A little jetlagged, and financially stable...for now

Luckily for me (and most other recent law school graduates), my debt far outweighs whatever losses I may or may not have taken in the stock market's latest see-saw (or dead cat) bouncing. Anyone who graduated from professional school in the last three years will likely still be working in a decade, so it's not going to be too bad in the long run (fingers crossed). Anyway, I'm still sifting through about two weeks of news, and I want to come up with a response to this interview where Gov. Palin rambled on for about five minutes about nothing, but I'll just put some links to some of the more interesting articles from today and leave the reader to judge them for him or herself.

Harvard professor Jeffrey A. Miron agrees with my suggestion that the bankruptcy laws may be equally as good as a rushed bailout plan. See Jeffrey A. Milon, Bankruptcy, Not Bailout, is the Right Answer. His commentary is much more detailed than either of my quick thoughts on this issue (new deal, quick thoughts).

I still have not made up my mind completely about Gov. Palin. While my initial concerns have still not been alleviated, I can't say I've been entirely reassured that McCain made the best selection either. In an article posted today, Fareed Zakaria, a Harvard and Yale educated expert on government and foreign affairs followed up on an earlier written piece, both of which echo some of my own concerns. See McCain's VP decision is 'fundamentally irresponsible'; Palin is Read? Please.

I find it fascinating on the spins that are coming out of both camps regarding Gov. Palin and her upcoming debate with Sen. Biden. Regardless, this sort of response to what one would anticipate would have a very canned or rehearsed should send a red flag up to anyone who has ever been put on the spot in class and was just saying whatever stream of thought sounded best. I must copy this transcript, and if I find one comparing a black-line to the SNL skit, maybe I'll put it up as well. While I find Gov. Palin's clarification on why the proximity of Alaska to Russia counts for foreign policy experience slightly disturbing, I find this response much more so, given the uncertainty of the financial markets as of late:

COURIC: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

And finally, all this nonsense about free speech lately. See, e.g., Report on Obama's 'Truth Squad' Stirring Up Controversy. I attempted to sift through about ten pages of worthless websites to find some sort of neutral reporting on this issue, and came up empty, other than finding that John McCain also has a truth squad. See, e.g., McCain 'Truth Squad' Hits Back at Clark, Obama; McCain Campaign Deploys 'Palin Truth Squad.'

I'm not sure whether the general public understands the contours of free speech other than they think its an unfettered right. It is not. As pointed out on the Volokh Conspiracy site, it's difficult to find any substantive information on exactly what has happened, and I'm inclined to believe the whole thing is blown out of proportion by the the uninformed public and self-perpetuating misinformation. Either way, I'm not going to following this particular story beyond the occasional click.

Enough for now. I think I'm going to start house hunting and enjoy what little time off I still have left. Read more!

A quick point from an airplane terminal regarding this bailout plan

I only have a few minutes between flights, and I must admit that I could not have picked a worse week to stop watching the news for the last of my pre-work vacations, but I am torn between whether this bailout plan passing or not passing is a good thing. I'm going to think more about it on my flight and try and come up with an intelligent point when I return to the east coast in a day or two.

Seven quick thoughts on today's crash and comedy of errors.

1. The fast-paced nature of a huge government bailout bill. With the business world still reeling from Sarbanes-Oxley, I am not totally surprised that a small core of Congress is hesitant to wade deeper into the water of government-sponsored bailout and federalization of private enterprise. Should the government get involved? Should it not get involved? Another way to put this is should we have a small government or a big one? This is the core of federalism/anti-federalism and what I thought was the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. See point 2.

2. The Republican and Democratic (two-) party system is broken. I will not be at all surprised by this if a third, or even a fourth party forms from the two factions of both parties. We need some member of Congress (probably a Senator moreso than a Republican) or some governor to step up nationally, step up and lead, and just do something substantive. Isn't this sort of national crisis how the Republican party formed in the first place? I'm not perfect on my history, and I would think that this sort of change will take a few years, but perhaps this financial breakdown is the jolt that is needed for someone to make a real difference as a public servant. So that my viewpoint is clear, the Green, Libertarian, Independent, Donald Duck, or whatever other parties are currently in existent are not it.

3. Is it really the failure to pass this bailout plan the route of the problem or is it simply exposing the flaws in the financial lending system? The house of cards seems to be collapsing. How long did people really think a lender could loan millions of dollars nationally to people with bad credit before getting burned?

