Buckle up the Fiscal Cliff is guaranteed. Reply

I’m so proud that Patty Murray, House Democrat, and Maria Cantwell, Senate Democrat, are from Washington state.  Both have made comments this week stating that we would be better off going over the “fiscal cliff.” This kind of thinking is what made this country great.  We should never compromise with the “other” party.  Instead of compromise we should self-inflict credit down-grades, and avoid balancing a budget until we get sufficient leverage over the other party.  Why pay our bills anyway?  We’re America.  People will always buy our debt; where else are they going to go… Japan?  Hell the people who vote our Congress, President, and Senate in will only suffer a little bit from their unwillingness to do the job.  I mean, why solve such an important issue?  They can always go on vacation and push it further out.  It’s not as if, voters pay their salary. Oh wait.  If you can sift through the massive amount of sarcasm, follow me.

Let me be clear, it is NOT the point of this piece of this article to put down Democrats.  These two ladies have been the only law-makers that have made comments implying that it would be beneficial to jump off said cliff.  We all know that both sides are equally stubborn.  If you have ever had a question about where the House and Senate’s loyalties lie, this should make it VERY clear.  Instead of tirelessly working on a Grand Bargain that can lead to avoiding this problem, they are holding strong to their donors’ wishes.  This has nothing to do with voters.  If it did, they would get this solved.  Instead special interests, lobbyists, and large donors have their loyalties.  No one is willing to bend for fear that they will not have the flood of donations after all is said and done.  Bottom line, all they care about is being re-elected.  This fact looms largest: 94% of the time the winner of an election is the candidate that raised the most campaign money.  So in essence they know they will win yours/my vote if they spend enough money on the campaign.  The only way to do so is to keep their campaign donors, lobbyists, and special interests happy.

 

 

The only stats that matter in the upcoming Presidential election: Reply

94% of the time the candidate that raises the most money wins, and less about 185 people contribute over 80% of all money.  Does this mean that 185 people decide who will be the next president?

Market Stupidly puts its faith in stimulus. Reply

Good day people.  It’s time to warn against stupidity.  Usually this is a straight up political blog, but when I see something play out that is ridiculous, I feel it is my obligation to point it out.

We are nearing the end of the earning season for U.S. markets.  This is when all publicly traded companies disclose their earnings for the quarter.  Since 2008, this has been a rather volatile time.  Big swings go with the beats and the misses of the season.  This quarter has been nothing short of a bummer.  70% of the companies reporting are missing their previous forecasts and, or guiding down for the remainder of the year.  The crazy thing:  The market is up huge!  Both the DOW and S&P are at four-year highs.  What?  That doesn’t make sense right?

Well, we are rallying off of the promise of more bailouts.  Seriously.  The ECB is promising to bail out nations like Spain and Greece, and the Fed is promising that they will step in at any sign of GDP slowing.  Get this, the market is getting excited as GDP slows because they are counting on the FED stimulus.  Am I the only one who sees the crazy in this?

In addition to markets being at 4 year highs on the promise of ECB and FED stimulus we are heading towards the “fiscal cliff.”  This is the stupidity of our national government.  This time last year they couldn’t agree on a national budget and we got down graded by Moodys.  Is there any reason to believe that we will not do the same this year?  I think not.  Especially because both sides are digging in to make it a political issue for the upcoming Presidential election.  Matter of fact, it was supposed to be decided this month.  Instead, our government went on a five-week vacation and promised to fix it upon their return.  All I can say is that there is a fat chance of that happening.  Even when they appointed a small group of congress members to do this last year, neither side budged an inch.  Why would it be any different this time?

What I am most worried about is the fact that markets are becoming complacent.  What do I mean by this?  There is an indicator in the market called the VIX.  This is an instrument that measures the “fear factor” of the markets.  When people are hedging towards the down-side and buying puts to protect their long trades, it raises.  As of today, it is about 15.5.  The average for the past four years is 20.  It is a pretty good idea of people’s protection should the market start going backwards.  Let me repeat the above statement.  70% of our companies are reporting missed forecasts and, or guiding down for the rest of the year.  In all rational thought, this should elevate the VIX.

Bottom line, this worries me because big hedge funds are not protecting their clients retirement money.  Should we see any kind of market sell-off, people’s retirements will pay the ultimate price.

