Both the Union Leader and WMUR-TV are reporting that the unemployment rate in New Hampshire rose to 5.1 percent in January 2009 ... the highest in 15 years.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Hearing set for bill to help towns schedule special Town Meetings
The House is fast-tracking a bill that will allow communities to schedule special town meetings on short notice so they might take up budget issues that arise after receiving federal money from the economic stimulus package.
The Senate, on Feb. 18, passed Senate Bill 39, which would allow the special town meetings with only seven days notice.
The House Municipal and County Government Committee will hold a public hearing on the bill Tuesday, March 3, at 1 p.m. in Room 301-303 of the Legislative Office Building. The bill is expected to go to the full House on Wednesday, March 11, the day after traditional town meetings are held across the state.
About a third of New Hampshire’s residents live in communities which hold traditional town meetings. Generally, public notices in regard to the town meeting must, by law, be posted weeks and even months in advance.
The Senate, on Feb. 18, passed Senate Bill 39, which would allow the special town meetings with only seven days notice.
The House Municipal and County Government Committee will hold a public hearing on the bill Tuesday, March 3, at 1 p.m. in Room 301-303 of the Legislative Office Building. The bill is expected to go to the full House on Wednesday, March 11, the day after traditional town meetings are held across the state.
About a third of New Hampshire’s residents live in communities which hold traditional town meetings. Generally, public notices in regard to the town meeting must, by law, be posted weeks and even months in advance.
Monday, February 23, 2009
If our govt buys a bigger stake in Citibank ...
... they better lower interest rates to a reasonable amount, like maybe 5 percent, for every single American who has a Citibank card. And, as well, all foreigners hired by the bank should be let go and replaced by American citizens. Essentially, if we, the people of America, are going to own this bank, we should get the benefits of ownership along with the risk. Please, someone, anyone, start preparing a class action lawsuit now!
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Things that make me ... sigh ...
Finally catching up on the pile of WSJs sitting on my kitchen table. Of late, I don't get to them until the weekend which is one of the reasons I'm not renewing my subscription [that, and they want $50 more than I paid last year!].
Banking on Credit Unions
Guest Perspective by Ralph Nader
While the reckless giant banks are shattering like an over-heated glacier day by day, the nation’s credit unions are a relative island of calm largely apart from the vortex of casino capitalism.
Eighty five million Americans belong to credit unions which are not-for-profit cooperatives owned by their members who are depositors and borrowers. Your neighborhood or workplace credit union did not invest in these notorious speculative derivatives nor did they offer people “teaser rates” to sign on for a home mortgage they could not afford.
Ninety one percent of the 8,000 credit unions are reporting greater overall growth in mortgage lending than any other kinds of consumer loans they are extending. They are federally insured by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) for up to $250,000 per account, such as the FDIC does for depositors in commercial banks.
They are well-capitalized because of regulation and because they do not have an incentive to go for high-risk, highly leveraged speculation to increase stock values and the value of the bosses’ stock options as do the commercial banks.
Credit Unions have no shareholders nor stock nor stock options; they are responsible to their owner-members who are their customers.
There are even some special low-income credit unions—thought not nearly enough—to stimulate economic activities in these communities and to provide “banking” services in areas where poor people can’t afford or are not provided services by commercial banks.
According to Mike Schenk, an economist with the Credit Union National Association, there is another reason why credit unions avoided the mortgage debacle that is consuming the big banks.
Credit Unions, he says, are “portfolio lenders. That means they hold in their portfolios most of the loans they originate instead of selling them to investors….so they care about the financial performance of those loans.”
Mr. Schenk allowed that with the deepening recession, credit unions are not making as much surplus and “their asset quality has deteriorated a bit. But that’s the beauty of the credit union model. Credit unions can live with those conditions without suffering dire consequences,” he asserted.
His use of the word “model” is instructive. In recent decades, credit unions sometimes leaned toward commercial bank practices instead of strict cooperative principles. They developed a penchant for mergers into larger and larger credit unions. Some even toyed with converting out of the cooperative model into the shareholder model the way insurance and bank mutuals have done.
The cooperative model—whether in finance, food, housing or any other sector of the economy—does best when the owner-cooperators are active in the general operations and directions of their co-op. Passive owners allow managers to stray or contemplate straying from cooperative practices.
