Author Archive for Wilson

Don’t Understand the Economy! Kiplinger Says….

Beth Belton is a Senior Editor for Economics at Kiplinger, the source for personal finance and business forecasting. The Kiplinger Letter has been around since 1923 and, as far as I know, the various Kiplinger publications are well known and respected. Thus, I thought I would ask them what the heck they thought about this economy. Beth was a great help. I canceled my plane ticket to the unknown Pacific island.

The good news is Beth is encouraging, not overly pessimistic. She thinks the economy is almost, maybe not quite, at the bottom. She does not believe we are entering a “great depression,” although we probably entered a recession a few months ago. She does not think the recession will last a long time, less than two years. Unemployment, currently around 6%, will go to 7.5%, maybe higher. Remember, it was 10.2% in the ‘81-’82 recession, which was a bad one for Americans. For a guy like me, that has been thinking soup lines, this is pretty good news. I feel much better!

As for the stock market, it may go a little lower. She cautions against pulling money out of the market, if you don’t need it. If you can leave it in for 3 years, she believes things will turn around. She even says that if you have extra money (who does?), now is the time to invest, because there are a lot of good opportunities out there. You know, buy cheap! If my stock broker (I don’t have one!) told me to buy now, I would assume he/she/it was lying to me and trying to make his/her/its next mortgage payment. Since neither Beth, nor Kiplinger recommend particular stocks or make money selling stocks, her recommendation has a lot more credibility for me.

She mentions Alan Greenspan’s recent testimony before Congress in which he admitted that his basic assumption that banks and financial institutions would act in the best interest of their shareholders was wrong. Apparently, Greenspan’s brain is a lot older than he looks. This guy was Chairman of the Federal Reserve for 19 years! Had I known that was an underlying assumption of his economic policy, I would never have bought his damn book!

Was the baleout a good thing? According to Beth, it is not whether the baleout was ideologically good. It was necessary, unless of course, you prefer chaos and more chaos. Beth says the credit crunch was the big problem, not the failure of the banks, per se. According to Beth, companies like McDonalds and General Electric, good solvent companies, were advising the Treasury Department that if they could not borrow money, short-term, they were not going to be able to make payroll within the week. That would mean businesses close, workers are laid off, and instead of trying to solve a short-term problem, a long-term problem is created. Of course, I don’t even begin to understand how McDonalds could have a cash flow problem making payroll, much less a credit problem, but this is a good example of the degree to which confidence in commercial paper (short term loans) had evaporated overnight.

One result of these recent banking collapses is that we will return to credit standards that were in effect years ago. If you clearly can’t afford the monthly mortgage payment, you won’t be able to buy a house. No more buying a house without a downpayment.

Beth advises that it is going to take time for the banks and the Treasury Department to weed through all the good and bad mortgages and determine which ones will be subject to the terms of the baleout.

She notes that the recent decrease in the price of oil is going to make it easier for consumers to deal with a recession. It was $147 a barrel in July and is now around $65. She says that this wild fluctuation in the price of oil is due to the world markets, not OPEC manipulation. The economies of India and China have experienced a slow down and that is responsible for the decrease in the price of oil.

I feel better. Hope you do too!

 
 Beth Belton, Senior Editor, Kiplinger [29:05m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (54)

The Latest 538 Polls!!

Obama: 344 Electoral Votes
McCain: 194 Electoral Votes

Obama: 52.2 % Popular Vote
McCain: 46.6 % Popular Vote

FiveThirtyEight.com says:

Today’s Polls, 11/1
This is beginning to look like a five-state election. Those states are Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada. Essentially all relevant electoral scenarios involve some combination of these five states.

I should caution that by far the most likely scenario is that Obama wins some relatively decisive victory of anywhere from 3-12 points in the popular vote. If Obama wins the popular vote by anything in this range, he will find plenty of blue territory, accumulating somewhere between 300-400 electoral votes. The electoral math will matter very little.

