This year Christmas has come before December, especially if you are a money center bank, a brokerage house, insurance company, or car manufacturer. For regular people though the holiday may not arrive at all. Such is the way things happen when the Government gets involved.

The news is out now that Citigroup will receive another $20 billion, with guarantees for $306 billion in assets, before the holiday season ends. In fact they should have the money, your money, in hand before the holiday season officially starts this Friday. Santa it seems has a 401k.

The good part of this is that Citi should not fail. Thus money will be stable in over 100 countries around the world, for the time being. Another bonus that New York City officials must love is that Citi will not be sold off in parts, and thus tens of thousands of additional jobs should be secure. And there is a better than 50% chance that many of the major bonuses that help the Big Apple float will be paid out (contractual obligations don’t end when the company gets a Government bailout). And in all honesty that is a good thing for the U.S. economy too, as long as they spend the money and not hoard it in fear of future layoffs.

The bad thing is that none of the officials tasked with resolving the financial crisis the nation is in foresaw this event. Chriss Dodd and Barney Frank didn’t see it coming, not because they were asleep at the wheel like when they promised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be ok, because they were too busy blaming anyone but themselves for missing the problem. Treasury Secretary Paulson missed it. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke missed it too.

Not one of these men, each tasked with identifying this continuing problem, envisioned this problem. They have dozens of staffers and hundreds working behind the scenes crunching numbers. Yet they all missed the chance of this happening. And the public is left to assume that it was so sudden they couldn’t have known.

Not true.

“I believe that the move to junk rating of ACA, the probable $6 - 12 billion loss at JP Morgan [significantly higher than expected], eventual losses from Citigroup - which reinsures itself, oil breaking $100 a barrel, and the multiple overseas investments will all hit the market in mid-January 2008. Thus I think a move to 11,000 is more than probable.”

I said that in December of 2007. That’s without being a stockbroker for years, without financial racords, conversations with CEO’s, discussion of the Fed, data from international sources, or Congressional committees. Just me reading the news and analyzing the public information.

I in fact went on to say

“Will those experiencing deflation outweigh the inflation fears? And if more people lose their homes how much of our financial institutions are we willing to sell to avoid the harshest realities of a crash?”

I knew Citigroup was in trouble a year ago. I knew there would be a major crisis from the mortgage industry, and that a bear market would hit the stock market. And I defined it several times, months in advance, in detail. The main thing I have been wrong on is the severity and speed at which all these things happened.

My point about this is simple. If I can figure out how bad things were, and most likely will continue to get, then what the hell were all these people whose only job is to figure this out doing!?

If they can’t get off they political posteriors, open their Government entrenched eyes, and understand the degree of a problem that is apparent to a guy on a computer in Binghamton – without even a stock ticker – they why are we giving them control of $700 billion and more? How can we expect that a single dollar of that money will be put to a use that is effective?

Case in point. Citigroup is in big trouble. They insure themselves internally. They are failing. So what is the value of the $306 billion in assets today, what was it yesterday? Are we guaranteeing a value that was intially set for these assets, the current market value of these assets, or are we getting to pick up the debt and bad loans of Citigroup mixed in with actual assets? The difference is very important. And I doubt if Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are even aware that this question should be asked.

I asked how much are we willing to sell to avoid a problem a year ago. Today I am looking forweard and I have to ask a different question. How much of the American capitalist system the nation functions on are we willing to lose to avoid the pain of this crisis? And if we are willing to comnpromise the basis of our economy, how do we prevent losing the freedoms a solcialist nation cannot tolerate?

Labels: Barney Frank, Ben Bernanke, Chris Dodd, Citigroup, Federal Reserve, financial news, mortgage bailout, New York City, Treasury Secretary Paulson

As the 4th quarter moves steadily towards the holidays and businesses across the nation collectively hold their breath, I decided to look forward to 2009. What are some of the things that I see coming economically in the new year?

Dow Jones Index at 7600. Yep that’s a bleak statement. It’s not what anyone is asking for in their wishlist to Santa this year (except a few masochistic short-sellers). This is definitely a lump of coal.

But I will say something that you really aren’t expecting. That’s the upside in my view.

The 4th quarter of 2008 is going to be bad. Very Bad. We all know it. We knew it when before Halloween businesses were already getting their Christmas displays in order. They needed sales that bad. And still do.