The one area that is now spelling some trouble for retail cooperatives comes from the so-called “corporate credit unions”—a terrible nomenclature—which were established to provide liquidity for the retail credit unions. These large wholesale credit unions are not exactly infused with the cooperative philosophy. Some of them gravitate toward the corporate banking model. They invested in those risky mortgage securities with the money from the retail credit unions. These “toxic assets” have fallen $14 billion among the 28 corporate credit unions involved.
So the National Credit Union Administration is expanding its lending programs to these corporate credit unions to a maximum capacity of $41.5 billion. NCUA also wants to have retail credit unions qualified for the TARP rescue program just to provide a level playing field with the commercial banks.
Becoming more like investment banks the wholesale credit unions wanted to attract, with ever higher riskier yields, more of the retail credit union deposits. This set the stage for the one major blemish of imprudence on the credit union subeconomy.
There are very contemporary lessons to be learned from the successes of the credit union model such as being responsive to consumer loan needs and down to earth with their portfolios. Yet in all the massive media coverage of the Wall Street barons and their lethal financial escapades, crimes and frauds, little is being written about how the regulation, philosophy and behavior of the credit unions largely escaped this catastrophe.
There is, moreover, a lesson for retail credit unions. Beware and avoid the seepage or supremacy of the corporate financial model which, in its present degraded overly complex and abstract form, has become what one prosecutor called “lying, cheating and stealing” in fancy clothing.
While the reckless giant banks are shattering like an over-heated glacier day by day, the nation’s credit unions are a relative island of calm largely apart from the vortex of casino capitalism.
Eighty five million Americans belong to credit unions which are not-for-profit cooperatives owned by their members who are depositors and borrowers. Your neighborhood or workplace credit union did not invest in these notorious speculative derivatives nor did they offer people “teaser rates” to sign on for a home mortgage they could not afford.
Ninety one percent of the 8,000 credit unions are reporting greater overall growth in mortgage lending than any other kinds of consumer loans they are extending. They are federally insured by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) for up to $250,000 per account, such as the FDIC does for depositors in commercial banks.
They are well-capitalized because of regulation and because they do not have an incentive to go for high-risk, highly leveraged speculation to increase stock values and the value of the bosses’ stock options as do the commercial banks.
Credit Unions have no shareholders nor stock nor stock options; they are responsible to their owner-members who are their customers.
There are even some special low-income credit unions—thought not nearly enough—to stimulate economic activities in these communities and to provide “banking” services in areas where poor people can’t afford or are not provided services by commercial banks.
According to Mike Schenk, an economist with the Credit Union National Association, there is another reason why credit unions avoided the mortgage debacle that is consuming the big banks.
Credit Unions, he says, are “portfolio lenders. That means they hold in their portfolios most of the loans they originate instead of selling them to investors….so they care about the financial performance of those loans.”
Mr. Schenk allowed that with the deepening recession, credit unions are not making as much surplus and “their asset quality has deteriorated a bit. But that’s the beauty of the credit union model. Credit unions can live with those conditions without suffering dire consequences,” he asserted.
His use of the word “model” is instructive. In recent decades, credit unions sometimes leaned toward commercial bank practices instead of strict cooperative principles. They developed a penchant for mergers into larger and larger credit unions. Some even toyed with converting out of the cooperative model into the shareholder model the way insurance and bank mutuals have done.
The cooperative model—whether in finance, food, housing or any other sector of the economy—does best when the owner-cooperators are active in the general operations and directions of their co-op. Passive owners allow managers to stray or contemplate straying from cooperative practices.
The one area that is now spelling some trouble for retail cooperatives comes from the so-called “corporate credit unions”—a terrible nomenclature—which were established to provide liquidity for the retail credit unions. These large wholesale credit unions are not exactly infused with the cooperative philosophy. Some of them gravitate toward the corporate banking model. They invested in those risky mortgage securities with the money from the retail credit unions. These “toxic assets” have fallen $14 billion among the 28 corporate credit unions involved.
So the National Credit Union Administration is expanding its lending programs to these corporate credit unions to a maximum capacity of $41.5 billion. NCUA also wants to have retail credit unions qualified for the TARP rescue program just to provide a level playing field with the commercial banks.
Becoming more like investment banks the wholesale credit unions wanted to attract, with ever higher riskier yields, more of the retail credit union deposits. This set the stage for the one major blemish of imprudence on the credit union subeconomy.
There are very contemporary lessons to be learned from the successes of the credit union model such as being responsive to consumer loan needs and down to earth with their portfolios. Yet in all the massive media coverage of the Wall Street barons and their lethal financial escapades, crimes and frauds, little is being written about how the regulation, philosophy and behavior of the credit unions largely escaped this catastrophe.
