News June 29, 2012June 28, 2012 NEWSROOM Show of hands: how many of you have now seen the premiere episode of Aaron Sorkin’s “Newsroom,” debuting on HBO this week? (That’s “The West Wing” Aaron Sorkin.) No? You don’t get HBO? Well, now you have to. You don’t have a TV? Oh, for God’s sake — do you have a refrigerator? Get a TV! You’re not free when it’s on? Watch it anytime on your iPhone with HBOGO. Don’t fight me on this. BIG NEWS As reported a couple of days ago, 19 of 21 Constitutional scholars Bloomberg News contacted believed the Affordable Care Act is indeed Constitutional. Fortunately the Court narrowly agreed. THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release June 28, 2012 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT East Room 12:15 P.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. Earlier today, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act — the name of the health care reform we passed two years ago. In doing so, they’ve reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in America — in the wealthiest nation on Earth — no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin. I know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all this, about who won and who lost. That’s how these things tend to be viewed here in Washington. But that discussion completely misses the point. Whatever the politics, today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold it. And because this law has a direct impact on so many Americans, I want to take this opportunity to talk about exactly what it means for you. First, if you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance — this law will only make it more secure and more affordable. Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive. They can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions. They can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick. They can no longer jack up your premiums without reason. They are required to provide free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms — a provision that’s already helped 54 million Americans with private insurance. And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses, and not enough on your health care. There’s more. Because of the Affordable Care Act, young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parent’s health care plans — a provision that’s already helped 6 million young Americans. And because of the Affordable Care Act, seniors receive a discount on their prescription drugs — a discount that’s already saved more than 5 million seniors on Medicare about $600 each. All of this is happening because of the Affordable Care Act. These provisions provide common-sense protections for middle class families, and they enjoy broad popular support. And thanks to today’s decision, all of these benefits and protections will continue for Americans who already have health insurance. Now, if you’re one of the 30 million Americans who dont yet have health insurance, starting in 2014 this law will offer you an array of quality, affordable, private health insurance plans to choose from. Each state will take the lead in designing their own menu of options, and if states can come up with even better ways of covering more people at the same quality and cost, this law allows them to do that, too. And I’ve asked Congress to help speed up that process, and give states this flexibility in year one. Once states set up these health insurance marketplaces, known as exchanges, insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate against any American with a preexisting health condition. They won’t be able to charge you more just because you’re a woman. They won’t be able to bill you into bankruptcy. If you’re sick, you’ll finally have the same chance to get quality, affordable health care as everyone else. And if you can’t afford the premiums, you’ll receive a credit that helps pay for it. Today, the Supreme Court also upheld the principle that people who can afford health insurance should take the responsibility to buy health insurance. This is important for two reasons. First, when uninsured people who can afford coverage get sick, and show up at the emergency room for care, the rest of us end up paying for their care in the form of higher premiums. And second, if you ask insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions, but don’t require people who can afford it to buy their own insurance, some folks might wait until they’re sick to buy the care they need — which would also drive up everybody else’s premiums. That’s why, even though I knew it wouldn’t be politically popular, and resisted the idea when I ran for this office, we ultimately included a provision in the Affordable Care Act that people who can afford to buy health insurance should take the responsibility to do so. In fact, this idea has enjoyed support from members of both parties, including the current Republican nominee for President. Still, I know the debate over this law has been divisive. I respect the very real concerns that millions of Americans