Something Seems Wrong, Part 1

Let me state the obvious: If you were playing the stock market yesterday, you might have made a fortune. Feast during famine, famine during feast. It all depends on who you are. But a nearly 500-point gain in a day -- buy low, sell high -- might mean that Monday's thousand-aires are today's millionaires; and that today might be a mixed-market bag, with some cashing in their big gains. But maybe not.

I want to explore something here, something I do not really understand. I shall play it out this way: Today I am just going to post some screen captures from Opensecrets.org that show how much money both the McCain and the Obama campaigns have raised and spent, and how much cash they have on hand. I am also going to show you screen captures of both candidates' top donor lists, both in terms of cash given and the industries from which such cash donations come. I think you will see something interesting. But I won't give too much away. I simply want to learn whether readers see what I see.

Tomorrow, I want to write about a conversation I had this past summer with a man who is a top-tier banker in New York City. I will tell you neither the man's name nor the name of his bank; you will simply have to trust me. But I will tell you that he is a Democrat and a fervent supporter of Barack Obama. And I will also tell you that I've known this man for 40 years.

So, there you have it. My little outline. And as promised, here are the screen captures from Opensecrets.org.

First, the lists of both candidates' top contributors.

Barack Obama:



John McCain:


Second, the lists of the areas of industry that contributed to both candidates.

Barack Obama:


John McCain:


Third, here are graphs indicating how much each candidate has raised thus far, and how much has been spent. The graphs also list debts and cash on hand.

Barack Obama (8/31/08):


John McCain (8/31/08):


I will quickly note that Barack Obama is raising and spending money nearly 2 to 1 compared to John McCain. It is an amazing feat, especially when those of us raised on American politics the past 30 or so years recall hearing nothing but moans and groans regarding "those wealthy Republicans" and how much cash they spend to gain power. But this is a tiny point to make, really.

What patterns do you see in the fundraising data provided above? Doesn't it strike you as interesting that many of the major players in the current economic crisis have given huge sums of money to Barack Obama; and that even if those same bundled-up contributors gave cash to John McCain, their contributions were much smaller? Isn't it also interesting to see that Barack Obama has been given so much cash from the news media (and also Time-Warner) and the movie industry, whereas John McCain has not been given such sums by those who control and peddle information -- and misinformation. John McCain has been given $1.6 million by "Big Oil," but Barack Obama has received more than twice that from Big Publishing, $3.4 million, and more than 3 times that from Big Movie/TV, $5.1 million. Big Computer gave Barack Obama $4.2 million, while giving John McCain received just $1.5 million, or close to a third of what Barack Obama has received. Somehow, however, most Americans are under the impression that John McCain is in Big Oil's tank (forgive me) and that Barack Obama is somehow free of undue outside monies. How does that happen? Answer: Media propaganda. No?

Clearly the income disparities of both campaigns are stunning. The Obama campaign is not only well-greased, it is financed by many of the very groups who stand to gain -- and lose -- so much in the current market dynamics, and in the apparent bailout. But I want to leave you with this: There was something about my banker friend that suggested to me that the impending doom he was forecasting from his seat on the porch of the local general store was not all that scary -- for him. There was seemingly something he felt he could gain in this current financial morass. And surely there is something to gain for some Wall Street folks: illiquid assets bailed out at above market prices; properties bought up for a song and sold later when property values improve; credit protected by federal handouts, just to name a few. And then there's the market: a sudden drop means there are some great deals out there, and great deals were indeed made. Big time.

My banker friend was adamant that what would be best for him -- and his bank -- was a Barack Obama presidency.

Moral: For the life of me, I do not know how my Democratic friends can say A) that Democrats are better with "the economy"; B) that Democrats are not controlled by special interest groups; C) that Democrats are more trustworthy (and are "greed-free") in matters fiduciary; and D) that Republicans are the untrustworthy avaricious worms that have pulled the economy into the ground. But alas, alack, they do believe it.

My rather indelicate observation -- forgive me -- is that there has never been such a load of crap so widely and passionately embraced.

Peace.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Brown Spots On The Wall (Street)

John McCain has called it a crisis. Barack Obama called it a result of George W. Bush's failed policies, the product of "more of the same."

I wonder about the arithmetic of this current correction of the American economy, a correction replete with foreclosures, bankruptcies, take-overs and bail-outs. And I wonder about blame.

If there is the slightest hint of corruption to be found; if the tiniest shred of evidence pointed toward a culpable person or party, isn't it likely that great political theater would have already been staged, with seats sold out in a sudden rush of interest?

If the Republicans were to blame for the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae debacle, wouldn't it be political idiocy, even suicide, if the Democrats did not immediately call for subpoenas and indictments and hearings and special prosecutors? Why haven't they done so? Doesn't the DNC stand to gain from getting to the criminal bottom of it all, if, indeed, Bush and Company are culpable?

Or are Democrats afraid? But why? Why should Democrats fear when they confront the vast "culture of corruption" that is the Grand Ole Party? I should think that the very halls of Congress would be abuzz with news of hearings, of impeachments and convictions. But I am not hearing any such thing. Am I not listening closely enough? Why the relative silence; where's the great hue and cry for justice, for "hell to pay!"

Is the silence due to the fact that the two biggest contributions to political campaigns disbursed by Freddie Mac went to Democrats Chris Dodd and Barack Obama, respectively? Is it because the former head of Freddie Mac, Franklin Raines, who paid himself $20 million in 2003 essentially to destroy a financial sacred cow and then awarded himself another $25 million as a consolation prize, is one of Barack Obama's campaign advisors and was a big player in the Clinton Administration, serving as director of the US Office of Management and Budget? Or is this all a reach?

Or is the silence due to the fact that Joe Biden voted in favor of the 1999 legislation that arguably led to this great 'crisis,' while John McCain was 'absent' from the Senate at that time; and that Bill Clinton signed the deregulation bill into law, making it a key part of his Democratic legacy? Yes, Republican Phil Gramm, a former McCain campaign economic advisor, helped craft that controversial bill. But Democrats were also behind the bill. Beside, as already noted, the Obama campaign is getting economic advice from the man who led Freddie Mac into the abyss. If Gramm is McCain's liability, then Raines is Obama's liability as well.

I am not unaware that Republicans also received contributions from Freddie Mac, but the Republican connections to Freddie Mac do not seem quite as unbreakable as their Democratic Party counterparts'. I am also aware that everyone may stand to lose something here. But surely there is a party that stands to lose less and gain more, no? If so, why has that hand not yet been played? Or does it all amount to no more than a wash? Are we about to see more mud-flinging around Wall Street, flung solely as a distraction, even a palliative, keeping voters confused, detached or disinterested, and hence passive and careless?

Someone, I hope, can set me on the right path. I would very much like to understand the politics of this particular game -- and why the game is not being played for all it is worth.

Prediction: Whoever wins this particular game wins the election.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.