There is, moreover, a lesson for retail credit unions. Beware and avoid the seepage or supremacy of the corporate financial model which, in its present degraded overly complex and abstract form, has become what one prosecutor called “lying, cheating and stealing” in fancy clothing.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Wow, what is going on in this state?
Take a look at this story and video about things going on in Atkinson.
I stumbled across this story while looking through the headlines on the Union Leader Web site this morning: ["Residents sue Atkinson chief, town officials"].
This kinda stuff does not surprise me. It happens in all kinds of small towns [and big cities] when people let the power go to their heads and they forget that they are there to serve the public, not their interests. Thankfully, there is a video clip, on cable, of the moderator telling a citizen that he couldn't take pictures during the town meeting. Absolutely amazing:
I stumbled across this story while looking through the headlines on the Union Leader Web site this morning: ["Residents sue Atkinson chief, town officials"].
This kinda stuff does not surprise me. It happens in all kinds of small towns [and big cities] when people let the power go to their heads and they forget that they are there to serve the public, not their interests. Thankfully, there is a video clip, on cable, of the moderator telling a citizen that he couldn't take pictures during the town meeting. Absolutely amazing:
And then there is this, from the "Can't he just go away already" category: ["Bill Clinton: Obama Should Sound More Hopeful"].
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Changes in the car industry ...
Yahoo has this story about changes coming to GM and Chrysler as the companies try to figure out how to salvage themselves: ["Brands: What Stays, What Goes"].
I'm a tad surprised by some of this. I've often heard that the PT Cruiser was a popular model. It's also too bad about Saturn and Saab. Saab was actually a very profitable company when it was a foreign company. Sometimes bigger is not always better ...
Conservative talk radio is going to have a field day with this one: ["Dem exclusive? Reporters jump ship"].
Of course, with the way things are going on in the newspaper business, can anyone blame them for taking a cushy federal job? The benefits alone are worth it!
I'm a tad surprised by some of this. I've often heard that the PT Cruiser was a popular model. It's also too bad about Saturn and Saab. Saab was actually a very profitable company when it was a foreign company. Sometimes bigger is not always better ...
Conservative talk radio is going to have a field day with this one: ["Dem exclusive? Reporters jump ship"].
Of course, with the way things are going on in the newspaper business, can anyone blame them for taking a cushy federal job? The benefits alone are worth it!
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
I don't think I'll be going to Burger King ever again ...
I don't eat out at a lot of fast food places. Although I prefer Wendy's spicy chicken sandwich, in a pinch, I'll grab some onion rings and a chicken sandwich at BK, if need be. However, after watching this, I don't think I'm ever going to go there again:
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Dandy Warhols cop Love & Rockets ... again!
OK, so earlier tonight I'm at work, listening to Love & Rockets' "Seventh Dream of Teenage Heaven," and I recognize a song ... Where I have heard that before? I wonder out loud.
I stop the mp3 and hit the beginning again. The song is called "God and Mr. Smith" and I know the riff from somewhere ... and then, bam, it hits me - it's on the new Dandy's record, "Earth to Dandy Warhols." The song on their CD is "Valerie Yum." At the very end, it cycles through the same riff as the intro to "God and Mr. Smith"!
This is the same thing I caught the Dandys doing on a previous song, noted here: ["SNL video censored"].
You know, I love the Dandys ... a lot. I have all their CDs. I listen to them all the time. But this is two instances now where they have directly lifted whole sections of songs by Love & Rockets.
I stop the mp3 and hit the beginning again. The song is called "God and Mr. Smith" and I know the riff from somewhere ... and then, bam, it hits me - it's on the new Dandy's record, "Earth to Dandy Warhols." The song on their CD is "Valerie Yum." At the very end, it cycles through the same riff as the intro to "God and Mr. Smith"!
This is the same thing I caught the Dandys doing on a previous song, noted here: ["SNL video censored"].
You know, I love the Dandys ... a lot. I have all their CDs. I listen to them all the time. But this is two instances now where they have directly lifted whole sections of songs by Love & Rockets.
In the 'there's hope for us yet' category ...
That is how one of my co-workers term it when he saw this article in the WSJ: ["A Reporter Faces the Naked Truth"].
