Buh-Bayh

In an interesting and timely follow-up to my Jan. 26 blog post on a broken partisan U.S. political system, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh (D) not only announced Monday he will not run for re-election or any other political office http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/16/evan-bayh-presidential-ru_n_463525.html?just_reloaded=1, but volunteered why:  because Congress is a broken and ineffective machine.  In the interview by MSNBC, which the dull interviewers myopically focused on juicy politics (which side is winning) and not the real message (Congress is a partisan mess), Bayh provided some honest insider views of Capitol Hill.  Interestingly, he has nothing to gain politically from his decision and slandered no one, other than to say what is going on in the House and Senate is not working.  He spoke of supporting “practical progress” instead of the “tactical advantage” fellow Congressmen fight over.  He touched on campaign reform, which is required to allow more time for legislation, the real job, and less worry about raising money to run for office in two or even four years.  As an aside, MSNBC tried to bait him to dish on something sensational, but he did not bite (kudos), and the interviewers were too fogged over in an orgy of media hype over aggressive bloggers and not “win[ning]” by staying in politics, to hear his message.

Bayh also gracefully stuck Congress with a dagger while also defending the affront to his competitive side. He said just because he is leaving politics, he is not quitting life and plans to do something productive with his time which will give back to the American people—starting a business that creates jobs, teaching at a university, working for a charity—which is far more than Congress is doing for us Americans.  Wow.

Many times people leave or are forced out of a situation, bitter and disheartened. Bayh is clearly none of the above. He leaves at the top of his game, in good health and ready to do something. I can tell he is an idealist. Fellow idealists do not want to be part of something that is wasteful and subpar when it can be meaningful and effective. Yet he acknoledged politics is about compromise for something rather than posturing for nothing.  Bayh acknoledged the system needs an overhaul and serious housecleaning of incumbents.

This is not the last time you will hear a political insider get disenchanted with not only their job, but the whole ugly system. This is only the first chapter in a long struggle to wrest back control of the democratic process in our country. Americans (and voters), we know, are unhappy. When the talking heads and flesh-pressers get fed up, watch out.  Stay tuned, folks; things are getting interesting.

Anything But This

Here we are one year into the Barack Obama administration and the non-partisan line among anyone I talk to is:  politicians get an assist for the mess in which Americans find their country…and the longer it goes on, the more the original sin will shift to them. Sure, the banks and real estate failed, but eventually the paper trail will lead back to the policy changers. The first six or seven paragraphs of this WSJ article offer a good capsule of the political landscape in the past year and how we got where we are:  http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704541004575011021604106924-lMyQjAxMTAwMDIwMjEyNDIyWj.html  Small update on this article:  Brown, a Republican, did win his seat, in Massachusettes.  They say no one has fallen farther faster than Obama, but maybe that title goes to the blue dogs in Massachusettes.

It is no stretch to say among the hoi polloi Democrats and Republicans alike are contemptible and equally devoid of trust. At the end of 2008 Republicans were shamefully swept out of office in a sea change for overspending abroad and not managing things domestically.  Whatever Congress asked for it got. The economy was in a free fall and the nation was ripe for change:  signed, sealed and delivered for Obama and his Democatratic congressional majority to dig in and get something done. He had all the momentum and then some:  minority underdog win, youthful and engaging. Countries rejoiced at his election and offered helping hands and opportunities to bury the hatchet over foreign policy that WASP-y politicos of the past had perpetuated. Obama had the world behind him. Things would be different now. An Obama inauguration signaled to the world that the U.S. had reached political enlightenment.

Fast forward one year and all is not well. The economy is still in the crapper and patience is wearing thin with an administration that came out of the gate spending our grandkid’s taxes and making hay of a situation that needed some clear-cut, sane management. Instead we, the people, got more of the usual:  overspending and undermanagement, a government specialty, at a magnitude never seen before. Political cycles run in two-year increments, so Obama has less than one year to calm the waters and erase our memories before the voting public enacts some serious payback on his party.

I cannot think of a better commercial for a 3rd political party in the United States than January 2010.

