Telling It Like It Is

THE ENTERPRISE--SIMPLE CHOICES--WHY WORRY?

THE ENTERPRISE--SIMPLE CHOICES--WHY WORRY?

WAL-MART KNOCKS OFF NIKE'S "SHOX" SHOES
Nike sues for patent infringement.  I hope they win.  Adidas won against the parent of Payless Shoe Source recently.  The only way to keep these retail bullies from stealing ideas is to fight them.  Only a few companies can fight them because the others rely on them for too much of their sales revenue.  Go get 'em Nike!

GM IS PUTTING HUMMER UP FOR SALE; CONSIDERING A MERGER WITH CHRYSLER
Finally?  DUH.  For every smart thing GM does, it does a dumb one.  Maybe the Chrysler merger is a good idea.  It will allow only one bankruptcy filing in a couple of years instead of two.  Algebraic principle:  add to large negative numbers and the result is an even larger negative number.  Or alternatively, put two sick people in a bed together and hope to get one well person out of the bed.  Mergers almost never create lasting shareholder value.  This one is a joke--or a desperation move by both GM and Cerberus (who owns most of Chrysler).  (Merge Hummer with Jeep--that makes sense at least.)

IF YOU THINK THINGS ARE BAD NOW, HOPE WE DON'T FLIP INTO DEFLATION--THAT WILL BE WORSE
Back in 1999 I wrote a column about the immense challenges of managing in a deflationary environment.  Deflation is a different and dangerous phenomenon.  One of its causes can be massive global over-capacity, which drives prices down regardless of monetary policy.  Another cause can be plenty of capacity, combined with a collapse in demand--the situation we are facing right now.  This cause feeds on itself. With inflation expected, there is a motivation to buy before prices go higher.  When facing deflation, the assumption that prices will be lower in the future causes postponed buying and fuels the collapse in demand.  Over and over the "death spiral" continues.  Reversing deflationary direction requires tremendous effort and discipline.  Let's hope it doesn't become necessary.

WHY AM I STILL WORRIED ABOUT THE ELECTION?
I saw the choice clearly during the last debate.  The intensely determined reformer--the old soldier/patriot trying to right America's wrongs  vs. the articulate slick, young, (black) celebrity, populist politician with a new idea for everything.  I watched the entire debate and it's obvious: Obama has the answer to everything.  How could I be so naive to doubt that?  And if something happens to him, we have Joe Biden.  But Obama is different from Biden--as different as night and day. Biden is very experienced--but as old as McCain.  Obama is startlingly inexperienced--like Sarah Palin.  Before Biden was Obama's running mate, he clearly stated that  Obama was unfit to be president. Maybe he got that one right. 

Obama has a superb command of the facts and his planned programs--which is remarkable given the fluidity with which they change.  He just uses a slightly different vocabulary than most of us.  "Fairness" and "spreading the wealth" means taking money from Americans who have earned it and giving it to those who never have, and will not.  They can rely on Obama's "95% of the people will get a tax cut!" program.  Never mind that 35% of the people never pay taxes at all--so the so called tax cut is simply a new form of welfare.  "And words matter."

John McCain is a feisty old bugger.  He clearly stated it the other night--"I'm not George Bush.  If you wanted to run against Bush, you missed your chance 4 years ago."  He reacts strongly to things because he feels strongly about things.  Obama is the king of cool.  He opines, explains and rationalizes so well, that if you don't listen too closely, it all hangs together. If something happens to McCain, we get an inexperienced  young reformer, Sarah Palin, (but we saw that TV show already--starring Geena Davis in almost exactly that scenario;  It only ran for a season, but there it was.)

SO, WHY AM I CONCERNED
Goodness, why am I so worried?  Obama is moving to the center.  They said it on CNN last night--so it must be true.   He will no longer act like the most liberal voting Senator, or the liberal Chicago advocate for handouts--even when the people he works with and the organizations he aligns with are of questionable character.

SO,  WHY AM I TROUBLED?
Perhaps it has to do with truthfulness, veracity, character, integrity and being a man of your word.  Those are desirable traits in a prospective president, right?  Why am I troubled?

MAYBE  IT'S BECAUSE I CAN'T PIN HIM DOWN BASED ON HIS "WORD" OR HIS EXPLANATIONS?
    Broken Promise #1--Town Hall meetings: Obama says "Any time, any place.."  Until he's the candidate of his party and then it's no time, no place.   When in his life has Obama shown his mettle under the fire of real conflict.  The closest I can think of was tussling with Hillary Clinton--not quite the same level of pressure as Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, Hugo Chavez and al Qaeda or the Taliban.  But maybe he didn't renege on his promise.  He just "changed his mind."
    Broken Promise #2--Campaign funding:  Obama is all for committing to the government funded campaign limits on spending--until his fund raising blows past it by a couple of orders of magnitude.  Then he decides, "no, I won't do that."  In the process of spending $250 million or more--about three times what McCain will spend, the question comes to mind.  Can you "buy an election?"  Maybe.
    Questionable Association #1--Tony Rezko might have just been a good samaritan, in helping Obama get the house he wanted at a more affordable price.  But wait, didn't Rezko subsidize about $300,000 of value difference?  In return for what?  Goodwill?  Now that we know Rezko is a convicted criminal--it makes you wonder about that kind of "association"--doesn't it--just a little?
    Questionable Association #2--Rev. Wright is off limits per John McCain (who does keep his word).  But Obama did attend his church for 20 years, considered him a spiritual leader (named early in his campaign as that), and somehow in 20 years, he never heard ... or was influenced by...  any of Wright's racist extremist preaching.  That's really hard to believe--isn't it?  But it's just a little lie, perhaps.
    Questionable Association #3--Bill Ayers is ancient history--a bad actor from the past--isn't he?  "He was just a guy in my neighborhood."  "I was only 8 years old when he was a terrorist," like radical beliefs and lawless behavior is something you get over, like the flu.  Then, after further thought, "I thought he was rehabilitated," says Obama.  "And many distinguished Chicagoans, including several Republican CEOs served on that board with him like I did."   I grew up with the belief "that you can judge the character of a person by the company he keeps."  But Ok, maybe none of it rubbed off.
    Questionable Association #4--ACORN, the organization now under extreme legal scrutiny for election fraud was one of Obama's early affiliations.  Perhaps when he was involved, its purposes were noble--and didn't involved stealing votes or an election (but in Chicago?)  Now he distances himself from them, but his campaign recently gave them a large amount of money for a vaguely described set of services.  Maybe there is no illicit connection--any more.  But can a large, well-funded organization help steal the necessary votes that campaign spending can't buy?
    Worrisome Point #1--Obama's Inexperience IS an issue.  Obama has now been campaigning to be president longer than he served in the US Senate before declaring his intention to run.   He has no "record" to fault.  He either did nothing, or did things so "safe" (like voting "present" instead of "yea or nay"), or jumping on the bandwagon for bills that virtually no one could oppose.  The largest organization he ever led was 28 members of the Harvard Law Review staff.  But maybe "judgement" trumps experience in this case.
    Worrisome Point #2--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac knew who to support while pushing loans that have proven to be criminally irresponsible:  Chris Dodd, Barney Franks, Chuck Schumer AND Barack Obama.  What's a freshman Senator doing in with that bunch of veteran "fund raisers?"  The fact that Obama received the second most donations ($300,000?) makes you wonder what his role was--doesn't it--just a little bit.
    Worrisome Point #3--Obama's wife, Michelle  is a militant, smart and aggressive young black woman--who will have his ear at every important point if he is elected.  Her thesis, her remarks (before the campaign shut her up) and even her demeanor reveals what she things and feels.   Watch her and form your own opinions--if the campaign ever lets her out again--she's been better sequestered than Sarah Palin's early days.
    Worrisome Point #4--Government is the solution, and "fairness" is the excuse.  Every program Obama cites is a government run, funded and controlled program.  Quick:  name all the programs the government runs that work really well.  Stop when you get to 5 or 10.  Got it?  Right.  It's a short list--very short.