We can probably assume, however, that IF the national polls tighten significantly (and to reiterate, the likelihood is that they will NOT), McCain will edge out a victory in North Carolina, Florida, Indiana, North Dakota, Montana, Georgia, and Missouri; put those states in the McCain column for the time being. Likewise, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa all appear safe for Obama, even in the case of significant tightening. Put those in the Obama column.

That leaves our five states in play. The victory conditions for Obama involving these five states proceed something as follows:

1. Win Pennsylvania and ANY ONE of Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, or Nevada*
2. Win Ohio and EITHER Colorado OR Virginia.
3. Win Colorado AND Virginia AND Nevada.

(* Nevada produces a 269-269 tie, which would probably be resolved for Obama in the House of Represenatives.)

Now, suppose you think that Colorado is already in the bag for Obama because of his large edge in early voting there. We can then simplify the victory conditions as follows:

1. Win Pennsylvania
2. Win Ohio
3. Win Virginia AND Nevada

That’s basically what it comes down to, although I’m sure each campaign would claim that there are a larger number of states in play.

*-*

Sorry to get off on such a tangent about this; I wanted to talk, for a change, about something other than whether the POLLS ARE TIGTHENING (!!!) or not. But as to that question, the evidence is again somewhat mixed. Contrary to other recent days, Obama gained ground in the national trackers on average, picking up points in Research 2000, Gallup and Rasmussen. The Zogby that Matt Drudge went on about turned out to be the only poll where he lost ground, while ABC/Post, IPD/TIPP and Hotline held steady.

However, our model does perceive about a point’s worth of tightening in the state polls. And the Pennslyvania polls have probably tightened by more than one point, although it is important to note that the four polls that show the state in the mid- single digits (Rasmussen, Mason-Dixon, ARG and Strategic Vision) have all had Republican leans so far this cycle. Pennsylvania is still an extreme long shot for John McCain — Obama is more likely to win Arizona than McCain the Keystone — just not quite the long-shot that it had looked like a couple of days ago.

As a final word of warning, proceed cautiously with any polls that were in the field last night. Friday nights are difficult enough to poll, and holidays are difficult enough to poll, but when a Friday night coincides with a holiday (in this case, Halloween), getting an appropriate sample is all but impossible

And, if you are interested in the Senate races

Meanwhile, the three Southern seats in Georgia, Kentucky and particularly Mississippi are increasingly looking close-but-not-quite for the Democrats. The surges of Jim Martin and Bruce Lunsford in the first two races appeared to be dictated principally by the financial crisis and the attendant bailout, as the Republican incumbents in both races voted for the bailout bill. However, given the relative lack of bad financial news over the past couple of weeks, it is not surprising that they have stalled out some. Martin, though, probably remains in a stronger position than our numbers indicate, as I think some of these turnout models are conservative in Georgia given what has transpired in the early voting; at the very least, he has a good chance of salvaging a run-off.

Hallelujah! CAPS ARE DEAD IN GEORGIA!

Hallelujah! Praise the Lord! There is Justice for the common man, in spite of our misguided, special interest controlled Republican legislature and Governor!!!!

What is all this about? CAPS are dead. Dead. Dead! DEAD! (Well, practically speaking, anyway!)

Many of you may be living in ignorance, but listen up, and you shall hear, a story as significant as that of Paul Revere, the freedom rider.

In 2005, within months of gaining a stranglehold majority on the Georgia Legislature, the Republican leadership and Governor Perdue repaid their campaign promises to the Chamber of Commerce, the doctor lobby and the insurance companies by depriving the citizens of Georgia of the right to hold negligent doctors fully responsible for the harm they cause. They did it by enacting, as the very first piece of litigation, a bill infamously referred to as “tort reform,” SB-5. That piece of legislation was rammed down the throats even of the Republicans who knew it was bad legislation, no amendments were allowed, vote up or down, and don’t ask questions.

