I Like Ben Stein's Thinking on This One...

September 28, 2008

Everybody’s Business

In Financial Food Chains, Little Guys Can’t Win

By BEN STEIN

IMAGINE, if you will, that a man who had much to do with creating the present credit crisis now says he is the man to fix this giant problem, and that his work is so important that he will need a trillion dollars or so of your money. Then add that this man thinks he is so indispensable that he wants Congress to forbid any judicial or administrative questioning of anything he does with your dollars.

You might think of a latter-day Lenin or Fidel Castro, but you would be far afield. Instead, you should be thinking of Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and the rapidly disintegrating United States of America, right here and now.

But I am getting ahead of myself. First, I am furious at what the traders, speculators, hedge funds and the government have done to everyone who is saving and investing for retirement and future security. Millions of us did nothing wrong, according to the accepted wisdom of the age. We saved. We put a large part of our money into the stock market, as we were urged to do. Because the market wasn’t at ridiculously high levels, it seemed prudent to invest in broad indexes, foreign indexes and small- and large-cap indexes.

Now we have had the rug pulled out from under us. Our retirements have been put into severe jeopardy. The “earnings” part of those price-to-earnings ratios turns out to have been fiction for some financial companies, which normally account for a big part of total corporate earnings. In fact, earnings of giant finance players were often wildly negative, creating a situation rarely seen since the Great Depression, when the aggregate earnings of the Dow 30 were negative.

The current negativity occurred because of wild, casino-type operations of big finance players, creating liabilities way beyond anything we could have reasonably expected. This looks a lot like theft on a spectacular scale — of our wallets, our peace of mind, our futures.

Second, according to what I hear from my betters in the world of finance, the most serious problems are not with the bundles of subprime mortgages themselves — a large but not lethal quantum as far as I can tell — but with derivatives contracts tied to subprime and other dicey debt. These contracts are superficially an attempt to “insure” against risks of default, hence the name “credit-default swaps.” In fact, they are an immense wager — which anyone with lots of money or borrowing ability can enter — about how mortgage-backed bonds, leveraged loan bonds, student loan bonds, credit card bonds and the like will perform.

These wagers entail amounts many times larger than the total of subprime loans. In fact, there are roughly $62 trillion in credit-default swap derivatives out there, compared with about $1 trillion of subprime mortgages. These derivatives are “weapons of financial mass destruction,” in the prophetic words of Warren E. Buffett. (Apparently believing that the worst is over, at least for one big investment bank, Mr. Buffett is now investing in Goldman Sachs.)

The swaps market has been unregulated. It has been just a lot of people making bets with one another. Some of them made incredibly fortunate payoff wagers against the mortgage bonds, using credit-default swaps as their wagering vehicle. I am not sure who the big winners are, but they are out there, and the gains were big enough to cripple the part of Wall Street on the losing side of the bets.

Almost no one (except Mr. Buffett) saw this coming, at least not on this scale. But let’s get back to the man of the hour. Why didn’t Mr. Paulson, the Treasury secretary, see it? He was once the head of Goldman Sachs, an immense player in the swaps world. Didn’t people at Treasury have a clue? If they didn’t, what was going on in their heads? If they did, why didn’t they do something about it a year ago, when saving the world would have been a lot cheaper?

If Mr. Paulson and Ben S. Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, didn’t see this train coming, what else have they missed? What other freight train is barreling down the track at us?

All of this would be bad enough. But by far the most terrifying item I read in my morning paper last week was this: Mr. Paulson demanded that Congress forbid judicial review of his decisions on use of the money in the mortgage bailout. This would amount to an abrogation of the Constitution. Not only would his decisions be sacrosanct and above the law, but so would the actions of his pals in the banking world in connection with this bailout.

The people whose conduct got us into this catastrophe have not only taken our money, hopes and peace of mind, but they apparently also want a trillion or so more dollars to put into their Wall Street Buddy System Fund. This may be the most dangerous attack on the law in my lifetime. What anarchists even dared consider this plan? Thank heaven that minds more devoted to the Constitution on Capitol Hill are questioning this shocking request.