What is “fair share?” Is it important to you? 1

The term “fair share” is becoming the most over used term in politics.  It reminds me of “fundamental” during the last presidential elections.  Every time you heard Obama or McCain speak, they infused the word fundamental into their arguments.  Now it’s about “fair share.”  I began to think about the term and its intentional vague quality.  What does it mean to pay your fair share?  Does that mean that we should all pay the same percentage of our income to taxes?  Does it mean because someone makes more, they should pay a higher percentage?  Does it mean redistribution of wealth?

I’ve heard Obama state that the rich need to pay their fair share.  Is $250k a year rich? After taxes that number comes to about $150k .  What does it cost a family of 4 to live in any Major city in the US per year?  Do you think they should be paying more than this number?  I want to be very clear that I am not bashing Obama here.  Romney’s plan is just as ridiculous in my opinion.  He wants to cut taxes on the rich and raise them on the poor.  That’s just stupid.  What I am finding fascinating is the importance of this topic and the people who take on this conversation.

It seems very clear to me that people are more concerned about what other people are paying in taxes than they are concerned with the fact that our government is for sale to the highest bidder.  Super PAC’s are running things.  Every political commercial you see is a PAC paid for announcement.  These commercials work.  You can see an attack ad come out and the political polls change the next day.  People seem oblivious to the idea that our government is turning away from democracy and becoming a for sale item.  Where are our priorities?

Election Logic from a pessimist: Reply

Follow me here: It is a fact that 94% of the time the candidate that raises the most campaign money wins.  It is also a fact that the vast majority of money being raised is now through Super PAC’s.  It is also a fact that the vast majority of money raised through Super PAC’s are from just a handfull of donors.

Is it then logical to assume that 94% of our elections are decided by just a handfull of Super PAC donors?

 

This is what our country has become: Barack vs. Romney, a fundraising competition. 2

I subscribe to both Obama and Romney’s campaign newsletters because I like to know what they are sending out to the masses.  I got this email from the Obama camp today.  All I can say is wow.  Remember that 94% of the time, the candidate with the most campaign money wins.  All sides of this should be ashamed.  Just sayin’.  This is not how democracy is supposed to work!

Also, I have to mention that the following mass email is mis-leading.  Not counting Super PAC’s, Barack has out raised Mitt in May $38 million to $22 million.  This is, indeed, a smaller margin of difference than in previous months, but still remains.  I also want to mention that I have received very similar emails from the Romney camp.  All I can say is that I miss Buddy Roemer!  Can anyone else hear our forefathers rolling over in their graves?

 

David —
I will be the first president in modern history to be outspent in his re-election campaign, if things continue as they have so far.
I’m not just talking about the super PACs and anonymous outside groups — I’m talking about the Romney campaign itself. Those outside groups just add even more to the underlying problem.
The Romney campaign raises more than we do, and the math isn’t hard to understand: Through the primaries, we raised almost three-quarters of our money from donors giving less than $1,000, while Mitt Romney’s campaign raised more than three-quarters of its money from individuals giving $1,000 or more.
And, again, that’s not including the massive outside spending by super PACs and front groups funneling up to an additional billion dollars into ads trashing me, you, and everything we believe in.
We can be outspent and still win — but we can’t be outspent 10 to 1 and still win.
More than 2.2 million Americans have already chipped in for us, and I’m so grateful for it. As we face this week’s fundraising deadline, can you make a donation of $3 or more today?
Every donation you make today automatically enters you to join Michelle and me for one of the last grassroots dinners of this campaign — today is your last chance to get your name in.
These dinners represent how we do things differently. My opponent spent this past weekend at a secretive retreat for the biggest donors to both his campaign and the super PACs that support him.
I’ve got other responsibilities I’m attending to.
Donate today to stand for our kind of politics:
https://donate.barackobama.com/June-Deadline
Thank you,
Barack

Why buy Gold when you can own Oil? Reply

This is not an advice piece.  I like to think out loud through my blog.  Any investments you might undertake should be consulted with your financial advisor.