If I were an aspiring third party candidate—Green, Reform, Patriot, Libertarian—I would gird up my loins for a real political streetfight in 2010. I would bet the house on some traction, or go bust trying.  To paraphrase Network‘s Howard Beale:  America’s “as mad as hell and [we're] not going to take it anymore.”  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dib2-HBsF08

But Americans need to be sly about our appetite for change and fight for the right thing this time. As Mr. Beale would suggest, “I don’t want you to protest; I don’t want you to riot; I don’t want you to write to your Congressman because I wouldn’t know what to tell you to write.” Let’s not go for the pendulum swing thing—Dems back to GOP back to Dems ad nauseum.  This clock is broken.  Citizens should set their watches for honest future reform by demanding change in electoral and campaign reform laws. We need to obliterate the strictures that maintain the status quo, and clear out the accretive detritus in the rules, regulations and requirements that allow the politically entrenched to remain.

Unfortunately:  “Ballot access rules, campaign finance regulations, the ban on party cross-endorsements, direct government subsidies to the major parties, and other election rules make it very difficult to launch an independent candidacy or a third party,” says David Boaz, EVP of The Cato Institute.  http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/66489-the-big-question-will-we-see-more-third-party-candidates.  Just as any CEO would never vote for management change that would conflict with his or her long-term power or paycheck, voters need to figure out a way to break up this ineffective duopoly because no current politician would support it. Most likely change will need to come by voting in an outsider first, not by reforming from the inside-out.

I have no idea how except to support new blood and new ideas that are not red or blue.  I believe it can happen. The United States voted in an African-American president; it proved it is ready for iconoclasm. We can be a multi-party system like Germany, Canada, Ireland and the United Kingdom.  The U.S. needs to tear down its political Berlin Wall. Momentum and voice will need to come from the people, and Mr. Beale, what say you?  “First you have to get mad.”

Tragedy as Opportunity

Another natural disaster, another execution disaster. Why is every catastrophe a Groundhog Day for the very organizations who are charged with taking control and responding to disaster, with quotes like this from the AP:  “So far, international relief efforts have been unorganized, disjointed and insufficient to satisfy the great need?” 

I am amazed at how repeatedly unprepared everyone is for a catastrophe of any kind. Cities, governments and countries plan for this; they have manuals sitting on shelves, believe it or not, that spell out what is supposed to happen. Each disaster has its unique challenges, but at the same time, some things remain the same every, single time.  A hurricane will bring flooding, evacuation requirements, large scale temporary transportation system needs, temporary loss of infrastructure (power, water, cell phone towers). Earthquakes will bring building and road failure, public safety and health issues, large-scale loss of life and infrastructure damages.

On many levels, it does not take a genius to study a geographic location, predict the kinds of natural disasters that are likely, create plans to deal with them, and then propagate and train individuals to execute. Natural disasters are equal-opportunity attackers; each country and region around the world has its own challenges. Likewise, everyone (it does not take much money or resources) around the world should be prepared for the calamities likely to result from these natural disasters. Not every country can build engineering marvels of levees or launch satellites to track storms and monitor the earth, but preparation is free.  Anyone can, and should be, ready.

In the phyla of natural disasters, there are only a few:  Flood / Tsunami (water), Earthquake (land), Tornado (air) and Hurricane (water + air). I consider volcanoes a type of earth disruption, and a subset of Earthquakes. Everything else files under those categories.  War and terrorism are also disastrous, but not of nature and rarely do they spontaneously occur. Each of these have mountains of related scientific and historical data, so the phenomena are well-known.  It is only the time and severity that is uncertain. Areas more prone to certain problems should be well-versed in reacting to those events. My mother-in-law grew up in Oklahoma and can spot twister clouds. Even in Florida, she knows the protocol for what to do when she sees those in the sky, and I imagine everyone in Tornado Alley does, too. If I grew up or lived in Haiti, you can bet your life I would a) know how to swim, 2) know how to protect myself from the sun, and 3) be ready for natural disasters that affect Caribbean islands, like hurricanes and earthquakes. This is basic human survival.

