Occupy the Supercommittee

Well they can’t ignore income inequality anymore.

Thank you Occupy Wall Street.

But despite the faux populist tone and understanding emanating from the White House, I’m not convinced President Obama or the rest of our politicians are getting the message.

If they were getting it, they wouldn’t be continuing to pursue policies that place the costs of our continuing economic crisis squarely on the backs of the 99 percent, while the 1 percent uses their political clout to avoid any inconvenience.

For example, the Obama administration has allowed California to cut hundreds of millions of dollars to Medi-Cal, which provides health care to the state’s poorest residents.

If the president’s party was getting it, the Democrats on the so-called Super Committee wouldn’t be pursuing a host of draconian cuts including $3 trillion in cuts to federal health care programs as part of a so-called “grand bargain,” along with some modest tax increases for the country’s wealthiest, you know “job creators,” who are just chomping at the bit to stop outsourcing jobs as soon as they cut yet another tax cut.

As for the Republicans, they’re maintaining the position that their corporate and Wall Street benefactors should have to pay fewer taxes, while the rest of us should get along with less.

I don’t know who these politicians think this bargaining is so grand for, certainly not the 99 percent.

They talk gamely about having “skin in the game” as though they’d be doing the suffering as a result of their proposed cuts. Meanwhile, the House members of the supercommittee did exceptionally well in their service during the third quarter, raking in nearly $372,000 in fundraising from the nation’s financial sector.

This disreputable bunch have turned what is supposed to be a serious democratic process into a demonstration of what our legislature has become – an auction where the government is for sale to the highest bidder, behind closed doors.

As the weather gets frostier in the nation’s capital, the Occupy movement might want to consider the supercommittee’s digs as someplace to get in out from out of the cold.

Around the Web: Can WAMU be the Blue Cross of Financial Reform?

During the debate over health care reform, the public was galvanized by the disclosure of  outrageous insurance rate increases by Blue Cross.

It was that public outrage that finally got the healthcare legislation passed over Republican opposition.

Now Senate backers of  a strong overhaul of the financial system hope that televised hearings on the details of the reckless lending, incompetent management and multiple regulatory failures that sank the nation’s largest savings and loan will fuel support for financial reform in the face of relentless opposition from Wall Street.

The hearings got underway Tuesday in the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, headed by Sen. Carl Levin,D-Michigan.

In strong contrast to hearings  held recently by the congressionally appointed committee to investigate the financial crisis, Levin’s opening hearing was tough, pointed and thorough. Levin said he intended for the hearings to serve as a case study for what happened at financial institutions during the meltdown. He compared WAMU’s selling and packaging of  high-risk option ARM and no-doc loans to dumping “pollutants into a river.”

Calling Washington Mutual’s former CEO Kerry Killinger “a forgotten villain of the financial crisis", Fortune’s Colin Barr sets the stage here. Business Week recounts the testimony here. CSPAN carried the hearings live they can be viewed here.

The star witnesses from WAMU were Killinger and former Chief Operating Officer Stephen Rotella. Killinger testified that WAMU was unfairly targeted by regulators because it not “too clubby to fail” as were larger financial institutions. Killinger insisted WAMU could have worked its way out of the crisis if regulators hadn’t eventually shut it down.

On Friday, we’ll hear from the regulators, who were well aware of WAMU’s questionable lending and securitization but continued to find that the savings and loan was financially sound.

Around the Web: On to Financial Reform

With the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership declaring historic victory on health care reform, the next big item could be fixing the troubled banking system.

It could make the battle over health care look like a walk in the park. The financial industry, Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats are all lined up to kill or weaken it.

They’ve already succeeded in getting Sen. Chris Dodd to weaken his reform proposal, which the Senate Banking Committee passed Monday on a 13 to 10 party line vote. Here’s the Atlantic’s take, including what Dodd had to say Monday.

Getting Dodd to soften his stance probably wasn’t that tough. He’s traditionally a staunch ally of Wall Street and only took a strong stance when it looked he was going to have to face angry voters. But then Dodd dropped out of the race, became a lame duck and returned to form as the financial industry’s best friend.

For example, Dodd has abandoned support for a strong independent financial consumer protection agency, instead placing it within the Federal Reserve, which has ignored consumers in the past even though it had authority to protect them. In National Journal’s Clive Crook’s assessment, Dodd’s proposal will enshrine “too big to fail” banks in law rather than fix the problem.

