hatepalin.com

Here are just a few of the biggest reasons to worry about Sarah Palin and the McCain-Palin ticket:

* In her first year Palin asked for over $550 million in earmark requests.  Smell pork?  Source:  AP.

* Sarah Palin was for the “bridge to nowhere” until… she was against it.  Source:  CNN.

* The people who have worked with her in city and state government say Sarah is inflexible and a bully.  Source: US Magazine.

* She asked the city librarian about banning books when newly mayor of Wasilla.  Source:  Time Magazine.

* She struck rape kits from the budget of the police, forcing victims to pay for their own rape kits (up to $1200).  Source: US News contributing editor Bonnie Erbe.

* Palin is against abortion even in cases of rape and incest.  Source:  Lifenews.

* She is “proud” of her 17-year old unmarried daughter’s decision to keep her baby, but wants to prevent other women from being able to make that choice.  Source:  CNN.

* She got her first passport last year. Incurious? Provincial? Have to think so.  Source:  New York Times.

* Palin is under investigation in Alaska for abuse of power in “Troopergate” where she tried to get her brother-in-law fired (he was in a bitter divorce and custody dispute with her sister), and when the head of public safety refused, she fired HIM instead. Now she, her husband, and her staff are refusing to cooperate with the investigation or answer subpoenas, claiming “executive privilege.” Sound familiar (see George Bush, Karl Rove, et al).  Source:  ABC News.

* She used personal e-mail for public business, but now is hiding something; claiming that communication is privileged.  Source:  Washington Post.

* Last year Palin charged the state for the per diem travel expense for over 300 nights spent in her own home.  Source:  Washington Post.

* She took a debt-free city and left it with big debt.  Source: Atlantic.com.

* She raised money by creating an oil company windfall profits tax, but now is running on a ticket against such taxes.  Source:  Bloomberg.

* Sarah didn’t know what the Bush doctrine was in her first big interview with Charlie Gibson after her selection by McCain (it says, very ominously for international order and without recent precedent, that a country can engage in a preemptive war, without any aggression or provocation, if it believes that a threat exists and a hostile act might be forthcoming).  Source: Sarah Palin Holds Forth on Bush Doctrine, Pakistan.

* Sarah Palin believes that God is on her side in the war.  Her pentecostal/evangelical beliefs give her great certainty that her positions are sanctioned by God, and that all means are justified in rooting out “evil.”  The Republican handlers got her to claim that her statement was her take on Abraham Lincoln’s famous quote, but any reasoned comparison quickly falls apart.  Source:  Time Magazine.

I’m just going to put it out there.  Sarah and Todd Palin are not the best educated people.

Looking at the evidence in one way, you might say that Sarah Palin has actually had personal experience with a lot of colleges.  Why, she’s been to so many you’d almost expect her to have completed a post-doctorate.  But no, Sarah Palin switched colleges as many as six times in six years before graduating with a Bachelors degree in Journalism in 1987.  You are not likely to have heard of most of those six schools.

I’ll list them here for you: University of Hawaii, Hilo (for a few weeks, according to a friend’s biography, although no official records seem to exist for this stint.  She and her friends left because “it rained too much.”); Hawaii Pacific University; North Idaho College (a 2-year institution in Cour d’Alene); University of Idaho; Matanuska-Sustina College in Palmer; back to the University of Idaho.  There are no records of significant campus involvement or achievement.  Despite her degree in journalism, it does not appear that she worked for any campus newspaper, radio or television station.  See the Los Angeles Times story, “Republican Vice Presidential Nominee Palin Changes Colleges 6 Times in 6 Years.”

Husband Todd Palin is reported to have accumulated some college credits, but has no college degree.

When Sarah and Todd’s lack of academic interest and distinction is combined, we are left with a portrait of a couple who does not seem to have placed much value on education for themselves.  Perhaps we can better understand the lack of foreign travel, the lack of familiarity with issues outside the very local parochial ones of hockey rinks or Alaska-specific pipelines and oil company taxes.  They simply haven’t been exposed to much of the world yet.

Perhaps it is this lack of educational achievement that appeals to many working class Americans who can see themselves in the Palins.  Perhaps McCain believed that he could make charges of “elitism” stick on Obama by choosing a running mate with a paucity of academic commitment, especially given his own lack of accomplishment while at the Naval Academy.

Is it just me, or do Sarah and Todd Palin remind you of the King and The Queen of your high school prom?  Popular and attractive, their best years end the day of high school graduation.  Only now McCain wants you to vote them into the Vice Presidency for four more years.  Appropriately enough the average span of someone’s high school experience.

Call me an elitist if you must, but I happen to believe that we need to elect people who have spent a significant amount of time committed to learning about the world.  People who have created a record of high achievement in education because of their intellect and ability to sustain commitment and hard work over a long period of time.

The Palins do not fit this bill.  But in a popularity contest, they were killer.  Will they be again?

