Elvis (the Horse) Has Left the Building

Yahoo! today carried an AP news article about President Obama imposing new caps on executive pay for any financial firm yet to receive part of the $700B Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), better known as the first of many federal bailout programs. TARP specifically targeted the financial services sector of the economy, and caused much of the Wall Street vs. Main Street hand-wringing when it was proposed and approved last fall.

Since the approval of using federal funds to bail out huge mistakes on bad bets by investment bankers, hedge funds, and virtually any bank dealing in securitized subprime mortgage loans, many commentators rightly pointed out that C-level executives of those same firms were still clearing huge amounts of money in annual bonuses. The AP article pegged the bonus figure at $18B last year alone.

Those of us living on Main Street had every right to be angry at the payment of these huge bonuses, since we're familiar with the model of rewarding good performance with a bonus. If one of us made the bad bets and mistakes the leaders of these financial institutions made, we'd be fired, not enticed to stay with a handsome year-end bonus. Gregg Easterbrook even railed against the 2008 bonuses in several of his most recent Tuesday Morning Quarterback (TMQ) columns on ESPN's Page 2.

So, this action by Obama, stepping into a leadership void left by the collective members of the U.S. Congress, is a good thing, right? Right?!

I think the key paragraph to note is this one:

The pay cap would apply to institutions that negotiate agreements with the Treasury Department for "exceptional assistance" in the future. The restriction would not apply to such firms as American International Group Inc., Bank of America Corp., and Citigroup Inc., that already have received such help.

Sadly, the analogy that applies here is closing the barn door after the horse is already gone. The article does not mention just how much of the taxpayers' $700B remains unclaimed at this point, but I dare say not many banks will line up to take the bailout funding after today.

While this was a nice gesture by Obama, I don't think it will have a great impact on the TARP program (brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department), on other federally-funded bailouts of the auto industry, on the upcoming "stimulus" package (really just a pork-laden spending bill by Congress; it's now up to $900B in additional spending not offset in any way by cuts elsewhere or higher taxes -- the shame!), or on other federal legislation.

He does get to look like he's providing leadership and make headlines, though. For whatever that's worth.

One thing I had to note, though: the POTUS makes an annual salary of $400,000. Plus such benefits as a $50K expense account, a $100K nontaxable travel account, and $19K just for entertaining or entertainment. Does he pay taxes on all the income other than the travel account?

I also had to laugh at the past salaries of U.S. Presidents table found on Wikipedia, under the Salary section of the page. I can appreciate they want to state what the equivalent "Salary in 2008 Dollars" is for the salaries established so many years ago. But there is an error in the math here. If you're talking about what something costs, adjusted for inflation, then something that cost $400K in 2001 would cost $471K in 2008 terms (using just the numbers on the Wikipedia page).

However, since the salary of the President has remained the same since 2001, the equivalent purchasing power of $400K is actually less than what it was in 2001, not more. The official Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) own inflation calculator seems to provide the same type of analysis as what is found on the Wikipedia page. If the salary of the President were adjusted to account for rises in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) every year, then Obama would be earning $479K in 2009. But he's only making $400K. Put it this way, if you reverse the numbers in the BLS calculator, Obama's $400K salary in 2008 could purchase only the equivalent of $333,482 of 2001 goods.

That's still more than the vast majority of us living on Main Street earn, so I don't feel sorry for his diminished purchasing power. I just wish Obama could bring real change to Washington. It hasn't happened yet.

Best of Luck to the New POTUS

I think he'll need it in the immediate future! Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States (POTUS) today, and plenty of people have already served up their commentary on what his election means for our nation.

I did take the time to watch a live feed of Obama's speech during work today (Shhh! Don't tell my boss), along with several of my coworkers. Perhaps it was just too frigid for the attendees on the vast expanses of the Mall, most of whom had been standing around for hours in the cold, to warm up and applaud at appropriate times during Obama's speech. There seemed to be several instances where he deliberately paused, expecting a reaction from the crowd, only to be met with silence or simply muted clapping. Throughout the speech, there were no real roars of approval except, perhaps, when Obama pledged to get troops out of Iraq in so many words.

What is interesting is this comparison of today's speech to W's last Inaugural speech from 2005, courtesy of James Taranto's "Best of the Web" column in today's WSJ:

First, Obama's speech from today:

We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus--and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West--know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

Here is George W. Bush, four years ago today:

From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.

