One of the most discouraging things about the last two years was seeing swing voters in focus groups, when asked what President Obama's economic strategy was, repeat different versions of "Well, I know he said we needed to save the banks. Beyond that, I'm not sure." When Obama in his first State of the Union gave a vigorous defense of bailing out the banks, saying he knew it about as popular as a root canal, and saying "I get it", it was very memorable to voters. But when his predictions about what would happen when the banks were stabilized -- they would start making loans to businesses, and businesses would start hiring -- didn't happen, and instead the banks gave themselves record breaking bonuses, voters turned on Obama fast. In exit polls on Nov. 2nd, when asked who was most to blame for the bad economy, voters by a wide margin said Wall St. was most to blame, and the voters who said that went Republican by a 14-point margin.
Obviously, saving the banks hasn't been the President's only economic strategy. The stimulus bill, while too small, was an important job creator/saver. Saving the American auto industry was an incredibly important thing to do. Health care reform was in part a long term economic strategy. The infrastructure bank idea is a great potential job creator. Extending unemployment insurance helps keep money in the economy. And all the tax cutting going on is clearly meant to have some stimulative effect, although how much is highly debatable.
However, there have certainly been times where Secretary Geithner, who has been the main driver of the economic strategy, seems to think and act as if helping the big banks and helping the economy amount to the same thing. The tepid reaction to the foreclosure crisis has sure felt that way -- apparently we can't freeze foreclosures or do much to help homeowners because it might "endanger" the banks. In fact, I would argue the exact opposite: that our number one economic strategy right now should be to shift money from the big banks to the real economy, to Main Street businesses and workers and consumers. The big banks are hoarding extraordinary amounts of money, and they are clearly not investing it in job creating businesses. They are speculating with it, they are trading with it, they are investing in complicated financial instruments that do nothing to create jobs- in fact, they are sucking capital out of the real economy that might actually create jobs. These massive financial conglomerates have way too much concentrated wealth and market power, and that is weakening the rest of the economy.
This is one reason why, as I wrote a couple of times last week, it is so important to write down the mortgages of homeowners who are underwater. Taking that money out of the bankers' hands and putting it in the hands of the hard pressed middle class would do more to stimulate the economy than any other thing the President could do right now. This is also why the Federal Reserve's new proposed rule, out last week, on swipe fees is so good. It would generally limit swipe fees to 12 cents per transaction. Right now the average is 44 cents, and with most small businesses it's quite a bit higher. If this rule is upheld, this is money that will go straight from the big banks' profit margins into the main street economy -- all told, probably a $15 billion boost going back to retailers, restaurant owners, taxi cab drivers, and hopefully consumers. $15 billion going from Wall Street, speculative economy into the real economy is a nice lift right now. This is why I have been working with retail business leaders and consumer groups to support this new regulation.
Unfortunately, not all Democrats see it this way. Tom Carper and Mark Warner tried to head off the amendment that made this regulation happen in the Senate, and have been lobbying the Federal Reserve against a strong regulation on the subject ever since they lost the legislative fight. And Barney Frank, who is a great liberal on social issues but spends way too much time with bank lobbyists, was whining on Friday how unfair the proposed rule was to the poor bankers.
Barney, you got this one wrong. Democrats should not be looking out for the bankers, we should be looking for every single opportunity we can to drain the Wall St. swamp. The big banks are hoarding money. They have way too much market power, and when their profits expand, they put that money into the speculative economy rather than the real economy that manufactures goods, sells products and services, and creates jobs. When we take a dollar away from them, and put it into the real economy, there is actually a multiplier effect as people on Main Street spend or invest the money in real products. When mortgages get written down, it helps the real economy. When swipe fees on credit or debit card transactions get lessened, it helps the real economy. If we instituted a transactions tax on every trade made on Wall St, and put that money into a jobs program, that would help the real economy.
The big banks are hoarding our money. Our best economic program right now is to shift money from the banks, and put it into the hands of consumers who might actually buy products and businesses who might actually hire more workers.
Who cares if you beat a team 7-3 with Randy Edsall, nothing would have happened in the game that would even encourage me to watch the entire game or care about the team. But if you hired Mike Leach and won 45-14 and I would have been glued to the TV the whole time and probably would have bought a bunch of merchandise because I was so excited. Winning isn’t enough, how you win is more important to fans. Why should we take time out of our daily lives to watch something that isn’t spectacular? Are you ADs and college presidents so thickheaded that you don’t see that?
Winning Cures All ills.
Once you get Leach in and get his offense flying high once again, people will forget the accusations against Leach; because most people already have. Anyone who actually looked into the evidence in Leach’s case would realize the entire situation was blown way out of proportion. And while Leach tries diligently to restore his reputation, which was torn down by Craig James and his buddies at ESPN, he gets publicly chastised for doing it.
