After a relatively quiet weekend, the papers are bursting with opinions, much like Mother Nature does in spring, when it sends daffodils and other delights bursting through the earth.  Of course, our material is still mired in the mud…We hear headlines about how Obama has invited the “guys” (Sgt. Crowley and Prof Gates ) over for a beer.  But that’s not the way I recall it…seems to me, toward the end of the press conference, Pres Obama said, as an aside, that Crowley had mentioned something about a beer at the WH.  Any deductions of what that seemed to suggest had Obama back-pedaling even further, although now he’s seen the light and is embracing the idea, even promoting it as his own.  The real kicker is the obscene words that flowed from Professor Gates:

• “I am pleased that he, too, is eager to use my experience as a teaching moment, and if meeting Sgt. Crowley for a beer with the president will further that end, then I would be happy to oblige,” Gates said in a statement on TheRoot.com, an Internet newsletter he edits.  (for Reuters)

So now you have Gates implying that Obama wants to use Gates’ experience as a teaching moment.  hmmm.  What do you think: teaching our young how NOT to challenge a law enforcment officer?  Maybe about how NOT to comment on a situation when you don’t have all the facts. hmmmm,  What could it be?  Sure, there will be extremes – but that is not this case, this instance, this moment

And is Sgt Crowley going to cave to social pressures and go “make nice” when he has been severly wronged?  Any such attempt to “make nice” would send a wrong signal to everyone who supports law enforcement organizations.  Wives, childlren, teachers, pastors, small business owners, etc.  We abide by the law and an officer’s authority becasue this is the basis of civility within our social structure.

On to healthcare. Great writeup in WSJ’s Notable &  Quotable with Clifford Asness, writing at stumblingontruth.com. And another great column “Dr. Obama’s Tonsillectomy”. Truth is, I can’t recall the government has ever taking anything, and converted it into a model of efficiency. Ever.  Feel free to correct me, but I don’t see it.

And lastly, as it’s bedtime here, I see Unions’ Labor Chiefs are doing better than the workers….hmmm.  and that’s a surprise to someone?  Oh yes, Let’s take one last minute to look at SEIU.  Verbatim from WSJ: Union officer benefits are also far more generous than anything dues-paying workers enjoy. Consider again the SEIU, probably the country’s most powerful union. Their officers and employees get a yearly 3% cost of living increase, but SEIU members get none; officers qualify for an early pension at 50 or after more than 30 years of service, but workers can’t retire early with a pension; officers qualifying for disabilitiy retirement after a year’s service, but workers need 10 years.  In the land of union retirement, some workers are more equal than others.

This case reminds me of the true story I am reading: “Why Just Her – Jeane Palfrey” (http://www.whyjusther.com/).  It documents a gross miscarriage of justice, much much worse than what Professor Gates experienced.  Unfortunately, unlike Prof Gate’s experience, no one hollered too much as Washington DC circled their wagons.

Now, with the uproar over Professor Gates’ experience, I can’t help but wonder if all the hoopla isn’t justified?  At first, I was disgusted by it (pleeeeez, it was just two people being emotionally frustrated with each other, with one side clearly having the upper hand – note to self, never argue with law enforcement officers over petty things).

But the supporters’ voices are getting their point across, aren’t they?   In Jeane Palfrey’s case, there was no huge outcry for the lone white woman the government threw its full weight upon.  Maybe if citizens had united for her, we could have made a difference.

The book is compelling – mostly because it seems inconceivable that the government could get away with its behavior.  I googled the author – he is considered a renegade attorney, and based on this book, that is probably justifiable.  He’s not one to play nice when you aren’t playing by the rules.

But Gates, and all the attention over something so trivial, it’s just a shame when you consider these same people could have voiced their concerns over much larger injustices.

Morgan Hosel yesterday brought to our attention the BoA vs taxpayer fiasco (see below).  I understand Bank of America benefited from implied government insurance, but never signed the paperwork.   And I understand the government (or customer) should benefit from taking the risk. However, if BoA didn’t sign the paperwork, that is the foolishness of the government, and the government loses.

And the Big G wants to run healthcare?

By Morgan Hosel for Motley Fool

Earlier this year, Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) received an additional slug of capital from taxpayers to digest its Merrill Lynch acquisition. In addition to $20 billion of TARP funds, the bank received what’s called a ring-fenced asset guarantee on 90% of a $118 billion pool of assets.

In layman’s terms, B of A took $118 billion of dodgy assets, stuck them in a separate pile, and asked taxpayers to cover 90% of the losses after the first $10 billion. In exchange, it was to issue Uncle Sam $4 billion in preferred stock yielding 8%, plus warrants worth 10% of that amount. A month earlier, Citigroup (NYSE: C) did a similar thing on a $306 billion pool of assets.

Now here’s where things get weird: The asset guarantee was never used. Consequently, B of A doesn’t want to pay the $4 billion-plus it agreed to compensate taxpayers with. Complicating matters, it claims it doesn’t have to pay simply because it never signed the papers back in January. How convenient.

There’s no question, however, that the deal was struck. B of A’s Jan. 16 press release clearly states that the government was providing “insurance for $118 billion in exposure,” and would “pay a premium of 3.4 percent of those assets for this program.” 

Regulators, feeling used and abused, are fighting for at least a portion of $4 billion as a premium for what’s essentially an insurance policy. This makes sense: There’s no doubt that B of A benefited handsomely from the guarantee, lowering its cost of capital and allaying fears that it was about to explode.

Even if taxpayers never paid out a penny, there’s an argument to make that they accepted a substantial risk, and should be compensated for it. That’s how the business of insurance works.

To quote another wonderful woman:

“Being powerful is like being a lady.
If you have to tell people, then you aren’t.”

Margaret Thatcher.

She also said:

“We want a society where people are free
to make choices, to make mistakes,
to be generous and compassionate.
This is what we mean by a moral society;
not a society where the state is responsible
for everything, and no one is responsible
for the state.”

I listened this morning  to GM’s CEO “customers, cars, & culture” priority…

Did anyone read Anna Schwawrtz’s brief interview in Time? http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1909115,00.html

She lived through crash of 1929,and is considered a financial matriarch. She co-authored with Nobel laureate Milton Friedman the highly acclaimed financial bible A Monetary History of the United States (Princeton University Press, 1963), and she’s worked as an economist with the National Bureau of Economic Research since 1941.  She now serves as an adjunct professor at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York.

Bottom line: Companies that fail should be allowed to fail. Let the market decide. Rescue plans provide no motivation for companies to “get it”.

After listening to “the new” General Motors this morning, I heartily agree.