I missed this since I let my print subscription to the WSJ lapse [They want $149 for the annual renewal, a bargain when you think about it. But I've only ever paid $99 for it so ...]. I doubt any of us will be taking on such jobs in the near future but you never know.
I missed this since I let my print subscription to the WSJ lapse [They want $149 for the annual renewal, a bargain when you think about it. But I've only ever paid $99 for it so ...]. I doubt any of us will be taking on such jobs in the near future but you never know.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Hearing Tuesday will discuss extending governor's term
Tuesday, Feb. 17, at 9:10 a.m. the state Senate Election Law Committee will hold a hearing on a bill to extend the governor's term to four years here in New Hampshire starting in 2012. The hearing will be in the Legislative Office Building, Room 101.
I don't know how I feel about this. I kinda like being able to elect the governor every two years. But, it's worth hearing why others think the term should be extended.
I don't know how I feel about this. I kinda like being able to elect the governor every two years. But, it's worth hearing why others think the term should be extended.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Comments on Lynch's budget ...
It's important to remember a few things when taking a look at Gov. Lynch's budget:
1) As Republicans have been stating for a while now, state spending increased 17 percent. So, in an economic downturn, where revenues are not keeping up with expenditures, cuts would be needed to offset such a huge increase in spending. While I agree that many of the things the state has tried to do in the last two years are good things, maybe it was done too soon, too expensively, too fast. One could surmise that maybe state spending should have been a bit more controlled in the previous Legislative sessions.
2) While many of the things proposed by Gov. Lynch are regressive in nature, a state sales tax is also regressive. If implemented, it would hit every single person in the state every time they purchased something, whether or not they were rich or poor, young or old. The governor tinkering with things to make ends meet without hurting the purchasing power of the poor or seniors was a good strategy.
A sales tax would also hurt our state economically because residents of Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts, would no longer have a reason to do their retail spending here. This could potentially cost the state a lot of jobs in the retail sector, the only sector other than health care that seems to be retaining itself.
The rooms and meals tax would also suffer because no one from those states would be eating out after their trips to our malls. Let's not forget that we sock them all with a 9 percent tax whereas they could eat at home with just a 5 percent tax [in Massachusetts]. This could hurt border town restaurants and therefore, hurt jobs by folks who need those jobs most - students, moms, people with second jobs who need the tip income - etc.
3) While a state income tax is not as regressive, technically, it is worthy of suspicion, especially when we look at how other states have used it to randomly raise taxes whenever they needed to. In Mass., it has been a disaster over the years. Interested readers can check out this overview: ["Thank goodness New Hampshire has the pledge"].
In addition, historically, income tax advocates in New Hampshire have always promoted it as a way of eliminating the state-wide property tax. But guess what? The most recent proposal doesn't do away with the state-wide property tax! It only offers an exemption. If implemented, property owners with homes assessed at more than $100,000 will be paying both an income tax and state-wide property tax. There is no renter’s deduction in the proposal, so renters would see no rent relief at all in the drop in the state-wide property tax but their income would be sapped. In other words, some of the poorest residents in our state would be double-taxed! This is as regressive as the sales tax.
In addition to all of this, there seems to be no state-wide standard on assessments. I mean, look at the situation in Concord, where trailers are assessed at more than what they sold for or could sell for! Would it be long before some towns were monkeying with assessments so that some people could escape paying their "fair share" of the state-wide property tax? As the saying goes, figures lie and liars figure ... how long before cities and towns are at war over assessments in the wake of an income tax?
New Hampshire residents who work out of state would also get double-taxed on their incomes. Sure, some proponents note that Massachusetts, where they collect $260 million from New Hampshire residents, has an exemption for out-of-state income taxes paid. But how soon will it be after New Hampshire implements an income tax that the Mass. Legislature eliminates this loophole after realizing that $260 million in exemptions just flew out the window? Not long, let me guarantee you of that. If they are going to get into lawsuit tiffs over lost sales tax revenues at tire companies doing business in both states, it will only be a matter of time before this exemption disappears. Poof, those of us who live in New Hampshire and work in Massachusetts will see our tax burden double. If anything, we, the thousands of people who commute to Massachusetts to work, should be thanked - not punished - for enduring two hours of commuting a day and not burdening the Granite State economy with our employment needs [tongue firmly planted in cheek].
What is my point? Gov. Lynch is right to do all he can to balance the budget without broad-based taxes and I personally commend him for what he is proposing.