4. This stock market meltdown, whether it was inevitable or catalyzed by what I am tentatively categorizing as a vote of "no-confidence" in the government, will have serious effects on the general public, like it or not. What is going to happen when grocery stores start charging (as some gas stations do) excess fees for credit card usage? While New York and apparently nine other states prevent this practice, these sort of laws hurt businesses, or, alternatively, simply operate to drive up prices directly rather than indirectly.

5. Did twelve Republican senators really vote "nay" out of spite? See Lawmakers quickly point fingers after bailout fails; Lawmakers blame partisanship for failed house bill; Republicans accuse speaker of shattering fragile bail-out deal. Seriously?

I'm not a fan of government bailout when we have a perfectly good bankruptcy system in place, but when the crisis has reached a fever pitch, I would hope that the vote against such a massive government project has a good reason, and not simply, as Rep. Boehner is quoted as saying, "I do believe we could have got there today, had it not been for this partisan speech that the Speaker gave on the floor of the House" (see also Rep. Cantor: "There is a reason that this vote failed - and that is Speaker Pelosi's speech"). One word to this: RIDICULOUS.

If this bill, for better or worse, failed because of a doofy speech by the House speaker, then our government is more broken than I thought. See again Point 2.

6. I just hope that once I land my 401(k) hasn't turned into a 201(k) (with credit to some guy I heard make this identical joke to one of his friends at the airport bar a little while ago).

7. Hopefully the airline in my connecting city doesn't go out of business before I land.

Tags: stores charging more for credit card use, the fracture of the republican party, the fracture of the democratic party, is 777 the new 666, dow to 8500

Read more!

Maybe it's time for another New Deal

I do have some thoughts on this Palin email hacking debacle, as well as a growing concern that legislative subpoenas (e.g., Rove, Palin's husband) have absolutely zero power, which seems troubling. In the meantime, however, I will simply comment on the recent financial whiplash experienced by our economy. I wrote this after the second 400-point crash on Wednesday, so it's a little dated at this point given that the SEC has finally stepped up and started to regulate short selling, which I remain convinced is part of this mess. I'm just glad I have a job and hopefully I still will have one in six months.

Two points merit brief discussion. The first is this Wall Street mess. The second is the government's intervention to fix it. Like Ben Stein, I agree that taxes are going to have to be raised (likely against those who make the most money) now is not the time to cut corporate taxes. See Ben Stein, How to Ruin the United States of America. Cf. McCain on Financial Markets (stating at a Sept. 19 press conference that "Business taxes will be cut from the second highest in the world at 35 percent to 25 percent"). I disagree that the economy will be stimulated by tax cuts for 95% of Americans because while 95% may see some sort of tax relief, much less than that will actually notice any difference, assuming it passes. See Fact Check: Obama Wants to Raise Taxes; Obama and Taxes. Cf. ObamaTaxCut.com (unexplained and quick and dirty method of estimating taxable income; not sure I would put any stock in this one, but it's something).

Thus, with a lot of talk and no real substance, we are left with a nearly trillion dollar deficit and nobody wanting to contribute toward it. Wake up. Taxes are going up regardless of who the president is. The only question is how far down the small business chain those tax increases will travel (which I would guess, not very far). Once we cut out the puffery, the question is whether there is any candidate who is simply going to tell the country that things are bad, people are going to have to suck it up for a little while, and together with our economic allies, the federal government (and state governments) are going to turn this economy around, and then explain how they are going to do it. Unlikely, but one can hope.

Really, I would like to see one of the candidates step up and simply say that they are going to hold Wall Street accountable for any criminal actions that may have led to this historic collapse and people are going to go to jail. That's what I want to hear. Whether it happens or not is besides the point. I just want some reassurance that the economy is not going to fold up into a new great depression. The last thing we need is hyperinflation. In the end, it's really President Bush's job to announce via a national address, but that's probably not going to happen. Hopefully one of the candidates will do so instead.

Second, this concept of government bailout of private business is appalling. Granted, perhaps government intervention is the only way that this problem could have been alleviated, and that is a good thing. See Jim Cramer, The AIG Save Puts Us on Better Footing. With our national debt through the roof, how many other business (e.g., auto industry, airline industry) going to turn to the government to bail them out of their failed business strategy? To this, I would like the candidates to address how the federal government plans on restructioning these newly acquired assets in order for them to be successful.