MY MOTHER ALWAYS TOLD ME:
"You can judge the character of a person by the company he keeps." AND   "Where there's smoke, there's fire."

Put Obama in the White House and you will get:

• New taxes with creative names, to take money from those who earn it and spend it on government programs for those who don't.  The high tax rates will go higher, and taxes on "business" will simply trickle down through pricing to be a de facto tax on all American consumers.  Leopards don't change their spots; they just use their natural camouflage to lay in hiding until it's time to pounce.
• New Supreme Court Justices who are "sensitive to the needs of all Americans," which means who will interpret the law as they wish, not as the Constitution states it.
• A whole cadre of new Judges who will "legislate from the bench" to alter the laws they don't like, regardless of what the Constitution says.
• New labor laws like The Employee Free Choice Act, which will allow organizers to coerce workers into signing cards, getting a union, and new NLRB members who sympathize with unions; then jobs will flow out of the USA faster than oil money is leaving now.
• A host of new "stimulus packages" designed to use tax money to help jump start the economy, with little or now responsible oversight.
• A raft of new anti-business legislation aimed at the crooks on Wall Street, but which will hit all American businesses and worsen an already tenuous competitive position.  Higher taxes will be an open invitation to foreign competition.
• Protectionism--because once you have weakened business' ability to compete, then it is necessary to protect it from foreign competition.  Export markets will close fast--in retaliation to the US protectionist policies, (Check history--we've been there, done that.) further damaging American business and speeding its exodus.
• Conciliation and feel-good discussions with America's enemies which will leave them publicly singing Obama's praises, while private laughing behind his back at his naivete and weakness.
• Numerous Televised speeches proclaiming victory in all sorts of initiatives while sucking the life blood out of the capitalistic, free enterprise system that makes America the most prosperous country in the world.

AFTER I WROTE THE ABOVE, THIS EDITORIAL RAN IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

A Liberal Supermajority
Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933.
©THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Oct. 17, 2008

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.
[Review & Outlook] AP

Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.

The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.
[Review & Outlook]

- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.

Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.

The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.

- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.

- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.

- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.

- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.

It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone.

In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.
----------------------

SO WHY AM I STILL CONCERNED?
I actually like some of Obama's ideas.  His education plans are not bad.  His health care plan has flaws, but somewhere between his and McCain's there is probably a good middle ground.    Obama is probably intellectually smarter than McCain.  He's certainly more articulate.  He's also very well connected--especially to money.  He beat the Clinton machine--which is no small task.  I worry about McCain.  I worry about his age, and his often reactionary and one-dimensional solutions, and I worry about Sarah Palin's inexperience too (just as I worry about Obama's equal inexperience)  The Presidency of the USA is no place for OJT! (That's On The Job training)

WHY WORRY?  YOU BUY A ELECTION ... OR STEAL IT... OR LET THEM MAINSTREAM MEDIA "ANOINT" YOU?
Ironically, Barack Obama is poised to win the election one way or another.  His campaign spending will allow him to "buy the election," just as advertising spending can overwhelm a competitor with an equal or superior product--for a while.  The mainstream media so favors Obama that it may "award him" the election.  Even if he didn't have $250-300 million to spend on advertising, they'd support him and keep him on the air    Who ever heard of a candidate buying 30 MINUTE spots on major TV networks to "speak the the American people?  That is almost obscene.  Where Obama can't "buy the election," ACORN is working to help him "steal it"--or at least try to.

WHAT ELSE SHOULD I WORRY ABOUT?
McCain's age; his health; his fiestiness; Sara Palin's inexperience (no worse than Obama's but still a thin resume).
The economic malaise and credit crisis brought on by irresponsible lending/borrowing and total failure of any oversight. 
The impending recession and its effects on all Americans.
The over-stressed US military and the chaotic geopolitical military scene--Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, North Korea, Pakistan, Lebanon/Syria, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Taliban, and even China.
Our under protected borders and ports; and our dysfunctional immigration system overall.
The failures in educational systems, particularly primary and secondary.
The convoluted, inefficient health care system and the ultimate unfunded economic problem, Medicare/Medicaid.
The difficulty just running clean reliable elections.
The incredibly inefficient, complex and overgrown tax code.
The desire of all Americans to have rights, but so many unwilling to accept the responsibilities that go with those rights.

