Welcome to No Quarter Radio’s Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle as I welcome Keith Fitz-Gerald to my show tonight at 8pm. So, who is Keith Fitz-Gerald? From Keith’s own website, we learn:

When Keith speaks, savvy investors listen. He is one of the few to correctly call the dot.bomb collapse in 2000, the cyclical recovery in 2003 and the credit crisis in 2007 – a full year in advance. He’s got one of the best documented (and most accurate) predictive records in the business.

Keith is the Chief Investment Strategist for Money Map Press and Money Morning, is read by more than 500,000 subscribers each day in 30 countries. It’s free just in case you’re wondering. He also writes the following paid publications: The New China Trader, The Money Map Report, The Geiger Index and The Time Trader Pro – each of which is also read by customers around the world.

A former professional trade advisor, Keith has provided analysis, trading direction, and performance measurement to institutions and qualified individuals for more than twenty years. He is regarded as one of the world’s leading experts on global investing and is a popular, highly sought after speaker at financial conferences around the world – especially when it comes to Asia.

A frequent traveler who lives part-time each year in Asia, he believes in boots on the ground when it comes to identifying opportunities that will profit.

Keith is also a founding Fellow of the Kenos Circle, a Vienna, Austria-based think tank whose members work with institutional, corporate, and government clients worldwide to predict future economic and financial events.

Keith authored the recently released book, Fiscal Hangover, which addresses how to protect your money and profit in the new global economy.

Keith speaks at conferences and symposiums around the world. Don’t miss him on Sunday evening for what will assuredly be a fascinating conversation as we collectively ‘navigate the economic landscape.’

LD

Due to the tragic events at Fort Hood yesterday, this post was delayed out of respect for those who were lost and wounded. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families, friends, and all those serving at Fort Hood.

Bleary eyed, but sated with my celebratory Belgian pecan waffles, turkey link sausages, numerous cappuccinos, and with a goofy grin plastered on my face, I am happy to report that the New York Yankees have won their 27th World Series Championship. Woohoo!!

The Yankees have christened their new stadium with their 27th World Series Championship in 40 tries. They won the Series 4 - 2 over a gutsy, exceptional Philadelphia Phillies team with a strong 5 2/3 showing by Andy Pettitte. Pettitte gave up 3 runs, but battled hard for outs and got the ones that counted even though he only had 3 days rest. Pedro Martinez was operating on regular rest, but that didn’t keep the Yankees from driving him out of the game early. Joba Chamberlain and Demaso Marte held down the fort until the Yankees could bring in the greatest reliever of all time, Mariano Rivera. Rivera got the last 5 outs of the game, capping a phenomenal year, and post-season, with a final score of 7 - 3. Derek Jeter recorded his 175th hit in his post season appearances, and had a hit in all but one game in the entire Post Season. Alex Rodriguez was hit by pitches three times, as was Mark Teixiera, but A-Rod also provided a tremendous spark to the offense, casting of the demons of post seasons past.

The Yankees manager, Joe Girardi, won 3 World Series rings as a Yankees player (catcher), and has now won 1 as a manager in only his second year at the helm. That is quite a feat. And quite a feat to have done both for the same team. Not only is he a great manager, and a great player in his day, but a great humanitarian, too. On his way home from the stadium last night, after their big win, he stopped and helped a woman who had crashed her car into a wall. Not only did he check on her and make sure she was okay, but he flagged down a police car for her. Oh, and he had to run across a highway on which people routinely go 80 mph, according to the article link above. He didn’t tell the woman who he was, either. She found that out after the fact. That’s one helluva guy.

The Yankees, with the best record in baseball (103 wins in the Regular Season), played like the best team in baseball, and earned this 27th World Series Championship.

(Gallery of Photos, NJ.com)

Hideki Matsui earned the World Series MVP on the strength of his bat, driving in 6 runs Weds. night, tying a 49 year old record held by Bobby Richardson, also a Yankee. Matsui’s contribution to the team throughout the postseason was simply outstanding.

(Eric Gay/AP)

This team started out slowly at the beginning of the season, losing their ace, Chien Ming Wang, early in the season. Alex Rodriguez was out for almost a month following hip surgery, with more surgery to follow in the off season. Mark Teixeira was also off to a very slow start with his bat, but not his defense. Yankee fans were dismayed, to say the least, when the Yankees were swept by the Red Sox - TWICE - early on.

But then something happened - A-Rod came back, Tex’s bat began to match his defensive prowess, the pitchers started locating their pitchers, and the team became a team. People often complain about how much money the Yankees spend on their players, but all the money in the world doesn’t buy you a Championship - it has to be won. This team, this 2009 club, is just that - a TEAM. They enjoy each other, have fun with each other, and they are passionate about playing the game. We usually hear about the highly paid players, like A-Rod, or Tex, or CC Sabathia. But there are plenty of players on that team who contributed who do not rake in the big bucks. The point is something happened this year. Despite their slow start, despite losing some crucial players, this team jelled as a team. They backed each other up, they worked for every win, and as a result, they are now the new World Series Champions.

Oh, and for all of the Yankee haters, here is a little piece of trivia for you - when the Yankees win the World Series, historically stocks go up, especially when they do it in 6 games! So, even if you hate them, there is a total bonus to them winning!

Here is Hal Stein Steinbrenner, son of The Boss, George Steinbrenner, talking about this team, and this win:

This win came exactly 9 years after the Yankees lost the World Series in Game 7 back in 2001. That was an emotional year for the Yankees, for the entire country, coming as it did on the heels of the attacks on the World Trade Towers. It is fitting that this week, the week the Yankees claim their Championship, in New York City Harbor is the USS New York awaiting its commission. This new ship is partially made with 7.5 tons of reclaimed steel from the rubble of the World Trade Towers. While traditionally* only submarines are named for states, former NY State Governor Pataki lobbied to have this state of the art ship named for New York as both a memorial and a monument to those who were lost, and for those who will take the fight to our attackers. The ship’s motto: Never Forget. Here it is sailing into New York City Harbor this week:

(AP Photo, Newsday.com)

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will commission this assault ship on Saturday. Secretary Clinton will represent the Administration, but as a NY State senator at the time of the attacks, and one who worked diligently for the First Responders in New York City, it is most fitting that she has this honor.

It is a big week for New York City, for the Yankees as they clinch their 27th Championship, and as this great monument to those who were lost at 9/11 is commissioned into active duty.

Go, Yankees! Only four and a half more months until Spring Training starts!

* Please see comment below on naming of ships/submarines - while accurate that a certain class of submarines receive the names of states, that appears to be a fairly recent event.

I. UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
July: 9.5%
August: 9.4%
September: 9.7%
October: 9.8%
- November Consensus Expectation: 9.9%
- November Actual:10.2% !!!!

>> LD’s comments: this is the shocker and will get all the play. This rate is especially damaging because the participation rate declined. That drop would help the unemployment rate, all other things being equal. The fact that the rate jumped to 10.2% is an indication that job losses jumped much more than otherwise expected with a loss 558k jobs. The underemployment rate (U-6 rate) is 17.5%!!

II. NON-FARM PAYROLL (click here for definition of this term)
July: initial loss of 467k initially revised to a loss of 443k and now revised to a loss of 463k
August: initial loss of 247k revised to a loss of 276k, further revised to -304k
September: initial loss of 216k, revised to a loss of 201k, revised to a loss of 154k
October: a loss of 263k, revised to a loss of 219k
- November Consensus Expectation: loss of 175k
- November Actual: a loss of 190k with revisions of +91k to prior months

>> LD’s comments: this month’s print is slightly worse than expected, but given the revisions the overall non-farm payroll could be spun in a somewhat positive fashion. In my opinion, there has been massaging of these numbers for many months and dare I say market participants are questioning the integrity of the reports. Recall that the birth-death model has likely overestimated job creation by upwards of 800k jobs. More of the same here? Perhaps, if not likely. Temporary workers did increase by 36k jobs.

III. AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS
July: 0.0%
August: +.2% revised to +.3
September: came in at .3 but then revised to .4%
October: .1%
- November Consensus Expectation: +.1%
- November Actual:+.3%

>>LD’s comment: a positive for those working, but in conjunction with no movement in the hourly workweek this is muted.

IV. AVERAGE HOURLY WORKWEEK
July: 33.0 hours
August: 33.1 hours
September: 33.1 hours
October: 33.0 hours
- November Consensus Expectation: 33.0 hours
- November Actual:33.0 hours

>> LD’s comments: no indication here of any strength. This number rests at a low going back to 1964.

V. FURTHER COLOR
It’s all about the headline print of 10.2%. That number will spook consumers and keep Consumer Confidence under pressure. The Fed will clearly remain on hold for as extended as extended can be. I expect this report will cause Washington to talk about the need for another stimulus package.

VI. MARKET REACTION
At 8:10am:

2yr Tsy: .89%
10yr Tsy: 3.52%
S&P 500 Futures: +2
DJIA Futures: +14
U. S. Dollar Index: 75.78

At 8:50am, Post-Report:

2yr Tsy: .85%
10yr Tsy: 3.47%
S&P 500 Futures: -8
DJIA Futures: -68
U.S. Dollar Index: 75.86

Questions, comments, constructive criticisms always encouraged and appreciated. Thanks.

LD

This is rich. We know about Obama’s many, many czars. Mark Steyn believes Obama has another one, someone of whom you have heard, but who isn’t on the usual list,

Obama Makes Bush His Blame Czar. You know, he has a point - we’ve been hearing for months now “He did it!” from Obama on all sorts of issues.

Steyn begins his piece writing about “Barack’s Rock,” Valerie Jarrett:

Valerie Jarrett announced the other day that “we’re going to speak truth to power.”

Who’s Valerie Jarrett? She’s “Senior Adviser” to the president of the United States – i.e., the leader of the most powerful nation on the face of the Earth. You would think the most powerful man in the most powerful nation would find a hard job finding anyone on the planet to “speak truth to power” to. But I suppose if you’re as eager to do so as his Senior Adviser, there’s always somebody out there: The Supreme Leader of Iran. The Prime Minister of Belgium. The Deputy Tourism Minister of the Solomon Islands. But no. The Senior Adviser has selected targets closer to home: “I think that what the administration has said very clearly is that we’re going to speak truth to power. When we saw all of the distortions in the course of the summer, when people were coming down to town hall meetings and putting up signs that were scaring seniors to death.”

Ah, right. People “putting up signs.” Can’t have that, can we? The most powerful woman in the inner circle of the most powerful man on Earth has decided to speak truth to powerful people standing in the street with handwritten placards saying “THIS GRAN’MA ISN’T SHOVEL READY.” Was it only a week ago that I wrote about this administration’s peculiar need for domestic enemies?

The Senior Adviser seems to have forgotten that she is the power. Admittedly, this is a recurring lapse on the part of the administration. There was Barack Obama only the other day, blaming everything on the president – no, no, silly, not him, the other fellow, the Designated Fall Guy who stepped down as head of state in January to accept the new constitutional position of Blame Czar. Musing on problems in Afghanistan, Obama blamed the “long years of drift” under his predecessor. The new president – OK, newish president – has been Drifter-in-Chief for almost a year but he’s too busy speaking truth to the former power to get on top of the situation. It could be a while yet. In his more self-regarding moments, such as his speech to the United Nations, he gives the strong impression that the “long years of drift” began in 1776.