have shared. And I know a lot of coverage through this health care debate has focused on what it means politically. Well, it should be pretty clear by now that I didn’t do this because itwas good politics. I did it because I believed it was good for the country. I did it because I believed it was good for the American people. There’s a framed letter that hangs in my office right now. It was sent to me during the health care debate by a woman named Natoma Canfield. For years and years, Natoma did everything right. She bought health insurance. She paid her premiums on time. But 18 years ago, Natoma was diagnosed with cancer. And even though she’d been cancer-free for moe than a decade, her insurance company kept jacking up her rates, year after year. And despite her desire to keep her coverage — despite her fears that she would get sick again — she had to surrender her health insurance, and was forced to hang her fortunes on chance. I carried Natoma’s story with me every day of the fight to pass this law. It reminded me of all the Americans, all across the country, who have had to worry not only about getting sick, but about the cost of getting well. Natoma is well today. And because of this law, there are other Americans — other sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers — who will not have to hang their fortunes on chance. These are the Americans for whom we passed this law. The highest Court in the land has now spoken. We will continue to implement this law. And we’ll work together to improve on it where we can. But what we won’t do — what the country can’t afford to do — is refight the political battles of two years ago, or go back to the way things were. With today’s announcement, it’s time for us to move forward — to implement and, where necessary, improve on this law. And now is the time to keep our focus on the most urgent challenge of our time: putting people back to work, paying down our debt, and building an economy where people can have confidence that if they work hard, they can get ahead. But today, I’m as confident as ever that when we look back five years from now, or 10 years from now, or 20 years from now, we’ll be better off because we had the courage to pass this law and keep moving forward. Thank you. God bless you, and God bless America. Pete S.: “I’m not sure yet how exactly the new healthcare act will benefit me. I’ve got extremely good coverage provided by my employer. But this law wasn’t about me. It was about us. Most of my siblings are self-employed, or work for employers with little or no medical coverage. My brother with HIV (and a cancer survivor) now has hope for affordable meds and treatments in the coming years. My self-employed sister may be able to get basic coverage for herself and her chronically ill husband. My other siblings will have an insurance exchange of some sort where they can go to obtain basic coverage. It’s more than most of them have ever had. They all work hard and pay their taxes. Now they face a future where proper, affordable medical treatment is a reality instead of a taunt. Thank you for providing a pragmatic, intelligent, mature presidential candidate four years ago. We could all benefit from more leaders who behave like adults instead of petulant children. To that end, I’m not sure if you read this article. Folks like these give me new hope for a return to civility and cooperation at the national level. It’s ok to be different, and to have relationships with people of different backgrounds. It’s ok to be driven by love rather than fear. We need to encourage these candidates at the local and state levels, so that we have them ready to assume national leadership positions. It really is up to us.”
Must-See TV June 28, 2012 HONOR GRADES So you can buy a second-hand copy of my first book — a thin paperback called Honor Grades on 15 Hours a Week — for $74.98 plus $3.99 shipping and handling, here (you would have to be insane to do that); or the brand new e-book edition for $3.99, here (frugally insane). As touted on Amazon: . . . dashed off one summer when Tobias was 21, [this slight tome] might just help today’s homework-obsessed high school senior get the most out of his or her college years and take the leap toward real life. Now that I’ve figured out how to do this, expect the rest of my out-of-print oeuvre to follow. THUGGISH We are losing our democracy to a flood of secretly-funded attack ads purporting, preposterously, not to be attack ads. Wait til you see them — and Karl Rove’s response: impassioned, irrelevant, and completely untrue. Must-see TV. Seven minutes. MONTANA Six more must-see minutes — showing how the Supreme Court overturned a century old Montana ban on corporate campaign contributions and what effect that is having. We are losing our democracy. JUH-BORTION And I don’t know where you could possibly find another seven minutes, but try: a graphic depiction of what Maddow calls “juh-bortion” — the Republicans’ saying that their singular focus is “jobs” when in fact all they work on is returning abortion to the back alleys.
