Safety Nets

Remember a few years ago when President Bush proposed that Social Security essentially become privatized.  That each of us has our own investment account where Wall Street could sell us promises to keep us in our elder years comfortably if we just invested in their products?

Ah, now is the time to be grateful that idea died, at least for now.  It certainly is still being bandied about in the same discussions that policy makers have concerning the health of the Social Security system.  But at least for now, it seems hibernating.

And thank goodness.  At the very least, most of us lost 20% on the stock market.  At the worst perhaps half our savings.  I constantly hear people in their 50s talking about how they now realize they will not be able to retire.  Several days ago I received an accounting of a defined pension from a non-profit employer in my past.  Not only has the employer not been fully funding the pension obligations but the earnings in the pension have obviously declined.

Social Security is the safety net, now, for many of our elders who have lost significant savings.  Unlike the Great Depression we probably won't see many of our esteem citizens dying alone in the streets of starvation or lack of housing.

But, the promises that we made to ourselves, that corporate America made to it's workers, that if we worked hard, produced, we could retire, has vanished.  

As we begin to imagine our world post-Depression and the pundits rant about the high costs of Social Security, think about all the times in our lives that we have needed safety nets.  It will pay to make sure we maintain and enhance this system.  So far, it has been reliable and hasn't failed, unlike Wall Street, real estate, and the dot.com debacles.

Unemployment

Can't blame the Administration for emphasizing any good news.  Today's unemployment figures are the highest since 1983.  Many of the work force were not alive in 1983 (I was and well into the work force by that time). But the Obama Administration noted that the rate of increase, the rate, was slowing down from the previous months.  So although we have over 5 million people who seeking unemployment insurance, and probably just as many who are unemployed and ineligible for unemployment insurance and hence not counted, the rate of adding more people is apparently slowing down.

Or, or perhaps every one is just taking a breather from laying people off, waiting to see if there is any good news in the economic horizon.

What baffles me is how we can go from such dire economic news in March and April, to finding silver linings in early May?  Is the economy really beginning to turn around?

Stay tuned!

In the meantime, those 5 million people, or probably more accurately 10 million, our neighbors, friends, family members, they are scared, nervous, and feeling a little hopeless.  The 8.9% is not just a number, it's people.

And What is the Change?

Chris Hedges, a former New York Times journalist recently published a piece about the "branding" of President Obama, and how his presidency may be about maintaining the brand of "change" rather than actually bringing about change.

You can read the article by clicking here.

It certainly is true that this Administration has tapped into needs for a certain type of image, which apparently have been pent-up for 8 years.  Carefully staged and crafted photo-ops of this president, his wife, children, and the vice-president give us images of guys who love their wives and kids, a woman invested in organic foods, and adorable, well loved children.  There is even a picture of President Obama teasing Caroline Kennedy about the famous picture of her brother peeking through the president's desk.  We have Brand Obama, cool, hip, caring, or what are the new words...transparent and empathetic.

But the real meat is in what is being done.  And here is where Hedges takes aim.  Of course the relationships between politics and the financial institutions is an obvious place to hammer home that while the brand may change from Bush to Obama, the results which impact average Americans have not changed.

It's interesting that the current generations, Baby Boomers to the current crop of young people, have been subjected to sophisticated advertising campaigns for their life times.  You would think we could see through all this branding, demand quality and authenticity.  But we don't.

If we want change, I think, we need to begin by looking at ourselves and how we respond to the "branding" campaigns.  Including the most important one right now: Brand Obama.

The Loneliness of Political Expediency

Last week, Senator Arlen Spector, from Pennsylvania, changed from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party.  It doesn't take a lot of political sophistication to understand that Spector read the polling data telling him voters in Pennsylvania self identify either with a Republican far more conservative than him or with a Democrat, name unknown.  So, Spector, switched, probably thinking he could get elected if he was a moderate  Democrat rather than a moderate Republican.

Then, within the week, he failed to follow his new party's voting recommendations.  Among other things, he was against the modifications to the Bankruptcy Act, allowing for borrowers to seek court ordered modifications of their mortgages.  I am not sure if he said this, but some Senator who voted against the legislation apparently said: "a contract is a contract, a deal is a deal."  Okay, and since when has any politician followed through on their word much less a contract?  

So now the Democrats in the Senate "stripped" Spector of his seniority.  In other words, he has become a freshman Senator.  Ironically, the reason he switched was so he could be re-elected, to hold onto power.  Power.

Maybe, maybe, just once these ya-hoos should listen to their constituents.  If they are not re-elected for who they are, stop trying to bend and contort themselves into something they are not.  Rather, exit stage left, gracefully.

Brave Judges

With all the talk about possible Supreme Court appointments, there are several judges in South Carolina who just did a brave thing.  They signed an injunction against foreclosures.  Over 5,000 foreclosures in that state were suspended to give home owners a chance to apply for federal programs which may help them keep their homes, stay in their neighborhoods, allow their children to stay in their schools.  

So, US Senate, what, again are the reasons you didn't want to help homeowners by making simple changes in the bankruptcy laws which are, by the way, available to corporations and owners of second homes?  

Trying to Negotiate with a Bank

In today's New York Times, the editorial board wrote a great piece about the failure of the US Senate and the Obama Administration to pass legislation allowing federal bankruptcy judges from modifying first mortgages on single family residences, the so-called cram down provisions.  Banks and the financial industry lobbied long and hard to ensure these provisions were not passed.  These are the same banks who have received our taxpayer dollars.

And like every industry who dislike regulation, the same old line came out: cram down provisions will increase the costs of home loans (or land use regulation will eliminate affordable housing, or the Clean Air Act will increase the cost of automobiles...you get the drift).  The reality is not allowing federal bankruptcy judges (not a wild-eyed bunch, I can assure you) to modify a small number of home loans will increase the cost of mortgages because the toxic assets of bank ledgers is causing the cost of credit to increase.

But a much more significant point is that without the threat of bankruptcy and a possible "forced" loan modification, there is no, none, zip, leverage for a distressed home owner in negotiating with a bank.  Think about what is happening right now with GM and Chrysler, the threats of bankruptcy brought unions and creditors to the table.  

So, why is it Democrats and the Obama Administration allow for cram-downs with every one else but regular Americans?

There is Good News!

In a small stream on the east slope of the La Sal Mountains in Utah (near Moab), fisheries biologists and wildlife managers have found a small population of Greenback Cutthroat Trout.  Long considered extinct in Utah and parts of Colorado, this is certainly good news.

Nature is truly amazing.  While there still are disputes over the existence of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker in the southern United States (another long considered extinct charismatic megafauna), the idea of a breeding pair living in the swamps of Arkansas is almost magical.  Nature truly is resilient.

These days, this kind of news is wonderful.  To think there are fish enjoying a cool mountain stream high in the La Sals simply refreshes the soul.