The Case Against Lehman Executives — and the S.E.C. April 23, 2012April 23, 2012 Here’s a puzzle: If the English muffins in your freezer say “sell by Sep 06,” does that mean September, 2006? Or September 6th? I assume the latter — but September 6 what year? Well, no matter; they were excellent. THE CASE AGAINST LEHMAN BROS . . . . . . is also a case against the S.E.C. As reported here on last night’s “60 Minutes.” JAMES B. STEWART ON HIS TAX RATE Guess what: the current system stinks, and is geared to disadvantage Democrats (because they tend to live in high-tax states, and the deduction they take as a result triggers the Alternative Minimum Tax). Here. OKEY PARAPROSDOKIANS Mike Martin: “Not to be picky, but the list of ‘182 Paraprosdokians’ you linked to last Thursday actually has only 84. It was an interesting MS Excel exercise to find the duplicates, some of which had minor variations, such as a comma. One my wife likes — not on their list but should be — Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you are rid of him for the whole weekend!” Joel Wesson: “The 182 paraprosdokians includes a lot of repeats yet does not include: I miss my wife, but my aim is improving.” Rob Meeker: “They should add my favorite: A little hard work never killed anyone, but why take the chance?” PACS AND SUPERPACS Mike Hagerty: “I am a big Obama supporter, but — contrary to what you said Thursday — I thought he HAD decided to take PAC money, no? Here’s a (sarcastic) suggestion: Perhaps we should just do away with voting. We could allow candidates to raise as much money as they want (from whatever source they want) and at the end of some time period, the candidate with the most money wins… Seems like that’s where we’re headed.” ☞ Seems that way. But on the PAC point, I’m sorry I was not more clear. You’re thinking of the “superpacs” to which the Supreme Court, in its dreadful 5-4 Citizens United decision, granted free rein. On those, the President has reluctantly concluded too much is at stake to fight with one hand tied behind our side’s back. I was talking about federally regulated Political Action Committees (and some 10,000+ federal lobbyists), from which neither the DNC nor the Obama campaign takes any contributions even though it legally could (and even though the RNC does). That hasn’t changed. But to simply hand the Koch brothers and a few other billionaires our government? It may happen anyway (their billionaires are more enthusiastic about superpacs than our billionaires, and there are more of them); but I sure hope not. You will recall that in his 2010 State of the Union . . . With the Supreme Court Justices sitting right in front of him, President Barack Obama unloaded . . . on this past week’s ruling qualifying corporations as having the rights of citizens and opening the “floodgates” to their political donations. “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said. “Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.” There was some strong applause from members of Congress — with both sides of the chamber rising to their feet with applause. The Justices — all there except Scalia and Thomas — sat in silence (as is their custom), but at the beginning of the exchange, Justice Alito can be seen shaking his head and mouthing words that seem to resemble “not true.” — from the Huffington Post NABI [updated] So it looks as though we will be getting 67 cents a share in cash plus a modest stake in a new, combined enterprise. (When I first posted this, I thought the cash was $1.25; sorry.) Clearly not what we had originally hoped, but better than a total loss. Guru’s analysis tomorrow. Tomorrow: “Lying Isn’t a Sin, It’s a Business Plan.”