Skip to content

Keyboard cat does Cheney


Credit card scam

This morning’s Times has an article about the anticipated response of the credit card companies to the bill that was recently passed reining in their more egregious practices. Among other things, the industry would have us believe that the folks who pay off their cards every month are somehow cheating:

“There will be one-size-fits-all pricing, and as a result, you’ll see the industry will be more egalitarian in terms of its revenue base,” said David Robertson, publisher of the Nilson Report, which tracks the credit card business.

People who routinely pay off their credit card balances have been enjoying the equivalent of a free ride, he said, because many have not had to pay an annual fee even as they collect points for air travel and other perks.

“Despite all the terrible things that have been said, you’re making out like a bandit,” he said. “That’s a third of credit card customers, 50 million people who have gotten a great deal.”

Robert Hammer, an industry consultant, said the legislation might have the broad effect of encouraging card issuers to become ever more reliant on fees from marginal customers as well as creditworthy cardholders — “deadbeats” in industry parlance, because they generate scant fee revenue.

“They aren’t charities. They have shareholders to report to,” he said, referring to banks and credit card companies. “Whatever is left in the model to work from, they will start to maneuver.”

So, they would have you believe that those that pay their bills every month are somehow cheating, depriving these companies of their god-given right to totally gouge each one of their customers.

What the Times article doesn’t mention is the indisputable fact that the credit card companies make out like bandits on those folks who pay their bill every month.

Ask any merchant whether the credit card companies make money on such a charge, and they’ll tell you that they most certainly do. For every dollar you charge the merchant gets anywhere from 96.5to 99 cents. The credit card company pockets the difference. Let’s assume an average of a 2% charge to the merchant. That works out to an annual return of 24%. Sure there are processing expenses, etc., but those are miniscule. Remember, right now we are talking about a slice of the credit card market for which the default rate is, by definition, zero. If you could package that piece of the credit card market into a “tranch” and securitize it, you’d be selling something worth real money.

By any definition, these customers provide a reasonable profit to these banks. The problem for the banks is that they aren’t able to realize obscene profits, the type of profits to which they have grown accustomed and to which they feel entitled. Never mind that the customers that generated those obscene profits in the past, the folks who overextended themselves, are now about to do for the credit card industry what subprime mortgages did for the banks.

UPDATE: I meant to mention that there is a broader effect to the fact that the banks take an upfront piece of every credit card transaction. Merchants can’t charge different prices for credit transactions versus cash. It’s not feasible, and in some cases in would run afoul of the Truth in Lending Act. Since so much business is done with credit or debit cards, the charge the banks imposed is, if economic laws hold, reflected in the price to the consumer. The net effect of this practice, therefore, is to push up prices. If the state were doing this, we’d call it a sales tax. But it’s not a tax, because we at least derive some benefit from our tax dollars. It’s more in the nature of tribute.


Recommended reading

On several occasions I have posted pieces by my old friend, Bob Roth. Bob’s pieces are usually longer and more thought out than my stuff. I flatter myself that the reason for that is the fact that Bob is retired, and has more time on his hands. We are all entitled to a little bit of self delusion.

Bob recently posted a very long article at the website for the Progressive Democrats of America. It’s an overview of our current financial situation: how we got here and where we should go. In my opinion Bob has it mostly right. Unfortunately, that means that Obama, particularly the Geithner side of Obama, has it mostly wrong, which means we may be in for some rough sledding ahead. That’s scary, because if Obama is perceived to have failed, the only alternative, to which people will inevitably turn, is the crazier than loon Republicans, who, if given power again, will proceed to irreparably destroy the economy, not to mention the planet.

If you have the time Bob’s article is well worth reading.


Olbermann missed something

I just got through watching Keith Olbermann attacking Michael Steele, who suggested that gay marriage was bad for small business. Olbermann pointed out that gay weddings would pump about $16 billion annually into the economy for photographers, restaurants, etc. You know, the same exorbitant expenses incurred by straight folks.