Nora June 27, 2012June 27, 2012 WHAT A WONDERFUL WORLD Sing along with David Attenborough for two minutes. You won’t be disappointed. (Thanks, Alan!) BUT SAD He will live in our hearts and our closets — and at the soon-to-open Charles Nolan Reading Room at the High School of Fashion Industries and through the soon-to-be fully-endowed Charles Nolan Scholarship at F.I.T., and on the soon-to-be-rejuvenated website with links to all of his work . . . . . . but his wonderful shop at 30 Gansevoort Street in New York closes the last week of July and everything is for sale – -including the couches and chairs he designed, his signed prints, all those amazing books, and, while they last, his entire inventory of clothing, accessories, nicks and nacks. Come to the shop seven days a week from 11:30 AM to 7 PM for a last good-bye, and perhaps even a last good buy. SAD SAD SAD Nora Ephron died yesterday. You knew her work: “Sleepless in Seattle,” “When Harry Met Sally,” “You’ve Got Mail,” “Julie and Julia” (Nora loved to cook), “Silkwood.” Maybe you read her classic Esquire piece, “A Few Words About Breasts,” as part of a college course. Like so many of us, I loved Nora, was a little afraid of Nora, and craved her approval. And she knew we did. I was hardly “inner circle” but she tolerated me sweetly for 40 years, once had me review her investments, had Charles and me over for a famous czarist recipe she recreated, called me to counsel her 15-year-old gay son after he came out to his high school class (a successful writer now himself, fielding calls as she neared the end). Her last book, I Remember Nothing, I read out loud to both Charles and to my mom. Here is her obituary. I will be chipper tomorrow, the more so for having known Nora.
Putin’ Losin’ and Drivin’ June 26, 2012June 25, 2012 PUTIN’ ON THE RITZ Alan: “Now THIS is how you do a flashmob!!!!! What a crazy, delightful ever changing world! Who could have thought that in 2012 young people in Moscow would put on a ‘flash mob’ happening, dancing to an 83-year-old American song written by a Russian-born American Jew whose last name is the capital of Germany?” Impossible to watch these six minutes without a broad smile. Enjoy! (But perhaps not as spontaneous and innocent as it appears — click here for the back story after you watch.) LOSIN’ OUR DEMOCRACY James Fallows, here in The Atlantic (in part): It’s a simple game you can try at home. Pick a country and describe a sequence in which: First, a presidential election is decided by five people, who don’t even try to explain their choice in normal legal terms. Then the beneficiary of that decision appoints the next two members of the court, who present themselves for consideration as restrained, humble figures who care only about law rather than ideology. Once on the bench, for life, those two actively second-guess and re-do existing law, to advance the interests of the party that appointed them. Meanwhile their party’s representatives in the Senate abuse procedural rules to an extent never previously seen to block legislation — and appointments, especially to the courts. And, when a major piece of legislation gets through, the party’s majority on the Supreme Court prepares to negate it — even though the details of the plan were originally Republican proposals and even though the party’s presidential nominee endorsed these concepts only a few years ago. How would you describe a democracy where power was being shifted that way? Underscoring the point, a Bloomberg poll of 21 constitutional scholars found that 19 of them believe the individual mandate is constitutional, but only eight said they expected the Supreme Court to rule that way. The headline nicely conveys the reality of the current Court: “Obama Health Law Seen Valid, Scholars Expect Rejection.” How would you characterize a legal system that knowledgeable observers assume will not follow the law and instead will advance a particular party-faction agenda? That’s how we used to talk about the Chinese courts when I was living there. Now it’s how law professors are describing the Supreme Court of the John Roberts era. Of course, the Court may uphold the Affordable Health Care Act. I hope they do. Even so, I hope President Obama, not President Romney, gets to make the next two appointments. DRIVIN’ ROUND THE TARMAC I shared my BOREF obsession yesterday and made the case for a risk-adjusted share price of $125. In consequence, trading volume in the stock was . . . zero . . . though the asking price (at least on my screen) jumped from $10 to $10.25. Meanwhile, the company issued this release yesterday: WHEELTUG SUCCESSFULLY TESTS ELECTRIC DRIVE SYSTEM ON BOEING 737NG Prague, Czech Republic, 25 June, 2012 – Wheeltug plc announces the successful installation and test of the first in-wheel WheelTugR system in Prague on a Germania 737-700. During testing, pilots were able to push the plane back, and taxi without waiting for a tug or powering up the engines. Pilots were able to move the plane through motors in the nosewheel powered solely by the aircraft’s APU. WheelTug savings are projected to be greater than current airline