Now the full Senate will consider it. Here’s Barry Ritholtz’s analysis of what should be on the final bill.

Tea Party For Two

Is the Democratic Party obsolete?
That’s the question that keeps nagging me as I watch President Obama and the Democratic leadership fumble away their opportunities to fight for meaningful reform of health care and the financial system.
The president and congressional leaders consistently shy away from fighting for reforms they themselves propose, such as the public option or the consumer financial protection agency.

They obsess over whether someone will accuse them of partisanship, or whether they will spook the markets if they crack down on reckless profligate bankers. They appear to find any excuse to avoid pushing the kinds of fundamental of changes that would challenge the health care and financial industry.

I don’t think you can blame the Republicans, whatever their own faults. They oppose reform. They’re fighting Obama and his policies as a way to regain power. They’re pursuing that opposition determinedly, and they’re betting it will pave their way back to a majority. It’s not the Republicans’ fault if they set traps for the Democrats and the Democrats continually fall for them.

Members of the Democratic leadership have shown profiles in cowardice when it comes to fighting for any reforms opposed by the insurance or financial industries. In the latest display, House and Senate leaders are furiously trying to blame the other for the death of the public option, even though it’s supported by a majority of Americans and even 40 members of the U.S. Senate.

But the insurance companies have fought the public option, which would provide those forced to buy health insurance under reform an alternative to private insurance. So the Democratic leadership has shown determination to find a way to eliminate the provision without leaving their fingerprints on the corpse.

The same with financial reform, where the Democrat leadership has zigged and zagged but hasn't won the fight for strong independent consumer protection or meaningful regulation of the complex investments that blew up in the meltdown. Sen. Chris Dodd, the long-time friend of insurers and financial titans who serves as Senate Banking chair, flirted with a strong reform proposal when he was running in a tough reelection campaign. But he backed off after he decided to retire and now appears ready to resume his traditional role in service to the bankers’ lobby. As an industry publication recently noted, insurance companies will miss Chris Dodd.

The Democratic leadership don’t seem to stand for any strong principles.
The president and Democratic leaders pay only lip service to the deep anger in the country over the erosion of the middle class, and the bank bailout that pumped up Wall Street while leaving Main Street on life support. The Democrats fear that anger because they know that their own Wall Street-friendly policies have helped fuel the series of speculative bubbles that brought prosperity and then a crash that wiped out the financial security of millions of Americans.
The president and his party are banking that the economy will improve enough by later this year, and 2012, to blunt voters’ anger.
If it does, the Democrats will claim credit for setting the economy right without having unduly upset their contributors in the financial and insurance industries. Even better for the Democrats, they will be able to bolster their fundraising by showing how they hung tough against the call for stronger reforms.
The Democrats came into office promising not to “waste a crisis.” But their efforts to reform health care and the financial system and to put Americans back to work have shown a distinct lack of urgency.
Could there be another way?

Obama will face voters on the 100th anniversary of the last presidential election in which a third-party candidate beat a major party candidate. The third-party candidate was a former president, Teddy Roosevelt, running on the progressive Bull Moose ticket promising to bust up the powerful big corporations of the day, known as trusts. Roosevelt was angry that the president who followed him, Republican William Howard Taft, hadn’t followed in his activist political footsteps. The former president was not afraid to show his ire, calling on his followers to launch “a genuine and permanent moral awakening.”
Taft, for his part, favored a laissez-faire policy toward business and regulation that resonates with the era that we’ve been through. “A national government cannot create good times,” Taft said. “It cannot make the rain to fall, the sun to shine, or the crops to grow.” But by meddling, government could “prevent prosperity that might otherwise have taken place.”
Sound familiar?

Roosevelt lost the election to Woodrow Wilson, but he got more votes than hands-off Taft.
Today the tea party is rumbling on the right, threatening revolt against the Republicans. There’s already the beginnings of a coffee party. If the economy doesn’t cooperate with the Democrats, the tea party’s discontent could be just the beginning of the end of the two-party stranglehold on our government.

Strong Financial Consumer Protection Not Optional

While a key Democrat has been wobbling in his support for an agency to protect financial consumers, President Obama and members of his administration have recently come out strongly in support.

But will they fight for it in the face of relentless opposition from bank lobbyists, Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats?

