Economy, Not #MeToo, Will Decide 2018 & 2020

As much as it pains and disgusts me to acknowledge it, the elections of 2018 and 2020 will not be tipped by the revulsion to sexual predators generated by the #MeToo movement. To be sure, the reaction to sexual harassment will introduce the electorate to more female candidates, but their success will largely depend on the state of the economy of the individual household rather than on the abstract level of the stock market or the unemployment rate, the latter superceded by the growth, decline or stagnation in real wages, the former being mostly a measure important to those lucky enough to have a retirement fund linked to Wall Street investments.

As I write this, it is less than 24 hours from the verdict Alabama voters will provide on whether their state has the backward values ascribed to them by Eastern and Western establishment liberals by voting in an alleged pedophile as their next junior U.S. senator, or if they will provide a solid rebuke to an administration and Republican Party that has abandoned principle in favor of grabbing power for power’s sake. 

Donald Trump is taking a victory lap for the state of the economy during his first year in office. Too bad he is dissembling and claiming credit for a recovering economy Barack Obama set in motion.

It is generally recognized that the economy during the first year of a new presidency is reflective of the prior administration’s handling of fiscal matters. Obama, for example, had to deal with the recession he inherited from George W. Bush. Unemployment kept rising during his first year as president. But the last seven years of his presidency saw economic growth, which has continued into the first year of Trump.

Trump can aptly claim a reduced regulatory environment as his cabinet and agency heads dismantle protections. Wall Street, which cares not about the long term impact of fewer immigrants to fuel farms, manufacturing and high-tech industries, and is indifferent to lower environmental and worker protections, is at an all-time high. 

But the true test of Trump’s reforms will come later, as most voters will find their taxes are not lower, especially compared to the whopping reductions the super rich will receive. Their real income will not go up, as business leaders will not flow their companies’ reduced taxes into higher wages. And industries Trump said would rebound, such as coal and construction, will not bounce back. 

The other day the Associated Press fact-checked Trump’s claims during a stump speech in Florida. His dissembling is historic. https://apnews.com/4431ee4931ed40cea9e44b7a9deecb03

The ironic thing is that Trump blasts the media when mistakes are made. He is right to demand accuracy. But he wants reporters who make mistakes to be fired. Imagine if he abided by his own standard. 

The Political Blame Game: Obama, Hillary, ISIS

So I watched the Republican debate Thursday night. What did I learn? Not much as to specifics of what the candidates would do if elected, but I did learn that all of our problems can be summed up in three words—Obama, Hillary and ISIS. Oh, and it was confirmed again that debate moderators are more interested in he said-he said schoolyard squabble questions than asking candidates to outline in detail their plans to govern. They let the hopefuls get away with plugging their Web sites for their full position statements, as if the average voter will spend much time rummaging through the BS to be found there alongside calls for donations. The moderators let the candidates evade questions and only once, by my count, did they follow up an answer with another question.

The world, at least the United States, would be a better, safer place if a Republican sat in the Oval Office, they said, not daring to remind voters it was a Republican president in the White House when we were attacked on September 11 and subsequently when we began two destabilizing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention it was that same Republican president who presided over the cratering of the U.S. economy. 

Primaries are times to duke it out, so let’s consider attacks a valued, if sometimes demeaning, means of assessing how a candidate responds to criticism. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were the targets of most of the barbs. Neither distinguished himself as presidential material. They obfuscated their respective positions on fixing the illegal immigration dilemma. 

As for the other five men on the stage, they were almost afterthoughts, though I wonder how a seemingly solid thinker like John Kasich would have fared in a less vitriolic campaign season. 

Local boy Chris Christie apparently decided his best tactic would be to smear Hillary Clinton’s qualifications any time he was called. It was hard to tell who he thought endangered the republic more, ISIS or Hillary. 

It also was not startling to hear the pretenders castigate the outgoing incumbent president. But, like many a political representation, inaccuracies abounded. Consider the Associated Press’ fact-checking on several claims by Cruz:

“CRUZ: ‘We have seen now in six years of Obamacare that it has been a disaster. It is the biggest job-killer in this country. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, have been forced into part-time work, have lost their health insurance, have lost their doctors, have seen their premiums skyrocket.’