Unemployment is up, financial companies are laying off people in the thousands, and the prospect of inflation looms larger by the day. Add to that recipe a Democratic President (a historically bad indicator for the economy) who’s policies – based on his voting records – are extremely left leaning, a Democrat-led Congress, the worst Speaker of the House ever, and you get a big mess.

But there is the fact that over $1.2 trillion has been spent this year to bailout the mortgage and credit crisis. The money has been the worst spent money I have seen since Waterworld was made. And the fact that no one has control over how or where this money is being spent, just means that it is being spent poorly and ineffectively.

So all that is left to look forward to is the thought that the auto makers are now first in line to ask for their own bailout, to be followed by retailers, pharmaceuticals, airlines and probably every other industry in America. And Congress will likely pony up the money for each of them.

But let us not forget that Congress has included the people in their spend at will program. So far a 2nd stimulus plan is being conceived, growing from an initial hidden $50 billion, to $150 to $300, and now is being speculated at $500 billion dollars. Nancy Pelosi doesn’t just screw up, she does it with swings to the bleachers.

Any one of these things would not hurt the stock market that much. And the by-product of severely deflated oil prices would be a boon to business in the mid-term. But it’s all happening at once. Saving on energy doesn’t matter much when you have no sales revenue.

The weakness in the stock market can bee seen in that just before the presidential election, the big institutions watched the polls and sold to get out of the way before President Obama was voted in. His promises to raise taxes, and his historic voting record were not overlooked. The only pause in selling came to allow smaller investors a chance to buy into the market and raise prices for the next wave of selling. My guess is that most of the money is sitting in cash right now, waiting for an opportunity in anything but stocks. At least in the U.S.

This means that New York City will get crushed this year. Bonuses from financials are getting scrutinized and thus being cut across the board. That means less money in the tri-state area, and thus a bad Northeast holiday season. That means the east coast will suffer and the nation as a rippling effect.

I’m sure some believe the polispeak that Wall Street and Main Street are separate – a concept only politicians could come up with. But this is how I see it all playing out.

Holiday sales will be off from last years rate, further pressuring the Dow Jones Index. Unemployment will increase going into the New Year, and inflation will start to rise.

President Obama will get inaugurated and the Dow will drop 500 points. This is not a racial reaction, but a political one. Within a week or so of that date a $300 billion 2nd stimulus plan will be passes raising the market temporarily. Several forward indicators will suggest a negative 4th quarter and 1st quarter 2009. Home sales will drop again – due to fewer loan approvals. Home prices should drop in proportion, with foreclosures increasing.

Oil prices should stabilize at around $65 - $70 per barrel to start the year as speculation and alternative investments will drive the price higher. Gold and precious metals should all increase dramatically in a similar manner to that of 2008. Growth in China will likely stall as well, especially since the boost from the Olympics will have faded.

President Obama will be forced to state that he will not raise corporate taxes, and a smaller increase in capital gains will be proposed. Taxes will increase roughly 3% on all income groups.

HD television service will cause a disruption across the nation and millions realize they need different television set, and will spike retail sales – but this is a false increase in the economy. It will be read as a positive indicator by politicians though.

Several mid-sized financials will fail, blame will go to short-sellers and corporate greed. Increased regulations will be passed that will not address the potential for bad business decisions, and the markets will sell again in fear of a more socialized America. The first rounds of nationalized healthcare will be discussed. The national debt will run higher, the deficit even more so as new spending will have no check from Congress.

Confidence in the U.S. Treasuries will weaken, and several nations will begin to sell in hopes of buying national debt of England and a few isolated nations. There will not be a run on America as this would instantly plunge the world into a depression. But the fear will accelerate pressure on the markets. The Fed will lower interest rates again to counter these fears, and to again increase loan availability. Inflation will start to gain attention in the media.

Unemployment will hit a 20 year high, again raising fears of a depression. And Iran and Russia will take aggressive stances in the world stage. Oil will run on this fear, as will gold. But direct crisis will be averted for the time being.

I expect all of this to happen in the first quarter of 2009. It is my expectation that to some degree every item I mentioned will occur. The importance and effect of each of these items will depend on timing and reaction as they all play off of each other. But the net result will be a 7600 Dow Jones Index, or lower.