The Obama administration’s abandonment of the public option in the health care debate provides a grim omen for the financial reform battle.

Some have compared the public option to the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Both enjoyed broad public support but have been fiercely opposed by the businesses they would challenge: insurance companies fought hard against the public option while financial institutions fiercely oppose the consumer protection agency.

Aside from industry opposition, the public option and the CFPA shared the potential to provide a shield for consumers against abuses.

At various times, the president also supported the public option. Today his spokesman said the public option just didn’t have the votes. But that assessment was something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. There’s little evidence that President Obama put much pressure on legislators in support of the public option, and his ambiguity in public didn’t help it, either.

After initially supporting the public option, the president signaled it was not a crucial aspect of health-care reform.

But the public option offered the only potential check on the insurance companies, which are about to get a glut of new customers forced to buy policies from them. Democrats are suggesting a tepid combination of subsidies and insurance cooperatives that won’t provide meaningful accountability for the insurance companies.

Now Republicans are digging in their heels in opposition to the CFPA, with the usual rhetoric about wasteful government bureaucracy. It’s nothing but a thinly disguised fundraising pitch to woo the financial industry back from Democrats. Chris Dodd, soon to be retired head of the Senate Banking Committee, has suggested the consumer protection function might co-exist within some other agency. That’s a very bad idea. Just look at how much consumer protection the Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and other agencies accomplished in the housing bubble and its aftermath.

If that’s not enough to convince you, look at the recent shenanigans by banks and credit card companies piling on new fees.

The New York Times reported this morning how banks are getting ever more aggressive in socking their customers with higher over-draft protection fees. Credit card companies, even in the face of new regulations, are finding new ways to gouge their customers, charging fees for paying off your card on time, or even charging fees for not using a card.

There’s nothing stopping the Treasury and the Fed from using their bully pulpits to rail against these continuing abuses now. But they don’t. They ignored warnings about predatory lending during the housing bubble and have shown no stomach for protecting consumers since the economic collapse.

Dodd is supposed to unveil his latest version of financial reform this week. Let President Obama and your senators know that you won’t be fooled by financial reform in name only. Whether President Obama is capable of staying the course we don’t know. But we do know we need a strong, independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

Bad Government

In his weekly address last Saturday, President Obama said, “What’s being tested here is not just our ability to solve this one problem, but our ability to solve any problem.” Obama’s speech was about health care reform, but his point goes to the heart of the debate underway in this country – a debate that the Tea Party movement has given a sharp edge.

American’s have lost their confidence in the basic institutions of our democracy. It’s not just the President’s rating that is down in the polls, it’s Congress’s, the United States Supreme Court, even the college system.

There is more than ample justification for this stark collapse of trust. As I wrote last summer, I believe it all begins with the crash of the Money Industry after years of deregulation by federal officials who, quite simply, sold out – and then showered billions of taxpayer dollars to save the speculators while the rest of the economy, along with millions of people’s jobs and savings, went into the tank. Even now, the Wall Street execs whose greed and speculation caused the crash continue to call the shots in D.C.

After that pitiful performance by our government, who can blame people for distrusting Washington’s plan to fix the health care system?

Lately I’ve been pondering two other disasters that might have been averted had government done its job.

An appendix (PDF) to the 2004 report of the 9/11 Commission describes in agonizing detail how our government was unable to mount a defense of the nation that day despite trillions of dollars spent on defense and the military in preceding years. That morning, there were only fourteen jet fighters guarding the country. Flight controllers couldn’t connect the dots as the multiple hijackings unfolded; FAA officials failed to follow procedures to communicate with the military; scrambled fighters were too far away and sent to the wrong locations; the military never even knew how many or which commercial airplanes were involved until all four were down. A fateful order from the White House to shoot down any commercial planes that refused to land never even reached the fighter pilots who by then were flying combat cover over the East Coast.

On that horrible morning, it was only when individuals took matters into their own hands – the passengers of United 93 who fought the terrorists as their plane headed for a strike on he nation’s capitol, or an FAA manager who ignored protocols and unilaterally ordered all planes in the air to land – that more lives were spared.