The two speeches were not that dissimilar, and gave credence to the same founding principles that are what make America great. In my own humble opinion, Obama's speech was not hugely historic -- definitely not up to the standard set by JFK -- but it served as a reminder that Obama has plenty of challenges facing his administration.

Many people have also commented that words are cheap and that actions, not words, will carry the day. Actions speak louder than words, as the saying goes. It will continue to be very interesting to see just how Obama will govern from the White House, now that he is the POTUS. I continue to have hope in the future, but let's see where the next few months and years take us as a nation.

Most telling will be what the U.S. response is after the next time terrorists attack our interests, be it an attack on U.S. Navy ships like the USS Cole, train bombings like in London or Madrid, or something else equally henious. It's probably not a question of if, but more like when something like that happens, how will Obama respond? Time will tell.

The Problem With the BCS

It is readily apparent that there is simply too much money sloshing around the current Bowl Championship Series system (formerly known as Division I-A AKA big-time football) to get anything to change in favor of a playoff system. We've all heard the arguments for and against a college football playoff system, which basically boil down to this:

For: Let the players decide who really is the best team on the field.
Against: A bunch of really specious arguments, none of which make any sense whatsoever.

I don't even want to get into the reasons why the arguments against a Div I-A playoff don't make any sense; they just don't. For those who say you can't take these players away from their studies for that long, who are you trying to kid? Many football factory schools don't make their star players attend classes anyway, and if the athletes in Division III (none of whom have a hope of playing at the NFL level) can have a playoff system, then why can't we have one at the Div I-A level?

There was a brilliant proposal last year on Yahoo! Sports, and I don't remember who wrote it, but it basically said this: put the top eight teams according to their rankings at the end of the season into a playoff system. (Sure, you'll get griping from the number 9- and 10-ranked schools, but that's better than the current system.) It would take three rounds -- three weekends -- to decide the champion, which is not much different from today's bowl game schedule. For the first two rounds, let the higher-ranked team play at home. That means additional home ticket sales, additional revenue for the school, and the fans don't have to travel ungodly amounts to see and support their team. Plus, wouldn't you just love to see a warm-weather team like LSU, USC, or Florida go north to play in Ohio Stadium or Happy Valley in December? It would remove a lot of the advantage those teams enjoy in warm-weather venues, that's for sure. For the final game, call it whatever name you want, and play it wherever you want, but then the fans only have to travel once for the actual championship game.

Now, a lot of the fans and sportwriters that defend the current system blather on about lots of different quality-of-life arguments related to Div I-A football. To wit: every week is important, even those September games (forget that very few non-conference games mean a darn thing as the football factories schedule Div I-AA patsies for easy victories, Appalachian State over Michigan notwithstanding); with 38 bowl games, you have 38 teams that finish on a high note (and only about two or three of those bowls mean anything -- hell, keep playing all the Armed Forces Emerald Nuts Poinsettia Aloha California Raisin Humanitarian Bowls you want); tradition, tradition, tradition (also forget that the traditional bowl pairings have really only been around since the 1920s or later [in the case of the "Grandaddy of Them All"(R) Rose Bowl, the Big 10 and Pac 10 have sent their conference champs to meet there only since 1947] -- in the entire course of human history, that's a speck of time); speculating on bowl matchups and who is in versus who is left out of the current system makes for great debate (for sportswriters and talking heads on Saturdays); etc. etc., blah blah blah.

Here's my problem with that. Can anyone follow what this writer is talking about relative to Oregon State and the BCS? Never mind for one instant that for Oregon State to crash the BCS system, they have to finish in the top 16 to win an at-large bid and they currently sit at 21 in the BCS rankings. I just get extremely tired with all the speculating about potential matchups and bowl pairings. Nothing is simple like: "Win or go home." A person can hurt his or her brain trying to keep up with all the possibilities.

Maybe the sportswriters want it that way, just to keep their jobs interesting. The bowl commissioners, who have no ties to the NCAA or college football other than being able to raise enough money to keep their bowl game afloat from year to year (seriously, check out how many commissioners from the Rose Bowl actually do anything at all related to college football), definitely don't want to upset their apple carts. Any playoff system would have to find a way of keeping those people happy, which would take a ton of money. They have a vested interest in keeping the current system alive and well, thank you very much.

I did like Barack Obama's response on MNF, when Chris "Ethel Merman" Berman asked him what he would change about sports, if he could change one thing as President of the United States (POTUS). John McCain delivered a very serious, thoughtful answer about stopping the spread of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) in sports. Obama went with a fan's response, in favor of a Div I-A playoff in football. Now that he is President, he still can't make that happen, but it is nice to dream.