Todd Palin.  You’ve seen his handsome smile and athletic build.  His fierce devotion to Sarah.  But how much do we really know about Todd and his role in Sarah’s administration in Alaska, as well as his roles in Troopergate, his affiliation with the Alaskan Independence Party, and his background? For an excellent backgrounder, see the recent Washington Post article ‘First Dude’ Todd Palin Illustrates Alaska’s Blend of Private and Public.

In Alaska, the two were widely considered to be a pair in governing – “two for the price of one.”  In fact, Todd Palin served as Sarah’s de facto Chief of Staff.  He was often present in the legislature.  He was routinely copied on e-mails detailing state business.  In a small state, as in a small town, the line between the political and the personal is fine, and often transgressed.  See CNN’s ‘First Dude’ or ‘Shadow Governor?’ And the political can quickly become personal, as we have seen with the details available so far on “Troopergate.”

Unfortunately, under the supervision of the McCain campaign, Palin’s promise to cooperate with the investigation into ethical breaches in the Troopergate scandal have fallen by the wayside.  Now Sarah, Todd, and other staff members have refused to cooperate with the investigation, refusing to honor the subpoenas.  Do you suppose that has anything to do with the fact that the final report has long been scheduled to be released on October 31st, just four days before the general election?

Did you know that Todd has been something of an Alaskan celebrity for quite some time?  He’s won the “Iron Dog” snowmobile racing competition, coming in first place four times.  See the Iron Dog website.

Not only is he rough and rugged, he’s a bit of a wild card, with a family that epitomizes the independent Alaskan streak.  Maybe a little too independent.  Todd was a member of the Alaskan Independent Party from 1994 – 2002.  The party is a fringe party, that has vacillated between advocating for secession from the United States, settling to its current position, calling for a popular vote to decide whether Alaska should:

1.  Remain a Territory.

2.  Become a separate and Independent Nation.

3. Accept Commonwealth Status.

4.  Become a State.

See Alaskan Independence Party website.

One of the concerns that I have, is that Todd Palin is thought of in Alaska as Sarah’s “protector and enforcer,” and seems to have a much bigger role in what many see as the abuses of power exercised by her administration, including the Troopergate scandal.  In addition to continuing to vet Sarah Palin, we need to vet Todd Palin, given his apparently fairly involved and unique role in her administration.

The one thing that I’ve seen that I really like about Todd Palin?  It seems his mom might vote for Barrack Obama.  

I suppose it should be no surprise that the McCain campaign is afraid to put Palin out in front of the media when it is likely that she would embarrass herself.  A press conference?  Horrors!  Yes, here we are only a few short weeks away from the election, and Palin has not yet held a press conference.

I guess the only way her handlers are comfortable with exposing her is through ghost-written speeches (or should I say speech, since she has hewn so closely to the same speech given at the Republican convention) or closely managed friendly press interviews (like Sean Hannity).  After the initial bruising from Charlie Gibson, I guess it’s clear why.

Is this how participatory democracy is supposed to work?

The fact that McCain chose Palin to be his running mate after meeting her twice, and spending no more than an hour and a half with her continues to boggle my mind.

A friend of mine told me that McCain has a 33% actuarial chance of dying in his first term, but that I shouldn’t worry – the Congress and political establishment wouldn’t actually let her RUN anything.  So he is planning to vote for McCain.  Sorry, but in my book McCain’s poor judgement in choosing Palin disqualifies him for the office of President in my book, and claiming that Palin wouldn’t really be in charge is no salve.  Palin would be Vice President, one heartbeat away from the Presidency.  She’d better be ready to take over.  But she’s simply not, as even my friend would admit.

The stakes are high, the choice is clear.

And Palin is just plain Wrong for America.

McCain, as one of the chief Senate supporters of rampant deregulation, is very much to blame for today’s financial crisis.  Don’t let his scapegoating of Chris Cox fool you; he was right there every step of the way, dismantling regulatory agencies and programs, preaching an unfettered free market.

I like to think of myself as relatively sophisticated when it comes to financial matters. I’ve got a top-tier MBA, and track my investments closely. But the latest financial crises and bailouts are enough to make one’s head spin.

I alternate between extreme concern, and trying not to over-react or let fear mongering take over.

The extremes of deregulation led to both unprecedented profits on Wall Street, and now the near collapse of our financial system. Sound extreme? Maybe. But the systematic dismantling of regulation that has occurred mostly under Republican administrations allowed for both innovation in financial markets, but also the inability to accurately measure and report on risk, heightened leverage, and the creation of an inordinately complex relationship of investments and risk, whereby when stress and the reduction of liquidity has led to ripple effects that now threaten the entire network. The proponents of deregulation include Phil Graham, Chris Cox, George W. Bush, and yes John McCain.

See CNN’s story on McCain’s flip-flop on regulation:  McCain drifts away from a legacy of deregulation.