Granted, the government seems to on the verge of resurrecting a parallel to the taxpayer-funded bailout of the savings and loan crisis, and this may help. See Paulson, Bernanke Seek Support for an Agency to Buy Bad Debt. So will help from foreign investors. While the markets may have rebounded, there remains questions of whether this is just temporary or have we actually hit the bottom? Time will tell. If only one of the candidates to step up and say it's time for a New Deal.

Tags: candidate tax plans, financial turmoil

Read more!

Berg v Obama citizenship TRO lawsuit

Someone asked me whether I had heard about this lawsuit over Sen. Obama's citizenship. I told him I hadn't, but that it was unlikely to go anywhere in any court for lack of standing. Because this news story has some legal crossover, however, I figured I would get a more informed opinion over it. After sifting through about 10,000 pages of drivel from both the left and the right (and some funny legal ones from Above the law), I have been able to conclude that this lawsuit has not gotten very far, and in short order, will be dismissed.

From what I can tell, Philip Berg is an attorney in Pennsylvania who is bringing this action pro se against Sen. Obama. (Above the Law nominated Berg for lawyer of the day on August 25). See generally Below the Beltway: And That, It Would Seem Is That (discussing this suit and linking to other similar citizenship lawsuit challenges); Mystery solved*: Barack Obama was American-Born (playing on the conspiracy theorists attacking both parties). I have found a copy of the complaint here, but was unable to access it through the Eastern District of Pennsylvania website. At least according to that document, the case number is 08cv4083, and is captioned Philip J. Berg, Esquire v. Barack Hussein Obama, et al.

The complaint, among other things, seeks injunctive relief to prevent Sen. Obama from running based on his alleged non-citizenship. He also brings suit against the DNC for essentially failing to do the same thing as him. Curiously, the complaint references many internet allegations (and Wikipedia), but nothing actually concrete. I'll reserve comment on the merits, and instead focus on two problems, which will likely result in its dismissal.

First, the timing issue. He's been running for months, so the thought that there is a pressing need to act now, where no one has acted before, would lead most lawyers to the conclusion that a restraining order (and particularly an emergency injunction) is probably a loser.

Regarding the rest of the claims, I would imagine the entire complaint is going to be dismissed for lack of standing, particularly since the complaint does not address standing in any form. The question becomes (to me anyway), who would have standing to bring a claim against someone running for president? I think the answer is that there is only one person, the current president. Maybe there are others (DNC national committee chair, another party's nominee), but an ordinary citizen is, in all likelihood, not one of them. The remaining question is whether this lawsuit is frivolous enough to merit sanctions.

As it currently stands, however, it seems that the case was delayed pending service of process. See Motion denied in Obama lawsuit. That article indicates that the senator has been served, so I would imagine the actual dismissal can follow in short order, followed by the standard request for costs.

I may post the link to an article based on the court's response, but I doubt I will devote much, if any, more time on this topic. Assuming it gets dismissed, I'll be curious to see how much more time and money gets wasted on trying to appeal it. Cf. Philadelphia Attorney Phil Berg Demands Disbarment of (3) U.S. Supreme Court Justices. If only Jonathan Lee Riches would file a complaint out of this one.

Tags: obama citizenship lawsuit, berg v obama lawsuit, philip berg sues obama

Read more!

Soon off to vacation, but first, a comment equating Gov. Palin to the Miers selection choice

I am not going to wade into these political waters at this time, mainly because I am going to get away for awhile and will be away from the internet. But with John McCain's selection of relatively novice governor Sarah Palin, it instantly reminded me of when President Bush selected White House counsel Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. With that seemingly political mood turning the entire process into a judicial death knell for her nomination, I can only wonder outloud if this selection will have the same result, only without the ability for her name to be withdrawn.

Others have written about this connection as well. See Sarah Palin is not Harriet Miers; Don't Call her 'Harriet'; Sarah Palin is the New Harriet Miers; Palin: Dangerously unqualified for VP. Now, I have only glanced over these articles, and a search for harriet miers and sarah palin yields over 28,000 webpages and 454 blog entries, so it certainly has to be on the Republican party leaders' minds whether this choice (or gamble, if you will) is going to pay off. My point is, if you are equating the vice presidential choice as a gamble, doesn't that say something about the choice itself?

There are several rumors circulating about Gov. Palin, which I am not going to discuss here without investigating them first. Stay tuned. Read more!