PBS Frontline - The Choice 2008

This is a post I've been chewing on, thinking about how to address, for quite some time. On 14 October, our local PBS station aired the Frontline documentary, The Choice 2008. I mentioned back in early October, when the show was first advertised, that I eagerly anticipated watching the documentary. My wife and I caught the last Frontline documentary in 2004, and it really helped us to make up our minds for whom to vote on the night before the election. Strange, perhaps, but true. Being undecided this year about whom to vote meant we wanted to see the documentary to see if the same would be true this year as well.

Unfortunately, that was not the case. We are both still undecided, and with election day just around the corner, I'm not entirely sure what will sway us at this late date. The problem certainly was not with the Frontline documentary crews, who created an excellent two-hour piece that was as informative as we expected it to be. If you haven't yet seen the documentary, I highly encourage everyone to watch it. The link above allows you to watch the video of the show, either in snippets or in its entirety. The quality of the production certainly was not the issue.

To me, the real problem comes down to simple dissatisfaction with the two candidates. Let me talk about John McCain first, since McCain was the one politician I really wanted to vote for in 2000. Eight years ago, McCain was younger, more energetic, more willing to take on the entrenched special interests on the far right, and more of a campaign finance reform maverick. The Choice captured all of that, and then showed how that version of McCain was destroyed in the 2000 South Carolina primary by Karl Rove and the Bush campaign.

Sadly, that defeat in South Carolina transformed McCain into something of a shadow of his former self, something that the Candorville daily comic strip has captured over the past few weeks. The Choice detailed the concessions McCain had to make to become palatable, and thereby electable, to the right-wing base of the Republican party. McCain still wants to be the maverick who castigates members of his own party, and who effectively reaches across the aisle to work on and pass legislation that is important to the future of this country, but the sad fact is that McCain had to bow on bended knee to the right-wing evangelicals who supported George W. Bush if he ever wanted to reach the Presidency. It's sad, sad, sad. I still like McCain as a war veteran and as a person I would trust to do the right thing for the sake of America, but he is no longer the politician he was in 2000.

Which brings me to Obama. The Choice had plenty to say about Obama's background and how he burst onto the national scene by delivering the keynote address at the 2004 DNC, which was the first time most Americans (myself included) heard his name. Living in Illinois since 2005, I've personally seen Obama's influence on local and state politics, and he certainly is an incredibly smart and effective politician. There can be no doubt about that. As much as Obama preaches the mantra of creating a unified political landscape (and his 2004 DNC speech was nothing more than his regular election stump speech, Frontline said), he is cagey, crafty, and not averse to doing whatever it takes to get himself elected. He is a fighter, and if people don't recognize that in him, it is only because his personality and charisma are so overpowering.

What I found most interesting about Obama's history, and The Choice primarily focused on his adult life post-graduation from Columbia University, is that he is primarily driven by the pursuit of power. That's the only conclusion I could draw from everything I've seen. When Obama decided to run for the office of President of the Harvard Law Review, it was not because he wanted to pursue an agenda to improve the study of law, or even to alleviate the strife between the conservatives and liberals that engulfed Harvard during his time there. Apparently, it was enough just to be the first African-American to hold the office.

When Obama decided to first run for the Illinois Senate in 1996, it was simply to gain the office of Illinois state Senator. The Choice did indicate just one reason for why Obama entered politics: he felt that he could not influence enough people working as a community organizer, the job he held before entering politics. He wants to have his hands on the levers of power. Why does Obama want to have as much influence as possible? The office of POTUS certainly would have the most influence, wouldn't it? Frontline seemed to indicate that Obama wants to help lift poor African-Americans out of poverty, and if you've ever been to the south side of Chicago, that is a laudable goal.

My next question, then, was what really is the best method of reaching people and helping them get out of poverty? Is it the New Deal version of helping people who had been tossed about by market forces beyond their control during the Great Depression? Is it the Great Society of entitlement programs and government-sponsored handouts propagated by LBJ Democrats? Or is the trickle-down economic ideal of Reagonomics the best way of helping people create value in their own communities and take ownership of their lives?