Now the Haiti situation. The locals are paralyzed because everything they have relied on is in shambles.  Understood. Their government, however, should have some sort of plan in place. They may not have the financial resources to implement it, but they should know what to do, the bounds of what is possible and what is not, and how to get stuff done in their own country. The U.S., in response to the Haitian call for help, should bring its wallet and people. The U.S. is fairly close-by but still the foreigner; they do not know local customs, infrastructure or politics.  Their capital (and the United Nations and anyone else’s) plus the Haitian plan should be the foundation for a legitimate relief effort.

Reports of aid trapped in warehouses is unacceptable.  Reports of medical planes turned away from landing strips is unacceptable.  This is where the plan needs to be rolled out. These reports are more disturbing than hearing the responders are 84 million ready-to-eat rations short. Yes, it is a shame there are not more foodstuffs available, but having access to 16 million meals is incredible and 100 million is an unfathomable expectation (but notable for future planning). Looting and rioting are to be expected. Having Haiti national authorities and international authorities too affected to organize a response is not to be expected. The one thing citizens expect is that their government has their back, so to speak, in thing far beyond their control. Even the Haitian government should have plans for what to do if even their own lives are wrecked; they are still expected to perform their jobs.

On some pathetic level, I believe it may be too much to ask for people personally affected by a disaster to set their own self-interests aside to take care of their nation. Yet, this is what we pay our political leaders to do. If a flood hits and the mayor’s family gets evacuated, he or she must say goodbye to the fam and the homestead and stay. Are we asking too much for our elected leaders to have courage and emotional fortitude? Someone needs to.  This is the job they chose to run for; the captain must go down with the ship.

How can these mistakes be eliminated or reduced in the future? I think in the face of circumstances locals are too frazzled to act on a high-functional level; the local government needs to rely on the resources of whatever is available or offered—but within the framework of their plan they wrote and they will execute. That way, it does not look like one country came in and took over. Haiti, or the next victim, gets to save a little face, as well as practice to get better for the next time. Victims of distasters also need to rely on the UN. However, the UN should not serve as an open-bankroll function or even a glorified Red Cross that collects and distributes aid. No, the UN needs to be the 911 network, the collection of best practices, the emergency numbers on the fridge, so to speak. The UN makes sense as a helping hand to gather specific resources (like meals ready-to-eat) from its members, not an organization that actually comes in to trespass and execute. The UN is a better empowerer than executor. The executors in this equation are the neighbors like any one of us has. In Haiti’s case, that is the Dominican Republic, Cuba, the U.S. and anyone in mainland Latin America. Your neighbors have the speedy reponse needed. I think with the victimized country, its neighbors, and the UN involved in discrete roles, disaster response could be pretty effective.

Let us admit one thing:  there will always be a next time. I think we should use Haiti as a learning experience, a sketch on the way to a masterpiece of orchestration at the next catastrophe. New Orleans was a sketch to get the next Katrina right. As Americans, we can learn a thing or two from Haiti and our recent domestic catastrophes:  we need experts in logistics, capable people in positions of power who can react. We need people who can think through what a modern day world temporarily without phone, tv, internet, cell phone, water, electricity and community is like—and how to get things done in that environment. The days of legacy politicians and figureheads are over. We need politicians to open the pocketbook and sign on the dotted line, but the real work gets done in the trenches by people who know the emergency response business on a massive scale. This stuff is too gory to place in the hands of weak stomach politicians.

Disaster relief cannot be the one thing on the 21st Century Life to-do list that always gets put off.  It is ok to be prepared for a rainy day.

Life in Our Post-Capitalist Society

I read a disturbing article today in the Wall Street Journal about some 11th hour shady dealings with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704152804574628350980043082.html#mod=djemWMPt. I cannot begin to know everything about FM & FM except on some very basic level:  they are broken, do not serve their purpose anymore, and yet still exist at the folly of all involved.