I am worried because I think this election ALSO comes down to a very simple question:  WHAT KIND OF CHANGE DO YOU WANT--AND HOW MUCH RISK ARE YOU WILLING TO TAKE TO GET IT?

DO YOU WANT AN INTELLIGENT, ARTICULATE, YOUNG, UNQUALIFIED, (BLACK) MAN WITH ALL SORTS OF QUESTIONABLE TIES IN HIS PAST; A CLEAR "TAX  & SPEND" LIBERAL RECORD AND A SET OF BELIEFS AND THEORIES WHICH SOUND GREAT IN SPEECHES AND ON PAPER--BUT ARE BOTH UNTRIED, UNPROVEN AND POTENTIALLY DEVASTATING TO THE USA--ESPECIALLY WHEN COMBINED WITH A DEMOCRATICALLY DOMINATED CONGRESS?  (THAT IS A FORMULA FOR A REAL MESS!)

OR

DO YOU WANT AN EXPERIENCED, BUT CRUSTY (OLD) WAR HERO WHO HAS BEEN WILLING TO STAND UP FOR AMERICA AGAINST ITS ENEMIES, AND WILLING TO STAND UP IN GOVERNMENT AGAINST MISGUIDED COLLEAGUES BOTH IN CONGRESS REGARDLESS OF THEIR PARTY (AND INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT), STRIVING TO BRING FISCAL SANITY AND ADULT RESPONSIBILITY BACK TO WASHINGTON?

ADVICE TO READERS WHO WANT TO HELP MAKE A DIFFERENCE
Find everyone you know and encourage, beg, plead with them to vote Republican for every Senate or Congressional race they vote in.  A Democratically dominated Congress combined with Obama in the White House will spell trouble for all Americans.  It's just that most of them don't think enough or dig deeply enough to understand that.  But then $300 million of TV ads and the massive support of the biased mainstream media can convince Americans of almost anything--why now how our country should be run.

Not the best,
John

THE ENTERPRISE--LONG, BUT IMPORTANT

THE ENTERPRISE

ONE OF THE HARDEST THING TO DO IN MANAGEMENT (& POLITICS) IS TO GET  A STRAIGHT ANSWER
More CEOs fail because they make seemingly brilliant decisions based on flawed information.  Nobody gives the boss the straight info.  It is always filtered, watered down, cleaned up and "perfumed" until it bears only a passing resemblance to the real facts.  Building enough trust in an organization is the first, and perhaps the only key to getting honest answers, from which problems can be defined and then solved--in that order.  Thus, my frustration after watching the second so-called "debate" (whatever these things are, they sure as hell are NOT debates.)

THE MOST COMMON FINANCIAL QUESTION:
What should I do during this financial meltdown.  Assuming you invested sensibly in the first place, and diversified your holdings among cash, bonds, stocks and banks...NOTHING.  The way to win in the investment market is to "Buy low, sell high."  The most common mistake individual investors make is to do just the opposite: "buy high and then sell low"-- during a panic!  If the initial investments were sound, the value will return--over time--not all at once.  If they weren't, there's no easy way to get out of them when the market is at or near its bottom.   Stay calm, don't panic, and get expert advice (not offered on TV!)  For those with cash on hand, this could be a buying opportunity--but remember, the market could fall further before it begins to recover, so take any actions cautiously.

NOTE for Obama Supporters:  If you choose to skip over the following "political" stuff, be SURE to read the last article--a "Moving Story,"  located above my sign-off. 

WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTIONS?
We are trapped in an enormous global financial crisis, trying to choose our next leader and neither of the candidates are answering the questions posed to them.  What will they do?  Who will they enlist to help them?  Do they really have any idea of what to do that isn't already being done?  It's OK if you don't, but please admit it, and promise to "get help."

WHAT DON'T YOU KNOW?  WHERE WILL YOU LEARN IT?
These are legitimate questions, which were asked at the end of the 2nd "debate" by the professional moderator--Tom Brokaw.   Did either of the candidates answer?  Not quite.  Well, sort of...The start of John McCain's answer was not particularly controversial and fairly bland--he didn't know what the future held.   But the second part of Barack Obama's answer alarmed me.  Obama said he'd consult his wife to learn about what he didn't know.  NO JOKE, and  I believe he was being honest and truthful in this statement.  If you were watching you know he was serious.   First of all, that may not be a big surprise.  Many prominent men have strong women "behind them."    In Obama's case, the question is "who really wears the pants in that family?"  What do you know about the "expert" Barack Obama would consult about what he didn't know?  Not so much.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Obama   She's smart; strong willed; not very happy with or proud of America (by her own admission).  Here's a tiny glimpse, of which there is much more posted at the end of this edition, and in the Wikipedia link above:
Mrs. Obama's 1985 thesis at Princeton University was titled "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community.  ... AND "...at quite an early stage in the text, Michelle Obama announces that she's much influenced by the definition of black "separationism" offered by Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton in their 1967 screed Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America."
Now do you get an idea maybe why Barack Obama (who doesn't seem like a black militant to me) may have attended Rev. Wright's church for 20 years.  Do any of you attend a church or a social circle because your spouse or partner wants to?  Of course you do!

CHIPs IS AN ACRONYM I HAVE USED IN MY WORK TO DESCRIBE WHAT TO LOOK FOR IN A LEADER (AND A TRUE PARTNER):  CHARACTER, HONESTY, INTEGRITY & PRINCIPLES
I am looking for it in our presidential candidates too.  Opponents of John McCain will cite numerous transgressions over his long career, but overall (my opinion)--he has largely exhibited CHIPs.   Barack Obama is the new guy about which little is known (beyond what he wrote about himself in his two memoirs).  During the campaign a few additional issues have been raised.

THESE QUESTIONS DON'T INVOLVE WHAT OBAMA WOULD DO AS PRESIDENT--THEY INVOLVE WHETHER HE IS HONEST & TRUTHFUL AND CAN WE BELIEVE HIM?
--George W. Bush took many hits over lying about Iraq.  Some of them were deserved.  HIs credibility suffered greatly. 
--Bill Clinton was caught in a lie about his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky, and actually had to survive impeachment proceedings. 
--We don't need another president that lies to us.  Thus these questions still remain unanswered by Barack Obama. 

