Things I'd Change - Part I . . .

Sports have always been a part of my life. Not that I'm particularly good at any of them, I just enjoy the competition - watching and participating. Fortunately my children are all fairly athletic and so I've had ample opportunity to attend a lot of events, (and coach quite a few too), but I digress. Let me preface this by saying that I have not fully considered all possible unintended consequences (I do have a life ya' know). Anyway, if anyone with real authority were to ask here's a couple things I'd change;

Basketball - In football,  a player can have any number of penalties called on them during a game; holding, offsides, interference, etc. . If they had a tolerant coach, and teammates, multiple infractions could be incurred and yet they could still play from opening kick-off until final gun. So why are kicking players out of basketball games after committing  5 or 6 fouls? 

Perhaps because I'm a long-time Blazer fan and enjoy watching Greg Oden actually play I'm particularly sensitive to this seeming injustice. So,  I would eliminate the disqualification rule. I would replace it with the following; upon committing the 5th (or 6th) foul, any subsequent foul would be treated similarly to the defensive 3-second technical foul - free throws and possession of the ball. The coach would have to make a decision as to the advantage of leaving a player in a game knowing those were the consequences. It could make close games very interesting with different strategies being employed, as well.

Let's face it, we all know that certain NBA players are treated a bit more fairly than others (ahem,  attention Cavs fans, and you know who you are, do you really believe that LeBron can go nearly 3 and 1/2 quarters without committing a single foul?) Maybe this might level the playing field a bit . . .

Baseball - Okay, I know its sacrosanct to mess with the national pastime, but can we not agree that having "wild card" playoff teams and the winner of the All-Star game getting "Home field" advantage has improved the pro game?  My change is simple. I like to believe its the equivalent to the introduction of the three-point shot in basketball, in that it could really open the game up. So here goes - player hits a long fly ball - if he reaches base before it's caught, he's SAFE! I know you're thinking about it - hmmm . . .

Tennis - This one's easy. Toss out the antiquated, and somewhat stuffy, method of scoring. Nobody gets it anyway. Can you name three people who know the origin of it? Thought so. What if we simply said first one to 4 points wins a game. If it's tied at 3, then the first player to win two consecutive points wins the game. See - easy. I realize  "One - Zip" doesn't quite have the same lilt as "Fifteen - Love", but its a game for Pete's sake, get to the next serve!

That's all for now - please feel free to comment on changes you'd like to see as well. Perhaps we can start a groundswell. Don't they keep telling us that the game belongs to the fans?

Prescription . . .

So - apparently President Obama is meeting with his team of economic advisers this morning. (my invitation is perhaps lost in the mail). We can only hope the congressional leadership of both parties have been left out of the meeting. No offense intended but, if you're going to craft economic policy, leave the lawyers out of the room. 

If I may, allow me to dust off my degree in Economics and offer the following as possible prescriptions for what ails us; (none are necessarily original ideas, just ideas that make sense to me)

1) Bring back Glass-Steagall. This falls under the category of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". A result of reforms stemming from the Crash of '29 also known as the Banking Act of 1933, it was essentially the law or series of laws that separated Investment Banking from Commercial Banking. It worked pretty well until 1999 when a Republican  Congress and President Clinton, (yay- bipartisanship) repealed it. This paved the way for the creation of the so-called "Superbanks" such as Citigroup and a host of others and led directly to the "too big to fail" dilemma we now face. Sandy Weill, former head of Citigroup, actually has the pen that Pres. Clinton used to sign the repeal mounted on his wall. By separating commercial banking activities from investment banking activities we can restore a sense of stability to our financial system. Again, it worked pretty well for the previous 66 years, not so much the last 8. Think about it - have you heard of one, just one, Credit Union having difficulty currently. Nope. They lend money at a higher rate than they pay on deposits and make money - slowly.

2) Create RTC II - Back in the 1980s, the last time we were faced with such massive bank failures (they were called Savings & Loans back then) the Congress created the Resolution Trust Corporation, the RTC. It's purpose was to liquidate assets, usually real estate and mortgage loans, that were the assets of failed S&Ls acquired by the Office of Thrift Supervision after declaring an institution insolvent.  The RTC actually made money for the US Government. Why not create another such entity, the so-called "Bad Bank". It would essentially remove the toxic, now septic, assets off the balance sheets of the various banks that still hold them. The entity could acquire them through a reverse auction or other mechanism and then divest of them in a more methodical fashion, over time, without the concern that the institutions that currently hold them, have. 

3) Reinstate the "uptick" rule. John McCain was roundly chastised for suggesting during the recent Presidential campaign that SEC Chairman, Christopher Cox, resign or be fired. I can't recall a worse SEC head. His decision to rescind this rule, again a mechanism borne of the Great Depression, is quite frankly, galactically stupid.  The rule requires short sellers of stocks, those who sell without actually owning any shares (yes, you can do this), to wait until a buyer could be found to purchase the shares of a given stock on a higher  price than the previous trade, the uptick. By rescinding this rule it essentially removes a governor of sorts on a freefall, a piling on, in the shares of a company's stock. It paved the way to short stocks to zero or at least near zero and increased geometrically the ability of the unscrupulous to manipulate the markets. The lack of confidence in the market is a major hindrance to our overall recovery. The lack of ability to raise capital through the equities markets poses a severe long-term risk to our economy.

4) Eliminate FASB Statement 157 Mark to Market (effective Nov. 2007). -  too esoteric, but trust me, just eliminate it.

5) Eliminate Long-Term Capital Gains Taxes for 2 Years. The reality is that given the current state of real estate values and the fact the S&P 500 market index has a negative ten year rate of return there aren't many gains to be taxed, but where there are, it could unlock some capital to be redeployed in more productive means.

6) Allow IRA Funds to Purchase Real Estate.  It's a simple supply and demand issue. We have an over-supply of housing. Couple that with the trillions of dollars held in cash in qualified retirement plans, such as IRAs, it only makes sense to unlock that capital to create demand. We've already dipped our toe in the water a bit on this one, why not jump all the way in. IRA funds could be used to pay down principal on existing mortgages creating better debt to income ratios and thus greater ability to refinance at the current lower rates. It could help homeowners increase their equity and thus eliminate the dreaded Mortgage Insurance Premium. This would immediately put more disposable income in the hands of the populace as well, which has all sorts of economic stimulus benefits -without increasing the Federal Budget Deficit. It could allow those who want to have tangible assets as part of their retirement a mechanism to do so. 

All they had to do was ask . . .

Hope

Hope -

It's an interesting concept. For the optimist it is not just the glass being half full, it's that there are always more glasses. For the pessimist, not only is the glass half empty, but it's probably chipped too.

I did not vote for President Obama, but there are aspects to his character and bearing that I do find inspiring. As a child of the 60's I could not helped but be moved by the events of this day. I hope that each of my children, wherever they happened to have been today, paused to contemplate the magnitude of a peaceful transition of power to our first African-American President in a country where, during my lifetime, children of color were met at the doors of a schoolhouse by armed forces sent to block their admittance. Where the Civil Rights Act is not as old as I am.

Despite differences I may have with specific policies he may propose or enact (which may be fewer than many of you think), I believe we are a better country and a greater nation this day because of the events of this day. I pray for President Obama, his wonderful family, and the Hope of a brighter future for all.