“THE FACTS: Lost jobs? Since the time Obama signed the health care law in March 2010, the nation’s jobless rate has fallen from 9.9 percent to 5 percent. The economy has added more than 13 million jobs over that period.

“Lost insurance? The share of Americans without coverage reached a historic low of 9 percent last year, according to the government’s National Health Interview Survey. More than 16 million people gained coverage since 2013, just before the law’s big coverage expansion got underway.”

Ah, well, let’s chalk it up to politics as usual.

On the other hand, there’s a feeling going around that President Obama deserves a lot of blame for the sorry state of Democratic head counts in the Senate and House of Representatives (http://nyti.ms/1ORWjFM). 

Yup, he earned his fair share of responsibility by not working hard enough for his party’s candidates during the mid-year congressional elections. But let’s not pin all the blame on him. 

As a party Democrats failed to project the positive aspects of the car industry bailout, the passage of Obamacare and the resurrection of the economy. 

More importantly, Democrats—leaders and rank and file party members—have failed to see the small picture, the importance of winning elections on the state and even more local levels. Losing governorships and majorities in state houses has left them vulnerable in national elections. Based on the 2010 census, GOP-controlled state houses have redistricted (gerrymandered) congressional seats to give Republicans an almost insurmountable majority in the House through 2022. Thus, even if a Democrat wins the presidency, he or she will be stymied by Republican majorities in Congress. We are in for stalemated government for at least the next six years. 

Obama can be blamed for lots of the problems Democrats face. But as Cassius explained in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.” 

Brrr. Murphy's Law Strikes Again and I Beat Stephen Colbert

I believe in contingency planning. I’m a big “what if” man. Drives my family crazy. I constantly drill into them the need for redundant systems, such as the need to carry extra keys for the car or home. Just in case. 

Today, the coldest day of the year, was one of those days. For the first time in more than 25 years, I locked my car with the engine running while standing outside. No need to panic, I thought. Like the last time, I’ll simply dip my hand into my pocket and extract the just-in-case key I always carry. Only, this time there wasn’t any extra key in my pocket. 

Murphy’s Law—anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. I had just dropped off food at the apartment of one of the senior citizens I service in Yonkers. I opened the front passenger door of the Jeep to turn the motor on to heat up the car. I pushed what I thought was the button to open the other doors. Instead, before realizing I locked them, I slammed shut the passenger door. 

I won’t say I panicked, but I did express anger and disappointment with the only person who could hear me—me! I called 911. They referred me to the Yonkers Police Department. They informed they no longer made house calls for locked doors. Call a locksmith or tow truck company, they advised. I called AAA. Yes, they’d send someone. They’d put me on the “priority list” since the engine was running. Priority meant no more than an hour’s wait. Some priority—I always thought AAA has a one-hour response standard whatever is your problem.

Did I mention today was the coldest day of the year? 18 degrees at noon. Wind chill as a single digit. At least I was wearing flannel-lined jeans, earmuffs, a hat, scarf, my warmest winter jacket with hood and several layers of clothing. I tell you this because as a self-inflicted punishment I waited outdoors for most of the 45 minutes it took AAA to show up. 

When he arrived, the friendly AAA man demonstrated how easily and quickly carjackers can break into their prey. He placed a wedge between the driver’s front door and the car chassis, opening a slot sufficiently wide to insert a long probe that in my case pushed the button to roll down the electric window but just as easily could have shifted the door lock. He was there maybe 90 seconds. As I drove off to fulfill the rest of my Meals-on-Wheels deliveries, I couldn’t help but think of another life’s saying—no good deed goes unpunished.

Strike One: I’ve written about my feeling that inanimate objects have a mind of their own. For example, my company umbrella broke my last day of work. The handle hangs from the bookshelf above my desk as a reminder of inanimate articulation. 

I think the Jeep is worried its days are numbered. Yesterday, it assaulted me. The rear hatch is finicky. Sometimes it stays open, sometimes it refuses to. When the latter happens, I prop it up with a broom handle. But yesterday it was behaving when I had to unload three real estate signs. I had just placed the first one on the ground when I turned to retrieve another and was struck hard on the side of the head by the drooping hatch. Normally I would have just winced in pain, but I was reminded of a tragic, fatal accident one of my publishing competitors suffered some 10 years ago. He was returning a rental car when he somehow hit his head as he closed the trunk. Like me he thought nothing of it, but within an hour he had hemorrhaged and died. 