Senator Obama:
ARE YOU TELLING THE TRUTH?  OR ARE YOU LYING (OR "PARSING THE TRUTH?") 
1.  ARE YOU LYING ABOUT BILL AYERS?  Your involvement with terrorist and radical revolutionary Bill Ayers.  First Ayers was "just a guy in the neighborhood."  Then you tell us you was only 8 yrs. old when Ayers was at the peak of his terrorism, and you thought Ayers was "rehabilitated."   But as recently as 2001 Ayers said he "wished he could have done more [damage]"...   NOTE: If you would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret Service, you would be disqualified because of his past association with William Ayers, a known terrorist. If you are elected President you would not qualify to be your own body guard! (And the majority of the people don't seem to care.)

2. WERE YOU LYING ABOUT REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT?  You admit you and your wife--and later your family--attended Wright's church for 20 years, but ask us to believe you never heard any of Wright's radical, rascist sermons?  Really?  That's hard to believe.

3. ARE YOU LYING TO US (OR NOT TELLING THE WHOLE TRUTH) ABOUT CUTTING TAXES?  You say you'll give tax cuts to 95% of Americans.  But more than 30% of Americans pay no taxes now.  How does you give them a tax cut?  Do you give them a "handout" couched in the terms of a tax credit/rebate, and hidden under the mantra of "fairness?"  Won't you take this money from all of us taxpaying citizens and redistribute it to the non-taxpayers.

4. HAVE YOU BEEN LYING TO US ABOUT RAISING TAXES?  You say no one making less that $250,000/year will pay any more taxes.  But you've admitted you plans to raise the Capital Gains rate from 15% to at least 20% and perhaps as high as 28%.  Since some 40% of American own securities that can generate capital gains, won't they incur increased taxes?

5. ARE YOU TELLING THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT ACORN'S FRAUDULENT VOTES?  I believe that your peripheral involvement a long time ago doesn't saddle you with this organization or its practices--UNLESS-- you and your organization (or party supporters) are funding and encouraging those fraudulent practices NOW. 

6. ARE YOU LYING ABOUT YOUR ROLE WITH FREDDIE MAC & FANNIE MAE?  OR DO YOU JUST PICK BAD PEOPLE TO ASSOCIATE WITH?  When you are number two on the donor list of these two organizations with Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank being the top four, it certainly raises suspicions.  Maybe the donors were just "covering the field," as is often common practice in political donations--give to all the people you think might help you out.  But, you certainly look "guilty by association"-- if not in fact.

BEING SMOOTH AND ARTICULATE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR BEING HONEST AND TRUTHFUL; "PARSING THE TRUTH" IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR TELLING THE WHOLE TRUTH!  If you are an Obama supporter, you should at least think about which of the things you believe about him are based on truthful statements and which are not.  Bush and/or the CIA lied during the Iraq decision crisis--at least it looks that way in retrospect.  Hillary was proven to be a liar--more than once.  She says she "misspoke."  Is Barack Obama a liar too?  And if he'll lie to get elected, what will he do once in office.  He may have perfectly good answers to every one of them.  I hope so, especially if he gets elected the next President.

BUT FIRST, AMERICANS DESERVE AN ANSWER TO THESE FIVE ISSUES OF TRUTHFULNESS--BEFORE THEY VOTE!

By the way, if another of your questions is "How can John McCain hope to lower taxes, AND fund his proposed programs AND reduce the deficit?"  He may be able to, if the tax cuts stimulate enough growth to drive big increases in tax income--and IF he can "freeze spending" and veto spending laden bills (unless there is a veto-proof Congress majority).  Possible, maybe; difficult, absolutely.  But, it worked in the past--more than once.

-----------------------------
HERE'S AN INTERESTING WAY TO LOOK AT THINGS:

OCTOBER 10, 2008.
Obama's Magic
Presto, change-o!
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
©The Wall Street Journal & Dow Jones, Inc

And now, America, we introduce the Great Obama! The world's most gifted political magician! A thing of wonder. A thing of awe. Just watch him defy politics, economics, even gravity! (And hold your applause until the end, please.)

To kick off our show tonight, Mr. Obama will give 95% of American working families a tax cut, even though 40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes! How can our star enact such mathemagic? How can he "cut" zero? Abracadabra! It's called a "refundable tax credit." It involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don't. Yes, yes, in the real world this is known as "welfare," but please try not to ruin the show.
[Potomac Watch] Ken Fallin

For his next trick, the Great Obama will jumpstart the economy, and he'll do it by raising taxes on the very businesses that are today adrift in a financial tsunami! That will include all those among the top 1% of taxpayers who are in fact small-business owners, and the nation's biggest employers who currently pay some of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. Mr. Obama will, with a flick of his fingers, show them how to create more jobs with less money. It's simple, really. He has a wand.

Next up, Mr. Obama will re-regulate the economy, with no ill effects whatsoever! You may have heard that for the past 40 years most politicians believed deregulation was good for the U.S. economy. You might have even heard that much of today's financial mess tracks to loose money policy, or Fannie and Freddie excesses. Our magician will show the fault was instead with our failure to clamp down on innovation and risk-taking, and will fix this with new, all-encompassing rules. Presto!

Did someone in the audience just shout "Sarbanes Oxley?" Usher, can you remove that man? Thank you. Mr. Obama will now demonstrate how he gives Americans the "choice" of a "voluntary" government health plan, designed in such a way as to crowd out the private market and eliminate all other choice! Don't worry people: You won't have to join, until you do. Mr. Obama will follow this with a demonstration of how his plan will differ from our failing Medicare program. Oops, sorry, folks. The Great Obama just reminded me it is time for an intermission. Maybe we'll get to that marvel later.

We're back now. And just watch the Great Obama perform a feat never yet managed in all history. He will create that enormous new government health program, spend billions to transform our energy economy, provide financial assistance to former Soviet satellites, invest in infrastructure, increase education spending, provide job training assistance, and give 95% of Americans a tax (ahem) cut -- all without raising the deficit a single penny! And he'll do it in the middle of a financial crisis. And with falling tax revenues! Voila!