One of those provisions said this:

In any verdict returned or judgment entered in a medical malpractice action, including an action for wrongful death, against one or more health care providers, the total amount recoverable by a claimant for noneconomic damages in such action shall be limited to an amount not to exceed $350,000.00, regardless of the number of defendant health care providers against whom the claim is asserted or the number of separate causes of action on which the claim is based. Official Code of Georgia 15-13-1 (b)

(Note: This is only a portion of the statute. There are other provisions which allow this amount to increase to just over $! million in limited cases, but not in suits where you sue just one doctor.)

So, no matter if you were a quadriplegic, unable to move anything other than your eyeballs as a result of a doctor’s negligence, those wise fools in the legislature decided that you couldn’t possibly be entitled to more than $350,000 for pain and suffering, even if you lived and suffered for 40 more years in that condition.

To add insult to injury, the bastards applied this law only to medical malpractice lawsuits. It a truck driver put you in that condition, there was no limitation.

Well, it took over 3 years but on April 30, 2008, a Superior Court Judge in Fulton County declared the limitation on non-economic damages to be unconstitutional. It was not surprising when the insurance company appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court of Georgia. The case was scheduled for argument before the Supreme Court before the end of the year, but that will never happen. Why?

A couple of days ago, the insurance company chickened out, decided they would probably lose in the Supreme Court and rather than have the statute declared unconstitutional, they settled the case with the injured person. I don’t blame the injured person for taking the settlement (which by the way is super confidential, a secret).

What does all this mean? It means:

(1) The insurance company can still tell everyone that Georgia has caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases.

(2) Lawyers know that the insurance companies are chicken and will be more likely to pursue cases without regard to the caps.

(3) Some lawyer, some where is going to get the same issue in front of another judge in the state and it will get to the Supreme Court for a final decision.

(4) The Chamber of Commerce and the insurance companies are going to focus their attention on judicial appointments and hopefully get the people they want on our Courts before the case gets there again.

(5) YOU AND EACH AND EVERYONE OF YOU NEED TO BE VIGILANT IN WHO YOU VOTE FOR IN JUDICIAL RACES, PARTICULARLY ON THE COURT OF APPEALS AND SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA.

“The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder” by Vincent Bugliosi

I interview a lot of people that have made the rounds on the network and cable talk shows, but Vincent Bugliosi is not one of them. The guy that prosecuted Charles Manson for murder cannot get an interview in the mainstream media about his new book “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.” Boycotted, blackballed, whatever it is, what he has to say, the powers that be do not want to hear it.

Why? According to Bugliosi: FEAR! Fear of the “Right.” It is this fear, that has protected Bush from impeachment by Democrats since 2006. Fear is why Nancy Pelosi declared, before the Democrats won control of Congress, the Democrats would not seek to impeach Bush. Maybe, after November 4th we, as a nation, can cast off fear and focus a little more on hope and justice. It is precisely this atmosphere of fear that will be the eternal and despicable legacy of the Republican Right scrawled across the face of the American Constitution. A free people living in the greatest democracy the world has ever known, live with more fear than a paranoid schizophrenic on LSD! Who would have thought it possible?

Bugliosi lays out an open and shut case that Bush knowingly lied to Congress and the American people when he and his cronies suckered us into the Iraq War. (Of course, some of you out there won’t believe this is true.) Months before Bush’s intelligence source, the CIA, told him Iraq (Saddam) did not represent any immediate threat. Weeks before the war began, Bush was asking how he could provoke Iraq into starting the war. But the worst thing George Bush did was to release an intelligence report supporting his claim for war, after he deleted the report’s conclusion that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction and was not a threat to anyone, other than the Iraqi people.

But that is not the whole story. Believe it or not, this story will live or die come November 4, 2008: Election Day! Do you know about candidate for Attorney General in Vermont? Charlotte Dennett has made a campaign promise: If she is elected Attorney General of Vermont, she will appoint Vincent Bugliosi a Special Prosecutor to indict, try and convict George W. Bush for murder.

Sounds like a plan to me.

As Vincent says and I believe: No one, including the President of the United States, is above the law.

Court TV will make millions, no billions!!!!