By the way, if we are actually thinking about tossing the Constitution out the window, why not simply annul these credit-default swap contracts? With that done, the incomprehensibly large liability of the banks would cease, and we wouldn’t need this staggering bailout. Shouldn’t we consider making the speculators pay some of the price?

WE have survived housing-price corrections before. Why is this one causing so much anguish? It must be the side bets, the credit-default swap bets, multiplying the effect of the housing downturn many times over. Maybe we should just get rid of these exotic bets and start again without them. “Insurance” on market moves is always a bad idea, because it does not tamp down market disruptions but instead greatly magnifies them — as in the disastrous effect of “portfolio insurance” in the 1987 crash.

Then there was Mr. Paulson’s insistence that there be no compensation caps for executives of companies being bailed out by the factory workers, the farmers, the schoolteachers and the medical doctors. He told a skeptical Congress on Tuesday that if these caps were put into place, bank executives simply wouldn’t participate in the bailout or sell us suckers their debts. Fine with me. If the banks are in good enough shape so that petulant executives can simply opt out rather than live on a few million a year, maybe we don’t need the bailout at all. Maybe we would be better off if those executives simply bailed out and were replaced by people with more sense and more patriotism.

One final little thought bubbles into my mind: Maybe the bailout should not be of the banks at all, but of homeowners themselves. Maybe if we make the government the buyer of last resort of homes, we will stabilize the markets, stabilize the debt associated with the markets and take the gain out of the credit-default swaps for the speculators. Yes, price would be a huge issue, but so it is for Mr. Paulson’s plan for buying debt from banks.

Why not? We do it for farmers. Why not for the individual homeowner? Oh, right. Because Treasury secretaries don’t know any of those people.

Ben Stein is a lawyer, writer, actor and economist. E-mail: ebiz@nytimes.com.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

Meanwhile, Back at the Ranch...

---

September 27, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

Palin’s Words Raise Red Flags

By BOB HERBERT

The country is understandably focused on the financial crisis. But there is another serious issue in front of us that is not getting nearly enough attention, and that’s whether Sarah Palin is qualified to be vice president — or, if the situation were to arise, president of the United States.

History has shown again and again that a vice president must be ready to assume command of the ship of state on a moment’s notice. But Ms. Palin has given no indication yet that she is capable of handling the monumental responsibilities of the presidency if she were called upon to do so.

In fact, the opposite is the case. We know that there are some parts of Alaska from which, if the day is clear and your eyesight is good, you can actually see Russia. But the infantile repetition of this bit of trivia as some kind of foreign policy bona fide for a vice presidential candidate should give us pause.

The McCain campaign has done its bizarre best to shield Ms. Palin from any sustained media examination of her readiness for the highest offices in the land, and no wonder. She has been an embarrassment in interviews.

But the idea that the voters of the United States might install someone in the vice president’s office who is too unprepared or too intellectually insecure to appear on, say, “Meet the Press” or “Face the Nation” is mind-boggling.

The alarm bells should be clanging and warning lights flashing. You wouldn’t put an unqualified pilot in the cockpit of a jetliner. The potential for catastrophe is far, far greater with an unqualified president.

The United States has been lucky in terms of the qualifications of the vice presidents who have had to step in over the last several decades for presidents who either died or, in Richard Nixon’s case, were forced to leave office. Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson became extraordinary presidents in their own right. Gerald Ford successfully guided the nation through the immediate aftermath of one of the most traumatic political crises in its history.

For those who think Sarah Palin is in that league, there is no problem. But her unscripted public appearances would lead most honest observers to think otherwise. When asked again this week about her puerile linkage of foreign policy proficiency and Alaska’s proximity to Russia, this time by Katie Couric of CBS News, here is what Ms. Palin said she meant:

“That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land — boundary that we have with — Canada.”

She went on, but lost her way midsentence: “It’s funny that a comment like that was kind of made to — cari — I don’t know, you know? Reporters ...”