It’s clear Olbermann is not a lawyer, since he missed a big part of the stimulus package that gay weddings promise. For every two gay weddings there will eventually be close to one gay divorce, if our gay friends match the performance of us straights. That’s a whole lot of money for divorce lawyers. One thing I think we can all agree on is the pressing need to get more money into the pockets of lawyers. I certainly agree with that proposition. As a side benefit, if the institution of gay marriage really does destroy the institution of straight marriage, as our fundamentalist friends allege, that will create even more business for the lawyers as straight marriages collapse before the gay onslaught, creating new jobs in the field of divorce services.


Reflections on MoDo

Last year we learned that Maureen Dowd lets her assistants write her columns. Yesterday we learned that she lets her friends write them. Either that, or she is a plagiarist, take your pick.

Alisson Kilkenny of the Huffington Post suggests that all this is a kind of subconscious plea for help on Dowd’s part; a plea to be relieved of a job for which she is unfit. Kilkenny suggests that Josh Marshall, who Dowd (or her friend) plagiarized, should replace Dowd on the Times’ op-ed page.

I can understand Kilkenny’s argument, and I sympathize to a certain extent. But really, this is definitely not a good idea. Not everyone can survive the experience of writing for the NY Times with his or her brain intact. Sure, there are the outliers like Paul Krugman, Frank Rich and Bob Herbert (Hebert?), but consider Dowd herself, who was at one time a competent reporter until her editors decided that she had opinions that should at all costs be shared with the rest of us. It’s been many years since that transition took place, and some of us are still trying to figure out exactly what those opinions are. We know that she is ever so clever with the put down, that her inability to find a husband has something to do with the defects of all men everywhere, and that she did not act inappropriately at Barneys that time, but as to whether she has any principles or believes in anything, well the jury is still out.

But it’s not just MoDo. Look at Bill Kristol. Well, don’t look at him. Just think about him. No, that’s even worse. He wrote for the Times for a year (or was it longer? It certainly seemed longer). His first column was factually challenged. as was nearly every column thereafter. Wait, Kristol doesn’t prove my point at all. He had no brain to keep intact, since his fact free meanderings were totally consistent with his performance prior to his stint at the Times.

Well, then, consider David Brooks. He still writes for the Times, right? He’s the guy who presumes to channel and eulogize the mindset of the “real” America, while preferring to live securely within the beltway. It’s not his fault if he gets his red state/blue state facts all wrong. There’s only so many times you can hit the bulls-eye when you insist on shooting blindfolded. Surely he must have done something to establish his status as a perceptive cultural observer in order to earn the column in which he belies that reputation on a regular basis. I’m sure he must have, but like him, I’m too lazy to fact check.

So, maybe I haven’t proven my point. Maybe it’s just garbage in, garbage out. But no matter, I invoke my own privilege as a two bit pundit to bravely assert and let the facts catch up if they can. And I continue to insist that we should let Maureen stay where she is, cry for help be damned.

As for Josh, he’s fine where he is. Besides, given Dowd’s tendencies to phone it in, his work will probably be finding its way onto the op-ed page with regularity, if not with attribution.


Propaganda for Bush’s eyes only

This morning Frank Rich mentioned the fact that Donald Rumsfeld had larded his daily secret reports to George Bush with biblical quotes. The information comes from an article in GQ Magazine written by Robert Draper:

Draper reports that Rumsfeld’s monomaniacal determination to protect his Pentagon turf led him to hobble and antagonize America’s most willing allies in Iraq, Britain and Australia, and even to undermine his own soldiers. But Draper’s biggest find is a collection of daily cover sheets that Rumsfeld approved for the Secretary of Defense Worldwide Intelligence Update, a highly classified digest prepared for a tiny audience, including the president, and often delivered by hand to the White House by the defense secretary himself. These cover sheets greeted Bush each day with triumphal color photos of the war headlined by biblical quotations. GQ is posting 11 of them, and they are seriously creepy.