I expect that this will be the bottom of the market. Smaller investors will flee the markets, and discussion of Federal intervention to save 401K’s will begin. This will also be seen as socialistic, but the need will outweigh these fears. The market will likely hover in this bottom range for the 2nd Quarter.

I’m not sure what might happen next.

I hope that I am wrong an most of these expectations. I would love to see the market gain confidence and rally in the face of these events. I hope that President Obama can rise to the occasion and lift the economic and personal spirits. But that is yet to be seen.

If I am as correct as I was in 2008, then 60 – 70% of what I have said will occur, though not exactly in my timeframe. Take that as you will.

Labels: Congress, corporate taxes, Dow Jones Index, gold spot prices, mortgage bailout, Nancy Pelosi, New York City, Polispeak, stock market, U.S. economy, Wall Street

In less than 9 hours America will be observing the 7th anniversary of 9/11. The attacks that day were the worst in American history, and many of us can still recall where we were as the planes hit the Pentagon and the Twin Towers.

Politicians have used 9/11 as a weapon and shield since that day. Some have used it to create political influence. Others have used it to increase the power of aspects of the Government. And still others have used it to express their own fears and dislike of laws and Government. All are fair to an extent, and virtually all are wrong to use this despicable act for their self-interest.

Tomorrow, both Presidential candidates will inevitably use the day to promote some aspect of their Presidential campaigns.

On September 11, 2001 I was at my brokerage office in midtown Manhattan. I saw live television as the 2nd plane struck, and watched the Towers fall. I was among the millions that feared for their lives, and those of loved ones and friends on that day. I walked among the millions that were stunned and dazed on the streets of Manhattan. I had several colleagues and friends that were hurt, killed, or otherwise immediately impacted by the Towers that day.

In the wake of this horrific act of fanatical religious rage, I was sure that New York City would be struck again by the mindless uncaring evil that terrorism is within days if not months. Considering that London, Paris, Tel Aviv, Tokyo, and most any other major city across the world has to deal with this kind of insanity on a repeated basis such a thought was not (and is not) unreasonable.

To date we have not seen another attack on U.S. soil. We have seen several individuals enter the nation from the Canadian border with the intent to harm innocent civilians. They all have been intercepted without their plans being enacted. None have ever been identified coming from the Mexican border.

Today we hear some act as if America can never again be touched. They believe that America need not protect itself. They believe that vigilance is unwarranted, and pro-active steps for protection useless or provocative. I find such thoughts naïve and potentially deadly.

Today we also hear some that seek to restrict ever more freedoms under an umbrella of protection from a never ending war on fanatical ideas. They would strike at any foreign thought or belief. They would dominate for fear of any weakness becoming a new point of attack. They would give up individuality for the comfort of safety.

Both of these extremes of thought are wrong. They are extreme views that fail to see the reality of the world, which lies far closer to the center than where they stand.

The reality is that at some point America will be struck again. No nation is immune or impenetrable. Fanatics have no time limits, nor can they be negotiated or bribed from their views. Their ideals cannot be killed, or corrupted, or beaten by force. The best any nation can do is to hold back the beast for a time and minimize its effectiveness.

Every year, every day that America goes without an attack on our population is only one day. And one day, hopefully far far in the future, we will have to start the clock over and count up again. I don‘t say this to be a sensationalist, or to be a fear monger. Its reality, and straightforward. And I pray that when that day comes it is minimized to the least extent possible.

To those that think America can just hide in our nation and the world will leave us alone I say wake up. For those that think that mere force will eliminate any potential threat I say calm down and think. America is always a target of fanatics because we are free, rich, and powerful all at once. And you cannot kill an idea (especially when that idea is a religion – no matter how twisted that idea is made to be).

I suppose I don’t have a direct point of this post. I’m not trying to make a conclusion, or place blame. Neither benefits the nation. Rather I am reflecting on a moment that struck me to my core. A day that will never leave me in a way that many in the nation never will feel, I hope.

Over the next hour, and through the next day I want my readers to reflect on a few thoughts. We have a great nation, flaws and all. We can believe in whatever God we wish, or none at all if we chose. We can voice our thoughts even if others disagree. We can travel as we chose, even if it costs more or takes longer than we like. We can live where we please, work as we are capable, and earn most of what we are worth.