Indeed, Ms. Jarrett thinks throwing around phrases pulled from those who are actually in the trenches will give her some street cred. You don’t think anyone fell for that hooey, do you? Just in case you know anyone who did, you can tell them that she is a lawyer, married to a doctor, and was on the Chicago Stock Exchange. So, yeah, not exactly a career in the Peace Corps., or hell, even AmeriCorps. Just more posturing on the part of the Obama Administration.

Just like Obama’s blame shifting. Just more posturing to protect his carefully crafted image:

Rocco Landesman, head honcho at the National Endowment for the Arts, seems closer to the reality of the situation. In his keynote address to the 2009 “Grantmakers in the Arts” conference, Landesman hailed Obama as “the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar”. He didn’t mean a “powerful writer” as in a compelling voice, gripping narrative, vivid characterization, command of language, etc. He meant a “powerful writer” as in Caesar was king of the world, and now Obama is. He came, he saw, he stimulated: “If you accept the premise, and I do, that the United States is the most powerful country in the world, then Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar. That has to be good for American artists.”

I suppose so. He could invade somewhere and force the natives to accept degrading roles in NEA-funded performance art. He could take out the Iranian nuclear program by carpet-bombing it with unreadable literary novels. That is, if you “accept the premise” that the United States is the most powerful country in the world. Rocco Landesman may, but it’s not clear, from his actions (or inactions) in Eastern Europe, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere, that the president does. But, even so, it seems an odd pitch to “American artists.” Rocco Landesman, Speaking Goof to Power, isn’t the first Obama groupie to enjoy the kinky frisson of groveling obsequiousness, but he’s set an impressive new standard in public revelation thereof. Rocco’s aunt, Fran Landesman, is the great lyricist of “Spring Can Really Hang You Up The Most” as well as “The Ballad Of The Sad Young Men.” But surely there are few sadder middle-age men than her nephew, prostrating himself before his master as the most literate global colossus in two millennia.

Oh, I wouldn’t be so sure about that, but I take his point. Still, there are a whole bunch of sad “middle-age men” who would fit that bill. Chris Matthews springs immediately to mind.

Speaking of the NEA:

Meanwhile, Larry David is now doing televised NEA exhibits on his HBO show “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” Christians are said to be “angry” at him because of an episode in which, after he accidentally sprays his urine on a picture of Jesus, his assistant mistakes the droplets for tears and calls in her mother to witness the miracle of Christ weeping. Ha-ha! Oh, those brave transgressive artists! Of course, Christians aren’t “angry” in the sense that two U.S. residents arrested last week are. The pair – one an American citizen, the other Canadian – were so “angry” about the Muhammad cartoons published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten that they hatched a plot to kill the artist and his editor. As many commentators pointed out, Mr. David’s splashy stunt is a dreary provocation: It’s easy to be provocative with people who can’t be provoked. If he were to start urinating in a more Mecca-ly direction, he’d find an entirely more motivated crowd waiting for him at the stage door.

But I liked the point made by the Anchoress, a writer at the magazine First Things: Putting Muhammad, et al aside, if Larry David had a yen to urinate hither and yon, wouldn’t it have been “braver” to have done it to the religious icon du jour? That’s to say, Barack Obama. And then maybe Ashton Kutcher could have marveled at how even Obama’s image was empathizing tearily with all 687 million Americans without health insurance. Or, alternatively, dribbling warm champagne from his Norwegian Nobel banquet toast. C’mon, Larry. Sure, you might not have a career afterward, but, unlike any Islamo-provocations, you’re not gonna get killed. Just fired, and probably damned as a racist. But at least you wouldn’t be a simpering suck-up to power like Rocco Landesman and the other creeps.

“Religious icon du jour” - priceless. I mean, c’mon, obviously he is - just check out that Chia commercial. And I wouldn’t hold my breath on the end of sucking-up, but that’s just me:

At some point the Caesar cult has to manifest itself in an achievement – I mean a real achievement, not merely some dud prize handed out by Norwegian Lefties. Afghanistan is his now: Notwithstanding “years of drift,” whether it winds up as victory or defeat is his call. It’s Obama’s war. It’s Obama’s economy. The stimulus bill is his stimulus, and for $787 billion it created 30,000 new jobs (according to the government) or (according to the Associated Press) 25,000. Either way, you do the math. It’s Obama’s unemployment rate, Obama’s dollar, Obama’s debt. Pace Valerie Jarrett, the truth is you are the power. And those on the receiving end of it are going to be speaking a lot louder in the months ahead.

Yep, it surely is all Obama’s now. And not for nothing, but it isn’t like the Democrats didn’t control both houses for two years before Obama got into the White House. There is a lot for which Bush is responsible, but at some point, Obama needs to stop making him the Blame Czar, and start doing his job.

1. Warren Buffett makes his single largest acquisition ever with the $34 billion purchase of Burlington Northern

2. Ford posts surprisingly strong auto sales

3. Royal Bank of Scotland becomes the biggest banking bailout yet with another injection of capital

4. Johnson & Johnson announces plans to layoff 7% of its global workforce

Each of these developments is truly meaningful. Interestingly enough, numbers one and two are decidedly constructive while numbers three and four are clearly quite bearish about global prospects. Despite the magnitude of these stories, in my opinion, they pale in comparison to developments in the precious metals and bond markets today. What is happening? Let’s navigate.

The Treasury yield curve is steepening dramatically today with yields on longer term notes and bonds rising by 6 to 8 basis points, while shorter maturities are unchanged. A snapshot of the Treasury market is provided by WSJ Market Data.

Why is the curve steepening? What does that mean? What are the implications for other markets? All great questions. Let’s navigate further.

In my opinion, the Treasury yield curve is steepening as hints of a second economic stimulus package work their way through Washington. I definitely sense growing unease and anxiety over the state of the job market. The story about layoffs at Johnson & Johnson only adds fuel to the fire.

A second stimulus will only build upon the already out of control fiscal deficit which will need to be funded by increased government borrowing. As our borrowing needs increase, the demand for the funds will drive the price for the funds ever higher. The price is the interest rate on Treasury notes and bonds.

Why would the curve be steepening, though? Why aren’t rates on short maturity bills and notes also going up in sync with the longer term notes and bonds? The rates on shorter maturity Treasury bills and notes is most heavily influenced by Federal Reserve policy. It just so happens Fed governors are meeting today and tomorrow and assuredly they will leave their current policy unchanged. That policy is one of very easy money with a Federal Funds rate of 0-.25%.

The prospects of (1) another economic stimulus package; (2) a continued policy of very easy money supported by an accomodative Fed; and (3) a steepening curve with a rise in long term rates, all collectively point towards a greater likelihood of inflation. What segment of the market gives us a hint as to inflation? Gold.

What is gold doing today? Rallying in a big-time fashion. Gold is up 3% on the day as Bloomberg reports, Gold Climbs to Record as India’s Central Bank Buys IMF Bullion:

Gold jumped to a record after India’s central bank bought 200 metric tons of the metal from the International Monetary Fund, heightening speculation that there may be more official purchases.

Gold futures for December delivery rose to a record $1,087 an ounce on the New York Mercantile Exchange’s Comex unit and traded at $1,084.20 at 1:28 p.m., up $30.20, or 2.9 percent. A close at that price would be the biggest gain for a most-active contract since March 19.

“This will encourage other countries and other investors, especially Indians, who are big buyers anyway, to jump into the market,” said Leonard Kaplan, the president of Prospector Asset Management in Evanston, Illinois.

The Reserve Bank of India paid $6.7 billion for the bullion, which it bought from Oct. 19 to Oct. 30. It was “the biggest single central-bank purchase that we know about for at least 30 years in such a short period,” said Timothy Green, the author of “The Ages of Gold.” “The only comparable event was the U.S.’s steady purchases in the 1930s and 1940s.”

Now what was going on back in the 1930s that would have prompted steady purchases by the U.S. government?

Oh, no. I’m not going there. That thought is a little too ‘depressing.’

What do you think?

LD

I am sure you will be SHOCKED to learn that Obama is acting in much the same way. I know, I know - what a surprise. Ahem. Well, it seems some one has been doing a little investigative journalism, something in VERY short supply of late. But get this - I tell you, you better be sitting down - in this case, it was - WAIT FOR IT -
MSNBC. YES, the very network to which we routinely refer as “MSNBO”! Once I recovered from the shock of it all, I couldn’t wait to see just how transparent President Obama was compared to Bush. (I wonder if there is a way for us to do a pool on these kinds of things, like for NCAA basketball or something?)

This is what MSNBC uncovered in this report:

Obama Names 110 White House Visitors

The White House on Friday released a small list of visitors to the White House since President Barack Obama took office in January, including lobbyists, business executives, activists and celebrities.

No previous administration has released such a list, though the information out so far is incomplete. Only about 110 names —and 481 visits —out of the hundreds of thousands who have visited the Obama White House were made public. Like the Bush administration before it, Obama is arguing that any release is voluntary, not required by law, despite two federal court rulings to the contrary.

The emphasis there is mine. This is a bit of a schizophrenic opening. On the one hand, they want to champion that Obama released 110 names - Woohoo!! On the other hand, they have to acknowledge that, once again, President Obama is using the SAME arguments as Bush. Moreover, this “Constitutional Scholar” is doing so in clear violation of not one, but TWO federal court rulings! Maybe the KoolAide was made improperly that day, I don’t know, but the report continues:

Under the Obama White House’s policy, most names of visitors from Inauguration Day in January through the end of September will never be released. The White House says it plans to release most of the names of visitors from October on, and that release is due near the end of the year. There are limitations there as well, including potential Supreme Court nominees, personal guests of the First Family, and certain security officials.

The names released Friday include business leaders and lobbyists with a lot to gain or lose from Obama policies. They include Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates (whose foundation is pushing for changes in teacher pay), former AIG chairman Maurice Greenberg, Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, Chevron CEO David O’Reilly, Citigroup’s Vikram Pandit, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, JP Morgan’s James Dimon, Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis, John Stumpf of Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley’s John Mack, State Street bank’s Ron Logue, BNY Mellon’s Robert Kelly, labor leader Andrew Stern of the Service Employees International Union (22 visits)*, American Bankers Association CEO Ed Yingling, community bankers president Camden Fine, and lobbyists Heather and Anthony Podesta, whose brother John Podesta led Obama’s transition team.

Besides Gates, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt are also on the list. (Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC. One of NBC’s parents is GE.)

Advocates and nonprofit leaders include National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy, and Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is interested in health policy.

So, this is how Obama is paying these people and organizations back, by having them in the White House? I bet Kim Gandy was just all aflutter after she threw ALL women under the bus to endorse Obama over a life-long women’s advocate. There is more on her below.

I know many readers will be interested in this White House guest:

Democratic donor and businessman George Soros visited with White House aides twice.

Yes, indeedy, a major funder of Moveon.org has been to check up on his biggest investment - ahem - twice.

We’re just getting started:

Political figures include former Sen. Thomas Daschle, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, former Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. Al Franken, former Vice President Al Gore, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, and Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf.