 
 Vincent Bugliosi, Author and Attorney [31:47m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (78)

Unanimous—Jim Powell Lives!!!! (In The 4th District)

The Georgia Supreme Court today ruled in Handel v Powell that Jim Powell, candidate for the Public Service Commission, District 4, was qualified to run.

You can read the entire opinion here, or this excerpt:

The superior court determined the Secretary made such an error of law when she concluded that the candidate’s homestead exemption on property outside the District was sufficient to determine that the candidate did not reside in the District.3 We agree with the superior court that the Secretary committed an error of law that authorizes reversal of the Secretary’s decision.

The Secretary acknowledged in her decision the existence in OCGA § 21-2-217 of “a set of rules” to be followed in determining residency to qualify to run for elective office, but employed only one of the fifteen rules contained in the set, the “homestead exemption” subsection. When the issue is the residence of a person desiring to qualify to run for elective office, OCGA § 21-2-217(a) directs that the rules contained therein are to be followed “so far as they are applicable[.]” The facts of the case at bar call into consideration at least seven of the fifteen rules: Subsections 1, 2, 3, 4.1, 6, and 9, as well as the homestead exemption rule found in subsection 14.4 but the Secretary’s decision did not take into account any of the applicable rules other than the homestead exemption rule. The Secretary’s analysis had the effect of elevating the “homestead exemption” rule of OCGA § 21-2-217(a) above the remaining rules contained therein, effectively eviscerating their application in any case questioning the qualifications of a candidate for elective office should the candidate own a home on which a homestead exemption is enjoyed. A statute must be construed “to give sensible and intelligent effect to all [its] provisions and to refrain from any interpretation which renders any part of the statute meaningless.” R. D. Brown Constrs. v. Bd. of Educ. of Columbia County, 280 Ga. 210, 212 (626 SE2d 471) (2006). Had the General Assembly intended such a preeminent role for the homestead exemption in determining the residence of a person desiring to qualify to run for elective office, it would have so stated in OCGA § 21-2 -217(a). Inasmuch as the superior court did not err when it reversed the decision of the Secretary, we affirm the judgment of the superior court.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

Race for Justice: Vermont and the Prosecution of George W. Bush

The Latest 538 Polls!

Obama: 348.2 Electoral Votes
McCain: 189.8 Electoral Votes

Obama: 52.1 % Popular Vote
McCain: 46.5 % Popular Vote

FiveThirtyEight.com says:

As before, the three critical races for any scenario in which the Democrats earn a 60-seat majority are the three vulnerable Republican incumbents in the South. These are Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, Saxby Chambliss in Georgia, and Roger Wicker in Mississippi. All three races lean Republican to the tune of about 2 points.

Jason Pye on Spreading the Wealth!

Here’s one to listen to, Pye and me! Or is that Pye and I? It has been a while since Jason and I mixed it up, but this interview was well worth the wait. A little heat, a lot of heart and absolutely no bull.

Of course, Jason, as a Libertarian, voted for Bob Barr. Bob Barr, you know, the Libertarian Candidate for President. Bob Barr, the ex-Republican (ain’t we all!)!!! That made Jason’s choice easy, but in an effort to help all you out there that may be undecided (about what, I have no idea), I decided to ask Jason why he would not vote for McCain. One word: Iraq! Good word, simple and to the point.

Jason agrees that McCain is toast, too far behind to ever catch up. Palin is not qualified to be a V.P. nominee. Obama has a chance to take Georgia. The Democrats may reach that magic number of 60, but even if they get close, they will have 2 or 3 Republicans they can count on. Sounds depressing. Makes me wonder why Republicans would even show up to vote.

We avoided discussing the “Bradley Effect.”

We fell into the abyss when I asked why he wouldn’t vote for Obama. One word: Taxes! Jason is much too nice of a guy for me to jump on him in print, but we did get into it. Jason thinks Obama is going to “spread the wealth around,” which makes Jason very uncomfortable. If Jason were a Republican I could say that Bush has been spreading the wealth around (to Halliburton, Blackwater, etc.) pretty good himself, but that doesn’t work with a Libertarian. They don’t like Bush either!