Millions serve our nation everyday. They protect us, and defend us from laws, individuals and nations that can cause us harm. The service is born of a desire for the nation to always improve and become greater for our children than what we have lived. At times that service is flawed due to imperfect decisions or temporary political desire; flawed in how the execution is made not in the service provided. And we should honor that service.

9/11 is a remembrance that we all serve our nation in our own way. That our nation is great, filled with great people. That when we act the sum of our actions tend to be the right one. And that every American life is as important as our own.

Perhaps I’m rambling, but sometimes that’s just what we need. No point, no decisive goal to achieve. Just thoughts based on an act of evil, 7 years ago.

Labels: 9/11, american history, New York City, religious tolerance, terrorist attack, Twin Towers

As the 4th of July approaches quickly I want to take a moment to simply remember some great people in American history, people that are responsible for Freedom in this nation.

Now some would think I would start my list with George Washington. But this is an honest list. George Washington lost every battle he was in except for Valley Forge. He was a horrible General, but Valley Forge made him famous. So I won’t discuss him.

Some would look to Thomas Jefferson, a great thinker and an architect of the Constitution. Again I wouldn’t include him. He was part of those that agreed a Black man only counted as 3/5th of a man. He maintained slaves, even though he did eventually free them. And he hid the fact that he was an adulterer. Fathering children with a Black slave, he denied it though it was a well-known if not unspoken fact that was resisted until the dawn of the 21st century – hundreds of years later.

Yet some would say that I have to include Abraham Lincoln. And those same people probably have never read the words Lincoln wrote as an editorial 1 week before the Emancipation Proclamation. In that article he clearly outlines the fact that if he could keep slavery and save the Union he would. They would forget that slavery was the 5th most important reason for the Civil War, no matter how many movies and books have romanticized the past. And they ignore the Jim Crow laws and segregation that was accepted in the place of slavery for over 100 more years.

So who do I want to not forget?

The Slaves. Those Africans that were taken from their home in numbers so great it’s believed they could easily outstrip those killed in the Holocaust and if laid down could provide a bridge from Africa to America and beyond. Those Africans that fought in the American Revolution like Crispus Attucks who died in Boston and was the only African American mentioned, in the history books I grew up with, until Dr. Martin Luther King in the 1960’s. [Have history books changed at all in the last 30 years?] Like those Africans that fought in the Civil War, and the War of 1812, and the Spanish-American War, and every single war and conflict this nation has ever known.

I want to remember the Slaves that built virtually every road and foundation in the 13 colonies, especially those in the South and in New York City. I want to remember the Africans that had to give up their names, like Kunta Kinta – an ancestor of Alex Haley (who’s detailed book of his lineage was classified as a fiction in the 1970’s) – and take on the names of slave masters that split families faster than they would split up horses or cattle.

And why must I remember these Men Women and Children?

Because like the Holocaust we should never forget. If we forget we allow the sacrifices made to mean nothing. If we forget we allow the past to repeat itself. Because if we forget, the truth becomes nothing more than a yellow paper.

I love America, and on the 4th I will be celebrating like everyone else in the nation. I will think of those in Iraq and Afghanistan and thank them. I will remember my time in the Marines and those I served with. I will remember my father and the sacrifices he went thru because of Viet Nam. I will remember my best friend’s father and what he did in Korea. I will even celebrate the romanticized histories of Jefferson, Lincoln and Washington.

But today I will simply remember all those that weren’t thought of as important enough to have the freedoms, rights, and opportunity that I enjoy today – in a nation literally built on their backs and bones. Because freedom comes at a price and sometimes that price is remembering the truth.

Labels: Abraham Lincoln, Alex Haley, American Revolution, Civil War, Crispus Attucks, Dr. Martin Luther King, George Washington, Marine Corps, New York City, Roots, Thomas Jefferson

I’ve said it before and I will say it again. Is anyone paying attention to Canada? Specifically the border. Because, again, it seems that no one is.

On Thursday, some nutjob set off a bomb at the New York City recruiting station which has been in place since WWII. Obviously government agencies are looking at every angle on whom this idiot was and why they committed this act of terrorism. [Personally my first and recurring thoughts are that it’s one of the pathetic ungrateful members of Code Pink and/or the Berkley city council. They are all just loopy enough to do such an act and perversely think that this was a positive.]