Celebrities at the White House include Oprah Winfrey, actors Brad Pitt, George Clooney and Denzel Washington, and tennis star Serena Williams. Journalists include Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner in economics.

Conservative religious leader Gary Bauer visited, as did liberal civil rights leaders Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Okay, the last two, along with Oprah, are NOT a surprise. Gary Bauer? Just a tad surprising.

For anyone who wants to see more:

Msnbc.com has put the full list in a handy PDF file, and also in an Excel file for those who like to sort.

One guest is mighty interesting:

Not that Bill Ayers

The White House warns that many names that may appear familiar — and controversial — do not in fact refer to the most famous people to carry those names. Jeremiah Wright is on the list, but it’s not the president’s former pastor. This Michael Jordan is not the basketball player. This Michael Moore is not a filmmaker. The William Ayers who took a group tour of the White House isn’t the former radical from Chicago who figured so prominently in the 2008 campaign. And the Angela Davis on the list has a different middle initial than the activist and former fugitive.

The White House could have avoided some of that sort of confusion by providing more information on the visitors, such as an employer name and the city they hail from. For example, is the Shawn Carter who attended a poetry reading the same one who goes by Jay-Z and had campaigned for Obama?

“This unprecedented level of transparency can sometimes be confusing rather than providing clear information,” a White House special counsel, Norm Eisen, wrote on the White House blog.

If you spot a name on the list that bears investigating, please drop us a note.

Of COURSE we will just trust Obama and his spokes-minions when they assure us that this Bill Ayers could not POSSIBLY be domestic terrorist - Capitol Building and Pentagon bomber - long time friend and mentor Bill Ayers! He is just some guy who wanted to visit the White House Gift Shop and pick up a couple of Marine One helicopter models for his boys. I am sure of it. Sheesh. Really? They expect us to believe this crap? Evidently - they got plenty of other people to believe that kind of crap and more, so why stop now?

Okay - if you are consuming any liquids right this minute, I suggest you put it down when you read this:

Limited release

Despite the accompanying White House claim of “transparency like you’ve never seen before,” the Obama White House continues to take the same legal position as the Bush White House, arguing that the records are not public records subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Only limited “voluntary releases” are being made to settle a lawsuit filed by an advocacy group, though a federal judge has twice ruled that all the visitor logs are public. (Again, emphasis is mine.)

Yet there are severe limitations to the transparency:

Most of the visitors from Inauguration Day to September will never be released by the White House under this voluntary disclosure — unless the public can guess their names. The White House policy doesn’t allow members of the public or press to ask for “everyone who visited health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle,” or everyone who visited on May 4, or everyone from the American Medical Association. Only individual names can be checked.

I know, right? Didn’t this sound just a little pissy?? From someone at MSNBC?? The bigger picture is that the Obama Administration is BREAKING THE LAW. Hell to the YES, that information falls under FOIA - this is OUR White House, not the Obamas. We most definitely DO get to know every single John Smith and Jane Doe who cross the threshold of the White House. You better believe we do.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but it is a start:

The list released at 4:30 p.m. Friday includes just about 110 names with 481 visits. Those names were among those requested by members of the public so far, for visits during the period from Inauguration Day through July. (That’s why we know of visits by the wrong Bill Ayers, the wrong Angela Davis, etc., but we don’t know of visits by countless unnamed lobbyists.) Members of the public who used the White House online form to check names did not receive a personal reply indicating whether or not the request was received, or whether the name appeared on the list, so the system provides no feedback. Does the absence of Bill Clinton’s name on the list mean that he has not been to the White House, or that the request wasn’t received by the White House online system?

A request for the complete records of all visitors from the first months of the administration, filed by msnbc.com, was rejected by the White House, and an appeal is pending. The news organization requested the names of all visitors to the Obama White House beginning with Inauguration Day. Msnbc.com has filed an administrative appeal with the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service.

Say whaa?? The White House rejected a request from their lapdog “news” source?? Huh. There’s a shocker. Welcome to the “Under The Bus” club, MSNBC!

The Wall Street Journal focused on the most frequent visitor to the White House. He was mentioned in the list above, but without the acknowledgment of the frequency:

SEIU’s Stern Tops White House Visitor List

Promising “transparency like you’ve never seen before,” The White House released its visitor log this evening under a new voluntary disclosure policy.

The log chronicles 481 visits to the White House from individuals ranging from Jay-Z to Bill Gates from January through July.

The list includes William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Moore, Robert Kelly (R. Kelly), Malik Shabazz, and Michael Jordan.

But the White House said those aren’t the guys you’re thinking of. Nor is the log complete.

Ahahahahahahaha!!! I just cannot get enough of this one - sure, they aren’t the same people. Yeah, okay, we believe you. NOT. And because it is just so much fun to see them squirm, I am keeping in the part that is repetitive of the article above, especially the quotes from Eisen. Oh, what a funny guy:

“A lot of people visit the White House, up to 100,000 each month, with many of those folks coming to tour the buildings. Given this large amount of data, the records we are publishing today include a few ‘false positives’ – names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else,” Norm Eisen, a special counsel to the president, writes on the White House blog. “The well-known individuals with those names never actually came to the White House. Nevertheless, we were asked for those names and so we have included records for those individuals who were here and share the same names.”

Adds Eisen: “This unprecedented level of transparency can sometimes be confusing rather than providing clear information.”

Uh, ya know, I think we are all smart enough to not get all confused by this incredible level of “transparency.” Beginning with, we actually know the definition of “transparency,” something Eisen and Obama apparently do not.

And then there is this:

One thing is clear: *Service Employees International Union President Andrew Stern holds sway at the White House, where he’s listed for 22 visits—the top number on the logs. Visitors in the top 10 also include former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy, and NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan.

So THAT’S what Gandy and Keenan got for stabbing Hillary Clinton and, well, WOMEN, int he back - visits to the White House. I guess there is something gained by selling your soul, though, personally, I don’t think it is worth it. But that’s just me.

Anywho - yes, the President of the SEIU, again, the union co-founded by the founder of ACORN, Wade Rathke, is the TOP visitor at the White House. The SEIU has been in the news quite a bit, especially for holding California hostage - threatening that their good buddy, Obama, would not give the state any federal stimulus funds if it had the audacity to expect the union to cut wages like everyone else so the state wouldn’t go bankrupt. NOW we know how the union was able to do that. All those visits to the White House apparently paid off - for the union, not California, the state with one of the largest budgets around (as in 5th in the world). What makes this more egregious is that California pays a lot into the federal tax system and receives little comparatively speaking. And this union is allowed - by the White House - to hold it over a barrel. Yep, all those meetings seemed to do the trick!

Aren’t you just so heartened by all of this “transparency”? And by seeing who Obama is welcoming into our White House? Yeah, me, too. As long as the Obama Administration continues to thumb its nose at Federal Law, I reckon we should be “thankful” for this (no, not really - it’s BS that they are still sitting on so much information).

Oh, but if you can just GUESS who might else have been there and submit that form asking them, maybe you can confirm some other folks who have been there, too. Lemme know what you find out, okay? I am sure we would all just love to know…

High five to JD for tipping me off to a segment about Bernie Madoff that just aired on CNBC. While little is truly new in this segment, Bernie’s assessment of his relationship with former FINRA head and current SEC chief Mary Schapiro is startling. While Ms. Schapiro and her colleagues at FINRA have downplayed any sort of relationship with Madoff, Bernie has a different take.

There’s something about Mary as Bernie calls her “a dear friend.”

Will the government powers have the cojones to more fully explore this relationship? Or, are they already aware of it? As I wrote in my commentary of October 22nd, “Nasdaq Sale: Why Would Schapiro and FINRA Execs Lie?”:

Did Ms. Schapiro receive the “E-Z Pass” to the SEC from FINRA with the support of the powers that be on Wall Street? Was the chair of the SEC the ultimate payoff to Ms. Schapiro for the successful completion of the merger between NASD and NYSE Regulation to form FINRA?

What does Bernie have to say? Let’s review the CNBC segment, Madoff: It’s ‘Amazing’ I Didn’t Get Caught Sooner. . . (video clip after the fold).

Jailed swindler Bernie Madoff said it was “amazing” that he didn’t get caught sooner in his multi-billion-dollar Ponzi scheme, and that everything the SEC did to investigate him prior to 2006 was a waste of time, according to a jailhouse interview he gave to SEC Inspector General H. David Kotz.

Madoff also told Kotz that SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro was a “dear friend,” although she “probably thinks, ‘I wish I never knew this guy.’”

• For a Full Text of the Interview, Click Here

Madoff gave the interview to Kotz in June while awaiting sentencing for one of the largest financial frauds in history. At the time, Madoff was being held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York. He agreed to speak to Kotz, who was investigating the SEC’s decades-long failure to uncover the scheme. The SEC released notes of the interview along with hundreds of other exhibits in the investigation following a request by CNBC under the Freedom of Information Act.

US Department of Justice Bernie Madoff mugshot

Madoff tells Kotz he feels “misunderstood” by prosecutors in his case, and that there is ” a lot of misinformation” circulating about the scandal as a result. However, he adds, “I’m not saying I’m not guilty.”

Madoff says that in multiple encounters with SEC investigators over the years, he never had to tell them about his role in the industry because “they already knew.”

The Inspector General’s report, released in early September, found multiple lapses at the SEC, but said there was no evidence of improper influence by Madoff.

Kotz told CNBC in a statement Friday that he found no evidence to support Madoff’s claim of a close relationship with Mary Schapiro.

Perhaps Mr. Kotz might be interested in the allegation embedded in the lawsuit brought by Amerivet Securities. Yes, that suit alleges that FINRA, the organization headed by Ms. Schapiro, had an investment in Madoff. For more info on that claim, I submit “Attorney Claims Wall Street’s Cop, FINRA, Invested in Madoff.”

Did Mary protect Bernie unwittingly or unknowingly? “A dear friend.”

Who in Washington has the guts to dig deeper into this story and reveal the full extent of the relationship between Ms. Schapiro and Mr. Madoff?

The American public and especially those who invested in Madoff deserve nothing less.

LD

Or, are the Uncle Sam economy and numerous global economies blazing new trails and redefining the economic landscape?

As with most things economic and market related, the answers are never ‘crystal’ clear nor do they fit like a ’slipper,’ but let’s do our best to read the October market moves and project our way forward.

ECONOMY

The U.S. economy came out of recession in the 3rd quarter with a positive 3.5% print. While that number surprised to the upside, please review my post “Grossly Distorted Product” or “Christmas in July” to get a pulse on just how weak the American consumer remains. Further confirmation of a subdued American consumer is reflected in the decidedly weak Consumer Confidence report highlighted in my post, “Jobs + Housing = Consumer Confidence.”

Around the globe, non-Japan Asia is generating some real growth. To wit, we have already seen Australia raise interest rates to stem fears of inflation. Who next raised rates? Norway. The U.K remains mired in a recession. Eastern Europe is struggling while Germany is leading the EU. If we know anything about Germany, they have little interest in any hints of inflation.

While there are pockets of strength around the globe, many economies - including the U.S. - remain challenged. What will continue to happen? International trade tensions as weak countries try to generate greater exports via weak currencies.