Or, consider the case of Amy Bishop, the University of Alabama professor who shot six colleagues a few weeks ago. As rendered by the New York Times, her profile now, after the deed, reads like the description of “angry loner” we have grown familiar with from previous mass murders, but no one ever connected the dots of her obviously deranged life. In 1986, she killed her brother but claimed it was an accident and got off, perhaps due to political connections; in 1993, she was questioned in connection with a pipe bomb sent to one of her college professors; in 2002, she punched a women in the head at a House of Pancakes for taking the last booster seat.

What to do, then, about such profound failures by government? Do we follow the suggestion of Glenn Beck, who over the weekend blamed progressivism – the philosophy of engaged government championed by Theodore Roosevelt – for our nation’s ills?

I’m not one of those people who is offended by the eruption of angry Tea Party organizations around the country. To the contrary, the TP’rs are raising questions, pointing out problems and demanding answers from elected officials – just what an active citizenry is supposed to do.

But I disagree with their premise, which is that government is responsible for all that is wrong with our country, and that the solution therefore is a castrated federal government or no federal government at all.

That’s stupid.

We need police. We need the military. We also need a cop on the corporate beat in the executive suites of Wall Street. And we need rules and regulations to prevent health insurance companies from ripping us off or condemning us to death.

When our government institutions fail us, as they have, through incompetence and corruption, the answer is not to get rid of government, but to make it work better. How to do that? Read my next column.

Sol Price, Capitalist Hero

In the pantheon of contemporary American capitalism, there are few living heroes. Now there is one fewer. Sol Price, the legendary retailer, unprecedented philanthropist, counselor to people and presidents alike, died last month at the age of 93. He was a mentor and a friend to many including myself, a modest man whose straightforward approach to his business and the nation’s could be epitomized by the question to which this web site is dedicated: “where’s our money?”

On Friday, more than a thousand friends of Sol Price packed a San Diego ballroom to mark his passing.

One of them was Jim Sinegal, who was just a kid when he met Sol while unloading a bunch of mattresses at FedMart, Sol’s first venture into retailing, back in the nineteen fifties in San Diego. Sinegal was there in 1976, when Sol and his son Robert pioneered the “big box” membership store. Its features are commonplace now, but back then, they were a revolution in retailing: the stores relied on word of mouth rather than paid advertising. Expenses were cut to the bone by building concrete warehouses and locating them where real estate was less costly. Hours were limited. Instead of tens of thousands of stocked items, you’d find only thousands. But they’d be top quality, and, because they were bought in bulk and overhead was so low, much cheaper for the consumer. And for a long time, the stores refused to accept credit cards – because Sol did not like the idea of his customers going into debt.

Sol always considered himself an agent of the consumer. “We tried to look at everything from the standpoint of, Is it really being honest with the customer?” Sol told Fortune Magazine in 2003. “If you recognize you’re really a fiduciary for the customer, you shouldn’t make too much money.”

They called the company the Price Club. I always found it fascinating that he was born with a last name so nearly eponymous with the savings ethic that marked his retail philosophy. Today, after a 1993 merger, the $71 billion company is known as Costco. It has 566 stores, with over 56 million members. Sinegal is its President.

(A note for those who consider invention the province of the young: Sol was 60 years old when he started the Price Club.)

Sam Walton, the founder of WalMart and later Sam’s Club (names he acknowledged cribbing from FedMart and Price Club), said, “I guess I’ve stolen – I actually prefer the word ‘borrowed’ - as many ideas from Sol Price as from anybody else in the business.” But in contrast to the WalMart approach, Price offered employees high wages, employment stability, full health care coverage and invited unions to represent store workers.

Sol’s honesty and integrity were the core of his being, and guided his conduct as a businessman. Sinegal told the story of how Price refused to set up restrooms separated by race in Texas. How he once persuaded a hosiery supplier to cut his wholesale price deeply upon the promise of volume sales, but when the volume failed to materialize, Sol repaid the wholesaler the difference, a gesture unheard of then – or now.  Or how he refused to lowball the owners of a bankrupt company forced to sell their assets. “Never kick a man when he is down,” Sol said.

“It is impossible to make him bigger in death than he was in life,” Sinegal said Friday.

Sol became famous around the world for his business acumen, but it was his philanthropy that distinguishes him from so many other ultra-rich.  “Sol told me, ‘we make money so we can give it away,’” recalled Sherry Bahrambeygui, a young, super-smart lawyer he recruited to help manage the Price family’s business and charitable endeavors.