Part of the investigation has led to an incident at the Canadian border roughly 1 month ago.

“They went over the facts: Two of four men in a car got out and tried to cross the border on foot; the authorities pursued them but did not catch them; when the car was inspected at the checkpoint, each of the four bags were found to have contained four foreign passports for four people. In one of the bags were those writings and photographs [anarchist writings and photographs of various spots around New York City — including the military recruiting station and the police station in Times Square], the official said.”

As of this writing, the above incident has been ruled as not connected to the NY bombing. So does anyone feel any more secure or confident about the incident? I surely don’t.

You may recall me stating

“But if we are to posture about security and claim a need to patrol and defend the southern border, no less attention needs to be directed at our neighbors to the north. And I would wager that if 17 were caught, many more have already crossed without incident.” – June 2006

or

“But how does a person who is flagged and sought after by the American government enter the nation? Through Mexico, crossing the border with illegal immigrants in the dead of night across difficult terrain? No, a casual drive over the northern border is all it takes.” – June 2007

Now we learn of people that were up to no good at the northern border. I mean they ran from authorities, had 12 passports, and pictures targeting spots in NYC.

And not one of them spoke spanish, or were descibed as Hispanics/Latinos. Amazing, unless you realize that the biggest threat to America is to our north not south.

In the past 3 years there was at least 17 terrorists, one biological idiot, and numerous people with fake documents and troubling photos all at the northern border. Name any threat to national security that entered from Mexico in the same time.

That does not mean that illegal aliens entering from the south are not an issue. The flow needs to be stemmed. But I at least believe that Canada is the waypoint for terrorists hoping to kill hunderds or thousands of Americans. And our elected officials seem not to care.

I hate to say it, but it may take an act that kills Americans and a live chase via helicopter cam crossing our border to the north with caucasian terrorists before the general public wakes up to the present and continuous threat. I pray such an event doesn’t happen, but it seems it’s the only way to be safe.

Maybe the bombing in New York wasn’t done by a sick, deranged, bastard that entered our nation via Canada this time. But that’s where the threats have been in the past, and eventually it will be where we will have to look in the future too.

Labels: Berkley, border crossing, Canada, Code Pink, New York City, terrorist attack

Michelle Obama is currently the focus of media attention. Considering that Senator Hillary Clinton is a woman, the comparisons to her seems inevitable to become harsh. And I find it interesting what is being said.

Michelle Obama is not a politician. She has never tried to be one. She is a hospital executive, well educated, and a mother. She is 44. She also happens to be Black.

Given those facts I have to wonder a few things. First is the thought that what does her thoughts have to do with American politics? If we assume, as the Clinton campaign claims, that being the wife of a politician is the same as having experience, then I expect her views on healthcare reform are very important (especially since she works in the industry). If sleeping with a politician is not enough, then her impact on the politics of her husband is virtually non-existent (and the claims of Senator Clinton go down the drain).

But it seems the media, the McCain campaign, and the Clinton campaign are giving her words significant weight. That is why her comments is being dissected. [This is the full comment and not the polispeak soundbite used by the major news media]



Now there are those that find her comments to be unpatriotic. That it was an insult to the nation. That is one way to view the words, and it is valid. But I think it does not take the meaning of the words into account.

I do feel that Michelle Obama is proud of America, but that she means that she has not had a reason to be overly and beyond the general pride we all feel every day. That there has not been any moments in her adult life that brought her special or specific feelings of pride. To be honest I think all people are proud of America in general, but not overly elated in expressing that pride every day. I mean when was the last time that you heard a politician, or anyone, just say “I feel proud of America today” without context to some event or action?

And as I discussed this with a friend, the thought came up that the fact Mrs. Obama is Black is also a factor in the comment. Specifically because

“As a Black person having to deal with the way people treat you in America, you have a very different take on America. So her statements reflect her experiences. She could have walked into places, like a store, and been treated like crap while her White friends could go in an be treated well in the same place.

It makes me think of Janet Jackson’s last film. In one scene they went skiing, and the wives went into town to shop. They were wearing furs, and well dressed. The clerk walks up to them and says that there is no cash in the store. The first thought was they were there to rob the store. So in reference to Mrs. McCain, they don’t have the same life experiences. The treatment is always going to be different.