Let’s review market returns.

CURRENCIES

The U.S. Dollar Index spent the better part of the month below 76 and even broke below 75 for a short bit. That said, it closed strong over the last few trading days of the month. Given the weakness in the U.S. economy and a Fed which will likely remain on the sidelines at least until mid-2010, many speculators and traders look for the dollar to remain weak.

Will a further selloff in the equity markets force a wave of dollar short covering? I believe that phenomena occurred on the last day of the month and may spill over into November, as well. Please review “Nouriel Roubini Agrees With Jeff Gundlach” on the prospects for dollar strength due to deflationary pressures.

COMMODITIES

A combination of factors drove a stellar month for commodities. What happened?

>> A weak dollar throughout the month kept a solid bid to commodities as a haven from potential inflation. This dynamic supported all commodities and especially gold and oil.

>> The supply of certain crops is expected to be curtailed by weather-related issues. This expectation of lessened supply kept a bid in those commodities.

>> Oil was supported by discussion of having it no longer traded in dollars.

EQUITIES

The first down month since February. It has not been about value in the overall market for a long time, but rather the cheap funding provided by Uncle Sam which has flushed the system with liquidity. The general lack of consumer demand for liquidity is only outstripped by the disinterest from banks in providing it. Where has the money gone? Into an array of market segments including equities. I still have a very difficult time recommending people put money in the market in the face of the consumer, commercial, and industrial problems.

BONDS

As of today, the Fed will no longer purchase U.S. Treasury notes and bonds via its quantitative easing program. People should not discount the importance of this development. As other global governments also begin to wind down quantitative easing programs, the demand for funds by these governments may begin to push global interest rates higher while also crowding out other borrowers. What may support the bond market? Deflationary pressures in the labor and real estate markets.

SUMMARY

The economy continues to try to adapt to the lack of any real shadow banking system. Consumer demand has been pulled forward via government programs. The deficit is mounting. How will that be handled? Increased taxes and fiscal discipline. Can our economy take either of those shots across the bow right now? I think not.

Questions and comments always appreciated.

Please listen to my show, No Quarter Radio’s Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle, tomorrow evening from 8-9 pm EST as I interview noted attorney Helen Davis Chaitman and discuss a variety of issues including the Securities Investor Protection Corporation.

Thanks for your support. Have fun Trick or Treating!

LD

A full 2.2% of the 3.5% rise was directly correlated to Uncle Sam’s support of the auto and residential construction sectors of the economy. Another .6% of the GDP was directly correlated to federal spending. Obviously, the Uncle Sam economy implies a large presence by that jolly old man. However, all that money Sam is pumping is nothing more than borrowing from future generations and pulling demand forward.

What would the economy have done on its own without the government support? Let’s listen to Christina Romer. Recall that Ms. Romer referenced last week that this quarter would provide the peak impact of benefits accruing from Uncle Sam’s economic stimulus. What does she say about this GDP report?

The Wall Street Journal references Ms. Romer in writing, Economy Snaps Long Slump:

Without stimulus programs such as “cash for clunkers” and a first-time homebuyer’s credit, “real GDP would have risen little, if at all, this past quarter,” Christina Romer, president of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said in a statement.

Why does Ms. Romer provide that sobering view of the economy? Very simply, if the American consumer represents 70% of the economy, then we should largely focus on that consumer. What did we learn about the consumer over the last quarter?

The Financial Times’ John Auther informs us in writing, Short View: GDP Grows, but Pain Remains:

Household disposable incomes actually fell during the quarter, by 3.4 per cent, but consumer spending rose, also by 3.4 per cent. This is not a pattern that can be sustained for long, and it is inconsistent with the need for US families to pay down their debts.

What does that disparity between income and spending represent? An unsustainable economic path. What else does it mean? The U.S. economy just had “Christmas in July.”

Did you get anything in your stocking?

LD

GMAC is back in line for another injection of YOUR money. Recall that GMAC was bailed out initially during the government takeover of GM. GMAC was then spun off in order for Uncle Sam to effectively provide taxpayer funded consumer auto loans and mortgages.

GMAC is not a public entity and thus not currently able to hoodwink investors and raise equity capital. What’s a cash strapped entity to do? Let’s play some more of that ‘bailout bonanza.’ The Wall Street Journal just reported on this developing story and writes, GMAC Asks for Fresh Lifeline:

In a stark reminder of how some battered financial firms remain dependent on government lifelines, GMAC Financial Services Inc. and the Treasury Department are in advanced talks to prop up the lender with its third helping of taxpayer money, people familiar with the matter said.

The U.S. government is likely to inject $2.8 billion to $5.6 billion of capital into the Detroit company, on top of the $12.5 billion that GMAC has received since December 2008, these people said.

The latest infusion would come in the form of preferred stock. The government’s 34% stake in the company could increase if existing shares eventually are converted into common equity.

The willingness by Treasury officials to deepen taxpayer exposure to GMAC reflects the troubled company’s importance to the revival of the auto industry. Founded in 1919, GMAC has $181 billion in assets and is a major financing provider on car purchases from General Motors Co. and Chrysler LLC. The new capital would help firm up GMAC’s balance sheet and solidify its auto-loan business.

Federal officials also are moving to shore up GMAC’s ability to fund its daily operations, with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. telling the company Tuesday the agency will guarantee an additional $2.9 billion in debt, according to people familiar with the discussions. The FDIC guarantee will make it easier for the company to sell debt to investors. The FDIC backed $4.5 billion in GMAC-issued debt earlier this year.

The FDIC approval came just four days before the expiration of the regulator’s program that guarantees debt issued by certain banks. It ended months of tense negotiations between GMAC and regulators. Without a deal, the company would have been forced to further reduce its lending volume. New-car loans by the company tumbled 55% to $5.6 billion in the second quarter from a year earlier.

Given these developments with GMAC, why are we allowing Barney Frank and friends to pander to the American public about how plans are being developed to wind down firms rather than bailing them out?

I would recommend we eat our loss on the money already injected in GMAC. Wind it down and let the free market work.

Rest assured, any new money injected in GMAC is nothing more than ‘good money after bad.’

LD

But first, another reason to be angry at insurers, especially if you are female, and living in one of thirty-nine states in the union, as this article highlights, Women Pay Up To 50% More For Health Insurance Premiums. Now, maybe I was just naive to not realize this was happening, but happening it is. This article focuses on the state of Colorado:

Checking the “female” box when buying health insurance is likely to cost extra — perhaps up to 50 percent more than a man would pay for the same coverage.

Gender-rating — or what some term as flat-out sexual discrimination — is linked to the simple fact that women, particularly those under age 50 or so, go to the doctor more often than men.

But outrage over how women are treated in the individual health insurance market is mounting as stories emerge of companies refusing to cover maternity benefits and denying coverage because of past domestic violence or cesarean sections, including a Colorado woman who was told she would have to get sterilized to qualify for insurance.

Federal proposals, as well as pending state legislation, would ban gender-rating and require maternity coverage, even as the insurance industry warns that lowering premiums for younger women could mean higher premiums for most everyone else.

Colorado women age 40 and under shopping for health insurance in the individual market, not through an employer, pay from 10 percent to 59 percent more than men, according to analysis by the National Women’s Law Center.

They pay more even when maternity coverage is not included. And in many cases, a female nonsmoker pays more for health coverage than a man who smokes.

“Women should not be penalized because their plumbing works differently and needs ongoing maintenance,” Colorado Insurance Commissioner Marcy Morrison told a state health care task force.

Holy smokes. Did you know this?? So, being a woman is a pre-existing condition? That’s a pretty difficult one to overcome. Especially since we’re the only ones who can get pregnant, which has its OWN set of issues:

As a state lawmaker, Morrison fought insurance companies to stop “drive-through deliveries” so women could stay in the hospital longer after childbirth. She said gender-rating is discrimination tied to decades-old salary disparity, particularly in female-dominated professions such as nursing and teaching. And she is skeptical of insurance company claims that “the sky is going to fall” and premiums would rise if gender-rating were outlawed.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s national association, proposed ending gender-rating and the practice of rejecting customers based on pre-existing conditions. In exchange, insurance companies want powerful legislation that would compel everyone to buy insurance.

Discrimination against women in the insurance market goes far beyond premium rates, reform advocates said.

And you are not even going to believe how:

Sterilization Suggested

Take, for example, Centennial resident Peggy Robertson, who was denied insurance by Golden Rule Insurance Co. because she delivered her second child by cesarean section in 2006. Maternity benefits weren’t even part of the package.

Robertson, whose husband is a self-employed chiropractor, contacted the International Cesarean Awareness Network and filed a complaint with the state Division of Insurance, arguing the denial was unfair and that the company had asked her offensive questions during the application process.

Later, she received a letter from Golden Rule telling her the company would consider covering her if “some form of sterilization has occurred since the caesarean-section delivery.”

“It was just really horrific and terribly insulting,” said Robertson, a stay-at-home mom of two boys. “You felt like you were a herd of cattle or something.”

Robertson’s recent testimony before the U.S. Senate health committee in part prompted Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., to write a letter to Senate leaders adding his voice to the call for reform to ban gender-rating and other “harmful insurance industry practices.”

Since denying Robertson, Golden Rule, an Indianapolis-based division of United Healthcare, now covers women who have had cesarean sections but only with increased premiums to cover the risk of a future cesarean birth or with exclusionary riders — clauses that deny coverage for cesareans for a certain number of years or forever.

“This helps us extend coverage to more people while keeping premiums lower for all of our customers,” said Ellen Laden, public relations director for Golden Rule. “The real issue is how to deal broadly with providing access to health care for everyone while still keeping health insurance from being cost-prohibitive.”

Sterilization??? What, are we back in the mid-1950’s or something?? I noticed that they didn’t suggest sterilization for MEN, which makes a lot more sense for the health insurers since it’s CHEAPER, and doesn’t require hospitalization. This is just staggering in this day and age. Thank heavens there are people fighting this suggestion:

Bennet and others, including the National Women’s Law Center, are calling for an end to coverage denials based on pre-existing conditions such as pregnancy and surviving domestic violence or sexual assault — a problem revealed in a recent report from the law center.

Along those lines, there is another big issue that applies to women only:

Lack Of Maternity Benefits

Another common frustration among women who buy insurance individually — and there are 125,000 such women in Colorado — is that maternity benefits are almost nonexistent.

Suzanne Pariser, a Denver lawyer and mother of 2-year-old Willa, is putting off expanding her family because she cannot find an affordable insurance plan that includes maternity coverage.

“That’s the main reason we’re not having a baby right now,” she said. “We definitely want to have another child.”

Pariser is annoyed that insurance company executives, in essence, are determining her family planning.

“My anger is mostly that insurance companies view having a baby as a medical complication that costs them money,” she said. “They view it as a disease.”

The only plan she could find that offered maternity coverage was more expensive in the long run than paying out of pocket to have a baby, Pariser figured.

Costs vary by hospital or birthing center, but the average bill for a vaginal birth with no complications is about $7,500 and for a cesarean section, $13,200.

Viewing having a baby as a “disease.” That is quite an indictment, especially taken in conjunction with suggesting sterilization.