As you can read, I’m still around, but Tuesday’s Jeep incident was strike one, today’s strike two. I’m not interested in reaching strike three.

Colbert Bump: I think I’m entitled to a Colbert Bump for beating Stephen Colbert to the story about plans by Republicans to alter the way Electoral College votes are allocated (of course, we both got scooped by the Associated Press, but I reported on it Monday while Colbert waited till Tuesday).

Anyway, spend five minutes watching Colbert “analyze” this ploy being considered by the GOP. Here’s the link—http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/423114/january-22-2013/the-word---win--lose--or-redraw?xrs=share_copy

Inaugurating Change or Preserving an Outdated Legacy

Perhaps this happened to you when growing up. Perhaps you were the one who did it. Here's the scenario:  

Children gathered for a game are told by one of the group they have to play a certain way, by a different rule than normal. Or maybe that the owner of the bat and ball or the board game has to be picked first or else he or she will simply take his or her stuff home so nobody will be able to play. Or maybe in the middle of the game the owner of the equipment gets upset and decides to gather it up and go home.

Sound familiar? An adult version of that selfish, manipulative stance may be about to be played out across the country in the wake of President Barack Obama's second inauguration, the failure of Republicans to win the overall popular vote in five of the last six elections and a changing demographic that may alter GOP strangleholds in such states as Arizona, Kansas and even Texas. 

In states where Republicans control the governorship and the legislature, they are pondering changing the way votes are cast in the Electoral College. They would change the winner-take-all system with a proportional division of votes based on the percentage of popular votes cast for each candidate. The changes are meant to make it harder for a Democrat to secure the required 270 Electoral College votes to win the presidency, or at the very least reduce the mandate a candidate may claim.

Maine and Nebraska already apportion votes. As the Associated Press reported the other day, "Each state has the authority to shape its own election law. And in at least seven states—Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and North Carolina—Republicans control both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's office" (http://news.msn.com/politics/gop-eyes-changes-in-electoral-college-dems-are-wary).

Thus, in a state such as Pennsylvania, where 20 Electoral College votes were at stake, Obama would have won just 12; Mitt Romney would have garnered the remaining eight votes. Nationally, Obama secured 332 Electoral College votes to Romney's 206. 

On its face, proportional representation in the Electoral College seems fair, a democratic advancement of the presidential selection process. But only if ALL states adopted the practice. This would even out the imbalance seen in recent presidential elections that focused on swing states. Candidates would spend lots more time in all states to improve their chances of securing at least some electoral votes. They'd really focus on states where they expect to win to earn even higher percentages of the popular vote. 

But like Republican attempts to pass more restrictive voter registration laws this last election, the real intent of proportional representation initiatives by GOP-controlled states is to preserve the dwindling status of the Old Order—white, male candidates.

All this potential maneuvering of election laws places more emphasis on the choice of governors and state legislatures, especially in the election before new census data is used to redistrict congressional seats every 10 years. Redrawn district lines make it harder for the party on the outside to oust incumbents. 

Politics is not a vocation for the faint of heart. Nor should it be for any citizen who cares about the future and path of his or her country. In their desperation to redraw the lines of combat, Republicans are poised to change the rules—legally, to be sure—but with the clear intent of making their restrictive philosophy of life a never-ending legacy to a country and population shifting away from their "white bread" society.

Penny Ante

The news hardly stirred a ripple below the 49th parallel, but word came down from Canada last week that our friendly neighbors to the north are about to do away with their pennies. Because they costs 50% more to produce than what they are worth, “the Royal Canadian Mint will end its production this fall as part of (an) austerity budget,” the Associated Press reported (http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=re2DUYAT).

Hardly a press-stopper, but its implications to American society and commerce no doubt will be felt in the coming years, as our government, too, considers shelving the penny to save money. I doubt many people will lament its passing, except for those of us old enough to share nostalgic memories of penny candy bars, long stick pretzels, two-cents plain sodas, and the fun of pitching pennies against a wall.

