Fifteen: A New Constitution

In the most recent Economist magazine, I saw a review of a new book by a professor out of Virgina (I think) named Sabato (excuse me, Professor, if I've fractured your name). Anyway, the book seems to echo what I have been advocating for many years; i.e., government reform at the Constitutional level. Although the professor's approach is more thought out and, certainly informed, than mine (after all, he is professional scholar, and I am just a small town lawyer and life-long political and government critic), we appear to be on the same track, which tells me that many, many Americans feel the same way.

My pet proposed constitutional amendments (which would hopefully be embodied in Sabato's new document) are: Term limits on all elected federal office holders; Mandatory government service for all Americans, to be performed between the ages of 18 and 25; and Tax Reform (preferably the Forbes flat tax). The first of these proposals, term limits, is without a doubt the most important, because, as Sabato would probably agree, since all human beings always act in their own self interest, the current system of virtual lifetime public welfare (excessive salaries, gross sumptuous perquisites, lifetime health and pension coverage, etc.) for U.S. Representative and Senators will never allow those office holders to make decisions for the public good and their own expense.

What are the chances of Saboto's convention or my amendments coming to pass in the next several generations? I put the odds at less than one in ten.

Fourteen: WSJ/NBC News Poll

Today I saw a poll cited in a WSJ article which states results from the Poll thusly: "51% of those polled say that [Hillary Clinton] is knowledgeable and experienced enough to handle the presidency." This is further proof that either: a) only people from Arkansas participate in polls, or b) a majority of Americans and virtually all Democrats have absolutely no clue what kind knowledge and experience are required to do a passable job of being President of the U.S.

Let's face it, most of those who would vote for Hillary actually don't give a rat's behind about her; it's Bill they really long for. For some reason, many Americans associate good things in their lives with Bill Clinton as president. Maybe it's the tech bubble, or the moral equivocating, or the gridlock in at the federal level, but whatever the case, I suspect that just knowing Bill Clinton is roaming the halls of the White House (no doubt looking for the indiscriminate sex he couldn't get in high school or college) is enough to get many folks to swallow hard and vote for HC.

Thirteen - Hillary Is In

So, the American voting public has spoken and we have decided that we want Clinton II, just like we had Bush II. Except that Clinton II will not have the dumb luck which accompanied Clinton I, that is the greatest stock market bull run in history. Clinton II will also be differentiated from Clinton I in that during Clinton I, the President was more or less harmless, just a good ole boy who wanted to get laid, since he never succeeded in high school. In Clinton II however, we will have probably the most ambitious and definitely the most conniving and deceitful president since Richard Nixon.

Eleven: Golf

Enough about business and politics. Today is the first day of Masters week, a true Rite of Spring for golfers. For ten years now, my sport has been dominated by the machine known as Tiger Woods. While no one can take issue with the amount of skill he has, and apparently the hard work and discipline he brings to his job, I for one am not convinced that Mr. Woods has been good for golf.

Has golf become a "better" game since Woods' arrival, or just richer (much, much richer) for a few at the top? The Fedex Cup, which begins this year, which provides a $10 million payday for one individual, is this "good for the game" or just good for television and the guy who wins?

Golf, after all, is a game. It is supposed to be fun. I have rarely, if ever, observed Mr. Woods having fun on the golf course. Fuzzy Zoeller, Freddie Couples, the King, Lee Trevino, - these are just a few of names that come to mind when one realizes that getting paid to play golf is probably the best gig in the world. Woods doesn't seem to appreciate that.

At the level of us weekend hackers, what has the Woods Effect really been? Well, you can now wear a T-shirt at a private club. That's about all I can see.

Notwithstanding Woods, I think golf is pretty healthy, meaning that the game is going to survive any person or any fad. It will be interesting to see what happens in golf after the television boobs no longer have Woods to woo over. Perhaps the relative money pot will diminish a bit for the pros. But the enjoyment that we normal golfers get from being outside with friends, hitting one of every two or three shots really well, getting the occasional birdie, and being frustrated by those glorious rules which require you to penalize yourself, will go on unabated.

Ten: U.S. Attorney Flap

Fortunately, there is still a slight non-lawyer majority of the population in this country. Otherwise, we would be in worse trouble than we are. After listening to these prima donna ex-U.S. Attorneys who were fired, you would think that Bush had just taken the intellectual and moral equivalent of Fort Knox and shipped it all to, say, France. These guys want these jobs for exactly one reason - as a stepping stone to either elective political office, or to a plum position in silk-stocking law firm, which is essentially a non-elective political office. By political, I mean that what you do it not nearly as important as how you do it. It also means, that directly or indirectly, most of the revenue stream is coming from a government source. The bottom line is that these U.S. Attorneys are high paid errand boys. They are supposed to do what the boss wants. They are not federal judges (promised jobs for life despite poor job performance or even gross incompetence).

This cause celebre is simply another opportunity for the democrats to flex their muscle in preparation for the inevitable pendulum swing in the White House, which will follow what has already taken place in Congress. Bush is radioactive, and any republican who touches him will suffer the same permanent retirement which awaits Bush.

Nine: MOT and Icahn

The last time I wrote about MOT was to compare Ed Zander's results to Nardelli at HD (Nardelli got fired for being a jerk while making a lot of money for stockholders and keeping the stock price essentially flat; Zander took over a telecom behemoth after it crashed with the dotcoms, and has made a bad situation into a nightmare).

Now, after Icahn recognized the tremendous locked up value in MOT and began building a stock position, the MOT board advises shareholders not to fall for Carl's proxy because "the board does not endorse it." That's like telling a mugger not to take your wallet because you don't want him to!

What I can't believe is that Blackstone, Texas Pacific, and KKR are messing around with utilities when low-hanging fruit like MOT is ripe for the taking.

Eight: GM and Merrill Lynch

This morning a ML analyst changed his recommendation on GM from "neutral" to "buy." In my experience with ML, I interpret this as a "strong sell." Simply put, since the days of the Henry Blodgett/Internet insanity, ML has demonstrated time and again a perfect sense of timing for recognizing when a trend is finished. But enough of ML's history. Let's look at GM's numbers.

GM's most recently reported operating margin is less than one percent. Most industry observers agree that most GM brands need major product over-hauling in the areas of aesthetics, performance, and quality (yes, GM has made great strides in quality, but still lags far behind the Asians). How in the world is GM ever going to fund those activities with no gross margin? Add to this the fact that the GM selling prices are too high (which simply allows the Asians to match the GM selling prices, and with their more efficient manufacturing and higher quality, make a tidy profit), and you have continued, inexorable downward pressure on market share, which further erodes margins, and so on...

So I ask you, Mr. Merrill Lynch analyst (probably some MBA type whose has never been inside of a factory of any sort), why is GM a stock a good investment?