Back to the overall concept of gender-biased insurance:

The insurance industry in Colorado has not taken an official position on statehouse bills that would ban gender-rating in the individual market and require maternity coverage. Their stance likely depends on national reform — and in particular, whether federal law will force everyone, even the healthiest people, to buy insurance.

But industry officials point out that higher premiums for women are based on analysis from actuaries, which show women are much more likely to visit the doctor. The rate at which women visit primary care physicians is more than 50 percent higher than for men, according to the New America Foundation.

By about age 50 or 55, men typically begin using health services more than women, and premiums for older men are typically more expensive than those for older women, said Ben Price, executive director of the Colorado Association of Health Plans.

“The insurance industry is engaged in its own internal discussion on this issue, and health plans here in Colorado are of course taking a fresh look at gender-rating and many other issues that have been raised as a part of the debate both in Washington and here in Colorado,” he said.

Officials with Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Colorado have “strong reservations” about eliminating gender-rating and requiring maternity coverage. The practice is rampant in the auto insurance industry, they argue.

“The most expensive purchase in auto (insurance) is the young, invincible male; they are the risk-takers,” said Rebecca Weiss, director of government affairs. “For some reason, auto insurance doesn’t seem as inflammatory to people as health insurance.

“Shouldn’t health insurance premiums be based on some degree on how many medical services you receive so that everyone is paying according to what they are using?”

I am no doctor, or health insurer, but if women go go the doctor more often, isn’t it possible that will keep them out of the hospital more often? Unless it’s for a “disease” like having a baby or something. Ahem. But you know what the bottom line is: “

It Would Raise Prices”

Insurance companies probably would have to raise prices on other groups to make up the difference if they were forced to lower prices for younger women, said Tom Gosselin, director of small-group underwriting at Anthem.

“It definitely would raise the prices, is the simple thing,” he said. “You are now charging the 22-year-old guy who has no concept in the world about having a baby for maternity. He’s more likely to choose not to have health insurance at all.”

Eleven states ban gender-rating in the individual insurance market.

A review by the National Conference of State Legislatures found that those states had not determined whether their bans caused health insurance rates to rise.

In Montana, which outlawed gender-rating in 1983, some lawmakers want to repeal the ban, arguing fewer insurers are willing to operate in the state because of it.

Colorado is among several states that have banned gender-rating in the small-group insurance market, which in this state applies to businesses with 50 or fewer employees. For businesses with more than 50 employees, insurance companies can consider age and sex when setting rates — but the risk is spread throughout the company so everyone’s premiums are equal.

Reform advocates argue the policy adversely affects businesses where the workforce is predominantly female, such as child-care centers or home health agencies.

I just wonder if this issue is being addressed by the Congress as it looks at this whole health care reform thing? Seems to me it is a pretty big issue, as is the cost in general:

Care Requires Doctor Visits

A Denver Post review of online health insurance quotes found that a woman living in the same Denver ZIP code with the same date of birth would pay $20 to $35 per month — or up to $420 more per year — than a man for the same coverage. The rates reviewed were for basic, high-deductible plans, ranging from $71 to $158 per month.

NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado is among those fighting for change in the law, arguing that women are typically the responsible sex when it comes to birth control and that those prescriptions often require an annual doctor visit.

“Under the current health care system, women are penalized for taking responsibility for their own health,” said Toni Panetta, NARAL’s political director.

State Rep. Beth McCann, a Denver Democrat sponsoring the bill banning gender-rating, said insurance companies failed to produce “sufficient factual basis to charge different premiums for women and men.”

“It seems as though it’s somewhat arbitrary,” she said. “It’s a matter of equality and fairness.”

If the state legislation passes during the next legislative session, it probably would take effect about two years ahead of national reform.

Mary Saracino, a self-employed writer in Lafayette who has had to purchase insurance on the individual market, said she is shocked “and, dare I say, angry” that monthly premiums for women are higher.

“It seems highly discriminatory,” said Saracino, 55. “Would consumers put up with that if, say, men had to pay more for tires than women because some statistic says that male drivers are harder on their cars than female drivers?”

Uh, hell to the yes, it seems discriminatory! There just isn’t a whole helluva lot we can do about being female (without getting into the whole issue of gender-realignment surgery, that is). Or want to do anything about it. A whole lot of us are actually happy to be women. To make us pay more money, especially when we typically make less money, for health insurance is reprehensible.

Here are the places you can live without fear of being charged for being a woman:

Some Protection

These 11 states ban gender- rating by insurers in the individual insurance market:

California, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, and Washington. (Jennifer Brown: 303-954-1593 or jenbrown@denverpost.com)

That’s it.

And now for the big surprise. I am telling you, I was really shocked when I learned this. Would you like to take a guess as to how much Insurers actually make in profits? About 2.2% above the amount of money they take in. In fact, they are 35th out of 53 for industries. I have no love lost for insurance companies, especially in light of articles like the one above, but that is startling. It is in complete opposition to EVERYTHING we have heard about them. Are they a pain in the ass to deal with in general, like filing claims, or having claims paid? Often, yes. But are they raking in the cash hand over fist as we have been hearing from Congress on a daily basis? Apparently not. That shocked the crap out of me. That doesn’t immediately absolve them, of course, but it does greatly affect the very foundation for the arguments about health care in this country. Something to consider.

And since we are talking about women and health care, October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Many of us, myself included, need to take the appropriate actions for our health.

Along those lines, I would like to leave you with the following, a recent interview with Elizabeth Edwards:

A brave soul, Elizabeth is. And one who is in my thoughts and prayers as she continues to live with breast cancer (I am trying really hard not to say something snarky here about her husband…). All the best to her. And to all women who are living with this disease, and hopefully, being cured of it.

“Barack Obama Sees Worst Poll Rating Drop In 50 Years”

Gallup recorded an average daily approval rating of 53 per cent for Mr Obama for the third quarter of the year, a sharp drop from the 62 per cent he recorded from April.

His current approval rating – hovering just above the level that would make re-election an uphill struggle – is close to the bottom for newly-elected president. Mr Obama entered the White House with a soaring 78 per cent approval rating.

The bad polling news came as Mr Obama returned to the campaign trail to prevent his Democratic party losing two governorships next month in states in which he defeated Senator John McCain in last November’s election.

Jeffrey Jones of Gallup explained: “The dominant political focus for Obama in the third quarter was the push for health care reform, including his nationally televised address to Congress in early September.

“Obama hoped that Congress would vote on health care legislation before its August recess, but that goal was missed, and some members of Congress faced angry constituents at town hall meetings to discuss health care reform. Meanwhile, unemployment continued to climb near 10 per cent.”

Unfortunately for Obama, the People had something to say about the legislation that would so impact each and every one of us. I bet those legislators just HATE when their constituents throw a wrench into their grand plans, don’t you?

Things aren’t just bad for Obama, though:

Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey is in severe danger of defeat while Democrats are fast losing hope that Creigh Deeds can beat his Republican opponent in Virginia. Twin Democratic losses would be a major blow to Mr Obama’s prestige.

Campaigning for Mr Corzine in Hackensack on Wednesday night, Mr Obama delivered a plea that almost seemed as much for himself as the local candidate: “I’m here today to urge you to cast aside the cynics and the sceptics, and prove to all Americans that leaders who do what’s right and who do what’s hard will be rewarded and not rejected.”

Mr Corzine, a former Goldman Sachs executive and multi-millionaire, is currently running even in New Jersey, which is normally comfortably Democratic, while Mr Deeds is trailing badly in Virginia, a swing state that was key to Mr Obama’s 2008 victory.

Let’s just pause for a second and soak that in - Gov. Corzine is a former Goldman Sachs exec who made a gazillion buckaroos, and Obama is stumping for him. Perhaps this is one of those moments when Obama’s minions might just get sobered up just a tad from the Kool Aide and realize that they bought a bill of goods.

It gets worse:

Mr Obama is also facing widespread criticism for his drawn-out decision-making process over what to do next in Afghanistan.

Republicans sense Mr Obama is in a vulnerable position and this week saw the return to the public stage of his perhaps most vehement opponent – Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Holy crapoli - Cheney? The man to whom we affectionately (cough) referred to as Darth Vader?? Whooey - this should be interesting:

In a blistering speech on Wednesday night, he accused Mr Obama of failing to give Americans troops on the ground a clear mission or defined goals and of being seemingly “afraid to make a decision” about Afghanistan “The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger,” Cheney said at the Center for Security Policy in Washington.

“Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries.”

He hit out at Obama aides who suggested that the Bush administration had failed to weigh up conditions in Afghanistan properly before committing troops.

“Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.”

Yikes. Nothing like being called on the carpet by the president, I mean, VICE president, from the past 8 years. Ahem. I reckon Obama and his Chicago pals thought all of their blaming of the Bush Administration would silence that Administration. Apparently, they were not paying attention to how Cheney rolls over the last 8 years, either. I’m sure Obama/Emmanuel/Axelrove will come up with SOME dismissive statement about Cheney’s remarks, and still not do anything about Afghanistan, because that’s how THEY roll.

Just in case you are keeping score (or want to), the Daily Presidential Tracking Poll at Rasmussen Reports has Obama’s approval ratings at 49% as of Friday, Oct. 23rd.

But hey, these are just numbers. What are the people who formerly approved of Obama but are now sobering up saying? My good friend, Nunly, of Bad Habit fame, braved the Obamablogs, and found some mighty interesting comments by the Obama faithful. She was kind enough to leave this at my blog, and the comments in italics are her’s (she’s funny):

I went to look at AmericaBlog last night (I love to see what the Obots are up to) and thought you would LOVE to see what they think of Obama now. I’ve never seen so much whining, crying, gnashing of teeth since I told my kids they had to pay for their own car insurance.

…Aravosis has been covering the health care bill negotiations and I swear, the comments about Obama had me rolling on the floor laughing.

Here are a few of my favorite from that post. You could read the rest if you want, but they are all about the same.

Here goes..get your tissues out because you’re gonna laugh until you cry:

Mike_in_the_Tundra said:
I really don’t remember voting for Olympia Snow during the presidential campaign.

Montiel said:
Obama campaigned on a strong public option.

When push came to shove he ran the other way.

What does it matter now what he says - we already know who he is.

(Mary Ellen’s note: Then the following guy is trying to put the kool-aid stains on somebody else’s upper lip and throws in a little Christian bashing to finish it off.)

JohnnyG [Moderator] 10 hours ago 2 people liked this.
Even if this is proven true, the kool-aid drinkers will still ignore it. All they care about is his “historical presidency.” They’ll be more than happy to let his dirty dealings be swept under the rug. Much like how Christians view God, anything good is credited to Jesus (Barack) and anything bad is credited to the devil (Rahm, anyone else handy.)

PresPlatitudes said:
why isn’t obama pushing for the PO, instead of parading around on letterman like a vain opportunist?

(Below is my favorite comment!)

Judas Peckerwood
If Obama’s ultra-secret overarching goal for his presidency is to make the PUMAs look sane in retrospect, then all I can say is “Well played sir, well played indeed.”

(ROTFLMAO! They hate it that the PUMA’s were right!)