Sol lived the quintessentially American rags to riches story, and I saw that background reflected both in his demeanor – he was direct, to the point, and would not tolerate flattery or prevarication – and in his careful, frugal approach to everything he did, from how he lived to his businesses and philanthropy.

The son of a labor organizer, Sol grew up during the Great Depression and decided to study law, graduating from University of Southern California Law School in 1938. During World War II, he practiced law by day, but spent his nights training maintenance workers to service engines at a San Diego airfield. Unlike most businessmen, who often whine about lawsuits and support efforts to roll back consumer protection laws, Sol was a strong supporter of the right to go to court. All of his actions were guided by his strong sense of what was just and fair.

Though his personal wealth was estimated at $500 million, he lived in a modest home, drove himself to work until he no longer could, used pencils rather than pens, and, I’m pretty sure, wore a Timex watch.

Sol instituted his most ambitious philanthropic project close to home. Working with local officials, Sol, his son Robert and a small staff operating out of his office in LaJolla revitalized the dilapidated City Heights section of San Diego. He, his family and their charities donated over $150 million to build schools, housing, a library, recreational facilities, a police station, and provide a host of family services to City Heights residents. No detail was too small to escape his attention; he was known to insist on the particular kind of shrubbery to be included in the landscaping. His work at City Heights confirmed his belief that the most efficient and effective way to provide health care to kids was through the school system – an approach that was briefly contained in the health care legislation now before Congress.

Another project arose from the loss of a grandson to cancer at age fifteen. The Aaron Price Fellows program enrolled promising high school students in a special curriculum that taught about government and civic involvement. One of its graduates, San Diego City Councilman Todd Gloria, joked on Friday that some might say a “ten pound bag of rice” was Sol’s legacy. Not so for the six hundred Price Fellows. “I would not be where I am today were it not for Sol Price,” Gloria said. When asked to identify themselves, dozens of Price Fellows in the audience stood up – a diverse group of young, smart, eager people who will be California’s next generation of leaders.

An unabashed Democrat and liberal, Sol supported many advocacy groups, from Public Citizen and the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C., to the Center for Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego, and the group I founded in 1985, Consumer Watchdog.

Asking Sol for money was nothing like anything I had ever experienced. At our first meeting, in the 1990s, I had barely said hello before he gruffly sent me away, with instructions to come back with an organization budget and a profit and loss statement. I was taken aback. “Non-profits aren’t supposed to make a profit,” I protested. He chuckled that chuckle that I quickly learned preceded a shaking of his head and then a short but tough lecture. “What happens if your expenses are greater than what you bring in?” he asked. “Why should I invest in something that might not be around?” I returned with the data, which we poured over, Sol all the while questioning my assumptions, my strategies, asking me where every penny went, forcing me to consider how we could do our work more effectively (even if it ended up costing more). Once he was satisfied with the plan, Sol became a major supporter.

After electricity deregulation turned into a costly scam in 2000 and Consumer Watchdog took a lead role in trying to protect Californians against a taxpayer bailout of the energy industry, Sol helped us raise money from people he knew all over the state. I recall one day asking for his views on various possible solutions to the crisis. He imparted some wisdom that clearly had served him well. “You don’t always have to have all the answers. Sometimes it’s important just to ask the right questions.”

Sol’s support for well-run non-profit groups was widely recognized. What was less well known is how he took care of the people he came in contact with. Sherry Bahrambeygui described Sol as having an ability to connect with individuals in a deeply personal way. I experienced it as an almost uncanny sixth sense. One day in the fall of 1997 I drove down to his office, intending to discuss a grant for Consumer Watchdog. But when I sat down, he said to me, “what about your own financial situation? What’s your plan for the future?” In truth I had been so absorbed in my work that I’d too often neglected those matters. What made him ask remains a mystery to me. But we then spent many hours together, me and the founder of Costco going through my own finances! I later learned that I was one of many to whom he had offered personal advice and assistance.

For years after that, I would visit him every month, sometimes with my family. The man who was brutally honest and laser-like when scrutinizing a balance sheet or a business proposal was also a witty storyteller who liked to talk politics and history with friends and family over dinner. His insights into human nature were entertaining and often eerily prescient. He knew everyone and enjoyed connecting people. Among those he introduced me to were his close friends Brian and Gerri Monaghan, who became my friends as well. On Friday, they whispered to me with a laugh that if Sol had been in attendance at his memorial he would have left after fifteen minutes – he was never comfortable being the center of public attention, much less adoration.