Ms. Couric said, “Mocked?”

“Yeah, mocked,” said Ms. Palin. “I guess that’s the word. Yeah.”

It is not just painful, but frightening to watch someone who could become the vice president of the United States stumbling around like this in an interview.

Ms. Couric asked Ms. Palin to explain how Alaska’s proximity to Russia “enhances your foreign policy credentials.”

“Well, it certainly does,” Ms. Palin replied, “because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there—”

Gently interrupting, Ms. Couric asked, “Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?”

“We have trade missions back and forth,” said Ms. Palin. “We do. It’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to our state.”

It was surreal, the kind of performance that would generate a hearty laugh if it were part of a Monty Python sketch. But this is real life, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. As Ms. Palin was fumbling her way through the Couric interview, the largest bank failure in the history of the United States, the collapse of Washington Mutual, was occurring.

The press has an obligation to hammer away at Ms. Palin’s qualifications. If it turns out that she has just had a few bad interviews because she was nervous or whatever, additional scrutiny will serve her well.

If, on the other hand, it becomes clear that her performance, so far, is an accurate reflection of her qualifications, it would behoove John McCain and the Republican Party to put the country first — as Mr. McCain loves to say — and find a replacement for Ms. Palin on the ticket.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

LA Times Editorial -- Bush's Arrogance

Editorial

Bush the arrogant

President Bush's latest permutation of crisis management is the last straw. But who best to roll back the excesses?

September 28, 2008

As the Bush administration attempts to stabilize the nation's economy, we are witness to the final chapter of a period of perverse and dishonest leadership that has used its own crises to justify the expansion of its own power. This was a president who came to office on promises of modesty -- who championed a "humble nation," scorned nation building and promised a more limited role for government in the lives of its citizens. Then he presided over a six-year attempt to tear down and rebuild the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq, and now has embarked on the most profound expansion of the federal government's role in the private economy since the Depression.

In both cases, the pattern is the same. Ineptitude led to crisis; crisis then became the argument for the radical expansion of executive power. The administration insisted that it exercise its new authority with a minimum of scrutiny by Congress, the courts or the public.

In the so-called war on terror, that has meant the abdication of our most basic American principles. We have forfeited privacy and honor -- the administration has monitored phones and e-mails without warrants and has secreted prisoners in foreign lands, arguing that they deserved none of our protections even while in our custody. As a nation, we have stooped to torture (while debating the meaning of the word) and refused to recognize one of our most basic Anglo-American notions, the principle of habeas corpus (thankfully, the Supreme Court, seven of whose members are Republicans, drew the line at that abomination). We have held prisoners in detention without trial, without charge, without end. In so doing, we have antagonized the world and debased America's moral authority to lead.

The same administration responsible for these catastrophes has over the last month nationalized the largest source of funding for mortgages and the largest insurance company on the planet. And it proposed to intervene even more dramatically in the nation's economy by having the Treasury Department -- with no court, congressional or public oversight -- relieve financial institutions of the troubled mortgages and related securities that have locked up the lending system.

There is no doubt about the depth and range of the crisis that provokes these calls for government action. The gyrations of the stock market have been dismaying, and the threat to the country's financial institutions -- and everyone who borrows from or invests in them -- is real. Still, the audacity of this administration demanding expanded powers and curtailed accountability is a wonder to behold. The bitter irony is that this crisis warrants dramatic intervention, but President Bush's record makes him difficult to trust even when he's right.

These troubles are about more than a president who is unfaithful to his word. Bush has transformed the balance of power in our government. We are seeing the erection of an imperial presidency, immune from oversight when it fights terrorists and when it rescues banks.

Politically, these developments raise two questions: Which candidate to succeed Bush benefits most by the events of recent weeks? And which candidate, if either, would have the strength to roll back these expansions of presidential power if elected?

To the first question, the answer seems to be Barack Obama, though only modestly. Obama's poll numbers have inched up in recent days as voters have taken stock of a frighteningly complex economic meltdown and been left to wonder what to think of John McCain's abrupt, halting responses -- as McCain saw it, the "fundamentals" of the economy were sound one moment, at risk the next.