Fireblazes(CheetohsandCatfood) said:
Obviously, he was lying about wanting the public option. No money in that, after all it takes a billion to become president.

godwillsortyouout said:
For what it’s worth, in the 2008 Presidential campaign, McCain raised $8 million from people who worked for healthcare companies, including lots of executives.

Obama raised ** $19 million **. You do the math.

(They just figured that out? And HOW many times did we try to tell them that before and how did they reply? “Racist!” )

vkobaya said:
if President Obama isn’t trying to scuttle his own campaign promise

No, no, of course, he isn’t trying to scuttle his own campaign promise. No, like any card carrying Republican, he is trying to scuttle America, drag it down the tubes, destroy our nation, which he hates and despises.

I’m sick of the man. Revolted, bitter, and angry that I and so many others were played for suckers into voting for him. Would we have been worse off under McCain and Sarah Palin? Beginning to wonder. Probably would have been no different.

(More laughing…I thought “we” were the “bitter and angry” ones? Look who’s bitter now!)…

Oh, how low they have gone, just like Obama’s poll numbers. I would be more sympathetic if they hadn’t treated all of us like Pure-T crap, or demeaned and belittled Hillary Clinton at every turn, demonizing her, downplaying her vast accomplishments, the warmth, the compassion, the intellect, the experience…So, yeah, I hate it for them, but they have no one to blame but themselves for how they’re feeling now. See? Vetting the candidate really DOES matter! Wowie zowie, just like we said!! Sigh.

Well, all I can say is stay tuned - it’s bound to be interesting at any rate, right? Can’t wait to see what the coming week brings…

General McChrystal’s proposal for Afghanistan has been on Obama’s desk for almost two months now. And what is Obama doing about it? Well, he appears to be deciding on how to decide what his decision will be, but he’s not there yet. Nope, instead, he is throwing up some smokescreen about the need for a do-over in Afghanistan’s election (wait - how come WE can’t get one of those??) before he will commit. And smokescreen it is. Even Secretary of Defense Gates has told him he can’t wait that long.

Obama needs to stop tip-toeing around Afghanistan, and own it, as a part of his presidency. For that matter, he needs to own his presidency, as Peggy Noonan points out in this commentary, It’s His Rubble Now: And the American people want him to fix it.. Uh, yeah. Pretty much. She writes:

At a certain point, a president must own a presidency. For George W. Bush that point came eight months in, when 9/11 happened. From that point on, the presidency—all his decisions, all the credit and blame for them—was his. The American people didn’t hold him responsible for what led up to 9/11, but they held him responsible for everything after it. This is part of the reason the image of him standing on the rubble of the twin towers, bullhorn in hand, on Sept.14, 2001, became an iconic one. It said: I’m owning it.

Mr. Bush surely knew from the moment he put the bullhorn down that he would be judged on everything that followed. And he has been. Early on, the American people rallied to his support, but Americans are practical people. They will support a leader when there is trouble, but there’s an unspoken demand, or rather bargain: We’re behind you, now fix this, it’s yours.

President Obama, in office a month longer than Bush was when 9/11 hit, now owns his presidency. Does he know it? He too stands on rubble, figuratively speaking—a collapsed economy, high and growing unemployment, two wars. Everyone knows what he’s standing on. You can almost see the smoke rising around him. He’s got a bullhorn in his hand every day.

It’s his now. He gets the credit and the blame. How do we know this? The American people are telling him. You can see it in the polls. That’s what his falling poll numbers are about. “It’s been almost a year, you own this. Fix it.”

Pretty much. Though he seems to be using his bullhorn for all the wrong things, IMHO. Noonan continues:

The president doesn’t seem to like this moment. Who would? He and his men and women have returned to referring to what they “inherited.” And what they inherited was, truly, terrible: again, a severe economic crisis and two wars. But their recent return to this theme is unbecoming. Worse, it is politically unpersuasive. It sounds defensive, like a dodge.

The president said last week, at a San Francisco fund-raiser, that he’s busy with a “mop,” “cleaning up somebody else’s mess,” and he doesn’t enjoy “somebody sitting back and saying, ‘You’re not holding the mop the right way.’” Later, in New Orleans, he groused that reporters are always asking “Why haven’t you solved world hunger yet?” His surrogates and aides, in appearances and talk shows, have taken to remembering, sometimes at great length, the dire straits we were in when the presidency began.

This is not a sign of confidence. Nor were the president’s comments to a New York fund-raiser this week. Democrats, he said to the Democratic audience, are “an opinionated bunch.” They always have a lot of thoughts and views. Republicans, on the other hand—”the other side”—aren’t really big on independent thinking. “They just kinda sometimes do what they’re told. Democrats, ya’ll thinkin’ for yourselves.” It is never a good sign when the president gets folksy, dropping his g’s, because he is by nature not a folksy g-dropper but a coolly calibrating intellectual who is always trying to guess, as most politicians do, what normal people think. When Mr. Obama gets folksy he isn’t narrowing his distance from his audience but underlining it. He shouldn’t do this.

But the statement that Republicans just do what they’re told was like his famous explanation of unhappy voters are people who “cling to guns or religion.” (What comes over him at fund-raisers?) Both statements speaks of a political misjudgment of his opponents and his situation.They show a misdiagnosis of the opposition that is politically tin-eared. Politicians looking to win don’t patronize those they’re trying to win over.

No kidding - insulting people you want to win over is thoroughly unhelpful, though it’s a strategy we have seen way too much of of late (and for a great post on that little soundbite of Obama’s, I recommend fellow No Quarter writer, Ani’s, post, “President Obama Is Insulting Americans Again”). I, for one, do not respond well to it, but that’s just me.

Back to Noonan:

But the point on the We Inherited a Terrible Situation and It’s Not Our Fault argument is, again, that it is worse than unbecoming. It is unpersuasive.

How do we know this? Through the polls. In all of the major surveys, the president’s popularity has gone down the past few months. A Gallup Daily Tracking Poll out this week reported Mr. Obama’s job approval dropped nine points during the third quarter of this year, that is between July 1 and Sept. 30, when it fell from 62% to 53%. It was the biggest such drop Gallup has ever measured for an elected president during the same period of his term. A Fox News poll out Thursday showed support for the president’s policies falling below 50% for the first time. Ominously for him, independents are peeling off. In 2006 and 2008 independents looked like Democrats. They were angry and frustrated by the wars, they sought to rebuke the Bush White House. Now those independents look like Republicans. They worry about joblessness, debts and deficits.

The White House sees the falling support. Thus the reminder: We faced an insuperable challenge, we’re mopping up somebody else’s mess.

The Democratic Party too sees the falling support, and is misunderstanding it. The great question they debated last week was whether the president is tough enough: Does he come across as too weak? It is true, as the cliché has it, that it’s helpful for a president to be both revered and feared. But this president is not weak, that’s not his problem. He willed himself into the presidency with an adroit reading of the lay of the land, brought together and dominated all the constituent pieces of victory, showed and shows impressive self-discipline, seems in general to stick to a course once he’s chosen it, though arguably especially when he’s wrong. His decision to let Congress write a health-care bill may yield at least the appearance of victory. And if Mr. Obama isn’t twisting arms like LBJ, and then giving just an extra little jerk to snap the rotator cuff just for fun, the case can be made that day by day he’s moving the Democrats of Congress in the historic direction he desires. All his adult life he’s played the long game, which takes patience and skill.

She forgot the lying, cheating, stealing, and downright theft, that helped propel Obama into the presidency, but whatever. What I don’t get is why people continue to forget that the Democrats were in charge of both houses of Congress for TWO YEARS before Obama became president. All of the stuff that happened in the two preceding years, like the stimulus bill, the economy, all of that, is on their hands. This, “Oh, poor me - look at how much I have to clean up! Being president is HARD WORK, just like Bush said!” has long passed its usefulness, if it ever had any.

It’s more than that:

The problem isn’t his personality, it’s his policies. His problem isn’t what George W. Bush left but what he himself has done. It is a problem of political judgment, of putting forward bills that were deeply flawed or off-point. Bailouts, the stimulus package, cap-and-trade; turning to health care at the exact moment in history when his countrymen were turning their concerns to the economy, joblessness, debt and deficits—all of these reflect a misreading of the political terrain. They are matters of political judgment, not personality. (Republicans would best heed this as they gear up for 2010: Don’t hit him, hit his policies. That’s where the break with the people is occurring.)

The result of all this is flagging public support, a drop in the polls, and independents peeling off.

In this atmosphere, with these dynamics, Mr. Obama’s excuse-begging and defensiveness won’t work.

Everyone knows he was handed horror. They want him to fix it.

At some point, you own your presidency. At some point it’s your rubble. At some point the American people tell you it’s yours. The polls now, with the presidential approval numbers going down and the disapproval numbers going up: That’s the American people telling him.

Not for nothing, but he kept telling US he could handle this job. Many of us knew he couldn’t, wouldn’t, but at some point, it’s sink or swim, and we are already beyond that point. No more whining and crying about the crap sandwich you got handed when you fought so dirty to get there in the first place. I guarantee you, Hillary Clinton wouldn’t be complaining left and right. She’d push up her shirt sleeves and get to work. That is what we expect of Obama, too.

Oh, one last thing. About those fundraisers Obama is flitting around doing while we have all of these major issues detailed above? In the first nine months of his presidency, Obama has gone to TWENTY-THREE fundraisers. In the first twenty, he has raised $20 million for the DNC coffers. That’s just jake.

Want to guess how many Bush did in the same amount of time? Six. I said, SIX. And Bush raised $48 million from his six, and he did none after the attacks on September 11th.

I can’t leave Bill Clinton out. He did five fundraisers in nine months. That’s it.

Sure shows you what is important to Obama, and it is not running this country. Time for him to own the presidency he fought so dirty to get, and roll up HIS shirt sleeves like Secretary Clinton has done. Way, way past time, in fact. Get to it already.

As I think more and more on the compensation topic, I have come to the following conclusions:

1. Those who work at companies in which Uncle Sam has injected life-saving levels of capital should be subject to compensation restrictions. Why? I would maintain that these employees are quasi-government employees and thus subject to having Uncle Sam involved in the compensation process. To the extent that people do not like working for Uncle Sam, then leave. They would not have a job without Uncle Sam in the first place.

2. Is it any wonder why Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan were so eager to repay the TARP funds? Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon certainly saw the handwriting on the wall. Some would argue that Goldman and Morgan should not be subject to compensation controls imposed by Uncle Sam. Others would argue that they should given the fact that Uncle Sam saved the entire financial system. To a certain extent, I am in the camp “to the victors go the spoils” and thus Goldman, Morgan and others should be free to compensate their employees accordingly.

3. To an ever increasing extent, however, I view Wall Street as nothing more than an oligopoly. The key problem in an industry that is oligopolistic is the issue of collusion amongst participants at the expense of the public. I do not think there is any doubt that Wall Street has experienced characteristics of an oligopoly and is experiencing them now to an ever greater degree.

How should this be addressed? The boards of the Wall Street firms need to practice real corporate governance in terms of compensation and all other business practices. Good corporate governance would implement quality compensation practices so Uncle Sam does not have to get involved. Regrettably, ‘Wall Street’ and ‘good corporate governance’ are mutually exclusive.