I am ashamed, sickened and angered all at the same time. I can accept a government screw-up (usually), and I frown upon an overly-eager solution without proper study (sometimes), but I cannot accept purposeful, deceitful, negligent acts that are wasteful and economically detrimental to the average American who entrusts the government with power to make smart decisions as trustees of our taxes.  And both parties wonder why they have massive swings and political bloodletting in the House and Senate every two years—because of stunts like this. There is definitely some sinning involved in running this country; I will not pretend to think the president can make decisions under his personal free will even most of the time, but at least he can act ethically all the time. 

This Freddie and Fannie business is not the business of the government and only clarifies how out-of-control things are in Washington, D.C. If our government were a business, no one would invest in it because it is not solvent and is too overdiversified. The government thinks it is Warren Buffet running Berkshire Hathaway (a successful conglomerate), but it ends up operating thousands of things poorly (another excellent WSJ article exists on this topic and I will post a follow-up after I purge the bile in my system).  There are numerous Wall Street examples of big companies overpaying for the opportunity to own and run smaller companies, only to run them into the ground because of various forms of incompetence (see Quaker Oats’ purchase of Snapple for one). If shareholders owned our government, they would want it to sell off its non-core assets and focus on its mission and value proposition:  what is that, by the way, it has been so long I forget…running a democracy.

So what will life be like in this post-capitalist country we call the United States of America? The government feels it has expertise in, and can “solve” healthcare, and the automobile, banking and housing industries.  None of these are essential to running a democracy. Tack those onto Amtrak and the analogy of our government as a poorly-run, unfocused conglomerate is crystal clear. The really criminal act behind the Freddie / Fannie debacle is that FM & FM were originally created, I believe, to provide mortages to first-time homebuyers and other limited-credit history purchasers. This means FM2 should be the most conservative lenders in the market because they serve those who no one else will touch (due to high risk), and because they are lending taxpayer OPM (other people’s money). Instead, the corrupt and incompetent F & F CEOs oversaw lax standards and risky loans just like every other lender. We, the taxpayers, trusted FM & FM to do the right thing. Not only did they not, but their management will get rewarded and the ”companies” will have the backing of we, the taxpayers. Oh, and if any publicly traded company could not pay its dividends on its shares, as FM2 cannot, they would strike the dividend—not borrow money from the public to pay dividends to those same people they owe (the public).  Robbing Peter to pay Peter?  That is asinine.

Citizens need access to real-time political activity, a gadfly in the know who can broadcast, so that inquiring minds who want to know (I want to know) can possibly act or at least speak out against actions we disagree with. Can someone open the green curtain in Oz? Too often it is after the fact the public finds out; everything in the media seems to be a post-mortem on events.  We, the people, struggle to counteract the inertia of the government half the time, and then cannot stop it the other half.

Geoff Wilson, a commenter on the WSJ’s website regarding the aformentioned article posted: “It used to be that this country was founded on the moral precept that you should stand on your own two feet and ask for nothing from anyone else, and in exchange everyone else agreed that they would ask for nothing from you in return. We had an essentially classless society, and it was wonderful. We were the envy of the world. Why were we not smart enough to see that introducing class conflict through legislation during the progressive era would tear us apart?”  Well put, Mr. Wilson. Each time I read the Freddie / Fannie story, it roils me so deeply that I cannot help but feel that this country is guided by the premise every man for himself than I am my neighbor’s keeper. You see it at work; you see it on the roads; now you see it in the government. The average citizen sees the waste and spending disregard and reacts with one thought:  I need to acquire as much as possible as quickly as possible by hook or by crook because the horizon on life-as-we-know-it is limited.  The government is not managing its spending aka my taxes wisely and is going to really sink its teeth into me to pay for its mistakes sooner rather than later. And so goes the American dream.

Unfit to Serve

On Monday, NPR reported on a study that was done regarding the military. The study determined that 75% of 17-24 year-old males were ineligible to serve in the United States military.  The top three reasons were:  no high school diploma or equivalency, presence of a criminal background, and physical inability, mainly being overweight. The study concluded the depleted crop of youth has caused a threat to national security. In response to the report, to combat the situation the government supposedly pledges something like $2.5 billion toward early childhood development programs and youth physical fitness intiatives. I found this incredibly interesting on many levels.