Take the one dated April 3, 2003, two weeks into the invasion, just as Shock and Awe hit its first potholes. Two days earlier, on April 1, a panicky Pentagon had begun spreading its hyped, fictional account of the rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch to distract from troubling news of setbacks. On April 2, Gen. Joseph Hoar, the commander in chief of the United States Central Command from 1991-94, had declared on the Times Op-Ed page that Rumsfeld had sent too few troops to Iraq. And so the Worldwide Intelligence Update for April 3 bullied Bush with Joshua 1:9: “Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go.” (Including, as it happened, into a quagmire.)

That particular portion of Rich’s column provoked a strong reaction, but you have to see the accompanying photos to get the full, sickening effect. You can view a slideshow here (via Firedoglake)

Call me a cynic, but I refuse to believe that Bush is religious in the conventional sense of the world. The man is a sociopath. What this pitch to religiosity did, in Bush’s case, was reinforce his belief in his own infallibility and in the righteousness of anything that he chose to do. If God was with him, after all, who could be against him. Or, at least, why listen to anyone who was against him. For Bush, God “exists” only to affirm Bush. Rumsfeld apparently played him like a violin. It’s truly scary to think Rumsfeld and Cheney, Bush’s very intelligent fellow sociopaths, played their intellectual inferior like a violin.

Rich is right, by the way. We can’t turn the page on the Bush presidency. It’s not a book. It’s an infected wound. We either drain the pus, or die from the infection.


A Challenger for Dodd

It’s hard to decide what to make of this:

Merrick posted another video, which he’s since taken down. The old video was here. I’m not sure the two were much different. His website is here.

Oddly enough, we have at least two things in common. We both grew up in Hartford with single Moms (at least mine was single-widowed-for most of my life) and ended up moving to Southeastern Connecticut. We also both became lawyers, though Merrick had the good sense to get out of the practice of law.

As our Town Chairman, Betsy Moukawsher remarked to me, this sort of explains why Merrick has been evasive about running for Town Council, which we’ve been urging him to do. He has bigger fish to fry.

Merrick is on our town committee. I first met him several years ago, when I got the distinct impression that he was interested in running for the House seat that Joe Courtney now holds. He backed off, for whatever reason. That seat is now beyond the reach of any Democrat, so I guess if you’re a Southeastern Connecticut Democrat with lofty ambitions of a federal kind, Dodd is as good a target as any.

Merrick is, at least from my observation, a serious guy, and I would have thought he’s not one for quixotic endeavors. There’s no doubt that Dodd is a problem, but I doubt that anyone but a big gun can take him down on the Democratic side. I don’t know if Merrick can self fund a campaign, but if he can’t it’s hard to see that he’ll be able to raise much money. Even Simmons has had a problem raising cash, so the smart money must still be on Dodd, though I wouldn’t want to bet my life savings on him.

Getting back to Merrick, it’s hard to see how he wins a Democratic primary. If Dodd can’t bring his numbers up it is to be hoped that he will step aside and become ambassador to Ireland or something, in which case Blumenthal will probably step in. Merrick would need feet on the ground to win a primary; he probably won’t get 15% of the convention vote, so he’ll need to petition his way on. That means dedicated people, like the people that Lamont had working for him and I don’t see that there’s anything in Merrick’s message that is going to motivate those people. I don’t think that many hard core Democrats will be interested in taking part in a campaign that will, of necessity, involve nothing but attacks on Dodd, weakening him in the general election after he wins the primary, should Merrick qualify. This is not a Lieberman situation-Dodd has made some mistakes, but he hasn’t betrayed the party or his constituents.

Anyway, this is interesting, and who knows, since Merrick is from this neck of the woods, it might bring Dodd out here to talk to us yokels that he left back in 1980.