per-flight profits. The four day ‘M1’ system test was conducted at Prague Ruzyne Airport. The system performed on all pavement types as well as wet and oil-slicked tarmac. A “sneak peek” of the full test video, including a tugless aircraft pushback, can be viewed at http://www.media.wheeltug.com . “The small and powerful M1 WheelTug, built into the nose wheel and powered solely by the ircraft’s APU, moves a commercial aircraft through the full range of pushback and taxi maneuvers across a broad range of weather and surface conditions,” said WheelTug CEO Isaiah Cox. “I’m excited about seeing engineless-taxi come to aviation. It was a great honour to be the first ilot to use WheelTug on a Boeing 737,” said Germania Captain Patrick Hintzen. “In particular, here are many delays on pushback and it is where the airline has the least control of aircraft. ith WheelTug, we are freed from the ‘chains’ that keep us parked at the gate.” The tests were undertaken by the WheelTug team including key partners Endeavor Analysis, ICE Corp., Co-Operative Industries and Dynetic Systems. Tests were hosted by Prague Airport and ABS Jets, with the aircraft provided by Germania. “We’re proud that we’re ready to enter the final stretch of system specification, leading to commercial deployment,” said Mr. Cox. “A recent study in conjunction with Oliver Wyman and US Airways, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, showed industry net profit of less than $164 per flight. Thus, WheelTug’s projected savings to airlines of over $200 per flight has the potential to dramatically increase airline profitability.” “The M1 test reaffirms our forecast that WheelTug will soon lead to significant benefits for airlines, pilots, passengers and the general public,” said WheelTug director Jan Vana. “The team and observers at Prague Airport saw the power of WheelTug in action for ourselves,” said Vana. “Specifically, we expect that the WheelTug system will: – Significantly reduce fuel use; – Substantially reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions; – Increase safety and flexibility of airport operations; – Provide airlines faster turnaround times, reduced engine wear and repair costs; and – Substantially decrease airport noise pollution.” The WheelTug is designed for rapid retrofit. In under two hours, the test system was uninstalled from the Germania 737-700 and the aircraft returned to service. After meeting the latest test milestone, WheelTug remains on target for Entry-into-Service for the 737NG and A320 families of aircraft. 215 WheelTug delivery slots have already been reserved by European, Middle East, and Asian airlines. A full video of the test will be released at the 2012 Farnborough International Airshow, beginning July 9. WheelTug invites attendees to visit its Farnborough booth in Hall 4, A13.
My Two Obsessions June 25, 2012 E-GREGIOUS II Not sure whether you found time over the weekend to watch that Jon Stewart clip, but I feel the need to expound a little further. It’s the clip that shows Republicans blasting Obama for doing something no other modern president has ever done — except it turns out they ALL have. The Republicans are just lying about this. It’s the clip that shows Republicans blasting Obama for failing to pass the Dream Act when Democrats controlled Congress — not mentioning the reason he failed to pass it, despite its garnering ample majorities in both the House and Senate: 41 Republican Senators killed it with one of their hundreds of filibusters. So the Republicans are lying about this, too. It’s the clip that shows Fox News blasting Obama for saying that he has to enforce the immigration laws and then not enforcing them — except wait til you see how they edited that tape. It’s egregious. Republicans do it as standard operating procedure, beginning with Governor Romney’s very first TV ad: the one that shows Obama quoting the McCain campaign without revealing he was quoting them — making it look as though he was saying this stuff. At what point does this become an issue of character? At what point can today’s Republican Party be branded as dishonest? As bullying? As rooting for — and even as orchestrating — the country’s failure so they can regain power and further lower taxes on the wealthy? (Remember how they cheered when we didn’t get the Olympics? Remember their manufactured debt-ceiling crisis? Remember their refusal to pass the American Jobs Act that would have taken more than 1 million Americans off unemployment?) What does it say of the Republican strategy that it relies on making it hard for people to vote and misinforming those who do? BOREF MATH So my first obsession, which is a billion times more important, is that we register and turn out enough voters 134 days from now to hold the White House and Senate, take back the House, and keep from losing the Supreme Court for the next 20 years. If you don’t think it matters to you, too, consider the Clinton years versus the Bush years. Consider Roosevelt versus Hoover. Consider the side that “believes in” science and evolution and investing in the future and the side that believes the