The first major stress on the system was revealed with the failure of Enron. Yes, that far back. Enron took all sorts of complex sources of risk, “productized” them, and then traded them. In essence they were a market maker. Before the collapse, they were said to be thinking about creating a weathers future market, where futures on the outcome of weather could be bought and sold. Yes, a weather futures market. A market can be created around anything that moves. Literally. Witness the 16th century Dutch tulip bulb investing craze. The problem is that sometimes the products become obscure, and the people trading don’t know what they represent. Can you figure out what an option straddle on only the interest portion of a bundle of mortgages is worth, especially when you can’t quickly figure out the default risk on the underlying mortgages? Add to this computer-driven trading to take advantage of risk and price spreads (arbitrage), and you have the recipe for interconnected poorly understood markets.

With deregulation, not only did new unique instruments pop up, but the traditional boundaries of what investments different kinds of institutions can invest in fell. Suddenly banks and insurance companies, investment banks and savings and loans, hedge funds and mutual funds could invest in all kinds on new instruments, most with huge leverage.

Leverage is the ratio of “actual” to borrowed money underlying an investment. If I have $100 and want to invest in something, that’s not leveraged. If the investment goes up 20%, I make $20 or 20%. But if I borrow another $1000 (a 10x leverage), and invest $1100, and it goes up by that same 20%, and I have to pay 4% on my borrowed money, I’ve just made $220 ($1100 x 20%), and had to pay $40 in interest, so net of costs I’ve made $180, on my original $100 – I’ve made 180% profit! Hugely profitable? Yes. Risky? Oh yeah. Why? Well, what if the investment goes down? Then I can lose even more than I’ve got invested! If the asset went down by 20%, I’d lose $220, more than I had to start, plus the interest on the borrowed money, so I’m $260 in the hole.  What if I don’t have it?  I default on the loan.  Then who owns the investment?  The person I borrowed from, probably, but they don’t want it, especially if it looks like it’s continuing to fall in value.  That’s leverage. Just like a physical lever lets you move more weight than you could do directly, financial leverage let’s you make (OR LOSE) more money than you could otherwise.  The biggest leverage most Americans have is when they take out a mortgage to buy a house.  But Wall Street bought those same mortgages, and sold them again, using leveraged money.  Now you start to get an idea for how dropping housing prices could ricochet through the economy, as it is now.

So, why are so many people mad at Alan Greenspan? Mostly because he followed a course of low, easy credit for a long period of time. He kept interest rates low to keep the economy expanding far beyond its “natural” capacity. Because interest was so low, and American culture has devalued saving in favor of current consumption, our already low saving rate went negative. The housing bubble developed. The economy expanded. But what was fueling this? China was buying up our Treasury Bills. We were borrowing money to fuel this orgy of consumption. As a result the value of the dollar against other currencies plummeted. The rest of the world could see that this was not sustainable, but the US, as the largest economy in the world, fueled a huge global expansion on the back of its borrowing and spending.

Add to this a disastrous Bush administration, who went into a foolish and costly war in Iraq, and choosing to fund the war not in the current budget, but – you guessed it – with more debt.

The economy is not set up for some very bad days ahead. We will either have to inflate or grow our way out of this mess. We inflated our way out of paying for the Viet Nam war, which we also funded from debt. Remember the ugly stagflation days of the 1970′s? Gas lines? High inflation? Low growth. That’s because we were inflating our way out of our war debt. Who won? Those who held debt, including a lot of Americans who’d bought homes with fixed mortgages. Who lost? Those who owned real assets – like stock, or companies, or retired people on an income that was fixed (and not tied to increases in inflation). I’d predict that you’d best look to the 1970′s and early 1980′s for a road map for the next decade.  We enjoyed the party a little too much, now we have to face up to the fact that our hangover will be with us for a while.

Now the Treasury Department and the Fed have stepped into the economy in ways that would historically have been unthinkable, guaranteeing instruments that did not have government backing, propping up companies about to go under and facilitating private sale (Bear Stearns), privatizing huge companies (Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae), injecting huge amounts of liquidity into the system by lending money to banks and investment banks, and now proposing to create a huge fund to buy up distressed assets, mostly bad mortgage packages and related securities.

I wish I’d moved everything to cash and gold a year ago. But I didn’t, so I’ve lost a chunk.

The decision from here, however, isn’t to cry over spilled milk, it’s to put your money where it has the best chance of growing for an acceptable, minimized risk profile. I did take my portfolio to “moderately conservative” from “moderately aggressive” about 6 months ago. Now it’s time to watch the news carefully, and decide what asset classes have the best chance to appreciate at the lowest risk – even to call a bottom in real estate and stock.

Here’s a great story from today’s New York Times about the latest Bush administration bailout plan:  The Wall Street Bailout, Explained.

Treasury Seeks Asset-Buying Power Unchecked by Courts, on Bloomberg.