I’ll be particularly sad as I associate pennies with one of my most vivid childhood memories—the weekly, Friday night poker games my parents ran for our family of five and two or three of my brother’s teenage friends, Jerry, Stanley, and Michael. As our home was less observant than Bernie’s friends’ homes were, they would file in one by one after their Sabbath eve meals concluded. I never knew if their parents were aware they were violating the Orthodox prohibition on touching money on the Sabbath.

I suspect we started playing poker around the time I was eight-years-old, my sister Lee, 10, and Bernie, 12. Stakes were penny-two. The games were noisy, rowdy affairs, often punctuated by complaints that Michael had sweaty hands and was bending the cards out of shape.

Our parents treated us like adults sitting across a card table. If we were old enough to play, we were old enough to lose, and lose graciously. We usually played deuces wild, seven card stud. Sometimes, jacks or better. I can’t rightly remember how much money we’d start off with, but I definitely can recall many a time I’d have to excuse myself for a few minutes while I went into my bedroom to coax more pennies out of my clear glass piggy bank. Overall, I’d say I won as often as I lost, but I surely learned more proper behavior from the times I left the game lighter, and with eyes not as dry as when I sat down to play.

We played poker for several years until our father returned from a trip to Japan when I was 11. He came back with rules for a Chinese card game, Fan-tan. I don’t fully remember all the strategies of the game, but here’s a link if you’re interested in the rules: http://www.pagat.com/domino/sevens.html.

Fan-tan kept our interest for a little while, until we began playing a version of Hearts that incorporated some aspects of Fan-tan.

For about six years, card games were our weekly Friday night diversion, except during the summer when we’d be away at camp. All that changed, however, when Bernie entered Brooklyn College. Our mother decided we needed a more cerebral pursuit, so she initiated Friday night Scrabble games. Bernie and I became quite proficient, but Scrabble did not have the same appeal to his friends, nor to our father. Lee, Bernie’s friends, and Bernie, as well, awakened to more hormonal interests. Friday night at the Forseters no longer enjoyed communal status. Now, it’s only a matter of time before the penny loses its currency status.

Season of Giving and Taking

In this season of giving, news reports remind us it also is the season of taking, as in “Shoplifting tab to hit $1.84B,” according to the Associated Press.

The AP story said in the “four weeks leading up to this Christmas, an estimated $1.84 billion in merchandise will be shoplifted from retailers in the U.S., according to The Global Retail Theft Barometer. That’s up about 6% from $1.7 billion during the same period last year.”

No doubt about it, “five-finger discounts” are trending up, what with an economy that hawks purchasing at too many people unemployed or too underemployed to afford all the goodies they and their families want.

The dirty little secret of retail losses from what the industry calls “shrink,” however, is that insiders—retail employees—steal more than customers. It’s been that way for years. Employee theft accounts for about 44% of all losses, compared to 36% from shoplifting. The rest, the AP reported, results from vendor theft and administrative error.

Some years ago I heard about Kmart’s efforts to control insider losses. Management would review each employee’s monthly store purchases. If they fell below a certain percentage of take home pay, red flags would be raised. After all, why would an employee not buy household and health and beauty aid supplies, stationery and other commodity purchases at Kmart, where they’d get an employee discount? One possible explanation would be the employee was simply taking home the goods without paying for them. An investigation would follow.

The story, perhaps, was apocryphal. But I always thought it had a ring of authenticity to it.


Choose Your Obscenity: Which to you is more obscene, the throngs of mostly young men who grappled last week to get their grubby hands on $180 a pair Nike Air Jordans, or the $88 million reportedly paid by the 22-year-old daughter of a Russian billionaire for a 6,774-square-foot penthouse apartment at 15 Central Park West in Manhattan?

Perhaps neither affronts you. By my very question you can surmise I find both disdainful. Push come to shove, as happened across the country with the Air Jordans, I’d have to say I am more repulsed by the real estate transaction (I also wasn’t too excited by another deal at the same address, a mere $24 million for a three-bedroom apartment.)

I’m not against the free market setting prices. But let’s be real, people. The apartment doesn’t come with Central Park thrown in, just a view. I’m not sure if the apartment comes furnished, but even if did and everything inside it was trimmed in gold, $88 million is a little much. I’ve seen castles and mansions, all with extensive grounds, that would sell for less.