Moving along to a little ventriloquism. Study his mouth carefully, folks: It looks like he's saying "I'll stop the special interests," when in fact the words coming out are "Welcome to Washington, friends!" Wind and solar companies, ethanol makers, tort lawyers, unions, community organizers -- all are welcome to feed at the public trough and to request special favors. From now on "special interests" will only refer to universally despised, if utterly crucial, economic players. Say, oil companies. Hocus Pocus!

And for tonight's finale, the Great Obama will uphold America's "moral" obligation to "stop genocide" by abandoning Iraq! While teleported to the region, he will simultaneously convince Iranian leaders to peacefully abandon their nuclear pursuits (even as he does not sit down with them), fix Afghanistan with a strategy that does not resemble the Iraqi surge, and (drumroll!) pull Osama bin Laden out of his hat!

Tada!

You can clap now. (Applause. Cheers.) We'd like to thank a few people in the audience. Namely, Republican presidential nominee John McCain, who has so admirably restrained himself from running up on stage to debunk any of these illusions and spoil everyone's fun.

We know he's in a bit of a box, having initially blamed today's financial crisis on corporate "greed," and thus made it that much harder to call for a corporate tax cut, or warn against excessive regulation. Still, there were some pretty big openings up here this evening, and he let them alone! We'd also like to thank Mr. McCain for keeping all the focus on himself these past weeks. It has helped the Great Obama to just get on with the show.

As for that show, we'd love to invite you all back for next week's performance, when the Great Obama will thrill with new, amazing exploits. He will respect your Second Amendment rights even as he regulates firearms! He will renegotiate Nafta, even as he supports free trade! He will . . .

-----------------------------------
END WITH A LAUGH...A "MOVING STORY!"
Sometimes, we all need a good laugh--something not furnished by the election mania or the financial system meltdown.  But, given those two topics, what better part of the anatomy to feature than this one?  After you read it, and if you've ever had one )or even know someone near and dear to you who has, it will take a moment to catch your breath from laughing.   

The Colonoscopy
FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NOT HAD THE PLEASURE OF A COLONOSCOPY, THIS IS GOOD "PREP READING."   
FOR THOSE WHO HAVE, BEWARE. YOU MAY WET YOUR PANTS FROM LAUGHING (NOW THAT YOURS IS OVER.)

This is from news hound Dave Barry's colonoscopy journal:
    I called my friend Andy Sable, a gastroenterologist, to make an appointment for a colonoscopy.  A few days later, in his office, Andy showed me a color diagram of the colon, a lengthy organ that appears to go all over the place, at one point passing briefly through Minneapolis . Then Andy explained the colonoscopy procedure to me in a thorough, reassuring and patient manner. I nodded thoughtfully, but I didn't really hear anything he said, because my brain was shrieking, quote, 'HE'S GOING TO STICK A TUBE 17,000 FEET UP YOUR BEHIND!'
    I left Andy's office with some written instructions, and a prescription for a product called 'MoviPrep,' which comes in a box large enough to hold a microwave oven.  I will discuss MoviPrep in detail later; for now suffice it to say that we must never allow it to fall into the hands of America's enemies.
I spent the next several days productively sitting around being nervous.  Then, on the day before my colonoscopy, I began my preparation.  In accordance with my instructions, I didn't eat any solid food that day; all I had was chicken broth, which is basically water, only with less flavor.
    Then, in the evening, I took the MoviPrep.  You mix two packets of powder together in a one-liter plastic jug, then you fill it with lukewarm water. (For those unfamiliar with the metric system, a liter is about 32 gallons.)  Then you have to drink the whole jug.  This takes about an hour, because MoviPrep tastes - and here I am being kind - like a mixture of goat spit and urinal cleanser, with just a hint of lemon.
    The instructions for MoviPrep, clearly written by somebody with a great sense of humor, state that after you drink it, 'a loose, watery bowel movement may result.'  This is kind of like saying that after you jump off your roof, you may experience contact with the ground.
    MoviPrep is a nuclear laxative. I don't want to be too graphic, here, but: have you ever seen a space-shuttle launch?  This is pretty much the MoviPrep experience, with you as the shuttle. There are times when you wish the commode had a seat belt.  You spend several hours pretty much confined to the bathroom, spurting violently.  You eliminate everything.  And then, when you figure you must be totally empty, you have to drink another liter of MoviPrep, at which point, as far as I can tell, your bowels travel into the future and start eliminating food that you have not even eaten yet.
    After an action-packed evening, I finally got to sleep.  The next morning my wife drove me to the clinic.  I was very nervous.  Not only was I worried about the procedure, but I had been experiencing occasional return bouts of MoviPrep spurtage.  I was thinking, 'What if I spurt on Andy?' How do you apologize to a friend for something like that?  Flowers would not be enough.
    At the clinic I had to sign many forms acknowledging that I understood and totally agreed with whatever the heck the forms said. Then they led me to a room full of other colonoscopy people, where I went inside a little curtained space and took off my clothes and put on one of those hospital garment designed by sadist perverts, the kind that, when you put it on, makes you feel even more naked than when you are actually naked.
    Then a nurse named Eddie put a little needle in a vein in my left hand.  Ordinarily I would have fainted, but Eddie was very good, and I was already lying down.  Eddie also told me that some people put vodka in their MoviPrep.  At first I was ticked off that I hadn't thought of this is, but then I pondered what would happen if you got yourself too tipsy to make it to the bathroom, so you were staggering around in full Fire Hose Mode. You would have no choice but to burn your house.
    When everything was ready, Eddie wheeled me into the procedure room, where Andy was waiting with a nurse and an anesthesiologist.  I did not see the 17,000-foot tube, but I knew Andy had it hidden around there somewhere.  I was seriously nervous at this point.  Andy had me roll over on my left side, and the anesthesiologist began hooking something up to the needle in my hand.  There was music playing in the room, and I realized that the song was 'Dancing Queen' by ABBA.  I remarked to Andy that, of all the songs that could be playing during this particular procedure, 'Dancing Queen' had to be the least appropriate.
    You want me to turn it up?' said Andy, from somewhere behind me. 'Ha ha,' I said.   And then it was time, the moment I had been dreading for more than a decade.  If you are squeamish, prepare yourself, because I am going to tell you, in explicit detail, exactly what it was like.
    I have no idea.  Really.  I slept through it.  One moment, ABBA was yelling 'Dancing Queen, feel the beat of the tambourine,' and the next moment, I was back in the other room, waking up in a very mellow mood.  Andy was looking down at me and asking me how I felt.  I felt excellent.  I felt even moreexcellent when Andy told me that It was all over, and that my colon had passed with flying colors.  I have never been prouder of an internal organ.