bridges will repair themselves if we can just cut taxes for the best-off low enough. But see? I’m obsessed and before you know it, I’ve gone off on a rant. My second obsession, it will not surprise long-time readers, is this oh-so-unusual company, Borealis. So many red flags! So much that’s hard to explain! And yet the plane moved — in 2005, with an early-stage motor running alongside it on a dolly, and this month, with what they say are two actual WheelTug motors so small they fit inside the two wheels of a 737’s nose gear. And with four letters of intent signed by four airlines. It has come to this: I am in love with an electric motor. And an electric motor, to make it all the more absurd, I have never even met. So for what it’s worth — (nothing?) — here’s how I do the math. And I do it over and over because that’s how obsessions work. First I assign a 50% chance to the possibility that, even though we have video showing that WheelTug appears to work, they will not be able they will not in fact be able to make a production model that works well enough to be put into service. (I include in that the possibility it will not win FAA certification — although, remember, the WheelTug motor is in no way “mission critical.” If it fails, the captain just taxis around using his or her engines as he or she always did.) Of course, no one can say whether that 50% estimate is fair. Maybe the chances of failure are 95% for reasons I just don’t get. Or maybe 25% would be a better guess. (I hope I hope hope.) But if we go with 50%, then the next hurdle is: what are the chances this thing will in fact become the industry standard? I do think every airline will want WheelTug — or a competitor — if it becomes available, because why on earth would you not want to save $500,000 a year on each of your jets? But what if, say, Boeing next week announces its own even better motor? Let’s assign a 50% chance to that as well. So this gives us a 25% chance (50% times 50%) that WheelTug might in a few years by in the nosegear of most commercial jets — say, 10,000 airplanes. And that the company might be netting $50,000 a year from each one. (I’m thinking that to save north of $500,000 a year, an airline would pay $100,000 a year, and that half that could be profit.) So there’s a 25% chance of 10,000 times $50,000 (which is to say $500 million) in profit. What is a company making $500 million a year worth? At 5 times earnings: $2.5 billion. With 5 million shares outstanding, that’s $500 a share. But if there’s “only” a 25% chance of this, then $625 million — $125 a share. Let me rush to say that in this scenario there’s still a 75% chance you will lose all your money. This is not a speculation to make with anything other than money you can truly afford to lose. But if there’s a 25% chance it will one day be worth $500 a share? I bought a little more last week after watching the video. Which is sort of ridiculous, because after 13 years of buying it (mostly on dips), I already have so much. But — this being an obsession — I could not resist. Let me rush further to say that I’m not figuring in here the dilution — Borealis owns only most of Chorus Motors, which owns only most of WheelTug. But then neither am I allowing for the possibility that the company should sell at 7 times earnings instead of 5 times earnings, or that its motor technology could find a use in something else, like cars. Or that any of its other scoffed-at technologies might actually prove real. Or that its Canadian mineral deposits might someday actually have realizable value. Let me rush finally to say that there’s no guarantee that, even if the company succeeds with WheelTug, management will not find ways to squander all the proceeds. All I can promise you is that if you do buy any shares, you will not be buying them from me. Tomorrow: A Very Fun 6 Minutes From Moscow
E-gad! June 22, 2012June 22, 2012 E-LIBRARY Roberta Taussig: “Following up on Wednesday’s post, did you know libraries now lend e-books? Check out this link provided by the Multnomah County library, Portland, Oregon (my fair city). And the FAQ.” E-CAMPAIGN The Obama team has a new app you should check out: Dashboard. It’s the national online organizing platform, and — writes Deputy National Field Director Marlon Marshall — “if you’re hoping to make an impact on this election, it’s where you need to be.” You already know how we’re planning to win this thing: by running the best ground game in politics. From coast to coast, folks like you are out registering voters, recruiting volunteers, and having the conversations that will tip states our way. Dashboard is our online hub for the organizing that’s going on in every single state — from now up until the last vote gets cast. It’ll be where you can connect quickly with other volunteers to help get out the vote. You can join or organize an event right then and there. Dashboard will help you stay in touch and swap stories with other supporters to keep one another inspired for what lies ahead. When you join Dashboard, you’ll also get special updates on this race, new tools to track your progress, and access to groups