At this point, no more negative publicity can possibly be generated around Leach, either Leach wins his case or he doesn’t, and that result is meaningless to any university anyway.
To all the Mike Leach haters out there:
You have to admit that his innovative offense was interesting, to say the least. It beats the hell out of all the run 3 yards and fall down offenses out there, and for every prolific passing offense in college football, Leach made them look pedestrian. Leach’s offenses put up numbers that were so spectacular they made many college football teams’ statistics look like they belonged to high school teams.
Historical Figures are Remembered because They Didn't Play It Safe
Everything about Mike Leach screams innovative and outside-the-box, however these are the same terms that scare away potential employers. Universities continually make the nice, safe, inside-the-box hire and have to start over within five years, if not sooner. Think about this for a second, take a look at history overall, the historical figures we remember are not the ones who played it safe or colored inside the lines, for instance: Abraham Lincoln, Christopher Columbus, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton , Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo, or Pablo Picasso. Each of them were innovative thinkers, none of them fell into the groove of old world belief is truth because it has always been considered to be.
This is not just a testament to what Leach’s innovative thinking can create, but a challenge to any conservation AD or University president out there, don’t allow yourself to be conventional. The safe horse is too slow to win the race, so why bet on the safe horse? In the end, who cares what others think of you? The winner is still the winner, even if the winner’s friends don’t like how they accomplished it. Anyone who’s ever accomplished anything did it their way. People who aren’t conventional are tough to beat, because they aren’t predictable. In a world of boring football, the prolific, gutsy, gun slinging trendsetter is king.
Why Acting Out of Cowardice Doesn't Bode Well For You
One good thing can come out of cowardice, you live to fight another day, or in this case you lose to win another day. When you make the safe choice, a hire that falls under the radar, it’s almost as if you are accepting mediocrity, and letting your fan base know, "We said we did, but we don't really care if you watch our team."
Somewhere along the line Athletic Directors started valuing their own job security over winning potential, which a-lack-there-of ends up getting them fired anyway. Athletic Director Kevin Anderson is the gutless fool who decided that stoking the fire that keeps the Maryland engine burning was just not safe, the fire could grow too hot.
It basically came down to, he felt Edsall was more enthusiastic about his ability to drive the Maryland program into the ground, and couldn't say no. If you're gonna ask Leach to butter up to you, in order to get a job, you must not like blowing out the competition all that much.
Anderson made it clear that he took input from the search committee and President Wallace D. Loh, but this decision to hire Edsall was his decision, meaning that Anderson’s fate is now linked with Edsall's. Pity, if I was betting all my money on a boxer in a heavyweight fight, I’d like to have something more to lean on than he’s enthusiastic about boxing. Do you want a precision gunslinger or a suck up cheerleader?
The safest thing an AD can do is swing big and go for the homerun, at least then if things didn’t work out they could walk out with their head held high knowing they didn’t do the gutless thing and make the safe hire, because they were afraid of what people might think of them.
The Real Losers in This Deal are Maryland Alumni and Maryland Fans
Former Maryland coach Ralph Friedgen went 9-4 last season behind a freshman of the year quarterback and was the ACC coach of the year. Fans were hoping that firing a coach who had shown real promise would benefit them because they would get a coach who could bring real excitement and a record of success. They we're given Randy Edsall. This has left many Maryland Alums livid and unwilling to contribute any money to a school that can't even invest in it's own success.
In Conclusion:
To any wise University President, Chancellor, or Athletic Director, don't make a move just because it is conventional. Winners take chances, winners are gutsy, and winners don't let tradition dictate what they will do. Leach has no downside, who doesn't have baggage? Don't be such a spineless wimp, because doing that will get you fired anyway.
Always put the fans first, because they are the ones who keep football going. Honestly, if you want those stands full, you better put something on that field that will make people demand a ticket, if not, we have better things to do.
For anyone doubting that Mike Leach is innocent, read my article showing the facts and videos that weren't shown on ESPN. After reading it, you'll see things differently.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/540633-the-mike-leach-firing-testimonies-and-videos-that-show-leachs-innocence
free rental agreement forms
Probably Bad <b>News</b>: Bank Robbery FAIL - Epic Fail Funny Videos and <b>...</b>
epic fail photos - Probably Bad News: Bank Robbery FAIL.
Did LeAnn Rimes get breast implants? « Entertainment
about this blog. The FOX411 Blog is your first call for celebrity and entertainment news. FOX411 brings you the latest scoops using FOX's unmatched reach in news, entertainment, TV and the Internet. Click on back now, ya hear? ...
Unemployment <b>news</b> roundup | Michigan Messenger
Though Congress finally managed to pass an extension of federal unemployment benefits during the lame duck session before Christmas, there are still many other.
No comments:
Post a Comment