Thus, what should Uncle Sam do? I disagree that Uncle Sam should dictate compensation practices in private companies. What Uncle Sam should do is impose on businesses capital ratios that are so restrictive that Wall Street thinks long and hard about how much risk they take in those business lines. Those risk controls will restrict compensation along with addressing systemic risks while maintaining the integrity of the free market. In fact, if the capital ratios are as restrictive as I believe they should be, the firms would reconsider having the business at all.

Perhaps the business line would then be spun off or privatized and Uncle Sam and the taxpayers would be off the hook of supporting a business housed within an institution deemed ‘too big to fail.’

In my opinion, that approach is far better both in scope and practice.

What do you think?

LD

Now you know I am a huge Yankees fan. I was telling my dear friend Bronwyn’s Harbor about the series, and got her started watching the games. I mentioned that I had a shrine to the Yankees in my living room. She suggested I share it with you, so here it is:

Let me just say, besides the t-shirt, and the baseball, I didn’t buy ANY of those things. My Mets loving cousin was kind enough to send most of them to me. She has an eye for all things Yankees for me. She knows of my deep and abiding love for both the Yankees and their captain, Derek Jeter. The small framed piece is actually a painted feather from Belize that my niece gave me.

I might add, the baseball you can see there was not purchased, either, at least not with money from me. My partner took me to Cleveland for 3 games with the Indians for my 50th birthday (it just happened that they were in Cleveland for the day of my birthday). We were in the section to get autographs during batting practice. That baseball was hit by A-Rod, a screaming foul ball that hit my partner. While it was bad that it hit her, had she not been where she was, it would have hit the very pregnant woman next to her in the abdomen, which would NOT Have been good. Anyway, after batting practice, Johnny Damon came over and signed it for me while my partner was getting medical treatment (no permanent damage, but the bruise lasted for WEEKS. Seriously. It was A-Rod, after all!).

Speaking of Derek Jeter, he has been playing sick the past few days. Not that that has stopped him from hitting a home run, and getting on base in every game, not to mention great defensive plays. He embodies the very best of a Yankees Captain, IMHO.

And in a totally “Entertainment Weekly” kind of way, don’t you think Derek Jeter and the singer, Leona Lewis, would make a beautiful couple? Check them out:

(PRNewsFoto/J Records)

Right?? I know! But, Derek is with the actress, Minka Kelly, and Leona lives with her high school boyfriend. Oh, well, as long as they’re happy…(Don’t worry - this is but a slight foray into Hollywood-style gossip. I’ll be back to political pontificating ASAP.)

Anyhoo - I’m not going to take any chances about the Yankees winning tonight. I’ll don my Yankees away gray t-shirt, put on my Derek Jeter official jersey, grab my Yankees cap, and watch the game with a Diet IBC Root Brewski or Diet Dr. Pepper in hand. Maybe if I play the video below a bunch, my prayers will be answered (major H/T to Nunly at Bad Habit). I warn you, the song may get stuck in your head, but it is SO worth it:

I just hope I won’t be laughing so hard I don’t miss a great play by the Captain, or another home run by A-Rod. And say what you will, but despite some apparent clashing between his new girlfriend, Kate Hudson, and the other Yankees’ wives/girlfriends, he is having the very best post season he has ever had since he started seeing her (h/t to Bronwyn for the link). Maybe he’s just a big Kurt Russell and/or Goldie Hawn fan, and likes having them around, too, since they often accompany Kate. Who knows? As long as he keeps hitting like this, I am happy, happy, happy.

So, you know what I’ll be doing tonight - wishing, hoping, and yes, praying. Hopefully, I’ll be CELEBRATING, too. Then, you know I’ll be at the MLB shop getting my new American League Champions t-shirt to add to the shrine for the upcoming World Series!

Consider this an Open Thread. What’s on YOUR mind today? Maybe that it’s been fifty-four days since Gen. McChrystal;’s recommendations landed on Obama’s desk about Afghanistan? Maybe the economy? Health Care Reform? Whatever it is, have at it!

UPDATE: And No. Swisher, for the second time with runners in scoring position (top of the 9th, bases LOADED), popped up. The series is going back to New York.

*****************
Follow the money. Despite what analysts and pundits may say, if you want to get to the root of an issue, there is one simple rule …follow the money. In taking that track, more truth will be revealed than we might ever imagine. To that end, No Quarter Radio’s Sense on Cents with Larry Doyle welcomes Allan Dodds Frank who perhaps more than any other investigative reporter and journalist has been ‘following the money’ for the last 40 years. Who is Allan Dodds Frank? He is currently the President of the Overseas Press Club of America and has been on the cutting edge of almost every major financial scandal of our lifetime.

Allan Dodds Frank is a contributor to The Daily Beast, the website founded by Tina Brown. He has been a television correspondent for ABC News, CNN and Bloomberg. Frank has been an Overseas Press Club member since 1985, most recently served as second vice president and previously OPC treasurer, governor, chairman of the OPC Awards Committee and President of the Overseas Press Club Foundation, where he serves on the board and executive committee.

Developing the OPC as one of the leading forums and meeting places for journalists continues to be his top priority. He would like to expand the OPC’s reach among younger journalists, especially those committed to international reporting. He also strongly supports the OPC’s embrace of the Internet as a way to enrich and enhance its role in defending reporters and freedom of the press.

His career includes reporting for the Anchorage Daily News, The Washington Star, Forbes, ABC News, CNN and Bloomberg. His specialties include reporting on complex white-collar crime and terrorism. Among his awards: the Gerald Loeb Award for the best Financial Reporting on television and Emmys for reporting on the financing of terrorism and for exposing the degree to which presidential candidate Ross Perot relied on taxpayer funding to build an airport in Fort Worth, Texas. Frank also has won newspaper guild and Alaska Press Club awards for outstanding reporting at The Washington Star and the Anchorage Daily News.

What drives the men who engage in financial frauds? Where does the money come from that funds international terrorism? How has Washington fought these crimes? How has Washington facilitated these crimes? How has white collar crime grown over the years? What has changed? What remains the same?

Please join me on BlogTalkRadio this Sunday evening October 25th at 8pm EDT as we address these questions and so much more with the Emmy-award winning investigative reporter and journalist Allan Dodds Frank.

LD

Fully appreciating that merely asking these questions is aggressive by its very nature, I do not ask them in a derisive fashion. The fact is, the answer to those questions in the eyes of Richard Greenfield is an unequivocal, “Yes!”

Who is Richard Greenfield? I had the distinct pleasure of chatting with Richard last evening on my weekly Sunday evening radio program. Richard Greenfield of Greenfield & Goodman is an attorney with over 40 years of experience in banking, securities, and consumer litigation. Amongst other legal venues, Attorney Greenfield has been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Our conversation last evening was riveting. If you have an interest in the markets, our economy, developments on Wall Street and in Washington, I strongly encourage you to listen to the interview in its entirety. I will share with you some of the highlights which Richard provided. (The timing I provide for these highlights can be used in the audio player provided here.)

> 16:40: FINRA’s mindset has never been on major league enforcement, but rather relatively picayune broker-dealer violations and even then the violations are more technical than they are real. Greenfield said, “the big boys always seem to get away with murder.”

> 18:30: The NASD coming out of the 1930s initially did a good job, but over time it became less and less concerned with enforcement and more concerned with the appearance of enforcement.

> 20:00: Most state attorneys general don’t have resources to devote to securities regulations. It’s the rare state, California and New York for example, which undertakes real enforcement activities. (LD’s comment: I would add that Massachusetts has also aggressively undertaken serious enforcement of securities regulation.)

> 22:00: Too Much Wall Street money finds its way into campaign warchests with the result that its special interests rival those of the insurance and defense industries and as a result Congress and many state government initiatives have been subverted.

> 25:00: Every major financial institution has ‘cooked their books’ for the last five years.

At the 29 minute mark or thereabouts, our conversation truly elevates from the general nature of financial regulation to the very specific details of the cases Richard Greenfield and colleagues from the Washington D.C. based firm of Cuneo, Gilbert, and LaDuca are bringing against FINRA. I STRONGLY encourage you to listen to the next twenty minutes.

> 29:30: Greenfield provides background information on the complaint filed on behalf of the California based FINRA member firm, Standard Investment Chartered against FINRA.

> 32:00-44:00:
- Greenfield comments on some interesting connections between Bernie Madoff and Mary Schapiro, former head of FINRA and current head of the SEC.

- Documents provided by the NASD (now known as FINRA) to Greenfield and his colleagues show unequivocally that the NASD defendants lied to the NASD member firms regarding distribution of funds from the sale of the Nasdaq. Greenfield reiterates that these individuals lied blatantly and unequivocally. They intentionally lied. The lies are repeated over and over in a proxy statement provided to the member firms. The lies were repeated at roadshows which took place all around the country.

Who is they? Who lied? Who repeated the lies?

Mary Schapiro and senior officers in the NASD (FINRA)!!!

> The primary lie is the misrepresentation of the maximum proceeds that could have been paid to the NASD member firms. That figure was represented as being $35k when in fact it could have been much, much higher.

> Greenfield also highlights the fact that FINRA failed to perform in protecting investors from the Auction-Rate Securities scandal while liquidating its own ARS investment position in 2007.

> Greenfield sheds some light that he believes New York AG Andrew Cuomo is investigating FINRA’s liquidation of its Auction-Rate Securities investment.

>47:00

- Greenfield repeats his assertion initially made on September 3rd while appearing on America’s Nightly Scoreboard on Fox Business News (video clips can be seen here) that, based upon information and belief obtained from a source which Greenfield and colleagues believe to be reliable, FINRA had made investments with Bernie Madoff!!

- Greenfield believes that FINRA may have to be disbanded and the self-regulation of Wall Street may have to be scrapped because the self-regulatory model for this industry has failed.

- Greenfield concludes that Mary Schapiro talks a tough game, but is truly a non-regulator.

While Greenfield makes some serious allegations and charges in the course of this interview, he has unquestioned credibility and experience which comes from 40 years of fighting these battles.

Will the truth and transparency being sought in these complaints and which the American public so badly needs at this time come out? Do not discount the power of information. Please share this information which Richard Greenfield so descriptively and professionally detailed last evening with your friends and colleagues.

I thank you.

Questions, comments, constructive criticisms always appreciated.

LD

TIME magazine cover December 1, 1986. What has really changed on Wall Street?

Twenty-two years ago today the equity markets crashed. The Dow Jones Industrial average cratered by a whopping 22%!!

Have our markets, economy, and financial regulatory oversight progressed, regressed, or is it merely “deja vu all over again?” Well, with the markets up 1% on the day and 50% off the lows in March of this year, clearly today is vastly different than 22 years ago, right? Honestly, I would maintain that from a grand perspective very little has changed. Why? How?

As much as we may have made technological progress on a number of fronts both on and off Wall Street, the fraud implicit in the illegal use of information is still very much central to the corruption that occurs on Wall Street.

Back in the mid to late ’80s, insider trading activity was rampant in a number of hedge funds and leveraged buyout activities. The so-called king of Wall Street at that time was Ivan Boesky. As it turns out, Boesky was nothing more than a common criminal involved in a massive insider trading scandal. When Boesky was confronted with the evidence of his criminal activities, he turned on his cronies and sang like a canary. In relatively short order, some of Wall Street’s titans fell like dominoes. Who were some of these titans? Dennis Levine, Robert Freeman, Martin Siegel, and Michael Milken. These masters of the universe were nothing more than white collar criminals.