With that said, I cannot understand why people would put money into gold when they can buy oil at a huge discount.  As I type this, WTI oil is pricing at $80.91 per barrel.  We haven’t seen this level since Feb. of 2009. That was the midst of the biggest financial crisis our generation has seen.  Guess what, since then our economy has improved.  I know it may not feel like it, but it has.  Matter of fact, usage is up since January where oil was trading well over $100 per barrel.  It is a fact that most oil production companies and countries cannot make a profit selling oil below $80 per barrel, so it is in their best interest to keep the prices at these levels.  Believe me when I tell you that they have the power to do so.  The only exception to this rule is Saudi Arabia.  They can make money all the way down to $70 per barrel.

I don’t want to confuse this situation too much.  The real comparison is to gold.  Gold traded up to about $2k per ounce and has since traded back down to the $1,600 level.  That is a potential of 20% upside from here and will really only materialize if the dollar falls off a cliff with that of the Euro.  Remember though, that is the only real catalyst for gold… hell breaking loose.  As for oil, there are many factors that can contribute to it going back over $100 per barrel which is a 25% gain.  U.S. growth, improved employment numbers, a resolution of the “Euro crisis,” any strife in the middle East, or the upcoming trade embargo with Iran can shoot prices back up.  I don’t know about you, but I’m thinking if I have to pay $4.00 at the pump I would rather have at least made some money on its climb in prices.

July 1st is the deadline for the Iran situation.  Any lack of complete agreement with them will result in a trade embargo which will significantly decrease the world’s supply of oil.  I honestly hope that things don’t deteriorate, but it is a catalyst that can raise prices. If someone would like an idea of how to play it, one could buy the ETFs USO or UCO.  UCO is trading at $25.63.  It is a leveraged ETF and should return to $40 per share if oil trades back up to the $100 range giving you a 56% increase if you hold it that long.  USO is trading at $30.49 and was trading at $40 plus when oil was in the $100 range.  That would give you an approximate of 33% should oil trade back up to $100 levels.    The beauty of all this is that there is a pretty damn good chance that oil will return to $100 per barrel at some point.  I wouldn’t bet against it!

Again, so that no one tries to sue me, this is not an advice piece.  You should consult your advisor before making any decisions based on this information.

My Ideal President… Reply

We are headed towards a presidential election that will absolutely polarize the U.S.  You could not find two candidates that represent two more opposite sides of the spectrum.  You have President Barack Obama that is very much a liberal.  I do not use liberal as a derogative term here, but there is a very clear distinction in his politics.  He is on the side of larger government, higher taxes, and distribution of wealth.  Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is making a point to say that he will get rid of as much financial regulation as possible.  He is also proposing lowering taxes.  This is a very right-wing stance.

Now, what they say and what they do are two totally separate things.  I don’t know that Obama will really try to raise capital gains to 45% or if this is simply negotiation tactics to raise taxes in another way.  I don’t know that Romney will really try to repeal all bank regulations or if this is something he is saying to encourage money from wall street into his campaign coffers.

I wish there was a middle ground.  I wish that there was a candidate that said, “government is getting too big, but we need to avoid another financial meltdown in the future so I am going to bring back Glass-Steagall.  I understand that the unemployment numbers are absurd, and it isn’t all because of Bush and Europe.  I will do everything possible to encourage small business and never raise capital gains taxes.  Health insurance is essential to have for all Americans.  I will offer a public option that competes with the rest of the industry, but will not be required.  People can opt in, if you will.”

We are a strong country.  We can be both fiscally and socially responsible!  We need a candidate that will change campaign finance so that we can feel comfortable knowing our elected officials are working for us and not their campaign donors.  We need candidates that are more worried about their constituents than they are the “party.” You can argue yourself to death about the validity of a two-party system.  Whether it is healthy or not for our country, it shouldn’t be as important as the voters.  As of right now, it is.

Oh ya, and Wall Street is NOT the enemy.  We need to recognize that there were mistakes made that we can eliminate in the future and move on.  Demonizing people who make money helps no one.  We have to admit our own mistakes that brought upon the mortgage crisis/recession.  People knew and or should have known the mortgages they were taking out were bad ideas.  Blaming the banks is very much hypocritical.  When I purchased my house, my mortgage broker pushed a 1yr Arm on me.  Guess what, I said NO.  We all had that chance.