ABOUT THE WRITER
Dave Barry is a Pulitzer Prize-winning humor columnist for the Miami Herald.

IN THE CATEGORY OF "BEEN THERE, DONE THAT"
This is so graphically accurate that only those of us who have "been there, done that" can fully appreciate the humor of it (now, after its over).  When you are inclined to become upset about the election or the financial meltdown, take a moment and consider what's important in life.  Family, friends, your health and "having everything come out right in the end."  (Groan)

Best, John

ADDITIONAL READING:
I'm not a big fan of Christoper Hitchens, but this article was the most comprehensive I could find on Michelle Obama's position in the Rev. Wright controversy.

Slate Magazine
Are We Getting Two for One?
Is Michelle Obama responsible for the Jeremiah Wright fiasco?
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, May 5, 2008, at 11:24 AM ET

So numbed have I become by the endless replay of the fatuous clerical rantings of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that it has taken me this long to remember the significant antecedent. In 1995, there appeared a documentary titled Brother Minister about the assassination of Malcolm X. It contained a secretly filmed segment showing Louis Farrakhan shouting at the top of his lungs in the Nation of Islam's temple in Chicago on "Savior's Day" in 1993. Farrakhan, verging on hysteria, demanded to know of the murdered Malcolm X: "If we dealt with him like a nation deals with a traitor, what the hell business is it of yours?" His apparent admission of what had long been suspected—that it was the Black Muslim leadership that ordered Malcolm's slaying—is not understood or remembered (or viewed) as often as it might be.

I invite you to look at the film of Farrakhan's sweating, yelling, paranoid face and to bear in mind that this depraved thug, who boasts of "dealing with" one of black America's moral heroes, is the man praised by Jeremiah Wright and referred to with respect as "Minister Farrakhan" by the senator who hopes to be the next president of the United States.

Liberal comment on Wright, and on the incredible damage that this conceited old fanatic has done to the Obama campaign, tends to dwell on the negative effect that black chauvinist rhetoric has on white working-class voters. Fair enough, I suppose. But why should a thinking black member of the working class want any truck with a Farrakhan fan or with a moral idiot who thinks that the drugs and disease in the black community are imposed by an outside conspiracy? I don't need any condescending liberal to explain to me why black Americans are inclined to be touchy about the way their forebears were treated any more than I require a patronizing former Harvard law student to guide me through the anxieties of the gun-owning and hunting community. I can quite easily understand these points without pedagogic assistance. What I won't be told is that Tawana Brawley was right, or that AIDS is the fault of the government, or that Jews were behind the slave trade, or that there is a secret Masonic code in the dollar bill. And the apologist for murder "Minister Farrakhan" and his big-mouth Christian friends flirt with this kind of half-baked garbage every day.

Nettled at last by the way in which this has upset his campaign, Sen. Obama last week cut the ties that bound him to his crackpot mentor. Well, high time. But those who profess relief at this should perhaps revisit what they thought (and wrote) about the earlier Philadelphia speech in which Obama was held to have achieved the same result with less trouble. If he was right last week, then the Philly speech was a failure on every level, and if it was a failure on every level, and thus left Obama hideously vulnerable to the very next speech made by his foaming pastor, then that must raise questions of eligibility for the highest office.

What can it be that has kept Obama in Wright's pews, and at Wright's mercy, for so long and at such a heavy cost to his aspirations? Even if he pulls off a mathematical nomination victory, he has completely lost the first, fine, careless rapture of a post-racial and post-resentment political movement and mired us again in all the old rubbish that predates Dr. King. What a sad thing to behold. And how come? I think we can exclude any covert sympathy on Obama's part for Wright's views or style—he has proved time and again that he is not like that, and even his own little nods to "Minister" Farrakhan can probably be excused as a silly form of Chicago South Side political etiquette. All right, then, how is it that the loathsome Wright married him, baptized his children, and received donations from him? Could it possibly have anything, I wonder, to do with Mrs. Obama?

This obvious question is now becoming inescapable, and there is an inexcusable unwillingness among reporters to be the one to ask it. (One can picture Obama looking pained and sensitive and saying, "Keep my wife out of it," or words to that effect, as Clinton tried to do in 1992 when Jerry Brown and Ralph Nader quite correctly inquired about his spouse's influence.) If there is a reason why the potential nominee has been keeping what he himself now admits to be very bad company—and if the rest of his character seems to make this improbable—then either he is hiding something and/or it is legitimate to ask him about his partner.

I direct your attention to Mrs. Obama's 1985 thesis at Princeton University. Its title (rather limited in scope, given the author and the campus) is "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community." To describe it as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be "read" at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn't written in any known language. Anyway, at quite an early stage in the text, Michelle Obama announces that she's much influenced by the definition of black "separationism" offered by Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton in their 1967 screed Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America. I remember poor Stokely Carmichael quite well. After a hideous series of political and personal fiascos, he fled to Africa, renamed himself Kwame Toure after two of West Africa's most repellently failed dictators, and then came briefly back to the United States before electing to die in exile. I last saw him as the warm-up speaker for Louis Farrakhan in Madison Square Garden in 1985, on the evening when Farrakhan made himself famous by warning Jews, "You can't say 'Never Again' to God, because when he puts you in the ovens, you're there forever." I have the distinct feeling that the Obama campaign can't go on much longer without an answer to the question: "Are we getting two for one?" And don't be giving me any grief about asking this. Black Americans used to think that the Clinton twosome was their best friend, too. This time we should find out before it's too late to ask.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2190589/
Copyright 2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC

---------------------------------
FROM DICK MORRIS.COM
Barack Obama should have run screaming at the sight of William Ayers and his wife, Bernadette Dohrn. Ayers has admitted bombing the U.S. Capitol building and the Pentagon, and his wife was sent to prison for failing to cooperate in solving the robbery of a Brink’s armored car in which two police officers were killed. Far from remorse, Ayers told The New York Times in September 2001 that he “wished he could have done more.” Ayers only avoided conviction when the evidence against him turned out to be contained in illegally obtained wiretaps by the FBI. He was, in fact, guilty as sin.