Fast forward to 2009. The markets are rebounding and Wall Street is back to ‘business as usual.’ In a manner of speaking, the ‘business as usual’ is no different than the business that occurred back in the ’80s. What business is that? Insider trading.

The story that broke on Friday in which a number of individuals at a few hedge funds supported by corporate insiders at IBM and Intel is certainly only the tip of the iceberg of insider trading circa 2009. Bloomberg addresses this certainty in writing, U.S. Said to Target Waves of Insider-Trading Activities:

Federal investigators are gearing up to file charges against a wider array of insider-trading networks, some linked to the criminal case against billionaire hedge-fund manager Raj Rajaratnam that shook Wall Street last week, people familiar with the matter said.

The pending crackdown, based on at least two years of investigation, targets securities professionals including hedge- fund managers, lawyers and other Wall Street players, the people said, declining to be identified because the cases aren’t public. Some probes, like the one focused on Rajaratnam, rely on wiretaps. Others stem from a secret Securities and Exchange Commission data-mining project set up to pinpoint clusters of people who make similar well-timed stock investments.

I am sure there are individuals going home today wondering if their illicit activities will be, or already have been, detected.

Fraud driven by greed is a timeless activity made only more prevalent by an industry which has corrupted itself by diluting its regulatory oversight.

October 19, 2009 . . . deja vu all over again.

LD

Our financial regulators, both the SEC and FINRA, certainly failed American investors. The structural failures of these regulators have been highlighted by their own internal reviews authored by David Kotz for the SEC and Charles Bowsher for FINRA.

Over and above the structural failures of these regulators, both the SEC and FINRA have major image problems. What is at the core of those image problems? The following:

> A strong perception that their relationships with Wall Street are far too cozy. Additionally, Uncle Sam has gotten slammed for the depth of relationships and number of hires specifically from Goldman Sachs.

> A strong perception of a general lack of experience throughout these organizations.

Against these widely held perceptions, I am left dumbstruck by news of a very senior hire by the SEC. The SEC announced this morning the hiring of Adam Storch as Chief Operating Officer for its Enforcement Division. I do not know Adam Storch nor would I besmirch his capabilities. That said, for SEC Head Mary Schapiro and SEC Director of Enforcement Robert Khuzami to hire Mr. Storch as COO within this division raises serious questions that deserve to be addressed. What are those questions?

1. If the SEC is in need of experienced people, how does a 29 year old fit that bill?

2. If Uncle Sam in general has been tainted by a perceived cozy relationship with Goldman Sachs, how is it that one of the first key senior hires at the SEC comes from Goldman Sachs?

Bloomberg sheds light on Mr. Storch’s hiring in writing, SEC Said to Hire Goldman’s Storch for Enforcement Job:

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission hired Adam Storch, a 29-year-old former employee in Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s business intelligence unit, as the enforcement division’s first chief operating officer, according to people familiar with the decision.

The COO, who started Oct. 13, has “a great deal of background” in technology and managing processes and the pace of work, Robert Khuzami, head of enforcement, said yesterday in Washington. Storch, who worked since 2004 in a unit at Goldman Sachs that reviewed contracts and transactions for signs of fraud, will be charged with making the unit more efficient. Storch, reached by telephone at the SEC, declined to comment.

I would ask Mr. Khuzami when five years became generally accepted as ‘a great deal’ of experience. What has Mr. Storch done to distinguish himself? His experience includes:

Storch holds degrees in accounting and finance from the State University of New York at Buffalo and studied at New York University’s Leonard N. Stern School of Business. He has certifications in accounting, fraud examination and auditing.

Prior to joining Goldman Sachs, Storch was a senior analyst at accounting firm Deloitte & Touche and an intern at Neuberger Berman LLC, a New York-based asset management firm.

I could understand if Mr. Storch were hired as an examiner or perhaps even a senior examiner if he is particularly strong. But COO? Are you kidding?

A COO is not a rank and file examiner. A COO is one of the senior most individuals in any organization. I have a very hard time believing that Mr. Storch is the ABSOLUTE best candidate for this role. What does his hiring indicate about Mary Schapiro’s and Robert Khuzami’s understanding and appreciation of the SEC’s problems?

The question has been asked previously whether Mary Schapiro is the right person to run the SEC. With all due respect to Mr. Storch, his hiring should increase the intensity of those questioning Ms. Schapiro’s capabilities.

LD

ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe reports: President Obama, like any other President, has his fair share of critics. Even fourth-graders have noticed.

“Why do people hate you?”, a fourth-grade boy asked Obama at a town hall event in New Orleans today. “They’re supposed to love you. And God is love.”

“That’s what I’m talking about,” replied the President.

Here’s the video of the exchange, though the transcript is below if you’d prefer:

Um, what the hell was he talking about BEFORE the little boy asked his question? Wasn’t he saying, “It’s a man’s turn. Isn’t it? It’s a guy’s turn.” That’s what it sounded like to me, anyway…So, just what came BEFORE that?? Curious.

Obama continued his response to the child:

“First of all, I did get elected president, so not everybody hates me,” Obama noted, before adding, “What is true is if you were watching TV lately, it seems like everybody’s just getting mad all the time. And I — you know, I think that you’ve got to take it with a grain of salt. Some of it is just what’s called politics where, you know, once one party wins, then the other party kind of gets — feels like it needs to poke you a little bit to keep you on your toes.”

“And so you shouldn’t take it too seriously,” Obama told the boy. “And then, sometimes, as I said before, people just — I think they’re worried about their own lives. A lot of people are losing their jobs right now. A lot of people are losing their health care or they’ve lost their homes to foreclosure, and they’re feeling frustrated. And when you’re president of the United States, you know, you’ve got to deal with all of that.”

So, um, not to quibble or anything, but just when do you think you are going to get around to dealing with job loss, home loss, and losing health care? Hey, just asking:

“You get some of the credit when things go good. And when things are going tough, then, you know, you’re going to get some of the blame, and that’s part of the job,” he continued. “But, you know, I’m a pretty tough guy.”

“You’ve just got to keep on going, even when folks are criticizing you, because — as long as you know that you’re doing it for other people, all right?” Obama concluded.

The boy’s question was the last one the President fielded at his event at the University of New Orleans, his first trip to the city since being elected to the Oval Office.

Well, there is a good reason the child asked that question. While Obama did get elected, the latest Fox Poll shows that he wouldn’t if the election was held today, as this article highlights, Fox News Poll: 43 Percent Would Vote To Re-Elect President Obama:If the election were held today, 43 percent of American voters would back Barack Obama for president, according to a new Fox News poll.

Oh dear. I guess that’s some of the “blame” Obama is getting for not fulfilling his campaign promises, for starters, not to mention his continued constant campaigning instead of working thing he’s got going on. Here are the results of this poll:

In what may be the ultimate job rating, 43 percent of voters say that they would vote to re-elect President Obama if the 2012 election were held today, down from 52 percent six months ago, from April 22-23, 2009.

Obama’s job approval rating comes in at 49 percent this week. (Emphasis mine.) That’s down just one percentage point from late September, but it marks a new low approval for the president — and the first time the Fox News poll has measured his approval below 50 percent.

Moreover, the number of Americans saying they would vote to re-elect President Obama has dropped. If the election were held today the poll finds more voters say they would back someone else in the 2012 election than would back the president.

Despite winning the Nobel Peace Prize last Friday, the latest Fox News poll finds the president’s ratings on foreign issues are lower than his overall job ratings. All in all, 49 percent of Americans say they approve of the job President Obama is doing and 45 percent disapprove. His average approval for the term so far is 58 percent.

Yep, Obama’s approval numbers are below 50% for the first time at 49%. How about on some of the issues:

On Afghanistan, 41 percent of Americans say they approve of the job Obama is doing and 43 percent disapprove. For his handling of Iran, 44 percent approve and 43 percent disapprove.

On the president’s handling of the economy, voters are almost equally split: 48 percent approve and 49 percent disapprove. On health care, some 42 percent approve of the president’s performance and half disapprove, 50 percent.

Among Democrats, 78 percent say they would vote to re-elect President Obama, down from 87 percent in April. For 2008 Obama voters, 81 percent say they would vote to re-elect him — that’s a slight up tick from the 79 percent who said so previously.

Six in 10 Americans — 60 percent — think Obama is a strong and decisive leader.
And while 38 percent think President Obama is getting good advice from his advisors, a larger number — 45 percent — think he is “listening to the wrong people.” (Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from October 13 to October 14. The poll has a 3-point error margin.)

Like Rahm Emmanuel, or David Axelrod, or Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid? Yeah, I’d say he’s listening to the wrong people.

And about that whole Nobel Peace Prize thing:

Did He Deserve It?

Upon winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama said, “To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformational figures.” Most Americans agree with the president — 65 percent say he did not deserve to win, while 29 percent say he did.

Furthermore, a slim 54 percent majority of Democrats think Obama did deserve to win, while 38 percent disagree. For independents, 19 percent think he deserved it, while nearly three-quarters, 74 percent, say he did not. Among Republicans, almost all — 91 percent — say he did not deserve it.

When asked why the Nobel Committee gave the president the prize, about a third of Americans, 32 percent, say because he deserved it, while the largest number — 44 percent — think the committee hoped the prize would make Obama “think twice before using military force in the future.”

About that whole Nobel Peace Prize thing. Remember how we were all told the Committee Was unanimous in their decision to give it to Obama? Turns out that 3 out of 5 of them did NOT want to give it to him. Golly gee, I guess truth really DOES will out! Evidently, their reaction was the same as many of ours - he hasn’t DONE anything yet but speechify, for cryin’ out loud!

The poll also address how Congress was doing:

Most Americans are unhappy with Congress these days — 66 percent disapprove, including 45 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of independents and 84 percent of Republicans. Overall, less than one of four Americans, 24 percent, approve of the job Congress is doing.

Looking ahead to the 2010 Congressional election, for the first time this year the Republicans have the advantage: 42 percent of voters say they are more likely to back the Republicans to provide a check on President Obama’s power, while 38 percent say they would vote for the Democrat to help the president pass his policies.

Finally, in a rare example of bipartisan agreement, majorities of Democrats, 53 percent, Republicans, 78 percent, and Independents, 61 percent, agree the country is more divided these days. All in all, 64 percent of Americans think the country is more politically divided today — that’s more than twice the number who say it is not more divided, 31 percent.

Click here for the raw data.

What a bang-up job Obama has done in uniting us, just like he said he would. Blech. Can’t believe people fell for THAT line again, can you? Great - so glad there is one area that is truly bipartisan. Ahem.

And while President Obama is still feeling the love, the numbers of those who love him seem to be decreasing the more they open their eyes to see and their ears to hear. Such a shame they couldn’t muster that BEFORE the election, isn’t it? Now, his daily tracking poll continues to go down; Secretary Clinton’s approval numbers are higher than his (no big surprise to ME there); and his overall rating is at 49%. COngress doesn’t fare much better. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving guy, or more deserving Congress, could it?