I wrote a letter to my local Senator Maria Cantwell… She replied. Reply

I don’t know that she actually read my letter.  It could have been a staffer that attached this custom response and sent it back, but I have to say that I have sent letters to other Senators and Congressmen.  This is the first response I have received that had anything to do with my letter.  I appreciate the fact that someone read the letter and had a legit response.  Here you go:

Dear Mr. Meyers,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

In 2007, Citizens United, a non-profit advocacy group, sued the Federal Election Commission to prevent it from enforcing certain provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). Among other things, the BCRA prevents corporations and labor unions from directly funding communications expressly advocating election or defeat of a federal candidate. In addition, corporations and unions are prohibited from funding “electioneering communications” 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.

One of my proudest achievements as your Senator was enacting the first meaningful campaign finance reform legislation in decades – the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. That legislation was a critical breakthrough in the long battle to rein in campaign spending, to make improvements in the way politics is conducted, and to make government more responsive to our citizens. It passed through Congress with overwhelming majorities, sending a clear signal of our intent to prevent special interest money from overwhelming our electoral process. I disagree with the Supreme Court’s holding the corporations should be granted the same rights as individual citizens and I worry that this ruling will open the door to a flood of corporate spending that will drown out the voices of everyday Americans.

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court announced its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that these restrictions constitute a “ban on speech” in violation of the First Amendment. In effect, the ruling invalidates these provisions of the BCRA and overturns over 100 years of Supreme Court case law limiting the ability of corporations and unions to influence federal elections.

I believe that public financing is the best way to ensure that candidates can focus on the issues important to voters rather than raising money from special interests. Such an approach would help transform campaigns from negative attacks into substantive debates and government decision-making from a process influenced by money to one determined by ideas.

Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT) introduced Senate Joint Resolution 33 on December 8, 2011. This resolution would propose an amendment to the Constitution that would reverse the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The resolution would reaffirm the authority of Congress and the states to regulate corporations and to set limits on all election contributions and expenditures. This resolution has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, where it awaits further review. In order for the proposed amendment to the Constitution to be ratified, it would require the support of two-thirds of each House of Congress and ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. If enacted, this resolution would amend the Constitution to limit the number of terms that a member of Congress may serve. The proposed term limits in the House of Representatives would be three terms and two terms in the Senate.

Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely, Maria Cantwell United States Senator
For future correspondence with my office, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/

Shame on U.S. Reply

As we close in on Memorial day, my mind drifts to images to two soldiers dug into a fox hole sharing a lucky strike.  One has a bit of a Bronxified Italian accent, the other has a the diction of a news reporter.  They talk about the girls from back home they want to take to a drive-in picture show.  For the moment there doesn’t seem to be any immediate danger of a Nazi soldier sneaking up on them even though you can hear the shells landing in the not-too-far-off distance.  Later the conversation drifts to the Yankees and Joe DiMaggio.  Neither one of them are old enough to buy a beer, but both enjoy another cigarette.

Almost every ten years we go to war.  Men and women die; we remain free.  I don’t mean free as in, I’m not an in shackles free, but something much more than just that.  I can wake up on Sunday and go to any kind of church I want.  At the beginning of the work week, I can mop floors or study at the university of my choice.  If I feel disenchanted with the government, I can voice my opinion at the top of my lungs, and go out to vote.  I can blog about it, update my Facebook status, or shoot out a tweet.  Bottom line, as long as I am not stepping on someone else’s rights, I can do just about any damn thing I like.

These freedoms have been paid for with blood, someones son, daughter, husband, wife, grandson, lover, etc. There are no words to explain the gratitude, just an understanding of what it has taken to get here.  The problem is that we are not holding up our end of the bargain.  Soldiers have died on our behalf to uphold our freedoms and we are allowing a failing government to ruin what our forefathers intended us.  Our nation has become bought and sold.  Our lawmakers campaign and fundraise the vast majority of their political lives.  While in office they fight for the people who put them there, their campaign donors.

Our veterans and those that we have lost did not fight to protect the corporatocracy of USA, they are fighting for the U.S.A. and our democratic values we are slowly, but surely, losing.  We owe it to them to research the people we vote for.  A thirty-second commercial does nothing to tell you about a candidate.  Look up their voting record.  Write a letter to your local congressman or woman about the stupidity of campaign finance and existence of Super PACs.  Do something to hold up our end of the deal we made with our sons, daughters, husbands, and mothers that fight for our rights!