I saw Sol just a few weeks before he died. His wife Helen had passed the year before, and he seemed, for the first time, weary. He was distant and uncharacteristically quiet. Yet when I wondered aloud why people seemed to grow more conservative as they grow older, a twinkle came back into his eye and he said, “I think it’s because they sense their own mortality and become more fearful.” I saw no fear in his eyes. I will always be grateful that I had one last chance to thank him for all he had done.

There were many poignant moments at last Friday’s tribute – laughs, gasps at previously unheard anecdotes, and the occasional swiping away of tears as people recalled, publicly or privately, their own moments with Sol. But the time I choked up was at the very end, after Robert spoke about his mom and dad’s 78-year marriage, then thanked the crowd and left the podium. There was polite applause, and it seemed that it was time to go. But then something changed; the applause grew louder, and suddenly everyone was standing, and, facing the now-empty stage, clapping their hands together in a sustained thunder for many minutes – a last ovation for Sol.

In an age defined by forgettable billionaires who built little but monuments to their own narcissistic folly, Sol Price left a remarkable and enduring legacy. He changed corporate America’s relationship with consumers and the lives of the many thousands of people who knew him.

A Trifecta of Failure

The near calamity on Christmas Day capped a year - a decade - when the ability of our government to protect its people was tested and, when it counted most, failed.

As Maureen Dowd at the New York Times put it: “If we can’t catch a Nigerian with a powerful explosive powder in his oddly feminine-looking underpants and a syringe full of acid, a man whose own father had alerted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, a traveler whose ticket was paid for in cash and who didn’t check bags, whose visa renewal had been denied by the British, who had studied Arabic in Al Qaeda sanctuary Yemen, whose name was on a counterterrorism watch list, who can we catch?”

To that, I add: “If our elected representatives can’t overcome the Money Industry’s lobbyists and legislate a ban on speculation in derivatives, enact a cap on credit card interest rates and regulate the rating agencies after these evil-doers trashed our economy and after Congress saved them from bankruptcy by giving them trillions of taxpayer dollars, what can they do?”

Then there is health care reform, a seven decades-long fight for fairness and financial security that has ended up in an unprecedented gift to the very companies that are responsible for our ridiculously expensive and cruel system. “Congress is effectively making private insurers unnecessary, yet continuing to insist that we can’t do without them,” the New Yorker points out.

From any viewpoint, liberal or conservative, our government’s record over the last ten years is dismaying and alarming. First came 9/11, when the religious ideologues attacked our nation and we turned out to be defenseless against a bunch of amateurs even though the Pentagon, the intelligence agencies and the White House knew a catastrophic assault was in the works. It is an outrage that despite hundreds of trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on defense and weaponry, there were only a handful of fighter jets available to protect our homeland that day, and they were too late. Next came the free market ideologues who brought us the Mini-Depression of 2009 (We’re supposed to pretend it was a recession and that it's over but it wasn’t and it ain’t). There were plenty of warnings about the inevitable collapse of the Speculation Economy, but Congress, the White House and federal regulators all looked the other way.

What has been accomplished by the government’s efforts to protect us against foes foreign and domestic? After an almost unfathomably large expenditure of public resources by the government, not to mention considerable pain and suffering for the public, we seem to be right back to square one.

Which is of course why so many Americans have given up on health care reform.

The stakes are great for the Republic: once Americans lose confidence in government, Democracy itself is in danger. Restoring their trust will be the preeminent challenge of the next decade, which starts today.

Wall Street Gives Thanks

(Translated into English by Harvey Rosenfield)

November 22, 2009

Dear People of the Rest of the Country:

The holidays are here. Like you, we have all worked very hard during this difficult and trying year.  Now it’s time for all Americans to take a well-deserved few days off, chill out at your favorite Caribbean getaway, crack open a bottle (we like the 2006 Antinori Cab), gather around family and friends and yachts, and recognize how blessed we are for getting to “do God’s work,” as Master Blankfein says.

The Summer of Our Discontent

There’s been a lot of speculation that the Town Hall confrontations over health care reform have been generated by political operatives enlisted by politicians and other partisans who are in the pockets of the insurance and medical industries.