As Gilda pointed out, one has to wonder from where the money to afford these purchases came. The Russian father is an oligarch of questionable morality and business dealings. While rank and file Russians struggle, oligarchs and their minions have brazenly usurped wealth, natural resources and power.

The Manhattan real estate market has been pumped up by financial industry bogeymen, er, I mean, moneymen. Naw, I mean bogeymen. Rarely do they contribute anything tangible to human endeavor. Their sole purpose is to make money through arcane, manipulative practices few understand, fewer regulate. Their mistakes plunged the nation and world economies into turmoil. Millions lost jobs, retirement savings, homes. With rare exception, only they and their gilded lifestyles have rebounded. They’ve made it almost impossible for ordinary people to invest without anxiety as their computer-generated trading systems produce huge stock market fluctuations, not just daily but also hour to hour.

It’s hardly a wonder, therefore, when the common folk fight for a pair of sneakers. It’s the most tantalizing asset many of them will ever own. Which is an obscene commentary on our society.

Little Elephants and a Little More Baseball

In the reporting business, you’re only as good as your editor.

Case in point: Last Saturday’s Iowa Straw Poll in Ames revealed a practice all too common in journalism, namely, writing a story before it happened, leaving space, or more accurately XXXs, where names or numbers are to be filled in after the event actually transpires.

The initial Associated Press article transmitted across the wire to news outlets contained the following paragraphs:

“Saturday’s outcome suggests that XXX has a certain level of support and, perhaps even more important, the strongest get-out-the-vote operation and widest volunteer base in a state whose caucuses require those elements.”[...]

“Despite Perry’s best efforts to overshadow the day, the epicenter of the presidential contest was in this Midwestern town, where XXXX Iowans cast ballots during a daylong political festival, a late-summer ritual held every four years.”

Obviously someone was asleep at the copy desk when the first draft sailed through. It reminded me of an incident in Shelton, Conn., back in the early 1970s when a colleague at the New Haven Register covered one of the city’s political meetings.

Shelton’s Republican Party had a boisterous offshoot known as the Little Elephants Republican Club. He attended one of its contentious night meetings and included a quote from its leader in a story transmitted by Scan-a-Tron machine from our Ansonia bureau to the copy desk in New Haven. The quote did not make any sense to the reporter, but it was colorful and conveyed the political sophistication, or lack thereof, of the speaker.

To be on the safe side, the reporter chose to alert the night editor to the wackiness of the remark by adding the following in parenthesis after the quote: “I don’t know what the f*** it means, but that’s what he said.” (For the record, he did not use f***, preferring the common spelling of the expletive.)

No doubt you’ve guessed what happened. The night editor never saw the parenthetical note, until it was in print. Like I said, you’re only as good as your editor.

P.S. This being a one-person operation, I edit my own writing. Not the best arrangement for error-free copy, but considering what you're all paying for these missives, you're getting a real steal.


Unhappy Birthday: Jorge Posada did not take my advice and retire after his gonzo day Saturday when he batted in six runs highlighted by a grand slam home run.

For an encore, against the Kansas City Royals last night, Posada came to bat in the ninth inning with the bases loaded, two outs, the Yankees trailing by one run. The karma was positively electric. It was, after all, the night of Posada’s fortieth birthday, an opportunity to demonstratively show the world he is on the sunnier, not the darker, side of 40.

Without taking the bat off his shoulder—shades of Carlos Beltran (sorry, couldn’t resist, Mets fans)—Posada ended the game by striking out looking.


Baseball and Felafel? "Baseball and Ballantine" was a memorable slogan of my childhood allegiance to the NY Yankees. Knowing my interest in baseball, my friend Milton sent along links to Israel’s participation in the European Championship tournament. The articles featured the exploits of his cousin Shlomo, a 32-year-old Israeli who currently lives in New York but traveled back to his native land for the just concluded regional playoffs.

Those interested in the development of baseball in Israel may find the articles entertaining:

First article: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/sports/baseball-profile-serving-wine-with-a-curveball-1.375264

Last game: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/sports/baseball-european-championship-israel-bows-out-against-britain-1.376123