1) As Republicans have been stating for a while now, state spending increased 17 percent. So, in an economic downturn, where revenues are not keeping up with expenditures, cuts would be needed to offset such a huge increase in spending. While I agree that many of the things the state has tried to do in the last two years are good things, maybe it was done too soon, too expensively, too fast. One could surmise that maybe state spending should have been a bit more controlled in the previous Legislative sessions.
2) While many of the things proposed by Gov. Lynch are regressive in nature, a state sales tax is also regressive. If implemented, it would hit every single person in the state every time they purchased something, whether or not they were rich or poor, young or old. The governor tinkering with things to make ends meet without hurting the purchasing power of the poor or seniors was a good strategy.
A sales tax would also hurt our state economically because residents of Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts, would no longer have a reason to do their retail spending here. This could potentially cost the state a lot of jobs in the retail sector, the only sector other than health care that seems to be retaining itself.
The rooms and meals tax would also suffer because no one from those states would be eating out after their trips to our malls. Let's not forget that we sock them all with a 9 percent tax whereas they could eat at home with just a 5 percent tax [in Massachusetts]. This could hurt border town restaurants and therefore, hurt jobs by folks who need those jobs most - students, moms, people with second jobs who need the tip income - etc.
3) While a state income tax is not as regressive, technically, it is worthy of suspicion, especially when we look at how other states have used it to randomly raise taxes whenever they needed to. In Mass., it has been a disaster over the years. Interested readers can check out this overview: ["Thank goodness New Hampshire has the pledge"].
In addition, historically, income tax advocates in New Hampshire have always promoted it as a way of eliminating the state-wide property tax. But guess what? The most recent proposal doesn't do away with the state-wide property tax! It only offers an exemption. If implemented, property owners with homes assessed at more than $100,000 will be paying both an income tax and state-wide property tax. There is no renter’s deduction in the proposal, so renters would see no rent relief at all in the drop in the state-wide property tax but their income would be sapped. In other words, some of the poorest residents in our state would be double-taxed! This is as regressive as the sales tax.
In addition to all of this, there seems to be no state-wide standard on assessments. I mean, look at the situation in Concord, where trailers are assessed at more than what they sold for or could sell for! Would it be long before some towns were monkeying with assessments so that some people could escape paying their "fair share" of the state-wide property tax? As the saying goes, figures lie and liars figure ... how long before cities and towns are at war over assessments in the wake of an income tax?
New Hampshire residents who work out of state would also get double-taxed on their incomes. Sure, some proponents note that Massachusetts, where they collect $260 million from New Hampshire residents, has an exemption for out-of-state income taxes paid. But how soon will it be after New Hampshire implements an income tax that the Mass. Legislature eliminates this loophole after realizing that $260 million in exemptions just flew out the window? Not long, let me guarantee you of that. If they are going to get into lawsuit tiffs over lost sales tax revenues at tire companies doing business in both states, it will only be a matter of time before this exemption disappears. Poof, those of us who live in New Hampshire and work in Massachusetts will see our tax burden double. If anything, we, the thousands of people who commute to Massachusetts to work, should be thanked - not punished - for enduring two hours of commuting a day and not burdening the Granite State economy with our employment needs [tongue firmly planted in cheek].
What is my point? Gov. Lynch is right to do all he can to balance the budget without broad-based taxes and I personally commend him for what he is proposing.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Shocker: People don't like tabloid 'news' after all!
Check out this study from Pew: ["Stimulus News Seen As More Negative Than Positive"].
While it is mostly about the stimulus stuff, the subhead says it all: "Too Much Coverage of Phelps, Octuplets" ...
This is something I have been saying for years and I'm glad to finally see some specific data to back up my gut feelings. When it comes down to it, people don't really care about this tabloid crap. Sure, they like features and fun and happy news. They don't want it to be bleak all the time. But they also want serious news about serious things.
The media's downfall will be the fact that instead of trying to educate people and empower them with real information, they took the easy route. They dumbed folks down in a race to the bottom just like everything else in this world right now.
While it is mostly about the stimulus stuff, the subhead says it all: "Too Much Coverage of Phelps, Octuplets" ...
This is something I have been saying for years and I'm glad to finally see some specific data to back up my gut feelings. When it comes down to it, people don't really care about this tabloid crap. Sure, they like features and fun and happy news. They don't want it to be bleak all the time. But they also want serious news about serious things.
The media's downfall will be the fact that instead of trying to educate people and empower them with real information, they took the easy route. They dumbed folks down in a race to the bottom just like everything else in this world right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)