Questions about McCain's judgment in recent days have only been deepened by the performances of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. She has struggled in her rare public appearances, and her selection risks appearing all the more reckless and cynical when held against the seriousness of this financial crisis. Even McCain's campaign "suspension" seemed like gamesmanship. He said he was rushing to Washington, but took his time, and the talks derailed soon after he arrived. He proclaimed that the situation was so dire he would not return to the stump until an agreement was reached, then did precisely what he said he wouldn't. It was not an impressive week for the Straight Talk Express.

Still, Obama has hardly run away with this issue, and the economic news exposes his weaknesses as well. He is, after all, untested by executive crisis and a freshman senator of limited achievement in government. Voters may well blanch at his relative inexperience, given the gravity of these times. Indeed, it is telling that in a week when his opponent flailed, Obama made scant headway in the polls.

On the matter of which candidate could be trusted to roll back the excessive powers that Bush has aggregated, Obama is vague and McCain is exasperating. McCain has properly condemned the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and said he would close it, but when the court granted detainees there the rights of habeas corpus, McCain denounced the ruling as "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." He condemned torture, but then, with the campaign underway, voted against legislation to limit the CIA's use of coercive interrogation. Those oscillations do not reassure.

Obama, meanwhile, is more consistent and encouraging but offers few specifics. He pledges to close Guantanamo, restore habeas corpus and end the invasions of privacy undertaken in the name of fighting terrorism. Those are welcome positions and provide some hope that he would roll back Bush's excesses. But while he pledges allegiance to the separation of powers, Obama has said little about how to honor that pledge. Rare is the politician who willingly cedes authority, and we have not heard enough from Obama to be convinced he's that rare person.

These are not abstractions. They are the legacy of this grim epoch, one that should be equally offensive to conservatives and liberals. George Bush promised humility and delivered arrogance. The next president must not.

*Not* Just Any Other Manic Monday

Citigroup Buys Banking Operations of Wachovia

By ERIC DASH and ANDREW ROSS SORKIN

Citigroup reached an agreement early Monday morning to acquire the banking operations of the Wachovia Corporation after making a daring bid that pulled the deeply troubled company from the brink of collapse.

Citigroup will pay $1 a share, or about $2.2 billion, according to people briefed on the deal.

Federal regulators worked around the clock this weekend to orchestrate the sale, finally reaching an agreement at 4 a.m. on Monday morning. In the end, the government agreed to provide Citigroup with a financial guarantee on Wachovia’s most risky assets. It is similar to the deal that the Federal Reserve established with JPMorgan Chase’s emergency takeover of Bear Stearns.

Citigroup will assume the first $42 billion on losses tied to Wachovia’s riskiest mortgages and will pay the Federal Insurance Deposit Corporation $12 billion in preferred stock and warrants. In exchange, the F.D.I.C. will absorb all losses above that amount.

Federal regulators said the move was necessary to stave off what could have been the second big bank failure in less than a week. On Thursday, the government seized Washington Mutual and sold the bulk of its operations to JPMorgan Chase.

“This morning’s decision was made under extraordinary circumstances with significant consultation among the regulators and Treasury,” said Sheila C. Bair, the chairwoman of the F.D.IC in a statement. “This action was necessary to maintain confidence in the banking industry given current financial market conditions.”

Wachovia customers should not notice any changes. “There will be no interruption in services and bank customers should expect business as usual,” Ms. Bair added.

The deal further concentrates Americans’ bank deposits in the hands of three banks: Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup will control more than 30 percent of the industry’s deposits.

Together, they will have unrivaled power to set prices for their loans and services. The institutions would probably come under greater scrutiny from federal regulators, given their size and reach. And some small and midsize banks, already under pressure, might have little choice but to seek suitors in order to compete.