That Obama should ally himself with Ayers is almost beyond understanding. The former terrorist had not repented of his views and the education grants he got were expressly designed to further them.

So let’s sum up Obama’s Chicago connections. His chief financial supporter was Tony Rezko, now on his way to federal prison. His spiritual adviser and mentor was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, of “God damn America” fame. And the guy who got him his only administrative job and put him in charge of doling out $50 million is William Ayers, a terrorist who was a domestic Osama bin Laden in his youth.

Even apart from the details of the Obama/Ayers connection, two key points emerge:

a) Obama lied and misled the American people in his description of his relationship with Ayers as casual and arm’s-length; and

b) Obama was consciously guided by Ayers’s radical philosophy, rooted in the teachings of leftist Saul Alinksy, in his distribution of CAC grant funds.

Since Obama is asking us to let him direct education spending by the federal government and wants us to trust his veracity, these are difficulties he will have to explain in order to get the votes to win.

Now that Obama is comfortably ahead in the polls, attention will understandably shift to him. We will want to know what kind of president he would make. The fact that, within the past 10 years, he participated in a radical program of political education conceptualized by an admitted radical terrorist offers no reassurance.

Why did Obama put up with Ayers? Because he got a big job and $50 million of patronage to distribute to his friends and supporters in Chicago. Why did he hang out with Jeremiah Wright? Because he was new in town, having grown up in Hawaii and Indonesia and having been educated at Columbia and Harvard, and needed all the local introductions he could get to jump-start his political career. Why was he so close to Rezko?  Because he funded Obama’s campaigns and helped him buy a house for $300,000 less than he otherwise would have had to pay.

Not a good recommendation for a president.

THE ENTERPRISE--PAYBACK TIME?

THE ENTERPRISE--PAYBACK TIME?

WHAT'S IT LIKE IN CHINA?  THIS FROM A CORRESPONDENT'S FRIEND (NOT WHAT YOU THINK!):

"Yes, still in Taiwan.  Trying very hard to get out.  Applying for work in NZ, but it is very difficult to equate my life here into anything back home. The food situation is China is very bad. Beijing's main hospital is seeing an extra 1000 babies a day!  The poison is in bread, chocolate, tea and coffee, basically everything. A lot of overseas have been burned by this, hopefully they will learn the truth about China and the total lack of respect for life.  Sad to say that greed will mean it will happen again.
The terrible thing is that the wealthy communist party leaders and their families have a separate food supply from their fellow Chinese.   The craziest thing is that the Chinese government have said that all the poisoned food in Japan was poisoned by the Japanese people, after it was sent to Japan. They hate the Japanese so much, they will never forgive them for the nasty things they did during the occupation.  Business is getting harder and harder to do, the factories are getting dumber and more desperate so are ripping everyone off.  It's time for me to get out of this part of the world."

It's interesting how our perspective back here varies from a report made by someone who's over there.  Perspective is everything--as you will see in the rest of this edition.

MOST READERS LIKE IT WHEN I COVER BUSINESS TOPICS
Here's a business topic of great importance. 
==When things go wrong, it is important to get to the root cause of the problems and to identify who was in charge of (responsible for) the problem as it unfolded. 
==Conflicts of interest are bad business.  (Large payments in support of politicians from governmental bodies over whom they have oversight are called "bribes" in business settings.) 
==People get fired (at least) for taking bribes--when they get caught.  People also get fired when root cause analysis reveals that they either mismanaged, or misrepresented (lied about) the facts of situation.  Somehow, these principles escape our elected officials in Washington--except for "hearings" to (misplace) blame.

Here's another set of business principles:
==Play to your strengths, don't cover for your weaknesses. 
==Attack, don't defend. Get the opponent to react to your moves.
==Make sure you are true to the promises, the ones conveyed by your brand. 
Imagine how these apply to the political candidates, and you'll see that in business, and in politics--some principles apply equally.

A DOUBLE WHAMMY
Andy Rooney question of the day:  WHY WON'T THESE GUYS ADMIT THAT THEY SCREWED UP?
There is little doubt that Congressional leaders had a huge role in the fall of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (watch the youtube video link below).  The problem is that if John McCain hangs them out to dry for their obviously irresponsible behavior, they will hang out members of his campaign staff who were also had their "hand in the cookie jar."  That leaves "Wall Street" to be blamed for greed and corruption.  Not that Wall Street doesn't deserve a lot of the blame, but a "non-specific piece of NYC asphalt" isn't the culprit.  People--human beings--made the decisions to make bad loans, bad investments, take irresponsible risks and then hide them in confusing bundles and pass them off onto others.  It is criminal to do that at work, and then to take home millions of dollars in compensation.  That's who really deserves to be punished--and it goes far, far deeper than just CEOs--deeper and broader--including the ratings agencies who said these bundles were AAA rated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QBRIsCkGQ0 

ANOTHER BUSINESS PRINCIPLE: HIT THEM WHERE IT HURTS--IN THE WALLET
2ND Andy Rooney question of the day: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SOMEONE TAKES SOMETHING THAT ISN'T THEIRS?  GIVE IT BACK AND/OR GO TO JAIL!
This time, the punishment should hit where it really hurts--in the pocket book. The Government needs to impose "claw back" provisions (that exist in many equity fund agreements and require a return of investors funds where those funds should not have been earned by the fund partners).  This time the "claw back" should have a longer reach--like preferences do in a bankruptcy--going back retroactive, for a period of time preceding the actual discovery of the depth of the insolvency.  Officers of the failed companies that earned large bonuses or benefited from large stock awards based on the performance prior to finding the faults, should have to pay it back.  Putting them in jail would just be icing on the cake.   Take away their mansions, planes, boats and vacation homes.  Make them pay back investors at least some of the money--it won't come close to covering the huge losses--but it will send a message, loud and clear.