OK, so those three choices are incredibly simplified and each one carries its own baggage with political thinkers from either side of the aisle. What I really thought about was Earvin "Magic" Johnson. Yes, the brilliant basketball player who announced he was HIV-positive way back in 1991. Since his retirement from the NBA, Magic Johnson invested his own personal wealth, time and energy to create self-sustainable businesses in poverty-stricken predominately African-American communities across America. He took his social obligation to his fellow man, and instead of simply lending his name and likeness to a not-for-profit foundation, Magic understood the way of creating substantial change in these communities was to provide jobs, careers, paychecks, educational opportunities, and sustainable businesses. Investing in peoples' lives in this manner really creates the change that so much of America needs these days. He wrote a commentary along these lines for USA Today back in May, and it's well-worth the read.

Coming back to Obama, I know that he did not have the personal wealth of Magic Johnson when he decided to run for Illinois state Senator. I tend to think he's doing pretty well for himself these days, however. For as much grief as McCain has taken for marrying the daughter of a very successful beer distributor in Arizona, and for all the various real estate holdings of the McCain family, Barack and Michelle Obama also own numerous houses or condos. Not as many as the McCains, to be sure, but more than the average American family.

Ah, so who to vote for in two days? As I said before, I still trust McCain would do right for the country, no matter how unpopular a particular decision might be. If that meant touching the "third rail of politics" and creating fundamental change on Social Security and Medicare, I think McCain would find a way to work across the aisle and get it done. With Obama, I can understand why he wants to win the office of POTUS. I know lots of people who are driven to succeed, but their only goal is to be successful. Naked ambition and a desire for power is nothing new in America.

On the other hand, being the first African-American to hold the office would be pretty darn incredible. Obama has been that kind of trailblazer in the past, and he is comfortable in that role. But WHY does he really want to hold the office? Is it so he can engineer a massive redistribution of wealth, as the Republicans charge? Is it just so he can have the most influence possible, so he can drive the national discourse on the issues of race, poverty, and social entitlement programs? Is it just so he can bring U.S. troops home from Iraq?

For all the campaigning, I don't think I can answer that question about Obama. Neither McCain's campaign nor the MSM are helping to clarify these things, either. The MSM isn't really asking the questions of either candidate that would expose their underlying philosophies and explain to the American public why each wants the office of POTUS so badly. It's almost just understood that these two men want the office, and that we don't need to understand why. I'm a person who always wants to know why.

One last addendum, which is slightly off-topic: Living in the state of Illinois, I hate that we live in a very safe state for Obama. I would much rather live in a battleground state, even though that would mean being forced to see all the attack ads on TV ad nauseum. Why? My sister, mother, and brother all had the opportunity to see Obama live, in person, at various political rallies for the candidate. My sister even saw Bruce Springsteen play live on stage, before Obama took the stage. I've never seen the Boss once, and I'd love to see him play live! I'd love to meet McCain and his family, especially Meghan McCain, who has an absolutely wonderful blog that provides an unequalled behind-the-scenes look at the campaign. I would absolutely love to meet them in person! There is something to be said for being able to look a man in the eye, shake his hand, and hear him speak in person. In this election, I never got that chance.

The Darndest Thing

Wouldn't you say this is the darndest thing? MLB and Bud Selig adjusted the start time of a possible game six in the World Series to accommodate a half-hour ad buy from the Obama campaign.

Forget for a minute that not many World Series' have made it to six games recently, as that article pointed out. Also forget that since game five was suspended last night due to rain, they will take an extra day in Philly tonight to determine the outcome of that game. There's more rain in the forecast for tonight, so there's no telling if they will actually play a game six on Thursday this week, even if game six becomes necessary. (And weren't they wishing for the indoor comfort of Tropicana Field last night?!)

What really makes me scratch my head is the fact that Obama still feels the ad buy is necessary, with less than a week to go until polls close. What more could he say to the American people that he hasn't already said through campaign stops, town halls during the primary season, his speech at the DNC, and during the Presidential debates with John McCain? Does Obama feel a little desperation creeping in, even though the MSM already crowned him the presumptive next POTUS?

NPR yesterday spoke with some voters in Missouri, a state that traditionally picks the next POTUS. I think they said that the only time (maybe it was the only time since 1900... ?) that the residents of Missouri didn't vote for the next President was in the 1956 election. Missouri this year is split in pre-election polling, almost exactly 50-50 between McCain and Obama.

It just makes me wonder... even with the issues of the crumbling national economy, the meltdown on Wall Street, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and with people's worries about the advancing age of McCain -- even with all of that! -- Obama still hasn't sealed the deal. He still feels the need to make one last pitch to the American populace. Which makes me scratch my head, just a little bit.