First, the notion of entrusting our military to teenagers is scary. I know the military relies on a rich combination of youth, naivete, testosterone and fear to mold young men and women into the fighting forces on which we rely. I was a teen once and there is no way I would give a gun or million-dollar equipment to these very young adults. I liken this incredible trust of teens to parents who allow girls to babysit. As a newbie parent, this one clearly flashes on my judgement-o-meter as ”insane”!

Boys grow up understanding that girls get opportunities to babysit for lucrative cash, usually starting in middle school and going through high school; although the sweet spot is probably between age 12 and 16, before they learn to drive. Most boys don’t give this a second thought because boys have no interest in caring for kids at that age, for any amount of money. Either way, I would never, ever entrust my children to a seventh-grader. They know less about kids than I do, and I only know 1) what my nascent instincts guide me to do, and 2) that I used to be one!

I wonder:  is this what will happen to me? Will I get too desperate for help, too busy that I lapse in judgement?  Is this what our country has done as they culled through the country’s manpower resources?  Let’s see:  ignorant of the world, no family, no money, young and looking for adventure, impressionable but no life skills—sure, let’s get as many of these guys as we can and they will become our armed forces.  You could do the same ten-second scan on 14-year old girls as babysitters and see the similarities.  I will trust the goverment and military’s method of madness on this one; they have been doing it for decades.  But the babysitters—no way.

Second, the 75% statistic is stunning and quite hard to believe.  Three-out-of-four men, in the physical primes of their lives, unfit for the military?!  At age 20, I could go on a five mile run, without stretching, and not be sore the next day. My standard day’s routine:  asleep by midnight, awake at 6am without an alarm clock. I could eat a pint of Ben and Jerry’s for a late night snack and never see the calories. I was indestructable. Now 34, those things are impossible. Tell me how only 25% can pass the military’s standards for enlistment.

Third, the notion that a slice of American youth can unknowingly cause a threat to national security is laughable. It is as if there are no able-bodied Americans left to choose from. I figure if 17-24 is slim pickings, the Fed can move on up the line to the next age bracket to staff up. Is this against the rules, is there a charter or bylaws that specify a particular ripeness of talent? If a 25-year old enlists, do they waitlist him or sneer at his lone wrinkle on his forehead, or frown upon possibly a single hair that, through the charcoal film on the windows at the local recruiting office in the strip mall, looks a little gray? I particularly enjoy the disinterest of the government toward health and food issues—childhood obesity, genetically-modified organisms, inhumane treatment and juiced (antibiotics, steroids, hormones) livestock—but once it affects military recruiting, it is a national security issue. That has a ring to it like Homeland Security or weapons of mass destruction or enemy combatant—it automatically triggers a bunch of cash registers and legal eagles in Washington, D.C. to attempt fix the problem.

Teachers always had an image problem: those who can’t do, teach. I always thought the military was right there, too. More than once I heard guidance counselors make allusions to‘well there’s always the military’. Growing up, the military was the dregs, for the drop-outs, those with no guidance or options. Obviously this has changed in a big way. Both of these stereotypes are false.

However, maybe it changed too sharply, too quickly and should not be so exacting. Basics of math and English, yes. With world class training by our armed forces leadership, why do you need a GED? The military’s challenge is marketing, not selection sets. The government could ramp up its ROTC programs in high schools and help get the word out about the military as an elite endeavor, one that you need a clean arrest record for. If kids are educated about the requirements, they might trigger interest and dedication early. I know the different military enlistment options and branches and career paths with different benefits and duty requirements always bewildered me.

ROTC could become more of a career option for high schooler who opt out of college, at least initially, and are not interested in vo-tech. They can start training, academically, earlier. The government could then hand-pick or recruit specific individuals, not just send a postcard when you complete your PSAT. Instead of focusing on generic requirements like a GED, ROTC could be geared more toward the specific needs of the military. Prospects could earn high school credit while taking parallel coursework more in line with defense training, like computer science, immersive language studies and specialized math or engineering classes.

