Music Video Monday

Because the Black Frank White was the illest. RIP.

David Stern Decides to Lock Up his Legacy

There is a lot of talk today, after this past weekend's deal ending the NBA lockout, about the motivations of both the players and the owners in hashing the deal out now. Charles Pierce over at Grantland has a piece today that mirrors many of my thoughts. I absolutely agree with him that the lockout was never just about, or even primarily about, splitting up basketball related income. In the same vein, I don't think that this weekend's deal getting done was primarily about either the players or the owners. It was about that smug bastard above. As I told my buddy upon hearing the news, I'd bet dollar to donuts that Stern read/saw all of the negative coverage, heard about how big of a threat this was to his legacy, especially after the Seattle fiasco, and, after some contemplation in his office that has many leather-bound books and smells of rich mahogany, decided that the lockout needed to end now. He's the only one who could corral both sides and convince them that this was the best for everyone involved. He could tell the players the owners were robber baron dbags and the owners how much they actually won in the deal and how much they stood to lose by losing a season. And then he could convince the owners to do what they should've done in the first place anyway... make some minor concessions so the players could save face and wrap this deal up. The worst part, for me anyway, is that people will probably forget, again, that he is the Darth Vader to the owner's collective Palpatine. People think that he's power but he's, basically, a tool the owners use to get what they want. I love the NBA and I'm psyched that its back, but it makes me a little sick that Stern will get to continue on with his whole shtick without a moments pause. Ugh. Well I won't forget... eff you Stern.

(Image: one of the more condescending Stern images I came across. Though it would probably be easy enough to start a Stern condescending glare gallery.)

How to Fail At Legislating by Really, Really Trying

This post may very well get pretty long and quite possibly convoluted, so I request your patience/forgiveness in advance. A probably (definitely) better written piece that takes on similar themes can be found here (it's Rolling Stone, but not Matt Taibbi. So back off). Feel free to jump to the last paragraph of this post for the punch line.

In a surprise to no one, the (Not so) Super Committee on Debt Reduction failed miserably at their mandate and did not even get a proposal together that they could vote on. There are a variety of reasons for this failure but (as some may have guessed) I place the blame squarely at the feet of GOP orthodoxy (religious term usage intended) on taxes. Simply put, Republicans on the Debt Reduction Committee refused to budge on additional revenue to work in tandem with the spending cuts the Dems were offering. Specifically, the GOP was requesting that the Bush tax cuts lasted beyond 2012. Obama has pushed for the continuance of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class before, but the Republicans required that ALL of the tax cuts, including for the wealthiest in this county, are extended as well. Despite the fact that the country can no longer afford them. And despite repeatedly and vociferously preaching debt reduction. The basic argument, as far as there is one, is that taxes upon the wealthy impede growth and the economic growth is really the only way we can pay down our national debt. Classic Trickle-down economics (aka Reaganomics).

There are NUMEROUS problems with this theory, but I'll try to contain myself as much as possible. First and foremost, if this is the case then WHERE THE EFF IS THE MOTHER EFF'N GROWTH YOU GODDAMN MORONS? (Looks like my Caps Lock got stuck. Whoops.). This is not some hot new theory that Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie hatched at a slumber party being all GOP young guns and such. As the name suggests, the Bush tax cuts have been around since the presidency of, wait for it... you ready?... I don't know if you are, but here it is... George Walker Bush. Yet the growth hasn't come.  Now, I guess, the plan is to maintain the status quo and hope beyond hope that the spirit of the Gipper makes it all better? These tax cuts have taken billions from our revenue stream and, along with two unfunded wars, helped mightily in bringing the US into the situation we are now in. Despite GOP mythologizing, even President Reagan raised taxes when it was necessary to keep the US economy on an even keel. You do not stand on orthodoxy when the country is reeling; you find solutions that work (such as spending cuts + increased revenues = balance; yes, that would be Personal Finance 101- Your Checkbook).

Additionally, and lastly (thankfully for you), the current talk of tax cuts to the wealthiest and corporations spurring hiring and ACTUAL growth through capital investment, R&D, new products, et al., is just a steamy load of horse manure. As today's NY Times points out, many companies, currently sitting on enormous amounts of cash, are not reinvesting that money in ways that would ACTUALLY help the economy grow. Rather, these companies are artificially approximating growth by instituting share buy backs,which push up the earnings per share. This is accounting legerdemain being used to simulate growth. The truly sad part is that investment in research and development would, eventually, help a company ACTUALLY grow. It just requires taking the long view. And in lies the rub. The short term artificial growth helps executives hit required earnings per share/growth numbers and, thus, get performance based performances attached to those numbers. Likewise, usually top executives making these decisions hold a large amount of stock in the company and can directly benefit from these buy backs. This is, clearly, a potential conflict of interest but courts give a wide amount of latitude in business judgment. Unless there is a clear breach of fiduciary duties, the games continue. All tax cuts would do is grow the pile of money that corporations are sitting on and help those running those companies get richer while paying lower tax rates. Sounds totes fair, right?