The deal highlights just how bad the banking industry’s problems have gotten as well as the progress that Citigroup after being one of the first to suffer huge losses. Citigroup’s chief executive, Vikram S. Pandit, has recently been making the case to employees and investors that Citigroup is a “pillar of strength” in turbulent times. If he is successful, this transaction could be an important milestone.

Under the deal, Citigroup will buy all of Wachovia’s assets and liabilities — a move that should protect Wachovia’s bondholders. It will also acquire Wachovia’s big retail operations as well as its corporate and private banking. It will also takeover Wachovia’s relatively small investment banking operations, which have catered to real estate and medium-size corporations. Citigroup is leaving behind the A.G. Edwards retail brokerage operations and Evergreen Investments, Wachovia’s money management arm. Senior management decision have not been worked out, according to people involved in the talks.

With Wachovia’s branch network, Citigroup will now have one of the biggest retail banking franchises in the country after years of false starts. That should give Citigroup a larger platform to sell home loans and credit cards, and would give it access to more than $400 billion in more stable customer deposits. The bank has been aggressively trying to reduce its dependence on outside investors for funds.

The risk is that Citigroup could be saddled with tens of billions of dollars in losses tied to Wachovia’s giant loan portfolio. Wachovia has been hurt badly by its 2006 purchase of Golden West Financial, a California lender specializing in so-called pay-option mortgages. And the bank also faced mounting losses on loans made to home builders and commercial real estate developers.

To pay for the deal, Citigroup expects to raise more than $10 billion by issuing new shares of its common stock. It will also slash its dividend to 16 cents a share, the second time in the last year.

Another risk is that Citigroup has had a poor track record of putting together mergers, although it now has a new management team. Citigroup shares were essentially flat in late morning trading on Monday.

Last week, Wachovia held discussions with Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Banco Santander of Spain, before the foreign bank’s interest cooled. But the talks intensified this weekend as lawmakers worked in Washington to hammer out the details of a $700 billion bailout plan. Wachovia executives, meanwhile, huddled in the Seagram Building offices of Sullivan & Cromwell on Park Avenue.

Robert K. Steel, a former top lieutenant of Henry M. Paulson Jr. at both Goldman Sachs and then the Treasury Department, who took over as Wachovia’s chief executive in July, arrived in New York to handle the negotiations in person, along with David M. Carroll, the bank’s chief deal maker. At 8:15 am. on Saturday, Citigroup and Wells Fargo took their first peek at Wachovia’s books.

Regulators pressed the parties to move quickly. Senior officials at the Federal Reserve in Washington, and its branches in New York, Richmond and San Francisco held weekend discussions with all the banks involved. Top officials at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Treasury were also in the loop.

Timothy F. Geithner, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, personally reached out to executives involved in the process to assess the situation and spur it along. Citigroup and Wells Fargo pressed regulators to seize Wachovia and let them buy its assets and deposits, as JPMorgan did with WaMu, or provide some sort of financial guarantee, as regulators did with JPMorgan’s acquisition of Bear Stearns, according to people briefed on and involved with the process.

Both Citigroup and Wells Fargo were deeply concerned about absorbing Wachovia’s giant loan portfolio, which is littered with bad mortgages, these people said. Bankers had little time to assess the risk.

Citigroup executives considered Wachovia a make-or-break deal for their consumer banking ambitions. With Wachovia, Citigroup would gain one of the pre-eminent retail bank operations after struggling to build one for years. It would also give Citigroup access to more stable customer deposits, allowing it to rely less heavily on outside investors for funds. If it failed to clinch a deal, Citigroup’s domestic retail operations would be far behind Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase. Mr. Pandit, the Citigroup’s chief executive, was personally overseeing the talks

Now, the challenge for Mr. Pandit will be making the deal work. Citigroup said on Monday it expected the deal to add to earnings in the first year, excluding a $3.7 billion restructuring charge. It also expects to reap about $3 billion in annual cost savings, though it did not disclose possible layoffs. If Citigroup can pull it off, it would be a symbolic victory of sorts. For Citigroup, the deal is the largest acquisition since the merger of Citicorp and Travelers Group forged the company a decade ago.