I could say, we are in the process of spreading the debts (Wall Street’s) around, so why not the wealth, but Jason doesn’t like the baleout either.

So what does “spread the wealth” mean? I guess only time will tell, but let me tell you what I think it means. It is nothing sinister or socialistic. Hundreds of thousands of people work for hundreds of companies all across America. They are good employees. They work hard. In this day and age, they are thankful for their jobs. They can’t quit their jobs, at least, not for a better job. Let’s say they make more than minimum wage, $10 an hour or $20,000 a year. They have 2 or 3 kids and live in a rental apartment of house. After the subprime mortgage fiasco, they will never buy a house because they will never get approved for a mortgage, because they will never save the 20% downpayment. Now, as a society, we expect them to raise good kids, productive kids, educated kids. We expect them to be good parents and to spend quality time with their families so they don’t end in a divorce. They are living from pay check to paycheck. (PLEASE NOTE: I think they would be living from paycheck to paycheck if they may 2 or 3 times as much, which is what most of us do.) By the way, if this is not a fairly accurate depiction of American families (maybe even, too rosy), someone tell me, because this is what I see everyday as a lawyer.

Now this person, this family, is maxed out. Another bill, an unexpected illness, a tax increase is going to cost them a lot, maybe everything.

FEDERAL INCOME TAX PAID: I would guess no more than $1,500.00 a year.

And then there is the person that owns one of these companies. He is a good person, a good manager, comes to the office everyday and does his part to make the company successful. He lives well, his kids go to private school, he takes at least 2 weeks of vacation and flies across the country to resorts to show his wife and kids the good life. He has an IRA that he contributes to regularly. He has two houses. He is saving for college, the best college, for his kids. He invests conservatively in the stock market and every once in a while makes some money. His annual income is $500,000.00. Please note, this does not equal taxable income, which is generally lower.

FEDERAL INCOME TAX PAID: Let’s say $120,000.00.

Now, assume the government is $10 trillion in debt. (Contrary to popular disbelief, there is a rational basis for this assumption.)

Whose taxes should you raise? Whose minimum wage should be higher?

Can you solve the problem? How about it Jason? Love ya, man!

 
 Jason Pye, Libertarian and Political Commentator [31:52m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (122)

Immigration and the Local Option Enforcement of Our Laws

In all the presidential debates, in all the political commercials, in all the talking points, you don’t really hear much about immigration, or more accurately, the issue of illegal aliens and what to do about the flow of people across our border with Mexico. You may hear a soundbite here or there. Just about every candidate will use phrases like “immigration reform,” or “secure our borders” or a dozen others. What you won’t hear is in-depth, detailed discussion of what this really means? You won’t see finger pointing because the fingers point to everyone. You will not hear anyone say that if elected they will get the fence built. You will not hear national politicians pledge to enforce our laws, punish employers who break it and deport illegal aliens.

The reason you won’t hear much about these issues is because no one wants to lose the Hispanic vote. You won’t hear much because everyone’s position, on the national level, at least, is basically the same: amnesty (code word: immigration reform) is coming, so do not fight it too hard!

Well, that ain’t necessarily so. Last year, a grassroots uprising stopped a bipartisan effort to grant amnesty for illegal aliens. That uprising convinced our Georgia Senators Chambliss and Isakson to change their position from one of support to a vote against the legislation. which side of the issue they had better be on if they wanted to get re-elected. Both of them had supported the Bush Administration and the Republican plan for amnesty.

There are those for whom the fight goes on daily. It will go on every year in Congress until one side or the other is the victor. D. A. King is one of those determined to win. D. A. founded The Dustin Inman Society after a 16 year-old boy, Dustin Inman, was killed in a automobile accident with a driver, an illegal alien, who had legally obtained a North Carolina driver’s license, even though he was here illegally. Sure, similar accidents occur every day that do not involve illegal alien drivers. Nevertheless, it is equally true that if an illegal alien could not get a driver’s license, Dustin Inman would not have died on the day he did.