American daily life, and politics, have not given her reason to be overly proud. It’s a Black and White issue. Which is why this makes a big difference from Mrs. McCain saying the same thing. It falls under the “walk a mile in my shoes” quote.”

Obviously there is a huge source of pride in the fact that while African Americans continue to not be able to catch a cab in New York City, even if they are Denzel Washington or Danny Glover, Senator Obama is winning states across the nation that have virtually no Black voters by enormous margins. Because they think he is the best candidate for President. And that is a source of pride that has not existed in the lifetime for African Americans before.

And what other moments since the 1980’s have Blacks had to be especially proud of America for? What has changed that made a dramatic difference in the average Black Americans life? Gaining Mayors in cities that never had Blacks in positions of power before? Learning that there are many trying to end Affirmative Action, without implementing something better and more fair, even though racial bias continues to exist in the nation? What event equals the momentum and potential of Senator Obama being able to gain the highest office in the nation?

Context makes a difference. Point of view makes a difference. And being the spouse of a political figure minimizes those points to a degree while amplifying the spotlight they receive. Is Mrs. Obama especially proud of America prior to the current election cycle, maybe not.

But then again what has happened that she should be? That’s the real thought that the media and America should be focused on.

Labels: Denzel Washington, Janet Jackson, Michelle Obama, New York City, Polispeak, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama

While in New York City recently I visited with several old brokerage friends. During that visit we all discussed the market and what may potentially be on the horizon.

One broker, whom I respect and consider quite sharp [even when I disagree], had an interesting comment on my predictions. I believe that the move to junk rating of ACA, the probable $6 - 12 billion loss at JP Morgan [significantly higher than expected], eventual losses from Citigroup – which reinsures itself, oil breaking $100 a barrel, and the multiple overseas investments will all hit the market in mid-January 2008. Thus I think a move to 11,000 is more than probable.

My friend disagrees. His view is that if I am correct in these outcomes, then the Fed will be forced to lower rates further immediately. He feels that this is the only way to stem the problem that is the mortgage crisis. This is especially true when you consider the increase in credit card debt.

“All the people with million dollar homes that would be refinancing and getting an extra $200,000… They find it hard to change their lifestyle quickly. That says nothing about most people who are feeling deflation. And add those paying the mortgage with their credit card and you have a market that needs the Fed to cut.” – Paraphrase

Sound reasoning. But I don’t think a bear market is avoidable.

The fact that the mortgage crisis is far closer to its beginning than end. I expect that there are far more homes in danger than has been seen to date. Even with the highly selective mortgage bailout stated by President Bush, many are going to be at risk. Credit card debt can only float for so long. With the added pressure of oil at or above $100 per barrel, which I expect mid-January as I stated above, more will fail even if rates are lowered (less than 2 points).

Add to this the fact that financials are at high risk. The early infusion of foreign capital may look good now, but this does nothing for future and continuing losses. It’s window dressing. With re-insurers like ACA in trouble and Japanese banks are unwilling to help bailout the shortfall (due to very limited exposure to this risk), the sector will be weak. Historically if financials are stagnant or falling so goes the majority of the market.

That says nothing of the potential of a Democrat becoming President. Again historically a negative pressure on the market. It is even graver with several prominent Democrats nearly promising to increase corporate taxes (or outright take their profits – especially oil companies).

The Fed can lower rates, but that will not stop the general malaise I see coming. At the least the first half of 2008 will not be good. A move to 11,000 seems inevitable. If I am correct then the question is this.

Will those experiencing deflation outweigh the inflation fears? And if more people lose their homes how much of our financial institutions are we willing to sell to avoid the harshest realities of a crash?

Labels: ACA, bear market, Citigroup, credit card debt, democrat, JP Morgan, Michael Vass, mortgage crisis, New York City, overseas investments, President Bush

I’m so pleased that the New York Daily News has made an editorial piece yesterday, challenging the Presidential candidates to provide answers to several questions that are critical to the future of America. I salute them in their attempt to get clear answers. I applaud the fact that they want to know where the plans are, and who has them. I just want to ask them one question, what took you so long?