Although Citigroup has racked up nearly $50 billion in losses since the crisis began last summer and has watched the value of its shares sharply decline, the bank was also among the first to raise large amounts of capital. Mr. Pandit may point to the Wachovia deal as a sign of progress and an indication that the worst for the bank is behind it.

The deal will also be seen as a stamp of approval from regulators. Only a few years ago, the Federal Reserve took the unusual step of banning Citigroup from making "significant acquisitions." Gaining their approval to do a big deal on such short notice will probably be viewed as a big vote of confidence in Mr. Pandit’s management team.

Orange Coriander Roast Chicken

This recipe has got to be one of the most delicious & super-easy recipes of all time! We haven't had great success with Real Simple recipes, but this one is just fantastic. We're having it tomorrow night with sweet potatoes and brussels sprouts. Yum!!

	Marcus Nilsson

Orange-Coriander Roast Chicken with Red Onions




4 small red onions, sliced into 1/2-inch-thick rings
2 3 1/2-pound chickens
3/4 cup orange marmalade
1/4 cup olive oil
1 1/2 teaspoons ground coriander
Kosher salt and pepper

Heat oven to 400° F.

Arrange the onions in a metal roasting pan. Place the chickens on top and tuck the wings under the bodies.

In a small bowl, combine the marmalade, oil, coriander, 2 teaspoons salt, and 3/4 teaspoon pepper. Spread the mixture over the chickens and roast until they are cooked through, about 1 hour, 15 minutes (internal temperature 165° F).

Transfer the chickens and onions to a platter and let rest for 10 minutes.

Strain the pan drippings into a bowl. Let stand for 5 minutes. Skim the fat from the surface and discard.

Serve the chickens and onions with the remaining juices.

Stress-Less Tip: Using two medium chickens instead of one large one cuts roasting time by at least an hour and 15 minutes. Marmalade makes a quick and easy French-style orange glaze.

Yield: Makes 8 servings

CALORIES 505 (48% from fat); FAT 27g (sat 7g); CHOLESTEROL 132mg; CARBOHYDRATE 23g; SODIUM 621mg; PROTEIN 41g; FIBER 1g

Real Simple, APRIL 2008

From Ulysses to Glamour?

A couple weeks ago I ignored Zap's advice (I know, bad idea) & began reading James Joyce's "Ulysses". I heard it's considered the ultimate example of Modernism in literature. The idea of reading a book with such an illustrious reputation excited me. Further, the fact that I'd read the book while running on the elliptical at the gym seemed appropriate because the Modernists were deconstructionists. What's a better way to deconstruct the practice of reading a classic piece of literature than to read it while exercising at the LA Fitness on Hollywood Boulevard? I just forgot one thing: I hate Modern lit.

When I first purchased the book I visited the "Ulysses" wikipedia page to see what I was getting myself into. I should have realized I was in deep when I saw the cliff's notes for each section. Had I read them closer I would have realized that the notes weren't talking about the themes, what was going on in Dublin at the turn of the century, or Joyce's influences, but rather simply explaining what was happening in each scene. Once I started reading the book I realized why this was necessary: the book is almost incomprehensible. It's like a Picasso made of words. Five days in a row I came home feeling like a total idiot. I literally cheered when I finally went back to the wikipedia notes and found that I'd actually followed the plot and even noticed two quotes that are apparently a couple of the most famous quotes from the book (I'd never heard them before).

I plodded through another week and then learned that "Ulysses" is widely considered the most difficult book in the English language. Why didn't I listen to Zap?? I'm one of those people who have a hard time putting down an unfinished book. I'll turn off a movie (and even walk out of a theater) in a heartbeat, but for some reason I'm always convinced that a book will get better. However, after four more attempts at making sense of this, the additional 500 pages made "Ulysses" the easiest one I've ever put down.

I can't say this morning's replacement is nearly as illustrious, and I still don't know how to apply makeup correctly (let alone what half the makeup products they talk about actually are or do), but tonight I'm not checking out a wikipedia page to find out what I read!

