Rick Santelli is right

Rick Santelli, CNBC

This morning I watched CNBC's Rick Santelli talking from the Chicago Board Of Trade.  His so-called, "Santelli Rant" has been watched on YouTube over a million times and his sentiments today, once again, represent the views of many Americans who believe in living within one's means. It's how we were raised -- but we lack Mr. Santelli's microphone.

Rick Santelli was in fine form this morning while debating Steve Liesman.  The topic was banking reform and Mr. Santelli made a case for an elegantly simple cure -- raise the banks' capital requirements. 

Another CNBC commentator astutely chimed in that this is the same premium banks require when a homeowner has a marginal credit history -- the bank looks for more cash in the deal -- a bigger down payment to compensate for the risk of default.

Why can't we use the same mechanism to minimize chances of another banking meltdown?  Do we need new federal agencies, reams of new regulations, congressional hearings, class warfare speeches and on and on?  I realize that raising the amount of capital that banks must hold affects their profitability, but maybe it's a reasonable way to manage systemic risk.

S/he who frames the healthcare debate...wins.

When the topic of healthcare reform took center stage this summer, I felt that "healthcare reform" had suddenly become code for "let's change health insurance." 

I was certain that I was missing something like the "3.5M jobs saved or created" metric I wrote about last March.  I thought I was the only one disturbed by how stimulus programs would be "measured" and conveyed by this administration. 

Surgeons, Wikipedia

In my opinion, the healthcare reform yardstick that counts, is the one that actually lowers healthcare costs for the greatest number of patients.  But that isn't how we frame the national debate and measure success or failure.  Is an expanded insurance pool run by the government going to achieve this goal?  I don't know, but uniformly lowering the cost of that pill, that surgery, that MRI, whatever it is -- would benefit us all.  I do not see how the House bill will lower health care costs.  

President Obama, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, etc. have successfully shifted the narrative from lowering healthcare costs, to demonizing the health insurance industry and expanding government control.  All this delights their base.  If their bill passes, everyone will be 'covered' by virtue of a new mechanism.  That new mechanism is government-mandated, taxpayer funded, healthcare which is not reform at all -- unless one frames the debate that way.

When will we reward the savers?

This week, the author of a Barron's cover story posits that it's time for the Fed to raise interest rates.  The macro debate for and against doing so, I'll leave for economists.  The argument in favor of raising rates, however, has some advocates at Barron's.  The Barron's article titled, "C'mon Ben!" is accompanied by a reminder that keeping rates so low "hurts savers." 

The policy notion of incenting savers to save more, seems to fall on deaf ears.  The Fed keeps the cheap money flowing, but they also hamper returns from savings accounts, money markets, CDs, etc. to remain at paltry levels.  

When will we reward citizens who save and invest conservatively, instead of the masses who borrow mainly to consume?

freepik image

Of nuts and acorns

Contrast two recent cases that received national media focus: the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and video tape of ACORN employees giving advice to individuals posing as operators of an under-aged prostitution business.

In the first case, the President declares that law enforcement officers in the Gates case, "acted stupidly" then he hosts an awkward reconciliation meeting over beers on the White House lawn. 

In the second case, the President demurs when asked to share his opinion about the ACORN workers and Congressional action to stop federal funding for their organization. President Obama did say that actions he viewed on the ACORN videotape were "inappropriate" and deserved to be investigated, but then he added...

"This is not the biggest issue facing the country. It is not something I'm paying a lot of attention to."

Nor should he have paid much attention to a civil disturbance involving one man in Cambridge, Massachusetts...but he did.  Mr. Gates, for his part, could have had the last laugh and made buffoons of the Cambridge police, by maintaining his cool. Instead while being questioned, he ranted as though he had been robbed of his human dignity and got himself arrested.  

Back to the President.  At the time he uttered the "acted stupidly" remark, I thought he was reacting as a man who had felt the sting of racism conjured by painful episodes from his own past.

Let's say hypothetically that 25 years ago, citizen Barack Obama attracted the suspicions of some dim-witted alarmist for no other reason than Mr. Obama was black and in the wrong place at the wrong time. It happens and I bet it hurts like hell and leaves one justifiably angry.  