I would like to know the definition of fit for service? Surely it is not the three prerequisites mentioned here. The military should be a little more selective in some cases, and a little more flexible in others. Let us have a properly-screened, trained and funded military, but let us not slide into shameful hyperbole to achieve it.

Banking in the 21st Century

One of the benefits of a down economy is to be able to take advantage of potential deals, depending on what you are shopping for.  One of my wife’s and my goals was to consolidate our first and second mortages at a low interest rate.  I encourage anyone with a similar goal to strike while the iron is hot and do it now.

The process took quite a while, partly because the post-bank crash paperwork to close on a mortgage is way different than before. If banks were not skeptical before, they are even more so now. Before I would hear about how the bank bailout money from Congress was hoarded and not released into the economy to legitimate borrowers.  I was able to see first-hand how stringent, almost too stringent, methods had become.  When it takes thirty days to close, you can be happy to have clauses to lock in rates.  Thirty days is an eternity these days, especially when some banks change interest rates on their mortage offerings more than once a day.  You can see the incongruencies and how difficult it can be to negotiate a deal in your favor. We felt we were lucky, and we should not have needed to feel that way.

But applications and agents aside, I find the banking industry reshaping quite astonishing.  I have this feeling that protective laws have not been passed, regulations have not been put in place, certain investments have not been placed off-limits, risk has not been mitigated and checks-and-balances not sufficiently installed to prevent this from happening again.  I do not see the banks being gutted of their ineffective managers.  I do not see boards vacated or punishment doled.  Heads need to roll and instead it is like Monopoly:  the Fed just picked up Ventnor Place, Pennsylvania Avenue and Park Place on mortgage but without the requisite matching yellow, green and blue properties to do anything useful with its acquisitions.

Instead, the government invented this nifty “bank stress test” it administers.  I love it:  standardized testing for banks, aka, the ‘no bank left behind’ program. I love the euphemism and kid gloves, as if the general populace would freak out if they called it a balance sheet analysis and leverage comparison. No, they want to make sure we feel safe enough to keep our money in their hands. If you like bank stress tests, you have to absolutely love the term toxic assets. Try to find that one in an accounting text.  It belongs in the Oxymoron Hall of Fame.  I think Rich Dad, Poor Dad author Robert Kiyosaki must laugh, or cry, every time he hears that because he defines “asset” in his book pretty clearly, in terms everyone can understand, as ‘something that makes you money’.  If it does not make you money or increase in value, it is not an asset; it is a liability, a debt. So how can an asset, something good, be toxic?  Answer:  it cannot.  If the government has to make up political-speak to discuss bad investments with the public, money losers, how are we ever going to learn and move on from this mess?

Part of the problem is analysts with no one to answer to if they report misleading information on the inflated robustness of a company.  Analysts are like weathermen except for one small distinction:  they are interesting to listen to and provide enough vague guidance to be somewhat accurate with a little c.y.a. built in—except analysts have reams of real data and people to talk to, hard data to crunch and support their claims, and should get fired for misleading information.  If it rains when you thought it would be sunny, maybe your leather-soled loafers get ruined.  If an analyst says ‘buy’, but should say ‘sell’, stocks go up instead of down, companies get richer instead of poorer, but mutual funds and the little guys get crushed.

But I digress—back to my mortgage event. Fast forward:  my wife and I are approved at a really great rate.  We roll our second mortgage into our first. Our house is re-appraised, a humbling and frustrating odyssey in itself. We finally close on it. By the way, no gift basket from the bank.  That is one glaring loss we noticed since the financial meltdown:  no fruit basket or cheese and cracker or chocolate gift basket for being a new customer.  When we closed on our first house, we received two gift baskets—this time, none.