The corporate records of these public companies show who the culprits were and how big the rewards they received for taking irresponsible and sometimes criminal risks with investors money. The amount of all those receiving high compensation should be dramatically "clawed back" since (theoretically at least), their compensation was commensurate with their role in the management of the firm.  It's time to get those records and take back the ill-gotten rewards.  The last such debacle (Enron, WorldCom, etc.) resulted in passing of the Sarbanes-Oxley Bill, a huge piece of new regulation which created a similarly huge amount of extra work--to stop CEOs and CFOs from fraudulently reporting corporate earnings.  God only knows what kind of creative regulations will come out of this one.  Hopefully, they will be more effective and less than oppressive.

AND--It's time for some of our recalcitrant Congressional members to admit their role in the mess and resign too--Barney Franks and Chris Dodd are good ones to start with.

NOTE: In case any readers want to watch the Bill O"Reilly--Barney Franks shouting match, posted below is the link to that one.  O'Reilly's ranting was out of line.  BUT, It is clear from any number of sources that Franks is essentially "guilty as charged"...  of encouraging sub-prime loans and defending Fannie and Freddie on their way into a disaster which took millions of Americans--and billions of dollars--with them.   Remember, not everybody CAN afford a home!  THOSE ARE FACTUAL PIECES OF INFORMATION YOU WILL NEVER HEAR FROM BARACK OBAMA... OR JOE BIDEN.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrfPMa3lONU

AS USUAL OBAMA STAYS ABOVE THE FRAY--SOMEHOW?
I don't know if I admire or abhor his brilliance at doing this ... (Or is he just the latest incarnation of "Slick Willy Clinton?")  Sarah Palin got one line dead righ the other night.  These guys all thrive on "I was for it before I was against it."--or vice versa?  Somehow, Barack Obama stays out of any issue that can put him in an unfavorable light (he has all of his life)--and then weighs in with his views about those who were involved--but only when its over and the outcome is known.  He made only perfunctory appearances during this entire financial crisis, and only then because President Bush put him on the spot, inviting him to Washington.  He says he made numerous phone calls to the various government figures involved.  Perhaps he did, but it certainly didn't infringe on his campaign time.   He stayed aloof as usual; so still, Pontious Pilate has nothing on him. 

THIS IS INTERESTING BEHAVIOR FOR HIM, OBAMA WAS ANOTHER MEMBER OF CONGRESS WHO WAS NEAR THE TOP OF LIST FOR "CONTRIBUTIONS" FROM FREDDIE AND FANNIE--BUT NOBODY HEARS ABOUT THIS.  WONDER WHY?
Simple answer.  Massive media bias. 

NOW THE "BAILOUT"--IS DONE--NOT! THERE ARE STILL HUGE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WILL BE DONE.
One thing is sure, The bill was laden with other crap--only one other word fits as well as CRAP.  HANDOUTS (BRIBES?).  WASTED MONEY all added by the Senate Democrats because they knew the second round of the bill was a sure thing.  What politician, a few weeks from an election, is willing to stand up and say "NO" to a bailout.  A few did.  Most did not.  Obama commented that when he's elected, he will do even more.  McCain railed against the mismanagement that caused the mess in the first place, but that's just "old cranky John."

WHAT'S THE OUTLOOK NOW?  WHETHER A TECHNICAL RECESSION OR NOT, THE REST OF 2008 WILL BE TOUGH, AND SO WILL MOST OF 2009
BUSINESSES NEED TO WATCH SPENDING AND CASH LIKE NEVER BEFORE
Here's the latest situation.
October 3, 2008 Economic Week in Review: The markets' roller-coaster ride

Turbulence in financial markets continued, as investors closely monitored economic data, banking, and congressional efforts to pass a financial rescue package. The week started with a drop of –8.8% by the S&P 500 on Monday, the largest single-day drop since 1987. The unemployment rate held steady at 6.1% for September, even though employers made larger job cuts than expected. Manufacturing and factory orders were well below expectations; consumer demand continued to dwindle. For the week, the S&P 500 dropped 9.4% to 1,099 (for a year-to-date of –25.2%).

Employers cut 159,000 jobs in September—the highest monthly cut in over five years and the ninth straight month of cuts.  This raised the year-to-date job losses to 760,000. The service industry, including retailers and financial institutions, made the most job cuts, but the country’s unemployment rate remained unchanged at 6.1%.

The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index registered a better-than-expected 59.8 for September, attributed to lower prices at the gas pump. It’s important to note, however, that the index reading was taken prior to last week’s market crisis.  The report also showed that, despite the higher index reading, consumers remain particularly concerned about the labor and housing markets, as well as the lack of available credit.  Manufacturing, according to the Institute for Supply Management’s (ISM) index, was down well below expectations for September, at 43.5, its lowest level since October 2001. Readings below 50 indicate the manufacturing economy is contracting. The drop is due to weakener consumer demand brought on by the rise in unemployment and the lack of available credit. The nonmanufacturing ISM report showed a 0.4 drop from August, to 50.2, indicating the service sector remains narrowly in growth mode.

The nation’s factory orders fell 4.0% for the month of August, making it the worst month for orders in nearly two years. Transportation equipment, especially automobiles and aircrafts, experienced the biggest decline, dropping 9.1%.  Overall construction spending saw no change from July to August; however, spending was still down 5.9% from August 2007, despite private residential construction being up 1.3% for the month (the first increase in 13 months) but still down 28.4% from a year ago.

Personal income was actually up 0.5% in August. Most of the gains were attributed to unemployment benefits and other government payouts. Consumers feeling pressure from the ailing economy led spending to reach its weakest point since February, flat from July to August, disappointing those that had anticipated a small (0.2%) increase.
----Some contents © The Vanguard Group

I BETTER QUIT NOW.  IT'S TOO CLOSE TO THE ELECTION AND THE IMPACT OF THIS ON BUSINESS IS SO POLITICALLY CONVOLUTED THAT CLEAR CONCLUSIONS ARE HARD TO REACH.
In a month, the outcome will be clear and then planning for a whole new administration can start anew.

Best, John.