But candidate Obama ran his campaign as the "post-racial" choice.  People who've grown weary of bitter and endless racial debates are attracted to a person of color that espouses a color-blind agenda. However, acting with complete indifference to race is much easier said than done.  

The President would have been well-advised to say as little about the Gates matter as he said about ACORN.  To be fair, Mr. Obama wisely distanced himself from the race mongering recently exhibited by former President Jimmy Carter.  Sometimes, even racism -- or reverse racism -- is colorblind.

Tea party rocks Milwaukee's lake front



John Maddente photo

Ever attend a tea party?

They don't serve tea at this party, but visitors do receive a generous helping of speeches and opportunities to express themselves.

Yesterday on a sunny afternoon at Milwaukee's Veterans Park, thousands of attendees were treated to a litany of views on issues including our federal and state tax climate and sweeping health care and environmental proposals.

This was an audience that is passionate about their country and freedoms, but also well behaved and well informed. Nationally-acclaimed author Michelle Malkin roused the crowd with criticisms of left-leaning figures including Carol Browner, Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy whom Malkin referred to as a "Beltway Swamp Creature" (ouch), Attorney General Eric Holder "Chief Endangerment Officer" and "union thugs" (in particular she cited Andy Stern and the S.E.I.U.).

A number of speeches sounded out a call to action. "Joe the Plumber" reminded the crowd of a Ben Franklin maxim -- well done is better than well said.

Midwestern watchdog reporting still works

Here are two current examples of how the Fourth Estate still serves the public interest.

1.  Locally, in my home town of Milwaukee, readers were shocked and angry to learn how their tax dollars are squandered (again) by a $350 million state child care program that is routinely plundered by a number of providers, including one -- who as a result of Journal Sentinel investigations -- turned herself in to state authorities.  Fine reporting indeed, by Ms. Raquel Rutledge and others at the Journal Sentinel. Read more about the scams they uncovered at www.jsonline.com/cashinginonkids

2.  Ninety miles south of me, another series by the Chicago Tribune exposes corrupt admission practices at the University of Illinois, as well as other cheats and cronyism throughout the Land of Lincoln. Here's the spot to read, "State of Corruption".

Bloggers did not break these stories. I'm not sure how we'd learn about these issues if old fashioned, gumshoe reporting didn't occur.

Julie & Julia reviewed

Julie & Julia is a new film starring Meryl Streep and Amy Adams. I watched the film yesterday alongside sixty or so other theater goers.

For anyone who loves Julia Child (as I do) the film is worth watching. Meryl Streep's depiction of the late great gourmand, is stunningly good. It's easy to replicate the oft parodied high-pitch voice, but Ms. Streep's cadence and accent on choice syllables is so faithful to the real deal, it's almost unsettling. 

The screen writer of this movie is Nora Ephron whose style I didn't care for before the film.  Before seeing the film, I listened to two separate Nora Ephron interviews. Her tone and lack of enthusiasm during both interviews left me with the distinct impression she felt she was doing us a favor by sitting for them. At least, that's how she sounded. However, while viewing the film yesterday I realized something else -- she takes cheap shots.

Example: In this movie, Amy Adams plays a character that works in a call center to help 911 survivors and takes a "sick" day to cook a Julia Child dish.  She then blogs about the experience to the dismay of her boss who calls her into his office to beseech her for writing the post. He ends his rant by saying, "a Republican would have fired you."

In my case, the theater audience was silent after hearing that little gem.  (Perhaps they cheered on the coasts). Could Ms. Ephron have had any purpose other than to slam Republicans or Conservatives? Doing so is hardly unusual for Hollywood and inconsistent with the memory of Julia Child who was publicly apolitical. 

Finally, there is the weak ending to the film that leaves one wondering if Ms. Ephron was tired and decided to finish the script too quickly, or whether something else crippled her imagination before limping over the writer's finish line.

All this notwithstanding, the film succeeds on the strength of Meryl Streep's affectionate performance and the unique legacy of the woman she portrayed. On a five star scale, this blogger gives Julie & Julia three and 1/2 stars and a pinch of salt for the screen writer.