you can join to organize around the issues you care about most. E-GREGIOUS This Jon Stewart clip you must see. And not just for his Peter Falk “Columbo” impersonation or any of the other really fun bits. He shows Republicans blasting Obama for doing something no president has ever done before (except, as it turns out, Bush, Clinton, the other Bush and Reagan). He shows Republicans blasting Obama for failing to pass the Dream Act when Democrats controlled Congress (except they forget to mention that the reason he failed to pass it, despite 55 Senate votes in favor, was their filibuster). He shows Fox News blasting Obama for saying that he has to enforce the laws on the books and then not enforcing those laws (except wait til you see how they edited that tape). E-GAD! Borealis traded 4,653 shares yesterday (Facebook traded 21.875 million), and those shares traded at prices ranging from $6.75 to $10, settling in for the night at $8. William Szczuka: “I’m pretty happy so far with my investment. When I went to place an online order for 600 shares at $3.40 back in March I was instructed the order needed to be phoned in. They said it was because the order was more than 25% of the average daily volume. I’ve never had that problem before. 🙂 . . . Incidentally, this spring I coached my son’s little league team. Two of the boys are named Tobias and Andrew. I never thought anything of it until last week when an opposing slugger came to the plate and I had to call to these two in the outfield, ‘Andrew, Tobias – Back Up!'” Doug in Spokane: “I finally have some money I can afford to lose, so I called my broker this morning (Thursday) to put in an order for 100 BOREF shares. They were trading at $8.05. My broker, aka my oldest friend, is efficient. Before I could say ‘limit order’ he had executed the trade. Yes, I was the spike late in the day at $10.00. ALWAYS say ‘limit order”‘up front about 10 times. Yes, the plane moved with WheelTug. And there ARE agreements with airlines. BUT, there is competition. A German company is rumored to be working on something similar. So is Honeywell, according to rumors. However, WheelTug is first. I also own some other shares with money I can afford to lose — GLDD. But that’s a real company with a history and earnings and a real product. And the dividend was raised a year ago. That is the extent of my speculation.” That was you? Well, whether you paid $10 or $8 or $6 or $3 won’t make too much difference. Not to say it wouldn’t have been better to get twice as many shares for the same $1,000 last week at $5. But either we’ll ultimately lose our money, because the company’s technology isn’t practical or valuable; or we will make multiples of our money because it is. As you say, it’s a speculation — unlike GLDD which is the dominant player in an indispensable, old-line industry not likely to change all that much. Have a great weekend! Watch the Jon Stewart clip.
It Moved June 21, 2012December 27, 2016 WMT LEAPS George Berger: “I noticed today that my WMT leaps are up over 300%. Time to sell yet? Or hang on for 400%?” A bird in the hand. I would sell half, anyway. BOREF WheelTug posted a short clip. I love the Franz Schubert score and the way the 737 backs out of its hangar without a tug. And do you notice the covers on its engines? The engines are not running. The plane seems to be backing out under the power of the motors in its nose wheel. At one point yesterday the stock was quoted “6 bid, 35 asked,” before someone stepped up to offer shares at $6.75. It closed at “$4.85 bid, $6.75 asked.” There remains the real possibility of losing every dime. Then again, if this does prove real, the potential is very different from WMT leaps. I would not sell half if you find yourself with a triple. Yes; you could see yourself kissing that triple good-bye — who knows what dreadful problems could arise on the way to actual revenue, profits and, ultimately, dividends? But you took this tremendous risk (with money you can truly afford to lose) in the hope not that the company would ultimately have a $60 million market cap ($12 a share) — there are condos in New York City that have sold for more than that — but that it might one day have a $600 million market cap, or (dare I imagine it) even . . . well, it’s enough for now to dream of $600 million. (Hard as it is to imagine, nearly 7 years ago in this space — which is to say, the last time “the plane moved” — I made the case for its being a $100 stock. That might be worth re-reading, both as a cautionary tale — the stock went to $3 rather than $100 — and because this time the motor is actually inside a wheel, and this time the company has letters of intent from four airlines, including El Al and Alitalia.) The point is: it looks as though the thing may actually work. WEALTH DISTRIBUTION So maybe we’ll all get rich. If so, thank Tamara at Wayne State for this telling chart. It shows the wealth distribution most people imagine exists in the country today . . . the distribution they imagine would be fair . . . and the actual distribution (which Mitt Romney has pledged to skew yet further toward the ultra-rich).
