legal and monetary. The pre-emption may not be complete yet, but it appears as though it is too late to save it from special interests, intent on horning in. The same things that drove the Tea Party to become such a success (a firm commitment to message, observing policies of places that they protested, and respectful protest) are the same things that now fatally doom the Occupy Movement.

Despite so much media coverage given to try and gin more support for the Occupy Movement, the fewer, but far more powerful images and stories of illegalities occurring are destructive. Democrats intent on quickly offering uncritical support for selfish reasons are going to be tied to the worst events. It seems almost karmic – using a disenfranchised group of people to gain oneself credibility or support is disgusting. Instead of trying to fix problems, like tackling rampant unemployment, the left embraces tactics like re-writing laws and rules to gather support, and actually demonizing the stalling and blocking of worthless, damaging legislation. The left’s tactics are like giving breadcrumbs to Americans, and expecting them to unquestioningly follow you for your efforts — never mind that the re-written rules will be far more damaging to more Americans than they help. Hey, it sets up the next opportunity for the left to swoop in, and “save the day” again. They really are “Our Worst of Society”.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Ceilings

"Come on - just give us in Washington a little more - just a taste of those sweet tax dollars, and we'll never ask again - PROMISE!"

So, I am sure we have all heard by now, the effect that the complete and catastrophic failure to raise the debt ceiling is going to cause: American debt default, Social Security checks may not be sent out, soldiers will not be paid, and quite possibly, the whole damned world may cease to exist.  Democrats, in no real position to try to claim even an iota of financial responsibility, are now telling us that unless they are enabled to continue to spend as they have for the past two years, everyone’s life is going to get much, much tougher.  It is a new spin on their old unspoken belief that they know better than Main Street, USA, how to run everything and spend tax dollars.  Oh, no, silly taxpayer – it is not you who sees everyday, how valuable tax money could be used — it’s the politicians in Washington D.C. who know better.  If you want to say something about it, well go ahead, and maybe we can get a pork-barrel project sent your way – with your Congressman’s name all over it, of course.  The tax-and-spend-and-give-the-constituents-crumbs is a cycle which seems to have finally gotten so bad, that an entire political movement has risen up to try to bring it to a complete halt.

The excuses for why the government has so taken to tax dollars worse than ever before runs the gamut, from “It was the last guy’s fault we are running short now”, to the more dramatic, “It’s simple – if we do not get more money, the government (and all of its associated ‘freebies’ for people) are going to end.”  Now, I have never been one easily swayed by threats and intimidation, and the dramatic, threatening tactics are just as wasted on children throwing fits in grocery stores aisles.  Leading up to the current budget crisis/debt ceiling talks, it had always been my understanding of government that the legislative branch was supposed to prepare and pass a budget for the president’s signature.  Except now, for the 800 and who-knows day, there has been no budget passed.  The Senate happily plays whatever the president’s game is that week, and neglects the country’s most important business.  They’ve done next to nothing to solve the current debt-ceiling fiasco, and seem perfectly content to allow six of its senators to cobble together a plan.  This bi-partisan plan, the country’s financial savior as the left would have us believe, is long on hope, and short on actual details.  I guess “hope” in D.C., is still recognized as some sort of political asset to be sold to the American people.  The thing is, the people aren’t buying anymore.  The president’s budget plan, when sent to the Senate was narrowly voted down, 97-0.  Yes, that is right, not even the president’s own party would vote for his monstrosity.

The Senate’s “Gang of Six” plan would have the net effect of $3.75 trillion dollars in deficit reduction.  When pressed for how the plan would actually work, the authors turned to the typical Washington explanation, “Trust us – it will really fix things.”  Apparently, the easily-swayed-by-Senators President Obama was happy to sign on, anticipating a lower than expected cut to entitlements.  Truth is, the plan does not seem to address any entitlement reforms at all.  The earlier created, Mitch McConnell plan would have a $1.5 trillion deficit reduction effect.  At this time, there is no point in even describing the McConnell plan, since the left is happy to support the useless G.O.6 plan, and the House of Representatives has passed “Cut, Cap, and Balance”.