When I say that I mean it. I started asking significant and serious questions of the candidates back in December 2006. I highlighted the fact that the comments from the Presidential candidates of both parties were obfuscated with 30 second soundbites and little else.

“There is also the fact that for a majority of the voting public, information and opinions are formed from the various televised soundbites found on news broadcasts whether they are local or on a 24 hour cable channel.”

I surmised that there have been no clear plans on any currently hot or politically significant issue back in the first quarter of this year.

“Yet, in my opinion, less information is known about the views, and in some cases the voting records, of these individuals.”

Only now has the New York Daily News caught on that the public has yet to learn anything that would motivate us to elect the next president of the United State, much less consider their potential for the position.

“Considering the thought that many are gaining their insights on potential candidates from 30 second blurbs, edited and presented to match a political preference of whatever corporation may own the broadcast, this is unacceptable. Even the few debates that are held contain little real information; rather they are extended soundbites that are framed to capture the attention of selected target groups without actually defining exact parameters or plans.”

In the past I felt that it was the fact that I am not as famous as say Mr. Bill O’Reilly, Ms. Michelle Malkin, Mr. Larry King, or Ms. Rosie O’Donnell. I also considered that the staff of the various candidates were too dependant on the televised looks of the candidates to provide answers to serious legitimate question, even when they were asked by a constituent of one of the Senators. But it appears that even the Daily News was rebuffed by some of the candidates.

Why is this the case, that it’s so difficult to get answers from those that wish to guide the nation at this crux point in time. Why is it that after 7 months, only the New York Daily News has been observant enough to notice the failure of the candidates to provide the public details? Why did it take so many months, and several debates, for the news media to mention that such inadequacies exist?

I may not have the massive staff, the fame provided by an organization with decades of existence, or the revenues funded by millions of readers (yet); but I was aware enough to start asking for more than mere soundbites in 2006. I have difficulty understanding how major news media could not come to the same conclusions. Either way the Presidential candidates are obligated to provide more to the public, and the news media are obligated to make sure they do.

I’m glad a challenge has been placed before the candidates, and saddened that some failed to take up this crucible. But until all who wish to be considered can be precise, without relying on the crutch of soundbites and pat answers, the challenges must be demanded regularly. That is the stick, with the carrot being the Presidency. I can think of no better motivation.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Bill O'Reilly, Daily News, Larry King, Michelle Malkin, New York City, news media, presidential candidate, Rosie O'Donnell, soundbite politics

This is an unaltered copy of a letter sent to Mr. Rudy Giuliani. Any response made will be posted, unaltered, when recieved.

To see other letters sent to Presidential candidates, visit M V Consulting, Inc.

April 5, 2007

Mr. Giuliani,

I am writing you in regard to your current attempt to gain the Republican nomination for the race for President of the United States in 2008. I am a native New Yorker and lived in the city during your time as Mayor of that city. I am also President of M V Consulting, Inc., a non-partisan corporation that has not contributed to any politician or political group, which maintains several internet businesses including blogs. I add that I have not contributed to any politician or party, nor have any of my sites advocated any individual or party in regard to the upcoming Presidential election.

I say all of this because I would like to ask you some questions on why you feel you should be President of the United States. It is my goal to post your response, as well as this letter, unaltered on my blogs for my readers to evaluate. I feel that the 2008 election is a critical point for the United States and its future. As such I believe it is important for as wide an audience of the public as possible to be informed in their voting choices. In addition I feel it important that I inform you that no changes to any response you provide will be made.

I add that I have already sent a similar letter to several other candidates of both parties. If you wish to review the letters that were sent previously, and where any response you make will be placed, please go to:

www.blackentertainmentblog.com
www.mvass.com
www.vassconsult.com/politics/election2008.html

I thank you in advance for your co-operation in answering these questions for my readers and myself.

For many Americans the first time you came to national attention was after the attacks of September 11. What many may not realize is that you started your political career as a Democrat. What led you to change your political affiliation? What changed in your political ideology that caused this move?

Many may not recall that in 1989 you ran for Mayor of New York City and lost to Mr. David Dinkins. What did you attribute to this loss and what did you learn from it?