The Library June 20, 2012June 19, 2012 BOREF We wait. Torture! The company issues a weekly update — I sure hope for a progress report by the weekend. THE LIBRARY Bob Stromberg: “Here is a great 3-minute YouTube about a grassroots organization that beat the Tea Party. It changed the conversation from ‘taxes taxes taxes’ to ‘book burning’ and then ‘vote yes for a 0.7% tax increase to save the library.'” Of course, it’s hard to know exactly where physical books go in an age of Kindles and iPads — I’m actually in the process of digitizing my own out-of-print books. Those of us who love books — and the environment and instant gratification — love that we can learn of a book and, minutes later, be reading it, without ever having to cut down a tree or burn gas driving down to Borders to try to find it. Yet at the same time we also hate that Borders and so many independent bookstores are gone. (Remember Brentano’s? “Brentano’s was an American bookstore,” begins its Wikipedia entry.) Do we still need libraries? I think we do. They are like secular churches — places of community and respect and contemplation and, potentially, joy and self-improvement. And belonging. And, now, computer stations and Internet hook-ups for folks like my octogenarian pen pal in North Carolina who can’t afford these things on his own — he lives on $827 in monthly Social Security plus $66 in food stamps — but finds hours of connection when he can afford the gas to drive to the library. CITIZENS UNITED Craig Gawel: “With respect to yesterday’s post and the Supreme Court decision to let corporations contribute to campaigns, one quick question …. Can corporations vote? As I see it, if they cannot vote they should not be allowed to contribute to political campaigns. And as to foreign corporations, since the beginning of the Republic we have tried to limit foreign influence.” Ed Miske: “I wonder how the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, et al, will feel Wednesday morning after the election if President Obama prevails? Will they have second thoughts about spending billions on future elections?” I’m afraid not. To them, it’s pocket change. As Chris Hayes frequently points out, a guy with $21 billion giving $10 million is like a guy with $21,000 in the bank giving $10. Nothing. And as I mentioned yesterday, often they won’t even have to give it to get their way — just threaten to give it. Joel Margolis: “Did you ever, even once, condemn Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign for being the first major party candidate to opt out of public financing for the general election? If not, please get off your high horse.” Even if there was something wrong with what Senator Obama did — and there are strong arguments that there was not — how would that justify what John McCain calls “the worst decision of the Supreme Court in the Twenty-First Century?” And how can the small to medium size contributions of millions of inspired ordinary citizens in the 2008 campaign be considered undemocratic? By contrast, I think the billion dollars in superPAC money from just a few dozen individuals can be considered undemocratic. LIGHT I have written before about our hallway — pictured here — because what self-respecting financial writer does not, sooner or later, turn to that topic? But now I have a confession; and great news. The confession is that the 16 halogen lights that make it pop like a theatrical set burn 24/7. It’s a shared hallway with no on/off switch and no easy way to make the lights motion activated, though that remains on my to-do list. In the meantime, I’ve just now installed these LED replacements at a projected energy saving of 71% — 10 watts instead of 35. Yes, they cost eight times more, but they may last ten times as long. So leaving aside the benefit to the planet, and counting nothing for the convenience of having to change them only a tenth as often, the cost of the bulbs themselves may over time be a wash. In which case, the 71% energy saving is all gravy. Now, dear readers: can you think of an easy way to take a hard wired system and have it turn on any time one of two elevator doors or four hallway doors starts to open? If the lights then stayed on for 5 minutes, this system would cut their energy consumption yet a further 85% or so. Without even the slightest sacrifice in quality of life. With so much room for improvement, our future — should we rise to the challenge — is . . . bright.