If the issue on the national level is on hold until after the election, the fight on the local level only intensifies. The fight has become a grassroots effort to do what the national government won’t do: enforce our immigration laws. In this interview D. A. King emphasizes the effort in Georgia and elsewhere to get local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration laws and undertake efforts to deport illegal aliens.

In 1996 Congress passed Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act which allows the authority to enforce our federal immigration laws to be formally delegated to local law enforcement agencies. Thus, if the federal government won’t enforce the laws, communities that want to do so can obtain that power by compliance with Section 287(g).

Not all communities and law enforcement agencies participate in the 287(g) partnership with the federal government. Some have tried, without success, which is difficult to understand. The Cobb County Sheriff’s Office does.

On the state level, in 2006 the General Assembly passed the Georgia Security and Compliance Act. The Act requires Georgia employers working on public contracts to verify legal status of applicants using the E-Verify database provided by the federal government. It requires the Georgia Commissioner of Public Safety to establish a 287(g) program for Georgia, requires law enforcement officers to make a reasonable effort to determine immigration status of individuals in their custody and to report problems to Homeland Security, and a variety of other requirements intended to deal effectively with the issue of illegal aliens in Georgia.

Some of you may not agree with D. A. I didn’t–at first. In fact, the reason I first interviewed him was to tell him that I thought it was an exaggerated, inflammatory issue, inspired by Republican conservative to get out the vote in 2006.

Well, D. A. changed my thinking by giving me facts, not soundbites. It is not a racial issue, it is an economic issue, and more importantly an issue of law and sovereignty. As D. A. points out, Mexico enforces its immigration laws to the maximum. Why don’t we? For that you will need to think and do some research if you want to find the answer on your own. Check out Numbers USA, GrassFire.org, and The Dustin Inman Society.

If you don’t have time to do the research, I will tell you the simple answer: Corporate power and cheap labor. It is the business community that wants what illegal aliens have to offer, unlimited cheap labor, at the expense of the American worker. The ultimate goal is the free flow of labor across our borders. In the 1990s NAFTA exported our manufacturing plants, leaving us with jobs that could not be outsourced. In this decade the effort has been to outsource the labor, though illegal employees, for the remaining jobs.

Don’t believe me? Your problem, not mine.

 
 D. A. King, Founder, The Dustin Inman Society [29:28m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (65)

“Unsettled: The Problem of Loving Israel”

If you are an American, you must be for Israel, or at least that is the way it seems. It is certainly political suicide to speak ill of Israel. Please note, my reference is to the nation of Israel, not the Jewish religion. We tend to equate the two, even though there is a larger percentage of Arabs as citizens of Israel, than African Americans citizens of America.

Author Marc Aronson is Jewish. Many of his family live in Israel. Marc visits often. In his book “Unsettled: The Problem of Loving Israel” Marc says that Israel is, today, dealing with the issues of segregation and discrimination toward “Arab citizens of Israel” that America dealt with 40 years ago. These are not Palestinians living in the occupied territories, like the West Bank or Gaza. These are Arabs whose families have lived in the State of Israel since its creation in 1948. They vote and can even hold public office, though they rarely do. The only thing they don’t do is serve in the Israeli Army.

Is Israel only for Jews? Should non-Jews leave? Is there something wrong when an ethnic group comprising 20% of the population owns only 4% of the land? Is Israel pursuing policies that relieve these growing pressures or which obscure them until they erupt?

Marc explores the attitudes and contradictions of a persecuted people who are or should be dealing with issues of discrimination and persecution of Arab citizens. The question is to what extent does this contradiction bode good or evil for the ulitmate future and security of Israel? Marc’s point is not to criticize, but to point to a gathering storm, for just as surely as these issues caught up with America 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, they will linger within Israeli society until they are dealt with, either constructively or destructively.

The subtleties and complexities of these issues have discouraged me from even attempting to boil down this emotional journey into a few sentences. If you love Israel or have a problem loving Israel, read the book! It will make you think.

 
 Marc Aronson, Author [30:44m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (73)