Ok, we have our new lower payment in place; we get our final statements and balances of escrow from our previous lenders.  Financially whole again and cut loose from their tentacles.  Six weeks later, we get a second check from our former second mortgage holder for $1000.  I inspect it thinking it is a gimmick to sign up for some identity theft, credit check…whatever bogus flavor-of-the-month service.  But no, I find out it is a legitimate rebate:  the bank actually paid us to close our account with them! Granted, this bank did show up in the Wall Street Journal as a bank in financial trouble, but still…to pay us to cease doing business with them?!  Are bank risk managers really recommending that they encourage legitimate borrowers to close outstanding debts?  I was astonished at this post-meldown banking practice.  I looked at the truth-in-lending document, or whatever had the summary of the total owed over the life of the second mortgage; it was not small potatoes, $60,000+.  How can paying out ever be better than receiving?  All I can figure is, with the time value of money factored in, the discounted value of what the bank would earn in today’s dollars is not substantially worth their risk to wait to see if we don’t default.  Interestingly, we have good credit, so you thought maybe they would have screened us out as having a better-than-average chance at holding up our end of the mortgage—and not offered us a buyout bonus. 

Heck, this particular bank was not even willing to touch the rate we got from our current lender; it was as if they wanted to exit the whole shooting match.  But we got that impression from a lot of banks; they were just not into their jobs any more, not into putting money at risk in any way, even on a “low risk” profile couple like us.

What my wife and I found most disturbing is the general loss of relationships.  We live in a small town and the bank that generated our first mortgages did not even return our call to offer a rate when we were looking to refinance.  Of course, we did not cry because they ended up shopping our first and second mortages anyway to out-of-state banks, which is how we ended up with two lenders that were…let’s just say, prominent in the recent banking consolidations. Did we want to be with a national lender traded on the stock exchange?  Not necessarily, which is why we went local, where we knew people.  So in the end, what is the point?  If you go to your local banker, and they would rather pocket the quick money finder’s fee than hold the mortgage and make 25x that over thirty years, why have any loyalty? 

If this is banking in the U.S., it could be very disappointing in the future as the have-nots beg the money holders for access to their bullion. At this rate, getting a loan from your bank might fall behind buying a car and going to the dentist on the pain scale. Banking could get unfriendly and even contentious, a real step backward when we should be moving ahead. 9/11 helped destroy any joy, dignity and freedom an American felt when flying.  I hope the current crisis does not do the same for banking.

The Case of TV Conversion: A Mystery

Inquiring minds want to know, so let’s make an attempt to piece together the television conversion mystery. 

June 12, 2009 came and went without fanfare, and maybe that was a best case scenario for the Federal government.  June 12 was the official analog-to-digital television conversion date, where those owning antenna reception televisions would not be able to receive television signals because of the transmission switch to digital broadcast.  Some stations began the conversion in February, the original deadline, but the 12th was the deadline for complete digital.

The whole concept of helping citizens “convert” their televisions smacks of satire or science fiction, maybe something Huxley would have penned.  Or even a mystery.  Only in America could taxpayer dollars pay for government vouchers—up to two, $40 vouchers per household—to help pay for “conversion boxes” so ancient televisions could accept digital signals.  No vouchers for television replacement with something energy efficient, something with a warranty, or at least a current model which can be serviced.  No, the government probably commissioned the development of the conversion box as a proprietary item.  My contacts are silent on this, but I suspect it is most likely thirteen years in the making.  Or maybe they ordered it out of Brookstone.  No, I think it was originally assigned to Lockheed Martin, but they offloaded the project.  Even Google passed on that r&d whopper, the television conversion box. Where is the 21st century’s George Orwell when you need him?  And not one television: Americans are entitled to two digital-ready televisions (one in the living room, one in the bedroom) because television is as American as apple pie.  Egads, where will anyone eat dinner if the t.v. gets no signal?  A preemptive and unintended hunger strike?! Families will starve—the horror!