Kon Tiki Here We Come!

If you've never stayed at the Kon Tiki Inn in Pismo Beach you've got to put it on your lists of places to stay. It's one of those crazy vortex places where even though you're right off Hwy 101 & you're in the middle of a beach town, when you're there you feel as though you've stepped out of the world & into an incredibly peaceful place. When we stayed here two years ago we enjoyed the most relaxing vacation of our lives. We request a ground floor room, which has easy access to the pool & two hot tubs. Each night we sit on our patio with a bottle of champagne & watch the sunset. We sleep with the glass door open so we can hear the ocean all night. Pismo Beach itself is an adorable beach town with plenty of good restaurants and there's a movie theater and a Trader Joe's just a few miles down Hwy 101. If you want to see more, here are the TripAdvisor reviews: http://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Review-g32894-d252347-Reviews-Kon_Tiki_Inn-Pismo_Beach_California.html

We'll be there at the end of October & we can't wait!

Grand Central Market

I finally made it to Grand Central Market for lunch today with Stephanie. We sat at the counter at Sarita's & gobbled up her delicious pupusas. We immediately fell in love with the market. We want to try all the stalls, but it will be difficult to pass up Sarita's. Guess I'll just have to bring some home.

This is where I'm going next time...

CA Reinvestment Coalition Demands for Bailout Bill

Dear CRC Members:
As you know, the bailout plan being rushed through Congress will not
solve the economic crisis unless it addresses the root of the problem –
defaulting mortgages and home foreclosures.
The California Reinvestment Coalition (CRC) sent letters today to
leaders of the House and Senate Banking Committees and the Speaker of
the House urging them to approach the Administration’s $700 billion plan to bail out the banking system with caution. Millions of
taxpayers are losing their homes, while the companies who sold them
predatory loans are being let off the hook in this proposal. The bailout plan is being pushed by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson,
who until now denied the existence and impacts of the subprime meltdown.
In California, we are seeing city deficits increase by
millions of dollars as neighborhoods are devastated by foreclosures that
are the direct result of predatory subprime lending. All solutions to
this crisis must aim to stop spiraling home foreclosures and alleviate the impact they are having on cities and neighborhoods.

Three things we hope you will do today or tomorrow (Congress is moving
very fast.):
* Go to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition web site
(www.ncrc.org) to easily register your opinion with your Congressperson.
* Contact the district office of your Congressperson so that they hear
from constituents. You can use
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/cgi-bin/newseek.cgi?site=ctc&state=ca
to get that contact information.
* Pass this on to your friends and colleagues. This may be the most
momentous, quick decision that Congress has made in decades. They need
to hear our voice

In order to ensure that communities are protected from further
devastation wrought by the current crisis, Congress must not pass
Paulsen’s plan unless it includes measures to:
• Impose a six-month moratorium on foreclosures to allow families to
remain in their homes while working with housing counseling agencies and
their loan servicers to negotiate an affordable
workout plan that will keep them in their homes.
• Reform the Bankruptcy Code to allow judges to modify all home loans.
Judges are allowed to modify the loans on second homes, so there is no
reason why they should not be able to do this
for first-time homeowners.
• Ensure that long-term, affordable loan modifications are given to
borrowers struggling to make their payments, along the lines of what
FDIC Chair Sheila Bair is doing with Indymac Bank, FSB. In addition,
homeowners should have their principal brought down to an amount that
equals the current value of their home (if there is evidence of
predatory lending in the making of their loan).
• Reform our regulatory structure so that financial firms are subject to
meaningful oversight that will deter abusive practices that maximize
profit but destroy neighborhoods.

many thanks
alan

--
Alan Fisher
California Reinvestment Coalition
474 Valencia St., Ste. 230, San Francisco 94102
(415) 864-3980

Zapladybug is born

This is the culmination of many conversations regarding creating a house blog. We anticipate sharing our thoughts on our favorite subjects (politics, community economic development, food & wine, etc.) & posting pics from our life here in LA & our fantasy life in other places... And away we go!