"Sign something responsible from the House? Pfft, not on your life!"

So, where does this leave us?  Moody’s, the company recognized as a trusted source of ratings for countries’ bonds, has threatened to downgrade the United States’ rating if nothing is done.  The CCB plan, creates a deficit reduction of $6 trillion over ten years.  Moody’s has said that to maintain a Aaa rating, the agency would need to see serious deficit reduction – their number?  At least $4 trillion.  Obama has gone on record as saying if the CCB plan somehow makes it through the Senate, he would veto it.  So, I ask you readers – who’s fault would an “under funded” government be at that point?  To think, all the years that the U.S. has enjoyed an Aaa bond rating.  Of course, that was back when the Senate passed budgets as they are charged with doing.

Related Links:

President Obama threatens to veto the only viable plan for Moody’s

Paul Ryan’s take on the “Gang of Six” budget plan

Why Should Palin Run?

Sarah Palin at the Time 100 Gala in Manhattan on May 4, 2010 (via Wikipedia)

So, even two years out, it seems like election season is upon us.  People are rapidly finding “their candidate”, and supporting them via donation, turning out, and writing online opinion pieces.  While the Democrats’ nominee is all but a foregone conclusion, the Republican field couldn’t be more wide open.  There are numerous contenders from the business world and former leaders.  A Northern businessman is vying with a Southern counterpart for their party’s nomination, a Western former governor is contending for the nom. with a Mid-Western tax lawyer – and then there’s Sarah.

Perhaps the most mercurial and aggravating figure for liberals.  When it comes to Sarah Palin, it seems like there’s no depth to the slurs and slime that the left is willing to throw her way.  Even her family isn’t off limits (something fairly new to politicians – remember Chelsea Clinton and the Bush Twins were considered ‘off-limits’?)  Recently, a Wonkette smear-piece thought it would be just hilarious to make fun of her youngest child, Trig, on his birthday to boot.  The result?  A furious, Twitter-organized, assault on Wonkette’s sponsors, leading many of them to pull their advertisements.

So, why should she run?  She’s already shown a willingness to take on liberals and their favorite talking points.  If she gives additional interviews to the MSM, she’ll surely be more prepared than ever, and should easily expose their inherent bias and warped reporting styles.  The Katie Couric interview, while not seen as a turning point in interviews, wasn’t nearly as bad as some would believe, and Sarah’s popularity has grown, while Couric has lost her anchor seat as her ratings have completely tanked.

As she continues to debate whether or not she’s even joining the primary race, she forces the left and other detractors to continue to expend their resources on background checks and other dirt digging that they can use against her.  There won’t be any in-fighting amongst Democrats, so they would be free to focus on destroying the reputations of Republican candidates.  As they’re doing their checks and spending money, it becomes less that can be used against any other candidates.  As much as they remain critical of even the small things she does, the left appears unwilling or unable to not attack and smear her.

As she’s being disparaged, it will continue to show the hypocrisy and  double-standard of the left and organizations such as NOW and Planned Parenthood, who constantly claim to stand for womens’ rights, and yet never miss an opportunity to tear down a Republican woman running for office.  I hope that as more people continue to see this, and grow sick of it, these two groups (and any others using this m.o.) will grow stale and lose their lobbying power.  For the centrist-supporters of the groups, seeing the same attacks and methods being utilized over and over will continue to erode their support as well.

Finally, she may bring some new planks to the party platform.  With the new planks comes increased interest and support.  The Republican candidates are highly segmented at the moment, and making enough noise with the right issues may finally break one out of the pack.  Even if she doesn’t run, the other candidates can seize the issues she’s brought to the forefront, and they can receive the benefit of her endorsement.  There are simply more good reasons for her to run than not.

I’m actually not even a Palin supporter, but I am a supporter of having as many people as possible raising ideas.  With as many half-baked ideas from candidates as we’re seeing these days, it really shouldn’t be too hard to realize a few winning ideas.