During your time as Mayor of New York City you implemented several programs that had mixed results. One of those actions was the renovation of the West 42nd street area. Many native New Yorkers feel that the area was sold out to major corporations, in particular Disney, and the soul of the area was lost as well as multiple mom-and-pop business owners. To those detractors, what would you say were your reasons and what benefits were gained by the average New Yorker?

Another matter that was received in a mixed manner was your choice of police commissioner and the law enforcement policies during your term of office. During your time as Mayor, Mr. Amidou Diallo and Mr. Patrick Dorismond were murdered by police officers in a disturbing manner and Mr. Abner Louima was tortured by police officers which was then attempted to be covered up. These policies and your defense of the police department created a significant atmosphere of anger and cries of racism among the African American, Hispanic/Latino and other minority groups in the city; that was not covered significantly across the nation. For those African American and minority voters in the nation, what are your views on law enforcement? Where do you stand on Affirmative Action and other reforms that address racial inequality?

Considering the strong stance against organized crime and for law enforcement, as seen from your actions mentioned above and in your work as a U.S. Attorney, what stance do you believe America should take under your potential leadership towards countries such as Iran, and towards terrorist groups such as Al Quida?

Considering the record number of drop-outs that are African American, and the problems in education nationally in general, what efforts would you emphasize to improve the situation?

Of late there has been a great deal of discussion regarding a national healthcare program. Are you in favor of such a program and if so how would you fund this program? One of the arguments against such a program involves the question of whether the quality of healthcare could be maintained, and what motivation or incentive would pharmaceutical companies have to continue to research new medicines. What are your thoughts on this?

A current focus point of debate is the War in Iraq. Many Americans are upset about the status of the war, and others seek to retreat from this engagement entirely. Repercussions from any decision in this matter are probable to have ramifications for some time in the future of this nation. Where do you stand on this debate? What path do you intend to follow if you are elected? What do you see as potential outcomes of your proposed actions in the next 5 years?

It is well known that you are a cancer survivor. The health of the future President of the nation is a concern for many Americans. To that end I ask what your current health status is. In addition, I would never wish cancer on anyone, but if your cancer were to return and you had been elected President how do you believe you will react? Based on your experience initially, how do you feel this could affect you actions and responsibilities as President?

In recent media interviews you mentioned that your wife could be involved in non-policy meetings, if you are elected. Many may have heard this comment and the flurry of comments about it. Not as many may have heard your subsequent explanation on this matter. Could you explain that for my readers?

I want to thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I look forward to your response. I again mention that this letter and any response will be posted without any alteration.

Sincerely,
Michael Vass

President - M V Consulting, Inc.
Author - Black Entertainment USA and Vass
vass@vassconsult.com
718-344-6921

Labels: African American, education, Iraq War, New York City, presidential candidate, presidential election, republican, Rudy Giuliani, universal healthcare

So it’s election day. Politicians are running amuck trying to convince people how wonderful they are, or how deeply they believe in whatever gets the voters out and for them. I hope everyone has considered what the candidates really are standing for before they made their vote.

Here is an example. There has been a lot of legislation out lately about trans-fats and concern over energy drinks. Trans-fats are supposed to be so terrible that they cannot be used in restaurants in New York City. Of course there is no legislation preventing trans-fats from being made or sold. So politicians have put a lot of time into deciding what food you should eat. [Remarkably I didn’t notice any comment from Senator Hilary Clinton. This is rare for her considering it was in the news and dealing with NYC. Probably some pollster let her know that it would make her look like she was a Senator for New York and could separate her from voters in the mid-west.] I expect to hear about how the 500 energy drinks will be limited soon as well. The reason being that some choose to use them like a drug, trying to get a buzz. The reward for such actions are heart-palpitations or caffeine poisoning. I don’t doubt this will be another hot topic that will get resolved near term. Not like there was much else for local, state or federal government to do.

Some might say why didn’t I discuss any of this before the election. I simply have to mention this: Election year stories for 2006,Commenting on Sen. Hillary Clinton's Dr. Martin Luther King Day speech, Senators Obama, Clinton and McCain, War on terror poll - Part 1, Which woman for president?, Immigration and student aid for college.

And yes I know the archives are a bit off. I’m working on getting it fixed. Lots to do, little time. Bear with me please.

Labels: Democratic Party, mvass.com, New York City, Senator Hillary Clinton