So, in other words, shit is eff'n crazy pants to the max. I can only hope that the POTUS sticks by his promises to veto any attempt to roll back the automatic spending cut trigger and a full extension of the Bush tax cuts. It may take some brass ones but, considering our current political environment (those federalists/anti-federalists were lil schoolboys comparatively), this may be the best outcome we could have hoped for.

Dope v. Hope

First off, apologies to my six or so faithful readers for my absence. Last week was a busy one and the blogging dropped off. I was appropriately shamed, however, so I hope to make up for it in the coming week(s).

60 Minutes ran two segments highlighting two individuals, Grover Norquist and Christine Lagarde, that could not be more different in my mind. They both are clearly very intelligent people but people who utilize their intelligence in very different manners. Grover Norquist, of Harvard and HBS, has formed a a libertarian advocacy group, Americans for Tax Reform, whose "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" has held Republican congressman hostage for decades. Even in his short 60 Minutes segment, Norquist comes across as the dorky kid in high school that got a taste of a bit of power and now clearly revels in the fact that he has the rich, popular kids come to kiss his ring. He wisely deflects questions about being a tool for corporate interests and not divulging his supporters by stating that he is looking out for the American voter, despite the majority of Americans supporting tax increases. Long story short, I think he's a scourge on the American electorate and he gives me the willies. Christine Lagarde, on the complete opposite hand, is my homegirl. She was the first female chairman of Baker & McKenzie, a massive international law firm, then became the first female minister in charge of economic affairs in France, and just recently became the managing director of the IMF. Clearly she's one bad ass mofo (fafo?). Unlike Norquist, she comes across as a humble, hard working pragmatists that was too proud to join an elite French law firm because they stated she would never make partner as a woman (she just walked out of the interview... bad. ass.). She called out the French worker for being too lazy, Wall Street for ignoring the coming financial crisis in 2008 and now calling out the entire global financial industry for not accepting regulations quickly enough.

I'd recommend watching both segments and making your own decisions but I think many of the problems in the US exist because people like Norquist have too much power and  not enough people like Lagarde do.

Music Video Mondays

Because Bradley Nowell died too young, because it is a good song and because Tiny Lister is a scary dude.

The Hot Mic Heard Round the World

In what has been variously labeled a horrible gaffe or a fleeting glimpse of the truth, depending on who you are talking to, President Obama and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France were overheard speaking about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a less than flattering fashion at the G20 summit. Their off-the-record discussion was on a microphone that was, unbeknownst to them, live at the time. A small group of reporters in a different area heard what was said and, despite an initial reluctance to report on a private conversation, the facts eventually leaked out. According to Reuters, the conversation went as follows:

"I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar," Sarkozy told Obama, unaware that the microphones in their meeting room had been switched on, enabling reporters in a separate location to listen in to a simultaneous translation.

"You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you," Obama replied, according to the French interpreter.

To me, this doesn't seem like the biggest deal in the world. I mean, Netanyahu seemed to go out of his way to go on an Eff You Obama tour of the U.S. on his last visit. Not the biggest surprise that Obama might not be his biggest fan. Around Congress, however, the histrionics are going to be turned up to 11. This will be especially true at the GOP debate tomorrow evening where, I can only imagine, the POTUS will be accused of treason for daring to speak (mildly, kinda, sorta, in a milquetoast way) ill off the Israeli Prime Minister. In some circles, to say anything remotely negative about Israeli means that you are a filthy anti-Semitic, Nazi sympathizing, puppy kicker. Or, at the very least, not a Christian.

Personally, I don't understand the knee jerk support of Israel on ALL issues, ALL the time. Or why a modern, developed, (relatively) wealthy country would receive more U.S. foreign aid than any other country. Like any relationship, the U.S. and Israel should have a give and take (instead of Israel being the abusive boyfriend the U.S. won't leave). Maybe the leaking of this conversation will make Israel re-think its recalcitrance, but I doubt it. Especially when a large number in Congress go out of their way to support the Prime Minister of Israeli while taking shots at the President of the United States.

UPDATE: See link for a well put analysis by Sully.

Music Video Mondays

Because it's Weezy F. Baby, and the F. is for favorite.