Monday, November 22, 2010

Boris to Bush: If you come to England you may not get back to Texas



London Mayor (and Tory) Boris Johnson, a former journalist and provocative columnist I've been reading for years, has penned one of his most hot-blooded pieces for The Telegraph in which he says President George W. Bush may not get out of London if he comes for a book tour because of comments about interrogations done under his administration.

Here is Johnson -- whether you agree or not with his premise:

It is not yet clear whether George W Bush is planning to cross the Atlantic to flog us his memoirs, but if I were his PR people I would urge caution. As book tours go, this one would be an absolute corker. It is not just that every European capital would be brought to a standstill, as book-signings turned into anti-war riots. The real trouble — from the Bush point of view — is that he might never see Texas again.

One moment he might be holding forth to a great perspiring tent at Hay-on-Wye. The next moment, click, some embarrassed member of the Welsh constabulary could walk on stage, place some handcuffs on the former leader of the Free World, and take him away to be charged. Of course, we are told this scenario is unlikely. Dubya is the former leader of a friendly power, with whom this country is determined to have good relations. But that is what torture-authorising Augusto Pinochet thought. And unlike Pinochet, Mr Bush is making no bones about what he has done.

Could deficit reduction really happen?

There is a highly encouraging piece on potential deficit reduction in The Washington Post that contains more bi-partisanship than anything I've read it some time.


After an election dominated by vague demands for less debt and smaller government, the sacrifices necessary to achieve those goals are coming into sharp focus. Big cuts at the Pentagon. Higher taxes, including those on home ownership and health care. Smaller Social Security checks and higher Medicare premiums.


The changes to Social Security would be phased in over the next 65 years ....

Social Security is proving to be the most emotional issue. Over the next 65 years, Bowles and Simpson would gradually raise the early retirement age from 62 to 64 and the standard retirement age from 67 to 69. They would reduce scheduled benefits for better-off retirees and use a less-generous measure of inflation to calculate cost-of-living increases. And they would guarantee higher benefits to the poorest and oldest retirees, those most in need of additional support.

Friday, November 19, 2010

Betting on America and winning

It is never wise to bet against the American economy long term. Warren Buffett tells us this and I listen.

Amid the roiling economic times of the spring and fall of 2009 I decided to invest more in America, literally. I didn't select exotic companies to add to the range of diversified mutual funds and other investments. I had a firm belief that our economy would recover and people who were running scared from the markets and long-standing American companies were fools.

On August 11, 2009, I purchased shares of General Electric at $14.43. As of Friday, Nov. 19, 2010, close, they were up 12.43 percent to $16.22

On October 23, 2009, I purchased shares of Union Pacific at $58.97. As of Friday, Nov. 19 close the UP stock was up 55.71 percent to $91.82.

On Aug. 21, 2009, I purchased shares of Sirius-XM at $0.85. As of Friday, Nov. 19, 2010, they were up 63.68 percent to $1.40 a share.

These are basic American companies -- household names.

Immigration a global issue



The Christian Science Monitor has an eye-opening cover story on immigration as a global issue. It is not just about Latinos coming to the U.S. from the south. The world is struggling with immigration like never before.

Here is The Monitor:

Contrary to popular perception, anti-immigrant sentiment today isn't just about rich nations shunning the mass arrival of migrants from poorer ones. It is poor nations sending their huddled masses to other poor nations. It is rich countries sending people to other rich ones. It is countries acting as transit corridors – switching stations of humanity. According to the UNDP, only about one-third of migrants move from a developing country to a developed one.


I am surprised this idea has not been raised in the United States, although pro-family conservatives probably couldn't stomach being on the opposite side of anything dealing with marriage:

The Netherlands and Britain, among others, have erected barriers to family-reunification visas by setting the legal marriage age for foreigners at 21 rather than 18 as it is for citizens.


And Mexico doesn't really have any room to preach to us about immigration considering that nation's own problems with handling Central and South American immigrants.

72 Central and South Americans were massacred in northern Mexico, allegedly at the hands of drug traffickers, because they refused to work as recruits for the gang. The case was not an isolated one: Mexico's National Commission on Human Rights issued a report claiming that 10,000 migrants were kidnapped in a six-month period from September 2008 through February 2009.

Thursday, November 04, 2010

Cityview Column: Is smoking ban obsolete, questions for Reynolds and I-Jobs



The latest installment of my Political Mercury column in Des Moines' Cityview newspaper looks at the smoking ban, poses some questions for our new lieutenant governor and makes some observations about I-Jobs. You can read the full column online through Cityview ....

But here is a sample:


Has the Iowa smoking ban had its intended effect?

In other words, is the law obsolete? Did it provide the needed cover two years ago to bars and gathering places frightened to make the smoke-free move?

Could it be lifted simply based on the fact that many places wouldn’t go back, and those that do would feed a niche market of sorts?


AND

Mothers Against Drunk Driving reports that a person arrested for the first time for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated has done this an average of 87 times before getting caught. Is that about the right number for you, Mrs. Reynolds? And should we double it?

As Clarke County treasurer did you ever come to work drunk or hungover or otherwise suffering the ill effects of consumption of spirits? And as a self-described protector of the public dime, did you reimburse taxpayers for any diminished performance stemming from the boozin’?

What would have happend to $100,000 invested in U.S. Stock Market index fund on day Obama took office?

Timothy Egan raises a great point in a much passed around piece in The New York Times this week:

Suppose you had $100,000 to invest on the day Barack Obama was inaugurated. Why bet on a liberal Democrat? Here’s why: the presidency of George W. Bush produced the worst stock market decline of any president in history. The net worth of American households collapsed as Bush slipped away. And if you needed a loan to buy a house or stay in business, private sector borrowing was dead when he handed over power.

As of election day, Nov. 2, 2010, your $100,000 was worth about $177,000 if invested strictly in the NASDAQ average for the entirety of the Obama administration, and $148,000 if bet on the Standard & Poors 500 major companies. This works out to returns of 77 percent and 48 percent.