A loss for Groton

Now that Barbara Tarbox, Groton’s estimable Town Clerk, has made her intentions to retire official (I’ve known for a while of her intentions), I feel I can pay tribute to her on the pages of this humble blog

It is difficult to imagine how poorly the town would operate without a good town clerk. Besides the day part of the job (managing the land records, overseeing elections, etc.) there is the much more difficult part of the job where I have had most of my contacts with Barbara. That is not to imply that I have made her job more difficult, though I won’t say I haven’t. That is to say that there are very few nights when her presence isn’t necessary at a meeting of some sort, be it Town Council, RTM, or one of the commissions. I’ve been a member of (and been voted off of) every elected body in town. Barbara is there for almost every town council meeting and almost every RTM meeting. She is a woman of infinite patience. Not every member of every elected body is blessed with the gift of above average, or even average, intelligence. They often propose to do very silly things. Barbara is inevitably a voice of reason, which she backs up with a thorough knowledge of the Town Charter and the rules of procedure. She has, in her time, often deftly nudged the rowboat of town (compare: ship of state) away from the shoals of stupidity toward the placid waters of reason.

Besides my disastrous tenures in various elective positions, I have been on two charter commissions, the first of which had a high percentage of low wattage individuals. Barbara attended all the meetings, taking care of the record keeping, helping us with the rules, and steering us away from those ever present shoals. Barbara has the ability to advocate for a position without seeming to do so. I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say that folks from both sides of the aisle hold her in high regard.

Besides being a great town clerk, she’s a great person, which I assume she’ll continue to be even after she’s not town clerk anymore. She’s a loyal Democrat and a regular at our Drinking Liberally meetings, though she does, in fact, not drink all that liberally. Nobody’s perfect, however, and sad to say that despite the fact that she hasn’t got that much time on her hands, she wastes some of it reading this blog.

Barbara will be hard to replace. The job requires a rare combination of talents, which Barbara has in spades. If there’s anyone out there with good organizational skills, boundless patience, and excellent judgment there’s a job opening for you in Groton.


Friday Night Music-A Tribute to a Fine Institution

A few weeks ago I shared my grief at the prospect of the imminent closing of the Norwich YMCA. Today, the final nail was driven in the coffin as news came that the Hail Mary fundraiser to keep it open feel far short of its goal. So the Y will remain closed, and the pool I swam in every day will remain empty. That is a particular shame, since this area has a dearth of indoor pools, and the pool at the Norwich Y was a good one.

What better way to bid the Y good-bye then to showcase this tribute to the many opportunities that the Y affords, particularly our big city Ys. I’ve had to break a rule here (definitely lip-synched) in service to a higher cause. What’s particularly great about this video is that the band perfectly symbolizes the Y and its mission, flaunting the racial and occupational (not to mention other forms of) diversity of those the Y serves. This song, as everyone knows, has become a standard at ballparks everywhere, certainly generating more enthusiasm than Take Me Out to the Ballgame or God Bless America (can’t someone stop that hideous post 9/11 practice?).

Anyway, one final tribute to the Norwich Y, before it becomes just a distant memory.


Setting the terms of the debate

One of my pet peeves is the fact that even people who favor abortion rights have allowed the anti-abortion crowd to call themselves “pro-life”. Those who favor abortion rights, rather than just insisting on the term “anti-abortion” have simply opted for calling themselves pro-choice. In my own humble opinion, this has meant that the anti-abortion crowd (which happens to be distinctly anti-life on issues like the death penalty, war generally, and torture) has been allowed to claim the rhetorical high ground. After all, how many people are willing to consider themselves “anti-life”. This widely accepted nomenclature allows pollsters to frame questions like this:

With respect to the abortion issue, do you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?

Assuming a representative sample, what percentage of the respondents comes down as “pro-life” out of sheer ignorance. I consider myself pro-life, though I would know well enough what they are getting at in this question. This is not an isolated case. I wrote a couple of years ago about an exit poll question to which I was asked to respond that implied that conservatives had a lock on moral values.

The above poll question yielded a 51% anti-abortion response rate, while a somewhat more neutrally worded question:

Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal under all circumstances.

yielded a response rate of 76% who feel that abortion should be legal under any or certain circumstances, with the extremes (legal “under any” and “illegal under all”) polling about even.

The right is usually wrong on the issues, but they have read their Orwell, and are quite adept at distorting language to suit their ends. From pro-life, to ethnic cleansing to enhanced interrogation techniques, etc., they know how to turn a phrase, and too many otherwise reasonable people adopt their phraseology.