The mystery is beginning to unfold.  Washington believes that without television, life would cease.  This position has even been established and supported by the Fed.  Who does this affect?  Who owns those rabbit eared beauties?  Me thinks a lot of folk in their 70s, 80s and 90s.  When we have early adopter Gen Yers who upgrade to HD so they can see every clogged pore on their favorite sports hero’s face—and pay for it with a HELOC—who else would stay with their 1970s RCA well into the 21st century but senior citizens?  These t.v. relics reside in the rent-controlled apartments in NYC , in the common rooms of assisted living complexes, and in rural farm houses across the U.S.  One lives in my grandmother’s (R.I.P.) farm house right now.  It gets three channels, none very well, and a snowy PBS on a sunny day.  That is the kind of fluid technology we want to sustain, Mr. President!

But, we the people, need to save the species nonetheless.  To compound the issue, those antenna-ed ilk were built to last.  I grew up on a Zenith that my parents bought when they were married, five years before I was born.  It gave up the ghost when I was a senior in high school.  The remote on that sucker could have doubled as a weapon in Clue.  It took two men and the beefiest hand truck I have ever seen to get it out of our basement, only to be dumped in a landfill where the cathode ray tube probably degraded and helped deplete the ozone.  This was sometime before we shipped our hazardous waste to China, but after the Mobro.

Let me digress.  I have strong views regarding television.  In the past my friends have called me a Luddite and likened me to a hermit over my stance on television and other supposedly can’t-live-without technologies.  In my younger bachelor days, I lead a fairly ascetic urban existence in Baltimore:  basic clothes, no car, no air conditioning and no television.  What did I need a television for—I had the city for entertainment.  In the years between college graduation and engagement, four, I did not own a television. Sure, television has its uses, but measured as one of life’s necessities it ranks near the bottom.  But that’s just me.

Back to our mission, our mystery:  our current hypothesis for June 12 was to save the analog t.v.s and restore technicolor and meaning to the lives of nonagenarians everywhere.  And what drove D.C. to spearhead this initiative?  Fear.  The Fed secretely micturated in its pants when it imagined the media firestorm The Silent Generation was prepared to unleash in a Day of Reckoning.  Oh, you don’t mess with a man’s television.  That is like putting fluoride in the water supply!  Logic might say if there is any demographic the government would more likely play political chicken with, wouldn’t it be the no-entitlement, I-did-it-my-way Sinatra lovers?  [See Social Security].  No tv for you! No, it was definitely the fear of the Schwarzkopfers twittering on their iPhones like a plague, slandering the Obama administration on their copious blogs, inundating their congressmen with email and threatening to withold their votes in three years.  AARP’s elder half must have one heckuva lobby.

Our case is building:  the heirloom televisions must be saved at all costs and preserve life-as-they-know-it for experienced retirees everywhere without ruffling the status quo.  Hmm, now how to execute?  To start with, a toolbox that puts FEMA to shame.  The website, dtv.gov, explains in crystal clarity how each analog-owning person is to be affected, what they can expect.  They set up a call center, for pete’s sake!  Anything to head off another Y2K? Oh wait, that was a overblown fearmongering effort of epic proportions.

Funny, Holmes, but I do not remember the Right to Television in our Bill.  Even if the government’s mandate to digital signal could be considered a sort of “taking” in legal terms for those who might lose the utility of their existing monstrosity, the taxpayer funding of it returns the favor to the rest of the working populace who supplied the tax kitty.  This action definitely qualifies as 99.99% of the population taking a hit so .01% can benefit.  Only a massive federal guilt complex could hold that a $50-$70 full conversion box cost is a hardship too great to be borne by a household.

In the future, I expect the government to kick in with a coupon to upgrade other clearly essential technology.  If the television qualifies as a must-have, surely Blackberries and smart phones will qualify.  When a new cell phone chip or network evolves, I expect a little cabbage to make my conversion happen.  Heck, the seniors can have their conversion boxes for their digital television.  In a few years there will probably be some new disruptive technology that will put all smart phones to shame.  That is when I expect the Fed to go to bat for me. 

Until then, pop some popcorn, cut the lights and belly up to the boob tube.  There is apparently something coming up that Mr. Obama wants us all to be able to watch.