See the Difference? June 19, 2012June 19, 2012 BOREF No news. CITIZENS UNITED This is the Supreme Court decision the President criticized in his State of the Union, saying, ““With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.” Facing him, Justice Alito famously mouthed “not true.” But was it? Sheldon Adelson just dashed off his first of what are likely to be a lot of $10 million checks to be sure Romney becomes President (governing with a Republican Congress and set to swing the Court further toward the interests of the Koch brothers, who have pledged $400 million to help confuse the electorate) . . . and on Sunday’s Meet the Press, John McCain — no Obama supporter — called Citizens United the “worst decision of the Supreme Court in the Twenty-First Century: uninformed, arrogant, naive.” I don’t know, but I suspect that Senator McCain meant to include in that the Twentieth Century as well. (Otherwise, it’s a bit like calling a movie you review in February, “one of the best of the year!”) Of course, it’s not clear whether Bush v. Gore — also a terrible decision — was even worse, or, for that matter, to which Century it should be ascribed. Technically, the Twentieth-First Century began in 2001. So actually, we need not choose between them. We can simply say, rephrasing Senator McCain but sticking with his assessment, that Citizens United was the worst decision of the millennium. That, perhaps, gives it the rhetorical weight it deserves without having to think too hard about all the cases from 1901-2001. I make light of this, because it’s unhealthy to be dour all the time; but the consequences of this decision — which allow any billionaire to influence almost any Senate or House vote without spending a dime (just threaten key committee members to dump $10 million in negative ads against him or her next time out) — are horrifying. And don’t give me this stuff about “the unions.” Let alone ACORN. Yes, there is some similarity in the way unions can use money. But leaving aside the fact that the unions have far less money than the billionaires or the corporations — no small fact to leave aside — the unions don’t represent just two brothers or one casino mogul; they represent, still, millions of workers and their families . . . and, by extension — because so many of the reforms and benefits they negotiate (like, “weekends”) become standard even for non-union employees, or at least raise the bar somewhat — arguably, tens of millions of families. I mean, after 30 years of growing inequality and imbalance, did the Court really need to award the billionaires more control over our alleged “one man, one vote” democracy? (Where the Republicans are working hard to disenfranchise as many Democratic voters as possible? And where the Court previously stopped the Florida vote count that would have given Gore, the popular vote winner, the Electoral College vote as well?) So while Alito was mouthing “not true,” four of his colleagues were mentally mouthing “true!” in line with their vigorous dissents — as have been an awful lot of other people, like John McCain. But not everyone. And not all of my readers. So in the interest of balance: Paul deLespinasse: “Please ease up on the Citizens United harping. Citizens United was not an unreasonable decision, and any bad effects supposedly produced could be eliminated without overturning the decision and without any new legislation, as I pointed out recently in this op-ed. It might give you some ideas to think about and some possible opportunities for the Democratic Party.” SEE THE DIFFERENCE? On a related note: Some people are saying well, sure, the Romney side will have a lot more money than the Obama side, but so what? Obama had a lot more money than McCain — turnabout is fair play. It’s worth noting that on the Obama side in 2008 and again now in 2012, the loot came and now again comes from literally millions of contributors. The bulk of the Romney money will be coming from a few dozen.
Show Time June 17, 2012 After 13 years, today or tomorrow may be the day. In fact, the Prague airport being 9 hours ahead of California, it may already betomorrow where you are. As long-time readers know, I refer, of course, to the test of an actual WheelTug system installed inside the nose wheel of an actual 737. If there’s no column tomorrow, it’s for one of three reasons: It’s hard to type after holding your breath for 24 hours; the test failed, plunging me into a paralysis of despondency; the test succeeded, so I don’t need the income from this column anymore. Stay tuned.